I was reading an article this morning about lecture capture at California State University. I found it interesting that a lot of the article is taken up by IP (intellectual property) concerns for instance “Some professors expressed concern that their lectures, as their intellectual property, have the potential of being stolen by the university or other lecturers, or worse.” So they are worried about their IP being stolen by other professors?? by the University?? – it seems a little out of place to me. I could understand a concern about a lecture getting on to YouTube without consent – but worrying about the University stealing their IP seems akin to wondering about “How many angles can dance on the head of a pin?”.
I think what they are really worrying about is that new media will replace the need for them to give lectures. I really don’t think they need to worry – a recording of a lecture is not the same as attending a lecture live and there are quite a few studies to back up that claim. A recording is good if a student really can’t make it to the lecture, and great if they want to review before an exam. Creating a electronic course that can really replace (and maybe surpass) a live lecture is a lot of work and very expensive – just a recording of a lecture doesn’t cut it.
The real problem with lectures is that it is hard to pay attention during a standard 45 minute lecture, and that most of the retention and knowledge obtained by the students dissipates very quickly. Unless students can review the lectures again later – the retention rate of new material presented in a lecture is abysmal. Lecture notes are a help – but they only reinforce what the student grasped (and summarized) during class – they can’t help a student understand what they missed or misunderstood.
Making a recording that can help students understand more and get better grades – we believe that should be commonplace.