Academic perceptions of the use of Lectopia

A University of Melbourne example

Abstract

Since the introduction of the Lectopia (iLecture) technology to higher education, there has been debate about its relevance and effectiveness as a teaching and learning tool (Fardon, 2003). Anecdotally, students expect to access Lectopia recordings for their revision and for going through points that were made which they missed in lectures. From the academics’ point of view, resistance has resulted from the perception that the Lectopia option will reduce attendance in lectures and also the notion that not all lecturing styles can be suitably recorded by an admittedly limited technology. Fardon (2003) also argues cogently that Lectopia is not necessarily conducive to some styles of lecturing. The classifications of different lecturing styles (Brown and Bakhtar, 1988; Behr, 1988; Saroyan and Snell, 1997) as highlighted by Fardon (2003) present a useful tool in determining if particular styles of lecture may be more or less conducive to Lectopia. However, lecturing styles alone do not determine a willingness or resistance to adoption of the technology. Some other reasons may include perceptions of the reliability of the technology, the technology as a pedagogical tool, the engagement levels with students and suitability for the curriculum.

This qualitative project examined 11 academics’ perception of Lectopia at the University of Melbourne. The results affirmed some of the benefits and concerns around the use of Lectopia, and highlighted some academic practices in using the technology. Initial results point to some recommendations on incorporating Lectopia technology into the teaching toolkit as well as indicate some future areas of research.