The review finds that, although interactivity may not be critical for achieving information transfer comparable to that in face-to-face instruction with most types of classes, its use may still be important in promoting positive attitudes towards distance education by participants. It may also be useful for distance classes that would benefit from interactivity in a face-to-face situation.
The system proposed by the committee consists of video, audio and data systems operating using a Ku Band satellite system that allows easy federal licensing. The four Public TV stations and the major campuses would have high quality video uplinks. Other sites would have smaller uplinks capable of either audio and teleconference quality video or just audio and data. This building block system would allow sites to have just the capabilities they need but then to expand as needs and funding allow. Governor Hickel is expected to request additional planning funds for Fiscal Year 95 to complete the system design.
A major concern for educational use of this system is the level and type of interactivity between the instructor and students. Although full two-way video is often considered the ultimate in distance education, it substantially increases the cost for equipment and for operation of a delivery system. Is the cost justified? "The cost of making an inappropriate choice of an instructional delivery system increases with the sophistication. It is more critical than ever to make informed choices" (Pugh, Parchman & Simpson, 1992, p. 46). Does the method and level of interactivity of the distance delivery medium influence the effectiveness of that system for education? This literature review attempts to answer that question and provide guidelines for the final design of the system.
Although newer technologies receive most of the attention, print is still the most common method of Distance Education (Moldstad, 1984). In Indonesia, for example, 100,000 students participated in a print-based system, with as many as 5,000 in a single class (Setijadi, 1988). Print is cheap and available where telephones and other media are not reliable or do not exist.
Worldwide, 10 million people used distance education of some kind in 1992. Of those, 500,000 were in the US (Hyatt, 1992).
The State of Alaska became involved in distance education in 1936 when it purchased correspondence courses for use by remote students (Willis, 1992). Twice in the 1970s, Alaska moved to the forefront of distance education technology. In 1971, two-way audio and data served 26 communities using the ATS-1 experimental satellite (Willis, 1992). For several months in 1975, the ATS-6 satellite was positioned to serve 15 communities with full-color, one-way video and multi-channel, multi-lingual audio with interactive audio via satellite. This was before many of these villages had telephone service. The federally funded project showed that interactive satellite communication was practical in Alaska (PCI, 1976).
Alaska again became a leader in distance education technology in the early 1980s with the establishment of the Learn Alaska Network. A full-time, one-way satellite video channel fed 250 receiving sites that rebroadcast the signal on a regular television channel. A separate audioconferencing system, using the public telephone network, was also established. Both systems were used by the University of Alaska, the State Department of Education in cooperation with local school districts and by state government (Fargnoli, 1984). The satellite video system was shut-down in 1987 due to declining state revenues, a lack of a clear mission and little public or political support. The audioconferencing system and a parallel system, rebroadcasting Anchorage entertainment TV, continues in operation (Willis, 1992).
Today, the University of Alaska System delivers hundreds of distance delivered courses using video, audio, data and print (Willis, 1992). Audioconferencing predominates for interactive classes because it "is convenient, effective, and easy to use" (p. 69). The Anchorage, Juneau and Fairbanks campuses also use satellites to deliver one-way video, sometimes using telephone circuits for return audio. The University of Alaska Computer Network is used both to support other classes and as the main delivery method for several University of Alaska Southeast courses.
Many studies conclude that there is little or not difference in the effectiveness of distance education in comparison to face-to-face instruction, regardless of the medium used (Kumata, 1960a; Ellis & Curless, 1986; Gibson, 1990; Stone, 1990; Sparkes, 1983; Kitchen & Kitchen, 1987; Parker & Monson, 1980). Azarmsa (1993) agrees for business, military and adult students but feels that research on K-12 has not been conclusive and that there have been too few long-term evaluations.
Ellis and Mathis list eleven more studies that show little or no difference (1985), as did the 100 studies reviewed by Whittington (1987). Holmes (1960) reported that out of 281 comparisons, he found 246 showed little or no difference. Although some studies claim there are differences (Shavelson, et al, 1986; Walker, 1991; Walker & Hackman, 1992; Hudspeth, 1986; Kumata, 1960b), the preponderance of evidence would seem to indicate that the medium is not important. Since few differences are found between various types of distance education media, including those using one-way and those using two-way technologies, and face-to-face instruction, we could assume that two-way technologies are not important.
But there are problems with the research. Lipsky (1984) claims that, after decades of study, we still do not understand the potential of instructional television. And little research has specifically addressed interactive video (Cennamo, Savenye & Smith, 1991).
Short, Williams and Christie (1976) feel that, because "of the number of possible confounding factors and the difficulties in assessing effectiveness, any conclusion . . . as to whether or not there is any difference between face-to-face and televised presentations is probably unjustified" (p. 88).
Hackman and Walker (1990) question the use of students' grades as the primary means of evaluating distance education performance. They feel there are too many confounding factors, such as attendance, oral and written communications skills and attitudes. These may be evaluated by the instructor differently in face-to-face and distance education. Parker and Monson (1980) feel that the typical small sample creates the risk of errors of the second type.
Distant students may also be different than face-to-face students. Hough suggests they are an "elite student group, in motivational terms" (1984, p. 19). Gutenko (1991) wonders if the lack of difference is due to distance education weeding out all but the most motivated.
The better "controlled" studies use distance techniques with students chosen randomly from the same population, often with the "distant" students in a different room, but still essentially local (see, for example, Ellis and Mathis, 1985). There is little reason to assume these normally face-to-face students represent the typical distant student that is essentially self-selecting (Shavelson, et al, 1986).
Studies with truly distant students have other control problems, especially when compared to live, interactive classes. If the instruction is not simultaneous, variations in presentation need to be accounted for. If it is simultaneous, the fact that local students can have personal interaction with the teacher before and after class -- in addition to different types of verbal and non-verbal interaction during class (Willis, 1992) -- is rarely accounted for.
Other studies claiming to measure instructional value of distance education methods are actually measuring the students' attitude towards it (see, for example, Walker & Hackman, 1992). Attitude is important, since it helps determine if a student will take a course, both initially and subsequently. Students and faculty tend to evaluate distance classes that include interaction more highly than those with little or no interaction (Kumata, 1960b; Morehouse, Hoaglund & Schmidt, 1987). The availability of video interaction tends to cause more positive evaluations of the learning experience than the availability of audio interaction, and audio availability more positive evaluations than no interaction (Ryan, 1975; Short, Williams & Christie, 1976). But attitude does not seem to have an effect on the academic performance of those students who DO start and complete distance education courses (Stone, 1990; Schramm, 1977).
Even though interactivity is available and liked, that does not mean it will be used (Kumata, 1960a). Part of the problem may be how well interaction works. With large classes, only a small percentage of students may ever get the chance to ask a question or make a comment. With two-way video, an instructor may not be able to see enough detail to even recognize students (Larson, 1991).
Some may feel, like Schramm (1977), that since "we are talking about learning, not liking..." that we should not worry about attitudes when performance is not affected. Most will agree, however, that attitude is important, especially with adult learners who can easily choose not to attend (Hough, 1984).
We regard Social Presence as being a quality of the communications medium. Although we would expect it to affect the way individuals perceive their discussions, and their relationships to the persons with whom they are communicating, it is important to emphasize that we are defining Social Presence as a quality of the medium itself. We hypothesize that communications media vary in their degree of Social Presence, and that these variations are important in determining the way individuals interact. We also hypothesize that the users of any given communications medium are in some sense aware of the degree of Social Presence of the medium and tend to avoid using the medium for certain types of interactions; specifically, interactions requiring a higher degree of Social Presence than they perceive the medium to have. Thus we believe that Social Presence is an important key to understanding person-to-person telecommunications. It varies between different media, it affects the nature of the interaction and it interacts with the purpose of the interaction to influence the medium chosen by the individual who wishes to communicate (p. 65).
They discuss studies that have rated the Social Presence of different forms of interaction. Two-way video and face-to-face encounters have similar Social Presence factors, while speaker phone encounters have a much lower factor. An interesting effect is how a multi-speaker system, where each distant person is heard through a separate speaker, has a Social Presence between the two-way/face-to-face and speaker phone levels (Christie, 1973).
Another important concept is that of the appropriateness of the media for the task at hand. In an experiment comparing the transmission of information using different media, Champness and Reid (1970) found no differences. Davies (1971), in another information transfer study, did find one difference: a teletype was more effective (although slower) than face-to-face. Short, et al., comment "that since information transmission does not require a close interpersonal relationship to be successful, then we will find no effect of medium of communication for such tasks" (p. 82).
The following is a summary of their guidelines:
They claim:
Differences between face-to-face communication and the other media have generally been found to be small; a result which is not unexpected owing to the fact that the face-to-face communication has often been for essentially non-interactive tasks (p. 159).
Although distance education -- with or without interactivity -- is just as effective in transferring information as face-to-face classes, interactivity might add value in both situations. While a detailed examination is beyond the scope of this review, there is evidence to indicate that student action of any type during the learning process (but not necessarily simultaneous to a lecture-type presentation) increases the effectiveness of the instruction (Slaton & Lacefield, 1991; Ho, 1991). In fact, for some students, live, interactive classes may be less effective because of scheduling problems or because they can not "rewind the tape" to review (Gee, 1991; Stone, 1990; Kitchen & Kitchen, 1987).
