CHAPTER 20

Multimedia Classrooms; Lecturing

The hardware for effective multimedia presentations in classrooms has been improving steadily. There have been remarkable improvements in projectors since our first edition was published. Both permanently mounted and portable devices are available that can project in well-lighted rooms. As with so many hi-tech devices, their prices devices seem to lower as their quality rises.

We've noted earlier and at length that students seem to like multimedia instruction and, as of this writing, rate it very highly. Instructors switching from traditional stand-and-deliver lecturing to multimedia strategies report substantially improved ratings from students on course evaluations. Teachers often report improved learning but, when asked to document such improvements, they rarely have supporting data. When measured using quantitative instruments, learning outcomes do not seem much changed. Indeed, performances in these "happy" classes often diminish (all other things being equal).

We have reliable, informal reports from effective teachers asked by their students to use traditional methods of instruction rather than multimedia instruction [Meier, 1999].

In spite of our lack of enthusiasm for the simplest outcomes, we encourage you to convert your classroom presentations into Web-ready formats. Excellent instruction involves many dimensions, perhaps the most important of which involves high minimum standards. Using multimedia, and especially Web-based testing, instructors can raise the learning performances of their students.

This chapter includes practical suggestions about developing multimedia classrooms. It has little to do with actual use of the Web. Putting multimedia materials into Web formats is a good approach for making in-class presentations. It has the advantage that, should you choose to do so, you can make some or all of those materials directly available to students over the Web.

Because active learning is known to be more powerful than passive learning [Dodge, 1996], lecturing generally is not regarded as a first choice teaching strategy. When lecturers are very good, and other formal contacts with learning don't exist (i.e., there are no related laboratories or recitations), the structure lecturers provide for learners who have poor self-regulation skills may provide those learners with what it takes to survive. The realities of postsecondary education are such that much lecturing takes place; students are expected to undertake active learning on their own outside of the lecture room. In areas where individual opinions and points-of-view don't carry much weight, the lecture can be a very effective as well as efficient mode of presentation.

An outstanding introductory chemistry lecturer from an excellent department once suggested that the lecturer "sets the pace and tells the students what parts of the book they're not responsible for" [Burmeister, 1980]. But the more we learn about instruction, the more we accept this as a description of what goes on in many lecture classrooms. The lecturer also can clarify points, and can broaden the view far beyond that possible from a textbook.

When it comes right down to it, lecturing isn't all that bad. The motivational aspect of face-to-face teaching often is underplayed or even ignored. For experts in an audience, lectures can be a very efficient means of teaching. Besides, the resources necessary to do much better than lecture often are not available in postsecondary settings. Dare we say that we've even walked away from some lectures feeling inspired. (Also, on occasion, we've walked away nearly expired.)

One of us once taught all five lecture sections of 200+ students each in a large introductory chemistry course using multimedia [Brooks, 1985]. The course demanded very significant advance organization. (Because considerable advanced organization is required for Web-based, distance teaching, the work demand characteristics of these two seemingly different teaching environments are actually quite similar.) In this course, all of the new lecture content was presented using synchronized, lap-dissolve, slide-tape programs. (Lap dissolve involves using two slide projectors with superimposed images, and controlling these so that one is turned on as the other is turned off.) Published, printed classnotes allowed students to break down the material into coherent bundles (modules). There were occasional videotapes. There were many small-scale, live demonstrations that were broadcast over a television system within the lecture room. The image of a penny (U. S. coin) could be made to fill each of the 25-inch television monitors. The demonstrations often were spectacular on the screen. For example, a penny heated to glowing red and immersed in the vapors of certain chemicals continues to glow red as it catalyzes the burning of the vapor on the penny surface. There were in-class experiments, with data for all five sections analyzed on the following day. There was a televised bulletin board that greeted students as they entered the lecture hall. There was cooperative learning — students were asked to work with neighbors on specific tasks.

Because so much of the material was prepared in advance, and with help from an assistant for the live demonstrations, the physical demands of the class were not unusually great. With 15 to 30 minutes of canned material in each 50 minute period, lectures were very relaxed. The only days in this course that were tiring were the days (five of them) before hour exams when no new material was introduced, and the only activity was to respond to student questions. That was very tiring; there was no time to rest.

This course was very successful — the most popular among the required introductory science courses at UNL. Although the media presentations were "home grown," they were well done. The presentations were available on videotape — in a resource room — which students could access for review on demand. That room was open during all business hours and many evening hours every week. It was staffed by teaching assistants.

All of the old course examinations going back six semesters were available on microfiche which the students obtained together with their class notes. At the time, a $0.15 fiche held an entire semester of exams (5 hourlies, 5 repeat hourlies, and a final). Second to the TAs, the microfiche readers were the most popular game in town. Worked-out exams have an excellent history as instructional devices. Indeed, exams tell the tale of most courses [Tobias & Raphael, 1997]. Instructors and top students usually feel that "new" exams are very similar to old ones, but struggling students often feel that "new" exams are unfair, and unlike the preceding semester's exam.

Setting up the multimedia course cost $125,000. It was labor intensive; there were workers who did nothing but make slides day after day. Having helpers increased rather than decreased the total teacher time. Assistants would introduce errors, and their work would need to be reviewed carefully.

Today the course described above would be developed in an entirely different manner.

Classroom presentations could be handled with presentation software such as PowerPoint or in Web formats. With the Web formats, the number and length of in-class presentations could be reduced by providing Web materials for student use outside of class. When projected in classrooms, Web presentations would have the virtue of being extensible multimedia presentation devices; graphics, animations, or movies could be played within the file. In either PowerPoint or Web medium, a 14 or 18 point font size, sufficient for viewing from the back of the room would be used. Spell checking in PowerPoint or WYSIWYG software would reduce editing time.

Live lectures would be captured for later use as streaming video. After any needed editing, the segments would be made available over the Web for later viewing by students.

In chemistry classrooms, the chemical demonstrations would probably be kept live. The sights, smells and sounds of chemistry would abound (within the limits set by OSHA). The smells of chemistry demonstrations are not yet Web-transmittable. And the sights and sounds of chemistry are not properly captured by the Web.

Up to this point, all that has been suggested represents the conversion of a traditional lecture course to a multimedia course. You can stop there. We wouldn't. All course exams would be online via the Web, repeatable, self-scheduled, with rewards and penalties attached to deadlines. There probably would be two deadline dates — an extra point or two for finishing before the first one, and harsh, daily penalties for each day missed past the second one.

Instead of worrying about proctoring tests, there would be required, live, in-classroom, conventional testing to verify learning. The verification would consist of retesting, in conventional ways, a randomly-selected portion of the material tested over the Web. When a student demonstrates success in the subset of testing items, we would assume that all of the material had been tested. (This is a modified Keller Plan or PSI system [Guskey, 1996 ]).

Any TAs would be expected to use computers to maintain office hours — including some at nights and over weekends. They would have the option of holding these office hours from their homes. Both hardware and Internet access for the TAs would provided by the university. There would be "chat rooms" available at several times during the week in which professors TAs would answer questions.

The curriculum would change drastically, too. Substantial emphasis would be placed on the use of computer tools. The described course would still be a lecture course, but it would not look much like anything seen today. It would cost the university less to set up and run than the original course. The costs of the hardware, software, and Internet hookups would be transferred to the students. We currently run graduate courses this way, but these have much smaller enrollments than many introduction undergraduate classes.

The scenario described above requires an equipped room. The large lecture hall of 15 years ago included a large chemistry demonstration table and a system for TV distribution throughout that room. The lecture room environment needs to be changed so that it is easy for the lecturer to accomplish multimedia goals, and easy for the students to make use of the multimedia environment.

Early in the days of lecturing using computers, the hardware was a very big deal. In 1988, one had to carry all of the hardware — monochrome liquid crystal display (LCD), computer (appropriately wired for an LCD), and a suitable overhead projector that at once put out lots of light but was, nevertheless, cool. (LCD panels are usually very heat sensitive, and older overhead projectors ran hot.) Power strips and extension cords were part of the paraphernalia. In fact, a lamp or flashlight to see within a darkened room was a primo lecturer's tool.

Today a specialized projection device can replace both the LCD panel and overhead projector. Not only is it less cumbersome, but it weighs less.

In the first serious attempt made to put our university into a modern multimedia world, we constructed "Smart Carts." Smart Carts roll around from room to room. They need some scheduling. Also, because many persons access them, they have software messiness problems and hard-drive clutter. When compared with the first days of computer-based multimedia, however, they are wonderful.

