This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 09 November 2014, At: 14:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

New Jersey Journal ofCommunicationPublication details, includinginstructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajc19

Interactive video inNew Jersey highereducation: A surveyJane Botsch Hutchison aa Head of the Audiovisual Department ofthe Sarah Byrd Askew Library , WilliamPaterson College of New Jersey ,Wayne, New Jersey, 07470Published online: 17 Mar 2009.

To cite this article: Jane Botsch Hutchison (1993) Interactive videoin New Jersey higher education: A survey, New Jersey Journal ofCommunication, 1:2, 117-125, DOI: 10.1080/15456879309367257

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15456879309367257

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views

of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall notbe liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

03 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

The New Jersey Journal of Communication, Volume 1, No. 2, Fall 1993, pages 117-125

Interactive Video in New Jersey Higher Education:A Survey

Jane Botsch Hutchison1

The use of videodisc and interactive video technology in the institutions of higher education in NewJersey is examined. A telephone survey was conducted of all the 53 colleges and universities in NewJersey to find the extent of videodisc and interactive video technology purchasing and production ateach institution where this technology is used and the extent to which institutions support interactivevideo.

Videocassette technology has become a mainstay in college classrooms andis considered, along with print media such as books and journals, an integralpart of the academic setting. The use of video to supplement lectures and toprovide stimuli for discussion is essentially a one-way communication processbetween technology and user. The technology speaks but does not respond to thestudent. The development of interactive video (IV) technology allows the use ofvideo images in a communication process that approaches a two-way exchangein which both student and technology actively participate. This technologycombines the characteristics of computers (interactivity, management oflearning, record-keeping) with the characteristics of true video (real pictureswith motion and/or still frame access) into a single medium. Using prerecordedvideodiscs or videotapes, the instructional sequence and pace are controlled bythe learner through a computer interface that provides sophisticated control andadministrative record-keeping. Authoring packages enables customization ofmaterial for specific instructional purposes.

1 Jane Botsch Hutchison (M. L. S., University of North Carolina at Greensboro; M. A.,Montclair State College) is the Head of the Audiovisual Department of the Sarah Byrd AskewLibrary, The William Paterson College of New Jersey, Wayne, New Jersey 07470. Pans of thispaper were presented at the Society for Applied Learning Technology's Orlando Multimedia '92,Kissimmee. Florida, February 27, 1992.

Copyright ©1993 by Jane Botsch Hutchison. All Rights Reserved

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

03 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

118 Jane Bolsch Hutchison

The college market is expected to spend over $32.3 million on videodiscs andvideodisc players in 1992 (Educators Expected, 1991, p. 31), yet the impact onteaching practices has yet to be systematically assessed. This paper reports thefindings of a telephone survey of all S3 institutions of higher education in NewJersey to determine what trends can be found in the purchasing of IVtechnology, what the technology is being used for, and in what form theinstitutions offer support. The survey does not discuss the merits of thetechnology nor the effects on the learner, but rather focuses on the current useof the technology on college and university campuses in New Jersey. Thefollowing questions are addressed by the survey instrument:

Are colleges and universities purchasing IV technology?Are IV programs being produced?What subjects are being supported?How is the technology being used?Where is the technology used?What support does the institution provide (money, incentives, technical

assistance, etc.)?How satisfied are faculty with the support the institution provides?

Procedure

A telephone survey of all public and private, two- and four-year post-secondary collegiate institutions in New Jersey was conducted during thesummer and fall of 1991. Of the 53 institutions surveyed, twenty (38%) weretwo-year colleges, thirty-three (62%) were four-year colleges, thirty-two (60%)were public institutions (i.e. those institutions that derive revenues primarilyfrom state and federal funding), and twenty-one (40%) were private (i.e. thoseinstitutions that derive revenues primarily from individual or corporate funding)(see Table 1).

The New Jeney Journal of Communication, Volume 1, No. 2, Fall 1993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

03 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Interactive Video in NJ Higher Education 119

Table 1

Types of Institution Surveyed

2-Yr 4-Yr Total

PublicPrivateTotal

191

20(38%)

132033 (62%)

32 (60%)21 (40%)53 (100%)

The study required that data be sought from individuals at each institution whowere most knowledgeable about (a) the purchase and use of videodisc, and (b)the production of IV programs.

Results

A total of twenty-seven (51 %) of the institutions surveyed reported that theypurchase videodiscs (see Table 2). Twelve (23%) were two-year colleges andfifteen (28%) were four-year colleges (see Table 2); twenty-two (41%) werepublic institutions and five (10%) were private (see Table 3).

Table 2

Purchase of Videodiscs by 2- and 4-Year Institutions (N=53)

No Purchase 2-Year 4-Year ToUl (2- and 4-Yr)

25(47%) 12(23%) 15(28%) 27(51%)

Table 3Purchase of Videodiscs by Public and Private Institutions (N=53)

No Purchase Public Institutions Private Institutions

25(47%) 22(41%) 5(10%)

A total of fourteen (26%) of the institutions surveyed reported producinginteractive video programs (see Table 4). Five (9%) were produced in two-year

The New Jersey Journal of Communication, Volume 1. No. 2. Fall 1993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

03 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

120 Jane Botsch Hutchison

colleges and nine (1796) in four-year colleges (see Table 4); eleven (20%) wereproduced in public and three (6%) in private institutions (see Table 5).

Table 4

Production of IV in 2- and 4-Year Institution! (N = 53)

No Production 2-Year 4-Year Total (2-and 4-Yrt

39(74%) 5(9%) 9(17%) 14 (26%)

TableS

Production of IV in Public and Private Institutions (N = $3)

No Production Public Institutions Private Institutions

39(74%) 11(20%) 3(6%)

Of the twenty-seven institutions that reported purchasing videodiscs, nineteen(70%) have facilities in academic departments. Eight institutions (30%) havefacilities in their libraries, and eight (30%) have facilities in their media centers(see Table 6).

Table 6

Location of IV Technology (N=27)

Academic Dept.LibraryMedia CenterComputer CentOther

19 (70%)8(30%)8(30%)4(15%)7(26%)

Of the fourteen institutions reported producing IV programs, nine (64%)produce programs in the Science and Health subject areas, four (29%) in theHumanities, two (14%) in Art, Social Science, and Management, and one (7%)in Communication. Of the twenty-seven institutions that reported purchasing

The New Jersey Journal of Communication, Volume 1, No. 2, Fall 1993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

03 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Interactive Video in NJ Higher Education 121

videodiscs, twelve (44%) use institutional budgets to support purchase, seven(26%) solely from grants, and 8 (30%) use a combination of institutional andgrant monies. Of the fourteen institutions that produce videodisc programs, eight(57%) report that funding for production of IV comes from both the institutionand grant support, five (36%) rely entirely on grant support, and one (7%)reports production relying solely on its institutional budget.

Institutional support primarily takes the form of release time for facultymembers. Two institutions report faculty development funding, and one reportson the use of a faculty development center. Six institutions report receivingmoney, and six report other kinds of contributions such as equipment, software,travel, and use of media center staff. Royalties were not even mentioned.However, New Jersey Intercampus Network conferences in 1993 will addressfaculty authorship and rights relating to interactive technologies. When askedwho is involved in the production of the IV programs, eight institutions reportedthat individual faculty are solely involved, as compared to four having interdis-ciplinary teams, two using the media center staff, and one the department staff.Most reported relying solely on their individual resources and any cooperationthat they could muster in the institution, such as videotaping from the TV center,programming from the computing center, or even contracting services on theoutside.

When asked how they rate the institutional support (using a semanticdifferential type scale), the fourteen institutions that produce IV programsseemed reluctant to offer any criticism of the institution. Seven (50%) reportgenerous support, three (21 %) satisfactory, three (21 %) somewhat inadequate,and one (7%) inadequate (see Table 7).

Table 7

Rating of Inititutional Support of Irutitutionx ThttProduce IV Programs (N= 14)

GenerouaSomewhat generou>SatisfactorySomewhat inadequateInadequate

7 (50%)03(21*)3(21*)1(7*)

The New Jersey Journal of Communication, Volume 1, No. 2. Fall 1993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

03 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

122 Jane Bouch Hutchison

Eight informants said that if they had the opportunity to reconsider, theywould probably not develop an IV program. At the time of the grant funding,the individuals rated the institutional support as generous; after it ends, however,continued support by the institution is inadequate. Of the fourteen producinginstitutions, twelve (86%) reported that IV programs were developed forindividual student use. Six (43%) report use in classroom instruction, three(21 %) in support of research, and one (7%) for library/staff training.

Discussion

Institutions of higher education in New Jersey compare well with nationaltrends in IV purchasing. Twenty-seven (51 %) of the institutions had videodisccollections compared with the 57 % reported by the Association of College andResearch Libraries from a survey of its members in 1990 (Brancolini, 1990).Fewer than half of these programs are used in classroom settings in New Jersey.Most are for individual faculty and student use, and several institutions reportthat their facilities are inadequate to meet the needs of class-sized groups ofstudents. Most equipment is located in the academic department, thereforerestricting access to students. Whether putting together a multimedia cabinet toroll into the classrooms, having a lab with trained support personnel, ordeveloping an electronic classroom, it is essential to make the technology easilyaccessible and available to students, according to this survey. Hansen (1990)states that:

interactive video programs were relatively ineffective not because of poordesign; their shortcomings were clearly linked to the shortcomings of thecurrent academic system. If such designs are to succeed they have to beaccompanied by a restructuring of the general curriculum (p. 18).

Atkins (1988) believes that:

we will get a lot further if interactive video discs and other new technologiesare pan of a fundamental rethink about what we are trying to do for studentsin higher education and how we and they can best manage their learning.Otherwise, the gap between the rich potential and the limited reality willcontinue to haunt us (p. 421).

The New Jersey Journal of Communication, Volume 1. No. 2, Fall 1993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

03 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Interactive Video in NJ Higher Education 123

Based on the comments from individuals surveyed and research findings, itseems that organizational change is also necessary for IV technology to besuccessfully integrated. This will involve clearly stated goals for the institution,followed by top administrative support, including not only financial andpersonnel resources, but leadership in encouraging the use of interactivetechnologies. Havelock (1973) points out that if the supporting environment doesnot endorse or support project instruction, a project's instructional products maybe orphaned soon after the designers and developers leave the scene. The projectwill not have provided for product continuance. Results of this survey indicatethat this is already happening in eight New Jersey institutions. Mayor (1987)believes that "creating a reward system for faculty that recognizes creativeteaching, including a willingness to experiment with the technologies, isessential" (p. 12). But such systems have yet to be systematically developed.Morehouse and Stockdiil (1989) also report the results of a study completed atthe University of Minnesota where "existing reward structures and requirementsfor tenure for collegiate faculty are incompatible with technology adoption" (p.7). Both the nature and level of support given by the institution are critical.Morehouse and Stockdiil reported that the value that the institution places on thetechnology is a major factor that promotes or inhibits the use of the technology.

In this survey, participants believed that interactive technologies should beconsidered essential, just like texts, professors, and classrooms. More creativeincentives should be sought, such as in-house credit, computer loans and gifts,excellence awards, mini-grants or other funding mechanisms, and technologypracticums. Several voiced concern about the lack of administrative recognitionand support. Verpoorten (1989) has argued that for teachers to use effectivelyeven the simplest authoring package (which allows them to customize software),they need time, professional assistance, and administrative support. Highereducation faculty need flexible schedules to accommodate the time necessary toproduce interactive programs. The survey suggests that in New Jersey there isvirtually no institutional support when a grant ends. Therefore, the program thatis originally developed eventually becomes out of date, obsolete, and useless. Asprinted texts need periodic revision in order to remain relevant, so interactivetechnologies require the same attention. On a more positive note, the surveyindicates that the production of IV is content, rather than technology driven;i.e., programs were produced to meet specific curriculum needs. This increases

The New Jersey Journal of Communication. Volume 1, No. 2, Fall 1993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

03 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

124 Jane Botsch Hutchison

its utility value over a longer period as the program is tailored to actualcurriculum needs.

Sufficient resource allocation is also needed to adopt IV technologysuccessfully (Morehouse and Stockdill, 1989), and trained support personnelmust be available to provide training and assistance. Riccobono (1986) states that

other indications of institutional commitment to and support of instructionaltechnology may be found in the existence of individuals or groups whoseassigned role is planning and needs assessment for the institutional uses ofthese technologies and decision making on areas relevant to instructionaltechnology acquisition and use (p. V.5).

The results of this survey suggest that such support is not present in New Jersey;only one institution reports a faculty development center. Models of successfulintegration can be found however. Busby (1989) describes a college- wide planwhere "each faculty member was provided release time, instructional designsupport, and access to development support at the University of South Florida"(p. 57). Marcus, Nicholson, and Phillips (1991) discuss their model for devel-oping computer integrated instruction. Help was provided in three areas:microcomputer laboratory, instructional development service, and the provost'soffice. The provost's office provides a means for faculty to explore ideas andhelp fund delivery, whereas the instructional development service and micro labhelp faculty in developing and delivering courseware. They state that "instruc-tional development is a relatively unusual function within higher education"(Marcus, Nicholson, and Phillips, 1991, p. 77).

Adopter attitudes, technology characteristics, and organizational characteristicsall contribute to the successful adoption of an innovation such as IV (Knirk andGustafson, 1986). To achieve success, all three must be compatible. Everyinstitution surveyed demonstrated an enthusiasm for the technology and itspotential for the learner; adopter attitudes are positive. IV technology is at thepoint where a number of successful programs have been developed and tested,and the equipment is readily available and user friendly. The "missing link" inNew Jersey is the readiness of institutions of higher education to embracevideodisc technology and to allocate sufficient resources and reward structures.The challenge is clearly there. The time is ripe in New Jersey for a radicalrethinking of the place of interactive technologies in higher education and for

The New Jersey Journal of Communication, Volume 1. No. 2, Fall 1993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

03 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Interactive Video in NJ Higher Education 125

further study of effective faculty support as they strive to improve theeffectiveness of their teaching and student learning.

References

Ambron, S., & Hooper, K. (Eds.). (1990). Learning with interactive multimedia. Redmond, WA:Apple/Microsoft Press.

Atkins, M. J. (1988). How well can we learn with interactive video discs? In H. Oosthoek & T.Vroeijenslijn (Eds.), Higher education and new technologies. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Barbour, A. (1986). Institutional support for technology falls short. Electronic Learning, 6(2), 16-18.

Brancolini, K. (1990, March). Audiovisual policies in ARL libraries. SPEC Flyer (No. 162).Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.

Busby, J. D. (1989). Developing a collegewide plan for computer integration. TechnologicalHorizons in Education, Macintosh Special Issue

Educators expected to invest heavily in high-tech. (1991). Multimedia & Videodisc Monitor, 9(5),31.

Hansen, E. (1990). The role of interactive video technology in higher education: Case study and aproposed framework. Educational Technology, 3(9), 13-21.

Havelock, R. G. (1973). The change agent's guide to innovation in education. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Educational Technology.

Kautz, B. A., Rodkewich, P. M., Philipson, W. D., & Bardon, J. (1988). The evolution of a newlibrary instruction concept: Interactive video. Research Strategies, 6(3), 109-117.

Knirk, F., & Gustafson, K. (1986). Instructional technology: A systematic approach to education.NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Marcus, M., Nicholson, S. J., & Phillips, L. (1991). A college-wide model for developingcomputer-integrated instruction. THE Journal, 19(2), 76-79.

Mayor, M. (1987). Implications of introducing new technologies into higher education. In M. A.McGill, & R. W. Jonsen (Eds.). State higher education policies in the information age.Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

Morehouse, D. L., & Stockdill, S. H. (1989, September). Understanding the influence of a changeagent organization on technology use by university faculty and staff. TDC ResearchReport, no. 7.

Riccobono, J. A. (1986). Instructional technology in higher education. Washington, DC:Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Van Houweling, D. E. (1987). The information technology environment of higher education. Dublin,OH: Online Computer Library Center.

Verpoorten, J. H. (1989). Bridging the gap. In H. Oosthoek & T. Vroeijenstijn (Eds.). Highereducation and new technologies. Oxford, England: Pergamon.

The New Jersey Journal of Communication, Volume 1, No. 2, Fall 1993

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

03 0

9 N

ovem

ber

2014