You are here:

Exploring tablet PC lectures: Lecturer experiences and student perceptions in biomedicine

, , , Monash University

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Volume 30, Number 2, ISSN 0814-673X Publisher: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education


Lecturers using tablet PCs with specialised pens can utilise real-time changes in lecture delivery via digital inking. We investigated student perceptions and lecturer experiences of tablet PC lectures in large-enrolment biomedicine subjects. Lecturers used PowerPoint or Classroom Presenter software for lecture preparation and in-lecture pen-based inking. Using surveys and lecturer interviews, students and lecturers were asked to reflect on their tablet PC lectures in comparison to non-tablet lectures that used prepared images and a laser pointer. Quantitative survey responses suggested that students felt that the tablet lectures were more interesting, that they were more capable of keeping up with the lecturer, and they enhanced their understanding of the lecture content. Qualitative analysis of written comments indicated that students appreciated the real-time writing and drawings, particularly because these were visible on lecture recordings. When reflecting on their non-tablet lectures, most lecturers used the pen-based writing, drawing and highlighting tablet functions and reduced lecture pace and content for their tablet lectures. Long-term tablet use led to lecturers making more use of digital inking, with less use of prepared images. Our results support the idea that tablet PC-supported lectures are conducive to improved management of cognitive load via reduced lecture pace and content.


Choate, J., Kotsanas, G. & Dawson, P. (2014). Exploring tablet PC lectures: Lecturer experiences and student perceptions in biomedicine. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(2),. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Anderson, R., Anderson, R., McDowell, L., & Simon, B. (2005). Use of classroom presenter in engineering courses. Proceedings of the 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, USARetrieved from
  2. Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research& Development, 31(6), 759-772.
  3. Carlson, R., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 629-640.
  4. Clark, J. (2008). PowerPoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest in university lectures. College Teaching, 56(1), 39-45.
  5. Clark, R.C. (2010). Evidence-based training methods: A guide for training professionals. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training& Development.
  6. Cox, J.R. (2011). Enhancing student interactions with the instructor and content using pen-based technology, YouTube videos, and virtual conferencing. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(1), 4-9.
  7. Dawson, P. (2010). Networked interactive whiteboards: Rationale, affordances and new pedagogies for regional Australian higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(4), 523533.
  8. Derting, T.R., & Cox, J.R. (2008). Using a tablet PC to enhance student engagement and learning in an introductory organic chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(12), 1638-1643.
  9. Felder, R.M., & Silverman, L.K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674-681.
  10. Ginns, P. (2005). Meta-analysis of the modality effect. Learning and Instruction, 15(4), 313-331.
  11. Grainger, S., Kestell, C., & Willis, C. (2011). Staff and student perceptions of the effective use of contemporary lecture theatre technology. Proceedings of the 2011 AAEE Conference, Fremantle, Australia, 607-611. Retrieved from PDF/INDEXSCR.PDF.
  12. Hargis, J., Cavanaugh, C., Kamali, T., & Soto, M. (2013). A federal higher education iPad mobile learning initiative: Triangulation of data to determines early effectiveness. Innovative Higher Education, 39(1), 1-13.
  13. Henderson, U., & Pike, S.M. (2012). The iPad guarantee: information literacy, the library and a reinvigorated undergraduate science program. VALA Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
  14. Higgins, S., Beauchamp, G., & Miller, D. (2007). Reviewing the literature on interactive whiteboards. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 213-225.
  15. Jakee, K. (2011). Overhauling technical handouts for active student participation: a model for improving lecture efficiency and increasing attendance. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 98-108.
  16. Johnson, A.E. (2008). Digital ink: In-class annotation of powerpoint lectures. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(5), 655-657.
  17. Kam, M., Wang, J., Iles, A., Chiu, J., Glaser, D., Tarshish, O., & Canny, J. (2005). Livenotes: A system for cooperative and augmented note-taking in lectures. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, USA, 531-539. Retrieved from
  18. Kiewa, K.A. (1985). Investigating notetaking and review: A depth of processing alternative. Educational Psychologist, 20(1), 23-32.
  19. Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
  20. Lim, K.Y. (2011). What does the Tablet PC mean to you? A phenomenological research. Innovations in Education and Teaching, 48(3), 323-333.
  21. Lumkes, J.H. (2010). Survey of three different methods of delivering engineering content in lectures. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(3), 249-366.
  22. Mock, K. (2004). Teaching with Tablet PC’S. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 20, 17-27.
  23. Palmer, C., & Creagh, S. (2012, December 20). Free ‘trinkets’ while courses cut: union condemns UWS iPads plan, The Conversation. Retrieved from
  24. Peverley, S.T., Ramaswamy, V., Brown, C., Sumowksi, J., Alidoost, M. & Garner, J. (2007). What predicts skill in lecture notetaking? Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 167-180.
  25. Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65-73.
  26. Thomas, D.R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
  27. Tilbrook, A. (2010). Impact of tablet-based teaching on student learning outcomes and engagement. The Australasian Tablets in Education Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from
  28. Tintarev, K., & Rydén, J. (2010). Teaching with digital inkboards. Retrieved from
  29. Titsworth, B.S., & Kiewa, K.A. (2004). Spoken organizational lecture cues and student notetaking as facilitators of student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 447-461.
  30. Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. York: The Higher Education Academy.
  31. Van Oosteveen, R., & Muirhead, W. (2007). Faculty use of tablet computers at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 33(1).
  32. Weitz, R., Wachsmuth, B., & Mirliss, D. (2006). The Tablet PC for faculty: A pilot project. Educational Technology& Society, 9(2), 68-83.
  33. Yoon, C., & Sneddon, J. (2011). Student perceptions of effective use of tablet PC recorded lectures in undergraduate mathematics courses. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(4), 425-445.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact