DEOSNEWS Vol. 6 No. 6, ISSN 1062-9416.
Copyright 1996 DEOS.
Director of ACSDE and Editor of AJDE: Dr. Michael G. Moore.
DEOSNEWS Editor: Dr. Melody M. Thompson
 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EDITORIAL
 
Distance education has long been recognized as an effective way to
expand access to educational opportunities. Inter-institutional
collaboration can allow colleges and universities to extend that
access even further. In this issue of DEOSNEWS, Dr. John
Witherspoon describes a collaborative program that uses interactive
video technology to provide students at Coastline Community
College with access to a baccalaureate program at California
State University, Dominguez Hills. Dr. Witherspoon presents data
on students' perceptions of the distance learning experience; reports
on the educational and cost effectiveness of the program; and
discusses the logistical and technical issues involved in this example
of collaborative programming.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
A "2+2" BACCALAUREATE PROGRAM USING INTERACTIVE VIDEO
 
John P. Witherspoon
Professor Emeritus
School of Communication
San Diego State University
johnw@bestsd.sdsu.edu
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
For five semesters beginning in Fall 1992, California State
University, Dominguez Hills, and Coastline Community College
conducted a pilot program which permitted community college
graduates to remain at their college site while completing much of
their course work toward baccalaureate degrees. In this "2+2"
partnership, interactive video was used to extend Dominguez Hills
classes to the Coastline students at the college's Fountain Valley
site, about 25 congested urban miles away. The program was
supported in part by GTE California, Inc.
 
It worked remarkably well. After four semesters the program had its
first group of graduates. Throughout the pilot period the students at
the Coastline site had slightly better grades than their on-campus
peers at Dominguez Hills. The two institutions forged a close,
ongoing working relationship, and the trial has evolved into a
permanent operational program.
 
The pilot project was "intended for the benefit of qualified Coastline
transfer students who may be unable to transfer to a public four-year
institution due to reductions in State fiscal support or whose
personal or professional circumstances may make it difficult to
pursue an upper-division instructional program in residence at a
campus."
 
The students were working adults, part of the cohort sometimes
called the new majority student: older and with many more family
and job obligations than the stereotypical 18-22 year old
undergraduate.
 
CSU Dominguez Hills prides itself on being community-centered,
prepared to make a quality education realistically available to
working adult students. Coastline is a college without a campus,
founded on the idea of reaching students at home or in community
locations. Both make substantial use of electronic media and other
information technology. GTE, seeking solid information on
applications of modern telecommunication technology in education,
helped fund the project and commissioned an independent
evaluation.
 
The evaluation tracked the program from its initial semester. At the
end of every semester students responded to a survey and a
Coastline-based class met as a focus group with the evaluator. The
grades of students on the Dominguez Hills home campus were
compared with those of students at the Fountain Valley site.
Instructors and project administrators were interviewed periodically.
At the mid-point of the program there was an internal evaluation
seminar that involved faculty, administrators, those responsible for
technical and faculty support, and students. That seminar was
augmented by additional personal interviews with the chief academic
officers of both institutions. At the conclusion of the pilot program
there was a meeting of senior institutional administrators, those
directly responsible for the program, and the evaluator in order to
add summary perspective and to discuss the program's future
course.
 
EVALUATION SUMMARY
 
The five-semester pilot ended with the Fall 1994 semester. Perhaps
the strongest evaluative statement was made by the institutions
themselves: they continued the program without missing a beat. The
discussion at the end of the pilot period was not about whether to
proceed, but how to expand.
 
A class at Coastline's Fountain Valley site typically enrolls 10-15
students, or half to two-thirds of the enrollment in the Dominguez
Hills section of the course. Approximately five courses per semester
are offered, all on evenings or weekends, and most Fountain Valley
students take more than one.
 
Two years after the program began, eight of the Coastline students
completed their programs and were awarded baccalaureate degrees
by CSU Dominguez Hills. Grades achieved by Coastline students
were marginally but consistently higher than those of campus-based
Dominguez Hills students.
 
For the working adult students at Coastline, the program represented
a major saving, both in money and in precious time. For the
institutions the initial price tag was acceptable, although they
recognize that per-student technical costs must be reduced over time.
Both believe that the program advances their institutional missions.
This project is a remarkably positive example of inter-institutional
cooperation, a concept that is universally praised but seldom
achieved.
 
The courses and instructors win high marks from the students. The
interactive television system is perceived as a way to extend
educational opportunity while suggesting ways to improve teaching
and learning.
 
Difficult technical and logistical issues were addressed over the
course of the pilot project, and there has been steady improvement.
Some problems remain, ranging from microphone pickups to the
inter-site handling of exams and course materials. While further
improvement is needed in these areas, program effectiveness seems
not to have suffered significantly. As the program proceeds, both
administrations look toward expanding the range and number of
course offerings, perhaps the involvement of other colleges, and the
use of other technologies in addition to interactive video.
 
