(1 (1 e I P4 N T R RR IIMR

ED 030 306 E.M 007 216

By-Greenhill, L. P. And OthersThe Educational Ef fectiveness, Acceptability, and Feasibility of the Eidophor Large -Screen Television

Projector.Pennsylvania State Univ , University Park. Div. of Academic Research and Services.

Pub Date Jan 62Note -27p.EDRS Price ME -$025 HC -$1.45Descriptors-Broadcast Reception Equipment, Closed Circuit Television, Educational Equipment, Educational

Television, *Equipment Evaluation, Equipment Utilization, Instructional Technology, *Instructional Television,

Learning, Media Technology, Merchandise Information, *Projection Equipment, Teaching Methods, Television,

*Television ResearchIdentifiers -Eidophor Inc.

Eidophor. a new control layer television projector that projects a television

image on a large screen, in color as well as in black and white, was field tested at

The Pennsylvania State University. Objectives of the investigation were to assess and

compare the effects on learning of instruction presented by 'Eidophor on a large

screen and in a large auditorium with simultaneous presentations of the sameinstruction on regular 24" television receivers in regular television classrooms to test

the acceptability of Eidophor among students and teachers; to explore other possible

uses of Eidophor in a large university; and to collect data on Eidophor's

dependability. maintenance, personnel requirements, installation and operatingproblems and costs. Results indicated the following: students learned as well in one

situation as in the other. Eidophor will increase the usefulness of large auditoriums,for certain kinds of instruction and for many extracurricular activities, student

accpetance is very high in a ratio of a two to one pr eference, little maintenance is

required. and reliability is of a very high order. (GO)

RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY

THE DIVISION OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH

AND SERVICES

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS,

ACCEPTABILITY, AND FEASIBILITY OF

THE EIDOPHOR LARGE-SCREEN

TELEVISION PROJECTOR

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE Of EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS,

ACCEPTABILITY, AND FEASIBILITY OF

THE EIDOPHOR LARGE-SCREEN

TELEVISION PROJECTOR

RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY

THE DIVISION OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH

AND SERVICES

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY PARK, PA.

Report prepared byL. P. Greenhill

0. S. RichC. R. Carpenter

January 1962

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

Page

V

1. Introduction 1

2. Studies of Comparative Instructional Effectiveness 5

3. Studies of Student Acceptance 9

4. Studies of Noninstructional Applications of Eidophor Television 15

5. Other Instructional Applications 17

6. Studies of Feasibility 19

7. Visitors 23

8. Conclusions 25

Appendix 26

III

FOREWORD

There is a great need in education for new andadvanced instrumentation and facilities for teachingand improving learning conditions. The constantlyincreasing demands on educational institutions canbe met in part by new and advanced developmentsin the technology of communications.

Industry is developing new products which havedirect applications in instructional and learning situ-ations. Industry is also becoming interested in serv-ing the needs of educational institutions and helpingto solve their problems by producing facilities andequipment which are designed especially for instruc-tional purposes.

Given these two developments, a third becomesboth desirable and reasonable: the cooperation ofeducational institutions and industry in designing,producing, and especially in testing the effectiveness,appropriateness, acceptability, and feasibility of neweducational technology and instrumentation. Thework which is being reported here is an example ofthe testing of a new piece of equipment, Eidophor, alarge-screen television projector, in the realistic con-text or "proving ground" of a large university.

It is conventional, in engineering procedures forthe designing and building of new equipment, toestablish technical standards and to continue researchand development until these standards have beenreached or exceeded. It is less common to include,especially in the specific area of educational instru-mentation, the necessary step of establishing func-tional or operational standards (in terms of the re-

V

quirements of teaching and learning) and to testequipment in relation to these standards.

Most often educational institutions must take theinitiative and attempt to convince industry of thedesirability of cooperative functional testing of equip-

ment and facilities. Apparently industry often be-lieves that when the technical engineering standardshave been achieved the products are ready for pro-duction, sale, and distribution.

The relations between The Pennsylvania StateUniversity and Eidophor, Inc., a subsidiary of CIBA,in 1959-1960 were rather unusual on several scores.The management of Eidophor, realizing the need toput the television projector through realistic fieldtests in education, proposed a cooperative project tothe University. The testing and evaluation projectwas planned and approved by both parties to theagreement. Aware of the economic conditions whichaffect the operations of most universities, Eidophor,Inc., provided the equipment for testing in an edu-cational context and fully supported the project dur-ing one year of the "proving ground" operation. Thearrangements could be viewed as a model for othereducational-industrial cooperative research on newfacilities or equipment.

It is important to report, furthermore, that theUniversity was given complete freedom to test andstudy the equipment. Eidophor, Inc., provided limitedtraining and maintenance support. There was nointervention, however, in the specific definition ofproblems, design of assessment procedures, or thecollection and treatment of data. It was understoodthat the equipment must prove itself in terms of its

performance merits. The principal evaluations wereto be in terms of hard evidence critically evaluated.

This report presents the evidence from the firstyear of testing. It is anticipated that a second yearof field testing and realistic operation will yield ad-ditional evidence, especially on questions of practi-cability, feasibility, and cost analysis.

Since this project was initiated the distributionof Eidophor projectors in the United States has beentransferred to Theatre Network Television, Inc., of575 Madison Avenue, New York, New York. Thiscompany and CIBA have joined together to makepossible the second year's study of Eidophor.

A number of improvements have been made inthe projector, especially in light output, since the

VI

introduction of the model tested at Penn State. Fur-thermore, during the past year or so there have beenextensive applications of Eidophor to commercialand military uses.

Finally, acknowledgment should be made of thecooperation of Drs. T. H. Cheng, R. M. Colwell, andA. H. Reede of The Pennsylvania State University,who made their classes available for the experimentsdescribed in this report. Without their assistance itwould have been impossible to carry out these studies.

C. R. CarpenterDirectorDivision of Academic Research

and ServicesJanuary, 1962

1. INTRODUCTION

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF EIDOPHOR

Eidophor is a new control layer television pro-jector which projects a television image on a large

screen. It is available in models which project color

or black and white images. This study is concerned

with the black and white model.Eidophor produces a large picture which is

bright and sharp. Under conditions of total roomdarkness the black and white model will produce apicture as large as 24 by 32 feet. In the study re-

ported here an image of approximately 11 by 14 feet

was used, which permitted enough general illumina-

tion in the auditorium for the students to take notes.The projector was installed in Schwab Auditorium,

which has a seating capacity of 1,200. Details of the

installation are given in Section 6.The basic elements of the control layer process

are as follows: electrical impulses from the television

cameras control an electron beam which bombardsand thus modifies the surface of a film of oil on aconcave mirror. Light passing 4-hrough the resulting"wrinkles" in the oil film is projected through a spe-cial grating onto the screen. This modulated lightbeam r roduces the image on the screen.

This control layer system differs fundamentallyfrom the Schmidt system employed by most othertelevision projection systems. Whereas the Schmidtsystem projects an image from a high intensity tele-

vision tube through a large-aperture optical system,the Eidophor system uses an electro-optical control

of a light beam from an outside light source to pro-duce the picture. The light output is thus limited

mainly by the power of the light source, which inthe case of the projector used in the study was an1,800-watt xenon arc.

