Interactive Video: An Examination of Use and Effectiveness
Eric E. Smith Educational Computing and Instruc- tional Development Department of Education 118 Matthews Hall Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907
Abstract. In the last few years, in- teractive video has made tremendous advances in hardware with correspon- ding reduction in cost. This article discusses the nature of interactive video, its educational use, evidence for effec- tiveness, and the design of interactive video courseware. The evidence seems to indicate that the medium is both effec- tive and efficient, though few rigorous studies have been done. While a systematic approach is followed for pro- ducing interactive video, little discussion of design models and variables exists. The development or adaptation of con- sistent design models and further study on effectiveness, efficiency, and cost ef- fectiveness are suggested.
A student walks into a classroom. It is not a traditional classroom of desks, chalkboard, and instructor. Instead, in- dividual and small group stations con- taining computer keyboards, monitors, and laserdisc players fill the room. The student may be studying third grade science, engine repair, or how to pilot a new plane. It is an interactive video classroom. Visionaries in the fields of training and education suggest that such classrooms will be commonplace in the near future (Price & Marsh, 1983; Jonassen, 1984; Waldrop, 1982; Wilson, 1983; Withrow, 1985; Withrow & Roberts, 1982; Young & Schlieve, 1984).
The excitement for this medium arises from what experts see as the medium's greatest strength: interactivity. Interac- tivity implies that learners are active participants in the instruction/learning process. The passive aspects of televi- sion or film media are compensated by the activity encouraged and in many cases required by the computer control in interactive video (Laurillard, 1984; Levin, 1983). The activity may be nothing more than deciding to advance to the next screen, or deciding which topic to study next to reach a specified goal. The contention is that any medium encouraging active participation on the part of the learner is better than a purely passive information presentation (Bunderson, Hoekema, Hon, Wilson, Worcester, & Woodward, 1983; Donahue & Donahue, 1983; Ebner, Manning, Brooks, Mahoney, Lippert, & Balson, 1984; Priestman, 1984; Yam- polsky, 1983).
This paper discusses the nature of in- teractive video, its history, use, design, and future. Past and present uses of in- teractive video and evidence for its effec- tiveness are presented. Design criteria for interactive video production and use are examined. Finally, the future of in- teractive video and some of the issues yet to be resolved are discussed.
Def in i t ion of Interact ive Video There seems to be no agreed upon
definition of interactive video; experts in the field have their own concepts and in- dividual definitions (Bunderson et al., 1983; Priestman, 1984; Yampolsky, 1983). However, each definition has common features that will serve as an operational definition for this discus- sion: interactive video is the use of a video delivery system designed in such a way that it will respond to choices made by the individual user. These choices may be spontaneous on the part of the user or they may be prompted by the system.
Although interactive video systems differ in format, their common features are described in terms of levels. Level 0 is the simplest (Daynes, 1984). It is a linear playback unit that is not truly in- teractive.
Level 1 is an expansion of the capabilities of the Level 0 system. It con- sists of a video player (either disc or tape) that has remote control, forward and reverse scanning, random program or frame access and, if possible, still frame. Stereo audio, variable motion, and single frame advance are also desirable. Such systems use only infor- mation on the source, so all text and graphics must be included. Home video players with remote control are an ex- ample of an inexpensive Level I system.
Level 2 has all of the capabilities of the Level 1 system in addition to a microprocessor and limited computer memory in the player. The videotape or disc contains a computer program that is loaded into the memory. The interaction is controlled or augmented by the pro- gram. Level 2 systems require an invest- ment in specific hardware and do not allow upgrading for improved perfor- mance without remastering the video source.
Level 3 is the highest level for which a common definition exists. It consists of a player interfaced with an external com- puter. All of the interactions are con- trolled through the computer's program- ming. Level 3 is the most versatile and most costly of the systems.
At Level 3, computer generated text and graphics can be used to supplement and enhance the information on the video source. Machine specific interfaces are used to connect the computer with the video player (Daynes, 1982a; Lovece, 1984; Wilson, 1983). Basic inter- faces allow control of the player and switching of the screen from the video source to the computer source. More complex and expensive interfaces allow computer generated images to overlay video images (Kalowski, 1985).
2 JOURNAL OF INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
However, such systems are even more machine specific than Level 2 systems since they use specific computers, specific players, and specific interfaces. Such specificity is not as costly as might be expected since the lesson is controlled by the computer program. Upgrading the interface requires only modification of the program, not remastering of the video source.
Interactive video at Levels 2 and 3 may be considered the merging of two different technologies, video and com- puter. In the opinion of some experts, this merger has created a medium that has more power to educate than the sum of both used separately (Bunderson et al., 1983; De Bloois, 1982). Others view Level 3 as a video peripheral device that enhances the computer's ability to per- form education and training tasks (Grabowski & Aggen, 1984). To under stand the nature of interactive video, it will be helpful to examine briefly the history of each of the technologies in- volved as well as their combination.
In the early 1970s, several videodisc formats were developed using capa- citance devices and lasers. Because of the recording and playback processes for capacitance systems, random access is limited and still frame is very difficult to achieve. Recent developments are over- coming some of the limitations of these systems (Griffiths, 1984; Parsloe, 1984).
The laser systems are of two varieties: constant linear velocity (CLV) and cons- tant angular velocity (CAV). CLV systems change the rotational speed of the disc as the program is played. They are intended primarily for linear playback. Random access, still frame, and slow motion is difficult because of the need to change speed constantly. CAV systems use a constant rotational speed, allowing still frame, random ac- cess, and slow motion. However, a 12 inch CAV disc contains only half an hour of linear playing time per side, while CLV contains an hour.
By the mid 1970s, several video for- mats existed. However, because of the
A brief summary of interactive video usage in the U.S. indicates that 11.6 per- cent of organizations with 50 or more employees use some form of interactive video.
The earliest disc recordings of video images for broadcast were invented by James Logie Baird. The process was call- ed "phonovision" and had only 30 lines of resolution and played at 12.5 frames per second (Daynes, 1984). This can be compared with today's National Televi- sion Standards Committee (NTSC) stan- dard resolution of 525 lines and 30 frames per second. It was not until the early 1960s that discs capable of the resolution needed for broadcast were developed. Though these discs could produce full bandwidth images, they were not readily available. Meanwhile, videotape was developed and became available to educators in the 1950s (Gayeski, 1983).
minimum requirement of accurate ran- dom access, only a couple of the video formats were useful for interactivity. These were videotape and CAV laser- discs. While recent developments in the other formats allow for more interactivi- ty than a decade ago, CAV and video- tape remain the most widely used.
As video technology was evolving, the computer revolution began. With the development of very large scale in- tegration (VLSI) techniques in 1975, the microcomputer was possible (Alessi & Trollip, 1985). It was the microcomputer that allowed the use of video technology in an interactive mode. Level 2 systems have small microcomputers on board and Level 3 systems use external corn-
puters. The use of external computers allows
for multiple methods of user interaction. Most interactive video systems use some kind of keyboard input device (e.g., the remote control of the video unit or a computer keyboard). Other input op- tions include joy sticks, graphics tablets, and touch-sensitive screens. Any device that can be used to input data to the computer can, in theory, be used to con- trol the interaction.
Since the video format includes at least one audio track, audio can accom- pany motion sequences. In disc format, two audio tracks are available; each of the audio tracks may have a different narrat ion, possibly in different languages. For still frames, some systems allow storing digitally com- pressed audio on the disc and reading the audio into a buffer. When the still frame is shown, the audio is played (Magel, 1985).
Today, several formats of tape- and disc-based systems are available, but none are compatible. Further, discs are more costly, more difficult, and more time consuming to produce. However, it is difficult to damage a disc once it is produced. The useable life of a disc is limited only by the information it con- tains, not its physical characteristics. The CAV disc format allows accurate frame location, speed, still frame, and frame stepping that are difficult to achieve with tape or other disc formats. Access speed, the time to find any frame or sequence, is frequently mentioned as a great advantage of disc for interactivi- ty. However, recent studies question this assumption (Hannafin, Phillips, & Tripp, 1986). Both tape and disc systems are in use, although disc is more often discussed in the literature.
Use of Interactive Video Three major sectors use and study in-
teractive video: the military and govern- ment, private industry, and education. Daynes (1984) states that the military is one of the leaders in videodisc applica- tions. One early use was a vicleodisc ver- sion of a Student Performance Aids Manual. Videodisc based courses in weapons system maintenance, such as the HAWK missile system, have been developed and tested (Kimberlin, 1982). Communications systems is another area where videodisc systems are in use (Ketner, 1982). Other examples of in- teractive video use in military training
1987, VOL. 10, NO. 2 3
include paramedical, nursing (Ebner et al., 1983, 1984; Manning, Balson, Ebner, & Brooks, 1983) and leadership and counselling skills (Schroeder, 1982).
Recently, the U.S. Army has streng- thened its commitment to interactive video by deciding to install 1985 interac- tive videodisc based Electronic Informa- tion Delivery Systems (EIDS) in its train- ing schools ("U.S. Army Makes", 1987). More than 4500 hours of training have been produced so far for the EIDS system and another 6400 hours are ex- pected by the end of the fiscal year. Ear- ly use of courseware developed for this system indicates that it will be suc- cessful. Further, other branches of the military are considering the adoption of the EIDS standard for their interactive video courseware.
Private industry uses interactive video in two ways. One use is to present infor- mation to prospective customers and train system users. This is exemplified by three projects for IBM produced by WICAT: "IBM COPICS Purchasing," "IBM Office Systems Concepts," and "IBM Community Bank Systems" (Bunderson, 1983). In 1981, IBM had 36 customer training centers using interac- tive video ("How IBM Uses", 1981). In- dustry also uses interactive video in training for employees and information dissemination. For example, in 1980, General Motors invested in 11,000 video players and formed the GM network, the first large scale videodisc network. It utilized Level 2 players and programs produced by Sandy Corporation (Daynes, 1984).
Other companies have invested in similar networks in order to decentralize training, insure that all personnel receive the same training, and reduce training costs. Pool Well Servicing Company, a Houston based oil well service com- pany, invested in.-interactive video in response to training costs projected to double in five years and an inability to handle projected training volume. They projected a savings of as much as 75 per- cent in the cost of delivering quality training (Gibson, 1984). Raytheon/ Beechcraft is using an interactive videodisc system with still-frame audio to train pilots for a new deluxe corporate aircraft (Magel, 1985).
A brief summary of interactive video usage in the U.S. indicates that 11.6 per- cent of organizations with 50 or more employees use some form of interactive video ("Interactive Video", 1985). Breaking this figure into component in-
dustries, the survey indicates that use ranges from 20.1 percent in financial/in- surance/banking to 3.0 percent in wholesale/retail trade.
Educational use is limited and for the most part still experimental. Both videodisc and videotape formats are us- ed, and educators are debating their relative virtues (Donahue & Donahue, 1983; Pawley, 1983; Price & Marsh, 1983; Sanders, 1985). Examples include the highly successful videodisc system for teaching cardiopulmonary resuscita- tion by Hon (1982, 1983), and a teacher using the school's video camera and students as the production team to pro- duce interactive videotape lessons (Howe, 1984).
A series of 13 discs in the Continuing Medical Education Library from Smith Kline & French Pharmaceuticals has been accredited by the American Medical Association. The Nebraska Videodisc Design/Production Group has produced several interactive videodiscs for college science education (Jones, 1985). Nugent and Stepp (1984)
Evidence for Effectiveness Although some have questioned the
interpretation of experimental results (Clark, 1985a, 1985b; Stowitschek & Stowitschek, 1984), there is a great deal of evidence that computer assisted in- struction in general is both effective and efficient (Chambers & Sprecher, 1983; Dossett & Konczak, 1985; Forman, 1982; Kulik, Bangert, & Williams, 1983; Kulik, Kulik, & Cohen, 1980; Kulik, Kulik, & Shwalb, 1986). Despite its short history, specific evidence for the effectiveness and efficiency of interac- tive video is growing. However, few reported studies are methodologically rigorous (Kearsley & Frost, 1985), or report actual statistics. Further, few of the studies, if any, have adequately defined the instructional treatments. In- deed, there often seems to be more dif- ferences between studies than similarities, making conclusions difficult to form (Reeves, 1986). The studies are of several types: "proof of concept," or does the technology work; comparison of technology with other delivery
Despite its short history, specific evi- dence for the effectiveness and efficiency of interactive video is growing.
report a series of seven discs for use with hearing-impaired students. They in- dicate that the capability of captioning makes this an ideal medium for instruc- tion. Special education is using interac- tive videodisc as a way to individualize instruction in several areas (Thordilkson & Hofmeister, 1984).
While videodisc is by far the most fre- quently mentioned type of video system, videotape is the most used ("Interactive 9 Video", 1986). For example, the CAVIS system in Great Britain (Copeland, 1983) is tape based. It was developed as a medium that could be used to teach a wide range of subjects in a self-paced ap- proach for use by BP International. The goal was a system that would adapt both to the user and to the material. The Pool Well Servicing Company also uses a tape-based system.
systems; evaluation of the affective results of its use; analysis of factors af- fecting courseware design; or some com- bination. Since the studies do not always fall into single types, studies will be con- sidered in terms of the environment in which they were conducted: education, military, and business and industry.
In 1981, the U.S. Department of Education funded the Videodisc Microcomputer Project for the purpose of evaluating the use of interactive video in the schools and later to promote its use. Forty-five schools in 15 states par- ticipated in the study, which was coor- dinated by the American Institute for Research in the Behavioral Sciences in Palo Alto, California (Levin, 1983; Reinhold, 1984). In a collection of brief summaries of the success of several par- ticipating schools, Reinhold indicates
4 JOURNAL OF INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
that many of the schools had limited success integrating videodisc with ex- isting coursework. For example, Osseo Area Schools, in Osseo, Minnesota, found the technology useful and have produced several discs and tapes as well as courseware for their system. At the other extreme, only one teacher has been able to integrate the technology at St. Paul's Lutheran School in Melrose Park, Illinois. Reinhold indicates that the P. K. Younge Laboratory School at the University of Florida created several discs and tested them with fifth grade students. Reinhold reports that students showed learning gains, although no statistics were cited.
One of the early evaluations of the ef- fectiveness of interactive videodisc was conducted by WICAT with funding from the National Science Foundation. The study evaluated the effectiveness of the Development of Living Things disc produced for McGraw-Hill Inc. The results indicated that students using the interactive system learned faster and had better retention than did the control group that had the traditional course. More productive use of time and positive attitudes were also reported (Bunderson, Olsen, & Baillio, 1981).
Similarly, pretest to posttest gains in study skills were found by Boen (1983) in a comparison of interactive video ver- sus standard presentation in two one- hour lectures by an instructor. Glenn, Kozen, and Pollak (1984) conducted a pretest-posttest evaluat ion of a videodisc in economics and showed significant gains. However, no com- parisons with other delivery systems were made. A pilot test of materials for mathematics instruction showed signifi- cant gains for a video group, as well as changes in attitude for students poor in math (Henderson, Landesman, & Kachuck, 1985).
The Interactive Videodisc for Special Education Project (IVSET) at Utah State University has developed and field tested an interactive video system for special education. This project, funded by the U.S. Office of Special Education has produced and field tested five pro- grams. The goal in the field tests was to determine whether the equipment work- ed and whether the instructional designs were appropriate. To meet these goals, some pilot testing comparisons with paper and pencil versions of the material for three of the discs were performed. The results of the pilot test on two pro- grams indicated that the interactive
video programs were superior to the paper and pencil on a pretest-posttest comparison (Thordilkson, 1982).
One hundred students participated in a test of the CPR interactive video system (Hon, 1983) to compare its effec- tiveness with the standard instructor- based CPR course. Fifty students were in each group. After instruction, both groups were evaluated by a live instruc- tor with the normal pass/fail basis used for certification, the only difference be- ing that students were given only one at- tempt to pass and no remediation was offered. The interactive video group per- formed better on the test by a three to one margin.
Lyness (1985) reports a similar study of the CPR system. The purpose of the study was to determine whether the in- teractive videodisc delivery system was as effective as the conventional system. One hundred students participated in two groups: the control group received conventional instruction, and the ex- perimental group used the interactive videodisc system. Both groups were tested on skill and knowledge. The in- structors for the test did not perform the instruction and did not know which stu- dent had received which treatment. On all but one skill, no significant difference was found between the groups. On that one skill, the interactive videodisc group was superior. While these results differ from the study reported by Hon, they do support the idea that the medium does work as well as alternative media.
scored significantly higher than the stand-alone video treatment. There was no significant difference between CAI and interactive video treatments. Fur- ther, the interactive video group scored significantly higher on a Likert-type measure of attitude toward shop.
In a study that examined the efficiency of interactive video, Schaffer and Han- nafin (cited in Hannafin, 1985) found that as interactivity increased, intended knowledge gain increased. However, time to learn also increased and learning efficiency decreased. This result suggests that for some content, interactive video may not be more efficient than other media.
The question of how interactive video should be designed has received little at- tention in formal studies. Laurillard (1984) considered different control strategies for use with interactive videotape. Although sample size was small, the results of this study indicate that opportunities for maximum student control should be given in an interactive lesson. These opportunities have various characteristics such as forced choices to continue, menus, help, and the ability to exit at any time. While this study is not concerned with whether the technology works or how it compares with other media, it does address thetopic of design considerations for the interactive video medium.
Hannafin, Phillips, and Tripp (1986) studied the effects of practice, orienting activity, and access time on achieve-
The useable life of a disk is limited only by the information it contains, not its physical characteristics.
Another study examining the relative effectiveness of interactive video was performed by Dalton (1986). In this study, three parallel forms of materials for junior high shop students were com- pared: stand alone video, CAI, and in- teractive video. The topic used was general shop safety rules. On the achievement measure, subjects in both CAI and interactive video treatments
ment. For facts, practice was highly significant, however, practice had no ef- fect on application. Orienting activity and access time interacted, such that those receiving the orienting activity performed better with short access time (5 seconds). Those without the orienting activity performed better with long ac- cess time (20 seconds). However, this in- teraction was marginal. A more signifi-
1987, VOL. 10, NO. 2 5
cant interaction was practice, processing activity, and access time. Processing ac- tivities were either guided or not guided. The guided condition consisted of telling subjects to consider the segment com- pleted and press the space bar when ready to continue. Practice had a uniformly positive effect for the five sec- ond access time, but reduced the pro- cessing activity differences for the 20 second access time. These results ques- tion the need or desirability for rapid ac- cess time.
The Hannafin, Phillips, and Tripp study suggests that the design of interac- tive video courseware must consider the type of learning outcome desired when choosing instructional strategies. This conclusion is supported by the results of a study on the effects of orienting objec- tives and review conducted by Ho, Savenye, and Haas (1986). They found that review was significant for all types of information examined. Further, ob- jectives had a significant effect for verbal information. There was also a signifi- cant interaction between review and ob- jectives, such that subjects receiving ob- jectives performed better on verbal in- formation if given the review condition as well.
The U. S. Army has conducted the largest number of evaluation studies of interactive video (Kearsley & Frost, 1985). In a 1977 study by Hughes Air- craft Corporation for the Army Com- municative Technology Office, a manual in the Student Performance Aids series was compared with a videodisc version of the same material. It was found that time to complete a task was shorter for the group trained with the videodisc version of the manual (Daynes, 1984).
In a study comparing classroom, com- puter, and interactive video delivery systems for a HAWK missile system maintenance course, the U.S. Army Air Defense School concluded that the in- teractive video group took half the time to solve repair problems (Kimberlin, 1982). In addition, 100 percent of the videodisc group achieved mastery while only 30 percent of the groups using the convent iona l methods achieved mastery.
Practice with actual equipment was compared with videodisc simulations in the areas of satel l ite receiver ma intenance (Ketner, 1982), paramedical, and nursing skills (Mann- ing et al., 1983). The interactive video groups mastered the skills in as much as
25 percent less time than the group using the actual equipment. In another study, Schroeder (1982) compared interactive videodisc with programmed text and role playing when teaching leadership and counselling skills. The interactive video system was superior on tests of understanding. Performance tests were not mentioned.
In a comparison of a course for which materials already existed in slide/film format with two videodisc versions, Holmgren (cited in Kearsley & Frost, 1985) found that all groups performed the same. This indicates that the videodisc has no inherent advantages for content originally designed for other media. Similar results were found by Young and Tosti (cited in Young & Schlieve, 1984) for a course teaching communications operators how to operate complex equipment. Perfor- mance was compared for subjects using videodisc simulations and subjects receiving instruction from human in- structors. No difference in performance was found.
Ebner, Manning, Brooks, Mahoney, Lippert, and Balson (1984) studied in- structor controlled interactive videodisc for teaching intramuscular injection at the Army's Academy of Health Sciences. Normal lesson format was retained with the option to stop each phase early when instructors were satisfied with student progress. The control group received the normal format. The experimental group received the usual introduction, but used the interactive videodisc, under instruc- tor control, to enhance the remaining phases of instruction. Two post tests were given to each group. The first was announced and followed the instruction by two days. The second was unan- nounced 17 days later. Results of the first test favored the experimental group but were not significantly better than the control group. However, on the second test, 75 percent of the experimental group was successful while only 59 per- cent of the control group was successful. This result was significant. Further, the total training time was significantly less, 125 minutes less, for the experimental group than the control group.
The results of this study indicate that the use of interactive video is effective for teaching a motor skill, is as effective as traditional training for immediate retention, and is superior for delayed retention. These results also indicate that the method is more efficient than the conventional approach for this task.
The implication is that interactive video may be a superior method for instruc- tion of other motor skills.
While the military has reported the results of extensive research into the ef- fectiveness of the medium, results from studies by private industry are difficult to find. The approach in industry seems to be informal evaluation. This may be appropriate, since industry is interested in the cost effectiveness of a system, which does not necessarily translate- directly into effectiveness or efficiency. For example, a survey by American Bell found that interactive videodisc was more effective in training than classroom, text, slide, or videotape (Goldberg, 1983).
Olsen and DiFazio (1983) report the results of a pilot study by Digital Equip- ment Corporation on the effectiveness of interactive video for training techni- cians. Ten field technicians received in- struction through a three hour interac- tive video course developed for training technicians to repair a new line printer. A control group received training using a six-hour linear video, workbook and lab course. All subjects were pretested to insure the same entry level. The control group had "hands-on" experience with the new printer in the course of their training. The interactive video group did not. A practical test with three levels of increasing complexity was given to all subjects. On the first and simplest level, the control group diagnosed and cor- rected the fault 30 minutes faster than the other group; however, the interac- tive video group did solve the problem correctly. It should be emphasized that the interactive video group had no hands-on experience at this point. On the second level of the test, there was no difference in performance. On the third and most complex level, the interactive video group correctly solved the prob- lem 20 minutes faster than did the con- trol group.
The implications of the Digital study are that interactive video may be more effective and efficient for training techni- cians than traditional means. Further, these results imply that interactive video may be a superior medium for instruc- tion in skills that require both cognitive and psychomotor training.
In the area of affective results, in- dustry has reported the opinions of ex- ecutive officers as well as the results of several surveys and small studies. Positive response by employees is reported by Fedewa (1983), and by Gib-
6 JOURNAL OF INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
son (1984). Hershberger (1984) studied the affec-
tive consequences of the technology on corporations. She delineated three areas of effect: organizational, psychological, and job related. The major organiza- tional effect is improved communication and employee involvement. Information is immediately available and employees no longer have to wait for training. Psychological effects include increased employee motivation and participation, increased self-sufficiency and maturity of employees, and increased confidence. No evidence was found supporting the "depersonalized" nature of the system or increasing negative attitudes. Projected job-related consequences will be to change the role of training managers, trainers, and instructional developers. It will not reduce the need for these profes- sionals.
The research discussed above may not be methodologically rigorous, but some tentative conclusions can be drawn. Kearsley and Frost (1985) summarize their review of research results as follows:
The available evidence suggests that videodisc is a highly effec- tive instructional medium across all types of educational and training applications. Typically, students who learn via interactive video achieve better test scores with less train- ing time required. Videodisc is well accepted by students, in- structors, employees, and managers. In the hands of talented and experienced in- s t ruct iona l developers, v ideodisc has been demonstrated to be one of the most powerful instructional tech nologies cur rent ly available (p. 9).
These conclusions may be somewhat optimistic. Interactive video does appear to produce learning and in many cases appears to be superior to other delivery approaches. However, there is enough evidence indicating no difference in per- formance to question this conclusion (Holmgren in Kearsley & Frost, 1985; Lyness, 1985; Reeves, 1986; Young & Tosti in Young & Schlieve, 1984). In considering the computer based instruc- tion in general, Clark (1985a, 1985b) points out that rival hypotheses may ex- plain the effects attributed to the medium. Essentially, Clark contends that the basis of the effects is some
1987, VOL. 10, NO. 2
change in or improvement of the instruc- tional design of the material rather than the medium. The medium is confounded with the poorly controlled or defined in- structional design. These rival hypo- theses may apply equally well to the in- teractive video medium. Too little research has been done to answer the question of medium attributes and their instructional power. Further considera- tion of these questions will be deferred to a later section.
Des ign of Interact ive Video The design of interactive video is seen
by many as a complex interaction of video program design, computer assisted instruction, and traditional in- structional design theory. While no part of the design process is isolated, it is helpful to consider each area separately.
Because of the familiarity of video in the form of commercial television, learners have a high expectation for video quality (Hoekema, 1983). This means that interactive video must have at least good production values, preferably the production v?lue of com- mercial television, in order to hold the attention of the users. If still frames are used, these production values should ex- ceed those of commercial television in order to produce the broadcast quality picture.
The important video considerations are not limited to the quality pictures. Organization, pace, and style are very important factors (Daynes, 1982). The organization of an interactive videodisc or tape should be different from a linear program because of random accessing and still frame usage. The pace of video motion sequences should be faster because of the segmentation of skills into parts, lack of necessary transitions, and the ability to leave out details that can be put into still frames. Because of the potential affective influence of the video format, style must be considered in the design (Lindsey, 1984).
Hoekema (1983) states that one of the most important characteristics to con- sider in interactive video is user control. Because of the random access ability of current players, the user has complete control at Level 1 and only somewhat less at other levels, depending on the design. Thus, pace is important. It must be rapid enough to hold attention and prevent the user from skipping through it. The video should be information rich, since the user can repeat a segment as often as necessary to learn the informa-
tion. Like Daynes, Hoekema indicates that high quality images must be used. Further, still frames should not be pack- ed full of text. Instead, each frame should communicate a single message or thought. A self-evident structure should be provided through the use of menus, numbered lessons, section titles, or other devices because the structure of a ran- dom access disc or tape is not obvious to the user. Finally, since the medium is visual, principles of good visual design should be used for both motion and still- frame segments.
To utilize many of the characteristics identified by Hoekema, Daynes, and others, the Nebraska Videodisc Design/Production Group has identified seven types of disc frames (Daynes, 1982).
1. Orientation frames: tables of con- tents, objectives, titles of segments and other oi'ganizational information.
2. Content frames: the actual instruc- tion frames.
3. Decision frames: still frames that present choices to the the user.
4. Strategy or Comment frames: pro- vide advice to the user on strategies that might work in a particular segment or might be useful as an approach to the lesson.
5. Summary frames: the concluding frames of content segments.
6. Problem frames: sequences of stills that present the user with problems or questions to be answered, testing mastery of program segments.
7. Help frames: provide assistance when users get lost. Daynes suggests that these frame types can be used in a variety of instructional designs for interactive video.
Specific instructional design models for interactive video are not discussed in the literature, although several authors suggest that learning theory and instruc- tional design models should be used (Grabowski & Aggen, 1984; Griffiths, 1984; Lindsey, 1984). One reason for the limited discussion may be the assump- tion that any good instructional design model can be adapted to the medium. For example, Burrows, Eiserman, and Williams (1986) followed Gagne's in- structional design model. However, care must be exercised in any adaptation, since the effects of many instructional variables remain to be investigated. Rather than developing a media-specific model, some general principles to be considered in any model are presented.
Since this is an interactive medium,
the type and level of interaction must be considered. Hoekema (1983) states that there are two fundamental types of in- teractions with the user: normal path and user-interrupt. Normal path interac- tion is program control based on user response to questions. These questions might be multiple choice, a~ menu, or open ended questions. User-interrupt in- teractions refer to the ability of the user to escape from the lesson or seek help at any point.
Laurillard's (1984) study into learner control indicates that for some content, maximum learner control should be allowed. However, Hoekema (1983) warns against "empty interactions;" the value of each interaction should be ques- tioned. "Should the user have the oppor- tunity to escape at this point/" or "What type of question is useful here7" are ex- amples of questions that must be answered in the program design phase of interactive lesson design. Hedberg and Perry (1984) warn that excessive learner control may interfere with achievement for some learners. Further, learner con- trol does not eliminate the need to specify the types of interaction and con- trol expected at each decision point. In other words, the control should be limited to that control appropriate for the purpose of the lesson.
In the absence of a specific design and development model, producers and designers use experience as a guide, ap- plying principles from video, CAI, and general instructional design. In the absence of research providing a synergistic view of interactive video, concepts such as video simplicity and clarity, pacing, user-control, and ap- propriate feedback offer the most reasonable guidance in design and development.
The designer has two options in designing and producing interactive video lessons. The first is to design the instruction, produce all of the video, master the disc or tape, write the pro- gram to accompany the video, and then use the product in the manner specified by the design. Several authors have outlined the step by step process for pro- ducing the entire interactive video pro- ject (Bunderson, Campbell, & Farr, 1980; Donahue & Donahue, 1983; Grif- fiths, 1984; Karwin, Landesman, & Henderson, 1985; Sanders, 1985; WICAT cited in Daynes & Butler, 1984).
The second option is to use existing video material and "repurpose" it to meet current needs through the program
design. When possible, repurposing may be preferred because it eliminates the video production costs. The steps to follow in repurposing video have been outlined by several authors (Lehman, 1986; Sanders, 1985; St. Lawrence, 1984; Troutner, 1983).
In both cases, the basic design and development process is the same. Begin with a needs assessment. Determine what the instructional needs are. Also, determine the type of delivery system needed. Delivery system refers to the specific hardware to be used. Will the in- struction be delivered by tape or disc7 What level system will be used/ What are the specific player type and com- puter type?
Once the content is identified, survey the existing resources for videodiscs or tapes that meet these needs or video sources that might be combined in a new tape for the purpose. If none exists, an entirely new program must be produced, spiraling the costs of the materials. Some have estimated the cost of videodisc pro- duction to be in excess of $100,000 per 12 inch side (Jonassen, 1984). St. Lawrence (1984) estimates video produc- tion costs at $3000-5000 per minute of finished video. The production of new video material requires the use of a video production team in addition to in- structional designers and programmers needed in the following steps.
Storyboarding the lesson is necessary whether producing new material or repurposing existing material. In the case of new material, the storyboard precedes the writing and production of video. For repurposing, the video material must be viewed and logged and possible branch points identified. Once the branch points are identified, the storyboards are used to guide the pro- gram design.
Following storyboarding, the video production and computer program design and wr i t ing can occur simultaneously. Since the video already exists in the case of repurposing, only the programming must be done.
Formative evaluation of the lesson should be done at several points in the development process. Based on the results of the evaluations, revisions should be made. In the case of videodisc, this evaluation must be done before the disc is mastered. As one part of the evaluation, field tests should be per- formed. Once all revisions are complete, the full implementation can be made.
The use of design teams is implied in
this process. Several authors have sug- gested that the production of good in- teractive video courseware requires ex- pertise in the areas of content, learning theory, instructional design, video pro- duction, graphics, and computer pro- gramming. Since it is rare that a single individual encompasses all of these fields, a design/production team ap- proach is recommended (Allen & Allen, 1983; Donahue & Donahue, 1983; Kar- win, Landesman, & Henderson, 1985; Lindsey, 1984).
The use of a team allows the combina- tion of expertise in each of the necessary areas. In order for the team approach to work, good communication is needed. For this purpose, a number of groups have developed storyboarding forms (Johnson, Widerquist, Birdsell, & Miller, 1985), script forms (Smith, 1985), and in at least one case, the use of a computer to allow common access to development files (Raab, 1985). To alleviate some of the programming ex- pertise needed, some authors suggest the use of authoring languages and systems (Griffiths, 1984; Jonassen, 1984; Kalowski, 1985; Tuscher & Harvey, 1985; Whitney, 1985). This solution allows non-programmers to produce in- teractive video lessons, but current systems may severely restrict the in- teractive options.
Conc lus ions From this discussion, it can be seen
that procedures and guidelines for the design and development of interactive video do exist. However, as is the case for computer -based ins t ruct ion (Kearsley, 1985), these guidelines are, for the most part, experiential. They seem to be commonsense development strategies; simple clear video, framing, sequencing, pacing, feedback are all considered important and the specific strategy employed depends on the designer's intuitions about the instruc- tional situation as much as on any design model. A systematic process is used to produce interactive video. However, no clear models exist for the design of interactive video instruction. The development or adaptation of such models is clearly a pressing question for researchers.
There seems to be general agreement that the medium should be designed to promote active involvement of learners. Cohen (1984), Laurillard (1984) and others suggest that the learners should be in control, at least of pacing. Bran-
8 JOURNAL OF INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
ching should be based on both student choices and responses to questions. However, Bosco (1984) questions the notion of active learning in current designs. In essence, the question is: Is the activity actually involving the learner with the instruction or is it merely autonomic page turning, requiring no deep processing7
Another area of concern is how well the medium works and for what. In the absence of definitive evidence, evalua- tion and use seem to be mostly based on intuition (Ebner, Danaher, Mahoney, Lippert, & Balson, 1984; Charp, 1986). This leads to the possibility of invalid assumptions, resulting in expensive solu- tions to instructional problems that might have been solved as well or better and at lower cost with an alternative method.
In answer to this problem, Brody (1984) states, "As interactive video begins to make its presence felt as a viable instructional medium, instruc- tional technology researchers must begin to undertake a thorough, systematic analysis of the instructional potential of this medium" (p. 1). He further states that if results of such inquiry have little or no merit, the medium will be thought of as "another technological innovation which promised more than it delivered" (p. 1). To accomplish this systematic study, Brody proposes two areas of research: about interactive video and with interactive video.
Research about interactive video should be concerned with the question of how to maximize the effectiveness of the video, Results of this research should lead to the development of a design model for interactive video. Research with interactive video would focus on attributes of the medium. The place of interactive video in relation to other delivery systems would be defined through the results of such studies.
Brody's suggestions for appropriate research directions may seem somewhat vague. Indeed, Hannafin (1985) suggests that researchers may be unclear about effective points to begin studies. With this in mind, Hannafin proposes a number of statements in the hopes of providing a framework for empirical research. These statements focus on the "methods, instructional features, and tacit assumptions associated with the use of interactive video, rather than the technology itself" (Hannafin, 1985, p. 242). The propositions offered are not intended to be points of view, rather
1987, VOL. 10, NO. 2
they focus on critical issues concerning use and effectiveness of interactive video.
Questions of appropriate use and cost effectiveness are concerns to be address- ed (Ebner, Manning, Brooks, Mahoney, Lippert, & Balson, 1984; Bosco, 1984). Comparisons with instructional alter- natives may be one approach. However, any comparative research must be con- sidered and designed with care to avoid confounding the results (Clark, 1985a, 1985b). Reeves (1986) suggests that the "comparative research model suffers from conceptual, methodological, and analytical problems" (p. 103). He in- dicates that cognitive psychology, in- structional events, and systems model- ing may provide appropriate alternative parad igms for in teract ive v ideo research.
If the results of research on topics such as those discussed above show that in- teractive video is a superior method of instructional delivery, to the point of be- ing cost effective (Ebner, Manning, Brooks, Mahoney, Lippert, & Balson, 1984), then perhaps the visionary's ideal will become a reality. But, if the results do not demonstrate superiority and cost effectiveness, then perhaps interactive video will go the way of multimedia in- structional presentations; a good idea that did not deliver as promised (Dossett and Konczak, 1985).
Alessi, S.M. & Trollip, S.R. (1985). Computer- based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Allen, R. J. & Allen, S. W. (1983). Computer- assisted videodisc: An African perspective. Per- forrnance & Instruction Journal, 22(9), 28-31.
8oen, L. (1983). Teaching with an interactive video-computer system. Educational Technology, 23(3), 42-43.
Bosco, J.J. (1984). Interactive video: Educational tool or toy? Educational Technology, 24(4), 13-19.
Brody, P.J. (1984). Research on and research with interactive video. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, April 23-27, 1984. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 246 885).
gunderson, C. V. (1983). A survey of videodisc projects at WICAT. Performance & Instruction Journal, 22(9), 24-25.
gunderson, C. V., Campbell, J. O., & Farr, B. J. (1980). Instructional systems development model for interactive videodisc training delivery systems. Volume h Hardware, software, and procedures. Orem, LIT: WICAT, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 220 071).
Bunderson, C.V., Hoekema, J., Hon, D., Wilson, R. L., Worcester, C., & Woodward, H. (1983). Interactive video: an elephant in search of a definition. Performance & Instruction Journal, 22(9), 4-5.
gunderson, C. V., Olsen, ;. B., & Baillin, g. (1981). Proof-of-concept demonstration and comparative evaluation of a prototype intelligent videodisc system. Orem, UT: W/CAT, Inc. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 228 989).
Burrows, P. E., Eiserman, W. D. & Williams, D. D. (1986). Vital lessons learned designing in- teractive lessons in algebra. EITV, I8(1), 21-25.
Chambers, J. A. & Sprecher, J. W. (1983). Computer-assisted instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Charp, S. (1986). Editorial. T.H.E. Journal, 13(8), 10.
Clark, R. E. (1985a). Confounding in educational computing research. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(2), 137-148.
Clark, R. E..(1985b). Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing the meta-analyses. ECTJ, 33, 249-262.
Cohen, V. B. (1984). Interactive features in the design of videodisc materials. Educational Technology, 24(1), 16-20.
Copeland, P. (1983). An interactive video system for education and training. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 59-65.
Dalton, D.W. (1986). The efficacy of computer- assisted video instruction on rule learning and at- titudes. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 13(4), 122-125.
~Daynes, R. (1982). Experimenting with video~iscs. Instructional Innovator, 27(2), 24-25,
Daynes, R. (1984). Who, what, where, why, and how much of videodisc technology. In R. Daynes and B. Butler (Eds,), The videodisc book: A guide and directory, (pp. 7-21). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Daynes, R. & Butler, B. (Eds). (1984). The videodise book: A guide and directory. New York: Wiley.
DeBloois, M.L. (1982). Principles for designing in- teractive videodisc instructional materials. In M.L. DeBIoois (Ed.) Videodisc/microcomputer courseware design, (pp. 25-66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Donahue, T. J. & Donahue, M. A. (1983). Understanding interactive video. Training and Development Journal, 37(12), 26-31.
Dossett, D.L. & Konczak, L.J. (1985). New and improved, or just new7 Training and Develop- ment ]ournal, 39(7), 41, 43-44.
Ebner, D. B., Danaher, 8. G., Mahoney, J. V., Lippert, H. T., & Balson, P. M. (1984). Current issues in interactive videoclisc and computer- based instruction. Instructional Innovator, 29(3), 24-29.
Ebner, D. B., Manning, D. T., Brooks, F. R., Mahoney, J. V., Lippert, H. T., & Balson, P. M. (1984). Videodiscs can improve instructional effi- ciency. Instructional Innovator, 29(6),26-28.
Fedewa, L. J. (1983). Safety training for railroad operating employees. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference on Interactive Videodisc in Education and Training, (pp. 26-29).
Forman, D. (1982). Search of the literature. The Computing Teacher, 10(6), 37-51.
Gayeski, D.M. (1983). Corporate and instruc- tional video. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gibson, G. A. (1984). Interactive video meets the oil field: A love story. Training, 21(9), 47-48, 50, 52.
Glenn, A. C., Kozen, N. A. & Pollak, R. A. (1984). Teaching economics: Research findings from a microcomputer/videodisc proiect. Educa- tional Technology, 24(3), 30-32.
Golberg, M. (1983). Survey shows disc training works well for American Bell. EITV, 15(6), 57.
Grabowski, B. & Aggen, W. (1984). Computers for interactive learning. Instructional Innovator, 29(2), 27-30.
Griffiths, M. (1984). Planning for interactive videodisc. Media in Education and Develop- ment, 17(4), 196-200.
Hannafin, M. J. (1985). Empirical issues in the study of computer-assisted interactive video. ECTL 33, 235-247.
Hannafin, M. J., Phillips, T. L., & Tripp, S. D. (1986). The effects of orienting, processing, and practicing activities on learning from interactive video. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13(4), 134-139.
Hedberg, J. G., Perry, N. R., & McNamara, S. E. (1984). Instructional design and interactive video. Unpublished manuscript. Western Australian Institute of Technology and Monash University.
Henderson, R. W., Landesman, E. M., & Kachuck, I. (1985). Computer-video instruction in mathematics: Field test of an interactive ap- proach. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, I6(3), 207-224.
Hershberger, L. (1984). How interactive training affects corporations. EITV, 16(1), 64-65.
Ho, C. P., Savenye, W., & Haas, N. (1986). The effects of orienting objectives and review on lear- ning from interactive video. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13(4), 126-I29.
Hoekema, J. (1983). Interactive videodisc: A new architecture. Performance & Instruction Journal, 22(9), 6-9.
Hon, D. (1982). Interactive training in car- diopulmonary resuscitation. Byte, 7(6), 110-126, 130-I38.
Hon, D. (1983). The promise of interactive video: An affective search. Performance & Instruction Journal, 22(9), 21-23,
Hon D, (1985). Where are interactive videodiscs headed? EITV, 17(8), 27-29.
Howe, S. (1984). Interactive video. Instructor, 93(5), 108-110.
How IBM uses videodiscs for customer training. (1981). EITV, 13(6), 31-34.
Interactive video. (1985). Training, 22(I0), 64. Interactive video: Fast facts. (1986). Training,
23(10), 52. Johnson, J. F., Widerquist, K. L., Birdsell, J. &
Miller, A. E. (1985). Storyboarding for interac- tive videodisc courseware. Educational Technology, 25(12), 29-35.
