ANETHNOGRAPHICSTUDY OF HIGH SCHOOLTEACHERS' KNOWLEDGEANDUSEOF INSTRUCTIO NALDEVELOPMENT ININSTRUCTIONALPLANNI NG IN THE PROVIN CE OFNEWFOUNDLAND
BY
eIAN DI CKGRAHAM,B.Sc.,B.Ed .
Athes i s submi t ted tothe Schoolof Gri:\duate Studi es in pa rt i a l fulfilment of the
requirementsfor thedegreeof Master of Educ ation
FaCUlty ofEd ucat ion Memo r i al Universi t yof Newfound l an d
Augus t 1991
St.Joh n' s Newfoun dland
1+1
The authorhas granted anlTevoeable non- exclusivelicenced:Jwi1gtheNationalUbrary 01Canadatoreproduce,loan,distributeCJ(seI copiesof hislhertheSisbyanymeansand In any formCJ(format,makingltisthesisavailable toInterested persons.
Theauthorretainsownership ofthecopyright in his/her thesis.Neither thethesisnor su bs tan tialextracts fromitmaybeprintedor otherw isereproduced withouthis/h erper- mission.
L'autcUl'a ecccere una licence KTevoeabIocr nonexclusivepennettanl~IaBiblio tM Quc nationale ducanadaderepr oduir e . prater. dislribUer0tJvendeedes copiesdesaU~SC dequefqueman;ereat sousQUeIquelonna Quecosoilpot¥menre desexemplairesde ceue these aIadispositiondespcrsooncs inlecessee s.
L'ooleur conservelapropl'iCledu droi td'aulcur Qui protegesathese.NiIathesenldesexuans substantialsdeceue-ctnodelvent etrc imprim6sO\Jeutre rnent reproduits sansson aulorisation.
ISBN 0-:J15- Ga 2 :54-X
Canada
i i ABSTRACT
The purposeofthiset hnograp hicstudywas toelicit info rmationonthe kno wl e dge and competenc ylevels of hi gh school tea chers in the instruction a l developme ntprocess to determine whethe r the respondents ha d ei t herexplicitor ta ci t knowl e dg eof inst ruc t iona ldevelopment. The study also attemp ted to determine the ty p eof instr uc tiona l planni ng used by there spond ent s in theabs e nc e of adhe rence to aninstr uction",ldevelopme ntmodeL The study was ini t i a tedasa result ofthr ee previous stUdiescarried out in th e provi nceof Newfo undla nd byGallant (19 8 9) , Tobi n (19 8 9 ) and Thomey (199 1) . Theserese archers, thr o ug h surveysand interv ie ws, determined that teacher-librarians, primary and el ementa ryte a c hers, and hi g h schoo l teachers did not possess compr e hensive knowledgeof and compete ncy in ins t r uc tio na ldevelopmen t. In fact their knowledgeand competency lev e ls we r e mini mal.
This etiudy wa s imp lemented inthe winterof 1990and the sprin gof 199 1usi ngbot hsemi -structuredand open-e nd ed inte r views wit hfive highschool te ac he r s whowere random ly selectedfrom two largeur ban school boardsinthe pro vince of Newf oundland. All in te r v iewspermitte d openresponses, andweretap e-re c o r ded wi ththe per missio nof responden ts.
iii The datawe r e ana lyzedusingMer r iam's (1988 ) suggestion of orga nizingthe data top i c a lly andMiles and HUberman's (1984) tactics of ana lyzi ngdata bynoting patterns and zbeeesand by clustering .
Results of the study indica ted tha t highschool te a c he r s participati ngin th i s st udy ha ve littleknowledge of and competency in Lnstrr-u utiLonaLdevelopment.
Fur thermo re,they make noua e of the instructional development proc e s s in plann i nginstr uctionalevents.
Teacher planning, forthe most part, canbe catego ri ze das non-systemspla nni ng.
iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The investiga tor wo ul d liketo extendhis gratitude towards a numberof friendsand colleagueswhowere instrumenta l in th e completionof thisthe s i s.
A special appreciation is extended tomy advisor, Dr.
Mary Kennedy, for her assistance, informationand inspi rat ion. Wi t h o uthe r encouragementthis thesiswould have beenmost difficulttoco mp l e t e. A special thanksmust be extended totho s e facultyand staff ofthe Learning Resources program for theirassistance during my gr.aduate program.
A specialgratitUdeis impartedto the teacher responde ntsforthe i r cooperationandvaluabletime.
I wo ul d like to thank my wife,Gerl, andmy three chi ldren ,John,And rea and Ryan, whomade untold sacrifices whilethi s thesiswas beingcompiled. Without their enco uragement, patience, unde r s t an ding and lovethe completionofthi s work would have been most difficult.
Special thanks to my Father forhi s encouragementand assista nce .
Fina lly I wouldliketo dedicatethis manuscripttothe me mo r y of myMothe r . Witho uthe r encouragement and pa r t i c i pa tio n in theearl ypart of mygra d ua t e program, I wouldha ve not reacheda point whe r e finiS h i ng th i s thesis woul d have bee nare a lity .
TABLEOF'CONTENTS
ABSTRACT • ACKNOWLEDGEME NTS LISTOf' TABLES CHAPTER
1. NATURE Of'THESTUDY Introduction
BackgroundtotheProblem Si g n ific!l nceof theStudy Definition of Te r ms • Li n i tatio nsot the study SUJDJIlllo r y • • • • • •
2. REVIEW OFRELATED LITERATURE Hi storic al Development of Instruct i on a l Deve l o pn e nt
Intr od uc t i o n • • • • Educat i onalTec hnolog y • Instructiona l Devel opment Lea rningTheo ries. • • Behavi o ral Lea rni ng Theory cogni tive LearningTheory Hu mani sti c Psyc ho l og y • • Instruc tionalDevelopmentand Le a rning The ory • • • • The Systems App roach • • • Instructional De v e l o pme nt Models ClassroomDevelopment Mo de l s • P:::,oductDe velopment Mod e l s Systems Dev el opmentMod e ls . • orga n iz a t i o na l DevelopmentModels Summary • • • • • • • • •
. i l
• iv viii
10
10 10 11 18
..
2223 24 24 26 32 34 35
3.
3 .
37
Historica l De ve l op me nt of Te ach er Planning
Introd uct i on . . . De fini tio n of Planni ng History of Planning . ,
~~:;~C~fo~e;~~~~e~I;~~~~Ing
Models of Planning
General Te ac her Pla nning Mod e ! s Instruct i onal De ve l o pment andPlann i ng Sumna ry
3• METHODOLOGY Introducti on
Developme ntof theInstrument sample Gr oup
Admini str atio n of the St udy Data AnalysisProcedu res
4. REPORT AND ANALYSISOF RESULTS.
Int rOduction
organizationof theFindi ngs Dernoqraphi c Inf o rllatlo n
~~i~~;~Yt~ni~~i~l~~n
Instr ucti on al De velopment Kno wledgeand Compe tency
Instruct ional /Behavioral Obj ec ti v es Lear ner Anal y sisCha r acteristic s / Entry Le vel Beh av iour
Eva lu ati on .
Teachi ng Str a teliJiesand Reso urc e s asees eeene , Revi s ion and Recycling
J8 38
3.
40 43 45 57
5 .
61 63
••
70 71
73 73 73 74 74 76
78
7.
85 sa
••
105
nerini tion of Instructional Development
The Planningof Instruction Introrluction . . . . . . . ThePr o c e s s of Planning Instruc tion TimeandContentDelivery Planning FactorsInfl ue nc i ng Planni ng . . . Description,Use andRevision of Plan Re l a t i o ns h i p of Planni ng to Teachi ng Historyof Planning
Summary . . . . .
5.CONCLUSIONAND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary
Conclus ions . Summary . Recommendations
REFERENCES
APPENDIXA - INTERVIEW GUIDES
vii
112 114 114 115 12 2 127 13 5 14 3 14B 151
157 157 15B 161 162
164 172
Tabl e 1
Ta bl e 2 Table J
LI S TOF TABLES
Respond ents' Te aching Rec ords . Respon de nts' Prepa ra toryPrograms
Re spo nden ts'Ranki ngof Planning Decisions . . . .
viii
7.
77
122
CHAPTERONE Nature of theSt ud y
Int r oduc t ion
The purpose of thisstUdy was twofol d :
1. To determinethe knowledge and competencyle ve l s of high schoo l te ac he r s regarding the instructi o nal developmentproces s , and to determine if suchknowledge andccape e e ncy were appli ed in theirins t r ucti o n a l planning processes.
2. To determine , in the absenceof Lnetruccionat developmentapplications, what sort of planning processeshighschoolte achersrelied on. Anet hnog ra ph icca s e stUdy was imple men t ed with five high school teachersfrom two large urban school boards in the provinceof Newfoundland toprobe both tacit end explicit knowledgeon their instr uc tio na l de ve l o pme nt and instru ctional planningproces ses .
Background TqThe prpb lem
The teacheris themost promine ntindividual inthe educationsys t e m. SUlliva n , Lievens , Villa l pa ndo , Marquez and Watkin (1986)suggestthat, withtheva ri etyof teaching te c hni q ue s present today,"te a c her- d irect e d instruction
basedonthe tex tbookand the t.e a cn errs own teachingstyl e re mains thedcmd nant; form of classroominstruc tio n" (p.29).
Teac he r pl a nn ing is an importan t compone nt of the instruc tiona l process. Teacherscan and do us e a variety of planningand instruc tiona l methods. Whi l e all teachers plan instructi on, not allar e explicitlyaware of theirplanning processes. There is variationin depth and scope of planningactivi ties, aswell as inmen t alve r s us written plan ning. Instruc t i o nal developmentis one plan ning process that couldbe usedby teachers. It claims to systematize the ins t r uc t iona l process, fr om planning throu gh delivery and evaluation. At itsmost basic le ve l itpr o vi de s an algorithmfot·the developmentof ins t r uct i on. It is possiblethatte a c hers use anins tructionaldevelopment framewo rk - that is an algorithmic or a syst e msapp roach, wit hou t being awa re th at theyare, in fac t,doing instruction aldev elo pment asthe ypla n .
Accordi ngto Dia mond(1980) ins truc tional development.
emerged inthe 1960s as anapplic ation of the field of educa t iona l technology. "Itbecame anidenti fiedprofession at a national conve nt ionofwhat is nowtheAssociationfor Educationa l communicat ionsandTechno logy"(Diamond, 1980, p,51). It ispracti sed andcan cpe r ee e at various levels of applicat ion . It is a scienti fic and nys t.e raatLc process. Mellon (19 8 3) suggests "thefieldofed ucation a l techno logy
has essentiallytwo main components,product and process.
The latteris more comecn Ly knownas the instructio nal development process" (p. 187).
Davies (1978)reports there havebeen three forms of educa tional technology. Educational Technology One was co nc e r ne d withaids for teaching. EducationalTech nology Two stressed the importa nceof aids tole a r ning.
Educational TechnologyThreeis a systematicapproach,
"focusingrathermore deep lyontihe processes as wellas the on tile productsofte ac hing and learning" (Davies, 1978, p.
104) •
Educational technol og y has beenused extens ivelyand successfully try the military, bus i ne s s andindust ry,and government . Even withconsiderable success inthese arenas over the past twodecades, it ha s not beenwid e l y usedin the schoolsetting. Dick (1987) report!:: "A process of imp roving students' achievement. thr o ug h !"ystamaticde sign , development, and evaluationis currentlyavailable but not wi d el yus e d inthe publicschool syst em. This processis referred to as the systems approach" (p.54).
Dick (198 7) reportstha t us i ng the instructio na l developmentpr oc e s s resultsin greater gains on tests. "Even experiencedte a c he r s oftengain insigh t intothei r students' abilitiesand the learningprocesstha t they ha dno t re aILee d through the i rno rm a l teaching. Ev idenceis
accumulatingtha t the use of instructi.:.nal design results in more effective and ~fficientinstruction" (p. 55-56),
Research on the use of the instructionaldevelopment process in the school setting is scant and there have been few formal empirical studies done on this area in the past.
In the past two years there have been a series of studies on the instructionaldevelopment knowledge and competencies of specific groups of Newfoundland teachers completedby Gallant(1989), Tobin(1989) and Thomey (1991). These studies have concluded that teachers pessees very li t tl e knowledgeof or competency in instructional development. But teachers do plan for their instruction eveni f they do sowi t hout using an instructional development mode I or wi thout expl1ci t kno ....ledge of instructional development.
signifjcance of thestt.~qy
Thomey (1991) recommended further study of high school teachers' knowledge level and use of instructional development, preferably using the interview process, so tt.:.:.:
the focus of such study couldbeon how teachers actli.'llly plan, extrapolating from their planning routinesany knowledgeor use of instructionaldevelopment. In order to tap teachers' tacit as wellas explicit knowledge,the researcher chose to select a small group of high school
teachers fo r indep thint ervi ews over anexte nd ed pe r iodof ti me.
Thisstudy, de s i g ne d as a fol l ow- upto Thomey's(1991) surveyofhi gh sch ool ce a ch ers"ins tructio na l development knowl ed ge andcompetency, focuse don coa ch e r planning pr oc e s s e s. Speci fica lly the stUdy,throu gh a seriesof indepth inte r v ie ws , attempted to establis h:
1. Th eknowledge,competenc ylevel and apPlica tio nof ins tr uc tion al development among fi ve high school teachers inplann ing their class room ins t ruction . 2. The planning approachesof these teachers , including
the i r knowledge of ins t r uc t i on a l planningand the i r us e of planni ng for dailyclassroomevents , and the techniquesand proc ess e s theyus e d inca r ryi ngout planning process,as wellee thetypes df plans they developed.
Fivete achers were selected fromtwo urba nschool boa r d s. The ra tion a l e for us ingthe s e two schoo l boards lies in the factthat boththese boa rds arepr esentl y implementi ngcooperativeprogram planni ng and res o ur c e-ba s e d te a ch ingpr og r ams among te a ch er-l ibr ari an s and cl assroom te a chers. Such programs ha ve asa basea notio n of instructional de s i gn , and , as a resul t ofthe implementa tion of these programs, tea ch ers hav eundergon e inservice trainingduri ngthe past two years toenco urage the
Lmpkement.ai. on of resource-basedteaching. It.was therefore assumed that teachers w:c.h these two boards might be more familiar withsome of the terminology of instructional development, and have gained at least rudimentary knowledge regarding instructional design.
Definitionof Terms
For the purpose of this studythe following terms and definitions apply.
EducationalTechnology. A complex integrated process involving people, procedures, ideas, devicesand organization for analyzing problems and devising, implementing,evaluating, and managing solutions to those problems involving all aspects of humanle a r ning (Reiser, 1987, p,20).
H.i.£lL.fu<h~. An educational unit comprising teachers from 9'"ades ten through twelve.
Instructional Deyelopment. (Used interchangeably wi th ins t r uc tiona l design and instructional technology).A systematic approach to the design, production, evaluation, and utilization of complete systems of instruction, inclUding all appropriate components and a management system for using them (Silber, 1977, p , 172).
I earn;n
a
'meor v . A systematic integratedoutlook in regard to the natur e of the process wherebypeople relateto thei r environmentsin such a wa y asto enhancetheir ability touseboth the ms e l ve s and thei r environmentsmore effectively(Bigge , 19 8 2 , p, 3) .Systems Approach. An operationalsystemwhi c h synthesizesand inte r relatesthe componentsof a process wit hina conceptual framework, insuri ngconti nue d , orderly and effective progress toward a statedgoal (Hei n ic h, 1970, p,8).
pUbli c Examinations . A methodof evaluationused in newfound landhigh schools,comprising sets of province-wide examfna cionsin speci fichigh schoo lcourses,
Teacherplanning . The selectionof goalsand the designingof appropriateinstruc tionalprocedures for te a chi ng .
~.A planthat istyp i c a lly developedfor a si ng leins truc tional sequence . It isus ua lly presentedin one class session(Kourilskyand Quaranta, 198 7 , p,23 ).
~.A student-ce ntredcrocessto observethe outcomesof st ude nt learni ng. It incl ud e s the roleof the teacher,the specific instr uc t iona lmethods ,the curr icul um nat.er-Lafausedandthele a r ning principles appliedinthe ins t ruction(Kourilskyand Quarant a, 1987. p.40-41).
L.imitatio nsof theStud y
In implementi ng thi s st udy th e following limita tions we re recognized.
1. This case studywas conductedusing a small group of high school tea c;::hersoftwo large urban schoolboards in the pr ov i nc e ofNewf o un dl a nd . Theconclusionsand appl i c ation s can on ly be made wit hinthe limitsof thi s grou p.
2. Thiscase st ud yat tempt e d to determi ne high school te a c hers' knowledge andcompetencies re g a r d i ngthe instr uc t i on a l developmentprocess . It also attempted to det ermine the ir approachesand methods regardingthe pl ann in g of instruction. Thereha s beennoma j or attempt to draw inferencesfrom the i r planningroutines inrel a ti on to unde r l yi ng principlesof instructionaldevelopment. It is fel t that furt herst udyofte a ch er plann ing is requi red be f o r eta cit instruc tiona l de ve l o pment could be esta blished.
Thisthe s i s reports the re s e arc h findings of a study cond ucted in the winte r of 1990- 1991 regarding the ins t ructio naldevelopment competenciesof selected hi g h schoo l tea ch ers in the provinc e ofNewf o undl a nd and the i r
approaches to inst ruc t ionalplanni ng.
ChapterTwopr e s ents anhistorical overviewof the fieldof instru ct iona l development and thevarious instructiona l development approachesormode l s. It also pr ovi d e s an overview of instr uc tiona l pl a nnin g , the pr oc e s s e s of plann inginstruction,the variousinfl ue nceson teacherplanning , pla nn ing decisions ,and a variety of planni ngmodels.
Ch a pte r Threedeli neates theme thodol ogy andthe proced u res whic h were implementedduring the study.
Cha pter Four pre s e nt s the da t a , analyzed qual ita ti ve l y, in summary form.
ChapterFivepr ovi de s a summaryofthe resultsof the study, wi t h co nc l usio ns and recommendationsfor fur t her etiudy •
10 CHAPTER TWO
Re v i ew of Re:t.atedLite ra tu re His to rica l peyelo p men t of In s t ru cti on al Developmen t
Introduction
Acc ordingto Feldhusen(1980) :
Instr uc tiona l te chnol ogy is the systematic ap pli ca tion of research, theory and est ab lishe d mod el s to the de s ign and ev aluati o n of ins t ructio n. Instruc tion al de v e l opme nt is a br oa de r set of procedures whic h include ins t r uctio nal te c hnol og y and otherlessformal me thods inthe creationof Dewtea chingsys tems. (p . 57)
Instruct iona l dev el op mentis anapplicatio nofthe fleidof educationaltechnolog y. Diamond(1980) states the emergen ceof ins tructio na l dove lo pmentfirst appea red in a Michigan sta teuni ve rsi t y projec t enti tled ~c~
Syst e msDevelopment· A Demonstrationand Eva l uat i on Project.
Itcontai nedone of the earliest ins truc t ional dev elopme nt mod els (p.51).
Instructi o nal devel o pment has evolved as a subsyste mof the fiel dof educa tio nal technology. Mell on(1983) repo r t s
"the fieldof educa tiona l tech nology , while diverse,has essentially two maincompone nts, prod uc t and process. The late r is more eommonl y known asthe inst r uctio nal development pro ce s s (p.18 7 ) .
11
Educational Techno logy
The evolutionof the field of educational te c h no l og y is important inth e discussion of thehistory of instructional development.
The rise of educational tech nologyis as varied as the authors wh o havereport ed it. Haw kri dg e (1976) suggests the history canbe divided into three sections:"theperiods of pre- his tory(before19 54 ). infancy (1954 to around 19 6 6 ) and adolescence(from1966 topr es en t ) .. (p, 8).
Thepre-history stage startedwi th a numberof classical educators . "Bacon migh t be said to havebeen in favour ofthe systems approach: he seized the wholeproblem, stated its terms and formu lated itsequations" (Hawkridge, 197 6 , p , 9). Saettler(1968)believed "Come n i u s was the first real for erunner of mo d e r n ins t r uc t i onal technology , he la i d the foundation of a systematic und ers t a n d i ng ofthe teaching-l earning pr o ces s (p.22). "Pe sta l o z zi advocatedan inst ructio nalapproach knownas objectte a c h i n g" (Reiser, 1987, p, 13 ) . Thisapproachwas popu lar- in both Europe and the United sta tesin the 16005.
Inth e early 1900 s two authorsserved as "pr e c urs or s to the modern theo ri e s of educationa l techno l ogy , Thorndike and Dewey" (Hawkridge, 1976,P. 10 ). Both we r e in vol vedinth e science of inst r uction . Alongwi t h the s e theoriesof educa tio n, visualeducationwasma k i ng inroadsat the school
12 levelar o u nd the same ti me. "The ea rl i e st record of visual ed ucatio n intheNatio nal Education As s o ci ation (NEA) wa s a speech on the effec tsof moving pictur e s at a 1912meeting"
(Lembo and Br u ce, 1971 ,p, 50). By th e 19 23the r e was enough inte res t invisual educa t ion tore s ul t in the NEA for ming a "Department of Visual Instruc t i on" (Lembo and Bruc e, 1971 ,p, 50).
The visual ins t ruc t ionmove ment gre wsteadil y during the rest of the 19 20 5 and th e ea r ly 19 30 5. "Te ch nol o g i c a l advances in filmandslide qua li t y, radiobroadcas ting, so u ndrecor di n g, andmotio npict u res wit h soundhelped fosterthi s growth and servedto expand the focus of the movement from vi s ual inst r uc tio n toaudi ovi s ual instructio n "
(Reiser, 1987, p , 14).
In th e193 0s andea r ly 19405 "l ower birt h rat e andpoor ec o nomic conditions inAme r i ca had adep res sing effec t on edu cati o n " (Le mboand Bruce, 197 2a, p , 44). But audiovisual ed ucat ion was onthe ri se.
The beginn ing ofWorldWar II hada pos i t i ve infl uence on theaudi ov i sua l mo vemen t. Dur i ng the Sec ond WorldWar the re was anecess! tytoinstr uctand trai nla r ge numbers of ind ivid ua lsqu ickl y and effi cient l y. The sta r t of thewa r re s ul t e d in aslow- do wn inthe growth ofaud i ov i su al inst ruct i o ninsc hoo ls , butan incre a s e in themilita r yand in indu stry. Rei ser (19B7) stat e d "the s eaudio vi su a l
13 devic es were ge nera llype r c e i v e d as successful in helping the Un ite dSta tessolve a major tr ain i ng problem, how to train large numbersof ind i vid u a l swi t h diverse backgrounds"
(p. 15).
The schoolsystem wasa benefic iaryof the successof this aud i o vi s ua l mov eme n t. Devices suc has slide project ors . overheadprojec t orsand audio equi p ment joined the fUrn projectoras classroominst rumen ts.
Up tothi s point audi ov i s ua l us e wasmainl y a supplement eca le s s on. Saettl er(19 68 ) suggested "th e hi sto r i c a l de vel opme nt ofthe audiovisua l movement has generallyig nored ps ychol ogic a l theor y, st ress i ng group pr e s e ntation of mate rial s" (p. 194).
The decadefo llowingthe wa r was the beginningof the associat ionbetween the aud iovi s ua l user s and re s e arc h involvinglearni n g the ori e s. Re i s er (19 8 7) not es"the post - WorldWar audiovis ualresearch progra ms wer eamongthefirst conce ntra tedeffo r t toid enti f y prin c ipl esof le arni n gtha t could be use d in the des i gnof audio visua l materials " (p. 15) •
The development oftheaudiovi sua l mov emen t was an impo r tant step towa r dsa di vi sionof educ ational te chno l ogy . Acco rding to Ely (1973) "thero otsofeducational te c hn olog y stemfro m the fou n dat ionsofaud i ov i s ual education" (p. 53). Historica ll y tha t fiel d ha sbee n co ncerned withsel ection ,
,.
production and use of instructio:'lal mate r ia l s andequ ipment.
"I n February1947the name of the association wa s changedto the De pa rtmen t of Audio-visualInstr uction,mirroring the te chn ologi cal advances ofthe day" (Lembo and Bruce, 1972b, p, 66).
Hawk r idg e (1976)callsth e second stagetowards the ri s e of ed ucatio naldevelopme ntas th e"inf ancy stage" (p.
14). Professiona lsin thefi eld began to realize that the fieldhadtobe expanded. James Finn wa s one ofthe pioneers in the field. Lembo and Bruce (1972b) reports Finn'sspeech of an evolvingphilosophy:
I~ f~: ~~~~u~I~~ti~n;h~i:l~~t~~~l~~r~!r:topments
movemen tsarising inindus trr. the armedfo rce s , and the social serviceorganJ.za tions ,i fit conti n u e sto concent rateonwh at isonl y onephase of the audiovisual movement, in the lo ng runit willne ver succeed in profe s s i o na li z i ng andwill have be enpa s s ed by.(p. 67)
This evolutionwas causedby thedevelopmentof
"communicat ionsI le ar ni ng theory,and educa tionalpsycno toqy ofthe 50Sl l (Diam o nd, 1980 , p,51). Seals (1989 ) suggests two ot her impor tan t influencesto causethisevotut.Icn.
"Fi r st was Sputnik andthe ensui ng federal funds for large curriculum pr o jects for schoo lsand colleges andthe second was the babyboomafter Wor ldWarII,whi ch meant school s and colleges we r e ove r whelmedbylarg e number of stUde nts "
(p. 11).
15 Psycholog i sts su c h 85Briggs.Gagn e. Bloom,Lumsdaine . and Skinner werebpo rta nt contributors to this new fieldof the science of learnin g. Skinnerwa srert! cularlyimportant tothe field of educati onal tec hno logy. Bythe use of tea c hin g machinesand pr ogra Illlledlea r ning , Skinner "propo s ed adeta il applica tion of hisown particul ar brand of science of learni ng.throughtheuse ofte c hnolo g i ca l devic es"
(Hawkridg e , 1976,p, 15 ).
"The principlesof instruc tio n propo s edbySkin nerled tothe first ins t r uc t io nal tec hnology: progr ammedle arning "
(Seals,1989,p, 11). "Theeme rgen c e of theprograllUlled instruct ionmovement ga veus great confi dence in ou r abil i ty tode s ign effectiveandrep l i c able inst r uction" (Hei nich.
1984,p, 74). Morgan (1978) believed "thestronges t case canbe ma de for datin g the origin of educational techn ol ogy frolllthework of B.P. Sk i n ner an dothe r progralUled instru c t i o n" (p. 143).
As a resu lt there were manypr opos al s fo r a naDle cha ngo for thepro f essi o n. Silber (1978) re portedthe sug g es ted name chang es inc luded"audiovisua l commu nica t i o nby ElY, instructi onaltechno l og ybyPi nn, anddifferent names suc h as aud i o visual instruc tion, le arning re sour c e s or educational tech n ology" (p,175).
This in fa ncystagere sult edinachangeofemp ha s i s. Ely(1972) suggests :
16 until about1950, American educationtended to place almost exclusiveemphasis on good teaching as the vehicleof good learning . I t
wa s teaching , therefore,th a t was emphasized,
evaluatedand cha nged. The advent of programmedinstructionin the late19505 he l pe d to placeane w emphasisonthe le a r n ingpr oc e s s andthele arner . This brought aboutthe realizationthat le a rning isthe goal of the instructiona lprocess and the crite rionby whichit mustbe judged. (p,37)
Reiser (1987) confi rms a shift inempha si sand "tho se in the fieldshould be primarilyconcernedwith the design and use ofme s s a ge s whichcontrol thelearn i ng process,ra t he r than th e audiovisualdevicesthat had been the focusof the field" (p. 19 ).
Hawkridge's (19 76 ) adolescencest a g e beganin tho mid- sixti e s and cont inuesto thepresent. In 1965the sys tems approachto instructionwas prer.entedin national publications and at conferences of audiovis ual professionals. Reiser(198 7) states"the sys t e ms approach literaturegrew rapidlyas models fordesign of instruction we r e developedand numerous journal articles focusingupon varfcueaspocesof the systems processwere pub'lLshe d" (p.
27).
In 1970 a task force was esta blishedto research the field of instructionaltechnology. It resulted ina definingof instru ctionaltechnology by the commissionas:
Asys t e ma t icwa y of defining,car r y i ng out, and
~::~~i~~nlnt~:r~~t~~ ~~~ificO~b3:~~i;~~ ,ab~sed
on17 find ings fr om researchin hu manle arn i n g and communicati on. andemployinga combina t ionof humanand non h umanresou rcesto br i ngabout more effective instr uc tio n. (Tor kelson, 1971 ,p,48) In1970 there were signsof an educa t ional re v ol u t i on. The Natio nal EducationAssociatio nchangedthe name of Audio-Visua l Instruc tion tothe As s oc i at i on for Educational Communicationand Tec hn o l o gy (AECT)in orderto stay in tune withth e evolutionof eduoat.Lcr, "Th i s refl ected the broader concept urg e d by Finn (S ilber , 1978, p , 175 ). As a result:
changes intiti e s were accompaniedby changes in the termlm:l1ogy being us e d inpublishedpapers. A systemsapproachto educa t ionand tr a i n i ng was urg e duponal l educa tional technologi sts.
Different auth ors ha drather different interpreta tionsof wh a t the tet",n meant , but in general it seemedtoimpl y a systematicanalysis of all the componentsin a given le a r ni ng situa tio n , whethe r or not thatsituationinvolved programmed learning. (Hawkridge, 1976 , p, 23) In 1972 the profession broadeneditsscope and ren a me d thefieldeducationaltiec fm oIc-qy, "Th e name., the definition,and theconceptual frameworkwere finally solidified in 1977 withthe pUblicationof AECT' s official defini tionstatement of the profession, Educational Techno logy:De f ini ti on and Glossa ry of Terms(Silber, 1978 , p.175).
Wagner (1986) viewseducationalte c hnolog y as: ini ta broades t sense, thepr-edeti e z-mi.ne dpurpose of educa tio nal te ch no l og yis to maximize lear ning and/or perf or man c e outcomes throu ghthe deve lopment, design, delivery, and eval u ation of
18 in s tructional and/or trai ni ng programs, procedures and ma t e r i a l s . (p.36)
Wagner (1986) discusses educational te ch n olog y ashaving botha produc t and a process component. The product include s audiovisua l, manualsandte xt bo oks. The process is
"the means thr o ughwhic h the productsare generated. These pr o c e s s e s are embodied withinthe disciplineof instructional devel o pment " (Wa g ne r, 1986 , p, 37).
Instruct i on a l De v e l o pmen t
Instructio nal development is a branchof educat icnal te c hnol og y. Be ing a part of educational te c hn o log y, it has evo lvedalongthe same pathand owesit s incepti onto the audiovisual mo v e me nt. The two otherfie ldstha t have le d to theprocess of inst r uc t i ona l developme ntarelea rn i ng theo riesand the systemsapproac h. Diamond(1980 ) reports:
Instr ucti o nal develop ment didnot come on the educationalscenesuddenly. It represents , in
I~c;ls~airi~i~;u~~i~~t~~nfh~n~2~~~ta~~io~;is~~lts
inst ru c t ionsofthe '305 and '405;communication, learni ngtheo ry,and educational psychologyof the '50s; and educationalcommunication and system designand management of the '60s. (p. 51)
Th i sdevel o pmen t has beenechoed by Knirk and Gustafson (1 9 86 )who suggest th e fieldof instruc tionaltechno logy has beende v e l oped thr o u gh threesepara tedevelopments:
1. Designing instr u ctiondirectlyfor the st udentins t ead of designing audio- visual mate r i al s for teache rs to use in theirpresentations.
19 2. Ben c hmark deve lopmentsin le arning
theory as ide nt ifiedby B. F. Skinner
•.. andothers .
3. Theinfluenceof World Wa r II and the late r advancing hardwaretechnolog y , whi c h req uiredde v eloping qu d.okta s k ana lys is pr oc ed ure s, ef fect i vetraining, and new commun icationtechn ologies: of t en labelle d the "s ystems approach ".
(p. 1)
The firs t conne c tio nbetween the fieldsof psychology and educat.IcneI te c hn olog y occ urred duri ngWorld War II and thetraini ng of themili tary. psychologists were re ve al i ng new informa t ionabout the lea rnin gpr o c e s s andthe audio- visual moveme nt hadrea ch ed a new he i g ht intr a i ning and instr uc tio n. "Audio-vis ua l spec i alistsweredeveloping wa ys to uti lizethe recognized learn ing principlesin de s i gning effectivefilms and ot herinstructionalmate rials " (Kemp, 1985, p,4).
Jearni09Theor i e s
Ac c or d ing to Groppe r (1983 ),"lear ning theory describes the la wf ul wa ys inwhi ch changesinbehaviou r occur. Its parameters ide ntify :aunit of behaviour to beanaLyae dr the condi t ions thatproduct changes in it; andthe nature an d permanenc eof thechangesin it tha t can re su lt" (p. 106 ).
Bigge(1982) defined a lear ningthe ory as a "s ys t e matic integra tedoutlookin re gardtothe nat ure of thepr oc e s s where by people relatetothei r envi r on mentsinsu c haway as
20 to enhanc ethe ir abili ty to use bot h thems elv e s andthei r envi ro n ments more effec ti vely " (p.3).
Sincepsycho l ogy isthe scienceof behaviour, itis obvious tha t ps yc hology is an impor tan t aspect of learni ng.
The r efore , educationandpsychologyareun!ted to form educa tio nal ps yc holo g y. Edu c a tion al ps ych ol og ydea l swith the learning pr oc e s s e s. One of the ma j o r partsof ed ucationa l ps ych ol og y isle ar n ingthe ory.
Lefrancois(1988) describes le a r n ing theory:
Itis a subd ivisionof gene ra l psyc holog ical the ory. I tde al swith the questi on of ho w behaviou r chang es. Inde e d, le a rn i ng can be define das changes inbehaviour resultingfrom experie nce. Th isiswhytheexpression le a rni ng theo r y andbeha vio ur theory arenearly
synonymous.•• Thehistoryof learni ng the ory shows a prog r e s sion fr om simple (rat hermecha nistJ.c) interpre tations ofhumanlearningto complexone s . (p,7)
Saet tler(1968) tr a c e s the birt hof the learn i ng th e o r y to the ea r ly1900s. psychologistssuchas Dewey,Thorndike , Ha ll , Binet and atncnwere respo nsi b lefor the newmoveme nt.
Asa result "atrue scienceof behaviour ,and espe c i a l l y of le arning th e ory beganto emerge(not basedpr i ma ri ly on metaphysica l or phil os op hic al specu lat ionaspre viou sly ) , fr o m whi chapplicat i on s to ate ch no l ogy of instruction mi g ht be ant ici pa t e d"{p, 48).
Rei ge lut h(198 3 ) ack nowledges the contributionsof Dewey andThorndi ke tothefieldof ins truc tiomll de sign but
21 gives credit to other psycho logistsforthe creationof the process. "Instr uctionaldesign'sbirth as a discipline must becreditedto B. F. Skinner, JeromeBrunerand David AusuheI" (Reigelut h, 198 3, p, 27).
Landa (19B3) bel i e v e s "le a r n i n gth e o r i e s deal with relationshi psbetwee n le a rn e r s ' action and le a rne r s ' ps ych ologic a l or behavioral processes - tha t is,with relati onshi ps of phenomena ins i de thele a r ne r (p. 63). Landa (1983) describes two typesof le arni ng theories:
De s c r i p t i v e le a rningth e o r i e s deals with "if••• , then" propositionsstati ngwhat happens psychologicallyif suchand suc hlearning actions are performed,and pre s cri pti ve learning theories prescribewhatle a r ning operat ionsshoul dbe pe r f o r med (asne c e s sary, sufficient, or both) in order for a certain psyc hological processto happen.(p. 65)
Bigge (1982 ) suggests that"et; least tendi f f erent theoriesinregard toth':l basic nature ofle a rning processes are ei the r prevalent intoday'sschoo lsor advocated by le a r ni ng contemporarypsycho logists " (p. 8) . Lefrancois (1 988 )be lie ve s there are three major learning the ori e s: behaviourism, cognitivism andhumani s m. "Huma ni s mpr e s e nt s avi e wcomple mentaryto the first two approaches "
(Le f r a nc oi s,1988, p, 8).
Lear ningtheori esare amirr or of the psychological theori e s of any pa r tic ul a r time. Apara di gm shiftin a psych olog icaltheorywill resu ltina si milar shift inthe
22 lea r ning theor i e s . In thetwen tie th centurythe two JIIa jor theories of learning, be ha vi ou r i s m and cogni tivislI, developed in concert withdev elopmentsin psychology.
Behavioral theory was impor ta n t in learningfrom 19205 to the19605 , whe n cogniti vethe o rybecameth e dotl.ina nt the o r y of the learning pr oc e s s . This notion is suppor ted bymany authorsineduc ati onal ps ychologyinClud ing Saha ki a n(1976). HilgardandBower (19 74 ),Schwartz (1977), and111 1 1(1 9 63).
Behavioural Lea r ningTheory
Behaviourismwasa reacti on tothe int ros pection moveme nt or ps ychological inv e s tiga tions in which one exami ne s one's own thou ght and emoti on. It wa s prod uc ed by J. B. Wats on in 1913. Accor d i ngto Lefrancoi s (198B),
"beh aviourismdenotesthetheo rie s tha t are conc erned with the obse rvablesof behav iour - that is, with thevisible as pect of behaviour:stbu lus (tha t whichleadsto behav iour ) and response (the be haviourits e lf ) " (p. 8).
There are manypsychol ogi s t who followedthethe o ry of benavtcur Iea. Aft erWatson, thi s group include s Pav lovwit h histheo ry of classic a l cond itioni ng, Gut hrieand his contiguity principle, and Hul l andhisth eories on re inf orce ment. B.f'. Skinner is one of thebetter kno wn beh avi ouris t s. His theory of operantcond itioni ng is wi dely reported. Accordi ngto Lefrancois (19 88 ):
23 Buhaviourism, because it is almost exclusively preoccupied with objective things and avoids any speCUlation about what occurs between stimuli and response,can exp.\ainlearning and behaviour only in terms of rules that govern the relationships between observed physical events. (p. 8)
CognitjyeIearnin~m.:Y
Historically, the ceseft psychology was the beginning of the cognitive learningtheories,butit wasn't until the 19605 that i t had an impact on learning. "Cognitivism refers to the work of those psychologists who have abandoned much of the earlier concern with external, observable behavioral components. They have, instead, become increasingly preoccupied with the organization of kncwfedqe , information processing, and decision-making behaviour"
(Lefrancois, 1988, p. 8). Bigge (1982)states "a cognitive- field of learning describes how a person gains understanding of himself and his universe in a situationso construed that both his self and his psyChological environment compose a totality of mutuallyinterdependent co-existing factors" (p.
172) •
There are many psychologists who followed cognitive field theories. Kurt Lewin studied motivation, personality and social psychology. Jean piaget studied intelligence and child development. Bruner, a student of piagat, developed theories that dealt withconc e pt u a li z a t i o n , perception,
"
instructionand development. He produced a discovery learningtheory. Ausubel studied verbal learni ng.
Bawd,McDougall and Yewchuk (1982) summarize the cognitive field theory of learning as a process that "stress perception, ins i ght , mentalstructuresand probl emsolving"
fp,75). They concludecognitive theori stsare interested in verbal and concept: learning .
Humani s t icpsychology
Humanisticpsychologyis human or individual-oriented. It combineselements of both behaviourismand cognitivi sm.
Three members of thisgroup are Albert Bandur-a, BenjaminBloom and Robert Gagne. Bandura' s theory is based on operantco ndi t i o ni ng or behaviouri smbut it recogn izes our ability to perceiveand anticipatethe outcomeof behaviour (Le f r a nc o i s 1988) . Benj aminBloom isassociated with educational objectivesand the theoryof mastery learning. His theories co nt a i n both a behavioral anda cogni ti ve component. RobertGa~m!'!used both the behaviourist and cognitive field theory to produce an hi e r a r c h i c al system to explainthe learning proces s .
IDstructjaDa] Deve] opmeDt and Learning "'heory Instructionaldevelopment is based on applicationof learningtheories . At the time of its inception, behavioral
25 theory ....as still the dominant le a r n i n gth e o r y and many of the innovators were behaviourists. Sprague (1gB!)states,
"behaviourism, which was the dominant school of thought in educationalpsychology in America in the 19505 and 19605 had a major influence on instructional design principles ••..
many instructional designers in the 19605 and 19705 were indoctrinated in the behavioral tradition a la Skinner"(p. 24 ). It is the cornerstone of instructional development.
Jonassen(1984) states "t he systems approach is grounded also in behaviourism"(p. 157).
There is a shift from behavioral to the cognitive learningth~ory. Dede and Swigger (1988) suggest
"i ns t r uc t i o na l designtheory is gradually shifting from a behavioral science orientation to an emphasis on cognitive science,that is, from promoting students' overt performance in manipUlating instructional materials to enhancing their cognitive processing" (p. 21).
"The shift to a cognitive orientation has brought about a focus on process, rather than product. Current work addresses the effect of technology on cognitiveprocessing and problem-solving strategies"(F;:)snot, 1984, p.196).
"Cognitive instructional methods include encouraging discovery strategies;suggesting the use of pl:'eviously acquired and decontextuallzed skills through, for example, paraphrasing, advanced organizers and analogies" (Clarke and voogel, 1985, p , 117).
26 Sewell (19 88) believes"modern cognitive learning theory provides a potentiallypowerful paradigm, particularly when placed in conjunction withpra cti c al modelsof instructional design"(p. 110 ). Spr a g ue (1 9 81 ) conc l ude s "keepingins truc t i o na l design procedures in gear withcurrentresearch find i n g in instructionalpsychologyis important" (p. 29).
The SystemsApproach
Rorniszowskl (1981) describesthe systemsapproachas a series of stages that should befollowed toca r r y out training or educational need s (p. 18). Reiser(19 B7 ) no tes a relationshipbetweenpr og r a mme d learning and the systems approach. "The processfor developing programmed materia ls inv o l v e s many of the steps found inthe currentsystems approach models" (p. 22). Heinich (1970 )states :
Programmed instructionhas been creditedby
:~~~a~i~~ .i~~r~~~~~irn~h:n~Y~~::~i~~P~~~~h
to~~~t:i~gi~~~ ~~~~~~~~y~~:~~O~~la~~!:~;i~~:'
objectives, setting up procedures to tryout and revise the steps, and by va H d a t i ng the program against attainment of the ob j e c t i v es , programmed instructionsucceededin creating a small but effective self-instructional system- a technology of instruction.
(p. 123)
Different models have differentcomponents. "The act u a l number of steps canva r y fromone schema to another,
27 but despite quite important variationsthe four basic steps are usually clearly discernible" (Davies, 1978, p.1l2). Davies (1978) identifies these steps as diagnosis,planning action, implementing action,and evaluation (p. 112).
Dick andCare~ (1985) suggest lIinstruction is a systematicprocess in which every component is crucial to successful learningt ' (p. 2). Theyli s t a variety of components to their model. These include: identifying an instructional goalrconducting an instructional analysis, identifyingentry behaviour and characteristics, writing performance objectives,developing criterion-reference test items, developing an instructional strategy, developing and selecting instruction, designing and conducting the formati ve evaluation, revising instruction and conducting summative evaluation[p, 5).
Pratt (1980) defines task analysis as tithe process of listingthe component tasks the students would need to be able to perform if the aim itself were to be attainedtl (p.
166). Reiser (1987) explains the importance of task analysis as part of the instructional developmentprocess and the development of the systems approach. Reiser (1987) states:
The refinement of task analysis procedures during the 19505 was another major factor in the developmentof the systems approach concept. Task.analysis isthe process of
28 ide nt ify i ng thetas ksandsubtasxs thatmust be successful l ypertornedinorder to execute pro perly some func ~i onor job . (p. 22) Dav i e s (1973 ) st ates "tas k analysisserves as a practicalmeansof inte r f ac ing athe o r y of knowledgewit ha theoryof instructio n andatheoryofle ar n ing " (p. 74). Jon as sen andHannum(1986)repor t that "taskarl<sl"lsisisan integralpart of the instr uctio na ldevelopmentprocess. A poorlyexe cutedta s k analysis willjeopardize tilP. entirr developme nt pr oc e s s" [p, 3).
Reiser (1987)associatesbehavioralobjectives asthe ne xtsta ge of theinstructional developmen t process(p. 23). Romiszowskiconc l udes "ob j e c ti ve s are the cornerstone, the keystone,one might evensay thephi losophe r'sstoneof problem-solving . I fwe follow thest agesofthe systems approa c h we use objectives at eachand every stage"(p. 55). Be ha vi ora l objec t i vesare ofte nrefer redto asper f o rman c e or inst r uc tio na l objectives. "Youwillsee in the lite ra t ure the termsper f orma nc e obje c tivesand ins t ruc tio na lobj ect ives. You can assume they are synonymouswit h beh a vior a l ob jectives "(DiC kand Carey, 1985, p,99 ) .
Accor di ng toCole andCha n(1987), behav io ral ob j e c ti ve s arede finedas "explicitstate mentsabout inte nde doutcomes of teachi ng whi c hare derivedrrcnthe general goalsof instr uct i on. Theyspecifythe knowl edge,
29 understa ndingand skillsthat stude ntsneed to acquireto demonstrate attai nmen t of goals"(p. 50).
Reiser (1987).tracing the historyof objectives, suggests"object 1ves were discussedand usedby educatorsas fa r back as the early 19005. Among the ear lyadvocatesof the use of clear lysta tedobjectives were suchpe opl e as Bobbit,Charters, and FredericBurk" (p. 23). Reiser (1987) cr e d i t s Tylerasth e fathe r ofth e behaviora l objective (p. 23).
"In the 19505, behavioralobjectiveswe r e givenanother boostwhen BenjaminBloomand his colleaguespUblished the Taxonomyof Educational Objec t ives" (Reiser, 1987,p, 23). Thista xon o my of objectives wa s important in instruc tional development . "Thesewo r ks at tempt to establisha hiera rchy . or sequentialclassification, of ty pe s of obj ectives, which sho uldenablethe objective developerfirs t to achieve agreement onthe le vel ofob j e ct i ve s tobe ach ieved , and then to search the subject forsui table te a c h i n g and te s ti n g con ten t"(ROlRiszowski, 19 81, p,56).
RobertMa g erwa s als o an import a n t infl ue nc eon the use of behaviora lobjecti vesineducatio n.
Ma g e r ha s inf l ue nc e dth e total educa t iona l
~~~~~;~~, t~~~~1~eh~:a~:~:~~;So~nw~~:
nee dstuden t ssho u ldbe able to dowh e nth e y complete th e i r ins tructi on . The term behav i ora l objective bec a me familiartoma n y educa tors in th e 19 60s. (Dickand Carey , 1985, p. 97)
30
"Robe r t Gagnehelpe dtoidentityth e instructiona l imp lica t ions of definingandclassifyi ng objec ti ve s"
(Re ise r, 1987, p. 24). Hawk ri dg e (1976) itera tes:
Ne ither Tyl ernor Bl oom thi nks of hims e lf as aneduca t iona l technolog i st, yetthe 'org anizedknowledge ' about objectives prov i d e d by these twowa s assimilated int o thesyste mati cap p roach tothe designof
;~i~~~r~si~v~~~t:~U~~tl~~~fa:~~n~!~~~~ng
(p. 16 )
Reiser(1987) reports"Ln the 19605 anot herimportant factor inthe developmentof thesyste msapproachconcept wa s the eme r genceof criterion-referencedtesting" (p. 24). Cri terion-referenced tes t s are based on the objectivesyou havewri t te n, youdevelopassessmen t items thatare parallel to andmeas u re the learne r'sabil i t yto achieve wha t you de s c r i be inthe objectives (Dick and Care y, 1985).
Accordi ng to Reiser (1987) Tylerwa s the first to advocate the use of criter ion-re ferenceatestingbut Glas'arwas the firs t to use it (p. 24).
Dick and Carey (1985)suggest there are fou r typesof cri te rio n-referenc e dtests: entry be hav i ou r te s t s to see if the stude n t have the necessaryskillsto begi n the instruct ion; pretests tome a s ur ethe skills wh i ch aregoing tobe taugh t bytheinstru c t ion ; embeddedtestswhichare practicetests; andposttes tsor the post-assessment ofthe instruction(p. 10 9 ).
31 Rei s er (1987) re ports the useof criterio nreze renc ed testingfor two pur poses "whi ch are a cent ral feat u reof systemsapproach pro c edure s" (p. 24). These pu rpo s e s are studentent ry level test ing andte stingto determine the extentthe stude nt ha s ac hi evedtheobjecti ve s thr o ug hthe instru-::tiona l pro g ra m.
Reiser (1987) state s "t he eval ua tionof ins truc tio na l pr oduc t s is animpor tantpart of thesys temsapproach process" (p. 26). Thereare two type s of evaluatio n:
eornetIveend sUlTll",at i ve eval ua t ion. "They are
di f fe r enti a t e d bytheirplacement andintent in regard toa given instructiona l sequence" (Kouri lskYand Qua r anta, 198 7 , p, 41).
){curilsk yandQuaranta (1987) discusssummative eval uationaseva lua t i o ndon e attihe endof the inst r uction and its purpose is notto imrnedlately cha nge or improvethe sequence of instruc ti(.o jl but simplyto assess it. "s ummati vc evaluationis usedto assess the effec tivenessofthe fi nal versionofthepr o t. ;::1(Reif'Je r, 1987 , p , 26).
Kourilskyand,·\ :.r an ta (19 87 )describes forma t ive ev a luati o n :
Itis done during ins truction,wh e nthe actual le s s on,uni t, or courseisina state of pot ent ial flux. ~henteache rsgathe r on- goingfeedbac k rega r di ng the effect ive nessof the seq uence(i.e ., app r o priaten e s sot materials,qual ityof teach ingstyle , int e res t leve l of students, etc.)to
32 strength e n andpo s s i bl ychan g eit, they are employing fo r mat i v e eva luation.(p. 41)
"Some systems appr-oachmodele- dono t inc l ude summative eval uationas a par t ofth e process, but formative evaluat ionis general l yconsideredanessentia l eleme nt "
(Reiser. 19 87, p.26).
Thehi s t o r y on theus e of formative evalaationcanbe trac ed backto the 19205whe nit wa s used to evaluate in struct i o n a l films. Dur i ngthe 19405 and 19505 formative evaluatio nwas inc o r po r ate d for evaluat i ng instructiona l materials. In the19605form a ti ve eval uatio n wa s used in th e production of pr ogrammed inst r uctio nal mate ri al s . The terms formativeand summativeevaluatio nwere introd ucedby scrivenin 19 6 7 (Reiser,19 B7,p. 26).
Tn'jt Tuc t i go al De yel o pme ntMod e ls
Knirk and Gustafson (1986)describeLnscr-uc tIonaj developmentmodels "a s a systemati c procedurefor solving ins tructional pro blems " (p. 19). An ins t ructionalsystems approachis the philosophicalframeworkunderl ying th e inst r ucti o n a l deve lopmentproce s s. Th is proc e s s itself is presentedinthe form of ins tructionaldevelopmentmodels. Gusta fson (19 81 ) notedtha t instructional development models areus e d as:
3. 1.
a.
