Method, Media, Mode: The Tale of the Three Ms in Distance Learning

Citation

Watson, B.T. (2000), "Method, Media, Mode: The Tale of the Three Ms in Distance Learning", Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 17 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhtn.2000.23917aac.007

Method, Media, Mode: The Tale of the Three Ms in Distance Learning

Brian T. Watson

When discussing the convergence of education and technology, the conversation will inevitably turn to distance learning. In this light, it should not have surprised anyone that this very topic was examined in great detail at EDUCAUSE '99. While some sessions focused on infrastructure, technology, and even specific case studies, Virginia Tech's (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) Tom Head (Director of Instructional Services), John Moore (Director of Educational Technologies) and John Wilkinson (Director of the Institute of Distance and Distributed Learning) concentrated on more fundamental issues.

Method, Media, Mode: The Tale of the Three Ms in Distance Learning, which was originally planned as a roundtable discussion, evolved into a panel presentation with active audience participation. The goal of this session was to define the basic elements that make up the total learning environment and then to investigate the ways in which those elements interact with the environment as well as with each other.

This session began with the identification of the three most critical issues discussed at EDUCOM over the past few years: cost, quality, and access. It was clearly stated that the three Ms must be explored within the context of these specific issues.

The first M stands for "Method" (teaching method, more specifically). Examples of teaching methods are lecture, discussion, small-group interaction, collaborative problem solving, self-paced instruction, simulation, gaming, tutorials, role-playing, and studio work. Often, a number of these methods can be found in some combination in a single class period or module. It was carefully noted by the panel, however, that the issues of cost and quality may very well impose constraints on the use of some of these methods in a distance or distributed learning environment.

"Media" is represented by the second M. The materials used during an instructional event can be described in the following ways: the type of image (pictorial, graphical, verbal), the sensory mode (visual, auditory), the degree of realism in a graphic display, and the amount of interactivity and feedback. The key to media usage is, obviously, choosing the appropriate attributes for a given situation.

The third M is "Mode". Of all of the delivery modes available today, face-to-face delivery is by far the most commonly used (80-90 per cent of the time). Correspondence (paper handouts, mailings, textbooks, videotape, CD-ROM) is still the second most common mode.

The panel then proceeded to discuss issues relating to instructional design. Instructional design is the stepwise process of design, creation and development, implementation, evaluation, and constant revision of the learning environment. Virginia Tech's application of instructional design principles has yielded a fivefold increase in "As" in a Human Nutrition and Foods course and a 35-40 per cent decrease in the failure and withdrawal rates of students participating in the school's popular Math Emporium.

In another case, faculty reductions led to an increase in section size from 40 to 240 students for a basic Philosophy course. The panel noted that there was a shift from face-to-face to Web-based discussion and more peer interaction. It was discovered that students began spending more time on task and were outperforming the more traditional students in most areas of assessment.

The panel described an initiative wherein Virginia Tech is now offering distance learning courses specifically targeted for full-time students who have gone home for the summer. Of the students who have participated in this program over the past two years, 64 per cent believe that they have a better understanding of the presented ideas and concepts as opposed to the more traditional classroom course. Of these same students, 77 per cent were more confident that they could reach their academic goals, 77 per cent felt that they had put more effort into their schoolwork, 44 per cent felt more isolated, and 52 per cent believed that they were more likely to receive detailed comments from their instructors (typically via electronic mail).

While the ideas discussed during this session were well received by those in attendance, the manner by which these concepts were presented did lead to some confusion. This panel effectively discussed the three important variables (the three Ms) that influence the instructional setting and succinctly laid out the critical issues that govern the application of these variables. Also, the potential benefits that can result from the appropriate application of instructional design principles were clearly enumerated. However, the audience, at least in part, seemed disappointed with the lack of detailed information regarding the relationship between the issues discussed and the outcomes reported. More to the point, how does one actually manipulate media, mode, and method to produce the optimum learning environment in a specific situation?

University Digital Image Distribution: Results of a Study

A number of sessions delivered at EDUCAUSE '99 shared a major theme ­ the distribution of digital images. Howard Besser of the University of California Los Angeles, and Robert Yamashita of California State University presented one of the most ambitious of those efforts reported upon. University Digital Image Distribution: Results of a Study drove directly into the heart of this matter by discussing cost centers, usability issues, and project processes.

Besser began the session by introducing the Museum Educational Site Licensing (MESL) Project. He quickly noted that the project's name was somewhat misleading. While an important component of the project involved "site licensing and the exploration of terms and conditions", the project also involved experimenting with delivery and distribution systems for digital images and accompanying metadata.

MESL was a three-year project geared toward the distribution of "museum" images and information to the university community. Six museums and the Library of Congress donated a total of 10,000 images along with descriptive information to the project. A 32-field dataset and accompanying images were then presented to seven participating universities to be mounted into each institution's own system each with its own interfaces, search engines, and indexing schemes.

The original plan for MESL was that each individual institution would take the images and raw data and build its own database and accompanying access systems. This, of course, would mean duplication of effort on the part of all seven participating universities. Furthermore, the end product would be inconsistent between these institutions. It was decided that one institution would take the raw data, check them for errors, and then formulate a common dataset. Yamashita considers this model to be a "derivative concept of how consortia deliver images" to a central repository from multiple sites.

Yamashita discussed a number of issues that came to light during a Mellon Foundation-sponsored study of the MESL project. Among these was the fact that, when discussing image databases, one cannot simply refer to an image itself but rather to the management of an image. A "managed image" object, in reality, consists of the image, descriptive metadata, contextual metadata, and control metadata. This is a particularly important concept when considering cost centers and when communicating with administrators about resource issues.

The concept of "added-value tools" was also discussed. According to Yamashita, faculty members were not typically ready to teach with these images without the aid of tools that would allow them to quickly put the images to work. Examples were cited where technical staff actually developed templates that instructors could use for specific applications.

The Mellon-sponsored study provided a great deal of insight as to the costs of development and maintenance of such a large collection of digital images. Unfortunately, given that each institution developed unique systems of varying complexity and sophistication, it was difficult to infer specific trends or to recognize potential problem areas based solely upon this presentation. It was noted that startup costs are far greater than any other and, in year two, such "functionality" costs declined. One fundamental point that was made relates to the life of such systems and the need to make adjustments as new technologies emerge. Developmental costs will not just decline after the first year and then level off to a constant. There will be an occasional, if not cyclical, "hump" in the cost of ongoing development as new, more functional software becomes available and is integrated into these systems.

By the end of the study, it was determined that the use of digital images easily met the needs of an individual user at a desk or workstation. Group viewing, however, was found to be problematic. The effective use of digital images in the classroom relied on projector quality, networking infrastructure, equipment reliability, and access to appropriate software or custom applications.

Besser noted that universities and museums in actuality have much in common. Both are producers of images and both are consumers of images and, because of this, unforeseen relationships are beginning to emerge between these organizations. In addition, it was discovered that digital images create new audiences. Users in unrelated disciplines, such as electrical engineering and geology, are discovering the usefulness of these images to their respective fields. This concept of expanded use exposed the importance of developing a common language through which these various audiences can query and interact with the data.

In his closing comments, Besser stated: "Digital distribution under MESL was very expensive. No one would do MESL again the way we did it." Such endeavors will likely have to be supported by grants or other types of funding outside that typically provided by universities. Will digital distribution replace slide libraries? "Not in the immediate future." Will the target audience actually use these digital images? "Well...we still have to find that out."

To find out more about this study, point your Web browser to http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Imaging/Databases/1998mellon

Brian T. Watson is Management Information Specialist, University of Georgia, Athens. bwatson@arches.uga.edu