Web-based lecture technologies: blurring the boundaries between face-to-face and distance learning

Web-based lecture technologies (WBLT) have gained popularity amongst universities in Australia as a tool for delivering lecture recordings to students in close to real time. This paper reports on a selection of results from a larger research project investigating the impact of WBLT on teaching and learning. Results show that while staff see the advantages for external students, they question the extent to which these advantages apply to internal students. In contrast both cohorts of students were positive about the benefits of the technologies for their learning and they adopted similar strategies for their use. With the help of other technologies, some external students and staff even found WBLT useful for fostering communication between internal and external students. As such, while the traditional boundary between internal and external students seems to remain for some staff, students seem to find the boundary much less clear. Keywords: web-based lecture technologies; staff perception; student perception; distance education; external students; internal students; Lectopia DOI: 10.1080/09687760802315895

[1]  Miguel P Caldas,et al.  Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches , 2003 .

[2]  C. Mcinnis.  Managing study and work: the impact of full-time study and paid work on the undergraduate experience in Australian universities , 2002 .

[3]  John G. Hedberg,et al.  Blending on and off campus: a tale of two cities , 2006 .

[4]  Luisa Signor.  An exploration into the reactions of undergraduate students to virtual lectures , 2003 .

[5]  Ormond Simpson,et al.  Supporting Students in Online, Open and Distance Learning , 2000 .

[6]  Margaret Maag.  iPod , uPod ? An emerging mobile learning tool in nursing education and students ’ satisfaction , 2006 .

[7]  J. Galusha.  Barriers to Learning in Distance Education , 1997 .

[8]  H R Goldberg,et al.  Student test scores are improved in a virtual learning environment. , 2000, Advances in physiology education.

[9]  Erica Smith,et al.  Learning for Success: Distance Education Students’ use of their Learning Materials , 2006, Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice.

[10]  A. W. Bates,et al.  Interactivity as a Criterion for Media Selection in Distance Education. , 1990 .

[11]  Belinda Tynan,et al.  Podcasting, student learning and expectations , 2006 .

[12]  Yvette Blount,et al.  You, me and ilecture , 2006 .

[13]  R. Phillips.  Challenging The Primacy Of Lectures:The Dissonance Between Theory And Practice In University Teaching , 2005 .

[14]  Terry Anderson,et al.  Distance learning – Social software’s killer ap? , 2005 .

[15]  K. Trigwell,et al.  Development and Use of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory , 2004 .

[16]  Larry Johnson and Alan Levine and Rachel Smith.  The 2008 Horizon Report , 2008 .

[17]  G. Benfield,et al.  The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning: a review of UK literature and practice , 2006 .

[18]  J. Biggs,et al.  The revised two-factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. , 2001, The British journal of educational psychology.

[19]  P. Massingham,et al.  Does Attendance Matter? An Examination of Student Attitudes, Participation, Performance and Attendance , 2006, Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice.