Untethered Lecture Capture (ULC), a technology-enhanced teaching strategy, permits faculty to be freely mobile in the classroom (untethered) while simultaneously teaching and creating audiovisual media assets (lecture capture). Faculty, representing nine disciplines, implemented ULC in undergraduate courses. Qualitative content analysis resulted in three themes. Undergraduate participants (n = 23) reported ULC supports accessibility and education affordances, enhancing personalized, self-paced learning, and equal opportunities for academic success. Untethered faculty teach on our turf, teaching among rather than talking at students, enhancing time-on-task, in-class focus, and learner socialization. Understanding and retention were perceived as improved when multimedia instruction principles were integrated in the classroom.
EloS.KyngasH. (2007).
The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
62(1), 107–115. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
5.
FonteynM. E. (2008).
Developing a codebook to guide content analysis of expressive writing transcripts. Applied Nursing Research,
21(3), 165–168.
6.
FreedP.BertramJ.McLaughlinD. (2014).
Using lecture capture: A qualitative study of nursing faculty’s experience. Nurse Education Today,
34, 598–602.
7.
GroenJ.QuigleyB.HerryY. (2016).
Examining the use of lecture capture technology: Implications for teaching and learning. The Canadian Journal for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
7(1), 8.
8.
LambertV.LambertC. (2012).
Descriptive qualitative research: An acceptable design. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research,
16(4), 255–256.
9.
LumkesJ. (2010).
Survey of three different methods of delivering engineering content in lectures. Journal of Educational Technology Systems,
38(3), 349–366.
10.
MacQueenK.McLellanE.KayK.MilsteinB. (1998).
Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods,
10(2), 31–36.
11.
MarchandJ. P.PearsonM.AlbonS. (2014).
Student and faculty member perspectives on lecture capture in pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,
78(4), 74.
12.
MayerR. (2008).
Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist,
63(8), 760–769. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.769
13.
MayerR.FiorellaL. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity principles. In MayerR. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 279–315).
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
14.
NashashH.GunnC. (2013).
Lecture capture in engineering classes: Bridging gaps and enhancing learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
16(1), 69–78.
15.
ParkB.MorenoR.SeufertT.BrunkenR. (2011).
Does cognitive load moderate the seductive details effect? A multimedia study. Computers in Human Behavior,
27, 5–10.
16.
PlummerP. (2017).
Focus group methodology. Part 1: Design considerations. International Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation,
24(7), 297–301. doi:10.12968/ijtr.2017.24.7.297
