Abstract

Asynchronous, pre-recorded lectures have become a common delivery mode for improving accessibility for the modern student; however, the traditional delivery style associated with ‘lecturing’ is criticised as being passive and disengaging. Despite this, lectures remain a key foundational delivery mode in factually-heavy disciplines like biomedical science. A crucial component of their success lies in presenting materials in ways that increase student motivation and involvement, partially driven by the social presence of the instructor.

Maintaining social presence in asynchronous pre-recorded lectures using digital lightboard recordings that embed the presenter as a key feature was undertaken in three key biomedical science courses at an Australian university. Given the visual nature of the source material and content, the inclusion of images is vital in preparing students for laboratories and workshops. Live camera feed digital lightboard recordings also allowed for the use of a stylus, permitting creative forms of delivery, e.g. leaving blank slides to allow for ‘chalk-and-talk’ deliveries, drawing connections, and building complex concepts with dynamic delivery. Outcomes achieved include: streamlined lecture slide design leading to reduced content, improved animation and presentation flow, presenter embodiment providing ability to demonstrate concepts/provide visual reinforcement, and an increased ability to annotate, draw, explain, and highlight relationships. Based on results of the institutional course experience survey, recordings were highly appreciated by students. More than 80% of students found this style of asynchronous lectures ‘considerably’ or ‘extremely enjoyable’ in anonymous survey responses from one exemplar course. “The interactive and engaging lecture videos were better than any other course this semester. Excellent, understandable, the lecturer explained and demonstrated so well” (Student quote, 2022). Course satisfaction scores increased in all courses utilising this new delivery style. Digital lightboard lecture recording is a highly engaging format for delivering theoretical content in biomedical science. This style is highly transferable between courses and institutions, improving accessibility, engagement, and success for students of biomedical education.

Keywords

Digital learning, blended course design, multimedia, instructor presence, student engagement

Introduction

Didactic, live, in person lectures were the predominant mode of content delivery in higher education for generations. Since the early 2000s, there has been a gradual shift to incorporating other forms of learning resources including video lectures, which initially were recordings of live lectures using platforms such as Lectopia or Panopto, as supplementary resources in face-to-face courses (O’Callaghan et al., 2017). The expansion of online and blended learning models followed shortly after, and video lectures were increasingly used as core learning resources. The widespread adoption of video lectures was further accelerated by lockdown responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, as higher education institutions around the globe shifted to remote learning for educational continuity. The higher education landscape since the pandemic (reduced staffing levels, limited lecture venues, timetabling constraints) has limited the return to traditional face-to-face lecture presentations; online and blended delivery of courses has now become the chosen style of delivery in many higher education institutions. Moreover, students are also displaying increasing tendencies towards accessing didactic lectures online, appreciating the increased flexibility offered by asynchronous access to content (Mehta et al., 2024). Video lectures are a key element of online and/or blended delivery, and can have positive effects on student satisfaction, engagement, and performance. A systematic review (of more than 100 randomised trials, Noetel et al., 2021) reported small improvements to student learning when video replaced existing teaching methods, and strong learning benefits when existing resources were supplemented with videos.

Effective use of video lectures

High quality asynchronous learning resources, including video lectures, offer convenience and flexibility to students by allowing them to learn at a time, place, and pace that suits their lifestyle and other commitments. Research on student learning outcomes from video lectures indicates mixed results. Some studies repeatedly show improved learning outcomes due to the flexibility and accessibility of video lectures, allowing students to learn at their own pace (Al-Qudah, 2024; Johnston et al., 2013); video lectures also enable students to implement personal video viewing strategies to support and improve their learning such as choosing content order, pausing, rewinding and forwarding content, rewatching, and adjusting playback speed. However, other studies highlight challenges such as decreased engagement and isolation (Reid et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2012).

The positive benefits of video lectures can be maximised through the use of effective design and presentation principles (Carmichael et al., 2018; Inman & Myers, 2018). Although different disciplines and pedagogies may benefit from different video design considerations, Mayer (2017) outlines 12 research-based principles for designing effective multimedia for e-learning that can be applied to lecture videos. These principles include:

• Minimising the need for extraneous processing by including only relevant information (coherence), highlighting essential information (signalling), avoiding redundant on-screen text when information is presented with graphics and narration (redundancy), placing corresponding words and pictures near each other (spatial contiguity), and presenting related narration and animation simultaneously rather than successively (temporal contiguity).
• Managing essential processing by presenting information in manageable chunks (segmenting), introducing new terminology before the video lesson (pre-training), using spoken words in combination with graphics rather than written text to help distribute cognitive load across both visual and auditory channels (modality).
• Fostering generative processing by combining verbal and visual information to help learners build more comprehensive mental models (multimedia).
• Personalisation and embodiment by including an on-screen presenter and their associated gestures and movements (embodiment), speaking in a conversational rather than formal style to make the material more engaging and relatable (personalisation), and the use of a human rather than a machine voice to enhance social presence and engagement (voice).

This chapter focusses on the final principle of personalisation and embodiment, more specifically the importance of instructor presence in lecture videos. Video lectures can be produced in a variety of formats with varying emphasis on instructor presence (Crook & Schofield, 2017; Garcia & Yousef, 2023; Rosenthal & Walker, 2020):

• Live lecture capture: recording of live classroom sessions, often used for students who miss classes or need to review material.
• Narrated presentation: slideshows with voiceover narration, commonly used for delivering structured content.
• Talking head: videos featuring the instructor speaking directly to the camera, which can enhance the sense of instructor presence.
• Picture-in-picture: combines a full-screen presentation with a smaller video of the instructor, useful for maintaining visual engagement.
• Hand-drawn or annotated: videos where instructors draw or annotate in real time, often used for subjects requiring step-by-step explanations.
• Screencast: recording of the instructor’s computer screen, useful for software demonstrations and online tutorials.
• Composite: combines multiple video elements, such as slides, talking head, and annotations, to create a rich multimedia experience.

Instructor presence

The way that instructors make themselves visible and actively engaged within their lecture videos, referred to as instructor presence, can have significant and sometimes conflicting impacts on student engagement and learning. Recent evidence suggests that instructor presence in videos is perceived positively by students and is associated with social and attentional gains, but does not lead to improved learning outcomes (Beege et al., 2023; Polat, 2023).

There are two major theories, cognitive load theory and social presence theory, that are important to consider with respect to instructor presence in lecture videos (Carmichael et al., 2018). Social presence theory predicts that instructor presence in lecture videos can improve the student learning experience through an increased sense of student connection and engagement; this presence furthermore seems to compensate, at least in part, for the lack of interaction in an asynchronous online learning mode. On the other hand, cognitive load theory predicts that the additional cognitive load associated with processing instructor presence may distract the learner from focussing on the core content. Numerous studies of video lectures address these theories and how they impact student engagement and learning outcomes (Chen & Wu, 2015; Costley et al., 2021; Patel et al., 2019).

Social effects

Instructor presence in lecture videos can enhance cognitive engagement and affective outcomes by providing social cues and reducing the transactional distance between students and instructors. Compared to narrated voiceover presentations, videos with instructor presence were rated more highly by undergraduate students on measures of learning experience, enjoyment, and instructor social presence (Garcia & Yousef, 2023; Heidig et al., 2024; Rosenthal & Walker, 2020). The beneficial effect of instructor presence on the affective domains is increased further by the addition of annotations to the lecture video (Garcia & Yousef, 2023).

A theory has been constructed to describe the interaction of social influences on student learning; the cognitive-affective-social theory of learning in digital environments (CASTLE). This hypothesises that “social processes triggered by social cues mediate the cognitive processing of information when learning with digital materials […] [and] postulates that both social and parasocial processes occur in the reception of digitally presented learning materials and thus influence learning” (Schneider et al., 2021, p. 8). A series of meta-analyses have confirmed the positive effects of instructor video presence on student-rated measures of retention including social presence, affect, and motivation (Beege et al., 2023).

Cognitive effects

While some studies suggest that instructor presence improves learning outcomes (Garcia & Yousef, 2023), others indicate no significant difference (Heidig et al., 2024; Rosenthal & Walker, 2020). Although the social presence of the instructor may bring cognitive benefits for some students, for others this may be outweighed by the attentional costs associated with secondary processing of the instructor and reduced focus on the primary learning task (Gu et al., 2024). This balance may be related to differences in brain-eye-learning correspondence between individuals (Gu et al., 2024) and may explain the preference expressed by a significant number of learners for videos without an instructor presence (Kizilcec et al., 2015). Students appear to be unaware of any additional extraneous cognitive load associated with presenter presence; however, dwell time on the instructional material is reduced, which is indicative of an increased level of distraction (Beege et al., 2023). The split-attention effect was offered as a possible explanation for this contradiction; learners may experience a perception of decreased visual load by averting their gaze from complex content or concepts and turning towards the familiar image of the instructor (Beege et al., 2023).