COMPARING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
 
>From the outset, the average grades of Fountain Valley classes were
marginally to half-a-grade better than those of their campus-bound
counterparts. During semesters three to five, when formal
comparisons were included in the evaluation, the difference was
slight but consistent in each course: one-tenth to three-tenths of a
point on the standard grading scale of 4.0 (three-tenths of a point is
the difference between, for example, a B and a B+). During the
three semesters analyzed there was only one course in which
Dominguez Hills students scored higher than those in Fountain
Valley; the difference was .02 (2.88 vs. 2.90).
 
Two points should be noted concerning this comparison:
 
1. Given the relatively small number of students and the relatively
slight differences in their grades, the important observation is
the consistency of the pattern.
 
2. It cannot be concluded that the technology provides a reason for
the difference, since the groups were not demographically matched.
It is clear, however, that the system did what it was designed to
do, since those who relied on it performed at least as well as
those who were face-to-face with the instructor.
 
THE FIRST GRADUATES
 
Two years after the program's launch, eight of its students
graduated from CSU Dominguez Hills. In many ways they
represent the group sometimes called "the new majority student:"
older, working, with job and family obligations. There were four
men and four women. Their ages ranged from 24 to 50, with a
median of 36.
 
All were working outside the home, all but two full-time (defined as
40 hours or more per week). Five had dependent children, and two
listed spouses as dependents. They were not newcomers to higher
education: five took their first college courses before 1980.
 
All had joined the Dominguez Hills -Coastline program at its
inception. Four had taken a dozen of their degree courses via the
interactive video system, and none took fewer than four courses via
the system. Six of the eight prospective graduates had previously
taken conventional telecourses in addition to the interactive video
courses. The number of these telecourses ranged from one to six,
with one person reporting that most lower-division work had been
completed via telecourses.
 
THE STUDENTS REVIEW THE PROGRAM
 
During each semester of the program students at both locations were
surveyed, and a focus group of Fountain Valley students met with
the evaluator. They were asked a variety of questions about the
technology, the courses, and their responses to participation in
courses taught with the use of the interactive video system. Their
responses were quite consistent throughout the 5-semester program.
 
The Coastline students, of course, were the veterans of interactive
video. By the final semester of the program, 69 percent of those
responding had taken three or more courses via the television
system, and only one student in the group had not used the system
previously. Most (57 percent) of the on-campus Dominguez Hills
students who were enrolled in the same courses had not experienced
the system previously.
 
_Why Enroll in this Class?_ The survey began by asking students
to choose from a list of reasons why they "enrolled in this particular
course, meeting in this location, at this time." The choices were:
 
A. Relatively convenient commute to class.
B. Needed this course for my academic program.
C. Class meets at a convenient time.
D. Liked the idea of using TV and other technology.
E. (For students at Coastline) I think the Coastline environment
is more friendly and comfortable than that of a CSU campus.
 
Students were also invited to add other reasons, but no real
variations from these choices were offered.
 
Fountain Valley students consistently chose "Relatively convenient
commute . . . " followed by "Needed this course for my academic
program." During most semesters approximately two-thirds chose
"relatively convenient commute . . ." In the final semester of the
pilot program, each of these choices was selected by 45 percent of
the Coastline students.
 
Students on the Dominguez Hills campus overwhelmingly chose
"Needed this course for my academic program" as a first choice,
with "Class meets at a convenient time" as a distant second.
 
Very few students over the life of the program indicated that they
were particularly attracted by the technology, and while Fountain
Valley students liked the fact that they could attend class close to
home, the Coastline environment was not a significant priority.
 
_Concerning the Technology_. The next issues surveyed
concerned the use of television in delivering the courses. Students
were presented a series of statements and asked for their level of
agreement as follows:
 
A. Agree
B. Somewhat agree
C. Neutral
D. Somewhat disagree
E. Disagree
 
The first statement was, "The use of television and other technology
probably made this course more interesting and easier to
understand." The response to this statement has been largely
neutral, with Fountain Valley students, as might be expected, more
likely than the on-campus students to favor the positive end of the
scale. In semester 5 nearly half the Fountain Valley students (46.7
percent) voted "neutral," while nearly the same number (43.3
percent) indicated some level of agreement. Among Dominguez
Hills students just over a third (36 percent) were neutral in the most
recent semester, and about the same percentage (37 percent) were
negative to some degree.
 
The following statement, "The use of television and other
technology probably made the course more informative," elicited
similar responses.
 
