Lu”! _
5%?

C

3.!“ tin
l‘ D a”. r I
LN...» 3:1”..- T.
I: a . . i
0.15 we . n
:22» I! {ﬁght .I. I!

11.0 cu-
m... .Muwuklw.
a}. Xuﬁgﬁt
a; ﬁlm”! .

L.“

., .J 3....

. V. . 1- I:

.25... a: {5,

z. .. I. . - . J.
a :03, L ..

3.0-. :2. 1:
263.57! ..

 

 

 

‘znniuixn‘l:
:. . ‘ ‘
:3. "in y ,
1..
.1:
_ .
. ~ ..
An:
it
5. .53
21:79.13: ,w
:1 £113 (inc:
gr. 3.)!
.a z. .‘
All. ’-
zihﬁﬂr 3
In it»:

. {9.10.32 .9;

.1, 19.. I
shall
5. 53.!

 

 

 

n “.» I...) A
. . .5: u; . \‘I
.. Ava... .tpgau:h1viﬁ§
. . (if?! l.l...é
.3335. x. E
3.. ti

 

J.
81.... 1.... 11%
1“: 41.1“.‘yflt
21.2.3... 1
2! t

51. .9 ‘ .v
55... iii

.. i}:

‘1») “Labia.

.

5...»y‘ r nil A
.. .
#53:. .135. .I:
I 1“... . 3

2.
:32. I u . .

ﬁéﬁﬁi a Eigiigﬁiﬁ

.
.. 1.... 514 .5:
V .. .

t. :

 

Illlllllllllill!llllllllllllllllllilHlllHllllllllllllllllﬂ

3 1293 020488

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

M23
KW

M“ 0 6129092
5.5931) g cam 3

 

 

 

 

 

N

 

__5_EP 23 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11m mass-p.14

A CASE STUDY OF AN APPROACH TO NURSING EDUCATION USING A

MIXED MODEL OF DISTANCE AND LIVE INSTRUCTION
By

Greg Evan Gogolin

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Educational Administration

2000

ABSTRACT
By

Greg Evan Gogolin

This study examines the effectiveness of combined two-way interactive video and
traditional classroom instruction. Although two-way interactive video technology is
being used by growing numbers of colleges and universities, it may not be the most
effective learning method. Four semester-length bachelor of science in nursing
courses at Ferris State University were studied. Student and faculty measures were
taken by means of pre and posttests and pre and post surveys/interviews. Students
were enrolled in classes at Ferris State University campus locations in Big Rapids,
Michigan and Grand Rapids, Michigan. Each class was comprised of students in Big
Rapids meeting simultaneously via two-way interactive video with students in Grand
Rapids. The instructor rotated between Big Rapids and Grand Rapids each week, but
the students remained at their site. All students and faculty involved in this study had
previous experience with two-way interactive video instruction.

The research questions were: 1) Is the combination two-way interactive video/live
instructor instruction technique effective in meeting the learning objectives of the
students and instructors? 2) Is there a relationship between student experience level
with ITV and satisfaction with ITV? 3) Do instructors and students think there is a
difference in instructional quality as it relates to learning objectives between
instruction in a traditional instructor lead classroom setting and classes delivered via

ITV? 4) What teaching methods (such as lecture, group discussion, team exercises)

do instructors and students perceive as effective in the ITV classroom? 5) What
factors detract from the two-way interactive video learning experience?

This research found that in the format used in this study, two-way interactive
video was not as effective as traditional instruction and was not effective in meeting
the learning objectives of the students or the instructors. Results included an
indication that two-way interactive video introduces some compromises in the way
instruction may be delivered, which can impact effectiveness. These compromises
were of concern.

Learning in a distance education environment can be illustrated with a Venn
diagram. One circle would represent the learning derived from traditional instruction
and the second circle would represent the learning derived from distance education.
The question is not if the circles in the Venn diagram perfectly intersect. The

question is: are the circles the same size?

COPYRIGHT

Copyright by
Greg Evan Gogolin
2000

DEDICATION

To “Mr. Evan” - Evan David Gogolin, whose lifetime of struggles has taught me so

much about life and people.

To Lauri, Erin, Isaac and “the new baby”, who put up with me and gave up their time

while I worked on this lifetime goal.

To Cas, who got me started on my doctorate in person and was there in spirit at the

conclusion.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Because nothing is truly the product of one mind, I would like to thank the following

people:

Dr. Kathryn Moore, for her invaluable encouragement, direction, and wonderful
smile.

Dr. James F airweather, for his advice and attention to detail.

Dr. Ann Austin, for her assistance developing the topic area.

Dr. Stephen Yelon, for his time and helpful insight.

Sue Fogarty, Gary Burkholder, and the Department of Nursing at Ferris State

University for allowing me into their classroom.

Dr. Fred Swartz, for his help and also reminding me that “inch by inch, anything’s a

cinch.”

Mary Jo Winter, for her help coordinating the assessments and other logistical

matters.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 -Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
Researcher’s Purpose for Conducting this Study ............................................................. 1
Context of the Study ........................................................................................................ 3
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 6
Deﬁnition of Terms .......................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 9
Signiﬁcance of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Delirnitations .................................................................................................................... 11
Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 11
Outline of the Study ......................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2 - Literature Review ......................................................................................... 14
Rationale for Distance Learning ...................................................................................... 15
Deﬁnition of Distance Education ..................................................................................... 15
Use of ITV ....................................................................................................................... 16
Reception of two-way interactive video .......................................................................... 19
Research Studies .............................................................................................................. 20
Faculty Attitudes toward and Perceptions of interactive television teaching .................. 21
Comparison between Students in a traditional Microcomputer .

Course and those in a remote location ........................................................................ 21
Distance Learners Satisfaction with Instruction .............................................................. 22
Student Views on the Distance Education Instructional Environment ............................ 23
Comparing Distance Learning and Classroom Learning ................................................. 23
Approaches to studying nursing students ........................................................................ 25
Nursing education ............................................................................................................ 26
Course Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 29
Measuring Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 31
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 3 — Methodology ................................................................................................ 35
Population of the Study .................................................................................................... 37
Instruction ........................................................................................................................ 39
Course Delivery ............................................................................................................... 39
Research Instruments ....................................................................................................... 41
Consent Procedures .......................................................................................................... 48
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 49
Sampling Procedure ......................................................................................................... 51
Hypothesis ........................................................................................................................ 52
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 54
Chapter 4 — Findings ........................................................................................................ 55
Data Collection Results .................................................................................................... 55
Validity and Reliability .................................................................................................... 56
Analysis of Research Questions ....................................................................................... 56
Research Question One .................................................................................................... 57

vi

Summary of research question one results ....................................................................... 67

Research Question Two ................................................................................................... 68
Summary of research question two results ...................................................................... 72
Research Question Three ................................................................................................. 72
Summary of research question three results .................................................................... 78
Research Question Four ................................................................................................... 79
Research Question Five ................................................................................................... 82
Chapter 5 — Summary and Recommendations ................................................................. 87
Summary .......................................................................................................................... 87
Literature .......................................................................................................................... 88
Methodology .................................................................................................................... 89
Results .............................................................................................................................. 90
Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 98
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 103
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 135

vii

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 — Classroom location and instructional Method .............................................. 5
Table 3.1 — Timeline of study measures .......................................................................... 40
Table 4.1 — Group Statistics/Independent Samples - Family test

comparison by location .................................................................................................... 62
Table 4.2 - Group Statistics/Independent Samples - Community Nursing test

comparison by location .................................................................................................... 63
Table 4.3 - Group Statistics/Independent Samples — Student experience

level with two-way interactive video (initial measures) .................................................. 68
Table 4.4 — Preferred ITV mode ...................................................................................... 71
Table 4.5 - Group Statistics/Independent Samples — Family Nursing class

and Community Nursing class students’ perception of quality ....................................... 73

viii

A Case Study of an Approach to Nursing Education using a
Mixed Model of Distance and Live Instruction
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The 1990’s saw dramatic changes in the way colleges and universities deliver
classes. The composition of the student population has changed signiﬁcantly from the
traditional ages of late teen’s and early twenties to a much larger percentage of
students over the age of 25. These older students typically have lifestyles that require
much more ﬂexibility than traditional younger students. Enrollment challenges have
also forced colleges to become more aggressive in their efforts to attract students.
The early 1990’s has also been the time when computer and telecommunications
technologies have matured to the point that they can provide substantial beneﬁt and
ﬂexibility to both students and colleges and universities in a cost effective manner.
Two-way interactive video technology is increasingly being used in place of

traditional classroom instruction.

Researcher’s Purpose for Conducting this Study
Businesses have been quick to adapt to the use of a variety of computer
technologies for communication, training employees, and as a means to reduce
expenses. ‘ Two-way interactive video technology is frequently used to set up face-to-
face meetings with people in different locations for workplace learning and

collaborative decision making. This saves travel time and expense by allowing

 

participants to talk to each other via the technology in much the same way that they
would if they were sitting at the same table. Colleges and universities are trying a
similar approach. Typically an instructor is teaching one group of students at one
location, and a second group of students at a different location participates in the class
by means of the two-way interactive video technology.

This researcher’s speciﬁc purposes for undertaking this study were (1) to examine
four combination two-way interactive television (ITV) and live instructor classes to
determine if the arrangement is effective in meeting learning objectives for the
students and instructor, (2) to determine what teaching methods instructors and
students perceive as effective in the distributed classroom, (3) to identify factors that
detract from the two-way interactive video learning experience, (4) to determine if
there is a relationship between selected student characteristics including experience
level with ITV and satisfaction with ITV, (5) to determine if instructors and students
think there is a difference in instructional quality as it relates to learning objectives
between class sessions where the instructor is present and class sessions delivered via
ITV.

For the purpose of this study, ITV will be deﬁned as two or more distinctly
separate classrooms linked by real-time voice/video cameras and microphones.
Visual aids such as overhead transparencies and computer slide shows are usually

displayed on television monitors in all classrooms.

Context of the Study

The study examined student and instructor perception of the effectiveness of a
mixed two-way interactive video and traditional instruction environment. Student
performance in the classroom when the instructor is available via two-way interactive
video compared to when the students are at a location where the instructor is
physically present was investigated. The research environment was four classes
taught with a combination of traditional and ITV instruction. The classes studied were
NUS416FL (Family Nursing Lecture), NUS416FC (Family Nursing Clinical),
NUS416CL (Community Nursing Lecture) and NUS416CC (Community Nursing
Clinical).

NUS416FL was taught one night per week for 3 hours from January 11, 2000 to
February 29, 2000. It was offered simultaneously in two classrooms. Classroom “A”
was on the main campus of Ferris State University, in Big Rapids, Michigan and
classroom “B” was on the main campus of Grand Rapids Community College, in
Grand Rapids, Michigan. The instructor rotated between classroom "A" and
classroom "B" each week. The second class (NU S416FC) was taught for 2 hours on
the same night immediately aﬁer NUS416FL with a similar mixed ITV/traditional
instruction method. One instructor taught the clinical and lecture Family Nursing
classes.

The third class, NUS416CL, was taught one night per week for 3 hours from
March 14, 2000 to May 2, 2000. It was offered simultaneously in two classrooms.
Classroom “A” was on the main campus of Ferris State University, in Big Rapids,

Michigan and classroom “B” was on the main campus of Grand Rapids Community

 

College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The instructor rotated between classroom "A"
and classroom "B" each week. The fourth class (NUS416CC) was taught for 2 hours
on the same night immediately after NUS416CL with a similar mixed ITV/traditional
instruction method. One instructor taught the clinical and lecture Community
Nursing classes.

Table 1.1 contains an illustration of the environment for the classes in this study.
Each half of the semester covers distinctly different course material. Ferris State
University is a 10,000 student “open door” public university located in central lower

Michigan. Ferris offers programs from certiﬁcate to doctoral level.

Table 1.1 —Classroom location and instructional method.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIG RAPIDS CLASSROOM GRAND RAPIDS CLASSROOM

January 11, 2000 First Instructor present Instruction via ITV
January 18, 2000 Instruction via ITV First Instructor present
January 25, 2000 First Instructor present Instruction via ITV
February 1, 2000 Instruction via ITV First Instructor present
February 8, 2000 First Instructor present Instruction via ITV
February 15, 2000 Instruction via ITV First Instructor present
February 22, 2000 First Instructor present Instruction via ITV
February 29, 2000 Instruction via ITV First Instructor present
March 14, 2000 Second Instructor present Instruction via ITV
March 21, 2000 Instruction via ITV Second Instructor present
March 28, 2000 Second Instructor present Instruction via ITV

April 4, 2000 Instruction via ITV Second Instructor present

 

April 11, 2000

Second Instructor present

Instruction via ITV

 

 

 

April 18, 2000 Instruction via ITV Second Instructor present
April 25, 2000 Second Instructor present Instruction via ITV
May 2, 2000 Instruction via ITV Second Instructor present

 

 

 

 

 

Statement of the Problem

Although two-way interactive video technology is being used by growing numbers
of colleges and universities, it may not be the most effective learning method.
Interactive television comes closer to bringing people in other locations face-to-face
than less sophisticated distance education technologies (Russell, 1992); however,
issues remain regarding its effectiveness (Cyrs & Smith, 1990; Lochte, 1993). Cobb
(1997) indicates that different media may not necessarily produce different outcomes,
but he argues that different media may inﬂuence cognitive efﬁciency. This brings up
several questions that need to be researched. For example, is learning as effective in a
distance learning environment as it is in traditional classroom instruction? What role
do student background characteristics play in determining how well he/she responds
to interactive video? Does a student’s technical ability affect his/her ability to learn?
Does learning style inﬂuence how a student responds to interactive video? Do
students in the classroom where the instructor is located perform better than the
students in the classroom that interacts with the instructor through two-way
interactive video? What role does language play in student learning? Are there
handicaps, such as deafness, that prohibit effective learning in a two-way interactive
video environment? Is it cost effective to utilize two-way interactive video at the
post-secondary level? What skills do instructors need to effectively utilize two-way
interactive video? What skills do students need to thrive in a two-way interactive

video environment?

An important issue to address is how to measure student learning. One of the most
common methods of determining student learning effectiveness is by giving tests over
the material covered in class. Grades do reﬂect learning and may be the most readily
available measure (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). However, grades can be inﬂuenced
by a number of outside inﬂuences, including predominant mode of course instruction
(Cunningham & Lawson, 1979); course grading policies (Sgan, 1970; Von Wittich,
1972); and professorial style and personality (Theodory & Day, 1985). Learner
satisfaction is also an important factor in effectiveness of distance learning, and
satisfaction with the media and processes that make up the learning environment are
major components in a student’s willingness to continue in a program or participate in

further distance learning activities (Chute, Thompson, & Hancock, 1999).

Deﬁnition of Terms

The following terms have been deﬁned for the purpose of this study.

1. ITV: Two-way interactive video. This is a technology where video signal is
converted at the transmission point, sent to the receiving point, decoded, and then
displayed on a television monitor. Compression is utilized to provide efﬁciency
in transmission because compression minimizes the size of the information packet
that is transmitted. In this study, sufficient bandwidth (T-l) is available to
provide the perception of real-time interaction. The camera/video display will be
on the person speaking whenever possible. When visual aids are used, the distant

class display will only be on the visual, although the full synchronous audio will

remain available at all times. In this study, ITV and two-way interactive video
will be used synonymously.

2. Detracting Factors: things that inhibit the learning process or otherwise negatively
impact the learning experience.

3. Distributed Classroom: an environment where one “class” is composed of
multiple classrooms. Instruction takes place in all classrooms simultaneously.

4. Teaching Methods students perceive as effective: instructional techniques,
formats, and methods. Examples would be lecture, group discussion, and small
groups.

5. Knowledge Level Attainment: education gained directly from the classroom
experience.

6. Two-way interactive video: two or more distinctly separate classrooms linked by
real-time voice/video cameras and microphones.

7. Traditional classroom: an environment where the students and instructor are in the
same classroom and all commonly utilized teaching methods may utilized.

8. Distance classroom: an environment where the students and instructor are
physically separate. In this study, the students and instructor are connected via
two-way interactive video.

9. Distance education technician: a person who controls the cameras, audio, video,
and other technical components of the ITV environment. In this study, distance
education technicians are utilized.

10. Effectiveness: producing the desired learning result.

11. Quality: a high degree of excellence.

Research Questions

There is a lack of empirical evidence to determine if a combination ITV and live
instructor class is effective in a variety of areas. Two areas where questions remain
include determining if a combination ITV/live instructor is effective in meeting
learning objectives for the students and instructor, as well as what teaching methods
instructors and students perceive as effective in the distributed classroom. Further
investigation is also needed to determine what factors detract from the two-way
interactive video learning experience and if there is a relationship between student
experience level with ITV and satisfaction with ITV. The ﬁnal area of investigation
in this study will be to investigate whether instructors and students think there is a
difference in instructional quality as it relates to learning objectives between
instruction in a traditional instructor lead classroom setting and classes delivered via
ITV.

Following are the speciﬁc questions that were addressed in this study:

1. Is the combination two-way interactive video/live instructor instruction
technique effective in meeting the learning objectives of the students and
instructors?

2. Is there a relationship between student experience level with ITV and
satisfaction with ITV?

3. Do instructors and students think there is a difference in instructional quality as
it relates to learning objectives between instruction in a traditional instructor

lead classroom setting and classes delivered via ITV?

4. What teaching methods (such as lecture, group discussion, team exercises) do
instructors and students perceive as effective in the ITV classroom?

5. What factors detract from the two-way interactive video learning experience?

The research question 1 was quantitatively investigated with the use of
a Likert-type assessment instrument and student tests and projects.
Research question 1 was also qualitatively investigated with the use of
open-ended questions. Research questions 2 and 3 were quantitatively
investigated with the use of a Likert-type assessment instrument and
qualitatively investigated with the use of open-ended questions.

Research questions 4 and 5 were investigated with qualitative analysis.

Signiﬁcance of th_e Studv

The purpose of this study was to provide information to assist in determining if
students learn as well in a classroom where an instructor is present as they do in a
classroom where the instructor physically resides is a different location and is
available via two-way interactive video. This study attempted to determine if there is
a signiﬁcant relationship between instructional method and knowledge level
attainment as it relates to students who have received instruction through either two-
way interactive video technology (ITV) or a traditional classroom setting. Knowledge
level attainment will be determined by test scores and student perception. A pre-test

was given at the beginning of each class to establish a base line knowledge level for

10

 

each student. Gain in knowledge level was measured by giving a posttest at the

conclusion of each class.

Delimitations

The delimitations of the study were:

1. This study was performed on nursing students and may not be generalized to all
students.

2. This study was conducted on students that have varying levels of experience with
two-way interactive video. Students who have taken multiple courses via two-
way interactive video may produce different results than students that have never
been exposed to two-way interactive video.

3. This study was conducted on a mixed ITV/traditional instruction environment and

may not be generalized to different environments.

Limitations
The limitations of the study are:
1. Some of the information was obtained by questionnaire. The researcher has to
assume that questionnaires were read and answered consistently and honestly.
2. Some of the information was obtained by examination. The researcher has to
assume that exams were read and answered honestly and to the best of each

student’s abilities.

3. It is a possibility that students may have learned information used to answer
exams and assignments from sources other than the class sessions. However,
examination and assignment results still have information pertinent to the study.

4. This research was conducted at multiple locations simultaneously. This
researcher had to assume that the students exhibit integrity at all times.

5. The study population was 30 students split between two classrooms, which is
typical of a distance education class. Classes taught via ITV are often targeted
where there is student demand, but not enough students to support a full-time

faculty member.

12

 

Outline of the Studv

Chapter 1 contains the Introduction, Researcher’s Purpose for Conducting this
Study, Statement of the Problem, Research Questions, Deﬁnition of Terms,
Signiﬁcance of the Study, Delirnitations, and Limitations.

Chapter 2 contains the Literature Review. This literature review was conducted in
several steps from September 1994 - May 2000. ERIC, Readers Guide, and various
other database searches were conducted at Calvin College, Ferris State University and
Michigan State University on multiple occasions. Multiple searches of the UMI
Dissertation Abstracts from 1989 to present were also conducted. Additionally,
computer time was purchased to perform a search of over 50 on—line databases using
Dialog and an extensive amount of research time was spent on the Internet and World
Wide Web. Headings that were searched included: Two-way Interactive Video, ITV,
Instructional Technology, Distance Learning, Educational Technology, Computer
Based Learning, Video Classroom, Interactive Video, Interactive Television, Distance
Learning Technology, Instructor Attitudes and Distance Education.

Chapter 3 contains the methodology and procedures used to conduct this study.
Chapter 4 presents the data that was collected by the researcher during this study.
Chapter 5 contains the summary, presentation of ﬁndings, conclusions, implications,

and recommendations for further study.

13

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This study investigated student and instructor perception of the effectiveness of a
mixed two-way interactive video and traditional instruction environment. Student
performance in the classroom when the instructor is available via two-way interactive
video compared to when the students are at a location where the instructor is
physically present was also investigated. A review of the literature was undertaken to
discover related studies dealing with two-way interactive video and similar
technologies in an academic setting.

This literature review was conducted in several steps from September 1994 — May
2000. ERIC, Readers Guide, and various other database searches were conducted at
Calvin College, Ferris State University and Michigan State University on multiple
occasions. Multiple searches of the UMI Dissertation Abstracts from 1989 to present
were also conducted. Additionally, computer time was purchased to perform a search
of over 50 on-line databases using Dialog and an extensive amount of research time
was spent on the Internet and World Wide Web. Surprisingly little information was
found in the area of effectiveness studies of two-way interactive video in a college
classroom setting. Most studies dealt with student satisfaction with the distance
learning environment (Murphy, 1997; Tiene, 1997; McHenry, 1997; Gallaher &

McCormick, 1999)

I4

 

Male for Dista_nce Leamiag

Education is commonly being delivered in ways that weren’t thought feasible just
a few years ago. Distance learning courses are offering students new ﬂexibility in
course and even campus selection, causing many institutions to begin redeﬁning
themselves (Noon, 1996). Increased competition for students while schools are
facing tight budgets has pushed schools to seek students in areas much different than
the traditional campus setting. Distance learning has become a big market for
student-hungry colleges. To provide distance learning in a ﬁscally feasible manner,

technology is increasingly being utilized.

Deﬁnition of Distance Education

There are four elements of distance education: 1) the separation of teacher and
student during most of the instructional process, 2) the inﬂuence of an educational
organization and the provision for student evaluation, 3) the use of educational media
to carry the course content, and 4) provision for two-way communication (Wilson,
1991)

Advancements in computer and telecommunications technology are enabling
institutions to reach more students at various locations. Television has been used for
decades, while satellite downlinks, Internet, video disks, computer-assisted
instruction, video tape, and ITV are more recent developments. This study will focus
primarily on the use of ITV. In many cases, a teacher and class will be at one
location, while other classes will be connected via communication lines. There is

typically a video camera and at least two television monitors in both locations. One

monitor shows what the camera in that location is picking up - usually the person
talking, the class, or a visual aid. The other monitor shows what the camera in the
remote location is picking up. The cameras are frequently controlled locally, so
someone in each location may have to control the camera. Technicians were used to
control the distant camera in this study. At some schools, students in the distant class
control the distant camera.

A number of researchers have concluded that there is frequently a different type of
student at the distant location. Some of the studies have indicated a more mature,
articulate student is in a distant location compared to a traditional environment
(Goodwin, Miklich, & Overall, 1993). These types of conclusions indicate that a
careful research design is necessary, and that result comparison between distant and
traditional classes may not be appropriate in some cases.

Powell, Conway, and Ross (1990) described student characteristics that were .
correlated with success in computer-mediated learning. Among these characteristics
were female, married, highly literate students, students who rated themselves as
organized, persistent, likely to succeed in their studies, and their formal and informal

learning as high.

W

The perceptions of the teachers and students are of utmost importance in
determining the overall effectiveness of the learning experience using ITV (Tiene,
1997). Faculty have been somewhat slow to embrace the technology. Faculty

participation in distance education will continue to be limited because of a lack of

l6

____._-|

 

incentives (Dillon, 1989). There is a lot of extra work in making a presentation to a
class over interactive video. Just getting familiar with the logistics of such an
environment is a considerable challenge. A lot more can go wrong than just an
overhead burning out. There is frequently a technician familiar with the equipment
stationed at the source location. This lets the instructor focus on delivering the lesson
rather than worrying about the transmission aspects.

Preparation is key to effective use of ITV. Participants indicated that instructors
who were well prepared and organized through the use of syllabi, study guides, and
supplemental technologies contributed to effective television instruction (Murphy,
1997). Planning so that class materials are available to everyone when needed can be
an added complexity of distance education. Use of e-mail, FAX machines, and class
web sites on the world wide web help address these issues. As Gunawardena (1992)
suggests, distance teaching is more effective with the teacher as facilitator. It is clear
that interactive television demands more from a teacher than is normally required in
the self-contained classroom (Tiene, 1997).

Presentation skill has been identiﬁed as important for effective learning (Egan,
1991). In addition to clear delivery, interaction is a key component of presentation.
Interactive training has been shown to increase retention rates and decrease costs
(Greengard, 1993). Unless interaction is promoted in an aggressive fashion, students
will tend to be passive learners and much of the power of distance learning will be
lost (Newcomb, 1994).

It should be pointed out that any technological advancement that can improve the

learning environment in a distance learning class has the potential to be used in a

17

traditional class as well. Technical advancements can improve any learning
environment, not just distance learning.

Research indicates that certain subject areas lend themselves well to instruction via
two-way interactive video, while other subject areas are inherently incompatible with
this type of instruction (Tiene, 1997). Student needs also inﬂuence what is delivered
via two-way interactive video. Courses in technology are frequently taught in this
manner in part because of the comfort level of the students with the delivery medium.
Conversely, the expense associated with providing a two-way interactive video and
the scarcity of resources are barriers that frequently prohibit providing this type of
course offering for classes where the number of students would be small.

With regard to the face-to-face with video comparison, some data suggest that the
presence of the instructor, regardless of site, increases the amount of interaction
(Farr, 1991). This means that just having an instructor present in one of the ITV sites
will increase interaction at all of the sites. Although concerned about loss of active
involvement with students, 89% of the instructors using interactive video were
satisﬁed with telecommunications teaching (Kendal, 1992). This suggests that once
faculty members become comfortable with the use of ITV they believe it is effective.

In an ITV environment, the instructor has to develop a variety of skills in addition
to the skills used in a traditional environment. In an Internet format, students usually
need special equipment or software. Depending on the technical ability of the
students, they may need training before they are equipped to take a class. Most of

these issues do not exist in an ITV environment.

 

Win-IM- l

When conducting a class that has more than one location, the instructor has the
added responsibility to make himself/herself available to everyone. In a distance
education setting such as the ITV, instructors have to be ﬂexible enough to receive
FAX and telephone interruptions from the distant class during the class session in
order to receive certain types of feedback. Electronic mail and ﬂexible office hours
and appointments are necessary to ensure a smooth class. An instructor must make

himself/herself available to the learners at the distant site (N ewcomb, 1994).

Reception of two-way interactive video

As previously mentioned, student reception to the use of ITV has been positive.
An important consideration is that there are two groups of students in the ITV setting.
The “studio” class and the “distance” class. Instructors have expressed concern for
the distance class, but the studio class also has adjustments to make. Live telecast of
a course involves technicians, cameras, lights, microphones, telephones, FAX
machines, and TelePrompTers. These are major distractions (Whittington, 1994).
Both groups of students will have to learn to adapt to the ITV setting, and this may
impact their learning. Some studies indicate that linking multiple locations into “one”
classroom may affect the teacher and the student achievement levels (Beaudoin, 1990;
Willis, 1994). This is further supported by Miller et al. (1993) (cited in Pugh &
Siantz, 1995) that students did not feel their mastery of course content was adequate
when the professor was in the remote location.

An additional consideration of distance learning and the use of interactive video is

that the various locations tend to draw different types of students. On-campus classes

 

tend to attract more traditional students with less life experience, while the distant
classrooms tend to be made up of older adult learners with a wealth of experience to
share (Stenberg, 1994). This would suggest that the instructor has to be able to
capture the interest of more than one type of audience with multiple levels of
understanding.

Comparing the effectiveness of interactive video to other possible delivery
methods will assist in determining the best method for a given situation. In a 1990
study, Stafford found that retention was signiﬁcantly higher for instruction presented
with interactive video as opposed to computer-assisted instruction. When students in
an interactive video setting were asked to respond to a questionnaire administered to
assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of the medium, the response was
overwhelmingly favorable (Tiene, 1997; Kolomeychu, 1992). Pascarella, Whitt,
Nora, Edison, Hagedorn, and Terenzinin (1996) found a positive relationship between

students’ satisfaction with instruction and their success in a college course.

Research Studies

 

Research in distance education is generally performed with some combination of
descriptive studies, case studies, correlations, and experimental design. Relevant
studies were reviewed in the areas of a) faculty attitudes toward and perceptions of
interactive television teaching, b) comparison between students in a traditional
microcomputer course and those in a remote location, c) distance learners’
satisfaction with instruction, d) student views on the distance education instructional

environment, and e) comparing distance learning and classroom learning.

20

 

F_acultv Attitu_des toward and Perceptions
of interactive television teaching

In a 1998 study, Bodenbender investigated nursing faculty attitudes toward and
perceptions of interactive television teaching. Bodenbender found in her survey
research that instructor participation in interactive television teaching is important to
help non-traditional students able continue their college education. Bodenbender also
found that institutions need to provide more encouragement than is currently given,
and that interactive television teaching should receive professional recognition and be
considered in tenure and promotion decisions. With regard to instructor training,
Bodenbender’s research indicated that orientation to the use of the equipment was the
only developmental opportunity that is adequately available.

A 1995 Faculty Advisory Committee report presented to the Oklahoma State
Regents for Higher Education indicated that 30% of “experienced and highly trained”
instructors did not want to teach another distance class. A similar level of

dissatisfaction was found in Kendall and Oaks 1992 study.

Comparision between Students in a traditional
Microcomputer Course and those in a remote location

In a 1998 study, Bartel conducted a study to determine if differences existed
between students who completed similar microcomputer applications courses within
different learning environments. The learning environments consisted of an on
campus class with a live instructor and a distance education class with a remote

instructor. Data were collected by means of a multiple-choice pretest, a multiple-

21

 

choice posttest, and a survey instrument. The scores of the multiple-choice tests were
used to measure student performance in the two learning environments. The survey
instrument was used to measure demographic and perception data.

Bartel concluded that there was no statistically signiﬁcant difference in the
performance of the on campus and distance learning students. Bartel also concluded
that there was no statistically signiﬁcant difference in the perceptions of the two
groups of students. There was also no statistically signiﬁcant difference between the
performance and perceptions of the on-carnpus students. However, there was a
statistically signiﬁcant difference between the performance and perceptions of the
distance-education students. The on-campus students showed a statistically
signiﬁcant relationship between performance and the demographic variables of rank,
grade point average, and expected course grade. The distance education students
displayed a statistically signiﬁcant relationship between performance and the

demographic variables of age, grade point average, and expected course grade.

Distance Learners Satisfaction with Inamction

Sherry, Fulford, and Zhang (1998) conducted two studies to assess distance
learners’ satisfaction with instruction. Two approaches were investigated: 1) a
survey on the key aspects of interaction; and 2) a time-intensive facilitated interview
with the objective of measuring the instructional climate. Both approaches evaluated
students’ perceptions of instructional effectiveness by measuring their satisfaction

with the learning environment.

22

 

The composition of students in the ﬁrst study was ethnically diverse, and the
majority were male with no prior distance learning experience. A Likert scale survey
instrument was used to assess students’ perceptions of interaction, level of interaction
between the instructor and the class, and the level of interaction between the students.
The design of the survey was consistent with Moore’s (1989) general framework of
interaction in distance education, which indicates that overall interaction is a
superordinate category composed of learner-to-content interaction, learner-to—learner
interaction, and instructor-to-leamer interaction. The results of this study indicated
that the survey instrument has potential for effectively and reliably measuring student
perceptions of the interactive climate in an interactive television environment.

Student Views on the Distance
Education In_structional Environment

 

In the second study, Sherry, Fulford, and Zhang utilized the Small Group
Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) instrument to measure students’ views on the
instructional environment and several multidimensional factors that can be used in
formative course evaluation. This study indicated that small group interaction was
helpful in making the learning experience more effective. This would support the
notion that interaction, both learner-to-instructor and learner-to-content, is a key

factor in determining learning effectiveness.

Comm'ng Distance Learningand Clas_sroom Learning
Smith and Dillon (1999) conducted a study comparing distance learning and

classroom learning. The purpose of this study was to utilize comparative data to

23

 

provide insight into designing more effective distance education courses. Smith and
Dillon argue that while the majority of distance learning studies conclude that there is
“no signiﬁcant difference,” it may be premature to conclude that the “no signiﬁcant
difference” studies mean that delivery systems do not affect learning.

Smith and Dillon point out that studies with generalizable ﬁndings control for
confounding variables by ensuring that only treatment variables are varied. They
indicate that for a comparison study to be a true measure, one instructional technique
can not be compromised as a method of equalizing it with the comparison
instructional technique. The example is given in which traditional classroom
instruction is compared to one-way video. In the traditional classroom, student
questions and similar features were not allowed because they wouldn’t be possible in
a one-way video environment. It isn’t surprising that there is “no signiﬁcant
difference” in the amount of learning that occurred, but the traditional classroom
environment was not utilized to its full extent.

In a 1993 study, Brunning, Landis, Hoffman, and Grosskopf found that students in
a satellite-based video course in Japanese language performed higher in listening and
written tests than students in traditional classes. The anning et al. (1993) study did
not provide an operational deﬁnition of traditional class treatment, so Smith and
Dillon argue that they didn’t address the media/method confound. Phipps and
Merisotis (1999) make a similar observation about adequately controlling for
confounding variables in most of the distance learning studies that they reviewed that
were cited in Thomas Russell’s book entitled The No Signiﬁcant Diﬁkrence

Phenomenon.

24

Approaches to studying nursing students

 

In a 1991 study, Shamian used a case study approach to determine the effect of
teaching decision analysis on student nurses’ clinical intervention decision making.
Sixty-eight third and fourth year nursing students were invited to participate in the
study that entailed the use of clinical case studies. The experimental intervention
included interactive and videotaped instruction on decision analysis. The control
intervention included interactive and videotaped instruction on ethics.

The experiment measured the number of responses to situations that were in
accordance with the experts. The results of the experimental and control group
responses were compared utilizing a t-test. The study concluded that teaching
decision analysis enabled nursing students to prioritize interventions in accordance
with clinical experts. Additionally, nursing students used these skills once they
learned them. The study also found that nursing students beneﬁted from the
combination videotape/interaction instruction.

A 1998 case study by Olson studied the historical challenge of how to balance
theory and practice in nursing education. The qualitative and quantitative study
investigated nursing data from St. Luke’s Hospital Training School for Nurses in St.
Paul, Minnesota One of the conclusions of the study was that there is a legacy of
mistrust of a strictly academic nursing education. The basic issue raised was deﬁning
the balance between academic and clinical nursing experiences. A more technical or

“skilled trades” approach might be most appropriate for less than baccalaureate

25

education, while an emphasis on academics as a means to process knowledge might
be most appropriate at the baccalaureate level or beyond.

A 1998 study by Stillman, Alison, Croker, and Tonkin also used a case study
approach to studying nurses. The purpose of this study was to examine situated
learning as a model for designing interactive multimedia instruction on medication
administration for nurses. The study took place at the School of Nursing at James
Cook University in Australia. Nursing students would navigate a multimedia
application to simulate administering medications. It was argued that this was a
proper approach to training because the nurses could readily see how it would apply
to their future careers. The study concluded that situated learning was an effective

ﬁ'amework for the design and implementation of facilitated learning environments.

Nursing education

Nursing education has been under intense pressure for years, but the pressure has
increased even more in recent years. Market-driven economic policy, dramatic
technology developments, changing demographics, and the knowledge explosion are
rapidly changing health care and educational institutions as well as creating a climate
of continuous rapid change. Virtual universities change the way all institutions
deliver education (Lindeman, 2000).

The health care industry has seen the credential requirements for nurses become
more stringent. The use of Licensed Practical Nurses has been reduced or eliminated
at many hospitals, and the current trend is toward requiring Registered Nurses to have

a bachelor degree. There are still a large number of associate degree in nursing

26

 

—IWI

(ADN) and diploma nursing programs. In fact, ADN and diploma nurses are the
largest portion of the nursing population. They form an enormous pool of candidates
to meet the future demand for nurses with the needed bachelor of science in nursing
(BSN) degree (Dean, 1997).

Continuing education has become a requirement for continued licensure in many
health care ﬁelds including nursing. Credit is given for attendance at seminars and for
courses taken at colleges. This has created an opportunity for educational institutions
because their graduates need education beyond their initial license and/or degree to
stay employed. In order to meet this need, technology is increasingly being leveraged.

One of the technologies that is being heavily utilized in nursing education is ITV.
Immersion in technology like ITV instruction has resulted in the classroom becoming
technology-driven rather than curriculum driven. After the initial honeymoon period
both faculty and students become disenchanted with the limits of the technology.
Despite these limitations, students in a study conducted by Chandler (2000)
unequivocally voted to keep the technology because it made it possible to obtain a
bachelor degree. Many of the students felt that they wouldn’t have the opportunity to
pursue nursing education if the technology wasn’t available.

The use of technology to deliver education does not come without its problems.
Faculty are faced with a number of challenges. Developing proﬁciency in using
technology in the classroom is often identiﬁed as an area of concern of nursing faculty
(Carty & Rosenfeld, 1998). There are a number of reasons for this including the fact
that many nursing faculty were trained as nurses and were never trained as educators.

The emphasis in nursing graduate education for a generation has been away from

27

education for teaching and administration toward clinical specialization roles
(Boyden, 2000).

Because of the intense demand for nurses and nursing education, nursing programs
are offering opportunities in creative ways. In a 1991 study, Allen found that forty-
eight percent of nursing programs in a four state area gave academic credit ranging
from 21 to 70 semester hours to registered nurse students for experiential learning.
This recognizes the value of work experience and the intense learning experience that
it can provide.

As previously described, there are various ways to obtain a BSN degree. However,
there isn’t a great deal of uniformity in how this is done. Baccalaureate curricula have
never been analyzed to fully understand their development or to contrast the
variations that exist between the different types of baccalaureate programs (Strobeck,
1996). Some of this variation exists simply because nursing programs are struggling
to keep up with demand.

The dramatic changes in the health care industry are also placing additional
pressures on nursing education. Baccalaureate nursing programs across the country
are facing the need to change their undergraduate curricula in response to massive
developments that are occurring in health care (Acord, 1999). This directly impacts
the nursing faculty and their continued development. There is signiﬁcant concern
about the impending shortage of qualiﬁed nursing faculty. Noncompetitive academic
salaries, desire for clinical practice, and rising expectations in higher education were
factors deterring nurses with graduate degrees from pursuing faculty roles (Brendtro,

2000).

28

 

 

Further indication of the pressures in the nursing profession includes an alarming
survey (Eagles, 1999) of self-selected nurses in California that indicated that one-third
planned to leave the ﬁeld within ﬁve years. The most frequent reasons for leaving the
profession included “burnout” and that nursing was “too physically demanding.” The
rapid turnover, educational pressures, and nature of the work point to a profession

where educational opportunities will be in great demand for the foreseeable future.

Course Evaluation

In a 1985 study of an evaluation of programmed and lecture instruction in college
business math courses, Swartz used pretest and posttest measures of course content, a
student attitudinal survey, and ﬁnal course grade to evaluate the effectiveness of two
instructional methodologies. The purpose of the study was to determine if both
lecture and programmed teaching methodologies should be continued, and what
modiﬁcations may optimize student learning. The results of the study indicated the
importance of student attitudinal assessment in evaluating learning effectiveness with
regard to teaching methodology and subject matter.

A study evaluating student attitudes toward subject matter, the effects of
instruction on those attitudes, and the relationship of student attitudes toward
achievement (Gogolin, 1988) used quantitative and qualitative measures. Student
attitudes were measured using pretest and posttest surveys. Posttest measures also
included the ﬁnal course grade. Survey validity and reliability was established using
pilot testing in conditions approximating the conditions of the study group and

computing reliability coefﬁcients.

29

A study evaluating how students and faculty responded to on-line distance
education was conducting using surveys to gather their opinions of the delivery
medium (White, 2000). Students and faculty were asked what they liked and didn’t
like about on-line education and course delivery. The most frequently mentioned
advantage of on-line education was the ﬂexibility it provided. Technical difﬁculties
were a major source of dissatisfaction and frustration for students and faculty.

Faculty also indicated it was difficult to get students to show initiative in class
participation. The study concluded by itemizing a number of competencies that
instructors must have in addition to normal teaching skills in order to teach effectively
on the web.

The primary method for course evaluation of student satisfaction and attitude
toward distance education have been with a survey (Lin & Creswell, 1989; Silvemail
& Johnson, 1992; Simpson, Pugh, & Parchman, 1993; Jegede & Kirkwood, 1994;
Zhang & Fulford, 1994; Boone, Bennett, & Ovando, 1995; Bozik, 1996). Paulsen,
Higgins & Peterson (1998) used pretest and posttest measures of course content to
measure subject matter knowledge gain among broadcast classroom students,
receiving ITV students, and videotape lectures. The pretest and posttest contained the
same items. They also administered a student satisfaction survey to measure student
perception of instructional method. Paired sample t-test and AN OVA were employed
to analyze the data. The ﬁndings were that students achieved equally well regardless
of instructional method. They also found that students receiving the ITV transmission

were satisﬁed, but they would prefer a setting with the instructor present.

30

Measuring effectiveness

Clearly, deﬁning what to measure must be done before determining how to
measure. Original research in distance education assessment usually examines three
measures: student outcomes, student attitudes about learning through distance
education, and overall student satisfaction toward distance learning (Phipps &
Merisotis, 1999). Interaction is a key component of the learning environment, and
successful interaction has a positive inﬂuence on student success. Interaction in
distance education is frequently categorized as learner-to—content, learner-to-learner,
and instructor-to-learner (Moore, 1989; Moore & Kearsley, 1995).

Learner-to-content interaction deals with mental responses to course materials.
Exercises, problems and questions are frequently embedded in the material. Learner-
to-leamer interaction is frequently used for group projects, feedback and clariﬁcation
in lieu of an instructor, and for socialization. Learner-to-instructor interaction can be
used for feedback, reinforcement, and clariﬁcation.

Measuring the effectiveness of distance learning compared to traditional
classroom study is a difficult task. Angelo and Cross (1993) describe classroom
assessment as an approach to help teachers ﬁnd out what students are learning in the
classroom and how well they are learning it. In this study, the objective was to
compare the assessment results between the two classrooms to determine learning
effectiveness, in addition to interpreting survey data.

Angelo and Cross (1993) describe six assessment techniques that they feel are

appropriate for nursing students: course-related self-conﬁdence surveys, directed

31

paraphrasing, empty outlines, human tableau or class modeling, memory matrix, and
one-sentence summary.

Self-conﬁdence surveys are useful in a clinical setting, where performing speciﬁc
tasks is the core of the nursing practice. Directed paraphrasing is useful when the
student will have to explain a topic to someone. In the case of a nurse, he/she may
have to explain a procedure or medical condition to a patient or family member. The
empty outline assessment is where the instructor gives the student an empty or
partially complete outline of the class presentation and the student fmishes the outline
after class. Human tableau or class modeling involves acting out scenes or processes.
A memory matrix is a table where the columns are headings and the rows are
concepts. The student ﬁlls in the cells of the table to illustrate recall of information.
The one-sentence summary is where a student is given a topic and asked to indicate
“Who does what to whom, when, where, how, and why?”

Chute, Thompson, and Hancock (1999) indicate that structured and often
standardized procedures are generally used to measure how much has been learned,
and that the rationale for measuring the amount learned by an individual distance
learner is identical to that for assessing the learning of a traditional student. They
further indicate that many of the traditional assessment techniques are as appropriate
in a distance learning environment as they are in a traditional classroom setting.
Assessing distance learning students may require special attention to logistical issues

and things like test security.

32

Summm

After an extensive literature search, several studies could be located that dealt with
television, video, and computer-based instruction. However, little research could be
found that dealt with the effectiveness of ITV from the student’s perspective. One
source compared students that were in a traditional classroom setting with students
that were in a remote location, and one source compared distance learning with
classroom learning. These studies were the closest parallel that could be found to
determining the effectiveness of two-way interactive video.

Several studies were uncovered that indicated that faculty and student perceptions
were important factors in determining overall effectiveness in a distance learning
environment. This indicates that more than just evaluating student test scores is
needed to provide an overall assessment of two-way interactive video effectiveness in
a learning environment. This study will address this by using test scores and student
and instructor surveys to assess the ITV environment.

The research that was uncovered is valuable in providing direction and insight into
the ITV environment. There are several similarities between the various technologies
previously described in this study. Among them is the challenge for the instructor to
keep the class progressing in a timely manner even though his/her control of the
situation is limited when juxtaposed to traditional classroom setting. This includes
leveraging technology to its fullest potential to achieve an effective learning situation.

Research indicates that students tend to achieve similar grades regardless if they
are in a distant or local ITV site. What is not clear is if the material presented in an

11 V environment is the same material that is presented in a non-ITV environment.

33

This study will provide insight into this by evaluating learning effectiveness from a
student and instructor standpoint in both distant and local ITV classrooms. This study
will also explore student and faculty opinions of the effectiveness of ITV compared to

traditional instruction.

34

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of the effectiveness
between instruction method and knowledge level gained as it relates to students who
have received instruction by either ITV or in a traditional classroom setting. The use
of two-way interactive video is becoming increasingly popular as a means of
delivering instruction in a variety of settings. It is a popular choice to assist in
distance learning because it expands the boundaries of the classroom, is less
expensive than employing a full-time instructor, provides more ﬂexibility in
scheduling, and cuts down on travel time.

This study examines the learning effectiveness in nursing classes at Ferris State
University. Four classes conducted simultaneously in two locations were studied.
Enrollment was 30 students, which is typical of a distance education class. There
were 13 students in the four class sections at the Grand Rapids location and 17
students in the four class sections at the Big Rapids location. A Grand Rapids class
section and the corresponding Big Rapids class section made up each class
population. Classes taught via ITV are often targeted where there is student demand,
but not enough students to support a full-time faculty member.

One instructor taught the ﬁrst two classes, and a second instructor taught the
second two classes. The ﬁrst two classes were Family Nursing Lecture (NU S416FL)
and Family Nursing Clinical (NUS416F C). The second two classes were Community

Nursing Lecture (NU S416CL) and Community Nursing Clinical (NU S416CC).

35

‘s‘ ta“:

 

Two characteristics of this study were that conducting this research may impact the
learning in the course being studied and that students experienced both local and
distant learning. It has been the experience of some faculty at Ferris State University
and by some faculty at Michigan State University that retention rates and student
enthusiasm for classes delivered via two-way interactive video are improved if the
instructor rotates between the locations of the class rather than remaining in one
location for the duration of the semester. To minimize the impact of conducting a
study on a class, the decision was made not to alter the format that was normally
employed.

In some instances, technology (or limits in technology) drives curriculum. This
may alter the emphasis or format of a course, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that
learning is compromised. Trying to utilize new techniques and discoveries in
different ways is what learning is all about.

This study attempts to advance the ﬁeld of learning effectiveness research by
building on what others have done, considering the critiques of the research, and

operating from the constraints of the environment that is available.

36

Ponulation of the Studv

To determine the effectiveness of two-way interactive video instruction compared
to traditional classroom instruction, an undergraduate class of nursing majors at Ferris
State University was studied. The classes studied were NUS416F L - Family Nursing
Lecture, NUS416F C — Family Nursing Clinical, NUS416CL -Community Nursing
Lecture, and NUS416CC — Community Nursing Clinical. The courses were offered
simultaneously in two classrooms. Classroom “A” was on the main campus of Ferris
State University, in Big Rapids, Michigan and classroom “B” was on the main
campus of Grand Rapids Community College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

NUS416FL was taught one night per week for 3 hours from January 11, 2000 to
February 29, 2000. Classroom “A” was on the main campus of Ferris State
University, in Big Rapids, Michigan and classroom “B” was on the main campus of
Grand Rapids Community College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The instructor rotated
between classroom "A" and classroom "B" each week. The second class
(NU S416F C) was taught for 2 hours on the same night immediately after NUS416FL
with a similar mixed ITV/traditional instruction method.

The third class, NUS416CL, was taught one night per week for 3 hours from
March 14, 2000 to May 2, 2000. Classroom “A” was on the main campus of Ferris
State University, in Big Rapids, Michigan and classroom “B” was on the main
campus of Grand Rapids Community College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The
instructor rotated between classroom "A" and classroom "B" each week. The fourth
class (NU S416CC) was taught for 2 hours on the same night immediately after

NUS416CL with a similar mixed ITV/traditional instruction method.

37

 

The courses being studied were taught by tenured faculty members in the
Department of Nursing, in the School of Allied Health at Ferris State University, Big
Rapids, Michigan. NUS416F L and NUS416F C were taught by one instructor, and
NUS416CL and NUS416CC were taught by a second instructor. The courses were
part of the normal course offerings for the Department of Nursing for winter semester
2000.

The demographics of the students in the study held three distinct patterns: 1) most
of the students were women, 2) a large number of students were returning to Ferris
State University to upgrade their credentials from an associate degree to a bachelor's
degree and had signiﬁcant relevant work experience, and 3) several students were
continuing their studies toward a bachelor of science in nursing immediately after
obtaining their associate degree in nursing. The number of students that enroll in the
course and the number of students that successfully complete the course were tracked.

The average age of the 13 Grand Rapids nursing students was 36, with a median
age of 35. Student ages ranged from 23 to 49 with a standard deviation of 8.5. The
average grade point average (gpa) of these students was 3.53, with a median gpa of
3.5. Student gpa’s ranged ﬁ'om 2.9 to 4.0, with a standard deviation of 8.5.

The average number of years of nursing experience for the Grand Rapids students
was 11 years (median of 10 years). Experience ranged from 0 to 30 years with a
standard deviation of 9.5. Eleven of the students had associate degrees in nursing
(ADN), one student had an ADN and an associate in arts and one student had an
associate in arts and an associate in science. Three of the students were minorities,

two students were Caucasian males, and eight students were Caucasian females.

38

 

The average age of the 17 Big Rapids nursing students was 28, with a median age
of 22. Student ages ranged from 20 to 48 with a standard deviation of 10.2. The
average gpa of these students was 3.4, with a median gpa of 3.5. Student gpa’s
ranged from 2.7 to 3.9, with a standard deviation of .36.

The average number of years of nursing experience for the Big Rapids nursing
students was 4.7 years (median 6 months). Experience ranged from 0 to 25 years
with a standard deviation of 8. Sixteen of the students had an ADN and one student
had no degree. Two of the students were minorities and ﬁfteen students were

Caucasian females.

Instruction

The course content focused on the utilization of health promotion concepts for
selected families and communities. Speciﬁc aspects involved the role of the nurse in
family and community health promotion and the utilization of epidemiological and
biostatistical data Other topic areas include cultural factors that effect individual,
family, and community health, and the application of a framework for providing
nursing care to families and communities.

The instructors have taught via two-way interactive video on a number of
occasions. Both instructors have several years of experience as registered nurses, and
both have master’s degrees in nursing from Wayne State University.

Course Deliver;
The courses were taught one night per week for 8 weeks. The NUS416F L &

NUS416FC (Family Nursing Lecture and Family Nursing Clinical) courses were

39

offered simultaneously in two classrooms from January 11, 2000 to February 29,
2000. The NUS416CL & NUS416CC (Community Nursing lecture and Community

Nursing Clinical) courses were offered simultaneously in two classrooms from March

14, 2000 to May 2, 2000. Classroom “A” was on the main campus of Ferris State

University, in Big Rapids, Michigan and classroom “B” was on the main campus of

Grand Rapids Community College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The instructor rotated

between classroom "A" and classroom "B" each week. The lecture classes met from

4pm to 6:50 pm and the clinical classes met from 7pm to 9pm. The clinical and

lecture classes had the same students. Table 3.1 contains a timeline of events during

the semester.

Table 3.1 -Timeline of study measures.

 

 

 

 

Event Time
Famin Nursing pretest January 11, 2000
student survey January 11, 2000
instructor survey January 11, 2000

 

Family clinical ﬁnrnals/class projects

January 11 - February 29, 2000

 

Familyclinical & lecture project/ﬁnal

February 29, 2000

 

Student surveys — clinical & lecture

February 29, 2000

 

Family NursiﬁPosttest

February 29, 2000

 

Family instructor survey & interview

February 29, 2000

 

Community Nursing Rretest

March 14, 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CommunitLinstructor survey March 14, 2000
Community clinical journals/class projects March 14 — my 2, 2000
Community clinical & lecture project/ﬁnal May 2, 2000

Student surveys — clinical & lecture May 2, 2000
Community Nursing posttest May 2, 2000
Community instructor survey & interview May 2, 2000

 

40

 

Research In_struments

For the purposes of the study, the following research questions were posed:

To address the speciﬁc purpose:

1. To determine if a combination ITV and live instruction is effective in meeting

learning objectives for the students and instructor.

The following student survey questions were generated:

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

What grade do you expect in this class?

Do you anticipate the use of two-way interactive video
will inﬂuence the effectiveness of this class? Why?

Do you think the use of two-way interactive video will
be a positive or negative experience? Why?

Do you think there is a difference in effectiveness of
meeting course objectives between a traditional class
with the instructor always present and a class delivered
exclusively via two-way interactive video? Why?

Now that you have been exposed to two-way
interactive video, how do you view its effectiveness in
the classroom?

Was the use of two-way interactive video a positive or
negative experience? Why?

How comfortable were you in obtaining help from the
instructor?

If there was a time when you needed help, whom did
you as and how (email, verbal dialog, etc.)?

If the instructor was not in your location, did you ask
the instructor for help during class via two-way
interactive video or did you ask a classmate at your
location?

41

”u

 

1.10 If the instructor was in your location, did you ask the
instructor for help or did you ask a classmate at your
location?

1.11 Do you think there is a difference in effectiveness of
meeting course objectives between a traditional class
with the instructor present and a class delivered via
two-way interactive video? Why?

1.12 Do you think there is a difference in ability to learn the
material when comparing a combination two-way
interactive video/traditional instructor led class with a
traditional class where the instructor is always present?
Why?

1.13 Did the use of two-way interactive video inﬂuence the
effectiveness of this class? Why?

1.14 Was this class effective? Why?
The following instructor interview questions were generated:

1.1 What are your learning objectives for your part of the
course?

1.2 Were the learning objectives met for your part of the
course?

1.3 For your part of the course, what measures of student
performance were used and what levels of student
performance are acceptable in order to consider the
course effective?

1.4 Do you expect student learning will be/was the same,
less, or better in the class sessions delivered to students

by two-way interactive video?

1.5 Are there beneﬁts to using a mixed two-way
interactive video/live course delivery system?

1.6 Do you think the use of two-way interactive video
was/will be a positive or negative experience? Why?

1.7 How do you view the effectiveness of two-way
interactive video in the classroom?

42

1.8 Do you think there is a difference in meeting class
objectives between a traditional class with instructor
present and a class delivered via two-way interactive
video? Why?

1.9 How comfortable will you be in providing help to the
distant class? Do you anticipate any problems?

1.10 Was this class effective? Why?

The following technique was employed:

A pretest of the course material was given to all students at the
beginning of the course and a posttest was given to all students at the
conclusion of each course. The pretest and posttest contained the same
items. Exam scores and instruction technique for NUS416FL and
NUS416CL, and instruction technique and student grades on
assignments and projects from NUS416FC and NUS416CL were
explored.

To address the speciﬁc purpose:
2. To determine if there is a relationship between student experience level ITV and
satisfaction with ITV.
The following student survey questions were generated:
The following student survey questions were generated:

2.1 Have you been involved in a class with ITV before
this?

2.2 If yes to question 2.1, how many?

2.3 If you could choose between two classes taught at the
same location, would you prefer to take the two-way

43

 

interactive video class, the class where the instructor is
always present, a combination two-way interactive
video class/instructor present part of the time, or no
preference?

2.4 If you could take a class near your home exclusively via
two-way interactive video or you could take a class
located at least 1 hour away where the instructor is
always present, which class would you take?

2.5 Was this class successful and why?

2.6 Would you take a class that is a combination two-way
interactive video/ instructor present part of the time
again?

2.7 Would you take a course exclusively via two-way
interactive video?

The following technique was employed:
A pretest of the course material was given to all students at the
beginning of the course and a posttest was given to all students at the
conclusion of each course. The pretest and posttest contained the same
items. Exam scores and instruction technique for NUS416FL and
NUS416CL, and instruction technique and student grades on
assignments and projects from NUS416FC and NUS416CL were

explored.

To address the speciﬁc purpose:

3. To determine if instructors and students think there is a difference in instructional
quality as it relates to learning objectives between instruction in a traditional
instructor lead classroom setting and classes delivered via ITV.

The following student survey questions were generated:

3.1 Do you anticipate the use of two-way interactive video
will inﬂuence the effectiveness of this class?

3.2 Explanation of question 3.1.

3.3 Did the use of ITV to inﬂuence the effectiveness of this
class?

3.4 Explanation of question 3.3.

3.5 Do you think there will be a difference in instructional
quality when comparing a combination two-way
interactive video/traditional instructor led class with a

traditional class where the instructor is always present?
Why?

3.6 Do you think there was a difference in instructional
quality between two-way interactive video and
traditional instructor led instruction? Why?

3.7 Do you perceive a difference in the ability to learn the
material if the instruction is by two-way interactive
video compared to when the instructor is in the
classroom? Why?

3.8 Do you think having a class connected via two-way
interactive video to another class where the instructor
is present has a positive effect, negative effect, or
combination of both on the class where the instructor is
present? Why?

45

 

The following instructor interview questions were generated:

3.1 What is your teaching preference between two-way
interactive video, instructor always present,
combination two-way interactive video/instructor
present, and no preference? Why?

3.2 What factors, if any, make two-way interactive video
less effective than traditional classroom instruction?

3.3 Do you think there will be a difference in instructional
quality between two-way interactive video and
traditional instructor led instruction?

3.4 Do you think there was a difference in instructional
quality between two-way interactive video and
traditional instructor led instruction?

3.5 Do you perceive a difference in the student's ability to
learn the material if the instruction is by two-way
interactive video compared to when the instructor is in
the classroom? Why?

3.6 Was your portion of the class effective? Why?

3.7 What would improve future mixed two-way interactive
video/instructor present classes?

3.8 Do you think mixed two-way interactive
video/instructor present classes are preferable to
straight two-way interactive video classes? Why?

3.9 Do you think having a class connected via two-way
interactive video to another class where the instructor
is present has a positive effect, negative effect, or
combination of both on the class where the instructor is
present? Why?

46

To address the speciﬁc purpose:

4. To determine what teaching methods (such as lecture, group discussion, team
exercises) instructors and students perceive as effective in the ITV classroom.
The following student survey questions were generated:

4.1 Do you think having the instructor in the classroom
half of the class sessions makes the class better than
having the instructor teach the entire semester at one
location? Why?

4.2 What would you recommend to make a two-way
interactive video class better?

4.3 What instructional techniques (use of visual aids, video
tape, class activities, etc.) did you think were effective
in a two-way interactive video environment?

The following instructor interview questions were generated:

4.1 Do you think having the instructor in the classroom half
of the class sessions makes the class better than having
the instructor teach the entire semester at one location

4.2 What would you recommend to make a two-way
interactive video class better?

4.3 Were did you present course material in addition to the
classroom (email, course web page, telephone
conference, etc.)?

4.4 Do you do anything different because you are also
teaching to a distance class via two-way interactive
video?

4.5 Will/did you employ any special techniques to promote
interaction in the distant class? If so, what will they
be?

4.6 What do you ﬁnd effective in a mixed traditional
instruction/two-way interactive video classroom?

47

To address the speciﬁc purpose:
5. To determine what factors detract ﬁ'om the two-way interactive video learning
experience.
The following student survey questions were generated:
5.1 What factors do you perceive, if any, that make two-
way interactive video less effective than the traditional
classroom with the instructor present?
5.2 What instructional techniques (use of visual aids, video
tape, class activities, etc.) do you feel did not work

well in a two-way interactive video environment?
Why?

The following instructor interview questions were generated:

5.1 What problems or barriers do you think students face
in learning the material when it is delivered in a mixed
two-way interactive video/traditional instruction
setting?

5.2 What are the difﬁculties for you as an instructor in
using this mode of delivery?

5.3 What factors, if any, make two-way interactive video
less effective than traditional classroom instruction?

Consent Procedure§
A consent form was distributed to all students and the instructors in the class being
studied. Forms were signed before the class began. Appendix B contains a copy of

the consent forms. All students signed consent forms, so nobody had to be excluded

48

 

 

from the study. Appendix B contains a copy of the consent form. The data analysis
met Michigan State University Human Subjects Review criteria and was approved by

the review panel. The approval is in Appendix L.

Data Analysis

There is a quantitative aspect of the study focusing on knowledge level gain using
a pretest, a mid-term, and a ﬁnal exam. The decision was made to use this format
because this is what is typically done in the class when it isn’t being studied. The
pretest contained the same items as the posttest. The purpose of the pretest was to
determine if there were students with signiﬁcantly greater prior knowledge of course
content than other students (outliers).

Information could have been obtained by pre-testing and post-testing after each
class meeting, but it was felt that this type of arrangement would not be appropriate
since it isn’t the normal mode of conducting the class. It would also subject the
students to an environment that they aren’t used to, which would have the potential to
introduce stress, reactive effects, and other factors that may impact the results.

For analyzing the posttests, class discriminators (Appendix J) and the results of the
pretest were examined by a t-test to determine if differences in the students by
location existed that may impact analysis of the mid-term or ﬁnal exam. If differences
were discovered, they were to be handled as covariates, utilizing AN COVA, and
reporting would include differences in the means and a description of the differences.

Since no covariates were introduced, a t-test analysis was sufﬁcient.

49

Data for the tests for the lecture classes was stored in a record format described in
Appendix K. There are 5 data ﬁelds: student code, student location, class identiﬁer,
pretest score, posttest score. It is understood that there may be potential for
confounding variables in this analysis, but it is felt that there is a possibility of
interesting trends that may be overlooked if this analysis were not performed. A t-test
analysis was conducted on the pretest and posttest.

Data for the clinical classes included student scores for journals, projects and topic
reviews and critiques. The data were analyzed in a similar fashion to the data
previously described in the lecture class.

A further quantitative aspect was investigated by using an additional course survey
at the conclusion of the course. The survey was the Instructional Assessment System
Form 1 (IASI) developed by the Office of Educational Assessment at the University of
Washington. Appendix A contains a copy of the IASI.

The IASI is a Likert-type instrument speciﬁcally designed for distance learning
course evaluation. The design of the survey is consistent with Moore’s (1989) general
framework of interaction in distance education, which indicates that overall
interaction is a superordinate category composed of learner-to-content interaction,
learner-to-leamer interaction, and instructor-to-learner interaction. A self-report has
been established as the most direct method to determine beliefs (Henerson, Morris,
and Fitz-Gibbon, 1987).

A pilot of the IASI, surveys, and interview instruments used in this study was
conducted in December, 1999. The IASI, surveys, and interview instruments also

underwent a panel review to verify validity of the instrument. The panel consisted of

50

Dr. Fred Swartz, Director of Student Assessment at Ferris State University, and Dr.
Michael Cooper, Professor of Statistics and Measures at Ferris State University.

A qualitative analysis was conducted by means of instructor and student interviews
at the conclusion of the courses. Additionally, student surveys were conducted at the
beginning and conclusion of the courses. Some of the questions on the student
surveys were further analyzed by means of a t-test. The data analysis from all the
courses was then compared to determine the degree of consistency between the

conclusions.

Sampling Procedure

The courses were eight weeks in length, with each lecture class session lasting
three hours and each clinical class session lasting two hours. The instructor began
each course by meeting at the Grand Rapids location ﬁrst. A pre-test of a majority of
the information to be covered in the course was distributed to all students at the
beginning of the ﬁrst session. Additionally, all students took Survey 1 during the ﬁrst
class session. At the conclusion of each course, a posttest, Survey 2 and Survey 3
were distributed to all students. One instructor taught both the clinical and lecture
classes for the Family Nursing courses, and a second instructor taught both the
clinical and lecture classes for the Community Nursing courses. The instructor
interviews were conducted prior to the ﬁrst class session and after the last class
session. Scores for clinical class projects, journals, and reviews and critiques were

collected throughout the duration of the courses.

51

Each instructor taught in the Grand Rapids classroom the ﬁrst week of the classes,
with the Big Rapids classroom receiving the ITV transmission and participating as the
distant site. The second week of classes, the instructor taught in the Big Rapids
classroom, with the Grand Rapids classroom receiving the ITV transmission and
participating as the distant site. The third week of classes, the instructor taught in
Grand Rapids, with Big Rapids receiving the ITV transmission. The alternating
scenario continued throughout the semester. One meeting of the Community Nursing

classes was cancelled due to instructor illness.

Hymthesis

For the purposes of the study, the following hypotheses were developed pertaining
to class environment, student grades, IASI survey results, student survey results,

student experience level, and perception of quality:

For class environment:

Hoa: The combination two-way interactive video/live instructor instruction technique
is not effective in meeting the learning objectives of the student.

Hla: The combination two-way interactive video/live instructor instruction technique
is effective in meeting the learning objectives of the student.

For student grades based on instructor location:

Hob: Student Family Nursing exam scores will not differ based on instructor location.
Hlb: Student Family Nursing exam scores will differ based on instructor location.

Hoe: Student Community Nursing exam scores will not differ based on instructor
location.

ch: Student Community Nursing exam scores will differ based on instructor
location.

52

For IASI survey results:

Hod: Results will not differ based on instructor location.
de: Results will differ based on instructor location.

For student experience level:

Hoe: There is no relationship between student experience level with two-way
interactive video and satisfaction with two-way interactive video.

Hle: There is a relationship between student experience level with two-way
interactive video and satisfaction with two-way interactive video.

For perception of instructional quality:

Hof: There is no difference in student perception of instructional quality as it relates to
learning objectives between a class session where the instructor is present and a class
session delivered by two-way interactive video.

Hlf: There is a difference in student perception of instructional quality as it relates to
learning objectives between a class session where the instructor is present and a class
session delivered by two-way interactive video.

Hog: There is no difference in instructor perception of instructional quality as it relates
to learning objectives between a class session where the instructor is present and a
class session delivered by two-way interactive video.
ng: There is a difference in instructor perception of instructional quality as it relates
to learning objectives between a class session where the instructor is present and a
class session delivered by two-way interactive video.

A mapping of each hypothesis question to the survey or data source is contained in
Appendix I. A description of the information gathered on each student in addition to
test and survey data is in Appendix J. A description of the data used in the pretest and

posttest analysis is in Appendix K.

53

 

Summgy

The study was conducted at Ferris State University’s Big Rapids and Grand Rapids
campuses during the winter 2000 semester. The study involved 30 students and two
instructors.

Quantitative methods were used to assess the differences with relation to learning
effectiveness between instruction method and knowledge level gained. Data was
gather using a pretest and posttest of course material, pre and post surveys of student
perceptions, and pre and post surveys of instructor perceptions. Data was analyzed
using a t-test with a alpha level of .05.

Qualitative data was gathered by student and faculty surveys and interviews.
Questions were developed by the researcher and included closed and opened-ended

questions. Information was presented descriptively.

54

CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

The study investigated the effectiveness of a combination two-way interactive
video/live instruction at Ferris State University. The following areas were evaluated
by quantitative and qualitative measures: (1) the effectiveness of the combination
two-way interactive video/ live instruction, (2) the relationship between student
experience level with two-way interactive video and satisfaction with two-way
interactive video, (3) the difference in perception of instructional quality as it relates
to learning objectives between a class session where the instructor is present and a
class session delivered by two-way interactive video, (4) the impact of instructor
location on grades, and (5) the relationship of student test results to the perception of

two-way interactive video as a positive experience.

Mollection Results
The student surveys were administered to 33 individuals. Three students did not
complete the initial survey and were excluded from the data analysis of the Family
Nursing classes. There were some questions on some surveys that students left
blank. These surveys were included in the data analysis. Only one student was lost
through attrition between the F arnily and Community classes. Both instructors

completed pre and post surveys for their clinical and lecture classes.

55

Validity and Reﬁtbility

A pilot of the IASI, surveys, and interview instruments used in this study was

conducted in December, 1999. The IASI, surveys, and interview instruments also

underwent a panel review to verify validity of the instrument. The panel consisted of

Dr. Fred Swartz, Director of Student Assessment at F enis State University, and Dr.

Michael Cooper, Professor of Statistics and Measures at Ferris State University.

Comments on the instruments by the students and review panel were integrated into

the instruments. Reliability was established by the review panel and by Levene’s Test

for Equality of Variance on pilot data.

Analysis of Research Ouestiona

The research questions that were addressed in this study were:

1.

Is the combination two-way interactive video/live instructor
instruction technique effective in meeting the learning objectives of
the students and instructors?

Is there a relationship between student experience level with ITV
and satisfaction with ITV?

Do instructors and students think there is a difference in
instructional quality as it relates to learning objectives between
instruction in a traditional instructor lead classroom setting and
classes delivered via ITV?

What teaching methods (such as lecture, group discussion, team
exercises) do instructors and students perceive as effective in the
ITV classroom?

What factors detract from the two-way interactive video learning
experience?

The data collected to answer the ﬁve research questions were analyzed by

quantitative and qualitative means. Quantitative analysis was conducted using SPSS

version 9.0. Descriptive statistics were run on all quantitative data and homogeneity

56

of variance was assured by Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances. All statistical
tests were based on a .05 level of signiﬁcance. Qualitative research was formalized

descriptively.

Research Question One

Combination two-way interactive video an_d live
iastruction effectiven_ess in meeting student learning objectives

The ﬁrst research question was: Is a combination two-way interactive video and
live instruction effective in meeting the leaming objectives of the students and
instructor? The effectiveness of meeting student learning objectives will be explored
ﬁrst.

ﬂQa: The combination two-way interactive video/live instructor
instruction technique is not effective in meeting the learning objectives
of the student.

Appendix M contains the group statistics of the independent samples from the
Community Clinical and Community lecture classes. Appendix N contains the group
statistics of the independent samples from the Family Clinical and Family Lecture
classes.

A t-test comparing the means of the two locations of the four classes was used to
test the hypothesis that the combination two-way interactive video and live instruction

is not effective in meeting the learning objectives of the student. Homogeneity of

variance was assured by Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances.

57

The probability of each question where a t value could be obtained for the
Community Clinical and Lecture classes (Appendix M) and the Family Clinical and
Lecture classes (Appendix N) was very high. Consequently the Null Hypothesis
cannot be rejected and we conclude that the combination two-way interactive
video/live instructor instruction technique is not more effective than traditional
instruction in meeting the learning objectives of the student.

The students further support this conclusion in the qualitative aspect of the study
when they mentioned things like “I just like having the instructor present.” Four
Grand Rapids (GR) Community Clinical nursing students (N=13) and four Big
Rapids (BR) Community Clinical nursing students (N =1 7) indicated that they wanted
an instructor present. Three of the GR Community Lecture students (N=13) and
seven BR Community Lecture students (N =1 7) indicated that they wanted an
instructor present. In the Family Clinical classes, two GR students (N=13) and six
BR students (N=17) indicated the same desire, as did two GR (N=13) and ﬁve BR
students in the Family Lecture classes.

Several students also indicated that it was more difficult to learn in an ITV
enviromnent than a traditional classroom. An interesting aspect of this is that this
information was received in an open—ended question and was not prompted. The
actual data with this response was three GR Community Clinical students (N =1 3),
three BR Community Clinical students (N =1 7), four GR Community Lecture students
(N=13), three BR Community Lecture students (N=l7), two GR Family Lecture
students (N=13), four BR F arnily Lecture students (N=17), and one BR Family

Clinical student (N=17).

58

Most student comments were consistent between lecture and clinical classes, so
further description of responses will be aggregate (N=30) unless there is something
unique to a class. The notable exception was that the subject matter and privacy
concerns in the clinical classes tended to be more inﬂuenced by the technology than
the lecture classes. Students were hesitant to discuss these things via ITV. One
student mentioned that she thought there was more miscommunication with video.
Two students thought that it required a stronger commitment by them to meet the
learning objectives in an interactive video class in part because the instructor seemed
inaccessible. Another student indicated that she felt like she was receiving instruction
every other week. Eight students felt that they had trouble paying attention in and
ITV class.

Not all comments were negative. In combining the positive responses of the
students in the four classes into one group, two students (N=30) thought the change of
pace offered by an interactive video class was an interesting experience. Two
students (N=30) felt it was just as easy to ask questions of the instructor via two-way
interactive video as in person. Four (N =30) indicated that they weren’t particularly
pleased with two-way interactive video, but they were glad the class was available to
them. However, these views were far outweighed by comments like “the technology
sucks”, “it stinks”, “it isn’t the same”, “I ﬁnd it harder to pay attention”, “it feels like
the distance class gets ignored”, and “I’d only take another class in this format if I had
to.” One student went as far as saying that students in an ITV environment should get

a tuition break because they aren’t getting a “real” class.

59

Combination two-way interactive video and live
instruction effectiveness in meeting instructor learning obiectives

The ﬁrst research question was: Is a combination two-way interactive video and
live instruction effective in meeting the learning objectives of the students and
instructor? The effectiveness of meeting instructor learning objectives will be now
be explored.

Descriptive analysis was used to investigate if the combination two-way
interactive video and live instruction is effective in meeting the learning objectives of
the instructor. The two instructors were each asked their perception of the
effectiveness of two-way interactive video in the classroom before their classes began
and after they ended. Both instructors had taught in this format many times. Their
perceptions were generally consistent from the beginning to the end of the courses.
Their perceptions were also generally consistent between the two courses (clinical and
lecture) that each instructor taught, so each instructors comments are grouped together
for their classes unless speciﬁcally noted.

Instructor I viewed the effectiveness of meeting course objectives for the
instructor using interactive video as similar to that of classroom interaction. He also
indicated that this type of technology has signiﬁcant potential for future use and that
he hasn’t seen any data to inﬂuence his opinion. Instructor 1 also felt that instructor
behavior was altered by using interactive video, that the distant class interacts less
frequently than the local class, and that sound quality is an issue. He indicated that

having the instructor rotate between locations improved the class, but it was

60

challenging to plan for a class offered in multiple locations. Instructor 1 did
emphasize that the course objectives were the same for all students in both locations.

Instructor 2 indicated that issues such as sound quality and tasks such as repeating
student comments to the other classroom impact effectiveness because it disrupted the
ﬂow of the course. She further indicated that she thought it was less effective than
face-to-face or even online instruction and that two-way interactive video is less
effective in meeting course objectives than traditional classroom instruction.
Instructor 2 also felt that instruction delivered via two-way interactive video was of
less quality than traditional instruction for a variety of reasons including not being
able to see everyone at all times, loss of ability to see student body language, and a
reduced sense of presence.

Although Instructor 1 was generally positive about the effectiveness of two-way
interactive video in meeting the learning objectives of the instructor, he did raise
some issues that challenged the notion that there is no signiﬁcant difference.

Instructor 2 felt strongly that there was a signiﬁcant difference.

Family Nursing gages

The ﬁrst research question was: Is a combination two-way interactive video and
live instruction effective in meeting the learning objectives of the students and
instructor? The variance of the grades of the Family Nursing classes based on
instructor location will be now be explored in order to answer the question as it

relates to the student.

61

Hob: Student Family Nursing exam scores will not differ based on
instructor location.
Table 4.1 contains the group statistics of the independent samples from the F arnily

Nursing classes.

Table 4.1 — Group Statistics/Independent Samples - Family Nursing test comparison
b location.

 

 

 

 

Test Location N Mean St. t probability
Deviation
Family pretest GR 13 5.0000 1.1547 -1 .446 .159
BR 17 5.5882 1.0641
Family posttest GR 13 6.0769 1.6053 -2.345 .027
BR 16 7.1250 .7188

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A t-test comparing the means of the two locations of the Family Nursing classes
was used to test the hypothesis that student exam scores will not vary by instructor
location. Homogeneity of variance was tested by Levene’s Test for Equality of
Variances and no impact on results was indicated.

The t-test indicates that there is a strong probability of a difference in student
performance between location and that instructor location may impact student’s
Family Nursing exam scores (Big Rapids scores were higher than Grand Rapids
scores). Therefore the null hypothesis should be rejected and we conclude that
student Family Nursing exam scores will differ based on instructor location.

An important observation to point out is that the mean gain between the Family
Nursing pretest and the Family Nursing posttest was -1.4231 with a standard
deviation of 1.2704. A t-value of --5.712 was obtained, which provided a .000 level
of signiﬁcance. Therefore it is clear that learning did occur in the Family Nursing

class. It should also be noted that the content of the Family Nursing tests was

62

speciﬁcally covered in the Family Nursing Lecture class, but many of the concepts
were covered in the Family Nursing Clinical class. Therefore, the test analysis treats

both Family Nursing classes as one.

Community Nursing gpades

The ﬁrst research question was: Is a combination two-way interactive video and
live instruction effective in meeting the learning objectives of the students and
instructor? The variance of grades of the Community Nursing classes based on
instructor locations will be now be explored in order to further answer the question as
it relates to the student.

Hoe: Student’s Community Nursing exam scores will not differ based
on instructor location.
Table 4.2 contains the group statistics of the independent samples from the
Community Nursing classes.

Table 4.2 — Group Statistics/Independent Samples - Community Nursing test
comparison by location.

 

 

 

 

 

Test Location N Mean St. t probability
Deviation
Community pretest GR 1 1 5.2727 1.8488 1.600 .122
BR 17 4.4118 1.0037
Community posttest OR 13 6.4615 1.3914 1.053 .302
BR 16 6.0000 .9661

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A t-test comparing the means of the two locations of the Community Nursing
classes was used to test the hypothesis that student exam scores will not vary by
instructor location. Homogeneity of variance was tested by Levene’s Test for

Equality of Variances and no impact on results was indicated.

63

 

The probability of .302 (Table 4.2) indicates that there is no difference in student
performance between location and that instructor location may not impact student
Community Nursing exam scores. Therefore the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
This is in contrast to the Family Nursing exam scores.

An important observation to emphasize is that the mean gain between the
Community Nursing pretest and the Community Nursing posttest was 1.4074 with a
standard deviation of .2887. A t-value of 4.875 was obtained, which provided a .000
level of signiﬁcance. Therefore it is clear that learning did occur in the Community
Nursing class. It should also be noted that the content of the Community Nursing tests
was speciﬁcally covered in the Community Nursing Lecture class, but many of the
concepts were covered in the Community Nursing Clinical class. Therefore, the test

analysis treats both Community Nursing classes as one.

an_pacft of inatructor location on IAS survey resulg

The ﬁrst research question was: Is a combination two-way interactive video and
live instruction effective in meeting the learning objectives of the students and
instructor? The variance of instructor location on IAS survey results will now be
explored to again address research question.

Hod: Results will not differ based on instructor location.

The survey for the Grand Rapids location was not ﬁlled out correctly or in

sufficient numbers, so only the results from the Big Rapids location will be explored

and no conclusion can be reached on Hod. The Big Rapids students ﬁlled out one IAS
survey and were asked to answer questions based on their experience in all four
classes being studied. The primary reason for this was a concern of having students
ﬁll out too many instruments and losing interest in accuracy. The ﬁrst 18 questions in
the IAS survey are based on a scale of 1 to 6. A one translates to excellent, a two is
very good, three is good, four is fair, ﬁve is poor, and six is very poor.

Students were asked to rate the distance learning course as a whole. This produced
a mean score of 3.625, a standard deviation of .7187, a median of 3.5 and mode of 3.
This places the student evaluation of the course in the Fair to Good range.

Students were asked to rate the effectiveness of the distance learning format. The
mean score was 3.9375, standard deviation was .9287, median was 4 and mode was 4.
This places the student evaluation of the effectiveness of the distance learning format
in the Fair range.

Students were asked to rate the quality of the instructor feedback. The mean score
was 2.25, standard deviation was .6831, median was 2 and mode was 2. This places
the student evaluation of the quality of instructor feedback in the Very Good range.

Students were asked to rate the grade they would receive in these courses relative
to the grades they would receive in other courses. The mean score was 2.533, the
standard deviation was .9904, median was 2 and mode was 2. The scale was from 1
(much higher) to 7 (much lower). This would indicate that the students anticipated
receiving a better grade in these courses than other courses.

Students were asked to rate their level of involvement in the course such as doing

assignments, attending classes, etc. The mean score was 1.6667, the standard

65

deviation was .7237, median was 2 and mode was 1. The scale was from 1 (much
higher) to 7 (much lower). This would indicate that students thought they were very

involved in course activities.

Relationship between grades and student perception
of two-way interactive video effectiveness

The fust research question was: Is a combination two-way interactive video and
live instruction effective in meeting the learning objectives of the students and
instructor? The relationship between grades and perception of two-way interactive
video as a positive experience will be now be explored.

Descriptive analysis was used to investigate the relationship between grades and
student perception of two-way interactive video as a positive experience. The 30
students were asked to indicate what grade they expected in the courses. Thirty-one
percent indicated they expected an “A”, forty-four percent expected and “A-”, thirteen
percent expected a “B+”, six percent expected a “B”, and six percent expected a “B-”.
Actual grades were ﬁfteen percent received an “A”, twenty-seven percent received an
“A-”, thirty-nine percent received a “B+” , ﬁfteen percent received a “B”, two percent
received a “B-”, and two percent received a “C+”. Because of the limited range of
expected grades, four incompletes and the limited sample size, a correlation of grades
to perception of effectiveness has limited utility. However, the high grades would
lend itself to an argument that the combination two-way interactive video/live
instructor format was effective in meeting the learning objectives of the students if

their objective was to receive a high grade.

66

 

 

 

 

S__um_m_ary of regarch question one results

The results of the research items associated with determining if a combination
two-way interactive video and live instruction is effective in meeting the learning
objectives of the students and instructors are somewhat mixed. The overwhelming
measurement results from the students indicate that they feel it is not effective. The
only argument that would indicate otherwise is that they all expected good grades.
However, grades are only a partial measure. In the courses studied, much of the
weight for grading came from individual projects and assignments done independent
of the class sessions. It was brought out in the student interviews that they felt a
greater responsibility for learning was placed on the student because of the interactive
video environment.

The results from the research items associated with determining if a combination
two-way interactive video and live instruction is effective in meeting the learning
objectives of the instructors is not as clear. However, the fact that it is not clear

would indicate that differences exist.

67

 

Reseamh Question Two

Relationship between student experience level with two-way
inteaaative video and satisfaction with two-way interactive video

The second research question was: Is there a relationship between student
experience level with two-way interactive video and satisfaction with two-way
interactive video?

Hgaz There is no relationship between student experience level with
two-way interactive video and satisfaction with two-way interactive
video.

Table 4.3 describes the experience level of the students with two-way interactive
video and if they think it will be a positive experience. Previous interactive television
experience was indicated on the survey data record with a “1”, while a “2” indicated
no experience. This data indicate that the vast majority of students did have previous

interactive video experience and that there is no signiﬁcant difference between the

two locations with regard to level of experience with interactive television.

Table 4.3 — Group Statistics/Independent Samples — Student experience level with
two-way interactive video (initial measures .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test Location N Mean St. t probability
Deviation

Previous itv experience OR 13 1.0769 .2774 .190 .850
BR 17 1.0588 .2425

Number itv courses OR 13 3.9231 2.4651 .640 .527
BR 17 3.4706 1.3747

ltv will be positive GR 13 2.8462 .6887 -1.736 .094
BR 17 3.3529 .8618

 

A t-test comparing the means of the two classroom locations was used to test the

hypothesis that there is no relationship between student experience level with two-

68

way interactive video and satisfaction with two-way interactive video. Homogeneity
of variance was tested by Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances and no impact on
results was indicated.

The Grand Rapids and Big Rapids locations were both somewhat neutral in ranking
interactive video as a positive experience. There also was no signiﬁcant difference in
how the students at the two locations felt, so Hoe cannot be rejected.

Data analysis regarding experience level with ITV gathered by the Family Nursing
Clinical (Fc) and Family Nursing Lecture (Fl) post surveys is compiled in Appendix
0.

A t-test comparing the means of survey items of the two classroom locations was
used to test the hypothesis that there is no relationship between student experience
level with two-way interactive video and satisfaction with two-way interactive video.
Homogeneity of variance was tested by Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances and
no impact on results was indicated.

Survey results show that students’ perception of interactive video as a positive
experience was nearly the same before and after the Family Nursing classes for both
locations. Students’ experience level with interactive television was generally from 2
to 5 courses for most students. There was no signiﬁcant difference in the differences
between the two locations for each class, so Hoe cannot be rejected.

Data analysis regarding experience level with ITV gathered by the Community
Nursing Clinical (Cc) and Community Nursing Lecture (Cl) post surveys is compiled

in Appendix P.

69

A t-test comparing the means of survey items of the two classroom locations was
used to test the hypothesis that there is no relationship between student experience
level with two-way interactive video and satisfaction with two-way interactive video.
Homogeneity of variance was tested by Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances and
no impact on results was indicated.

Survey results show that students’ perception of interactive video as a positive
experience was nearly the same before and after the Community Nursing classes for
both locations. Students’ experience level with interactive television was generally
from 2 to 5 courses for most students. There was no signiﬁcant difference in the
differences between the two locations for the two classes, which doesn’t allow us to
reject the null hypothesis.

Students were asked to rank their preference for class format including instructor
present - no interactive video, two-way interactive video/instructor present half the
time, and two-way interactive video, instructor never present. All but two
respondents ranked instructor present -— no interactive video as their ﬁrst preference.
The two respondents that didn’t rank it as their ﬁrst choice ranked it as their second
choice. All but two respondents (N =27) ranked the combination two-way interactive
video/instructor present half the time as their second preference. Two students ranked
this format as their ﬁrst preference. All students ranked two-way interactive video
with no instructor present as their least preferred method of instruction.

Students said that they were more apt to drive at least one hour to take a class

where the instructor is present than take it via two-way interactive video after the

70

 

Family Nursing classes than before. They were even more inclined to drive after the
Community Nursing classes.

An analysis of the data concerning whether students would take another
combination two-way interactive video/instructor present half the time compared to a
two-way interactive video instructor never present provided additional insight. Table
4.4 indicates that the combination two-way interactive video/ instructor present half
the time is preferred over an interactive video only class. Students were asked if they
would take either method again. A “1” indicated yes and a “2” indicated no. A t-test
was run to compare the means and resulted in a T value of —1 .94 with a probability of
.055. Conclusive results can’t be realized from these questions to determine if there
would be a substantially different level of acceptance between a combination class
and one that is interactive video only, but the trend indicates that this may in fact be

the case.

Table 4.4 — Preferred ITV mode.

 

 

 

I Survey Questions Location N Mean I
25 Take combo GR & BR 53 1.2075
itv/ instructor again

| 26 Take itv only GR & BR 53 1.3774 |

 

 

 

 

Two students (N =30) indicated in their survey responses that they believe
technological advances are always a plus and that it is good to keep an open mind
about things. However, the level of dissatisfaction with two-way interactive video
was so prevalent that it didn’t matter what a student’s level of experience was, the
vast majority of students didn’t care for it. Six students (N=30)made comments that

indicated that the only reason they were taking two-way interactive television classes

71

was that they had no alternative. If alternatives were available, most students would

decide against further interactive television classes.

Summary of research question two results

 

The results of the research items associated with determining if there is a
relationship between student experience level with interactive television and
satisfaction with interactive television are reasonably clear. Measures in this study
indicated that there is no relationship between student experience level with
interactive television and satisfaction with interactive television. Therefore there is

no basis to reject the null hypothesis.

Research Question Three

Student mrception of instructional
gaality with Mo-waLintemctive video

The third research question was: Do the instructors and students think there is a
difference in instructional quality as it relates to learning objectives between
instruction in a traditional instructor lead classroom setting and classes delivered by
two-way interactive video? The perceptions of the students will be explored ﬁrst.

L191} There is no difference in student perception of instructional
quality as it relates to learning objectives between a class session
where the instructor is present and a class session delivered by two-
way interactive video.

Table 4.5 contains the group statistics of the survey measures for student

perception of instructional quality as they relate to the null hypothesis.

72

 

Table 4.5 — Group Statistics/Independent Samples — Family Nursing class and
Community Nursing class students’ perception of uality.

I'."1"l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test Location N Mean St. t probability
Deviation

1307 - itv inﬂuences OR 13 2.3846 .8697 -.081 .936
effectiveness BR 1 7 2.41 1 8 .9393

Fc22 differences in GR 9 2.4444 1.1304 .914 .370
instructional quality BR 16 2.0625 .9287

F122 differences in GR 9 2.3750 .7440 .582 .566
instructional quality BR 16 2.1250 1.0878

Cc22 differences in GR 11 2.3636 .9244 1.870 .073
instructional qualiy BR 16 1 .7500 .7746

c122 differences in GR 13 2.3077 .8549 1.572 .128
instructional quality BR 16 1 .8125 .8342

 

 

An evaluation of the data in Table 4.5 indicates that there is no difference in the
opinions of instructional quality between the class locations and that the null
hypothesis should be accepted. This means that all four classes had the same
perception of instructional quality as it relates to learning objectives, but it doesn’t
necessarily indicate what they think of the quality. This can be answered by survey
questions where students were asked to explain their answer.

During the interviews and qualitative questions, two students (N =30) indicated
that the quality of interaction and the access to the instructor in the distance class is
not of the same caliber as it is when everyone is present in the same classroom.
Thirteen students (N =30) said that they held their questions and caught up with the
instructor the following week when the instructor was present because of difﬁculty
interacting or discomfort with the technology. Five students (N =30) indicated that
ITV was an impersonal environment. Two students (N =3 0) said that the difference in
quality didn’t matter and that the instructor can help mitigate the differences in

quality. Other individual comments included an observation that the class in which

73

the instructor is present often develops their own routine while the distant class
sometimes is ignored.

One interesting pattern was that six students (N =3 0) said they would ask a peer
their questions rather than the instructor if the instructor was at the other site. This
would generate noise that would be picked up by the microphones, which would
interfere with the audio transmission. What this means is that students would often
ask each other questions rather than the instructor, but by doing this, they were
affecting the audio for both classrooms inadvertently.

One of the most common indications that the quality of an interactive video class
is not as effective in meeting the learning objectives of the students was that sound
quality was an issue. If papers were rustled, a student sneezed or there was other
background noise, the students in the other class couldn’t hear the transmission
clearly. Another indication of reduced quality were the comments about only being
able to see part of the other class by interactive video. Six students (N =3 0) pointed to
audio and visual problems as something that decrease quality. Five students further
indicated that the technician responsible for the class was of superior quality and
helped make the class run smoothly. However, two students indicated that even
though there were no signiﬁcant technical interruptions and couldn’t point to any
speciﬁc instance, they still had the perception that the technology was causing
problems.

Because of the trends that may be apparent in the data in Table 4.5 and the
information gathered from student interviews in the qualitative survey questions, the

obvious question that arises is: if the students all have the same perception of quality,

74

is the perception of that quality good, bad or indifferent? This question can
potentially be answered by recoding the questions that deal with quality on the
surveys taken at the end of all four classes. These questions are l, 2, 7, 17, 22, 24,
and 27 (Appendix D & B). All of these questions have a Likert scale of strongly
agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree. The value for strongly agree
becomes a 2, agree becomes a l, and neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree all
become 0. A one-sample t-test is then run to determine if the opinions are
signiﬁcantly different from zero. The data for analysis is in Appendix Q.

Reviewing the data in Appendix Q very clearly indicates that there is a difference
from zero. This indicates that students think ITV quality is not as good as traditional
instruction. Therefore, in addition to not rejecting the null hypothesis, we can also
strongly indicate that the students are consistently of the opinion that the quality of
two-way interactive video is not as good as a traditional class where the instructor is
present.
Instructor mrception of instructional
gu_ality with two-waﬂnterytive video

The third research question was: Do the instructors and students think there is a
difference in instructional quality as it relates to learning objectives between
instruction in a traditional instructor-lead class and a class delivered by two-way
interactive video? The perceptions of the instructors will now be explored.

Hgg: There is no difference in instructor perception of instructional
quality as it relates to learning objectives between a class session

where the instructor is present and a class session delivered by two-
way interactive video.

75

The ﬁrst instructor indicated in the interview that some of the barriers students
face include interruption of audio and visual images, initial student reluctance to
engage in promoting dialogue between locations, inability of the instructor to observe
non-verbal behavior at the distant site, and older students having a reluctance to work
with the technology.

The ﬁrst instructor went on to indicate that cost savings are frequently seen as one
of the most signiﬁcant beneﬁts in using two-way interactive video. However, the
instructor felt that this should be looked at more closely as it may actually be more
expensive to use this format in many cases. Costs include the hardware and software,
the support technicians and communication lines. Unrealized costs may include
students who decide not to sign up for a class simply because it is two-way interactive
video.

The difficulty in providing test security, logistical coordination of classroom
materials, and remaining current with the technology required to deliver a course in
this manner are further challenges to quality. The ﬁrst instructor also indicated that
his teaching style is modiﬁed by two-way interactive video. The way material is
presented and the importance of eye contact and acknowledgement is magniﬁed. The
ﬁrst instructor did feel that the F arnily Nursing lecture class was affected by poor
picture and sound quality, and that one session utilizing a particular PowerPoint
presentation had challenges because of readability.

The ﬁrst instructor did not have a particular preference between two-way
interactive video and a class where the instructor is present. Instructor one did not

feel that there was a difference in instructional quality using two-way interactive

76

video and a traditional class before the classes started, but after the classes were
ﬁnished the ﬁrst instructor did feel that there was a difference in instructional quality.
One of the reasons cited for the change in opinion of the quality was the difﬁculty in
picking up on body language at the distant site. The absence of this feedback affects
the ability to address issues with the distant class and deal with the sensitivity of a
confused student.

Some of the challenges that the ﬁrst instructor noted included the difﬁculties with
coordinating student use of the camera and presentation aids when making a
presentation from the Grand Rapids location. The Grand Rapids cameras were
controlled by the presenter. This is an added degree of learning and anxiety for the
student. There was also concern about privacy of patient information that was
discussed in the clinical class because of the potential for the signal to be picked up
by unintended audiences.

The second instructor initially thought that student learning would be the same for
class sessions delivered by two-way interactive video, but after the classes concluded,
she felt that interactive video was less effective. The second instructor also
mentioned that the distant class usually feels less engaged and that audio and visual
quality can be an issue. Like the ﬁrst instructor, the second instructor thought body
language was an important aspect that was missing. It was also very difficult to
“shoot a look” to a disruptive student. Like the ﬁrst instructor, the second instructor
believed before classes started that the use of two-way interactive video would be a
positive experience. The second instructor indicated that it wasn’t a positive

experience at the conclusion of the courses. Both instructors cited a change from a T-

77

. 'l.. ' -

3 telecommunications connection to a much slower T-l connection as a signiﬁcant
impact on quality.

The second instructor had a preference for teaching in the physical presence of the
students. Being able to read body language and not having to deal with technical
challenges were the main reasons. The second instructor liked to employ small group
discussions during interactive video classes. This deﬂected the emphasis of the
technology. The second instructor also indicated that there was a difference in
instructional quality between a traditional class with the instructor present and a class
delivered by two-way interactive video, in part because it was felt by the instructor
that spontaneity was lost in two-way interactive environments.

The information gathered from the instructor interviews and surveys indicate that
there is no difference in the instructors’ perceptions of instructional quality as they
relate to learning objectives between a class where the instructor is present and a class
delivered by two way interactive video. Therefore, we cannot reject the null
hypothesis. This means that we may conclude that the instructors had the same
opinion of the quality of instruction of ITV. Using survey and interview data, it is
clear that the instructors think that ITV instruction is of less quality than traditional

instruction.

Summm of research question three resuag
The results of the surveys and interviews of the students did not allow us to reject
the null hypothesis: there is no difference in student perception of instructional

quality as it relates to learning objectives between a class session where the instructor

78

is present and a class session delivered by two-way interactive video. Additional
evaluation of qualitative and quantitative data indicated conclusively that students
consistently perceive the quality of two-way interactive video to be less than a
traditional class where the instructor is present.

The results of the surveys and interviews of the instructors did not allow us to
reject the null hypothesis: there is no difference in instructor perception of
instructional quality as it relates to learning objectives between a class session where
the instructor is present and a class session delivered by two-way interactive video.
The opinion the instructors held left no doubt that they felt there was a difference in
instructional quality between a between a traditional class with the instructor present

and a class delivered by two-way interactive video.

Research Question Four

Effective teaching methoda for
students using two-way interactive video

Research question four was: what teaching methods (such as lecture, group
discussion, team exercises) did instructors and students perceive as effective in the
two-way interactive video classroom. The responses of the students (N =30 unless
indicated) will be explored ﬁrst.

Students were asked what instructional techniques they thought were effective in a
two-way interactive video environment. Three students indicated that a solid syllabus

and a concrete schedule helped them to be better prepared to follow the class. Four

79

students indicated that they preferred straight lecture because it minimized the
challenges of multiple people interacting.

Three students indicated that PowerPoint presentations were effective, but one
student didn’t think PowerPoint was effective. One of the uses of visual aids is to
deﬂect attention from the instructor, so visual aids like PowerPoint would be a natural
ﬁt because students would tend to look at the visuals rather than the instructor in a
traditional classroom anyway. Adequate font and appropriate color selection were
important. Along the same lines, six students (N =1 7) thought videotapes were
effective. Many students encouraged more breakout sessions because people went
“off camera” for a period of time.

The students were also asked what they would recommend to make a two-way
interactive video class better. Thirteen of the students indicated a need for improved
video and audio. The television monitors in the classroom being studied were 25” in
Grand Rapids and Big Rapids. The microphones were mounted on the tables in Big
Rapids and suspended from the ceiling in Grand Rapids. The speakers were ceiling
mounted in both locations.

Seven students also indicated a lack of privacy inhibited conversation at times.
There were times that they wanted to talk to a student in the other classroom, but they
didn’t want to do it in the presence of everyone. Three students suggested adding
telephones. One student mentioned integrating computers more closely — perhaps
using chat rooms. General response was positive to the times when computer use was

integrated into classroom activities using things like PowerPoint and the Internet.

80

The placement of the cameras restricted the structure of the classroom. Students
indicated that the instructor pretty much had to stay behind the podium. This changed
the characteristics and feel of the class. One student indicated that additional camera
angles would help break up the monotony. One student requested more monitors.

Because of the slight delay that was sometimes present in transmissions,
interaction between locations was frequently clumsy. Some students went as far as to
say don’t use two-way interactive video at all. Many indicated that there needed to be

more focus on the distant class.

Effective teﬁhﬂ methods for
instructors using two-way interactive video

The instructors were asked why they used the combination format of two-way
interactive video and instructor rotation. The indicated that this format evolved from
earlier student feedback and seemed to increase student satisfaction. It also seemed to
increase interaction in both classrooms. Students felt this arrangement was at least
palatable, while they were dissatisﬁed with two-way interactive video only. This
compromise was seen as a way to balance the student tolerance level with two-way
interactive video with instructional effectiveness. Having the instructor available
every other week afforded the students an opportunity to clarify questions in person
within a week.

Instructors were also asked what they would recommend to make a two-way
interactive video class better. Many of the responses about improved technology were

similar to those of the students. Instructors also emphasized several advantages that

81

could be realized by closer integration with the Web. They did use email extensively
and some content was covered with Internet technology.

One instructor stressed several times that the class format becomes much more
lecture based when two-way interactive video is used because of the barriers to
communication if multiple people try to interact. The instructors also increased the
number of visual aids that they used, but found that this also brought up some
copyright issues. The instructors found their eye contact and communication patterns
were altered in two-way interactive video format. A technique that was used to
increase interaction in the distant class was to ask a question of the group, let them
discuss it, and then present it before both classes. Another effective method of
instruction was to have the distant class control the cameras occasionally. Sometimes

this was for presentations, sometimes it was for increased interaction.

Resemh Question Five

ﬁctors cited by students that detra_c_t_
from two-way integctive video learning

Research question ﬁve was: what factors detract from the two-way interactive
video learning experience. The responses of the students will be examined ﬁrst.

Students were asked what factors they perceive, if any, that make two-way
interactive video less effective than the traditional classroom with the instructor
present. The most common responses had to do with audio challenges such as sound
quality and volume. If more than one person is talking at a location, or if there are

external noises, the other location has difﬁculty understanding the audio transmission.

82

There were also issues when someone didn’t speak clearly or in the direction of a
microphone. Often the instructor or another student would ask for the comment to be
repeated, which relates back to previous comments about loss of spontaneity and a
reluctance on the part of the students to contribute.

Sound volume was identiﬁed as a factor that detracted from the two-way
interactive video learning experience. The relative distance someone is ﬁom a
microphone can impact volume. A sudden change in this distance can substantially
change the volume of the audio transmission. An example would be the distance
someone is from a microphone when they sneeze.

White noise (background/environmental noise) was also identiﬁed as a detractor.
In some cases, white noise could distract the listener to the point that they found
themselves no longer paying attention. While this is a potential problem in a
traditional classroom, it was felt that the effects were more pronounced in a two-way
interactive video setting.

The delay in transmission was also something that detracted from two-way
interactive video. This was more noticeable on the T1 line than the T3 line. One of
the effects was that people would talk at the same time and not realize it was
happening until a couple seconds later.

Students also pointed to video challenges. Even if large screen television monitors
were used, students in the distant classroom are much smaller than life size. Students
also didn’t like the fact that they could only see one display of the distant class. In
other words, they could only see the instructor, only the students, only a video, or only

the pad (overhead display) camera.

83

Students were also asked what instructional techniques they felt did not work well
in a two-way interactive video environment. Students didn’t like when the camera
was kept on the teacher. During brief exchanges, it is difficult to move the camera
focus back and forth between the people in the conversation. This often meant having
the camera focus on the entire classroom, which gives too small a picture, or having
the camera remain on the teacher.

Most of the other student comments centered on visual aids. In some instances,
formats that some students desired in visual aids were not appreciated by other
students. One thing that was consistent among the students was that poor quality
visual aids should not be used at all.

Students also didn’t care for visuals that are spread out. In other words, if the
entire visual couldn’t be displayed in a single camera shot, they didn’t want it used at
all. They found this to be a disorienting experience because they lost track of where
they were on the visual.

