The "Mindset Evolution" of Television Production Specialists in Distance Education |
VOL. 10, No. 2, 73-85
The purpose of this study is to examine the process by which, during the development of distance education television programs, technical specialists move from focusing solely on technical aspects of the production to include in their considerations an appreciation for content. The sample consists of 12 full-time television production specialists from American universities. All participants had at least one year's experience producing live, interactive, video-based educational programs at their respective institutions. None, however, had previous experience with distance education, nor did any have a background in education. Qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews, observation, and concept maps, were used to collect data during the study. Findings from this study show that television production specialists undergo a change of "mindset" over time as they design and develop more distance education programming. They come to view themselves more as distance education producers. This mindset change occured as they altered their criteria for judging the quality of their work and as they became aware of the primacy of content over "form," the needs of the audience, and the relationship between the instructor and students.
Cette étude se penche sur le processus selon lequel les techniciens spécialisés débordent de leur rôle purement technique de production de programmes télévisés d'éducation à distance pour s'intéresser au contenu des programmes. Douze techniciens de universités américaines ont été étudiés. Tous les participants occupaient un emploi à plein temps et avaient au moins une année d'expérience dans la production de programmes pédagogiques interactifs, diffusés en direct. Les participants n'avaient, par contre, ni expérience en éducation à distance, ni formation pédagogique.
Les données ont été recueillies à l'aide de méthodes qualitatives, telles que des entrevues semi-dirigées, des sessions d'observation et des schémas conceptuels. Les résultats obtenus démontrent que, plus les spécialistes de productions télévisées conçoivent et réalisent des programmes d'éducation à distance, plus leur attitude mentale change, de sorte qu'ils en viennent à se considérer comme des réalisateurs dans ce domaine. Ce changement d'attitude se produit à mesure que les spécialistes modifient la façon dont ils évaluent la qualité de leur travail, lorsqu'ils commencent à prendre conscience de l'importance du contenu d'un programme plutôt que de sa forme, ainsi que des besoins du public et du rapport entre l'instructeur et ses étudiants.
Form or content? Content or form? It sounds almost like the “she loves me, she loves me not” game many of us played with flower petals when we were children. But in the world of distance education, striking a balance between form and content is anything but a childish game. It is a serious consideration in the development of any distance education program. In distance education, teamwork plays a key role in the development of instruction (Kelly, 1990). In the optimal circumstance, three people-usually the instructor, an instructional designer, and a technology expert-will be involved in the planning and production of courses that are distributed via technology, largely because the instructor has subject-matter expertise but does not have instructional design or technological expertise. In the development of live, interactive, video-based courses, which are distributed via satellite, compressed video, and/or cable, the instructors are in particular need of guidance from television production specialists who are proficient in the use of these media.
Because of their visual communication background, television production specialists are assumed to be the “form” people-the “look” or aesthetics people-while the subject-matter specialists are involved with the content. Instructional designers can be viewed as mediators, who bridge the gap between the “form” and the content (Brinkley, Pavlechko, & Thompson, 1991). However, most times, an instructional designer is not designated to assist in the development of particular distance education projects (Walsh, Gibson, Hsieh, & Gettman, 1994).
With no one assuming this role, television production specialists say they are the ones who take on the instructional designer role (Telg, 1995). As a result, television production specialists-who, again, are the ones implementing and designing the “form” of a program-have become entwined with the content. And so they also begin to view themselves in a different way as they become more involved in distance education. This study examined how television production specialists evolved from seeing themselves solely as television production specialists to seeing themselves as distance education producers.
Live, interactive, video-based education continues to rise in popularity as an increasing number of businesses and universities produce instructional programming for television (Arnall, 1987; Bruce, Katz, & Tomsic, 1991; Galagan, 1989; Hezel & Szulc, 1993; Jefferson & Moore, 1990; Portway, 1993; Powell, 1994). The number of satellite-distributed educational courses continues to grow because the courses can reach wide and varied geographic locations simultaneously with one-way video and two-way audio (Arnall, 1987). According to Garrison (1990), the use of such telecommunication technologies as television, radio, and computers in distance education marks “a new generation in designing the educational transaction” (p. 45). As a result of these popular technological distribution methods, the development and delivery of distance education courses requires not only persons with content area expertise but also persons with expertise in the use of various media. Therefore, instructional designers, television production specialists, computer specialists, and other technical support personnel are all needed to provide expertise in particular areas that go beyond the instructor’s academic and technical experience (Kelly, 1990).
Thach’s study (1994) of 107 distance education experts in the United States and Canada showed that the three most important distance education roles were “instructor/facilitator,” “instructional designer,” and “technology expert” (p. 42). In the optimal circumstance, therefore, the instructor, who may not have instructional design or technological expertise, will be joined by an instructional designer and a technology expert when planning and producing courses to be distributed via technology (Dick & Carey, 1985; Price, 1994). In the development of live, interactive, video-based courses in particular, the instructors need guidance from specialists who have proficiency in television production (Price, 1994).
Thach (1994) found that the instructional designer’s primary role is to collaborate with the instructor. That is to say, the instructional designer needs to assume a support function and ought “not presume to ’teach’ the instructor how to deliver classes in a distance learning environment” (p. 49). The second most important function of the instructional designer is to “ensure [that the] course design works with [the] technology,” which emphasizes the need for the instructional designer to understand the media and the technology to be used. Similarly, the most important function of the technology expert is to “work collaboratively with instructors and instructional designers” (p. 51). The next most important feature of the technology expert is, understandably, knowledge of the technological options available.
In courses transmitted by satellite, individuals specializing in television production provide the technological expertise needed to develop and deliver the course (Hausman, 1991). Because of their professional backgrounds, television production specialists have a greater understanding of the specific instructional design needs dictated by the requirements of television (Smith, 1991) and of how to better provide instruction through this form of mediated communication (Garrison, 1989; Hart, 1984). In addition to this under-standing, however, Gayeski (1983) stated that television professionals engaged in producing educational videotape programs should “know how people learn,’‘ be competent in other media, and understand educational psychology and learning theory.
Instructional design comes into play in any educational arena in which instructors attempt to identify what needs to be taught in order to create desired learning outcomes (Dick & Carey, 1985). One important aspect of design is the feedback system (Garrison, 1989), which helps the instructor and the participants complete the communication loop (Monson, 1978). Thach (1993) believes that the feedback loop is so important that the “full quality effect of a transactional education experience cannot take place” without it (p. 292). Garrison (1989) explained that the major technologies of distance education must be “capable of supporting explanatory feedback” (p. 17).
It is important to remember that education, regardless of its mode of delivery, depends on communication, and for true two-way communication to occur there must be feedback from the recipient to the sender (Garrison, 1989), be it face-to-face communication or communication that is facilitated through the use of electronic media, including computers, audio bridges, and television.
Distance education requires different kinds of communicative methods to be used than those found in traditional classrooms (Zvacek, 1991) for reasons that at this point in time are well understood. Media that facilitate conversation, group discussions, and tutorials are seen as potentially valuable. Winn (1990) cautions, however, that the media ought to be transparent and that the real strength of a course lies in the instructional design and the interaction between teacher and student.
The literature review supports what is a well-known instructional principle: feedback is essential. It reinforces the belief that, optimally, the development of a distance education course will involve the blending of three areas of expertise: content, instructional design, and technical. The research also suggests that the medium itself must be considered when designing instruction and that it should be as transparent as possible. Based on these findings, this study examined the persons most likely to be involved in the aesthetic or “form” aspect of a video-based distance education program-television production specialists. It examined, therefore, how television production specialists evolved from seeing themselves solely in these terms to seeing themselves as producers of educational materials.
The questions asked in this study and the processes developed in collecting the data were best suited for qualitative research for the reasons outlined by Bogdan and Biklen (1992, pp. 30-32): The style of inquiry is descriptive; it focuses more on process than on outcomes and products; and the findings emerge from the data, through inductive reasoning. It is discovery rather than confirmation. Qualitative research’s essential concern is understanding the meaning of an experience (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Merriam, 1988).
The purposive sample for this study consisted of 12 full-time television production specialists who were employed for at least one year at institutions of higher education across the United States. The participants had to meet the following criteria: they considered themselves television production specialists prior to employment at their respective universities; they had no experience or educational background in the field of distance education; they annually produced and/or directed at least one live, interactive video-based course and/or three videoconferences for educational purposes; and they interacted with subject-matter specialists and/or instructional designers during the course of a live, video-based, interactive production. (“Live, interactive video-based instruction” is defined in this study as live instruction facilitated by television by way of satellite, compressed video, cable television, or other similar distribution methods. Common to all courses was the accessibility to immediate two-way interaction of teacher and students, either by two-way audio/video or one-way video/two-way audio.)
The sample consisted of 2 women and 10 men. The years of experience in interactive, video-based instruction ranged from one year to 20 years. Each person also had some type of communication-related undergraduate degree (journalism, film, radio/television). Prior to being hired at their universities, half of the participants were employed in commercial television and half in educational videotape production.
Three data collection methods were used: semi-structured interviews, observation, and document analysis in the form of concept maps. Semi-structured interviews of approximately one hour each were conducted with each participant. The author observed five videoconference planning sessions with two participants as they interacted with instructors and presenters and participated in two audioconference calls. The author also observed and participated in a videoconference rehearsal and an actual day-long videoconference. The foci of the observations were the interaction between participants and instructors/presenters and the extent to which the participants had instructional design input in the videoconferences. The third means of data collection was the analysis of concept maps pertaining to the situated learning experiences of the participating television production specialists.
Concept maps are “spatial, hierarchically constructed representations of the relationships among essential concepts” that allow people to check assumptions regarding relationships among their ideas (Deshler, 1991, p. 337). At the conclusion of each interview, participants were asked to draw a concept map of their “mindset evolution” from producing television programs prior to their becoming involved initially in distance education to their experiences afterward.
Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). As each interview was transcribed, notes were made regarding potential categories. Each transcribed interview was read several times. Data from each interview were coded to yield descriptive and interpretive categories that were compared with data collected subsequently. This process continued throughout the course of the interview process. Member checks were performed during the final stages of data analysis. Participants were asked to critique and analyze the emerging themes, which helped refine the themes further.
A mindset change or perspective change from “television production specialist” to “distance education producer” emerged as a key conceptual process in this study. The finding shows that, over a period of time, a change of “mindset” occurred in which participants altered or realigned their criteria for judging the quality of their work as they became aware of the primacy of content over “look” (or the “form”), the needs of the audience, and the relationship between the instructor and students. Participants fell into two categories: those who previously worked at a commercial television station and those who had produced educational videotapes or programs. The “mindset evolution” or “mindset change” theme will be discussed in terms of the participants’ common and differing backgrounds and the major “mindset change” in the view of participants: balancing the importance given to the “look” (aesthetics) and to a program’s content.
As previously noted, participants came from two different professional backgrounds before producing live, interactive, video-based programs: commercial television/television news production and educational videotape production. To a large degree, a person’s professional background determined the way he or she responded to questions dealing with the similarities and differences between the production of videos in their former job responsibilities and the production of live, interactive, video-based programming at their present university jobs. Both groups stressed that “good production values are good production values” regardless of whether a person is producing a television news story, an educational videotape, or an interactive, satellite class. A former educational videotape producer described this belief in the following way:
With videoconferences, they’re not much more than a TV show. If you produce a good TV show that communicates its goals, then there’s not that much of a jump from what you were doing before to producing an educational event that successfully communicates its communication goals.
Beyond that common theme, the former educational videotape producers and the commercial television producers differed on what they perceived to be similarities between previous and current responsibilities. Former commercial television producers focused on similarities of equipment, production values, and deadline pressure. They valued television production equipment. They were also extremely concerned with high-quality production values. One former commercial television producer commented, “It doesn’t matter whether you’re dealing with a live shot from a train wreck or a classroom situation, you should strive to have good quality in everything you do.” These producers found that a live, televised class or videoconference more closely approximated the “thrill” of a live newscast or commercial television program. The same person went on to say:
There’s nothing like the pressure, the thrill of doing a live broadcast. Anything can happen. You just hope that you’ve covered all your bases. You hope for the best, but you have to be prepared for the worst.
However, members of this group balanced their enthusiasm for live programming by reporting that the “deadline pressure” of preparing a daily live broadcast was a major reason for leaving commercial television. As another former commercial television producer explained:
You don’t have the deadline pressure that you did in a daily news operation. You don’t have to consistently crank out the material every day. You have time to put things together, do a better job on it. It’s not so much “get it on the air any way you can.”
The educational videotape producers, in contrast, said that producing a live program was much more “pressure-oriented” than the atmosphere they were used to. The professionals from this background stressed that defining an audience was extremely important in the conceptualization of both videotape and video-based interactive programs. A former educational videotape producer noted that knowing and understanding a particular audience’s needs and limitations would shape the program. She provided this example:
If it’s an elderly audience, you have to be concerned with the voice level and the music level, because their hearing can’t distinguish between the audio tones very well. You have to know your audience pretty well and know what its limitations are.
For former commercial television producers, however, that was not the case. They perceived defining an audience and being cognizant of its requirements as a major difference from their previous experience. As one person reported:
In a news story, you might mention something that’s rather scientific, but it has to be very general because the audience is not that informed about what you’re trying to show them. But when you get in a distance education situation, you’re talking to an audience who is going to know things, so you have to be very specific. The audience will know if you’re showing the wrong pictures, so you need to know your audience.
The former educational videotape producers also reported that they developed educational objectives and goals for their videotape programs. They were able to transfer this practice when producing live, interactive, video-based programs. A former educational videotape producer put the group’s overall views in these terms:
The similarities are that you’re talking to an identified audience, and you should have established communications objectives, teaching points. Obviously, you should have preestablished goals and objectives for what it is you want to say and communicate, so those are the similarities of what you’re going to have in educational videos and interactive distance education events.
Former commercial television producers were more apt to point out differences in the structure of the two program types. They said differences existed in the amount of time they were accustomed to leaving graphics or shots on-screen. These producers stated that distance education programs require shots that last longer on-screen, especially when a full-screen graphic is used, so students can take notes. “That’s a big difference when you’re used to three-second shots and quick graphics,” said a former commercial television producer. Also, in broadcast television, former commercial television producers did not have to design methods to interact with their viewing audience. As another commercial television producer said: “Distance education should draw interaction, whereas video can’t. And if the distance education event doesn’t draw interaction, it should have been produced as a videotape.”
Television is a visual medium, and people who produce television programs usually are extremely cognizant of visual information and how it enhances the television production. Because of this characteristic, the participants were asked to determine whether they were more concerned with form-the “look” (aesthetics)-or content (subject matter) in the production of a distance education program when they first started their university job. They were also asked which-form or content-they now considered more important. Over time, participants developed a different criteria for judging video production quality. Their criteria changed based on their experiences with meeting the needs of audiences and instructors and participants’ examinations of the assumptions of what “quality” video programming entailed.
Former commercial television producers said that they were more concerned initially with the look of the program than with the content. Their primary consideration in their new jobs, as one former commercial television producer explained, was to make sure the program “looked perfect, technically.”
Coming from a news background or commercial television background, as a director working in the production department, my main concern when I first started directing here was the “look.” I hardly paid attention to the content. I was more concerned about making sure it looked perfect, technically.
After some time on the job, however, this producer and others found that being technically perfect was not the most important aspect of the production of a live, interactive program. For one former commercial television producer in particular, this discovery meant having to “swallow a big chunk of my professional ego” because the programs were not up to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) style documentaries he had been accustomed to producing. The content was seen as more vital.
A major reason for this cognitive shift from “look” to content can be attributed to providing necessary educational materials to meet audience needs. Many participants said that an audience with a vested interest in the content is less likely to be concerned with a program’s aesthetics. One participant agreed that his shift was a result of better understanding the characteristics of audiences who receive and utilize distance education programs.
I think that this debate reflects the learning process of the producers. When I started, my basic goal was to have the program look as much like a network broadcast as possible, the highest production value possible. Over time, I have been successfully persuaded and seen that I have to modify my thinking process. One way is that the more people want and need something, the less entertainment value and less slick it has to be. The pitfall is that you can’t use that as an excuse to do crap, and usually when people spring the “it-doesn’t-have-to-be-as-slick” routine on you, it IS an excuse to do crap.
Like the former commercial television producers, former educational videotape producers found that considering the audience’s needs was an important step in deciding if aesthetics or content is more integral to a program. These producers experienced less of a shift from an “aesthetics-to-content mentality” than the former commercial television producers. Several said because they had been involved in the production of educational videotapes, they already were concerned with what a message said (content) rather than the way in which it was said (form).
Another consideration in the “look-and-content” equation is the instructor or subject-matter specialist. One television production specialist said a certain degree of consideration for the look of a program takes place when he meets with instructors in planning sessions.
Sometimes I can sit in a meeting and ask subject-matter specialists about content and they begin to describe situations and objectives that they have, and it begins to roll in my head how this will look. I don’t think that my first concern is the “look.” I guess, automatically, I always know I’m going to strive for a good look, but I am drawn to this question: What is the content? Information, to me, is the most important thing, because it’s easy to put a look with it once you get into the content and once you get into the areas where video and short packages can be put together to accent the content.
Many times an instructor’s lack of knowledge about television pro-duction and feelings of discomfort with teaching in front of a camera shape the aesthetics of a program, as this television production specialist notes:
If I went for the “look,” I would probably make sure that every bit of written material was done on the character generator. But I like the intimacy. It doesn’t look good from a professional point of view for a teacher to write with a Magic Marker on a piece of paper. That’s where we have a shot of the instructors tearing off the page and going to another page and writing in their handwriting. That’s intimacy.
Television producers serve as guides by informing instructors what is and is not possible as far as visual images and sound are concerned in a broadcast. But there are limits to which a television producer-especially one coming from a commercial television background-will bend in accommodating material to be aired. One study participant stated: People with no television background will let anything pass, so you kind of have to filter out some of the things that shouldn’t go on air. The content does not outweigh the product. Basically, I’ll let a lot more things pass, a lot more things slide now than I used to, but I still have my limits, my standards.
Many former commercial television producers draw their line at the amount of time “talking heads” are given during a program. “Talking head” is a term used in the television industry to describe a head-and-shoulders shot of a person addressing the camera. Too much time with “talking heads,” according to both this group and the educational videotape producers, is not acceptable because “talking heads” do not maintain people’s attention. However, participants believed that their audience was more willing to listen to “talking heads” if audience members had sufficient interest in the subject matter.
Participants identified their mindset change through a process of introspection and realization of the tools, behaviours, and knowledge needed to perform in the arena of distance education. For one participant, his mindset change was a “personal shift, a philosophical shift.” I feel more like a public servant now, where before I felt like an artiste. I didn’t care if anybody understood what was going on as long as it looked and sounded good. Now, I’m more aware of instructional elements. I now say, “Let’s get these content elements in here.” I’ve told faculty that they need to include certain things that make the content clearer and to produce printed materials to go along with the video segments.
Two participants pointed to being adept at learning and using other media as an indicator of this change in perspective. The first notes: As a[n educational videotape] producer, I was focused on the TV medium, but now in distance learning, I find myself looking at things from an interdisciplinary view. I am looking at a variety of media. I’ve got to learn to teach by computer, for example, because you have to appeal to different learning styles of the students. . . . So I’ve got to get out of the mindset of thinking, “Oh well, this is something that’s going to air on broadcast or cable TV or be sent to someone in the form of a videotape.” I’ve gone beyond that now. I’ve got to know all these media as well as I possibly can and learn how to integrate them to be effective in my present position as a distance learning specialist.
The other echoes her point:
A good distance educator has to have that insatiable curiosity in today’s world to keep looking for media options and presentation options and what’s being done. Having a distance education mindset, as a practitioner with a production orientation, is a process of continual inquiry into how it can be done. You should be interested in better ways to deliver information, ways that will reach new cognitive areas.
For another, his perspective change dealt with how he “hooked” the viewer and grabbed the viewer’s attention, compared to the way he was used to doing it in commercial television. He had established beliefs pertaining to the entertainment values of television, but he had to re-examine his assumptions when he was placed in an educational setting.
I felt like I had to educate more and not just entertain constantly. My philosophy, based on my experience in commercial TV, was to “hook” the viewer with a real glitzy opening piece, to get his [or her] interest in the first couple of minutes of the program. Now, I’m more in-tune with what message I’m trying to send the audience.
