Randall G. Kesselring and Christopher Brown, Arkansas State University

Compressed video technology has made the possibility of interactive distance learning a reality. It is the very feasibility of interaction that has created such a burgeoning interest in distance learning. Distance education is nothing new. In fact, universities have offered this type of class almost since their inception. However, traditional offerings were in an all-print format usually referred to as correspondence classes. While correspondence classes were capable of reaching nearly every potential student on the planet, from a numbers standpoint, they were never terribly successful. The lack of enrollment in correspondence classes can probably be traced to two difficulties. First, students do not particularly like learning on their own. They prefer personalized assistance. Second, universities never fully trusted correspondence education. Consequently, most universities limited the number of correspondence courses that students could have on their transcripts.

Compressed video classes have been touted as a solution to both of these difficulties. Perhaps the most important element of the new found interest in distance learning is that universities view compressed video classes as a method of generating a demand for their product. So, universities generally treat compressed video students in a way that is indistinguishable from the way that on-campus students are treated. In other words, universities have fixed the transcript problem. If there is a stigma attached to the taking of a correspondence class, it need not be feared by the compressed video student. University administrators also argue that the interactive nature of compressed video classes eliminates the distastefulness associated with all-print methods of distance education.

Both of the above points become more consequential when one considers the educational implications of various distance learning techniques. After all, if one is to accept the statements of most administrators at face value, their primary interest is the education of students. However, the best available evidence does not support the superiority of compressed video classes in this regard. In fact, research seems to indicate that the technology--whether it is of an advanced nature or just a lowly printed textbook--has no effect on student achievement (Clark, 1983, p. 445). The primary benefit of compressed video technology (other than fixing the transcript problem) must then be that it is relatively more "palatable" than all-print alternatives. Some studies have concluded exactly that (See, for example, Carter, 1997).

Arkansas State University has a relatively well entrenched interactive distance learning system (compressed video system). Courses are offered in several different disciplines—primarily nursing, business and education—to several sites spread throughout Northeast Arkansas. The courses are all junior level or higher. This survey was administered to all courses taught by compressed video in the fall semester of 1999 (questionnaire available, by request, from authors). Administration of the questionnaire resulted in 559 usable responses 463 of which represented on-campus students and 96 of which represented students at various off-campus locations.

The questionnaire was designed to shed light on two issues regarding interactive distance learning. The first issue is a comparison between the attitudes of on-campus students to those of off-campus students. Other studies have made reference to such issues (Nichols et al., 1994, p. 186), but extensive comparisons could not be found. The second has to do with time. When compressed video classes were first initiated it was agreed that there was widespread student (and faculty) dissatisfaction with the system. However, it was generally felt that greater experience with the courses both on the part of faculty and students would solve most of the dissatisfaction problems. There is now available a relatively large number of students that have taken more than one compressed video class. A relevant question would be whether the time factor has reduced the amount of dissatisfaction. This is an interesting question because there is little doubt that professors have improved quite dramatically their use of the technology. One would expect that improved performance on the part of the professor would translate into more favorable student attitudes.

The survey instrument that appears in Appendix I (available from authors) was designed to assess the above issues. Initially students were asked to provide information on the total number of compressed video classes they had taken. Then a series of four statements regarding their attitudes were posed. Two of these statements were formulated with a negative bias to the compressed video classroom and two were formulated with a positive bias. Students were then asked to express their degree of agreement with the statements. Because interactive video technology involves the use of several different methods of conveying ideas (i.e. the use of Powerpoint slides, e-mail, chat rooms, etc.) five of these methods were listed and students were asked to give an opinion on their usefulness. Finally, students were asked directly if they would prefer their next class to be of the conventional variety or one involving interactive distance learning.

Summary statistics for the student responses to the survey are furnished in Table 1 [Tables 1-6 available from authors; Tables 7, 8 provided]. The mean score for each question along with the number of valid responses are provided. The means provide some interesting information. On-campus students had taken 2.01 compressed video classes compared to 2.67 courses taken by off-campus students. Keeping in mind that the responses to the attitude questions were coded numerically it is also possible to ascertain differences in attitudes between the two groups. For example, on-campus students scored an average of 4.35 on the statement regarding relative comfort in conventional classrooms. Off-campus students averaged 3.95. Clearly students taking these classes on campus tend to feel more discomfort than those in off-campus locations do. The rest of the averages are relatively close and require more sensitive techniques in order to make clear inferences.

Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 provide the actual frequencies of response to the various questions and statements in the survey. Some of the frequencies are interesting. Over thirty percent of all the students in the survey had taken three or more compressed video classes. However, 43.3% of the students had only taken one class. The off-campus students were much more heavily represented (percentage wise) in two categories--four and five or more classes taken. This makes some sense because the off-campus students have fewer classes to choose from.

The frequency counts for the attitude statements (questions two through five) which are summarized in Table 3 are a bit more revealing. The on-campus students agree with the comfort statement with much more frequency than the off-campus students (45% to 30%) do. On the other hand, off-campus students are much more likely to agree that learning difficult concepts is harder in a compressed video class than in a conventional one. There was general disagreement with the statement that compressed video classes are more stimulating than conventional ones. Both groups disagreed with this statement at about a 45% rate and agreement with the statement ran less than 20%. Finally, off-campus students seemed to find more pleasure in the ability to communicate with on-campus students than the reverse.

The frequency response data for questions six through ten (attitudes toward various instructional aids) also revealed some interesting differences and agreements. Off-campus students seemed to find Powerpoint presentations and use of the "Elmo" (transparencies) less helpful than on-campus students. This should be distressing to most instructors because these are two of the most common ways of communicating complex ideas through compressed video. On the other hand, off-campus students had a greater preference for the use of email and instructors’ web pages than did on-campus students. Finally, over forty percent of the off-campus students that had used chat rooms in their courses found them to be ineffective. These results seem to reveal that off-campus students generally have a preference for techniques that connect them to their instructors in the most direct ways possible—email and web pages.

The frequencies for the final question are very telling. When asked which type of class they would prefer to take, on-campus students said emphatically (over 75%) that they would prefer a conventional class. Over 60% of the off-campus students had the same view. It would appear that traditional university classes are still preferred by most students.

Table 6 provides the results of applying Chi-squared independence tests to a contingency table analysis of either being an on-campus or an off-campus student and questions two through eleven. Spearman rank order correlation coefficients are also provided. The results generally correspond to the descriptions already provided of the summary statistics. The Chi-squared tests reveal that on-campus and off-campus students have significantly different attitudes toward compressed video classes. On-campus students find these classes less palatable (question 2) and off-campus students find learning from them to be more difficult (question 3). On the other hand, no statistical difference was found in the attitudes toward the various teaching aids (questions 6 through 10). Question eleven revealed significant differences. On-campus students express a greater desire (statistically significant at the 1% level) to take conventional classes than do off-campus students.

A contingency table procedure was also used to examine the relationship between the number of compressed video classes taken and the responses to questions two through eleven. The purpose of this exercise was to determine whether experience with compressed video classes had any effect on student attitudes. Table 7 provides the Chi-squared statistics and the Spearman correlation coefficients for a contingency table analysis of off-campus students. The results reveal no significant differences in the responses to the attitude statements (questions two through five). However, there were significant differences in two sets of responses to questions six through ten (the learning aid questions). Off-campus students tended to become more positive about the usefulness of chat rooms and the "Elmo" projector as their experience with compressed video classes increased. Finally, experience with compressed video classes had no effect on the students’ choice of preferred class.

The contingency table results for on-campus students tell quite a different story. Students gave significantly different answers to three of the four attitude statements as their experience with compressed video classes increased. On-campus students tended to be even more comfortable in a conventional classroom after experiencing compressed video classes. They tended to find compressed video classes less stimulating and communication with students at other sites less enjoyable as they took more classes. Experience tended to cause on-campus students to revise their opinions of the usefulness of web pages upward but of chat rooms downward.

The interactive nature of compressed video classes undoubtedly makes them more attractive to students in remote areas than classes relying on all-print media. Evidence in this survey indicates that the overwhelming majority of these students would prefer taking classes in a conventional setting. If circumstances prevent this, interactive distance learning provides a partially acceptable alternative. However, the economics of compressed video classes requires an instructor to lecture not just to remote sites but also to an on-campus room of students. These students have significantly different attitudes toward compressed video classes. This is probably because on-campus students expect conventional style classes. By forcing them into classes that they neither expect nor like, administrators run the risk of alienating a large number of students in order to attract a few.

Carter, Alex (1997). Student Perceptions of Instruction Utilizing a Compressed Video Network. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 187-198.

Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Review of Educational Research, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 445-459.

Nichols, Elizabeth G., Janice E. Beeken and Norma N. Wilkerson (1994). Distance Delivery Through Compressed Video. Nursing Education vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 184-186.