The use of group project presentations was discouraged because it was difﬁcult to
get everyone on camera. Even though the group exercise may be effective, a
presentation by several people was difficult to coordinate and resulted in a
compromised experience.

Some of the student comments indicated that they felt so strongly about the
importance of having the instructor present that nothing can be done to the interactive

television experience to make it as effective as classroom instruction.

Factors cited by instructors that detract
from two—way interegive video learning

The instructors were asked what problems or barriers they thought students faced
in learning the material when it is delivered in a mixed two-way interactive
video/traditional instruction setting. The barriers cited included interruption of audio
or visual images, initial student reluctance in promoting dialog between locations, and
inability of the instructor to observe non-verbal behavior at the distant site. The
instructors also had a perception that older students had a stronger initial reluctance to
participate in a class with interactive video technology. They also believed that the
distant class feels less engaged with the instructor.

The instructors were also asked what the difﬁculties were for them as an instructor
in using two-way interactive video. The inability to read body language was one of
the strongest responses. To complicate this, students liked to sit out of the camera
range. It was also difficult for the instructors to facilitate discussions if there were
any audio challenges.

The instructors also indicated that providing test security, distributing class
materials, and getting the distant class fully involved were difficulties for them. They
also found staying abreast of the changes in the technology a challenge, but they also
found it exciting.

The ﬁnal question for the instructors was what factors, if any, make two-way
interactive video less effective than traditional classroom instruction. This was easily
smnmed up as audio quality, interaction, and the fact that two-way interactive video

does not provide the entire visual experience. On one occasion, there was a few

85

rrrinute interruption in transmission between the two locations. This resulted in lost
class time. Classroom interruptions occur in virtually any environment - burned out
overhead, no chalk or markers to write on the board, etc. — but in a multiple classroom
environment it can be more discouraging for the students because they might not

immediately know what caused the interruption or how long it will be.

86

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summgy

Effectiveness studies of instructional practices are beneﬁcial to assist in
determining the value of the practices and in making decisions to improve the
educational process. Effectiveness studies generate information that can be built upon
in future investigations. This investigation at Ferris State University was built upon a
case study of four nursing classes delivered by a combination of two-way interactive
video and having the instructor present. It is understood that the pool of students is
small. Moreover, these observations involve nursing students and may not be
generalized to the general student population.

This study examined student and instructor perceptions of the effectiveness of a
mixed two-way interactive video and traditional instruction environment. Student
performance in the classroom when the instructor is available via two-way interactive
video compared to when the students are at a location where the instructor is
physically present was investigated. The research environment was four nursing
classes taught with a combination of traditional and ITV instruction on the campus of
Ferris State University and Grand Rapids Community College.

Although two-way interactive computer technology is being used by growing
numbers of colleges and universities, it may not be the most effective learning
method. This generated ﬁve research questions that were the basis for the null

hypotheses.

87

1. Is a combination ITV and live instruction is effective in meeting learning
objectives for the students and instructor?

2. Is there is a relationship between student experience level ITV and satisfaction
with ITV?

3. Do instructors and students think there is a difference in instructional quality as
it relates to learning objectives between instruction in a traditional instructor lead
classroom setting and classes delivered via ITV?

4. What teaching methods (such as lecture, group discussion, team exercises)
instructors and students perceive as effective in the ITV classroom?

5. What factors detract from the two-way interactive video learning experience?

The criterion for judging the null hypothesis was a .05 level of signiﬁcance on the
evaluative statistical test. There was also a qualitative aspect to the research that was

formalized descriptively.

Literature

The research questions were the basis for a literature review that included distance
education studies, interactive video studies, nursing education and case study
research, student and instructor reception of ITV and other instructional medium, and
effectiveness research.

Four studies dealt with satisfaction of distance education. A 1997 study by Tiene
found that instructors were slow to embrace technology. Dillon pointed out in 1989
that faculty acceptance will be low unless there are incentives. Several studies

indicated that maintaining a high level of interaction is key to the success of distance

88

education. One study indicated that 89% of teachers that used interactive video are
satisﬁed with its use in teaching.

Three studies indicated that there are a lot of distractions in an ITV classroom and
that these distractions may affect student and instructor performance. Two studies
indicated that students were satisﬁed with the effectiveness of two-way interactive
video instruction and one study found a positive relationship between student
satisfaction and their performance in the class.

Two studies indicated that survey instruments have potential for effectively and
reliably measuring student perceptions of the interactive climate in an interactive
television environment.

Several studies are contained in Thomas Russell’s (1999) book No Signiﬁcant
Difference. The general thrust of these studies indicate that there is no signiﬁcant
difference between traditional instruction and distance education. However, two 1999
studies raise the question that there may be a difference. These studies argue that the
reason the difference has not been measured is that the research design frameworks
and measurement techniques do not control for confounding variables. It is the
contradiction in these viewpoints, one of “no signiﬁcant difference” and one of

“compromised framewor ” that point to the need for this study.

Methodology

The study was conducted on four nursing classes that utilized a combination

ITV/live instruction. There were 17 students in four Big Rapids classes and 13

89

students in the four Grand Rapids classes. Students in a Grand Rapids class and the
corresponding Big Rapids class made up each class population.

Characteristics of this study were that conducting the research may impact the
learning in the course being studied and that students experienced both local and
distant learning for each class. One instructor taught Family Nursing Lecture
(NUS416F L) and Family Nursing Clinical (NU S416FC). A second instructor taught
Community Nursing Lecture (NU S416CL) and Community Nursing Clinical
(NU S416CC).

Measures taken included a pretest and posttest of material before and after
NUS416FL and NUS416CL, which the lecture classes. A student survey was taken at
the beginning of the semester and a survey of all four classes was taken at the
conclusion of the classes. An instructor survey was taken before they started teaching
their courses at the beginning of the term and at the conclusion of each course.
Additionally, a standardized distance education survey was taken at the end of the
semester. The quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 9 at Ferris State

University’s Assessment Center.

@1118.

The ﬁrst research question attempted to determine if a combination ITV and live
instruction was effective in meeting learning objectives for the students and
instructor. The results of the research items associated with determining if a
combination two-way interactive video and live instruction was effective in meeting

the learning objectives of the students and instructors has been somewhat mixed. The

90

 

overwhelming measurement results from the students indicate that they feel it was not
effective. The only argument that indicates otherwise was that they all expected good
grades. However, grades are only a partial measure of effectiveness measurement. In
the courses studied, much of the weight for grading came from individual projects and
assignments done independent of the class sessions. As was brought out in the
student surveys, a greater responsibility for learning was placed on the student
because of the interactive video environment.

There are a number of reasons why students don’t feel that ITV is effective in
meeting their learning objectives. Audio and video technology has progressed rapidly
in recent years, but it is still a compromise. It is very difficult to conduct discussions,
feedback is slower, and attention spans may be shorter in an ITV environment. The
technology also introduces an impersonal aspect to the classroom. Some of these
things can be overcome with technological improvements, but the fact remains that in
most cases, these improvements are not in place. However, the loss of contact with
the instructor creates an impersonal environment that most students resent and there
are not feasible technical solutions in the foreseeable future.

The results from the research items associated with determining if a combination
two-way interactive video and live instruction was effective in meeting the learning
objectives of the instructors was not as clear as the students’ response. However, the
very nature that it was not clear indicates that differences exist between the
effectiveness of live instruction and ITV.

The comments that the instructors made about distractions in a two-way interactive

video environment are consistent with the observations of Whittington in 1994. The

91

observations of the instructors that there is a decrease in the amount of interaction
would point to a less effective learning environment as characterized by Moore
(1989), Moore and Kearsley (1995), and Sherry, F ulford, and Zhang (1998). These
ﬁndings also support the arguments of Smith and Dillon (1999) and Phipps and
Merisotis (1999), where they indicated that it may be premature to conclude that “no
signiﬁcant difference” exists in distance learning studies. However, these ﬁndings
would somewhat contradict Bartel’s 1998 study and a number of the studies in
Russell’s 1999 The No Significant Dijﬁrence Phenomenon.

The instructors in this study were experienced and respected in their use of two-
way interactive video, and were observed to be very comfortable in an interactive
video environment. The student surveys are full of compliments of the instructors in
their effort to deal with the challenges presented by the technology. It is questionable
if most two-way interactive video classes have as talented and dedicated instructors as
those in this study. This would mean that the differences in effectiveness that were
found in this study would be even more pronounced in a larger cross-section of
classes.

It is clear that differences in effectiveness exist between instruction where the
instructor is present and two-way interactive video even though there is some
variation in the ability to reject or accept the various null hypotheses associated with
research question one. It is also clear that students prefer the combination of two-
way interactive video/instructor present half the time to a class via just two-way
interactive video. Since mixed ITV/live instructor is more popular than students

participating in a class just via ITV, it can be argued that the differences in learning

92

 

effectiveness found in this study would be even more pronounced in students that E
participate in class just via ITV.

The very fact that the vast majority of students in most studies would prefer to
have an instructor present at all times rather than participate via ITV should raise a
big red ﬂag that indicates there must be something beneﬁcial in having an instructor
present. This holds true even for the students in studies that claim “no signiﬁcant
difference”. A possible explanation why students are not voicing this concern more
vigorously is that their alternative of a somewhat compromised form of instruction
would be no instruction. Another explanation is that students are willing to make
compromises in effectiveness if it means convenience. A third explanation would be
that students are a captive audience once they invest enough into a course of study.

The second research question investigated if there is a relationship between student
experience level with ITV and satisfaction with ITV. The results of the research items
associated with determining if there is a relationship between student experience level
with interactive television and satisfaction with interactive television is reasonably
clear. Measures in this study indicated that there is no relationship between student
experience level with interactive television and satisfaction with interactive
television. Therefore there is no basis to reject the null hypothesis.

The third research question attempted to determine if instructors and students think
there is a difference in instructional quality as it relates to learning objectives between
instruction in a traditional instructor lead classroom setting and classes delivered via
ITV. The results of the surveys and interviews of the students indicated that students

in both locations for all four classes felt the same about the instructional quality.

93

 

Evaluation of qualitative and quantitative data lend support to the notion that students i
consistently perceive the quality of two-way interactive video to be less than a
traditional class where the instructor is present.

The results of the surveys and interviews of the instructors left no doubt that they
felt there was a difference in instructional quality between a between a traditional
class with the instructor present and a class delivered by two-way interactive video.
These results did not allow us to reject the null hypothesis.

The fourth research questions investigated what teaching methods instructors and
students perceive as effective in the ITV classroom. Students were asked what
instructional techniques they thought were effective in a two-way interactive video
environment. A solid syllabus and a concrete schedule help students to be better
prepared to follow the class. Several students indicated that they preferred straight
lecture because it minimized the challenges of multiple people interacting.

Several students indicated that PowerPoint presentations were effective. One of
the reasons for visual aids is to deﬂect attention from the instructor, so visual aids like
PowerPoint would be a natural ﬁt because students would tend to look at the visuals
rather than the instructor in a traditional classroom anyway. Font size and color
selection was important. Along the same lines, students thought videotapes were
effective. Many students encouraged more breakout sessions because people went
“off camera” for a period of time.

Students were also asked what would make an interactive video class better. Many

of the students indicated a need for improved video and audio. Some mentioned

94

integrating computers more closely, perhaps using chat rooms. They did react
positively to the times when computer use was integrated into classroom activities.

The placement of the cameras restricts the structure of the classroom. Additional
camera angles would help break up the monotony. Reducing the delay that was
sometimes present in transmissions would help foster interaction. Some students
went as far as to say do not use two-way interactive video at all. Many indicated that
there needed to be more focus on the distant class.

The instructors were asked why they used the combination two-way interactive
video and instructor present format. This evolved from student feedback and seemed
to increase student satisfaction. It also seemed to increase interaction in both
classrooms. Students felt this arrangement was at least palatable, while they were
dissatisﬁed with two-way interactive video only. This compromise was seen as a way
to balance the student tolerance level with two-way interactive video with
instructional effectiveness. Having the instructor available every other week afforded
the students with an opportunity to clarify questions in person within a week.

Instructors were also asked what they would recommend to make a two-way
interactive video class better. Many of the responses about improved technology were
similar to those of the student. They also emphasized several advantages that could
be realized by closer integration with the web. They did use email extensively and
some content was covered with Internet technology.

One instructor stressed several times that the class format becomes much more
lecture based when two-way interactive video is used because of the barriers to

communication if multiple people try to interact. The instructors also increased the

95

 

F- ‘1

number of visual aids that they used, but found that this also brought up some
copyright issues. The instructors found their eye contact and communication patterns
were altered in two-way interactive video format. A technique that was used to
increase interaction in the distant class was to ask a question of the group, let them
discuss it, and then present it before both classes. Another method of instruction that
was perceived effective was to have the distant class control the cameras occasionally.
Sometimes this was for presentations, sometimes it was for increased interaction.

The ﬁfth research question investigated what factors detract from the two-way
interactive video learning experience. Students were asked what factors they perceive,
if any, that make two-way interactive video less effective than the traditional
classroom with the instructor present. The most common responses had to do with
audio challenges such as sound quality and volume. If more than one person is
talking at a location, or if there are external noises, the other location has difficulty
understanding the audio transmission. Sound volume was identiﬁed as a factor that
detracted from the two-way interactive video learning experience. White noise was
also identiﬁed as a detractor. In some cases, white noise could distract the listener to
the point that they found themselves no longer paying attention. While this is a
potential problem in a traditional classroom, it was felt that the effects were more
pronounced in a two-way interactive video setting.

The delay in transmission was also something that detracted from two-way
interactive video. This was more noticeable on the T1 line than the T3 line. One of
the effects was that people would talk at the same time and not realize it was

happening until a couple seconds later.

96

 

Students also pointed to video challenges. Even if large screen television monitors
were used, students in the distant classroom are much smaller than life size. Students
also didn’t like the fact that they could only see one display of the distant class.

Students were also asked what instructional techniques they felt did not work well
in a two-way interactive video environment. Students didn’t like when the camera
was kept on the teacher. During brief exchanges, it is difficult to move the camera
focus back and forth between the people in the conversation.

Most of the other student comments centered on visual aids. In some instances,
formats that some students desired in visual aids were not appreciated by other
students. One thing that was consistent among the students was that poor quality
visual aids should not be used at all. This included visuals that couldn’t be shown in
one camera shot.

The use of group project presentations was discouraged because it was difﬁcult to
get everyone on camera. Even though the group exercise may be effective, a
presentation by several people was difﬁcult to coordinate and resulted in a
compromised experience.

Some of the student comments associated with these research items indicate that they
feel so strongly that having the instructor present is so important that nothing can be
done to the interactive television experience to make it as effective as classroom
instruction.

The instructors were asked what problems or barriers they thought students faced
in learning the material when it is delivered in a mixed two-way interactive

video/traditional instruction setting. The barriers cited included interruption of audio

97

or visual images, initial student reluctance in promoting dialog between locations, and
inability of the instructor to observe non-verbal behavior at the distant site. The
instructors also had a perception that the older students had a stronger initial
reluctance to participate in a class with interactive video technology and that the
distant class feels less engaged.

The instructors were also asked what the difficulties were for them as an instructor
in using two-way interactive video. The inability to read body language was one of
the strongest responses. It was also difficult for them to facilitate discussions if there
were any audio challenges. They also found logistics and staying abreast of the
changes in technology a challenge.

The ﬁnal question for the instructors was what factors, if any, make two-way
interactive video less effective than traditional classroom instruction. This was easily
summed up as poor sound quality, difficulty in interaction, and the fact that two-way

interactive video does not provide the entire visual experience.

Recommendations
There is enough evidence to suggest that further research should be conducted on
the effectiveness of two-way interactive video instruction. It appears that while the
learning objectives of the instructor might be satisﬁed, it seems likely that there is
some degree of compromise in the learning objectives in a distance learning class
compared to a traditional class.
Schools should provide training and incentives to the faculty, and the

administrators should visit these rooms while classes are in session so that they have a

98

 

better understanding of the issues surrounding distance education. The instructors ‘L
bear the brunt of student dissatisfaction when things go wrong, but usually the

instructor has little control over the situation. If a school has multiple distance

learning rooms, invariably they are not set up the same. This makes it more difficult

for the instructors because they have to become familiar with multiple environments.

Students indicated that they were more apt to drive at least one hour to take a class
where the instructor is present than take it via two-way interactive video after having
had the ﬁrst and second nursing classes than before. They were even more inclined to
drive after the third and fourth classes. Perhaps there is a point were students become
saturated with interactive video and need a different class format. Although it was
not speciﬁcally measured in this study, it would be beneﬁcial for future researchers to
attempt to determine the optimal length of time for an ITV class. The comments from
the students while at the distant location indicated that it is hard to pay attention
somewhere between one and two hours after a class begins. It was very easy to tune
the class out. Instructors also indicated that classes just feel longer when done in an
ITV environment.

Studies may have shown that no signiﬁcant difference exists between traditional
and distance education because the non-distant (broadcast) classes are no longer
utilized to their full potential. Teaching techniques that may normally be utilized in a
traditional classroom can not be used in an ITV setting. An example would be to the
use of a projection unit to display a computer screen. In a traditional setting,
projecting an image on a wall magniﬁes the image many times its original size.

When displaying the same computer image on a television screen via ITV, the font

99

size has to be increased so signiﬁcantly that it dramatically limits what can be viewed
in one frame.

The conclusion of this study is that as it is currently used, ITV does not enjoy the
same quality or effectiveness in learning or instruction as that which is conducted
with the instructor present. Virtually every participant had experienced ITV prior to
this study. Twenty-eight of the thirty student participants indicated that they felt ITV
had compromised quality and effectiveness. Both instructors felt the same way. It is
difﬁcult to discount as an aberration the results of all of these experience participants
that were measured in four classes. This certainly points out the need for ﬁrrther
research because the ﬁndings of this study are a contradiction to most ITV
effectiveness research.

The implications of this study are that ITV is not and never has been as effective as
traditional instruction. It is not possible to limit a learning experience to the tunnel
vision of a camera and expect the same results as a learning experience with full
peripheral vision. Many of the limitations are technical in nature and could be
mitigated with improved technology. The fact remains that the technology to do this
is cost prohibitive in most cases. The expense to equip, maintain, and staff an
effective ITV environment would be higher than to hire more teachers. Further
research should include a cost beneﬁt analysis of the entire environment.

Students should consider the implications of taking an ITV course. They may very
well receive a grade similar to what they would receive in a traditional classroom, but
the difﬁculty in paying attention that was mentioned by the students in this study may

indicate that long-term retention is reduced in an ITV environment.

100

 

Instructors need to be far more than just good teachers in an ITV environment.
They need to be technicians, have camera presence, and have the ability to make
compromises. They must be equipped with a backup plan in case the technology
fails. They also have to use different instructional methods than in a traditional
classroom setting. Instructors should also realize that in most situations, ITV is a no
win situation. Students would prefer an instructor present. Colleges typically give
little, if any, reward for faculty to participate in ITV.

Nursing education could beneﬁt signiﬁcantly if ITV were more effective. The
nature of nursing education, with continuing education requirements, skill upgrades,
and certiﬁcations all point to a need for alternatives to traditional instruction. The
argument being made in this study is not that it isn’t possible for ITV to be effective.
The argument is that the state of the implementation of the technology is not as solid
as it should be.

There has to be a bottom line of quality. There are a lot of things that can and do
go wrong in an ITV environment. Many of these challenges are simply taken in stride
as the price paid for using technology. However, lost instruction time due to technical
challenges, no matter how slight, consume a portion of available instruction time that
usually cannot be recovered. ITV has been struggling with audio quality since its
inception. Although its present state is improved, it is still a compromise.

An implication of this study is that it isn’t practical to generalize what is found in
one study to an entire environment. There are too many variables in the distance
education equation to make blanket statements. It isn’t appropriate to conclude that

different learning environments will always produce the same results. An awareness

101

 

of this will help students and instructors that are utilizing non-traditional formats
because it will change how they approach and adapt to the situation.

There are some potential opportunities in ITV that are generally not taken
advantage of. For example, an ITV class can easily be video taped for students that
are unable to make it to class. This makes it possible to easily “repeat” a course at a
time convenient for the student. There are instructional techniques and skills that can
be obtained in an ITV environment that are not possible in a traditional classroom.
Distractions, technical challenges, and the modiﬁcation in teacher and student
behavior all point to a reduced effectiveness in the classroom. This doesn’t mean that
distance education should not be exploited. On the contrary, technology and
techniques used in distance education open up doors that are not available in the
traditional classroom setting. We don’t have to — and shouldn’t — do things the way
they have always been done. Perhaps striving for equal learning as it is traditionally
deﬁned is the wrong approach.

