E-mail comments to the Editor

Download the complete PDF of this issue

Editor’s Note: Extensive research on Interactive Video Distance Education Classroom Design is highlighted by a culminating diagram of the classroom design. This research is worth reading, particularly for newcomers to Distance Education.

Perceptions of Instructors and Students Toward Interactive Video Distance Education
Classroom Design in Higher Education

Chien Chih Lee and Connie M. Forde

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this descriptive study was to determine the perceptions of instructors and students toward interactive video distance education classroom design. Subjects were the college students who were enrolled and instructors who taught in interactive video distance education classes at two higher education institutions during the fall 2000 semester. A total of 610 responses were received for an overall response rate of 81.8%. Descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the Tukey multiple comparison method were performed for analyzing the responses. The results indicated that most on-site students, remote site students, and instructors were satisfied with the room design. While there was agreement, they also had points of disagreement. There were several significant differences concerning satisfaction with the interactive video distance education classroom design among the different participant groups. The findings of this study pointed out that the size/location/quality of the TV monitors was the item with which instructors perceived most dissatisfaction in regard to the equipment arrangement. The desks and chairs were the physical features that instructors perceived as most dissatisfying while students perceived room temperature the most dissatisfying physical feature. An interactive video distance education classroom design model was recommended that would satisfy the different needs of instructors and students and provide guidance for various situations.

Introduction

Interactive compressed video is an effective technology in a distance education setting, but its usefulness is directly related to the instructors’ and students’ understanding of its benefits, limitations, and utilization strategies ( Willis, 1996 ). Armstrong, et al. (1998) noted that from the viewpoint of the motivation of instructors and students, the cornerstone of education is the learning environment that is reflected in the design and overall layout of the educational facility. Students have a fundamental right to a classroom learning environment that allows them to see anything presented visually, to hear any audible presentation free from other noises and distortions, and to be physically comfortable (lighting, temperature, furniture, etc.) regardless of the method of instruction (Dickens & Tanza, 2000). Two major problems exist for instructors and students in interactive video distance education design: (a) the constraints of instruction and learning caused by the interactive video distance classroom equipment arrangement, and (b) the dissatisfaction of instructors and students with the physical features (Lee, 2001).

The first major problem regarding the interactive video distance education classroom is that the equipment arrangement constrains instruction and learning. Rao and Dietrich (1996) asserted that the technological set-up restricted instructor movement and makes it difficult to conduct small group discussions. These classrooms equipped with educational technology are not typically designed based on instructor input ( Anderson & Cichocki, 1993; Carter, 1996) . In addition, Tiene (1997) found that instructors needed time to become comfortable with the equipment arrangement. Allen, et al. (1996) observed that the use of electronic technology in the classroom must be as user friendly as possible.

The second major problem regarding the interactive video distance education classroom is that the physical features limits interaction between instructors and students. Based on the results of this research, Lee (1998) observed that most instructors were not satisfied with the current classroom. In 1979, Farrenkopf examined a study of physical dimensions of regular college classrooms and found the environmental dimensions were in need of improvement. Available for manipulation were esthetics, furniture, use of space, use of color, decorations, fabrics, and carpeting. Approximately 80 to 95% of students’ attitudes towards these dimensions were negative. Actually, students were especially sensitive to their physical environment and were very impressionable. Classroom design should utilize color, spatial organization, and form to provide a comfortable and stimulating learning environment  (Armstrong, et al., 1998).  According to Kirby (1999), another important issue that students dealt with was insufficient air circulation.

Need and Purpose of the Study

Few studies were found in the literature search that examined perceptions of instructors and students concerning interactive video distance education classroom design. Thus, the purpose of the study was to determine whether there are significant differences among on-site students, remote site students, and instructors in perceptions toward interactive video distance education classroom design in higher education. In addition, differences in perceptions among institutions, gender, class standing, major fields of study, and teaching experiences were examined. The study determined perceptions of on-site students, remote site students, and instructors concerning major distractions of teaching and learning when using interactive video distance education equipment and addressed the main issues of the physical features concerning the interactive video distance education classroom.

Method

This section discusses the pilot study, participants, research instruments, procedure and data analysis used in the study.

Pilot Study

A pilot test was conducted of 19 students and five instructors who had been enrolled or had taught in one or more interactive video distance education classes at one of the higher education institutions. This pilot test permitted a preliminary testing of the hypothesis, which gave some indication of its tenability and suggested whether further refinement of the questionnaire was needed. The feedback from these participants had received helpful comments to adjust the contents of the instruments and increase a reliability of the instruments.

Participants

The participants consisted of the 742 college students (710) and instructors (32) involved in two-way interactive compressed video classes at Mississippi State University (MSU) and University of Mississippi (UM) during the 2000 fall semester. The entire population was used as the participants in the study. Students were asked to complete one instrument if they were enrolled in more than one interactive compressed class while instructors were asked to complete a survey for each classroom in which they taught. Thirty-six surveys were returned by instructors, and 574 surveys were returned by students; 46.3% of the students were from MSU and 53.7% of the students were from UM. A total of 610 responses were received for an overall response of 81.8%, including 55.7% on-site students and 44.3% remote site students. Also, 45.5% of the students were male while 54.5% were female. In addition, 54.5% of the students were undergraduate students, and 45.5% were graduate students. Student participants included business majors (n= 212, 36.9%), education majors (n=206, 35.9%), engineering majors (n=82, 14.3%), accounting majors (n=36, 6.3%), paralegal majors (n=15, 2.6%) and other (n=19, 3.3%). Over half of the instructors (n=20, 55.6%) and students (368, 64.1%) indicated that the fall 2000 semester class was their first academic experience in an interactive video distance education. Approximately 35% (n=16) of the instructors and 36% (n=180) of students indicated that they had had more than two academic experiences in an interactive video education classroom including the fall 2000 semester (see Table 1).

Table 1

Number and Percentage of Instructors and Students in the Study by Institution, Site, Gender, Classification, Major and Experience with Interactive Video Distance Education Classes

Instruments

Two researcher-designed questionnaires concerning (1) the perceptions of instructors and (2) the perceptions of students toward equipment arrangement and physical features of the interactive video distance education classroom were used to survey the population. The questionnaires consisted of five parts. Part I consisted of the issues dealing with the interactive video distance education classroom equipment arrangement such as audio and video systems, document camera, camera location, microphone, etc. Part II included issues concerning the physical features of the interactive video distance education classrooms such as room location and size, access, noise, lighting, acoustics, and flooring, etc. Part III allowed participants to choose the preferred styles of instructional workspace and student learning space. Part IV was an open-ended question about improvement for the room design, and Part V was demographic information including the institution attended, gender, class standing, major field of study, and teaching experiences in interactive video distance education. Participants were asked to rate their level of satisfaction perception on a scale from 1 to 6 with 1 being the level of least satisfaction and 6 being the level of most satisfaction. According to SPSS reliability analysis, alpha of the content of equipment arrangement was .97 and alpha of the content of physical features was .94 in this study—a very high reliability.

Procedures

During the fall 2000 semester, all instructors were mailed a letter inviting their participation and their students’ participation in this research study. Confidentiality was assured. The instructors were asked to complete a study participation form that allowed the researcher to schedule a class time to administer the student and instructor instruments. Class facilitators were mailed a letter outlining their responsibilities in administering the instruments. If there were no facilitator at a remote site, the researcher mailed the packages directly to the remote site students. On the scheduled date, the researcher administered the questionnaires to the instructor, the on-site students, and the remote site students. The remote site students received instruction from the researcher via compressed video.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were utilized for data analysis. This study contained one dependent variable—satisfaction score of interactive video distance education classroom design. The independent variables were the status of participants (instructor, on-site student, and remote student), gender of students, student status (undergraduate or graduate student), student major, instructors’ teaching experiences in interactive video distance education classrooms, and institution (MSU or UM). The process of statistical analysis in the study contained analysis of variance, data analysis procedures and evaluation of validity and reliability. Descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the Tukey multiple comparison method were used to analyze the data.

The total participation for this study was 610. The medium effect size of .25 was used for the F test. Therefore, according to the Power of the F test table, the statistical power of the research was over .99, a very high power.

Results and Discussion

The following is a summary results and discussion of this study, organized using the research questions which guided this study.

Research question 1 asked “What are the perceptions of on-site students, remote site students, and instructors toward the equipment arrangement and the physical features of interactive video distance education classrooms?” Overall, the results of this analysis indicated that students and instructors were satisfied with the equipment arrangement and the physical features of the interactive video distance education. However, a majority of on-site students (n= 59, 57.3%) and remote site students (n=58, 58%) indicated the lowest level of satisfaction with the number of student computers in the classroom while 61.5% (n= 8) of the instructors had low satisfaction about the location of the fax machine. Regarding the physical features, the majority of the on-site students (n= 95, 57.9%) was very dissatisfied with the number of windows in the classroom and had low satisfaction for window location, size, and covering. Therefore, while there was agreement among on-site students and remote site students and instructors, they also had points of disagreement (see Table 2).

Table 2

Number and Percentage of On-Site Students’, Remote Site Students’, and Instructors’ Perceptions Regarding Interactive Video Distance Classroom Design Including Equipment Arrangement (EQ) and Physical Features (EQ)

Research question 2 asked “Are perceptions of on-site students, remote site students, and instructors different toward the equipment arrangement and the physical features of interactive video distance education classrooms?” A statistical procedure using one-way ANOVA was conducted to make a comparison among these three groups regarding significant and non-significant items and features. Students and remote site students were more satisfied than instructors regarding the location of the instructor TV. Also, on-site students were more satisfied than instructors concerning the location of the white board. Remote site students were more satisfied than on-site students regarding the physical features of handicap access, the number of windows, window location, size, and covering, and the location of doors. On-site students were not satisfied with the number of windows, window location, size, and covering (see Table 3).

Table 3

Means of On-Site Students, Remote Site Students, and Instructors Toward Equipment Arrangement (EQ)and Physical Features (PF) Found to be Significantly Different

Research question 3 asked, “Do male students’ and female students’ perceptions differ toward the equipment arrangement and the physical features of interactive video distance education classrooms?” The results of the survey indicated that there was no significant difference between male students and female students toward the equipment arrangement. Female students were more satisfied with the physical features of location of the student desks, the location of the student chairs, the number of windows, window location, size, and covering, the location of the doors, wall color and texture, floor covering, and ceiling (see Table 4). However, neither male nor female students were satisfied with the number of windows. Based on the feedback of the open-ended question, students preferred having windows in an interactive video distance education classroom. Window issues were an important concern for both female and male students.

Table 4

Means of Male and Female Students Toward Those Physical Features
Found to be Significantly Different

Research question 4 asked, “Do undergraduate students’ and graduate students’ perceptions differ toward the equipment arrangement and the physical features of interactive video distance education classrooms? ”Undergraduate students were more satisfied than graduate students with the equipment arrangement items, number of microphones and electrical outlets (see Table 5). When graduate students study in an interactive video distance education classroom, they may focus on interaction with other site students and the instructor. They expect to have friendlier equipment arrangements including more microphones and electrical outlets. However, undergraduate students were dissatisfied concerning the location of student computers. Although the students were not asked to and did not indicate which location they preferred for student computers, they perhaps expect to have a convenient computer lab in an interactive video distance education classroom to increase effective learning results.

