Videodisc technology trends in academic health sciences libraries By Thomas Singarella, Ph.D.
Professor and Chairman Department of Health Informatics 8 South Dunlap Street University of Tennessee, Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38163
Shelley Bader, M.L.S. Director
Himmelfarb Library George Washington University 2300 Eye Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037 Howard J. Ramagli, Ph.D. Educational Computing Specialist Department of Health Informatics 8 South Dunlap Street University of Tennessee, Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38163
This paper describes a national survey designed to determine trends in videodisc use, development, and production in academic health sciences libraries throughout North America. In the winter of 1989, 131 four-page survey instruments went to library directors in academic health sciences institutions. Of these, 63 (48%) survey forms were completed and returned. Survey results indicated a wide range of videodisc technology use and development and a growing production of both Level I and Level III videodiscs within academic health sciences libraries. Videodisc technology delivery for student use was centralized within many medical libraries, although videodisc development was not centralized within academic health sciences centers. Most libraries (67%) have purchased videodisc technology and over one fourth (28%) are repurposing a videodisc within their institution. Over one fourth (25%) of respondents have already begun to develop their own videodisc software, and almost one fourth (24%) of respondents have a Level III videodisc in production. Clearly the use and development of videodisc technology for biomedical instruction is expanding within academic health sciences libraries.
INTRODUCTION The use of videodisc technology in health sciences education is exciting and important as a delivery strategy for students, faculty, and the health sciences professions. It is important for health sciences library professionals to know the direction that academic Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
health sciences libraries are taking with regard to this new technology. Optical videodisc is a relatively new medium that allows for the storage of large quantities of information with random access retrieval capability. Interactive videodisc technology is an emerging 159
Singarella et al.
form of mediated instruction that, within the last few years, has been more actively developed and used in the health sciences.
Interactive videodisc technology is an emergingform of mediated instruction that, within the last few years, has been more actively developed and used in the health sciences. HISTORICAL REVIEW During the 1970s, considerable experimentation with educational videodisc development took place [1]. Published information on the potential use of interactive videodisc technology first began to appear in the mid-1970s [2]. The early use of interactive video technology required definition for many [3], and explanations of the architecture of the new technology became necessary [4]. The early development and use of videodisc technology was greeted in some cases with skepticism [5], while some educators espoused how the new technology would revolutionize education and training [6-7]. Many educators believed the new technology held great promise [8], and there has been discussion about its impact and growth in the public schools [9]. Conferences dedicated to the exploration of videodisc technology first took place in the 1970s [10], and the noted Nebraska Videodisc Symposium (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) has been ongoing since 1980 [11]. The use of videodisc has grown significantly. Interactive videodisc is one of the most efficient types of mediated instruction because a well-designed Level III program reaches the higher end of the cognitive domain of learning; that is, it allows health sciences students to both apply and synthesize knowledge gained during academic studies. Videodisc technology has improved various forms of health education [12]. Research studies in the health sciences have shown that interactive videodisc is both an efficient and effective learning tool [13-18] and can be costeffective in training [19]. Videodisc development has increased significantly over the last decade within all areas of the health sciences. For example, interactive videodisc has been developed in the fields of dentistry [20], special education [21], medicine [22], nursing, the basic sciences, veterinary medicine [23], and other areas [24]. In 1988, Stewart cited active individual efforts by over thirty academic health centers resulting in the production of many instructional videodiscs in academic disciplines in the health sciences [25]. Stewart discussed active efforts in videodisc production by nine160
teen pharmaceutical companies [26] and a myriad of efforts by hospitals, the private sector, public education, and the government [27]. Stuart cited over twenty efforts worldwide in videodisc production for the health care field [28]. Additionally, Stewart cited the development of information systems, databases, and record keeping using optical disk technologies [29].
Videodisc development has increased significantly over the last decade within all areas of the health sciences. For example, interactive videodisc has been developed in the fields of dentistry, special education, medicine, nursing, the basic sciences, veterinary medicine, and other areas. A number of publications have developed since 1985 to report on videodisc development efforts in the health sciences field. The proliferation of health sciences videodisc programs spawned several videodisc newsletters reporting on videodisc development [30]. As part of its mission, the Lister Hill Center for Biomedical Communications of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) has developed and disseminated videodisc technology information [31-32]. NLM has funded production of experimental videodisc demonstration programs as part of its Technological Innovations in Medical Education (TIME) project, which resulted in medical education interactive videodiscs [33-34]. There has been a proliferation of authoring systems, programs, and languages designed to support interactive videodisc technology [35]. The wish to stimulate and report on videodisc development in specific health sciences areas has resulted in several specialized consortia for the health sciences field, including the Medical Interactive Videodisc Consortium (MIVC), the Consortium of North American Veterinary Interactive New Concept Education (CONVINCE), and the Interactive Healthcare Consortium (IHC). The educational videodisc market has seen marked growth since 1985, with 7,000 videodisc players located in U.S. public schools in 1986 [36]. Educational leaders forecast that by 1990 the installed base of videodisc players in education and training would exceed 124,000 and that about 65% of videodiscs would be educational or instructional [37]. As both an instructional delivery medium and a storage medium, videodisc technology is powerful and effective. The technology is being used increasingly within the learning resources centers of many academic health sciences libraries, in spite of no clear standards or compatibility for Level III videodisc sysBull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
Videodisc technology
tems. During the last few years, videodisc development and use has been studied within the health sciences, yet few systematic surveys of health sciences institutions have been carried out to determine developing trends [38]. In light of interactive videodisc's potential for health sciences education, biocommunicators and health sciences librarians need information on videodisc development and use trends within health sciences institutions. Is there a trend toward centralizing videodisc technology in health sciences libraries or elsewhere on health sciences campuses? This information is both timely and important as health sciences libraries evolve into comprehensive information centers concerned with the identification, access, retrieval, use, and evaluation of instructional information.
As both an instructional delivery medium and a storage medium, videodisc technology is powerful and effective. The technology is being used increasingly within the learning resources centers of many academic health sciences libraries, in spite of no clear standards or compatibility for Level III videodisc systems.
RESEARCH STUDY In order to determine the relative levels and kinds of videodisc use in academic health sciences institutions throughout North America, a videodisc study was designed, developed, and implemented. The study included six health sciences groups. One of these health sciences groups consisted of directors of academic health sciences libraries. The data from this health sciences group were extracted and analyzed for this report. With respect to libraries, the study sought answers to such questions as: Where are health sciences libraries during this "window of time" with regard to use, development, and production of videodisc technology, and where might they be heading? What videodisc hardware and software do health sciences libraries have and what might they be committing, or willing to commit, to this new technology? The information elicited from this study revealed how much health sciences libraries have invested in videodisc technology, and how the technology is being used. Findings should be useful to administrators and health sciences library professionals charged with assessing this medium and making projections for future investment. BOl Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
As a part of the study, a four-page single-spaced survey instrument using a simple descriptive design was developed (Appendix). The first page of the survey instrument provided definitions concerning videodisc technologies and requested demographic information. A cover letter from the investigators accompanied each survey mailed. A total of 131 surveys was sent to library directors on the mailing list of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Library Directors (AAHSLD); 63 (48%) completed survey forms were returned. The survey instrument was mailed in November 1989, and all surveys were returned by January 1990. The data were analyzed during early 1990.
Assumptions The study results represented a significant percentage of academic health sciences libraries in the United States; the sample group size return rate (48%) was large enough and the procedures valid. All extraneous variables affecting the study had been provided for through the design and treatment of data. The most appropriate person from each health sciences library completed the survey form. If respondents indicated having videodisc technology, use of the technology was assumed.
Limitations of the study The population for the study was determined from mailing lists. The AAHSLD mailing list did not include all academic health sciences library directors in North America. Because it was a census survey (i.e., all persons were included), the survey population was not randomly selected; therefore, inference to the general population of health sciences library directors or institutions is not statistically sound.
Reporting of data Selective survey results are reported; not all questions that appeared in the original survey instrument are reported. In some cases, questions with extremely low response (small n's) have been omitted. However, questions with small n's where the numbers are indicative of the small number of health sciences libraries working in the area of videodisc development have been included. The library directors responded to different groups of questions. Not all respondents currently had operational videodisc technology on their campus; therefore, the n's vary in some cases. Percentages are based on responses to specific items. Some items called for multiple responses from a single respondent. This article assumes that the reader has basic familiarity with videodisc technology. Definitions of important videodisc terms were included in the sur161
Singarella et al.
Table 1 Videodisc players
Pioneer
Sony Panasonic Hitachi Phillips Total
Table 2 Videodisc microcomputer systems
Number of respondents*
Total number of players cited
Mean
35 23 6 4 1 69
148 98 15 9 3 273
4.23 4.26 2.50 2.25 3.00 3.96
Some respondents had more than one type of player.
vey instrument (Appendix). Other key terms are defined within the text as they relate to specific questions, as on the actual survey.
A. Dedicated (n = 17)t IBM InfoWindow Sony View DEC IVIS Other B. Nondedicated (n = 37)t IBM PC
Macintosht IBM PS/2 Apple II Other
Number of systems
Number and % of total respondents (n = 40)*
Mean number of stations per institution
49 5 15 1
16(40%) 5(13%) 1 (3%) 1(3%)
3.10 1.00 15.00 1.00
91 60 16 1 3
28(70%) 18 (45%) 7(18%) 1 (3%) 1(3%)
3.25 3.33 2.30 1.00 3.00
* Total number of respondents to question on microcomputer systems. t Some respondents had both dedicated and nondedicated systems. t See also Table 3. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number.
FINDINGS Of the respondents, 71% (44 of 62) indicated that they had interactive videodisc technology on their campus. On a separate question, 63% (24 of 38) of respondents indicated plans to have interactive videodisc on their campus in the next year. Over three quarters (77% or 43 of 56) indicated that videodisc development was not centralized through one unit on their campus. Respondents indicated use of a wide variety of videodisc hardware. The two dominant types of videodisc players were Pioneer and Sony, followed by Panasonic, Hitachi, and others (Table 1). Sixty-three percent (40 of 63) of all respondents answered questions on videodisc microcomputer systems. Of the dedicated preconfigured videodisc systems, the majority (40% or 16 of 40) used IBM InfoWindow* systems, followed by 13% (5 of 40) with Sony View Systemst and 3% (1 of 40) with DEC IVISt systems. Of those using multiuse videodisc systems, 70% (28 of 40) used IBM PC or compatible systems, followed with 45% (18 of 40) using Macintosh§ systems (Table 2; Table 3 for Macintosh use). Of those respondents indicating components for nondedicated systems, the majority (69% or 25 of 36) indicated that they did not have graphics overlay capability (i.e., computer images over video on one screen). Of those respondents using videodisc development software, 55% (18 of 33) were using authoring sys*
InfoWindow is a registered trademark of the IBM Corporation. t View Systems is a registered trademark of the Sony Corporation. : IVIS is a registered trademark of the Digital Equipment Corporation.
§ Macintosh is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc. 162
tems, and 82% (27 of 33) were using authoring languages. (Authoring systems are structured program environments in which the user must use a predetermined set of computer tools to develop an instructional lesson; authoring languages are essentially computer programming languages that provide the user with a great amount of flexibility in developing an instructional lesson.) Respondents indicated a wide variety of software applications. Of those reporting use of authoring systems (Table 4), the IBM InfoWindow authoring software was used heavily (39% or 7 of 18) followed by a variety of other authoring systems. With regard to authoring languages (Table 5), most used HyperCard/HyperTalk** (67% or 18 of 27), followed by a variety of other authoring languages.
Videodisc development and purchase Over two thirds of respondents (67% or 33 of 49) had purchased Level I videodiscs. Over one fourth (28% or 13 of 46) of the respondents indicated that they were repurposing a videodisc within their institution, that is, using a computer program written to interface with the videodisc for instructional purposes. Over one fourth (27% or 12 of 45) of the respondents produced a "shared" Level I videodisc (i.e., different departments or institutions shared the cost to place images from similar or different content areas on one videodisc). ** HyperCard/HyperTalk is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.
Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
Videodisc technology
Table 3 Types of Macintosh computers in use
Macintosh Plus Macintosh SE Macintosh II Total
Table 4 Authoring systems in use
Number of respondents (n = 18)*t
Total number of Macs cited
Mean
2 10 9 21
31 28 23 82
15.50 2.80 2.56 3.90
* Total number of respondents to the question on Macintosh Computers. t Some respondents had more than one type.
Only 14% of respondents (6 of 42) to the question on budgeting indicated that they had a specific annual budget for videodisc technology, and of these, the mean budget was $5,500. Only 3% (1 of 38) indicated a specific annual budget for developing a videodisc. Individual responses to the question on cost of videodisc programs varied. The maximum amount that respondents indicated they would pay to buy a videodisc program varied from a mean of $354 for Level I (n = 27), $437 for Level II (n = 23), $916 for Level III (n = 32), to $1,100 for Level IV (n = 16). Half of the respondents (59% or 37 of 63) answered the question on the development of their own videodisc software. Over one fourth (27%) of these respondents (10 of 37) planned to begin development in the next year or so. Of those libraries indicating development underway of their own videodisc, 31% (5 of 16) had begun a Level I disc, 13% (2 of 16) a Level II disc, 94% (15 of 16) a Level III disc, and 6% (1 of 16) a Level IV disc. Ten institutions planned future videodisc development; 80% (8 of 10) indicated that they plan to begin development of a Level III videodisc within the next year or so, and 20% (2 of 10) planned to develop a Level I videodisc.
Distribution Ten institutions make videodiscs they have produced available to other institutions; nine of these institutions sell their videodiscs. These institutions used multiple mechanisms to sell videodiscs: 6 of 9 distributed them for sale from their institution, 4 of 9 used a publisher, 2 of 9 used a cooperative or consortia, and 1 of 9 used a distributor.
Videodisc use and delivery for students Over four fifths of respondents (89% or 42 of 47) indicated that videodisc technology was available for student use in their institution; 84% (38 of 45) indicated there was a centralized place in their institution for students to access videodisc technology. Of the Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
IBM InfoWindow Other Authorware Coursebuilder QUEST Sony View Tencore Macromind Directort
Percentage
Number of respondent (n = 18)* use (%)
of total respondents (n = 33)
7 (39%) 6(33%) 3 (17%) 3 (17%) 3 (17%) 2 (11%) 2 (11%) 1(6%)
(21%) (18%) (9%) (9%) (9%) (6%) (6%) (3%)
* Total respondents to question on authoring systems. t Total respondents to question on deveblpment software. t Macromind Director is a registered trademark of Macromind, Inc. The following authoring systems were not reported in use: IMSATT, INSIGHT, Instructor, MacAuthor, Scholar/Teach, Summitt, Vid Kit, and Videodisc A. S.
Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number.
70% (44 of 63) who responded to the question on who is making videodisc technology available to students, many indicated that the health sciences library was the prime centralized location (80% or 35 of 44), but also indicated availability within individual departments (27% or 12 of 44), "other" sites (25% or 11 of 44), media resource center (14% or 6 of 44), microcomputer lab (11% or 5 of 44), biomedical communications departments (7% or 3 of 44), computer department (5% or 2 of 44), education department (5% or 2 of 44), audiovisual services (2% or 1 of 44), and television services (2% or 1 of 44) (Table 6). Thirty-six respondents indicated a variety of subject areas in which they were currently using videodisc technology for instructional purposes. The three
Table 5 Authoring languages in use Number of respondents (n = 27)* use (%)
HyperCard/HyperTalk
"C"
Other BASIC
IBM InfoWindow Language Pascal
Pilot Assembler
18 (67%) 4 (15%) 4 (15%) 3 (11%)
2(7Y%)
2 (7%/6) 2(7%) 1(4%)
Percentage of total respondents (n = 33)t (55%)
(120%)
(12%) (9%) (6%) (6%) (6%) (3%)
Total respondents to questions on authoring languages.
t Total respondents to questions on devebpment software. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number.
163
Singarella et al. Table 6 Location of videodisc availability Number of spnd (n = 44)
Ubrary (centralized) Individual departments Other sites Media resource center Microcomputer lab Biomedcal communications Computer department Education department Audiovisual services Television services
(t 35 (80%/6) 12 (27%) 11 (25%h) 6 (14%) 5 (11%) 3(7%)
2(5%) 2(5%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)
* Total number of respondents to the question on who is making videodisc technoiogy available to students. t Totals over 100%h are due to some respondents indicating more than one centralized area within the institution. Peroentages rounded to the nearest whole number.
predominant subject areas included pathology (44% or 16 of 36), neuroanatomy/neurology (19% or 7 of 36), and anatomy (17% or 6 of 36), with a wide dispersion of remaining subject areas. Of the forty-two who answered the question on videodisc technology availability, respondents indicated a mean of 5.2 videodisc delivery stations within an institution with a total 219 stations reported for student use. Twenty percent (9 of 46) of respondents indicated that Level I videodisc players were centrally available for check-out and use, as was other audiovisual equipment within their institution.
CONCLUSIONS The finding that most respondents indicated some form of interactive videodisc technology on their campus suggests that academic health centers and their libraries are beginning to make investments in this relatively new technology. This growing movement toward videodisc technology is evidenced by the fact that almost two thirds (63% or 24 of 38) indicated that they planned to have some form of the technology within the next year or so. Forty percent (16 of 40) of respondents indicated they used the IBM InfoWindow system, by far the dominant dedicated videodisc system in use in health sciences libraries (Table 2). The machine of choice for a multiuse videodisc system included the IBM PC or compatible system, followed by the Macintosh. It is interesting to note that over three fourths of the institutions using nondedicated systems were using two screens: one for the computer program and the other for the videodisc images. Most respondents using Macintosh computers (Table 3) used the HyperCard authoring tool. However, 164
a diversity of other authoring software included Authorwareff, Coursebuilder#, Quest§§, Sony View System, and Tencore*** software, and a variety of authoring systems (Tables 4-5). Sixty-seven percent (33 of 49) of respondents had purchased Level I videodisc technology, and over a fourth (28% or 13 of 46) were repurposing a videodisc for use within their institution. Over a quarter of the respondents (27% or 12 of 45) had produced a Level I "shared" videodisc, so there was some production being done through academic health sciences libraries, even though only 14% (6 of 42) had a specific annual budget for videodisc technology. One fourth (25% or 16 of 63) of respondents had already begun to develop their own videodisc; of these, almost one fourth (24% or 15 of 63) had a Level III videodisc in development, and 8% (or 5 of 63) had a Level I videodisc in development. This is surprising given how expensive and time-consuming it is to produce a Level III videodisc. However, a preponderence of Level III videodisc development indicates a movement toward more interactive videodisc technology. Two thirds (67% or 10 of 15) of respondents producing videodiscs made them available to other institutions. Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that those videodiscs in development will also be distributed, making more interactive videodisc technology in the health sciences available to health sciences libraries. The mean $354 that respondents were willing to spend as a maximum for pricing of Level I programs and $437 for Level II videodisc programs is compatible, if not a little high, with the current pricing of many of these programs. However, willingness to spend a mean of $916 for a Level III program did not match reality, as many good Level III programs sell for in excess of $1,000. The mean $1,100 for Level IV programs indicated a willingness to spend more, but there are insufficient data on the availability of Level IV programs to draw conclusions. Seventy-seven percent (43 of 56) of respondents indicated that videodisc development was not centralized on their campus. This has implications for the future because this could allow for duplications or incompatibility of equipment, effort, and personnel involved with this new technology. The majority of respondents (89% or 42 of 47) indicated that videodisc technology was available for student use in several locations and that the predominant place (80% or 35 of 44) was centralized in the health sciences library, followed by individual departments (Table tf AuthorWare is a registered trademark of AuthorWare, Inc. # CourseBuilder is a registered trademark of Telerobotics, Inc. §§ QUEST is a registered trademark of Allen Communications. *** Tencore is a
registered trademark of Computer Teaching Cor-
poration.
Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
Videodisc technology
6). The authors conclude that health sciences libraries are one of the key places for students to use videodisc technology, although few (20% or 9 of 46) respondents indicated that Level I players were centrally available for check-out and use in classrooms, as is other audiovisual equipment in their institutions.
Health sciences libraries are one of the key places for students to use videodisc technology, although few respondents indicated that Level I players were centrally available for check-out and use in classrooms, as is other audiovisual equipment in their institutions. The results of this survey address the need to document videodisc technology's expanding role within academic health sciences libraries. According to these results, a significant number of academic health sciences libraries have begun to not only use, but also develop, produce, and distribute videodisc technology. The growth of these endeavors should be followed. The health sciences information technology field is a dynamic one. The authors believe that the results from this survey indicate that videodisc technology will play an increasing role in health sciences education within academic health sciences libraries. The survey highlights some important questions currently facing health sciences libraries regarding the use of new instructional technologies. The interest and investment in this technology will undoubtedly expand as health sciences libraries move into the 21st century. REFERENCES 1. DAYNE R. Experimenting with videodiscs. Instr Innov 1982 Feb;27(2):24-5. 2. MOLNAR AR. Intelligent videodisc and the learning society. J Educ Tech Syst 1979 Sep;8(1):31-40. 3. BUNDERSON CV, HoEKEMA J, HON D, WILSON RL Er AL. Interactive video: an elephant in search of a definition. Perform Instr J 1983 Nov;22(9);4-5. 4. HoEKEmA J. Interactive videodisc: a new architecture. Perform Instr J 1983 Nov;22(9):6-7. 5. EASTWOOD LF. Motivations and deterrents to educational use of "intelligent videodisc" systems. J Educ Tech Syst 1978 Jun;7(4):303-35. 6. ROBSON W. Is it true what they say about videodiscs? Training 1975 Dec;12(12):80-2. 7. BUNDERSON CV. Proof-of-concept demonstration and comparative evaluation of a prototype intelligent videodisc system. Final Report. Orem, UT: World Institute of Computer Assisted Teaching, 1981 Jan 2:74. (ERIC document reproduction service, ED 228 989.)
Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
8. HON D. The promise of interactive video-an affective search. Perform Instr J 1983 Nov;22(9):21-2. 9. HELsEL SK. Videodisc in public schools. Optical Inf Syst 1988 Jan/Feb;8(1):29-35. 10. BoRK A. Conference on intelligent videodisc systems. Summary. Irvine: University of Califomia 1977 Dec:14. (ERIC document reproduction service, ED 163 978.) 11. STEWART S. Videodiscs in healthcare. 2d ed. Alexandria, VA: Stewart Publishing, 1988: chapter 17, p. 6-7. 12. KENER JR, BiuGHT LK. Micros and interactive videodiscs for improving access to health education. Health Educ 1983 Oct;4(6):47-50. 13. SMiTH EE, JONES LL, WAUGH ML. Production and evaluation of interactive videodisc lessons in laboratory instruction. J Comput Based Educ 1986 Autumn;13(4):117-21. 14. SMrm EE. Interactive video: an examination of its use and effectiveness. J Instr Dev 1987;10(2):2-10. 15. LEONARD WH. Biology instruction by interactive videodisc or conventional laboratory: a qualitative comparison. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Spring, Indiana, Apr 15-18, 1985. (ERIC document reproduction service, ED 258 811.) 16. LYNEsS AL. Effectiveness of interactive video to teach CPR theory and skills. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, California, Jan 17-23,1985. (ERIC document reproduction service, ED 256 324.)
17. HANNAFIN MJ, PmILIuPs TL, TRIPP SD. The effects of orienting, processing, and practicing activities on learning from interactive video: beyond tape versus disc. J Res Dev Educ 1986 Autumn;21(1):44-60.
18. STEwART S. op. cit., 16:1-11. 19. RIDGEWAY B. Analysis of training costs. Videodisc Monitor 1988 Jan;6(1):27. 20. FINKELSTEmN M, JOHNSON L, LILLY G. Interactive videodisc patient simulations of oral diseases. J Dent Educ 1988 Apr; 52(4):217-20. 21. HELsEL SK. Interactive videodisc and special education. Optical Inf Syst 1988 Jul/Aug;8(4);190-5. 22. DECHENNE J, EvANs R. Simulating medical emergencies. Instr Innov 1982 Jan;27(1):23. 23. BRANcH CE, LEDFORD BR, ROBERTSON BT, ROBINSON L. The validation of an interactive videodisc as an alternative to traditional teaching techniques: auscultation of the heart. Educ Tech 1987 Mar;27(3):16-22. 24. SINGARELLA T. Interactive videodisc. Feedback HESCA 1990 Jan/Feb;16(1):4-6. 25. STEWART, op. cit., 3:1-19. 26. IBID., 2:1-11. 27. IBID., 4:1-9:17. 28. IBID., 10:1-17. 29. IBID., 15:1-10. 30. STEWART S, ed. Med Disc Rep 1985-1989: 1-5. Interac Healthc News 1990:631. ULLmm EJ. Videodisc technology. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, 1989. 32. LocATIs CN. Videodisc repurposing. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, 1989. 33. NAnONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE. The Time Project (Fact Sheet). Bethesda, MD: The Library, 1985. 165
Singarella et al. 34. HARLESS WG. An interactive videodisc drama: the case of Frank Hall. J Comput Based Educ 1986 Autumn; 13(4);1 13-6. 35. Authoring systems, programs, languages. Instr Del Syst 1989 Mar/Apr;3(2):10-8. 36. ALLEN B, ERICKSON D. Training interactive videodisc designers. J Instr Dev 1986;9(2):19-28. 37. WOOD RK, WOOLLEY RD. An overview of videodisc technology and some potential applications in the library, information, and instructional sciences. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources, 1980:37. (ERIC document reproduction service, ED 206 328.) 38. SINGARELLA T, BADER S, RAMAGLI H. Videodisc utilization trends in the health sciences. J Biocommun 1988 Summer; 15(3):26-9.
Received April 1990; accepted October 1990 APPENDIX
Survey instrument
Please fill in the number of dedicated and nondedicated interactive videodisc systems you have.
_
November 1969 The purpose of this sur"y X to detemio the ivo andt of videodisc usa in cakdrnic heath sle tn briasthroughout r lombeatbonpptbion of videodic technology on your the Unked Stats. We realze that there may be no onoeonte si fohe campus, Just s there Is none formnrocomputers Therotore, please fIfree to ddtrbut copies ofthis quesionare o whomer is working wth InteractWoe vodisc on your camps. The suvey should tab about 20 minute to corplete, and your tko AN respooeswll be treatedonidentialy.
isoverymuch appeciated.
Other(s)
VIDEODISC DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY componenls for nnnbd
systems
El I monitor screen for both video and computer, or E 2 screens, 1 for computer and 1 for video Do you have graphics overlay capability (computer images over video on 1 screen) El Yes E No
COMMERCIAL INSTRUCTIONAL SOFrWARE APPLICATIONS Please check what kinds of commercially available development software you use with your interactive videodisc system: L = AUTQHORING SYSTEMS E AUTHORWARE (Course of Action) El Assembler COURSE BUILDER BASIC (Video Builder) E E IBM InfoWindowT- software C H l IMSMATr E HyperCard/HyperTalk E INSIGHT (Whitney) E IBM InfoWindowTt Language INSTRUCTOR (BCD) E PASCAL R MACAUTrHOR (Mac Video/Mentor) a PILOT MACROMIND OR DIRECI (VideoWorks) E E OTHER QUEST E SCHOLARtrEACH (Boeing) H Sony View Systemn software E SUMMIT E TENCORE
VID)KIT
H
SURVEY OF INTERACTIVE VIDEODISC TECHNOLOGY IN ACADEMIC HEALTH SCIENCE LIBRARIES
Nondedicated System Apple ! IBM - PS/2 series IBM PC or Compatible (for example, Zenith) SE Plus Macintosh: - Mac II
DEC IVIS IBM InfoWindow System NCR Inteact Sony View System Other(s)
VIDEODISC A.S. OTCHER
Videodisc Development and Production Have you purchased any level I videodiscs? E Yes E No Has any repurposing (i.e., a computer program has been to terface wkh the dbsc for instonional purposes) been done within you institution for the level 1 videodiscs you purchased? E Yes El No
DEFINMONS OF TERbMS Before we ask you to beoin answenng the questons on this ourvey, we thought i might be helptlu to define the terms we are using: Vskodsc: Whateverl2toptlcal lesrdisc hadware. oftwre. oreytmyou hveon yourceanpus. 1otee~ks.nshdila: Level fl1ideodlc ailotlonos deecufed below.
FSR
LmslU Level
LOFIQEFQ
Shared Vidi.
Is not Ilteractve In any way; his simply a genec vldodlsc of images. Is sernr-interactoe. and Includes InteractIon at the evel of programmed chooesquestsons which ae recorded on the
videodic. and are responded to through the vidodlsc keypad.
Level IsI the lnteorat ot the microcomputer and the videodisc player. The microcomputer controk the videodisc player, formats and presots the instruction, snd may provide feedba to those responses. This s the interactive lvel of
vidodisc Itnetrucon.
LsalY Operetlng System programming for al computerfuctions and graphcs can be read from the videodisc. Digial data is stored on the videodisc as stadard frnm of video information. This requires a digital to analog encoder. Digal data thuseocoded as analog video can be fed toa standard vkiodisc masteog machine. Th data ocoupies vdeo frama space on the disc, reducing the standard vido snd audio avallie.
DEMOGRAPHICS We need some information on the person completing this survey. Name -
El
El
H
None
El
None as this time, but plan to begin within the next year
El
Have begun development
Please list in which subject areas you are or plan to develop videodisc instruction:
Institution
City
State_
_
E]
DISTRIBUTION If you have produced a videodisc, do you make them available to others? El Yes E No If you have produced a videodisc, do you sell them to others? a Yes El No
Zip
Do you currently have any form of interactive videodisc on your campus? a Yes a No Do you plan to have any form of interactive videodisc on your campus in the next year or so? El Yes Is videodisc developmcnt on your campus centalized through one unit? No Yes
El No
El
If yes, where? If you answered 'no to the above questions, please retum the survey; it you answered 'yes' to either of the above questions, aseo testhe rest of thi fsrvey. Thanks.
HARDWARE EQUIPMENT Which (and how many) interactive videodisc ( OD-ROM) equipment do you have on your campus? Videodisc Payer (fill in number) Hitachi Panasonic Pioneer Sony JVC Phillips Other(s)
MICROCOMPUTER Component of your Interactive Videodisc System Veiodesc Survey, Pope2 One that you puchased that contains aloomponerts of the videodic system provided from one company; an off-the shelf bundled system.
How do you (or plan to) distribute for sale? ElPublisher E From your own Institution E Cooperative/Consortia Effort E Distributor
E Other
BUDGET Do you have a specific annual budget for videodisc technology: Purchase
Development
El Yes Yes
E
If yes, budget is $ If yes, budget is S
E No
ElNo
Product Cost Levels Cost levels which determine purchase of commercial videodisc oams- What is the maximum cost level at which you would generally consider purchasing a videodisc program? Please mark an X next to your choice in the matrix below: $100- 200- 300- 400- 300- 600- 700- 800- 900- 1000- 1100- 1200Level I
2 3 I a 2 v T El El El El El El O_ El Elal El El El 0 E] E] Q Ea Q fl El El E El El El El El 2
LevelIl Qa
Level
III
Level IV
166
E
m 1:1
tle
College/Dept/Unit Address
Development of your own videodisc: What kinds of videodisc development are you doing within your institution or plan to do (please reerto bvels deined on pae I and check appropriatefy ? Leoel I Level 2 ive3l 4Leve
1:3
Date
Vkidoditc survey, Pop 3
Pduction
Have you produced any "shared" level 1 videodiscs (shared videodisc is defined as eiher different departmenits within en tWtuhion or different instiutlions sharing the cost to place images from differenl content areas on one videodisc in order lo minimze the cost to any one party) El Yes El No
2 a
l
a
l Q
a
El
a
El
Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
Videodisc technology $1300- 1400- 1500- 1600- 1700- 1800- 1900- 2000- 2100- 2200- 2300-
l100 S1A00 1M Level I E Level II 0 0 0 LevellY 0 0 0 Level IV 0 0 0
E
M2
1M
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2102200
2 0 0 0
0 0
202402400+ 0 0
0
00 0
0 0
J Yes Is videodisc technology (level 1-3) available for student use in yow institudon? Do you have a cenalized place for students to interct with videodisc technology? E Yes
LUbrary (centralized)
[2 Compute Department
]B
-
[J No C No
imedical Communscassons (cenlraized)
E] Individual Departnments E Telvisiwn Services
PLEASE Return survey by
Ea
Tomn Sinpredl, PhD. Associate Psofessor and Chiman (Acting) Deprment of Educadon University of Tennessee, Memphis 8 South Dunlap Memphis, Tennessee 38163
Media Resowuce Center
a Mirconputer Lab
D Other
GENERAL COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS ABOUT VIDEODISC IN THE HEALTH SCIENCES OR THIS SURVEY (use other side if necessary)
0
VkSOdieCSum", Pop4
VIDEODISC USE and DELIVERY for STUDENTS
O Audiovisual Services Educaon Deparment
Are level I videodisc playes centrall available for check out and use, as is other audiovisual equipment within your institution? ] Yes [ No
Other
How many videodisc delivery staions are available for student use? In what subject reas are you currently using videodisc technology for instiuctional purposes:
to:
Thanky
u!
FROM THE BULLETIN- 50 YEARS AGO Dr. Robert James, 1705-1776 By Lulu Stine, Texas Technological College, Lubbock, Texas In February, 1890, Mark Twain published in Harper's Magazine an article called "A Majestic Literary Fossil" [1]. The literary fossil described is Dr. Robert James's Medicinal Dictionary, which had been published a century and a half earlier. "If it had been sent against the Pretender's troops" says Mark Twain "there would not have been a single survivor. In 1861 this deadly book was still working the cemeteries-down in Virginia. For three generations and a half it has been going quietly along, enriching the earth with its slain." The article describes the heroic measures employed in the past in the treatment of disease. It does not reveal Mark Twain at his cleverest, nor does the paper do justice to Robert James. In a story of James's life, it deserves mention because Mark Twain's report was virtually the last flicker of fame for one who was regarded by his contemporaries as having established a claim to immortality. The Dictionary contains many such curious and even monstrous formulas as those described by Mark Twain, but it is not to be supposed that this fact convicts James of a want of professional knowledge. The Dictionary represented the best medical opinion of his day. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1941 Jun;29(4):187
Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
167
Professor and Chairman Department of Health Informatics 8 South Dunlap Street University of Tennessee, Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38163
Shelley Bader, M.L.S. Director
Himmelfarb Library George Washington University 2300 Eye Street NW Washington, D.C. 20037 Howard J. Ramagli, Ph.D. Educational Computing Specialist Department of Health Informatics 8 South Dunlap Street University of Tennessee, Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38163
This paper describes a national survey designed to determine trends in videodisc use, development, and production in academic health sciences libraries throughout North America. In the winter of 1989, 131 four-page survey instruments went to library directors in academic health sciences institutions. Of these, 63 (48%) survey forms were completed and returned. Survey results indicated a wide range of videodisc technology use and development and a growing production of both Level I and Level III videodiscs within academic health sciences libraries. Videodisc technology delivery for student use was centralized within many medical libraries, although videodisc development was not centralized within academic health sciences centers. Most libraries (67%) have purchased videodisc technology and over one fourth (28%) are repurposing a videodisc within their institution. Over one fourth (25%) of respondents have already begun to develop their own videodisc software, and almost one fourth (24%) of respondents have a Level III videodisc in production. Clearly the use and development of videodisc technology for biomedical instruction is expanding within academic health sciences libraries.
INTRODUCTION The use of videodisc technology in health sciences education is exciting and important as a delivery strategy for students, faculty, and the health sciences professions. It is important for health sciences library professionals to know the direction that academic Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
health sciences libraries are taking with regard to this new technology. Optical videodisc is a relatively new medium that allows for the storage of large quantities of information with random access retrieval capability. Interactive videodisc technology is an emerging 159
Singarella et al.
form of mediated instruction that, within the last few years, has been more actively developed and used in the health sciences.
Interactive videodisc technology is an emergingform of mediated instruction that, within the last few years, has been more actively developed and used in the health sciences. HISTORICAL REVIEW During the 1970s, considerable experimentation with educational videodisc development took place [1]. Published information on the potential use of interactive videodisc technology first began to appear in the mid-1970s [2]. The early use of interactive video technology required definition for many [3], and explanations of the architecture of the new technology became necessary [4]. The early development and use of videodisc technology was greeted in some cases with skepticism [5], while some educators espoused how the new technology would revolutionize education and training [6-7]. Many educators believed the new technology held great promise [8], and there has been discussion about its impact and growth in the public schools [9]. Conferences dedicated to the exploration of videodisc technology first took place in the 1970s [10], and the noted Nebraska Videodisc Symposium (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) has been ongoing since 1980 [11]. The use of videodisc has grown significantly. Interactive videodisc is one of the most efficient types of mediated instruction because a well-designed Level III program reaches the higher end of the cognitive domain of learning; that is, it allows health sciences students to both apply and synthesize knowledge gained during academic studies. Videodisc technology has improved various forms of health education [12]. Research studies in the health sciences have shown that interactive videodisc is both an efficient and effective learning tool [13-18] and can be costeffective in training [19]. Videodisc development has increased significantly over the last decade within all areas of the health sciences. For example, interactive videodisc has been developed in the fields of dentistry [20], special education [21], medicine [22], nursing, the basic sciences, veterinary medicine [23], and other areas [24]. In 1988, Stewart cited active individual efforts by over thirty academic health centers resulting in the production of many instructional videodiscs in academic disciplines in the health sciences [25]. Stewart discussed active efforts in videodisc production by nine160
teen pharmaceutical companies [26] and a myriad of efforts by hospitals, the private sector, public education, and the government [27]. Stuart cited over twenty efforts worldwide in videodisc production for the health care field [28]. Additionally, Stewart cited the development of information systems, databases, and record keeping using optical disk technologies [29].
Videodisc development has increased significantly over the last decade within all areas of the health sciences. For example, interactive videodisc has been developed in the fields of dentistry, special education, medicine, nursing, the basic sciences, veterinary medicine, and other areas. A number of publications have developed since 1985 to report on videodisc development efforts in the health sciences field. The proliferation of health sciences videodisc programs spawned several videodisc newsletters reporting on videodisc development [30]. As part of its mission, the Lister Hill Center for Biomedical Communications of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) has developed and disseminated videodisc technology information [31-32]. NLM has funded production of experimental videodisc demonstration programs as part of its Technological Innovations in Medical Education (TIME) project, which resulted in medical education interactive videodiscs [33-34]. There has been a proliferation of authoring systems, programs, and languages designed to support interactive videodisc technology [35]. The wish to stimulate and report on videodisc development in specific health sciences areas has resulted in several specialized consortia for the health sciences field, including the Medical Interactive Videodisc Consortium (MIVC), the Consortium of North American Veterinary Interactive New Concept Education (CONVINCE), and the Interactive Healthcare Consortium (IHC). The educational videodisc market has seen marked growth since 1985, with 7,000 videodisc players located in U.S. public schools in 1986 [36]. Educational leaders forecast that by 1990 the installed base of videodisc players in education and training would exceed 124,000 and that about 65% of videodiscs would be educational or instructional [37]. As both an instructional delivery medium and a storage medium, videodisc technology is powerful and effective. The technology is being used increasingly within the learning resources centers of many academic health sciences libraries, in spite of no clear standards or compatibility for Level III videodisc sysBull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
Videodisc technology
tems. During the last few years, videodisc development and use has been studied within the health sciences, yet few systematic surveys of health sciences institutions have been carried out to determine developing trends [38]. In light of interactive videodisc's potential for health sciences education, biocommunicators and health sciences librarians need information on videodisc development and use trends within health sciences institutions. Is there a trend toward centralizing videodisc technology in health sciences libraries or elsewhere on health sciences campuses? This information is both timely and important as health sciences libraries evolve into comprehensive information centers concerned with the identification, access, retrieval, use, and evaluation of instructional information.
As both an instructional delivery medium and a storage medium, videodisc technology is powerful and effective. The technology is being used increasingly within the learning resources centers of many academic health sciences libraries, in spite of no clear standards or compatibility for Level III videodisc systems.
RESEARCH STUDY In order to determine the relative levels and kinds of videodisc use in academic health sciences institutions throughout North America, a videodisc study was designed, developed, and implemented. The study included six health sciences groups. One of these health sciences groups consisted of directors of academic health sciences libraries. The data from this health sciences group were extracted and analyzed for this report. With respect to libraries, the study sought answers to such questions as: Where are health sciences libraries during this "window of time" with regard to use, development, and production of videodisc technology, and where might they be heading? What videodisc hardware and software do health sciences libraries have and what might they be committing, or willing to commit, to this new technology? The information elicited from this study revealed how much health sciences libraries have invested in videodisc technology, and how the technology is being used. Findings should be useful to administrators and health sciences library professionals charged with assessing this medium and making projections for future investment. BOl Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
As a part of the study, a four-page single-spaced survey instrument using a simple descriptive design was developed (Appendix). The first page of the survey instrument provided definitions concerning videodisc technologies and requested demographic information. A cover letter from the investigators accompanied each survey mailed. A total of 131 surveys was sent to library directors on the mailing list of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Library Directors (AAHSLD); 63 (48%) completed survey forms were returned. The survey instrument was mailed in November 1989, and all surveys were returned by January 1990. The data were analyzed during early 1990.
Assumptions The study results represented a significant percentage of academic health sciences libraries in the United States; the sample group size return rate (48%) was large enough and the procedures valid. All extraneous variables affecting the study had been provided for through the design and treatment of data. The most appropriate person from each health sciences library completed the survey form. If respondents indicated having videodisc technology, use of the technology was assumed.
Limitations of the study The population for the study was determined from mailing lists. The AAHSLD mailing list did not include all academic health sciences library directors in North America. Because it was a census survey (i.e., all persons were included), the survey population was not randomly selected; therefore, inference to the general population of health sciences library directors or institutions is not statistically sound.
Reporting of data Selective survey results are reported; not all questions that appeared in the original survey instrument are reported. In some cases, questions with extremely low response (small n's) have been omitted. However, questions with small n's where the numbers are indicative of the small number of health sciences libraries working in the area of videodisc development have been included. The library directors responded to different groups of questions. Not all respondents currently had operational videodisc technology on their campus; therefore, the n's vary in some cases. Percentages are based on responses to specific items. Some items called for multiple responses from a single respondent. This article assumes that the reader has basic familiarity with videodisc technology. Definitions of important videodisc terms were included in the sur161
Singarella et al.
Table 1 Videodisc players
Pioneer
Sony Panasonic Hitachi Phillips Total
Table 2 Videodisc microcomputer systems
Number of respondents*
Total number of players cited
Mean
35 23 6 4 1 69
148 98 15 9 3 273
4.23 4.26 2.50 2.25 3.00 3.96
Some respondents had more than one type of player.
vey instrument (Appendix). Other key terms are defined within the text as they relate to specific questions, as on the actual survey.
A. Dedicated (n = 17)t IBM InfoWindow Sony View DEC IVIS Other B. Nondedicated (n = 37)t IBM PC
Macintosht IBM PS/2 Apple II Other
Number of systems
Number and % of total respondents (n = 40)*
Mean number of stations per institution
49 5 15 1
16(40%) 5(13%) 1 (3%) 1(3%)
3.10 1.00 15.00 1.00
91 60 16 1 3
28(70%) 18 (45%) 7(18%) 1 (3%) 1(3%)
3.25 3.33 2.30 1.00 3.00
* Total number of respondents to question on microcomputer systems. t Some respondents had both dedicated and nondedicated systems. t See also Table 3. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number.
FINDINGS Of the respondents, 71% (44 of 62) indicated that they had interactive videodisc technology on their campus. On a separate question, 63% (24 of 38) of respondents indicated plans to have interactive videodisc on their campus in the next year. Over three quarters (77% or 43 of 56) indicated that videodisc development was not centralized through one unit on their campus. Respondents indicated use of a wide variety of videodisc hardware. The two dominant types of videodisc players were Pioneer and Sony, followed by Panasonic, Hitachi, and others (Table 1). Sixty-three percent (40 of 63) of all respondents answered questions on videodisc microcomputer systems. Of the dedicated preconfigured videodisc systems, the majority (40% or 16 of 40) used IBM InfoWindow* systems, followed by 13% (5 of 40) with Sony View Systemst and 3% (1 of 40) with DEC IVISt systems. Of those using multiuse videodisc systems, 70% (28 of 40) used IBM PC or compatible systems, followed with 45% (18 of 40) using Macintosh§ systems (Table 2; Table 3 for Macintosh use). Of those respondents indicating components for nondedicated systems, the majority (69% or 25 of 36) indicated that they did not have graphics overlay capability (i.e., computer images over video on one screen). Of those respondents using videodisc development software, 55% (18 of 33) were using authoring sys*
InfoWindow is a registered trademark of the IBM Corporation. t View Systems is a registered trademark of the Sony Corporation. : IVIS is a registered trademark of the Digital Equipment Corporation.
§ Macintosh is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc. 162
tems, and 82% (27 of 33) were using authoring languages. (Authoring systems are structured program environments in which the user must use a predetermined set of computer tools to develop an instructional lesson; authoring languages are essentially computer programming languages that provide the user with a great amount of flexibility in developing an instructional lesson.) Respondents indicated a wide variety of software applications. Of those reporting use of authoring systems (Table 4), the IBM InfoWindow authoring software was used heavily (39% or 7 of 18) followed by a variety of other authoring systems. With regard to authoring languages (Table 5), most used HyperCard/HyperTalk** (67% or 18 of 27), followed by a variety of other authoring languages.
Videodisc development and purchase Over two thirds of respondents (67% or 33 of 49) had purchased Level I videodiscs. Over one fourth (28% or 13 of 46) of the respondents indicated that they were repurposing a videodisc within their institution, that is, using a computer program written to interface with the videodisc for instructional purposes. Over one fourth (27% or 12 of 45) of the respondents produced a "shared" Level I videodisc (i.e., different departments or institutions shared the cost to place images from similar or different content areas on one videodisc). ** HyperCard/HyperTalk is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.
Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
Videodisc technology
Table 3 Types of Macintosh computers in use
Macintosh Plus Macintosh SE Macintosh II Total
Table 4 Authoring systems in use
Number of respondents (n = 18)*t
Total number of Macs cited
Mean
2 10 9 21
31 28 23 82
15.50 2.80 2.56 3.90
* Total number of respondents to the question on Macintosh Computers. t Some respondents had more than one type.
Only 14% of respondents (6 of 42) to the question on budgeting indicated that they had a specific annual budget for videodisc technology, and of these, the mean budget was $5,500. Only 3% (1 of 38) indicated a specific annual budget for developing a videodisc. Individual responses to the question on cost of videodisc programs varied. The maximum amount that respondents indicated they would pay to buy a videodisc program varied from a mean of $354 for Level I (n = 27), $437 for Level II (n = 23), $916 for Level III (n = 32), to $1,100 for Level IV (n = 16). Half of the respondents (59% or 37 of 63) answered the question on the development of their own videodisc software. Over one fourth (27%) of these respondents (10 of 37) planned to begin development in the next year or so. Of those libraries indicating development underway of their own videodisc, 31% (5 of 16) had begun a Level I disc, 13% (2 of 16) a Level II disc, 94% (15 of 16) a Level III disc, and 6% (1 of 16) a Level IV disc. Ten institutions planned future videodisc development; 80% (8 of 10) indicated that they plan to begin development of a Level III videodisc within the next year or so, and 20% (2 of 10) planned to develop a Level I videodisc.
Distribution Ten institutions make videodiscs they have produced available to other institutions; nine of these institutions sell their videodiscs. These institutions used multiple mechanisms to sell videodiscs: 6 of 9 distributed them for sale from their institution, 4 of 9 used a publisher, 2 of 9 used a cooperative or consortia, and 1 of 9 used a distributor.
Videodisc use and delivery for students Over four fifths of respondents (89% or 42 of 47) indicated that videodisc technology was available for student use in their institution; 84% (38 of 45) indicated there was a centralized place in their institution for students to access videodisc technology. Of the Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
IBM InfoWindow Other Authorware Coursebuilder QUEST Sony View Tencore Macromind Directort
Percentage
Number of respondent (n = 18)* use (%)
of total respondents (n = 33)
7 (39%) 6(33%) 3 (17%) 3 (17%) 3 (17%) 2 (11%) 2 (11%) 1(6%)
(21%) (18%) (9%) (9%) (9%) (6%) (6%) (3%)
* Total respondents to question on authoring systems. t Total respondents to question on deveblpment software. t Macromind Director is a registered trademark of Macromind, Inc. The following authoring systems were not reported in use: IMSATT, INSIGHT, Instructor, MacAuthor, Scholar/Teach, Summitt, Vid Kit, and Videodisc A. S.
Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number.
70% (44 of 63) who responded to the question on who is making videodisc technology available to students, many indicated that the health sciences library was the prime centralized location (80% or 35 of 44), but also indicated availability within individual departments (27% or 12 of 44), "other" sites (25% or 11 of 44), media resource center (14% or 6 of 44), microcomputer lab (11% or 5 of 44), biomedical communications departments (7% or 3 of 44), computer department (5% or 2 of 44), education department (5% or 2 of 44), audiovisual services (2% or 1 of 44), and television services (2% or 1 of 44) (Table 6). Thirty-six respondents indicated a variety of subject areas in which they were currently using videodisc technology for instructional purposes. The three
Table 5 Authoring languages in use Number of respondents (n = 27)* use (%)
HyperCard/HyperTalk
"C"
Other BASIC
IBM InfoWindow Language Pascal
Pilot Assembler
18 (67%) 4 (15%) 4 (15%) 3 (11%)
2(7Y%)
2 (7%/6) 2(7%) 1(4%)
Percentage of total respondents (n = 33)t (55%)
(120%)
(12%) (9%) (6%) (6%) (6%) (3%)
Total respondents to questions on authoring languages.
t Total respondents to questions on devebpment software. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number.
163
Singarella et al. Table 6 Location of videodisc availability Number of spnd (n = 44)
Ubrary (centralized) Individual departments Other sites Media resource center Microcomputer lab Biomedcal communications Computer department Education department Audiovisual services Television services
(t 35 (80%/6) 12 (27%) 11 (25%h) 6 (14%) 5 (11%) 3(7%)
2(5%) 2(5%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)
* Total number of respondents to the question on who is making videodisc technoiogy available to students. t Totals over 100%h are due to some respondents indicating more than one centralized area within the institution. Peroentages rounded to the nearest whole number.
predominant subject areas included pathology (44% or 16 of 36), neuroanatomy/neurology (19% or 7 of 36), and anatomy (17% or 6 of 36), with a wide dispersion of remaining subject areas. Of the forty-two who answered the question on videodisc technology availability, respondents indicated a mean of 5.2 videodisc delivery stations within an institution with a total 219 stations reported for student use. Twenty percent (9 of 46) of respondents indicated that Level I videodisc players were centrally available for check-out and use, as was other audiovisual equipment within their institution.
CONCLUSIONS The finding that most respondents indicated some form of interactive videodisc technology on their campus suggests that academic health centers and their libraries are beginning to make investments in this relatively new technology. This growing movement toward videodisc technology is evidenced by the fact that almost two thirds (63% or 24 of 38) indicated that they planned to have some form of the technology within the next year or so. Forty percent (16 of 40) of respondents indicated they used the IBM InfoWindow system, by far the dominant dedicated videodisc system in use in health sciences libraries (Table 2). The machine of choice for a multiuse videodisc system included the IBM PC or compatible system, followed by the Macintosh. It is interesting to note that over three fourths of the institutions using nondedicated systems were using two screens: one for the computer program and the other for the videodisc images. Most respondents using Macintosh computers (Table 3) used the HyperCard authoring tool. However, 164
a diversity of other authoring software included Authorwareff, Coursebuilder#, Quest§§, Sony View System, and Tencore*** software, and a variety of authoring systems (Tables 4-5). Sixty-seven percent (33 of 49) of respondents had purchased Level I videodisc technology, and over a fourth (28% or 13 of 46) were repurposing a videodisc for use within their institution. Over a quarter of the respondents (27% or 12 of 45) had produced a Level I "shared" videodisc, so there was some production being done through academic health sciences libraries, even though only 14% (6 of 42) had a specific annual budget for videodisc technology. One fourth (25% or 16 of 63) of respondents had already begun to develop their own videodisc; of these, almost one fourth (24% or 15 of 63) had a Level III videodisc in development, and 8% (or 5 of 63) had a Level I videodisc in development. This is surprising given how expensive and time-consuming it is to produce a Level III videodisc. However, a preponderence of Level III videodisc development indicates a movement toward more interactive videodisc technology. Two thirds (67% or 10 of 15) of respondents producing videodiscs made them available to other institutions. Therefore, it is reasonable to hypothesize that those videodiscs in development will also be distributed, making more interactive videodisc technology in the health sciences available to health sciences libraries. The mean $354 that respondents were willing to spend as a maximum for pricing of Level I programs and $437 for Level II videodisc programs is compatible, if not a little high, with the current pricing of many of these programs. However, willingness to spend a mean of $916 for a Level III program did not match reality, as many good Level III programs sell for in excess of $1,000. The mean $1,100 for Level IV programs indicated a willingness to spend more, but there are insufficient data on the availability of Level IV programs to draw conclusions. Seventy-seven percent (43 of 56) of respondents indicated that videodisc development was not centralized on their campus. This has implications for the future because this could allow for duplications or incompatibility of equipment, effort, and personnel involved with this new technology. The majority of respondents (89% or 42 of 47) indicated that videodisc technology was available for student use in several locations and that the predominant place (80% or 35 of 44) was centralized in the health sciences library, followed by individual departments (Table tf AuthorWare is a registered trademark of AuthorWare, Inc. # CourseBuilder is a registered trademark of Telerobotics, Inc. §§ QUEST is a registered trademark of Allen Communications. *** Tencore is a
registered trademark of Computer Teaching Cor-
poration.
Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
Videodisc technology
6). The authors conclude that health sciences libraries are one of the key places for students to use videodisc technology, although few (20% or 9 of 46) respondents indicated that Level I players were centrally available for check-out and use in classrooms, as is other audiovisual equipment in their institutions.
Health sciences libraries are one of the key places for students to use videodisc technology, although few respondents indicated that Level I players were centrally available for check-out and use in classrooms, as is other audiovisual equipment in their institutions. The results of this survey address the need to document videodisc technology's expanding role within academic health sciences libraries. According to these results, a significant number of academic health sciences libraries have begun to not only use, but also develop, produce, and distribute videodisc technology. The growth of these endeavors should be followed. The health sciences information technology field is a dynamic one. The authors believe that the results from this survey indicate that videodisc technology will play an increasing role in health sciences education within academic health sciences libraries. The survey highlights some important questions currently facing health sciences libraries regarding the use of new instructional technologies. The interest and investment in this technology will undoubtedly expand as health sciences libraries move into the 21st century. REFERENCES 1. DAYNE R. Experimenting with videodiscs. Instr Innov 1982 Feb;27(2):24-5. 2. MOLNAR AR. Intelligent videodisc and the learning society. J Educ Tech Syst 1979 Sep;8(1):31-40. 3. BUNDERSON CV, HoEKEMA J, HON D, WILSON RL Er AL. Interactive video: an elephant in search of a definition. Perform Instr J 1983 Nov;22(9);4-5. 4. HoEKEmA J. Interactive videodisc: a new architecture. Perform Instr J 1983 Nov;22(9):6-7. 5. EASTWOOD LF. Motivations and deterrents to educational use of "intelligent videodisc" systems. J Educ Tech Syst 1978 Jun;7(4):303-35. 6. ROBSON W. Is it true what they say about videodiscs? Training 1975 Dec;12(12):80-2. 7. BUNDERSON CV. Proof-of-concept demonstration and comparative evaluation of a prototype intelligent videodisc system. Final Report. Orem, UT: World Institute of Computer Assisted Teaching, 1981 Jan 2:74. (ERIC document reproduction service, ED 228 989.)
Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
8. HON D. The promise of interactive video-an affective search. Perform Instr J 1983 Nov;22(9):21-2. 9. HELsEL SK. Videodisc in public schools. Optical Inf Syst 1988 Jan/Feb;8(1):29-35. 10. BoRK A. Conference on intelligent videodisc systems. Summary. Irvine: University of Califomia 1977 Dec:14. (ERIC document reproduction service, ED 163 978.) 11. STEWART S. Videodiscs in healthcare. 2d ed. Alexandria, VA: Stewart Publishing, 1988: chapter 17, p. 6-7. 12. KENER JR, BiuGHT LK. Micros and interactive videodiscs for improving access to health education. Health Educ 1983 Oct;4(6):47-50. 13. SMiTH EE, JONES LL, WAUGH ML. Production and evaluation of interactive videodisc lessons in laboratory instruction. J Comput Based Educ 1986 Autumn;13(4):117-21. 14. SMrm EE. Interactive video: an examination of its use and effectiveness. J Instr Dev 1987;10(2):2-10. 15. LEONARD WH. Biology instruction by interactive videodisc or conventional laboratory: a qualitative comparison. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Spring, Indiana, Apr 15-18, 1985. (ERIC document reproduction service, ED 258 811.) 16. LYNEsS AL. Effectiveness of interactive video to teach CPR theory and skills. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, California, Jan 17-23,1985. (ERIC document reproduction service, ED 256 324.)
17. HANNAFIN MJ, PmILIuPs TL, TRIPP SD. The effects of orienting, processing, and practicing activities on learning from interactive video: beyond tape versus disc. J Res Dev Educ 1986 Autumn;21(1):44-60.
18. STEwART S. op. cit., 16:1-11. 19. RIDGEWAY B. Analysis of training costs. Videodisc Monitor 1988 Jan;6(1):27. 20. FINKELSTEmN M, JOHNSON L, LILLY G. Interactive videodisc patient simulations of oral diseases. J Dent Educ 1988 Apr; 52(4):217-20. 21. HELsEL SK. Interactive videodisc and special education. Optical Inf Syst 1988 Jul/Aug;8(4);190-5. 22. DECHENNE J, EvANs R. Simulating medical emergencies. Instr Innov 1982 Jan;27(1):23. 23. BRANcH CE, LEDFORD BR, ROBERTSON BT, ROBINSON L. The validation of an interactive videodisc as an alternative to traditional teaching techniques: auscultation of the heart. Educ Tech 1987 Mar;27(3):16-22. 24. SINGARELLA T. Interactive videodisc. Feedback HESCA 1990 Jan/Feb;16(1):4-6. 25. STEWART, op. cit., 3:1-19. 26. IBID., 2:1-11. 27. IBID., 4:1-9:17. 28. IBID., 10:1-17. 29. IBID., 15:1-10. 30. STEWART S, ed. Med Disc Rep 1985-1989: 1-5. Interac Healthc News 1990:631. ULLmm EJ. Videodisc technology. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, 1989. 32. LocATIs CN. Videodisc repurposing. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine, Lister Hill National Center for Biomedical Communications, 1989. 33. NAnONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE. The Time Project (Fact Sheet). Bethesda, MD: The Library, 1985. 165
Singarella et al. 34. HARLESS WG. An interactive videodisc drama: the case of Frank Hall. J Comput Based Educ 1986 Autumn; 13(4);1 13-6. 35. Authoring systems, programs, languages. Instr Del Syst 1989 Mar/Apr;3(2):10-8. 36. ALLEN B, ERICKSON D. Training interactive videodisc designers. J Instr Dev 1986;9(2):19-28. 37. WOOD RK, WOOLLEY RD. An overview of videodisc technology and some potential applications in the library, information, and instructional sciences. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources, 1980:37. (ERIC document reproduction service, ED 206 328.) 38. SINGARELLA T, BADER S, RAMAGLI H. Videodisc utilization trends in the health sciences. J Biocommun 1988 Summer; 15(3):26-9.
Received April 1990; accepted October 1990 APPENDIX
Survey instrument
Please fill in the number of dedicated and nondedicated interactive videodisc systems you have.
_
November 1969 The purpose of this sur"y X to detemio the ivo andt of videodisc usa in cakdrnic heath sle tn briasthroughout r lombeatbonpptbion of videodic technology on your the Unked Stats. We realze that there may be no onoeonte si fohe campus, Just s there Is none formnrocomputers Therotore, please fIfree to ddtrbut copies ofthis quesionare o whomer is working wth InteractWoe vodisc on your camps. The suvey should tab about 20 minute to corplete, and your tko AN respooeswll be treatedonidentialy.
isoverymuch appeciated.
Other(s)
VIDEODISC DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY componenls for nnnbd
systems
El I monitor screen for both video and computer, or E 2 screens, 1 for computer and 1 for video Do you have graphics overlay capability (computer images over video on 1 screen) El Yes E No
COMMERCIAL INSTRUCTIONAL SOFrWARE APPLICATIONS Please check what kinds of commercially available development software you use with your interactive videodisc system: L = AUTQHORING SYSTEMS E AUTHORWARE (Course of Action) El Assembler COURSE BUILDER BASIC (Video Builder) E E IBM InfoWindowT- software C H l IMSMATr E HyperCard/HyperTalk E INSIGHT (Whitney) E IBM InfoWindowTt Language INSTRUCTOR (BCD) E PASCAL R MACAUTrHOR (Mac Video/Mentor) a PILOT MACROMIND OR DIRECI (VideoWorks) E E OTHER QUEST E SCHOLARtrEACH (Boeing) H Sony View Systemn software E SUMMIT E TENCORE
VID)KIT
H
SURVEY OF INTERACTIVE VIDEODISC TECHNOLOGY IN ACADEMIC HEALTH SCIENCE LIBRARIES
Nondedicated System Apple ! IBM - PS/2 series IBM PC or Compatible (for example, Zenith) SE Plus Macintosh: - Mac II
DEC IVIS IBM InfoWindow System NCR Inteact Sony View System Other(s)
VIDEODISC A.S. OTCHER
Videodisc Development and Production Have you purchased any level I videodiscs? E Yes E No Has any repurposing (i.e., a computer program has been to terface wkh the dbsc for instonional purposes) been done within you institution for the level 1 videodiscs you purchased? E Yes El No
DEFINMONS OF TERbMS Before we ask you to beoin answenng the questons on this ourvey, we thought i might be helptlu to define the terms we are using: Vskodsc: Whateverl2toptlcal lesrdisc hadware. oftwre. oreytmyou hveon yourceanpus. 1otee~ks.nshdila: Level fl1ideodlc ailotlonos deecufed below.
FSR
LmslU Level
LOFIQEFQ
Shared Vidi.
Is not Ilteractve In any way; his simply a genec vldodlsc of images. Is sernr-interactoe. and Includes InteractIon at the evel of programmed chooesquestsons which ae recorded on the
videodic. and are responded to through the vidodlsc keypad.
Level IsI the lnteorat ot the microcomputer and the videodisc player. The microcomputer controk the videodisc player, formats and presots the instruction, snd may provide feedba to those responses. This s the interactive lvel of
vidodisc Itnetrucon.
LsalY Operetlng System programming for al computerfuctions and graphcs can be read from the videodisc. Digial data is stored on the videodisc as stadard frnm of video information. This requires a digital to analog encoder. Digal data thuseocoded as analog video can be fed toa standard vkiodisc masteog machine. Th data ocoupies vdeo frama space on the disc, reducing the standard vido snd audio avallie.
DEMOGRAPHICS We need some information on the person completing this survey. Name -
El
El
H
None
El
None as this time, but plan to begin within the next year
El
Have begun development
Please list in which subject areas you are or plan to develop videodisc instruction:
Institution
City
State_
_
E]
DISTRIBUTION If you have produced a videodisc, do you make them available to others? El Yes E No If you have produced a videodisc, do you sell them to others? a Yes El No
Zip
Do you currently have any form of interactive videodisc on your campus? a Yes a No Do you plan to have any form of interactive videodisc on your campus in the next year or so? El Yes Is videodisc developmcnt on your campus centalized through one unit? No Yes
El No
El
If yes, where? If you answered 'no to the above questions, please retum the survey; it you answered 'yes' to either of the above questions, aseo testhe rest of thi fsrvey. Thanks.
HARDWARE EQUIPMENT Which (and how many) interactive videodisc ( OD-ROM) equipment do you have on your campus? Videodisc Payer (fill in number) Hitachi Panasonic Pioneer Sony JVC Phillips Other(s)
MICROCOMPUTER Component of your Interactive Videodisc System Veiodesc Survey, Pope2 One that you puchased that contains aloomponerts of the videodic system provided from one company; an off-the shelf bundled system.
How do you (or plan to) distribute for sale? ElPublisher E From your own Institution E Cooperative/Consortia Effort E Distributor
E Other
BUDGET Do you have a specific annual budget for videodisc technology: Purchase
Development
El Yes Yes
E
If yes, budget is $ If yes, budget is S
E No
ElNo
Product Cost Levels Cost levels which determine purchase of commercial videodisc oams- What is the maximum cost level at which you would generally consider purchasing a videodisc program? Please mark an X next to your choice in the matrix below: $100- 200- 300- 400- 300- 600- 700- 800- 900- 1000- 1100- 1200Level I
2 3 I a 2 v T El El El El El El O_ El Elal El El El 0 E] E] Q Ea Q fl El El E El El El El El 2
LevelIl Qa
Level
III
Level IV
166
E
m 1:1
tle
College/Dept/Unit Address
Development of your own videodisc: What kinds of videodisc development are you doing within your institution or plan to do (please reerto bvels deined on pae I and check appropriatefy ? Leoel I Level 2 ive3l 4Leve
1:3
Date
Vkidoditc survey, Pop 3
Pduction
Have you produced any "shared" level 1 videodiscs (shared videodisc is defined as eiher different departmenits within en tWtuhion or different instiutlions sharing the cost to place images from differenl content areas on one videodisc in order lo minimze the cost to any one party) El Yes El No
2 a
l
a
l Q
a
El
a
El
Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
Videodisc technology $1300- 1400- 1500- 1600- 1700- 1800- 1900- 2000- 2100- 2200- 2300-
l100 S1A00 1M Level I E Level II 0 0 0 LevellY 0 0 0 Level IV 0 0 0
E
M2
1M
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2102200
2 0 0 0
0 0
202402400+ 0 0
0
00 0
0 0
J Yes Is videodisc technology (level 1-3) available for student use in yow institudon? Do you have a cenalized place for students to interct with videodisc technology? E Yes
LUbrary (centralized)
[2 Compute Department
]B
-
[J No C No
imedical Communscassons (cenlraized)
E] Individual Departnments E Telvisiwn Services
PLEASE Return survey by
Ea
Tomn Sinpredl, PhD. Associate Psofessor and Chiman (Acting) Deprment of Educadon University of Tennessee, Memphis 8 South Dunlap Memphis, Tennessee 38163
Media Resowuce Center
a Mirconputer Lab
D Other
GENERAL COMMENTS AND THOUGHTS ABOUT VIDEODISC IN THE HEALTH SCIENCES OR THIS SURVEY (use other side if necessary)
0
VkSOdieCSum", Pop4
VIDEODISC USE and DELIVERY for STUDENTS
O Audiovisual Services Educaon Deparment
Are level I videodisc playes centrall available for check out and use, as is other audiovisual equipment within your institution? ] Yes [ No
Other
How many videodisc delivery staions are available for student use? In what subject reas are you currently using videodisc technology for instiuctional purposes:
to:
Thanky
u!
FROM THE BULLETIN- 50 YEARS AGO Dr. Robert James, 1705-1776 By Lulu Stine, Texas Technological College, Lubbock, Texas In February, 1890, Mark Twain published in Harper's Magazine an article called "A Majestic Literary Fossil" [1]. The literary fossil described is Dr. Robert James's Medicinal Dictionary, which had been published a century and a half earlier. "If it had been sent against the Pretender's troops" says Mark Twain "there would not have been a single survivor. In 1861 this deadly book was still working the cemeteries-down in Virginia. For three generations and a half it has been going quietly along, enriching the earth with its slain." The article describes the heroic measures employed in the past in the treatment of disease. It does not reveal Mark Twain at his cleverest, nor does the paper do justice to Robert James. In a story of James's life, it deserves mention because Mark Twain's report was virtually the last flicker of fame for one who was regarded by his contemporaries as having established a claim to immortality. The Dictionary contains many such curious and even monstrous formulas as those described by Mark Twain, but it is not to be supposed that this fact convicts James of a want of professional knowledge. The Dictionary represented the best medical opinion of his day. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1941 Jun;29(4):187
Bull Med Libr Assoc 79(2) April 1991
167