There are other moderating factors that influence the effectiveness of lecture videos with an instructor presence. The addition of video annotations, in combination with an instructor presence, further assists students to obtain a deeper understanding of the learning materials and improved performance (Garcia & Yousef, 2023). There are variations within each of these formats that may also influence learning outcomes and engagement. For example, varying the image size of the instructor when incorporated as a presence in the picture did not affect the level of social presence or cognitive load experienced by undergraduate Chinese students from a range of disciplines; however, learning performance was higher for students who watched the videos with small images of the instructor (Pi et al., 2017). Instructor features such as the level of embodiment, (talking head, head and shoulders, upper body including arms and torso, or full body), gestures, movements, and facial expressions may also moderate the effects of instructor presence but have not been widely studied (Beege et al., 2023).

These findings highlight the importance of considering the diversity of learners in the design of learning resources to include learner-controlled options of video lecture formats. Students could also be made aware of the benefits of video viewing strategies, to reduce extraneous cognitive load and improve their understanding of the content (Costley et al., 2021).

Transition to composite lecture videos

At the University of Newcastle, Australia, we have recognised the importance of designing and delivering online presentations that create connections with and that are easily accessed by all students. These presentations are critical to the successful delivery of online learning in the large multi-program anatomy and physiology courses. For these courses, changing from a team based, multi-modal, face-to-face delivery designed to facilitate student learning (Estai & Bunt, 2016; McDonald et al., 2021) to an asynchronous blended delivery has posed inherent challenges. Although adjustment to new technologies and online learning platforms has created challenges for staff and students, overall it has enhanced the student experience across a number of courses, as outlined in the following examples.

Example one: Introductory human anatomy courses

Live interactive lecture presentations were used in pre-pandemic delivery (prior to 2020) for two introductory anatomy courses: HUBS1105 Musculoskeletal Anatomy (450–700 first-year students; over five different health programs: physiotherapy; occupational therapy; medical radiation sciences (radiography, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy); biomedical engineering; and biomedical sciences) and HUBS1107 Neuroscience and Head and Neck Anatomy (100 second-year students; single program enrolment for Speech Pathology). While face-to-face delivered lectures may not be the optimal approach for quality learning (Baré et al., 2022; Evans, 2022), live presentations in these two courses provided a way of introducing topics that were consolidated and expanded upon by engaging, interactive, multi-modal learning, delivered within anatomy practical classes supplemented by online learning resources. The face-to-face lectures also offered the opportunity for direct in-person student interaction, fostering communication with staff and peers and providing learning opportunities and interactions that are important for student and staff well-being (Baré et al., 2022).

In the 2020-2021 period, when a rapid need to pivot to online learning occurred due to pandemic constraints, the Learning Management System (LMS) linked lecture capture technology (Panopto) was utilised to record full length lectures (approx. 50 minute) that were directly embedded into to the course learning site. Following the 2021 course deliveries, the need to develop higher quality, more engaging, and more streamlined pre-recorded topic presentations became highly evident to staff and was particularly confirmed by Course Evaluation Survey (CES) student responses, including comments such as:

“The pre-recorded lectures. They weren’t engaging, made it hard to concentrate and focus on the content presented” (student feedback, 2021)

“I think the lectures could be made more concise. It would be great if it was outlined what we needed to know. I recommend more concise learning objectives” (student feedback, 2021).

In 2022, with support from the university’s Learning Design and Teaching Innovation team (LDTI), new topic recordings were designed and pre-recorded within their studio facilities (see Figure 14.1) for both courses. The digital lightboard elements (slides and annotations) are captured on the studio tablet (see Figure 14.2), the presenter is simultaneously recorded against a greenscreen backdrop (see Figure 14.2), and the two video signals are processed and layered over each other for output (see Figure 14.2). A rough composite of this is also fed to the studio teleprompter for real time reference.