The control layer system of television projectionwas invented in 1939 by Fritz Fischer, a professorof applied physics at the Swiss Federal Institute ofTechnology in Zurich, Switzerland. After World WarII the system was further developed, and manufac-ture of the projector was undertaken by the firm ofGretener A. G. of Zurich, which had been formedwith the backing of CIBA, the Swiss pharmaceuticalcompany.1

BACKGROUND OF 'THE PROJECT

The United States affiliate of CIBA, CIBA StatesLimited, inquired whether the Division of AcademicResearch and Services at Penn State would be inter-ested in investigating the educational applications ofEidophor to a large university. Because of the re-r-,arch the University had conducted on the use ofc, sed-circuit television for classroom instruction,Penn State was very interested in exploring the pos-sibilities of Eidophor in a realistic field testing con-text and the effects of image size on learning. Ac-

cordingly an agreement was reached whereby Eido-phor, Inc., ( a subsidiary of CIBA) would loan theUniversity an Eidophor projector and would providea grant to cover installation, operation, and researchfor one year, with the possibility of further continu-ation.

In addition to providing an opportunity for re-search on large-screen television projection, it wasfelt that a permanent installation would provide edu-

1. The above information was abstracted from a bulletin entitled Eido-phorA Control Layer Television Projector, published by CIBA, 260Madison Avenue, New York, N. Y. Further information is availablefrom Theatre Network Television, Inc., 575 Madison Avenue, NewYork, N. Y.

1

cators with an opportunity to observe Eidophor inuse under realistic conditions and would test the re-liability of the projector when in daily use. Theseexpectations were realized and a great many visitorsfrom all over the United States, in addition to severalthousand people from Penn State, saw Eidophor inaction.

Figure 1 An exterior view of Eidophor showing the controlpanel.

GENERAL PROBLEMS TO BE STUDIED

The general problems to be studied were the

following:a. To determine the relative effects on learning

of instruction presented by Eidophor on alarge screen and in a large auditorium ascompared with simultaneous presentations of

the same instruction by means of regular 24-inch television receivers in regular televisionclassrooms. A variety of courses were studied.

b. To assess the acceptability to students andfaculty of Eidophor as a medium of televisedinstruction.

c. To explore other possible uses of Eiduphor in

a large university.cl. To collect data on such questions as depend-

ability, main'zenance, personnel requirements,and installation and operating problems andcosts.

SPECIFIC PROBLEMS INVESTIGATED DURINGTHE FIRST YEAR

During the first year studies were conducted un-der the following headings:

a. Studies of Comparative Instructional Effec-tiveness

Fall 1960 semesterZoology- 25Spring 1961 semesterAccounting 1

The two courses listed above were chosen be-cause they appeared to make extensive, butdifferent, demands on visual acuity. If large-screen television had advanfages they shouldshow up in these courses.

b. Studies of Student AcceptanceFall 1960 semesterEconomics 14Spring 1961 semesterZoology 25

The principal measure of this acceptance wasa choice of viewing location offered to stu-dents in the above televised courses after theyhad seen both large-screen presentations onEidophor and small-screen presentations onregular 24-inch television receivers. Additionaldata were secured by the use of question-naires.

c. Studies of Noninstructional UsesAn effort was made to determine what non-instructional uses might be made of Eidophorin a large university. Accordingly the systemwas used for bringing television programs ofnational importance to students and faculty( e.g., the Kennedy-Nixon debates ) and foraccommodating overflow audiences from spe-cial local events such as wrestling and gym-nastics meets, which were telecast by the Uni-versity's closed-circuit equipment and shownon Eidophor. Reactions to these uses wereobtained by means of questionnaires.

d. Other Instructional ApplicationsSeveral other instructional uses of Eidophorwere tried, but not under experimentally con-trolled conditions. These included the accom-modation of large numbers of students inSociology 1 and the televising of demons3ra-tions for the general education courses in thearts and biology.

e. Studies of FeasibilityIn order to obtain data on feasibility, records

were kept of installation, maintenance, andoperational problems. Measurements weremade of light output in comparison with thatfrom a 16-millimeter projector of the typegenerally used in the auditorium. Informa-

tion concerning operating personnel was alsoobtained.

Studies "a" through "e" will be discussed in dtail in the following sections of this report.

2. STUDIES OF COMPARATIVEINSTRUCTIONAL. EFFECTIVENESS

The first group of studies sought to measure the

relative effectiveness of instruction presented simul-taneously to students in a large auditorium (1,200

seats) by means of Eidophor and to students in regu-lar television classrooms equipped with 24-inch tele-

vision receivers.In these studies the measure of learning was stu-

dent performance on several examinations given dur-

ing the semester and on a final examination in each

course. The tests used were analyzed for reliability.

In order to reduce systematic biases in the com-

parison groups, students were randomly assigned to

the different viewing locations. Ideally in such astudy the viewing conditions would be identical ex-cept for screen size and method of projection. This

would normally involve using both television presen-tation systems in the same large room. However,

such a situation was not possible nor in some ways

was it desirable. These studies therefore sought an-

swers to the practical question, "How well do students

learn from televised instruction presented by theEidophor projector in Schwab Auditorium in com-parison with students who receive identical instruc-

tion at the same time in regular television classroomsusing 24-inch receivers?"

Every effort was made to keep sound levels ade-

quate for the different conditions. Sufficient illumi-

nation was available in all rooms to permit students

to take notes, and all rooms were reasonably well

ventilated.

However, there were certain differences between

the classes.a. In the auditorium students were in a large

group in a large space, whereas in the regulartelevision rooms they were in smaller groupsand in smaller areas.

b. In the auditorium the seats did not have

tablet arms and students had to use portablelapboards for supporting their notebooks,whereas the other classrooms had tablet armson the seats. Also the seats in the auditorium

were upholstered, and those in the regularclassrooms were standard wooden classroomseats.

c. The major difference between the two view-ing conditions, however, was the experimentalvariable; that is, the methods of displayingthe TV image and the relative image size. Inthe auditorium (where the Eidophor projectorwas used) an image 14 by 11 feet was pro-jected on a motion picture screen. No stu-dent was located farther from the screen thansix screen widths. In the regular televisionrooms 24-inch receivers were used, and thesewere arranged so that no gtudent was locatedfurther from the set than 12 times the' widthof the screen. Thus, the students in file audi-torium had a arger image and most wererelatively closer to it than were those in thesmall classrooms.

Courses in zoology and accounting were chosen

for the two separate studies of comparative effective-ness because these courses make extensive use of

visual presentations. Also both instructors had con-siderable experience in teaching these courses overtelevision and were aware of the possibilities andlimitations of the medium. The instruction in bothcourses originated from studios employing Dage 320vidicon television cameras. The signals were distrib-uted to the receiving points over coaxial cables.

Figure 2 A size comparison between an actual model, animage on a 24-inch television receiver, and a projected imagefrom Eidophor. The human subject provides a size scale.

There are many demonstrations in Zoology 25involving small specimens, microscopy, models, filmclips, slides, diagrams, and blackboard work. Ac-counting 1 involves the presentation of many figuresin handwritten ( on the blackboard), typewritten, andprinted form. Both instructors provide their studentswith supplementary workbooks which require note-taking and other forms of concurrent activity duringthe television presentations. Both courses also sup-plement the televised lecture-demonstrations ( twohours a week ) with laboratory sessions.

6

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS

In general, similar experimental designs wereused for the two studies of effects on learning. Atthe beginning of the semester the students wererandomly assigned (by means of a table of randomnumbers) to the large auditorium (Eidophor) or tothe smaller viewing rooms (24-inch receivers). Inorder to obtain precise tests of the significance ofdifferences in the performance of the several groups,analysis of covariance was to be used, and aptitudetest scores ( Moore Castore), obtained from the Uni-versity Registrar's Office, were to be used as the ad-justing variable. The criterion of the .05 level ofsignificance was used in evaluating all differencesbetween groups.

ZOOLOGY EXPERIMENT

The experiment in Zoology 25 was conducted inthe fall of 1960. The population of 506 studentsregistered for the course was randomly divided intothree groups. Group A, with a total of 213 students,was assigned to several 30-seat-capacity classroomsequipped with 24-inch receivers. Group B, comprisedof 88 students, was assigned to a large 400-seat class-room equipped with six 24-inch receivers. Group C,with 205 students, was assigned to Schwab Audi-torium (1,200 seats) equipped with Eidophor.

Each week during the 16-week semester two tele-vised lecture-demonstrations were presented simul-taneously to all the groups. Each group receivedthree examinations during the semester and a finalat the end of the course. Analysis of several sampletests developed by the zoology instructor indicated ahigh level of reliability. A coefficient of approxi-mately .86 (using the Spearman-Brown split-halfmethod for estimating reliability) was obtained onthe final examination.

RESULTe

Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 show the results of ananalysis of covariance of the test scores for the threecomparison groups on each of the four examinations.In each analysis the Moore-Castore Aptitude Testscore was used for' the adjusting variable. The ad-justed mean scores of the comparison groups are alsogiven in each table.

TABLE 1

Summary of Results of First Examination in Zoology 25

Source SS df V F P

Treatments 122.47 2 61.24 .57 >.05Error 53,913.28 502 107.40Total 54,035.75 504

Treatment N Adjusted MeansLarge screen (Eidopbor) 205 76.49Large classroom

(24-inch receivers) 88 76.00Combined small classrooms

(24-inch receivers) 213 75.41Correlation of adjusting variable (Moore-Castore AptitudeTest) and test scores = .432

TABLE 2

Summary of Results of Second Examination in Zoology 25

SourceTreatmentsErrorTotal

Treatment

SS df V168.37 2 84.18 .56 >.05

75,485.20 502 150.3775,653.57 504

N Adjusted MeansLarge screen (Eidopbor) 205 74.46Large classroom

(24-inch receivers) 88 75.47Combined small classrooms

(24-inch receivers) 213 75.69Correlation of adjusting variable (Moore-Castore AptitudeTest) and test scores = .330

TABLE 3

Summary of Results of Third Examination in Zoology 25

Source SS dfTreatments 12.69 2Error 63,143.75 490Total 63,156.44 492

Treatment N Adjusted MeansLarge screen (Eidophor) 202 74.07Large classroom

(24-inch receivers) 86 74.48Combined small classrooms

(24-inch receivers) 206 74.40

V6.34 .049 >.05

128.86

TABLE 4

Summary of Results of Final Examination in Zoology 25

Source SS dfTreatments 68.89 2Error 46,166.64 490Total 46,235.53 492

TreatmentLarge screen (Eidophor)Large classroom

(24-inch receivers) 86 76.23Combined small classrooms

(24-inch receivers) 206 76.31Test reliability by split-half method = .856

V34.44 .37 >.0594.22

Adjusted Means202 75.53

As can be seen from the tables, the differencesin mean scores were extremely small and in no caseeven approached significance at the .05 level. Itmust be concluded, therefore, that there were no sig-nificant differences in the performances of the groupstaught under the three different sets of conditions.The study, therefore, shows that large groups of stu-dents can be taught in a large auditorium by use of

the Eidophor projector under the conditions statedwithout measurable loss of learning. Furthermore,the availability of such a projection system makes itfeasible to use a large auditorium for formal instruc-tion, something which is otherwise difficult to ac-complish.

ACCOUNTING EXPERIMENT

The experiment in Accounting 1 was conductedin the spring of 1961. It was thought that the exten-sive use made of figures in this course would makepossible an even more rigorous testing of the possi-ble benefits of large-screen television projection witha maximum viewing distance limited to six timesthe width of the screen. However, it should be re-membered that the course bad been designed forpresentation over standard 24-inch television receiversand that all visuals had been designed for legibility(sometimes with difficulty) when viewed from adistance of 12 times the screen width.

From the total population of 223 students regis-tered in this course, 55 were drawn at random andassigned to Schwab Auditorium for the two televisedlectures per week. The remaining 168 students wereassigned to 30-seat classrooms equipped with 24-inchtelevision receivers in Boucke Building. The instruc-tion was presented over closed-circuit by means ofDage 320 vidicon television cameras from a televi-sion studio located in Boucke Building.

In this course, during the 16-week Spring Se-mester 1961, there were three one-hour examinations,one unannounced test, and a final examination.Analysis of a previous test in the course showed ahigh level of reliability. Several of the tests used inthe experimental study were also analyzed for re-liability and showed very adequate coefficients rang-ing from .75 to .86 using the Spearman-Brown split-half method. The Moore-Castore general scholasticability scores were again used as the adjusting varia-ble in an analysis of covariance, but this time theybad only a slight effect because of low correlationswith the performance tests used.

RESULTS

Tables 5 through 9 show the results of an analy-sis of covariance on each of the five examinations.As can be seen from the tables, none of the differ-ences in mean scores on the various tests reachedthe .05 level of significance. It is concluded, there-fore, that there were no significant differences in theperformance of groups taught in regular televisionclassrooms and those taught in the auditorium.

7

TABLE 5

Summary of Results of First Examination in Accounting 1

Source SS df VTreatments 86.12 1 86.12 .86 >.05Error 22,119.98 220 100.54Total 22,206.10 221

Treatment N Adjusted MeansLarge screen (Eidophor) 55 71.96Regular 24-inch receivers 166 70.26Correlation of adjusting variable (Moore-Castore AptitudeTest) and test scores = .115Test reliability = .75

Summary

SourceTreatments

TABLE 6

of Results of Second Examination in Accounting 1

SS df V64.41 1 64.41 .12 >.05

Error 114,959.28 206 558.05Total 115,023.69 207

TreatmentLarge screen (Eidophor)Regular 24-inch receivers

TABLE 7

Summary of Results of Third

Source SSTreatments 571.79Error 55,871.88Total 56,443.67

TreatmentLarge screen (Eidophor)Regular 24-inch receivers

Adjusted Means52 55.32

157 54.05

Examination in Accounting 1

df V1 571.79 2.02 >.05

197 283.61198

TABLE 8

Summary of Results of Fourth (final)

Source SS dfTreatments 101.85 1

Error 47,062.53 200Total 47,164.38 201

TreatmentLarge screen (Eidophor)Regular 24-inch receiversTest reliability = .856

50150

Adjusted Means67.5663.70

Examination inV

101.85235.31

Accounting 1

.43 >.05

Adjusted Means53 67.58

150 65.97

TABLE 9

Summary of Results of an Unannounced

Source SSTreatments 53.79Error 39,512.71Total 39,566.50

TreatmentLarge screen (Eidophor)Regular 24-inch receivers

df1

203204

1

Examination in Accounting 1V

53.79 .276 >.05194.64

4957

Adjusted Means73.9372.72

As an additional check, the individual student'sscores for each of the five examinations were totaled.An analysis of covariance using the Moore-CastoreAptitude Test as the adjusting variable was appliedto the total examination scores. Table 10 shows theresults of this treatment of data. Again there is nosignificant difference at the .05 level.

8

Summary

TABLE 10

of Results of Total Test Scores for Accounting 1SourceTreatmentsErrorTotal

SS2,219.99

408,176.04410,396.03

df1

180181

V2,219.992,267.64

.98 >.05

TreatmentLarge screen (Eidophor) 46Regular 244nch receivers 137

s 1011V

At CCIPt At Retail$ 14,840 $ 680

93,870 144,1502,230C72- 0 1,014)

72;2'&0

$110,220 iTeisofib

Adjusted Means329.96322.00

Figure 3 A scene taken during the presentation of an account-ing course over Eidonhor. The material on the screen is froma typewritten original.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

In summary, it can be said that there were nomeasurable differences in the learning of students (ineither the zoology or accounting courses) instructedin a small classroom using 24-inch television re-ceivers and taught in a large auditorium using Eido-phor. However, the availability of Eidophor hasmade it possible to use a large auditorium practicallyand effectively for regular televised instruction. It istrue that this could possibly be done by means ofmany small receivers, but the auditorium is used formany different purposes and the positioning andstorage of small TV sets is generally considered tobe impractical.

3. STUDIES OF STUDENT ACCEPTANCE

It has become a fairly regular procedure to at-tempt to assess student reactions to new instructionalmethods. In particular, there have been numerousstudies of student acceptance of televised instruction.In the study of the use of Eidophor it was considereddesirable to measure student reactions to televisedinstruction in a large auditorium using Eidophor, andcompare this with their reactions to televised instruc-tion presented in regular classrooms over 24-inchtelevision receivers.

It was decided to use a technique, developedearlier at The Pennsylvania State University,2 whichinvolved offering students a choice between two situ-ations after they had been exposed to each. Thestudents remain in the locations of their choice for asubstantial period. Thus, their decisions are of someimportance to them. The students are subsequentlyasked to fill out a questionnaire in order to ascertainsome of the reasons why they made a particularchoice.

Two such free choice behavioral tests were usedin the Eidophor studies. One was conducted in Eco-nomics 14 during the fall of 1960. The other wasconducted in Zoology 25 during the spring of 1961.Each of these studies will be described in some detail.

PREFERENCE STUDY IN ECONOMICS 14

Economics 14 is an introductory course on theprinciples of economics. It was taught by a pro-

2. Carpenter, C. R., Greenhill, L. P., et al. The Use of Closed-CircuitTelevision for Teaching University Courses, Report No. 2. The Penn-sylvania State University, University Park, Pa. (Spring 1958), pp.74-82.

fessor with considerable experience in teaching overtelevision.

The group of approximately 170 students en-rolled in this course was split randomly into twoequal groups. Subsequent dropouts reduced onegroup to 85 and the other to 81. During the first sixweeks of the semester, Group A was assigned to theauditorium equipped with the Eidophor large-screentelevision projection system, and Group B was di-

vided into subgroups and assigned to three 30- to 40-

seat instructional television classrooms equipped with24-inch receivers. At the end of the first six weeksGroups A and B exchanged locations. By the end of1.2 weeks both groups had received equal exposureto Economics 14 as taught with the use of 24-inchtelevision sets and as taught with the use of Eidophor.

Immediately preceding the conclusion of thesecond six-week period all students in Groups A andB received the following written notice:

"This is an important announcement for all stu-dents on the University Park Campus who are takingEconomics 14 by television on Monday, Wednesday,and Friday mornings at 9:00.

"All of you have now had the opportunity oftaking Economics 14 in the television rooms inSparks Building for part of this semester and inSchwab Auditorium for another part of the semester.

"On Friday next, Dec. 2 at 9:00 A.M., you willbe given th3 opportunity of choosing between attend-ing the course in Schwab Auditorium or in SparksBuilding. In other words, you may come, on Fridayat 9:00 A.M., to Schwab Auditorium or to rooms 1,2, 9, 12, or 18 Sparks, whichever you prefer.

9

"In order that you may satisfy yourself that youhave made the most satisfactory personal decision,this free choice between Schwab and Sparks will beoffered again on Monday next, Dec. 5tb.

"Please note that the location you choose onMonday, Dec. 5, will be final and you will be re-quired to attend Economics 14 classes fdr the rest ofthe semester in the location in which you appear onMonday."Details of the free choice were also explained by theinstructor during regular lecture periods.

There were 166 students in the combined groupsof which 106 (63.8 per cent) chose the auditoriumequipped with the Eidophor large-screen televisionprojection system, and 60 (36.2 per cent) chose theregular instructional television classrooms. Table 11shows the student movement as a result of the freechoice.

TABLE 11

Results of Free Choice Between Conventional Television Classroomsand Auditorium Equipped with Eidophor Large-Screen Television

Economics 14Location Preference ( free choice)

Number choosinglocation

PercentageAmount of Student

RegularTelevision

Auditorium Classrooms

TABLE 12

Responses of Students Choosing AuditoriumIndicating Reasons for Location Preference

Economics 14

Schwab AuditoriumTotal number of studentsTotal number respondingA response of 81 per cent

Responses

10686

Number PercentageSeats are softer (more comfortable) 46 54Convenience of location 34 40Easier to see (and/or watch) 34 40Large screen 18 21Size facilitates concentration 12 14Better sound 9 10Better picture (easier to follow

audio-visuals) 7 8No congestion 5 6Because of Eidophor 3 4Better lighting 3 4Regular television screen too small

to hold attention 2 3Lighting could be better 2 3Less confusion in learning 2 3Position of screen 1 2Atmosphere stimulates interest 1 2Less noise 1 2

TABLE 13

Responses of Students Choosing Conventional Television ClassroomsTotal Indicating Reasons for Location Preference

Economks 14106 60 166

63.8 36.2 100Movement (free choice)

Group size prior

AuditoriumNumber Percentage

RegularTelevisionClassrooms

Number Percentage

to free choice 85 100 81 100Students not

moving 69 81 44 54Students moving 16 19 37 46Total in each location

after free choice 106 60

A few days after the free choice, students weregiven a questionnaire inviting them to indicate thereasons for their choice of location. Eighty-six (or 81per cent) of the 106 students attending class in theauditorium and 59 (or 98 per cent) of the 60 stu-dents attending class in the television classroomscompleted and returned the questionnaire. Tables 12and 13 show the results of the questionnaire responses.

10

Sparks BuildingTotal number of students 60Total number responding 59A response of 98 per cent

ResponsesNumber Percentage

Schwab conducive to sleep 21 36Easier to take notes on desk

than on lapboards 21 36Lighting better (poor in Schwab) 11 19Location more convenient 10 17Sparks more conducive to

classroom work 8 14Smaller classroom quieter

(less distraction) 5 8More receptive to material

(because of smaller classroom) 4 7People near, to question about a

missed point, etc. 2 3Cold (in Schwab) 2 3Warm (in Schwab) 2 3Seats too small in Schwab (leg room) 2 3Closer to television screen in

small rooms 1 2I was here before 1 2More room 1 2More comfortable 1 2Television clearer and brighter 1 2Prefer Eidophor, but ...

(reason given above) 3

An attempt was made to group the above re-sponses into several major categories. Tables 14 and15 give the results of this classification.

TABLE 14

Grouped Responses of Students Choosing Auditorium

Indicating Reasons for Location Preference

Economics 14

Better physical facilities in

Responses Percentageof Totals

auditorium 46 27.1

More convenient location 34 20.0

Like large viewing screen(Eidophor) 72 42.3

Better sound 9 5.3

Other reasons 9 5.3

Total 170 100.0

TABLE 15

Grouped Responses of Students Choosing Regular

TV Classrooms Indicating Reasons for Location Preference

Economics 14

Better physical facilities in

Responses Percentageof Totals

small classrooms 67 72,0

More convenient location 10 10.8

Like 24-incb viewing screens 2 2.2

Better room light 11 11.8

Other reasons 3 3.2

Total 93 100.0

It is clear from this study that the students inEconomics 14 preferred large-screen television in theauditorium almost two to one over regular classrooms

with 24-inch receivers. Those choosing the auditoriumdid so principally because of the large screen, morecomfortable seats, and more convenient location (forthem). Those choosing the regular television class-

rooms did so because they preferred smaller roomsequipped with tablet-arm seats, the room light wasbetter, and the location was more convenient forthem. Actually the two locations were separated byonly 150 yards.

PREFERENCE STUDY IN ZOOLOGY 25

A second behavioral choice study was conductedin Zoology 25 during the spring of 1961 (the learn-

ing experiment in zoology had been conducted dur-

ing the previous semester). The study followed the

same pattern as for Economics 14, with some minor

differences.From the total group of over 500 students en-

rolled in Zoology 25 for the spring of 1961, a sub-group of 180 was identified and divided randomlyinto two equal groups. Group A was assigned to theSchwab Auditorium (1,200 seats ) equipped with the

Figure 4 A professor of sociology emphasizes a point duringa presentation over Eidophor.

Eidophor large-screen television projector. Group Bwas assigned to a large 400-seat classroom equippedwith six 24-inch television receivers. After six weeksof instruction Groups A and B reversed locations fora second six weeks' period.

At this point a slightly different procedure wasused. Instead of giving the students two periods forfree choice of location on successive days, as wasdone in the Economics 14 course, the students wereasked to write on a sheet of paper which locationthey would prefer for the remaining four weeks ofthe semester. In this way it was hoped to reducethe effects of inertia or habit patterns on the actualchoice and to avoid the "compliance bias" oftenfound to characterize the reactions of students.

Of the population of 173 in this study (there werea few dropouts) 133 (77 per cent) chose the audi-torium with Eidophor, and 40 (23 per cent) preferredthe large classroom with the six regular 24-incb re-ceivers. On the basis of these expressed choices, stu-dents were assigned to their selected locations.

In this study a slightly different questionnairewas used to ascertain reasons for the students' choicesand to get some information concerning the relativeimportance of several factors affecting their choices.Also, instead of making the questionnaire open-ended,a list of possible factors influencing the choice wasgiven.

The students were also asked to rate each factoras having influenced their choice "very much," "tosome degree," "not very much," or "not at all." Theseresponses were then weighted on a 4, 3, 2, 1 scale.The total of the weighted responses for each factorwas divided by 692 (the number of respondents, 173,multiplied by the highest weight, 4) and expressedas a percentage to give an "influence index."

Table 16 is a summary of the different factorswhich affected the students' choices of location. Forexample, 46 students considered the Sparks Buildingclassroom a more convenient location, whereas 127considered Schwab Auditorium more convenient.Twelve considered the 24-inch receivers in Sparkseasier to watch, whereas 158 considered the larges 2reen easier to watch.

TABLE 16

Responses of Students Indicating Factors InfluencingTheir Choice of Viewing Location

Zoology 25Number of students responding-173

SparksClassroom

SchwabAuditorium

More convenient location 46 127Seats more desirable 57 115Lighting better 121 37Blackboard and printed materials

easier to see 12 158Fewer distractions 35 123Sound better 23 133Television screen easier to watch 12 158Models and demonstrations were

easier to see 14 152Holds attention better 33 128Television screen size is more desirable 2 165

Table 17 shows the relative importance (estab-lished by weighting the responses described above)of the various factors affecting students' choices ofviewing conditions. Ease of watching the screen andvisibility of presentations were the most importantfactors. Type of seating and location of the buildingwere of lesser importance. Room lighting ( Sparkshad much more general room light than was presentin Schwab during television presentations) seemedto have a relatively low influence on the choice oflocation.

1 2

TABLE 17

Relative Importance of Factors Influencing Choice ofLocation in Terms of Degree of Influence

Zoology 25Factors

Television screen easier to watchTelevision screen size more desirableBlackboard, pictures, printed materials

easier to seeModels and demonstrations easier to seeSeats more desirableHolds attention betterMore convenient locationBetter soundFewer distractionsBetter room lighting

Influence Index83.581.1

80.178.277.370.865.060.058.431.6

REACTIONS OF STUDENTS IN ACCOUNTING 1 TOA FULL SEMESTER OF INSTRUCTION TELEVISEDOVER EIDOPHOR

To record the general impression of studentswho had received a full semester of study over Eido-phor, a questionnaire was completed by those stu-dents who had taken Accounting 1 via Eidophorduring the Spring Semester 1961. The questionnaireshowed that 89 per cent of the students thought thepicture quality of Eidophor to be as good as or bet-ter than that of regular 24-inch television receivers.

In response to the question, "Would you care toattend other large-screen television lecture courses?",44.4 per cent reported "very much," 40.8 per cent re-ported "to some degree," 7.4 per cent reported "notvery much," 7.4 per cent reported "not at all."

There were 77.4 per cent of the students who re-ported that they were able to see the blackboard,pictures, and printed materials "very well," and 22.6per cent said they could see "fairly well." No stu-dents indicated they could see "not very well."

There were 44.4 per cent of the students whoreported that they were able to concentrate on theEidophor screen "very well," and 46.3 per cent whofelt they were able to concentrate "fairly well."There were 9.3 per cent of the students who feltthey could "not concentrate well" on the Eidophorpresentation.

From the total responses we may conclude thatthe general reaction of the Accounting 1 students toEidophor as a method of presenting instruction wasfavorable.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHOICE OF LOCATIONAND STUDENT PERFORMANCE

After the room selections had been made in thezoology course it was decided to see whether choiceof location was related to student performance. Inother words did the better performers tend to choose

one location or the other? To answer this questiona "t" test was made between the performance of tbestudents who chose the auditorium equipped withEidophor and the performance of the students whochose the large television classroom in Sparks Build-ing equipped with six receivers. The basis for de-termining performance was the mean score of eachstudent on the four tests given in Zoology 25.

Table 18 shows that the average mean score ofthe students choosing the auditorium was 76.66 percent and that of the students choosing the Sparksclassroom was 74.7 per cent. The "t" test shows thatthe difference between these scores does not reachthe .05 level of significance. It is concluded, there-fore, that there is little relation between a student's

performance in the course and his choice of viewinglocation.

TABLE 18

Results of "t" Test to Determine Significance of Difference ofGroup Mean Scores of Zoology 25 Students Choosing Conventional

Instructional Television Classrooms and Eidophor Equipped AuditoriumMean

Treatment N Scores t PEidophor equipped

auditorium 108 76.66 .356 >.05Conventional television

classroom 35 74.70

SUMMARY

The data presented in this chapter show thatstudent acceptance of televised instruction presentedover Eidophor in a large auditorium was very high.Factors related to image size and visibility weremost important in affecting individuals' choices ofviewing location. Furthermore, there seems to be norelationship between choice of location and perform-ance in the course.

4. STUDIES OF NONINSTRUCTIONALAPPLICATIONS OF EIDOPHORTELEVISION PROJECTOR

There are many potential uses of large-screen

television projection for universities and colleges.

These uses may be grouped into two categories: (1)

curricular or instructional, and (2) extracurricular ornoninstructional. The study has thus far treated

some of the curricular possibilities of large-screen

television projection. Consideration will now begiven to some of the noninstructional uses of large-

screen television projection.The educational process of the college student

is not confined to the classroom but extends to all of

his campus activities. Two of the major problems

inherent in providing students in a large universitywith important noninstructional activities are student

access to the location in which the event will occur

and the facilities to accommodate large groups or

audiences. Television makes it possible to provide

student access to important national and local ac-tivities. The use of large-screen television projection

offers a solution to the problem of providing for

large audiences.In order to obtain an indication of the usefulness

of Eidophor for noninstructional or extracurricular

activities two specific areas of interest were selected:

first, the usefulness of large-screen television projec-

tion for presenting affairs of national interest and,

second, for presenting campus activities to audi-

torium audiences.

RECEPTION OF TELEVISION PROGRAMS

OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

The 1960 Nixon-Kennedy television debates were

selected as events which could be used to ascertainthe usefulness of Eidophor in presenting television

programs of national importance to campus audi-

ences. Since there had been no previous opportunity

to demonstrate the Eidophor television projection

system to the Penn State administration, the firstNixon-Kennedy debate was used for this purpose.On September 26, 1960, approximately 300 members

of the faculty and administration, their wives andguests, observed the first debate in Schwab Audi-

torium via Eidophor. There was no attempt at meas-uring audience reaction; however, the general tonecf audience response was very favorable.

The following three Nixon-Kennedy debates wereopened to the faculty and general student body onthe 7, 13, and 23 of October. A total of approxi-mately 3,000 students, an average of approximately1,000 per night, watched the debates via Eidophor.The general reaction of the students was favorableas was evidenced by the numbers attending and bypersonal comments.

PRESENTATION OF CAMPUS EVENTS ONCLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION

The next series of events presented on the Eido-phor large-screen television projection system wereathletic contests. Of the six events ( which includedwrestling, basketball, football, and gymnastics) thatwere shown on the Eidophor system all but the Lib-erty Bowl football game originated on campus. The

p./)15

audiences were either overflow audiences from Rec-reation Building or students who for various reasonspreferred to see the event on the Eidophor systemin Schwab Auditorium.

Schwab Auditorium had near capacity audiences(1,200) for three of the Eidophor-presented events.The other three events had estimated audiences of40, 200, and 560. There are many factors involvedin the great variation in attendance, including pub-licity, weather, competition with other activities, andinterest in specific events. It was not possible in thisfirst year's study to investigate the factors related toaudience size.

At the final event in the series of athletic con-tests, the audience was asked to fill out a question-naire designed to provide some indication of attitudestoward Eidophor when used for the presentation of

such events. The questionnaire is included in theappendix. The results of the questionnaire are shown

in Table 19.

TABLE 19

Results of Questionnaire Given to Special Events Audience

February 25, 1961Total number of returned questionnaires-145

Number of events seen Number PercentageNumber of students seeing only one event 48 33.1Number of students seeing two events 49 33.8Number of students seeing three events 30 20.6Number of students seeing four events 12 8.3Number of students seeing five or

more events 6 4.13Number of students seeing two or

more events 97 66Reasons for attending wrestling on Eidophor tonight

Number PercentageSchwab Auditorium more comfortable 74 39.2Schwab Auditorium more convenient 73 38.6Prefer Eidophor to seeing actual event 21 11.1

Bad weather 16 8.5I can see all action better on Eidophor 5 2.6

(Note: Per cent is in terms of total responses to this singlequestion)

Do you think it would be a good idea for the University toinstall the Eidophor television projector on a permanent basis?

Yes: 138 (95%) No: 4 (3%) Don't know: 3 (2%)

What is your impression of Eidophor picture quality?

Number PercentageEqual to movie quality 14 9Better than regular television 38 26As good as regular television 59 39Not as good as regular television 38 26

What is your impression of the quality of the sound?Good: 137 (94%) Fair: 9 (6%) Poor: 0

It is interesting to note that of the 145 returningquestionnaires, 66.8 per cent had seen other eventson Eidophor, and 33 per cent had seen three ormore, indicating a substantial repeat audience. Theevening on which this survey was conducted waswet and Recreation Building, where the event washeld, was not full. Thus, people attending in theAuditorium chose to do so.

From Table 19 it can be seen that comfort andconvenience accounted for 78 per cent of the reasonsfor attendance. A preference for Eidophor accountedfor approximately 11 per cent and all other reasonsaccounted for the remaining 11 per cent. This infor-mation suggests that for 78 per cent of the respond-ents the comfort and convenience of seeing thewrestling on Eidophor outweighed the opportunity ofseeing the performance "live."

It should be noted that the light level for tele-vising the wrestling matches was far below that rec-ommended for optimum operation of the vidiconpicture tube. ( Approximately 30-40 footcandles incontrast to the recommended 200 footcandles. ) Never-theless, the audience response to picture quality asshown in Table 19 indicates that 74 per cent of thoseresponding felt the picture to be as good or betterthan regular television. The same question was askeda group of students observing a course lecture wherelight levels in the originating studio were at approxi-mately 200 footcandles. The response indicated that89 per cent felt the picture quality was as good orbetter than regular television.

It should be remembered tint the responsesindicated above involve indirect comparisons depend-ent upon memory and lack of a fixed scale of meas-urement or comparison. This response is therefore ajudgment value and is useful only as an indicationof attitude.

5. OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL APPLICATIONS was viewed in the Auditorium over the Eidophorsystem. The results were very satisfactory.

After the Eidophor system had been installed,several instructional problems developed for which itwas possible to use Eidophor, but not under experi-mental conditions. These additional uses will be de-scribed briefly.

a. BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE 1

Because the enrollments in this general educationcourse exceeded 500 the course was moved fromthe 400-seat classroom, where it had been sched-uled, to Schwab Auditorium. However, the pro-fessor teaching the course found that it wasimpossible to present demonstrations in the audi-torium. The Division of Academic Research andServices made the Eidophor projector and closed-circuit television facilities available for the pres-entation of biological demonstrations.The procedure worked as follows: the professorlectured in the Auditorium with occasional use ofthe blackboard. Whenever he wished to show ademonstration, it was arranged in advance andwas performed by a teaching assistant. This wastelevised in the studio in another building and

b. THE ARTS

During the Spring Semester of 1961 enrollmentin the general education course in the arts washigh and the course was scheduled in the Audi-torium. Demonstrations of a wide variety of ob-jects and art processes were presented in theAuditormm over Eidophor. In this course theprofessor gave the lecture and demonstrations onvarious occasions from the television studio in an-other building, and students viewed the presenta-tion via Eidophor.

c. SOCIOLOGY 1

The enrollments in the television section of So-ciology 1 reached nearly 1,000 in the Spring Se-mester of 1961. Of this number over 400 studentswere located in Schwab Auditorium and receivedthe lectures over Eidophor. The balance of thestudents were located in small television class-rooms in Sparks Building. The televised lecturesoriginated in the Sparks Building television studios.

17

6. STUDIES OF FEASIBILITY

An aspect of any new teaching equipment whichis of special concern to educational administrators isthe feasiMity of purchase, installation, maintenance,and operation of the equipment. Especially impor-

tant is its dependability under the kind of operatingconditions normally found in an educational insti-

tution.During the first year of operating Eidophor it

was not possible to explore very fully the questionof costs. However, requirements for the installationof Eidophor in a typical university can be described,and information was obtained on questions relatingto operation, maintenance, dependability, and thekinds of personnel needed to manage the equipment.

It is planned to study the problem of economicfeasibility next year. Eidophor is a reL :vely expen-sive device to purchase ($26,000) and reouires an op-erator and rather careful maintenance. It is thought,however, that some of these costs can be offset bytelevising extracurricular events ( e.g., athletic events)and charging admission. Since the first year of useof Eidophor was exploratory, a charge was usuallynot made for admission to athletic events shown on

Eidophor.

INSTALLATION OF EIDOPHOR

Eidophor is designed to be installed in a projec-tion booth in the rear of large auditoriums in alocation similar to that provided for a motion pictureprojector. Therefore, it was decided to install theprojector in the largest auditorium available at PennState, the 1,200 seat Schwab Auditorium.

It was possible to construct a projection boothof 8 by 18 feet in the lobby in such a way that thefront wall of the projection booth was formed by therear wall of the auditorium. Part of the booth canbe used as a ticket office when required.

Two ports, one for projection and one for theuse of the operator, were cut in the rear wall of theauditorium. A platform one and one-half feet highwas constructed on which to mount the projector sothat its projection beam cleared the beads of theaudience. The projection booth was ventilated bymeans of an exhaust fan in the ceiling.

To supply the projector and associated equip-ment with electric power a 50-ampere, 3-phase, 208-volt Wye connected line was provided. This wasbrought into the booth from the main power boardin the auditorium.

Later it was found necessary to add dimmercontrols to the booth for the auditorium lights sothat the operator of Eidophor could control the lightlevel in the auditorium. The booth was given someacoustical treatment to reduce noise.

In the booth were located the Eidophor projec-tor, its DC rectifier (lamp power supply ), video andaudio monitors, video distribution amplifier (for linecompensation), audio and video switching equip-ment, and a tuner for off-the-air reception.

The projector received its video signals on co-axial cable from either of two television studios lo-cated in other buildings with transmission distancesof 500 feet and 2,700 feet respectively. Audio wasreceived in the auditorium over a shielded pair ofwires and interconnected with the existing publicaddress system in Schwab Auditorium.

',119

The distance from the Eidophor projector to thescreen was 90 feet. With the standard Eidophorprojection lens this location gave a picture approxi-mately 11 feet high and 14 feet wide. (A wide anglelens giving a larger picture is also available.) Theprovision of a picture of this size meant that no stu-dent was located more than six screen widths fromthe picture (mavimum viewing distance was about84 feet).

The auditorium was already equipped with afourteen-foot-wide, glass-beaded motion pictur escreen mounted on a motorized roller. It was de-cided to begin operations with this screen but to ex-periment with other types of screens. The stage inthis particular auditorium is used for many purposeswhich precluded the installation of a rigid fixedscreen and made it mandatory to use a screenmounted on a roller.

Later in the year comparisons were made of im-age brightness as viewed from a number of locationsin the auditorium, using several different kinds ofscreens. These included two types of matte whiteplastic screen and a silver lenticular screen.

It was the consensus of the observers that thebeaded screen provided the brightest image whenviewed from the center section of the auditoriumwith rather rapid fall off in illumination when viewedfrom the sides. The matte white screens were greatly

0111.11,1'

'1111:11',!11..

fiTi:14;1;:j

Figure 5 An interior view of Eidophor with the rear panelopen. Monitoring equipment is on the right.

20

inferior in brightness when viewed from the centerof the auditorium and were slightly better than thebeaded screen when viewed from the seats at thesides of the auditorium.

The silver lenticular screen offered the best com-promise. It was not quite as bright as the beadedscreen when viewed from the center portion of theseating area but was considerably brighter whenviewed from the side sections of seats. Unfortunatelya lenticular screen of the size needed was not availa-ble for mounting on a roller. A lenticular screen ofthis size must be mounted on a frame and stretchedtaut on all four sides. Where such a permanentmounting is feasible, a lenticular screen would bedesirable. However, in Schwab Auditorium, wheremost students could be located in the best viewingarea for a glass beaded screen and where a rollerscreen is essential, it was decided to use the existingbeaded screen.

IMAGE BRIGHTNESS

After Eidophor had been in operation for sometime, and after it bad been adjusted for optimumoperation, measurements were made of the amountof illumination projected onto the screen. As a basisfor comparison, the illumination was also measuredfrom the 16-millimeter sound projector which is nor-mally used in the auditorium. This is a new Kodakprojector with a 1,000-watt lamp, two-blade shutterfor maximum illumination, and two-inch f1.6 pro-jection lens.

The image size on the screen was the same forboth projectors (approximately 11 by 14 feet). How-ever, to obtain this size the Eidophor was located 90feet from the screen and the 16-millimeter projector75 feet.

The procedure was as follows: the film projectorwas set up and focused. Then the film was removedand, with the machine still running, incident lightmeasurements were made at the center of the screen.Similarly, Eidophor was set up and focused with apicture, then the video signal was removed and theillumination was again measured at the screen center.

A standard Norwood 'Director' incident light-meter was used. Equipped with the photodisc butwith the light multiplier slide removed, the incidentlight on the screen was four footcandles from the 16-millimeter projector and eight footcandles from Eido-phor. With the photodisc removed, the meter gavea scale reading of 20 from the projector image and40 from Eidophor.3 Thus, in terms of measured light3. It is understood that the most recent Eidophor projectors luwe a "dual

light path" which increases the output from the 1,800-watt xenon arcby 60 per cent over the model tested.

the screen illumination from this particular Eidophorprojector with its 1,800-watt xenon arc appears to betwice as great as that of a high quality 16-millimeterprojector with a 1,000-watt lamp. With both imagesside-by-side on the screen, the Eidophor image looks

even brighter because of its blue-white color as com-pared with the yellow-white light from the soundprojector.

AUDITORIUM ILLUMINATION

For the televised courses it was found to be es-sential to have sufficient illamination in the audi-torium so that students could take notes and referto study guides.4 Schwab Auditorium is equippedwith nine ceiling lights which have spotlight type fit-tings that direct illumination downward with relativelylittle scatter to the sides. For supplemental lighting,both above and under the balcony, the room is ringedwith two banks of wall lights. These lights wereoriginally on one circuit and were not on dimmers.

After some trial and error it was found that thebest arrangement was to use the center horizontalrow of three ceiling lights. These illuminated thecentral seating area of the auditorium to a level ofabout four footcandles. To provide light under thebalconies the side lights were put on separate cir-

cuits and on dimmers so that a uniform level ofabout four footcandles could be obtained over theentire seating area. This proved to be adequate fornote taking and resulted in very little scattered light

reaching the screen (the actual level reaching thescreen was too low to measure on the Norwood me-

ter even with the photodisc and slide removed).

OPERATING PERSONNEL

It was found necessary to assign a technical per-son to operate and maintain the Eidophor projector.Operation involves turning the machine on and op-erating the pumping system about an hour in ad-vance of use. When the machine is warmed up and

the proper vacuum levels are reached the machinemust be adjusted for optimum picture quality. Suchadjustments require some skill, especially since thereis a danger of shortening the life of the cathodesand other components if the correct procedure is notfollowed.

It was found in practice that Eidophor is rathersensitive to changes in the video levels coming from

4. For other noninstructionnl telecasts it was possible to operate withthe auditorium lights turned off, and this, of course, greatly improvedthe picture brightness when the screen was viewed from the sideareas of the room.

the television studio and it was therefore necessaryfor the projector operator to adjust Eidophor's pic-ture fairly frequently as the director switched fromone television camera to the other.

