Lessons from Delivering Instruction In an Interactive Video-Based Classroom
Trey Martindale
Prepared for the Conference Proceedings of The Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Denver, Colorado. October, 2000
Abstract
Distance education is growing very rapidly, and one form of distance education is two-way interactive video. This qualitative pilot study presents findings from interviews conducted with instructors who taught in a new interactive video classroom. Instructor responses are condensed and summarized. Responses include instructor insights on: student perceptions; instructor skills required; teaching methods used; obstacles to overcome; and technical considerations.
In the last few years of the 20th century institutions of higher education have moved toward delivering instruction via distance education -- the separation of the instructor and learner by time and/or location. While distance education is not a new phenomenon, the decreasing cost and subsequent ubiquity of telecommunications equipment, computers, and networks has made distance education a more attractive option. This option may appear favorable to innovative instructors, fiscally conscious administrators, and students who cannot attend a residential campus (Moore and Kearsley, 1996). The opportunity to reach new educational "markets" has encouraged higher education institutions to pursue various modes of distance delivery. One such delivery mode involves two-way interactive compressed video. This pilot study will describe instructor obstacles, insights, and lessons learned from course delivery in an interactive two-way video environment.
Program History and Description
In 1998 the University of West Florida began course delivery via two-way interactive video. The University constructed two classrooms -- one at the main campus and one at a branch campus 75 miles away. These classrooms were equipped with VTEL video cameras, microphones, and telecommunications equipment to enable two-way transmission of real-time compressed video and audio signals. This system was meant to replace the practice of instructors commuting to and from the main and branch campuses for teaching, advising, and related student support services. The student population at branch campus was growing, with an increasing demand for courses and degree programs. Table 1 shows a chronology of significant developmental events.
Table 1
1993 UWF Instructional Technology department seeks funds for video-based classroom
1997 Main and branch classrooms constructed and connected
1998 Video-based course delivery begins
1999 Web-based course delivery begins
Each of the classrooms was entitled the Interactive Distance Learning Studio (IDLS), as a means of identifying the unique distance education environment associated with the classrooms. Table 2 shows the equipment installed in the two IDLS classrooms.
Table 2
Two cameras -- one focused on the instructor and one focused on the students
Large video monitor at the front of the classroom enabling the local students to see the remote students (see Figure 1)
Large video monitor at the front of the classroom displaying what the remote students were seeing (camera view) (see Figure 1)
Large video monitor at the rear of the classroom enabling the instructor to see the remote students (see Figure 2)
Desk-based microphones for each student
Microphone and camera tracking device worn by instructor
Twenty networked microcomputers
Figure 1: View of the local and remote students in the IDLS
Figure 2: View from the rear of the IDLS, showing the remote students
The initial courses offered in the IDLS were taught by the Instructional Technology (IT) department faculty. This administrative decision was based on the premise that the IT faculty would be more willing and motivated to use the telecommunications technology for course delivery. Also a facilitator was provided for each interactive video course. The facilitator supervised the remote site during each class meeting and provided technical and instructional support to the course instructor.
Methods
This pilot study consisted of interviews with the instructors at the conclusion of the first semester of classes delivered via interactive video. The interviews were all conducted by the author, and were designed to elicit primarily qualitative information about the teaching experience. The interview questions were structured as follows:
1. What technical considerations were involved in teaching in this environment?
2. What is required of students in this environment?
3. How did the facilitator contribute to the instructional environment?
4. What teaching styles or strategies did you employ in this environment? How was this different from a conventional course?
5. What insights or recommendations can you offer to instructors teaching via interactive video?
Results and Discussion
The following is a condensed summary of the instructor responses to the interview questions.
1. What technical considerations were involved in teaching in this environment?
In terms of technical considerations, instructors raised several issues. The need for practice and skill in addressing the camera (and therefore the remote site) was commonly mentioned. Addressing a camera while teaching was an unnatural activity and required behavior modification on the instructor's part. Similarly, interacting with remote students was a challenge. There was a perceived lack of immediacy in addressing and responding to the remote students on the video monitor, as opposed to the physically present local students. Also instructors needed training in operating and switching the cameras (from instructor to students) via the touchpad. Remembering to switch the views at appropriate times was also a challenge. Instructors had to manage and deal with possible technical difficulties with the wearable tracking microphone, the camera touchpad, the document camera, and a computer-based presentation.
2. What is required of students in this environment?
Interaction with the instructor and remote students were the key issues here. In this type of environment, students must always use the desk-mounted personal microphone for interaction with peers or the instructor. Otherwise the remote site is excluded. This requirement often limited or silenced interaction, particularly short comments or witticisms. Short comments may be perceived as not worth making, weighed against having to wait for the instructor to recognize and get the camera switched to the student. Students had to adjust to being on camera and seeing themselves on the video monitors. Whenever a student wanted to make a comment, he or she had to be prepared for the camera to automatically turn and zoom in for a close-up. This video attention may have discouraged shy students from participating. Interacting with distant students was unnatural, and the technical and time requirements to involve remote students had the potential to create resentment with the local students.
3. How did the facilitator contribute to the instructional environment?
The facilitator evidently is a very important factor in determining the quality of the experience of the remote students. It is highly desirable that the facilitator has subject matter, as well as technical expertise. The facilitator supports the remote students by clarifying parts of the instruction, distributing materials, maintaining order, and encouraging interaction. Interestingly the remote students may develop a closer affiliation with the facilitator than with the course instructor, and this must be considered. The facilitator was often a comfort to students in this new and unfamiliar environment. For remote students, the facilitator is perceived as "theirs".
4. What teaching styles or strategies did you employ in this environment? How was this different from a conventional course?
Much more instructional planning was needed, including planning for any instructional materials to be available at both sites. Entire meetings needed be scripted like a stage play, including interaction within and between sites. Some instructors perceived that they "needed to be more linear" in their lecturing style, due to the video medium. A common remark was that it was much less effective to "wing it" -- that is, deliver unplanned or less formal presentations. Many instructors indicated they questioned students by name, rather than using open-ended questioning techniques. Open-ended questions went unanswered, possibly due to reluctance of students to draw camera attention to themselves. Instructors attempted inter-location discussion and collaboration via video in class and asynchronous Web discussion outside of class. Some instructors attempted to be more entertaining, and to try a variety of teaching methods to maintain the attention of the remote students. One instructor perceived that he was less mobile (moving throughout the room) due to the limited range of the tracking instructor camera.
5. What insights or recommendations can you offer to instructors teaching via interactive video? The following represents summary statements from the interviewed instructors.
•Students’ disdain over seeing self on camera led to decreased participation from some students, and domination of discussion by others.
•Using student microphones destroys spontaneity. The technology suppresses jokes, clever remarks, or quick interchanges. (Is your witticism worth stopping the show?).
•There was some rivalry and potential for resentment between sites. Wherever the live instructor taught was perceived as the “main” or “favorite” group. Larger remote class size (over 10) makes interaction difficult (seeing faces, etc.)
•In unfamiliar waters it’s good to appear “in command" to reduce student anxiety.
•Travel to and teach from the remote site often if possible.
•The entire class meeting must be scripted like a television show.
•Use inter-site collaboration/discussion to prevent “us vs. them” rivalries from developing.
•Less content can be covered than in a traditional class. Use the Web to continue class discussions.
•Audio and the interaction dynamics associated with it are the most important technical considerations.
•Lower-level skills may predominate (reading, memorizing) while analysis and synthesis are difficult due to discussion constraints (microphones, cameras).
•Short lectures (10 minutes) is about all the remote students will tolerate. (One instructor commented, “I’m not Tom Cruise”, meaning he was not a polished video entertainer).
•The instructor must spend adequate time during the first class meeting orienting students to the environment and requiring them to use the technology. This reinforces the required interaction conventions.
•Team teaching between sites requires even more planning, and differences between instructors can cause difficulties.
References
Moore, M. G. and G. Kearsley (1996). Distance education: a systems view. Boston, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
