For almost 20 years telecommunication has been deemed as the "wave of the future" in education. Some of its promise has been realized, but it would appear that much has been left unsettled. This article will discuss general issues in the use of one type of Interactive Distance Learning (IDL), compressed video (CV). Specifically, 4-way audio-visual compressed video, better known as Continuous Presence, will be evaluated as a practical tool in education (Minoli, 1996, p. 13 ). Cowan has stated that this method of communication and teaching has a high "pheromone factor;" the medium itself creates immediate interest and a positive emotional response (Cowan, 1984, p. 209). However, with today’s MTV students raised with computers at home and in the classroom, one wonders if compressed video is any longer novel or exciting to this generation. Also, Naisbitt predicted in Megatrends that advanced technology that did not also address the basic human need for "touch," i.e., user-friendly human contact, was doomed to failure (Naisbitt, 1982, p. 46.). As will be noted below, compressed video has a very evident capacity to address this issue positively, much better than other forms of telecommunications or distance learning, but full capacity may never actually be attained in the reality of daily education.

There are initially several controversies surrounding Interactive Distance Learning that should be addressed. The first one is Naisbitt’s issue. Many times advanced telecommunications creates more human distance and simply a larger pool of passive learners. In other words, compressed video could simply replicate the traditional lecture method, asking for little involvement from the students. The National Victim Assistance Academy (NVAA) experience would seem to exemplify this problem. The question is whether compressed video’s "low touch" problems can be easily corrected.

The second controversy is both political and personal. The use of advanced technology could decrease the number of positions for teachers and could perhaps replace them altogether. Is this true, or are these simply Luddite responses to twenty-first century machinery? This is an important question to raise in academe because many times the public responds only to the pheromone factor in an uncritical fashion. The NVAA experience will indicate below that compressed video actually created an audience, completely different than the average student, that would have never been a part of the university community. By expanding the sites, more faculty were needed instead of less.

The final controversy revolves around the meaning of "success." Administrators correctly surmise that advanced technology increases the pool of students and, therefore, institutional income. It is entirely possible that compressed video is a mediocre educational tool, while being a phenomenal business tool. If this is found to be the case, who makes the decision about its continued use–teachers or administrators? If teachers refuse to utilize it, due to its inadequacy, what happens? Does the evolution of "big-time" university athletics give us an answer?

Given these issues as the background for discussion, the next section reviews the general benefits and problems with compressed video.

In the early literature on teleconferencing, there was a lengthy discussion of the benefits and problems of this new technology in education. The first benefit often mentioned was the students’ increased access to both information and teachers; this information was not available at all to some students, and teachers would never have enough time to travel to the many remote or distant locations. Teacher time was saved both in travel and by having to lecture once, instead of three or four times (Cowan, 1984, p. 6). Second, new studies and recent information could be disseminated much more quickly (Johansen, 1984, p. 64 ). Third, many more students could be reached with this technology than through the conventional classroom; although the monetary issue attached to this benefit was seldom mentioned directly, it was clearly implied. Finally, it was suggested that teleconferencing would have a greater "value-added" impact because the technology itself would enhance the importance of the information; in other words, since it is on compressed video, the student assumption would be that it is, therefore, extremely important material (Cowan, 1984, p. 6 ).

Initially, there were two types of problems discussed, technological and psychological (Johansen, 1984, p. 5 ). The technological issues included too many interruptions caused by equipment failure and extraneous noise from multiple sites that was distracting to both the instructor and to students at the other sites. Often with discussion groups between lectures, there was a clear lack of continuity from lecture to lecture and from site to site. The need for better planning and coordination of lectures was very clear. Finally, the technology allowed for the quick transmission of information, and many times the lecturer had a tendency, without clear feedback from distant students, to disseminate much more material than was digestible in a short hour’s time (Johansen, 1984, p. 5 ).