Jonassen D. H. (1984). The generic disc: Realizing the potential of adaptive, interactive videodiscs. Educational Technology, 24(1), 21-24.
Jones, P. (1985). Interactive video: Developments could boost installations. T.H.E. Journal, 13(2), 12, 14, 16, I7, 20.
Karwin, T.J., Landesman, E.M., & Henderson, R.W. (1985). Applying cognitive science and in- teractive videodisc technology to precalculus mathematics learning modules. T.H.E. Journal, 13(1), 57-63.
Kalowski, N. (1985). Video interfaces for personal computers. EITV, 17(1), 47-48.
Kearsley, G. P. (1985). Microcomputer software: Design and development principles. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, I(2), 209-220. Kearsley, G. P., & Frost, J. (1985). Design factors
for successful videodisc-based instruction. Educational Technology, 25(3), 7-13.
Ketner, W. D. (1982). Videvdisc interactive two- dimensional equipment training. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Video Learn- ing Systems: Videodisc for Military Training and Simulation, (pp. 18-20).
Kimbeflin, D. A. (1982). The U.S. Army Air Defense School distributed instructional system project evaluation. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Video Learning Systems: Videodisc for Military Training and Simulation, (pp. 21-23).
Kulik, J. A., Bangert, R. L., & Williams, G. W. (1983). Effects of computer-based teaching on secondary school students. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 75(1), 19-26.
Kulik, I. A., Kulik, C. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1980). Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 50(4), 525-544.
Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Shwalb, B, J. (1986). The effectiveness of computer-based adult educa- tion: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 2, 235-252.
Laurillard, D. M. (1984). Interactive video and the control of learning. Educational Technology, 24(6), 7-15.
Lehman, I. D. (1986). Interactive video a powerful new tool for science teaching. Journal of Com- puters in Science and Mathematics Teaching, 5(3), 24-29.
Levin, W. (1983). Interactive video: The state-of- the-art teaching machine. Computing Teacher, 1I(2), 11-17.
Lindsey, J. (1984). The challenge of designing for interactive video. Instructional Innovator, 29(6), 17-19.
Lovece, F. (1984). Videodisc hardware. Electronic Learning, 3(7), 60-63.
Lyness, A. L, (1985). Interactive video CPR in- struction: How effective is it? Teaching and Lear- ning Technologies, 1(2), 6-12.
Magel, M. (1985). Still-frame audio: The voice in the video. EITV, 17(8), 30-32, 64-65.
Manning, D. T., Balson, P., Ebner, D.C. & Brooks, F. R. (1983). Student acceptance of videodisc programs for paramedical training. T.H.E. Journal, 11(3), 105-108.
Nugent, G.C. & Stepp Jr., R.E. (1984). The poten- tial of videodisc technology for the hearing im- paired. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4(4), 104-113.
Olsen, L. & DiFazio, R. (1983). The shoemaker's children: How Digital uses interactive video to train computer technicians. Training and Development Journal, 37(12), 30-34.
Parsloe, E. (1984). Learning by doing. Media in Education and Development, 17(4), 201-204.
Pawley, R. (1983). It's becoming an interactive world. EITV, 15(6), 80-81.
Price. B.J., & Marsh, G.E. (1983). Interactive video instruction and the dreaded change in education. T.H.E. Journal, 10(7), 112-117.
Priestman, T. (1984). Interactive video and its ap- plications. Media in Education and Develop- ment, 17(4), 182-186.
Raab, F.J. (1985). Why to use larger computers with smaller ones for videodisc design. EITV, 17(1), 40-41,44.
Reeves, T.C. (1986). Research and evaluation models for the study of interactive video. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13(4), 102-106.
Reinhold, F. (1984). How they're using interactive
videodiscs. Electronic Learning, 3(7), 56-57. Sanders, M. (1985). Interactive video courseware
for graphic communications teachers and students. The Technology Teacher, 44(5), 39-41.
Schroeder, J. E. (1982). U.S. Army VISTA evalua- tion results. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Video Learning Systems: Videvdisc for Military Training and Simulation, (pp. 1-3).
Smith, R.C. (1985). From script to screen by com- puter for interactive videodiscs. EITV, 17(1), 31-33.
St. Lawrence, J. (1984). The interactive videodisc: Here at last. Electronic Learning, 3(7), 49-51.
Stowitschek, J. J. & Stowitschek, C. E. (1984). Once more with feeling: The absence of research on teacher use of microcomputers. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4(4), 23-39.
Thordilkson, R. (1982, March). Microcom- puter/videodisc authoring system for instruc- tional programming. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Associatio n, New York, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 227 841).
Thordilkson, R., & Hofmeister, A. (1984). Interac- tive video authoring of instruction for the men- tally handicapped. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4(4), 57-73.
Troutner, J. (1983). How to produce an interactive video program. Electronic Learning, 2(4), 70-75.
Tuscher, L.J. & Harvey, F.A. (1985). Developing authoring tools and demonstration courseware for intelligent interactive videodisc systems. T.H.E. Journal, 13(3), 85-88.
U.S. Army makes new commitment to interactive discs. (1987). Interactive Discs Today, 1(2), 4-5.
Waldrop, H. (1982). Interactive video: A new technology blasts off. Electronic Learning, 2(3), 72-74.
Whitney, N.S. (1985). From interactive tape to disc with insight. EITV, 17(1), 37-38.
Wilson, L. (1983). Interactive video: A step toward natural learning. Performance & Instruc- tion Journal, 22(9), 32-33.
Wilson, R. L. (1983). Interactive video: What makes it work'/Performance & Instruction Jour- nal, 22(9), 26-27.
Withrow, F.B. (1985). Videodiscs: The thinking person's audiovisual. American Educator, 9(3), 22-25, 40, 42.
Withrow, F. B., & Roberts, L.G. (1982). The videodisc: Putting education On a silver platter. Electronic Learning, 1(5), 43-44.
Yampolsky, M. (1983). The next generation of in- teractive videodiscs. EITV, 15(6), 40-41,44.
Young, I. I., & Schlieve, P. L. (1984). Videodisc simulation: Training for the future. Educational Technology, 24(4), 41-42.
10 JOURNAL OF INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT