Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 51–81 | Cite as

Efficacy and performance in professional development higher education-sponsored ITV instruction

  • Katherine A. Austin
  • William D. Lawson
  • Eric Holder
Article

Abstract

THIS STUDY compares the efficacy of interactive video (ITV) delivered instruction to traditional course instruction in three distinct learning environments: traditional face-to-face format, ITV host (instructor present), and ITV distant (instructor not physically present) sites. Data were obtained from a half-day professional development course offered to maintenance personnel in a state transportation agency. Results indicate that although content retention (surface learning) did not differ across groups, student perceptions of ability efficacy, instructional efficacy, and interaction efficacy did differ. Authors discuss the implications and application to academic instruction, including practical recommendations for enhancing efficacy and consideration for transfer (deeper) learning.

Keywords

ITV distance education engineering education immediacy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agrawal, R., & Day, A.E. (1998). The impact of the Internet on economic education.The Journal of Economic Education, 29(2), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, J.R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J.R. (2000).Cognitive psychology and its implications. New York, NY: Freeman Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373.Google Scholar
  5. Baringer, D., & McCroskey, J. (2000). Immediacy in the classroom: Student immediacy.Communication Education, 49, 178–186.Google Scholar
  6. Biner, P., Dean, R., & Mellinger, A. (1994). Factors underlying distance learner satisfaction with televised college-level courses.The American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 61–71.Google Scholar
  7. Blackbourn, J.M., Payne, J.s., Burnham, S., Elrod, F., & Conn, T. (2000). Improving classroom instruction through “Best-of-Class” techniques.Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27(1), 3–8.Google Scholar
  8. Bong, M. (2002). Predictive utility of subject, task, and problem-specific self-efficacy judgments for immediate and delayed academic performance.Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowers, D.A., & Bowers, V.M. (1996). Assessing and coping with computer anxiety in the social science classroom.Social Science Computer Review, 14, 439–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchanan, T. (1998). Using the World Wide Web for formative assessment.Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 27, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burnhans, K.K., & Dweck, C.S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood: The role of contingent worth.Child Development, 66, 1719–1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chemers, M.M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B.F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student performance and adjustment.Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Choi, N. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students' academic performance.Psychology in Schools, 42, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chur, P.C., & Spires, E.E. (1991). Validating the computer anxiety rating scale: Effects of cognitive style and computer courses on computer anxiety.Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 49–59.Google Scholar
  15. Collis, B., Winnips, K., & Moonen, J. (2000). Structured support versus learner choice via the World Wide Web: Where is the payoff?Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(2), 131–162.Google Scholar
  16. Darke, S. (1988). Anxiety and working memory capacity.Cognition & Emotion, 2, 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C. & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two different perspectives.Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elias, S.M., & Loomis, R.J. (2002). Utilizing need for cognition and perceived self-efficacy to predict academic performance.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1687–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Elliot, A.J. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A hierachical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 10, 143–179.Google Scholar
  20. Engle, R., Tuholski, S., Laughlin, J., & Conway, A. (1999). Working memory, shortterm memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forster, M., & Washington, E. (2000). A model for developing and managing distance education programs using interactive video technology.Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 147–158.Google Scholar
  22. Freeman, M. (1998). Video conferencing: A solution to the multi-campus large classes problem?British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 197–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fulford, C., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education.The American Journal of Distance Education, 7, 8–22.Google Scholar
  24. Fussell, S., & Benimoff, N. (1995). Social and cognitive process in interpersonal communication: Implications for advanced telecommunications technologies.Human Factors, 37, 228–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guzley, R.M., Avanzino, S., & Bor, A. (2001). Simulated computer-mediated/video-interactive distance learning: A test of motivation, interaction satisfaction, delivery, learning & perceived effectiveness.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Special Issue, 6(3).Google Scholar
  26. Hampton, N.Z., & Mason E. (2003). Learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement in high school students.Journal of School Psychology, 41, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harackiewicz, J.M., Tauer, J.M., Barron, K.E., & Elliot, A.J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harasim, L.M. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. In: L.M. Harasim (Ed.),Online education: Perspectives of a new environment (pp. 39–66). New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  29. Harlow, R.E., & Cantor, N. (1995). Overcoming a lack of self-assurance in an achievement domain: Creating agency in daily life. In: M.H. Kennis (Ed.),Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 171–195). Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Hawkes, M. (1995).Criteria for evaluating school-based distance education programs. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regency Education Laboratory. Retrieved March 3, 2006, from http://www.ncrel.org/tand/disted.htm.Google Scholar
  31. Heinssen, R.K., Glass, C.R., & Knight, L.A. (1987). Assessing computer anxiety: Development and validation of the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale.Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hillman, D.C.A., Willis, D.J., & Gunawardena, C.N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners.The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.Google Scholar
  33. Holt, L. (2000). Instructional strategies for ITV.Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 38, 32–46.Google Scholar
  34. Huff, M. (2000). A comparison study of live instruction versus interactive television for teaching MSW students' critical thinking skills.Research on Social Work Practice, 10, 400–416.Google Scholar