For many of the television production specialists, a period of introspection occurred that led to a realization that there had been a “mindset change.” For one participant, this process of self-reflection took time.
I needed a couple of years of distance education production under my belt before I made the mindset change. I had to think about why I did the things I did. And in the process of producing programs and working with people on those programs, I found myself looking at my own habit patterns. I found myself using electronic mail to do things that I had done by surface mail or by telephone. But to me, the mindset change has been identified to me by that process of introspection and saying, “I see a change in my habit patterns.” And then I ask myself: “Why do I see achange in my habit patterns?” And I say: “You’ve broadened your range of possible habit patterns. You’ve identified things that work for you.” So I’m back to an experiential explanation. The mindset change to me probably started before I identified it, but it’s evidenced by a change in behaviour.
The principal indicator of perspective change for the television production specialist above and for the others was in the area of look and content. He goes on to say:
I guess the primary mindset change is the balance between production and content. Maybe part of the mindset becomes visible when you find yourself buying the fact that it doesn’t have to be as pretty as it used to be and saying, “That’s OK.” That’s an identifying event, the first time you accept the argument that it doesn’t have to be pretty.
Overall, both groups moved from a “look” mentality to a “content” mentality by altering their criteria for judging the quality of their work through their awareness of audience and instructor needs. The former commercial television producers had farther to move in their shift than their educational videotape production counterparts. They became conscious of this change by critically examining previous assumptions, reflecting on their own changes of behaviour, and thinking about their thinking.
The purpose of this study was to examine the mental evolution of the participants in this study from “television production specialists” to “distance education producers.” The study found there was a mindset change among television production specialists for the following reasons: they became aware of the needs of the audience; they judged content to be as important as or more important than aesthetics; and they participated closely in the relationship between the instructor and students. The television production specialists became conscious of this change through an examination of their previously held assumptions regarding video quality, reflecting on their own behavioural changes, and thinking about their thinking.
Both former commercial television and former educational videotape producers had to conceptualize the way they developed programs differently in a distance education format than they had when they produced in their previous jobs. This change in “mindset” can be seen as having to “unlearn” some of the conceptual components of their former jobs and to learn aspects of their new job responsibilities, including new tools and new media. The television production specialists essentially have evolved from a one-way distribution mode of thinking to a two-way mode, where interactivity plays a major role in how a program is conceptualized and developed. As noted earlier, this “mindset change” is most readily apparent when content is seen as important as or more important than a program’s aesthetics to the television production specialist. The specialists take co-ownership of the content, with the subject-matter specialist, to make sure the message is easily understood by the recipient of the information.
In this way, they have become ex post facto instructional designers because, usually, none are around. Based on the findings in this study, it can be stated that the “television-production-specialists-turned-distance-education-producers” use their knowledge of the television medium on which to base their instructional design techniques. They also have incorporated their familiarity with communication theory into the mix. Communication models entail a message sender, the message, and the message’s recipient. For two-way communication, though, feedback from the recipient to the sender must occur. However, for most of their professional career, these television production specialists were not involved in true two-way communication feedback. Most of their experience was with a one-way mode-broadcast news and videotapes-that provides no feedback. But when they became involved in distance education, they had to contemplate and incorporate two-way communication techniques. They had to design ways to encourage feedback through this mediated communication. This is where their experiential “instructional design” came into play.
Because they had no instructional design training, they relied on their knowledge of effective communication strategies used in television to define their “instructional design.” For example, they had to define audiences, present easily understood information, and develop ways to encourage interactivity. Instructional design, though, is more than just communicating effectively; in a distance education setting, such techniques as overcoming the distance and generating group rapport, providing opportunities for interaction, presenting the message in a way that it is understood, and getting information back to the presenter-feedback-is necessary (Monson, 1978). In many ways, then, these four elements are applicable to people who want to communicate to large or small groups. Hence, it is likely that the television production specialists drew upon their own experiences in communications to develop the instructional design strategies they needed for their live, interactive video-based productions.
This study focused on the mindset evolution of television production specialists in the production of live, interactive, video-based distance education programming. This research suggests the following implications for theory and practice. First, a training curriculum for television production specialists should be developed, based on the findings of this study, to teach television production specialists the information and skills they need to perform their jobs. By learning these skills early in their careers, television production specialists will find bridging the gap between form and content easier. On a related note, more hands-on learning needs to take place at the graduate level for people who want to teach via distance education. It has been the experience of participants in this study that students taking courses on distance education theory and delivery learn the theory of adult and distance education but are not allowed to put it into practice until they have graduated. Participants also believe it is imperative that learning take place in a situated environment. Students should be given the opportunity to participate in planning sessions with professionals and experts who participate in distance education on a daily basis and not just learn “book knowledge.”
Second, a study of subject-matter specialists should be conducted to examine if there is a similar “mindset evolution” from content to form as they become more involved in distance education program design and development. A similar study could be conducted for computer specialists who assist in the development of distance education courses disseminated by computer. Third, a longitudinal study, following one or two years of development of television production specialists, would be beneficial in building on the results of this study to give us more insight into exactly how they learn as distance education producers.
Ricky W. Telg
Assistant Professr
Agricultural Education and Communication Department
University of Florida
305 Rolfs Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-0540
U.S.A.
RTELG@GNV.IFAS.UFL.EDU
Arnall, G. (1987, June). Satellite-delivered learning. Training and Development Journal, 41(6), 90-94.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brinkley, R., Pavlechko, G., & Thompson, N. (1991). Designing and producing courseware for distance learning instruction in higher education. Tech Trends, 36(1), 50-54.
Bruce, C., Katz, E., & Tomsic, J. (1991, March). Industry training and education at a distance: The IBM approach. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 514, 119-132.
Deshler, D. (1991). Conceptual mapping: Drawing charts of the mind. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning (pp. 336-353). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design of instruction (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.
Galagan, P. (1989, January). IBM gets its arms around education. Training & Development Journal, 43(1), 35-41.
Garrison, D. (1989). Understanding distance education: A framework for the future. New York: Routledge.
Garrison, D. R. (1990). Communications technology. In D. R. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice (pp. 41-52). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Gayeski, D. (1983). Corporate and instructional video: Design and production. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hart, I. (1984). Video and the control of knowledge. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), Video in higher education (pp. 84-92). London: Kogan Page.
Hausman, C. (1991). Institutional videos: Planning, budgeting, production, and evaluation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hezel, R. T., & Szulc, P. M. (1993). The politics and issues in telecommunications. In B. Hakes, S. Sachs, C. Box, & J. Cochenour (Eds.), Compressed video: Operations and applications (pp. 231-239). New York: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Jefferson, F., & Moore, O. (1990, September). Distance education: A review of progress and progress. Educational Technology, 30, 7-12.
Kelly, M. (1990). Course creation issues in distance education. In D. R. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance (pp. 77-100). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Monson, M. (1978). Bridging the distance: An instructional guide to teleconferencing. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin System.
Portway, P. (1993, February). How corporate America trains by telecommunications. Communications News, 30(2), 23-24.
Powell, A. (1994, July). Headquarters staff teleconference survey: Preliminary report. The Extension Edge: An LREP Update for TAEX Agents and Specialists, 1(4), 1-2.
Price, R. V. (1994, April 27-29). Price/Repman model for instructional design for college level courses using interactive television (pp. 191-198). Paper presented at the meeting of the Distance Learning Research Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Smith, D. (1991). Video communication: Structuring content for maximum program effectiveness. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Telg, R. (1995). Tales from the mud: The situated learning experience of television production specialists in distance education. Unpublished dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Thach, E. (1994). Perceptions of distance education experts regarding the roles, outputs, and competencies needed in the field of distance education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Thach, L. (1993). Exploring the role of the deliverer in distance education. International Journal of Instructional Media, 20(4), 289-307.
Walsh, W., Gibson, E., Hsieh, P., & Gettman, P. (1994, January 21). Instructional design issues in distance learning (F33615-91-D- 00651). San Antonio, TX: Mei Technology.
Winn, B. (1990). Media and instructional methods. In D.R. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance (pp. 53-66). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Zvacek, S. M. (1991). Effective affective design for distance education. Tech Trends, 36(1), 40-43.
Ricky W. Telg is an assistant professor in the Agricultural Education and Communication Department at the University of Florida.