VIDEOCONFERENCING TO HELP BUILD A STATE NETWORK

By John Barnard

W hY does a state need an educa- tional telecommunications net- work? And if your state needs one, how do you go about creating it? In 1988 representatives of Ari-

zona's state universities, community colleges, K-12 system, and state government established the Ari- zona Education Telecommunications Cooperative (AETC) to answer these questions. This collabora- tive effort sought to examine the state's needs and, if justified, guide the development of a statewide audio, data, and video network for education.

Structure of the AETC As part of an education cooperative, the mem-

bers have a common interest in investigating ways for organizations to band together to develop sys- tems and services to meet educational needs throughout the state. The AETC Operating Com- mittee was created to manage these efforts. Addi- tionally, AETC established three councils to en- courage the greatest possible participation from the educational community. The Distance Learn- ing Council examines issues affecting providers of distance education services, investigates instruc- tional telecommunications projects in other states, and strives to develop statewide telecommunica- tions policies. The Networking/Technology Coun- cil provides technical advice and assistance to the AETC and Arizona educational institutions in the planning, development, and operation of telecom- munications systems. The Users Council shares information about distance learning activities with current and potential users of these services. This council also gives feedback to the rest of AETC on the members' needs.

Arizona's Instructional Needs The instructional needs of Arizona are varied.

Rural access to equity in educational resources

John Barnard is a media specialist in the depart- ment o f University Media Systems at Arizona State University in Tempe.

12 Tech Trends

has become one of the primary motivating factors driving the development of an educational tele- communications network. The state universities have begun raising requirements in areas such as foreign language, math, and science. At the same time, many small rural schools in Arizona are finding it difficult to attract teachers or students in sufficient numbers to hold these courses. To have access to education beyond the community col- lege, or even high school level in many areas, ru- ral Arizona students have to travel hundreds of miles. Access to continuing education resources for professionals living outside of the state's ur- ban areas also is lacking. Even in the urban areas, not all of the state's educational resources are available. Graduate students must often travel hundreds of miles a week in order to hold a job in one city while taking courses at a university in another city.

Planning of the Videoconference

As part of the AETC Operating Committee's attempt to bring people from all areas of Arizona into the planning process, the cooperative began preparations in 1988 to hold a statewide videocon- ference. In the Spring of 1989 the Arizona Legis- lature was persuaded to appropriate $80,000 for the Arizona Board of Regents and the AETC Op- erating Committee to conduct an engineering study for a telecommunications system and pro- duce the videoconference. As a result, the video- conference, "Building Learning Bridges Through Technology," was scheduled for September 21, 1989.

Facilitators at 24 sites across the state were en- listed to host the hundreds of people from educa- tion, state and local government, and business who would participate in the first Arizona video- conference on the proposed educational telecom- munications system. The sites were chosen to re- flect the broad range of groups interested in AETC. The conference was offered at no charge to the sites or any of the participants. Sites in- cluded elementary schools, high schools, commu- nity colleges, universities, corporations, and the state prison.

Videoconference Production

The videoconference production schedule began in earnest in July of 1989 when the AETC Operat- ing Committee designated University Media Sys- tems (UMS) at Arizona State University as the producer and coordinator of this event. UMS bud- geted approximately $12,000 to produce the video- conference. This sum included staff time devoted to production and site coordination, lunches at the remote meeting sites, publicity, mailing, and satel- lite transponder rental.

Between July and September the UMS Instruc- tional Television production staff scripted, assem- bled video footage, edited the program, and se- cured satellite transponder time through Oklahoma State University. During this same pe- riod, other UMS staff members identified and se- cured remote receiving and meeting sites in each county, generated publicity, and tried to make sure that invitations went out to as many inter- ested people as possible. The lists of invitees were compiled by AETC, the Arizona Department of Education, The Arizona Board of Regents, and the individual site facilitators themselves.

The videoconference was three hours in length and divided into hour-long sections. The first seg- ment of the telecast consisted of a program illus- trating some of the current uses of instructional telecommunications in Arizona education. The second portion was set aside for small group dis- cussion of the issues at the meeting sites, while the final session consisted of a panel of educa- tional telecommunications users answering the questions called in from the remote meeting sites.

This format was chosen in an attempt to illus- trate the flexibility of educational telecommunica- tions use. Material was presented much like a telecourse, local groups were then given the op- portunity to discuss the material, and finally com- ments and questions from the sites could be di- rected to content experts in the studio.

Production crews were sent to remote locations around the state to videotape footage of current Arizona educational telecommunications users. The videotaped segments sought to portray not only the variety of institutional settings encoun- tered, but the vast differences in need in both ur- ban and rural regions. The distance education en- deavors shown included the Phoenix area ITFS system of Arizona State University and the Uni- versity of Arizona links to the southern part of the state. Northern Arizona University also con- nects its Flagstaff main campus with its new Yuma campus on the Colorado River with a mi- crowave relay covering more than 300 miles. The microwave delivery networks of several rural community college districts were also shown. One of these systems, the Northland Pioneer College microwave network, serves an area larger than New Jersey and Connecticut combined.

Additionally, the program covered telecommu- nication uses in several K-12 systems. Schools in Cochise County, for example, began receiving advanced math, science, and foreign language courses via satellite this Fall from Oklahoma

State's Arts & Sciences Teleconferencing Service. Since most of Cochise County's schools are small and in remote rural areas, the county school su- perintendent found satellite delivered courses an effective method to provide classes that would not have been possible any other way.

By contrast, the largest school district in Ari- zona, Mesa Public Schools in the metropolitan Phoenix area, has its own television studio con- necting its schools with a designated channel through the local cable television company. This system is used to provide homework assistance, supply instruction to homebound students and deliver staff development sessions. Nearby Scotts- dale Unified School District has a similar set up. AETC hopes that these and other educational electronic delivery systems can be linked to a fu- ture statewide network. A six member panel com- prised of representatives of educational telecom- munications providers and users from rural and urban school districts, the state universities, and the community colleges received questions from conferees at the remote sites during the final hour.

Evaluation Responses

Evaluation forms sent to the sites along with the program guides, however, provided more detailed feedback from the participants and gave them an opportunity to expand on many of the questions asked on the air, Some of the evaluation responses, such as those asking for state funding for educa- tional technologies, were expected.

One of goals of the project was to bring people outside of education into the process and gather their input. Evaluation forms from different areas of the state have given the committee unexpected information about needs that might otherwise have been neglected. For example, a Superior Court judge in a rural desert county mentioned the difficulty in obtaining state-mandated training for court personnel and new state bar require- ments for continuing legal education. Participants at the Yuma site wrote of the special technical training and education needs of the 6000 civilian and military personnel working at the Yuma Ma- rine Corps Air Station. Another participant re- marked that "the technology would be well suited to providing educational services to state prison- ers." Several people in the mountainous areas of northern Arizona, currently dealing with the unre- liability of some small telephone companies, wanted to see telephone service made an integral part of any new network.

In virtually all parts of the state people wanted the universities to provide graduate courses in education, business, nursing, and library science. A PTA member from one small town felt that "it would be great if teachers didn't have to travel two hours to take classes or work on a master's degree." The dean of a university college of nurs- ing wanted to use the network to take "continuing education, undergraduate, and master's courses to rural areas of the state." These comments from the conference evaluation forms illustrate the

Volume 35/Number 3/1990 13

broad spectrum of need in urban as well as rural areas for a variety of educational services that could be provided through a statewide telecom- munications network.

The evaluation forms also gave the conferees an opportunity to tell AETC what they liked and dis- liked about the videoconference, whether they would like to participate in follow-up meetings, and if they are interested in joining one of the councils. The vast majority of participants appre- ciated the opportunity to see what the current uses of instructional telecommunications were. They also generally enjoyed the chance to meet in groups and discuss their common concerns.

Most of the conferees would like to attend a follow-up videoconference, with a significant num- ber preferring regional meetings. Some people felt that the conference was too long, while others felt that not enough time was available for answering the caller's questions. Over half of the conferees expressed an interest in participating in one or more of the AETC councils.

Conclusion

The experience gained by AETC and the staff at Arizona State University in the production of the videoconference and the details of establishing a network of meeting sites has opened the door to future use of this medium to reach a statewide audience for other educational forums. Encour- aged by this first success, the staff at University Media Systems produced a statewide videoconfer- ence on foreign language instruction in the ele- mentary schools in the Spring of 1990.

The videoconference introduced hundreds of education, business, and government profession- als to the potential of telecommunications for in- struction. Now that they have been excited by the capabilities of these media, the continuing chal- lenge for AETC members and the Arizona educa- tional community will be working together to per- suade the Arizona legislature of the need to fund the creation and maintenance of a statewide edu- cational telecommunications system. �9

Evaluation of Educat

Consultant Services J

THE S E R V I C E

aGx I~vnc~u1r i r l l ! u l u ~ . y :F l u t : t l o ! I t o o b o n ~ V~h.~

Educational Mediaerochnotogy Specialization }

�9 �9 : : ~ i i �9 �9

Individuals or teams of evaluators and consultants are available to evaluate or assist in t.h~ creation or improvement: of media programs:: Consultants are: also ava|lable for thel ~any specializations inthe educational media/technology fie!d.:

THE EVALUATORS/CONSU LTANTS

The evatuators/consultants were s e l ~ d in polls of leaders media/technol6~ : . and a subsequent verification :of the top,nominated indMduats cr~entiats to do fi~ldwork :

14 Tech Trends