Myths of Interactive Television Distance Learning

Academic Exchange Quarterly, Fall, 2000 by Rhonda L. Harvey, Jack B. De Vore

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore common myths that surround distance learning based on the authors'
perceptions acquired through several years of teaching via interactive television. The article will refute
the following myths based on a review of related research literature and the authors' experiences:

Myth 1. Students at distance sites will not perform effectively.

Myth 2. The equipment is a barrier to interaction.

Myth 3. The number of sites and students does not influence learning outcomes.

Myth 4. Students' attitudes toward distance learning tend to be negative.

The four myths addressed are issues of concern and should be taken into consideration when preparing to teach
a course using a distance learning system.

Myths of Interactive Television "Distance Learning"

Distance learning is not a new concept. It began over a hundred years ago with home learning programs and
correspondence courses. Gibson and Gibson (1995) have observed, "With all the current hype and the rush to
spend millions on new technology, we need to pause and reflect on lessons that we have learned from 100 plus
years of distant learning" (p. 15). The ability of educators to reach out to students has escalated with
advancements in technologies in the communications web. The networks now in place include two-way
communications (real time) at multiple sites. Students now have the capability of interacting at will,
through voice stimulation. This enables each site member to participate without having to have a monitor
adjust the camera and thus take time from the learning process.

The terminology of distance education has been recently realigned. Hopey and Ginsburg (1996) assert,
"Clearly, we are no longer talking about distance education but rather beginning to envision distance
learning" (p. 2). Dubois (1996) states, "To excel in the 21st century, higher education must undergo a
paradigm shift from an environment and culture that defines learning as a classroom process, shaped by brick
-and-mortar facilities and faculty centered activities, to an environment defined by learner-centered
processes" (p. 3). "Distance learning is the conduct of classes when the students are physically separated
from the instructor by any distance. All communications are mediated in synchronous or asynchronous time via
audio, video, computing, print, or any combination of these" (Cyrs & Conway, 1997, p. 385). Interactive
television, as defined by Cyrs and Conway (1997), is highly visualized, highly interactive (teacher/student,
student/student, student/media), and highly student-centered.

It is pertinent to educators to explore the avenues of research pertaining to common myths that surround
distance learning. Myths are born out of a lack of tree understanding of a system. Distance learning myths
are no exception. Myths have been engendered because distance teaching does require additional skills that
must be learned by those wishing to use this vehicle as a teaching tool. Effective teaching used in the
traditional classroom must be incorporated into the distance learning environment. However, additional
competencies are required: engaging every student at all field sites, presentation skills for interactive
television, projecting a professional television image, interactive television management techniques, etc.

Myths

Myth 1. Students at distance sites will not perform effectively.

A review of research by Webster and Hackley (1997) entitled "Teaching Effectiveness in Technology-Mediated
Distance Learning" reported that distant learners progress as well as learners in a face-to-face classroom
environment: Effectiveness of educational television and face-to-face instruction has no or small differences
in student achievement (Wetzel, Radtke, & Stem, 1994), and there was no difference between the performance of
students given interactive video instruction and face-to-face instruction (Storck & Sproull, 1995). Cyrs and
Conway (1997) in a textbook Teaching at a Distance with the Merging Technologies state that current research
findings are consistent over the years: "There is no significant difference in learning outcomes between
traditional and televised instruction, live or videotaped" (p. 3). They go on to emphasize that television
does not affect the quality of instruction (Cyrs & Conway, 1997).

Myth 2. The equipment is a barrier to student interaction.

The equipment itself is not the barrier to interaction! Teacher inability to establish interaction among
students at all sites creates the distance. Webster and Hackley (1997) found, in Hypothesis 5 of their
research, that more interactive teaching styles relate positively to learning outcomes. They go on to support
this by stating that students in more interactive courses had more positive attitudes. Rangecroft (1998)
believes that a major challenge facing distant educators is to find ways to introduce as much social
interaction into their courses as possible and, when this is not feasible, to compensate for its absence. In
contrast, Gallimore (1991, as cited in Rangecroft, 1998) found that distant learners felt isolated and cut
off physically from their instructor and the other students. This left a negative feeling about their work,
and in some cases the students actually withdrew from the class. Rangecroft (1998) contends that examples of
good practices need to be surveyed to better understand the nature and extent of the isolation factor. Collis
(1995) indicated, "It is not the technology but the instructional implementation of the technology that
determines its effect on learning" (p. 146). Gibson and Gibson (1995) contended that success in distance
learning depends on "the correct mix of human factors that support faculty and learner needs" (p. 15).

Myth 3. The number of sites and students does not influence learning outcomes.

There is a point of diminishing return when numbers are involved. This is tree for both interactive
television learning and face-to-face instruction. Webster and Hackley (1997) stated that the number of
classroom sites can affect learning outcomes. They concur that one of the reasons for the learning outcome
effect is the physical gap between student locations. This gap gives students a feeling of being cut off from
each other. Gowan and Downs (1994) have concluded that additional sites lower the participants' impression of
personal contact. Webster and Hackley (1997) cite a video conference by M. J. Catchpole indicating it is
difficult to build discussion into distant learning courses that have three or more sites interacting. Cyrs
and Conway (1997) recommend that students be involved in interactive activities 30 to 50 percent of the time.
This indicates that instructors must become well-versed in methods of promoting discussion and interaction
among all sites.

Myth 4. Students' attitudes toward distance learning tend to be negative.

Cunningham and McLemore (1994) studied the effects of interrelationships among students and faculty and
student motivation pertaining to distance learning classes. They concluded that student attitudes toward
learning are influenced by teachers' "immediacy behaviors." They also concluded that technology should not
impose significant restrictions on the learner.

Students may initially be motivated because they feel that they are in a new learning process and are on the
cutting edge of technology. However, this type of motivation will soon dissipate. Willis (1992) indicated
instructional activities should be varied every 20 minutes to maintain an audience's attention.

Factors that encourage motivation in a traditional classroom setting must be considered in the distance
learning environment along with the technological aspects such as lights, cameras, and microphones. Quality
of instruction, faculty access, and an environment comfortable and free of fear will always be some of the
factors in motivating students regardless of mode of learning.

Preparation Time, Graphic Preparation, and Equipment Mastery

Preparation time for an interactive television course will take longer than a traditional course as
documented by Cyrs and Conway (1997) who contend that developing a first-time interactive television course
will take 3 to 5 times longer than developing a traditional course. Experience will reduce the time to 2 to 3
times the preparation time for a traditional course. They explain that the additional time is needed to
design visual materials, create interactive experiences, and develop the lessons themselves.

Wagner (1995) agrees and concludes that "Graphics developed for use as transparencies, film, or slides are
generally unsuitable unless they are reformatted" (p. 19). For example, most visuals for a traditional class
setting must be modified and placed in the landscape format using a sans serif, 24 to 35 point font size.
Regarding graphics, non-glare pastel blue and green backgrounds with black print tend to project most
readably. Hegge (1993) states that graphics for interactive television must be bold, in large type, simple,
and colorful.

During the curriculum preparation stage, it is essential for educators to master the equipment available at
each site and familiarize students with the equipment. The equipment that is accessible may vary at different
sites where the class is offered and will require different presentation techniques. These differences should
be identified in the curriculum.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this article addresses commonly held myths about distance learning and refutes each of these
myths based on findings in the research literature. The myths addressed are issues of concern and should be
taken into consideration when preparing to teach a course using a distance learning system. The four myths
examined in this paper indicate that interactive learning methods must be learned by the instructors who are
going to utilize the system. It further establishes that learners located in distance sites can be
effectively involved in the learning process. As stated, there is no significant difference in learning
outcomes using the distance learning system for presenting material when compared to the traditional
classroom setting.

The distance learning equipment is not a barrier to interaction. However, the number of distance sites
affects learning outcomes. The reason for the participants' loss in learning might be due to the time
available for each student to participate in the interaction process. Educators must incorporate interaction
techniques into their lessons, with student interaction constituting 30 to 50 percent of the class time.

Student motivation does not appear to be affected by the distance learning atmosphere. The same rules that
govern motivation and learner attitudes in a traditional classroom apply to distance learning. Therefore, it
is the facilitator's responsibility to motivate.

The amount of preparation time needed to develop a curriculum for an interactive television learning-course
will be 3 to 5 times longer than the preparation time for a traditional class curriculum. When getting ready
to prepare a curriculum, instructors must consider time constraints.

References

Collis, B. (1995). Anticipating the impact of multimedia in education: Lessons from the literature. Computers in Adult Education and Training, 2 (2). 136-149.

Cunningham, J., & McLemore, M. (1994, April). Teacher immediacy behaviors and student motivation in the distance learning environment. Paper presented at the 5th National Conference on College Teaching and Learning, Jacksonville, FL.

Cyrs, T. E., & Conway, E. D. (1997). Teaching at a distance with the merging technologies: An instructional system approach. Las Cruces, NM: Center for Educational Development, New Mexico University.

Dubois, J. R. (1996, Sept/Oct). Going the distance. Adult Learning, 8 (1). 19-21.

Gallimore, M. (1991). The loneliness of the long-distance statistics teacher. Proceedings of ICOTS III,
(ISI).

Gibson, C. C., & Gibson, T. L. (1995, Sept/Oct). Lessons learned from 100+ years of distance learning. Adult
Learning, 7 (1). 15.

Gowan, J. A., & Downs, J. M. (1994). Video conferencing human-machine interface: A field study. Information &
Management, 27. 341-356.

Hegge, M. (1993). Interactive television presentation style and teaching materials. Journal of Continuing
Education in Nursing, 24 (1). 39-42.

Hopey, C. E., & Ginsburg, L. (1996, Sept/Oct). Distance learning and new technologies. Adult Learning, 8 (1).
22-23.

Rangecroft, M. (1998, Apr). Interpersonal communication in distance education. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 24 (1). 75-76.

Rezabek, R. (1990). Teleteaching handbook: A handbook for teachers using microwave or ITFS interactive
instruction. XXXX: 1A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345699).

Storck, J., & Sproull, L. (1995). Through a glass darkly. What do people learn in videoconferences? Human
Communication Research, 22. 197-219.

Wagner, E. D. (1995, Sept/Oct). Distance education success factors. Adult Learning, 7 (1). 18-19.

Webster, J., & Hackley, P. (1997, Dec). Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediated distance learning.
Academy of Management Journal, 40 (6). 1282-1309.

Wetzel, C. D., Radtke, P. H., & Stem, H. W. (1994). Instructional effectiveness of video media. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Willis, B. (1992). Effective distance education: A primer for faculty and administrators: Monograph series in
Distance Education No. 2. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska University System. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
352447).

Rhonda L. Harvey, University of Arkansas

Jack B. De Vore, University of Arkansas

Rhonda L. Harvey, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Adult Education in the Department of Vocational and Adult
Education. <rharv@comp.uark.edu>. Jack B. De Vore, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Adult Education in the
Department of Vocational and Adult Education. <jdevore@comp.uark.edu>.

Rhonda L. Harvey "Myths of Interactive Television Distance Learning". Academic Exchange Quarterly.
FindArticles.com. 26 Mar, 2009. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3325/is_3_4/ai_n28804316