DOCUMENT RESUME ED 350 973 IR 015 783 TITLE Instructional Developments. A Journal … ·...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 350 973 IR 015 783

TITLE Instructional Developments. A Journal of the School

of Education at Syracuse University, 1990-1992.

INSTITUTION Syracuse Univ., N.Y. School of Education.

PUB DATE 92NOTE 180p.

PUB TYPE Collected Works Serials (022)

JOURNAL CIT Instructional Developments; v1-3 1990-1992

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC08 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Affective Objectives; Developing Nations; Diffusion

(Communication); Distance Education; *EducationalResearch; *Educational Technology; ElementarySecondary Education; Epistemology; Evaluation;Foreign Countries; Higher Education; Hypermedia;*Instructional Development; *InstructionalImprovement; Instructional Innovation; ProgramDevelopment; Research and Development; ResearchMethodology; Undergraduate Study

IDENTIFIERS Chile; Computer Mediated Communication; India;Indonesia; Peru; Structural Communication

ABSTRACTThis document consists of all five issues of the

journal "Instructional Developments" published during the period1990-1992. This journal is intended for the communication ofopinions, ideas, findings, and achievements in the improvement ofinstruction. The five issues presented in this packet contain thefollowing articles: "Viewpoints on Instruction" (four brief papers by

Tom Green, Saviour Chircop, Alex Romiszowski, Phil Doughty); "Is

There a Scientific Basis for Effective Teaching" (John Centra); "TheDiffusion and Implementation of Educational Technology in DevelopingNations" (Don Ely); "Programmatic Research and Development atSyracuse University" (Charles Dills); "Computer Mediatedcommunication--An Overview" (five papers by Karen Jost, Tom Green,Barbara Florini, Barbara Grabowski, Alex Romiszowski); "Some Thoughtson Improving Instruction" (Rob Branch); "Course-Level Academic

Processes as Indicators of the Quality of Undergraduate CollegeEducation" (John Braxton); "Structural Communication" (Wende Pusch,Elisa Slee); "Interpersonal Skills: Critical Attributes forInstructional Developers" (Ruth Curtis, Darlene Nestor); "Planningfor Success: College Distance Education Programs" (Lynda Hanrahan);

"Moving from Pedagogy to Andragogy" (Roger Hiemstra); "The Case-StudyMethodology and Instructional Development" (Alex Romiszowski, MartinMulder, Jules Pieters); "Background and Experiences of New Faculty"(Mardy Eimers); "Computer-Based Interactive Video: The Potential forEffective Instructional Environments" (Karen Jost); "Establishing anInstructional and Faculty Development Effort at SUNY-ESF" (CharlesSpuches); "The Syracuse University Focus on Teaching Project" (RobertDiamond, Peter Gray, Alton Roberts); "What Is the Role of EducationalTechnology in Generating Change in Public School Education?" (Richard

Kenny); "Establishing a Self-Instructional Development Facility atNAARM" (Aradhyula Gopalam, K. V. Raman); "Formative and SummativeEvaluation Procedures for Interactive Video in the Nuclear Industry"(Barbara Grabowski, Elisa Slee); "Automated Job Aides forInstructional Design and Development" (Michael Olson); "Research as aChain of Reasoning" (David R. Krathwohl); "AffectivetObjectives: A

Discussion of Some Controversies" (Cheryl Ackerson); "The Writings of

David Krathwohl" (Charles Dills); "Methods of Social Science and

Educational Research" (Charles Dills, Vincent Tinto); "Review of

David R. Krathwohl, 'How To Prepare a Research Proposal: Guidelines

for Funding and Dissertations in the Social and Behavioral Sciences,'

Third Edition" (Deborah Fournier, Nick Smith); "Research in

Hypertext" (Lydia Doty). A section entitled "Job Aids," by AlexRomiszowski, which deals with problems, concepts, and issues raised

in earlier articles, appears in each issue of the journal. (ALF)

U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educatona, Research anyEDUCAT,ONAC RI SOURCES NFORMA TON

CENTER 1CRICft s ok.k Nis ore^ CO as

.y.nang tV ha,ges "- e le

-Instructional . ,. t. ...sn-enf oc ne! esSe 'ec'ese-1 e

DevelopmentsA Journal of the School of Education at Syracuse University

Spring 1990 Volume 1, Number 1

Egliture Articles

Viewpoints on Instruction Tom GreenSaviour ChircopAlex RomiszowskiPhi! Doughty

Is There a Scientific Basis John Centrefor Effective Teaching

iRq: larch Reviews

The Diffusion and Implementationof Educational Technology inDeveloping Nations: Cross-Cultural Comparisons onIndonesia, Chile and Peru

Programmatic Research andDevelopment at SyracuseUniversity: The IDD&EWorking Paper Series

iii and Innovations

7.omputer MediatedCommunication

Job-Aids

-PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

,)r;a1. 7. Li.

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION .,..NTER (ERIC)

f4s

Don Ely

Charles Dills

Karen JostTom GreenBarbara FloriniBarbara GrabowskiAlex Romiszowski

Alex Romiszowski

school of educationSYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

InstructionalDevelopmentsVolume 1 Number 1

Editorial BoardArthur BlumbergJohn CentroRobert DiamondPhil DoughtyDon ElyRoger HiemstraPaul Pedersen

Managing EditorFirouz Rahmanzadeh

Technical EditorAlex Romiszowski

Administrative AssistanceSandy Holcombe

Technical AssistanceCathy LaddXinyu Li

Production ConsultantGladys L. Cleland

INSTRUCTIONALDEVELOPMENTSis a publication of the

School of Education atSyracuse University.

Permission to copy, republish,or distribute, and all otherqueries should be addressedto:

INSTRUCTIONALDEVELOPMENTSSyracuse University364 Huntington HallSyracuse, New York

13244-1220(315) 443-3702FAX (315) 443-5732

©1990 Syracuse University

This is the first edition of INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS. Ourreasons for launching it are many. Not least among them is to provide a vehiclefor those who are concerned with the improvement of instruction to communicatetheir opinions, ideas, findings and achievements to others who may be able to makeuse of them.

The stress is on practical value. We shall make efforts to synthesize andgeneralize the trends of research, putting them into an easy-to-use form to act asreference material. We shall support these syntheses with annotated bibliogra-phies, referring the reader to original sources and full length accounts. Featurearticles will present a technique, or a point of view, that may be of practical valueto teachers, instructors, training developers, or the managers of instructionalinnovation projects. Finally, the job-aids section will be a regular feature, that willpresent information on specific practical topics in a ready-reference format thatmay be of permanent value to the education or training professional.

The feature articles section, in this issue, deals with the concept of instruc-tion, attempting to establish its meaning and its theoretical bases. First, we havefour "viewpoints" on instruction and its design. These viewpoints on the conceptof instruction are followed by John Centra's viewpoint on the scientific basis forinstruction. To what extent does teaching have a scientific basis and to what extentis it an art, or a craft? We would like to hear your viewpoints.

The research review section includes Don Ely's report on comparativeresearch on the adoption of Educational Technology in three countries. This is agood example of the breadth of work and of interests that we plan to represent. Wehope to include some international contributions in every issue. Charles Dills'review of programmatic research on instructional design carried out by the IDD&Eprogram's faculty and students over the last decade is a short report on what hasbeen done and a guide to a series of detailed reports on the studies. Without a doubt,the work reported is only one strand of the last decade's research on instructionaldesign theory. It is, however, quite a well developed and influential strand, thatsome readers may be particularly interested in following . For this reason, we havelisted all the available working papers, which may be obtained.

The developments and innovations section deals with an increasinglyimportant aspect of distance educationthe growing use of interactive conversa-tional methodologies, based on the many recent innovations in teleconferencing.We discuss computer-mediated communication (CMC) in its various forms:electronic mail, hypertext, computer-conferencing, and so on. All the applicationsdescribed are at Syracuse University and are currently ongoing. There are, ofcourse, many other possible applications of CMC. Readers may like to commenton the cases described or add examples of their own.

We also include a job-aids section dealing with the topic of job aids itself.We have built in a few problems and challenges to generate some discussion of thissection.

Finally, we have included a number of short, informative items on activitiesand services that may be of interest to educational and training professionals.

We hope this journal will create a dialogue between ourselves and you, thereaders. Most authors are prepared to furnish further details of their work, reprintsof their papers and are interested to hear your reactions and comments. To facilitateyour requests for further information, there is a response coupon for you tocomplete and return on the last page of the journal. This response slip also requestsyour general evaluation of the journal's contents. If you have any more detailedcomments on specific items, please enclose them as well, in a separate letter. Wewill transmit it to the author(s) concerned.

-- Alex Romiszowski

Viewpoints on instruction

What is instruction? What are the commonly used meanings of the term? Is it just a widely, and loosely, used word that has lostvalue as a technical term of the teaching profession? What about instructional design? Is this a prescriptive, procedural activity that pre-de-fines the steps of a planned teaching/learning activity, or is it an "online" heuristic process, carried out by the teacher in the light of events thatoccur during interaction with students? In April of 1989, the students of the Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation program or-ganized a round table forum on the meanings of instruction and its design. As an opener to this first issue of our journal, the participants ofthat discussion have summarized their viewpoints, as presented on that day and as they have matured in the intervening year.

Firstly, we have Tom Green, Professor of Cultural Foundations, presenting an analysis of the term instruction and its common usage.Next, Saviour Chircop, doctoral candidate in the IDD&E program and research assistant in the Office of Professional Development, arguesthat the emphasis in the practice of instructional design is too much on the prescriptive preplanning of events and activities according to somegeneric model.

He is followed by Alex Romiszowski, Professor of IDD&F.,who presents a definition of instruction couched in technical "systems the-ory" terms and argues that this concept is valid and useful whatever philosophical or theoretical bases are adopted for the process of instruc-tional design.

Last, Phil Doughty, also Professor of IDD&E and currently interim Dean of the School of Education, takes the "macro" view of in-struction as an activity to be designed, developed and delivered not only effectively and efficiently, but also cost-effectively. Like any other ac-tivity that consumes resources and is supposed to generate worthwhile returns, the instructional process must be managed.

Thinking about instruction: Shades of usageTon: Green

Here are some ways of thinking about "instruction."

"I was instructed to take my application to the next win-dow." Here, "instructed to..." is always followed byan infinitive. It is equivalent to "told to..." or "I wasordered (directed) to...". This is not transmission ofbelief, or knowledge, or even information.

"When I was twelve, I took instruction in The Faith."Here, "took instruction" (as well as "gave instruction")involves having certain beliefs explained to me (orexplaining them to someone elsedepending on whetherinstruction is being taken or given.) Here the focus of"instruction" is on the acquisition or elaboration ofbelief.

"1 had twelve years of piano instruction and still can't play"Here "instruction" is dispensable. One might saysimply "I had lessons" or "took piano," or "studiedpiano" and the term "instruction" needn't even ap-pear. In fact, the use of "instruction" at all in such acontext may seem awkward.

But there is something noteworthy about this usage. Itseems not to occur at all unless there exists somethinglike standards of performance. This is clearly a contextof acts and not beliefs. But we don't ordinarily think oftaking instruction in walking, for example. If someonewere to suggest doing so, it would imply immediatelythat there is some special skill being developed. Per-haps we arc speaking of a class in acting or in modeling.What would come to mind if someone told you that she

Volume 1( 1) Spring 1990

was taking instruction in breathing? Here, in short, isa sense in which "instruction" probably involves com-munication of belief or information, u: more impor-tantly involves the acquisition of skill and standards ofjudging some kind of performance.

There may be a hint here. We speak of "instructingin..." "instructing to..."or "instructing how to..." butnot "instructing that..." unless it is equivalent onceagain to simply being told. For example, to pursue aprevious illustration, "I was instructed that God isthree in one" or "I was instructed that the doctor is notin." This is the same as "I was told that." Theseexamples illustrate how "instructed that..." is used in amanner that matches "told that...".

We may summarize:

"Instructing to..."Call this the imperative mode of "instruction." Itinvolves giving orders. The aim is not conveyinginformation, knowledge, belief or skill. And wewouldn't normally think of this kind of "instruction"as aimed at learning.

"Instructing that...Call this the propositional mode of instruction. What-ever follows the "that..." can be expressed as a propo-sition. "Instructing" in this sense is simply the same astelling. "A instructed B that..." simply means "A toldB that... ".


The propositional mode of instruction is clearly aimedat transmitting belief, information, or knowledge, andthere is a sense of "learning" in which "I just learnedthat..." means "I was just told that...".

"Give (take) instruction in..."Call this the global sense of "instruction" because weseem to use the term in this way only when speaking ofinstruction in relation to some larger subject or, morelikely, some practice that implies the presence of stan-dards. We speak of one person instructing another inspecific skills (like breathing) only within thecontextofsome larger practice (swimming, singing, acting) and itis because of this global placement that the term "in-struction" has its use in education. These commentsseem to apply also to "instructing how to...". I do notsee that this locution, "instructing how to...," contrib-utes any fresh logical point to the analysis.

Think of the kinds of things (beings) to which we canoffer instruction. We don't instruct plants. Nor do weteach them or educate them. But we do train them.Here is context where the concept of "training" seemsto have a play, but "instructing" does not. What aboutanimals, say, my Golden Retriever (whose dignitysuitably demands caps)? Unlike the case of plants, itmakes sense to say that I can educate the dog, or that Ican teach him. But what about giving him instruction?

I do not say that there is any rigorous, final, firmboundary to be drawn here. But we are not seekingfirm boundaries. We are seeking only to discern whatcounts in shaping the domain of one concept as op-posed to another "instructing" in contrast to, say,"teaching" and "educating." Here is a context in which"educating" and "training" seem to have a play, but"instructing" and "giving instruction" do not. It iseasier to speak of "training my dog to fetch," "teachinghim to fetch," but more awkward to speak of "giving

him instruction."

If you grant me that there are these shades of usage,these tendencies of thought, then I want to ask wherethey come from. What it is that underlies these grada-tions of meaning?

I submit that the answer lies in the degree to which ouraim is to enlarge the domain of intelligence. To what-ever degree we aim at creating an intelligent way ofbelieving or an intelligent way of behaving or acting, injust that degree, it becomes easier to speak of "instruct-ing" and more difficult to speak of "training" or "con-ditioning." We speak of training a plant, but not ofinstructing it or even of teaching it simply because wedo not think of the plant's pattern of growth as mani-festing intelligence. We speak of training, or eventeaching a dog to fetch or to heel, but not of offeringinstruction because we conceive of the animals behav-ior as more expressive of intelligence than that of theplant. But still, there is something missing.

The missing part is what I would call "the conversationof instruction." The dog does not ask "WI,, " or "Whynot?", does not seek reasons, and does not receiveexplanations. The concept of "instruction" is most athome in its global sense, when it involves the "conver-sation of instruction," the search for reasons. Thecentral idea, in short, is not simply that a certain behav-ior be produced, or a certain belief be entertained, butthat behavior be shaped and belief formed for reasonsshared by instructor and student in the context of aconversation. It is the presence or absence of this kindof intelligence in greater or lesser degree that accountsfor the shades of meaning between "instructing,""training," indoctrinating," "teaching" and the like.The core idea is the effort to shape behavior and beliefin ways that manifest the presence of intelligence.

CID COES TO SINGAPORE

Robert M. Diamond, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Director of the Center for Instructional Development (CID), and Professor of Instruc-tional Design, Development, and Evaluation was in Singapore for two weeks in November serving as a consultant to the NationalUniversity of Singapore and the National Institute of Education. During this period he was keynote speaker and workshop leader atan all-university seminar for faculty. Ills topics ranged from designing and improving courses and curricula and evaluation for ten-ure and promotion to the selection and use of technology. While there, he also met with university administrators and faculty in disci-pline-specific meetings to discuss with them Syracuse University's Center for Instructional Development, the approach it uses and theimpact the agency has had on the institution. A project, sponsored in part by the Sears-Roebuck Foundation on increasing the impor-tance of teaching and the tenure and promotion process, was also a major topic of discussion.CID is one of the strongest university-based educational development service centers in the country. It helps university faculty mem-bers design, implement, and evaluate their courses and programs, as well as providing consulting services for clients on a nationaland international basis. Components of CID include instructional development, research and evaluation, graphics and printing.Further information on the CID, its activities and services may be obtained by completing and returning the coupon on the last pageof the journal.

2t.1

Instructional Developments


Instructional Design:Where we were . . . Where might we go

Saviour Chircop

There are various ways of framing the work done byinstructional designers. A cursory look at the emer-gence of the field is enough to indicate a rapid andflexible development that has primarily been drivenby the pragmatic concerns -military, industrial, and toa small extent scholastic- of the last five decades.

Instructional design and development, as we know ittoday, was initiated by professionals who believed inthe use of visual aids to support oral instruction. Theadvocacy of media centers, to support the visual aidsmovement, led to the development of learning centerswhere students could use individualized instructionto supplement their regular academic classroom expe-riences. In the sixties, under the influence of Skinner,the field shifted from a reliance on technology-sup-ported communication, to a mixture of technology(both hardware and engineering frameworks), com-munication theony and theories of learning. WithRobert Gagne, instructional sciences moved from theSkinnerian influence to a more cognitive model oflearning influenced by, among others, Jerome Brun-ner.

A global perspective of this development can be framedas "a field whose theory and practice primarily dealwith structured communication for the purpose oflearning". Instructional theory attempts to uncover aneffective and efficient way to structure its messages.This approach explicates that the communication as-sumptions in the field, though elaborate and far reach-ing, are largely based on the work of Hovland andothers, implicit in presentations, texts, and CBT.

Current research in the areas of communication andsemiotics, especially work by Brenda Dervin, is show-ing that the Hovland paradigm of communication andpersuasion theory needs to be updated. The theoreti-cal construct, assumed by Lasswell, Hovland andothers, places excessive emphasis on the "power" roleof the "sender" and too little on the active role of the"receiver". The very choice of terms "sender" and"receiver" is evidence to this. Instructional theory hassubstituted the term "receiver" with "learner" and cre-ated illusory images of learners who are objects; pas-sive recipients of the instructional processes created

Volume 1(1) Spring 1990

for them. This approach to the process of instructionis clearly teacher-driven. However, this is not an accu-rate description of situations that face designers. In-structional designers need to acknowledge and ac-count for the intentionally, free will, socio-politicalenvironment and previous experiences of the learningsubject in present theoretical perspectives.

The implications of this shift for instructional theoryand design are pivotal. Work and research, reflectingsuch a shift are already appearing in the fields of adulteducation, cognitive psychology, and instructionaldesign itself. Malcolm Knowles and Patricia K. Crossargue for a pedagogy addressing adults that has somedifferent attributes from a pedagogy aimed at reachingchildren. Followers of Jean Piaget argue for respectingthe internal dynamism of the learner who is constantlyinteracting with an environment. The learner is in thedriver's seat of the change process. Robert Gagne in arecent article talked about the incompleteness of thepresent instructional theory. He suggested that de-signers need to incorporate more, and account for, theincidental learning that occurs in the every-day-life aspart and parcel of what goes on in every instructionalevent. Lauren Resnick suggests that instructional de-signers need to re-examine their learning theory whichseparated facts, principles, procedures and concepts asif they were discrete entities.

This shift of emphasis also affects the type of analysisdesigners perform to determine task analyses, thelearner entry point and learner pre-requisites. In manyinstances of current practice such analytical activitiesare being driven by the content of instruction (subjectmatter). Henceforth, instructional designers need toexplore ways of understanding better the human per-sons who are asking for instruction. Instructionalmethodology has to adapt itself to persons as humansubjects -as different from human objects- and not theother way round.

3


Instruction and Learning: What's in a Name?

Alex Romiszowski

I was brought up in Britain. I learned early in my lifethat "teachers" are found in schoolrooms, whereas "in-structors" inhabit dirty workshops, military establish-ments and sports or athletics fields. Somehow, the fig-ure of "teacher" was linked conceptually to "educa-tion", whereas the "instructor" was a component of"training systems". My first professional contact with"instruction" as a precise technical term, was in the1960's when "programmed instruction" was at theheight of its popularity, except that in britain it wasimmediately rechristened as "programmed learning".

These semantic preferences run deep. We notice it inthe preferred use of CAL (computer assisted learning)and CAMOL (computer assisted management of learn-ing), as opposed to the US preferred terminology ofCAI and CMI (I for Instruction). British researchers, forexample the cybernitician Gordon Pask, have contrastedthe so called "instructional" and "conversational"paradigms of education and have developed quitesophisticated "conversational theories" to guide theirdesign of educational materials. In contrast, Tom Greenargues in this paper that instruction includes an essen-tial conversational element.

More recently, in the educational technology litera-ture, one comes across contrasts being made between"instruction" and "construction", as rival educationalparadigms. Charles Reigeluth (1989) discusses thesecontrasting viewpoints in his paper in the first issue ofthe new "Educational Technology Research and Devel-opment" (ETR&D) journal (previously ECTJ). He ar-gues that both the "instruction" and the "construction"approaches are valid and indeed necessary for effec-tive education, but that each has its defined role andplace. He also indicates where he picked up the idea ofthis distinction from none else than the "Brits" at aconference hosted by the U.K.'s Open University. Whathe does not clarify sufficiently, is that the contrast be-tween "instruction" and "construction" as recentlydefined, is only a new way of reviving the dichotomybetween "expository teaching" and "discovery learn-ing", a discussion that goes way back to Au subel versusBruner and beyond. To be sure, the implementationTACTICS may have changed somewhat (e.g. throughthe use of computer based interactive media) but thebasic STRATEGIES implied by the instruction-versus-

4

construction debate are as old as the hills.

In the previous paragraph, I used the words expositoryTEACHING and discovery LEARNING advisedly.Once more, we see a contrast of emphasis betweenwhat is done TO THE LEARNER by some externalperson or system, and what the LEARNER DOES, or asSaviour Chircop puts it elsewhere in this paper, be-tween the roles of the "sender" and ihe "receiver" incommunication. Saviour is not alone in his view that inthe past the emphasis has been too much on the "sender"and not enough on the "receiver". William Winn (1989)has argued this point quite recently. Also, somewhatearlier, Michael Eraut, in the opening keynote presen-tation at the 1987 Conference of the Association forEducational and Training Technology, of the U.K.,presented a very detailed analysis of past and presentpractice, which identified some seven specific weak-nesses in past approaches. He also mentions someseven strengths - provided they are interpreted andapplied in practice in the light of new research com-pleted in the last 20 years (Eraut 1988). Finally, heshowed, by examples, that the turn-around in empha-sis can occur, and indeed often has occurred, in recentprojects. So let's not be too despondent. (Incidentally, itis worth observing that Eraut's address was entitled"What has happened to LEARNING DESIGN?" - therego the Brit's again!).

So, what about "instruction"? Is it a misunderstoodword? Or should it be relegated (as in Britain) to justone form of teaching-learning process, where theemphasis is on "sending" packaged messages? Myown definition of the term has for decades been "aGOAL-DIRECTED, TEACHING/LEARNING PROC-ESS, which has been to some extent PRE-PLANNEDAND PRE-TESTED". This definition excludes educa-tional activities which happen haphazardly without aclear idea of what learning is to be achieved, or withoutsome attempt at design and evaluation. On the otherhand, it includes a lot . It says nothing about who setsthe goals (instructor or learner, sender or receiver). Itsays nothing about how the goals are to be achieved(exposition or discovery; instruction, construction , orindeed conversation). It does imply, however, that themethods are well matched to the goals and lead tosuccessful learning. This is the task of instructional (or



learning?) design.

If we indeed have a scientific basis for teaching (as JohnCentra argues elsewhere in this issue), then teachersCAN be technologists (which means nothing else thanapplied scientists). If there is still a skewed emphasis infavor of the "teacher teaching" rather than the "learnerlearning," is this because our scientific basis is incom-plete and skewed , or is it because we (meaning teach-ers, educational institutions, society as a whole)CHOOSE to apply certain principles toward the achieve-ment of certain goals and ignore other alternativeapproaches. Should we interpret the reasons for theapparent skew in emphasis as lack of research-basedprinciples to guide our instructional design decisions,or as lack of interest/motives/support to change thedirection of things? If you vote for the latter (as I do),then you will look elsewhere than instructional theoryfor the root causes of our apparently distorted ap-proaches to instruction and to instructional design.

ReferencesEraut, M. (1988). "What Has Happened to LearningDesign". In (H. Mathias, N. Rushby and R. Budgett-eds.) Aspects of Educational Technology : DesigningNew Systems and Technologies for Learning. KoganPage, London, UK.

Reigeluth, CM. (1989). "Educational Techology at theCrossroads: New Mindsets and New Directions." Edu-cational Technology Research and Development, Vol-ume 37, Number 1.

Winn, W. (1989). "Toward a Rationale and TheoreticalBasis for Educational Technology." EducationalTechnology Research and Development, Vol. 37, No, 1.

Instruction and Goals for Educators

Phil Doughty

It is evident these days that creating efficient instruc-tion, planning for effective learning, or developingtime saving protocols for the design of training are ap-propriate but insufficient goals for professionals in theeducation business. Pressures to expand the range ofeducational services to include all pre-schoolers, thosewith functional and workplace literacy deficiencies,professionals requiring continuous upgrading of skillsand knowledge, and athletes with inadequate basicskills represent some of the challenges facing educa-tors. How to think about planning for instruction,organizing for learning and managing training (orother combinations thereof) is one of the more com-plex areas of opportunity available for us to consider.Several comments about this opportunity, particularlyas it relates to instruction, may not clear up the confu-sion but may help clarify the task.

In the very recent past, perhaps last semester, it wasacceptable to discuss the three most basic criteriaemployed in designing and evaluating instruction as ifthere were choices between them. The criteria, a)good, b) fast and c) cheap, suggested options forcombining any two at the expense of the third. Thusyou could aim for quick and effective instruction but itwould be expensive either to develop or to implement.If a limited budget was a constraint, then either the

quality or the amount of time required to design, tolearn, to practice, to test, or to justify was constrained.This way of thinking about instruction, learning, de-sign and the validation thereof is not very satisfyingand, more importantly, will it ever allow us to com-pletely address the many time, cost and quality pres-sures facing societies, agencies, governments and daycare centers.

It is evident that we must approach instruction and allits attendant components, with the intention of creat-ing, developing, managing, empowering and validat-ing instruction; that is:

a) good (i.e., it has relevance, utility and quality)b) fast (i.e., it is efficient in both design and delivery as

well as requiring relatively limited time-on-task bylearners) and

c) cheap (i.e., expensive designers, content specialists,delivery systems, trainee travel, faculty and timeaway from work are all minimized).

How we think about instruction, the ways that learn-ing might occur and the purpose of the education enter-prise are all critical issues for educa tion professionals toconsider. The good, fast, and cheap requirementscertainly do not make our task any easier but unless wecan include all three, we will continue to address appro-priate but insufficient goals.

Volume 1(1) Spring 1990 5

Is There a Scientific Basis forEffective Teaching?*

John A. Centro"

In his well known book, The Art of Teaching, GilbertHighet (1959) argues that teaching is an art, not ascience. Teaching, he proposes, involves emotionswhich cannot be systematically appraised and em-ployed; moreover, a scientific relationship betweenhumans, whether it be in teaching, marriage or friend-ship will be inadequate and as "cold as a chess prob-lem." To Highet, teaching is more like painting apicture or composing music.

Is teaching an art? Does good teaching require thecreative skill that good art requires? Are people bornwith the appropriate skills needed to be a good teacherskills that may be somewhat personal and uncoveredonly through practice? If so, then it is unlikely that wecan do very much to develop teachers or to systemati-cally assess performance in teaching. Whether teach-ing is solely an art, and whether good teaching can beprescribed are not trivial questions. They in fact formthe cornerstone for evaluating and improving whatteachers do.

In this paper I propose that the knowledge acquiredabout college teaching through careful observationsand studies over the years has provided a scientificbasis for the art (or perhaps the craft) of teaching. Stud-ies have identified prescribed attributes related to goodteaching. This is not to say that no room is left for vari-ations on principles or for individual expression. Teach-ers are not computers. Creativity, individuality andother human qualities are important features that areintegral components of good teaching. Gage (1979)secs teaching as a practical art that calls for "intuition,creativity, improvisation, and expressiveness"; as suchit leaves room for "departure from rules, formulas, andalgorithms" (p. 15). I will return to this point later.

Qualities of good teachingAlthough he proclaimed teaching to be an art, Highetwent on to describe the qualities and abilities necessaryfor good teaching. The qualities he included wereknowledge of subject, a sense of humor, and an enjoy-ment of students. Highet even specified critical meth-ods of good teaching; for example, preparing courseand class outlines or other ways of providing structurefor a course. Many of these abilities and methodsappear to be subject to observation and evaluation, and

6

to be teachable in themselves. As such they may be lessart-like than Highet claims.

Other characteristics of good teaching are similarlyopen to evaluation and study. A syntheses of 31 studiesin which students and faculty members specified thosecharacteristics important to good teaching revealedextensive similarities across studies as well as betweenthe two groups (Feldman, 1988).

In these studies, students and faculty members at thesame institutions (two-year as well as four-year col-leges) were asked to describe attitudes or practicesimportant to good teaching; some students asked re-spondents to characterize "best" or "ideal" teachers.Students and faculty members gave high rankings to:

Teacher's Sensitivity To and Concern With ClassLevel and Progress;Teacher's Preparation/Organization of the Course;Teacher's Knowledge of the Subject;Teacher's Enthusiasm (for Subject or for Teaching);Clarity and Understandableness;Teacher's Availability and Helpfulness;Instructor's Fairness;Impartiality of Evaluation of Students, andQuality of Examinations.

Students, in these studies, placed somewhat moreemphasis than faculty on teachers' stimulation of inter-est and their elocutionary skills.

Faculty gave more importance than students to teach-ers being intellectually challenging, encouraging inde-pendent thought and motivating students to do theirbest. Both groups also mentioned the teacher's concernand respect for students, the nature and value of coursematerial, the quality and frequency of feedback tostudents, and the teacher's openness to opinions ofothers along with their encouragement of questions/discussion.

All in all, the studies synthesized by Feldman indicatethat faculty and students were very similar in theirviews of what constitutes good teaching, although dif-ferences in the relative importance of a few characteris-tics were also evident.

9

(continued next page)


Evaluating the Characteristics ofGood Teaching: An ExampleAn example of how the various characteristics of goodteaching might be evaluated systematically by differ-ent groups is provided in a recent monograph devel-oped at Syracuse University (Centra, et al 1987). Afterselecting, from previous studies, the general character-istics to be evaluated, the Syracuse group identifiedseven ways the data could be collected and the sixindividuals or groups to do the evaluating.

The seven methods were:

Self-assessment/reportClassroom observationStructured interviewInstructional rating surveyTest or appraisal of student achievementContent analysis of instructional materialsReview of classroom records

These could be evaluated by

SelfStudentsFacultyDean or department chairsAlumniOther appropriate administrators

For the characteristic, "Good Organization of SubjectMatter and Course," for example, faculty could observea colleague's classes to judge such specifics as whetherthe teacher had made a clear statement regarding thepurpose of the lesson and whether major points of thelesson had been summarized.

Student evaluators could be asked to judge this samecharacteristic by responding to such rating surveyquestions as the extent to which the instructor was pre-pared for class and presented topics with a logicalprogression. As a third possibility, a department chairor another person might do a content analysis of thecourse syllabus.

Each method and each evaluation source has its advan-tages and disadvantages. Consider, as an example, thefollowing advantages and disadvantages of classroomobservations by colleagues as discussed in the mono-graph (p. 23).

AdvantagesClassroom observations help to complete a more con-crete and real picture of the instructor than usuallyappears with the use of only indirect methods, such asstudent ratings and administrator comments. Some-times student ratings can be inconsistent for controver-sial instructors or situations, and classroom observa-tions can provide information regarding the ratings.


Classroom observations also allow a more extensivefocus on substantive course content issues, such asrelevance and knowledge of subject matter, scholar-ship, and integration of topics.

DisadvantagesThere are several disadvantages to classroom observa-tion. First, faculty tend to find it threatening to imple-ment classroom observation when they have neverused the method before. As a result, this methoddemands considerable tact, respect, and rapport amongfaculty. Second, it requires considerable faculty time toensure that the number of observations necessary tomake conclusions reliable and valid are made. Third,observations for personnel decisions must be keptseparate from observations for instructional improve-ment decisions to protect the use of this technique foreither purpose. Fourth, observers tend to vary in theirdefinitions of effective instruction making it difficult toderive consensus regarding observations. Trainingobservers is, therefore, recommended.

The advantages and disadvantages of the variousapproaches to evaluating teaching underscore not onlythe complexity of making evaluations but of teachingitself.

Teaching is more complicated than a list of qualities orcharacteristics of good teaching implies. The Syracusemonograph, which was written for department chairsand members of tenure and promotion committees inparticular, discussed several caveats. In the first place,some of the characteristics are more easily measuredthan others, and this could result in such characteristicsgetting more weight than they deserve. Secondly,teachers will display different patterns of strength, anda good teacher will be strong in many of the character-istics identified but not necessarily all of them. Theultimate outcome of good teachingbeneficial studentlearningmight be achieved through a variety ofapproaches.

V

The Scientific Basis for TeachingThe fact that there is strong consensus between andwithin various groups about the characteristics of effec-tive teaching does not in itself, establish teaching as ascience. Webster's dictionary defines science as:

Knowledge acquired by careful observation, bydeductions of the laws which govern changes and con-ditions, and by testing these deductions by experi-ments.

Does teaching have this kind of scientific basis? Gage(1978) argues that there is a scientific basis for the a r t ofteaching. A science of teaching, according to Gage andas the Webster definition implies, requires rigorous

7

laws that yield predictability and control. The researchon teaching at the elementary/secondary level, whichGage draws largely on to reach his conclusion, has notattained that level of predictability. Because of thecomplexity, "any singly significant variable in teacherbehavior should have only a low correlation (rangingfrom ± .1 to about ± .4) with student achievement orattitude" (Gage, 1978, pp. 26). The same can be said ofthe college teaching characteristics which correlate in asimilar .1 to .4 range with course-level achievementwhen student ratings have been used to assess ordescribe instructional variables, (Centra, 1977, Cohen,1981).

In research on teaching, it is apparent that laws ortheories relating any two variables need to be modifiedto include other variables as well. These interactions donot only occur in research on teaching but even in tnenatural sciences when real-life rather than laboratoryphenomena are studied (Gage, 1978). Thus, the factthat research on teaching has not produced highlypredictable results does not in itself negate a scientificbasis to teaching. Other practical fields and profes-sions, in addition to teaching, have a scientific basis butrequire "artistry" to reach desired ends. Gage men-tions medicine and engineering as examples. Practicein both fields requires knowledge of much science"artistry enters into knowing when to follow the impli-cations of the laws, generalizations, and trends, andespecially, when not to, and how to combine two ormore laws or trends in solving a problem" (Gage, 1978,pp. 18). College teachers, it would seem, need to beaware of the scientific basis of teaching, as well as whenand how to build on that basis.

ReferencesContra, J.A., Froh, R.C., Gray, P.J., L'mbcrt, L.M., AGuide To Evaluating Teaching for Promotion and Ten-ure. Littleton, Mass.: Copley Publishing Group, (1987).

Contra, j.A., Student Ratings of Teaching and TheirRelationship to Student Learning. American Educa-tional journal, (1977), 14 (1), 17-24.

Cohen, P.A. Student Ratings of Instruction and StudentAchievement: A Meta Analysis of Multisection Valid-ity Studies. Review of Educational Research. (19811,51,281-309.

Feldman, K.A. Effective College Teacning From theStudents' and Faculty's View: Matched or MismatchedPriorities. Research in Higher Education, (1988), 28(4),291-344.

Gage, N.L. The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching.New York: Teachers College Press, (1978).

Highet, G. The Art of Teaching. New York: VintageBooks, (1959).

*A longer version of this paper will be published in theJossey-Bass series, New Directions in Teaching andLearning.

* * John Contra is Chair and Professor of the HigherEducation Program at Syracuse University. Further in-formation may be obtained by completing and return-ing the coupon on the last page of the journal.

DOUGHTY RESPONDS TO INVITATION TO VISIT GOVERNMENTREPRESENTATIVES AND FACULTY IN THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA:

A GREAT OPPORTUNITY WITH CONSIDERABLE POTENTIAL FORCOLLABORATIONBUT WITH POOR TIMING

A visit in Shanghai and Beijing with faculty members of educational technology and adult education programs com-bined with discuSsions about collaborating with the Peoples Republic of China's ten regional educational technology supportcenters was an offer that could not be resisted. In Shanghai, several days of faculty meetings, field trips to continuing educa-tion sites in manufacturing plants, and discussions with regional officials interested in improving the training of mid-levelmanagers all offered promise and mutual benefit.

In Beijing, meetings with educational technology association members, along with university faculty and administra-tors Interested in computer-based instruction, distance learning via video and computing conferencing also suggested abright future. Meeting with ministerial level officials responsible for staffing and directing their ten regional educationaltechnology and communications support centers were exceptionally exciting. Opportunities for faculty exchanges, joint staffdevelopment projects, sharing of instructional materials and production support techniques were evident.

Many toasts were offered, unbelievable numbers of entrees were consumed during every meal, many professionalcards were exchanged, plans were laid for immediate followup, and multiple requests for student admission forms were re-ceived. All appeared to be ready for an exciting multiple Institution and government agency collaboration. Subsequent (twoweeks later) events have limited the contacts. Planned visits to Syracuse by university presidents, faculty and manufacturingplant managers have been "postponed". Several faculty have come for three- and six-month exchange visits. The future iscloudy. The interest, prospects and promise remains.

8 11. Instructional Developments

The Diffusion and Implementation ofEducational Technology in DevelopingNations: Cross Cultural Comparisons ofIndonesia, Chile and Peru

Donald P. Ely*

Most research studies begin with curiositycuriosityabout an observation, an experience or a convergenceof isolated factors. Most research studies do not beginfrom scratchsomewhere, sometime, someone hasthought about the question and has explored it to somedegree. Most research studies begin with hypotheses,probably not fully developed or stated in classic expeni-;mental fashion. Most research studies have a generalidea about procedures to follow in exploring a questionbut changes are usually made en route, especially in thesocial sciences where people are involved. Most re-search studies expect to reveal something new; there isanticipation of a contribution even though some report"no significant differences" or have to reject the origi-nal hypotheses. These were the conditions that pre-ceded this study. They were manifested in seven'ways.

I was curious about the status of educational technol-ogy in three countries where I had spent a great deal oftime over the past thirty years: my first contact withIndonesia was with a graduate student from that coun-try in 1958 and I have worked there almost every yearsince 1979 for periods of three weeks to three months.In 1963, I was a Senior Fulbright Lecturer in Chile forabout nine months and in 1975 I served on a Fulbrightteam in Peru for three months. I have returned to Chileand Peru on other occasions since my first appoint-ments and have continued to be in communication withprofessional colleagues in each of these countries overthe years. I began to wonder if the field of educationaltechnology had made any progress in those countries(and, incidentally, if my contributions had made anydifference). I was curious about the cross-culturalsimilarities and differences between Indonesia and thetwo Latin American republics. Developing nations areoften grouped together and are treated as one ThirdWorld unit. I wondered if there are similarities anddifferences in educational technology as it is practicedin each country. I wondered if educational technologyeven exists and the nature of its activities. If educa-tional technology has been adopted in various sectorsof the society, what are the factors that have facilitatedthe acceptance and implementation? If it has not beenadopted, what are the factors that seemed to hinder its


acceptance and implementation?

When a person begins to focus on a research question(or almost any inquiry for that matter) it seems that allof a sudden new information becomes visible. AnIndonesian educational technologist had receivedsupport from UNESCO in 1984 to study the growth anddevelopment of the field in his country. He had inter-viewed important persons in the United States, theUnited Kingdom, and Indonesia who had been associ-ated in some way with the development of the field inhis country. Tape recordings of all 37 interviews wereavailable and constituted a major resource. Two Chil-ean educational technologists, Arturo Kotesky andPatricio Calderon, had written an article in 1983,"Development of Educational Technology in Chile,"and a specialist from the Multinational Project onEduc, ional Technology, Clifton Chadwick, who wasactive in the project from Santiago, provided the namesof more than twenty professionals who are active in thefield. A visit to Florida State University revealed thedissertation of Cassandra Fletcher, Educational Tech-nology in Peru,196R-1980: A Case Study of Diffusion ofan Innovation Within a National Education System(1984). Each of these resources offered extensive reli-able information for this study. Each source also pro-vided the continuity needed between the researcher'sfirst contacts with the country and the current state ofthe field's development.

Beyond the curiosity about the current status of thefield was a series of hypotheses about the conditionsthat facilitate the implementation of educational in-novations. In this case, educational technology was theinnovation. In 1976 the researcher published an article:"Creating the Conditions for Change" in which seven"conditions" were posited as necessary for -.. ititu-tional change to occur. Since that time, through expe-rience and through review of the literature, those con-ditions (and one additional condition) appear to bevalid. This study offered the opportunity to further testthe conditions in a cross-cultural context. Each condi-tion seemed to hold true for North American Educa-tional institutions, but what about other areas of theWorld?

-t

9

Out of this curiosity, background information, andhypotheses about conditions that facilitate the imple-mentation of educational innovations, I generated a se-ries of objectives that I wanted to attain in the hope thatI could gain an understanding about the current statusof the field in three developing nations and perhapscome up with some generalizations about conditions ofchange that could be used in other contexts.

Objectives of the Study1. To determine the extent of educational technology pres-

ence in each country. Where are the centers of activ-ity? Who leads them? How long have they been inoperation? What do they do? What changes haveoccurred over the years? Do they appear to besecure for the foreseeable future?

1. To identify the networks, if any, through which the con-cepts of educational media and technology have been dis-seminated. Who are the opinion leaders? Are theyassociated with the primary nodes of the networks?Are people associated with one agency, ogram ororganization more likely to be the source of innova-tive ideas and responsible for spreading those ideasthroughout the country? Are there formal chan-nels, such as professional associations, publicationsor meetings, through which educational technolo-gists communicate? Are there organizations thatassume dissemination responsibilities for the na-tion? Do any social networks exist among opinionleaders and gatekeepers?

3. To determine reasons for acceptance (and rejection) ofeducational technology where it has been introduced.Also of interest is any change that may have oc-curred between initial acceptance and later rejec-tion. Why did the change occur? To what extent didfinancial support determine acceptance or lack ofsupport, rejection? What factors are responsible forcontinuation?

4. To test a series of hypotheses regarding conditions thatfacilitate or hinder the implementation of educational in-novations, specifically, educational technology. Thepremise is that the presence of eight conditions isnecessary to implement change once an innovationhas been introduced and adopted. The presence ofall eight conditions would indicate high probabilityof sustained implementation. Reduction of theconditions would lessen the probability of continu-a tion.

Research ProceduresTo approach these objectives and the related questionsrequired direct primary data and those data can beobtained mostly from people in the countries beingstudied and literature that-exists only in each country.A combination of research methods must be used:historical methods help to determine the "then and

10

now" comparisons that are necessary to view develop-ment of the field over time. In this study, a 25 yearperiod is used; case study methods probe institutionaldynamics and this study is primarily an inquiry into or-ganizational acceptance and application of educationaltechnology; and descriptive methods permit individ-ual expressions of experience, observations, and inter-pretations. Each of these methodologies contribute tothe over all data gathering procedures and each pro-vides a different perspective on the same questions.

Translating research methodologies into actual datagathering mechanisms is where ideal and practicalapproaches part company. After 25 years, where arethe people you once knew? Who are the active profes-sionals currentlyand where you find them? Whatnetworks exist, if any, and how do you tap into them?Where is the literature that does not find its way intolibraries?

The key to most of these questions is the network whichthe researcher has built-up over the years. By maintain-ing contact with individuals in the countries beingstudied, there are initial points of contact. From thosepoints come others. For example, the 40 or so SyracuseUniversity graduates in Indonesia are obvious startingpoints; a professional colleague who worked in thefield in Chile for almost 15 years can name people whoought to be interviewed; and the Fulbright Commis-sion office in Peru has sponsored half a dozen U.S.educational technologists to teach and study there overthe past 15 years and their names are known. With suchnetworks, the first phase of contacts begins and fromthat first wave comes a flood of additional names ofpeople to contact and interview. In each country, thetime expired before the list of names was exhausted.

Data GatheringThe primary source of information for this study wasindividual educational technologists and other educa-tors who were interviewed by the researcher. Using astructured interview based on the objectives of thestudy, people were queried about the state of the fieldand their specific activities in relation to educationaltechnology. Most of the interviews occurred in thework place so it was often possible to see special facili-ties and to meet other people, some of whom wereinterviewed. During the interviews, each person wasasked about reports, evaluations, published materialsand other written matter that might provide furtherinsight into the development of the field in that coun-try. These individuals, their colleagues, and the litera-ture that they identified provided the bulk of the datafor this study.

FindingsThere are findings that are specific to each country and

13Instructional Developments

there are findings that are generalizable across all threecountries studied. These are the general findings.

1. Educational technology is more of a movementthan a field. Local definitions are emerging andthey tend not to be North American definitions.The characteristics of a profession are not yet ob-servable: a strong national professional associa-tion; high level of communication among practi-tioners; a body of research; standards for profes-sional training; a code of ethicsnone of theseelements appear to be sufficiently strong in thethree countries studied to say that educational tech-nology is a field. The definitions and perceptions ofthe field are even more diffuse. The dominantperception is that educational technology equalshardware; that it is a mechanistic invention of themore developed world that is being thrust upon thedeveloping nations; that it is more interested in sys-tems than with pc )ple; and that it is contrary to localsocial-cultural values.

2. Efforts to transfer North American versions of edu-cational technology have been met with some resis-tance if not hostility usually based on socio-culturalconflicts. The perceived nature of educational tech-nology is that it is revolutionary and requires majorchanges of organizational behavior, especially inthe schools. Such change is viewed as cataclysmicand inappropriate for people who have defined thenature of education for their own people.

3. Even with the cautions, there i s an emerging groupof people who say they are educational technolo-gists even though they have no formal training inthe field. Most of these individuals are computerspecialists who demonstrate the same zeal as mediaspecialists did two decades before. They are morenumerous and more pervasive than any of theearlier advocates of educational technology. Theyare found mostly in post-secondary institutions,private schools, business and industry, and govern-ment.

4. Many of the people who were trained in educa-tional technology are well-placed in positions butare not doing what they were trained to do. Theyhave become administrators, managers, and gov-ernment officials and tend not to serve in the schools.Apparently their knowledge and skills have somevalue in other sectors.

5. There are networks of people in the field of educa-tional technology. Most of the networks seem tofollow patterns of university training. For example,in Indonesia, there is an active network among edu-cational technology graduates from Syracuse Uni-versity; in Peru, there is a network among gradu-ates of Florida State University; and in Chile, thereis a combination of graduates from Florida StateUniversity, Teachers College (Columbia Univer-sity) and Pennsylvania State University. Other


6.

7.

networks tend to be at job levels, e.g., higher educa-tion, medical schools, business and industry train-ers, and so forth. People who are working in thefield seem to look to North America for trends, newideas, and new products. There is evidence ofassistance from Japan, Germany and The Nether-lands in each of the countries studied. Most of suchassistance is in the form of products.The reasons for acceptance of educational technol-ogy are closely related to the conditions that facili-tate change. There has been leadership. Oneperson or one agency championed the diffusioneffort. In some cases the original leader trainedsuccessors thus continuing the original program; inother cases, the departure of the leader led to de-cline of the organization or movement.Another reason for acceptance and implementationhas been the perception of modernization on thepart of educational and government leaders. Usingthe Western model of problem-solving throughtechnology, many countries purchased communi-cation hardware that symbolized progress. It couldbe seen and touched. It was the same equipmentthat was being used in the more developed nationsand therefore conferred status on the owner. Littlethought was given initially to the software or mate-rials required to use it or to the methods of utiliza-tion. When time came to demonstrate some of thesenew acquisitions, it was poorly done and at suchexpense that cost questions began to be asked.Still another reason for acceptance and implemen-tation was the promise of providing equal access toeducational opportunity. The success of mass mediain education in other countries and the visible ap-plications in such innovative organizations as theBritish Open University, caused leaders faced witheducational problems a potential solution to localconcerns. Technology was a c-mponent of innova-tive educational programs in other countries; whynot in "our country"? It offered a promise that noother reform could make in such a short time.Most of the conditions that facilitate change werepresent in each country: dissatisfaction with thestatics quo; the need for knowledge and skills by theusers; the need for resources; the need for leader-ship; and commitment to the innovation. However,the other conditions were not as strong in some ofthe countries. The need for rewards or incentiveswas weak in Chile and Peru but strong in Indonesia.Participation in the implementation of educationaltechnology was weak in Chile and Indonesia butstrong in Peru. One could speculate on the reasonsfor the strengths and weaknesses of the conditionsbut this analysis is best saved for another paper.

ConclusionsEducational technology is alive but not so well in Chile,

11

Peru and Indonesia. There are many diverse applica-tions of media and instructional development in vari-ous sectors of each society but no unifying concept.Most of the principles and practices that are evidenthave been transferred from the more developed coun-tries of the world. A major barrier to acceptance ofeducational technology is the lack of understanding onthe part of decision-makers. Advocates for the fieldhave not been able to penetrate the thinking of thosewho make educational decisions. However, there areprofessionals in the field in each country; there are uni-versity-level courses and programs to prepare profes-sional personnel; there are publications in the locallanguages that contain contemporary concepts aboutthe field; and there are networks through which peoplecommunicate about new developments and applica-tions of educational technology.

Educational technology is being defined (and must bedefined) in the cultural context of which it is a part.When the manifestations of the field are observed indeveloping nations, they are often interpreted as cul-tural and technological imperialism of the more devel-oped countries. Basic media (hardware and somesoftware) and instructional design, development andevaluation procedures can be borrowed from othersettings but ultimately they must emerge as indigenousinnovations that are uniquely fitted to the local societyand culture.

