Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 43237

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : July | Volume : 17 | Issue : 7 | Page : JC01 - JC03 Full Version

Effectiveness of Recorded Video Lectures vs Live Online Lectures as Teaching Tools among Phase 1 Medical Students- A Prospective Study


Published: July 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/61147.18225
Keba Jeeva, Himiki Selvindev

1. Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramoodu, Trivandrum, Kerala, India. 2. Senior Resident, Department of Community Medicine, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramoodu, Trivandrum, Kerala, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Keba Jeeva,
Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramoodu, Trivandrum-695607, Kerala, India.
E-mail: kebatherock@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: During the pandemic, there were a lot of challenges for offline medical education. To overcome those challenges, online teaching methods were introduced for undergraduate medical education. Live online lectures (synchronous teaching) and recorded video lectures (asynchronous teaching) were the two commonly utilised teaching mediums of online education.

Aim: To determine the effectiveness of recorded video lectures versus live online lectures and to analyse the students’ perception regarding these two teaching methods.

Materials and Methods: The present prospective interventional study was conducted in the Department of Physiology at Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramoodu, Trivandrum, Kerala, India. The duration of the study was six months, from March 2021-August 2021. A total of 150 students (97 girls and 53 boys) in two groups of 75 each were selected as study population and four topics were taught to them. If, one group was taught via live online lecture, the same topic was given as a recorded video to the other group and after three days, an assessment was done. For the second topic, the method of lecture delivery was changed between the groups, while the rest of the methodology was the same. Topics 3 and 4 followed same pattern. Unpaired t-test was done to compare the scores and the data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0.

Results: The mean age of the study participants was 18.5 years. The results showed that, the recorded video lectures were equally effective as live online lectures. While analysing the students’ perception, it showed that students, to an extent, preferred recorded lectures to live lectures.

Conclusion: The present study concluded that, the recorded video lectures are equally effective as live online lectures as a teaching tool, among phase 1 Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Science (MBBS) students.

Keywords

Asynchronous teaching, Medical education, Synchronous teaching

Medical education is one of the many fields substantially affected by the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19). Both teachers and students are adapting to the newer modalities of online teaching and learning nowadays. Among the various teaching modalities, lectures still remain as an effective method to cover large topics for a large number of students at a time. Online lectures can be delivered in two ways. A recorded lecture can be uploaded and students can watch it at their leisure time or a live session with the teacher and students attending at the same time on a feasible online platform. The first method falls under the asynchronous, while the second, into the synchronous method of teaching and learning. Both the methods have their own advantages and disadvantages. In synchronous method of teaching, learning occurs for all the students at the same time with live interaction with the teacher (offline or online), while, in asynchronous method of teaching, learning takes place at different times and places with respect to each student, but without live interaction with the teacher (1). Live online lectures are one form of synchronous teaching which is being followed in medical education, nowadays. Live lectures improves the sense of community among students and also improves the collaborative effort among students (2) as, they attend the class and learn together. The presence of a teacher, as well as, engaging in face-to-face interactions with faculty, whether online or offline, has a positive influence on students’ psyche and motivation to learn (3). Live online lectures have many disadvantages as well. One of the major disadvantages of a live lecture is the time constraint (4). The timing of a live online lecture may not be feasible for all students. Some may be more attentive during the first hours of the day while others, during the afternoon hours. Furthermore, some students may lose the ability to concentrate if, the lecture is long or monotonous, as research has shown that, the average attention span for students is about 10-15 minutes (5). And finally, another disadvantage of a live online lecture is the data connectivity issues for both the faculty, as well as, the students (6). Many studies showed that, during the class, poor connectivity will drastically change the mood of the lecturer, as well as, the students, which in turn decreases the productivity of the lecture. Though, live online lectures have disadvantages, still it remains as a time-tested effective method of delivering large information to a large number of students.

Asynchronous teaching in the form of a recorded video lecture given to the students, has the advantage of not having stringent time restrictions (7). A recorded video lecture, when made available for a certain period of time, can be viewed by the student at their own leisure. He can pause, rewind and rewatch the video as needed. But since, the teacher is not present, asynchronous learning heavily depends on the student’s own interest (3). Less motivated and academically weak students may find it difficult to follow asynchronous teaching and learning methods, as there is no instant access to the teacher to clear their doubts and no simultaneous answers to their questions from the teacher, as well as, from other students (6).

Some teachers prefer recorded lectures while, others live ones based on personal preferences and experience. The faculty must ultimately decide which method is better for the benefit of the students, in terms of acceptance and knowledge gained. Particularly in the field of medical education, hardly few studies are available that throw light on this matter and hence, the present study was aimed to determine the effectiveness of recorded video lectures vs live online lectures and to analyse the students’ perception regarding these two teaching methods.

Material and Methods

The present prospective interventional study was conducted in the Department of Physiology at Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramoodu, Trivandrum, Kerala, India. The duration of the study was six months, from March 2021-August 2021. The Institutional Ethical Committee Clearance was obtained (IEC No 38/530/02/2021).

Inclusion criteria: Phase 1 medical students and those, who were willing to give consent were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Students, who were not able to attend any type of lectures and those who were unwilling to participate were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: A total of 150 students (97 girls and 53 boys) in two groups of 75 each (convenient sampling). The students were divided based on simple random allocation with each group having two live and two recorded lectures (Total of four interventions).

Study Procedure

At the beginning of the study, the participants were sensitised about the study and given assurance that, this will not in any way influence their academic grading. This was to make sure that, the students didn’t indulge in any unwanted or result influencing activities during the conduct of the study. The students were also instructed to strictly follow the instructions given to them. The participants were randomly allocated to two groups (G1 and G2) (n=75). Separate google classrooms were created for both groups.

First intervention: Topic 1 (apoptosis) was taught to the groups by two different methods. Group 1 had a live online lecture using “Google Meet” while group 2, was given a recorded video of the same lecture that was taken for group 1. The recorded video was uploaded on “Edpuzzle”. Group 2 viewed the recorded video lecture at their desired time and they could view it multiple times also within 24 hours. After 24 hours the video was not available for viewing. Then, after three days both groups were assessed using separate Google Forms with Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) and one word answer type questionnaire. The questions were the same for both groups and the maximum marks awarded was 10. This assessment was conducted at the same time for all the students. To make sure the recorded video was not viewed by students in the other group, the authors used a learning management system called “Edpuzzle” which required the student’s email id for viewing the video. The lecture duration varied from 30-40 minutes and the same faculty took all the lectures.

Second intervention: Topic 2 (body fluid compartments) was taken, but the mode of delivery of lecture was crossed over between the groups. The rest of the steps were the same. The third (physiology of nutrition) and fourth (physiology of ageing) interventions also followed suit with the mode of delivery of lecture getting crossed over each time. Therefore, there were eight exposures with each group having two live and two recorded lectures (total of four interventions).

Statistical Analysis

The assessments after each intervention were finally analysed using the Unpaired or independent t-test. The analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0. The student’s perception about both teaching methods was obtained using a questionnaire.

Results

The mean age of the students was 18.5 years. A total of 150 students (97 girls and 53 boys) in two groups of 75 each. Group 1 had 46 girls and 29 boys while, group 2 had 51 girls and 24 boys. The mean and Standard Deviation (SD) of the scores of all four interventions are shown in (Table/Fig 1) below. Independent t-test was used to analyse the mean scores. The analysis showed that, students who attended live online lectures scored little more than those, who watched recorded video lectures in three sessions while, it was reversed in only one session. Though, the marks were higher for students, who attended live online lecture in three sessions, the difference was statistically significant (p-value <0.05) in one session only.

The students had various preferences among the two teaching methods based on the question that was asked, as shown in (Table/Fig 2). For example, the students felt that, recorded lectures were better for note taking and for scoring good marks while live lectures, were better for faculty-student interaction. But majority of the students had a neutral opinion about the two methods which showed that, both the methods inspite of having different merits and demerits, were equally effective as teaching methods. But most of the students felt that, if the live lectures were given as recorded videos that would be very beneficial.

Discussion

The present study suggested that, recorded video lectures are equally effective as live video lectures. Since, both methods are equally effective that means the marks obtained by the students is determined by the motivation level of the students. The result was similar to the result got by Brockfeld T et al., in 2014 (8). They conducted a similar study on around 200 medical students at the University of Göttingen and they also found that, recorded video lectures are equally effective as live online lectures, as a teaching tool to medical students. The findings of research done by Chauhan VD et al., Lew EK and Nordquist EK, and Kumar P et al., were comparable to the findings of the present study (9),(10),(11). These studies found out that, there were no significant differences between the two teaching methods, but students preferred recorded lectures and also, desired the study material be shared with them after the lecture. Now, as the students prefer to watch recorded lectures, the faculty must provide good quality content via recorded lectures. An article by Kurzweil D et al., provides some guidelines to help the faculty in preparing good quality recorded lectures (12). They give information about how to plan the lecture, length of the lecture, how to prepare the script etc.,

However, the results of the present study was different from a study done by Islam M et al., they found that, prerecorded video was more effective than live online lectures (13). This difference could be due to the fact that, they had conducted the study among business management students whereas, the present study was done on medical students. Horn D in 2020 stated that, recorded lectures cannot be utilised in the same way by all the students (14). He stated that, only those students, who are academically motivated can reap benefits from the recorded lectures whereas, the academically poor performing students will find it difficult to learn using only recorded lectures. The authors also agreed with this statement, as recorded lectures need a lot of effort from the students and so ultimately, it was the motivation level of the students, which decided the efficacy of recorded lectures as a teaching tool. In another study by Babu R et al., where they compared other synchronous and asynchronous teaching methods, they found that, the synchronous teaching method was slightly better than the asynchronous method (15). This difference could be due to the fact that, the methods being evaluated were different than the ones evaluated in the present study. They were checking the efficacy of instructor led live online method vs self-pace learning whereas, the authors compared live and recorded lectures.

While, looking at the student’s perception about both methods, they preferred recorded video lectures to live online lectures. This was similar to the finding obtained by Cardall S et al., (16). The students felt that, recorded lectures are better than live online lectures for note taking. They also observed that, recorded lectures helped them to score more or were more beneficial than live lectures though the scores obtained showed otherwise. But a closer look at the Likert scale showed, the neutral option also had a higher percentage for most of the questions which showed that, both the teaching methods were equal in many aspects. The students preferred recorded lectures, which may be due to the fact that, recorded lectures are free from time constraints and students have control over the lecture like stopping, pausing, rewatching etc., (16). However, the students also felt that, the interaction with the teacher, like asking doubts, pushing of unmotivated students were lacking in recorded video lectures. A study by Orellano C and Carcamo C stated that, students preferred to learn clinical courses through recorded lectures, but equal importance must also be given to live lectures and maximum benefit can be achieved by incorporating blended learning techniques only (17).

Finally, the authors recommended that, the faculty in medical colleges can adapt either recorded video lectures or live lectures to teach medical students, as both the methods are equally effective methods. This finding can especially be made use of in places, where live online lectures are difficult to conduct due to technical issues. In those colleges, the faculty can record their lectures and upload it so that, the students can view it and learn from it. It is also recommended that, after a live lecture, the same may be given to the students in a recorded format with restrictions (to avoid misuse).

Limitation(s)

The study was conducted among students from one phase only. One subject was considered and only short-term retention was tested.

Conclusion

Recorded video lectures are equally effective as live online lectures as a teaching tool among phase 1 MBBS students. According to the students, watching recorded lectures after a live online lectures are more beneficial.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge all the faculty members at the nodal centre for faculty development at Kottayam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramoodu, Trivandrum, Kerala, India for their support in conceiving the present study.

References

1.
Oztok M, Zingaro D, Brett C, Hewitt J. Exploring asynchronous and synchronous tool use in online courses. Comput Edu. 2013;60(1):87-94. [crossref]
2.
Teng DC, Chen NS, Leo T. Exploring students’ learning experience in an international online research seminar in the Synchronous Cyber Classroom. Comput Edu. 2012;58(3):918-30. [crossref]
3.
Young JR. Rethinking the role of the professor in an age of high-tech tools. Chron High Educ. 1997;44(6):pA26-A28.
4.
Arkorful V, Abaidoo N. The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. Int J Instr Technol Distance Learn. 2015;12(1):29-42.
5.
Hartley J, Davies IK. Note-taking: A critical review. Prog Learn Educ Technol. 1978;15(3):207-24. [crossref]
6.
Perveen A. Synchronous and asynchronous e-language learning: A case study of virtual university of Pakistan. Open Praxis. 2016;8(1):21-39. [crossref]
7.
Johnson GM. Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends. 2006;50(4):46-53. [crossref]
8.
Brockfeld T, Müller B, de Laffolie J. Video versus live lecture courses: A comparative evaluation of lecture types and results. Med Educ Online. 2018;23(1):1555434. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Chauhan VD, Kalra J, Kalra V, Negi G, Agarwal P. Asynchronous versus traditional teaching for MBBS undergraduate students-effectiveness and students perspectives-A pilot study. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2019;9(2):69. [crossref][PubMed]
10.
Lew EK, Nordquist EK. Asynchronous learning: Student utilization out of sync with their preference. Med Educ Online. 2016;21(1):30587. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Kumar P, Kumar A, Rahul, Rastogi D, Singh J, Gupta A, et al. Preferred online teaching and assessment methods among Indian medical graduates in coronavirus disease era. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2021;11(02):173-77. [crossref]
12.
Kurzweil D, Marcellas K, Henry B, Meyer E. Evidence-based guidelines for recording slide-based lectures. Med Sci Educ. 2020;30:1611-16. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Islam M, Kim DA, Kwon M. A comparison of two forms of instruction: Pre- recorded video lectures vs. live ZOOM lectures for education in the business management field. Sustainability. 2020;12(19):8149. [crossref]
14.
Horn D. Recorded lectures are not for everyone: Lower-performing students benefit from attending live lectures. Optom Educ. 2020;46(1):01-09.
15.
Babu R, Bahuleyan B, Panchu P, Shilpa A, Sreeja C, Manjuran DJ. Effectiveness of self-paced and instructor-led online learning: A study among Phase I medical students. J Clin Diagn Res. 2022;16(1):JC01-04. [crossref]
16.
Cardall S, Krupat E, Ulrich M. Live lecture versus video-recorded lecture: Are students voting with their feet? Acad Med. 2008;83(12):1174-78. [crossref][PubMed]
17.
Orellano C, Carcamo C. Evaluating learning of medical students through recorded lectures in clinical courses. Heliyon. 2021;7(7):e07473.

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/61147.18225

Date of Submission: Nov 02, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Feb 18, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Apr 25, 2023
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2023

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Nov 04, 2022
• Manual Googling: Mar 18, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Apr 21, 2023 (3%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com