There were also some psychological barriers that were unique to teleconferencing (Cowan, 1984, p. 18 ). Students seemed to participate less due to the anxiety generated by seeing themselves on the monitor. Often excellent instructors were also intimidated by the camera. One-way audio-visual distance learning (as well as all other types) created the social psychological phenomenon of "us" in the distant classroom against "them" with the instructor; as Naisbett had predicted, those with "low touch" felt like second-class citizens. On the other hand, the in-group with all of the special technology surrounding them often felt preferred, enhancing the sibling rivalry. One other issue mentioned was that teachers often had difficulty responding to questions from the distant groups and complained of being surprised (and perhaps feeling embarrassed) (Cowan, 1984, p. 19).

Rogers (1983) also discussed five different consumer (student) types: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. His assumption was that an entire corporation or group’s leadership would set the tone, and then the consultant could adapt the technology to the type of group. However, adapting the presentation of a new technology to a classroom of students that included all five types together in one room seemed to be a task doomed for failure (Johansen, 1984, p. 72). The flexibility of the new technology to deal with diversity in learning styles was questioned from the very beginning.

Recent discussions of compressed video have been positive with most problems being surmountable. Minoli (1996) begins his discussion by presenting the following five traditional educational problems that this technology can address:

1. There is inequity in the availability of educational information; rural areas have less access to this information than urban and suburban areas.
2. The costs of building classrooms and offices have increased greatly.
3. The cost of education has continued to increase annually.
4. There appears to be a declining interest in higher education with an increased focus on vocational and/or specialized education.
5. Government funding for education will continue to diminish.

Interactive Distance Learning presents positive solutions to each of these problems (Minoli, 1996, p. 7). The use of compressed video decreases the isolation of those in rural areas and brings teachers, resources and information directly to them. Students can be added to a teacher’s roster without building a new classroom; as the technology becomes more inexpensive, start-up costs will even decrease. With more students, more university income will be generated; this could translate into lowered tuition and, perhaps, the first decrease in educational costs in decades. By utilizing this advanced technology, the university would be perceived as being on the "leading edge," the pheronome effect would set in, and higher education would again be attractive to those going to clerical schools and computer institutes.

Before compressed video or any other Interactive Distance Learning becomes prevalent in higher education, some barriers need to be considered. Teacher unions will resist any pervasive changes due to the controversy noted above, replacement of teachers by technology. The initial capital costs of compressed video are quite high; the equipment is very expensive, and wiring buildings to make it accessible and flexible is time consuming and costly. Despite these two major problems, teacher-related factors are probably much more important (Minoli,1996, p.10). As with any other group of professionals, a segment of teachers will be technophobic and unable to utilize compressed video; the camera, monitor, and distant audience will be intimidating. The panel of switches and knobs will blunt their spontaneity. The time and effort that it takes to prepare compressed video lectures will cause great resistance; these lectures usually require three times the amount of time to organize when basic information, teaching tools, and scripts are all coordinated.

Despite these drawbacks, there are numerous ways in which to improve compressed video’s viability and to make it less of a teaching barrier. As Johansen has pointed out, there are some realistic ways in which compressed video can expand the teaching process, while not being helpful in other areas (1984, p. 71). As far as educational factors, compressed video enhances teaching when the Socratic method predominates, and student interaction is encouraged. Teachers who are more flexible in their style, i.e., willing to diverge from their notes, enjoy the use of compressed video more than others with a traditional lecture style. Compressed video is more productive when students have a chance to adapt to the technology, feel comfortable with it, and become aggressive in asking questions (Cowan, 1984, p.78 ). Allowing spontaneous questions and having mentored discussion groups between CV lectures parallels the Socratic method.

Organizational factors can also improve the CV presentation. Both the lecture and the camera angles need to be scripted and outlined with numerous spontaneous occasions allowed. Smaller segments of information need to be presented to avoid one of the early criticisms of CV. Student seating needs to reflect the encouragement of input and feedback. Traditional chairs in rows are not useful. Groupings of students with numerous microphones and cameras work best. Students at tables at various sites seems to encourage adversarial perspectives (Cowan, 1984, p. 51 ). Rehearsals by instructors and prior brainstorming sessions by students in the CV room seem to make both types of participants more comfortable with this technology.

This visual medium requires that visual factors also be noted and addressed (Cowan, 1984, p. 138). The lecturer should be aware of his/her dress and mannerisms. During rehearsal, note what colors enhance the presentation, and which mannerisms are bothersome or have positive, dramatic use. Often, what works well in the classroom does not work on CV. All participants should be visible to the lecturer on the monitor, which should be placed next to the main camera, so the speaker is making eye contact with the entire audience (local and distant) as much as possible. Activity and color will enhance most presentations. Skits or lively debates are received well at distant sites, as long as student presentations are encouraged from all sites. Graphics need to be colorized and/or computer enhanced when possible.

If these educational, organizational, and visual factors are utilized to improve the CV presentation, even laggards and late majority students will find this technology educational and enjoyable.

The National Victim Assistance Academy was created in 1995 through a grant from the Office for Victims of Crime of the Department of Justice. The co-sponsors of the grant were the Victim Assistance Legal Organization (VALOR), California State University, Fresno (CSUF), the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, and the University of New Haven Center for the Study of Crime Victims’ Rights, Resources, and Remedies. Starting in 1997, Washburn University also became a co-sponsor. The field of victim services began in the early 1970’s, and by the late 1980’s there was an evident need for the standardization of training and education and, in some instances, a need to improve the current level of training and education in this emerging profession. For many advocates in rural areas and in less populated states, there was also the issue of the inaccessibility of education. Once a year, the National Organization of Victim Assistance has a conference that is well attended, but in most cases, victim advocates are given a cursory introduction to topics, although this conference is an excellent forum for networking and support.

In order to deal with these two issues, NVAA was begun based upon the model created at CSU, Fresno’s Victim Services Summer Institute in 1989. Students and teachers come to live on campus for an intensive period of instruction. Classes are taught in tandem by university professors and experienced advocates from the field. The curriculum is written by experts in the field, updated annually, and compiled into a 600 page text. The 45 hours of instruction cover the following areas: history of the victims movement, overview and dynamics of the criminal justice system, history of the law, civil justice, research methods, victimization statistics, diversity issues, computer technology, crisis and short-term counseling, professional issues, compensation and restitution, homicide, rape, domestic violence, child abuse, drunk driving, and other special topics.

All student-advocates have been in the field for over a year and are required to read the text prior to the Academy. Self-study questions and lab exercises are used to monitor this. The NVAA faculty’s experience has been that these "re-entry" students are hungry for information and read the course material more then the "average" university student. In order to deal with the access issue, NVAA was expanded from the original two sites to four, all linked through compressed video.

The decision to use compressed video, even though it was a relatively new form of communication in 1995, was based upon the desire to disseminate NVAA’s standardized curriculum to as many student-advocates as possible. In this relatively young field in which most of the famous leaders and innovators are still alive, it was also seen as a forum in which the "big names" in the field could be exposed to the student-advocates who would never have an opportunity to meet these history-making individuals. In 1995, the Academy sites that were linked through compressed video were George Washington University and California State University, Fresno. In 1996, this was expanded to the University of Maryland. By 1997, North Texas State University was added. In 1998, NTSU was replaced by the Medical University of South Carolina. The projection for 1999 is to add a fifth site, Sam Houston State University.

It appears from hindsight that there were some unspoken assumptions about compressed video; it is important to clarify these assumptions in order to clearly understand some of the advantages and disadvantages of this medium. First, it was felt that this would easily increase the field’s access to speakers and new information and that the novelty of this new technology would create a very positive response from the student-advocates. In 1996, the compressed video was used for almost 20 hours, and the general faculty belief was that its assumed success would lead to expanded usage in future years. Several of us on the faculty also noted potential creative uses such as panning the audience for immediate feedback, skits/role playing, faculty inter-site interaction, student interaction, dramatic and/or humorous overheads, etc. Finally, there was the assumption that compressed video would become more technologically sound and easier to use.

There have been some distinct educational advantages in the use of compressed video and some potential, yet fully realized, advantages. It has indeed increased student access to information; from the original 50 students, NVAA has expanded to almost 300 students annually. Without compressed video, this expansion would not have been possible. Almost 1500 individuals have seen the major leaders and some of the most critical thinkers in the field of victim services; many of these students would never have had this opportunity at any other time in their career. There has been some increase in the inter-site interaction between students, but not as much as hoped for and at the expense of covering less material.

