DEVELOPING AN EMERGING INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CURRICULUM

INTRODUCTION

Most schools have yet to formulate a plan for the integration of microcomputers into construction education. The focus of a comprehensive plan for employing computers must be on using the computer to teach and learn, rather than to merely compute or process words. It is axiomatic that computers used for instruction are no better than the materials they contain. Considerable advances have been made in the past five years in computer hardware and costs have been lowered while product quality has remained high. Such advances have not been made in courseware development, especially in college level applications. Many instructors are looking for good teaching/learning courseware packages, and these seem to be in short supply. Little effort is being made on a regional or national basis to change this status in schools of construction. Even if software were readily available, there has been no effort to evaluate this material in a meaningful way. Will courseware increase effectiveness and productivity? Are these the proper measures to determine the value of specific courseware? What potentials and limita­tions exist for the development and use of software directly related to the construction curriculum?

While considerable effort has been made to assist educators in primary and secondary schools, little has been done for the college level counterparts. One part of this problem is a "teacher shortage," that is, a shortage of teachers able to "adapt their courses to computers." An association or consortium of schools of construction could facilitate the development and exchange of computer courseware. There is potential for regional networks that will develop a specialty interest, such as construction systems, materials and methods, construction design, construction technology, management of construction, and other related topics.

CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

Computer Based Instruction (CBI) is a term used synonymously with Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI), at least in its tutorial instruction and dialog forms [1]. H^einich, Molenda, and Russell [2] provided a distinction between the two by stating that CAI is one of two forms of CBI, the other being Computer Managed Instruction (CMI). According to their definitions, CAI involves direct student interaction with the computer, which stores the instructional materials and controls their sequence. CMI relates to the use of the computer in assisting teachers to administer and guide the instructional process.

Interactive Video (IV) is an instructional delivery system that combines the features of CBI with those of Instructional Television (ITV). Recorded audio and video materials are presented under computer control to viewers who not only see and hear the pictures and sound, but also make active responses, with those responses affecting the pace and sequence of the presentation [2]. The storage and presentation medium of such a system is videotape or video disc.

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERACTIVE VIDEO

The hardware components commonly found in an interactive video system are (1) a video tape or disk player; (2) an external computer (usually a microcomputer); (3) an input device for student response (keyboard, touch screen, light pen, or simulator); (4) an interface card (computer to video player); and (5) a video display with audio. Software components consist of (1) the instructional materials recorded on the videotape or disc and (2) the computer programs used to create and control the instructional program

Commenting on the excitement raised in recent years by the advent of interactive video, Roberts A. Braden noted that the principal components--instructional television and computer assisted instruction--have been used effectively for some time [3]. Braden explains that IV represents a technological synthesis that brings together two distinct media and two design technologies (instructional design and visual design). Diana M. Laurillard observed that the value of video as a learning medium is that it can provide a rich and sophisticated visual and auditory exposition of its subject, but it is difficult to ensure that students are fully active in the way they learn from it. Conversely, CAI learning encourages continuous activity on the part of the student but has very limited presentation graphics [4]. The objective in the use of IV is to capitalize on the strengths of each of the media to compensate for the weaknesses of the other. Additionally, new techniques for presentation and interaction are created by the fusion of the two, potentials that do not exist separately in either ITV or CAI.

Through its development of numerous interactive videodisc programs, the Nebraska Videodisc Design/Production Group concluded that instructional materials produced around the characteristics of the videodisc are very different from traditional film and video productions in pace, organization, and style [5]. The pace of motion sequences on videodiscs tend to be quicker as a result of segmentation of topics and the frequent use of the still frame technique. The organizational structure of interactive video programs may vary widely, from near linear to book like, having tables of contents and series of chapter like segments. Videodisc programs frequently diverge from the linear pattern of most video or film programs, which have distinct beginning, middle, and ending sections directed at specific learner audiences. The random-access and still frame features of videodiscs allow the content to be broken down into numerous small segments without transitions. This facilitates their use by diverse audiences.