Today things are quite different. A cart might have a portable computer, a projector, and a sack with some cables. The computer output usually can be connected directly to the projector. Rather than being what amounts to portable furniture, today's cart is just a cart — a device to help in transportation. Our rooms have TCP/IP connections to the Internet. An instructor usually can hook up to the Internet without too much fuss.

Remarkably, there is a security issue involving this business. To prevent foreign computers from connecting to the network, our system polls newly connected devices to determine their unique, built-in ethernet addresses. It uses these to assign Internet addresses. Thus, special addresses need to be set aside to accommodate roving computers.

Smart carts usually don't travel well. They don't take well to elevators, and they are particularly prone to misbehave when taken out of doors between buildings.

Courseware materials will be prepared in the office, laboratory, or media production center and be presented in a classroom. In the days of sneakernet, the information would be transferred by saving to a floppy disk and carrying in your pocket. The smart carts included 3.5" drives. Transfer of materials will be by network from the machines where the materials are created or stored to the machines used for presentation and teaching. Hardwired networking is one of the biggest efficiency enhancements in teaching.

The first edition suggested that three display devices could be used: permanently installed monitors, LCD panels, and projectors. As of this writing, projectors have edged out the competition. They have become easier to maintain, and much less costly over time. (Focusing an old projector used to be something of an engineering feat.)

Ceiling mounted projectors remain in place. These are highly desirable. When installed, there will be some cabling to connect a computer to the projector. The projector usually is controlled using an infrared-based remote controller, and there needs to be a system to ensure that the "clicker" is available for all instructors to use. The room may need to be darkened somewhat, but the most modern of projectors run well in rooms that are nearly fully lighted. Projector costs have come down, and their maintenance (tuning) has been simplified. This probably is the best, most teacher friendly solution.

An incandescent lamp system with controlled output (dimmer switch) is extremely helpful in all multimedia rooms regardless of the image projection system.

It has been our policy to put the biggest and best computer of the chosen platform in a multimedia room. In some rooms, we've placed both the best available Macintosh and DOS computers. This has proven to be one of our wiser policies. Smart carts end up being platform specific. If you have extra resources, think first of extra RAM and next of a large hard drive. Always, plan on connection to a network so that the teacher can download the materials from their personal desktop to the teaching computer.

In addition to the instructor's computer, a course incorporating multimedia modules might require computer access for the students during classes. Teaching in a computer lab or in a computer workstation classroom might also be an option for multimedia classes. For interactive multimedia, allowing students to interact with animations, models, or input/output problems might be the most effective strategies for student learning. In a computer lab, the instructor might also use the students' monitors to display examples of problems, or to illustrate a programming process. Controlling students' monitors in a lab setting is done easily with network administrator tools. The number of computer workstations made available might allow students to work in small groups to accomplish the multimedia activities for the class period.

Nearly all disciplines have valuable video resources available. In the United States, nearly all of these play from an NTSC video standard in VHS format. It makes sense, therefore, to include VHS playback capabilities in any system you might develop to enhance lecturing. Choose projectors which handle videotape replay.

The video stand (Figure 20.04), a television projection device, is emerging as a very useful tool. It captures the image of almost anything set on its platform and displays it on a screen. Using these, material can be shared effectively with an entire class. Books and reprints can be projected to be read easily. Pictures and photographs can be displayed quickly and easily. Most Web material requires advanced planning. Using video projectors, materials created during a class can be displayed. These devices support multimedia spontaneity and support student input.

There is much less variation in the layout of lecture halls than in labs. In lecture halls, think about a design that minimizes the distance between the teacher and students. This means that short and fat is preferred over long and lean. (Imagine a rectangle. The teacher needs to be placed near the middle of a long side, if possible.)

Classes taught with Web materials are best if the students are in control of the material. This means the students need to have access to the materials on computers. Classes may be taught in a school-managed computer laboratory. The design of the computer lab will impact upon the kind of learning environment achieved. Computers arranged in rows tend to cause students to work individually; other arrangements actually promote student exchanges move and facilitate teacher access. The hexagonal arrangement show (Figure 20.06) works well and seems to accommodate nearly as many students as in the linear arrangement.

The UNL campus today has dozens of multimedia classrooms. Some of these are large (200-250 seats), while others are more modest in size (30-50 seats). We do tend to convert the big classrooms where large, introductory courses are taught. The biggest advantage of these rooms is that the hardware is stored in a locked cabinet. Finding a simple, single system that permits control of all of the hardware simultaneously is a challenge. Many faculty undertrain and get stuck just before class. Sometimes the systems are fragile, and need lots of tender loving care during frequent maintenance periods. Once a faculty member has been burned in a multimedia room, they tend to drop out. About half of the burned faculty users drop out on our campus; wooing them back to multimedia use is a challenge.

Control is one of the biggest issues faced when designing a room. Who has control: staff in charge of the room; the teachers; the students? A teacher we know with good technology skills was asked to teach two sections of a course in technical communications, one on each of two campuses. She planned all sorts of student interactions including using e-mail, creating HTML pages, and using presentation programs, and planned to use supporting media in class, such as videotapes.

On one campus, as a result of room design and in spite of four hours of training, she had great difficulty in performing such simple tasks as showing videotapes. There were just too many power switches located in different places that needed to be turned on. When she tried to give students access to the same software she had at her terminal (this is a lab with about 30 student stations equipped with powerful computers), campus policy forbade student use of the same programs. That campus licensed software for use on individual machines, while the other one used a key server. With a key server, all machines can have a nearly functional copy of all licensed software, but, once the number of licenses available is in use, the key server will not serve keys to other machines. For the teacher to make this software instruction work, she would have needed to hold class in a student lab with all computers equipped with that software. On the campus with the key server, achieving all of her goals was no problem.

This teacher became very discouraged. When operating in one environment, teaching was straightforward, while in the other it presented too many barriers. She stopped trying to use technology in her teaching.

Our experience with classroom teaching using technology continues to improve. In 1988, we lugged low quality hardware into every room intended for our technology use. Today we usually can find excellent multimedia rooms, even ones where our students also have powerful computers. We see this aspect of teaching as improving steadily on our campus and on most other campuses as well. Using a campus network, we move material from our offices to the classroom. The most difficult step remains finding an open time to test the software before class.

Lecturing is probably a better teaching technique than many suggest. Multimedia lecturing using Web-software is relatively easy and powerful. If you've not wet your feet yet, this is a comfortable and personally rewarding place to start. After a few years, it may grow on you so much that you compete to become your departmental Webmaster!

Internet 2, begun very late in the 20th century, links research universities with high speed, high bandwidth connections. When this technology came on the scene, there was not a great deal of novel use. Bandwidth and speed are important to reduce Internet traffic congestion. Most of us were delighted to see our old pages, none of which were as much as a half-decade old at the time, served faster.

What kind of experiments were possible? One was face-to-face communi-cation between severely handicapped persons being asked to serve as advisors on panels addressing the issues of the handicapped. Our colleague, David Beukelman, seized on this specialized teleconference opportunity.

Another application related to interactive courses taught at a very high level. These courses often are found in the sciences — sometimes as formal courses, and sometimes as research group seminars. Martin Dickman teaches such a course in plant pathology. Dickman identified two colleagues with complement-ary professional interests, Jan Leach at Kansas State University and Tom Wolpert at Oregon State University. Together, the three of these faculty started sharing a course in Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions. While all three are experts, their areas do not overlap completely. An anticipated effect of such a course, therefore, was to increase depth. Because the three campuses did not have the same research equipment, the course afforded opportunities for meaningfully shared exposure to sophisticated hardware.

The initial results from this experiment were very successful. During the first offering, 27 students participated. This was a bit large; one of the campuses had some students not ready for such a prime-time interactive experience.

The most positive outcome was that sharing the deep expertise and specialized equipment really did seem to pay off. The negative outcomes involved having students surrounded by the needed technology in a rather foreboding environment. The worst of these tradeoffs involved scheduling — one group attended at an unusually early hour, and the specialized rooms had to be vacated by the specified end-of-class time. (Advanced courses often end on a natural schedule, not a fixed schedule — with the lead faculty adopting a "we're done when we're done" attitude.)

This three-campus course used many of the Web-teaching techniques described in the earlier chapters of this book. Just like the Web, there are other teaching strategies that have been enabled by the Internet. This is an interesting and potentially powerful one.