Table 5

Means of Undergraduate and Graduate Students Toward Equipment Arrangement (EQ)
and Physical Features (PF) Found to be Significantly Different

Research question 5 asked, “Do perceptions of students majoring in different fields of study differ toward the equipment arrangement and the physical features of interactive video distance education classrooms?” Generally, students majoring in education were more satisfied than other students regarding the equipment arrangement and the physical features; the one exception was the ventilation. Students majoring in business and accounting were less satisfied than students in different majors regarding the equipment arrangement and the physical features. More particularly, students majoring in business were not satisfied with the computers. They preferred having student computers in the room. Students majoring in accounting were not satisfied with the instructor’s camera arrangement. An important finding would be students majoring in different field have a significant different perception of an interactive video distance education classroom. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the needs of students from different departments when designing an interactive video distance education classroom. This information is needed for instructors to be aware of the students’ different concerns and is helpful in designing an interactive distance education classroom in different academic departments. Students majoring in education were more satisfied than other students regarding the equipment arrangement and the physical features. Students majoring in business have more expectation of using instructional technology in classroom.

Research question 6 asked, “Do perceptions of instructors and students in different institutions differ toward the equipment arrangement and the physical features of interactive video distance education classrooms?” Overall, MSU instructors and students were more satisfied than UM instructors and students regarding the equipment arrangement items and the physical features while UM instructors and students were more satisfied with chairs in interactive video distance education classrooms than MSU instructors and students were (see Tables 6 and 7). The subjects at MSU included more students majoring in education. The subjects of UM included more students majoring in business. This difference could explain the results of this research question according to above findings. Although institutions may choose different designs of interactive video distance education classrooms, there is a need for interactive video distance education classroom design guidance to satisfy the needs of instructors and students on-site and at remote sites.

Table 6

Means of Instructors and Students at MSU and UM Regarding
Those Equipment Arrangement Found to be Significantly Different

Table 7

Means of Instructors and Students at MSU and UM Regarding
Those Physical Features Found to be Significantly Different

Research question 7 asked, “Do perceptions of instructors in different teaching experiences differ toward the equipment arrangement and the physical features of interactive video distance classrooms?” Instructors who had taught more than two interactive video distance education classes were more satisfied regarding the equipment arrangement such as size of TV monitors and number of TV monitors than instructors who had taught one interactive video distance education class. Instructors who had taught more than two interactive video distance education classes were less satisfied regarding the VTel Pen Pal Graphics Tablet than instructors who had taught one interactive video distance education class (see Table 8). However, there was no significant difference concerning satisfaction with the physical features with the classrooms between the two groups of instructors. Responding to instructors with more experiences in interactive distance education classes is important—especially regarding equipment arrangement.

Table 8

Means of Instructors Who Had Taught One Interactive Video Distance Education Class
and Who Had Taught More Than Two Interactive Video Distance Education Classes
Toward Those Equipment Arrangement Found to be Significantly Different

Research question 8 asked “What do instructors perceive as major items that affect instructors’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction regarding the equipment arrangement when teaching in an interactive video distance education classroom?” The results reported that the location of the Elmo was the item with which instructors perceived most satisfaction in regard to equipment arrangement. The location of the TV monitors (size/location/quality) was the item with which instructors perceived most dissatisfaction in regard to the equipment arrangement. Regarding improvement of the equipment arrangement, the quality of TV monitors needed to be improved (see Table 9).

Table 9

Number and Percentage of Equipment Arrangement Items that Instructors
Identified as Causing the Most Satisfaction and the Most Dissatisfaction
with Interactive Video Distance Education Classrooms

Research question 9 asked, “What do instructors perceive as major features that affect their satisfaction and dissatisfaction regarding the physical features when teaching in an interactive video distance education classroom?” Seating arrangement was the feature which instructors perceived most satisfaction in regard to the physical features. The desks and chairs were the feature with which instructors were most dissatisfied in regard to the physical features. Regarding improvement of the physical features, respondents indicated that students’ chairs need to have pads, and each student should have a clear line of sight to the instructor. Seating arrangement was the physical feature with which instructors and students had the most satisfaction. The desks and chairs were the physical features which instructors perceived as most dissatisfying while students perceived room temperature the most dissatisfying physical feature (see Table 10).

