Finding qualitative evidence via testimonials from professionals and recent graduates wasnot a problem. That, however, wasn’t enough. I was asked to supply “statistical”evidence. What are other institutions doing? How much do they have? What kind of“stuff” are they buying?Once my initial frustration subsided I realized that this really was a marveloussuggestion. I immediately began looking for my “evidence.” The problem was there wasnone to be had in published form. Production textbooks typically provide a genericoverview of non-linear editing and digital audio workstations. Trade publications reporton the latest advances in digital equipment and how it’s being used in industry. Scholarlyjournals, meanwhile, discuss the impact that the digital revolution is having on ourcurriculum (Christ, 1998; Ferraro and Olson, 2000; <strong>No</strong>rdstrom, 2000; Utsler, 2001;Foote, <strong>2002</strong>). While all of the aforementioned topics are important, it simply wasn’thelping me build my case. I began to wonder how many other faculty members acrossthe nation were having a similar problem. How do we answer the question, “What areother production-based programs doing with regards to digital equipment?”MethodologyIn order to obtain a snapshot of what colleges and universities are doing with regards todigital production tools I designed a 44-question survey and distributed it via email to268 faculty members during the Spring of <strong>2002</strong>. Respondents were selected from the2001-<strong>2002</strong> Broadcast Education Association Directory. Faculty were chosen if theirteaching interests included TV/Video, radio, and/or production. 1 This specific group wasselected for two reasons. Firstly, they’d be best qualified to accurately answer the equipment-relatedquestions. Secondly, they’d most likely have a more vested interest inparticipating in this particular study. Respondents were asked a series of questions abouttheir institution, their position, their program, their equipment, and their budget.ResultsA total of 96 faculty members, representing 27 states, completed the questionnaire for aresponse rate of 36 percent.Among the respondents, 79 percent (76) were men and 21 percent (20) were women.Sixty-five percent (62) taught at public institutions and 35 percent (34) were employedby private schools. Fifty-two percent (50) held doctorate degrees while the other 48percent (46) had earned a master’s degree. Seventy-one percent (68) of the participatingfaculty members indicated that they had more than ten years of teaching experience inhigher education. Fifty-three percent (50) had been at their current institution for tenyears or less. Seventy-one percent (70) reported that they had at least six years of experiencein the broadcast industry. Half (48) indicated that their primary position in thefield was in the production area (as opposed to management, talent, writer, other).Production Classes & Digital EquipmentBased on the responses of these 96 individuals, the “typical” program offers four or fivecourses in TV/video production, two or three courses in radio production, and approximatelyone or two web-based production offerings (see Table 1).____________________________________________________________________________________1 To avoid duplicate responses, only one faculty member per institution was e-mailed the survey.8<strong>Feedback</strong> <strong><strong>No</strong>vember</strong> <strong>2002</strong> (<strong>Vol</strong>. <strong>43</strong>, <strong>No</strong>. 4)
Table 1TV/Video-Radio-Web Production Course OfferingsNumber TV/Video Radio Webof Courses (Frequency/%) (Frequency/%) (Frequency/%)0 0/(0.0%) 0/(0.0%) 24/(25.0%)1 4/(4.2%) 16/(16.7%) 26/(27.1%)2 8/(8.3%) 16/(16.7%) 24/(25.0%)3 18/(18.8%) 34/(35.4%) 18/(18.8%)4 22/(22.9%) 20/(20.8%) 2/(2.1%)5 8/(8.3%) 8/(8.3%) 2/(2.1%)More than 5 36/(37.5%) 2/(2.1%) 0/(0.0%)Mean 4.50 2.35 1.53SD 1.41 1.08 1.00N=96 (total programs)With regard to digital equipment, as Table 2 indicates, the “typical” programprovides students with four digital camcorders, four or five non-linear editing (NLE)systems, three or four digital record/playback decks, and two digital audio workstations(DAW). There is, however, a statistically significant correlation between school enrollmentand the amount of digital equipment a program has (with the exception ofDAW). 2 Whether it be digital camcorders, non-linear editors, digital record/playbackdecks, or digital audio workstations, the larger the enrollment, usually, the more digitaltools (See Table 2).Table 2Amount of Digital Equipment (Based on School Enrollment)School Enrollment Range30,000 All SchoolsN=54 N=22 N=14 N=6 N=96Digital CamerasMean 3.42 5.14 5.64 5.67 4.28SD 2.19 0.92 1.57 1.16 2.02<strong>No</strong>n-Linear EditorsMean 3.72 5.09 5.86 6.00 4.49SD 2.01 1.38 0.38 0.20 1.86Digital DecksMean 2.83 4.64 4.71 5.00 3.66SD 2.44 1.86 1.70 1.73 2.31Digital AudioWorkstationsMean 1.71 2.91 3.00 2.33 2.21SD 1.53 2.21 2.31 3.22 2.05As mentioned earlier, one of the more difficult decisions facing faculty with regardsto digital production equipment is what specific brand to purchase. Can you afford anindustry standard? What works best within the framework of your program? WhichBEA—Educating tomorrow’s electronic media professionals 9
- Page 2 and 3: Feedback November 2002 (Vol. 43, No
- Page 4 and 5: CommentSWOT Analysis: Disney Consid
- Page 6 and 7: without adding enough people to do
- Page 8 and 9: his favorite questions for prospect
- Page 10 and 11: The intellectual satisfaction you
- Page 14 and 15: 2 Using a two-tailed Pearson Correl
- Page 16 and 17: • We need to expand digital editi
- Page 18 and 19: Two final points: While this paper
- Page 20 and 21: 1. As elsewhere in the profession,
- Page 22 and 23: EvaluationThere will be approximate
- Page 24 and 25: CLASSROOMEMPHASIZING ETHICS: PROMOT
- Page 26 and 27: “Avoiding Plagiarism” ( http://
- Page 28 and 29: CLASSROOMMULTIMEDIA FOR MORTALS: RE
- Page 30 and 31: Video files come in a variety of di
- Page 32 and 33: CURRICULUMDISMANTLING THE SILOS: MO
- Page 34 and 35: the Web on deadline and conceptuali
- Page 36 and 37: CLASSROOMADAPTING DIGITAL LEARNING
- Page 38 and 39: strategies. Unfortunately, most tex
- Page 40 and 41: Figure 2. Good Practice and the Enr
- Page 42 and 43: CLASSROOMSTUDENTS TACKLE SUPER BOWL
- Page 44 and 45: Usually, I urge students to use the
- Page 46 and 47: aggression with intelligence, when
- Page 48 and 49: e lost in sole reporting of undiffe
- Page 50 and 51: COMMENT“SCHOOL DAYS, SCHOOL DAYS,
- Page 52 and 53: CLASSROOMSWOT ANALYSIS: DISNEY CONS
- Page 54 and 55: analysis. SWOT is an acronym for St
- Page 56 and 57: Disneyland ResortDisney Vacation Cl
- Page 58 and 59: CURRICULUMDON’T ISOLATE E-BUSINES
- Page 60 and 61: mention implications from legal and
- Page 62 and 63:
viable media alternative to televis
- Page 64 and 65:
management are needed to deliver th
- Page 66 and 67:
Humboldt, Chris (2000). How E-comme
- Page 68 and 69:
editing is a place of influence. St
- Page 70 and 71:
COMMENTYO, YO, YO! THIS IS THE HIP-
- Page 72 and 73:
REVIEWSchroeder, Sheila E. (2002).
- Page 74 and 75:
ANNOUNCEMENTS2003-2004 Scholarship
- Page 76 and 77:
ANNOUNCEMENTSBroadcast Education As
- Page 78:
NEWSJohn Mark DempseyUniversity of