The conditions that facilitate the implementation ofeducation technology in Chile, Peru and Indonesia are:(1) dissatisfaction with the status quo; (2) knowledgeand skills of the users; (3) resources to do the job; (4)leadership to support and direct the effort; and (5)commitment to accomplish the goals. Less importantconditions seem to be: (6) the need for rewards or incen-tives; (7) time to prepare for the task; and (8) participa-tion in the process of tmplementation. The conditionsvary with the country and with the nature of the inno-vation.

For me, the study confirmed the development of edu-

cational technology in each of the countries studied butthe extent of the development was somewhat disap-pointing. I am not the first to make this observation.

"For more than a hundred years much complaint hasbeen made of the unmethodical way in which schoolsare conducted,but it is only within the last thirt ;' thatany serious attempt has been made to find a remedyfor this state of things. And with what result?Schools remain exactly as they were. "The GreatDidactic of John Amos Comenius" 1632.

BibliographyChadwick, Clifton B. (1986) "Instructional TechnologyResearch in Latin America" Educational Communica-tions and Technology journal, Winter, Vol. 34, No. 5.pp. 247-254.

Ely, Donald P. (1976) "Creating the Conditions forChange" in Faibisoff, S. and Bonn, G., Changing Times:Changing Libraries. Urbana Champaign: Universityof Illinois Graduate School of Library Science. pp. 150-162.

Fletcher, Diorita Cassandra (1984) Educational Tech-nology in Peru, 1968-1980: A Case Study of Diffusion ofan Innovation Within a National Education System.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State Univer-sity.

Kotesky, Arturo A. and Patricio Calderon (1983)"Development of Educational Technology in Chile"Educational Technology, May, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 42-45.

'1' Donald P. Ely is a Professor of Instructional Design,Development and Evaluation and the Director of theERIC Clearinghouse on Information ResourcesSyracuse University.

RESEARCH LABORATORY FOR INTERACTIVE LEARNING

Increasingly, the state-of-the-art design, development, and implementation of advanced learning technologies is moving away from ourschools of education and into the private sector. In spite of schools being in crisis and priority being placed on improving schools by theyear 2000, experimentation on the uses of advanced technologies are more common in the workplace than in schools, and two-way videoteleconferences more frequent between regional boardrooms than classrooms.

In an effort to maintain a leadership role in this rapidly changing field of educe ion, Syracuse University's School of Education hasestablished the Research Laboratory for Interactive Learning, under the school's Department of Instructional Design, Development, andEvaluation. The lab is dedicated to providing a blend of expanded research opportunities into interactive learning theory with hands-ondemonstration and evaluLtion of applications of state-of-the-art technologies in educational environments. Specifically, the lab houses anumber of advanced interactive, computer-based learning systems and materials to support both its research and teaching goals.

Several research studies are already underway, exploring learner attributes and instructional intervention strategies using both interac-tive video and 9D-ROM technologies. Laboratory-based activities have also been incorporated into several courses in instructional de-sign, instructional product development, teacher training, and course evaluation.

In an era where the future is literally tomorrow, the Research Laboratory for Interactive Learning is providing a crucial experimental andresearch capability to ensure that Syracuse University remains at the forefront of leadership in the field of Education and InstructionalTechnolog). Further information may be obtained by completing and returning the coupon on the last page of the journal.

12E-0 Instructional Developments

Programmatic Research andDevelopment at Syracuse University:The IDD&E Working Paper Series,1980-1990

Charles R. Dills*

Syracuse University has long had a reputation as acenter for research and theory building activities lead-ing to marked improvements in application and prac-tice. Much of this progress has been due to the practiceof programmatic researchthat is, a series of closelyrelated studies and projects dealing with a single broadquestion, with such work continued over a period oftime and involving several different researchers. Anoutstanding example of such a program at SyracuseUniversity is the research that has been conducted oninstructional design and development models withinthe Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation(IDD&E) Program.

The current program of research has been underwayfor over ten years. The goals for this series of studieswas first set down in a publication of IDD&E written in1980 by Charles Reigeluth, Toward a Common Knowl-edge Base: The Evolution of Instructional Science. Therationale and justification of this programmatic ap-proach was stated in 1987, when Charles Dills and AlexRomiszowski published a paper, called in Search ofthe Elusive ID Research Study, Or How Do We KnowWhen (If) We Are Doing ID?

The two papers, taken together, provide a fairly ade-quate description of what has been happening in theIDD&E over the last ten years. The programmaticapproach to involving students and faculty members ina long-term effort to develop an instructional sciencehas been fairly successful. Early versions of severalinstructional design models, and much new knowl-edge concerning such design issues as sequencing,presentation formats, motivational design, adjunct de-vices, and the design of instruction for new technolo-gies have been produced through the research pro-gram.

One of the best ways to view the research program isthrough a series of pre-publication reports put out byIDD&E Program. Called the IDD&E Working Papers,the series was begun in 1980 and is still in activeproduction. The papers in this series are designed toprovide researchers and developers in instructional


design and development with preliminary versions ofarticles to be eventually published, and with descrip-tions of research studies conducted at Syracuse Univer-sity that may not be published elsewhere (such as pilotstudies or tests of very micro-level theories concerningdesign science). Since all issues (there are currently 26of them) have remained in prillt, the progress that hasbeen made in developing and testing Reigeluth's de-sign science can be traced.

Certain themes may be identified among the WorkingPapers. One of the major topics of research has been thestudy of sequencing and its effects upon cognitivelearning. The second paper in the series (April, 1980)was a study of sequencing, and this theme is repeatedin various forms in 1981 (Paper #5), 1982 (Paper #7),1983 (Paper #8 and Paper #12), and 1985 (Paper #19).These papers dealt with various facets of the sequenc-ing problem, ranging from the sequencing of embed-ded questions (Paper #7), to the sequencing of lessonelements in concept learning (Paper #5 and #8), to thequestion of how to sequence principles and procedureswithin a single lesson.

Non-sequencing aspects of the same topics studiedunder sequencing were also dealt with. For example,other aspects of adjunct and embedded questions wereexamined by Harry Mouton and Charles Reigeluth in a1987 paper (Paper #24), Adjunct Ouestions and Medi-ated Self Instruction: Comparisons of Lookback andNo-Lookback Procedures, with High or Low LevelQuestions, Massed or Inserted in the Text.

The instructional design theory of Motivational De-sign, formulated by John Keller and generally knownas the ARCS Model, appeared early in its history in theWorking Paper series. Keller published Paper #10,March, 1983, in which two research studies on the useof the ARCS Model by teachers were presented (Use ofthe Arcs Model of Motivation in Teacher Training, byJohn Keller) and in August of the same year, Kellerpublished a review of other people's work in the fieldof motivational design, pointing out areas needingresearch (Motivational Design, by John Keller).

13

Another example of a common thread running throughthe papers is given by the very first and the very last ofthe papers; much of the work carried out over the ten-year period at Syracuse has been motivated by thewritings of David Ausubel, especially his Theory ofMeaningful Verbal Learning. Paper #1 in the series,Meaningfulness and Instruction: Relating What IsBeing Learned to What a Student Knows (Reigeluth,March, 1980), Paper #9 by Ruth Curtis and CharlesReigeluth (The Effects of Analogies on Student Moti-vation and Performance in an Eighth-Grade ScienceContext March, 1983), and the latest paper in the series,Why Don't Advance Organizers Facilitate LearningMore Often: A Review of Some Methodological Issues?(Charles Dills, February, 1990) are all examples of workinspired by Ausubel.

The development of data-based and conceptually sounddesign models and procedures for the newer technolo-gies is also an on-going concern at Syracuse University,and has been for some time. This concern has seenexpression in several Working Papers, such as Paper#11, directed at design questions involving computer-ized instruction (The Effects of Three Different Kindsof Feedback: Hint, Correct Answer, and Right/ Wrong,April, 1983, by Betty Feng and Charles Reigeluth), orPaper #23 (An Instructional Theory for the Design of

Computer-Based Simulations by Reigeluth andSchwartz, June, 1987).

These' and the other papers in the series not only tracethe history of the programmatic effort to develop an in-structional design science at Syracuse University, butprovide valid and very useful findings, recommenda-tions and models for the conduct of instructional de-sign and development which in many cases have yet tobe made available elsewhere in the literature. And theyprovide the foundation, in part, for the on-going re-search and study currently underway at Syracuse andother universities that was motivated by the earlypapers of the series. As further results are obtainedfrom the program of research, and further WorkingPapers become available, the series will be of evenmore value to researchers and practitioners in the fieldwho want their work to be both conceptually soundand empirically based.

*Charles Dills is a doctoral candidate in the IDD &Eprogram. He is also a research assistant employed atIntelliSys working on projects concerned with trainingdesign models for high-technology and task analysisand knowledge acquisition for expert systems devel-opment.

Copies of the above mentioned IDD &E Working Papers may beobtained by completing and returning the coupon on the last pageof the journal. The cost of photocopying is $1.00 for each. Please addpostage and handling costs of $2.00 for orders of up to 3 copies,54.00 for 4 to 6 copies and so on pro-rata. The cost of postage andhandling for international mailings should be doubled. Ordersshould be accompanied by a check for the total amount, made outto Syracuse University. The full list of titles in the Working Paperseries is as follows:

1. Mea n ingf uln es. s a nd Inx ruction: Relating What Is Being learned to What A StudentKnows by Charles M. Reigehith. (March 1980)

2. Relating What Is To Be Learned To What Is Known: Subsumptive Sequencing, Ccordination, and Cognitive Strategies Activation by Faith S. Rein, Jody K. Witham,and Charles M. Relgeluth. (August 1980)

3. Toward a Common Knowledge Base: The Evolution of Instructional Science byCharles M. Reigeluth. (August 198r.)

4. Using Videodiscs In Instruction: Kealiaing Their Potential Through InstructionalDesign by Charles M. Reigeluth and Joanne M. Garfield. (September 1980)

5. The Use of Sequence and Synthesis for Tea ching Conce pts by Lind a Frey and CharlesM. Reigeluth. (December 1981)

6. A Comparison of Three Instructional Presentation Formats by Bonnie Keller andCharles M. Reigeluth. (fa nuary 1982)

7. Type and Position of Adjunct Questions: Their Effects on Memory and Applicationby Afnan N. Darwazeh and Charles M. Reigeluth. (February 1982)

8 The Effects of Sequence and Synthesis on Concept Learning Using a Parts-Concep-tual Structure by C. Herbert Carson and Charles M. Reigeluth. (February 1983)

9. The Effects of Analogies on Student Motivation and Performance in an Eighth GradeScience Content by Ruth Curtis and Charles M. Reigeluth. (March 1983) .

10. Use of the Are Model of Motivation in Teacher Training by John M. Keller. 0,1a rch1983)

11. The Effect of Three Different Kinds of Feedback: I lint, Correct Answer, and Right/

14

Wrong by Betty Feng and Charier M. Reigeluth. (April 1983)12. Effects of Fou r Instructional Sequences on Application and Tra nsfer by C hun-I C hac,

Luz Ruiz, and Charles M. Reigeluth. (May 1983)13. The Ef fects of Format of Synt hesizer on Conceptua I Lea rning by Lois McLea n, N. Kai

Yeh, and Charles M. Reigeluth. (lune 1983)14. Current Trends in Task Analysis:The Integration of Task Analysis and Instructional

Design by Charles M. Reigeluth. (July 1983)15. Motivational Design by John M. Keller. (August 1983)16. Restructuring: The Key to a Better Educational System for an Information Society by

Charles M. Reigeluth. (September 1983)17. Teaching Common Errors in Applying a Procedure by Fred), E. Bentti, Anthony R.

Golden, and Charles M. Reigeluth. (Octot, 1983)18. Teaching Common Errors in Applying a Procedure by Alberto 0.Ga rd uno, Stephen

Maroon, and Charles M. Reigeluth. November 1984)19. The Effect of Principle-Procedure and Procedure-Principle Sequencing on Learning

Outcomes by Muriel Lim-Quek, Ind aryati Motile, and Charles M. Reigeluth. (July1985)

20. Group Discussion as an Effective Mothod of Inst ruction by Kwasi Abeasi and CharlesM. Reigeluth. (August 1985)

21. The Effects of Scorekeeping on St, id ent Motivation in a Computer-Assisted Arithme-tic Drill and Prentice Game by Charles M.Spu ches and Charles M. Reigeluth. (August1985)

22. The Effectsof Format and Structure of a Synthesizeron Procedu ral-Decision Learningby Chun-I Chao and Charles M. Reigeluth. (February 1986)

23. An Instructional Theory for the Design of Computer-Based Simulations by CharlesM. Reigeluth and Ellen Schwartz_ Qune 1987)

24. Adjunct Questions and Mediated Self I nstruction:Compa risons of Lookback and No-Lookback Procedures, with High or Low Level Questions, Massed or Inserted in theTent by Harry Mouton and Charles M. Reigeluth. '..4arch 1987)

25. In Search of the Elusive ID Research Study, 01 riow Do We Know When (10 We AreDoing ID? By Charles R. Das and Alec Romiszowski. (November 1987)

26. Why Don't Adva nee Orga n iTC rs Facilitate Learning More Often: A Review of SomeMethodological Issues? By Charles R. Dills. (February 1990)

17 Instructional Developments

Computer mediated communication.

An overviewKaren Lee Jost*

Uses of CMCComputer mediated communication has been usedprimarily as a user-driven conference system (hence thepopular term "computer conferencing"). This impliesthat a group of individuals exists, who choose to debatea topic of mutual interest. They may be in search of newideas and may view a change in the direction of thediscourse as a positive development. Also, individualsmay join in or drop out of the discourse, in relation totheir own interest in the main topics under discussion.The continuance of the discussion is controlled by theexistence of a "critical mass" of interested discussants.

Another common use of CMC, is as an information sys-tem, as exemplified by the proliferation of bulletinboard systems. Their primary purpose is to offer aspecial-inte.-?st-group information-sharing service.

A growing use of CMC, is as a social communicationsystem. This use is of growing importance in distanceeducation. It provides students with the opportunity ofsocial interaction with other students, which is often amissing component in distance education. The experi-ence of the British Open University, in using CMC fora year on a course with over 1200 students, showed thatfrom the students' point of view, this was the most usedand most valued function of CMC (Bates, 1988).

At Syracuse, the main interest has been to examine theuse of CMC as part of an instructional system. CMChas great potential as an instructional system in bothdistance education and on-campus courses. As an in-structional methodology, CMC can solely deliver acourse or can supplement other instruction (Romiszow-ski & Jost, 1989). However, it has been demonstratedthat the harnessing of CMC systems to the achievementof specific educational outcomes, requires careful de-sign and implementation (Davie, 1988; Lauzon andMoore, 1989).

Use of Email vs. a ConferencingSystem

Some conferencing systems provide a complex struc-ture to help organize the materials of the conference (or


course). The structures are generally set up using somekind of metaphor of an educational system.

Apai4 from the difficulty of learning the technicalitiesof using the system, students often input comments inways that do not fit well into the existing structure. Thiscreates the need for a course "moderator" (who may ormay not be the instructor) to regularly. monitor theincoming messages and transfer some to new sub-conferences or small-group discussion spaces. Thistask must be done regularly, otherwise many partici-pants may respond to a "maverick" comment and dis-tract the attention of all from the mainstream discus-sion, possibly irretrievably. It must also be done skill-fully, otherwise many participants may disagree withthe structure being imposed by the moderator and mayfeel that the conference is being "censored" in someway.

A simpler and more generally available alternative tothe use of a specially structured conferencing system, isEmail. Within the department of Instructional Design,Development, and Evaluation, we have been usingEmail systems in conjunction with Bitnet, to run severalCMC conferences and seminars, often linking severalinternationally located sites. No attempt was made toimpose a centralized structure through the system. In-deed, the limitations of the Email systems we have beenusing prevent us from doing this. We have not, there-fore used moderators, although the instructors involvedwould attempt to define an initial structure in an open-ing "position paper". We have then encouraged each ofthe participants to map their own view of the emergingstructure.

Characteristics of CMCThe asynchronous nature of the communication proc-ess in CMC, has been found of educational value ininteractions between persons who are prevented frommeeting face to face by distance. Unlike face-to-faceinstruction, or real-time teleconferencing, in which theparticipants communicate during one fixed period oftime, CMC allows one to choose when to respond toanother participant's comment. This offers the benefit

A815

Computer mediated

of allowing one to think out a more structured, morecomplex response, and the benefit of being able toparticipate at times that are personally convenient.This same factor can also generate communicationdifficulties. One problem is that it may promote pro-crastination, leaving the response for later, and per-haps in some cases, failing to respond altogether.This adds to the complexity of the developing struc-ture in that students may, at any time, be inputtingnew comments related to different stages of the de-velopment of the topic. Not only is the discourse"multi-level" in that several different topics may bein simultaneous discussion, but it is also "multi-speed."

Another problem originates from the distance com-munication aspect of CMC. Although distance corn-munication allows one to participate in a discoursewhich may otherwise be impossible, it also intro-duces some difficulties of control of the discourse.The instructor loses some of the benefits offered by aface-to-face group situation. When the discussiondrifts off the topic, it often takes longer, and is moredifficult, to bring the group back on task. Several in-structional strategies for dealing with these chal-lenges have been experimented (Romiszowski & Jost,1989).

Using Computer MediatedCommunications for InstructionComputer mediated communication is a qualitativelydifferent medium for instruction. When designinginstruction for CMC, it is important to consider thestrength of the medium and to focus attention on thelearner.

There are many benefits claimed for using computermediated communication in education: a democraticenvironment for group interaction and learning; a rec-ord of the entire course; students don't miss any of theinstruction due to absenteeism or daydreaming; morestudents respond to questions and ideas; the responsesare longer and more complex than in a traditional class-room; the students learn from each other; teachercomments become more interactive (Romiszowski &Jost, 1989).

Within the School of Education, there are a number offaculty and graduate students who are using CMC indelivering courses or as a supplement to instruction.

16

communication

Both the instructional potentials and the benefits ofsocial interaction are being examined. The followingarticles by Tom Green, Barbara Florini, and BarbaraGrabowski, all testify to the benefit of using CMC toengage learners in discussion and information sharing,with the additional benefit of receiving feedback andresponses that are timely and from a wider audience.The article by Alexander Romiszowski describes con-tinuing research on developing techniques for organiz-ing and structuring the discourse. Current work isfocusing on the design of 2 CMC-organization tool, ahypertext environment, which could reside on the diskof a participant's computer.

ReferencesBates, A.W. (1988). A Mid-way Report on the Evalu-ation of DT200. Paper presented at the Open Univer-sity International Conference on Computer MediatedCommunication in Distance Education. Milton Keynes,England, October 1988.

Davie, L.E. (1988). Facilitation Techniques for theTutor in Computer Mediated Communication in Dis-tance Education. Paper presented at the Open Univer-sity International Conference. Op.Cit.

Lauzon, A.C. and Moore, A.B. (1989). "A Fourth Gen-eration Distance Education System: Integrating Com-puter Assisted Learning and Computer Conferencing".American journal of Distance Education, 3(1).

Romiszowski, A.J. and Jost, K. (1989). Computer Con-ferencing and the Distance Learner: Problems of Struc-ture and Control. Paper presented at the 1989 Confer-ence on Distance Education, University of Wisconsin,August 1989.

*Karen Lee Jost is a doctoral candidate in the 1DD&Eprogram. She is also a research assistant, employed onprojects investigating the educational applications ofcomputer-media ted communications and hypertext,as well as working on school-based projects at SyracuseUniversity, Project Advance.


Computer mediated communication--

Phi lo's Workshop

Tom Green *

Philo's Workshop is simply a text, a teacher, and a set ofroutines. The text, in short incremental sections, isentered as a file in the main-frame computer. Studentsare invited to comment on it at any point. A single keystroke opens the screen for them to enter their remarks,and when they are finished, another key stroke willsend the remarks to Philo to add his own response.When Philo posts the comments in a second file, hisown remarks of criticism, guidance, encouragement orinstruction are entered right in the midst of the stu-dent's own, and when this entire exchange is posted apublic file of comments for all to see, they are accompa-nied with seven lines of text surrounding the line whichprompted the original remarks of the student, thuspreserving the context of the exchange. These routinesof text, comment, and instructional response are appli-cable at any point. Thus students can comment onstudent comments as well as upon the text itself. Hence,instruction occurs in relations of one to one, one tomany, and many to many.

Al though Philo's Workshop is currently used at SyracuseUniversity to give instruction in doing philosophy, itcan be used for any course in which there is text, inwhich comment and practice in discursive writing arecentral to the pedagogy.

The idea of Philo's Workshop took shape originallyduring the Spring of 1988. It was stimulated by twoconsiderations. There was, on the one hand, the sheerfun of learning to use Bit-net in exchanges with friendsat other Universities.

On the other hand, was the dismal realization thatmore and more, nei the.r graduate students nor facultymembers had had any experience in the kind of disci-plined thinking about educational topics that concep-tual analysis or the so-called linguistic turn might pro-vide. Much of what came to be the content of Philo'sWorkshop had been the central material for a populargraduate course taught at Syracuse in the mid-sixties,often with classes of more than one-hundred, some-times nearly two-hundred. But that course, in thatform, had not been taught with regularity for morethan a decade and there was currently no provision forstudents to gain experience of the sort that it used toprovide.

Bit-net was significant not simply because it was fun.


Using it also expanded my circle of philosophical con-versation-partners and raised the quality of that con-versation far above anything I could achieve at profes-sional meetings where thought is often fleeting, en-counters are momentary, responses must be verbaland immediate, and arguments, of necessity, cannot bepursued in depth. Besides, electronic mail seemed to"grab" my attention and draw forth response eventhough letters and other communiques often lay on mydesk unanswered for weeks. All of these matters, Ithought, might be altered if something like electronicmail could be used not simply for idle chatter, but fordeveloping serious argument. I began to think ofmyself as engaged in a kind of seminar with a professorat Cornell, others at UCLA, the University of Virginia,Rutgers and who knows to how manyothers this mightextend. Why not allow students the same pleasuresand advantages of engagement in argument, writing,with rapid exchange even while gaining some skills ofthought?

Returning to a course in ordinary language analysisseemed just the thing to do. First, because the rudi-ments were already lying around, but secondly, be-cause understanding what philosophy might contrib-ute to one's professional life was so rare a thing amongboth students and faculty colleagues, and because theirmisconceptions of philosophy were already so outra-geous, I felt that doing so could not possibly do anyharm.

So I asked for help in learning how students might begiven a text on which to comment and, in turn, receivecomment and directions from a skilled teacher in re-turn. The result was Philo's Workshop.

The thought was that the technology must become sosimple (as easy to learn as turning on the radio) thatactually doing philosophy would become the focus ofattention, not learning to use the computer, not acquir-ing any doctrine or any body of information. Anotherthought was that the comput9r must not be usedsimplyas substitute for text. Thai is, just sitting a t a ter-minal and reading is no gain over the older, still nobleand valuable technology of the book. The central activ-ity must be simply, response. And that response mustin turn, gain the response of an attentive teacher, andmistakes must be evident to all if skill was to be devel-

17

Computer mediated communication

oped. Hence, the routines of Philo's Workshop.

These pedagogical observations can be elaborated. Butdoing so would in itself require an extensive piece onthe nature of philosophy. It will suffice here to say thatthere is a single intellectual turn on which the skills ofanalysis are dependent. It is the shift from the materialto the formal mode of discourse. Thought becomesreflexive. The method is a method of examiningspeech. its syntax mostly, but also its social context andthe use of speech is itself a social act. Making this turnintellectually, not simply talking about it, is the singlemethodological requirement of the workshop, thesingle move that, taken by students, evokes Philo's per-mission for them to turn the discussion to whatevereducational topics they care to entertain.

Computer Conferencing

Barbara Florini *

The Adult Education Program at Syracuse University isamong the growing number of educational and otherinstitutional users exploiting computer-mediatedcommunication's (CMC) instructional potential. Spe-cifically, the Syracuse Adult Education Program hasbeen introducing computer conferencing technologyto better accommodate students with full-time jobs andother constraints that preclude routinely attending on-site classes at specified times. The Open University inthe United Kingdom, the Ontario Institute for the Studyof Education at the University of Toronto, and the NewSchool for Social Research in New York are just a fewother educational institutions using computer confer-encing for instructional delivery.

Like electronic mail, the prime attraction of computerconferencing is that widely dispersed people can com-municate quickly and asynchronously. That is, no oneneed be online at the same time because a centralcomputer, virtually always available, stores messagesuntil the intended recipients read and otherwise act onthem. Computer conferencing requires a programinstalled on a host computer. Conferencing partici-pants generally use microcomputers equipped withmodems and telecommunications software to connectwith this host.

Conceptually, computer cot fnencing is rather likeholding a traditional convention with both plenary andsimultaneous small group sessions, except that indi-viduals can participate in all sessions when personally

18

Whether this works and, if so,then how and to whatextent can not be judged by anyone. Students in the lastoffering of Philo's Workshop joined to write a genu-inely joint paper on the pedagogy of Philo's Workshop.Copies are available by Email, Bit-net, or in hard printtogether with an "Overview."