Learning in a distance education environment can be illustrated with a Venn
diagram. One circle would represent the learning derived from traditional instruction
and the second circle would represent the learning derived from distance education.
The question is not if the circles in the Venn diagram perfectly intersect. The

question is: are the circles the same size?

102

 

APPENDICES

103

 

 

Appendix A

Instruction Assessment System Form I
Please answer the following questions on the following scale:

Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, Very Poor

The distance learning course as a whole was:

The course content was:

The instructor’s contribution to the course was:

The effectiveness of the distance learning format was:

The helpfulness of the distance learning staff overall was:

Student conﬁdence in instructor’s knowledge was:

Timeliness of instructor response to assignments was:
Quality/helpfulness of instructor feedback was:

Tailoring of instruction to varying student skill levels was:

10. Clarity of course objectives was:

11. The organization of the study guide was:

12. Usefulness of reading assignments in understanding course content was:
13. Usefulness of written assignments in understanding course content was:
14. Usefulness of videotapes in understanding course content was:

15. Usefulness of computer on-line resources in understanding course content was:
16. Relevance and usefulness of course content was:

17. Evaluation and grading techniques (tests, papers, projects, etc.) were:
18. Reasonableness of assigned work was:

PFSngP’Nt‘

Answer the following questions on a 7 point scale from Much Higher to Average to

Much Lower relative to other college courses you have taken.

19. Do you expect your grade in this course to be:

20. The intellectual challenge presented was:

21. The amount of effort you put into this course was:

22. The amount of effort to succeed in this course was:

23. Your involvement in this course doing assignments, attending classes, etc. was:

24. On average, how many hours per week have you spent on this course, including
attending classes, doing readings, reviewing notes, writing papers, and any other
course related work? under 2, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-9, 10-11, 12-13, 14-15, 16-17, 18-
19, 20-21, 22 or more.

25. From the total average hours above, how many do you consider were valuable in
advancing your education? under 2, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, 8-9, 10-11, 12-13, 14-15, 16-17,
18-19, 20-21, 22 or more.

26. What grade do you expect in this course? A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D, D-,
E, Pass, Credit, No Credit.

104

Appendix B

Student Consent Form

Explanation of Research

This survey is being conducted as part of a doctoral study to investigate the
effectiveness of two-way interactive video instruction at Ferris State University. The
purpose of this study is to help determine the effectiveness of learning in a mixed
two-way interactive video/traditional classroom instruction environment.

You will be asked to read survey questions relating to two-way interactive video
instruction (ITV), decide how you feel about the statements, and record your
responses on the survey sheet. Each survey should take you about 15 minutes to
complete.

You will be free to withdraw your participation from the study at any time without
recrimination. Your grade will not be affected by your decision.

Con_sent to Participaﬁg

I have been informed that this study is being conducted to investigate the
effectiveness of a mixed two-way interactive video/traditional classroom instruction
setting. The purposes and procedures of the study have been explained to me, and I
voluntarily agree to participate in the research.

I understand that I am free to withdraw my participation at any time without
recrimination. Measures used in this study will include surveys, examinations, and

class projects.

I understand all information will remain completely anonymous, and that the
results of the study will be available to me upon request.

Name (please print)

 

 

Signature

Date

 

105

Instructor Participation Consent Form
Explanation of Research

This study is being conducted as part of a doctoral study to investigate the
effectiveness of two-way interactive video instruction at Ferris State University. The
purpose of this study is to help determine the effectiveness of learning in a mixed
two-way interactive video/traditional classroom instruction environment.

You will be free to withdraw your participation from the study at any time.
Con_sent to Participate:

I have been informed that this study is being conducted to investigate the
effectiveness of a mixed two-way interactive video/traditional classroom instruction
class setting. The purposes and procedures of the study have been explained to me,
and I voluntarily agree to participate in the research.

I understand that I am free to withdraw my participation at any time without
recrimination. Measures used in this study will include instructor and student

interviews, as well as student surveys, examinations, and class projects.

I understand all information will remain completely anonymous, and that the
results of the study will be available to me upon request.

Name (please print)

 

Signature

Date

 

106

Appendix C

Student Code:

 

 

Student Survey 1

Please answer each question as thoroughly as possible.

1) What college degree(s) do you have?
2) What is your age?
3) What is your approximate undergraduate GPA?
4) When did you receive your RN license? (If you have not received it yet, answer as
“have not yet received”)
5) How many nursing classes have you taken?
6) How many years of nursing experience do you have? (excluding school).
7) The use of two-way interactive video will inﬂuence the effectiveness of
this class.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral (1) disagree e) strongly disagree

8) Explain your answer to question 7.

9) The use of two-way interactive video will be a positive experience.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral (1) disagree e) strongly disagree

10) Explain your answer to question 9.

107

11) Have you ever been involved in a class with two-way interactive video before
this?

Yes No
12) If yes to question 1 1, how many?
13) There is a difference in effectiveness of meeting course objectives between a
traditional class with the instructor present and a class delivered via two-way

interactive video.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

14) Explain your answer to question 13.

15) There will be a difference in instructional quality when comparing a combination
two-way interactive video/traditional instructor led class with a traditional class where
the instructor is always present.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral (1) disagree e) strongly disagree

16) Explain your answer to question 15.

17) There is a difference in ability to learn the material when comparing a
combination two-way interactive video/traditional instructor led class with a
traditional class where the instructor is always present. Why?

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

l8) Explain your answer to question 17.

108

 

 

Appendix D

Student Code:

 

Student Survey 2 - Clinical

Please answer each question as thoroughly as possible.

1) The use of two-way interactive video inﬂuenced the effectiveness of
this class.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

2) Explain your answer to question 1.

3) The use of two-way interactive video was a positive experience.
a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

4) Explain your answer to question 3.

5) Rank your preference for class format from 1 to 3. (1 - most preferred, 3 - least
preferred)

a) two-way interactive video/ instructor never present
b) two-way interactive video/ instructor present half the time
c)Instructor Present - no interactive video

6) If you could take a class near your home exclusively via two-way interactive video
or you could take a class located at least 1 hour away where the instructor is always
present, which would you take?

Take two-way interactive video Class Drive to Location of
Class

7) Having the instructor in the classroom half of the class sessions makes the class
better than having the instructor teach the entire semester at one location.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

109

8) Explain your answer to question 7.

9) What would you recommend to make a two-way interactive video class better?

10) What would you recommend to make the class where the instructor is present
better?

11) What factors, if any, make two-way interactive video less effective than the
traditional classroom with the instructor present?
12) How comfortable were you in obtaining help from the instructor.

a) very comfortable b) comfortable c) neutral (1) uncomfortable e) very
uncomfortable

13) Explain your answer to question 12.

14) If there was a time when you needed help, whom did you ask and how (email,
verbal dialog, etc.)?

15) If the instructor was not in your location, did you still ask the instructor for help
during class via two-way interactive video or did you ask a classmate at your
location?

16) If the instructor was in your location, whom did you ask for help? (circle all that
apply)

a) instructor b) a classmate at your location c) classmate at distant location

110

——li"H.r

 

17) There is a difference in effectiveness of meeting course objectives between a
traditional class with the instructor always present and a class delivered exclusively
via two-way interactive video.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

l8) Explain your answer to question 17.

19) Was this class effective and why?

20) What instructional techniques (use of visual aids, video tape, class activities, etc.)
did you think were effective in a two-way interactive classes?

21) What instructional techniques (use of visual aids, video tape, class activities, etc.)
did you think weren’t effective in a two-way interactive classes?

22) There was a difference in instructional quality between two-way interactive video
and traditional instructor led instruction.
a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

23) Explain your answer to question 22.

24) There is a difference in the ability to learn the material if the instruction is by two-
way interactive video compared to when the instructor is in the classroom.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral (1) disagree e) strongly disagree

24) Explain your answer to question 23.

25) Would you take a class that is a combination two-way interactive video/instructor
present part of the time again?

Yes No

111

26) Would you take a course exclusively via two-way interactive video?

Yes No

112

r; in... a

27) Having a class connected via two-way interactive video to another class where the
instructor is present has a positive effect.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

28) Explain your answer to question 27.

29) Any additional comments?

113

 

Appendix E
Student Code:

 

 

Student Survey 3 - Lecture
Please answer each question as thoroughly as possible.

1) The use of two-way interactive video inﬂuenced the effectiveness of
this class.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral (1) disagree e) strongly disagree

2) Explain your answer to question 1.

3) The use of two-way interactive video was a positive experience.
a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

4) Explain your answer to question 3.

5) Rank your preference for class format from 1 to 4. (1 - most preferred, 4 - least
preferred)

_ a) two-way interactive video/ instructor never present

__b) two-way interactive video/ instructor present half the time
___c)Instructor Present - no interactive video

6) If you could take a class near your home exclusively via two-way interactive video
or you could take a class located at least 1 hour away where the instructor is always
present, which would you take?

Take two-way interactive video Class Drive to Location of
Class

7) Having the instructor in the classroom half of the class sessions makes the class
better than having the instructor teach the entire semester at one location.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral (1) disagree e) strongly disagree

114

8) Explain your answer to question 7.

9) What would you recommend to make a two-way interactive video class better?

10) What would you recommend to make the class where the instructor is present
better?

11) What factors, if any, make two-way interactive video less effective than the
traditional classroom with the instructor present?
12) How comfortable were you in obtaining help from the instructor.

a) very comfortable b) comfortable c) neutral d) uncomfortable e) very
uncomfortable

13) Explain your answer to question 12.

14) If there was a time when you needed help, whom did you ask and how (email,
verbal dialog, etc.)?

15) If the instructor was not in your location, did you still ask the instructor for help
during class via two-way interactive video or did you ask a classmate at your
location?

16) If the instructor was in your location, whom did you ask for help? (circle all that
apply)

a) instructor b) a classmate at your location c) classmate at distant location

115

 

17) There is a difference in effectiveness of meeting course objectives between a
traditional class with the instructor always present and a class delivered exclusively
via two-way interactive video.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

18) Explain your answer to question 17.

19) Was this class effective and why?

20) What instructional techniques (use of visual aids, video tape, class activities, etc.)
did you think were effective in a two-way interactive classes?

21) What instructional techniques (use of visual aids, video tape, class activities, etc.)
did you think weren’t effective in a two-way interactive classes?

22) There was a difference in instructional quality between two-way interactive video
and traditional instructor led instruction.
a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

23) Explain your answer to question 22.

24) There is a difference in the ability to learn the material if the instruction is by two-
way interactive video compared to when the instructor is in the classroom.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral d) disagree e) strongly disagree

25) Explain your answer to question 24.

116

 

 

26) Would you take a class that is a combination two-way interactive video/instructor
present part of the time again?

Yes No
27) Would you take a course exclusively via two-way interactive video?
Yes No

28) Having a class connected via two-way interactive video to another class where the
instructor is present has a positive effect.

a) strongly agree b) agree c) neutral (1) disagree e) strongly disagree

29) Explain your answer to question 28.

30) Any additional comments?

117

qi

 

Appendix F

Instructor Interview 1

1) What are your learning objectives for your part of this course?

2) For your part of the course, what measures of student performance do you use and
what levels of student performance are acceptable to you in order to consider the
course effective?

3) Do you expect student learning will be the same, less, or better in the class sessions
delivered to students by two-way interactive video?

4) What problems or barriers do you think students face in learning the material when
it is delivered a mixed two-way interactive video/traditional instruction setting?

5) Are there beneﬁts to using a mixed two-way interactive video /1ive course delivery
system?

6) What are the difficulties for you as an instructor in using this mode of delivery?

7) Do you think the use of two-way interactive video will be a positive or negative
experience?

Positive Negative

8) Explain your answer to question 7.

9) How do you view the effectiveness of two-way interactive video in the classroom?

10) Do you think there is a difference in effectiveness of meeting class objectives
between a traditional class with the instructor present and a class delivered via two-
way interactive video?

118

 

ll) Explanation of question 10.

12) What is your teaching preference?

Instructor Present combination two-way interactive video/instructor
present

two-way interactive video No Preference

13) Explanation of question 12.

14) If a student could take a class near their home via two-way interactive video or
they could take a class located at least 1 hour away where the instructor is always
present, which would they take?

Take two-way interactive video Class Drive to Location of Class
15) Do you think having the instructor in the classroom half of the class sessions
makes the class better than having the instructor teach the entire semester at one
location?

Yes No

16) What would you recommend to make a two-way interactive video class better?

17) What factors, if any, make two-way interactive video less effective than
traditional classroom instruction?

18) Where will you present course material in addition to the classroom (email,
course web page, telephone conference, etc.)?

119

19) How comfortable will you be in providing help to the distant class? Do you
anticipate any problems?

20) Do you do anything different because you are also teaching to a distance class via
two-way interactive video?

21) Will you employ any special techniques to promote interaction in the distant
class? If so, what will they be?

22) What do you ﬁnd effective in a mixed traditional instruction/two-way interactive
video classroom?

23) Do you think there is a difference in quality in instruction between a traditional
class with the instructor present and a class delivered via two-way interactive video?

24) Explanation of question 23.

25) Explain the history of two-way interactive instruction at Ferris State University
and how the mixed instruction model evolved.

26) Any additional comments?

120

'ﬁ““. 1..

 

Appendix G

Instructor Interview 2 - Clinical

1) Where the learning objectives met for your part of this course?

2) For your part of the course, what measures of student performance did you use and
what levels of student performance? Was this course effective?

3) Do you think student learning was be the same, less, or better in the class sessions
delivered to students by two-way interactive video?

4) What problems or barriers do you think students faced in learning the material
when it is delivered a mixed two-way interactive video/traditional instruction setting?

5) Are there beneﬁts to using a mixed two-way interactive video /1ive course delivery
system?

6) What are the difficulties for you as an instructor in using this mode of delivery?

7) Do you think the use of two-way interactive video was a positive or negative
experience?

Positive Negative

8) Explain your answer to question 7.

9) How do you view the effectiveness of two-way interactive video in the classroom?

10) Do you think there is a difference in effectiveness of meeting course objectives
between a traditional class with the instructor present and a class delivered via two-
way interactive video?

121

 

 

11) Explanation of question 10.

12) What is your teaching preference?
Instructor Present combination two-way interactive video/instructor present
two-way interactive video No Preference

13) Explanation of question 12.

14) If a student could take a class near their home via two-way interactive video or
they could take a class located at least 1 hour away where the instructor is always
present, which would they take?
Take two-way interactive video Class Drive to Location of Class
15) Do you think having the instructor in the classroom half of the class sessions
makes the class better than having the instructor teach the entire semester at one
location?

Yes No
16) What would you recommend to make a two-way interactive video class better?

17) What factors, if any, make two-way interactive video less effective than
traditional classroom instruction?

18) Where did you present course material in addition to the classroom (email, course

web page, telephone conference, etc.)?

19) How comfortable were you in providing help? Any problems?

122

20) Did you do anything different because you are also teaching to a distance class via
two-way interactive video?

21) Did you employ any special techniques to promote interaction in the distant class?
If so, what were they?

22) What do you ﬁnd effective in a mixed traditional instruction/two-way interactive
video classroom

23) Do you think there is a difference in quality in instruction between a traditional
class with the instructor present and a class delivered via two-way interactive video?

24) Explanation of question 23.

25) Was this class effective and why?

26) What would improve future two-way interactive video classes?

27) Do you perceive a difference in the student's ability to learn the
material if the instruction is by two-way interactive video compared to
when the instructor is in the classroom? Why?

28) Do you think mixed two-way interactive video/instructor present
classes are preferable to straight two-way interactive video classes?
Why?

29) Any additional comments?

123

Appendix H

Instructor Interview 2 - Lecture

1) Where the learning objectives met for your part of this course?

2) For your part of the course, what measures of student performance did you use and
what levels of student performance? Was this course effective?

3) Do you think student learning was be the same, less, or better in the class sessions
delivered to students by two-way interactive video?

4) What problems or barriers do you think students faced in learning the material
when it is delivered a mixed two-way interactive video/traditional instruction setting?

5) Are there beneﬁts to using a mixed two-way interactive video /live course delivery
system?

6) What are the difficulties for you as an instructor in using this mode of delivery?

7) Do you think the use of two-way interactive video was a positive or negative
experience?

Positive Negative

8) Explain your answer to question 7.

9) How do you view the effectiveness of two-way interactive video in the classroom?

10) Do you think there is a difference in effectiveness of meeting course objectives
between a traditional class with the instructor present and a class delivered via two-
way interactive video?

124

__ tar-‘
|

 

 

ll) Explanation of question 10.

12) What is your teaching preference?
Instructor Present combination two-way interactive video/instructor present
two-way interactive video No Preference

13) Explanation of question 12.

14) If a student could take a class near their home via two-way interactive video or
they could take a class located at least 1 hour away where the instructor is always
present, which would they take?
Take two-way interactive video Class Drive to Location of Class
15) Do you think having the instructor in the classroom half of the class sessions
makes the class better than having the instructor teach the entire semester at one
location?

Yes No
16) What would you recommend to make a two-way interactive video class better?

17) What factors, if any, make two-way interactive video less effective than
traditional classroom instruction?

18) Where did you present course material in addition to the classroom (email, course

web page, telephone conference, etc.)?

20) How comfortable were you in providing help? Any problems?

125

20) Did you do anything different because you are also teaching to a distance class via
two-way interactive video?

21) Did you employ any special techniques to promote interaction in the distant class?
If so, what were they?

22) What do you ﬁnd effective in a mixed traditional instruction/two-way interactive
video classroom

23) Do you think there is a difference in quality in instruction between a traditional
class with the instructor present and a class delivered via two-way interactive video?

24) Explanation of question 23.

25) Was this class effective and why?

26) What would improve future two-way interactive video classes?

27) Do you perceive a difference in the student's ability to learn the
material if the instruction is by two-way interactive video compared to
when the instructor is in the classroom? Why?

28) Do you think mixed two-way interactive video/instructor present
classes are preferable to straight two-way interactive video classes?
Why?

29) Any additional comments?

126

Appendix I

Data Mapping to Hypothesis Questions

 

Hypothesis question

Survey/Data source

Analysis Technique

 

1

Student surveys -

1.13, 1.14, 1.17, 1.18, 2.1,2.2,2.7, 2.8, 2.11,
2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19,
2.24, 2.25, 3.1, 3.2, 3.7, 3.8, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13,
3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.24, 3.25

t-test and discussion of

open-ended questions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Instructor interviews - t-test and discussion of
1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.15, 1.17, 1.19, 1.22, 2.1, 2.2, open-ended questions
2.3, 2.4, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.15, 2.17, 2.19, 2.20,
2.21, 2.22, 2.27

3 Student surveys - t-test and discussion of
1.5, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, open.ended questions
2.26, 2.27, 2.28, 2.29, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.26,
3.27, 3.28, 3.29

4 Student surveys - t-test and discussion of
1.7, 1.8, 1.15, 1.16, 2.22, 2.23, 3.22, 3.23 oPen-ended questions

5 Instructor interviews - t-test and discussion of
1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, open-ended questions
1.20, 1.23, 1.24, 2.7, 2.8, 2.12, 2.13, 2.23,
2.24, 2.25

6 Student tests and projects t-test

7 Student tests and projects t-test

8 Student tests and projects t-test

9 IASI survey & student tests and t-test
projects

10 Student survey 1.9, 1.10, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, t-test, ANOVA and

 

3.4 and student tests and projects

 

discussion of open-
ended questions

 

Appendix I is a mapping of the hypothesis questions to the survey or data source. The
number to the left of the decimal position is the survey number. The number to the
right of the decimal position is the question number. For example, 1.13 is survey 1
question 13. The analysis technique for each hypothesis question is also included.

127

 

Appendix J

Description of Student Characteristic Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable cont/disc Type Scale
Student Code discrete --- nominal
Site discrete predictor nominal
# nursing classes taken continuous predictor ratio
# years experience continuous predictor ratio
RN license date discrete predictor nominal
GPA continuous predictor ratio
College degrees earned discrete predictor nominal
# ITV classes taken discrete predictor ratio

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J describes the information about the students in the test group.
Information was gathered as part of the ﬁrst survey and from official student records.
Students could choose to not answer any question. Appendix J is a record description
of information gathered on each student in addition to test and survey data.

128

Appendix K

Description of Student Test Score Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable cont/disc Type Scale
Student Code Discrete --—- Nominal
Student location discrete --- Nominal
Class Discrete -- Nominal
Pre-test score Continuous Predictor Interval
Posttest score Continuous outcome Interval

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix K is a record description of the type of data used in the pretest and
posttest. This is the format data was stored electronically for statistical analysis.

129

 

Appendix M

Group Statistics/Independent Samples — Community Clinical and Lecture

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Survey Questions Location N Mean St. Deviation t probability

CC01 1V inﬂuenced GR 12 2.9167 1.1645 -. 174 .863

effectiveness BR 16 3 .0000 l .3 166

CCO7 Instructor half time OR 12 3.4167 1.31 14 .454 .653

better than one location BR 16 3.1875 1.3276

CC 12 Comfortable OR 12 2.0833 .9003 .437 .666

obtairMnstructor’s help BR 16 1.9375 .8539

CC 16a Help - instructor GR 12 1.0000 .0000 ‘ ‘
BR 16 1 .0000 .0000

CC 16b Help - Classmate at OR 12 1.6667 .4924 .541 .593

location BR 16 1.5625 .5123

CCl6c Help — Classmate at OR 12 2.0000 .0000 ‘ "'

distant location BR 16 2.0000 .0000

CC17 Effectiveness GR 11 2.2727 1.1037 .822 .419

meeting course objectives BR 16 1.9375 .9979

CC19 Was class effective GR 8 1.1250 .3536 -.760 .456
BR 15 1.2667 .4577

CC24 Difference in ability OR 11 2.2727 .9045 .334 .741

to learn BR 16 2.1250 1.2583

CC25 Take combination OR 11 1.1818 .4045 -l .063 .298

lV-instruction BR 16 1 .3750 .5000

CLOl 1V inﬂuenced OR 13 2.9231 1.1152 .529 .601

effectiveness BR 16 2.6875 1.2500

CL07 Instructor half time OR 13 3.5385 1.3301 1.114 .275

better than one location BR 16 3.0000 1.2649

CL12 Comfortable OR 13 2.3077 1.1094 1.496 .146

obtaining instructor’s help BR 16 1.8125 .6551

CL16a Help — instructor OR 13 1.0000 .0000 -.898 .377
BR 16 1.0625 .2500

CL16b Help — Classmate at GR 13 1.7692 .4385 1.151 .260

location BR 16 1.5625 .5123

CLl6c Help — Classmate at GR 13 2.0769 .2774 1.1 14 .275

distant location BR 16 2.0000 .0000

CL17 Effectiveness OR 13 2.2308 1.0919 .583 .565

meeting course objectives BR 16 2.0000 1.0328

CL19 Was class effective GR 10 1.3000 .4830 .073 .943
BR 14 1.2857 .4688

CL24 Difference in ability GR 13 2.3077 .8549 .446 .659

to learn BR 16 2.1250 1.2583

CL25 Take combination OR 13 1.1538 .3755 -1.319 .198

lV-instruction BR 16 1.3750 .5000

 

’ t cannot be computed because the standard deviations of both groups are 0.

130

 

Group Statistics/Independent Samples -— Family Clinical and Lecture

Appendix N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Survey Questions Location N Mean St. t probability
Deviatio
n

lSl3 Difference 1V vs Trad GR 13 2.3846 .8697 1.062 .298

effectiveness BR 1 7 2 .0000 l .0607

[$17 Difference ability to OR 13 2.6154 1.1929 .604 .551

learn —- [V vs Trad BR 17 2.3529 1.1695

FCOl IV inﬂuenced GR 9 2.5556 1.1304 -.963 .346

effectiveness BR 16 3 .0000 l .0954

FC07 Instructor half time GR 9 2.3333 1.2247 -1.509 .145

better than one location BR 16 3.1875 1.4245

FC12 Comfortable GR 9 1.8889 1.0541 .200 .843

obtaining instructor’s help BR 16 1.8125 .8342

FCl6a Help — instructor GR 9 1.0000 .0000 -.743 .465
BR 16 1.0625 .2500

FC16b Help — Classmate at GR 9 1.5556 .5270 .850 .404

location BR 16 1.3750 .5000

FCl6c Help — Classmate at GR 9 2.0000 .0000 1.088 .288

distant location BR 16 1.8750 .3416

FCl7 Effectiveness GR 8 2.5556 .8819 1.960 .062

meeting course objectives BR 13 1.8750 .8062

FC19 Was class effective GR 8 1.1250 .3536 -.575 .572
BR 13 1.2308 .4385

FC24 Difference in ability GR 9 2.4444 1.1304 -.247 .807

to learn BR 16 2.5625 1.1529

FC25 Take combination GR 9 1.0000 .0000 -1.088 .288

lV-instruction BR 16 1.1250 .3416

FLOl 1V inﬂuenced GR 9 2.1111 .7817 -1.404 .174

effectiveness BR 16 2.6875 1 .0782

FL07 Instructor half time GR 9 2.2222 1.0929 -1 .234 .230

better than one location BR 16 2.9375 1.5262

FL12 Comfortable GR 9 2.0000 1.0000 .165 .870

obtainig instructor’s help BR 16 1.9375 .8539

FL16a Help — instructor GR 9 1.0000 .0000 -1.088 .288
BR 16 1.1250 .3416

F L16b Help — Classmate at GR 9 1.6667 .5000 1.400 .175

location BR 16 1.3750 .5000

FL 1 6c Help — Classmate at GR 9 2.0000 .0000 .743 .465

distant location BR 16 1 .9375 .2500

FL17 Effectiveness GR 9 2.3333 1.0000 .604 .552

meeting course objectives BR 16 2.1250 .7188

FL19 Was class effective GR 7 1.1429 .3780 .503 .621
BR 14 1.0714 .2673

FL24 Difference in ability GR 9 2.5556 1.1304 .116 .908

to learn BR 16 2.5000 1.1547

FL25 Take combination GR 9 1.0000 .0000 -1.382 .180

lV-instruction BR 16 1.1 875 .403 1

 

131

 

Group Statistics/Independent Samples — Family Nursing

Appendix 0

Student experience level with two-way interactive video (post measures)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test‘ Locat N Mean St. t probability
ion Deviation

Fc03 itv positive GR 9 2.8889 .9280 -l .207 .240
BR 16 3.3125 .7932

Fc05a rank — instructor GR 9 2.8889 .3333 -1.31 l .203

never present BR 15 3.0000 .0000

Fc05b rank — instructor GR 9 1.8889 .3333 -.366 .718

half the time BR 15 1.9333 .2583

Fc05c rank - instructor GR 9 1.2222 .6667 .817 .423

present no itv BR 15 1.0667 .2582

Fc06 prefer 1V or drive GR 9 1.3333 .5000 -.200 .843
BR 16 1.3750 .5000

Fc26 take exclusively itv GR 9 1.2222 .4410 -.150 .882
BR 16 1.2500 .4472

Fc27 connected itv to GR 8 2.8750 .8345 -.921 .367

instr present BR 15 3.2667 1.0328

F103 itv positive GR 9 2.7778 .9718 -1.122 .278
BR 16 3.1875 .8342

F 105a rank — instructor GR 9 2.8889 .3333 -1.31 1 .203

never present BR 15 3.0000 .0000

F105b rank - instructor GR 9 1.7778 .4410 -.545 .591

half the time BR 15 1.8667 .3519

F105c rank -— instructor GR 9 1.1 1 11 .3333 -.153 .880

never present BR 15 1.1333 .3519

F106 prefer 1V or drive GR 9 1.3333 .5000 .103 .919
BR 16 1.3125 .4787

F126 take exclusively iv GR 8 1.2500 .4629 .341 .736
BR 16 1.1875 .4031

F127 connected iv to instr GR 8 2.8750 .3536 -l.019 .319

resent BR 16 3.2500 1 .0000

 

*F indicates Family Nursing, c indicates clinical class, 1 indicates lecture class, and
the number indicates the survey item number. For example, Fc03 is Family Nursing

Clinical survey question three.

132

 

Group Statistics/Independent Samples — Community Nursing

Appendix P

Student experience level with two-way interactive video (post measures)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test“ Location N Mean St. t probability
Deviation

cc03 itv positive OR 12 3.5000 .7977 .554 .584
BR 16 3.3125 .9465

CcOSa rank — instructor GR 13 3.0000 .0000 1.363 .185

never present BR 15 2.7333 .7037

Cc05b rank — instructor GR 13 2.0769 .2774 .101 .920

half the time BR 15 2.0667 .2582

Cc05c rank — instructor OR 13 1.1538 .5547 -.164 .871

never present BR 16 l. 1875 .5439

Cc06 prefer ltv or drive OR 12 1.6667 .4924 .541 .593
BR 16 1.5625 .5123

Cc26 take exclusively itv GR 1 1 1.3636 .5045 -.997 .328
BR 16 1.5625 .5123

Cc27 connected itv to OR 10 3.4000 .6992 -.359 .723

instr present BR 16 3.5625 1.3150

C103 itv positive OR 13 3.3077 .7511 -.l97 .845
BR 16 3.3750 1.0247

C105a rank - instructor OR 13 2.8462 .5547 .527 .603

never present BR 14 2.7143 .7263

C105b rank - instructor GR 13 1.9231 .2744 -1 .415 .169

half the time BR 14 2.0714 .2673

C105c rank - instructor GR 13 1.0000 .0000 -1.333 .195

present no itv BR 14 1.2143 .5789

C106 prefer IV or drive GR 13 1.6154 .5064 .278 .783
BR 16 1.5625 .5123

C126 take exclusively iv OR 13 1.4615 .5189 -.525 .604
BR 16 1.5625 .5123

c127 connected iv to instr OR 12 3.5833 .7930 .340 .737

present BR 16 3 .4375 1.3150

 

 

*C indicates Community Nursing, c indicates clinical class, 1 indicates lecture class,
and the number indicates the survey item number. For example, Cc03 is Community
Nursing Clinical survey question three.

133

Appendix Q

One Sample Statistics - Family and Community student quality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N Mean St. t probability
Deviation

Cc01 28 .54 .64 4.448 .000
Cc03 28 .14 .36 2.121 .043
Cc07 28 .39 .69 3.034 .005
Cc17 27 1.04 .85 6.310 .000 ,
Cc22 27 1 .04 .81 6.671 .000
Cc24 27 1.00 .83 6.245 .000
Cc27 26 .15 .46 1.690 .103
C101 29 .59 .68 4.627 .000
C103 29 .17 .38 2.415 .023
C107 29 .41 .68 3.266 .003
C117 29 1.00 .89 6.075 .000
C122 29 1.00 .80 6.716 .000
C124 29 .97 .82 6.3 l 8 .000
C127 28 .18 .48 1.987 .057
Fc01 25 .52 .52 3.641 .001
F c03 25 .24 .24 2.753 .01 1
F c07 25 .64 .64 3.949 .001
Fc17 25 .96 .96 6.532 .000
Fc22 25 .92 .92 5.662 .000
Fc24 25 .76 .76 4.879 .000
Fc27 23 .26 .26 2.021 .056
F101 25 .72 .72 4.884 .000
F103 25 .28 .28 2.585 .016
F107 25 .76 .76 4.321 .000
F117 25 .88 .88 6.608 .000
F122 24 .88 .88 5.042 .000
F124 25 .76 .76 4.879 .000
F127 24 .21 .21 2.005 .057

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*F indicates Family Nursing, C indicates Community Nursing, c indicates clinical
class, 1 indicates lecture class, and the number indicates the survey item number. For
example, F CO3 is Family Nursing Clinical survey question three.

134

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acord, L. (1999). The Baccalaureate Revolution. Joum+a1 of Professional Nursing.
15(1), 5.

Allen, D. (1991). Practices of Selected Baccalaureate in Nursing Programs in
Granting Academic Credit to Registered Nurses for Prior Learning. Doctoral
Dissertation, University of South Alabama.

Angelo, T. & Cross, K. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook
for College Teachers. San Francisco, CA: J ossey-Bass.

Appalachian Regional Commission (1992). Concurrent Sessions: Education and
Training. Appalachia._;5_(l ), 10-13.

Barrett, J ., Altschuler, J ., Foutch, G., Hinson, B., Morrell, R., Carment, T., Kilboume,
R., & Dreyer, R. A. (1995). A survey of TBTV students, instructors, and
faculty in Oklahoma for Fall semester of 1994-95. Paper presented to the
Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, December, Oklahoma City, OK.

Bartel, K. B. (1998). A Comparison of Students Taught Utilizing Distance Education
and Traditional Education Environments in Beginning Microcomputer
Applications Classes at Utah State University (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State
University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 9%, 60-01A.

Bodenbender, K. D. (1998). Baccalaureate and Graduate Nursing Faculty Attitudes
Toward and Perceptions of Interactive Television Teaching (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Iowa, 1998), Dissertation Abstracts Intemational,
90_9§, 59-09A.

Boone, W., Bennett, C., & Ovando, C. (1995). Teachers’ attitudes towards distance
learning technology in a science/society global issues course. Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teachig, 14(3), 305-323.

Boyden, K. (2000). Development of New Faculty in Higher Education. Journal of
Professional Nursing. 16(2), 104-1 1 1.

Bozik, M. (1996). Student perceptions of a two-way interactive video class. THE.
Journal, 99-100.

 

Brendtro, M. (2000). Nursing Faculty: One Generation Away From Extinction?
Journal of Professiogl Nurs_ir_rg. 16(2), 97-103.

 

135

Bruning, R., Landis, M., Hoffman, E., & Grosskopf, K. (1993). Perspectives on an
interactive satellite-based Japanese language course. The American Journal of
Distance Education. 7(3), 22-38.

Carty, B., & Rosenfeld, P. (1998). From computer technology to information
technology: Findings from a national study of nursing education. Computers in
Nursing. 16(5), 259-265.

Chandler, G. (2000). Teaching Using Interactive Video: Creating Connections.
Joumal of Nursing Education. 39(2), 73-81.

Chute, A., Thompson, M., & Hancock, B. (1999). The McGraw-Hill Handbook of
Distance Learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Cobb, T. (1997). Cognitive efficiency: Toward a revised theory of media.
Educational Technology, Research and Development. 45(4), 21-35.

Dean, C. (1997). Registered Nurses Returning for a Baccalaureate Degree in
Nursing: A Qualitative Analysis of a Life Experience. Doctoral Dissertation,
North Carolina State University.

Dillon, C. (1989). Faculty rewards and instructional telecommunications: A view
ﬁom the telecourse faculty. The American Journal of Distance Education.
3(2), 35-43.

Eagles, Z. (1999). Career transitions: Your future is nursing. Nurse Week. 6, 9.

Egan, M. (1991). Effective Television Teaching: Perceptions of Those Who Count
Most...Distance Learners.

Farr, C.W. & Muscarella, D. (1991). Is Video Really Necessary? A Study
Comparing Interactivity in Video and Audio Classrooms.

Gallaher, P. A. & McCormick, K. (1999). Student Satisfaction with Two-way
Interactive Distance Learning for Delivery of Early Childhood Special
Education Coursework. Journal of Special Education Technology. 14(1), 32.

Greengard, S. (September, 1993). How Technology is Advancing HR. Personnel
Journal. 72(9), 80-89.

Gogolin, L. (1988). A Quantitative and Qualitative Inguig into the Attitudes Toward
Science of College Students. Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University.

Goodwin, B.N., Miklich, B.A., & Overall, J .U. (1993). Perceptions and Attitudes of
Faculty and Students in Two Distance Learning Modes of Delivery: Online

136

Computer and Telecourse. Symposium for the Marketing of Higher Education,
Orlando, FL.

Gunawardena, ON. (1992). Changing faculty roles for audiographics and online
teaching. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(2), 58-71.

Henerson, M.E., Morris, L.L., & Fitz-Gibbon, CT. (1987). How to Measure
Attitudes. New York: Sage.

Jegede, O. & Kirkwood, J. (1994). Students’ anxiety in learning through distance
education. Distance Education. 15(2), 279-290.

Kendal, J .R. & Oaks, M. (F all 1992). Evaluation of Perceived Teaching
Effectiveness: Course Delivery via Interactive Video Technology versus
Traditional Classroom Methods. Journal of Continuing Higher Education.
49(3), 2-12.

Kolomeychu, T. & Peltz, D.P. (May, 1992). Assessing the Effectiveness of Interactive
Compressed Video at the University of Minnesota. Educational Technology.
32(5), 61-62.

Lin, C. & Creswell, K. (1989). Effects of televised lecture presentation styles on
student learning. Journal of Educational Television, 15(1), 37-54.

Lindeman, C. (2000). The Future of Nursing Education. Journal of Nagging
Education. 39(1), 5-12.

McHenry, L. & Bozik, M. (November, 1997). From a Distance: Student Voices
from the Interactive Video Classroom. Techtrends. 42(6), 20-24.

Murphy, K.L. & Cathcart, S. (January, 1997). Integrating Distance Education
Technologies in a Graduate Course. Techtrends. 42(1), 24-28.

Newcomb, L.H. (February, 1994). Preparing A Course For Distance Delivery. I_h_e_
Agricultural Education Magazine. @(8), 7-9.

Moore, M. (1989). Effects of Distance learning: A summary of literature.
Washington DC: US. Congress Ofﬁce of Technology Assessment.

Moore, MG. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of
Distance Education. 4(2), 1-6.

Noon, J. (1996). Publisher’s comer. Syllan. 9(9), 4.

I37

Olson, T. (1998). Balancing Theory and Practice in Nursing Education: Case Study
of a Historic Stuggle. Nursinwutlook. 46(6), 268 — 272.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How College Affects Students. San Francisco:
J ossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E.T., Whitt, E.J., Nora, A., Edison, M. Hagedorn, L.S., & Terenzinin, RT.
(1996) What Have We Learned from the ﬁrst year of The National Study of
Student Learning? Journal of College Student Development. 37(2), 182-192.

Paulsen, K., Higgins, K., Miller, S. (1998). Delivering Instruction via Interactive
Television and Videotape: Student Achievement and Satisfaction. Journal of
Special Education Technology. 13(4), 59-77.

Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the Difference? THE INSTITUTE for
Higher Education Policy. Washington DC.

Powell, R., Conway, C., & Ross, L. (1990). Effects of Student Predisposing
Characteristics on Student Success. Journal of Distance Education. 5(1), 20-
37.

Pugh, R. , & Siantz, J. (1995). Factors associated with student satisfaction in
distance education using slow scan television. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,
CA, April. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382 186).

Russell, T. (1992). Television’s indelible impact on distance education. What we
should have learned from comparative research. Researph in Education. 3(4),
2-4.

Russell, T. (1999). The No Signiﬁcant Difference Phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC:
Office of Instructional Telecommrmications, North Carolina State University.

Shamian, J. (1998). Effect of Teaching Decision Analysis on Student Nurses’
Clinical Intervention Decision Making. Research in Nursing & Hem. 14, 59-
66.

Sherry, A.C., Fulford, C.P., & Zhang, S. (1998). Assessing Distance Learners’
Satisfaction with Intruction: A Quantitative and Qualitative Measure.
American Journal of Distance Education. 12(3), 6-24.

Silvemail, D. & Johnson, J. (1992). The impact of interactive televised instruction
on student evaluation of their instructors. Educational Technology, 47-50.

138

Simpson, H., Pugh, H., & Parchman, W. (1993). Empirical comparison of
alternative instructional TV technologies. D_istance Education. 14(1), 147-164.

Smith, PL. & Dillon, CL. (1999). Comparing Distance Learning and Classroom
Learning: Conceptual Considerations. The American Journal of Dista_nge
Education. 13(2), 6-24.

Stafford, J.Y. (1990). Effects of active learning with computer-assisted or interactive
video instruction. Wayne State University. 157.

Stenberg Nichols, L. & Trout, BL. (1995). Team Teaching Via Two-Way Interactive
Video. The Agricultural Education Magazine. 10 - 11, 17.

Stillman, G., Alison, J ., Croker, F., & Tonkin, C. (1998). Situated Learning as a
Model for the Design of an Interactive Multimedia Program on Medication
Administration for Nurses. Innovations in Education and Training
International. 35(4), 329 — 335.

Storbeck, C. (1996). The Modern Emergence of Baccalaureate Nursing Education.
Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers.

Swartz, M. (1985). A Comparative Evaluation of Promed and Lecture
Instruction in College Business Mathematics. Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan
State University.

Tiene, D. (January, 1997). Student Perspectives on Distance Learning with
Interactive Television. Techtrends. 42(1), 41-47.

Tykwinski, J .R. & Poulin, RC. (1991). North Dakota Interactive Video Network: A
Practical Guide to Teleconferencing and Distance Education. North Dakota
University System, Bismark.

White, C. (2000). Learn Online. Technological Horizons in Education Journal.
27(9), 66 — 70.

Whittington, M. S. (February, 1994). “The Next Best Thing to Being There.” The
Aga'cultural Education Magazine. 4, 17.

Wilson, C. (1991). Trends in distance education: A viable alternative for higher
education. ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED337981 1.

Zhang, S. & F ulford, C. (1994). Are interaction time and psychological interactivity

the same thing in the distance learning television classroom? Educational
Technology, 58-64.

139