Exam‐level analysis of lecture capture viewing and student exam performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lecture capture (LC) systems offer students flexible review of lecture content, but their impact on learning outcomes remains mixed. LC engagement and exam performance were analyzed in three in-person courses with LC videos posted for review, each with three lecture blocks and three independent noncumulative exams. Zoom analytics and exam grade data were collected for 299 students across 982 noncumulative exam observations. Four LC metrics were derived per exam: total view duration, number of lectures viewed, number of unique views, and days between access and exam. Average exam scores were compared between LC viewers (n = 216) and nonviewers (n = 83): LC viewers scored significantly higher than nonviewers (66.1% vs. 59.4%). A linear mixed-effects model with student-level random intercepts showed opposing effects of total viewing time (+1.74% per hour) and number of lectures viewed (-1.92% per lecture), implying that average LC view duration per lecture (total minutes watched ÷ lectures viewed) was the strongest predictor of exam score. A post hoc median split of average LC view duration per lecture indicated an 8.02% higher score for students above the median. Decomposition of total LC view time revealed a between-student effect on exam grade (+2.52% per hour) and a within-student effect (-0.84% per hour), showing that spikes above a student's own average view time are associated with a lower exam grade. These findings align with self-regulated learning theory, demonstrating that while greater LC viewing time generally benefits performance, its impact depends on strategic, habitual engagement rather than episodic cramming.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".