*Tom Green is a Professor of Cultural Foundations ofEducation and Curriculum at Syracuse University.

Further information may be obtained by completingand returning thecoupon on the last page of the jour-nal.

convenient. Each meeting session is held in its ownelectronic room or space. These are labeled by sessionname just like meeting rooms at traditional conven-tions, so you always know where you are. Because therecord of all previous discussion for each session is con-tinuously available, no participant is disadvantaged byjoining discussions in progress.

Educators can similarly use computer conferencing forholding courses and training sessions. Instructors canarrange the electronic space as they choose with fullclass sessions, small group work, and private commu-nication taking place at the convenience of instructorand students. Busy adult learners quickly appreciatethe flexibility computer conferencing introduces toclass participation. Even though students in the samecourse need not gather at a particular time and place,class members engage in group discussions and pri-vate conversations with individual classmates or theinstructor and, also, socialize amongst themselvesallpossible because computer conferencing facilitatesgroup participation asynchronously.

Students need only elementary computing skills forcomputer conferencing -based courses. In our experi-ence, students having very limited or no previouscomputer experience took about two hours to developthe skills needed for initial class participation. Studentsalready accustomed to electronic mail took rather lesstime because our conferencing program, "Participate,"has an effective built-in tutorial as well as good on-



screen help information. If necessary, instructors canprovide additional training during a course on an indi-vidual basis as needed.

Instructors, too, need little previous computing experi-ence in order to provide con ferencing-based courses.Although the various commercially available computerprograms differ in their particular features and bene-fits, they are generally no more difficult to use than thebetter word processing programs. Like learning to usethese, instructors can concentrate on learning the fewfeatures most commonly used and then acquire greatersophistication on an as-needed basis.

Through computer conferencing technology, instruc-tors enjoy appreciable control and flexibility whenarranging an electronic classroom space. Using manyadvanced technologies, like videotaped lessons, oftenrequires special planning as well as collaborative ef-forts with technical support personnel. Instructorsteaching computer conferencing-based courses, on theother hand, enjoy an autonomy similar to what theyenjoy in a site-bound classroom. Within the electronicspace, instructors can arrange numerous concurrentactivitieslarge and multiple small-group discussions,private message exchanges, and student socializingthat can take place throughout the course's term.

My own computing skills are largely self-taught andnot especially sophisticated. Yet I found it took littletime to become comfortable arranging electronic learn-ing spaces into various configurations suitable for in-struction. Once our computing services installed theconferencing program on its host compute;, there wasno need to call on their further expertise for help inrunning the program. Thus, instructors generally stillenjoy their traditional classroom freedom and flexibil-ity when teaching conferencing-based courses.

Computer conferencing has limitations as an instruc-tional delivery tool. It appears particularly appropri-ate for courses where discussion, rather than othermethodologies, plays a major role. Other limitationsare due to the state of the art, which continually changes.But there are also many unanswered questions regard-ing conferencing's suitability for various content typesand different teaching and learning styles, as well asquestions about using methodologies other than dis-cussion. For further consideration of these and other is-sues, see the Canadian Journal for Educational Com-munication, 16 (2) and Mindweave : Communication,Computers and Distance Education, R. Mason & A.Kaye, eds. 1989, Pergamon Press.

Nonetheless, computer conferencing already plays aneducational role that will grow significantly for tworeasons. First, the necessary combination of telecom-munications and computers is becoming more broadlyaccessible, and, second and most important, the educa-tional benefits resulting from the technology's use aregaining wider recognition through reports by instruc-tors and students. In summary, more educators areusing computer conferencing to deliver courses, man-age them, and consult individually with students;more adult learners are enjoying the convenience ofgoing to class online.

*Barbara Florini is an Associate Professor of AdultEducation and is affiliated with the Kellogg Project atSyracuse University.

Further information may be obtained by completingand returning the coupon on the last page of thejournal.

Social and Intellectual Exchange Through ElectronicCommunications in a Graduate CommunityBarbara Grabowski*

The use of electronic communications is increasing inour society today. As the months go by, we areexperiencing a proliferation of articles describing its usein a variety of settings. Just as one example, using thedescriptor "electronic mail" on the ERIC online databaseyeilds 175 entries alone. Most of these articles describetechnical aspects, suggestions for use, and procedures


for implementing various electronic communicationsystems in both industry and higher education. Mostindustries use electronic mail mostly for sending memosand setting their calendars. However, what is veryencouraging is the innovative and extensive use ofelectronic mail by Higher Education. Today, educationaluses include teleresearching, professional

419


communication, electronic editorship, national andinternational cooperative research, national andinternational forums, accessing up-to-the minuteprofessional news, and electronic publishing, (Scotto,1986).

The purpose of most of the above stated uses ofelecelectronic mail is to reduce problems caused bylarge geographic distances between colleagues.However, some very important effects from local usesof electronic mail can also be realized. Kuehn (1988)suggests that electronic mail can extend classroomdiscussions, increase the ease of evaluating studentassignments, increase the connectedness of studentsand faculty, and increase the social as well as anintellectual impact from this means of communication.Muffo (1987) also suggests that personalcommunications themselves can change due to theinclusion of computers,and particularly electronic mailin the curriculum, although Hellstein (1986) has noteda variety of patterns of use by different levels of users.

One of the problems we have observed at SyracuseUniversity is the need to increase opportunities forintellectual and social exchange among our students.This includes new students whc enter the programeach semester who need to adjust to a new environ-ment, establish new friends, adjust to a new pattern forstudying, and juggle time for classes and life events,and seasoned students who are at the dissertationstage. They may be experiencing feelings of social andintellectual isolation and need outlets to exchange ideas,seek advice, and explore new avenues for thinking.

Besides trying to establish relationships with otherstudents, we find that time interacting with faculty out-side of the classroom is very critical to the intellectualand social development of the student. Unfortunately,like most universities, faculty time is very limited.

Finally, we also believe that it is very important toencourage our students to go beyond the walls of theuniversity to establish a network of colleagues at vari-ous institutions. However, with the tightening of budg-ets, we do not have the same opportunities for bringingin experts to speak with our students.

Since it has been suggested that eletronic mail has thepotential for increasing the "connectedness" of studentsand faculty, we have attempted to create an environ-ment similar to Hiltz's (1986) virtual classroom wherethe "logical walls are extended way beyond the physi-cal walls of the classroom" that would enable us toaddress the problems listed above. During the firstsemester, students arc given a computer account with

20

minimal training on the use of electronic mail. Through-out the year, opportunities are provided for the stu-dents to communicate with their advisor, professors,other students within the department, and other na-tional and international scholars, practitioners andstudents. Information is disseminated on national andinternational electronic conferences, and at least oneinternational electronic conference is organized andoriginated out of our department each semester.

Observations throughout the year indicated that therewere several sub-populations of the larger group-those who were heavy users, light users, one-timeusers, and those who did not use it at all. In spite of theopportunities afforded the students, the use of this toolit appeared was, as yet, not widespread. In order toidentify the level of use by the students and faculty andto evaluate the perceived usefulness of electronic mailuse on the level of intellectual and social exchange andsatisfaction within our program, we mailed surveys to98 students who were currently enrolled. The principlefindings can be summarized as follow:

Sixty-eight students returned the questionnaire com-pleted, for a 69% return rate. Of those, 38 students wereusers, and 30 were non-users.

The purpose of the survey was to gain insights intofour areas: who were likely users, why were they usingemail, what factors influenced its non-use, and whatwas their perception of the social and intellectual im-pact of it.

Who were the likely users or non-users?

From the survey data, full time doctoral students with-out children are the most likely email users in ourgraduate school community. After analyzing the demo-graphic data of the users-only against the frequency ofuse, we found only one factor significant: full timestudents use email more frequently than part timestudents.

Why were they using email?

A high percentage of the users-only group send mail tofellow students, friends and faculty for the purpose ofexchanging informa tion, d iscussing of ideas and a fewernumber, to exchange social information.

What factors influenced its non-use?

For non-users, "No Need" (40%) was reported most asthe reason for non-use suprisingly, technical skill (13%)and convenience (14%) were not as important as weoriginally hypothesized.

What were the users'-only perception of the social


Computer mediated communication_

and intellectual impact of email?

From the data, there was very little indication of socialimpact, but a very high indication of intellectual impactamong users, with 23% of the respondents either agree-ing or strongly agreeing with the statement aboutsocial impact; whereas 73% agreed or strongly agreedwith the statement about the impact on their intellec-tual life. Seventy-nine percent also agreed or stronglyagreed that email was worth the effort; 63% felt it didnot disrupt their life with information overload; and68% felt that the notes were worth reading.

The most important information from this survey wasthe perception of electronic mail as a medium for intel-lectual rather than for social exchange. It will be veryinteresting to track the changes over time as electronicmail becomes just another part of the graduate schoolculture.

ReferencesHellerman, L. (1986). "Electronic Messaging and Con-ferencing with an Emphasis on Social Use: An Ex-ploratory Study." ED 277 062.

Hiltz, S. (1986). "The 'Virtual Classroom: Using Com-

puter-mediated Communication for University Teach-ing." Journal of Communication. 36 (2), pp.95-104.

Kuehn, S. (1988). "DiscoveringAll the Available Meansfor Computer Assisted Instruction: Adapting Avail-able University Facilities for the Small to Medium-Sized Course." ED 294 284.

Muffo, J. and Conner, M. (1987). "Unintended/Unex-pected Outcomes of Computer Usage in Higher Edu-cation." AIR Annual form Paper. ED 293 444.

Slatta, R. W. (1986). "Telecommunications for theHumanities and Social Sciences." Microcomputers forInformation Management. 3(2), pp. 91-110.

*Barbara Grabowski is an Associate Professor ofInstructional Design, Development and Evaluation andthe Director of the Research Lab for Interactive Learningat Syracuse University.

Further information may be obtained by completingand returning the coupon on the last page of the journal.

Hypertext and its contribution to CMC

Alex Romiszowski *

"Collaborative creativity" is one of the tenets of thebelief-structure of many Hypertext enthusiasts. In-deed, one particularly fruitful area of application forhypertext systems has turned out to be the collabora-tive authoring of literature (often fiction). The collabo-rative annotation of student papers byboth faculty andstudents is also something that many proponents ofhypertext advocate and (occasionally) practice. One ofthe more long-lived working hypertext environmentsIntermedia at Brown University - was specifically de-

signed to support this sort of collaborative educationalactivity.

However, current hypertext systems which can sup-port this type of activity effectively are large, purposebuilt systems, which are costly and not easily compat-ible across different computer systems. Our currentprojects ate based on the concept of utilizing, as muchas is possible, what already exists and is established in


significant quantity in the educational marketplace. Atthis point in time (in USA universities at any rate) theMS-DOS personal computer has the largest marketshare followed by the Macintosh. Also, many existinge-mail systems operate as networks of existing generalpurpose personal computers. When used for e-mail,these computers are called on to act simply as dumbterminals linked to the mainframe that supports thecommunications system. However, it is possible tomake use of the presence of local power and memorystorage to download incoming mail messages to bestored directly on disc. It should be possible to adapt anexisting pc-based hypertext environment so that newmessages can not only be stored in appropriate subdi-visions of the basic structure one creates, but can also befreely cross referenced to other relevant messages. Weare investigating the applicability of some currentlyavailable and relatively cheap hypertext applicationspackages for this purpose.

21

Computer mediated communication--

A recent experiment involved the use of a networkedcommunication space, set up in Hypercard and run-ning on a Macintosh cluster. Each of the participantsin the CMC seminar has a stack of pre-prepared cards,with scrolling text windows, thus giving unlimitedwriting space, but dividing the text into "chunks", sothat each separate issue/topic in the discussion has itsown card. These cards can be accessed by all the par-ticipants, who can read them, add small annotationsand make links to cards in their own stack. As thediscussion progresses, a cross-referenced network ofdocuments is created. This facilitates the review of thediscussion by a new participant or by someone whohas not logged on for some time. It also ensures thatnew comments are linked to earlier ones on the sametopic, as well as making it very easy to review all thecontributions of any one participant.

We are currently using this networked system pncampus, in an experiment which is a model for a sys-tem that could in future be accessed over telecommu-nication links from any distance. For the time beingwe are more concerned with investigating the value ofsuch a structured communication system as com-pared to other alterna fives and have not addressed thequestion of making it widely available. As the systemis conceived as an alternative to e-mail or other readilyavailable CMC systems, we are concentrating on thecomparison of these alternatives from the user's view-point. During October/December 1989, we usedseveral alternative structured communication systemsincluding the system just described and a file-sharingsystem in which all participants comment on a posi-tion paper in the same file, but do so by inserting theircomments among other related comments (somewhatlike Philo's workshop). This can be implemented onexisting mainframe systems, in our case in CMS.

So far, we have the results of a small pilot project, fromwhich conclusive findings cannot be drawn. How-ever, as a project to guide future work in the design ofCMC seminar methods, it has served to at least sug-gest that we are on the right lines in some respects andmaybe not so in others.

22

Firstly, it has confirmed our conviction that CMC canoffer very real benefits in an instructional role, as wellas its already well proven applications in a conversa-tional/social role. It can augment both the quantityand the quality of participant interaction in a seminar-like situation, as compared to what is typically ob-tained in practice in face-to-face seminars. Further-more, it can accomplish this in a distance-educationsystem.

Secondly, it has confirmed our conviction that carefuldesign of the seminar structure and appropriate initialguidance/feedback, can considerably reduce theburden of moderation, thus enabling one moderatorto handle an economically large group of students.

Thirdly, it has confirmed our conviction that quitesimple approaches to structuring the incoming mes-sages offer considerable benefits over the chronologi-cally sequenced stream of information that resultswhen simple e-mail systems are used for instructionalCMC.

Lastly, the hypertext. approach requires further studyto identify just how and where (or indeed whether) itmay be beneficial as an aid to structural thinking andcommunication. At the time of writing, two furtherexperiments are in operation, investigating specificaspects of the use of hypertext environments for in-structional purposes. The results of this work will bediscussed in the Hypertext/Hypermedia Workshop,to be held at Syracuse University on May 18 and 19.

*Alex Romiszowski is a Professor of InstructionalDesign, Development and Evaluation and the Directorof the Training Systems Institute at Syracuse Univer-sity.

Firther information on this research may be obtainedby completing and returning the coupon on the lastpage of this journal.


Job-AidsAlex Romiszowski

MAP#1 JOB-AIDS: THE CONCEPT

Introduction The job-aids section of this journal will provide you with handy reference material that should be

of permanent use to you when planning, preparing, delivering or evaluating instruction. In this

first job-aids section, we define the concept of job-aids, analyze examples of several types of job-aids, discuss the uses of job-aids in instruction and provide you with some sample job-aids.

Job-Aids:Definition

Job-aids, or better, "job-performance-aids," are any form of reference material or tool,that are:

1. available and usable on-the-job, and2. enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the job performer, by3. reducing the performer's reliance on previously learned skills or knowledge.

Note that our definition includes memory-enhancing materials (such as reference manu-als) and thinking enhancing tools (e.g., pocket calculators), but excludes perception,strength or dexterity enhancing tools (e.g., stethoscopes, pliers, torque wrenches).

Uses ofJob-Aids

The "bottom-line" reason for the use of job-aids is to improve the reliability of job-per-formance1) by reducing the mental load of facts and procedures to be memorized, or2) by reducing the level of skill (therefore, the amount of practice) required to achieve theexpected job performance standards.

The "intern it.-diate" results of using job-aids include:1. the simplification of instruction, by eliminating much drill-and-practice ofprocedures that no longer need to be memorized, or in some cases-2. the total elimination of the need for instruction in specific aspects of the job.

Value ofJob-Aids

Many organizations that have incorporated the use of well-designed job-aids throughouttheir operations have achieved:

1. significant improvements in job-performance and the resultant productivity;2. significant reductions in training time and costs (savings in excess of 50% haveoften been reported).

Example 1:InformationMaps

The most commonly used form of job-aid is a reference manual. Unfortunately, themajority of manuals are very poorly designed and written. Consequently they do notimprove peg formance or reduce the need for prior training. The INFORMATION MAP-PING approach is a particularly powerful methodology for the design of referencemanuals that really work as job-aids.

The manual is divided into units, called MAPS. Each map is designed for a specificpurpose and is so organized that the reader can immediately identify relevant informa-tion and skip over any information not required at that moment.

The first few pages of this article are examples of information maps. However, to illus-trate all the aspects of the methodology, several hundred maps (or a 2-day workshop wecan organize) are necessary.

Volume 1 (1) Spring 1990

ChecklistExample 2:

Checklists are useful to reduce one's reliance on memory and to ensure compliance withmulti-step procedures.

A classic example of the use of checklists is in aircraft maintenance, where every me-chanic must check off every step of the maintenance procedure performed, on a printedchecklist, so as to eliminate the possibility of forgetting to do anything. This is an ex-ample of a checklist used as a MEMORY-AID.

Figure 3, at the end of this article, is an example of a checklist used as a DECISION-MAKING AID. Note that the user must still assess a series of factors in the situation(course) being analyzed, but the checklist:

1. ensures that all the relevant factors are considered (memory aid) and2. prompts the user as to the weighting to give to each of t' e factors in the finaldecision, and why to give this weighting (decision-making aid).

Example 3: Flow-charts are graphical representations of a process or procedure.Flow-Charts They are particular, useful when the procedure involves several alternative sub-proce-or Algorithms dures.

Figures 1 and 2 are examples of flow-charts laid out in a binary (or yes/no) decision-making format. This format, borrowed from computer science, is called "algorithmic".A characteristic of true algorithms is that they can be applied to solve any problem of theclass for which they are designed.

Example 4:Decision Tables

An alternative way of presenting a job-aid for a complex decision-making task is in theform of a decision-table. Compare the use of this table , with the original prose versionof the instructions (see Example 4 in MAP#3).

Choice of Ordering Method(In a stock Control System)

Condition 1 2 3 4 51

1. Is it class A? Y N - N2. Usage <5pLa? N3. Use >200p/ - Y - - N4. Is it class C? - N - Y N

Actions:

A: Schedule orderingB: Base stock controlC: Stock control

Example 5: The if-then chart is another way of representing a decision-making process. It is oftenIf-then Charts or less algorithmic in its nature than a decision-table.Rule-Sets Some of the rules may involve judgment, or the weighing up of probabilities, on the part

of the user. Map 2 of this article is an example of an if-then chart.

Example 6:Expert Systems

24

An expert system is computer-based software that is designed to assist in complexdecision-making. It embodies the expertise of outstanding decision-makers in thedomain for which it is designed, usually in the form of a large number of rules that raustbe taken into consideration when arriving at a "best" decision. The checking-out of thislong list of rules is done by the expert system much faster and more reliably then couldbe done by a human being, even if supported by a printed job-aid. This latter assertion is,of course, only true when the decision-making process is quite complex. The checklist inFigure 3 is in fact derived from the same logic as is embodied in a computer-based expertsystem (CBT Analyst-Park Row Software). In this case, the logic is simple enough tomake the paper-based job-aid quite competitive.

2?Instructional Developmetus

START Wait for opponent (X) to make his first move.

Has X occLpied centre square? Has X occupied a corner?

Place 0 in any cornerWait for X to move

Does X have 2 crosses in a lineF-4111" with the third square vacant?

IMe here more hen 2 recent squares !eV

4 No

No

Place 0 in fro centre. ts,Wart for X to move.

No

X must have occupied the middle of a side.Place 0 In either of the two corners to X.Wart for X to move.

Yes

Does X have 2 crosses in a line, with thethird square vacant?

Yes

Is there an X h he centre/

No

aiPlace 0 anywhere you Ike.Wan for X to move.

Yes

'Place 0 in any vacantcorner Wan for X to move.

No

FIGURE 1: A flowchart to helpyou never lose a game of TIC-TAC-TOE.

FIGURE 2: A decision treefrom a flowchart job aid, Loassist in the completion of taxreturns (U.K. 1967).

Yes

iYes

1.Prevent X from winning by placing 0in third square. Wart for X to move.

Place 0 in any square adjacentto the square in which X has lustplayed. Wan for X to move

lean you get throe Cis in a line?

Yes

Good Make the winning move.

Me here any vacant squares,

Yes

Is Market Valuegreater thanCost Price?

111

Is Selling Pricegreater thanCost Price?

Yes

NenmierseTax charged Tax chargedon Selling on SellingPrice less the Price lessMarket Value, the Costless Price, lessExpenses. Expenses.411=4 all

Volume I (I)Spring 1990

START.1111111Is Selling Pricegreater thanMarket Value?

Yes

No TaxeitherchargedOrallowed.

Yen

he game is over and is drawn

Is Market Valuegreater thanCost Price?

Yes

Is Selling Pricegreater thanCost Price?

Tax allowedon CostPrice lessthe SellingPrice, plusExpenses.

No

Tax allowedon MarketValue lessthe SellingPrice, lessExpenses.411Iiik

25

Question

I L Does this coursecurrently exist insome form?

r-

I 2. Is this coursecurrently in selfstudy format?

L

-

j 3. How effective isI the current course?

Response Score

YesNo(go to question 4)

0

YesNo

+10

Very EffectiveModerately EffectiveSomewhat EffectiveNot Effective

-1

00

+1

II 4. What is the pro-

jected lifetime ofL the course year?

5. What is the annualstudent enroll-ment?

6. What is the esti-mated duration ofthe course inhours?

Under 2 years -1

2-5 years +1

Over 5 years +5

Under 100/yr......and over 5 years +1

...but under 5 years 0100-999/yr...

...and over 5 years +2...but under 5 years +1

Over 1000/yr +5

+1Less than 4 hrs.4-8 hrs. 0

8-16 hrs. 0

Over 16 hrs. +1

-------------7. How much of the Less than 5% per yr. +1

course will be Between 5-25% per yr. 0revised annually? Greater than 25% per yr. +1

8. How important ison-the-job deliveryof the training?

9. Does this course..tt_spend upon hardto find instructors?

---1Very important +2Somewhat important 0Not important 0

Yes +1

No 0

(Figure 3)

Explanation

If a course exists in some form, CBTdevelopment time/cost will be reduced.Developing a new course in CBT forminvolves both curriculum and CBT devel-opment.

A self study course is more suitable forCBT because it has already been designedfor individualized instruction.

CBT is likely to improve the effectivenessof an existing course due to individuali-zation, feedback and interactivity.

The longer the projected course lifetime,the greater the payback for CBT.

The number of students affects thefeasibility of CBT.

The course duration determines thesuitability of CBT; extremely brief andlong courses are more suitable for CBT.

The amount of revision affects the CBTfeasiL. 4. very small or very largeamount of revision favors CBT.

CBT makes highly effective on-the-jobtraining possible.

I An important benefit of CBT is that it canI compensate for unavailable instructors.

(continued next page)

26 2 9 Instructional Developments

Question Response Score Explanation

10. Does this courseinvolve hands-onactivities witheqiupment or soft-ware?

+10

711 Does this courseinvolve a lot ofhuman interaction?

YesNo

-20

12. Does this courseteach critical job Yes +1skills of knowl- No 0edge?

13. Do the students inthis course have awide variation inbackground orexperience?

YesNo

+10

14. How important is Very important +1standardization of Somewhat important 0training? Not important 0

15. Is the student loadin this course lik?.lyto fluctuate overtime?

YesNo

+10

16. How important is Very important +1tracking of Somewhat important 0student progress Not important 0

Conclusion:

Scores from -9 to 0

Total score

Simulations can be used to provideeffective hands-on activities.

Courses that involve a high degree ofhuman interaction are not well suited forCBT.

Because of the effectiveness of CBT, it isespecially appropriate for critical courses.

CBT provides individualized instructionwhich is especially suited to wide studentvariety.

CBT can provide highly uniformtraining.

CBT can easily accomodate fluctuationsI in student loads.

L

CBT makes it easy to track student prog-ress/performance.

This course is not a candidate for CBT. _ J

1

Scores from 1 to 10 This course is a possible candidate for CBT.

Scores from 11 to 20 This course is a good candidate for CBT.L _

I Scores from 21 to 30 This course is an excellent candidate for CBT.

Volume 1 (1) Spring 1990 27

MAP #2 DECIDING WHEN TO USE JOB-AIDS (AND WHAT TYPE)

Introduction

If-Then Chart

18

As with the design of instruction, the design of job-aids should commence with an analysis of thespecific task or tasks that are to be performed on the job. The following rule-set is a simplifiedrepresentation of the decision-making process that is involved in this analysis.

IF... THEN ...

1. The task can be but cut altogether,or fully auto-mated, with reasonable effort/expense.

Do not consider either job-aids or instruction. Gofor more permanent Job Redesign" solutions.

2. The task is so simple, or c m be simplified, so thatno explanation or help is required to perform cor-rectly.

3. A set of simple, non-technical instructions aresufficient to ensure adquate performance.

Job-aids are not necessary. Simply performing thetask is enough to develop the necessary skills.

Consider a simple checklist of dos and don'ts as amemory aid.

4. Technical terminology, concepts and explana-tions, or the application of general principles, arerequired to ensure adequate performance.

Some instruction will be necessary to teach thebasics. Then a job-aid may be used to aid memory.

5. The task is basically linear, or with few branches A simple checklist or well-designed proseleading to only a few (two or three) alternative ment should be adequate as job-aids.outcomes.

6. The task involves the application of a few deci-sion rules, over and over again, in a cyclic or "itera-tive" set of "loops".

7. The task involves the application of a number ofrules in combination in order to arrive at a correctdecision.

8. The task involves the application of a few,relatively independent rules, which involve theweighting of a decision either in favor or againsta certain outcome or action.

9. The task involves the application of a numberof complex rules that involve judgement, may beinterrelated, and are based on experience ofsimilar cases .

10. The task is complex, involving a combinationof the conditions outlined above in rules 6,7,8and 9, and human experts are available to beinterviewed /observed exhaustively.

11. The ,ob conditions or context do not allowreference to job-aids (e.g., poor light, literacy,time pressure, visual load of task, loss of face).

12. The conditions or context of the job make itrelatively expensive to develop or use job-aids(few persons involved, frequency of task, itsimportance, cost of experts).

state-

An algorithmic flow-chart representation of theprocedure is an effective and economical way ofpresenting a job-aid (see Figure 1).

A "decision tree" flow-chart, or a decision table areeffective and economical ways of presenting a job-aid (see Figure 2).

A "weighted checklist" or questionnaire may beused. The answering of the questions is followedby the computation of the final weighting (seefigure').

Prior instruction in the basics and some organ-ized practice opportunities are required. Job-aidsmay be unnecessary but are useful as memoryaids. This map (Map #2) is a typical example.

Computer-based "expert systems" are indicatedas the most appropriate form of job-aid, on thegrounds of both complexity of the expertiseinvolved, and the ease of use of the job-aid.

Reconsider the technical reasons for using a job-aid, in the light of the practical usage factors thatyou have identified.

Reconsider the technical reasons for using a job-aid in the light of these economic factors of job-aid development and use.


MAP #3 ANALYSIS OF SOME ASPECTS OF JOB -AIDS

Introduction Space here is too limited to give a full set of guidelines to the design, development and use of job-aids. We present just a few problem examples, which illustrate some aspects of the topic.

Example 1:When does itmake sense touse job-aids

Study the algorithm for TIC-TAC-TOE, presented in Figure 1. Using this as a job-aidguarantees that you will never lose a game (unless of course you made an error infollowing the algorithm).

However, your opponent would consider that you have an unfair advantage. So yougive a copy to the opponent. Now, if you both use the job-aid correctly, all games willend in a draw. Is there any point left in the game?A more appropriate use of such a flow-chart might be as an instructional aid, in thetraining of your TIC-TAC-TOE team, so that your players internalize the algorithm. Yourteam then has an advantage, which would not be considered unfair.

Example 2: Study the decision tree presented in Figure 2. This is part of a manual developed in 1967,The power of all in flow-chart form, to help British taxpayers to prepare their income tax returns. Thiswell designed is a classic application for job-aids, in preference to instruction. How frequently do youjob-aids perform the task of completing your income tax return? How stable is the information?

Does it make sense for anyone to learn this? Since 1967, in Britain, efficient job-aids havebeen developed and distributed, to help the public do such izsks correctly and fast.

Compare the job-aid in Figure 2 with the original prose leaflet. Part of this leaflet read asfollows.

"(i) If the asset consists of stocks or shares which have values quoted on a stock exchange (see alsoparagraph G below), or unit trust units whose values are regularly quoted, the gain or loss (subject;to expenses) accruing after 6 April 1965, is the difference between the amount you received ondisposal and the market value on 6 April 1965, except that in the case of a gain where the actualcost of the asset was higher than the value at 6 April 1965, the chargeable gain is the excess of theamount you received on disposal over the original cost or acquisition price; and in the case of aloss, where the actual cost of the asset was lower than the value at 6 April 1985, the allowable lossis the excess of the original cost or acquisition price over the amount received on disposal.If the substitution of original cost for the value at 6 April 1965, turns a gain into a loss, or a loss intoa gain, there is, for the purposes of tax, no chargeable gain or allowable loss."

Here are a couple of typical cases for you to solve. Attempt case 1 by reference to theleaflet above. Then attempt case 2 by reference to Figure 2. Compare your success andthe time and effort it cost you.

Case 1 Mr. Jones bought some shares in 1964 for $2,000On 6 April 1965 their market value was $2,500Later in 1965 he sold these shares for $2,300His expenses came to $50Problem: What is Mr Jones's Tax Liability?

Case 2 Mr. Smith bought some shares in 1964 for $75On 6 April 1%5 their market value was $85Later in 1965 he sold these shares for $65His expenses came to $5Problem: What is Mr Smith's tax position?

Volume 1 ( I) Spring 1990:3

29

Example 3:When shouldthe job-aid becomputer-based

Study the "weighted checklist" presented in Figure 3. This was developed by one of theSchool of Education's students (Hsi Hsien Chang, IDD&E) by analyzing the decision-making logic built into a commercially available "expert system" that is designed to assistthe user in deciding whether, and how to use, Computer-Based-Training (CBT) in a givencourse (The CBT Analyst, Park Row Software, 1986). Figure 3 is equivalent to one of thefive sections of the computer-based job-aid (Selecting Courses for CBT). The software itselfis based on some of the chapters of the book "Computer Based Training" (G. Kearsley,Addison-Wesley, 1984).In comparative tests, we have shown that using the paper-based version is, in this case, asfast and as accurate as using the computer-based version. However, as the complexity ofthe decision-making process increases, there is a growing advantage, both in speed andaccuracy, for computer-based versions.

Example 4:When to usedecision table

Problems foryour consid-eration:1) Presentationof job-aids

2) Computerstorage

30

Study the decision table, presened in Map #1 as part of Example 4. By itself, this tablemay be meaningless. It needs a sentence or two to establish the context of the task. Thefirst two sentences of the prose "instructions" which follow, establish this context. The restis a prose version of the instructions, from which the decision table in Map #1 was devel-oped. Can you see how the table was developed from the prose? Are you certain that thedecision table is correct?

THE CHOICE OF ORDERING METHOD

In order to reduce the capital tie-up in stocks, and also to improve the reliability of supply, it has beendecided to introduce new rules for the choice of ordering method, for different classes of stock.Whether to stock an item or not, will still be regulated by SPI No 178.The rules for the choice of ordering method for stocked items, will in future, be as follows:

1) Schedule ordering based on the best possible forecast of future requirements - Will be used infuture for all Class A (Pareto Analysis) items, for which the annual usage ismore than 4 per year,. and for Class B items with an annual usage of over 200per year.

2) Base Stock Control will be used for Class A and B items with an annual usage of less than 5 partsper year and for Class C items with the same provision requirement.

3) Stock Control based on our previously universal method of fixed re-order levels - will onlybe used for Class C items with a usage of more than 4 per year.

In fact, the table was developed by following 5 stages of design and simplification, whichensure that the table is not only correct, but is the simplest possible presentation of thetask. If you would like a detailed set of instructions on the design and development ofsuch decision tables, please write to us.

Look again at the flow-charts presented in Figures land 2. Now that we know the struc-ture of the task in each of these cases, consider whether the flow-chart is the most conven-ient and effective way of presenting the information to the user . Try to redesign these twojob aids. Can you think of some even clearer and simpler ways of constructing the job-aids? Send us your solutions. We will publish the best ones received.

Consider all the examples presented in this article, together with other examples of job-aids that you might know. When does it make sense, in your opinion, to use a computeras a job-aid delivery tool and when does it make more sense to use printed material? Tryto formulate your own IF-THEN table of rules that would help you decide which way togo. We will analyse all the tables received and publish a synthesis of your ideas, as a job-


THE TRAINING SYSTEMS INSTITUTE: RECENT PROJECTS

The Training Systems Institute (TSI) is affiliated with the Area of Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation.

TS! provides services in all aspects of educational design, development, and evaluation to business, industry, government, allied health,human services, and education. Projects may involve training needs assessment, design, development, and delivery of trainingprograms, development of instructional materials, evaluation studies, planning for new technologies, organization development, andthe development of human resources specialists.

Projects are executed in three ways:

1. TSI executes all project activities under contract to the client organization.2. TSI acts as a knowledge and technology consultant, working in partnership with the client's staff.3. TSI places a graduate student intern in the client organization, sharing supervision of the intern with the client.

Recent projects in the first category have included:- the development of computer-based instruction and interactive video scripts for the internal training needs of a financial institution;- the design, development and delivery of a job-related training system, for human resource development specialiststhis training isdelivered largely by distance education, throughout New York State.

In the second category, we have recently:- worked with a utilities company to assist their in-house personnel in the design and development of an interactive-video-disc on thetopic of safety procedures in nuclear power plants;- worked with a simulator-design company on the training of military personnel in the skills of courseware authoringit was necessaryto teach pedagogically sound design methodology, as well as the skills of utilization of the specific courseware authoring system thathad been installed.

The third category, internships, is very flexible. For example:we regularly place instructional design, development and evaluation graduate students in full-time internships, for a period of 2 to 4

monthsregular client-companies include McDonnell Douglas, Kodak, Motorola, Arthur Andersen, Apple Computer and many oth-ers.we also place students on a part-time basis, one or two days per week typically, in local companies. This allows just the correct inten-

sity of work on a given project while guaranteeing closer supervision of progress by Syracuse University faculty. Recent part-time in-ternees have developed: safety training for Buckbee Mears, Cortland; supervisory training for the Carrier Corporation; teacher-educa-tion materials for WCNY; computer-based instruction for management development at the MONY Corporation; health-related train-ing for the Red Cross, Blue Cross and local Syracuse hospitals.

Further information may be obtained by completing and returning both sides of the coupon below.

L

To evaluate the materials in this journal edition and/or to request additional information, please completeand return the coupon below and mail to:

INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENTSSyracuse University364 Huntington Hall

Syracuse, NY 13244-2340Telephone (315) 443-3702

FAX (315) 443-5732

Name

Address

City State

Zip Country

Please evaluate the sections in this issue on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) in terms of their. value/interest to you.Feature articles Developments and innovations

Research reviews job-Aids

Comments:

What other sections/themes would you like to see addressed in future issues?

Volume 1(1) Spring 1990el

(over)

31

INDONESIA SEEKS THE UPGRADING OF HIGHER EDUCATION

In 1985 the Government of Indonesia embarked on an ambitious program for upgrading the quality of higher edu-cation in the country. A loan agreement with the World Bank permitted the establishing of 16 Inter-University Centers.These centers which have become operational since 1987 are established to coordinate their scarce resources for the purposesof: 1) improving the quality of graduate study programs in various fields of study and to increase its output; 2) increasingthen imber of qualified and trained academic staff; 3) stimulating research and development activities in specific fields; and4) dissemination of information on new concepts, methodologies and applications arising from research in Indonesia orelsewhere.

The responsibility and the function of 15 of these centers focuses on self-improvement and development in a specificdiscipline or a field of inquiry (Life Science, Engineering Science, Bio-Sciences, Social Studies and Economic Studies). The16th center, the Inter-University Center for Improvement and Development of Instructional Activities (IUC-IDIA), on theother hand, is involved with the upgrading of instructional capabilities across all the disciplines and fields of study.

IUC-IDIA has been mandated to assist in improving the higher education instructional environment by attemptingto redesign and develop instructional materials, strategies, methods, and techniques; by assisting in the development oflearning resource centers; and through enhancing the development of educational technology as a field of study and as aprofession.

The IUC-IDIA task is formidable and odds are not in favor of change. The innovational objectives of IUC-IDIA aresubject to all of the usual constraints and resistance that the status quo can muster. Notwithstanding, IUC-IDIA has set forthconsiderable effort toward the attainment of its objectives by initiating and/or supporting staff/faculty development andby developing large quantities of instructional materials.

In improving the educational resources, human and otherwise, IUC-IDIA has enlisted the assistance of other insti-tutions in conducting workshops, short courses, conferences, seminars, internship and degree programs in Indonesia andabroad. Syracuse University has lent its support to these efforts by participating in IUC-I DIA initiated activities in US andin Indonesia and by hosting a number of students seeking masters and doctoral degrees in the Division of EducationalDevelopment, Counseling and Administrative Studies (EDCAS).

EDCAS, as part of its International R & D activities, has also been involved in designing and implementing nine in-dividualized educational programs for about forty IUC-IDIA sponsored interns. Some of these programs have beendesigned for participation by only one intern. Others have involved as many as twelve individuals who participated in theprojects from various disciplines and fields of study such as medicine,dentistry, mathematics, animal husbandry, literature,education, economics, fishery, food and nutrition, mechanical engineering, etc.

The general topics of the internship projects include information science; management of media production;curriculum development; management of distance education; textbook writing; instructional design, development andevaluation; human resource development; and project management.

In the process of the development and implementation of various components of each project, EDCAS has been suc-cessful in enlisting and receiving full campus-wide support as well as that of various departments in about 15 universitiesand from a number of commercial agencies throughout the country.

P I am interested in obtaining further information on:

CMC: Philo's Workshop (Green)CMC: Computer Conferencing (Florini)CMC: Social and Intellectual Exchange ThroughElectronic Communication in aGraduate Community (Grabowski)CMC: Hypertext and its Contribution toCMC (Romiszowski)CMC: Job-Aids

Center for Instructional Development (CID)International R&D ActivitiesResearch Lab for Interactive LearningSummer InstituteTraining Systems Institute (TSI)Other

I wish to receive a copy(ies) of the following working paper(s). See page 14 for the list of titles and costs. Please includepayment with your order.

Number Title Ouantity

_J

32 Instructional Developments35

SUMMER INSTITUTE FOR TRAINING TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS

These two-day workshops will present innovations which are on the cutting edge oftechnology applications and education.

SESSION 1: MAY 18-19

Hypertext/HypermediaInstructor: Alexander Romiszowski, Syracuse UniversityHypermedia can be thought of as an integration of all available information on a topic, in whatever media into one network ofinterrelated and cross-referenced documents, which may accessed by the user in an infinite variety of ways.Two important questions will be addressed concerning this technology:What specific applications of Hypertext/Hypermedia "make sense" in education and training?Do we have a powerful new solution to real and important problems, or merely an invention looking for an application?Much of the work will be through analyzing existing examples of Hyper-documents and originating a document.Effective International ConsultingInstructor: David Giltrow, Communications Consultants Cooperative InternationalInternational consulting in instructional communication and technology is increasing as countries appreciate the roles whichcommunication, training and instructional development play in their overall educational plans. Effective international consultingrequires certain skills, practical knowledge, and especially attitudes which are not always obvious when working in familiardomestic settings. This workshop covers some of these essential international consulting tools and provides participants theopportunity to share questions and experiences with other professionals hoping to broaden the scope of their consulting work.

SESSION 2: JUNE 1-2

Computer-Based Interactive Video: Design and EvaluationInstructor: Karen Lee Jost, Syracuse UniversityWhen designing or evaluating computer-based interactive video, many factors should be considered. it is also important to focuson how these factors may interact and effect learner comprehension of the presentation.This workshop will explore the following factors and how they influence the effectiveness of CBIV: learner variables; content;instructional design; message design; computer attributes; video attributes; and environmental considerations.Instructional Designs for Individual DifferencesInstructor: David Jonassen, University of Colorado at DenverThis workshop will examine the range of individual differences including: aptitudes; cognitive styles; learning styles; andpersonality variables. It will also examine how individual differences interact with instructional treatments and how to adaptinstruction to accommodate individual differences. Students will assess their personal learning styles, including aptitude (structureof the intellect), cognitive styles (field articulation, conceptual style, leveling-sharpening), learning styles and personality (locus ofcontrol, intraversion) and others.

SESSION 3: JUNE 29-30

The Integrative Learning System: Implications for Corporate Change Through Training Redesign In Business, Schools,and Government AgenciesInstructor: Laurence Martel, Syracuse UniversityThis workshop will include hands-on development of techniques which have been successfully demonstrated in both internationalcorporations and school districts. The presentation will include: accelerated learning, learning styles, guided imagery, and coopera-tive learning. Case studies will include government sponsored programs in adult occupational and vocational training. In addition,this workshop will show how learning companies are created.Hypercard: Designing and Authoring Innovative InstructionInstructor: Kyle Peck, The Pennsylvania State UniversityThis workshop teaches designers of CAI to use hypercard to produce innovative instruction employing text, graphics, soundresources and animation. Participants will learn to use Hypertalk scripting to gather data on student and lesson performance, andhow to transport this data to spreadsheets and statistical packages for analysis. Instructional software developed in Hypercard byPenn State students and several "tricks" learned during the process will be shared.

1

Further information on the Summer Institute Sessions may be obtained by completing and returning the coupon.

k) 0

INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENTSSyracuse University364 Huntington HallSyracuse, NY 13244-3702

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDSYRACUSE

UNIVERSITYSYRACUSE. NEW YORK

InstructionalDevelopments

A Journal of the School of Education at Syracuse UniversitySummer 1990 Volume 1, Number 2

Readers' Column

Feature Articles

Some Thoughts On Improving Rob Branch

Instruction

Course-Level Academic Processesas Indicators of the Quality ofUndergraduate College Education

Research Reviews

Structural Communication:A Forgotten Application ofCognitive Theory of Instruction

Developments and Innovations

Interpersonal Skills: CriticalAttributes for InstructionalDevelopers

John Braxton

Wende PuschElise Slee

Ruth CurtisDarler, 3 Nestor

Planning for Success: College Lynda Hanrahan

Distance Education Programs

Job-Aids Alex Romiszowski

school of educationSYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

MI


Editorial BoardArthur BlumbergJohn CentraRobert DiamondPhil DoughtyDon ElyRoger HiemstraPaul Pedersen




Technical AssistanceCathy LaddPau lina Pannen


INSTRUCTIONALDEVELOPMEN1Sis a publication of theSchool of Education atSyracuse University.



13244-2340(315) 443-3702FAX (315) 443-5732


As this second edition of INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS is beingsent to the printer it is gratifying to note that your letters, telephone calls andpersonal comments show that the first issue of the journal has been well received.We are delighted, encouraged and appreciate the attention. We have also had somequeries about the journal, necessitating some explanation. The journal is producedand edited in the Division of Educational Development, Counseling and Admin-istrative Studies (EDCAS) in the School of Education at Syracuse University.EDCAS is comprised of five graduate programs: Adult Education, CounselorEducation, Educational Administration, Higher Education and Instructional Design,Development and Evaluation.

The intended audience includes educators and trainers working in bothpublic and private organizations locally, nationally and internationally. Thejournal is circulated to a mailing list of individuals concerned with various aspectsof instruction - its design, development, management and delivery as well as evalu-ation and basic research. If you would like to be on our mailing list, please provideus with your name and address.

Although the bulk of the journal is written by Syracuse University faculty,graduate students and alumni, we hope to include invited contributions. We alsoencourage correspondence, and will publish significant, but short contributions tothe debate on any subjects dealt with in the journal.

In the second issue of the journal we have added another section - thereaders' column to accomodate dialogue. In this issue Arthur Blumberg's rejoinderto John Centra's article "Is There a Scientific Basis for Effective Teaching?" andJohn's reply, are published. We hope that this forum will be more extensively usedin the future.

The feature articles section presents an essay by Rob Branch on why thetask of improving instruction and instructional media is complex. He argues thatimproving instruction occurs when three complex entities of content, learner andteacher are actively involved. This essay is followed by John Braxton's articlewhere the level of understanding of course content required by students in course-level academic processes is advanced as an approach to the definition of quality inundergraduate education.

In the research reviews section, Wende Pusch and Elisa Slee have set fortha discussion on and an examination of the key points of cognitive psychology, andhow it relates to learning. They have presented structural communication asmethodology which utilizes principles of cognitive psychology in promoting thelearner's construction of knowledge, helping the learner to organize informationand enhancing the learner's understanding. Pusch and Slee have provided a reviewof literature and research on structural communication and have proposed furtherresearch.

In an attempt to provide training in interpersonal skill-building for instruc-tional designers and developers the Instructional Design, Development and Evalu-ation program at Syracuse University decided to pilot a course. The main goal ofthe course was for students to gain competence and confidence in their ability tointeract with SME's, clients and colleagues. Ruth Curtis and Darlene Nestor in thedevelopments and innovations section, provide information about and insight intothe content and activities of this course and personal reactions of the students whoparticipated. This article is followed by a paper presented by Lynda Hanrahan onthe development and diffusion of a distance education program in engineering edu-cation atUniversity College within Syracuse University. Everett Rogers' diffusionof innovations model sets the theoretical framework of this paper.

The job-aids section by Alex Romiszowski deals with the structural com-munication in its applied form. It includes problems, and allows for your responseto stimulate involvement and dialogue. This is the rust of a two-part article, andthe second part is scheduled to appear in the next issue.

We invite you to initiate dialogue with us. Most authors are interested tohear your reactions and are willing to provide further information about their work.Again, thank you for your encouraging response to the first issue.

Firouz Rahmanzadeh

Readers' ColumnA Brief Rejoinder to Centra's"IsTherea Scientific Basis for EffectiveTeaching?"

Arthur Blumberg

I suspect that a measure of a journal's vibrancy can befound in the degree to which it provokes controversyand reaction among its readers. Thus, from my biasedpoint-of-view, INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS,in its first issue, portends the possibility of long termvibrancy. At least, that's the way I see it as I react toCentra's (1990) "Is There a Scientific Basis for EffectiveTeaching?" published in vol.1, no.1.

My critique is specifically focused on the section of thearticle that is headed, "The Scien title Basis for Teaching"(pp. 7-8). Centra used Gage (1978) as the basis for histhesis. He notes that Gage argued "that there is ascientific basis to the art of teaching" (Centra, p. 7). Thisargument does not hold water.

First, let me say that, if I were Gage and I had spent mycareer defining and then studying teaching as a scienceI would most certainly maintain that there is a scienceof teaching. And I would want to brush off as statisticaloutliers the fact that there have been and continue to bewonderfully excellent teachers who know nothing abou tGage's "science." If there is a science of something -though it doesn't have to be an exact science whichprobably doesn't exist, but one that is at least bonafidethen it is reasonable to assume that one cannot use thatscience in an applied way unless one knows that sci-ence. The space shuttle, for example, could not havebeen engineered, built, flown and landed unless itsvariety of engineers knew and understood the implica-tions that research in physics, electronics, astronomy,metallurgy, meteorology, to name only a few of thesciences that the newspaper-reading layperson mustinfer played a part in the success of the shuttle's designand flight.

There is no comparable argument as I noted above,which can be made for the practice of the craft (not artas Gage suggests) of teaching. That is, if we insist thatthere is a scientific basis for effective teaching, how canwe account for the thousands of wonderful teachersthat lived and taught before educational psychologists(for the most part, I beleive) started to try and emulatethe "hard" sciences? Further, how can we account forthe thousands of excellent teachers today who couldnot cite a piece of educational research as a rationale for

Volume 1 (2 )Summer1990

what they do exceedingly well? Or how can we accountfor the millions of parents who do an outstanding job ofteaching their children to be virtuous human beings?

The point I want to make is that teaching is neither ascience nor an art, but a craft that at times, and quiteunpredictably, can have moments of artistry attachedto it when a teacher does something creative, gracefuland beautiful in the classroom. All this is not to denythat a teacher could not learn something useful fromstudying the research on classroom group dynamics orchild or adolescent- development. It is to deny, though,that studying the research in these fields is prerequisitefor being an effective teacher.

Finally, if my position corresponds with reality onemust take the congruent position that research that isdone to establish "a scientific basis for the art of teach-ing," though perhaps conducted in the best of faith,really serves the purpose of furthering the careers of theprofessors who conduct it, and has little to do with"everyteacher's" practice of teaching.

ReferencesCentra, J.A. (1990). Is there a scientific basis for effectiveteaching? Instructional Developments, 1(1), 6-8.

Gage, N.L. (1978). The scientific basis of the art of teaching.New York: Teacher College Press.

Reply to Blumberg

John Centra

Art Blumberg is a crafty fellow. He argues that there isabsolutely no scientific basis to teaching because therewere "thousands of wonderful teachers" before educa-tional researchers carried on experiments or observa-tions of teaching. Although Arthur is about to retire, Idoubt that he has been around long enough to witnesspersonally all of those wonderful teachers.

Admittedly wonderful teachers existed centuries ago,just as there have been wonderful people who buildbridges and helped to cure illnesses. And all of theseindividuals practiced long before a scientific basis ofengineering, medicine, or teaching existed in any for-mal sense. But my point is that we do all of these thingsbetter because of the systematic studies, both basic andapplied, that have gone on and continue going on. Inthat sense, science has enhanced the artistry (or craft)that is part of good teaching.

4 1

.

Gk

.

.

/I,

k

.

:

S.. 6

:0 0

O: . .

. II

iv

.

:

.

-

.

.

eilegderx:$0":

.

.

- .

:

. -

.

-

:

.

- .

,

.

. .

.

I

''' rFN:01111411.:*W...W

.

NR'-.....:i?nr "v: **nf-.: *. ::::.m x.. .--:-4:::1:i$f::tr_-:I$

:K:

..ttoT0:4%::::.:::vp,::44.,

::,:.:.:I.:1.:::...

0....:

*4*

4:w,:::::4

.4$4x

.:****. . 4.44,::::.::::

CWWW:0S,-41.4+::4VN.:40.v...4*XWM11:1

X......ve.-:.-.-e4Wo.$Wk*WZA:::::0$:4;' 4:MigiMi

::::OX:::::::::::::::::;:...

=:::WM::::0::.4;i4:::::*::+:::4.1

X::::;:.,

*: o..::::;:::Z:4.-,4$$$$$$$$$$OPOMX4

-4410:.:0)NM):=4

K:::4.:48ig::::::::::::::§M$1;;X:*.....i::::*****::::::::::::::::::$::$:::::

k-xc.xfx;:.2-:-:-..:-Z-3Z:::::::::::::*;:r4:::k:KkkVigigiUS: :4 ''..4$44***1.:4:4: 4::::::::*****:**46**:*:*'it:k+itt ttatt.We t.: a ,;I:X.:4:+X.W.,X.X.....A4:4444.4.4.4.4.*:14ZZ3:: .*::::::*:::f

0_

. -

regarding how such knowledge, and its attributes, aretransmitted or perceived. The organization of anyknowledge base is perceived differently from individ-ual to individual, however, the knowledge base mayappear to remain constant because of the taxonomy onwhich it is structured. The presentation of content is yetanother issue that adds to the complexity of the instruc-tional situation. The type of information, the amount ofinformation, and the inherent delimitations of themanner in which subject matter information can betransmitted within the instructional environment, re-quires an approach that can accommodate and facili-tate the meaningful organization of the complex natureof any subject matter information or content domain.

Learning theorists have clearly established that hu-mans process information differently from one anotherand within themselves depending on the prevailingconditions. Learners process information differentlyfrom one time to the next, and also when there is a shiftin the content domain. Individuals process informa-tion differently as their emotional state shifts, and astheir information-processing style and ability changes.In addition to the variable of information-processingskills, the characteristics of an individual learner oftenbecome a variable that educators are unable to manipu-late within the instructional environment. These andother such individual differences among learners andgroupings of learners mark the learner entity as a com-plex one indeed.

The teacher, or, what might be more aptly described asthe teacher function, is a complex entity because of themany roles the teacher assumes in the instructional en-vironment. Of the many functions the teacher (orteacher function; or instructor) performs within theinstructional environment, such as an informationsource, organizer, guide, tutor, director, remediator,and the promoter of meta-cognitive monitoring strate-gies, it is the facilitator that is the most important.Whomever (or whatever) assumes the teacher functionmust be able to analyze, design, develop, implement,manage, evaluate and revise instruction on an ongoingbasis. Teacher functions must occur in an environmentwhere success is measured in terms of achieving prede-termined learner outcomes. The skills necessary forplanning and proficiently performing such functionsare not simple, nor are they easily acquired.

Leadership ProfileEach of the stakeholders mentioned above, and others,will need to assume an active posture in the instruc-tional improvement process. However, the question ofwho will assume the leadership role in the way wedesign and improve instruction and instructional media

Volume 1 (2) Summer 1990

within the framework of the CLT paradigm, may bestbe answered by analyzing the tasks involved in such aneffort. Instructional design professionals who possessthe competencies to prescribe strategies and tactics forthe systematic design and improvement of instructionand instructional media are best suited to fit this role.However, the classroom practitioners who incorpo-rates systematic instructional design applications intotheir teacher planning routines are also well suited toassume the leadership in the instructional improve-ment process. Practitioners on the front lines are mostable to accurately assess the environment in whichlearning must occur. Teachers select appropriate infor-mation and prescribe methods necessary to achieve theeducational goals of our society, and they are expectedto perform the instruction which results in manifesta-tions of that which we, as a society, aim to be.

The contention is that there is a high correlation be-tween teacher planning routines and what instruc-tional designers do when designing instruction. In-structional designers select, adapt, develop and refinea wide variety of instructional products (Martin, 1984).According to Kerr (1981): "Teachers are and are not in-structional designers. Most teachers have not hadformal training in the procedures commonly used byinstructional designers: many find it difficult to shifttheir thinking into instructional design (ID) patternswhen they are asked to do so as part of a course orworkshop" (p. 364). In fact, teachers often express anegative attitude toward the use of instructional designmodels out of a fear that the systems approach willrestrict creativity. A systems approach promotes crea-tivity.

Successful teachers are designers of instruction, al-though they may not perceive themselves as such.Instructional designers systematically design, develop,implement, and evaluate instruction based on provenlearning and cognitive theories (Gagne, Briggs & Wager,1988). Systematically designed instruction is a processwhich allows the teacher to focus on learner outcomesand to establish clear relationships between instruc-tional strategies and the predetermined learner out-comes. Instructional design is empirical and replicable(Dick and Carey, 1990). It is empirical because it isbased on the results of experiment and observationrather than mathematical or scientific reasoning. It isreplicable because the strategies for designing instruc-tion are incorporated into the teaching environment ina highly structured and reiterative fashion. The sys-tems approach has been proven successful in address-ing the design of instruction and instructional improve-ment efforts because of the way in which a Systemsapproach takes into account the respective attributes ofthe complex entities involved in the instructional epi-sode.

r3

Education and InstructionThe systems approach to improving instruction is validonly when a clear understanding of certain relation-ships, relative to education and instruction, and thedomains that feature in any instructional improvementprocess, are clearly understood. To understand educa-tion is to first understand the nature of society. A groupof people with common social, political and economicbackgrounds constitute a society. In addition, societieshave in common types of dress, music, food, religion,and language. Education is the process by which indi-viduals acquire the knowledge about the customs of asociety and are able to practice the mores of that society.The aims of a society, such as health, wealth and secu-rity, are self-determinant. Individuals collectively de-termine societal aims. Education is the means toprepare a citizenry to serve as active decision-makerswhen determining societal aims.

Current educational reform proposals are dominatedby various perspectives of inquiry. The most commonchannels of inquiry are offered from the perspectives ofadministration, assessment, counseling, and curricu-lum. Each perspective addresses a different domain inthe educational context. Administration involves themanagement of instruction. Assessment is concernedwith ways of understanding and improving the effi-cacy of instruction. Counseling increases the aware-ness of different learner needs and personal problemsthat might interfere with the acquisition of knowledgein the instructional environment. A curriculum is afixed course of study established by educational pro-fessionals among the society in order to achieve itseducational aims. Instruction is subsumed as part ofthe curriculum.

Instruction, as subsumed under the concept of curricu-lum, is the intervention that occurs during a content-learner-teacher interaction where the expressed goal isto facilitate the movement of the learner from point A topoint B along the educational continuum. A correctassessment of learner characteristics, an accura te analy-sis of content attributes, and the potential of the teacherto facilitate the learning process, are the independentvariables within the instructional environment that thedesigner attempts to manipulate in order to create orimprove any instruction. This interaction period is re-ferred to as the instructional episode (see Figure 1).Instruction is the process of influencing a learner in adesired direction. Process is a favorite term amongeducators and is used to describe some kind of defin-able sequence of actions or activities. In the context ofinstructional improvements the process allows instruc-tional designers to review and prescribe logic patternsthat depict how we influence individuals to learn. An

4

emphasis is placed on that part of the definition ofinstruction that assumes the learner is the object ofinstruction. Emphasis is also placed on the assumptionthat instruction is goal oriented and for a specific pur-pose, thus, the control over what we achieve is implied.Hence, these factors are within the realm of our ma-nipulation. For example, we can arrange the content in-formation around an organizing idea; determine theusefulness of available resources; and make judge-ments about the people involved. Taking these vari-ables into account, and subsequent sequencing of inter-vention activities (tactics) promotes the potential forsuccess of the instructional episode given the interac-tions that will occur among the content, learner andteacher.

The sequencing of intervention activities (tactics) dur-ing the instructional episode can be heuristic, hierarchi-cal or procedural. Merrill (1983) specifies instructionalintervention components displayed in a heuristicmanner. Reigeluth (1983) specifies instructional inter-vention elaborations in a hierarchical manner whichlead to an epitome. Gagne, Briggs & Wager (1988)specify nine events that should occur sequentiallyduring the instructional episode. During the instruc-tional episode teachers engage themselves profession-ally in educational activities. They set tasks for learn-ers, they motivate learners, they facilitate learners incontrolling their efforts, and they help learners toimprove their understanding and skills. This furthersupports the concept of the instructional environmentbeing a complex entity. Principles or rules are postu-lated in order to understand complex entities. Prin-ciples offer effective and acceptable guidelines, andrelatively reliable relationships between actions andoutcomes.

The effectiveness of instructional episodes is enhancedwhen the interventions that occur during the content-learner-teacher interaction described above are part ofa systematically planned strategy. Such a plan forinstruction is the product of the instructional designprocess. Instructional Design is the process of creatinga detailed plan that describes an instructional episode.The instructional design plan serves as a blueprint forthe subsequent development, diffusion and evaluationof the instructional episode. The information requiredto initiate the instructional design process is obtainedthrough a needs assessment. The needs assessment isnecessary to planners of instructional episodes whengenerating an instructional analysis. Instructional analy-sis is the key to the entire design, development andevaluation process. The results of an instructionalanalysis and the ensuing outcomes that are derivedfrom the instructional analysis provide the standardsby which all instructional improvements are meas-ured.

4'jInstructional Developments

Four ComponentsAs a discipline, instructional design is concerned withunderstanding and improving one aspect of education:the process of instruction (Reigeluth, 1983). Instruc-tional designers have as their principle objective toinduce targeted learners to perform in prespecifiedways; to achieve results by developing and implement-ing documented and replicable procedures for organ-izing the conditions for learning; and by defining andmeasuring the accomplishments of instructional de-sign in terms of learner performance (Burkman, 1987).The optimum effects of how student learning is facili-tated and what actually occurs in the classroom envi-ronment determines what we do when we design in-struction which is different from what we do when wedevelop instruction. To better understand the differ-ences between the design and development compo-nents, and the other major components in the process ofimproving instruction and instructional media, thefollowing descriptions of four domains to considerwhen improving instruction are offered below.

1. Instructional Design The domain of design focuseson the organization of strategies and tactics that aresupported by principles upon which instructional im-provements can bestructured. Instructional strategiesare the general viewpoints and line of action that oneadopts in order to choose the instructional methods(Romiszowski, 1981); or a set of decisions that result ina plan, method, or series of activi ties aimed at obtaininga specific goal (Jonassen, Grabinger & Harris 1990),such as in a soccer game where the strategy is an overallplan of action to obtain a victory. Instructional tacticsare the specific ways that one chooses to implement aparticular method (Romiszowski, 1981); or specific ac-tions that are used to enact the strategy (Jonassen,Grabinger & Harris 1990). An example of a strategy iswhen the soccer coach decides to use the "outside-walk" approach when playing against a team with astronger inside running game. The strategy is then im-plemented by the players with a selection of tactics,such as a four-corner offense, zone defense or a five-passes-before-shooting offense. An instructional strat-egy may recommend motivating the learner prior toinstruction. Such a strategy may be implemented bytactics such as arousing learner uncertainty, asking aquestion, or presenting a picture of the concept (Jonas-sen, Grabinger & Harris, 1910, p. 32). Instructionalstrategies describe a general approach to instruction byprescribing how to organize, sequence or present infor-mation within the instructional environment.

The process of formulating an instructional strategywith the appropriate supporting tactics begins withdefining the scope of the instructional issue a t hand, fol-lowed by a general purpose statement, and then focus-


ing on an unambiguous educational goal. The scope isa macro-level entity which provides the instructionaldesigner with a concise statement of the content topicsto be covered. The scope briefly indicates constrictingvariables that delimit the presentation format. In addi-tion, the scope describes salient attributes of the con-tent, the learner, and the teacher. Relative to the scopeis the purpose statement, another macro-level entity.While the scope primarily aids the instructional de-signer, the purpose statement aids the learner. Thepurpose statement provides the learner with a sense ofthe content information to be covered in a topic areaa rationale. The purpose statement presents a clearrelationship between the learning conditions and thedesired outcomes. Based on the stated purpose, a goalstatement is generated. The goal statement is a micro-level entity which presents the aim or object of the in-structional episode. The goal is a description of thecategory of human activity and is intended to focus theinstructional design effort. Based on the goal state-ment, performance objectives are selected and se-quenced to initiate and maintain the systematic im-provement of the instructional episode.

Micro-level design decisions relate to a single instruc-tional objective or goal, while macr:,-level design deci-sions relate to multiple instructional objectives (Mer-rill, 1983) or scope and purpose. The concept of scope-> purpose -> goal can be interpreted as moving fromthe macro-level to the micro-level, or as one encom-passing the other (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The goal as a miro-level activitywithin a macro environment.

An instructional design is a detailed plan that defines,describes and prescribes methods and procedures forthe development, implementation, and managementof an instructional episode. The instructional designalso identifies appropriate evaluation criteria aimed atassessing strengths and weaknesses of the instruc-tional episode. Instructional design is the initial phasein the instructional improvement process which takesinto account the complexity of the variables within theCLT paradigm, and organizes their interrelationshipsand interactions in a meaningful way.

'15

2. Instructional Development The object of instruc-tional development is to produce from a detailed plan(design) the procedures and media to support the strate-gies and tactics of an instructional episode. Theseinstructional procedures and media are created basedon an organizing idea within the context of the subjectmatter. Presentation methodologies and media selec-tion strategies are identified during the developmentand realized prior to implementation of the instruc-tional episode.

The successful development of an instructional designoften dei.ends on the use of a heuristic. Heuristics area collection of strategies and tactics employed by indi-viduals which have been learned through experience.Basically, they are specific actions that have a history ofsuccess given certain conditions, and have matured tobe accepted as a standard operating procedure. Suchheuristics are appropriate as an approach to solvingproblems. For ill-structured problems, heuristics areoften the only means to achieve a desired end. How-ever, there seems to be increasing support for the beliefthat the problem structure is not the cause for concern,but, rather the structure of the educational system itselfis in dire need of a comprehensive overhaul. Reigeluth(1987) argues that the major cause of the current prob-lems with educational systems is the basic structure ofthe system. Whether it is the way we define problemsor the educational system itself that is cause for alarm,it isevident that a clearer understanding of the relation-ships between instructional design and instructionaldevelopment needs to be made thoroughly clear. In-structional developers utilize the information organ-ized by the designers within the CLT framework to de-termine the best methods and media to achieve the out-comes that have been set out in the instructional de-sign.

3. Instructional Evaluation Evaluation occurs con-tinually throughout the entire development process(formative), and also after the instructional episode hasbeen developed (summative). Data about how stu-dents learn specified content information under vary-ing instructional conditions are obtained, analyzedand synthesized into meaningful information that can

Table 1. Domains of Instructional Technology

be used for making decisions regarding the design andimprovement of instruction. Evaluation data collectedduring the instructional development process form thebasis for revision of instructional procedures and mate-rials prior to implementation.

4. Instructional Management This area is concernedwith the supervision of the instructional episode, in-cluding pre- and post-episodic activities. Any processthat involves movement toward a discrete locationrequires the use of guidelines for such, and the meansby which those guidelines are initiated and navigated.Instructional management refers to the legislation, gov-ernance, monitoring and certification or the instruc-tional design process. A total management commit-ment to use instructional design procedures is neces-sary to effect consistent results.

ConclusionThe viewpoint of this essay is that in order to improveinstruction, two things must be requisite to such en-deavor: (1) the relationship of education to instructionmust be unambiguous, and (2) the components of theinstructional creation and improvement process,namely design, development, evaluation and man-agement must also be unambiguous. Instructional de-sign professionals (Instructional Technologists), andclassroom teachers who practice a systematic approachto instructional design during their teacher planningroutines, are best suited to effectively improve instruc-tion and instructional media.

At the most recent meeting of the Professors of Instruc-tional Design and Technology (PIDT), the DefinitionsCommittee presented its current definition of instruc-tional technology; and the domains of instructionaltechnology. Instructional technology as defined byPIDT (1990) "is a discipline concerned with the system-atic design, development, evaluation, and manage-ment of instructon and instructional materials." Thefour domains of instructional technology and theirrelevant content areas as defined by PIDT (1990) aresummarized in Table 1.

Design Development Evaluation Management

Instructional New Technologies Needs Assessment Resource ManagementSystems Development

Message Design Audiovisual Media Formative Evaluation Project Management

Instructional Strategies Print Media Summative Evaluation Change Management

Performance Technology

Research & Theory Research & Theory Research & Theory Research & Theory

As recommended by the Definitions Committee of the Professors of Instructional Design and Technology (PI) D. Bloomington, Indiana. May, 1990.

6 4b Instructional Developments

It is of particular importance to make distinctions be-tween the domains called design and development.Their relationship to one another should be describedin unambiguous and non-conflicting terms. Whetherthe concept of design and the concept of developmentis compared or contrasted or sequenced, or if onesubsumes the other, the fact remains that it is how theseconcepts relate to each other and how each is integratedinto the instructional planning process that is impor-tant. It is equally important for the leaders of theinstructional improvment movement to recognize andpractice the distinctions of each domain in order toeffectively research and broadcast the power of thesystems approach to improving instruction.

As the instructional designer assumes the role of deci-sion-maker, once again we witness an interactive envi-ronment which is complex. In this context decision isdefined as choosing a course of action because it has thehighest probability for success. An example of a se-quence of instructional design decision points is:

1. the organizing idea,1 the extent of the instructional preparation,3. relevant information presentation strategies,4. ratio of content-learner-teacher interaction,5. ratio of student/teacher contribution toward

the learning outcome,6. amount of time devoted to each instructional

component,7. evaluation criteria about decisions, and8. evaluation criteria about the decision-making

process.

One method of accomplishing the complex task of im-proving instruction is to use creative instructional designstrategies. Such creative strategies should employ suchtactics as to:

1. Cautiously use a systems approach.2. Avoid prefabricated relocations of ideas.3. Respond to needs, interests and desires in

unique ways.4. Organize yourself to respond in a creative way.5. Manage information to achieve new heights.6. Explicitly specify the instructional parameters.7. Maintain sensitivity and understanding.8. Understand the motives behind the definitions.9. Understand how problems are interpreted.10. Employ nominal group techniques in order to

generate genuine alternatives as potential so-lutions.

11. Retain the theory of attribution: I am in controlversus it is all up to fate.

The instructional designer assumes major responsibili-ties within the instructional environment due to thecomplexity of issues associated with developing goodinstructional episodes. However, the instructional


designer should feel she or he has a sense of controlbecause the designer is responsible for the outcome ofthe instructional episode. As instructional designers, itis these areas of control that are the arenas for actiontoward the improvement of instruction.

ReferencesBurkman, E. (1987). Factors affecting utilization. In R.M. Gagne (Ed.). Instructional technology: Foundations.New Jersey: Lawrence, Earlbaum Associates.

Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design ofinstruction, (2nd ed.). Illinois: Scott, Foresman.

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988).Principles of instructional design, (3rd ed.). New York:Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Jonassen, D. H., Grabinger, R. S., & Harris, H. D. (1990).Analyzing and selecting instructional strategies andtactics. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3(2), 29-47.

Kerr, S. T. (1981). How teachers design their materials:Implications for instructional design. Instructional Sci-ence, 10 , 363-378.

Martin, B. L. (1984, May). Internalizing instructionaldesign. Educational Technology, 13-18.

Merrill, M. D. (1983). The component display theory.In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructional design theories andmodels: An overview of their current status. New Jersey:Lawrence, Earlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is itand why is it. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.). Instructionaldesign theories and models: An overview of their currentstatus. New Jersey: Lawrence, Earlbaum Associates.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1987). The search for meaningfulreform: A third-wave educational system. Journal ofInstructional Development, /0(4), 3-14.

* Rob Branch is an Assistant Professor of InstructionalDesign, Development and Evaluation at SyracuseUniversity.

4 ;)

7

Course-Level Academic Processesas Indicators of the Quality ofUndergraduate College Education

John M. Braxton*

Considerable national attention has focused on the im-provement of the quality of undergraduate collegeeducation. This concern is manifested in reports issuedby the Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence inAmerican Higher Education (1984), the American As-sociation of Colleges' Integrity in the College Curricu-lum (1985) and the National Endowment for theHumanities To Reclaim a Legacy (Bennet, 1984). It isself-evident that if the quality of undergraduate educa-tion is to be improved, then quality must be defined insome way that useful information for the developmentof academic policy can be obtained (Ewell, 1988).

Two customary ways of addressing quality or excel-lence is to define it in terms of reputation and resources(Astin, 1985). The reputational approach defines qual-ity in terms of a college or universities' rank in thepecking order of institutions (Astin, 1985). The U.S.News and World Report annual rating of undergradu-ate education is a good example of the reputationalmethod of appraising quality or excellence. Thus, thehigher an institutions perceived place in the institu-tional pecking order, the higher the quality of theinstitution. The resource approach delineates qualityby applying such criteria as SAT or ACT scores ofentering freshmen, the number of books in theinstitution's library or the scholarly productivity offaculty (Astin, 1985). Therefore, the higher the averagetest scores of entering freshmen or the larger the librarycollection, the higher the quality of the institution.

Jacobi, Astin and Ayala (1987) point out that both thereputational and the resource approach are highlyinterdependent, as an increase in reputation can bringadditional resources to an institution and an increase inresources can also yield a greater reputation. At firstblush, it would seem that information useful to institu-tional policy can be obtained from these two approaches.If an institution is able to increase either its reputationor resources, then the quality of the undergraduateexperience will also increase. However, there are twoproblems with the usefulness of this information. First,as Astin (1985) points out resources available to mostinstitutions are finite. Competition for the most able

8

students and faculty is intense and most institutionswill not be successful in such competition. Second, therelationship between financial resources and studentoutcomes is uncertain (Bowen, 1981). Thus, usefulinformation for the improvement in the quality of theundergraduate experience may not be derived fromeither the reputational or the resources approaches todefining quality.

A third approach, which is embedded in the currentattention devoted to assessment, is to define quality interms of the effects of college on student cognitive andaffective development (Ewell, 1988). Consequently,the greater the impact a college has on its students, thehigher the quality of the institution. Astin (1985), inparticular, advocates this approach, as he contends thatit squarely addresses the education of students.

Although the outcomes approach is rooted in a concernfor the education of students, the acquisition of useableinformation from this perspective on quality is some-what problematic. A rigorous determination of theeffects of the college experience on student cognitiveand affective development requires attention to nu-merous methodology issues. For a review of suchissues, I refer you to the Jacobi, Astin and Ayalamonograph College Student Outcomes Assessment:A Talent Development Perspective (1987). However,the crux of these concerns is that there is a need forcareful control of rival hypotheses to the unique influ-ence of attending a particular college on the attainmentof various student outcomes.

Another limitation to the outcomes perspective onquality is that reliable information on the relationshipbetween educational practices and student outcomes islimited. In addressing the issue of whether there is ascientific basis for effective teaching, Centra (1990)points to the need for greater predictability in the rela-tionship between teaching and learning.

In this text, I would like to advance an additionalmethod of defining quality or excelle ice in under-graduate education, an approach which Robert C.

4 1 Instructional Developments

Nordvall and I have presented elsewhere (Braxton andNordvall, 1985). This approach focuses on fundamen-tal course-level academic processes and describes thequality of such processes in terms of the level of aca-demic demands or rigor expected of students. Aca-demic demands or rigor is defined in terms of the levelof understanding of course content to be demonstratedby students while engaging in these processes. Ex-amples of course-level academic processes are the typeof questions faculty ask students during class, the na-ture of term papers or other written exercises, and thetype of examination questions written by faculty.

The level of understanding of course content can beplumbed by applying a scheme such as Bloom's (1956)Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Do-main to classify course-level academic processes. Thiswell known taxonomy is composed of six major catego-ries: knowledge, comprehension, application,analysis,synthesis, and evaluation. As these categories repre-sent a hierarchy of increasing levels of understanding,a course-level process which requires a knowledgelevel understanding of course content is less demand-ing than one which requires an analysis level of courseunderstanding.

Despite the compellingness of these categories, research(Krathwohl and Payne, 1971; Madus, Woods and Nut-tal, 1973) has raised questions regarding the rank andoperational independence of analysis, synthesis andevaluation. This research suggests that these threecategories should be collapsed to form a fourth cate-gory which might be labeled higher-order thinking.Consequently, it is recommended that the knowledge,comprehension and application categories of Bloom'sTaxonomy and a combined category representinghigher-order thinking be used to classify course-levelacademic processes.

Some measure of construct validity for this approach todefining academic quality is provided by the findingsof research by Braxton and Nordvall (1985). To test theassumption that more selective institutions do havehigher academic standards, Braxton and Nordvall col-lected examination questions from faculty in four aca-demic disciplines-biology, chemistry, history and soci-ology-at liberal arts colleges of two categories of under-graduate admissions selectivity (Liberal Arts I and II ofthe Carnegie Classification of Institutions, 1976).

