A STUDYOF INSTRUCTIONl\LDBVF.J..OPMENT KNOWLEOGGAND COMPE'l' F;NCY AMONG PRIMlI.RYAND ELEMENTARYTEACHERS
INTilE ROMANCl\'fJlOJ.IC SCIIOOLBOARO FOR ST. JOHN'S , NEWFOUNDL}\.~''1
BY
e JEAN MARIE TOBIN , O.A., B.EeI.
A thesis submi t tedtothe Schoo l of Gr adunte Studi,:s inpo rtLcI fulfilm en t oCtnc
re q u i r e men t s for the degr.ee o r teastor ofEduco t.Lo n
De pa r t men t ofLecr n Lnqnes ourcco Memoria l Universityof Ne wflo und Land
September 1989
St. Jo h n' s Nowfoun dLand
1i hDSTRhCT
The pur po s e orthis studywas to disco verifprim<l ry and elementary teacherspos ses s the Lnst ruc e Lona t de v e lo pme ntalgori thm which underlies <Ill Lnat ruct Iono I development models. l:nowlcdgc of Innt ruc t LcnaL dev e l opme n t, wh cthp.rat the ,.l g or ithmic .r heu r i s t ic levels, isdee med necessary to implement the rc e o u r cc- based teaching andLecr n.l nq cppr oocnthat isbcinq advocated in this province.This was accomplished throug h awr i tt en survey whichquestionedt.cc cbe rs on thLrtcen Ln structLonaf doveLcpmont. compe t en c y crcoc su mma rLacd fromth e Task 'to r c e Re'p'ort 0:1 Ins t ru c t ion a.l Dc vcl op~r~
££!!!Eetenciesor the rvssoct.otton for Educatio nal Communicat i on s and Techno l o gy (fl Ee T )pUb! Lnhcd in 19 R2 . One hund..;,lOd ninety -five teachers from the prLmcr-y unci el e me n t a r y le ve l s of the Roman Catholic School nce rd for St. Joh n 'sreceivedquesr tc nnetroo .
The res u l t s of the study we r e an':llyzcdnccor drn') to the thirteen competenc y a r eac c urrmar Lxod (romt hc AJ-:C; 'I' Task Force Report whi ch arc oa follow:J:conduc t nl1l1d!;
assessment , conduct learner cnc Lysin dcvo Lop and sequence be hav i o r a l objecti ves, conduct onvlrorunc nt. nI analysis, determin e and sequen c e contcn t,, d'~l;l1rmLnr~,)nu sequence learnercctIvttIe s ,dete r mmo cpp ro p rLctc
i i i r c nou z-cns, deto rrnLne appropriatete a chi ng strateg ies, evaluate and revise Lnstr.uc t.Lcn aJ units, cre ato tnct ructLona L untto , conduct workshops, communicate efEoctLvc Ly , andconsultwit h individuals or groups.
Res ults of the study revealed that the majorityof tho tocctiorc who z-onponded do not possesskno wl e d ge of the Lnstr uct.LoneI developmen t algorithm.Hoveve r , due to
ollow-cnp onoe cc toof 5-1%, the resu l tsa r e not indica ti ve of the tota I sample, as in forma ti on regarding tno compe tencies of thos e te ach ers who failedto return quc ntLonn a Lre s might have affectedth e results.
Lv ACKN OWLED GEMENT S
The inv e s t i g a t orha s been to.rtunc t.o to hnvoha d ,1 number of colle ag ue s and fr i e nd s who hove been in strume n tal in thecompletio nof this thos Ls.
My sinc e reappr e ci at i o n to my cc vtscr , Dr.Mnr y Kenne d ywhopr ovi d e d inspiration n nd cnsLntanco intilt:' wr i t irl'::lof th is thesis.l;ii t h ou t her conti nu e d SlIPP0r\: .incr oncournqoreent thisthe sismay notnev e become " ronLity. Tha nks are als oexte nd ed to the entire Laou Lt yand starf of the Divisionof Learning Re s o ur c e " '....he havo .:111 p r'ovi.do dassistan ce th r o ugh o u t the cour co of my qroduato pr og ram,
Theeffor t s ofM~ . Geraldine RoC', ccuoc.ra to supe ri nte nde nt of tho Roman cocnciLc~;(:hooluoc rd for ~:t.
John ' s in assistingwiththo distrib utionand collection of que st Lonna Ire swasqre otLyapp r ocLated , To :\11 the te a cher s who to o k the time [170mtheir bucy cchcdulc;, to compl ete and returnquontLo n naLr ou, <.IsInccrothrmke-you,
Inwri t i ng thisthc c Ls the '<triter uneortcoktho toJ:;k
unfa mi li a r,Alt ho ugh theentire thcats~1 i:J :;wrtttcn, it wasonl ydue to the pottencc andp(!r:.;i:::tr::"lcr~of 'l'rJ [
Fosnaes th at all my ot unoor cwe r e cc r r cctcd.
Spoc LaLthanks to GenevieveGallant whose friendship and wi l l i ng n e s s to listen tomypro b l ems througho ut th e writi.ng of QIJr"frat e rna l tbe s cs" willalways be
Sp~cj.ill tnankcal soto my nei.qhb ours and close Irlnnrfn, Ron and noatncr Wil l i a m:::.whoprovided the w..Ltc r wLth <Iqui e t roo m in whl ch to work and the use of
;)computor throug ho ut the proc e ssofwritingthis thesis.
rJnall y Jwou l dlike to expressspecial thanks to my huu bnnd, rtor rc To bi n , andmyt·....o children, Je n n i f e r and limy, whosopotIonc c ,lo ve andencourageme ntendured and uu ..itof.noo me t.hr-ouqhout; the many months in which this tl1(>:lj:l wanco mp iled.
vi TABLE O~CONTENTS
P.:tge ASS'tRACT • . • •
lI.CKNOWLEOGEM 8 NTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER
1. NATURE OF THE STUDY Introdu ct io n
Ba c kg rou nd tothe Problem Statemen t of th ePro blem Def inition of 'rcrmc Limi t ati o ns of the Stud y Summary
2. REVIEW OF R8LATED LITERJiTURE
i i jv Lx
11 12
Historica lDevelopmen t of r nctruc ttonnJ
De v el o pmen t 14
Introductio n ]1\
Learni ng 'rhoo rtes . ]G
rtiecrtcs o[ rnctr uct ton . ?6
Inatruct Lc naI Te c hn o l ogj' 2:8 rnstructa cnc t Developme nt 32
Summary 40
Mod els of Inut ructLo naI ncvo Iopment 1\1
Systems Deve l opmen t HodoLc 013
Organizat io nDeve l o pmen t lilo dd :::: 43 Produ c t De ve Lopment,;"lod c15 41 ClassroomDeve l o pment '''Qdc l ~ roil
InstructionalDe v e l o pme nt:
'1""0l\rchntypes . . . • 46
thsto rico I Dcve Lopment;of School
t.Ibr a ri.lrl~hip 49
E.l r.l y BcqLnn Lnqa . 49
School Ltb r a r y Standards 53
'I'h(~DcvoJ opmont of School Lfb r-a r Lo s
in Cn nc dn 69
rnrtvI1c (linn ings 69
~;(-,Ir(.,ol l.Lbrn r v St.:lnd.J.rds 70
HC~OllrCQ-I3,l~cdTeaching one Learning 76
rnt r oduct.Lon 76
C;lo"da . 80
Newf o u nd l a n d 84
Summary 88
Coopo rotJvcproq ram c Lann Lnqand
'roo enInq • 90
1'.0 ltlof the>'I'o echo re-L kb r a r Lan 94
noto of:tno'ro acnc r 102
vii
a.
I'W,TIlODOLOGY liltreductio n~;amp!c p opuLa t Lon
bovoLo p mo nt;of theIn s t r u me n t.