At The Pennsylvania State University, Eidophorhas been successfully operated and maintained bypersonnel who had no previous experience with thistype of equipment but who had worked as assistanttelevision engineers on the University's closed-circuittelevision systems. Operators worked with Eidophoronly for one semester in order that several staff mem-bers might gain the necessary experience. Both ofthese operators are in their mid-twenties. They arehigh school graduates with approximately two yearsof military service in electronics work. They workedunder the supervision of the University's chief tele-vision engineer who could assist in the solution ofany unusual difficulties. Several experienced engi-neers from Eidophor visited the installation at dif-ferent times and gave valuable assistance in trainingPenn State's staff and in making basic adjustmentsto the projector.

RELIABILITY OF OPERATION ANDMAINTENANCE OF EIDOPHOR

In evaluating the performance of this particularEidophor projector it should be borne in mind thatthe one at Penn State is an early engineering proto-type which had already received a good deal of use.During the year from September 1960 to August 1961Eidophor was used for approximately 250 hours ofactual class presentation, about 25 hours of specialevents, and about 40 hours of testing and mainte-nancea total of 315 hours of actual operation. Inaddition, the vacuum pumps of the equipment wereoperated for a further 500 hours of "warm-up" time.Generally, the vacuum pumps were turned on anhour to an hour and one-balf in advance of programtime.

The best evidence of the reliability of Eidophormay be derived from the fact that during the 275hours of actual presentations, not a single programbad to be cancelled because of equipment failure.All electronic equipment requires maintenance andthe replacement of certain components from time totime, and one of the main purposes of the presentstudy was to determine what kind of replacementsand adjustments Eidophor would need under regularoperating conditions.

CATHODES

The component of Eidopbor needing most fre-quent replacement is tbe cathode that generates the

electron beam to provide a picture. The projectorhas been designed in such a way as to provide threecathodes in a magazine. When a cathode fails ittakes about two or three minutes to change to a newcathode ( about the time it takes to replace a hotprojector lamp in a sound projector). Normally, sev-eral hours before a cathode fails evidence of im-pending failure is visible in the picture in the formof "white spots," and in fluctuations of the beam-current meters. During the 315 hours of operations,12 cathodes were replaced. This indicates an averagelife of about 26 hours. The anticipated life of acathode is 50 hours. Failure to reach this expectedlife was due in large part to the lack of experienceof Penn State operators during tbe early use ofEidop'ilor. The first replacements occurred after 5-10hours of use; later replacement cathodes gave 50-60hours of use. It is believed that a cathode with anexpected life of 1,000 hours is under development.

22

VACUUM TUBE REPLACEMENTS

Vacuum tube replacements were much less thanwould normally be expected for this type of equip-ment. Only 12 tubes were replaced during the year.There were only one or two replacements of resistorsor capacitors.

OTHER COMPONENT REPLACEMENTS

One 1,800-watt xenon arc lamp had to be re-placed. This lamp had been used extensively beforethe projector was installed at Penn State. One waterpump gasket had to be replaced.

MAINTENANCE

Eidophor received no unusual maintenance be-yond the following of normal operating proceduresrecommended by the manufacturer.

In summary, it can be said that Eidophor is veryreliable in operation for equipment of this type anddegree of complexity.

7. VISITORS

One of the objectives of the study was to pro-vide a realistic operational setting for Eidophor in auniversity, which would not only provide the nec-essary facilities for the educational experiment andfield testing already described, but which would alsobe open for inspection by visiting educators. Duringthe year over 125 people visited Penn State to seethe closed-circuit television systems in action and toview Eidophor in operation. These people includededucational administrators from other colleges anduniversities, visiting faculty members, and production

and engineering personnel engaged in educationaltelevision at other institutions. In addition to thesevisitors many other people saw Eidophor in action inthe presentation of courses and extracurricular pro-grams. These included students, Penn State facultyand administration, local residents, representativesfrom the state legislature, and people from across thecountry who participated in several summer confer-ences that used Eidophor for the presentation of partof the conference. Visitors' reactions were generallyvery favorable toward the size and quality of thepicture obtained from Eidophor.

8. CONCLUSIONS

The following tentative conclusions are based on

the studies conducted during the first year of using

the Eidophor television projector:a. Students appear to learn as much from tele-

vised course instruction presented over Eido-phor in a large auditorium as they do fromthe same instruction presented in smallerclassrooms using regular 24-inch television re-ceivers. This means that a large auditoriumwhich would otherwise be unsatisfactory forpresenting certain kinds of face-to-face in-struction, especially instruction involving dem-onstrations, may be more extensively used forinstructional purposes by means of an Eido-phor television projector.

b. The use of Eidophor in a large auditorium isvery acceptable to students as a means of pre-senting televised instruction. Students chosethe Eidophor viewing situation over televisionclassrooms employing regular receivers in aratio of two to one or better.

c. There are many extracurricular activities forwhich the Eidophor television projector maybe used to advantage on a university campus.

These include overflow audiences for athleticevents, special addresses and conferences, and

for off-the-air broadcasts of special events ofnational importance.

d. Eidophor appears to be very dependable inoperation. No programs were missed as aresult of equipment failure during a year ofregular operation. Eidophor can be operatedand maintained by relatively inexperiencedtechnical personnel after some training. Fromtime to time such personnel may need assist-ance from a more experienced engineer; how-ever, it has been found that they can copewith most situations after about three monthsof experience with the equipment.

e. In this first year of operation it was not pos-sible to explore very fully the economic feasi-bility of operating an Eidophor projector. Itis thought that operating costs might to someextent be offset by charging the public for

admission to certain extracurricular activities( such as athletic events) shown on Eidophor.This aspect of Eidophor operation will bemore fully investigated during the second yearof the project.

,25,:y 25

APPENDIX

The Pennsylvania State UniversityEidophor Experiment

The Eidophor television projector in SchwabAuditorium has been loaned to the University for oneyear. The University is now evaluating its usefulnessfor regular instruction and for providing viewing op-portunities for athletic events and television broad-casts of national importance.

Will you please give us your answers to the fol-lowing questions?

1. Please check which category you are in:Student 1E1 Faculty Visitor D

2. Please check which of the following eventsyou have seen on Eidophor in Schwab Audi-torium:a. A regular college courseb. Kennedy-Nixon debatesc. Liberty Bowl footballd. Wrestling: PSU vs. Armye. Gymnastics: USSR vs. USAf. Wrestling: PSU vs. Lehighg. Gymnastics: PSU vs. Armyh. Wrestling: PSU vs. Pitt

3. Why are you viewing the wrestling on Eido-phor tonight?a. Couldn't get seats in Recreation

Buildingb. Schwab Auditorium more

comfortablec. Prefer Eidophord. Schwab more conveniente. Other reasons

El

ElElEl

26

4. What other types of events would you like tosee shown on Eidophor?ab.c.

5. Do you think it would be a good idea for theUniversity to install the Eidophor televisionprojector on a permanent basis?

Yes EI No fl Don't know El

6. What is your impression of the Eidophor pic-ture quality?

Equal to movie qualityBetter than regular televisionAs good as regular televisionNot as good as regular television

ElElElEl

7. What is your impression of the quality of thesound?

Good 0 Fair Poor 0

8. Please indicate, by putting an "X" on the fol-lowing diagram, your approximate seat loca-tion:

Front

BackMAIN FLOOR

Front

BackBALCONY

U.Ed. 2-318