- Email: [email protected]
Laboratory equipment training utilizing CAL and interactive videocassettes
Compuf. Educ. Vol. IO, No. I, pp. 25-28. Printed in Great Britain
0360-I 3 I S/86 53.00 + 0.00 pergamon Press Ltd
1986
LABORATORY EQUIPMENT CAL AND INTERACTIVE
TRAINING UTILIZING VIDEOCASSETTES
JOHN F. MOORE Learning Resources Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, U.S.A.
Abstract-This paper describes the design and production of two university-level laboratory training lessons which use a computer-based interactive videocassette system (CBIV). The hardware system is an Apple II microcomputer, Sony Betamax videocassette player, and BCD Associates interface, The paper describes each lesson’s design features. Several unique considerations of the CBIV design process are treated, such as responsibilities within the development team and the relationship of learning hierarchies to branch design. Next, video and software production issues are discussed. Finally, the impact of videotape vs videodisc economics on the design process is briefly expIored.
INTRODUCTION
A computer-based interactive video system (CBIV) which utilizes videocassettes, rather than videodiscs, provides instructional developers with an affordable, practical means of testing and utilizing an emerging Iearning technology. Such a system offers many of the capabilities of videodiscs but without the higher production costs. Several design and production issues encountered during the development of two CAL IV projects are discussed in this paper. First, a summary of each product is presented. Then the design and production process used is outlined. Finally, the impact of videotape vs. videodisc economics on the design process is briefly discussed.
BACKGROUND The projects described below were undertaken at the initiative of Dr Mark Sanders, Assistant Professor of industrial arts education, at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, for his laboratory courses in graphics communication. These collaborative projects were carried out by the Instructional Development Division of the university’s Learning Resources Center. The author of this paper was the instructional developer for both projects. The CBIV delivery system combines an Apple II + microcomputer (64K), Sony model SLO-325 Betamax videocassette deck, BCD Associates model 450 videocassette interface card, and 13” Amdek color monitor. Video programming is mastered and edited using both U-mat& and two inch quadraplex equipment. Industrial grade beta type-1 half inch videocassettes are used in the delivery systems. Lesson software is generated using the BCD Associates authoring system “The Instructor”, version 4.4.
TWO
CAL/INTERACTIVE
VIDEO
PROJECTS
This interactive lesson introduces students to the principles and operation of an offset lithographic printing press. The tutorial has seven sections involving 36 video scenes and 54 computer “pages”. The visualization combines video scenes of both the actual machine and animation segments, with numerous information, question, and menu computer screens. By using various menus, both novice and experienced users can use the lesson. Average lesson completion time is 35-40 minutes. The project has been used by students for several academic quarters, with favorable results. 25
26
JOHN F. Moo=
Computerized typesetter project This project, currently being tested, is a challenging exploration of CAL/interactive video as both a tutor and a tool. The first part of the lesson is built on a concept we term “guided practice”. A number of short tutorials are used to lead novice operators through the typesetter’s basic setup and operation. For each tutorial, a set of operating steps first is demonstrated on videotape. Next a list of the steps just seen appears on the CBIV monitor. Then a student practices these steps on the typesetter. (The CBIV delivery system is located next to the typesetter.) If a particular step is unclear, a “help” screen or demonstration can be retrieved by pressing the number of that step on the CBIV keyboard. The second part of this project will demonstrate the use of computer-based interactive video as a job aid for a complex machine. The “typesetting visual database” will serve as a catalog of advanced typesetting procedures, supplementing the machine’s operating manuals. Working from an on-screen display of various typeset layouts and effects, a student will select a desired effect and learn how to achieve it. Each procedure will have a demonstration, list of steps, and a summa~ of error messages and solutions. For this part of the project, a videodisc will be created because of the requirements for high visual density and minimal search time. From the months of work invested in these projects, several conclusions have evolved which could help others streamline their initial work in the design and production of interactive media. These will be discussed next.
CBIV DESIGN
PROCESS
In a typical CAL/interactive video university project, it is expected that a faculty member will be the subject matter expert @ME), and that his/her efforts will be leveraged through collaboration with a project team. A CBIV project team is made up of specialists in instructional design, video production, computer programming, and evaluation, as well as the SME. At the outset, the group should discuss and agree on the project’s purpose, goals and objectives. Similarly, the group should agree on their roles, responsibilities, quality standards, and deadlines. Devetoping interactive video is too time consuming and demanding a process for a “one-man band” approach to be very productive. Insisting on a team approach can make the difference between a project which never gets beyond the dreaming stage, and one that is successfully implemented. The CBIV design process differs somewhat from that used for traditional media. Lessons no longer need be designed for an “average” student with an average level of prior knowledge. When using traditional linear media, an instructional developer often knows that a certain proportion of students may need extra help, while others might benefit from more advanced content treatments. Yet within a linear delivery system, it is difficult if not impossible to adequately serve these legitimate learning needs. Thus linear lessons are designed for the “average student. This situation often serves no one well. Interactive media offer a more powerful tool for instruction. With CBIV, an instructional developer can build sets of content treatments, each specifically targeted to the diverse and unique needs of various learners who are likely to encounter the lesson. In effect, the design work for an interactive Iesson is equivalent to designing several programs on the same topic, each written to accommodate a unique audience. Thus the design workload can increase substantially. At the start of the design process, the instructional developer and SME should analyze student characteristics to understand their backgrounds, prior knowledge levels, and purposes for studying the lesson. Such information can identify subgroups of learners, to whom different lesson portions will be targeted. The aim here is to meet the unique needs of as many learners as possible, within the resource limits of the project. Determining learning hierarchies is an important step. Since it is likely that a CBIV lesson will incorporate branching, try to identify topics or skills within the hierarchy that lend themselves to “se~enting” and then identify prerequisites for these segments. Having the prerequisites identi~ed helps insure that when branching into or out of a segment, a student will not encounter “knowledge gaps”. Making a diagram of the learning hierarchies can point out where branch paths through
CAL and interactive video
27
the lesson can be built. This mapping activity can insure lesson continuity. A similar task is to pinpoint critical discriminations. Together, these can suggest optimal cue treatments, such as motion, graphics, text only, and/or animation for the various learner subgroups. With information on learner characteristics, hierarchies, and critical discriminations, the SME and instructional developer then develop specific objectives for each lesson segment and target group. Test questions are subsequently generated for the objectives in the segments. Feedback and remediation strategies also are planned at this time. Creating the message treatments within each segment is the next design task. The aim here is to insure that student interactions with the lesson are meaningful, not trivial. Focus the design towards higher-order interactions which can enhance meaning, understanding, and learning. This could include having students apply what they are learning by performing simulations and problem-solving exercises. It’s important to plan the role and interplay of all presentation and practice elements for each segment. Lesson elements can include demonstrations, info~ation, questions, feedback, menus, and exercises. Decisions are then made to match the presentation needs for each element with motion, still images, graphics, and/or text. Finally, a decision is made to determine whether each element will be delivered using video, the computer itself, and/or printed supplements. It is quite possible to combine several presentation modes within one instructional segment. Several seemingly minor items can facilitate the planning for each lesson segment. First, use storyboard cards to insure that all relevant frame information is kept together. Second, briefly outline the “mainline” instruction before designing any optional or remedial segments. Lastly, compare the intent and the execution of each unique group treatment. Try to verify that these segments will meet the specific needs of the target groups. If not, rethink the purpose of the treatments and consider redesigning them. PRODUCTION
REQUIREMENTS
Production for CVIV involves computer programming, video production, and the creation of supplemental print materials. The computer pro~amming phase can be streamlined by using software known as an “authoring system.” This software lets a lesson’s computer code be generated by a person without programming expertise. An authoring system will create presentation files, supervise running the lesson on the videocassette player and computer, and record student performance data. An additional benefit is that changes in lessons can be made relatively quickly, easing the workload during maintenance and revision cycles of lesson development. One drawback is that lesson design options often are limited unless the software has a “blank screen” structure. Television production for interactive videotape requires careful planning for all branch paths. It is most efficient to arrange the scene sequencing so that all video scenes associated with a lesson segment are grouped in the order most likely to be needed. This includes “mainline” scenes (which all students see) as well as remedial and optional scenes. Remedial scenes often are actually small portions of mainline scenes. Nevertheless, these should be edited separately onto the master tape to protect against tape edge damage which can result from frequent threading and unthreading within a mainline scene. An additional benefit is a considerable decrease in search time for remedial scenes, and a possible decrease in search time for the next mainline scene if any remedials are used during the current lesson segment. DESIGN
ECONOMICS
The economic advantages of interactive videotape, compared to videodisc, can be especially attractive in university settings. When only a few copies of a lesson are needed, and certain visual density and motion control requirements generally associated with videodiscs are not a high priority, tape-based CBIV often will be the interactive system of choice. There are at least two reasons for this. First, a project budget obviously need not accomodate the costs of pressing the videodiscs themselves. When only a few copies of a videodisc are needed, the pressing costs can easily exceed $600 per disc, exclusive of other production costs. Videocassettes may cost $20 or less. This savings for initial program duplication may by itself determine the viability of many
28
JOHNF. Mcmm
university projects. Second, the program revision costs also favor using videocassettes. Any revision of the video would require re-editing the master videotape. For a videodisc-based project, a new set of videodiscs would then have to be pressed, at about the same cost as the original set. Thus the final per-disc cost would have effectively doubled (for one revision cycle). Conversely, a tape-based project would only need to recopy the existing videocassettes after the master videotape editing is completed. Therefore video revisions are substantially cheaper for an interactive videocassette, rather than videodisc, delivery system, especially in the small copy volumes usually made in universities. As a low-cost means of testing “first-draft” interactive lessons, CBIV using videocassettes can give increased design latitude to the instructional developer, video producer, and client. For projects with limited budgets, using interactive videocassettes as the final lesson delivery method retains this ability to experiment with design in a lower cost environment than videodiscs. In light of the lack of a theoretical base for designing interactive media, using a tape-based CBIV system can reduce the cost of design risk-taking, while enhancing options for experimentation which may lead to serendipitous results. SUMMARY
Computer-based interactive video utilizing videocassettes can be designed to give students many of the same learning experiences that a more expensive videodisc system can offer. Paying attention to details such as the needs of unique learner groups will insure the medium’s potential is carefully developed.
0360-I 3 I S/86 53.00 + 0.00 pergamon Press Ltd
1986
LABORATORY EQUIPMENT CAL AND INTERACTIVE
TRAINING UTILIZING VIDEOCASSETTES
JOHN F. MOORE Learning Resources Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, U.S.A.
Abstract-This paper describes the design and production of two university-level laboratory training lessons which use a computer-based interactive videocassette system (CBIV). The hardware system is an Apple II microcomputer, Sony Betamax videocassette player, and BCD Associates interface, The paper describes each lesson’s design features. Several unique considerations of the CBIV design process are treated, such as responsibilities within the development team and the relationship of learning hierarchies to branch design. Next, video and software production issues are discussed. Finally, the impact of videotape vs videodisc economics on the design process is briefly expIored.
INTRODUCTION
A computer-based interactive video system (CBIV) which utilizes videocassettes, rather than videodiscs, provides instructional developers with an affordable, practical means of testing and utilizing an emerging Iearning technology. Such a system offers many of the capabilities of videodiscs but without the higher production costs. Several design and production issues encountered during the development of two CAL IV projects are discussed in this paper. First, a summary of each product is presented. Then the design and production process used is outlined. Finally, the impact of videotape vs. videodisc economics on the design process is briefly discussed.
BACKGROUND The projects described below were undertaken at the initiative of Dr Mark Sanders, Assistant Professor of industrial arts education, at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, for his laboratory courses in graphics communication. These collaborative projects were carried out by the Instructional Development Division of the university’s Learning Resources Center. The author of this paper was the instructional developer for both projects. The CBIV delivery system combines an Apple II + microcomputer (64K), Sony model SLO-325 Betamax videocassette deck, BCD Associates model 450 videocassette interface card, and 13” Amdek color monitor. Video programming is mastered and edited using both U-mat& and two inch quadraplex equipment. Industrial grade beta type-1 half inch videocassettes are used in the delivery systems. Lesson software is generated using the BCD Associates authoring system “The Instructor”, version 4.4.
TWO
CAL/INTERACTIVE
VIDEO
PROJECTS
This interactive lesson introduces students to the principles and operation of an offset lithographic printing press. The tutorial has seven sections involving 36 video scenes and 54 computer “pages”. The visualization combines video scenes of both the actual machine and animation segments, with numerous information, question, and menu computer screens. By using various menus, both novice and experienced users can use the lesson. Average lesson completion time is 35-40 minutes. The project has been used by students for several academic quarters, with favorable results. 25
26
JOHN F. Moo=
Computerized typesetter project This project, currently being tested, is a challenging exploration of CAL/interactive video as both a tutor and a tool. The first part of the lesson is built on a concept we term “guided practice”. A number of short tutorials are used to lead novice operators through the typesetter’s basic setup and operation. For each tutorial, a set of operating steps first is demonstrated on videotape. Next a list of the steps just seen appears on the CBIV monitor. Then a student practices these steps on the typesetter. (The CBIV delivery system is located next to the typesetter.) If a particular step is unclear, a “help” screen or demonstration can be retrieved by pressing the number of that step on the CBIV keyboard. The second part of this project will demonstrate the use of computer-based interactive video as a job aid for a complex machine. The “typesetting visual database” will serve as a catalog of advanced typesetting procedures, supplementing the machine’s operating manuals. Working from an on-screen display of various typeset layouts and effects, a student will select a desired effect and learn how to achieve it. Each procedure will have a demonstration, list of steps, and a summa~ of error messages and solutions. For this part of the project, a videodisc will be created because of the requirements for high visual density and minimal search time. From the months of work invested in these projects, several conclusions have evolved which could help others streamline their initial work in the design and production of interactive media. These will be discussed next.
CBIV DESIGN
PROCESS
In a typical CAL/interactive video university project, it is expected that a faculty member will be the subject matter expert @ME), and that his/her efforts will be leveraged through collaboration with a project team. A CBIV project team is made up of specialists in instructional design, video production, computer programming, and evaluation, as well as the SME. At the outset, the group should discuss and agree on the project’s purpose, goals and objectives. Similarly, the group should agree on their roles, responsibilities, quality standards, and deadlines. Devetoping interactive video is too time consuming and demanding a process for a “one-man band” approach to be very productive. Insisting on a team approach can make the difference between a project which never gets beyond the dreaming stage, and one that is successfully implemented. The CBIV design process differs somewhat from that used for traditional media. Lessons no longer need be designed for an “average” student with an average level of prior knowledge. When using traditional linear media, an instructional developer often knows that a certain proportion of students may need extra help, while others might benefit from more advanced content treatments. Yet within a linear delivery system, it is difficult if not impossible to adequately serve these legitimate learning needs. Thus linear lessons are designed for the “average student. This situation often serves no one well. Interactive media offer a more powerful tool for instruction. With CBIV, an instructional developer can build sets of content treatments, each specifically targeted to the diverse and unique needs of various learners who are likely to encounter the lesson. In effect, the design work for an interactive Iesson is equivalent to designing several programs on the same topic, each written to accommodate a unique audience. Thus the design workload can increase substantially. At the start of the design process, the instructional developer and SME should analyze student characteristics to understand their backgrounds, prior knowledge levels, and purposes for studying the lesson. Such information can identify subgroups of learners, to whom different lesson portions will be targeted. The aim here is to meet the unique needs of as many learners as possible, within the resource limits of the project. Determining learning hierarchies is an important step. Since it is likely that a CBIV lesson will incorporate branching, try to identify topics or skills within the hierarchy that lend themselves to “se~enting” and then identify prerequisites for these segments. Having the prerequisites identi~ed helps insure that when branching into or out of a segment, a student will not encounter “knowledge gaps”. Making a diagram of the learning hierarchies can point out where branch paths through
CAL and interactive video
27
the lesson can be built. This mapping activity can insure lesson continuity. A similar task is to pinpoint critical discriminations. Together, these can suggest optimal cue treatments, such as motion, graphics, text only, and/or animation for the various learner subgroups. With information on learner characteristics, hierarchies, and critical discriminations, the SME and instructional developer then develop specific objectives for each lesson segment and target group. Test questions are subsequently generated for the objectives in the segments. Feedback and remediation strategies also are planned at this time. Creating the message treatments within each segment is the next design task. The aim here is to insure that student interactions with the lesson are meaningful, not trivial. Focus the design towards higher-order interactions which can enhance meaning, understanding, and learning. This could include having students apply what they are learning by performing simulations and problem-solving exercises. It’s important to plan the role and interplay of all presentation and practice elements for each segment. Lesson elements can include demonstrations, info~ation, questions, feedback, menus, and exercises. Decisions are then made to match the presentation needs for each element with motion, still images, graphics, and/or text. Finally, a decision is made to determine whether each element will be delivered using video, the computer itself, and/or printed supplements. It is quite possible to combine several presentation modes within one instructional segment. Several seemingly minor items can facilitate the planning for each lesson segment. First, use storyboard cards to insure that all relevant frame information is kept together. Second, briefly outline the “mainline” instruction before designing any optional or remedial segments. Lastly, compare the intent and the execution of each unique group treatment. Try to verify that these segments will meet the specific needs of the target groups. If not, rethink the purpose of the treatments and consider redesigning them. PRODUCTION
REQUIREMENTS
Production for CVIV involves computer programming, video production, and the creation of supplemental print materials. The computer pro~amming phase can be streamlined by using software known as an “authoring system.” This software lets a lesson’s computer code be generated by a person without programming expertise. An authoring system will create presentation files, supervise running the lesson on the videocassette player and computer, and record student performance data. An additional benefit is that changes in lessons can be made relatively quickly, easing the workload during maintenance and revision cycles of lesson development. One drawback is that lesson design options often are limited unless the software has a “blank screen” structure. Television production for interactive videotape requires careful planning for all branch paths. It is most efficient to arrange the scene sequencing so that all video scenes associated with a lesson segment are grouped in the order most likely to be needed. This includes “mainline” scenes (which all students see) as well as remedial and optional scenes. Remedial scenes often are actually small portions of mainline scenes. Nevertheless, these should be edited separately onto the master tape to protect against tape edge damage which can result from frequent threading and unthreading within a mainline scene. An additional benefit is a considerable decrease in search time for remedial scenes, and a possible decrease in search time for the next mainline scene if any remedials are used during the current lesson segment. DESIGN
ECONOMICS
The economic advantages of interactive videotape, compared to videodisc, can be especially attractive in university settings. When only a few copies of a lesson are needed, and certain visual density and motion control requirements generally associated with videodiscs are not a high priority, tape-based CBIV often will be the interactive system of choice. There are at least two reasons for this. First, a project budget obviously need not accomodate the costs of pressing the videodiscs themselves. When only a few copies of a videodisc are needed, the pressing costs can easily exceed $600 per disc, exclusive of other production costs. Videocassettes may cost $20 or less. This savings for initial program duplication may by itself determine the viability of many
28
JOHNF. Mcmm
university projects. Second, the program revision costs also favor using videocassettes. Any revision of the video would require re-editing the master videotape. For a videodisc-based project, a new set of videodiscs would then have to be pressed, at about the same cost as the original set. Thus the final per-disc cost would have effectively doubled (for one revision cycle). Conversely, a tape-based project would only need to recopy the existing videocassettes after the master videotape editing is completed. Therefore video revisions are substantially cheaper for an interactive videocassette, rather than videodisc, delivery system, especially in the small copy volumes usually made in universities. As a low-cost means of testing “first-draft” interactive lessons, CBIV using videocassettes can give increased design latitude to the instructional developer, video producer, and client. For projects with limited budgets, using interactive videocassettes as the final lesson delivery method retains this ability to experiment with design in a lower cost environment than videodiscs. In light of the lack of a theoretical base for designing interactive media, using a tape-based CBIV system can reduce the cost of design risk-taking, while enhancing options for experimentation which may lead to serendipitous results. SUMMARY
Computer-based interactive video utilizing videocassettes can be designed to give students many of the same learning experiences that a more expensive videodisc system can offer. Paying attention to details such as the needs of unique learner groups will insure the medium’s potential is carefully developed.