Table 10

Number and Percentage of Physical Features that Instructors
Identified as Causing the Most Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction
with Interactive Video Distance Education Classrooms

Research question 10 asked, “What do students perceive as major items that affect their satisfaction and dissatisfaction regarding the equipment arrangement when learning in an interactive video distance education classroom?” Students were most satisfied with the location of the TV monitors (n=254, 63.5%) in regard to the equipment arrangement. Monitors (location/size/quality) (n=147, 33.6%) were the most unsatisfactory equipment arrangement item. Regarding improvement of the equipment arrangement, respondents indicated video equipment arrangement was the most needed improvement of the equipment arrangement. Since the TV monitor is such an important element in an interactive video distance education classroom, there is a need to enhance the functionality of TV monitors by adjusting the height, updating the resolution, and expanding the size. It is important for instructors to identify these major items that affect students’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction regarding equipment arrangement (see Tables 11 and 12).

Table 11

Number and Percentage of Equipment Arrangement Items
that Students Identified as Causing the Most Satisfaction
with Interactive Video Distance Education Classrooms

Table 12

Number and Percentage of Equipment Arrangement Items
that Students Identified as Causing the Dissatisfaction
with Interactive Video Distance Education Classrooms

Research question 11 asked, “What do students perceive as major features that affect their satisfaction and dissatisfaction regarding the physical features when learning in an interactive video distance education classroom?” The results revealed that the most satisfying physical feature was the seating arrangement (n=192, 47%,). Room temperature was the most dissatisfying physical feature (n=79, 22.2%). Seating arrangement, including desks and chairs, was the most needed improvement of the physical features (see Tables 13 and 14).

Table 13

Number and Percentage of Physical Features that
Students Identified as Causing the Most Satisfaction
with Interactive Video Distance Education Classrooms

Table 14

Number and Percentage of Physical Features that
Students Identified as Causing the Most Dissatisfaction
with Interactive Video Distance Education Classrooms

Research questions 12 and 13 asked “What is the instructor’s/ student’s preferred workspace for an interactive video distance education classroom?” Both students and instructors preferred a classroom design that gives a good view of everything. The monitor is positioned in the front of the room where it can be closer to the camera. The camera vision and instructor can capture all aspects of the room efficiently, and there is no difficulty in hearing. The most preferred instructors’ workspace design style by students and instructors was a circular shaped table with adequate space for other items. In addition, the most preferred chair design style by students and instructors was a height adjustable, roller chair with armrest. These findings can be used when designing an interactive video distance education classroom.

Conclusions

The findings of this study revealed that the size/location/quality of the TV monitors was the item with which instructors perceived most dissatisfaction in regard to the equipment arrangement. Additional, instructors were less satisfied than on-site students and remote site students with the location of the instructor TV. The results showed that the location of the Elmo was the item with which instructors perceived most satisfaction in regard to equipment arrangement.

Overall, most on-site students and remote site students and instructors were satisfied with the equipment arrangement and the physical features in this study. However, based on the feedback of students concerning improvement of physical features, they prefer having windows in interactive video classrooms. Another important issue that students dealt with, according to Kirby (1999), was insufficient air circulation. In this study, the desks and chairs were the physical features that instructors perceived as most dissatisfying while students perceived room temperature the most dissatisfying physical feature.

The literature confirms this study’s findings of instructors and students of physical features (Klesiu et al., 1997; Farrenkopf, 1979). However, the findings of this study provide specific needs of instructors and students in an interactive video distance education classroom. From findings a model design was created.

Recommendations

In order to enhance students’ learning and instructors’ teaching in an interactive video distance education classroom, the following recommendations are made based on the results of this study.

1. Few studies were found in the literature that examined perceptions of instructors and students concerning interactive video distance education classroom design. To improve existing and future classroom design, there is a need for universities to receive regular feedback from the users of interactive video distance education classrooms.

2. It is also important to identify the major items that affect instructors’ and students’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction regarding equipment arrangement. More study is needed in order to improve the equipment arrangement in an interactive video distance education classroom, specifically, in such areas as the TV monitors, the white boards, and the fax machine—items with which instructors were less satisfied. Because many students were dissatisfied with the computer arrangements and instructor camera arrangement, these items need to be addressed for further research as well.

