This article was downloaded by: [Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphane ve Dok]On: 21 December 2014, At: 11:30Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Technology in Human ServicesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wths20

Teaching Practice Methods Using Interactive Television:A Partial Replication StudyChristine B. Kleinpeter MSW and PsyD a & Marilyn K. Potts PhD ba California State University, Long Beach, Department of Social Work , 1250 Bellflower Blvd.,Long Beach, CA, 90840 E-mail:b California State University , Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA, 90840 E-mail:Published online: 07 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Christine B. Kleinpeter MSW and PsyD & Marilyn K. Potts PhD (2003) Teaching Practice Methods UsingInteractive Television: A Partial Replication Study, Journal of Technology in Human Services, 22:1, 19-27, DOI: 10.1300/J017v22n01_03

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J017v22n01_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teaching Practice MethodsUsing Interactive Television:A Partial Replication Study

Christine B. KleinpeterMarilyn K. Potts

ABSTRACT. This study compares 52 on-campus and 26 distance edu-cation (DE) MSW students enrolled in two practice methods courses.This is a partial replication study, describing the results of the evaluationof the second cohort of a large DE program. The results from the first co-hort are reported elsewhere (Kleinpeter & Potts, 2000). The DE studentswere located at four universities linked through interactive television(ITV). The comparison group was located at an urban university, taughtin traditional classrooms. Comparisons were made on student grades,faculty evaluations, and field instructors’ evaluations. Results indicatethat no significant differences were found between on-campus and DEstudents which supports the findings of the first cohort, despite a reduc-tion in faculty visits to off-campus locations, a greater use of ITV in-struction, and an increased reliance on the use of local site coordinatorsas assistant instructors in the classroom. [Article copies available for a feefrom The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail ad-dress: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

Christine B. Kleinpeter, MSW, PsyD, is Associate Professor, California State Uni-versity, Long Beach, Department of Social Work, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach,CA 90840 (E-mail: crshagan@csulb.edu).

Marilyn K. Potts, PhD, is Professor, California State University, Long Beach, 1250Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840 (E-mail: mpotts@csulb.edu).

Journal of Technology in Human Services, Vol. 22(1) 2003http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J017

2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.10.1300/J017v22n01_03 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 1

1:30

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

KEYWORDS. Distance education, teaching practice methods, interac-tive television

INTRODUCTION

Several studies have demonstrated that students in distance educa-tion (DE) programs attain comparable knowledge and skills when com-pared with students in traditional classrooms (Patchner, Petracchi, &Wise, 1998; Potts & Hagan, 2000; Huff, 2000). However, DE literaturesuggests that social work educators have been reluctant to teach practicemethods using distance technology, indicating that practice courses arethe least often taught as compared to HBSE, policy, and research(Siegel, Jennings, Conklin, & Napoletano Flynn, 1998). Some authors(McHenry & Bozik, 1995) have indicated that DE classrooms lack ade-quate interaction both between sites and within each site. Smith andWingerson (2000) found that ITV results in a decrease in reception ofnon-verbal communication, especially facial and fine motor across thescreen. The authors suggested that the loss of non-verbal communica-tion can lead to significant misunderstandings between the sites in a DEclassroom.

Thyer, Polk, and Gaudin (1997) and Thyer, Artelt, Markward, andDosier (1998) found that students favored live instruction over ITVwhen compared with using the same instructor in both classrooms inpractice methods courses. Kreuger and Stretch (2000) recommendedthat social work educators maintain in-person-based instruction, cau-tioning that faculty are at risk for becoming isolated from their studentsand the community.

However, other authors disagree on this issue. Conklin (1993) statedthat “using ITV as a medium, the integration and enhancement of class-room theory and field education practice can be facilitated” (p. 43). Theadvantages noted were overcoming geographic barriers, financial sav-ings as a result of decreased travel expenses, and exemplary teachingbeing presented to a larger audience or videotaped and used an infinitenumber of times. Moore and Kearsley (1996) compared DE studentswith face-to-face students and concluded that “there are no significantdifferences between learning in the two different environments, regard-less of the nature of the content, the educational level of the students, orthe media involved” (p. 62).

This study describes the outcomes of two first-year practice methodcourses taught through ITV in a three-year part-time MSW program.

20 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 1

1:30

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Comparisons were made between DE students and on-campus students(taught in a traditional classroom) on grades, faculty evaluations, andfield instructors’ evaluations.

The present study utilized a model of DE that included compressedvideo technology and on-site coordinators as assistant instructors in theclassroom. Additionally, the course instructors traveled to the distantsites three times during each semester in order to monitor the develop-ment of practice skills.

METHODS

This study describes the outcomes of two first-year practice methodscourses taught through ITV in a three-year, part-time MSW program.Class days were scheduled with an ITV practice methods class session(taught by host campus faculty) and a face-to-face two-hour field semi-nar (taught by local faculty). All practice course materials were pre-sented over ITV, while experiential exercises were carried out off-cam-era at each site monitored by the site coordinators. Several practicemethods videotapes were utilized, the tapes were shown over ITV andthe discussions regarding practice methods were lead by course instruc-tors. Case vignette materials were utilized in small groups that weremonitored by the site coordinators, and discussions regarding the vi-gnettes were lead over ITV by course instructors. For this study, 52 DEstudents participated out of a total of 67 students, a response rate of 78%.

The comparison group was taught in traditional face-to-face class-rooms at an urban university site, utilizing the same academic model(three-year, part-time) and the same course descriptions and learningobjectives. Twenty-six on-campus students participated. Professorswere rotated through the four DE sites and the main campus; therefore,all students would experience a variety of instructors at various ranksand levels of teaching experience. Faculty teaching over ITV adaptedthe teaching methods to include the use of overhead transparencies forall lecture materials, and weekly consultations with site coordinators toprepare for experiential exercises. Due to technical failures, last minutechanges in the course schedule sometimes had to be made such as show-ing videotape clips prior to lecture or perhaps having an off-camera dis-cussion or experiential exercise. Telephone contact and fax wereavailable at all times in each DE classroom; therefore, alternative lessonplans could be developed and monitored by course instructors if techni-cal problems occurred. In addition to leading experiential exercises, site

Christine B. Kleinpeter and Marilyn K. Potts 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 1

1:30

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

coordinators were responsible for proctoring exams, handing out writ-ten materials, assisting students in clarifying and integrating the con-cepts presented, and acting as an intermediary between the courseinstructor and the DE students regarding students’ needs and progress.

The courses taught using ITV were the first two in a three-course prac-tice sequence. The third practice course included a focus on group workwhich had an experiential component involving student group participa-tion. Therefore, the third practice course was taught at each site by a localfaculty member. The first course was entitled “Foundations of GenericSocial Work Practice: A Cross-Cultural Perspective.” This course in-cluded an introduction of the assumptions, concepts, principles, and val-ues of social work practice. Models for practice and professionalrelationships were discussed. Interviewing skills were taught and prac-ticed in role playing exercises. Effective practice models with people ofvarious cultural and ethnic backgrounds were presented. The course in-cluded an exploration of racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexual bias.The second course was entitled “Direct Intervention: Focus on Children,Youth and Families.” This course examined the various practice strate-gies in depth: behavioral, systems, cognitive, and psychodynamic. Inter-ventions were presented including cross-cultural perspectives.

In this study, subjects were 52 DE students who were located at fouruniversities linked through ITV. The on-campus comparison groupconsisted of 26 students located at an urban university in a traditionalclassroom. DE students were slightly older [(DE) M = 37.7, (OC) M =31.0], more likely to be female [(DE) 82.8%, (OC) 78.0%], and morelikely to be non-Hispanic white [(DE) 76.9%, (OC) 47.5%] than on-campusstudents. DE students had more than twice the number of years of socialwork experience as on-campus students [(DE) M = 5.8, (OC) M = 2.6].On-campus students were more likely to have majored in social work atthe Baccalaureate level than DE students [(DE) 15.5%, (OC) 28.8%].No differences were apparent in undergraduate GPAs. DE students hadhigher scores than on-campus students on verbal GRE scores [(DE) M =459, (OC) M = 398]. (Table 1).

Three measures were used for comparison in this study: grades, courseevaluations, and field instructors’ evaluations. Mean grades were com-piled for each course for each instructor. Grades were computed on a 0-4scale. Faculty course evaluations measured eight criteria including anoverall teaching effectiveness score. Mean scores were compared foreach course for each instructor. Field instructor evaluations were com-pared in each of the 16 content areas, in addition to overall evaluationscores (Table 2). Items were rated on a 1-6 scale (1 = lowest, 6 = highest).

22 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 1

1:30

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

RESULTS

The comparison between the DE students and the same-modelon-campus students showed no differences in student grades in either ofthe practice methods courses (t = 1.60, p = .11). In the first practicecourse, DE students’ mean grade was 3.80 and the on-campus studentsshowed a mean grade of 3.70. In the second practice course, the DE stu-dents’ mean grade was 3.80 and the on-campus students showed a meangrade of 3.89.

Christine B. Kleinpeter and Marilyn K. Potts 23

TABLE 1. Student Characteristics by Group*

Characteristic DE(n = 52)

OC(n = 26)

Gender

Female 82.8 78.0

Age, Mean 37.7 31.0

Ethnicity

African American 5.2 11.9

Asian American 1.1 8.5

Hispanic/Latino 13.0 27.1

Non-Hispanic White 76.9 47.5

Other 3.8 5.1

Undergraduate Major

Social Work 15.3 28.8

Years Social Work

Experience, Mean 5.8 2.6

Undergraduate GPA 3.21 3.09

GRE Verbal, Mean 459.5 398.0

GRE Quantitative, Mean 423.75 417.0

GRE Analytic, Mean 451.0 438.0

*DE = Distance education students*OC = On-campus comparison group

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 1

1:30

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

For the course evaluations, significance testing was not possiblesince the data were aggregated by course rather than by individual stu-dent. Course evaluations by DE students appear equivalent to those ofon-campus students. In the first practice course, DE students showed anoverall mean score of 4.70, as compared to on-campus students’ meanof 4.63. In the second practice course, the DE students had a mean scoreof 4.59 and the on-campus students had a mean of 3.92.

24 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

TABLE 2. Mean Instructor Evaluations by Group*

Item DE(n = 52)

OC(n = 26)

Integrates Ethics and Values of Profession 4.80 4.55

Distinguishes Personal and Professional Roles 4.57 4.41

Demonstrates Motivation as Learner 4.57 4.51

Demonstrates Self-awareness 4.53 4.32

Uses Field Instruction Effectively 4.62 4.59

Knows Agency Goals, Mission and Structure 4.48 4.30

Knows Community Served by Agency 4.32 4.25

Identifies with Agency 4.21 4.11

Demonstrates Ability in Written Communication 4.59 4.45

Demonstrates Ability in Oral Communication 4.69 4.56

Plans and Organizes Work 4.75 4.66

Demonstrates Professional Use of Self 4.49 4.26

Understands and Applies Theory 4.37 4.24

Shows Skill in Interviewing Techniques 4.37 4.19

Shows Skill in Assessment and Diagnosis 4.36 4.10

Shows Skill in Intervention Process 4.47 4.41

Total Evaluation Score 4.73 4.59

*DE = Distance education rural students*OC = On-campus urban comparison groupNote: Scale is 1-6 (1 = lowest, 6 = highest)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 1

1:30

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

No significant differences were noted in the 16 content areas as-sessed for fieldwork performance (Table 2). No differences were foundin the total evaluation scores when DE students were compared to theon-campus cohort [(DE) M = 4.73, (OC) M = 4.59; t = .58, p = .57].

DISCUSSION

The subjects in this study were similar demographically to other DEprograms in social work in that most MSW students are female (both DEand on-campus cohorts) and DE students tend to be older and more expe-rienced than on-campus students (Haga & Heitkamp, 1995; Freddolino,1996). The results for the second cohort of the DE program support thefindings in the first cohort (i.e., equivalent outcomes when comparingDE and on-campus groups), even with a reduction of faculty visits andan increase in the use of ITV. These results suggest that for this sample,this DE model provides learning outcomes that are equivalent to thoseprovided in a traditional classroom. Even in the case of practice meth-ods courses, it appears that teaching style can be adapted to meet the de-mands of this new technology. Our findings are consistent with those ofCoe and Elliott (1999) and Hollister and McGee (2000). The key ele-ments of this model of DE include ITV as the method of delivery, whichallows for two-way communication, and the use of MSW on-site coor-dinators as assistant instructors to facilitate experiential learning. Thismodel supports the recommendations of Smith and Wingerson (2000)by including faculty visits and in-room assistant instructors. This studysupports the findings of Blakely and Schoenherr (1995) in that the com-bination of compressed video technology with on-site instructors canprovide a learning experience that is equal to that provided in a tradi-tional classroom.

The implications of this study include added confidence by the fac-ulty in the use of ITV and local site coordinators, thus allowing for a sig-nificant reduction in the travel budget as well as less wear and tear onfaculty. Increased confidence by faculty allows for a reduction in travelfrom three to two visits per site each semester in practice methodscourses for our third cohort, which is consistent with the number of fac-ulty visits in all other DE courses. Additionally, in the third cohort allpractice methods courses will be taught in the ITV format using site co-ordinators to conduct the required group exercises in class. An evalua-tion will be conducted comparing these DE outcomes to on-campuscohorts.

Christine B. Kleinpeter and Marilyn K. Potts 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 1

1:30

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Although the results of this pioneering effort were positive, they can-not be generalized to other DE models or student cohorts. In this study,the site coordinators are highly educated and skilled, with four holdinggraduate degrees in social work, having many years of practice experi-ence, and having experience teaching social work courses. Finally, thestudents involved in this pioneering cohort had many years of socialwork experience, and many held professional social work jobs prior toadmission to the MSW program that may have made them exceptionalpractice methods students.

REFERENCES

Blakely, T.J. and Schoenherr, P. (1995). Telecommunication technologies in socialwork distance education. Professional Development: The International Journal ofContinuing Social Work Education, 6(3), 8-12.

Coe, J.R. and Elliott, D. (1999). An evaluation of teaching direct practice courses in adistance education program for rural settings. Journal of Social Work Education,35(3), 353-366.

Conklin, J.J. (1993). The development of a strategic plan for implementing distanceeducation in social work education. ERIC N. Edf360892.

Freddolino, P.P. (1996). Creating quality learning environments in distance interactiveT.V. classrooms: Efforts and results. A paper presented at the Annual ProgramMeeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Washington, DC.

Haga, M. and Heitkamp, T.L. (1995). Evaluation results of an innovative social workdistance education program. A paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting ofthe Council on Social Work Education, San Diego, CA.

Hollister, C.D. and McGee, G. (2000). Delivering substance abuse and child welfarecontent through interactive television. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(4),417-427.

Huff, M.T. (2000). A comparison study of live instruction versus interactive televisionfor teaching MSW students critical thinking skills. Research on Social Work Prac-tice, 10 (4), 400-416.

Kleinpeter, C. and Potts, M. (2000). Distance education: Teaching practice methods us-ing interactive television. Professional Development: The International Journal ofContinuing Social Work Education 3(3), 37-43.

Kreuger, L.W. and Stretch, J.J. (2000). How hypermodern technology in social workeducation bites back. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(1), 103-114.

McHenry, L. and Bozik, M. (1995). Communicating at a distance. A study of interac-tion in a distance education classroom. Communication Education, 44(4). 362-372.

Moore, M.G. and Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Patchner, M., Petracchi, H., and Wise, S. (1998). Outcomes of ITV and face-to-face in-struction in a social work methods course. Journal of Computers in Human Ser-vices, 15, 23-38.

26 JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 1

1:30

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Potts, M. and Hagan, C. (2000). Going the distance: Using systems theory to design,implement, and evaluate a distance education program. Journal of Social Work Ed-ucation, 36(1), 131-145.

Siegel, E., Jennings, J.G., Conklin, J., and Napoletano Flynn, S.A. (1998). Distancelearning in social work education: Results and implications of a national survey.Journal of Social Work Education, 34(l), 71-80.

Smith, P.R. and Wingerson, N.W. (2000, August). Effective communication “acrossthe screen” for Social Work Distance Education. Paper presented at the 4th AnnualTechnology Conference for Social Work Education and Practice, Charleston, SC.

Thyer, B.A., Polk, G., Artelt, T., Markward, M.K., and Dosier, C.D. (1998). Evalu-ating distance learning in social work education: A replication study. Journal of So-cial Work Education, 34, 291-295.

Thyer, B.A., Polk, G., and Gaudin, J.G. (1997). Distance learning in social work edu-cation: A preliminary evaluation. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(2),363-367.

Received: September 12, 2002Revised: December 14, 2002

Accepted: March 5, 2003

Christine B. Kleinpeter and Marilyn K. Potts 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ista

nbul

Uni

vers

itesi

Kut

upha

ne v

e D

ok]

at 1

1:30

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14