|
The most recent definition of instructional technology produced by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology says:
Instructional technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilisation, management and evaluation of processes and resources for learning[1].While this is a very broad definition it certainly encompasses the issues which we are dealing with in this paper. As Michael Albright has recently said when discussing the important differences between information technology and instructional technology: "Remember that setting is an important concern of instructional technology, including such environmental conditions as climate control, quality of seating, upkeep of the chalkboards and marker boards, and the other things that typically drive faculties crazy. As instructional technologists, our turf begins at the classroom wall"[2]. So while the last ten years has seen a great development of computer technologies being used for student instruction at universities and a variety of communication technologies being used for open learning enrolments, it is still likely that for the majority of students at Australian universities, the majority of their contact with academic staff takes place in a lecture theatre or classroom. The students contact with any form of educational technology is more likely to be with technology in a lecture theatre than it is in a computer laboratory. While this generalisation is rapidly changing, we feel it is important that those in the educational technology field do not lose sight of the importance of providing a technologically rich environment in which academic staff and students will continue to have lectures, tutorials and seminars on campus.
With the rise in student numbers at Australian universities over the last ten years, there has also been an ongoing process of universities constructing new teaching spaces, often including quite large lecture theatres, while older buildings on some campuses are being refurbished.
The extent to which institutions will provide appropriate budgets to allow this development to occur adequately will also depend on many factors, such as the importance placed on teaching in the institution and the skill and determination of the staff charged with providing these facilities. The installation of electronic classrooms and lecture theatres is a trend that is strongly under way in some overseas countries, particularly the USA [3,4,5]. So far there has been little research into the effectiveness of these electronic classrooms either from the point of view of changing large group teaching strategies or the effect on student learning which should be the final goal of all such applications of technology to the teaching process.
This paper is therefore divided into two main parts. We will outline for you how QUT has gone about providing electronic classrooms and secondly, we will present some data on how staff and students are using the technology that is now being installed in the media equipped lecture theatres (MELTs) at QUT.
In support of this mission of sustaining high quality undergraduate teaching since 1992, QUT has been funding a program of installing 'smart' lecture theatres, or as we now call them MELTs, (Media equipped lecture theatres), in new buildings and in refurbished theatres. A significant component of the funds for the refurbishment of existing teaching space has come from allocations to the Department of Audiovisual Services out of the Quality funds that have come to QUT. In 1993, the Audiovisual Services' share of these funds for the MELT project was $312,000 and in 1994, $230,000. The Computing Services Department has also been funding the connection of existing lecture theatres to the computing network, while in one year, a small sum came from the QUT Long Term Information Technology Plan funds, to buy some AMX theatre control equipment for a couple of theatres.
The first theatres to be equipped with any type of theatre control system were six lecture theatres constructed in a new 12-storey Information Technology and Engineering (ITE) building on the Gardens Point campus. This building was under construction when I took up my position at QUT in 1991.
Although I was asked to provide advice on the audiovisual fitout of the lecture theatres and classrooms, of which there were about twelve, there was little we could do to fix the basic design of the lecture theatres. However, the external contractor did quote to fit AMX button lecterns and we did manage to get enough money for four video projectors. This initial building set the model.
This section of the presentation will describe our goals and attempts to achieve them.
Correct technology - It is vital that any technology installed in a theatre matches the real needs rather than fit within a pre-determined budget. For example, when selecting a data projector for a large lecture theatre, the end result must be a clearly visible image for all students. The theatre size dictates the image size, which dictates the projector's brightness requirements, which in turn determines the cost. Using the 'what can we afford'? approach, will almost invariably result in an installation which does not satisfy the basic need.
Physical environment - (Physical environment refers to lighting, acoustics, ventilation and furnishings.) The physical environment is the single most important factor governing the success or failure of a theatre to fulfil its intended role. It is also the area of responsibility which varies most widely between institutions.
A lecture theatre is a presentation venue. A presentation involves a visual and an audible component, both of which must be conveyed clearly to the audience (students). The actual theatre environment has a significant influence on the quality of the information received by the individual students. Apart from the correct technology, we need:
Lighting - There are some 'golden rules' which should be obeyed when designing or specifying lighting systems for a lecture theatre:
Theatre shape - The optimum design for a presentation theatre roughly adheres to the following rules:
User feedback indicated some dissatisfaction with the Lectrum lecterns - lack of note space and no room for a laptop or notebook computer - so we experimented with custom benches and control consoles. We tried a number of schemes and found the most successful method was to house most of the AV equipment in racking in the bench and to house monitors and the AMX control panel in a console. This places all the AV technology within convenient reach of the lecturer.
One piece of technology which caused (and is still causing) some heartache was the computer. Eventually we decided to 'take the plunge and install permanent PCs in theatres. Despite some frustration with tampering and software corruption, the inclusion has been well justified and appreciated by users as illustrated by usage data gathered by the AMX system. The benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. I would rate the inclusion of PCs in theatres as a success.
Another success was the installation of wireless PC mice in theatres. This allows the lecturer to control computer presentations away from the lectern. It is standard equipment in all PC equipped theatres and very popular! Finally, I rate our logging of actual technology usage in theatres as a successful innovation. Gathering real usage data (as opposed to relying on surveys) gives a powerful tool for decision making and planning. For example, we can accurately state that the average use of Photo CD players in 1995 was less than 20 minutes per theatre for the entire year, and therefore we can justify no longer installing them.
The space and size requirement dictated an active matrix LCD flat screen display. Despite much experimentation, we were unable to source technology which met our needs. The LCD in the lectern was abandoned and we installed a multisync monitor on a mobile stand near the lectern. We were defeated by available technology!!
Two later attempts to use one monitor for both PC and video also proved unsatisfactory. One trial converted the VGA signal to PAL video and fed to a video monitor mounted in the lecturer's console. The low cost scan converter we used created a flickering, poor resolution picture and was limited to 640 x 480 VGA thereby restricting the PC to VGA resolution. The other attempt used a video capture card in the PC to create a video window on the (S-VGA) PC monitor. However, this proved troublesome because the software was a little unstable and required the lecturer to be conversant with Windows to display a video image. Both ideas have now been scrapped in favour of separate monitors for PC and video.
A particularly spectacular failure occurred in a brand new 430 seat theatre in 1993. Our advice that a conventional 3 tube data projector would be unsatisfactory was ignored. The end product was a new and expensive facility which could not perform its primary role as a presentation venue. Loud protests from users soon produced the desired results - the money for the expensive 'light valve' projector we originally specified suddenly appeared!! Happily, our recommendations are now taken seriously.
| Item | Response | End 1995 | Mid 1995 | 1994 |
| Item 9 - Blackboard/ whiteboard | Not available | 4.3% | 3.3% | - |
| Never used | 21.7% | 6.7% | 3.8% | |
| Used occasionally | 34.8% | 40% | 27.8% | |
| Used frequently | 17.4% | 13.3% | 34.6% | |
| Always use | 21.7% | 33.3% | 33.6% |
Comment: It would seem that staff teaching in the 5 nominated theatres in 1995 are using the board less than staff in 1994. At the end of 1995 there was a significant decline in the use of the boards. The 'never use' response is now the same as the 'always use' response which marks a change from the 2 previous surveys.
| Item | Response | End 1995 | Mid 1995 | 1994 |
| Item 10 - Overhead projector | Not available | 30.4% | - | - |
| Never use | 8.7% | 3.3% | - | |
| Used occasionally | 4.3% | 13.3% | 3.7% | |
| Used frequently | 13% | 16.7% | 38.6% | |
| Always used | 43.5% | 66.7% | 57.54% |
Comment: The OHP is by far the most frequently used piece of AV equipment in lecture theatres but these results would tend to suggest that some staff are using the OHP less frequently than they were in 1994. The high percentage for 'not available' at the end of 1995 is a reflection of the fact that in 3 of the 5 theatres surveyed the OHP had been replaced by a visualiser.
| Item | Response | End 1995 | Mid 1995 | 1994 |
| Item 11 - Electronic visualiser | Not available | 17.4% | 4.8% | - |
| Never used | 13.0% | 57.1% | 51.7% | |
| Used occasionally | 21.7% | 14.3% | 22.4% | |
| Used frequently | 13.0% | 4.8% | 13.7% | |
| Always used | 34.8% | 19% | 12% |
Comment: This device is fitted permanently to only one of the 'smart' theatres surveyed in 1995 and was installed in only two of the theatres surveyed in 1994. At the end of 1995, 3 of the 5 theatres in the survey had a visualiser installed instead of an OHP.
In both 1994 and 1995 a high percentage of staff failed to complete responses to this item thus the accuracy of the results is open to question.
| Item | Response | End 1995 | Mid 1995 | 1994 |
| Item 12 - VHS Videotape recorder | Not available | 4.3% | - | - |
| Never used | 47.8% | 29.6% | 23.9% | |
| Used occasionally | 30.4% | 29.6% | 42.39% | |
| Used frequently | 17.4% | 37% | 26% | |
| Always used | - | 3.7% | 7.6% |
Comment: It would seem that the use of video material has increased slightly since 1994 in mid 1995 although a slightly higher percentage of staff in both 1995 surveys claim to never use video material than in the 1994.
| Item | Response | End 1995 | Mid 1995 | 1994 |
| Item 15 - Personal computer | Not available | 8.7% | 3.4% | - |
| Never used | 47.8% | 48.3% | 47.2% | |
| Used occasionally | 4.3% | 27.6% | 31.9% | |
| Used frequently | 8.7% | 3.4% | 11.1% | |
| Always used | 30.4% | 17.2% | 9.7% |
Comment: Each of the lecture theatres surveyed in 1995 had a PC installed while in 1994 only one of the 15 theatres surveyed had a PC installed. These results reveal a steady increase in the use of the PC in teaching large groups once the PC is installed permanently in the MELT.
It is strange that some lecturers were unaware that a PC was installed in the lecture theatre they used during 1995. In 1994 the staff claiming that they used a PC in one of the nominated theatres would have meant that in most cases they brought their own PC into the theatre and connected to the data projector. It is perhaps disappointing that the use of PCs has not increased even more despite the fact that the all the theatres surveyed in 1995 have a PC installed in the bench.
| Perceived usefulness | Response | End 1995 | Mid 1995 | 1994 |
| Item 15 - Personal computer | Not at all useful | 8.7% | 7.7% | 6.4% |
| Slightly useful | 4.3% | 15.4% | 20.7% | |
| Useful | 13% | 30.8% | 24.6% | |
| Very useful | 52.2% | 46.2% | 48% |
Comment: It would seem that there has been an increase in the perceived usefulness of PCs in lecture theatres although a majority of staff do see the PC as being useful or very useful in teaching in lecture theatres. Note that in the end 1995 survey 21.7% failed to check this box on the perceived usefulness of the PC.
| Item | Response | End 1995 | Mid 1995 | 1994 |
| Item 17 - 35 mm slide projectors | Not available | 13.0% | - | - |
| Never used | 82.6% | 71.4% | 47.5% | |
| Used occasionally | 4.3% | 17.9% | 39% | |
| Used frequently | - | 7.1% | 6% | |
| Always used | - | 3.6% | 7.3% |
Comment: The use of 35 mm slides has declined since 1994. Other data available to the Audiovisual Services Department indicated that in some lecture theatres the slide projector is very frequently used but in other theatres it is rarely used. Perhaps in certain subject areas high quality colour still images are a necessary teaching device, but in many areas they have a limited role. It is a concern that 13% of staff teaching in the new Z block were unaware that each lecture theatre had a slide projector installed.
| Perceived usefulness | Response | End 1995 Lectern Radio | Mid 1995 Lectern Radio |
1994 Lectern Radio |
| Item 19 - Lectern/ radio microphones | Not at all useful | 13% 4.3% | 11.5% 25% | 9.3% 13.1% |
| Slightly useful | 8.7% 4.3% | 15.4% 8.3% | 31.3% 23.5% | |
| Useful | 30.4% 17.4% | 26.9% 16.7% | 31.3% 23.6% | |
| Very useful | 30.4% 56.5% | 46.2% 50% | 48.8% 56.5% |
Comment: While the majority of staff perceive microphones to be useful when lecturing it is of concern that in mid 1995 about 30% of staff saw little use for this technology. By the end of 1995 this percentage had declined significantly.
