Preparing and Recording Lectures for Online Delivery

  • Thierry R. H. BacroEmail author


Software programs allowing quality audio–video recording of lectures have been rapidly evolving in the last few years and faculty teaching anatomy across the world have been integrating them in the set of educational tools used to teach their specialty. Ranging from very simple to very sophisticated, these software programs have allowed faculty to face the increasing demands placed upon them in terms of teaching load. The published research in the usefulness of lecture recording clearly indicates that the use of lecture recording systems (LRS) is usually well received by students but also indicates that not all students in an anatomy course will spontaneously use LRS. A significant percentage of them, up to 30 % ,will not use the LRS at all with a possible additional 40 % or so using it very little (less than 10 times for the semester). Recent evidence suggest that students should use it in moderation in order to benefit from it (one time per lecture on average with the most common time of use being from 10 to 20 min per lecture) and that excessive usage may lead to lower score on exams. This chapter describes strategies to help faculty successfully adopt and implement LRS in the field of anatomy teaching.


United States Medical License Examination Audience Response System Online Delivery United States Medical License Examination Significant Emergency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Alexander CJ, Crescini WM, Juskewitch JE, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:160–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wait KR, Cloud BA, Forster LA, Jones TM, Nokleby JJ, Wolfe CR, Youdas JW. Use of an audience response system during peer teaching among physical therapy students in human gross anatomy: perceptions of peer teachers and students. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2:286–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoyt A, McNulty JA, Gruener G, Chandrasekhar A, Espiritu B, Ensminger D, Price Jr R, Naheedy R. An audience response system may influence student performance on anatomy examination questions. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:295–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dev P, Rindfleisch TC, Kush SJ, Stringer JR. An analysis of technology usage for streaming digital video in support of a preclinical curriculum. Archive of Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium. 2000. pp. 180–4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nieder GL, Nagy F. Analysis of medical students’ use of web-based resources for a gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat. 2002;15:409–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Copley J. Audio and video podcasts of lectures for campus-based students: Production and evaluation of student use. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2007;44:387–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brecht HD, Ogilby SM. Enabling a comprehensive teaching strategy: video lectures. J Inf Technol Educ. 2008;7:IIP71–86.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gosper M, Green D, McNeill M, Phillips R, Preston G, Woo K. The impact of web-based lecture technologies on current and future practices in learning and teaching. Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2008.
  9. 9.
    Craig P, Wozniak H, Hyde S, Burn D. Student use of web based lecture technologies in blended learning: Do these reflect study patterns? In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education—Same Places, Different Spaces (ASCILITE 2009), Auckland, New Zealand. 2009, pp 159–167. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Figtree, NSW, Australia.
  10. 10.
    von Konsky BR, Ivins J, Gribble SJ. Lecture attendance and web based lecture technologies: a comparison of student perceptions and usage patterns. Aust J Educ Technol. 2009;Tech 25:581–95.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jalali A, Leddy J, Gauthier M, Sun R, Hincke M, Carnegie J. Use of podcasting as an innovative asynchronous e-learning tool for students. US-China Educ Rev. 2011;A6:741–8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bacro TR, Gebregziabher M, Fitzharris TP. Evaluation of a lecture recording system in a medical curriculum. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:300–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McKinney D, Dyck JL, Luber ES. iTunes university and the classroom: Can podcasts replace professors? Comput Educ. 2009;52:617–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fernandes L, Maley M, Cruickshank C. The impact of online lecture recordings on learning outcomes in pharmacology. J Int Assoc Med Sci Educ. 2008;18:62–70.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McNulty JA, Hoyt A, Gruener G, Chandrasekhar A, Espiritu B, Price Jr R, Naheedy R. An analysis of lecture video utilization in undergraduate medical education: associations with performance in the courses. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bridge PD, Jackson M, Robinson L. The effectiveness of streaming video on medical student learning: a case study. Med Educ Online. 2009;14:11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bacro TR, Gebregziabher M, Ariail J. Lecture recording system in anatomy: possible benefit to auditory learners. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(6):376–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Regenerative Medicine and Cell Biology, Center for Anatomical Studies and EducationMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations