




















































3944


Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014, pp. 72 - 89. 
doi: 10.14434.jotlt.v3n1.3944 

Faculty perceptions of webcasting in health sciences education 
 

Barbara A. Gushrowski1 and Laura M. Romito2 
 

Abstract: Pre-recorded lectures (podcasts) and recordings of live lectures 
(lecture-capture) are now everyday occurrences on many college campuses. 
Student use and opinions of these technologies have been frequently studied. 
However, there has been little reported on how faculty perceive these 
technologies. This article reports the results from a 2010 survey of dental, 
medical, and nursing faculty about their experiences with podcast/lecture capture 
technologies as teaching tools. A 46-item survey was distributed electronically to 
full-time faculty at the schools of Dentistry, Medicine, and Nursing on the campus 
of an urban university in Fall 2010 to determine their experiences and 
perceptions of podcast/lecture capture technologies as teaching tools. Of the 398 
respondents, 32% employed lecture capture while only 2% used podcasting. Of 
those faculty not currently recording materials, 83 (68%) stated that they plan to 
do so in the next 2 years. Lack of time, 26 (24%) and training, (22%) are major 
reasons stated for not recording course content. Although a large number of 
faculty believe student learning has improved through the use of these 
technologies (74%, n=86), few stated that test scores have improved following 
implementation of electronic delivery of course materials (29%, n=34). There 
was no correlation between the use of podcast/lecture capture technologies and 
faculty gender, school, or years of teaching. A wide array of technologies to 
record lectures and present additional course materials electronically are in use 
at the health sciences programs on the campus. Overall, faculty view these 
technologies in a favorable light. 
 
Keywords: podcasting, lecture capture, health sciences, faculty perceptions 
 

Introduction 
 

Currently the term “podcast” describes both audio and/or video files that can be 
downloaded and played on a personal computer or mobile device. For example, lectures, based 
on a Microsoft Power Point slideshow along with a recording of the instructor’s lecture narration 
can be downloaded and played on a laptop computer. Such video podcasts can be pre-recorded 
and distributed in advance or in lieu of class, or they can be generated during the class session as 
“lecture capture” and made available subsequent to the class session. For the purposes of this 
paper a podcast is defined as any presentation that is pre-recorded and lecture capture refers to a 
presentation that is recorded live. 
 Pre-recorded lectures, supplemental, and study materials, as well as recordings of live 
lectures and streaming live video feeds of a lecture are now everyday occurrences on many 
college campuses (Owston, Lupshenyuk, & Wideman, 2011). The use of podcasting, lecture 
capture, and other electronic delivery mechanisms has, in a relatively short period of time, 
become an accepted practice of instructional delivery in health science programs (Nast, Schafer-
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1 Associate Librarian, Indiana University School of Dentistry, bgushrow@iu.edu 
2 Associate Professor, Department of Oral Biology, Indiana University School of Dentistry, lromitoc@iu.edu	
  



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

73 

Hesterberg, Zielke, Sterry, & Rzany, 2009; Walmsley, Lambe, Perryer, & Hill, 2009; Zanussi, 
Paget, Tworek, & McLaughlin, 2011). These materials are made available to students via iTunes, 
school websites, or proprietary courseware products. Despite the expanded use of these new 
technologies and their popularity with many students, there is a dearth of information regarding 
faculty use and perceptions of these instructional delivery methods.  Thus, the purpose of this 
study was to gather data about how faculty across various health science professions at one large 
urban Midwestern university campus perceive these new technologies. Specifically, we posed 
the following research questions: 

1. To what extent are health sciences faculty using these technologies? 
2. Is there a difference in use and perceptions of webcasting technologies among faculty 

based on health science program, gender, or years of teaching experience? 
3. What do faculty perceive to be advantages / disadvantages for themselves and for 

their students in using these technologies? 
4. What, if anything, do faculty perceive as barriers to using these technologies?  

 
Literature Review 

 
The increasing use of these technologies in education is reflected in the growing number 

of articles devoted to the topic. Rainsbury (Rainsbury & McDonnell, 2006) reported that a search 
in the PubMed database in 2006 found only 3 articles about podcasting in health sciences 
education. In 2010, “Webcasts as Topic” was added as a MeSH term by the National Library of 
Medicine and ‘webcast’ is now listed in PubMed as a publication type. A 2011 PubMed search 
on podcasting in health sciences education yielded over 100 articles. 
 Many of the articles published over the past 5 years fall into 3 broad categories: basic 
how-to, student satisfaction, and student learning. Articles in the how-to category, many of 
which were published from 2006-2008, define key terms, describe the technologies, and outline 
methods of producing podcasts and distributing recordings (Cain & Fox, 2009; Corl, Johnson, 
Rowell, & Fishman, 2008; Elkind, 2009; Hopp, 2010; Jham, Duraes, Strassler, & Sensi, 2008; 
Kennedy, Gray, & Tse, 2008; Long & Edwards, 2010; McCartney, 2006; Rowell, Corl, Johnson, 
& Fishman, 2006; Ruiz, Mintzer, & Leipzig, 2006). 
 Authors have used a variety of theoretical frameworks to explain student satisfaction with 
the technology and the method of content delivery. Kardong-Edgren & Emerson use 
constructivist theory to explain that students who download and listen to a podcast may expect 
this activity to improve their grade, thereby making the lecture recording more meaningful. They 
further use five constructs to "explain a user's motivation for seeking, using, and continuing to 
use an electronic media technology: cognitive needs, affective needs, personal integrative needs, 
social integrative needs, and entertainment needs."(Kardong-Edgren & Emerson, 2010). Stiffler 
et al, state that educational podcasting is consistent with "…Siemens' Digital Age Orientation to 
Learning and other connectivism theorists." Connectivism theorists assert that knowledge exists 
outside the individual and in order for students to learn, this knowledge must connect "…to the 
right people at the right time and in the right context." (Stiffler, Stoten, & Cullen, 2010). Vogt et 
al., also discuss Siemans' connectivism theory along with Mayers' Multimedia Learning Theory 
– that students will learn through several avenues including visual and auditory – to frame their 
study of undergraduate nursing students' learning and satisfaction with podcasting (Vogt, 
Schaffner, Ribar, & Chavez, 2010). Others have reported survey results that focused on student 
satisfaction with the technology and the method of content delivery, though without a theoretical 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

74 

framework (Bollmeier, Wenger, & Forinash, 2010; Forbes & Hickey, 2008; Lymn & Bowskill, 
2010; McKinney & Page, 2009; Nast et al., 2009; Patasi, Boozary, Hincke, & Jalali, 2009; 
Pilarski, Alan Johnstone, Pettepher, & Osheroff, 2008; Reynolds, Mason, & Eaton, 2008; 
Schlairet, 2010; Shantikumar, 2009; Walmsley et al., 2009). 
 In addition, papers have reported students’ perception of the value of podcasts as learning 
and exam preparation tools. More recently, efforts have been undertaken to assess these 
technologies in light of student learning outcomes. Bollmeier et al., posit that cognitive load 
theory may explain why recorded lectures may improve learning. Cognitive load theory 
describes learning taking place at three levels – short-term, working, and long-term memory. 
Information is first processed through short-term memory into working memory. When too much 
information or poorly organized information is processed, the constraints on working memory 
don't allow the information to be fully processed into long-term memory. Recorded lectures 
allow the students to review and process the information in smaller chunks and allows time for 
students to reflect on the information and thus transfer it into long-term memory (Bollmeier et 
al., 2010). Studies by Bhatti et al, Greenfield, O’Neill et al, and Schreiber et al, demonstrated 
that compared to standard instructional methods such as lecture, learning outcomes for students 
viewing podcasts are improved (Bhatti et al., 2009; Greenfield, 2011; O'Neill, Power, Stevens, & 
Humphreys, 2010; Schreiber, Fukuta, & Gordon, 2010). However, Hadley et al., Nagler et al., 
and Vogt et al.,  reported no significant differences in exam scores between students receiving 
in-person and online content delivery. (Hadley et al., 2010; Nagler, Andolsek, Dossary, 
Schlueter, & Schulman, 2010; Vogt et al., 2010) 
 While the student viewpoint and opinions of these technologies have been frequently 
studied, to date there has been little reported on how faculty perceive these technologies. One 
faculty concern is decreased student attendance in class. Some investigators did not find this to 
be a significant issue (Copley, 2007; Forbes & Hickey, 2008; Lymn & Bowskill, 2010; Meade, 
Bowskill, & Lymn, 2009; Nast et al., 2009; Pilarski et al., 2008), however, Kardong-Edgren 
(Kardong-Edgren & Emerson, 2010) found that faculty reported increasing student absenteeism 
after increased availability of podcasts.. Bhatti (Bhatti et al., 2009) discussed demands on 
faculty’s time in learning and implementing these technologies. Another concern that has been 
noted is the ease with which online materials can be broadly disseminated which may result in 
the inadvertent or intentional violation of faculty intellectual property rights by students (Johnson 
& Grayden, 2006; Read, 2007).  
 One recent paper does report on some aspects of faculty views on webcasting in the 
classroom. A survey of 66 North American dental schools was conducted about the use of lecture 
recordings in dental education (Horvath et al., 2013). Several questions on the survey related 
specifically to faculty preparation for using the technologies and barriers experienced by faculty 
in implementation. Nearly half of those responding to questions about faculty preparation (13) 
reported that formal training was available for faculty on the use of the recording technology, 
while 26% (7) reported no preparation or training prior to implementation. The barriers most 
reported were faculty resistance, technology problems, concerns about intellectual property, and 
fears that attendance in face-to-face lectures would decline. According to adoption-diffusion 
theories, faculty acceptance of a new instructional technology such as webcasting is a 
complicated, multidimensional process involving cognitive, emotional and contextual factors. 
The adoption process involves the individual faculty member’s decision to utilize the 
technology, while diffusion refers to adoption by a collective, such as at the school or campus 
level. A faculty member’s perception of the new technology is influenced by numerous factors 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

75 

including their perception of whether the innovation is useful and if they would be capable of 
successfully employing it, as well as their observation of others’ success (or failure) with use of 
the technology (Straub, 2009). 
   Our study was grounded in adoption – diffusion theories such as the Technology 
Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Universal Technology Adoption and Use Theory (UTAUT), 
which purport that a faculty member’s adoption of new technology is based on his/her 
perceptions of the ease of use and utility of that technology.  Additionally, the UTAUT also 
considers whether the faculty feels social / environmental pressure to use the technology and the 
extent to which they perceive institutional support for its use. Other factors moderating the 
decision to adopt a new technology such as podcasting that are also addressed by this theory are 
the age, gender and experience of the faculty (Straub, 2009). As such, these constructs were 
incorporated into our survey. 
 In an effort to elucidate faculty perceptions of podcast/lecture capture technologies as 
teaching tools in health sciences education, we conducted a campus-wide survey of dental, 
medical, and nursing faculty about their experiences with these technologies. This article reports 
on the results of the survey in which faculty were asked about the following: the extent to which 
they use these technologies, the system/software used, perceived advantages and disadvantages 
for themselves and their students, and the effects on student learning outcomes. 
 

Methods 
 
Study Population 
	
  

The study participants were comprised of full-time faculty from the Schools of Dentistry, 
Medicine, and Nursing on the campus of an urban Midwestern university. This campus is 
predominantly a health sciences campus. Courses in health sciences programs such as medicine, 
dentistry, and nursing tend to have traditional content-dense lectures which would be amenable 
to these webcasting technologies.  
 Upon our request, a list of names and campus email addresses of all full-time health 
sciences faculty were compiled by each of the respective schools and sent us. A total of 1454 
names and email addresses were submitted and all were contacted by email and asked to 
participate in the voluntary, confidential survey. 
 
Survey Instrument 
 

In 2009, we conducted a pilot survey at the School of Dentistry and many of the items 
from that survey were included in the current study. The 2009 survey consisted of 37 items 
including multiple-choice and yes/no questions as well as open-ended questions that focused on 
the following: advantages and disadvantages for students and faculty in employing podcasts and 
lecture capture, barriers to implementation, future interest in using these technologies, and 
student learning outcomes. In the current study, additional yes/no questions were added such as 
"Does your school use any type of lecture capture or podcasting system?" Additional multiple 
choice questions asked about the specific technology systems available at the schools and how 
these systems are managed. Demographic questions about the number of years of teaching 
experience and number of years teaching at this campus were also included. With these 
additions, the current survey contained a total of 46 items. 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

76 

 The survey software, Qualtrics™ (Provo, UT), enabled a branching mechanism wherein 
all questions were not delivered to all participants, but were delivered based on responses to key 
survey items. For example, based on the response to the question – "How have you used the 
lecture capture or podcasting system?" – the participant was directed to additional questions 
related to the ease or difficulty of developing podcasts, lecture captures, or plans for future use of 
the technologies. 

The survey included several open-ended items that allowed participants to comment 
freely on the advantages and disadvantages to faculty and students of using podcast and lecture 
capture technologies. Faculty who reported not already using the technology were asked to 
identify their perceived barriers to adoption and what would facilitate their use of webcasting 
technologies. 
 
Survey administration 
 

Following review and approval of the survey instrument and study protocol by the 
University Institutional Review Board, we distributed the 46- item survey in the Fall semester of 
2010 via email. The initial email message described the purpose of the survey and invited 
participation by the 1454 full-time health sciences faculty. The email invitation indicated that the 
study was voluntary, participation implied consent, all responses were confidential, and results 
data would be reported in aggregate and not linked to any individual respondent. The message 
also included a link to the survey. While we did collect limited demographic data, we did not 
gather any personally identifiable information in the survey and faculty were not offered any 
incentives to participate. The survey was open for 3 weeks, and responses were password 
protected and stored on the Qualtrics™ server. The Qualtrics™ software is equipped to track 
non-responders so we composed follow-up messages encouraging completion of the survey 
which the software delivered to the non-responders in weeks 2 and 3. 
 After we collected the data, it was cleaned, coded and analyzed. Descriptive statistics 
were obtained and qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed. Quantitative analysis 
included frequencies and percentages, Somers’D Phi, and Cramer’s V tests of correlation. 
Qualitative analysis of data from the open-ended survey items generated several response 
categories based on common themes. We analyzed the data using SPSS statistical software (v. 
19.0 SPSS, Inc. Chicago, ILL 2011). 
 

Results 
 

A total of 398 health sciences faculty completed the survey for an aggregate response rate 
of 27%. Response rate varied by health science school as follows: Dentistry 64% (n=69); 
Nursing 57% (n=55), and Medicine 27.5% (n=274). Males accounted for 60% of the participants 
and females represented 40% (n=338). Reported years of teaching experience ranged from less 
than 1 year to over thirty years, with approximately 50% of respondents having at taught at least 
15 years (n=341). Reported years of teaching at this campus had an identical range, but with 70% 
reporting 15 years or less with this campus (n=334).  
 Of the total number of respondents, 128 (32%) used lecture capture software to record 
their live lectures, 9 (2%) pre-recorded podcasts, 27 (7%) used both methods of recording, and 
121 (30%) did not use either recording method. The remaining 113 faculty (28%) did not answer 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

77 

this question. Eighty-one respondents (20%) were not aware that their respective schools had 
podcast/lecture capture systems available.  
 Of those faculty reporting non-use of the technologies, 83 (68%) indicated they would 
consider recording a podcast or lecture in the next 2 years, 33 (27%) would not consider doing 
so, and 5 (4%) did not answer this question. Those considering making recordings indicated that 
lack of time, 26 (24%) and training, 24 (22%) were the 2 biggest factors that were preventing 
them from adopting these technologies. 
 The recording software used varies widely between health science schools. Fifteen 
separate software packages were identified (see Appendix A.) and many respondents indicated 
they used more than 1 of these. Recording systems used for lecture capture are available on fixed 
workstations, 76 (49%), portable devices, 45 (29%), or both, 34 (22%), and are managed to a 
large degree by school or university information technology departments. Lecture capture 
software is available in large lecture halls seating over 125 as well as small classrooms that seat 
fewer than thirty. A relatively large number of faculty, 98 (32%) did not know the name of the 
system used by their school. 
 There is little standardization or consistency in the starting and stopping protocols for 
lecture capture. These procedures are carried out by school support staff, 97 (36%), faculty, 90 
(33%), campus information technology staff, 50 (18%), students, 33 (12%), or automated by the 
system, 30 (11%). In addition, 44 faculty (16%) indicated that the initiation and rendering of 
lecture capture was conducted by some means other than the aforementioned methods; 
furthermore, of these 44 respondents, 31 did not know how the recordings were started and 
stopped. 
 Podcasting software for pre-recording lectures were used by 36 respondents (13%), 9 of 
whom used this method exclusively, while 27 used podcasts in addition to lecture capture. The 
podcast software used was often the same as that used for lecture capture. There was only 1 
exclusively podcast system named. Faculty who responded to questions concerning the most 
difficult aspects of webcasting (n= 135) ranked technical issues, 43 (32%) and learning the 
software, 34 (25%) as the two greatest challenges. However, many faculty, 47 (35%) indicated 
that there were no difficulties. 
 Distribution of the recordings is, for the most part, contained behind firewalls. Course 
management systems are used as the repositories by 149 respondents (58%). Other password 
protected sites such as iTunes private channel, and departmental websites and wikis are used by 
31 respondents (12%). Only 5 faculty (2%) reported public distribution of their recordings on 
iTunes and YouTube public channels. Forty-eight respondents (19%) indicated they did not 
know how the recordings were distributed.  
 Faculty who reported using webcasting technologies (n=137) were asked if they believed 
that use of these technologies has improved student learning. Of the 86 responses obtained, 12 
(14%) believed learning was not improved, 10 (12%) were unsure, and 64 (74%) believed 
learning is improved by the use of these technologies. Faculty were then asked if students 
performed better on exams since the introduction of podcasts/lecture captures than in years prior 
to use of these technologies. Of the 34 respondents, 10 (29%) indicated scores had improved, 5 
(15%) were unsure, and 19 (56%) indicated that using the technologies did not improve their 
students’ exam performance. 
 We performed correlation analyses to determine relationships between the use of 
podcasting or lecture capture technologies and the following 4 variables: school affiliation; 
faculty gender; total number of years teaching; or number of years teaching at this campus. Our 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

78 

results indicate there was no correlation between any of these variables and the use of podcasting 
technologies. 
 
Table 1  
 
Relationship between Use of Podcast/Lecture Capture and Faculty Characteristics 
 
 School Affiliation 

(n=280) 
 

Gender (n=260) Yrs. Teaching  
(n=252) 

Yrs. Teaching at this 
campus 
(n=119) 

Use 
technologies 

Dentistry 
Medicine 
Nursing 

33 
108 

21 

Female 
Male 

58 
87 

< 1  
1-5 

6-10 
11-15 
16-20 
21-25 
26-30 

>30 

2 
20 
25 
22 
19 
18 
17 
17 

< 1  
1-5 

6-10 
11-15 
16-20 
21-25 
26-30 

>30 

6 
28 
28 
15 
12 
10 

8 
6 

Don’t use 
technologies 

Dentistry 
Medicine 
Nursing 

27 
73 
18 

Female 
Male 

51 
64 

< 1  
1-5 

6-10 
11-15 
16-20 
21-25 
26-30 

>30 

4 
19 
20 
13 
12 
14 
17 
11 

< 1  
1-5 

6-10 
11-15 
16-20 
21-25 
26-30 

>30 

2 
38 
37 
21 
19 
10 

8 
6 

Correlation* V = .050 (278), 
p=.704 

rΦ = .044 (258), 
p=.480 

d= -.021 (250), 
p=.624) 

d= .006 (117), p=.566 

*Confidence interval of all correlations is 95%. 
 

Tables 2 and 3 summarize basic themes that we identified from content analyses of 
participants’ free-text responses to open-ended survey items regarding the advantages and 
disadvantages to faculty and students in the use of podcast and lecture capture software. 
Overwhelmingly (n=80) faculty reported an advantage to students was the ability to use the 
recordings to review, as often as needed, difficult concepts for improved comprehension and 
exam preparation. 

One limitation of this study is the response rate. Although the School of Dentistry and 
School of Nursing generated a 64% and 57% response rate, respectively, the School of Medicine 
response rate was only 24.5%. This may be attributed to the email list provided by the School of 
Medicine which included all full-time faculty many of whom are exclusively involved in 
research and/or clinical teaching. We were unable to separate these individuals from faculty who 
engage in classroom instruction. Other factors may account for the low response rate. Asch et al 
(Asch 1997) reported a model predicting response rates which revealed that physicians have a 
9.6% lower response rate on surveys than non-physicians, and anonymous surveys have a 9% 
lower response rate. 
 There are several methods recounted in the literature that attempt to assess and minimize 
response bias which can occur in even a high response rate survey (Fillion 1976; Lin and 
Schaeffer 1995; Hikmet 2003; Menachemi 2011; Asch 1997; Ford & Bammer 2009). Two 
methods, comparing demographic characteristics of respondents to non-respondents, and 
contacting non-respondents following completion of the survey are not possible with anonymous  



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

79 

Table 2A  

Faculty Perceptions of the Benefits of Podcast/Lecture Capture for Students 

Themes identified Sample Responses 
Advantage to students n=100  
Can review materials as often as needed (80) “Students can listen as often and when they like.” 

“Allows students to hear and see the content for review 
or exam preparation purposes.” 
“Students can review the lecture for better 
understanding.” 
“They can go back and review content they did not 
understand the first time.” 
“Students have reported they like to go back and listen 
to them again before exams.” 

Allows asynchronous learning opportunities (20) “They manage their own time and repeat sessions when 
needed.” 
“Allow the students take the lecture at whatever time 
desired.” 
“View on their own time.” 

 

surveys such as this one. A third method, wave analysis (Hikmet & Chen, 2003; Menachemi, 
Hikmet, et al, 2006; Montori et al, 2005), involves comparing survey answers of respondents 
who complete the survey in identifiable time units. These groups can be identified as early and 
late responders or fast, medium, and slow responders (Ford & Bammer) based on whether they 
completed the survey following the initial call or following subsequent calls. We chose wave 
analysis to determine if responses to the questions, or demographic characteristics were 
significantly different among the three groups of respondents. 
 Following the initial email request, we received 245 responses, following the first 
reminder 107 responses, and following the second and final reminder 53 responses. We 
performed a Chi-square analysis comparing the characteristics of gender, school, and number of 
years teaching. We performed the same analysis on the attribute of use of the technology vs. non-
use of the technology which may have affected participation. We found no statistical significance 
in the responses between the three groups. 

Despite the low response rate, we have demonstrated that the characteristics of the 
respondents are similar to the non-respondents, and the bias that might be present is unlikely to 
meaningfully impact our conclusions. 
 

 

 

 

 

 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

80 

Table 2B 
 
Faculty Perceptions of the Benefits of Podcast/Lecture Capture for Faculty  
Themes identified Sample Responses 
Advantage to faculty n=102  
Once recorded, lecture is widely available (36) “Can record once and play for multiple classes.” 

“Good for snow days, in case class would be cancelled 
you still have a way to cover material.” 
“Distribute to larger audiences with less time” 
“Wider distribution of our materials.” 

None (31)  

Improved lecture quality (20) “Rather than spending time lecturing I can view 
outcomes, edit, enhance & adapt course material.” 
“Able to be consistent in the instruction across numerous 
sessions.” 
“Helps me refine what is important.” 
“Review and make improvements on delivery.” 

Helpful to the students (15) “It gives the students another way of revisiting the 
lecture.” 
“[students] have RAVED about these Podcasts as adding 
richness.” 
“They appreciate that we are trying to integrate 
technology for them into the presentation.” 

 
Table 3A 
 
Faculty Perceptions of the Disadvantages of Podcast/Lecture Capture for Students 
Themes identified Sample Responses 
Disadvantages to students n=97  
None/don’t know (29)  

Inability to interact with instructor (23) “Loss of learner teacher interactions.” 
• “No interaction with lecturer.” 
• “They can't ask a question to clarify as they 

could during a live lecture.” 
• “I would assume it is less interactive for them.” 

Less likely to attend class (18) “They will have incentive to skip live lectures.” 
“It provides an outlet/excuse for students not to attend 
lecture.” 
“Reliance on the podcasts and thinking they do not need 
to attend class.” 

Technology issues (17) “Some students in rural areas have difficulty accessing 
them due to tech issues.” 
“Very large file size.” 
“Accessing another system to view the lectures.” 
“Some students do not have a computer at home.” 

Missing material delivered that is not recorded (5) “Miss questions asked in class; content before or after 
the recording is being made.” 
They miss any visual material not on the screen and 
student questions.” 

Lack of student engagement (5) “They can pay less attention in class.” 
“May not pay attention in lecture as they have a fall-
back option.” 
“May not be as engaged if watching lecture remotely.” 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

81 

Table 3B 
 
Faculty Perceptions of the Disadvantages of Podcast/Lecture Capture for Faculty 
Themes identified Sample Responses 
Disadvantages to faculty n=87  
None (28)  

Technology issues (28) “getting access to the equipment.” 
“When equipment did not work, this was a nightmare.” 
“Cumbersome recording” 
“time consuming to get software up and running.” 

Low class attendance (14) “may reduce class attendance” 
“students don't come to class” 
“Students don’t feel obligated to attend and are unable to 
participate in discussion” 

Little faculty-student interaction (9) “No audience interaction.” 
“I like to give lectures that are interactive and can't do 
that with a recording.” 
“lack of interaction with learners - can't gauge if there 
are problems with the message.” 
“Discourages the use of discussion in class.” 

Time-consuming to produce (8) “Finding time to record them if not done live.” 
“Pre-recorded podcasts can take a lot of time to 
produce.” 
“Time to do it and learn the software/ hardware.” 

 
Discussion 

 
The purpose of this study was to assess faculty use of podcasts and lecture capture 

technologies in this campus's health sciences education programs. Much has been written about 
these instructional technologies from the student’s point of view. We wanted to hear from faculty 
about their experiences with this relatively new method of delivering instruction and their 
perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. Specifically, our research questions 
were intended to determine the following: 1) the extent to which health sciences faculty are using 
these technologies, 2) differences in use and perceptions of webcasting technologies among 
faculty based on health science program, faculty gender, or years of teaching experience, 3) 
faculty perceptions of the advantages / disadvantages for themselves and for their students, and 
4) perceived barriers to using the technologies. 
 Regarding the extent to which faculty use webcasting technologies, although lecture 
capture and podcasting software systems are in use at each of the health sciences schools 
represented by the survey, only about one-third of the faculty respondents reported using them. 
Furthermore, one in five faculty reported that they did not know these systems were available 
and 30% do not use them as teaching tools. We found that of the 34% who do use these 
technologies, the majority are using lecture capture methods rather than pre-recording materials 
for their students. Additionally, although many of these faculty did not know the name of the 
available software product or system, this did not deter them from producing the recordings.  
 Our study failed to reveal any correlations between faculty gender and the use of podcast 
or lecture capture technologies. Much research has been conducted on the issue of gender and 
technology. Studies have been conducted on gender differences in perception of technology 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

82 

(Brunner & Bennett, 1998), confidence in using technology (Hon Keung & Alison Lai Fong, 
2012), acceptance of (Padilla-Meléndez, del Aguila-Obra, & Garrido-Moreno, 2013), and 
attitude toward technology (Bain & Rice, 2006). Many of these studies focus on students in K-
12, though some recent work has been done on students in teacher education programs (Naaz, 
2012; Su Luan & Hanafi, 2007). While these studies show there are some gender difference in 
approaches to technology, there was nothing conclusive found in the literature about faculty 
gender differences in relation to their use of technology in the classroom.  
 
Table 4 
 
Comparison of three waves of respondents on attributes that may have influenced participation 

Respondents 
 Fast 

N=245 
Medium 
N=107 

Slow 
N=53 p-value 

Gender     
Male 123 (61.5%) 51 (58.6%) 32 (62.7%)  
Female 77 (38.5%) 36 (41.4%) 19 (37.2%)  
Total 200 (100%) 87 (100%) 51 (100%) .881 

School     
Dentistry 38 (15.7%) 21 (20.6%) 9 (17.0%)  
Medicine 170 (70.2%) 65 (63.7%) 39 (73.6%)  
Nursing 34 (14%) 16 (15.7%) 5 (9.4%)  
Total 242 (100%) 102 (100%) 53 (100%) .622 

Year teaching     
Don’t teach/Didn't answer 50 (20.4%) 22 (20.6%) 2 (3.8%)  
<1 1 (0.4%) 4 (3.7%) 1 (1.9%)  
1-5 35 (14.3%) 19 (17.8%) 11 (20.8%)  
6-10 33 (13.5%) 11 (10.3%) 11 (20.8%)  
11-15 27 (11.0%) 18 (16.8%) 5 (9.4%)  
16-20 26 (10.6%) 6 (5.6%) 8 (15.1%)  
21-25 28 (11.4%) 10 (9.3%) 7 (13.2%)  
26-30 29 (11.8%) 8 (7.5%) 4 (7.5%)  
>30 16 (6.5%) 9 (8.4%) 4 (7.5%)  
Total 245 (100%) (100%) (100%) .059 

Technology     
Use 96 (57.1%) 48 (64.9%) 18 (46.1%)  
Don't use 72 (42.9%) 26 (35.1%) 21 (53.8%)  
Total 168 (100%) 74 (100%) 39 (100%) .265 

	
  
 We likewise were unable to find any correlations between use of these technologies and 
health science school, total years of teaching, or years of teaching at this campus. We found that 
faculty who have been teaching for only a few years are no more likely to use the technologies 
than faculty who have teaching for 20 years or more. We hypothesized that faculty with a long 
history at this campus would be more likely to use these technologies due to the tradition and 
culture on this urban campus which was an early-adopter of learning technologies and strongly 
promotes and supports its use in the classroom. However, our findings did not support this 
hypothesis. 
 Overall, faculty perceived the webcasting technologies to be advantageous. The number 
of comments regarding advantages to students and faculty (171) outnumbered the comments on 
the disadvantages (127). One advantage listed numerous times is that recordings can be viewed 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

83 

by students anytime; this may also be a disadvantage in that if the recordings can be viewed 
anytime, students may not attend class. Other investigators (Bhatti et al., 2009; Long & Edwards, 
2010) have also cited as advantages the convenience and flexibility of podcasts as well as their 
ability to be widely disseminated. Schreiber (Schreiber et al., 2010) noted that for students with 
certain learning styles, or slow learners, the ability for students to repeatedly review the material 
is a huge benefit. Some of the shortcomings of podcasts/lecture capture were also identified by 
other authors and include a lack of student engagement (Long & Edwards, 2010; Schreiber et al., 
2010) and decreased motivation to attend class (Schreiber et al., 2010). In the current study, 
technical issues were identified as problems for both faculty and students. Similarly, Bhatti  
noted that students may have difficulty with online accessibility (Bhatti et al., 2009). Previous 
studies have identified other drawbacks such as technical issues with hardware /software systems 
and production time (Bhatti et al., 2009; Jham et al., 2008). 
 The current study found that a perceived lack of time and training were the principal 
barriers to faculty adoption of the webcasting technologies. Though the wide variety of software 
available was not presented as a problem by respondents, such an array of choices may 
contribute to faculty perceptions that there is too much to learn to make this a viable method for 
instruction delivery. There is currently no initiative at the campus level to standardize the 
software, hardware or distribution mechanism for the recordings. Such standardization may 
encourage more use by faculty, especially those reporting lack of time and training as barriers to 
implementation. 
 An important aspect to incorporating podcasting technologies is the effect on teaching 
and learning outcomes. Interestingly, in this study we found that more faculty than not believe 
use of these technologies enhances learning. However, relatively few faculty had evidence of 
improved test scores as a result of incorporating these instructional methods. This may indicate 
that faculty are not routinely measuring the impact of these technologies on student learning. 
Their perceptions of enhanced learning may also be derived from subjective measures, such as 
student evaluations and comments. From a pedagogical viewpoint, multimedia learning theory 
suggests that podcasting technologies might enhance learning by allowing students to process 
both auditory and visual information together, and by enabling them to pause and replay 
podcasted material, thereby using repetition to activate memory circuits (Mayer, 2001). 
However, a randomized controlled trial of learning outcomes in medical education found no 
significant difference in test performance between students receiving live lectures and podcasted 
lectures, although students found the live lecture format more engaging (Schreiber et al., 2010). 
Other studies have shown equal or better performance among students using these technologies 
compared to lecture alone (Bhatti et al., 2009; Vogt et al., 2010; Zanussi et al., 2011). 
 It has been argued that because podcasts are usually engaged by students in a passive and 
solitary manner, podcasts may actually hinder learning. However, faculty can structure podcasts 
so as to encourage more active learning by incorporating questions, interactive games, 
assignments, or student group activities associated with the content objectives. In addition, the 
style, length and delivery of podcasted content may affect student engagement and learning 
(Long & Edwards, 2010). Alternatively, if pre-recorded podcasts are utilized, class time which 
was previously used for lecture may be restructured for more interactive learning activities. A 
recent survey of webcasting technologies in dental education found that as a result of using these 
technologies, faculty alter the way they teach (Horvath et al., 2013). Therefore, it is critical that 
faculty development efforts keep pace with these instructional technologies so that faculty can 
learn techniques to enhance the effectiveness and utility of such teaching tools. Horvath et al. 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

84 

concluded that webcasting technologies may serve as a useful adjunct to the classroom 
environment.   To maximize the effectiveness of these technologies, the authors offered several 
“best practices” which included the following: having sufficient preparation time and 
instructional objectives for faculty, complying with copyright / intellectual property laws, 
providing IT support, combining recordings with other classroom activities, utilizing shorter 
content segments rather than full-length lecture recordings, and soliciting student evaluations 
regarding these technologies (Horvath et al., 2013). 
 The current study was limited to full-time faculty.  Although many part-time faculty 
teach in health sciences programs, we have found from previous attempts at surveying this group 
that they tend to be less responsive and more difficult to contact via email than their full-time 
colleagues. Additionally, this survey did not distinguish between tenured/tenure track and 
nontenured/non tenure track faculty; this factor may have an impact on teaching load, support 
level, and availability of instructional technology resources. 
 Despite these limitations, we believe our study findings fill a void in the literature 
regarding the use and perceptions of podcasting technologies by health science faculty. 
Ultimately, the goal of any instructional method should be to enhance learning and future 
research will explore teaching and learning outcomes as a result of the use of these technologies. 
 

Conclusion 
 

We found a wide array of technologies to record lectures and present additional course 
materials electronically in use across all 3 health sciences schools. Of the 30% of faculty who 
reported that they are not currently webcasting, most indicated that they plan to do so in the next 
2 years. Faculty identified more advantages than disadvantages for themselves and their students 
in using these technologies. The software and hardware will undoubtedly continue to change and 
develop but these methods of delivering instructional content have gained acceptance in health 
sciences education at this campus. 
 Further research is needed regarding the role that faculty status (i.e., full/part-time, 
tenure/tenure-track) plays in faculty use of technology in the classroom as well as faculty 
motivation and institutional support for using such technology. Future studies should attempt to 
identify whether the investment in and use of such instructional technologies varies by discipline 
e.g., medical schools versus engineering or law schools, or by type and size of institution, as well 
as the impact that these technologies have upon student learning outcomes. 
 

Acknowledgements 
 

The authors wish to thank David Zahl and Steve Graunke for their assistance with 
statistical calculations and the faculty at the Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, and Nursing for 
their time in completing the survey. 
 

Ethical approval 
 

The Institutional Review Board at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana reviewed 
and approved the protocol, IRB # EX1008-31B. 

 
 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

85 

References 

Bain, C. D., & Rice, M. L. (2006). The Influence of Gender on Attitudes, Perceptions, and Uses  
of Technology. [Article]. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 119-132.  
doi:  10.1080/15391523.2006.10782476 
 
Bhatti, I., Jones, K., Richardson, L., Foreman, D., Lund, J., & Tierney, G. (2011). E learning  
versus lecture: Which is the best approach to surgical teaching? Colorectal Diseases, 13(4), 459- 
62. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.02173.x 
 
Bollmeier, S. G., Wenger, P. J., & Forinash, A. B. (2010). Impact of online lecture-capture on  
student outcomes in a therapeutics course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,  
74(7), 127.  doi:  10.5688/aj7407127 
 
Brunner, C., & Bennett, D. (1998). Technology perceptions by gender. [Article]. Education  
Digest, 63(6), 56.  
 
Cain, J., & Fox, B. I. (2009). Web 2.0 and pharmacy education. American Journal of  
Pharmaceutical Education, 73(7), 120. doi: 10.5688/aj7307120 
 
Copley, J. (2007). Audio and video podcasts of lectures for campus-based students: production  
and evaluation of student use. [Article]. Innovations in Education & Teaching International,  
44(4), 387-399. doi: 10.1080/14703290701602805 
 
Corl, F. M., Johnson, P. T., Rowell, M. R., & Fishman, E. K. (2008). Internet-based  
dissemination of educational video presentations: a primer in video podcasting. AJR. American  
Journal of Roentgenology, 191(1), W23-27. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2637 
 
Elkind, M. S. (2009). Teaching the next generation of neurologists. Neurology, 72(7), 657-663.  
doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000342516.08077.55 
 
Forbes, M. O., & Hickey, M. T. (2008). Podcasting: implementation and evaluation in an  
undergraduate nursing program. Nurse Educator, 33(5), 224-227. doi:  
10.1097/01.NNE.0000334775.98018.e8 
 
Greenfield, S. (2011). Podcasting: a new tool for student retention? Journal of Nursing  
Education, 50(2), 112-114. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20101230-06  
 
Hadley, J., Kulier, R., Zamora, J., Coppus, S. F., Weinbrenner, S., Meyerrose, B., . . . Khan, K.  
S. (2010). Effectiveness of an e-learning course in evidence-based medicine for foundation  
(internship) training. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 103(7), 288-294. doi:  
10.1258/jrsm.2010.100036 
 
Hon Keung, Y., & Alison Lai Fong, C. (2012). Gender Difference of Confidence in Using  
Technology for Learning. [Article]. Journal of Technology Studies, 38(2), 74-79.  
 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

86 

Hopp, L. (2010). Designing podcasts for clinical nurse specialist education. Clinical Nurse  
Specialist, 24(2), 106-109. doi: 10.1097/NUR.0b013e3181d33d80 
 
Horvath, Z., O'Donnell, J. A., Johnson, L. A., Karimbux, N. Y., Shuler, C. F., & Spallek, H.  
(2013). Use of lecture recordings in dental education: assessment of status quo and  
recommendations. Journal of Dental Education, 77(11), 1431-1442.  
 
Jham, B. C., Duraes, G. V., Strassler, H. E., & Sensi, L. G. (2008). Joining the podcast  
revolution. Journal of Dental Education, 72(3), 278-281. doi: 72/3/278 [pii] 
 
Johnson, L., & Grayden, S. (2006). Podcasts--an emerging form of digital publishing.  
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry, 9(3), 205-218.  
 
Kardong-Edgren, S., & Emerson, R. (2010). Student adoption and perception of lecture podcasts  
in undergraduate bachelor of science in nursing courses. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(7),  
398-401. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20100224-04 
 
Kennedy, G., Gray, K., & Tse, J. (2008). 'Net Generation' medical students: technological  
experiences of pre-clinical and clinical students. Medical Teacher, 30(1), 10-16. doi:  
10.1080/01421590701798737 
 
Long, S. R., & Edwards, P. B. (2010). Podcasting: making waves in millennial education.  
Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 26(3), 96-101; quiz 102-103. doi:  
10.1097/NND.0b013e3181993a6f  
 
Lymn, J., & Bowskill, D. (2010). Learning on the move. Nursing Standard, 24(31), 61.  
 
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.  doi:	
  	
  
10.1017/CBO9781139164603 
 
McCartney, P. R. (2006). Podcasting in nursing. MCN; American Journal of Maternal Child  
Nursing, 31(4), 270. doi: 10.1097/00005721-200607000-00014 
 
McKinney, A. A., & Page, K. (2009). Podcasts and videostreaming: Useful tools to facilitate  
learning of pathophysiology in undergraduate nurse education? Nurse Education in Practice,  
9(6), 372-376. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2008.11.003  
 
Meade, O., Bowskill, D., & Lymn, J. S. (2009). Pharmacology as a foreign language: a  
preliminary evaluation of podcasting as a supplementary learning tool for non-medical  
prescribing students. BMC Medical Education, 9, 74. doi: 10.1186/1472- 
6920-9-74 
 
Naaz, S. T. (2012). Attitude of Prospective Teachers Towards Computer Technology: A Study.  
[Article]. Golden Research Thoughts, 1(9), 1-3.  
 
 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

87 

Nagler, A., Andolsek, K., Dossary, K., Schlueter, J., & Schulman, K. (2010). Addressing the  
systems-based practice requirement with health policy content and educational technology.  
Medical Teacher, 32(12), e559-565. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.528809 
 
Nast, A., Schafer-Hesterberg, G., Zielke, H., Sterry, W., & Rzany, B. (2009). Online lectures for  
students in dermatology: a replacement for traditional teaching or a valuable addition? Journal of  
the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 23(9), 1039-1043. doi:  
10.1111/j.1468-3083.2009.03246.x 
 
O'Neill, E., Power, A., Stevens, N., & Humphreys, H. (2010). Effectiveness of podcasts as an  
adjunct learning strategy in teaching clinical microbiology among medical students. Journal of  
Hospital Infection, 75(1), 83-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2009.11.006  
 
Owston, R., Lupshenyuk, D., & Wideman, H. (2011). Lecture capture in large undergraduate  
classes: Student perceptions and academic performance. Internet and Higher Education, 14(4),  
262-268. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.006 
 
Padilla-Meléndez, A., del Aguila-Obra, A. R., & Garrido-Moreno, A. (2013). Perceived  
playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario.  
[Article]. Computers & Education, 63, 306-317. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.014 
 
Patasi, B., Boozary, A., Hincke, M., & Jalali, A. (2009). The utility of podcasts in Web 2.0  
human anatomy. Medical Education, 43(11), 1116. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 
2923.2009.03471.x 
 
Pilarski, P. P., Alan Johnstone, D., Pettepher, C. C., & Osheroff, N. (2008). From music to  
macromolecules: using rich media/podcast lecture recordings to enhance the preclinical  
educational experience. Medical Teacher, 30(6), 630-632. doi:  
10.1080/01421590802144302  
 
Rainsbury, J. W., & McDonnell, S. M. (2006). Podcasts: an educational revolution in the  
making? Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(9), 481-482. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.9.481 
 
Read, B. (2007). How to Podcast Campus Lectures. Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(21),  
A32.  
 
Reynolds, P. A., Mason, R., & Eaton, K. A. (2008). Webcasting: casting the web more widely.  
British Dental Journal, 204(3), 145-149. doi: 10.1038/bdj.2008.55 
 
Rowell, M. R., Corl, F. M., Johnson, P. T., & Fishman, E. K. (2006). Internet-based  
dissemination of educational audiocasts: a primer in podcasting--how to do it. AJR. American  
Journal of Roentgenology, 186(6), 1792-1796. doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.1315  
 
Ruiz, J. G., Mintzer, M. J., & Leipzig, R. M. (2006). The impact of e-learning in medical  
education. Acad Med, 81(3), 207-212.  
 



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

88 

Schlairet, M. C. (2010). Efficacy of Podcasting: Use in Undergraduate and Graduate Programs in  
a College of Nursing. Journal of Nursing Education, 1-5. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20100524-08  
 
Schreiber, B. E., Fukuta, J., & Gordon, F. (2010). Live lecture versus video podcast in  
undergraduate medical education: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Medical Education, 10,  
68. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-68 
 
Shantikumar, S. (2009). From lecture theatre to portable media: students' perceptions of an  
enhanced podcast for revision. Medical Teacher, 31(6), 535-538. 
doi:10.1080/01421590802365584  
 
Stiffler, D., Stoten, S., & Cullen, D. (2010). Podcasting as an Instructional Supplement to Online  
Learning: A Pilot Study. Computers, Informatics, Nursing : CIN.  
doi:10.1097/NCN.0b013e3181fc3fdf 
 
Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding Technology Adoption: Theory and Future Directions for  
Informal Learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625-649.  
doi: 10.3102/0034654308325896 
 
Su Luan, W., & Hanafi, A. (2007). Gender Differences in Attitudes towards Information  
Technology among Malaysian Student Teachers: A Case Study at Universiti Putra Malaysia.  
[Article]. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 158-169.  
 
Vogt, M., Schaffner, B., Ribar, A., & Chavez, R. (2010). The impact of podcasting on the  
learning and satisfaction of undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Education in Practice, 10(1),  
38-42. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2009.03.006 
 
Walmsley, A. D., Lambe, C. S., Perryer, D. G., & Hill, K. B. (2009). Podcasts--an adjunct to the  
teaching of dentistry. British Dental Journal, 206(3), 157-160. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.58 
 
Zanussi, L., Paget, M., Tworek, J., & McLaughlin, K. (2011). Podcasting in medical education:  
can we turn this toy into an effective learning tool? Advances in Health Sciences Education:  
Theory and Practice. doi: 10.1007/s10459-011-9300-9 
 
 

  



Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 2014. 
jotlt.indiana.edu	
  

89 

Appendix A. Software packages identified by faculty respondents 

Software Name  # of users 

Accordant   3 
Adobe Captive  8 
Adobe Connect  62 
Adobe Presenter  31 
Apple Podcast Producer 3 
Camtasia   2 
Echo 360   1 
Elluminate   1 
iShowU, Quicktime Pro 1 
Lecturnity   1 
Mediasite   13 
Perfect Meeting  1 
ProfCast   14 
Snapkast   10 
Wirecast   2	
  