3. Universities need to identify the physical features such as room temperature, desks and chairs, window size, location, and covering that affect students’ ability to learn and conduct further research regarding the physical features of interactive video distance education classrooms.

4. Because equipment arrangement and physical features are such an important part of classroom design, there is a need for an interactive video distance education classroom design model. This model would satisfy the different needs of instructors and students and provide guidance for modifying the model to various situations.

Figure 1 is an interactive distance education classroom design developed from the findings of this study.

1 Student microphone 2 Instructor camera 3 Instructor TV monitor 4 Student camera
5 Student TV monitor 6 Instructor microphone 7 Elmo 8 Instructor computer
9 Preview TV monitor 10 Laptop pug-in device 11 Instructor desk 12 Instructor chair
13 Student desk 14 Student chair 15 Window 16 Light 17            Instructor workspace light
18 Light control 19 Room temperature control 20 Door 21 A device for organizing cables

Figure 1. An Interactive Video Distance Education Classroom Design Model

References

Allen, R. L., Bowen, J. T., Clabaugh, S., DeWitt, B. B., Francies, J., Kerstetter, J. P., & Rieck, D. A. (1996). Classroom design manual (3rd ed.). College Park: Academic Information Technology Services, University of Maryland.

Anderson, J. A., & Cichocki, R. R. (1993). Educational technology equipped classrooms: Re-design based on faculty feedback. Proceeding of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Armstrong, T. J., Torseth, R. L., Skold, S. & Rydeen, B. (1998). Classrooms. American School & University, 70 (12), 82.

Gall, G. M., Borg, R. W., & Gall, P. J. (1996). Educational Research: A instruction. New York, White Plains: Longman.

Carter, A. (1996). Essential questions on interactive distance education: An administrators’ guide. International Journal of Instructional Media, 23 (2), 123-226.

Dickens, J. L., & Tanza, D. J. (2000). Classroom design guidelines. [On-line]. Available: http://www.is.mcgill.ca/phyres/class_gd.htm

Farrenkopf, T. (1979). Physical dimensions of college classroom environments. Paper presented to American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, California, April 1979).

Gregg, J., & Persichitte, K. (1992). Consideration for the optimal design of a two-way interactive distance education classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 380 126).

Klesius, J. P., Homan, S., & Thompson, T. (1997). Distance education compared to traditional instruction: The students’ view. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24 (3), 207-226.

Kirby, C. (1999). Making demands. American School & University, 72 (4), 34-36.

Lee, C. C. (2001). Perceptions of instructors and students toward interactive video distance education classroom design in higher education. Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University.

Lee, S. C. (1998). A study of the design and functionality of multimedia classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25 (3), 301-311.

Tiene, D. (1997). Student perspectives on distance learning with interactive television. Tech Trends, 42 (1), 41-47.

Willis, B. (1996). Interactive videoconferencing in distance education. Distance Education at a Glance: Guide No 11 (University of Idaho, Idaho).

About the Authors

Dr. Chien C. Lee is an assistant professor and the Director of Instructional Media Center at Wenzao College of Languages in Taiwan. He had worked at the China Productivity Center as a trainer and consultant for over ten years. He is current the project leader of the research, supported by National Science Council concerning interactive video distance classroom design in higher education.
Contact: 289 Shi Tzang Street, Ku San District, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Telephone: 011-886-7-5612865. E-mail: mkc1@msstate.edu or jchien2@hotmail.com

Dr. Connie M. Forde is professor in the Department of Instructional Systems and Workforce Development at Mississippi State University. She teaches in numerous areas of instructional technology and serves as doctoral adviser to students pursuing research in technology.
Contact: Mississippi State University, Department of Instructional Systems and Workforce Development, Box 9730, Mississippi State, MS 39762. E-mail: cmf1@ra.msstate.edu