33 communicationdeviceswith the i r [i n s t ruct i o nal developers] clients and each other I
~~~~~t~Ieg~idesfarmanagement prescript ive al g or i t hms for decision-making. (p . 4)
The firstmodel appeared in the 19605 . Gus t a f s o n (1981) credits Dr.John Barsonwith the productionofone of the earliest modelsof instructionaldevelopment. This model was entitledIns t r uc t i onal systems Development:A Demonstrationand Evaluationproject. Since thenthe r e have beenmany different 10 models . Gustafson (1981) concedes
"t herehas been a virtua l floodof 10 modelsappearingin the literature(p.1). Logan (1982)agreeswiththenumbe r s of 10models. He reports , "Mont i mer t oand Tennysonfound more than 100 manualscontaining modelspublishedsince 1951. Andrews and Goodson identified over 60 modelsand Logan examined appro xi ma t e l y 60 systems-basedauthoring tools andprocedures forone componentof one particular model" (p. 5).
Gustafson(1981 ) claims "wh ile there are lite rally hundredsof models, there are only afew distinctions" (p. 47). Logan (1982) agrees and states:
All models are variations on a basic theme derived from thecy be r ne tic model describedoriginallyby Banathy,Churchman, andVa n Bertalanffy. It co nta i ns the fol lowingsteps:
1.An input is selectedfo r manipUlationby so me synthesistechnique.
2.An outputis generated that, it is hoped, wi ll achieve a desired result.
3.The "ma t c h " or "fit" between actual output and intended output is measured.
4.The discrepa ncy between input andoutput is fed back intothe synthesis technique to produce a better"match" or"f i t". In practice, the feedbackloo p may also be returnedto the input component . (p. 5-6)
Knirk and Gustafson(1986) suggest the underlying principles of each model remains the same: "gather data,define the problem, developsolutions, and evaluate and modify them as needed" (p.19).
Gustafson (1981)created a taxonomy of instructional development models. lilt is an excellent way of reducing an otherwise unwieldy body of ID model literatureinto a manageablepackage"(p. 6). Also, such a system of classification aids the user in the selectionof a particular model. Gustafson (1981)used four categories to classify the ID modals: ClassroomDevelopment Models, Product Development Models,Organizational Development Models, and Systems Development Models.
ClaSsroom Deyelopment Models
These are the models for tea:..:hing and include models used from the elementaryschools to the faculties of universities. Their majorapplication "is to professional teachers who accept as a 9i ven that their role is to teach and that students require some form of instruction" (p. 10).
35 Gustafson (19 81 ) conti nues: "the models assume there is alreadyate a cher,some at.u d errt.s , a curricul um,and a fa c ulty. The tea cher's roleisto decide on appropriate conten t.plan instructi onal strategies , identi fyappropri ate me d i a and eval uate le arners" (p.7-10).
These mod elsta ke intoconsiderationthat "due toth e ongoing nature of ins truc t i o n , oftenaccompan i e dby a heavy teaching load,there is littletimefordevelopingnew materials"(Gustafson, 1981, p, 10). Mo de l s included under this groupi ngare th eGer l a chand Ely Mod els,the Dececco Model, the Kemp Mod el, the Brig g Mo del,andthe David.
Alexanderand YalenMod el (Gustafson. 19 81 ) .
pro d u ct peyelQpment Mo d el s
Theseare commoninbo t hthe educational and the businesssetting. The ir goa l is to prepare an eff e c t i ve and efficientproductas efficientlyas possible . Gus ta fson (1981)note s thatthe cha racter isti cs of these models incl u de:
1. an assump tionthatthe educat iona l produc t is desired
2. conside r ableemphasisontryo utand revision 3. an assumpt i o n th at theproduc t must be
use a ble by a var ietyof "ma na gers" of instruction{p, 23).
Gustafson(1981)prese nts two examplesofthepro dUCt.
developmentmodels;the fi rs t by Ba nath y , and the second by Bakerand Schultz.
J6 Systemspeyelop ment Mod el S
Gu s tafson (1981) states that there arefour major characteristicsofthe systemsmadelappz-c echa "la r ge scale te a m de vel opme nt , line ar de vel o pme nt , wide distribu tionof theresults ofthe developm e nt, and a pr ob l e m solving orienta tio n" (p.29).
The major foc us of systemsmodels is Lnat.ruct.LonaI outpu t. Instruc t i ona l output is consideredtobea system.
systems dev elo pment modelsmaybea su bse t of the product fo c us. ITlndesig n, de v el o pmen t andevaluatio n pha ses , the primary differe ncebet ween systemsmodels and prod uct mod e l s is:oneof magnitude rathe r tha nspecif i ctasksto be performed" (p. 29).
Gustafson(19Bl) re v i ewsthre e systemsdevelopment models : the Ins t ructi onal nevetcpne-elnst! tut e (lDI) Model, one of the mos t pUblic ized,the Irrteaeervl.ce Procedurefor Ins t ructiona l Sys temsDevelopme nt (IDIS D)Hodel, and the CoursewareDeve lo pment process(CDP)Hodel.
Qr ga n izationalDeyelopmen t Models
"An orga nization foc u s forins t ruc t i ona ldevel opmen t hasas its goal , not only impr o vi nginstr uct i o n but also mod ifying or adaptingtheorga ni zationand itspersonnel to Bnew enviro nment " (Gustafson , 1981 ,p, 7). Of the materia l s writte n about or ga niz ationa l developmen t models,
37 most discusschang ing the structureof the organiza tion.
According to Gustafso n (1981) "the activities de s cribed most oft endo notindica t e sys t e matic anal ys i s, design, development, and evaLuat.Lcn" (p. 39).
The reare fewwel l documente d orvalidate dmod elsto illustra te thi sfoc us. TwodiscoveredbyGusta fso n(1981) are the Blon di nModel and the Bla ke and Mouton Model.
The hi sto r y of educationaltechno log ytraces two important er as. Dur ir.g the firstera pr i o rto , dur ing,and immediately following Worl d War II, educat iona l te c hnolog y wa s conce r ned withthe med iumor themessage. Thisera, called the aud io v isualage.found the learneras pass!ve and re a c tingtothe environment.
The secondera of educa tionaltechnologyis theera of instr ucti on al develo pment, which is rich inthe psyCho logy of learni ngand systemsapproach. The emphas isinth i s era is on the development of inst r uc tio n andthe choiceof the best med ia for present ationof theins tructi on , orasWa gn er (1986) suggest.s , a proc ess and prod uctvi ewof educa t iona l techno l og y . Finn(1964) pro phes ied "theeducati on al futu re willbel on gtothos ewho cangras p the signif icanceof instr uc tiona l techno logy " (p. 26).
38 Hi s to ric al Dey e lopme ntof TeacherPlann ing
Introductio n
Planning is one of the important processescarriedout inmost of th eworl d'5oc cup ation s. Wheth e r the occupation be brain sur ge r y or inshore fishing . a plancons t itutesone of theint egra l partsof the system. Education is no different. Plann ing is one of the major fu nc t i o n s of any teacher . Yinger (1980) be lieves"te a c hers and classrooms ra r e l y funct i on effect ivelywit houtsome kind of planning"
(p.10 7 ). Zaho rik(1970)states:
Pro bablyno idea ineducationismor e widely ac c e pt e d thantheide atha t spectrtc , tho r ough planningfor are e e cn makes the teaching- learning encounte rvalua bleand prod uct!ve , conversely , no pl anning , orge neral and ha pha z a r d planning, leads to a wasteful, unpr o d uc t i v ele s s on . Thisno ti on pervadeseducationat all levelsand in al l subject area. (p.143)
Koslofsky (1984 ) believes "good teecntneis hardwork, onlybadte a ch ing is easy" (p. 101). Apart of this hard wo r k is a wel l-prepa red le s s on plan. "Awe ll-p r e pa re d le s s on planis your most importantto ol for effective teachi ngand cl a s s r oo mco nt r ol. It willgive your students a feeling that your classha s struc ture and direction and i t willgiveyouconfide nce" (Koslo f s ky, 1984,p, 101). Arnold (1988)believesinpreparation for instructingstudents.
"Te a c h ers who spend mor e time inpreparationwil l spe ndless
39 ti me intry i ng toke epthe i r studentson thele a r ni ng tr ack"
(Ar nol d ,19 8 8 ,p, 10).
Barko, La l i k, andTomch in (1987) in te rviewedstudent te achers on the i r beliefabou t what makes a good teacher.
"Pl anni ng andpr e parat i o n wereaddressedasimpo r t an t aspects ofte ac hi ng. Stronge r stu de nt te a cher s,moreoften tha nwe a ker ones, wrote about planningas anarea of st rengt h; weaker student teacher s,more of ten than st ronge r ones , identified planning as anarea in need of impr ov ement andas a fut u re go a l(Barko at aI , 19 87 , p.84). Arno ld (1988) poin tedto theimpor t a n c e of pl an ning in education:
A teac herwho istho r ough l ypre p ar edfor cl ass
~~~~n~a~ ~~i~~ ~~:~o~ea~~ ~~: ~~l:Sr;~a~~~i~~e
previous les s o ns andforthcomingassignments; Why andwhat mate rialsandai ds willbe needs for specifiedact ivities dur ing the prese nta t ion. The te a c herwho comes to the classroomwell- pre par ed andwho is conce r nedabout studentsand the SUbject being taugh t will createaproduct ive wor king relationsh ipand an at mos phe rein whi c h te a c hing and lear ning areenhanced. (p,11 )
Defini ti on ofPlannjng
Yin ge r (1977) desc ribes planning intwoways. The first is pla nni ng as ade s i gn, a bl ue pri n t. "Inthissense theplannerdra ws a bl ueprint, the design ofwhic h is comple":'3dbef ore stepsaretake n to re ai.La e its inten tion "
(p.15). The second isplann ing as a process. yinger (1977), draWingonthe wo r ks ofFriedmann andHudson,
40 defines the process of planning as "an activitycentrally concerned with the linkage between knowledge and organized action" (p. 16) . Regarding the process of planning, Yinger (1977) concludes:
planning is referred to as a process of preparing a frame work for gUiding future action. It is oriented towardsactio nrather than. say, know ledgeor self-development. and thefact that this action is in the futureintroduces the problem of uncertainty and unp redic tability, it is assumedthat the planning process involves decisionmaking and jUdg e me nt . (p.18)
McCutcheon (1980)suggeststhat some considerplanning asali s t of activities or page numbers written as notes in teachers' paeneccxs. But"pe r ha ps the richest form of te ache r s' planningwasthe complex mental dialogue, the reflective thinking, that many engage in before writing these plans or teaching a lesson. Part of the mental dialogue resembled a rehearsal of the lesson, an envis ioning of what happens" (Mccutc heon , 19 80, p,7). Yinger(1980) states "the ultimate goal of in s t r u c t i on al pl a n n i ng is the successful implementationof learningactivities in the classroom" (p.122).
HistorypfPlaoning
"I nt er e s t in planningis as old as man's interestin relating knOWledge to action. This can be traced backto
41 theRomans. Greeks,andMi dd l e Easterncul turesandmight historica l lybefound inthestudyof government, law, administration , andpublic wo r k s" (Yi nge r, 1977,p , 15). He states tha t "theproce s s of planning ha sbe e n a subjec t of seriousstUdyin areassuch.as econo mics , busine s s , city planning,and nati on al pla nningsince the mid 19 305 (p.IS).
Planni n ginedu c a ti on canbedivided int otwo eras:the pre- 1970era and thepost-19 70 era. Fenne lla (1 985 ) sugg ests "the literatur e regar ding teac her plann ingthrough 1969wasdevotedto theore tica lprescriptionsfor plann i ng "
(p. 3) . Yin ger(1977) ag r e e s, "Until recen tlythe literatureon pla nningined uca tion ha s beenmainly pr e s c r i pt i v e . Man y volumeshavebe enwritte n recommencdng specificpri nciples for curr iculump.&.a nning and most recent textbooksinclude atle a s t onechap teron te acher planning"
(p . 24 ) . Th iscanbe seenin a var ietyoftextbo oks. Samalonis (1970), LorberandPierce (1983) , andCol eand Chan (1987), among others, includeplanning as integ r al chap t erson thei r theor i e sof tea ching.
Thedomi nantmodel of pl a nn in g fo r thepre-70 'sera wa s Tyler's(1950)rational approachmodel (Pe n ne lla, 1985).
Yinger (1978)credits other disciplinesfor thera tional model used ineducation. He states :
Educat ionhas adop ted , forthemo s t part,a rational mode l of planningbasedonpla nning modelsfro mec onomi c andfrom nati onal and city
planni ngtheory. Thismodel, whichwill be refer redto as the rational choicemodel, in essence requ i r es:
1. theset tingof goals 2. the for mul at ionof al t e rna tive s.
3. th e predictionof outcomes for each al ternative1 and
4. theevaluationof each alternativeinre l a ti o n to the goalsand outcomes. (p. 6)
Accordingto Pennella(1995), the rationalmodelwas later fully developed by Taba (196:!) . Yi n g e r (1977)describes ....hismodel as essentiallyha vi ng fourst e p sfor effective le s s o n planning :
1. Specifyobjective 2. Select lea r ni ng activities. 3. organizelearn i ngactivities . 4. Specif yevaluationprocedu re(p. 25). Pennel la(19 95 ) reportsof chal leng es tothe rationa l model during the si xties, es pe cia ll y on thesettingof objectives. The resul t was a switc h fromthe prescriptive knowl edge to"de fi niti o na l and conceptual kncwLedqe" (p, 4) .
Fromthe ear ly 197 0s tothe presentti me research on teache r planningchangedfocus. Studiesby 'linger (1977), xccuecnecn (19BO) , Bullough(19 B7), callaway(19BB), and Zahorik(1970) focused on three mai n areas ofte ach er planning. Pennella (1985) re c a lls "the studiesin the past 15 years ha v e add ressedthreemaj orquest ions:
1. How do tea chers plan?
2. Wha t effect doesplan ni ng ha ve onte a ch e r effec tiveness?
3. Whydo teachersplan? (p. 2)
43 Yinge r (1977) sugges tsthat therehave be en re lativelyfew studies intoteacher planningre s e ar ch. Thoseper formedcan be groupedintotwocategories.
The first typeha s focusedon test ing the adequacy ofthe rationalplanni ngmode l fordescribingwhat teachersdo and has examinedthe effect ofusing thismodel on te a cher class roombehaviou r. The secondtype of study ha s attempted tode s cr i be how teachersactua l lyplan,free fromconstraints of any rec o mme nded procedure . (p.29)
le y el s of TeacherPlanning
Different authors suggest a different number of levels of planning. Samalonis(1970) us e sthethr e e levelsof planning: long rangeplanning, intermediatepla nningand immediate planning. "Long range planni ngis embodiedin the courseof study, intermediateachievedthr ou gh units and immediatedetermines specific lesson plans" tsanatorue, 1970,p , 8).
Yinger(1980) id e ntif i e s fiveleve ls of planning:
yearlypl a nn i ng, term plann ing, uni t planni ng,weekly planni ng ,and daily planning. Yinger (1980) states:
;:~~~raf~~n~t~6e~~~~1~~Sp~~!!~~i~~do;e~~~~~i~g
andorganizi ng tea Ch in g for the enti re school year.
Term plann i ngfocuseson thedeterminationof '1 weeklyscheduleanduni t .;Ictivitiesto be carried out during the we eks until the next school vacationperi od. Unit planninglaysoutthe activitiesthat areto be a partof instructional un i t s in areas sucn as science, social studies, and mathematics. Weekly planning focuses on
44 activit ie sthatwilloccur as par t of thesc he d ule fromMonday throu ghFriday, whil eda ilypl ann ing invol vesthe last-minute cha ng esor prep ara t ions tobe ma deduring the dayor beforesc hoo lstarts the next da y. (p.112 )
InYinger ' s (1977 )stu dy, themajority of planni ng, in most sUbj ects, occur s in the uni t period. "Pri or planni ng in thesear e as ha d consistedma i nlyof de ci d ingwhi ch topics mi gh t be go od totreat at var ious times duri ng the year. I t isnot unt i l the unitplan n ing leveltha t de c i s ions are made about speci ficcontent, materi al s, andact ivities " (p.187). schwa r t zan dcrame r (19~9)suggest tha t lessonpl ans ar ea very importan t part ofthe ins tr uc tional pr oc e s s and can bedi videdin to three typ es: content, process, and context. Co nt ent les son are informatio nal le s s ons. They areimporta nt to thest ude ntbeca use they const r uctmeaning, sxni or pr ocedu ra l les s ons are called proc e s s lessons.
"The y helpst ude n ts le arn how to performcog nitiveskills or prcceeur es« (Schwa rtz et ai, 198 9 ,p, 2), Thes epr oc e s s lesso nsare importan t indevelo pinginde pe nden tstudy,
"Con te xtplansset thelarger frame wo rkin which contentand processles sonsoccur. The contex t co nsis tsof a large numberof r ec ecrcthat infl ue nc e the se t ti ng and conditions inwhic h ins truc tio noccurs " (Sc hwart z et al, 1989,p,4),
