A STUDY OF INSTRUCTIONALDEVELOPMENT IrnOWLEDGE AND COMPETENCYAMONGSECONDARYTEACHERS IN THE ROHANCATHOLICSCHOOLBOARD HUMBER-ST . BARBE ANDTHE DEERLA~E-ST. BARBE SOOTHINTEGRATEDSCHOOLDISTRICT
by
0Mu r i el Elizabet hThom ey,B.A.(E" .) ,B.A .
Ath e si s sUbmitt e d toth e School otGraduate s tud ies in part i al ful f ilmen t ofthe requireme nts
torthe~eqreeot Master of Education
Faeulty of Ed uca t io n Melllorialunt versi ty of Newfound l an d
April , 1991
st. Jo h n's Ne·"foU7Jdlan ':
1+1
Nalionallibrary ofCanadaBibliotMquenalionale duCanada
Canadi31l Theses Sorvlce Sefvicc des eeses carladicOflCS
The autho r hasgrant ed an irrevoca blenon- exclusivelicence allowingtheNationalUbraty ofCanadatoreproduce,loan.distributeor sell co piesofhis/herthesisbyanymeansand in any fcrmor fonnat,makingthisthesis available toInterest ed persons.
The authorretains ownershipofthe copyright in his/her thesis.Neither the thesisnor subs tantialextractsfromIt maybeprintedor otherwise reproduced withou thislher per- mission.
L'suteuraecccrdeune licence Irrevocableat non exclusivepermettant
a
la Bibl'lOtMquc nationale du Canadadereprodtrire,Pf~ter.distribu er ou vend ee des copiesde satM se;
dequelqu e manlereetsousquelqueforme Quece soilpour mettre des exemptairesde cette these aIa disposition des persoones loteressees.
L'au.~urconservelaproPOOledu droitd'eutew qui protege samese.NiIathesenl des axeans substantielsde cene..cj ne doiventetro imprimesou aufrement reproduils sansson autcrlsation.
Canada'
De dicat ion
Th i s thes is is dedicated with love toMat the w , Ama nd a , Mic hael and Miche lle.
i i
Jl,cknow ledgements
Th e researche r would like to acknowledge and ex pres s sinc ere appreciat iontoa number of very spe cial peo!=>lewho nevehe l pe d tomake he r thes isa re a l it y.
To her immedi a te fa mily-- he r mother , Millicent Lodge Thomey and to Roger , Colleen, Gwynth and Mar c , you r love, enccureeeneneand patience helped to sustain. To Paul and Glenn ia,wha t would I have done witho ut you!
To the researche r 's thesi s advisorand friend, Dr. Mary Kennedy, how doI say thankyou foral l you r help, direct i on andsupport . Af terstud y ing andwo r k i ngwith Dr.Kenne d y, it makes me proud to spe llmy name WOMAN.
The effortsofthe"p"'~arch er 'scoll ea gues ,AngelaMurphy and Pat Whelan oftheRoman Cat holic School Boa rd Humber-St. Barbe and Dick Pa r s on s and JimPowel l of the DG e ~ Lake-S t. Ba r b eSo uthIntegrat'~dSchoolpistrict in ass h tlngwiththe distributionandco.itect.Lcnsof thequeet.LormeLr a werenothing short of wonderfu l . Tothem , one moretime, thank ycur To the teacherswho tookthe time fromtheir busyschedulesto completeand returnthe ques ti onn ai r easwell asto tho s ewho co ns e nte dto theor a l int e r v i e ws ,your kindnessisappreci ated so very much.
To Mr. Le o Whalen andMr. Graham Blund o n who verygra- ci o u s l y gave permission to the researcher to conduct thi s studywi thi n the school boardsunder theirrespectivejurls-
iii
dictions,a sincere thank you.
A final word of appreciat ion to the typ i st of this thesis, Ms. Linda Waterton,wherewou ld I be withoutyou!
tv
Abstract
The intent of this study was to determine ,i f secondary teachers possess general knowledge of instructional develop- ment from a conceptual perspective,and knowledge of the basic instructional development process which forms the foundation of all instructiona l development activities. Secondary teachers' knowledge and competency were determined through the us e of a written survey whichquestioned teachers on five specific instructional development competency areas, as summarized and developed from five classroom instructional development models reviewed by Gus t a f s o n (1981) , and on general definitions and conceptualizations of ins t r uc t i ona l development.
Two hundred and thirteen teachers from the secondary levels in the Roman Catholic School Board, Humber-St. Barbe and the Deer Lake-st. Barbe South Integrated School District took partin the study,with 4:2\ returning the surveyinstru- ment. A fol l ow-upsemi-structuredopen response interviewwas conducted with two subjects who failed to return the survey to determine (al their reasons for non-completion, (b) their knowledge of instructional development, and (cl their pre- ferred approach to instructional planning.
Data were analyzed qualitatively and reported in terms of both frequencies and percentages, and descriptively.
It was determined that secondary teachers employed by
these t...o sch oolboards had littleknowledgeof or competency in ins t ructio naldeve lopment ,and their planning routines did not incorporatespecificcomponentsof instructional develop- ment.
vi
Tableof Contents
Ack no wl ed gem en ts Ab stract
Lis t ofTa b l e sand Figures
CHAPTER
NATURE OF THEST UDY Intr od uc t i on Backgroundtoth e study Significanceof the Study The Purposeof the Study Defini tionof Terms t.InftetLons .,fthe Study Summary
Page
iii
xi
10
I I REVIEW OF RELATEDLITERATURE Hi s t o ri ca l Development of Educat ional
Technology
Origin s of the Field
Th e Role of Educatio n a l Tech nology inEducation
Hi stor i c a l Developmentof Instructi ona l Development
originsofth e Field
vii
12
12 12
22
24 24
C}{APTER
III
IV
Prcgammed Instruction 'reacher Pl a nni ng for Instruction Learning Theories
cognitive paradigm Implicat ionsfor Instructional
Development
Mod el s of Instructional Development ProductDevelopment Models SystemsDevelopmentModels Orga niza tionDevelopmentModels ClassroomDevelopme nt Models
Summary Summary
METHODOL OGY
Intr oduc t i on The popu l at i on
Developmentof the Instruments Procedures of theStudy
PRESENTATI ON OFTHE FINDI NGS
Organizationof the Find i ngs PartOne: Chara cteristicsof
th e Pop ulation Summary
vii i
27
ae
34 J7
"
-e aa
"
52
,.
GO GO GO GI
6'
GG GG
73
CHAPTER
Part Two: Seconda ryTea c h e rs ' Knowledge Re spec i f iccompete ncy
er
7'
75
93 92
7.
l>.r e ills
Behav iou r a l Obje ctives Learner Anal ys isCharacteri stics /
En t r y Level Behaviour Eva lua t i on
SelectTeachi n g /Lea rni ng strategiesand Resources Asses s Perform a nc e/Revise an d
Re c ycl e
Par t Th r e e : Ge n e r al Instru cti on al De ve lopmen t
Analysi s of th eInter vi e w Da t a
Back gro undInf ormationonTl andT2 105
Planning 10 5
Lea rn ers' Needs 112
Gene r al React i on toSu r ve y
119 Ins t r u me n t 115
Sp e cifi c Rea ct i on to Survey Instrumen t
Ut ili tyofInstru cti onal De v e l opment Kn OWledge for the ClassroomTeacher 12 1
Su mma ry 12 4
ix
CHM'TER
SUMMJI,RY ,CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS 126 Introd uct i on
Summary and Conclus i on s
ne c o sm end a tn ons
Reference s APpendices
Appendix A - Co rrespondenc e Appe ndi x B - Resea r chIn s trumen t Appendi x C - Follow-Up Inte r v ie wGu ide
126 131
148 15 0 168
Table 1 Ta b l e 2
Table3 Table 4 Table 5
Ta b l e 6
Table1
Table~
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
LIST OFT11.l1LE SAND FIGURE S
participants 'Teach: .i g Assignments Part icipantsI Ye ars of Teaching
Experience
part ic ipa nts' Teach ingcertificate Participants' Program of Stud ies Partic ipants' Pr e para t o ryTr a i n ing
Pro g r am
Sources of Part icipants' Instructional ne ve f o r -ee ne Knowledge
Parti cipa nt s'Source of Behavioural ClJjectives
Participants' Development andUse of Type of Goals/Objectives Participants' Views~e g a rd illgthe
Importance of Entr~'Le v e l Behaviour inSequencing Co nte nt
par t icipants' Views Regarding the Subsequent stepFoll owi ng the Settingof Objectives
ParticipantsI Knowl edg e of Components toIncl ude in the Eval ua tionof Instructional units/pro grams
xi
Page
68
6'
71
72
74
76
77
80
82
83
Tableaa Par t ic i uants' ViewsRegarding When In str ut:tional Unit Tests Should
sc Developed 84
Ta ble13 Participants'selec t ionof Res ou r c e s Us e d in Developing Da ily Lessons 86 Table 14 Freq ue ncy of Use of Var i ou s Pa t te r n s
for sequencing Lea r n i ng Act i v i t ies 87 Table1. PreferredTeachingStra t egyMentioned
MostFre q ue nt l y~.y Pa r ticip an t s 89 Table1. Participants'ChoicesRegardingthe
Basis for selecting Learning
aotIvf eLes 89
Table 17 Pa r t icipants' ViewsRegardingthe Determi nation of the
Appr opriatenessof Resources 91 Table 18 Pa z-t.Lci.p c rrts1At titu desTowa rd
seatene rrcsReflectingTraditional Classroom Ve r sus Ins t r uct i o nal
De v elopmentVie ws of reecntnq 97 Table1. Pa r ticipan ts 'Atti tudesToward
StatementsReflectingFunctional Vers us conceptua l Viewsof
In structi on a l Developmen t 10 0
Table20 Par ticipa nts' Defini t ionsof
Ins t r u ctiona l Deve lopme nt 102
xii
Table 21
Figure 1
Fi g u r e 2
Figure 3
Figu r e 4 Figure5
Figure6
Fi gure 7
Figure 8
Figu re 9
Participants'Understanding of the Dirrerence Between Instructional Development and Curriculum Development
Silber'sModel at the Domain of Educational Technology Seven Educational Development
Functions
The Major Elements of the Instructional Process Basic cyberneticMod e l Input-outputRelationshipBetween
Designing, Teach ing, and Students' Achievement
The Nature ofTe a c h i n g and Expectations for Teaching as Exemplifiedin School Library Media Programs
Statements Reflect i ngTradit ional ClassroomView of Teaching Statements Reflecting Instructional
DevelopmentView of Teaching St a t e me nt s Reflecting Functional and
ConceptualViews ofInstructional Development
xiii
103
19
21
30 31
35
57
95
96
99
CHAPTERI Natureof the Study
Introduction
To bi n (1989) completed a study of primaryand elementary classroom te a c h e r s'kncvt edqe and competency inin s t r uc t i ona l development. As a resultof her researchshe recommended that further investigation be done in this area, specifically a study of secondary teachers' instructional development kn owl e dge and competency. Thisstudy is an attempt toadvance the attainmentof such a goal.
Backgroundto thostudy
Duringthe past 40years changesin educationhave been rapid and decisive. soviet scientificsuccess(Heinich, 1984) plUSinre c e nt year-spubliccriticism (National Commission I)n Excell e nc e in Education, 1982 ; Newfoundland Task Fo r c e on Mathema ticsandSc i enc e Education, 1989)have placed pressure on the Nor t h American school systemto improve instructional effectiveness and academic standards. The implementationof thetradi t i on al lock-stepcurriculumin sterile, la c k- l us t r e Llassrooms using limited ins t r uc ti o nal resources such as textbooks, blackboards and chalk, is no longer desirable or fo r thatmatter acceptable(Br o wn , 1986, p, 12). In response
topUbli c demandstheart at'te ach i ng is subsequ e ntlydevelop- ing int o a mor e innovative approach whic h is structured on res e arch ,and orien tedtoward s chi ldren, teachi n gand lea r n i ng (Haycoc k , 1981, p, 4) . This is a direct co nseque n ce of a soc iety th atis noton ly efferve s c en tbut onetha t is undergo- ing pr of ou ndte c hnol ogica l and scc t a; cha nge. Teacherswho ha d longbe en accustomedtelthe pr esenta tionor lec t u r e - base d sys tem of te a ching have no w discove r ed that the ir role as tr a n smittersof inform ation ischanging toth at of de s i gn e r s of le ar ning act ivit ies. Thiscurren t philosop hyof tea ch ing ha s pl a cedgr e a t er de man dsontod ayIs clas s ro omteac h ers than were placed on teachersa number of years ago. "withles s emp h as is on a sing le te xt and mor e empha s i s onanind iv i d u al app r oach , classr oomteachersarJexpected todeve l ople arn i ng experiencesbased on each st udent 'sabilities , inte r estsand needs" (Kennedy &Brown, 19 87,p, 6).
For two decades instructi on a l deve l opment has bee n re cognized as the real worl d applic a t ion of the ories of lea r ningandinstructio nto curriculumimpleme n tati on ,whether itbe at thedis t r i c t , the scaool orclas s r oom leve ls (Oia- mond,1980) . The r e f ore,tho s ewhowishtoimplement indi vid- ua lized appr oachesto"e quip stude nts tofunction ef f e ctive ly in a ra p idly ch a nging reaourc e -ir-Lch technol og ical world"
(Fen ne l l, 1983 , p. 62) needto be ac quai ntedwithth econc e p t and theski ll s of ins t r ucti o nal deve l op ment.
Good tea ching is rec o gni z e d as the success f ul
ma tchi ng('ofindividual learnersof varied abilities with experiences mo s t li ke l y to ef fect in them desiredchanges inthinki ngand behavior. Le arn i n g has replaced teaching as the centre of in s t ru c - ti ona l plan n i ng. Planning and directing learn ing exper iences are now central to the teachingrole.
(Branscombe& Newson,19 7 7, p. 1)
In stru c t i on a l developmentis a fielddirected toward the faci l itati on of human le a rn i ng . It is desc ribe d as "a systematic approach for improving instruction by making instructional design dec tsIo ns that take into account many factors . These include princip les of le a rn i ng , student cha.racteristics , instructor skills, developer skills, resources, contentti me andevaluationdata" (Sachs, 19 81 , p.
8) •
Theoverridinggoal and purpose of the fieldof instruc- tionaldeve lopmentis to faci l i tateandimproveth e quality of huma n le a r n i ng . Since this goal is, of course, sha redby everybranch ofed u c a t i on , itis not enough, inandof itself, to serve asara t i o na l e for aun i qu e fie l d. Theuniqu e n e s s of instr uctionaldevelopment,and therefore its reaso nfor being, He a in the philosophical and practical approach i t ta ke s towa r d fulfilling this purpose. The approach th a t is charac - ter i stic of ins truc tio na ldevelopment is per haps bes t reveal ed in th r eesu ccessivepatterns th athave shapedthedeve lopmen t of thefield in theevolutionaryprocessbetweenthe 19 5 0s and
itscu rrentfo rm.(Wil e y, 1982) . These thoughtpat ter nsareas folloW' s:
1. Theconcept of designing instr uction dire ctl yfor thestuden t instead of de s i g n i ng audio-visual material s for tea cherstous e in theirpres e ntatio ns.
2. Benchmark deve lo pmen ts in lear ni ng theory as ident i fiedby B.F. Skinnerand othe rs.
3. The infl uence ofWorldWar IIandlat er thera pidly adva ncing hardware technol oqy ""hl ch require dth e developmen t ofquick taskensry e t eprocedu r es,effectivetra in ing,andnew commu nicat ion te c hnol o g ies oft e n label led "the sys tems appr oac h" (Kn irk&Gusta fso n, 1986, p.8).
It isthe s eth r ee ccncept.e, whensynt hesized intoa total appr o achto facilitate ledrni ng (Reiser, 1987, p. 41 ) . that crea t ethe uniqueness ot', andthusth e rati o nal e for,the area known asinstructionaldevelopment.
si gnil icance of thestud y
Thi s study is one of a serie s (Gal lant, 1989; Tobin, 1989) onInatruc cIoneI devel opment knOWle d ge an d comp e tenc y among educato rs in Newfou n dl a nd. Witht.iecurre n t movetowa r d res ource - ba s e d te a ching and learni ng it is impera t ive that teacherpla nning)..roc e s s es be c omebot hmor eextens iveandmore soph is tica ted,iftheyaretoemployle ar ning reso u rc e s inthe mos t ~tfic ientandeffect ivemanner. Teache rpla nning, alway s
an individual domain of the teacher,ha s become the domainof bo t h the classroom te a ch e r and theteacher-librarianas they plan to g e t h e r to provide meani ngful lea r n i ng experiences. Th i s broadening of the domain has created interestin teacher planningprocesses. The studiesof instructionaldevelopment kn owled ge and competency among Newfoundland teachers are undertaken with the belief that teacher planning could be improved through an instructional development approach . Specifically this study focused on secondary classroom teachers' knowledge and competency regarding instructional development.
Dick and Carey (1976) note that "It will become more import>:l.nt for teachers to have techni ca l skills that will enable them to design and implement instruction in the classroom. Knowledgeof instructionaldevelopmenttech niques ....ill greatly enha nc e each teacher's ability (to do this)" (p, 4). In North America many edu ca t i ona l facu l t i e s offer preparatorycourses in instructionaldevelopment,... nt ie others serve as electives offered only at the graduate level. Me mo r i a l univers ity of Newfoundland's Faculty of Education doe s not offer an instructional development course to under- graduatestude nts,hence it can be assumed that few teachers in theprovince have completed formal courses in instructiona l development.
ThePur p o seot theStudy
In 1954 B.F.Ski nner , inrea ct iontothe fa ilureof tlfe' educatio n systellto incor pora te theor iesof learni ng, moved frolllthe labo ratory tothe re a l wor ldwit h his progralllled instruct ion- -aninno v a t i o n whichhe said wouldrev ol ut i onize the class r oom (HArva rdEd u cationalReyiew , 1954). No t much has cha nge dsince19 54.
Sc h rock(1985)notesth at afr us tra tion freque n tlyvoi ced by instr uc tio nal tech nologistsis the re l ativelysmallimpac t tha t tec hnol ogy has had onins tr uction,despiteFinn ls (19M) prophecy tha t "theed uca ti o nal fu tu r e will belongto thos e who cangr a s pthesigni fica nce of [educational ] andinstructiona l tech nol o gy· (p. 26) . Richmond (1967) also pr e dicte d that
·ed uca t i o na l tec hnoloqy is designed to eeer qe as the ce ntral humane di s cJ p l ine of the future" (p. 106). In spi t eof such convic t ions that te c hnology could dramatical ly improve le arning , and that the ins truc t ional development pr oc e s s is
·t hesingle mostpowe r f ul tool for improvin gthe qual i ty or ed ucati on today· (Turner, 1985, p, 12), there is little supp orting evide nce to sug gest that educa t i o nal techn o logy, spec ifically ins tructi onal devel o pment,isbei ngimplemented . Tobin (1989) and Ga l lant (1989 ), for example, found that NeWfo und land pl"imary and elementary teach ers and tea c he r- lib rari a nsdono tpo s s es s inst ruc t ional developmen t knowledge an d comp etency.
This studyexpl ored ins t r uctio n al developmentknowledge and competency from a secon da r y teachi ng perspective.
Speci fical ly, tea c hers from grades 7 through 12, lo cated within twotargetedschool bo ard s inWe s t ern Newfoundland, were surveyed regarding their inst r uctional development knowl e d g e andcompete ncy. In the courseof th e study, the following quest ionswereadd r e ss ed:
1. Is the concep t of inst ructional deve l opme n t unde r- stood byse c o nda r y teachers ?
2. What de pth of knc wLadqe regarding inst ru c t ional de velopment do secondary eeecnere po ss ess ?
3. Do seco nda r y teecnere pos se s s co mpete nc i es in instructionaldev e lo pme n tsuc h tha t theycou l d pract i ceor use instructionaldev e lo pment in their ins truct ional pla nning ?
De:tiniti o nat Te rms
For thepur p o s e s ofthi s stud y the folLowLnq terms an d deUni tions arerele va nt :
Audio-Vi sual Device mea ns any pie ce of equipment , with associated materials, that co nt r o l s, through mechanic al or electroni c means, the pres entat ion of visual or auditory communicationfor ins t r u c tio n (Rei s er,ci t ed inGag n e, 198 7 , p.12).
systems Approach Is aself-correcting ,logica l process for theplan ning , deve l o p in g , and imple menta t i o n of (i n s t r uc-
tion ) . It provides a procedural frameworkwithinwhichthe pur poseofthe systemis first speci fiedand thenanal yzedin order to findthe best way to achieve it. Onthe basisof this analysis, the components that are mostsu itable toth e successful pe r forma nc e of the system can be selected.
Finally, continuousevaluation ofth e system prov idesa basis for pl a nne d change in impr o v ing economy and performance (Banathy, cited in Gagne, 198 7 , p, 15-16) .
Educati o nal Te chno l ogy (variously entitled histo rica lly as audIo-v Lsi.",1 instructi o n; ins tructiona l tech nology ; lear ning re s o ur c e s 1 educational communications). The develop- me nt (research, design, production, evalua tion, support - suppl y, ut Ll Laat Lon) of learning resources (messages, men , materialdevices, tech n i ques , settings) andthemanagement of that de vel o p ment (organ ization, pe r s onnel ) in a systemati c manne r with thegoa l of facilitating human learning (AECT, 19 77)•
:Instruc tional Development (used interc hangeably with instructionaldesign and instructiona ltechnology). I t is an appliedsciencebased onresearchon learni ngand communica- tion tha t dealswith the design, development,andevalua tio n of systems of materials and manageme nt st rategi es, err,ploying huma n andno n-huma n resourcesfor the efficientattainmentof specific lea r ni ng objectives (Thiagarajan, Semmel &Semmel, 19 7 4 ) .
Learning The ory is a systematicintegra ted outlook in
regardtothe nat u r eof the process whereby people relate to their environmentin suchaway asto enhance theirabilityto use bothen e mee t v e o and thei r environment more effective ly (B19ge , 1982, p, J).
SecondaryTeacheris the profess ionalpersoncertified by the New foundland Pr ov i n cia l Department ofEducation andhir ed by thegcnen CatholicSchool Board, Humber-St.Barbe and the Deer Lake-St . Barbe South Integrat ad Sch oo l Di s t r i ct to instruct from gra des 7 to 12 wi th in schools under their respecti v eadministr ation.
Li mitat i on 9ofthe St u dy
1. In this study, wh i c h endeavoured to ascertain whetherseconda r yteach ers poss e ssed instructionaldevelopment knowl e d g e and compe t ency , it may be cons idered<' li mi t atio n thatthe studyde al ton l y 'Withteachersemployed by the acsun Cat holi c School Board,Humbe r-St. Barbeand the Deer Lake-St.
Barbe South Integrated SchoolDistri ct. I tis only withinthe boundaries of this particularpopulatio nthat infere nce s can be made, and notwith in theProvinceof Newfoundland.
2. Thest ud y is limitedby the resp onserate. Whilea 100 per cent resp onse rate is not a realisti c objectivein research which employsasu rve y questionnaire as thetoo l for dat aco ll e c t i o n , thein stru c tio n al devel opmentkno wl e dg e and competency forthose teachers who didnotre tu r n thequasti on-
10 naLre mig h t have had some impactontheresults of the study. J. Whil e theinitial instrumentwa srev i ewe dcar e ful l y by the re s e a r c he r in an attempt.. to ide ntif y and elimin ate technical terminology utilizedonly in the fiel d of educa - ti onalte c h nol o g y,it is possibl e th a t the la ngu a gemightha v e impacted on pa rt i ci pa t i on . Ho....ever, thereeeercnecdid feel tha t teach ers , being highly train edpccrees Icnars, would be ac quai ntedwith theterminologypertainingto the lit era t u r e of their pr of e s sion. Therefore, it was decided to use the corr ectterminology asindic a t ed byth e generaleducational pr Ofe s s i onal1ite r at ure .
4. The thr ust of th isstudy,in rel at i onto ins t ru c- tiona ldevelopment,was on thevariousins tructiona ldevelop- ment components as reported intheprofessional litera tu r e , pr esented in ins t r uctiona l dev elopmen t mod els and taught throughforma l courses. Itis accep ted tha t te ache rsmay ha ve tac i t knOWledge of instr uctiona l de v elopment whi ch the ins t r ume n t wou ldnot be ableto measure.
The res earch fi ndings r'epor-tieed in thi s thes i s are the result of a seudyconducted in the fall of1990regardingth e instruc tiona lde ve l opme ntknowl e dg e andcompetencyof secon d- arytea c h ers .
Cha pte rI givesthe frameworkne ce s s a r yto unde rs tand i ng
th enatureof the study. It depicts the study'sbackground. itssign i f i c an c e and purpose. As well a section dealingwi th the definit i ons oftermstha t are applicabl e to the study is al so present e d.
included.
Finally, the study 's limitatio ns ar e
Chapter II describes a hi s t o r ical overview of various eventsandoccurrenceswhich ha ve contri b utedtothe emergence of instruct i ona l developmentas a fieldof study, as evidenced intheli t e r a tu r e of educationaltechnology.
Cha p ter III describes the methodol og y and procedures employed in the implementationof the st.ue y .
In Chapte rs IV and V the re s ul ts of the stUdy a r-e de scribed, in add itio nto a summary , conclusionandre c ommen- dat i ons fo r fur therst udy.
12 CHAPTER II
Review of RelatedLi te ratu re
Historical Dev elopmentof EducationalTechnolot.'Y
origins of theField
Educ a t i on alte c h n o l ogy is a comp lex term which ha s won inc reasi ngacceptanceineducatio na lci r cle s , as is evidenced bythe freque ncy with whic.l it is cited in the educatLcnaI lit e r a tur e , and by the emergence of numerous specialized journals, s ...me examples of which include:
~,The British Journal of Educa tionalTec h no l o g y,I.b.g JQgmal of Educational Technology systems a-id ~
Lea rning andEd ucat ional Tec h po l ug y.
wile y (19 8 2 ) perceives the term as a responseto indus - tr i a l i zat i on and advancements in scientific and sccfe r- scientific knowledge which characterized the late 19th and ea rly20th ce ntu r ies . spencer- (1988 ) notes that,
Educational te ch nol ogy is composed of atlea sttwo overlappingsubsets: tiec hncdcqy in education, and techn ology of education. Technology ineducation may be thought of as thehardwareapproach. It is most labelled audio-visualeducatio n , audi o-visua l aids, orins t r uc t i on a l media. Techno logyof educa- tion refers to the educa t iona l app l ica tio n of knowl edge from the behavioralsciences, incl ud ing j,1 particular the psychologyof human deve lo pment
13 and learning. (p, 1)
The simplestdistinction for the two meanings ofed uc a - tional technology seems to be a histor ical one. Davies (19 7 8 ), in an examinat ionof the pastand the future features ofthe field, no t e sthre e levels of evolutionwithin educa- ti ona l technology . Wiley(198 2 ) concurs, dividingthe histo ry of educationaltechnologyinto three majorperiods as follows:
audio-visualinstruct ion (192 0 - 1945 ) : audio-vi sual commun ica - tion (19 45-todate); and instructiona l systems analyses and design (1950-to date).
Early dev el op men ts in aud io-v isua lLnstr-uction emphasized the tools approa ch, or the physic a l vie w (Sa ett l er, 1968). Thisperspe ctivegaine6 mou e nt.u m earlyin the century, as the audio-visual movement foc used on the machines and the materia ls rather than the lea r ners (Saet tler , 19 6 8). This approach was co nc e r n e d with the effec ts of device s and proc edure s which werebe li ev e d toactasan ant idote to the excessive verbalis m of traditi onalt.each i.nq methods (WittiCh
& Schuller, 195 3). Thi s newmedia wasto sup p ly a concrete
basis for conceptua l thi n ki ng , tomake learningmore perma- ne nt, to develop continuity of thought and the growth of me a ni ng and efficiency, and to providedepth andva ri e t y of learning (Da l e, 1954).
Alt h oug hth e word eu o Lo-vLs uedwas practi callyunheard Df ce rcreth e19 2 0 5(Fi n n, 1965), th e conceptit s elfisve r yol d . The thoughts of primitive men were conveye d by signs , ges -
14 tures, hieroglyphics to depict military schemes for educa- tional purposes. While the ancients did not know anything about overheads, films or chalkboards, they at le a s t under- stood the valueof theba sic use of audio-visuals (McKo···\ &
Roberts, 19 49 ).
No aud i o-v i s u a l device ca n probably compare to the overWhelming acceptance of the chalkboard. One of th e very first wa s used on We s t Point in 1817 by a FrEonchman named Claude Crozet (And e r son, 1961). By 1830, educators looked upon chalkboa rdsas es sentia l, not aLu xuz-y, No other audio- vi s ua l devicehas been acceptedas rapidl yby public edu c a t i o n until compute r tec h nol og y.
As the20 t h centurybe g an, in the forefrontof technical training was the mi l itary. In fact forsome the real begin- ni n g of technicaltraining has been attributed to the aviation training programme in st.Paul, Minnesota,during World War1.
It was alsoduring World Wa r I that the Navy us e d highly flammable 70 mm mov ies to improvethe ai mi n g of guns- -a11 ships were equ ipped wit h thesebulky and dangerous cameras and projectors (Fi nn&Perr in , 1962).
However, th e notion of audio-visual that is presently prevalent emerge d in the late 19205 and early 1930s when
"technological advances in film and slide quality, radio broadcasting, sound recording and motionpi c t u r e s with sound became visible" (Reiser,1987, p, 14).
The first officialobjectiveofthe Department of Visual
15 Ins t r uct i on (DVlj- -co ncerni ng "r e al Lt y in learni n g pr o- ce dur-eeu-e-uppea r-e d inth e1931DVI constitutio n, Ar t i cl eII-- Obj ec t . This ob j e ctive st ressedsocialand menta l values as wel l as the dissemina t ion of info rm atio n, or clea ri ng hous e role. Signif ica ntly it me nt io n e d assembly or audito r iu m progr ams as of almosteq ual importance to classroo m le a r n ing.
The DVI philosoph Yin 19 31 was clea rlyrooted in thepr ad o mi- nant teach i ngproceduresofth e times , jus t asthe imme diate Objectiv esreflectedthecon ce rnsofeducation (Le mbo&Bruce, 19 71/1 9 72 , p, 62).
The moveme n tcon tinuedto grow inthe 19305,despitethe lowered bi r th rat e and poo r economic conditions havi n g a dep ressingeffect oned uc at i o n . In an officialcorrespondence to th os e "who ar e now engaged in visual instruction work,"
Ell s worthDe nt, who wasthen theSecret a ry-Treasure r of DVI, spo keof thedepa rtment havingrea ch e d"...an awkwar dstage. It is in itsea rlytee ns growing ra pidl y , has wo rn out it s rompers and pla'lth i ng s andnowdemands more suita b le dir e cti on andattention" (Lembo& Bruce, 1971/1972 , p, 44).
The advent ofWor l dWa r II brough t an unusual pro mot i o n to theDVI. Therewas all of a sudde n, "anunprecede nted ne ed totrain millio ns of industr ia l worke rsand militarypers on- ne l, asra pidl yandeffecti ve lyaspos s ibl e" (Saett ler ,1968, p.15 9 ). Asares ult , "the mostmassive applica tio nofaudio- vf s ua f te c hn ol ogy prior to 1950 wasunderta kenby erieerned for c es duringWorl dWar II" (Heinich , 197 0 , p, 116).
16 Reiser (1987) states that the development and use of audio-visual devices during the war was generallypercei vedas being "suc c e s s f u l in helping theUni tedStatessolve a major train i ng problem" (p . 15). As a result of this appa r ent success, after th ewar therewas a renewe dinte res t inusing audio-visua l devices in the school (Reiser, p, 15 ). In Februa ry , 1947, a significant eve nt took place within the educational milieu, with the creation of a Departmen t of Au d io-Vi s u a l Instruction. Thisnewname mirrored thete ch no- log i c al advancesof theda y (Lembo& Bruce, 19 71 / 1972 ) .
The tleid of educational technology has developed at a swif t pace since World II, with the military in the united statesand GreatBritain making a major contributi on toits gr owth . Thewar presented the armed services with th e problem ofeducat ing and tr a in i ng greatnumbersra p id lyand efficient - ly. The challe nge then, as now, was maximum training in minimumtime. The military had brilliantsuccess using audio- visual instructionteChniques, and the aud io-visual way of educa tio nand training becameknownasthe GI way. Aft er the war , edu c a t o r s began asking the question "Why cannot the sc h oo ls te a c h theGIwa y" ? (Mc}<own&Roberts, 1949).
The term aud io -visual wa s predomi nantly st i ll used at that pointto describe the tools approach, but in the 1950s educa t io na l media gradually became the preferred term , as researchint o thecompara tive ef f e c ti v en e s s of diffe re nt typ e s of aud i o-v i su al materials had begun. Th e audio-visual
17
designation narrowed the Held to include only auc Lc and visual activiti es, whereas the atten tion of audio-visual exper ts was shifti ng toward communications and systems theori es.
Adirect consequenceofth etr a i n i ng effortofWorl d War IIwas the marr iage ot educational technol ogyto thecon av- iour ist approach to learning, especially in the very ea r l y years ofth e 19605 (Wiley , 198 2). Th e evolution of educa- tional technology fromeleme ntary stud ies ofhuma nle arning and use of audio-visualaids,into audio-v isual co mmunic a ti o n, in s t r uct io n a l designanddevelopmentas wekn owitbe g a n with thene w decade .
Ely (1963),in a defin i tionstatement,calledthe field
"a ud i o - v i s u a l communicati o n,"a name whi ch re fl e c t e d quite a br oad pe r s p e c t i v e. At the same pe r i od, Finn (1965) was stronglypr o mot i ngthe renami ng or the field to"inst r uct i o na l te chno l o gy ," a term that reflecteda sti ll broader conc e p t of the field. Finn 'sproposal wa s finallyac c ommodated in 1970, with anotherchangeof name,thi s time toeduc at i onalcommuni- cation andtechnology. Again in1972 , the fie ldwas renamed educational technology, and defined within the rubric of Educationa l Technology (AEeT, 1977 ).
In theAEeT defin i t ionlay the influencesof many earlier attempts to define educational technology (Grahame, 1976). Thege ner al intentionot the definition is perceived in the fi rstparagraphofth e domain:
18 Educatio na l te c h n o l o gy isa field invol v e d in the fa c i lit a t i on of human lear n i ng th r ough th e sys tem - ati c identi fi c ati on ,developme nt, orga n izat ionand util ization of a fu ll range of lea rning resources and throughthe management of the s e processes. I t includes,but is not lim ited to, the devel op ment of instructiona lsystems,the iden t ifi ca t ionof exist - ing resources, the delivery of resources to le arne r s andthemanageme ntof these pr oces se s and th e pe opl ewho performthem. (AECT, 19 77)
Ely (1972) sta ted th at education al te c h n ol og y isa field involved in the facilitationof human lea rni ng thro u g h the man a gement of a syste matic id en t i f i ca t i on , de ve l opme nt , organ i z a t i on , and utilizationof learn ing resources . Mye r s andCochra n(1973 )expa ndedonEly's definition sta t ing tha t the un i queness of the field is bas ed on three patterns of interest : Cal theuse of a br oa d range of re sources for learni ng; (b) empha s i s on indiv idualized and persona liz ed ins truc tion; and (c )the systematic approac hto ins truct ion.
Inconjunctionwith an AEeT Task ForceonDefi nitionsand Term i no l ogy (19 77 )I Silberconst ruc teda model of educ a tio na l technol og y in an attempt to analyze further the domain of ed uca t i o nal te chnology (seeFi g ure1) .
Strei t (1979) noted that Silber's model graphically illus t ra ted the integrated relationship invol v ing learni ng re s ourc es , de ve lopme ntfunc t ions,andmanag eme nt fu nc tio ns to
le"""'"
R.",....,.
Manageme~
Functions
1.
LearrWlg Re!lources
Organization Management
Personn el Management
Research&
Thoo~
Design Production Evaluation&
Selection Logislics Utilization lUtihzalion
mssemtna- tion)
Message p"""", Maletlals Devices Techniques Settings
Figure1. silber 's Model of the Domain of Educational Technology (c i t e d inPri g ge, 197 7).
'0
facili tatelearning. In educationaltechnology,thesolutions to problems tak e the form of lea rning resour c es that are designed, selected ,and/o r utili z e d to bring about learning.
These resourcesarecl a s s i fie d as message,pe opl e , material s, devices, techniquesand settings. Listed below is a brief descriptionof the learningresources :
1. Mes s ag e - Info r mat io n to be tran smitted through other resources .
2. Persons whQ areac t i ng to store or transmi tmess- ages.
3. Materi al-Item s,usually call e d media or sof twa r e, whichstore messages for tr a ns missionthro ugh devices .
4. Devices - Items called ha rdwar e which tr a n s mi t messages storedon ma t e r ial.
5. Technique s - Pr oc e d u res forusingother resources.
6. Bettings - The environment in which messages are received.
The processesfor ana lyzingproblems and implementing and evaluatingsol utions ar e the seven educational development functionsas describedby Prigge (1977 ) inFig ur e 2.
To ensure the effective operation of the educationa l development functions, either individuallyor collectively, additio nal functions are employed. The organi zationmanage- ment func tio n isdesig ne d primarilytodetermine, modify or executetheobjectives ,philosophy, policy,structure,bUdget, internal and externalrelationship, and administrativepro-
Function Definition Research-Theory To generateandtest knowledge
relatedto otherruncctcns, learners andlearning resou rces.
Design To translategeneral theoretical knowledg e intospecificationfor learning resources.
Produc tion To translate specificationof learn- ing resources into specificactuai items.
Evaluat ion
-
Toassesstheacceptabilityof Selection actual produced learning resources. UJgistics To make learning resources availablefor other functions.
Utilization To bringle a r ne r s in contactwith learning resources.
utilization
-
To bringlearnersin contact with Dissemi na tion information about educational tech-nolog y .
Fi gur e2. Seven Educ a t i o nal DevelopmentFunctions (prigge, 1977) •
22 cedure of an organization pertol1llinq one or mor e of the development funct ions . The sec ond function, personnel manag ement, is in t e nd e d to interact wi th and/ o r supervise personnel who perf orlll activities in deve lopment fu nc t i o ns (strei t , 1979). This eenccpt,or modeloteducation altechno 1- oqyisto t a ll y integrative(Finn, 1965, p. 193). Itprovides a commonground for allpr o fes s i onsnoma tte r whatpart of the domain the y are working in.
Morgan (1978) attributesthe origin ofthe cu r re ntview of edu ca ti o na l techno loyy tothe wo r k of Skin ne r (195 4) and hi s linear teaching nacn Ine. The id e as man ifest e d in this wor k hav e remained in many ways the corner stone of educa- tional te c hn o l og y, sinc e they are grounded historically in behaviouri s m and lat e r ver-e developedby behav i ouralpsychol- ogists (s pe nce r, 1988) .
In the early 1970 s educational technologists became enamou redwiththeeysceestheory and systemsanalysis. This ne w ap proachto educati onalte ch no l ogysynt he s i ze d ideas from such diverse fieldsas mathe mati c al modelling,economicsand milita r y operations. By seeing th i ngs as Wholes , systems th e or ist s arg ued that le a r ner s might cope with the diffi- cu l ti e s encountered in trying to solve a my r i ad of sma ll inter rel a ted probl ems slmultaneously.
Th eRoleof Educational TechnologyinEducation
The mainobjectiveof educationaltechno logy isto assist
in thegoal of human learning. Thus the processeswhi c h are implen:entedto design and/or ut il i z e resourcestofacilitate human learningare the key elements in thedomain of edu ca- tionaltechnology,thus g:i.vingth e conc e p t practicalapplica - tion for ins t r u c tio n (AECT, 19 77, p, 75). Ot: l~r than the huma n ceacoer element, the availabilit~· of actditiona1 resources pr ov i d es addit ional alternatives for education, which can causea dramaticchangeinthe role of a school and an indiv idual teacher (p. 99). Educational technolog y can supplymore resourcesfor learning , andthuschangethe wayof doingthi ngs. Instead of chieflydi s tr ibut ingkncwjedqe, the teacher can become a supervisor of learning in selecti ng le a rn ing experiences and interacting wi th and evaluating ind i v idual learners.
The ro l e of educat ional technology in le a rning is supportedby Gagne (19 74), who examines the differe ntpoten- tials or characteristics for the purpose of determining the kinds of educational technology which ca n max i miz e the instructional ef fectivenes s and deliveryof learning.
Teague (1975) has des cribed and summa r i ze d the ma j o r con t ributions tha t instructional media can contribute to learning (p. 11-13). Beyond the importanceof th e systemati c application of media utilization, Teague st a tes that media provides new or previouslyunavailable learningexperiences for atudent;s. The s e vicarious experiences ca n be more relevant,accurate and meaningful in assistingthelearner in
24 maki ngjUdgementsabou t thereal world. Teague alsoindicates that me dia can make our communicationsmoreprecise, increase learningin t e r e s t and provide more options for learning. Wi t h the everydaychallengesthat facethe classroomteacher , thes e instructional media or learning resources can cont ribu te signi fican tly to aoh IevLnq the ccaj s of ins t r uc t i o nal pro- gra ms.
Beckwith(1988) concurs, statingth a t withi neducational te ch no l og y residesthe potential for"b e tte r schooling, be tter le a r n i ng ,be t t e r transmissionof information,bett e rint e r ac - ti v e communication, better world" (p. J).
Historical DevelopmentotInstructional De v e l opme n t
originsof theFie ld
A philosophyheld by modern society is that education,a perva s i v e influence, serves the needs of all persons in many con te xts (Bla lock, 198 4 , p, 580). Fixed firmly insuch a philosoph yarethetenets that have functionedasacatalytic force for many an educational cause. The days of student un rest in the19608 illustrates such a point, since university admi n ist ra tio n, co nfrontedwithstuden tdema nd sfor at te nt i on tohuma n individual ity,turned to ins t ruct ion a ldevelopmentto provide a partial solution to their pr obl e m (Alexander &
Yel on, 1972; Di a mo n d , 19 8 0 ; Seels , 19 8 9 ).
Althou g hit isat thispointthat ins truct iona ldcvelop-
25
nent; becam e clearl ydiscernable and recognized asafieldof ende a v ou r, i tdid no t re p r e s en t a to t all y new or different concept (Knirk & Gustafson , 1986, p , ~). The his t ory of inst r uct i o na l developmen t canbe trac ed tothe tr ad i tion of theeld e r So p his tsinear lyGreece (Saet t le r , 19 6 8 ). The ir system atic approach to the inst r uc t ion of groups has led wri t e r s su ch asPrat t (1980)tostatethat"intheSophistswe ca nsee the first sustained effort to di s cove r basic prin- ci p l e s of instruction ; th e y might be termedthe firstLnstruc- t io n al tech n o l o g i sts" (p. 18) . Yet according to saet.tLe r- (19 6 8) , "I t. wouldbe futiletode s i gn a teanypa r tic u l a r event.
or dat e to markthe beginning of a scienceorte c hnol og y of inst r u c t ion" (p. 47). However, Gustafson (1981) disagrees, indicating :
Th e term vrnst.ructIon a ",Dev elopme nt, " def ined asa pro c e s s forimp r ov ing instruc tion, appears toha v e had its originin a projec t conductedat Michigan Sta te University from 196 1 - 19 G5 . Entitl e d Instr uctio nal Sys t e msDevelopment:ADemon s tra t i o n and Evaluatio n Project (1967) , this project, di r e cte d by Or. John Barson, produced one of the ear ly 10mod e l s. (p.5)
The literatu r e reflects Gustafson 's view. In one of the
"charter" docume n tsof the ins t ructionaldevelopment fi e l d , Ba r s on andJones (1965)gave su bsta nc e to the term"ins truc- ti onal syst ems dev e l opme n t" by writing :
26
Experiencesuggests that mediaapplications standa better chance of succeeding if they are based on expert analyses of the teaching problem and th e selection of tested materia ls. That is, major instructional innovations shou ld be gUi d e d by an 1n-depthanalysis of the instruction,the nature of the course content, the strategyof t.each Lnq and ch a r ac t eristi c s of the lea r ne r s. (p. 2)
Hamr eu s (1968) expanded on these thoughts in wh at he termed the systems approachto instructio ndevelopment. If the instruct i ona l te c hnologi s t is to get ma ximum use fro m media in improving learning outcomes, he must be abl e to ans wer how, what and when media can be most ef f e c t i vel y employed. To answer th e s e questions he must know what speci fic learning outcomes are expect ed of studen ts . Also, thequesticns must a] 1 be considered within the constra ints of the education industry : learner differences, le a r n e r out- comes,le a r n i ng processand the conditions for learni ng. What thisall leads to is the need to manage and operatea set of compl ex el emen t sth a t make up thepartic u lar sub-systemin th e educationalindus trywithinwhich the instructional te chno l- ogisthappensto conf ro ntan instruct io nal pr o bl e m.
In19 7 1, thefield of instructional developme nt became ident ifie d as a proressIon (Diamond, 1980) despitethe fact that as the literaturestates , "I t is not a conceptne a rthe ground. Rather it is more like libertyto which it isin fact
27
related " (Davies, 1982,p, 63).
For when an instructional idea is born, i tbecomes defined in terms of specific goa ls and outcomes which are translated in tu r n into instructional design specifications, from which in s t r uc t i ona l productsare fabric a ted (a nd] which are thentrled out and revi s e d untildesir ed resultsare achieved withthe learner. (Ha mre us , 1968)
Thusins t r u c t i o n al development is not defined by a particular process any more than saws , hammers , chi s e ls and raat enecn define carpentryOJ:"pain t ,br us hesandcanva s defin e pain t ing
(Davies, 198 2 ,p. 63 ).
Pr o g rammed Ins t r uc ti on
ProgrammEi instruct ion is often associated with th e pUblication of Skinner 's(19 54) article in Harvard Educati onal Review, entitled "'h e Science of Lea r n i ng and the Art of
~. Skinnerstates in thiswri t i n g :
We are on the thresholdof an excit ing and revol- utionary period in which the scient if ic study of man will be put to work in manIs best interest. Educationmust playit s part. It must accept the fact that asweeping revisionofeducati onalprac- ticesis possibleand inev itable. (Ci tedin Hawk- ridge, 1976 , p , 377)
In this selection Skinner "a dv is e d educators to apply knowl-
28 edge aboutbe h avi oral rein f o r ceme nt theo r y to thede s i g n of instruction" (se e re, 1989). Ate c h n o l ogyat instructionis essentiallywhat skinnerwasproposingas he "pointed to the de f i cie ncies of tra d i t i onal instructional tec hn iques and indi ca ted tha t by using tea c h ing machines many of thos e pro ble lls cou Ld be overcome" (Reiser, 1987,p, 30).
A te c hn olog y of instruction is "a te a ching/le arn i ng patt e rn designed topz-o vIde raliable effective ins tru ct i onto ea c h learner throug happ li c a t io nof scie nt ific principle s of human le arning " (He ini ch, Molenda &Russe ll, 19 8 3 , p, 266).
The princi ples pr o p o sedbySk in ner(1954 ) for programmed ins t r uc tion , "we r e small steps, carefu l se qu e nc ing and immediateand freque nt re i nf orc e men t of the lear ne r " (Seels, 198 9 , p, 1) . In recommending that inst ru ctio nal materials consist of a seriesof small steps,Skinnerwas als o st at i ng hi s beli efthat learnersshoul dbe allowed topro ceed attheir ownind ivi du al pace (To bin, 1989).
Accordingto Seels (1989),programmed inst ruc tio nwasthe impetus to thest ud y ofvariab l esofins tr uc t i o n whichcameto be known asde sign characte ris tics,because itwas thefirs t sys t e m of instruct i onto bebas e don athe o ryof learning (p, 11)•
Teac he r Plan n ing tor Ins truc tion
Themajo r eleme ntsof th einstruc tiona l process , ac c ord- ing to the li t e r a t ur e, have trad it i on a l ly beenthestude nt,
29 the teacher, and the curricul um. Since the 19705, however.
the literature re fl ect s a fourth element, necessitated by rapid technolog ical advances. The fourth element, that of instructionaldesig n, has moved tothe coreof the instruc- tionalprocess (see Figure3).
Heightenedpub l.Lcawar enessof the pedagogicalfundamen- tals has requi redthat educatorscare ful ly co n s i d e r resources and al t e r na t i ve approaches to ins truct i o n (Bai l by, 1974, p.
11-12). The contention is that quality instruction does influence le a r n i ng.
AccordingtoFri e s e n(1973), instructio na l mat e ria ls ca n be designed and cr e a t e d in two way s (p. 1). The first way requires a master tea c h e r,work ingalone to cr e atean inspired work ofar t. The second require s theap pl icat i o nofasys t e m of logic in ordertoaccomplish specif i e d learningob j ective s.
Although the ma st.ei-teacher method ha s hadalo ng hi story , it is often unaccompanied by empi rical ver ificationof eff ec - tiveness. By contrast, the scient if ic method requires the acquisitionof learn i ng datatoprov id e feedba ckthrough the re v i s io n process. A systemic or sys t e mat i c approach is characteriz ed by an input-output-Ceedback-rev i s ion cycle similar toa cy b e r net i c model (s e efigu r e 4).
Aco ns i de r ab l e body of li t eraturehas emergedinrec e nt ye ars that de s c r i be s and supportsthe application of system- atic instructionaldesignmodel s to education {Briggs&Wager, 1981; Dick&Carey, 1990; Ga g ne , Briggs &Wager,19 88 :
30
\
. 8 ",,<0, _ 8 ",··,
?" ..
;t' , "":
.1/ / ~ \
, / /~ .
8 ~ . § 8 ~· · :'20
Be rcr ethe 1970' s Arterthe19 7 0'5
FiCJUre 3. 'r he MajorElements of the Instructional Process (Oarwazeh. Branch,El- Hin d i, 1991, p,2).
Input
Figure4.
I
ControlServoSystemorI
Contro lled
I
orS~~~~:ss \f-- - -o'ut p ut - -
Basic cybernetic Mode l (Pr a t t ,1978 , p. 5). Jl
32 Gustafson, 1981: Merrill. 1983: Merrill, Reigeluth, Faust , 19 79; Merr i l l " Tennyson, 1977: Pratt, 19 80 ; Rei geluth , Ste in, 1983). The underlying assumption being tha t the pla nni ng of instruction is not always car riedout systemati- cally. with the result that i t is not always effective or efficient,and hence does not always meetthe lear n er'sneeds (Ea rl e, 19 8 5,p, 16 ).
Anassumptionha s develop edthat the r e is a correl a tio n between what instruc tio nal des i gn ers do whe n design i ng instruct ion andwhatteache r sdo inthe i r plan ning routi n es. Ins truc t i ona l designers selec t, adapt , de v e l o p and retinea wi d e vari ety of instructional pr od ucts (Mar tin, 1984). The notion isth at successful te achers enqeqe in si mil ar actions whe npre pa r ing to teach. Butdoe s this classify te a c he r s as instruc t i o na l designers'? According to Kerr (1981):
Teachers are and are not instructional designers.
Most teachers have no t had fonnal trai ning inthe proc ed ure s commonly used by instructionaldesign- er s : ma ny Clnd itdiffi cul tto shift the i r think- ing into instructional de s i gn (10 pat terns) when they ar~ !lsked to do ec as part of a course or workshop. {p . 364)
The sciencoof instruc tio na l desi gnmaybede fi ned as a field of st udyaimedatimprov ing and develop ingin str uc tion through the systQma t Jc application of le arning the o rie s, ins tructi onal theories and educa tiona lmetho dology (Darwazeh,
JJ in pr es s, P' 2). Acco rding ly, th e role atthe instr uctio nal designer may bedef in edas one who understandsand pr acti c e s theact iv i tiesof the instructiona l desig nscience inorder to ac c o mpl i s h a specifi ed pu r pose under a cer tai n condi t i on (Ma r tin. 1984 ; Reigeluth" stein, 1983) .
narwezeh (in press) de fine s the teacherIS ro le as one.
whichincl udes all re s pon s i bi lit i es which are involved in pl a nning, developing, implementi ng, managing and ev al uat i ng ins truc t ionin order tofaci litat e stud ents' le arning and to accompl is hthe goals of the instructio n alprocess. Oick and Carey (1 9 90) andGagneet; al. (1988) perceive the te ach e r s' rol e as that of designer of instruction wit haccompan ying rol e s of implementer and evaluatorof ins t ruc t i on. others have tak e nthest anc ethatge neric ins truc t i on a ldesi gn skills ha v e va lu e fo r the cl ass r o o m teacher (Applefield &Earl e, 1990:Be ilby, 1974: Di c k&Ca rey , 1990, Dick &'Reiser, 19 8 9:
stolov ich,19 80). In fa ct taking onthe rol eofinstruct ional de signer, on the part of the classroom teacher, snou Id havea gr ea t inf luenceonth e qualityof the teachers' profess ional per fo rma nce, and he n c e , on the leve l of the i r studen ts ' aca d emic achievement.
It is believe dby educationa l te chno l ogi ststhatthe rol e of instruct ionalde s i g ner is aver y importa n t and ne ces sary oneintheclas s r oom of the 19905, not only fromthe pe r spe c- ti ve ofth e teache rinvolvedin directteaching,but from the perspect ive ofthe beh ind-the -scenein structo r- ~ thecurric u lum
34 writ e r. Bot hgroups ne ed to assumethe instructio naldesig n role, wit h cur ricu lum wri ters develop i ng text books and ins t ructi on a l progr a ms, and tea ch er s rout i nely pl ann i ng class roo m acti vi t ies. uarwaac n et al . (1991) sta tes that Invoj,veme n t of th e tea c he r in prac tici n g the instruc tiona l designer ro l ewil lgreatlycontri b uteto the effect ivenessof inst ruc ti onandto the ef fi ci e ncy of the inst r u c tion alsystem as a whole (see Figure 5).
Learnin gTh eories
A basic premise of educationa l technolog y andtherefore of ins t ru c t i onal developme nt is that instruct io n is ant ecedent ly rela ted to st uden t lea rni ng . Despite the achievementsof the developer, learningmu s tst i ll bedone by the studen t (Ho b a n , 1974, p. 462). Conseq ue ntl y a sol i d found at i on inlearningtheoryisan es sential elemen t inthe preparationof instructional developers, asit per me a t es all dimensionsoftheirwork(SCh i ffman ,1986,p, 17). Withouta br oad-bas ed found a t i on in learning , the pr act i ce of instruc- ti on a l developmentbecomes na r r owly focusedon the means to achieve lea rni ng , that is the steps in the system mode l, rat hur tha n on the rightful end, which is learni ng for the lear ne r.
Bi9ge (1 982) hasde fi ned a lea r ning theory asa "system- ati c integrated ou tlookin reg a r dto the na t ur eof thepr ocess wher e bypeople relate tothei renvir onmen t in sucha wa yas to
35
Figure S. Input -Output Rela t i on sh i p Bet ween DesLqntnq, Tea ching, andSt u d en t s' Ach i e v e ment (Darwazehet al., 19 91, p.4) •
J6 enhance the i r abili tyto use both them s e l ve s and their environ ment moreeffectively" (p. J). He als o exp resse d the opi nion that there are "a t le a st 10 di f f ere nt theor i e s in re g a r d tothe basic nature of the learning process which are ei the r prev al ent in ec de yrsschools or advocat edby lead ing contem porary psychologists " (p. B).
Th e research base for the creat ion of the field of instruc tiona l development hasbe e n derived from two psycho- lo gic al pa r a d i g ms : behaviorist andcognitive (S e e l s , 198 9 ). Eachparadigm pr es en t s a perspectiveonlearningthat fosters selected perception of problems andpr o c e dure s. Th efieldof ins truct iona l development ha s not stressedth e impurtanceof us ingone paradigm over the othet, but rather it hasincorpor- atedthe ories fr om bothparadigms.
From the beginning When Pr es s e y ' s te ac hi ng mach ine clattered onto the educational scene in the 1920s, it was closely tie dto an underlyingtheory of humanle a rn i ng. The dominant force in p.ay c h cLoqy at the ti me was behav iorism, hen c e th e principl esof le arni ng by reinforcement guide d the useofte a chi ng machines. The instructional paradigmill u mi- natedby this orienta tio n wa s simple: "Identi f ythe medi u mof ins t r ucti o n as the ins t r uc tion al stimulus and assess the resultan t effects on learnerbeh aviour." Inessence, "the behav i ouristempha si z e d how to direct and measurele arn ing by sp ecifyi ng way s to control practicethroughcuingandrein- rorceee n t; "(Seels , 1989, p , 13).
37
Accord ing to th ebehaviou rists, Lea t-ndnq is mere l y the disposi t iontobeh av c - -the patterne d performa nceselic ited by the inst ructi on a l eve nt s. Byutili zingsuc ha theorybase technol ogist s are not co n c erne d abou t the knowledgeor the mental proc e s ses thatenab le tha t per f or ma nc a. Cla s s i c a l beha vi our i smhas been most cnv r ous in techniques and pri n- cipl es fo r designin glinearprogrammed ins t r uc t i on . Prog r a ms sys temat ica l ly elic i t responsesfr om stude ntswhichsuccess- ivelyappr oxi ma t e learning behaviour, st a t e d as the te r minal outc ome of instruction.
cognitive paradigm
The theoretic al persp ective onthepsychologyof learn ing an dins t ruct i o n ha s exper i e nced a progressi ve shift fro m the early19505 to the begi nni ngof the 1980s . This shift has been from th e behavioura l pe r spective to the cog n i t i v e pers pe ctive ,andit ha s beenmatchedby a correspo ndingshift in theresea r chandimp l e me ntat i on of inst ructiona ltechnology supporting ind ividualize d instruction . Hence the cogniti 'Ie model of learn i ng has lar gely replaced behavio u rism in psych o l og i cal circles (Jonassen, 1985). The vi ew of thi s para d i g m was fi r s t formally stat e dbyth e Germanphilosopher- psychologist, Max Wertheimerin 1912. The focus of We r th- eIraerts po siti o nis tha t "an organizedwhole isgreater than thesumof itsparts " (81gge , 19 8 2, p, 57-58 ).
In the 19 205 the psychologist Kur t Lewin added new
3.
concepts andcoined new terminologyin the spiri t of Wert h - eimer 'sbelief to"de v elop a field psychology " (Big ge, 19 8 2, p, 59). "Llf e space" wa s Lewin's basic concept. "Thi s includeseverything thatone needs to knowabout apersonin order to unde r s ta nd hi s concrete be h aviour in a specific psychologi ca l situation at a given time " (Bigge, 19 82, p. 170 ). Although the currentcognitivefieldtheor yis substan - tial l y influenced by thepioneer field psychology of Kurt Lew.in , it enoutd not be thought of as mere regurgi tationof Lewin 's position. This is evident in the tr ans i t i on to cog nit ive th eo r i e s and assump tions about lear ni ng ....hich are sloWly being Im p lern~ntedinto the cce cut c e of educational.
te chno l ogy.
The majorfocu sinlearn i ng today is upon the mechanism s byWh i cha lea rn e r perceivesthe enviro nment , processes and stores informat ionand retrie vesit forus e,as oppos ed to th e foc u s onovert responses whLch was suggested inSkinneria n beh a v i our al princ iples. This emphasis has come aboutbecau se of th e recogn ition tha t indeed each le a r ner is unique, a product of many experiences, and thatmessages appear to be mean i n gf ul only as each pe r s on gi ve s them meaning. In essence ,for the cognitivepsycholog istslearni ngisvi e wed as a construc tivepr-ocsss Where cha ngesoccur to the in te r na l representation of knowledge (Wildman, 1981). cu r r e ntl y , inst eadof learningresponses , the emphasis is on le arni ng information (LoW, 1981; Shuel1, 198 7 ) . Le a r ningis now seen
39 as an active process where experience contributes to the devel o pment of meaning and understandi ng (Wildman&Burton, 1~81 ). Infocusingon the individual lear ne r, thecognivlsts must knowmoreabout the learner's knowledge; no t onlywhat the pe rso nkn owsthatis correctbut alsowhat he orshe knows that is incorrect. Cog ni t i v e psychologists hav ebeencon- cernedwithdiagno single a r ne r s'misconcept ionsandusi ngthe m as thebasis for tutoring (Putnam, 1987 ; Stevens ,Collins&
Golde n , 1982).
In c l ud e d amongthe acclaimedpsychologistswho havemade influe n tial contribut ionsto theco g n i ti v e field theor y , and to instructional devel opment, are David Ausubel and Je r ome Bruner. Accordingto Ausube l (cit e d inorlic k et al.I 1985), a proponentofthe deductivelearningstrategyas an alterna- ti ve to the discoveryor induc t i ve mode, "t hele a r ne r willbe able to translate newly le a r ned conte nt in to something meaningfUlifmaterial sandlear ning experiences are ca r e fu ll y structured by the teacher"(p. 297) . Romis zowski (198 1 )not e s that Ausubel "s t a ndsinopposi t i on to the di scove rymove ment;
... [and)ar gues that muc h instruction .• . is successfully perf o rme d by the proce s s ofexpos ition le a din gto meaning ful reception le a r ni ng " (p. 173) .
liThe Ausubel model ofinstruct ionalthinkingis designed
tote a c horga n iz e d bodiesof co nt e nt and [t hus ) isde pe nda nt on ahi e r a r chy of knowledge" (Orlick et a L,, 1985, p, 302) . Consequently the deductive mode of inqui ry, according to
40 Ausu b e l (19 68) , includes three bas i c compo nents: adva nc e or ga n ize rs : progr e ssiv e differ en ti atio n; inte g ra t iv e re c on- cilia tion. Theadvance organizer providesthestude n t wi th an overvie wandfocus. Ac c o r di ngtoKni r k andGusta fs o n (1986),
"s t ud e nts learnmore rapid lywhen ad v ance org a nize rsareused
wi th instruct iona l design to move them fr o m one level of preparat i on to thatof concrete operation" (p.127).
Theprogressivedifferentiationprovides the studen twith itemsof informa tio nthatcan be more easily understood, while theinte g r ative reconciliationprovides meantn gtul learn ing by helping students to und e r sta nd the relationships among th e elements of the content being taught. In such a manner the le a rn e r is seen as"a whole organism whore sponds as aWhol e toil wholesituation" (Tanner&Tanner, 1980,p. 418) .
The foremost livingproponent of thediscover yapproach is Je rome Bruner . Although the emphasis on the discovery app roa c h or inqui ry instr uction seems to be a 20th century phenomen o n , the technique itself is old. The distinguished tri o of ancient Western cultu re- -Socrates, Ar isto tle and Pl a t o--we re all masters of the inquiryprocesses. orlick et al. (1965) nct.es:
It can be argued thatthe processestheyused have scnc e o r rect.ed the vey most people in our We s t e r n ci.v:l..1tae-cLcn tnink. Thathe ri tage has gi venus a marta of teachi ng in which st ud e nt s are vitally Lnvc Ive d inthe learni ng and creating processes.
It is thro ug h inquiry thatnew knowl edge is dis- covered. It is by becominginv olv e d in the process that studentsbe c o me historians , scientists, econ- omi s t s , artists, business persons, poets, writers or re s e ar chers. (p. 253)
"Bz-un er-ts research in th e late 1950s was infl uenced by th e id e a l s of John Dewey andle d to the pubLf ce t.Lcnof his classic The Process of Educ ation" (Orlicket al., 1985, p. 253). 81gge(1 9 8 2 ) notes that it was this researchthat led Br u n erto the assumption that "Su bje c t s do not mechanically associate specificresponseswithspec ificstimulibut rather, tend to infer princ i cles or ru l e s underlying the patterns which allow th e m to transfer their le arn i n g to different problems" (p. 229-230).
Romiszowski (1981) nc t ee, thatBruner(1960)believesthe chi ldmoves throughthr eest a ge s as he learns. Thesethree stages ar e described as follows:
The first level is the enact.Lve level wh e r e the child manipulates materials direct ly . He then progresses to the iconi cle v el ,wherehe deals with mental images of objects but does not manipulate them directly. Finally he moves to the symbolic level , where he is strictly man ip ulating symbols and no longer mental images of objec ts, (p. 173) Bigg'~ (198 2 ) considers Gagne to be one of Ame ri ca' s leadi ng le a r n i n g theorists. Ga g ne 1s theory "c ent e r s on 11
.2
lo o s ely definedbe h a vior i s m, but containsmarginalover tones ga inedfrom apperceptionthe o r y and the cognitive -fiel dfamil y of lea rn i n g the o ri e s" (p. 13). His eight condit io ns of learning , andhisideas of a learni ng hi era r c hy, have le d to the belief "th a t ins t ruc t i ona lpro c e d u r e s shoul d be systemati- call ydesigned(t hus] hisideashave had tr enencousinfl uence on the fie ldof instructiona l deve lopment " (To b i n , 1989,p. 21).
In the 19605 the ide a of ta s k ana lysis wa s expanded throu ghthe vcrx of Gagne in hisle a r n in ghi e ra r chymo de l.
Tost udy the effectsof hie rarchica l struc ture on lear ning, Gagne employed a methodolog y th a t has long provedvaluable in the sphereof business and industry. Th a t method is known as "ta s k analysis".
Careful seque ncingof tasks has beenandconti nues to bea criticaleleme n t of efficient productionin the industri a l an dt.echnc.LoqLca.lsecto rs and even in ed ucatio n. (Orlick et a1., 1985 , p , 56)
Indu s t r yha s notbeen alonein recogniz ingthe val ue of care fu lly ana l y z i ng tasks and of ident ifyi ng the se que ntial re l at ions h i p s of component activities. Pratt (1980 ) note s tha t "ta s k analysisis the process of listingthe component ta s k sthe atuaent;s wouldneed to be ableto perfo rmi fthe aim itself were to be at tained " (p. 166). In education, the import an c e ofee que ncLnq SUbject matter contentfor instru c- tiona l pu r p oses ha s been ack nowledged fo r a co ns i derable
4J
periodof time. Tyler(1949) viewe dse que ncing asoneof the three ma j orcrite riathat must be met inor ganiz ing acur ricu- lum(p . 5). In the 19508 the proces s was refin ed prima rily through th e effort s of Miller , cite d inReiser (19 87 ), who develope da de tail edta skanaly s i s me t hodo l o gy whilewo r kin g on projects for the militar yserv i c e (p . 23).
Thr oughtheimpet usof Gag ne's investigatio nsof lear ning seque nce s, ho weve r , emphasis shifted from the sequen ceof content perse to theanalyzing andor de ring ofconten t as it rel ates toth elearning pro c e ss . This emphasiswasaided and th u scha nne l ledbyGag n e 's beliefth at the tasksandsub-t asks identified thr ou gh task analysis often have a hi e rar c h i c a l relationship to each other, so that "in order to lear n suc c ess f u l l ythelea r n e r must be abletosucceed at one level before he ca ncontinue to the ne xt " (Hart ley, 19 7 8, p, 34).
'rh e ins t r uctional develop ment ap proa ch is found e d on Gagne's (1961 , 197 0 ) belie f th atinadditi o nto bei ngsensi - tivetopa tte r ns of or ga ni zationin sub jectmatte r, ed uc a tors areencoura ge d to focus ontheseque n t i a lrel atio ns hipsof the subskills (thi nki ng pro c esse s and behaviour) that must be acqui r e d pr i o r to le arni ng higher-o rd ered beh av i our and ski ll s. Dick (198 7 ) concurs with Gagne, noting that "t h e instruct i onal de vel opmen t ap proach not onl y indica t es the skillsthat sh ould be included in the ins tr ucti on (b ut als o ) the se q uence inwhich th e yshoul dbe prese nted" (p. 54).
Bl o o m (195 6 , ci ted inTanner &Tan n e r , 19BOjdivi de d the