The final statement in the series approached the issue as a negative:
"The use of television and other technology interfered; it got in the
way of my learning." As in previous semesters, and consistent with
the response to the previous statements, Fountain Valley students
were neutral (43.3 percent) to supportive of the technology (36.7
percent), while nearly half of the Dominguez Hills students (48
percent) expressed some level of agreement with the negative
statement.
 
Students were also asked about their perceptions of the roles of
technology in instruction. The question was posed, "When
technology (television, fax, computers, etc.) is used in a course,
what do you think it should accomplish?" A list of factors was
offered:
 
A. Make the course more convenient for students to take.
B. Improve students' learning by using technology to present
material in different ways.
C. Make the course more economical for students.
D. Make it possible to reach more students.
 
Again students were invited to add other responses, but there were
no substantive additions.
 
Half of the Coastline students chose "Make the course more
convenient to take" as top priority, followed by "Improve students'
learning . . . " and "Make the course more convenient for students to
take."
 
Students at Dominguez Hills said "Improve students learning . . . "
(58 percent) followed by "Make the course more convenient for
students to take."
 
Then students were asked, "As technology was actually used in
_this_ course, what do you think it accomplished?" The students at
the two locations gave complementary answers. During the most
recent semester 68 percent of Fountain Valley students said, "Made
the course more convenient for students to take," while the answer
most selected by their colleagues on the Dominguez Hills campus
(41 percent) was, "Made it possible to reach more students."
 
Toward the end of the questionnaire, television was approached
from yet another angle: "In thinking about this course in comparison
with similar courses my _strongest_ overall reaction to the use of
television and other technologies was that:
 
A. It intruded on the class and made life more complicated.
B. It made it possible for me to take this course.
C. It suggested the possibility of outside guests and/or the use
of new techniques for teaching and learning.
D. It will be valuable when they get the bugs worked out.
E. None of the above. My strongest reaction is as follows:" . . .
 
The semester 5 results, generally similar to those of previous
semesters, were as follows. Most of the Fountain Valley students
(57 percent) responded that "It made it possible for me to take this
course." At Dominguez Hills 42 percent said, "It will be valuable
when they get the bugs worked out," and 28 percent reported that it
intruded and made life more complicated.
 
The responses to these technology-oriented issues reflect the
different perspectives of the two groups: at Fountain Valley,
television is the mechanism that makes their class possible. At
Dominguez Hills, where students are face-to-face with the
instructor, television can be seen as complicating what otherwise
would be a conventional class-room situation.
 
_The Instructors and the Courses_. The students' response to their
instructors were quite positive. They were presented with the
statement, "The instructor seemed to use TV effectively. I felt that
the instructor was communicating well with me." Asked to agree or
disagree using the five-point scale reported above, three-quarters of
Fountain Valley students and well over half the Dominguez Hills
students gave positive responses.
 
Students were also asked whether instructors' office hours were
"conveniently scheduled and adequate in length" and whether
students "had adequate opportunity to consult my instructor." Most
students at both sites reported that their access to instructors was
adequate. In focus groups there was a common reservation,
however: students at Fountain Valley would like more opportunity
to ask the spur-of-the-moment question before or after class, or
during class breaks.
 
To compare the interactive video courses with "similar courses
taught in a conventional closed classroom," the students were asked
whether they thought they learned "more, less, or about the same"
amount from these courses. Both groups said "about the same."
 
Asked whether the opportunity for classroom participation was
"greater, less, or about the same" in these courses, most Fountain
Valley students (56 percent) reported "about the same," but
Dominguez Hills students were not so neutral: during the most
recent semester 43 percent perceived their opportunity to be less in
the interactive video courses, with a third reporting "about the
same."
 
Questions on other student support issues -- advising, library
resources, registration, and information about future courses -- drew
neutral to positive responses from both groups.
 
_Costs: Time and Money_. Students at Coastline's Fountain Valley
site report a substantial savings in time and money. Fountain
Valley-based students report that taking a class at the Coastline site
saves up to five hours per week, with nearly a third estimating the
saving at 5-10 hours.
 
The financial savings are also important. About half report that
taking a course at the Coastline site saves "perhaps $50," while the
other half estimate "$50-100." Some students have estimated
savings as high as $300. Note that the reported savings are per-
course, and most students take more than one in a given week.
 
Savings of both time and money are related to the time and cost
involved in commuting, parking, babysitting, and job-related
factors.
 
REMAINING LOGISTICAL AND TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
 
The interactive video system was installed at almost the same time at
which the pilot program began in 1992, and the inevitable start-up
difficulties had to be confronted. It is universally agreed by
students, faculty, and administrators that system performance
improved steadily during the pilot period, and that a high degree of
quality and reliability now prevails. Nevertheless, some logistical
and technical issues need further work. They may be summarized
as follows.
 
_Timely Access to Course Materials_. Course materials, exams,
student papers, etc. are shuttled between the Dominguez Hills
campus and the Coastline site by a scheduled courier service. Time
delays can mean that students at the two sites do not receive all
material (including exam grades etc.) at the same time. The
installation of a fax machine at Fountain Valley has been a great
help, although, of course, the fax machine cannot be used for grades
and other confidential student information. The security of
documents and student information is also under constant review.
 
_Access to Instructors and Advising_. Students applaud the
instructors' availability for office hours and outside-class
consultations. For the spur-of-the-moment, one-on-one question at
class time, it is useful to leave the interactive video system on line a
bit longer and during class breaks, although the system is not
configured for a one-on-one conversation. Plans for the future
include carrels equipped with interactive video, so that the system
can be used for individual consultation.
 
_Technical Issues_. Once past the inevitable startup challenges, the
video quality of the program has been consistently excellent. The
most significant technical problems are related to the audio system,
and specifically to the single-microphone approach to student
participation.
 
The problem is both technical and operational. At Fountain Valley,
the microphone is keyed to a camera tracking mechanism that is
intended to aim the camera at the person using the microphone, but
performance has been less than perfect. Also, there is the occasional
need to replace a microphone battery in mid-class.
 
At least as important, the single mike is an impediment to class
discussion. A student ready to speak must wait while the
microphone is passed. This problem, not unexpectedly, is
compounded by those who speak spontaneously, without the mike,
with the result that those at the other site can't hear. Early in the
pilot program it was asserted that a virtue of the single mike was that
it acted like the "talking stick" used in some societies to identify the
person whose turn it is to speak; but cultures vary, and this "talking
stick" is a problem. Although there are plans for an upgrade--to the
newer multiple-microphone audio systems that overcome the
traditional problems of ambient noise and feedback--implementation
awaits funding.
 
It should be emphasized that these technical and logistical issues,
while real and important, have not been fundamental impediments.
They should be fixed, but meanwhile the program works.
 
LEADERSHIP PERSPECTIVES
 
Early in 1995, with five semesters of experience behind them, the
institutions' senior administrators and those responsible for the
program met to take stock. Major points of their discussion were:
 
_The Faculty_. Faculty response in both institutions has been
positive. The interactive video system has been relatively non-
threatening and may encourage faculty members to work with other
technologies, as well. The program has attracted innovative
teachers, and the institutions must continue to look for these
pioneers. It will be important to maintain momentum, keep
developing ideas, and look for new frontiers.
 
_The Students_. Their enthusiasm was impressive, they responded
well to the quality of the courses, and they helped cement the close
working relationship between the institutions.
 
_The Courses_. The quality of the courses has been deemed solid
by the faculties and the students. The Vice President for Academic
Affairs at CSU Dominguez Hills remarked that one challenge will be
to achieve the same quality in conventional on-campus courses.
 
_The Institutions_. A major outcome of the program has been the
close working relationship between the two institutions. The
project's people have been key to that development. In the future
they will work to expand their cooperative effort and involve other
colleges as well.
 
_The Technologies_. The interactive video program has been a clear
success, but it is important not to be tied to one technology. Both
institutions also use other techniques, and it is important to seek
combinations that respond to the curricular and logistical
requirements of the specific situation. Furthermore, these programs
can act as laboratories for development of technological components
for campus-bound programs as well. The partner institutions
anticipate a welcome reduction in transmission costs as they move
from the initial T-1 system to ISDN.
 
_The Future_. Expand the program's offerings, using other class
times and additional technologies. Build on success and look for
further opportunities.
 
CONCLUSION
 
This "2+2" cooperative baccalaureate degree program, with its use
of interactive video, has been a remarkable success. In two years it
produced its first group of graduates. Students at the Coastline site
performed slightly but consistently better than their counterparts on
campus. Students rate the program highly, and there is general
praise for the quality of the courses. For the working adults who
are the program's students, the opportunity to complete a degree
largely from the Coastline site represents a significant saving in both
dollars and time.
 
Technical and logistical issues remain, and the program will have a
brighter future when they are definitively addressed. They have not,
however, significantly dimmed the success of the pilot effort.
 
The success of the program is clear enough that CSU Dominguez
Hills and Coastline Community College have committed themselves
to continue it immediately and indefinitely, expanding the
partnership which made it possible. That fact, based on solid
working relationships and the demonstrated value of the program to
their students, may be the most important assessment of this
remarkable trial.
 
=============================================================
   

Top of Page

The American Center for the Study of Distance Education (ACSDE)
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education
110 Rackley Building
University Park, PA 16802-3202
Phone (814) 863-3764  FAX (814) 865-5878
ACSDE@psu.edu
www.ed.psu.edu/ACSDE

©2001 The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education