In 1998, there were several attempts to create dialogue lectures between experts at two different sites. Most of the time, this innovation was not successful due to a breakdown in technology, or to the fact that it simply became two lectures given consecutively, resulting in diminished student attention due to the lengthy time span. There has been some increase in student interaction and sharing, but it has been somewhat artificial and non-spontaneous. There is currently a division among the project faculty as to whether this interaction is necessary and educationally viable. One major advantage has been that the students do have the sense that they are a part of a large, national academy, even if there is minimal interaction and a lack of knowledge about students at other sites. The annual NVAA meeting at the NOVA conference has the positive flavor of a class reunion.

On the other hand, the disadvantages of compressed video have been numerous and have led to a diminished use in recent Academies (10 hours per week). For several years, all speakers were simply somewhat boring, talking heads. They used traditional lectures on video tape; lectures with diminished personal interaction. This was not novel, especially to the younger student-advocates raised on MTV and video games. There were several occasions when well-known, excellent speakers "froze" before the camera, having never spoken to a screen filled with three different audiences; in other words, they were intimidated by the camera and unable to speak in a comfortable fashion even to their own (local) audience.

Because student on-camera time has been limited, many students are reluctant to speak on compressed video, and others who do speak often appear to be very uncomfortable.

In other words, both speakers and students have such little exposure to this technology that it often is more of a hindrance to communication than a novel means of human interaction.

At most sites the cameras are in set positions, so the speaker’s mobility is limited; those speakers who are animated or used to using a board of some kind therefore often appear stiff and uncomfortable. As mentioned above, another cynical analysis might be that compressed video creates a larger number of passive learners on any one occasion. As it is currently used at NVAA, the process of learning is not much different from a traditional classroom.

In 1999, NVAA is expanding to five sites, but it is unclear how this is going to work since the compressed video screen can only show four sites at a time. This means that one site will always be "left out" to some extent, causing inter-site interaction to be even more problematic. Finally, the most glaring disadvantage is that, even though the technicians at each site have done a better job each year keeping the compressed video consistently functional, the technology itself has not changed or advanced much. Portable, flexible equipment is still not available; therefore, the assumption of this being a creative teaching tool has not been realized. Some of the same problems that occurred the first year (no sound, frozen images, faulty long distance lines, inconsistent bridges, etc.) were still problems in 1998.

In order for compressed video to realize some of the original assumptions and reach its full potential as an educational tool at NVAA, several changes will be necessary. Each site will need more cameras that are mobile and easy to operate by the non-lecturing faculty. There will never be funds available to hire more technicians, so the system needs to be as "user friendly" as possible for both the faculty and the students. At some sites, each student has a microphone; this needs to be the case at each site. Speakers need lapel microphones and movement-activated cameras. NVAA’s overall teaching method needs to be much more Socratic, initiating student interaction from the lectern.

At the beginning of the Academy, there should be a two-hour period of spontaneous interaction in which all students are encouraged to introduce themselves and become familiar and comfortable with the camera. NVAA has already started the process of training the speakers on how to use and respond to compressed video. All faculty could benefit from this. Finally, with an increased number of cameras, camera activity and angles during each session could be increased. Student daily exposure and interaction needs to be increased to take full advantage of this technological innovation.

This article has outlined some general philosophical concerns about the use of compressed video. General benefits and problems with this technology were reviewed, along with some clear benefits to the educational institution. Some suggestions about how to improve its use were explored. Finally, the practical application of compressed video to the National Victim Assistance Academy was critiqued.

Cowan, Robert (1984). Teleconferencing: Maximizing Human Potential. Reston, Virginia: Reston Publishing Co., Inc.

Hudspeth, D.R., and R.G. Brey (1986). Instructional Telecommunications, Principles, and Applications. New York, New York: Praeger.

Johansen, Robert (1984). Teleconferencing and Beyond. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill..

Minoli, Daniel (1996). Distance Learning Technology and Applications. Norwood, MA: Artech House, Inc.

Naisbitt, John (1982). Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives. New York, New York: Warner Books.

Rogers, Everett (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Watkins, B. & Wright S. (1991). The Foundations of American Distance Learning. Dubuque, IA, Kendall/Hunt.