Telephone, FAX, electronic mail, electronic conferencing and written correspondence are examples of interactivity that can take place away from the main class presentations. A recent use of computer technology in Kentucky may offer cost efficient interaction capabilities that allow all students to participate during classroom presentations. Each student has a small keypad that allows him/her to respond to questions by the instructor. The data is quickly compiled by computer and can be displayed by the instructor over a video or graphics-capable audio or data link. Individual student results can be tracked, if desired (Slaton & Lacefield, 1991).
Any new system, then, should allow flexibility, allowing the most appropriate technology and levels of interactivity for both instructional effectiveness and student appeal. It also needs to be sensitive to social and cultural needs. UNESCO has blamed blind use of a western model of distance education for the reported failure of the previously mentioned Indonesian system (Dunbar, 1991). The Ivory Coast reportedly disbanded a system because distance education was thought of "as somehow second-best" (Block, 1984, p. 115).
The quality and effectiveness of distance learning are determined by the quality of the educational program being transmitted and the selection of the appropriate technologies to transmit the instruction (Azarmsa, 1993, p. 170).
Accomando, R. (1992). Reaching the children of the video age.Momentum, 23(1), 67-69.
Azarmsa, E. (1993). Telecommunications: A Handbook for Educators.New York: Garland Publishing.
Barker, B. (1987). Interactive instructional television viasatellite: A first year evaluation of the TI-IN Network. Journal of Rural and Small Schools, 2(1), 18-23.
Block, C. (1984). Pacing factors in the adoption of communication technologies for education. In W. Blume & P. Schneller, (Eds.), Toward International Tele-Education (pp. 115-120). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Cennamo, K., Savenye, W. & Smith, P. (1991). Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(1), 5-16.
Champness, B. & Reid, A. (1970). The efficiency of information transmission: A preliminary comparison between face-to-face meetings and the telephone. (Unpublished Communications Studies Group paper P/70240/CH.) Cited in J. Short, E. Williams & B. Christie (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Christie, B. (1973). Appendix M, in P. Goldmark et al., The 1972/73 New Rural Society Project, Fairfield University, Connecticut. Cited in J. Short, E. Williams & B Christie (1976) The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Croft, M. (1990). The development of adult distance education. International Review of Education, 38(2), 189-193.
Crofts, A. (1991). Television--Business tool of the future. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(7), 17-21.
Davies, M. (1971). Communication effectiveness as a function of mode. (Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Waterloo.) Cited in J. Short, E. Williams & B. Christie (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Dunbar, R. (1991). Adapting distance education for Indonesians: Problems with learner heteronomy and a strong oral tradition. Distance Education, 12(2), 163-173.
Ellis, L. & Curless, I. (1986). A survey of video taped course offering in higher education. College and University, 61(3), 212-17.
Ellis, L & Mathis, D. (1985). College student learning from televised versus conventional classroom lectures: A controlled experiment. Higher Education, 14(2), 165-173.
Fargnoli, A. (1984). The Learn/Alaska Network: An Educational Telecommunications System. Alaska State Senate: Rural Research Agency.
Gee, T. (1991). Program equity in Alberta's small rural schools. Distance Education, 12(2), 175-190.
Gibson, C. (1990). Learners and learning: A discussion of selected research. In M. Moore (Ed), Contemporary Issues in American Distance Education (pp. 121-135). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Gutenko, G. (1991). Penetrating the glass wall: Creating and retaining the interactive illusion in televised distance education. (A paper presented at the Canadian Communications Association Conference, Kingston, Ontario.) ERIC, ED 337 154.
Hackman, M. & Walker, K. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39(July), 196-206.
Henschke, J. (1991). Innovating with telecommunications. Adult Learning, 2(4), 9-10.
Ho, C. (1991). Instructional Strategies for Interactive Television. Journal of Special Education Technology, XI(2), 91-98.
Holmes, P. (1960). Research in the Teaching-Learning Process. New York: NETRC. Cited in Kumata, H. (1960a). A decade of teaching by TV. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The Impact of Educational Television (pp. 176-185). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Hough, M. (1984). Motivation of adults: Implications of adult learning theories for distance education. Distance Education, 5(1), 7-22.
Hudspeth, D. (1986). Instructional Telecommunications. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Hyatt, S. (1992). Developing and managing a multi-modal distance learning program in the two-year college. (A paper presented to the 14th Annual International Conference of the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development on Teaching Excellence and Conference of Administrators, Austin, TX.) ERIC, ED 349 068
Kirkland, G. (1982). 'Tis distance lends enchantment.... Media in Education and Development, 15(4), 162-164.
Kitchen, K. & Kitchen, W. (1987). Two-way Interactive Television for Distance Learning. A Primer. Alexandria, VA: National School Board Association.
Kumata, H. (1960a). A decade of teaching by TV. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The Impact of Educational Television (pp. 176-185). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kumata, H. (1960b). Two studies in classroom teaching by television. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The Impact of Educational Television (pp. 151-175). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Larson, M. (1991). The focus is on interactive TV. Communication: Journalism Education Today, 24(4), 6-8.
Lipsky, D. (1984). The effectiveness of televised instruction on student achievement. Focus on Learning, 10(2), 50-58.
Moldstad, J. (1984). What we know about using communication technologies in Education. In W. Blume & P. Schneller (Eds.), Toward International Tele-Education (pp. 59-76). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Morehouse, D., Hoaglund, M. & Schmidt, R. (1987). Interactive television findings, issues and recommendations. An analysis based on evaluation of Minnesota's Technology Demonstration Program. Minneapolis: Tele-Systems Associates. Appendix H in K. Kitchen & W. Kitchen (1987), Two-way Interactive Television for Distance Learning. A Primer. Alexandria, VA: National School Board Association.
Parker, L. (1980). Teleconferencing as an educational medium: A ten year perspective from the University of Wisconsin- Extension. In M. Monson, L. Parker, B. Riccomini (Eds.), A Design for Interactive Audio, Second Printing (pp. 39-64). Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin-Extension.
Parker, L. & Monson, M. (1980). More Than Meets the Eye. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension.
PCI. (1976). Implications of the Alaska Education Satellite Communications Demonstration for Telecommunications & Educational Policymakers: Executive Summary & supplement. Washington, DC: Practical Concepts Incorporated.
Price, M. (1991). Designing video classrooms. Adult Learning, 2(4), 15-19.
Pugh, H., Parchman, S. & Simpson, H. (1992). Video telecommunications for distance education: A field survey of systems in US public education, industry and the military. Distance Education, 13(1), 46-64.
Ryan, M. (1975). Intergroup Telecommunication: The influence of communication medium and role induced status level on mood, and attitudes towards the medium and discussion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communications Association, Chicago, IL. Cited in M. Monson, L. Parker, B. Riccomini (Eds.), (1980), A Design for Interactive Audio, Second Printing (p 153). Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin-Extension.
Schramm, W. (1977). Big Media, Little Media: Tools and Techniques for Instruction. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Setijadi. (1988). Indonesia: Universitas Terbuka. Prospects, XVIII(3), 189-197.
Shavelson, R., Stasz, C., Schlossman, S., Webb, N., Hotta, J. & Goldstein, S. (1986). Evaluating Student Outcomes from Telecourse Instruction. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Short, J., Williams, E. & Christie, B. (1976). The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Slaton, D. & Lacefield, W. (1991). Use of an interactive telecommunications network to deliver in-service education. Journal of Special Education Technology, XI(2), 64-74.
Sparkes, J. (1983). The problem of creating a discipline of Distance Education. Distance Education, 4(2), 179-186.
Stone, H. (1990). Economic development and technology transfer: Implications for video-based distance education. In M. Moore (Ed), Contemporary Issues in American Distance Education (pp. 231-242). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Walker, K. & Hackman, M. (1991). Information transfer and nonverbal immediacy as primary predictors of learning and satisfaction in the televised course. (A paper submitted to the Speech Communication Association Convention, Atlanta, GA.) ERIC, ED 344 266.
Walker, K. & Hackman, M. (1992). Multiple predictors of perceived learning and satisfaction: The importance of information transfer and nonverbal immediacy in the televised course. Distance Education, 13(1), 81-92.
Whittington, N. (1987). Is instructional television educationally effective? A research review. American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 47-57.
Willis, B. (1992). Effective Distance Education: A Primer for Faculty and Administrators. Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska System.
Return to GLOSAS News Contents for this issue.
URL: http://library.fortlewis.edu/~instruct/glosas/alaska52.htm
August, 1995
GLOSAS NEWS was orinally posted to the WWW at URL: http://library.fortlewis.edu/~instruct/glosas/cont.htm by Tina Evans Greenwood, Library Instruction Coordinator, Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado 81301, e-mail: greenwood_t@fortlewis.edu, and last updated May 7, 1999. By her permission the whole Website has been archived here at the University of Tennessee server directory of GLOSAS Chair Dr. Takeshi Utsumi from July 10, 2000 by Steve McCarty in Japan.