| Item | Response | End 1995 | Mid 1995 | 1994 |
| Item 21 - Handouts | Not available | 8.7% | - | - |
| Never used | 13.0% | 3.7% | 2.1% | |
| Used occasionally | 39.1% | 33.3% | 27.6% | |
| Used frequently | 17.4% | 18.5% | 35.1% | |
| Always used | 21.7% | 44.4% | 35.1% |
Comment: It is clear that handouts are a frequently used teaching aid. The following percentages on perceived usefulness also confirm that staff see handouts as valuable learning aid for the students although the use of handouts seems be declining.
| Item | Response | End 1995 | Mid 1995 | 1994 |
| Item 22 - Touch screen control systems | Never used | 4.3% | 10% | 32.2% |
| Used occasionally | 8.7% | 6.7% | 16.1% | |
| Used frequently | 4.3% | 13.3% | 20.9% | |
| Always used | 82.6% | 70% | 30.6% |
Comment: Each of the theatres surveyed in 1995 had the touch screen user interface for controlling the theatre technology The theatres surveyed in 1994 had a mixture of touch screens and button panels. The 1994 survey also specifically mentioned the AMX system which is the product name of the equipment and many staff were unaware of this fact which affected the reliability of the 1994 results.
The 1995 results show that most staff interact with the touch screen on a regular basis. It is a worry that in mid 1995 10% of staff still managed to teach in these lecture theatres without using the touch screen at all. By the end of 1995 however the vast majority of staff did use the touch screen system during their lectures The touch screen controls virtually all features of the theatre, including the lighting. In smaller theatres however, there is a standard OHP and blackboards so it would be possible to teach in these theatres without interacting with the touch screen.
| Question | Response | End 1995 | Mid 1995 | 1994 |
| Item 24 - Has the installation of theatre control systems, video projectors, PA systems, etc, enabled you to adopt any different teaching strategies or present information differently during your lectures? | Yes | 60.9% | 53.5% | 53.6% |
| No | 39.1 % | 46.7% | 46.3% |
Comment: In each of the surveys just over half the staff who responded to the question felt that the smart lecture theatres had resulted in them doing things differently when lecturing in the space. It is of interest however that there has been little change in the responses to this question between the first two questionnaires while by the end of 1995 there had been a greater shift in attitude. It would seem appropriate that steps could be taken to encourage staff to use different strategies and present information in a different light so that a higher percentage of staff were willing to respond 'yes' to this question.
The 'yes' comments revealed several staff who said that they now used PowerPoint or used the computer to show the class software packages. Others felt they were most easily able to integrate various media into their teaching: "Now easily able to integrate video, OHP, 35 mm slides etc. into lecture format"; "All flows more smoothly": "The transition from spoken to audiovisual material is now far smoother and more professional." "Visualiser to perform in class experiments using small objects previously passed around."
There were some similar comments made in the end of 1995 survey. "Electronic visualiser permits demonstrations of small items eg flower, grasshopper"; "I have now put all my overheads on PowerPoint which makes presentations more effective + professional and access to notes for tutors etc easier"; "Easy to incorporate a variety of mediums"; "The PC with network connections allowed me to do 'live' demos of programming concepts and examples."
Those who answered 'no' to this item generally claimed that they did not have enough time to prepare new material for use on the PC or other media.
| Authors: Geoffrey A Roberts and Phillip M Dunn Queensland University of Technology g.roberts@qut.edu.au Please cite as: Roberts, G. and Dunn, P. (1996). Electronic classrooms and lecture theatres: Design and use factors in the age of the mass lecture. In J. G. Hedberg, J. Steele and S. McNamara (eds), Learning Technologies: Prospects and Pathways, 144-152. Selected papers from EdTech'96. Canberra: AJET Publications. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/edtech96/roberts.html |