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF INTERACTIVE VIDEO

Beyond the technical characteristics that ITV and CAI bring to interactive video, one of the primary advantages of IV is that it requires student response and activity, essential components of learning. Interactive video can adapt to the learner's pace and provide review or remediation as required. Branching to new or related information is possible as a response to student mastery or intentional inquiry. The management of instruction is facilitated by the ability of IV to maintain records on student performance and to store data for research. Of tremendous advantage to instructional designers is IV's capacity to provide numerous presentation modes (full motion, stop action, freeze-frame with audio, text, graphics over video, etc.). The amount of material capable of being stored and accessed for IV enables the presentation of up to two hours of continuous motion video (on a videotape) to 54,000 individual frames (on a video disc).

As with any innovation, IV does have some attendant limitations. Possibly the most significant limitation is the lack of standardization for software and equipment. This limits the number of programs that can be used on a particular system [6]. Readily available IV instructional materials are difficult or impossible to obtain for a number of subject areas, necessitating their custom development. Cost is another major factor in the use of IV technology (equipment, software, developmental personnel).

EFFECTIVENESS AS AN INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIUM

The ultimate criteria to be considered in the selection of an instructional technology is its effectiveness. In an analysis of research on interactive video, Bosco examined studies conducted in higher education, K-12 education, and the military [7]. In 81 percent of the studies in which the authors drew a "bottom line" assessment or conclusion regarding the effectiveness of interactive video, the general conclusion was that IV was effective. To further determine what the studies reported on the effectiveness of IV, Bosco examined the reported benefit of the outcome variable (higher achievement, more positive attitude, faster learning time, etc.). In 24 of 39 instances involving the use of statistical tests when the evaluations reached conclusions on benefits (61 percent), there were positive findings for IV. When the reported benefits involving the use of statistical tests were examined, benefits were most prevalent on user attitude and training tine variables. Interactive video tended to reduce mean training time, but there was also a tendency for it to increase standard deviation. One rationale for interactive video is to accommodate differences among learners, and the large standard deviations for training time indicate that such was occurring. Research by Clark [8] indicates that the variety of visual and auditory learning stimuli present in interactive video can dramatically improve learning.

VIDEODISK TECHNOLOGY

In their book on the topic, Schneider and Bennion describe the videodisc as a "non-volatile storage medium for television signals, audio signals, and digital signals" [9]. The technology was developed in the United States in the 1960s and early 1970s. Early research and development of interactive uses of the videodisc was conducted by the University of Nebraska Videodisc Design/Production Group (sponsored by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting), the University of Utah/WICAT, Inc. (sponsored by the National Science Foundation), and at the Utah State University (sponsored by the U.S. Army and Control Data Corp.). Thirty minutes of full motion video or 54,000 individual frames of material can be stored on one side of a 12-inch disc. Discs rotate at speeds of from 400 to 1,800 rpm's and have approximately 18,000 tracks per radial inch. Although systems are being developed with read/write capabilities, most systems currently available provide only the ability to read the encoded materials.

Early models of videodiscs utilized mechanical technologies to read the contents of the disc. They were generally either the needle-in-the-groove or the capacitance systems that physically contacted the spinning disc (similar to the common vinyl audio disc). Videodiscs now being used in interactive video systems use optical technologies involving laser beams to read the encoded digital signals, much like the compact audio discs so widely used by the general public. Optical videodisc systems may be either transmissive (the beam of light is directed through the disc to a sensor on the opposite side) or reflective (the beam is reflected off of the surface of the disc and back through the originating optics). Information can• be randomly accessed from any of the 54,000 individual storage frames in two seconds or less. Unlike videotape, high quality still-frame images, with or without accompanying audio, are possible with videodiscs.

The degree of control or operation of a videodisc player is a function of the player's design and the manner in which it may be interfaced with an external computer. Such control has been classified into three levels of interactivity as follows:

Level 1--The player is operated manually via the function keys or remote control module to access desired frames or sequences of material.

Level 2--Videodisc players in this category contain onboard microprocessors that support all Level 1 functions. The program that controls the sequence of these functions is loaded into the microprocessor, generally from special tracks of the videodisc. In some systems, the control program is downloaded from an external computer. Either way, the time required to load the program is greatly reduced from that of the manual mode of a Level 1 machine. At the same time, errors are virtually eliminated.

Level 3--The videodisc player is interfaced with an external computer that manages and controls the sequence of player functions. Additionally, the computer introduces all of the characteristics of CBI into the system. In a Level 3 system, the student's point of contact is the computer, whereas it is the videodisc player in Levels 1 and 2. Touch screens, light pens, disk drives, printers, and other peripherals can also be incorporated into the system.

Few Level 1 programs are currently being used. Level 2 programs are available, the costs of their hardware being their chief advantage. Disadvantages of Level 2 programs are that the controlling programs are recorded on the discs and cannot be altered, and the microprocessors used by the various player manufacturers are incompatible. On the other hand, Level 3 programs can be revised and can incorporate computer-generated graphics superimposed over the video images being displayed.

DEVELOPMENT OF INTERACTIVE VIDEO PROGRAMS

According to Ron Daynes, project director of the Nebraska Videodisc Design/Production Group, "how well something teaches depends on how well it is designed and produced" [51. This process is a collaborative effort involving a number of distinct design and production phases. The typical development team consists of individuals functioning in the following roles:

1. Instructional Developer

2. Content Specialist(s)

3. Script Writer

4. TV Producer/Director/Engineer

5. Computer Programmer

A designated project coordinator is generally involved. It is, of course, possible for an individual to act in more than one role, although the tasks involved generally require specialized competencies. Agreements should be reached early in the project between authors, their institution(s), and funding sources regarding copyrights, release time, royalty payments or compensation, and other related matters.

The complexity of the development process for interactive video requires systematic planning and scheduling. The steps in the process have been variously labeled but can generally be described as Needs Assessment, Design, Content Production/Acquisition, and Computer Authoring/Programming. Formative evaluation is conducted at appropriate points in the process.

Needs Assessment

The desired outcome of this phase is a concise statement of the learning needs to be addressed by the interactive video program. Curricular information must be evaluated, along with information on student mastery of concepts. Specific behavioral objectives are developed, including (1) the intended learner; (2) the behavior (skill, knowledge, or attitude) to be cultivated; (3) the condition(s) under which the student is to operate, and (4) the desired degree of achievement the student is to exhibit after instruction via the IV lesson.

Design

The design phase of the process involves a statement of the component tasks to be contained in the program, and a definition of the interrelationships of those tasks. Options for the learner's progress through the learning tasks must be charted. This is considerably more complicated in IV than for more conventional media, however, because of the non-linear characteristics of videodiscs. Therefore, it is imperative that the authors have an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of the videodisc/microcomputer systems to be used. Content materials needed to meet the stated program and student objectives are researched.

Although it is not the purpose of this paper to provide a detailed exposition on the subject, a great deal is known about instructional design techniques, which, if incorporated into the design and development of interactive video programs, will maximize their instructional efficiency and effectiveness. This information is available from recent research involving IV as a medium of instruction and from years of investigation involving other media that are used collectively in IV.

The locus of control for the program must be considered. Locus of control may range from "system control," in which the software determines the sequence of instruction based upon the student's performance, to "learner control," in which the software provides orientation, options for presentation modes, difficulty levels, sequence, and study strategies. Either approach may be used, or a combination is possible for various portions of the program. Decisions on locus of control will determine design option such as sound, color, motion, freeze-frames, and graphic.

The Nebraska Videodisc Design/Production Group has defined seven sets of videodisc frames used in various combinations [5].

Orientation--a sequence of frames that list the segment titles, tables of contents (menus), behavioral objectives, length of the segments, and other brief information prior to the learner receiving instruction.

 

 

Content--in which the instruction takes place.

 

Decision--a still frame that provides an "either/or" option. Decision frames always require student input.

 

Strategy or Comment--still frames that are introduced when the learner requires advice on how best to achieve the desired learning outcome.

 

Summary--concluding frames of the content; a concise statement to the learner as to what new skills or knowledge should have been acquired.

 

Problem--a sequence of still frames partitioned into problem "sets." Each set consists of a fixed number of problems and is intended to test mastery of the stated objectives. They can also be viewed by the learner as a set of worked out example problems. Separating these frames are frames that give the learner self-evaluation criteria.

 

Help--an operations file that is available to the learner who becomes lost or confused during the course of the program.

The Design phase of the project culminates in an outline of the content structure. The organization of materials is examined for logical progression, coherence, and branching possibilities. Various design tools, such as storyboards, grid frames, and flow charts are used as this phase of program development moves into the Production phase.

Content Production/Acquisition

Storyboards and scripts are finalized in the beginning of the Production phase. This leads to the production of original program materials in the form of graphics, photographic products, audio narrations, printed materials, video footage, and any other materials that are to be compiled into the final videotape from which the videodisc is to be mastered, or to be used as supplemental materials for the learner. Consideration must also be given to the acquisition of licensing agreements with owners of copyrighted works to be used in modules of the program, as well as signed releases and compensation agreements from creative contributors. Construction of pre- and posttests (mastery) also take place.

At some point in this phase of the project, it is possible to create a simplified version of the finished project for field testing. Karwin, Landesman, and Henderson [10] suggest that each module of the program be tested with learners from the target population. The findings from this activity are then used to revise a videotape-based version of the program into a package for testing by participating educators at selected institutions, using standardized protocol to yield comparable data. Final revisions are then incorporated and address codes for the anticipated delivery systems are inserted into the audio tract of the pre-master videotape, which is in turn mastered into the videodisc and replicated.

Computer Authoring/Programming

It is possible to begin creation of the computer program, which will act as instructor/manager and control the videodisc player, prior to the completion of the Content Production/Acquisition phase. Shaffer [6] categorized computer software used for these tasks as authoring languages, authoring systems, or programming languages.

The simplest of these three is generally the authoring system. Authoring systems lead the developer through the software creation process via a series of interactive menus by which instructional strategies are selected and written into the program that will control the interactive module. Authoring systems are the simplest to use but the least flexible in terms of design capabilities. Authoring languages are programming languages that have been modified for writing instructional programs. They are less structured and therefore more flexible. SuperPILOT is an example of an authoring language. When used to create interactive video programs, computer languages such as Pascal offer the greatest flexibility, but they obviously require a higher level of programming skills. Beyond the factors of flexibility and requisite programming ability, other factors must be considered in determining the choice of programming tools. Most authoring systems and languages only allow student interaction via multiple choice options. This often precludes the development of sophisticated simulations and does not provide for student interpretation of displays or other higher order types of learner response. Additionally, graphics generated by authoring tools are much more limited in quality and versatility, while those generated by programmed instructions (e.g., via Pascal, BASIC) can be used in such advanced techniques as computer generated overlays to video footage.

RESOURCES REQUIRED

The resources required to produce and initiate interactive video instruction, as well as their costs, can vary greatly depending upon the "level" and complexity of interactivity employed, the extensiveness of the program, and the complexity of the planning and production process. The level of a program does not necessarily relate to its cost, that is, a level III program may not cost more than a level II program. Costs can generally be categorized in terms of hardware, software, personnel, and production expenses.

One would assume that the cost factor most easily quantified would be that of hardware. While prices on required equipment are not difficult to obtain, determination of what equipment is needed can only be made after defining the level of interactivity and other critical program characteristics. Videodisc equipment can cost from $800 to $1600. Composite color monitors will vary from $300 to $600, personal computers capable of supporting interactive instruction will cost in the neighborhood of $1800 to $2000, and various interface cards may range from several hundred to a few thousand dollars, depending upon the systems for which they are designed and the functions that they perform.

The software used to author and control the interactive program also varies considerably in cost. Factors contributing to the differences in price include whether the software is an authoring system, authoring language, or simply a common computer language. The type of computer system on which the software is designed to run and the components included (such as authoring, editing, graphics/animation, student testing, etc.) influence the cost. Prices for software currently on the market range from as little as a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars.

The personnel involved in the design and production of an interactive video program have been described in the preceding portions of this paper. Costs for personnel may be minimized, depending upon the complexity of the project, by the use of qualified in-house employees, particularly if some consolidation of responsibilities can be achieved.

Production expenses usually include the production of the master video tape, a check disc, final disc mastering, and replication of distribution discs. Costs for the master video tape reflect the amount of material produced and edited, techniques used, talent fees, royalty fees for the use of copyrighted materials, and other related items. Therefore, the cost of producing the master video tape can range from a couple of thousand dollars and up. Check discs are produced from the master video tape and are used to aid in the development of the lesson. They can be made in a few days at a cost of $200 to $400. Once all revisions have been made to the video tape, the master video disc is produced at a price of about $2000 for a 12-inch videodisc. This disc is in turn used to produce distribution copies at a cost of from about $10 to $30 each, depending on quantity.

POTENTIALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION CURRICULUM

Interactive video and other computer based technologies are being used widely and successfully in private industry and in the military for training and education. Reports of these media uses appear both in popular literature and educational journals. Although a large number of applications to construction education have not been found, it is beleived that a strong potential exists for these technologies.

A questionnaire survey of a number of schools of construction indicates that no major use of educational technologies is currently being made. In this survey, which sampled the use of educational technologies in schools of construction, we found that a few schools made only an average use of computer-aided instruction. A number of schools had access to the necessary microcomputers; the required hardware was in-house and available for both faculty and student use. The schools surveyed were in the planning stage or had only a limited development of educational uses of computers. Most schools were using software developed by others; however, some have developed specific software for use in the undergraduate curriculum. There were no consensus views on either the current state-of-the-art or future of the educational technologies involving computers, video, print, or communications. The leadership role for the development and application of appropriate educational technologies was not seen to be the responsibility of any individual or group on most campuses. In many cases there was no formal relationship among those involved in education or technology for the investigation or development of instructional technologies. Where there was an on-campuses center for instructional services, no joint efforts in developing instructional media seemed to be occurring. Most instructors responded that there was a high expectation for the future use of instructional media and technologies. Many individuals perceive that a number of problem areas exist that constrain the use of these media.

The consensus among these educators is that the faculty should be innovative in updating the construction curriculum to use the latest educational technologies. A concern was voiced that these technologies must be used appropriately and not "force-fit" in a course or program. It was seen that incentives must be provided to encourage faculty to become involved in the activity of developing these media. Major problems associated with the implementation of instructional technologies related to cost, availability of funding, and the compatibility of software and courseware. In a minor way, limits of the in-house computer system, incentives for development, and time were viewed as constraints. There was only one report of the use of interactive video technology in an undergraduate program, but the application was receiving only minimal use.

STRATEGIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATIONAL MEDIA FOR A CONSTRUCTION CURRICULUM

Instructors in many construction programs are seeking ways to develop educational technologies and to use microcomputers innovatively in the classroom. These individual efforts should be encouraged and rewarded. However, it is not likely that an extensive development of any educational technology for the construction curriculum will occur without an involvement of other interested groups and a central coordination effort.

Task Force

To initiate a comprehensive study of the use of educational technology, a task force needs to be formed to provide an overview of existing and emerging educational technologies. Membership may be drawn from industry, but the academic community must provide the leadership role. The function of a task force would be to define the problem and issues related to the use of various existing and emerging educational technologies in the construction curriculum. Of prime consideration will be to find ways to encourage effective instruction and more faculty productivity; to determine where we are now; to set objectives relating where we want to be in the near term, say, 1992; and to recommend a set of actions to achieve the objectives.

Networking

Informally there is already a limited exchange of information among individual instructors throughout the country. The lack of a formal network structure of time for frequent events or meetings prevents this technique from being an effective mechanism for educational exchange. Annual meetings at the regional and national levels do not provide sufficient time to develop a sustained effort in course improvement.

Consortium

A number of schools of construction could establish educational research centers to explore and develop educational technologies appropriate to the various curriculum components. Regional centers or interregional task groups could be formed to pursue specific topical areas or issues. Through such a joint effort, applications could be made to industry groups, foundations, and governmental agencies for funding support. To insure continuity, a formal structure needs to be established.

What Others Are Doing

Of the disciplines that relate to the built environment only one, engineering, has made a strong, positive statement regarding the use of educational technology. The Quality of Engineering Education Project was a major two-year effort addressing the issue of quality in engineering education. Four task forces explored in depth a number of issues. These included the preparation of faculty, the continuing maintenance of its technical and pedagogical vitality, the experimental component of engineering education (the undergraduate instructional laboratory), and the adaptation of a rapidly changing technology as an integral part of the educational process. Reports of all task forces are completely presented in the publication "Quality of Engineering Education" [11]. Excerpts from these reports can be found in current literature [12, 13].

Specifically, much can be gleaned from the final report of the Task Force on the Use of Educational Technology. The charge of this group was to identify the technology now available for potential use in improving the efficiency and currency of engineering education, to study the problems and promises of experiments underway in engineering colleges in the use of such technology, and to recommend a viable approach toward integrating appropriate technology into the engineering education process over the next decade. Responding to this charge, the Task Force established a set of overall goals for the desired impact of educational technology in engineering education and then developed a set of specific recommendations on how to meet these goals.

To effectively use educational technology, the several constituencies in engineering education must act both independently and jointly to achieve the expected results. These groups include faculty, university administrators, technology vendors, accreditation and professional societies, government bodies, and corporate employers. Each has a role and should actively participate in the implementation of educational technology.

CONCLUSION

Proven educational technologies are available and a framework for support of development exists at many colleges and universities. Schools of construction should take advantage of these opportunities, find ways to improve the quality of instruction, increase productivity, and become more efficient and ,effective in the education processes relating to the various construction curricula. A body of knowledge exists and educational media specialists are available as resources for the development and implementation of these technologies. What appears to be lacking is a comprehensive view of the potentials and limitations of these technologies and a structured format to involve instructors, individually, and schools, collectively, in their appropriate and effective use.

While individual schools may not have the talents or finances for a full development of this educational technology, collectively the Associated Schools of Construction (ASC) could formulate a strategy for the development of interactive video curriculum components for a total construction program. In

this way, both individual schools and the entire association can reap the educational benefits without the burden of undue development cost. This will not be a simple task or one without problems. A cooperative effort should be initiated immediately, since the effort will extend over a period of time, three to five years, at minimum. Every effort should be made to learn from others and to work cooperatively to achieve the objective of a more efficient and effective process of education in an undergraduate construction curriculum.

REFERENCES

1. Association for Educational Communications and Technology Educational Technology: A Glossary of Terms. Washington, D.C.: A.E.C.T., 1979.

 

2. Heinich, Robert, Michael Molenda, and James Russell. Instructional Media and the New Technologies of Instruction, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1985.

 

3. Braden, Roberts A. "Visuals for Interactive Video: New Images for a New Technology (with some Guidelines)", Educational Technology. Vol. 26, No. 5, May, 1986, pp. 18-23.

 

4. Laurillard, Diana M. "The Potential Use of Interactive Video," Journal of Educational Television. Vol. 8, No. 3, 1982, pp. 173-180.

 

5. Daynes, Rod. "Experimenting With Videodisc," Instructional Innovator. Vol. 27, No. 2, 1982, pp. 24-25, 44.

 

6. Schaffer, Lemuel C. "Is Interactive Video for You?" Educational Media and Technology Yearbook: 1985. Washington, D.C.: Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1985.

 

7. Bosco, James. "An Analysis of Evaluations of Interactive Video," Educational Technology. Vol. 26, No. 5, May, 1986, pp. 7-17.

 

8. Clark, D. Joseph. "How Do Interactive Videodiscs Rate Against Other Media?" Instructional Innovator. Vol. 29, No. 6, 1984, pp. 12-16.

 

9. Schneider, Edward, and Junnius L. Bennion. Videodiscs. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1981.

 

10. Karwin, T. J., E. U. Landesman, and R. W. Henderson. "Applying Cognitive Science and Interactive Videodisc Technology to Precalculus Mathematics Learning Modules," T.H.E. Journal, Aug., 1984, pp. 93-97.

 

11. American Society for Engineering Education. Quality in Engineering Education. Washington, D.C., 1986.

12. Jones, Russel C. "The Use of Educational Technology," Engineering Education_, December 1985, 160-62.

13. "Quality in Engineering Education, Executive Summary," Engineering Education, October 1986, pp.16-50.