I. Dwaine Eubanks and John I. Gelder Oklahoma State University Stillwater,OK 74074
Television in Chemistry hstrudion
Chemical educators first hegan to evaluate seriously the potential for televised instruction during the early 1950's. By 1955, enough experience had accumulated to prompt the Division of Chemical Education to sponsor a "Symposium on the Use of Closed Circuit Television in the Teaching of Chemistry" a t the 128th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society in Minneapolis (I). Rapidly expanding undergraduate enrollments were projected through the 1960's, and many chemical educators viewed TV instruction as a means of increasing the efficiency of the instructional process without a significant sacrifice in the quality of instruction. Optimism prevailed, and the Division (undaunted by the fact that the 1955 symposium had attracted only two papers) sponsored a second "Symposium on Trends in Instruction in Chemistry by Films and Television" in 1959 a t the 135th National ACS Meeting in Boston (2). Papers of the period appearing in this Journal reported TV instruction for entire courses (3,4),lecture demonstrations (5-7), and prelahoratory instruction ( 6 4 ) . Barnard, Bertaut, and O'Connor, in a 1968 review, cited thirteen institutions having TV production experience (9).This early momentum was not sustained, largely due to the negative student reaction to courses taught entirely by television using conventional lectures. (The "Hawthorne effect" appears to have veiled the potential for negative student reaction during the early years.) Interest in TV instruction hegan to pick up again late in the 1960's. By this time, chemical educators had realized that their personal idiosyncrasies were much more annoying to students when viewed on a TV screen than when viewed live. In addition, demonstrations and chalkboard characters often did not project well. In installations where the lecture was transmitted live (and simply viewed from remote locations) students could not interrupt the lecturer with questions. Several papers appearing in this Journal during the late 1960's and early 1970's stressed production techniques that would enahle chemical educators to produce more polished programs (usually on videotape), hut a t substantially greater cost and requiring dramatic increases in the investment of staff time (10-14). Any hope of greater instructional efficiency or reduced costs quickly disappeared with the advent of these high-budget productions. Consequently, the use of television for instruction has increasingly focused on uses which improve the students' learning experiences. Several videotaped "whole course" lecture series have come and gone (9, I5), a n d i t presently appears unlikely that this use will ever comprise more than a small part of the use of televised instruction. (One notable exception to the general demise of entire courses on videotape is a t the University of Illinois, where good success is reported usingvideotaped lectures (16).At Illinois, TAs in the classroom can interrupt the playback to explain difficult points.) At present, the most active areas of TV utilization are for prelaboratory instruction (17-25) and for videotaped lecture experiments (25-27). Materials produced for these uses tend to he very site specific, and little interinstitutional sharing of materials occurs. Lack of transferability is not a major prohlem, however. Since the prelaboratory and lecture demonstration videotapes are brief and need not "stand alone" as instructional packages, they can he produced quickly and inexpensively. 66 1 Journal of Chemical Education
Many chemistry instructors feel a need to enrich their lecture presentations using materials that develop a topic of chemical interest in a coherent, integrated fashion (e.g., with films or film segments). Ideally, such lecture supplements draw on resources which may either be far removed from the classroom or provide visual displays impossible for the lecturer to produce live (such as animated sequences). When commercial films are used as lecture supplements, discordant elements are often introduced into the instructional process. In attempting to appeal to a broad target audience, extraneous material is often incorporated in available films. Instructors' needs differ, depending on how they choose to develop chemical topics, and the level of commercial films is often inappropriate for their specific audiences. Quality comparable to commercial films can be achieved using videotape recordina in a well e a u i ~ o e dstudio a t a quality now appears attainable. This application for instructional videotapes is likely to grow, although few projects of this type are currently under way. One such project, a series of videotapes produced at the University of Illinois at Chicago (:ira.le, nlakri h a \ , ? use o i c m p u t e r animntwn l o illustrare three-dimensional charwteri.;ti~io i matter and dynnmlc phenomena.' Another series, being produced a t the Oklahoma State University, is specifically directed to students enrolled in chemistrv courses for nonscience maiors2 The Oklahoma State videotapes utilize the full repertoire of TV production techniques (e.g., chroma-keying and other electronic special effects, conventional and computer-generated animation, location shooting using a minicam) If transferable lecture supplements are indeed to become a major use of video in chemistry instruction, production staff members must continuously evaluate narrative and visual materials considering the inherent advantages and limitation of the medium. The intended use of the materials must also be taken into account. Video is excellent, for example, to deoict animation. structural models. examnles. . . and aoolications .. ;equiring location shooting. I t isinferior to live instruction, computer-assisted instruction. or the printed Dane for heloine students develop quantitative skills. l i t h e videomaterials are to he useful a t other institutions, the producers must avoid (1) use of examples which are only locaily meaningful, (2) inclusion of narrative and visual materials that date the production, and (3) dependence on a "face-on-the-screen" style of presentation. The advantages of video materials for lecture supplements are so great, and the disadvantages are so few (when compared to film production), that we believe many such materials will he produced-and extensively shared-during the next decade. Literature Cited ( I 1 Ah~tractsid Paoerr. 123th National Meetins 01 the American C h m i r a l SmieLv.
'
The UIICC videotapes were produced in the period 197fi-1979 hy C. F. Liu, J. I. Gelder, and their associates. 'The OSU videotapes (19681 are produced hy 1. D.Euhanks and J. I. Gelder.
141 Slahauyh, W. H. and Hateh,C. V . , J CHEM.EDUC..35.95 11958). J. CHEM. ~ ~m u~ c . . 3~ s . w :.1 i19sfi). 15) i : ~A,. ~ y F.. and Mnrlin..l. R...I. CHRM. RDlIC..37.2SE IlMOI. I61 Kmney, M. l . . . T ~ ~ m eR, (71 Hms8ed.H.C ...I C H E M . El)liC..41. . . 1:39i19641. 1x1 Hayes. .I. R., Sehempl: I. M., and Murnin. J. A . J. CHEM. EDUC., 1S.615 llP581. 191 Harnard. W. R..Hertaut.E. F . m d O'Omnar.R.,J. CHRM. EI)UC.,45.614 11968). Ill11 Harnard, W. R., Lapwski, J. J.,snd OConnor, R.. J.CHEM. EDIIC., 46.62 119681. ,111 Harnard. W.R., J. CHEM. RDUC.. 15,681 11968). 1121 Harnnrd, W. R.andTrorsol,l:.. J. C H E M EDUC..48.461 119691. 1I:Il Harnard, W. R . , J CHEM. EDUC.. 17,318 119701. 114) l.rei~el,G.,and Barnard. W. R.. J.CHEM. EDUC.4R. 149 119711. 115) Hrrnard. W. R. and O'Csnnsi. R.. J . CHRM. EDUC., 15,745 lL96Rl. 11978): Ja~el.W..el,si..d.CHEM. EDUC.. 1161 Hsi8ht.G. P..dr..rl.CHEM.EDUC..55,221 56.225 119781; Enger,.l..Temr-Wood.A.,sndCohn, K., JCHEM.EDUC.,SS.230 119781.
Humohreus. D.A.and h m l i n x m . R. H...l. CHEM. EDUC.46.618II969) ~ i e n 6 o u & E . J.and Nash. E.G.,.I. C H E M EDIIC.48. 141 1197Ll. Whiimore.D. E.and Miller. G. T...Ir.. J. C H E M EDUC..48.616l19il). Ruuda. R. H..J.CHEM. EDUC..SO. 126i1972l. Huttan. W. and Larsun. D. E.. J. CHEM. EDUC.. 52. I 8 119751: Narh. E. C., and Neinhsuse.E. J . . d C H E M EDUC.52.38 i19711: Huwell..l. E., Wodruil.F..snd liarrawiay, H. P.. J. C H E M EI>UC..52. 86 11975). 1221 Panlaleo. D. C.. J.CHEM. EDUC.. 52.112 11975). 1221 Burnett. W.T., Jr. and Lion. D. H..J.CHEM. EDlIC.54.248 11977). I241 Light1uot.D.. J.CHEM. EDLIC.. 55,786 11978). I211 A L r V a r ~ ~Paperr, ef ACSICSI Chemical Cmaren. Hondulu. Hawaii, April 1979, Nm. CHED ffi5 through CHED 076. I%) Nelnm, G.V I. C H E M EDUC., 46.620 119691. 127) Richud, H. H.,Neliun. D. L.,nnd Reeves, R. R., J . C H E M EnUC.,50,85611978). 117) II81 1191 1201 1211
...
Volume 57. Number 1. January 1980 / 67
