## 2 Results  
In the current study, a pedagogical tool was used to complement the lecture component of a 3 rd year undergraduate Molecular Biology course. The pedagogical tool consisted of learning objectives (questions) listed at the end of each lecture, and answers to those objectives in video format were made available to students online [20]. Using online tracking tools, a total of 7046 views were recorded for all 77 videos. The number of daily views of the videos during the complete academic term is illustrated in Figure 1. The two peaks in the number of views correspond exactly to the dates of examinations; first exam was held on 1 October 2013 (831 views), the second was held on 5 November 2013 (459 views). Expectedly, more views were recorded at the time of the first examination, since more videos were posted before this examination (47 _vs._ 30; Table 1). The pedagogical tool was not used by the faculty member teaching the third section of the course; hence, no viewing activity was detected during that period. A survey was designed to assess students' usage and perceptions of the learning tool; 64 students or 90.1% completed the survey. Based on the survey, the majority of the students (98.4%) found the videos to be useful and to promote understanding of the material presented in class. Students' usage patterns of the online videos are summarized in Table 2. Most students (73.4%) accessed all the videos, and about 80% watched more than half the videos. Very few students (3%) admitted to having watched the videos instead of attending class on at least one occasion. The majority of students watched several videos at a time, with 67.7% watching six or more videos in one sitting. All participants agreed that they liked having the option to control the pace and/or repeat sections of the videos. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Lecture title (number of lectures)**} & **Faculty member** & **Number of videos** \\ \hline DNA structure and chemistry & A & 8 \\ Genome organization & A & 9 \\ DNA replication & A & 11 \\ DNA repair & A & 8 \\ DNA recombination (2) & A & 10 \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**First examination**} \\ \hline Control gene expression in prokaryotes & A & 11 \\ Control gene expression in phage lambda & A & 9 \\ Protein synthesis and the genetic code (2) & A & 10 \\ Transcription in prokaryotes & B & 0 \\ Transcription in eukaryotes & B & 0 \\ Control of gene expression in eukaryotes: regulatory proteins & B & 0 \\ Control of gene expression in eukaryotes: & B & 0 \\ Combinatorial control & B & 0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Second examination**} \\ \hline Control of gene expression in eukaryotes: DNA methylation & B & 0 \\ Control of gene expression in eukaryotes: translational control & B & 0 \\ Maturation and transport of RNA & C & 0 \\ Regulatory RNA & C & 0 \\ Mobile genetic elements & C & 0 \\ Genetic control of the immunoglobulin locus (2) & C & 0 \\ Methods to measure gene expression & C & 0 \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Final examination**} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Structure of the molecular biology course. Figure 1: Daily numbers of views of the videos during the complete academic term. An important question we sought to address was whether the students were using the pedagogical tool as it was intended. Students were advised to first answer the learning objectives and then watch the videos to evaluate the content of their answers. Interestingly, approximately half of the students (53.1%) always or most of the time used the pedagogical tool as recommended, and consistently answered the learning objectives before watching the videos (Figure 2). A substantial proportion of students (37%) followed the instructions only sometimes, while about 10% never attempted to solve the learning objectives before accessing the videos. Next, we wanted to assess whether or not using the professor's voice in the videos was important to students.