not;o Gn the r-Lnq Instrument
'1. PRESEN'J'/\TIONOF THE FINDINGS Or-qonir.atLo n of the F'indings ncucoccn Findings
113 113 113 11' 120 '.21
123 123 125
Summary
5. CONCLUS IO NS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUlnma ry
Conclusions Recommen dat ions
REF E:RE~lCES . • • • •
APPENDIX A- LET'fERS
APPENDIX B - RF.:SEARCH INSTRUMENT
viii
162
163 163 171 176
17"
187 191
LISTOf TABLES 'l'A LJJ,g1 nesponcenu Pr e p a r a t o r y Training
ProgralOs . • • . . . • . • 126 'L'flH I.h:2 nespondcnts ' Yearsof teachi ng
Expe rLanc e • . . . • . • 127 'rAIJLE 3 acupondenus' Attitudes Toward
Sta t e ment s Reflecting Functi onal Instruc t iona l Developme nt . . . . 130 'rAUl,I-:" ncupondcnts ' Att i tudesTowards
StatementsReflectingConceptual Inst r ucti o na l Development . . . . 131 'l'AII I.E!) nc sponcen ts ' Pre f e r r ingFunct ional
Practica l Defi n itio n s . . . 131 '['1\1.1 1,1:: (, Respondent s ' Preferr ingconce r-'-.re L
Problem-Solv ingDefinitions . . . 132 'l'All/,F; -, Sou r c e of Respondents' Know Ledqe
ConccrnLnq jns tructLoneI
ucv cLopmcr.t • , • . • . . . 133
'l'AHI,~: 8 Responden ts' Bc Lfefs as toWh ere
tnut ruct LonaI Devel opmen t Shoul d 'rakuP!<l C0 • . . . • • • • • 134 '1'1'111I,]': ') uc spceucn t a' vrewu e s totheMeaning
of Ne ed s ns se s smenc • • • • • • 135
TABI.to:J0 ncsponccnts" Views as to the
Orientation of Ne e d s As s e s s men t 136 'l'A Bl ,E11 se spcndent e ' Knowledge of Concern With
Bchavio raI Objec tives MovementAs St ated In t.Lt cra turo , , . , . . 140 TABLE 12 Responden ts ' Viewsas to the Meaning
ofTask and Concept Analysis 143
TABI.E13 ac spo nocnt.s' Views as tothe Impor ta nc e of EntryLe ve l Beha viour ill Seq ue nc i ng Content . . . 144
'K
TABLE14 Respondents' Viewsas to the Benefits of Using an In formationSkills
Con tinuum 1115
TABLE 15 Respondents' Choices as toWh a t Should Be Used as a Basis For
Select ing Le ar n i ng Activities . 116 TABLE16 Respondent s' Vi ews as to the One
Mos t Logica l Outcomeof Integrating Learning Activities With the Skills Continuum . . . I'll TABLE17 A Comparison of 'r e ache r s ' PamiLda r Lt y
With and Frequency of Use of Various Patterns for Sequenc ingLearning
Ac ti v itie s He
TABLE18 ge spon d ent s " Knowledgeof the Tools Available to Help Teachers
SequenceLe a rne r Activities . . . . 119 TABLE19 Teaching Stra tegiesMentionedMost
Frequently ByTe ac h e r s 152
TABLE 20 Respondents ' Choice of Meaning FOl the TermEv a lu a ti o n . . . 153 'l'ABJ"E21 Respondents' Beli ef s as to When
Ins t ruc tio nalTests Shc uLd Be
Developed . . . 154 TABLE22 Respondents' xnc-....ledge of Cornponents
toInclude in Evaluat ionof
Inst r u c t i o n a l Programs 156 TlI.OLE 23 Respondents' Choice of 'Ilhat Should fie
the Si ngleMost Imp o r t a n t Consideration inDe s i gnin g In-Service . . . 158 TABLE 24 Respondents' Vie wsas to theImp o r t a n c e
of CommunicationPri nciples in Establishing aGood Rela tionsh ip
With the Teacher-Li brarian 160
TABLE 25 Respondents' Perceptionof the RelationshipBetween Instructional Dev el o p me nt andConsultuncy ',' . 161
LISTOFFIGURES FI GURE1 The Neturc of Teachingand Expectati ons For "'eac h i ng as Exemplified in Sc h oo l tlbrary
Media t-roqcems 109
~'IC:URF:2 Stateme nt s Reflecting Functional
Inst ructional Development . . . . 128 FIGURE3 Statements Re flect ingccn c ep tuej,
Inst ruc t i onalDevelopmen t 128 {o'IGURE 01 Learn erCharacter isticGrouping s 138 FIGUnF: 5 F.lemant!'>of thernst ructIcneL
Environment to be Considered in
Conducti ng Environmental Analysis 141 xi
CHAPT ERONE:
NlI.TURE OFTHE STUDY
In t r od uct i o n
Mod er n societyis undergoingpr o f o u ndt ocnnotoqrcat andsocial ohenqe s brought aboutby wbat.ho s been coLr od th e info r mationexpl osion . The wo r l d facing th e s tudont o of today he s compn ct. Lcue r cnncc that co nt aLn the entire textof all volumes of the Encyclopedianrttannrce, and microcomputers in many home s (Or.itish Co Lumbia 'roncuo r-.
Librarians' As s oc i a t i o n , 1986 ).The Bc.itIuh Co Iumb La Tc a c h ~r- L i b r a r i a n s' As socf.ctIo n (198G), inthe-document cu e l co r Change,.points out that "30 bil lion new documents are produced eachyear intheU. S. alone; 12 readi ng ye a r s ... wouldbe required to cover but on e-tenthof one per-cent of the avc LfcbIo informationon anygive nfield of scienceor technology" (p. 1).
Theimpactof theinfo r ma ti o n expLo n.i on and the advances in technologyarc a Ef ectLnq all Inct LtutLono but
"p a r t i c u l a r l y thos e such,:1" publi c ccbocn»and U. h r ,] [ jrl :;
that tra d it ion a ll yhav e borne the major r c s ponsihd Ll t.y for providingccrucecLon'' (r. tcc c n cr , 1!J8S , p, 11:). 'J'hr~
knowledge and skills requiredto curvLvc in the technological and strcs a-cor Ioo tcd cocLoty we p ro s cntLy
JLV'; inoro quite dif[~r.~nt[rom thos e required inles s ccmp Lcxtimes.
licroGstho countrytho s e who bel ie ve that we mus t
"equ i p ct.udont s to functio neffectivelyina rapidl y chanqLnq resource rich, te c h no l ogi c a l wo r l d" (Fennell, 1')8 3, p . G?) , arcconcerned wi th what we shouldbe 1;r!;rt;h iwJ :;Lurjr;lll:; to pr-cpn t-c them [or thetwe n t y - f i r s t cc uturv . rccrucato rn everywherehave cometo reali ze tha t t horcina nee d to modify our"tra d i t i o nal lock-step In~thodno f tcachLnq fn smal loncIosed class rooms using .lLmf.Lodinstruc t i on a l rcsou r cc s , mainly textbooks , {i n ravourof) more innovative approaches based onresearch n) I o'ltprj tochil d re n, tnach Lnq and learning" (Hay c ock, 1')81 , p , -1)
;,lIc h nnapp r oach would pe r mi t ct udents to learnho w to ncccna thein f o r mat i o n th at is bombardingthe m, and how t.onoI cc t , ovaLuct;c and usc thJ,t information. Ac ro s s t1hl country thereha s beena gro wingemphasis by cur r LcuLum pLa n nc r s on wha t is knownasres o ur ce-b as e d Lnachlnq a nd Lca rnLnq .'r h o ro s o urco-bcs ed approachhas beencmphn sLzed in documents produced inrecent years by tour- CnnadLan provrncos - nr LtLn h Columbia, Al ber t a, snskat c ho wa n nne! ontar Io.
The earliest and perha.ps the most Lnf LuontLaL Canadian document to make use of thete rm"r-osour-co-bc ac d le a r n i ng" wa s th e Ontario Minis try of E,luc aLon curr i c ul um resource guide ent i t l e dP.:1rtnerz In i\ction: The Librar yResource Centre In The School Curriculll1!!
produced in19 8 2.Thisdocument has had"Co r rco chtnq implicatio ns onhoweducator" define andpo z Iorm their role with intheoduc atLon a Loynt en'' {Sharpe, 198 7,p. I}.
The Onta rioMinistry of aducatLon (1982) strc uoo s that;
the p rirrc LpeL, thecLa asr c crn teacher, and the tea cher-librarianhave important and nccosno cy.roIc a to playinthe developme nt of ronourco- jacsed progra ms, nnd thatid e a l l y teachers and tcac ho r-Lib ra rLon nmuct wor k.1::
part ners todevelop appr-c.p r-Late tccch Lnq andlear ni ng ac t i v iti e s for students.
The concor ns and the philosophy expressedby the Ontario Mini stryof Educ at ion (1982) in the document Pa r t ners In i\ction have p crme at c d oth erprovincia l document s produced since 19 8? . E'ocu::;0..E..J..£!.'1IJl.i..!:l.9_~~.12.
Inteq r a t e d...!.!£g r am Model fo r Alberta ncbooi. l,ibrnril'l %by Alberta Ed ucation (19 85 ); !::..u..£..l_ for Chan9.£...:...~0r()tiv<::.
Pro g ramPl ilnn in.9 an d TC .1 c h~9_bytilt:'r.rl t l:JbColumbia rea c tiec-Ltbrc rLcns ' ncsocLatton (19af.i); end1:~t}!__l?:.:_
.~:E..~o!!..(;.2...ADGcdLC.:1rninq by the Saskatchewa n Teachers' Federation (1986) have all reLauedresource-based too chi.nq tothe goals and objectives for education in their respectiveprovinces.
In Newfoundland, the Department of Educationhas in man y ~I""ys endorseda methodof instruction that is rrl~ourcc-b<J:>f.;d, but ithea not yet produceda tangible document. 'l'hro uqhcurriculumguides, course descriptions, cu tnorta o dtc xtsand teacbc r guides, theNe wf oun dla nd no p cctmo nt of Educationhasmadeit clear that "t e xt b o ok I:f"lching alo ne is not enough, that teaching today rcquLrc n more tbcntio Ik and r-ha Lk'' (Brown, 1986, p , 12).
'l'ho depa r t me nt is r.ecommending t hct the resource -based app roac h be used fr o m kindergarten through senior high ::1;110 01 .
Inor de r toimple me n t thi s cpproecb, teachers are
!II'Lnq askedto for tnuLate objectivesbased on the approved provincial curriculumand thele a rn i n g needsr-n d styles of Lndiv Ldua I students.Textbooks, while still an lmp o r t a n t rcso u rco , are but oneof many resources usedto prov ide o xpcr Lcncos which will help to achievethe denLrndobjec t ives .
ncncurca-bnood teaching and le a r n i ng emphasi.zes the pr.OCCr,5 ski lls necessary for children to lea r nhow to
learn.Similarskills arefou nd in ddf fe r cnt;subj ects, curriculumguidesin ncw zcunc ncnd, cs pc c LaLly pr.imnr-y ones, are recommendi ng tha t teacherstnt cqratc acrossthe curriculumanduseth eme s toor-q anLacLnctructLona L content. To successfu lly Inteqrct e conceptsand sk Lj.Ls foundinsubjec t areas, and todevelop themes whi ch will both see use of a wide var ietyof reso urc e s and Lnstruc tLoncI s LratcrjLcnand tak o the dndIvLd uaInoodo of.
the learner int o con s Lde ration, wi ll require tca ch o r-swh o are able todes Lqneffect ive Lnntruct Ion.
Thi s study examinedthe ccrnpctoncdoa required in th o de s i g n of instruc tionin termsof primary andoIomc nt.nry school teachers. Si nce tec c ticrs arc exp ec ted tovor k collabora t ive ly with th etea cher -librari a ninthe croc tc n of instruct i ona l uni tsand modu l e ,'; in the roc ourcee- n ocod approach, i tis importantto dete r mi ne the ins tru ctLonoI de s Lqncapabi l i t i c .::::of bo th grou p s. 'r h.i. :~stud y I'ocu codon the classroomt eucner" s knowl edg e ofthe Lnstruc tLo noj development algor ithm, u.::::ingaurvcy met ho dol o g y to determine competency levels of th e Lns t;ructLo na I de v e lopme nt pr o c e s s.
!!....I£!:.9r ouE!L-T.2-.!!!-e Problem
The coecurc-a-base d appr o ach to educat io nwhich is ouv ccetcc by curri culumguid e sand autho ri ze d tex t s, and which i.::envIc Lc nodin documents such as EJartners In
~ctio n (On tari o Mi nistryof Educatio n, 19821. re qui resa
::hi [t incmphonLc fr omthe pre s en t arrangement s inour ncnooi.u, whic h'\I' :Cbooedon "the premi s e that childre n wi11q~t:Ino:: t of their Lcar n Lnqfromthe spo kenwords of toacn c-rn'' (T.:ayJor, 197 1 , p. 234) . Aresource-b a s e d system of1:r)ilChlngand Loarn Lnq requ i res tha t;chil d r e n lear n [rom an"ac ti ve, perso n alintera c t ion\>Ii t h pe ople and Lhlnqn" (Ta ylor, 1971. p•233).
I\lthou qh it b corcr , eas i e r, and le s s demand ingfor cr-achorato re ly heav Lky on a trustedtextbo o k, the curront;phil o:;ophy of rcs ouccc-bec c cteachi ng and l rvirninq coqurrcs teac he r s tomove awayhumtheir rrndi.ltona l rct o of interpreting the textboo ktooneof a pa rl rH·,·::hip wi t.h theuchoo Lc-LibrarLan inthe cre at i o n of ne w LuctructIonaI opp r-c oc hes •
'r'oac hcrswho have long bee nacc us tomedto the prono n tnt Lonor le c tu rebccc dsystemof teach i ng are
n'l1r r ''-H\L,~d wilh,1m,lj ot'chanqo i.n becomi ng
rcoourcc-boood. Theteachc res role .:IS a tran s mi t t er of inf 0 1- m<1Ltouc!l,1Il C]t':; to that,or., de s Lqne r of lea rn i ng
act i vitiesbased on eachstudent ' sabL'lIt Lo s , int e r es t s andneeds.
This newrole requirestodo y " etcncho r tonot only be knowledgeablerc g n r d i ng the provincia l curriculumnrtd the use of a wideva rie t y of rco ourccc, but .;1.1:';0 roqa.tcco competenciesin the deuLq n or effect iveins t r uc t i on .
Planning resour c e - ba s e d units coop eratively wLt h the teac her-librarianrequires that teachers possess nkLlLa in instr uctionaldeve lopmen t. T\ccording to nrown (1 ~)fl8Ll):
Topl a nsuch units, t.o e c boro~.'i11 need to be abl e tooc tab Lf.ch ou joct Ivcc, <111<:lly w th(~ jI' le a rner s , selectapprop r ia te Lnstruct LonaJ st ret.e q r c e , ini t i a t e uno developoppc c pct eto le a r ni ng uctivities, se lect and effectively 1..:::0 learning cesour cec, I o nd l deve lop app.r op rLat.e evaluation procedures (f or both the learner and the instruction). {p, 9)
Wri t e r s todayare in fact; e-qua t Lnq thete r m 'r e s o ur c e- ba s e d teachi ngand learning' with 'instructional development' .t.cort ccbo r (1988) w.rLt c nr
In the last ten years, anow concept, inst ructionaldevelopment or roaourcc-caoa cd teaching, has emergedfrom thefLe Ids of educational psychologyand Lna t r uct io nc l tec h nolog y....Teachersan d lib r a r y medi a specialists wo r k together tccys c cmou Lcojiy create sou nd in str u ct io nal mcduLe n or unitn [or learners using thefull rc s ourcee of the libr arymediacentre . (p. 2)
!~ti.Jtcm(!_~0..f-'!.!!..cProble m
The purposeof this study was to discove r i fprimary ancleL..amontaryteachc r s possessthe LnstiructLonaj,
rJr~V(·l '.Jprnent,:Jlgorithmwhich tbtcresearcher deems
nococsoryto impl e me nt the resource-basedapp roach which Lc hoincj advocatcct in th Loprovince. This was ln vont Lq at nd by way of a questionnairere gar d i ng the compotoncicr. noodco to design ins t r uct i o n.No att em ptwe'"1
ma do to diHe ront Loto between the competencylevel of
L110:~ Ctwo qroupo as the tnru scof thepr Lmary and
oLomonu c ry curri cu lumis quite airni.Lcr .
sovo rcI questionsare subsumed wit h i n this larger quontion.
1. Do uoecn crc unde r atend the conce ptof Lnc tr-uct Lcna.l dc vcl op mc nt?
?. What Lnth e depth of k now.le dqe o£ instructional dcvn Lo pmcn L on the part of teachers?
:1. If to ocno r c posses" Ln structIoneLdevelopment competenc ies,wbo rodid they Ieaz nthe particula r nkLjLn - [romun Lvc r-a Lt y courses or on-the-job?
Definition OfTe r ms
Fo r purpo ses of this stu d y the fo l l ow ing terms and de f i n i tio n s app l y.
AudioviS U<ll Devices. Any piece oCequipmentwith associatedmateria ls, tha t controLa thr o ug hmcctian rcot or el e ctroni c mea ns , theprc no nt atLcn cr vtoun I OT."audi t o r y communications fo r ins t ru c t i o n (Reise r, 198 7, p • 12).
proces s in which the ceccner-Li b rcrInn and to ncbc r wo r k
<:ISpartne rs tocoop eratLv oL ydesLqnand tonchuni t "of study in wh ichJcorninqct rc toqt es and~kill::;oro int e g r a t e d intotileinstruc ti on .
Ed u ca t iona~:c h no 1£9.Y. ' JI.complexLntcqrctcd procos n inv o l v i ng pe opl e, procedu r e" , ideas,devices and organizationfo r ana Lyz Lnq p r ob Lcmn and de vl n Lnq , implemen t i ng, evaIuatLnq, and managingsol ution sto thono problem s invol v i ngal l aspects of human learn ing tn o Isor, 19 87, p. 20 ).
Elementary Sch oo l Level. l\n ocruc atIone I uni t co mprisingtea cher s from Grade [our tonLx,
Inst ru cti o n a l Development. (uc ocan uc xc bcnqcouiy'ni t h LnotructLona k dccLqnand Lnotruc tLona I tochnoIoqy ). /I systemat iceppxcachto the dcsLq n, production, evaluation,andutLfLxat Lonof comp lcte:":,:; t f'"!m:;o[
10 .i.nctr-uctIon , inclu ding al l app r oprLate componentsand a mcnaqcmo nt pcttc rn for us i ngthem(Silbe r, 197 7 , p. 172).
)'.!?E_~~2.EY' l\systemat ic integratedoutlookin
r oq ard tothe naturc of the process whereby people relate to their envi ro nme nts in such cwe.as to enhance their
<Ibil.,i- tyto u ccboth tho mscLv cs and their env ironments morn (dr~<.:ti. v(!ly {n Iqqo, 19B?:, p• 3).
.1~r. i_I1I.lX:L[~;-'lO(l)'_"::.-'-:'?J. J\neducational uni t compr isi ng tr-acho rs Lrom kLn de r qart.cnto Grad e thre e.
Lntorchanqcn oIy wi t h rosour cc -bcs ed teac h ing and roco ur-co -b a scdl~<lrning). Pl.,n nod e ducntLonaI programs Llbl!. .ictlvoty jll:olvcct.udcnt cin th emeani ng f ullis eofa wldo ro nqn oC npp r oprLat.e prin t , non-pr int,and huma n r onou r cou (Ontorio Mi n i. s t r y of Edu c ation, 198 2 , p . 6).
:;yn t l w : ~ i ;.: (' r; and t.nto r r oLot.c s the c ornpone rrt.a of a process
with in <1conccptu a I fr amowo r k, insurin g continued,
ordr-rjv<1I1J crrccu Jvo p roqrcantown rd a st a te dgoal
{II,>Lni ch , 1970, r-.OJ.
!£Q.£!l£;:. The prof es s ional personcertified by the I't"Ovi rw i ,lJ f),'p.-l rtrnr nt o f PducctIon and hi re dbyth e Roman c.uhottc School noardfo r St . John's , Newfoundlandto ccocuwl th.in schools under.the i radmi n istration.
11
Teache r-Librarian. (Used Lnte rchanqoabLy with li b ra r i an , lib rarymeddu specialist, Learn Lnq ros ources tea c her , and med i i! spectoiLstj •Theprofessionally certified teache rwho is responsible for toe or qan LxatLon , admtntst rat Lon , pLa nnd n q , and imple mentation of the school' 5Lf.br o ryproqrne .
Li mit a t i o n s Of TJ!..c Study
In ca r ryingout thb investigatio n , the fo l Lovi nq limi t ations were recognize d .
1. The population of the studywa s compel sod of primary and n Lernentary t eccho r s [rum tho ROlO<11l CatholicSchool noard (or St. .roun"» . Newfoundland.GeneralizationsdrawnC,10 only be made wi t h i n the limits of th La perctcurc r popu lation and cannot be applied to thl':!
Ncvfound l a nd aituctLon o c " whol e.
2. l\ny type of resoer ch whichuc cs qucnr tcnnotrcc
as a means of dntnooLl nct Lo n docc not r cr.uLt; i.n a 100%rc t u rn rule, Incho c aco
or
LhLn particularstudy in f o r ma ti o n rnqa r dtnq thc compotonct oc of tnocctcocho r cwh o f;lilt~d to re t ur n qccst Ionne Lros might bu "':iJ:.rN,;t0dlh~resuLt.eof tnc ac uov.
12 3. The o cudyfocused on instructiona l development
ccmpcconc.i cc<J~ nor mal ly del i n e a t e d inthe Lt te r c turo cndtau g ht through fo r ma l courses. It
i[lrecc.q n.lz cd tha t t.c c cho rc nevetac it knowl.oclq o, which might not ha v e been measuredby tho i.nntrumc nt.
". whtto pilot toot ingof an ini tial ins trumen t was undortoecn to ide n tif y any technical te r mi no l o g y uce d in the field ofeduc at i o n al techno logy
whichmight bepro b le ma t ic, and to cla r ify Ltngung()[or rc apo nde nts, the researcher felt that;c occbe re,as hi ghly trained pro f ess iona l cducnu o rn, wo uId be fa mili a r with te r min ol og y common to th eprofeasionaLl i tera t u r e of C(lUC.1 t LOll. Unoof eucb term in o logymay have tmpacLo d upo n respondent s' ability to answer npooifi e qu o atLcn o,
Th i s r hontu rop ortc on the resec r cbfindings of a st udy conducte d inthe sp r Lnq of 1989 regarding the lnncruct;ion.tl cfovc Lopmcnt;cos r.cccncte c of primaryand oto mcnt n ry t.c c c hcru•
Chapter Two presentsa historical overviewof the va r i o u s ev entsandoccurrenceswhichhave conc r rbut crtto theemergenceof instructional developmentcs il fLeId of study. It alsodecfno at os vo rIo u s Lnstr uct Lor.•al deve , -me nt; approachesto educnt Lonnl, problems, the history of sc hoo l Lib r-ar Los, and a review of va rLoun Canadiandocuments whichendorse amethodof tnstruct Lon whichi~ r-ecoucc o-aia ccc . The chop uor co nctuctonwith ,1 description of the newroleswhich the ucacbcraad te a c h e r-l i b r a r i an will play in r-e sourccvbna o dteaching and learning.The literatur eprovides evidence that implementation of a xescuc ce-baaodappz-oach rcquircc teachers in the primaryandelementary j.c v oLo to uno ins tr uctional deve Ioprnent cccpeuenctes.
Chapter Threepr ov i de s detailsregardi ~ lgthe methodoLoqy ofth e study. Chapters Four and Fiv~ctcscr Lbc the results of the study as well ea a cuame ry , conclusion, and re co mme nda t i ons fo r fu t u r e study.
CHAPTER TWO REVIE WOF RELATED LITERATURE tfIutor IcnI Development of Instructional Development
lV:;cor.rJ ingtocc st c rson (19B1):
'J'he term "instructional development", defi.ned
,,:; <1proce cs for i.mproving instruction, eppears
toneve hadf.ts originin a project conducted
ill: Mich.'.g .lrl stc uc Universityfrom1961-1!:165.
Entitled "I ns t r uc t i o na l Systems Development: A DomonntrutLc n and Evaluation Project" (1967), th.i.:.:>pr.oject directed by Dr.John Barson p r oducod one of the early10 models. (p . 5) A.ll;houghuar son had used the term, instructional development as a field didnot become an identified pro rcccIo n unt Lf-1971.Diamond (1980) relatesthat"a t a nattonaj conventionof what is nowthe Association for rcducnt Lo no I Communications and T...inno Loqy .. . fewerthan 100 members of the Association met tofo r m a new elivlujou, A(ter. much d Lnous sion ... the name f.nstr-uct.Iona I Development was selected" (p. 51).
1\::;<lrecognized field ofendee-....our, instructional developmentis only twodecades old, yet it does not represent,) totally new or different concept. "Rathe r, it L"nil ovoLut Lonn r y step ':15 people seek to improve their oduontionaLenterprise by making it more effecti ve , oLf lclont , and humane" (Knirk &Gustafson , 1986, p. 3).
15 There ha ve beenman y infl ue nc es from thepa st whLch have merged toge t herin recen t yea r s to the cxt e nt; that ins t ru ctionaldevelo pme n t has bec ome recog nized as.:I worthwhi le field of ende a vour . LumsdeLne (1961]) ha s ident ified someof the hiat ori.caI co ot owhic h hove
"merged int o th e tre eof LnstructLonaI systemsdcnf.qn "
(B1 g ge , 198 2, p, 9).
Saettler (1968) has aLs cwr i t t en o xt c ns Lvo Lyabout the people and events he considers to hov e be e n the pr e de c e s s o r s of modernLnot cccc Loner tcchno Ic qy. snotc te r traces the roots[r o m the days of the eldersophIutoin Athe n s ...hose systemati c ins tr uct i on to groupshas led wr i t e r s such as Pratt (l980) tostate tha t "Inth e Sophists we can see the fir s t austa.i ned effor t to disco ver basic principlesof Lnctructrcn, they might a Leo be termedthe fir~ t Lnatruct.Lon a I technologists" (p. 18 ) . Accor d i n g toseectJc r (19 68 ), "It ...rou l d oofutile to des ig nat e any pa rtLc u Lar-event or datetomiJr k the beg inn i l"9of ascience or technology of instr uc tio n"
(p, 1\7) , ye t .:ISKnirk &Gustafso n (1986 ) point out,
"Since th e 19505 , three ma i n tho ug ht acccc ms have bee n inst ru mental i.n cr oe t.Lnq th e fie ldof.t nctruct.Lona I techn o l o gy" (p. 1). Theseth r e e thought ct rcemsi)CC iI.'3 fo l l o ws:
1.The concept of design ing LnstructLon directly for the student instead of designingaudio-visua l (A-V) materials for teache rs touse in their pre cent.ct acne.
2. nenc hrna rk development s in learningtheory as identified by 13.l". Skinner ...and others.
J.The influence ofWorldWar II and later the rapid lyadvancingha r d wa r e technol o gy, wh ich req ui r e d developing quick task anaLysis proc edu res , effective tr ninInq , andne w commun icati on te c h n o logies ; oflenla bell e d 'the systems approucb ". (Knirk & Gust afs o n, 198 6, p. 1)
In cx arnl n.Lnq the hist or ica l xoot s of ins t r uc ti o na l deve lopment , it i.')theref or e importan t to exami ne the proq rcnn of thr co conce pts whichhave for the most part deve lope d independent l y of each othe r., but yet have jointl yhelpedsh a pe the field of instr uc tiona l technology. 'r boco LIre (a ) Leaz-nLnq theory;
(b) audLov Lnua I devices; and (c) systemsthe o r y.
nev e,'opmcnt s inlearni ng theorieshave been instrunontaI in the creationof the field of ins t;ruct.Lonar developmen t. Lear n i ngthe o r i e s provide vaLuabLo Lns Lqhc a into the na t ureof th e learning proc c us , and our pres e nt day viewsof instructional
16
17
develop ment have bee~shapedby, and are rooted in, premises aboutthe nature of humankind.
A learning theory is a "s y s t ema t i c Lnt.c.qr-at.c d outlook in regardto the nature of the process where b y people relate to their environmen tsin such a way as to en h an c e th eirabilitytous c both the mse l vesDod t.hcL r environmentsmoreeffectivel y " (Oigge, 198 7., p , 3).
Bigge (19B2) states that "l\t aoe st ten df r rorcnt.
theoriesin regard to the basic nature of the Loa r n Lnq process are either prevalent in today'r. schools 01:
advocated by leadingcontemporary psychologists" (p. 8). Two families of le a r ni ng t.hoo r Lc s whichnovo developed since the beginningof the twe n ti e t h century are the behaviorist fumily of stimulus-response conditioning t.hco rLc s and the Costa Lte-Llc Ld f.uniLy of cognitive theories .lI.ccordi ng to 3igge (19B2)I "both families have been protests againstthe LnadcquucLe a and inconsistenciesofearl ierpzychoLcq.Lce L ayat cms"
(p , '18 ).
There are threetheo r Lcs in the bchcvf.o r Lct LamLly (al connectionism; (b) behaviori!..;m; and (c)
neob en ev to r Ism.~'lhilcconncctfon trsm andbchnv Lor Lcrn"n o longer are advocated in their original Io rmn, many contem porarypsychologists have o r Lc ntatLonc :;ufficirmtly
18
"imilal': to theirs to be termed neobehaviorists" (Bigge, 1913 ?-, p. 50 ) . It ic thf c group of ncobehavioristswhich havehad the grea t e s t influence on actualinstructional ntr ak eqir--•
.
Nl'1obchav-i.or i sm . Some ofthe leading contemporary noobobc vIo rLctcwnoo c ide ashave been influential in the emergence of inst r uc ti o nal development are B.P.Skinner,
H(j l! r ~ rl;C;l" no'!, ,l fI ,lAlbe r.t nandu rn.
fl. F. Ski n ne r ' s operant co nd i t i o n i ng theoryis one of the moa t "p r omi ne nt eystomctrc psychologies of LoarnLnq tha t rop roocn t thebe h a v i o r i s t i c family" (81998, .19fl ? , p. 13). xccorcdno to131g g 8 (1982), operant concu.tto ntnq is "01 lea rning processwhereby a given z-onponnc ismocrc ei thermor-e pz-obab.Leor mor-e frequentby the occu rrenceof a rein forc i ng stimul us imme d i ate l y
[0]lowing the rcc ponsc'' tp. 119) .
"In the o a r l y195 0s much interest was being shown in cducut.Lo nnI applic at io ns or the le a r ning theory kno wn as bohovio rLnm" (Kemp, 19 0 5, p.IJ). Skinner believedthat hi.::operent ccndltLonfnq theory could be appliedto th e procttcct problems of education. Itis stated by many wrLtc-rs thnt; thLn theory "l e dto the 'programmed Lnnt ruct i.on ' mo vomont; inth e19 60s which established uucIuI gui del ines fo r organizing individualized,
19 self -paced instructio ninprec isewa y s so thatLea rni.nq wou l d take pla c e successfully" (Kemp, 1905, p, 11).
Tho r n d i k e is often cited 015 having foreseen the development of p r cqxemmedj.nstru ct i.ona I mater ials. In 1912 he wr ote:
If by some miracle of modern ing enuity , <lbook couldbe so a r r anqedtnac only to himwho had done wha t wa s directedon page aile would h.1VC pag e twobe c ome vi s i b le, and so on, much that now r-oqu Lz-en personal Ln stcuctLon could be ma na g e d by print. (Sucttlcr, 19GB, p.52) Bu t pro g r a mmed instruction is usuallyas s ociated wi t h B. F. Skinner, wh o used it a s"n practical implementationof his operant conditioningtbeoryof le u r n i ng" (Knapper, 1900, p. 18) .
The programmed instructionmovement; is often aaLd to have begun in 195-1, with the pubLicatLo n of B. F.
Skinner's article 'TheScience of Learni ng andThel\r.t of Teachi ng ' . In this artic leSkinneratatcdr
We are on the thre shol d of onexoitLnqan d re vol ut i o n a r y period, in whi ch the scic ntLfLc study of manwill be pu t to wo r k in man' a bent int e r e st. EducatLon muct play its pa rt . It muat acceptthe fact that a sweeping revis i on of ed u c a tio na l practices is possible und ine v i t able. (Citedin HawkrLd qe, 197 13, p. 377) In thisart icle "SkLn ne r pointed tothe der LcLe nc Lc s oftr adftLoneI LnstructLo naI tec hnLq ue nandLndLcnt cd that by using t.oa c h Lnqmachines many of thocc p r cbl.crnc could be overcome" (Reise r, 1')87, p. 30).
20 SkLn ne r'5.proqr amrecd instruction proposed tha t
"ins tr uc tional mat e rialsshouldconsis t of a se riesof smct r et.opc, or "rremcs", each of which shouldrequ i r e an cct tvccc c po na c Crom the learner, who would receive immediate rocdccck reg a r d i n g the co rrectne s s ofhi s or hor- C'··~pon 3l;" (Rr.in0.r. 1987, p, 30). Inpr o p o s i ng that Lnntruct Lo n a l matc r LaLsconsist of a eccles of sma ll -u.opn ::;1'.lnnrtr W':l ~:.1 1 ,, 0atatLnq hisbeliefth a t le a r ne rs nhcuLdbe aLt owocttopr oceedat theirown individual
Ac c o r dLnq toKemp (l9B~,), "Of <l11the devel o p ments in recent yearn, the theore tica l vicw of le ar ning p r opo n od by Sk.inne r and its applica tio n s through peoq r ommc d instruction bove been mos t infl u e nt i al for the ome r qonce oftheInstruct Lo n aI des ignprocess" (p. 4).
Anco bchn vIorLst whohas devel op ed wh a t Bigg e U982l cnLlc a"b o hn vdc r Lnt; cclect i c approa chtotheps yc h o l o gy o r Loc rnInq'' (p• 13 9), is nobeit Gagn6. Gagne's psycholog y "c ent r e s on behaviorism, loosely defi ned, but contaLns mar qann L overtone s gai n e dfro l'lcpp crc e p t Lcn the ory and thecog n i ti ve-fieldfamily or learning tnoorton'' {ltiqqr- , 190 ?, p. 13).
21 Gagne'5 pivotalidea on learning is outlined in his Conditio ns of Learning. B1gge (1 98 2 ) describes these conditions as follows:
Le a r n i n gor a ny new ca po b Ll Lty requires the pr i o r le a r n i ng of the subordinatecopab Ll.Lt Lcu th a t are involvedinthe new capability .... Thus, any significant learning that one is to acquirema y be analyzedin t o a progression of subordinatelearnings. Gagneco Ll s such "
pro g r e s s i o n of learnings a "l e a r n i n g h Lc r a r cny"
(p.1<13).
Gagne'.s eight conditionsof Loa rnLn q and h Lnid eas of a learning h Le r a r chy have le d to the belief:that;
instructionalprocedures o hou Ld be systematically designed. His id e a s have had tremendousinfluence on the fieldof Lnstru c tIo na I development.
Athirdne o b en a vLo rLst; whose Idees have been influen tia l inthe e ren of i.nntructLcnnLdevelopment La AlbertBandura. Like Gagne, nandur a is anec le c t i c beh aviorist wh o s e social learning the o r y "bLo ndo concept n of purposivecognitive p.sychologyinto conav Lour- modificationtheo ryasde v e l o pe dby bchev IorLstLc psyc ho logists" (Bigge, 1982, p. 13).
Fo r Bandura, the "concoquence s of one's pant behavior la r g e l y determineone'::: future be h a v i or;
howev er, thisoccur:'] onlybccnuoo of cbo LnIormativc end incentive vc Juo s of thoseconsequences" (13iggc, 1902, p. 155).
22 Unlike!>kinncr who seespeople as "mechanical productsof environmentalforces" (Bigge, 1982, p , 157)I
nandur a re gardsthem as "in f o r ma t i on processingand Ln t.c rp r ctLnq anLma Ls wh o operateon the basi s of LnnLq htE u L oxpectcttcne.... Thus, human beings are thinking orcunt cma who possess capabilitiesthat provide thomwi t hsomepower of thei r own sel f-direct ion " (6i9ge, l'Jfl?, p. l'j'1).
~~g nitivc t='i c)9---..!h~. The second major family of
ccn t o mr-o ro ry Lc nr nLnq theorie s whichhas deveLooedin LhLr: cent ur ya rrr theccsteft field famil y of cogn itive theorie s .
n
~po s it i on of Gestalt psychologywa s formally ntatcct ILrst by Lhe ce cma nphilo s o p h e r - p syc h o l o g i s t , Ma x Wertheimer, in1912. "The ce n tral idea of We r t h e i mer ' s pctnt or vi ew i[;that an or ga n ized who Le is greater than thesu m oI f.tcpar ts" (Bi g g e , 1982 , pp. 57-58). The Lo.rrno r Ln nnon.:\:3 "<1who lcorga nismwho responds as a whole toLIwhole si t uatio n" (Tanner &Ta n n e r , 1980, p.1118).III the eor Ly1920 5 "Kur t Lewinto o k thespiritof Gestalt the o r y , riddedtoit somene wconcepts, and coined
.:lnew tormLno Lo q y , He dcveLcped afield psychology"
(Bi.gge, 19 82 , p. 59 ). Lewin's basic conceptwas thatof lifesp acc, whicb "includ e s everything that one needs to
23 knowabout a pers o n in order to understand his concrete be h av ior in a specificpsychological situationat o qLv nn t ime" (Bigg e , 1982, p. 170).Today' 5 cognitivefi e l d theo r y dra ws heavi lyfrom thepLonoc r fieldpsychologyot:
Kurt Le win, howeverit should not be considered me r el y .., restate mentof Lewin's posit ion.
Someof thenoted psychologists who have made significantcon tributions to cognitive field theory arc JeanPiaget, DavidAusubel, and Jeromeurunor .
According to .recn Piaget. the mental developmentof anychildconsis ts of a successionof th r e e stagesor periods whichere closely linked to ngf!. 'rhcno ar e :
1.Sensorimotor ([3i rth to IBmon t hs or ? ye a r s) .At this stage a child lacksany symbo l i c funct ion, there fore displaying only directactionon ronLity.
2. sre c on crc uc - o pc cctIcnc r (18 months toaqc 7orB) •During this periodch iLdz-en developthe ir ab i l it i e s to represent things with symbols.
3. Concreta-o per at LcnoI (8 to 12 years).
"ere ch i l d r e n lear n to do in their heads what th e yha d previouslyaccomplished only throughphysical action. 03iggo, 1982, pp. 19-20)
8i gge (1982) goes on to explain that:
"a c h sc a qe cxt cndc theprccod Lnq ntcqo , reconstructs cognition on a new level, (lrld comesto surpass the earlier stage. Then, during preadolescenceandccofecconco tno otaqc of formal cp cz atLcrm crnc r qo n .... {At this stage childrenarc} able to thi.nk about thei r tho ughts, construct too c Lc, r ce c on
24 rca LdstLc a L'ly abo u t the fut u re, and reason abou t cont rary-t o - f ac t proposit i ons.
{pp , 19 -20 )
.rcr omo Brune r may be Ldent.Lfd ed as a cognitive Lco r nLnq t.hco r Lut;who is eclectic inhisapproach. nrunQr.' ~; ro scnrch inthe!late1950 5 led him to the annurnpt ton that "s ub j e c t s do notmech a nic al l y associate npoclf1(; renponccu wi t hspecif i c stim uli but, rather, t.ondto.lnEor principle " or.ruLec und e rl yi n g the patterns whi c hallow themtotra nsfer the i r le a rn i ng to different pr-oblomn" (111gg0. , 1982 , pp , 229-23 0 ).
Brunerinprobabl y the fo remost living pr o pon e nt of Lho disc ov e ry a ppro ach , Hisappr o ac h is characterized by thr-oo ctaqoc in whi ch he beli e ve s th e childmoves th r ou g h il:; he 10.o1 r. O" . Romis zows ki (19 8 1) de s c ri be s these three
The f:ir :>tlevel is the enectLve level, where the'!child manipu Latea material s directly .He thonpr oqrous c s to the Leonto level, where he dr;d .!; wLthmental images ofcbjecte bu t does notma ni p u l a t e themdirectl y.Finilllyhe moves tothesymbo li c level, where he is strictly mnnLp uLatLnq ny rnb cLs andno longer mental lmaq o oor:ob ject s . {p, 173)
Al.Lhouqh "j' hcso sta gesarefirmly basedon the dovcl.opm c ntaIpnycho Loq yofJe an Pi aget" (Romiszowski , 19U1, p. 171) , theydiffer shar pl y fr omPi a g e t ' s stages ('If:human devel op men t intnot Bruneremphasizes that
"th os esteps or spurt sor wha tever yo u maychoose to call
25 them are not veryclo s el y li nk e d to09C : some'!
environmentscan slow th e seq uen ce downor bri ng it to "- ha l t, other s move it alo n g faster" ID1gge , 1982, p. 7.331.
The three sta g esusuallyappcat- in the life of .:\ childin or d e r and ea ch dependsuponthe pccvrou none (ori t!i de v e lop men t, ye t all th reeof th emex t end mo rc or less intactth r ough o utan indivi du a l ' s l ife .
David lIusubcl Lc anothc r cogni tive poycno toqtu u who has been a powerful influence on tnstructIonct Lni.nkLnq , Ausubel "s t a nd s in oppoui t ion toc nodtoccvo ry mo ve me n t .... [and] argue s th a t much instr ucti o n ... is su c c e ss f ull y pe r f orm e d bythe p roccsn of ox pos LtLon le adi ng to meaningful recep ti o nlCilrn i ng " IRo mi S7.. owsk i , 198 1 , p. 1731.
Ausubelis a major cdvocc t.c of the advc nco orqnn Lao r andbe lieves tha t "cleme nt ar ycqcd ct.uoentu tou rn mace rapid lywhenadvance orqantzor c arc uocd with ins t ruc tio n a l designtomovothem from one leve l of preoperati on to that ofconcre t;ncpcrnt Ion'' (Kn i d :I.
Gustafson, 1986, p. 17.7). nc cuqqontc twotypcn of advanceorgilni7. cr ::::cxpcsLtcry and cc mcc rc t i.vo . lie re c ommen d s unInq "oxpocLt or yorqanLzo rnwhen the natorLa l is completelyunf ami liarano ucinq compa rntLvc crqanLao rc when theIC<:lrning metez LeI ta Iumi.Lf e r or ca n be r.c l iltr:d
26 to previousl y Le u r ned ideas" (Knir k [,Gust afs on , 19 8 6 , p.93).
'fhl'loricso~.!Euction
l\lthou g h the learningtheoriesdiscussed ha ve been Lnt LucntLaI inthe fieldof instructional des ign , (1i~"t1 ttsiactLon wi t h the app Ld cetLc n of 1e<1ro ing the or i e s 1:0 lnntruct l.on~I.lf; oxpcoano d "1themid 1950~and1960 5 . 'I'tlr.'ma jor crLc Lctem thnt; "l e a rn i ngthe o r i e s were ctcscr LpcLvo rather than prescr iptive - led inv estigator s inthe mid 1960.., to try and develop theoriesof Lnot ructIon" (Ha rtLey , 19 7 8 , p , -11).
'rbcorLcs ofins t r u ct i o n are"s t a t e me nt s ab o u t what instructors should do inorder to te a c h, or mo r e p roct ao Lyinorder to obtainagiven educatio n a l objectivewith maxLmumefficiency " (Hartley , 1978 , p. 1\1>.
Twoleading theoristswho have attempt e d todevelop thcorLc s of instructionbased on lea r n ing theo r ies are Rcuort;Gilt:Jn6 on« Jeromc Druner. The Ldeaa expressedby thcsc thc c riste intheir theories of ins tr uctio n have quLdod Lnstr nctLon aI developmen t theory .
Bruner statc s that a theor yof Lnst r uction sho u l d tako in toac c o u nt the nature of the per sons, the na t ure
27 of knowledge, an d the nature of the kno wledg e getting proce ss. The critical question educatorsmustas k is: How do youteach somethingto a child, arrange a ch i ld's environment, if you will, in sucha waythat he canle a r n somethingwi t h some assurance that he will use thematerial that he ha s lea r ne d appropriately in a var iet yof situations? (131gge, 1902, p. 2<10)
For Bruner , a theory of instruction should npec Lf vt
1.Theexperiences whichmost er rcctf.ve tv implant in the IndLvadua.I a pr e di s p o s i t i o n towards learning.
2.Thewa y s in which a body ofknow l e d g e shou ldbe structured sotha t i t can most readilybe graspedby the learner. 3.The mos t effective sequences in whichto
pr e s c n t materials to be learned.
<1.The nat u r e and pacing of cewards and punishmentsin the pr o c e s s of Lecrn.i nq and teaching. (Hartley, 1978, p. 'II) Robert Gagne has also oeveicpoct .ctheoryof instruction which, according to Hartley (1970) "h a s been themost influential... . beccuac his Lhcor yma kos a numbe r ofbr o a d assumptions about learningandt e ach.inq wh i c h are testablein practical s Ltuet Ions" (p. 'I?).
Gagne 'scontributionhasbeen to tic together.th e following three ideas from his Loarn Lnq theory and upp Ly them to ins t r u ct i on: (1) 'I'hat; SUbject mutter han a hierarchial structure, (ii) That there arc different ki nds of learning (whichare h Lnr a r cbLc aLl.y a r r a nqnd )
28
and, (i l i) 'rhat; the r e arc dif ferentkinds of teaching
mothods which canbe linked upappropriatelywith the dtr rc rcn e kLnd uof lear.ning. (Hartley, 19 7 8 , p. 42).
Th0 thoc rf.oc of ins t r uctio ndeveIo p e d byGagneand nru ncr dcrnon strot c theirbelief that "ins t r u cti o n a l pro c od ur o c shouldbe sys tematLceLl.y designedaccording to tho bccIc princ i ples tha t ar cestabli.shed through
r(~:: ~ ,lrdl " (1'li.9Qf' , 19 8 7., p. 11\9).
flo,canbe ocen fro m thepr e c e di ng discussion: I'.':ych o logy rs not<1field of study chcracto r Lac d bya body of the ory th atis lnt n r naLjycons isten t Clod accepted by all pcycuol.cq Lsta. Ru the r , it isan area of kno wLodqccb a r acter Lz odbyth e presence of
»ovo roI ncho oLs of th ou ght. In some instances thC5C maysuppl e ment one another, but at othe r tImo s they nr c inopen disag r e e me n t. (Bigge, 198 2, pp, 5-6 )
'rhoro ,1r0 no [in,11an swcr s to ques t ions concer ning tho Ln nrnIngp roce e a and notheory....·hich is sup eriorto ,111 ctnors:. Th~vo r i.ouslearnin g theories developedsince the' .a-von toont.trce nt u r yha v e,111 contributedin somewa y to theHeldofinstructton ardeve lopment .
All houq h t.uobeginn in g s of th e audiov is ua l movement can b('trocodas rcr back as comer uu s in th e la t e 160 0 s, i t \",l"~not untilth e late 1920 5 and early 1930swhe n
29
"technologicaladvancesin film and slide q'u a Lfty , rndto broadcast ing, sound recordinq, and motionpictures with sound" (Rei s e r , 1981, p.14) becomewidc~ p rcadthat the audiovisual move ment; cameint obc-Lnq , 'rni cmovementqrcw in the years thntfoll owed but ttro9rc "'l t c ~ t impr"tu:; rcc aud iovisual technology came during th e war years.
Ac c o rdi ngto Heinlch (1970) "The most mcssLvo applicatio n of audi ovi s ua l technologypri o r to 1950",.1$ undortako nhy th e armed forces duringWorl dWa r II" (p , 116 ) .l'\t thi n time thereappe a r ed "an unp reccde nted need totrnLn millions ofindustri al workersancl mkLdta r y pcruonnol .1:3 rapidlyand effe ctivelyas poasLb Le " (5acttlcr, 1')(,8, p, 159).
The devel opment anduscof auufcvLsua I ocvtco n
dur ing the war WilSqenernLjy pcrcctvcdcsbc ing
"s u c c e s s ful in hel pi n gthe UnitedStat ca so l ve a major tr a i ning prob lem.. . . A~ a co euLt.oft hLocppa r e nt;
succe s s, aft e r thewa r tborc W<lSc renewed r.nt croou 111 us ing audIovf su c Idcvfccc inthe sc ho o ls" (Rp.l!;t:!r. 1987, p• 15).
The exte ns i veus e of aud i ov i s ua l dovrce o and materialsdurin g the war ha doccurre d "uImo nt;nxcLun i.veLy without referenceto expr e c cLnp ul.n fr-omtnoor Lcc rJ[
learningas dcver cpeer byp.3Jcb'"J I Q'";l i !: t~;. InrJr:: '~rJ , it coul d
30 be argued th at mos t ofthe deve Lopment; of audio-visual mot c rieLa was re la tivelyli t tle infl uencedby any very p ro c Lcc theor cc Lcn I no ti on s" (Lu ms d ai n e , 1964, p. 377 ).
flfLer the 'Har, "thn wo rkof psycholog istswas r-ovcu l.Ln q import a nt new in f or ma t i on about how human learning tako s pla c e" (Kemp, 198 5 , p. 11). Thisle d to nnvoreI inte n s ive res e a rch stud iesbeingconductedto f.ctontLry how va r Io us roatu r cs of audiovisualmaterials errect cct le arn ing. Thes e resea r c h pr og r ams "we r e among tho Ll roLconcentr ated ef f ortsto identify principlesof learning that co uld be use d in the design ofaudi ovi s ua l matorLa Ls" (uctco r, 1987, p. 15 ).
Upto the 1%Os, thecon ce p t of audiovis ual tnot ructLon con tinued tobe viewe d as using devices, such ,1:1 [.i. 1 1l1 ~;, ~G,l i d s to suppleme nt. instruct ion. The research h.1Uno t q rcatLy aff ec t e deduca ti o n a l practices.
ny lilt' earl y19 605, many leader s in the audiovisual LioLdhoctCOIll(~ 1.:0 the conc lus ionthat the fieldwa s bronctor than th~ter m audi ovisual instruct ion LmpLr'.ed , 'ruo coneopt o[ "de s ig ni nginst ruc t iondirectly for the student Lnat endordesigningaudio-visual (A-V) ma t e ria l s
[d~ ; d.i d~ ; l for t.oechorsto use in t.heLc presentat ions"
(KnLr k.s.custarson , 1986, p,1), was beginning... take nh npo in thc mind s of many le a d e r s .
31 Robe rt Kilbou rn atW<1 y nc Stat e Unive rs i ty was the fir s t to cha nge the nameof his audio-vis ual ecucocIcn dep art men t to"i nstructional technolog y " . Accordingto Knic k ' Gus t a f son {1 9 8 6J . "Mor e than just<1namecbnnq c, itreflected a moveaway(rom the 'aids' co nce pt of assist i ng teache r sto te ach and t.ova r d the co ncept; of <It least so me mate ri als being directlyuo ccby students withouttccch c r Lntez-v cn t Ion" (p. 9). 'fhi-a ph .iio :oo phy of educat ion wa s alsochampi o n edby James Finn , who "Ls usua Ll.y credit edwith firs t defining "LnatxuctLo no I technology.'" (Kni rk &Gustafson, 198 6 , p. 9). In 1961 he establis h edaCo mmi t teeon Def init i on s and Ter mino l og y whose goal was todefine the fi eld andthe te r m!>
associated withi t .
TheCommi t te e reported that "rno jcudt. ovt cuoj.j field sho u l d be primaril yconcer ned wi t h the dcn Lqn and uno o[
me s s age s whi c h contro lthe lear ningproc-es, rutherthan wit h the audiovi::ual de vLce s tha t trodft, •oLly had noen the focus of the fi e ld" (Reiser, 1987, p. 19J.Rc i::~r.
(l987) gOO$on to occtc tha t tili... opinion "marknclan importan t ste p in the shif t towarda newvi ew of the fi eld" (p • 19) .
Thr oughout the 1960!: Lcadc r o inthe nud Lovi.ouul field :on tinucd to ccrvccc c oc n o ...tapp r cach to
32
innkructLon.They wer-e advocating theidea th a t instructio ncould be drastically change dif the ol d pnracli.qm of "a ud i ovi s u a l ma t e r i a l s ente ri ng at:.the c.too nroomLmpjoroo ntatLon level •• • whe n the teache r was cactLnq about [or ma t e r i a l s that might ai d LnatructLon"
(ttojntch, 19"10, p,11 G),could be replacedwdtha new par a.dLqm- one inwhLc h audiovisual ma te ri a l s ent eredat Lh~ cllrr:.i.cu ]umpLnnn.lnqlevel. 1\3Hc in i c h (1970) st a t es:
"1\11 mus t be pLn nned muc hea rlier thanthepr e se n t p,lrildifjffi or tcachor discretionpernita'' tp. 125 ).
Despite!the exhort ationsof leader s in thefi eld, Lhc- U:;I' ofnudLov.inuc I mat crt eLs con t in u es to be anaof Olid n to instru c t i on inmany Lnstan c e s. Theid ea sof Finn and Ileinic h , howevc r, did alert peo pletothe pos s i bili ty or,I new.ipp r oocbto designinginstruction- the sys t e ms app r oncb•
J..r!.sl..~H o n ,'.!...Q..~ lopme n t
In order to oxerntncthe ro o t sof the system s appronch andLts role in theins t ruc t i ona l development proc ons , i tis, accord i ng toReis e r (19 87). "impor tant to n'~~0gni:·.c th at it is boctc •• lly anempirica l appro a c h to the dc"ignandimpro vement ofinst r ucti o n" (p.21).
33 The .reHe nc e on empirical evidence canbetrocodto the workof men like Comeniuswho "proposed that inductive methods shouldbe usoct to analyze and Imp uovo the Lnstru or Ionaj, process" tseettaex, 1968, p.GO), and Herbart wh o "pr o p ose d that scientific research should be used to quLde instructional practice" (Reiser, 1987, p.21). Others 1ilo'.0 F. Bobbitt andW. W.Charters were also advocates of the empLrLca I op proa c h.Bo t.hwCJ:(~
"p i o n e er s insuch areas as activity <10.:11Y51s ... .md objective spoct rtcatLon- mc Lccr , 1987, p. 21).
As with the audiovisual movement, Lnt c.roat in the empLzLcaL approach waned during t.bo19 3 0 "ond the
depre ssion , but with "t he entry ofthe United St at.o s into World War II ... there was renewedi.nt.c rcnt inthe ucc of empirical methodstohe l p solve oducat f.ona I p rob l cmn"
(Reiser, 19 87 , p.22).
According to fnirk andOuutcfncn (19B6):
The vs v e t e mc approach' as applied toto achLnq and learning,oriqin.1ted in trainingprogrnmc devel o pe d by the mi.Ldtzir y . 1\8 vecoons ayutomo becerne more complexand re q u i r e d teamsof specialized interacting personnel, the armed servicessought new procedures for developing andde live r i ng training. (p, 3)
During World War II, the cyct oac o ppr oe cf to problem-solving was deveLop edand rcr Lncd<:I:::: the United Statesand other countr i.cn fOlJnd itnc cocaa ryto u r al.n
"
-"oldier ::;effec t i vel y andefficient l y forspecif ic ta s k s andto co fvo va rtous proble ms of war. It wa sdur ing th e war th at the sys t e ms approach became wel l knownto the public.
In order to inc re a se the eff ect ivenessand efficie ncyof th e lea rn ingprocess in themilitar y those Lndiv i.duaL s recp onoIb le for deve lop ing progra ms "ba s e d much of theirwo rk upo n inst r uc ti o na l principlesderived Lrom rc ue cccband the oryon instruct ion, lea r n i ng and hUJUdn bouov.tour" (Roisrrt, 1987, p. 22). Th o y were able to dnvcLop :
A.';ytJtcmncpp rcach to course designbased on o xtcttnqkno wledge of how peo p le le a rn . Such a ayctcmnapp r o achatte mpts tomoul d the inpu t to a course in' such a wayas to enabletheopt imum nns Im.i Lat Icn of kn owl edg e and ski l ls to take pj.occ during the le ar n i ng proce s s and hen c e mnximLzcthe qual i ty of the ou tput. (Per ci e va l andIn ]ington, 198'1 , pp . 15-16)
Ar t e r wo rld Wnr II , the birt hofpro grammed iunt ruct.Lon in 1:' ,mid 1950s provedtobe "t he next major L1CtOr. in the dev elopmentof thesys t ems appro a c h concept " (Reis e r, 1987, p. 27.). Th epro c e s sSkLnn-tr dcncrLbcd[o rdevel op in g programmedins t ructio n oxompL] rLod ,1"ornpLrfcaLap p roa c h tosolvingeducational 1'1:('"'110. 111:1,In c!;1:1llcinich (1970 ) st ate s :
Pro gr ammedinstr uc tio n has be e n creditedby aomc 'vit h introduc ingth e sys tems app ro ac h to oducatLon. uyono Lyzinq and breakingdown contont into spe cificbeha vi o r al objectives,
35 de vi sing the necessary stepsto ac hieve the objectives, settingup pr oc edur e s to tryo ut and rev i s e thest e ps, and by validating the programagainst attainment ofth e objectives , programmed instruction succeeded in creating a smal l but effective self- instructional system- a te c h nol o g y of instruction. (p. 123) Although the te r m 'systems approach' became well kn own to thepub licduring the wa r , "Th ete rmW<I .::> not us ed in educa t ion un t il 10 to 20 yea rs later .The '60s sa wthe emergence of the components t.b at; cventuo Lky wo uLd be combined to become the instructionaldesign cystcmn approach" (Dick, 19B7, p , ~").
According to Reiser (19B? ), "The refinement
or
tank analysis procedures during the 19 50'SW.:lZ a nothor- major.facto r inthe devefopncnt of the systemsap proa ch concept" (p • 22).Task anaLynLs, acc ordi ng toPratt
(1900), "i s the processof list i ng the component las!'. n th e students wo u l d needto be able to performif the <lim it s e H were to be at t a ined" (p. lGGl. Acco r-dInq t.c noLeer
(1987) :
Early work int hLs<'ICC<1lltldbeen undcrtakcn by Bobbitt and Che rt.er s [b u t )it. wan inthe
195 0 s , however, tnat; theprOCC33 wanr-c I'Lnecl,
pri ma ri l y throughthe e Ef o rt;nof nobor-t;IL Mi l le r , whodevelopedil dc t.a Lled ta::;k onat ys La methodologywhile workingon projects for the military sorv tcoc• (p.2:1)
In the 1960sth e id e a of til :;:ko n c Iy.ifo ~JiJ~: <::~ranrj r1 d furt her throughthe work.of Robert cc qne, Caqne be lie v e d
36
thet the tack s and nub-t.u sks identified through task a na LysLc often havea hierarchica l relationship to each otho r , oo that "i n order to learn successfully the Loo rnc r must; be able tosucceed at one levelbefore he cn n continue toth e ne xt; " (Hartley, 1978, p. 34).Based onCagne' s bel i0. f c the ins tru ctionaldevelopment approach not on]y "i ndi cates the ski lls tha t shouldbe includedin tlJn lnct ruc tL on {hut;a Ln o] the sequencein which they chou td he presen ted" (Dic k .19 8 7 , p. 54).
'rhomnthoclo loq Lonas s o ciatedwith ta s k analysis cncr with the prog rammedinstruct ion movement both placed anemphas i son the identification and cpocrr ic o taon of obcervaor.e behaviors to be per fo rmed byth e learner. Thus the behaviora l objcctLv onmov e ment canin pa r t be attributed to t.hoctovoIop mont s in the s e e cees. (nefser, 19 8 7 , p. 231
nobevfo ra I ob jectivesrefer to "s t a t e me nt s of what nuu ucnt o wil l boable to door how theywi ll be expected tobnhavo nrtor complet i ng a prescribed unitor course of luntrur. L f on'' (I1rl gq:" 19 7 "1, p . 55).
"Th e re hovobe e nma rr y at tempts to develop categories of Lcnr nLnqor ob j e c ti ve s '" soth a t the identification or the ca tegoryof agive nobjectrv c, le a d s more or less autoaaticoLly to 01 opcc t r Icat i.on of thewayth e
luutruct.tonoug ht tobe cro anLa e d'' (Romi s z owsk i , 1984, p. 40),
'rue Ldoa ofbehav .ior aI objectiveswasprobably firstsug ge s ted byth eTlmc ric a n educational
37 ps yc n c-J oq t st RalphTyl e rin theyears following the Sec o nd Wo r l dWa r. etorere c e nt l y, qu i t e sopht.sti.ce eed systems for definingdi ff e r e nt ; types of objectives in ways thatlend themselves to evaluation and measurementnev e bee n devised by Robert Gngne and Denjamln Bloom . (Kna ppe r, 1980, p. 51)
Benja minBloomend his as socd at e s have deve-Loped tax onomies for the c La s s Lf Lca t.Lonof oducn tLona L obj ectives for us e in the designof instruction. Bloom'5 ta xonomies divi de learning into threedamnins: (a) the cognitive domai n; (b I the affective domain; and (e) the psychomotor domain.According to Tanner a nd 'I'n nno r (1900) Bfoom'a work is "o ne of the most systematic cppr onchoa to the classification of cehev LornL object ives" (p. 16B). The procea s es ineach doma Lr. arc "c Las s Lttcd in a hierarchi alorder from s LmnLn to c ompLe x levels" (Tnnner
and Ta nncr , 1980, p. l6PI.
Bloom's Tax.onomy of Educationa l Objec ti ves is wo")ll know n and hashadsuch<Jqr cat Lropnct i.n tllr: ar c a of ins t r uc t i o n a ldovo Lopme nt; that, cc cor-d l nq to nomf.ovowcxI (1984), it has "r e nd e r e d itdif f i c u l t [or. succcnatvo generations of od uc nttonaI thtnko r n tohrc.··d:.ilWflY from the tripartitecnvts Lonof educationinto [three domeInn of learning] " (p.35).
Gagne and nri99s (19711) hove also dc voLopnd a cyn tnm for theclassificationof oc jocc avec . rhcy ucc five
38 cat cqo rf.on of Lear nLnq outcome s whi c h , acc o rd ing to Romt s zcws kL (19811), "a re more dire ctly lin k e dto specific .t uctructIonaI tactic s " (p•40).The work ofBl o o m and Gi:lrJnlland nrigq[;h a n been "veryinf lu en tialov er the past /10yo,)r." in ahep lnq the thinking of inst r u ctiona l
d~ ."': i. g n o r :":" (Romlnzowski , 19811 , p. Ill ) . Hll.w kri d g e (1 9 7 8) bot Iovontha t whil e nei ther
Tyler nor nloom thi nks of hims e l f as an od u c ctLo naItcchncLoq.i st; , yet the 'o rga ni z e d knowlcdqe' about objec ti ve spr o vide d by these two wa s es c imt.Lct.e d intoth e sys t emati c app roa ch to the des Lq n of lea rningadvocatedby proqrnmmod1('.-:1rni ng enthu siast s andeduca tional tochno Lo qLat o• [p , 378)
Inthc oc rLy 196 Gs, anotherke y compon entof the rluvoLopmnnt; of the oyc tcms app r-oach tothedes ignof
junt ruct.L onW;) ~tho emer-qence orcri t er io n-r efe r e nc e d t.ost.tn.j•crtt crlon-crcrcrcucocttests are "usedto accortaLn an indivi d ual ' s statu s with respect to a well doLl.nnddomaLn" (nekcr andO'Nei ll, 1987, p. 343)."As polrJy "l"~ 1937., 'J'yLor-had ind ica t ed tha t tes ts could be unndfo r ouch purpose" . . .but Gl a serwas the first ...
toIl~ ~'~Lht- to rm 'criteri on -re f ere nc e d roeas uros"" (Reiser, 1.<)[17, p. 24).
,\ n urcaor and his aasocf.ctc s devel opedobjectives [orLnd iv ldua L ins t ructiona l packages, th e y
t-ocruoo <1\,',H Cof the ne cessity0f includi ng test ltonm that directly mea surecthe behaviors dea c r i.bc d ill the obj ect i ve s . This process of
39 ma tch i ng test items to objectives becamekno....in as criter ion-reference d testingan d is a ke y compo nent of the systems L1pproach. (Dick,198 7 , p.54)
Theevaluationof inst r uct i o nal products in ClO important part ofth e inst r uc tio n al developmentprocess.
Two types of eva luationarc used. Formative evaluation is
"a continuing revisionproce ssthatis employedas curricu lumis being developed. This process isuse d topr o vide in f ormat i o ntothe developersa a to howthey can meke the ins t r ucti on moro or re c tLve'' (Dick, 1981 , pp. 51\-5 5 ). Summat Lv e evalu a t i on 15 "us e d to<l~ !; C IlS th e effectivene ss of the fLnaLrcvl.afon ofthe product"
(Reiser, 1987, p.26).
Inthe ea r ly 19 605 , theconcepts that we re beingdeveloped in suc h areon ca to s k a noLya.l n , objective specificotion, and cr Lt.u r Ion -r e f e r e n c e d testing werebrou ght together and discussed inarti cleswrittenby cuthc r seucn as Gagne, Glaser and Silv ~ r n. 'j'h e co LnclLviduaLa we r e among the fLrnt; to usc tnc terms such as 'system development,' voyccemctLc Lnntr-uction,"
and 'i ns t r u cti o n al sy:".:tnm,' to doncrIbonyat omo ap p r o a c h proceduresaf.mirc r tot.hoeoompto yc d today.At about this time , thC!t o z-ma -cystom c approach' and 'systemsdev elopment' begunto be employed to describeth e instruc t i on al development processesus ed during some ins t r u c t i o nol p ro jc ctc. (r,,~iser., 19R7, p. ?!i) Into the 19705 and curly 19 80 ::; thesy ot oncmovement cont in ued toqr-ow. 11.numberor qr aduatc pr oej rnmc ill instructionalocsIqn woro introduced, a number ofbook~
on the topic we r e written ;:lnrJtno numberot: Lna tr ucttoncI
40 devel opmen t modelsgrew so thatby1980 Andrews&Go ods o n (1980) could reporton -10 suchmodel s.
Inthe 1950 s and 19605educa t or s became aware that a techno log y of f.nntructLcn mi.ght bepossi b l e. At this time
The ...rorkof psy cho l ogi stswas re ve a l in g Lmportant;newinfo r mat i on about howhuma n Lo.rrnl.nq l." y. (' ~p1.1CCin clud i n g the impo r t a nc e of !.:pecilyingdc taLls of .:Itas kto be lea rned or. po r rormod, and the need for act i v e purtLci patLo nby the student or trai nee to onnu r c LoarnLnq. At thesame ti me, aud iovisual r:pr.!ci.:llbt" were de ve lo p i ng wa ys to uti l ize the recog nized learn i ngprinci pl e s indesign ing effective filmsand otherin s tru c t i onal materials. (Kemp, 1905, p. 1)
Thehi sto ry ofinstructional develo pment evolved in roLat Lcn to three conc ep ts tho t have fo r me d the IonndatLononwhichthefiel dis based. The field is uniq u e in th a t it combinesthethree con c epts of audjov.lsunI devices, lea rn i ng theo r y, andth e systems oppr oaoh..in t o a totalappr oach tofaci l i tat e •:!arn ing"
(kcIco r, 198 7, p• '11).
Model s of In s tr u ct i o na l Development
Anin st r u c t io n a l developmen t model dc scr Lb cs "o systematic procedurefor noLv.inqLnstructLono I probl em:'!"
(Knirk and Gustafso n, 19 0 6, p. 19). Theey stema tIc approach employed in instr u c tional development modelswas developedand refined duringwor IdWar II when theUnited Statesfound it neces saryto train t nounands of ncLdL o rn as effectively and efficientl y aspo ss i ble .
Afte r thevo r, one ofthemoot LnfLu cntLaJ model builders wanL.C.Silve r n. Htu work wit h the mi l i taryandaerocpaco indu s tr.y .ec nuttcd in anex t r e mel y comple xcno de t a iledmod e l whi ch drew heavily on qeno r aLsys t ems theor.y for its conceptuaLiaatit on• (Gu staEson, 1991. p. oS)
"Otherearl )' workby nnumber of nut hor naLao produced ID models, alth o ug h the ydid not use the sp e cdrrc term 'instru c tio nal deve lo p ment '" (cucucruo n , 19 81, p . 5). This te rm ha d itsbe qLnn i.nq n ina pr o j ect condu ctedat Mich igan Sta te UnIvo ru Lt y[rom191) 1- G ~ . Entitled "Instru ct.Lcn aI Sy:::: l<:m:::: t(O!v(O! l op'm cn£ ~
direc tedby Dr.Joh n Barso n, pz-oduce d one of tho «crLy instr uc t i o n a l dcveLopme nt mod eIr:.
Sincethi s fi re t Ln ntructLonoLdevel op me ntmodel the rehas been"a virtu a l flo o d of 1Dmodels eppo n r Lnqin the literature" (Gu sta f::::on, 1981, p.1). 'rher c IJiJ 'J I1be en