These presentations incorporated important concepts to support engagement in multimedia presentations: embodiment (visualisation of the presenter actively describing structures and topics), segmentation (creating shorter presentation segments), and signalling (increased use of animations and annotation to emphasise key points/features) (Doherty, 2022) which guides students’ attention towards the most important information, reduces cognitive load and makes it easier for them to stay engaged, and process and remember new concepts (Schneider, 2018). Features of the design of the updated presentations focussed on streamlining lecture slide design to reduce content; improving animation and presentation flow; and utilising presenter embodiment to provide the ability to demonstrate anatomical concepts and provide visual reinforcement. By incorporating these features, we were able to increase the ability for the presenter to annotate, draw, explain, and highlight relationships; and to be pre-prepared, with updated recordings released a week prior to practical classes.

The LDTI team produced a series of engaging, clinically relevant, and informative presentations that were embedded into weekly modules within each course LMS. These resources were highly utilised by students, accessed and viewed without technical issues, included closed captioning for greater accessibility, and were well received by students. However, comparison of the video analytics between the 2021 and 2022 course deliveries did not indicate a significant change in any of the key engagement metrics (see Table 14.1 for views/downloads, minutes delivered, and video completion rates). The authors note that the scope for drawing meaningful conclusions from the captured video analytics is limited. This is in part due to the way views are tracked, which makes it hard, for example, to untangle repeat views and separate downloads from views. It is also worth noting that viewing of these materials is crucial to student success, as these videos provide the only delivery of theoretical material in the course. Therefore, it is possible that the viewing/downloading analytics simply reflect that students must view the material in order to complete the course.

Table 14.1. HUBS1105 viewing data: 2022 compared to 2021 in equivalent time frame (February-June)^[1]

Despite the lack of clear improvements in video analytics, what was evident was the subjective data from student experience surveys. These qualitative statements support the positive aspects of this change in presentation style within both these courses, as highlighted by the following comments:

“I loved the visuals and the manner in which the online lectures were presented – was super refreshing and engaging” (student feedback, 2022).

“The online learning was absolutely exemplary for such content-heavy lectures” (student feedback, 2024).

“The lectures were visually engaging, and complex topics were beautifully articulated- the best online lectures I have ever watched!” (student feedback, 2022).

Overall, student satisfaction in the quality of learning provided in the HUBS1105 course has increased. Table 14.2 demonstrates an overall improvement in the CES score (based on the question Likert scale (5 = excellent, 0 = very poor): “Overall, the Quality of my learning in this course is?”) from 2021 to 2022.

Table 14.2. Course satisfaction scores for the HUBS1105 and HUBS1107 courses from 2020–2024.

When digital lightboard presentations were first delivered into these courses in 2022, laboratory teaching staff noted a marked improvement in student preparedness for weekly practical classes as compared to previous years.

“A lot of the students excel this year in comparison to previous years. These same students speak highly of the course content and the way the lecture recordings have been designed” (demonstrator feedback, 2015–2022).

“Students this year are coming to class much more prepared than I have seen in previous years for this course or any other anatomy course. They seem to have a better handle on the content and are subsequently able to engage a lot more effectively in class than previous years” (demonstrator feedback, 2019–2022).

Overall, the inclusion of lecture videos prepared by the digital lightboard method resulted in a clear improvement in student satisfaction, which was reinforced by greater participation in laboratory classes. Although there was no clear change in viewing analytics, students appreciated the new format and demonstrated greater engagement in their first-year anatomy learning.

Example two: Development of histology content

When a new histology course (HUBS3414 Anatomical Pathology) was being developed, the digital lightboard style of pre-recording was utilised as a model of best practice for online engagement of students. HUBS3414 is delivered to approximately 50 third-year Biomedical Science program students, with an additional approximately 10 students from either the university’s combined biomedical science/law or biomedical engineering programs. Centred around anatomical changes in tissue architecture driven by disease processes, the course provides asynchronous, pre-recorded lectures, paired with weekly face-to-face workshops whereby students view human tissue under the microscope. Given the extensive volume of visual content in HUBS3414, the digital lightboard style of recording was the preferred choice for preparation of content. The key principles for designing effective e-learning materials were able to be incorporated during the initial design phase (Mayer, 2017), with a focus on embodiment by including an on-screen presenter, personalisation driven by an engaging and dynamic presenter, and signalling utilising on-screen stylus annotation. Further, all individual segments were kept to under 25 minutes in delivery, assisting with segmentation of the complex information required.

Student feedback was incredibly positive from the outset. Student satisfaction in the quality of learning provided in the HUBS3414 course has remained consistently high, with a Quality of Learning Experience (QLE) score averaging 4.73 (2021–2024; Likert scale; 5 = excellent, 0 = very poor) and an Overall Teaching Score of 4.9 (2021–2024; Likert scale; 5 = excellent, 0 = very poor). Comments included: “excellent way to present lessons, best method so far for online learning” (student feedback 2021); and “absolutely massive improvement to the current online pre-recorded lecture style” (student feedback, 2021).

The digital lightboard format utilised for HUBS3414 provided the perfect opportunity to enhance interactivity with images, as the incorporation of the stylus meant each image could be explored, described, and annotated in detail. Further, the use of the stylus also allowed for creativity in the structure of lectures, with the instructor incorporating ‘Chalk and Talk’ style delivery into a short segment of the lecture without corresponding text or images such that the blank slide could be used as a whiteboard alongside verbally describing content (see Figure 14.3). This allowed a transition between traditional didactic lecturing and more informal tutorial-style delivery, with the opportunity to walk students through the content while literally drawing connections and highlighting the importance and relevance of these connections. Although this was still asynchronous, and not as dynamic as a face-to-face tutorial, it compensated for the fact that a relevant image could not always be found and provided an alternative style of delivery to capture attention and enhance engagement. This creativity was also appreciated by students, with over 80% of students indicating the use of the stylus and whiteboard demonstrations considerably or extremely enhanced their understanding of the learning material^[2].

A secondary benefit of the instructor presence was an enhanced social connection despite asynchronous delivery of lectures; as for HUBS3414 the primary presenter on the pre-recorded videos was also the lead instructor for the microscope workshops. This increased the sense of belonging for the students (Wilton et al., 2019), showing that their instructor was heavily involved in the curation of, and therefore intimately aware of, their learning materials. This further enforced students’ satisfaction with the course, allowing them to feel comfortable in participating in bi-directional feedback whereby they provided informal comments to the instructor during the face-to-face workshops. This included how they appreciated the short duration, explaining that they could “complete one segment in a one-hour study session, including study notes” (informal feedback, 2022). This social connection was further reinforced in the institutional surveys on student satisfaction, with comments such as “[the instructor] wanted to help us succeed in the course” (student feedback, 2024) and “[the instructor] delivered wonderful course content while also considering that students are real people” (student feedback, 2023). Importantly, students with diverse learning needs were particularly responsive: “with ADHD I often feel like [the delivery style] is holding me back […] The style of learning in this course was a game changer for me” (student feedback, 2022). Similarly to Example 1 above, it was also noted that this social connection facilitated by instructor presence in the lecture recordings resulted in an enhanced preparation for workshops, as students demonstrated a sense of familiarity with the instructor during the face-to-face workshops, despite having only encountered them in an online environment.

Example three: Revitalising Human Bioscience

HUBS1416 Advanced Human Bioscience is a core course within two programs (Nursing and Midwifery), that expands on fundamental concepts in bioscience taught in the preceding course HUBS1406 Human Bioscience for Nursing and Midwifery. These courses are taught across two or three (depending on enrolments) geographically distanced campuses, to about 600–700 students each offering, and cover content commencing with basic biological chemistry, through to advanced physiology of all body systems. Since 2020 these courses have utilised video lectures of around two hours content each week, divided into three–seven videos of varied length depending on content requirements, with learning designed to teach content application to practice provided during two-hour, live on campus or Zoom, tutorial-style classes (see Figure 14.4). Whilst student feedback on learning in these courses remained high in 2020, there was a large decrease in student satisfaction in 2021, which whilst on an upward trend, has remained low since (see Table 14.3). The particularly low satisfaction rating in 2021 and 2022 was most likely compounded by the reintroduction of an invigilated formal exam as part of the return to campus following the ‘open book’ online examinations necessitated by COVID-19 restrictions in 2020.

Table 14.3. Course satisfaction scores for the HUBS1406 and HUBS1416 courses from 2020–2024.

In depth review of qualitative student feedback on these courses indicated that workload is a key concern and that the lecture content does not adequately prepare them for the expected application of their knowledge. However, there has been no increase in content or assessment expectation over the past eight years, suggesting that the mode of information delivery was resulting in a reduced engagement and/or understanding of the content. Qualitative feedback from official surveys as well as informal student discussion suggested that, even though the videos were typically 10–20 minutes in length, students found it hard to maintain concentration, easily lost interest/focus, and failed to watch the entirety of the lecture video series each week. For example, this student comment from the 2024 HUBS1406 CES requests “a more exciting approach to learning than blankly talking to us for hours. [I’d like the instructor to] draw for more reiterations and to be able to explain things better” highlights the need for more engaging video presenter embodiment and interaction. This was also identified by academics as a general lack of student preparation for interactive classes, leading to further disengagement. These factors suggested that recording the videos with increased embodiment of the presenter, rather than having just a head shot of the presenter to the side of the presentation slides, as well as improved capacity to annotate slides, would lead to increased engagement with the videos and likelihood that students would complete them.

To address these concerns, in 2024 the digital lightboard style of recording was introduced in HUBS1416 allowing presenter embodiment and increasing interaction between the presenter and the content (see Figure 14.4). The importance of this introduction is that HUBS1416 is delivered in Semester 2 as a continuation of HUBS1406, which did not utilise the digital lightboard style of recording in 2024. Therefore, the same student cohort experienced both the ‘traditional’ pre-recorded lectures and the updated, digital lightboard style delivered by the same instructor. The success of this approach was immediate, with many students providing unsolicited comments about how much better the videos were compared to the previous semester. Interestingly, similar to HUBS1105 above, review of the viewing analytics did not support this increase in student reception of the change in presentation style (see Table 14.4) with viewing statistics showing a similar pattern of access between the two semesters.

Table 14.4: 2024 student cohort; comparisons between recording styles across semesters.

Given the lack of change in viewing analytics, students were surveyed at the end of semester to gain a better understanding of the impact of this change. The survey^[3] received 142 responses (out of a total of approximately 650 invitations, a 22% response rate). Over 80% of students agreed or strongly agreed that this format with an embodied presenter was easy to watch, that the use of a pen to annotate improved their understanding of the content and made it more engaging. The addition of edited subtitles was also valued, with 75% agreeing or strongly agreeing that these were useful and 20% indicating a neutral response. When asked about the effect of the video format on motivation to study, 13% indicated it did not increase their motivation, 28% felt neutrally about this and 58% indicated that it did increase their motivation.

Whilst this did not translate to a large increase in student satisfaction with the course as shown in Table 14.2, the workload involved in a course of this nature still continues to be a major issue for students and would have impacted their response to this question. This can be seen in the open comment fields in both the survey specifically about the lecture video format and those in the general course evaluation survey. Interestingly, in contrast to comments from HUBS3414 students above, a subset of comments from HUBS1406/1416 students indicated that the presenter presence may have hindered engagement (“I don’t think there is a need for the lecturer to take up so much of the screen” and “direct eye contact in the videos was too much”). Whilst these comments accounted for a very small proportion of the responses, they do raise the importance of consideration of neurodiversity within our student cohorts, and the possibilities of providing greater options for the end user to tailor their interactions with our pre-recorded videos and optimise student engagement. They reinforce the ideas raised by Costley et al. (2021) on the importance of ensuring adequate consideration of the extraneous cognitive load associated with instructor presence on these digital lightboard recordings.

Conclusion

While blended learning using multi-modal pedagogical approaches in the style of content delivery is not a new feature of biomedical education (Estai & Bunt, 2016; Evans, 2022; Green et al., 2018), the degree of interaction and engagement with online topic presentation materials has been improved by the addition of multimedia video presentations. Presentations designed to include key features of embodiment, segmentation, and signalling (Doherty, 2022) were deployed at an Australian university; they resulted in greater engagement in topic presentations and were associated with positive outcomes for students across three distinct undergraduate biomedical science courses.

Careful attention to the video and learning analytics that are becoming increasingly available via most LMS can provide insights on how to best engage and work with the current generation of students to maximise their learning outcomes. A recent study analysing data from 3.1 million video views across various biomedical science courses found several contextual factors that significantly impact student engagement with lectures, including video type and length, the number of graded assessments, the video’s position within the course, and the requirement of video viewing for certification (Parker et al., 2024). Updating video material using the digital lightboard style resulted in limited changes in video analytics in key first-year biomedical science and anatomy courses. This was in direct contrast to the substantial improvements in student qualitative comments, with most students highly appreciative of the changes in presentation mode. However, when compared to Parker et al.’s (2024) review of 3.1 million video views, our courses allow for a comparatively small number of analyses. Moreover, these pre-recorded videos represent the only resource available for students to access the majority of the biomedical science content, which further complicates their viewing behaviours. For example, in the third course utilising the digital lightboard recordings, these videos delivered all theoretical content required for students to participate in the face-to-face workshops, meaning that viewing was essentially compulsory for their success in the course. Together, this further emphasises the complexity of factors that educators should consider, specific to their discipline and student cohort – including intrinsic video properties, broader course context, and student demographics – to enhance student engagement with educational videos.

Demographic differences associated with this increased engagement have not been evaluated at our university and will form the basis of further research. Additionally, whether students with stronger academic performance engage more with the online presentations compared to students of less strong academic performance, as shown in other anatomy courses (Green et al., 2018), will also be investigated. Consideration as to whether differences exist between first-year students and students undertaking the course who have prior university experience should also be considered, as the possibility that time management skills and strategies for learning improve with greater university learning experiences cannot be dismissed (Johnston et al., 2013). In addition, we noted competing evidence of engagement with neurodivergent students, with positive comments arising from HUBS3414, but less appreciation from students of HUBS406/1416. This raises an intriguing question of adaptability of the digital lightboard style, as the process outlined in Figure 14.2 allows for the flexibility of two modalities: one with the presenter visible, the other without. Moving forward, a trial of the inclusion of both these options within the LMS will allow students to select their preferred presentation format per module and provide deeper insights into the accessibility of our platform, as well as whether or not student-driven selection modifies engagement and subsequent outcomes within diverse groups of learners. Another consideration is whether the availability of suitable internet and/or computer and mobile device technologies combined with the intricacies of LMS may present barriers to learning for some students (Martin, 2020), and how this lack of access further adds to the complexity of reviewing video analytics. Students with less reliable internet connections, or barriers to the accessibility of devices may choose to download the videos, which then hampers our ability to capture how many times a downloaded file is viewed offline. Deeper analyses of video analytics, coupled with accessibility questions and surveys probing viewing behaviours are needed to untangle the impact of the digital lightboard style in improving student outcomes.

Aside from the benefits to students, the authors also wish to emphasise the benefits to instructors of utilising the digital lightboard style. All instructors expressed significant satisfaction in their interactions with the LDTI team, with a particular emphasis on the accessibility of the studio facilities and supportive attitudes of the studio staff. Having dedicated technical assistance resulted in highly polished end products, and, importantly, a reduction in the turnaround time for integration of learning materials into the LMS. Additionally, curation and review of video analytics was undertaken by the learning design team, assisting instructors to understand the impact of these changes.

In conclusion, flexible learning, increased review opportunities, and equity of access are key aspects, supported by the inclusion of professionally developed and recorded topic presentations included in biomedical science education. Creating varied, multi-modal learning environments that cater for all learning styles and address the need for flexible, accessible learning, has led to improved student satisfaction in a range of biomedical science courses at an Australian university. Although further, targeted investigations are required to tease apart the impact of this enhanced engagement on student outcomes, the overwhelmingly positive responses from students provide a solid foundation for the use of the digital lightboard in increasing instructor presence for biomedical science education.

References

Al-Qudah, E. M. (2024). The effectiveness of recorded lectures on university students’ achievement. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v12i1.2537

Baré, E., Beard, J., & Tjia, T. (2021). Alleviating the human cost of COVID-19 in Australian universities. Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.

Beege, M., Schroeder, N. L., Heidig, S., Rey, G. D., & Schneider, S. (2023). The instructor presence effect and its moderators in instructional video: A series of meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100564

Carmichael, M., Reid, A., & Karpicke, J. D. (2018). Assessing the impact of educational video on student engagement, critical thinking and learning. A SAGE White Paper. https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/hevideolearning.pdf

Chen, C.-M., & Wu, C.-H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 80, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.015

Costley, J., Fanguy, M., Lange, C., & Baldwin, M. (2021). The effects of video lecture viewing strategies on cognitive load. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09254-y

Crook, C., & Schofield, L. (2017). The video lecture. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.05.003

Doherty, C. (2022). An investigation into the relationship between multimedia lecture design and learners’ engagement behaviours using web log analysis. PLOS ONE, 17(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273007

Estai, M., & Bunt, S. (2016). Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Annals of Anatomy, 208, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2016.02.010

Evans, D. J. (2022). Has pedagogy, technology, and Covid‐19 killed the face‐to‐face lecture? Anatomical Sciences Education, 15(6), 1145–1151.

Garcia, M. B., & Yousef, A. M. F. (2023). Cognitive and affective effects of teachers’ annotations and talking heads on asynchronous video lectures in a web development course. Research & Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 18, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2023.18020

Green, R. A., Whitburn, L. Y., Zacharias, A., Byrne, G., & Hughes, D. L. (2018). The relationship between student engagement with online content and achievement in a blended learning anatomy course. Anatomical Sciences Education, 11(5), 471–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1761

Gu, C., Peng, Y., Nastase, S. A., Mayer, R. E., & Li, P. (2024). Onscreen presence of instructors in video lectures affects learners’ neural synchrony and visual attention during multimedia learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(12). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2309054121

Heidig, S., Beege, M., Rey, G. D., & Schneider, S. (2024). Instructor presence in instructional videos in higher education: Three field experiments in university courses. Educational Technology Research and Development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10391-9

Inman, J., & Myers, S. (2018). Now streaming: Strategies that improve video lectures. IDEA Paper 68. ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED588350

Johnston, A. N. B., Massa, H., & Burne, T. H. J. (2013). Digital lecture recording: A cautionary tale. Nurse Education in Practice, 13(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2012.07.004

Kizilcec, R. F., Bailenson, J. N., & Gomez, C. J. (2015). The instructor’s face in video instruction: Evidence from two large-scale field studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 724–739. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000013

Martin, L. (2020). Foundations for good practice: The student experience of online learning in Australian higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Australian Government Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/student-experience-of-online-learning-in-australian-he-during-covid-19.pdf

Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197

McDonald, A. C., Green, R. A., Zacharias, A., Whitburn, L. Y., Hughes, D. L., Colasante, M., & McGowan, H. (2021). Anatomy students that are ‘team‐taught’ may achieve better results than those that are ‘sole‐taught’. Anatomical Sciences Education, 14(1), 43–51.

Mehta, K. J., Aula-Blasco, J., & Mantaj, J. (2024). University students’ preferences of learning modes post COVID-19-associated lockdowns: In-person, online, and blended. PLOS ONE, 19(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0296670

Noetel, M., Griffith, S., Delaney, O., Sanders, T., Parker, P., del Pozo Cruz, B., & Lonsdale, C. (2021). Video improves learning in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 91(2), 204–236. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990713

O’Callaghan, F. V., Neumann, D. L., Jones, L., & Creed, P. A. (2017). The use of lecture recordings in higher education: A review of institutional, student, and lecturer issues. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9451-z

Parker, M. J., Bunch, M., & Pike, A. (2024). Is anybody watching: A multi-motivational framework for educational video engagement. Computers & Education, 222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105148

Patel, B., Mislan, S., Yook, G., & Persky, A. M. (2019). Recorded lectures as a source of cognitive off-loading. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 83(5). https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe6793

Pi, Z., Hong, J., & Yang, J. (2017). Does instructor’s image size in video lectures affect learning outcomes? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(4), 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12183

Polat, H. (2023). Instructors’ presence in instructional videos: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(7), 8537–8569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11532-4

Reid, A., Duret, D., & Noble, K. (2021). Lecture capture: Friend or foe? Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 49(1), 126–137. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme-2020-0052

Rosenthal, S., & Walker, Z. (2020). Experiencing live composite video lectures: Comparisons with traditional lectures and common video lecture methods. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 14(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2020.140108

Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., & Rey, G. D. (2018). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.11.001

Schneider, S., Beege, M., Nebel, S., Schnaubert, L., & Rey, G. D. (2021). The Cognitive-Affective-Social Theory of Learning in digital Environments (CASTLE). Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09626-5

Williams, A., Birch, E., & Hancock, P. (2012). The impact of online lecture recordings on student performance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.869

Wilton, M., Gonzalea-Nino, E., McPartlan, P., Terner, Z., Christofferson, R. E., & Rothman J. H. (2019). Improving academic performance, belonging, and retention through increasing structure of an introductory biology course. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0155