  35. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4), Washington, DC: The George Washington University School of Education and Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 343 465).Google Scholar
  36. Johnson, R.D. (2005). An empirical investigation of sources of application-specific computer self-efficacy and mediators of the efficacy-performance relationship.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, 737–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kleinpeter, C.B., & Potts, M.K. (2003). Teaching practice methods using interactive television: A partial replication study.Journal of Technology in Human Services, 22, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kleinpeter, C.B., & Potts, M.K. (2000). Distance education: Teaching practice methods using interactive television.Professional Development: The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 3, 362–371.Google Scholar
  39. Kolomeychuk, T., & Peltz, D. (1992). Assessing the effectiveness of interactive compressed video at the University of Minnesota.Educational Technology, 32, 61–62.Google Scholar
  40. Lane, J., & Lane, A. (2001). Self-efficacy and academic performance.Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 687–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lawless, K.A., & Brown, S.W. (1997). Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation.Instructional Science, 25, 117–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Loeding, B., & Wynn, M. (1999). Distance learning planning, preparation, and presentation: Instructors' perspectives.International Journal of Instructional Media, 26, 181–192.Google Scholar
  43. Mayer, R.E. (2001).Multimedia learning. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mayer, R.E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In: D.L. Medin (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 85–139) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. McHenry, L., & Bozik, M. (1995). Communicating at a distance: A study of interaction in a distance education classroom.Communication Education, 44, 362–371.Google Scholar
  46. McNeil, B., & Nelson, K. (1991). Meta-analysis of interactive video instruction: A 10 year review of achievement effects.Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18, 1–6.Google Scholar
  47. Moore, A., Masterson, J.T., Christophel, D.M., & Shea, K.A. (1996). College teacher immediacy and teacher ratings of instruction.Communication Education, 45(1), 29–39.Google Scholar
  48. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction.American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.Google Scholar
  49. Mottet, T. (2000). Interactive television instructors' perceptions of students' nonverbal responsiveness and their influence on distance teaching.Communication Education, 49, 146–164.Google Scholar
  50. Muhlbach, L., Bocker, M., & Prussog, A. (1995). Telepresence in videocommunications: A study on stereoscopy and individual eye contact.Human Factors, 37, 290–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Muhlfelder, M., Klein, U., Simon, S., & Luczak, H. (1999). Teams without trust? Investigations in the influence of video-mediated communication on the origin of trust among cooperating persons.Behaviour & Information Technology, 18, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Neal, J.M., & Friend, R.M. (1972). Atributional determinants of reactions to performance in academic situations.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 35–40.Google Scholar
  53. O'Donnell, A.M., & O'Kelly, J. (1994). Learning from peers: Beyond the rhetoric of positive results,Educational Psychology Review, 6, 21–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (2001). Student responses to collaborating and learning in a Web-based environment.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning Special Issue, 17(1), 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ozok, A.A., & Salvendy, G. (2000). Measuring consistency of Web page design and its effects on performance and satisfaction.Ergonomics, 43(4), 443–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Patchner, M., Petracchi, H., & Wise, S. (1998). Outcomes of ITV and face-to-face instruction in a social work methods course.Journal of Computers in Human Services, 15, 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Paterson, W. (1999). Distance learning: Up close and personal.Tech Trends, 43, 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pool, P. (1996). Teaching via interactive television: an examination of teaching effectiveness and student satisfaction.Journal of Education for Busines, 72, 78–81.Google Scholar
  59. Pugliese, R. (1994). Telecourse persistence and psychological variables.The American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rees, F.J., & Downs, D.A. (1995). Interactive television and distance learning.Music Educators Journal, 2, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Richards, L.G. (2004). Work in progress: Teaching statistics in the distance learning mode.34 th Annual Frontiers in Education: Expanding Educational Opportunities Through Partnerships and Distance Learning Conference Proceeding, EIE (2), F1D17-F1D18.Google Scholar
  62. Rowden, G.V., & Carlson, R.E. (1996). Gender issues and students' perceptions of instructors' immediacy and evaluation of teaching and course.Psychological Reports, 78(3), 835–839.Google Scholar
  63. Slavin, R.E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning.Educational Leadership, 48, 71–82.Google Scholar
  64. Taylor, C., Kirsch, I.S., & Eignor, D. (1999). Examining the relationship between computer familiarity and performance on computer-based language tasks.Language Learning, 49(2), 219–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tiene, C. (1997). Teaching via 2-way television: The instructor's perspective.International Journal of Instructional Media, 24, 123–32.Google Scholar
  66. Todman, J., & Drysdale, E. (2004). Effects of qualitive differences in initial and subsequent computer experience on computer anxiety.Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 581–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilson, J., & Taylor, K. (2001). Professor immediacy as behaviors associated with liking students.Teaching and Psychology Special Issue, 28, 136–138.Google Scholar
  68. Wright, P.C., Fields, R.E., & Harrison, M.D. (2000). Analyzing human-computer interaction as distributed cognition: The resources model.Human-Computer Interaction, 15, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wynia, L. (2000). How do students really feel about interactive television?Tech Trends, 44, 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zeegers, P. (2004). Student learning in higher education: A path analysis of academic achievement in science.Higher Education Research & Development, 23, 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine A. Austin
    • 1
  • William D. Lawson
    • 2
  • Eric Holder
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Information Technology DivisionTexas Tech UniversityLubbock
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringTexas Tech UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyTexas Tech UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options