The examinations collected were classified by twotrained coders into the various categories of Bloom'sTaxonomy. A pattern of differences between more andless selective liberal arts colleges on the level of under-standing of course con tent tapped by course examina-tion questions above and beyond the influence of aca-demic discipline, course level, and whether the course


was intended for majors or nonmajors was found. Ex-amination questions requiring recall or recognition(knowledge level) of course content are asked moreoften at less selective liberal arts colleges, whereasquestions requiring a higher-order level of understand-ing of course content are asked more frequently at themore selective liberal arts colleges.

Hence, this pattern of findings provides some supportfor the perspective advanced herein that academicquality can be defined in terms of the level of under-standing of course content required by a course-levelprocess such as examination questions. Currently, I amconducting research to extend these ideas to researchuniversities. This project is being funded by the Vice-President for Research and Undergraduate Studies atSyracuse University.

Usable Knowledge forImprovementThe academic processes approach to the definition ofquality is not a panacea. However, such course activi-ties as examinations, questions asked by faculty in classand student written exercises are currently embeddedin most undergraduate courses. Accordingly, a knowl-edge of the level of understanding being addressed byvarious course processes can yield useable knowledgefor the improvement of the quality of the undergradu-ate experience. If it is determined that many courseprocesses are demanding a knowledge level of courseunderstanding and the faculty member is actuallyseeking a higher level of effort, then faculty can askquestions or assign written work which exact a higherlevel of understanding. Consequently, the quality ofthese processes would be improved by adjusting thelevel of understanding required.

Despite the manipulability of course-level academicprocesses, some faculty may require assistance in thecrafting of class questions, examination questions andother such actiTities in order to tap higher levels ofcourse understanding. Such assistance is the provinceof instructional and faculty development offices. Thus,instructional and faculty development offices can playa significant role in the improvement of undergradu-ate instruction.

In addition to the role of instructional and faculty de-velopment, academic policy can be established whichseeks to raise the level of academic standards in under-graduate instruction by requiring a higher level ofcourse understanding to be manifested in course-levelacademic processes. The appeal of this approach is thatacademic standards could be raised in most collegesand universities by demanding a higher level of under-

4 39

standing of course content. The level of understand-ingapplication or higher-ordersought could be afunction of the academic ability of enrolled studentsand the goals and mission of the institution. Moreover,increments in quality could be accomplished with aminimum of additional resources.

Colleges and universities interested in applying thisapproach to defining academic quality should begin byconducting reviews of the level of understanding ofcourse content being tapped by various course-levelprocesses in selected academic departments. Suchinformation could be collected as a facet of ongoingacademic program reviews. After gaining an under-standing of the current level of understanding exacted,academic policy could be implemented to encourageincrements in the rigor of course activities if deemednecessary. Systematic review of course-level pro-cesses is a necessary first step toward the acquisition ofuseable knowledge for the improvement of the qualityof undergraduate education.

ReferencesAstin, A.W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. SanFrancisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Association of American Colleges. (1985). Integrity inthe college curriculum: A report to the academic community.Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges.

Bennet, W. J. (1984). To reclaim a legacy: A report on thehumanities in higher education. Washington, D.C.: Na-tional Endowment for the Humanities.

Bloom, B.S. (ed). (1956). Taxonomy of educationalobjectives: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

Bowen, H.R. (1981, January/February). Cost differ-ences: The amazing disparity among institutions ofhigher education in educational costs per student.Change, 21-27.

Braxton, J.M. & Nordvall, R.C. (1985). Selective liberalarts colleges: Higher quality as well as higher prestige?Journal of Higher Education, 56, 538-554.

Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1976). Aclassification of institutions of higher education. Reviseded. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission.

Centra, J.A. (1990). Is there a scientific basis for Efefec-tive teaching? Instructional Developments, 1, 6-8.

Ewell, P.T. (1988). Outcomes, assessment, and aca-demic improvement: In search of useable knowledge.In J.C. Smart (ed) Higher education: Handbook o f theoryand research, (Vol 4, pp. 53-108). New York: AgathonPress.

Jacobi, M., Astin, A.W. & Ayala, F. (1987). Collegestudent outcomes assessment: A talent development perspec-tive. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 7,Washington, D.C.: Association for the Study of HigherEducation.

Krathwhohl, D.R. & Payne, D.A. (1971). Defining andassessing educational objectives. In Educational meas-urement, 2nd ed., R.L. 'Thomdike (ed). Washington,D.C.: American Council on Education.

Madus, G.F., Woods, E.M. & Nuttal, R.L. (1973). Acausal model analysis of Bloom's taxonomy. AmericanEducational Research Association Journal, 10, 253-262.

Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in Ameri-can Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in learning:Realizing thepotential of American higher education. Wash-ington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.

* John M. Braxton is an Assistant Professor of HigherEducation at Syracuse University.

PROJECT ADVANCE SURVEYS SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES PARTNERSHIPSSyracuse University's Project Advance is best known as ashcool-college partnershi p offering accredited colt egecoursestaught in high schools. In addition, Project Advance admi-nisters a National Partnership Databasecontaining informa-tion on more than 1400 school/college partnerships nation-wide. This past year a new National Partnership Databasewas created as the result of a comprehensive survey whichwas conducted on all accredited American postsecondaryinstitutions.

A second product of the sturvey is the publication LinkingAmerica's Schools and Colleges: Profiles of Partnerships and Na-

tional Directory. This publication provides an overview ofthe school/college partnership movement and profiles over200 partnerships in detail, describing how each partnershipbegan, who it serves, how it is funded, and what its impacthas been on students, teachers, and the curriculum. Thepublication also lists another 1200 partnerships from acrossthe country, representing a broad range of program , prac-tices, and services. Contact names, addresses, and phonenumbers for the partnership programs are included. Thebook also provides instructions for accessing, and contribut-ing to, the national computer database.


Structural Communication:A Forgotten Application of CognitiveTheory to InstructionWende S. Pusch and Elisa J. Slee*

IntroductionOne purpose of instruction should be to help the learnergain a better understanding of his or her world. To dothis the learner must be an active participant in learn-ing. This active participation allows the learner to inte-grate new material into existing knowledge leading todeeper processing (Craik and Lockhart 1972) resultingin greater retention of new information. Therefore, in-struction should be designed to encourage learners toactively participate in learning. One instructionalmethod that attempts to engage the learner in activeprocessing is Structural Communication (Egan, 1976).This article will first discuss the "cognitive" approachto learning and then describe the Structural Communi-cation method in the context of this approach. We willthen review the existing research on Structural Com-munication and present further suggestions for in-quiry.

Cognitive approach to learningOver the past two decades there has been a shift from"behaviorism" to "cognitivism" in examining learning.The primary focus of the "cognitive" approach to learn-ing is on how processing affects the understanding andretention of information. This approach is said to belearner centered and is concerned with cognitive proc-essing with an emphasis on the mental models of thecontent constructed by the individual learner. Whereassome cognitive psychologists have examined process-ing in terms of long and short term memory, Craik andLockhart (1972) focused upon levels of processing. Thisapproach considers what factors influence depth ofprocessing, such as prior knowledge and overt or cov-ert activities.

Levels of processing theory looks at retention of infor-mation as related to the depth, or spread, of encoding.The theory suggests that the deeper information isprocessed the longer the memory trace will persist. Butwhat does this have to do with the building of mentalmodels and understanding of material? The depth ofprocessing is also related to the degree to which infor-mation is organized in memory and related to prior

Volumel(2)Summer1990

knowledge. The level to which information is proc-essed is related to the degree that the information isanalyzed and organized by the learner. In terms ofclassroom "instruction", how does this "levels of proc-essing" model compare? Let's consider an example.When a teacher is introducing a science unit on theprinciple that hot air rises, he or she might ask studentsto think of examples of this phenomenon in their dailylives. A "good" teacher does this because he or sheknows that if the students have some living examplethey will be better able to create a link to the contentpresented in class, and consequently organize andremember the information better.

Methods of instruction contain a vast number of activi-ties that purport to promote various levels of process-ing. Some activities that promote processing at onelevel are rehearsal or repetition. This is a techniqueoften used when learners are trying to memorize infor-mation and while it does lead to the formation of amemory trace it is not one that is very permanent.

Activities that promo te more permanent memory traces,hence deeper processing, are activities that requirelearners to analyze and organize information. Theseactivities also promote the relation of new material toprior knowledge. The use of these activities to promotedeeper understanding of material are discussed morespecifically in Wittrocks' (1974) generative model oflearning. The basic premise of the generative model isthat the learner is not a passive receptacle of informa-tion, but that the learner actively constructs his or herown meaning of material. This active process results inthe understanding of material. Wittrock proposed thatgenerative strategies do exist that facilitate this process.Examples of generative learning strategies includeimagery, illustration, and the generation of summaries,headings, inferences, outlining, critical comments,analogies, and concept mapping (Linden and Wittrock,1981).

The generative model of learning is based on studies inmemory and retention (Wittrock, 1985). Generativestrategies increase the processing load by learners,thereby affecting depth of processing. Mayer (1984) has

11

referred to the encoding process as one of makinginternal connections. Organizational and elaborationstrategies are one way to enhance this building ofinternal connections; for example Weinstein and Mayer(1986) mention that methods that help learners to de-velop the ability to determine the internal connectionsbetween ideas in a passage will facilitate deeper proc-essing. One way to help learners build internal connec-tions is to develop instructional units that will encour-age them to see the connections between ideas in apassage.

A method that could encourage this would structurelearning in a manner designed to promote "higherlevel, synthesis learning" with the goal being under-standing. Such a method was developed in the latesixties. This method is called Structural Communica-tion (Egan 1972). Understanding is "inferred if a stu-dent shows the ability to use knowledge appropriatelyin different contexts, and to organize knowledge ele-ments in accordance with specified organizing prin-ciples" (Egan, 1972, p. 66). We will now describe Struc-tural Communication.

Description of StructuralCommunicationStructural Communication was developed in the latesixties and early seventies. The typical components of aStructural Communication unit are intention, presen-tation, investigation, response matrix, discussion sec-tion, and viewpoints. Each of these is described below.For more detailed description see the Job-Aid section ofthis issue.

Diagram 1: Main Pathway through a Study Unit

INTENTION INVESTIGATION

PRESENTATION DISCUSSION

RESPONSE VIEWPOINTS

Intention: An overview of the case study presented bythe author. The intention is used to provide a context forthe content of the study unit.

Presentation: This is the subject matter of the studyunit. This could be anything from a text based passageto a novel or a play. This could also be any sort of com-puter mediated instruction, including simulations.

Investigation and Response Matrix: There are typi-cally between three to five problems about the contentof the presentation. A learner inv,:stigates the prob-

12

lems by selecting items from the response matrix. Theresponse matrix is comprised of facts, theories, andprinciples about the subject of the presentation. Learn-ers sele_t items from the matrix that they feel are rele-vant to a particular problem. The same matrix is usedfor all of the problems presented, and any given itemcan be selected for one or more problems.

Questions typically require higher level analysis of thematerial requiring the learner to organize and interre-late various aspects of the presentation. The items in theresponse matrix provide a starting point for organizingthe material, providing an aid to comprehending thematerial. This organizing exercise encourages deeperprocessing of the content.

Discussion: The discussion section includes both aresponse analysis and comments. The learner is di-rected to discussion comments by means of the re-sponse analysis. (For example, the response analysismight read, "If you included three or more of items 2,4, 7, 8, 30 from the response matrix you should readcomment A.") The discussion comments are used bythe author to guide the student in analyzing the prob-lems under investigation and may explain how certainitems which were included or omitted were of primaryor secondary importance. The comments may high-light inconsistencies or deficiencies in the learnerschoices as well as present relationships between vari-ous aspects of the presentation as it relates to a givenproblem. If the learner is unable to determine the rela-tionship between concepts, facts, principles thenWittrock's Generative Model of Learning suggests thatthe relationships should made explicit (Weinstein andMayer, 1986).

Viewpoints: Finally the authors may present theirviewpoint or biases on the content of the study unit.This section can also be used to summarize the unit ordirect students to further reading or activity.

A learner studies the material in the intention andpresentation sections, and then proceeds to the investi-gation. The problems serve to challenge the learner toidentify and make connections between the variousaspects of the subject matter being investigated (Egan,1974). He or she constructs a response by selectingitems from the response matrix. This encourages thereader to make links between the items that have noapparent connection. This activity requires that thelearner carefully analyze and interrelate the presenta-tion material when generating a response. This activitypromotes deeper processing of the ma terial to be learned.

Based upon the responses chop n, the learner is thendirected to specific discussion comments that compareand contrast certain misconceptions and viewpoints. It


is the discussion comments that distinguish this methodfrom other variations of "programmed instruction".The author of a Structural Communication study unitwrites the discussion comments in advance, and thereis no "right answer". Rather, the author attempts to an-ticipate particular responses that a reader might selectwhen using the matrix and writes the discussion com-ments such that they serve to assist the learner infurther analyzing the information. For example, if acertain response pattern indicates that a reader has onlyselected matrix items of secondary importance thecomment would highlight how these were related tothe study and also point out other factors that should beconsidered. Upon completion of the study unit theauthor may decide to summarize his or her opinion inthe section called viewpoints.

The ensuing student/unit interaction may be evalu-ated by determining the degree to which the learner'sresponses demonstrate a synthesis of the material. Thiscan be done using a coherence index which is a measureof the learners understanding of the study unit. Theauthor will weight items in the matrix for each problembased on its importance to the problem. Weightingstypically range from -2 to +2, where the +2 ratingindicates that the student has identified an item ofcritical importance based on the viewpoints of theauthor. A -2 weighting is assigned by the author toitems that have no relevance to a particular problem.Weightings for matrix items will change for each prob-lem. The coherence index is calculated by adding theweightings of the items selected by a learner. A largercoherence index indicates a closer agreement with andunderstanding of the author's viewpoint.

Research on StructuralCommunicationWhile there have been several articles describing theuses and examples of Structural Communication studyunits (see, for example, Egan, 1972; Ega n, 1976; Hodgson& Dill, 1970; Hodgson & Dill, 1971), limited research onthis method has been reported. Hodgson and Dill inthree articles in the Harvard Business Review describea Structural Communication business case study exer-cise. Readers were invited to mail in their responses. Acoherence index was calculated for each of the readersresponses collected. One notable result was that thereader response was higher than for any other casestudy presented in the Harvard Business Review. Inaddition the coherence index improved over problemsone through four, suggesting that a certain skill wasinvolved in using thisinstructional method. Romiszow-ski (1976) performed a feasibility study that comparedexisting materials for teaching set theory includingFyfe and Wood rows' (1969) Structural Communicationunit on the subject matter. This unit was found success-


ful in teaching concepts and principles of set theory ata greater depth of understanding. However, the Struc-tural Communication unit was found to have limita-tions based on the reading level of the learners. This isnot a limitation of Structural Communication, but ofthe specific materials used. A unit entitled "AngloSaxons" (1969) was used successfully at the primarygrade level. This unit is a teacher delivered unit withthe questions presented on flash cards.

Mitchell and Meilleur-Baccanale (1982) compared Struc-tural Communication to regular textual presentation.The subjects were undergraduates studying systemsanalysis. Eighty-one subjects were tested on immediaterecall and understanding as well as delayed under-standing. The experimental group using StructuralCommunication out scored the prose group by 58% onthe test of immediate recall. Similarly the StructuralCommunication group scored 51% higher on the de-layed post-test. The authors concluded that StructuralCommunication was superior to regular textual mate-rial for this particular subject matter. The authors alsoinvestigated whether there were any differences inrecall and understanding between learners classified as"wholists" and "serialists". While the authors did notfind any significant differences in this study, they at-tributed it to unequal sample sizes in the cells, inparticular few serialists actually completed the Struc-tural Communication units. In terms of comparing theStructural Communication unit with regular textualpresentation, one might say that Structural Communi-cation forces learners to engage more in the processingof material. The comments can serve to aid in theanalysis of information, thus improving the post-testscores. The control group was allowed to review thetext for as long as they wished, however, there was no"structure" to this unlimited review time, therefore theinformation might not get processed.

In a more recent study, Mitchell and Emmott (1990)investigated a print based version of the case studypublished earlier by Hodgson and Dill in the HarvardBusi ness Review (1970). They compared the print basedstudy to one automated on a computer and hypothe-sized that individuals classified as "serialists" or "sur-face processors" would perform less well than"wholists" or "deep processors" as measured by thecoherence index. They also hypothesized that the co-herence index for all subjects using the computer ver-sion would be greater than for those using the the printversion. Their results generally supported these hy-potheses. However, the wholists only out performedthe serialists on the paper version of the case studyexercise. Mitchell and Emmott (1990) suggest that thepaper version calls for more processing on the part oflearners since they have to analyze for themselveswhich feedback comments would be relevant. The

computer-based version supplies this prescription auto-matically.

Romizsowski, Grabowski, and Damadaran (1988) ex-amined the use of Structural Communication as a sup-plement to instruction via interactive video (IV). Theauthors noted that on successive trials of an IV businesscase simulation, learners did not improve their scores.They designed a Structural Communication unit for thepurpose of "debriefing" students in order to increaseprocessing of information. Students who participatedin the Structural Communication debriefing exercisedid in fact improve their scores as they worked throughthe Decision Point simulation during a second trial.This suggests that the Structural Communication de-briefing helped learners to analyze the case study infor-ma tion more effectively than the IV presentation aloneand thereby acting as an aid to deeper processing. Acomputer-based version of the debriefing exercise hasbeen developed (Romizsowski, Grabowski, and Pusch,1988). This includes two versions, one with "short"question stems and one with "long" questions stems.The "long" question stems are hypothesized to providesome orienting information related to questions. Thisinvestigation is currently underway and hopes to de-termine whether orienting information aids in process-ing by providing a link to the learners' prior experiencewith the simulation.

A study by Taylor (1990) investigated how the use ofconcept maps affected performance on StructuralCommunication on Nutrition. Thirty undergraduateswere randomly assigned to three versions of the units:study units with instructor generated concept map,learner generated concept map, and no concept map. Itwas found that learners who used either instructorgenerated or learner generated concept maps out per-formed the group that did not use this strategy at all.While the mean score of the group than that generatedtheir own map was higher that with the instructorgenerated map, the difference was not statistically sig-nificant.

Since Hodgson first described Structural Communica-tion in the late sixties, a number of study units wereproduced in both the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates (Whittington 1974). In a paper which aimed tosuggest further directions for Structural Communica-tion, Hodgson (1974 a) stated that "it is probably mis-leading to conceive that Structural Communication canbe provided in a self sufficient paper form" (p.6). Inaddition he indicated that field work in the UnitedKingdom suggested than the use of prepared dialogueis less motivational that unprepared dialogue. Thissuggests that Structural Communication in its originalform may be too constrained. An investigation usingmainframe technology to present a Structural Commu-

14

nication case study in management information sys-tems is currently underway. Two versions of the casestudy are being evaluated to determine how they differin getting students to interact. In the first version, stu-dents input the response matrix items into the com-puter and the computer program performs the analysisof the learner's selections and presents the comments tothe students on the screen. This is much like typicalcomputer based training where there is high degree ofsystem control. In the second version, students inputtheir selections and are then presented with the re-sponse analysis algorithm and allowed to determinewhich comments they should and would like to read.Learners in this version may decide to read any or all ofthe comments. In order to make Structural Communi-cation less constrained, learners are given the opportu-nity to make a comment after each problem is com-pleted. In addition, learners are directed to makecomments via electronic mail to the instructor. Thisallows for increased interaction between the learnerand instructor and questions the current design ofcomputer-based instruction which often fails to accom-modate individual reactions to instruction.

In the literature in the field of Educational Technology,people have described a shift in instructional theoryfrom "behaviorism" to "cognitivism". Such a shiftadvocates paying more attention to the individuallearner and how one processes information. Still, if oneexamines current computer based instruction, despitelabels such as "interactive video", the products appearto be interactive only in terms of their hardware inter-faces. How does one translate instruction with technol-ogy such that it incorporates what the "good" teacher issaid to do so well? Structural Communication may bean instructional method worth examining as a steptowards a better implementation of "interactive" in-struction. It could be used to design computer basedinstruction because it starts a dialogue with a learnerthat encourages deeper analysis of information. Inaddition, this technique could be supplemented by off-line tutorial dialogues or electronic mail in order tocontinue the dialogue started when the learner is pre-sented with the matrix and first set of discussion com-ments. In addition, future inquiry might examine howStructural Communication combined with other gen-erative activities, said to aid in the processing of infor-mation (e.g.. concept mapping), can further increasethe learners' understanding of content.

ReferencesCentre for Structural Communication. (1969). AngloSaxons. London: University of London Press.

Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of proc-essing: A framework for memory research. Journal of


Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, /1, 671-684.

Egan, K. (1972). Structural communication A newcontribution to pedagogy. Programmed Learning andEducational Technology, 9(2), 63-78.

Egan, K (1974). Beyond linear and branching pro-grammed instruction. British Journal of Educational Tech-nology, 5(2), 36-58.

Egan, K. (1976). Structural Communication. Belmont CA:Fearon Publishers, Inc.

Fyfe, R. M. & Woodrow, D. (1969). Basic Ideas of AbstractMathematics. Centre for Structural Communications:University of London Press, London.

Hodgson, A.M. (1974a). Center for Structural Commu-nication. Unpublished report.

Hodgson, A.M. (1974b). Structural communication inpractice. In APLET Yearbook of Educational Technology1974/75. London: Kogan Page.

Hodgson, A. M. & Dill, W. R. (1971, Jan/Feb). Pro-grammed case: Reprise of the misfired missive. HarvardBusiness Review, 140-45.

Hodgson, A. M. & Dill, W. R. (1970, Nov/Dec). Pro-grammed case: Sequel to thr, misfired missive. HarvardBusiness Review, 105-110.

Hodgson, A. M. & Dill, W. R. (1970, Sept/Oct). Pro-grammed case: The misfired missive. Harvard BusinessReview, 140-46.

Linden, M., & Wittrock, M.C. (1981). The teaching ofreading comprehension according to the model ofgenerative learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(1),44-57.

Mayer, R. E. (1984). Aids to prose comprehension.Educational Psychologist, 19, 30-42.

Mitchell, P. D. & Meilleur-Baccanale, D. (1982). Differ-ential effects of holist and serialist learning style onlearning with structural communication. In Progress inCybernetics and Systems Research. New York: John Wil coyand Sons (Halstead Press); Washington HemispherePublishing Corp.

Mitchell, P. D. & Emmott, L. (1990). Eliminating differ-ences in comprehension due to cognitive style through com-puter-based instructional systems. Paper to be presentedat the meeting of the Association for the Developmentof Computer-Based Instructional Systems.

Volume 1 (2)Summer1990

Osborne, R.J., &Wittrock, M.C. (1983). Learning science:A generative process. Science Education, 67(4), 489-508.

Romiszowski, A. J. (1976). A study of individualizedsystems for mathematics instruction at the secondary levels.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University ofTechnology, Loughborough, United Kingdom.

Romiszowski, A. J. (1986). Developing auto-instructionalmaterials: From programmed tests to CAL and interactivevideo. London: Kogan Page.

Romiszowski, A.J. (1990). The case method, interactivemedia and instructional design. Keynote address, 7thInternational Conference on Case Method Researchand Case Method Application. University of Twente,Netherlands, April 1990. Conference Proceedings: Se-lected Papers III World Association for Case MethodResearch and Case Method Application (WACRA),Needham, MA.

Romiszowski, A.J., Grabowski, B. L., & Damadaran, B.(1988). Structural communications, expert systems, andinteractive video: A powerful combination for a non-traditional CAI approach. Proceedings of Association forEducation Communications and Technology.

Romiszowski, A. J., Grabowski, B. L., & Pusch, W. S.(1988). Structural communication: A neglected CAI meth-odology and its potential for interactive video simulations.Paper presented at the meeting of the Association forthe Development of Computer-Based InstructionalSystems.

Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practioner: How profes-sionals think in action. London: Temple Smith.

Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practioner.San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Taylor, S. G. (1990). Concept mapping in structural com-munication. Unpublished masters thesis, ConcordiaUniversity, Montreal, Canada.

Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching oflearning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: MacMil-lan.

Whittington, R. B. (1974). A report on the effectiveness ofstructural communication. Unpublished Report, SimonFraser University, B. C.

Wittrock, M.C. (1974). Learning as a generative proc-ess. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87-95.

15

W itt rock, M.C. (1985). Teaching learners generativestrategies for enhancing reading comprehension. The-ory into Practice, 24(2), 123-126.

* Wende S. Pusch and Elisa J. Slee are doctoral candi-dates in the IDD&E program at Syracuse University.

THE SYRACUSE-DUTCH CONNECTION

A quiet but active International R&D exchange programbetween Instructional Design, Development and Evalu-ation (IDDE) at Syracuse University (SU) and ToegepasteOnderwijskunde (TO) at the University of Twente (UT) inThe Netherlands is almost ten years old. During that time,three IDDE faculty members have spent 3-6 months at theDutch University and fou r TO faculty have taught at SyracuseUniversity. One graduate student from TO has finished aMaster's degree in IDDE and the first IDDE representativeis expected to carry on advanced research at Twente soon.Two students groups from DO and a contingent of Dutcheducators have visited SU. IDDE sponsored a group ofAmerican educators for an educational technology studytour of the Netherlands. And so it goes. Why all thisactivity?

At first it seems to bean unlikely match: IDDE with 9 facultyand TO with 31; IDDE with about 75 graduate students andTO with about 300 undergraduates; IDDE with relativelysmall space on the third floor of Huntington Hall and TO intwo building- , IDDE more than 40 years old and TO justcelebrating its 10th anniversary. Yet there is communitybetween the two programs that brings professionals withcommon interests together across the waters. The matchwas made official with the signing of a cooperative agree-ment in 1981 and a renewal of that agreement in 1989 withan extension to 1994.

The cooperative agreement calls for information exchange,taculty exchange, student exchange, and collaborative re-search. Each university has named a coordinator, presentlyAlex Romiszowski from SU and Sanne Dijkstra from UT.The first coordinators were Don Ely and Tjeerd Plomp.

Each faculty exchange visit is unique to the individual andthe institution. In general, each person offers a course, givesa colloquium presentation, meets with faculty and studentsto discuss matters of mutual interest, and pursues a per-conal research and writing program independently or incollaboration with a counterpart colleague. Don Ely (SU)has jointly edited a special issue of the International Reviewof Education with Tjeerd Plomp (UT); Alex Romiszowski(SU) and Martin Mulder (UT) have co-edited StrategicHuman Resources Development. John Keller has pub-lished a conference paper with Jan Muller. Other efforts arecurrently underway.

The story behind all of this activity began when TjeerdPlomp from TO visited IDDE in 1978 to look into the educa-tional technology curriculum. The University of Twente

(then Technische Hogeschool Twente) was in the process ofdeveloping a curriculum in Education with emphasis ontechnology. The planning process took three years beforethe first students arrived in 1981. Don Ely and Mike Molenda(SU alumnus, currently Chair, Instructional systems Tech-nology at Indiana University) shared a one year ResearchFellowship during the last planning year. Subsequently, Elyreturned to UT in 1984, 1986, 1988 and 1990 for 3 month pe-riods. John Keller (ex-SU faculty, now at Florida StateUniversity) and Alex Romiszowski both held 3 monthResearch Fellowships during that time. The IDDE curricu-lum has had a major influence on the TO curriculum andcontinues that influence through its faculty presence.

TO is a larger programa College of Education in itself. Itsfive departments are: Curriculum Technology, InstructionalTechnology, Educational Instrumentation Technology,Educational Administration and Educational Measurementand Data Analysis. It also encompasses an education re-search and development center funded by the Ministry ofEducation and Science and is the international headquartersfor the Computers in Education study, a project of the Inter-national Association for the Evaluation of EducationalAchievement. Egbert Warries was the first TO facultymember to teach at SU. Later, 'Tjeerd Plomp, Sanne Dijkstraand Jan van den Akker came for periods of three weeks tothree months.

The larger scope of TO brought about an expanded agree-ment with the entire School of Education rather than justwith IDDE alone. This expanded agreement has alreadyattracted attention from faculty in Higher Education andAdult Education for potential future exchanges.

An International R&D program such as this depends uponpeople and communication. Frequent e-mail (BITNET) ex-changes facilitate ongoing cooperative efforts. A large TOcontingent at American Educational Research Association(A ERA) provides opportunities for meeting, planning andexchanging ideas with SU colleagues who also attend thesame conference. Computer and teleconferences have beenheld. International conferences serve as additional groundsfor meetings. The important connections are person-to-person: individuals who hold common values and goalsand who work together can yield more than each person'sindividual output. These connections have been made, arecurrently being made, and will continue to be made. Suchconnections are the stuff of life for professionals who refuseto be bound by institution, state or national boundaries. Theconnection is truly an international network.

hbJ


Interpersonal Skills: Critical Attributesfor Instructional Developers*

Ruth V. Curtis and Darlene Nestor**

As students in instructional development academic programs enter the field, they quickly discover that theirprofessional success depends largely upon a combination of technical and interpersonal skills. This article identifiesfive areas of ID responsibility, specifies several interpersonal skills critical to successfully fulfilling those respon-sibilties, and includes comments from students who participated in an academic program designed to help thembuild and fliiiance those skills.

Instructional development is a hands-on, "action" pro-fession. It requires the utilization of specific skills andtechniques to analyze, produce, implement and assessinstruction. Instructional development professionalsreport that to be successful requires a repetoire ofIx ential strategies and techniques for working withclients, subject matter experts, subordinates, colleaguesand others.

Although most academic programs in instuctionaldevelopment adequately prepare their preservice pro-fessionals in the technical skills, knowlege and experi-ences needed to get the job done, they generally lack op-portunities for building and enhancing interpersonalskill competencies for working with people to get the jobdone. Although they may know how to write objec-tives, sequence content, design evaluation instrumentsand develop support materials, they may not be as wellprepared to interact with a reluctant SME, manage adiverse ID team, or present a completed project to aclient.

Such situations demand special competencies thatrequire skills that are not part of a typical academicprogram in instructional development. These compe-tencies have been identified by AECT's Division of In-structional Development Task Force on InstructionalDevelopment Certification (1981) as (1) effective com-munication skills (visual, oral, written) and (2) inter-personal, group process and consulting behaviors. Theneed for such "people skills" has been supported byprofessionals in the field in a number of articles (e.g.,Schiffman, 1986; Coldw:ly and Rasmussen, 1984; Wall-ington, 1981; Deden-Parker, 1979).

A "typical day" in the life of an instructional developermay include any or all of the following areas of respon-sibility:

initial client meetingsinformation-gathering interviewsinternal reviews


client reviewsteam meetings

These five areas represent the five units of instruction ina course entitled "Interpersonal Skills for InstructionalDevelopers," offered to graduate students in SyracuseUniversity's Area of Instructional Design, Develop-ment and Evaluation in the fall of 1988. A brief descrip-tion of each of these units and the skills taught ispresented below. Several related comments made bystudents who had participated in the course are in-cluded.

Initial Client MeetingsEstablishing immediate rapport and crea tinga positivefirst impression with a client help to ensure a pleasantand successful ID project. This requires thinking aboutkey verbal and nonverbal cues, such as dress, bodylanguage, positive attitudes, etc. It is essential to be de-liberate about projecting a positive image to a client,especially during the initial meeting.

Critical Skills: Verbal and nonverbal communication, theuse of power, skills for establishing rapport.

"It is amazing how vital politics can be and howthe areas of trust, being non-threatening, suppor-tive, empathetic, and being able to communicateare crucial for the effective ID'er."

Information-Gathering InterviewsIn cases where the instructional developer has notestablished rapport with the client (who may be a SME)in the initial meeting or didn't enter the project until theinformation-gathering stage, it is important to be thor-oughly prepared to establish credibility while main-taining that of the client. This can be accomplishedthrough careful wording of questions, focused atten-tion, effective listening strategies and frequently test-ing your understanding of the subject matter.

5617

Critical Skills: interviewing, listening, questioning tech-niques.

"I found I have a great deal of difficulty withreflective listening without turning it into a ques-tion. This...became an effort to concentrate on howto rephrase items as opposed to questioning andasking for clarification. I have practiced this...1think it will be a helpful technique to use."

Client ReviewsThe client interview may or may not be with the SME.Although the level of rapport established during initialmeetings, content knowledge acquired and detail ofthe draft submitted for review may influence this rela-tionship, in some cases, when the client is the SME,some negative feedback about the training design mayresult. When this occurs, it is important for the instruc-tional developer to view the comments as constructive,respond neutrally, maintain control, address the prob-lem and move on. Once the problem is resolved, theproject can proceed.

Critical Skills: motivation, creative problem-solving, feed-back techniques.

" 1...specifically asked (my boss) to explain whichhelped me understand what she was trying to com-municate to me and served to defuse and reduceher excited state."

Internal ReviewsIn most training organizations, development work isreviewed before the client sees it, which means accept-ing feedback from one's colleagues. In some cases, thisrequires actively listening to their suggestions andcomments and, if possible, acting on them. In othercases, it requires standing by your work, even when acolleague has criticized it, while acknowledging thevalue of receiving the colleague's feedback.

Critical Skills: negotiation, conflict resolution, feedbacktechniques.

"...(H)ow we interact with people has a strongimpact on how they respond to us. I've been...insituations where I've felt that every attempt I madeto do a good job was met with disinterest, criticism,or some other form of negative feedback."

Team MeetingsMost instructional developers do their work within ateam context. It is essential that the roles of each teammember and the goals of the team are clearly articu-lated. At the initial phase of the project, agendas, time-

18

lines, goals, objectives, roles and responsibilities mustbe defined and agreed upon through timelines, tasklists, and discussions.

Team meetings and discussions require closure. Whileindividual needs, personalities and styles must be ac-knowledged, issues and concerns must be resolved.Expert managing of individuals and groups increasesindividual performance and achievement.

Critical Skills: team building, conducting effective teammeetings, making persuasive presentations.

"(This experience) will help me to better plan andlead meetings and will help me feel more confidentin such situations."

After completing the pilot course "Interpersonal Skillsfor Instructional Developers," sixteen graduate stu-dents enrolled in Syracuse University's Area of Instruc-tional Design, Development and Evaluation agreedthat the most positive outcome of having taken thecourse was in gaining or increasing their awareness ofhow interpersonal skills fit within their own personalstyles, the potential effects of interpersonal competenceon the ID process, and techniques for integrating themwith the more technical ID skills learned in other coursesThe course was intended to integrate classroom learn-ing with real and simulated work experiences.

The goals of the course were to (1) provide studentswith an overview of important interpersonal skills; (2)raise students' awareness of their leadership, manage-ment and communication styles; (3) develop students'ability in problem solving and effective management ofvarious humar behaviors; and (4) provide studentswith information about a variety of resources availableto assist them in further developing their interpersonalcompetencies.

The content of the course included skill-building inactive listening, making presentations, conductingmeetings, negotiating and conflict resolution, problemsolving and interviewing. In self-evaluations completeddirectly following the end of the course, and fivemonths later (when they were actually working in thefield), students reported a gain in competence in all ofthe above skill areas and stated they had already usedsome of those skills on the job. All acknowledged theimportance of such a course.

"The course filled a lot of gaps resulting from an in-tensive design and development emphasis in ourprogram. We designers need to work with clientsto do our jobs well. Therefore, we should practice/develop interpersonal strategies to do so."


Positive interaction with clients and colleagues is vitalto the success of any instructional development project.Interpersonal awareness and skill-building are essen-tial components of an academic program that preparesprofessionals for careers in instructional development.

"This course provided me with a good grasp ofconcepts, helped me define various skills or behav-iors and served as behavioral models for me. Ithelped stimulate my thinking about topics I hadn'tconsidered."

ReferencesColdeway, D.O. and Rasmussen, R.V. (1984). Instruc-tional development: A consideration of the interper-sonal variables. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(1), 23-27.

Competencies for the Instructional/Training Develop-ment Professional. (1981, Fall). Task Force on ID Certifi-cation, AECT Division of Instructional Development.Journal of Instructional Development, 5 (1), 14-15.

Deden-Parker, A. (1979). Instructional design compe-tencies for business and industry designer-client inter-actions. Educational Technology,19 (5), 44-46.

Schiffman, S.S. (1986). Instructional systems design:Five views of the field. Journal of Instructional Devel-opment,9 (4), 15-21.

Wallington, C.J. (1981). Generic skills of an instruc-tional developer. Journal of Instructional Development, 4(3), 28-32.

* A longer version of this article will appear in Edu-cational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 38,No. 2.

** Ruth V. Curtis is an Assistant Professor in theSchool of Information Studies at Syracuse Univer-sity. Darlene Nestor is an Instructional Designer inInstructional Design Group, Inc., Morristown, N.J.

STUDENT LITERACY CORPS PROGRAM ADDRESSES LOCAL LITERACY NEEDS

According to U.S. census data and estimates by Syracusearea community service agencies, nearly 50,000 adults inOnondaga County are functionally illiterate, and many moreindividuals do not have high school credentials. In addition,the number of adults in the Syracuse area in need of basiceducation continues to increase.

Faculty and students of the Interdisciplinary Institute onLiteracy and the Adult Education Program at Syracuse Uni-versity will address this need through the Student LiteracyCorps Program. This project, funded for two years by theU.S. Department of Education, includes the development ofan undergraduate, four-credit set of two courses on adult lit-eracy education. This set of courses, to be offered initially inFall 1990, combines academic study with field placement inlocal adult literacy and basic education programs. Theproject provides opportunities for undergraduate studentsto augment course work with six hours of supervised liter-acy tutoring in the Syracuse area.

Tutors in the Student Literacy Corps Program will providesupplemental instruction to low literate adults in basic edu-cation classes offered by the Syracuse Educational Opportu-nity Center (EOC) and the Onondaga-Cortland-MadisonBoard of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES). Theseagencies offer classes to adults in basic reading and mathe-matics as well as high school equivalency and job training.The university course will provide student tutors with an as-sortment of instructional strategies as well as with the op-portunity to explore a broad range of perspectives tied toliteracy and adult learning.

In creating the project, the Syracuse University faculty bene-fitted from the assistance of several public community agen-cies in the Syracuse area. These agencies include LiteracyVolunteers of Greater Syracuse, The Syracuse EducationalOpportunity Center, and the Onondaga-Cortland-MadisonBoard of Cooperative Educational Services. In addition tothese agencies, Literacy Volunteers of America, LaubachLiteracy Action, the SU Student Government Associationand Greek Council, and Niagara Mohawk continue to pro-vide representatives to serve on an ongoing project advisoryboard.

The project will provide an opportunity for undergraduatesto be involved in important community work. Other goalsare to improve literacy education, and to enhance under-graduates' knowledge, skills, and attitudes about adult liter-acy. Data collected on the project outcomes is expected to besignificant to practioners and researchers concerned withimproved adult literacy instruction.

The Students Literacy Corps Program is receiving enthusi-astic support from university administrators and Syracusearea community agency di-ectors. It is envisioned that theprogram will receive continued support and ultimatelybecome a regular part of university course offerings. Theprogram will also provide a model for adoption in othercollege and university settings where there is interest inmore effective community involvement for students.


BEST COPY AVAILABLE

19

Planning for Success:College Distance Education ProgramsLynda Hanrahan*

Over the past two decades, there has been an incredibleproliferation of distance education programs through-out the U.S. and internationally. Distance educationbrings the course to the student, rather than the studentto the campus. Instruction may be delivered by one ora combination of media, including print, broadcast,audio or video recordings, or even by computer orinteractive video.

Teleconferencing and videoconferencing systems arebeing utilized for all levels of education from elemen-tary school through college and into the workplace.Each year, over $150 million in training dollars is spentfor "teletraining" by business and industry. In acade-mia, distance education programs provide thousandsof non-traditional students with opportunities for life-long learning.

Syracuse University (S.U.) has become one of a grow-ing number o f "traditional" academic institutions whichhave developed a distance education program to meetthe needs of students who must earn while they learn.However, the move into distance education at S.U. hasnot been smooth.

The process of adopting an innovation by an estab-lished institution is rarely smooth. The fits and starts ofthe adoption process are often the norm. For those whomanage college distance education programs, there isof",,.m an unstated, but important goal to increase accep-tance of the program by faculty and administrators.Diffusion research, especially that of Everett Rogers(1983) provides a good source of strategies managerscan use to increase acceptance of distance educationprograms meeting the needs of continuing educationstudents. This paper examines the S.U. experience inrelation to the particular characteristics of the innova-tion that may eventually determine the success of theprogram.

Barriers to Distance EducationThere are still many barriers to the adoption of distanceeducation and other media-based instructional meth-ods in higher education. Two of the most tenaciousbarriers that generally crop up arc strategic planningand faculty resistance. Poor planning and administra-tion can have a devastating effect on these programs.

20

On the issue of resistance, Koontz (1989) and Evans(1968) report that college faculty may believe anynumber of myths and misconceptions about televisionteaching: the courses are not as rigorous; the quality isgenerally poor; instructional television is ineffective;telecourse students lack direct faculty-student contactand therefore the motivation to work hard in the course.In addition, many faculty resist the notion of off-cam-pus learning and have little or no sympathy for stu-dents whose life situation does not permit them toattend college in a traditional way (Lewis and Wall,1988).

Distance education is an innovation in academia, sincemost academic institutions do not yet have such pro-grams. College courses are taught in much the sameway they have been for centuries, with students re-quired to attend classes on campus. For those collegesthat do offer distance education, the programs oftentake a back seat to the "real" learning that takes place onthe campus. These programs have been called the"stepchildren of college courses," because even thoughthey get high marks from students, faculty and admin-istrators may see them as good for public relations butout of the mainstream of higher education (Managan,1989).

A Pragmatic SolutionFor over thirty-five years, University College (U.C.),S.U.'s continuing education division, has provided amodified type of distance education for engineeringstudents. Instead of sending educational programs tothe students, it sent its engineering faculty to conductclasses at its Graduate Centers located in New York atPoughkeepsie, Endicott and Utica/Rome. Corpora-tions in these areas sponsored their engineers into theprogram to upgrade skills, secure an advanced degreeor keep abreast of technological advances. The sheerpace of changing technologies in engineering demandsthat engineers must continually learn to stay current intheir field. Large enrollments in the off-campus Cen-ters have brought many students into full-time study atS.U., and have maintained good public relations withcorporate clients.

Enrollments in the Centers surged for a while and havenow leveled off. There are several reasons for this-


more engineers with advanced degrees have been hired,the corporations are downsizing which means fewernew hires, and there is increased competition fromengineering programs offered by other universitiessuch as RPI, Columbia, Virginia Tech and NTU (Na-tional Technological University). These institutionshave been using distance education programs longerthan S.U. has. NTU, for example, broadcasts tele-courses (developed by engineering colleges) through-out the United States and grants engineering degrees tostudents who complete the NW program.

As enrollments changed at the Centers, U.C. began tolook for ways to maintain the full complement of engi-neering course offerings without increasing costs. Somecourses had to be cancelled due to low enrollment. Itwas no longer cost-effective to send a professor to onesite to teach six or seven students. To maintain a strongoff-campus program, U.C. had to look to alternativemeans to deliver courses. If the courses could be taughtat all three sites and managed by one instructor, thecourse could be offered. Distance education was anobvious solution, especially because the corporate clientswere already receptive to this method. S.U. seized anopportunity to apply for a National Science Foundationgrant to develop satellite uplink capability. The grantwas approved and with matching monies from corpo-rate and local sources, S.U. installed the uplink in 1987.

Developing the ProgramEarly in the development process, U.C. arranged withthe Center for Instructional Development (CID) to dealwith two primary concerns they had for the program:quality of instructional materials and administrativecoordination. CID provides support to Syracuse Uni-versity faculty and academic departments to improvecourses and curricula. In this instance, CID was to workwith engineering faculty to develop and produce vide-ocourses, which would be taped live, duplicated andsent via courier to the three Centers. Full use of theuplink would come later, after the initial experimentproved successful.

CID spent a considerable amount of time working withthe first faculty volunteers, helping them to translatetheir instructional materials into high-quality, camera-ready graphics. An experienced videocourse instruc-tor estimates that it takes twice as much time to producethese materials, but he covers about 40% more materialbecause the course is so well organized. The televisiongraphics are also turned into a set of course notes thatare distributed to the students. Having the hard copyin hand compensates for any loss of quality in the finaltelevision image.

CID also developed and provided two other key pieces

Volume 1(2) Summer 1990

for the program: coordination of the video productionand administrative aspects, and the evaluation compo-nent.

Formative evaluations initially showed that the vide-ocourses were received half-heartedly by the students.Many students complained about the lack of immedi-ate interaction with the instructor (a common problemwith media-based courses). Within a short time, stu-dent attitudes became more favorable because theyfound the videocourses to be flexible (especially ifstudents had to go out of town for work), useful forreviewing, and well-produced. In addition, manystudents realized that a broader selection of courseswas available with the videocourses.

The taped videocourses proved to be a successful ven-ture for U.C. Even with start-up and developmentcosts, the experiment demonstrated that the distanceeducation program could be cost-effective. The nextstage was to use the satellite uplink. This processproved to be more complicated than anyone wouldhave thought! Es tablishing do wnlinks that would serveour corporate clients, as well as independent studentswas difficult, at best. A major corporate client whichhad insisted that U.C. offer telecourses via satellite,could not actually receive (downlink) the courses. CIDhad to make elaborate arrangements to downlink else-where, then retransmit to the corporation or to ourGraduate Centers. In addition, we were asked to workaround another college's broadcast schedule. Eventu-ally, these kinks have been worked out. U.C. plans toestablish a downlink at each Graduate Center to avoidthe more complicated downlink arrangements.

Problems with Strategic PlanningDuring the past two years, U.C. has struggled to puttogether an advance schedule of telecourse offerings.This is needed to secure satellite time and to promotethe courses. It also allows students to plan theircourseload for a logical sequence of courses. Untilrecently, it was difficult to create an advance schedulebecause faculty regarded telecourse teaching as volun-tary. Their research activities often interfere with theintense development activities needed for the tele-course.

U.C. has tried various facilitative strategies to engageengineering faculty to volunteer to develop their coursesfor use in this program. Some of the strategies usedwere:

(1) conducting informational sessions to describethe development process

(2) providing support services for course produc-tion and management (through CID)

(3) providing for formative evaluation of the tele-courses

21

(4) developing a system of incentives and re-wards.

In planning for distance education, the issue of rewardsand incentives deserves attention. Faculty have beenrightfully concerned about how telecourses would betreated with regard to teaching load, paychecks andcredit toward tenure and promotion. Other concerns fitwith what Dillon (1989) calls "academic credibility andpersonal rewards." An up front payment for develop-ment may be considered inadequate compared to thepreparation involved. The issue of teaching load maybe unclear. It is clear, however, that time spent develop-ing a telecourse does not count toward tenure and pro-motion. This is restrictive for untenured faculty or forthose with heavy research obligations. As for academiccredibility, S.U. telecourse faculty are not now highlyregarded, as they are in some universities. The per-sonal rewards for teaching on television are intrinsic,unless the administration makes provisions for theextrinsic rewards.

Strategies to Increase theAcceptance of Distance EducationPerceived characteristics of innovations are often usedin diffusion research to predict their rate of adoption.Rogers book, Diffusion of Innovations (1983) names fiveattributes of innovations that he has used to derive gen-eralizations from studies of adoption: relative advan-tage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and ob-servability. Each of these attributes, with the excep-tion of complexity, is positively related to the rate ofadoption. In this case, the way the a ttribu tes o f distanceeducation are perceived by the faculty or the admini-stration is related to how quickly they will agree tobecome involved.

The "fits and starts" experienced in the adoption proc-ess for distance education at S.U. may be compared toRogers' generalizations. Managers of distance educa-tion may be able to address the common problems re-lated to perceived attributes of innovations. Therefore,by implementing strategies that address these prob-lems, the manager may increase the acceptance (adop-tion) of the distance education program.

Relative AdvantageRogers indicates that relative advantage, or the degreethat the innovation is seen as being superior to previouspractice, is one of the best predictors of successfuladoption. Relative advantage for distance educationcould be viewed as status-giving, profitability or cost-effectiveness, an improvement in practice or variousfaculty incentives. This topic is worth a thorough ex-amination. In this case, the manager's ability to pro-

22

mote the relative advantage of distance education iscritical to its adoption and eventual success.

Status... In this case, having an uplink confers statusupon S.U., putting us in the "big league," a major playerin the telecourse arena of distance education for engi-neers. Faculty may also reap the benefits of an increasein status: they are more visible to the corporate client,and may be chosen for a special research assignment,consultation or conference. On the other hand, somefaculty fear the increased visibility of television be-cause it highlights their mistakes or inadequacies inpresentation style.

Cost-effectiveness... Distance education certainly has thepotential to be more cost-efficient and cost-effectivethan conventional education, depending upon howwell the system is designed and managed (Rumble,1987). Satellite time is very expensive. It is manydownlinks and large enrollments that improve theprofit margin. S.U. does not yet have this economy ofscale. Even so, the satellite telecourses have been mar-ginally profitable, and the taped video-courses veryprofitable according to recent estimates.

Improvement in Practice... There are many colleges thatoffer distance education programs as a part of theircontinuing education divisions, but part of the problemis that these programs are often considered to be aca-demically inferior to conventional classroom instruc-tion. Distance education is proven to be an effectivemethod of delivering instruction (Clark and Verduin,Jr., 1989), although course development for a qualitytelecourse is not entirely simple. These are complexprograms that represent a departure from conven-tional (classroom lectures with students present) typesof education. The relative advantage here is gainedwhen the faculty member sees this process as an oppor-tunity to improve the course by obtaining professionalassistance in areas such as design, graphics develop-ment and evaluation. The payoff comes when theprofessor has a set of professionally produced graphicsready (with minor modifications) for a conference orspecial lecture.

Incentives... Faculty incentives are critical for the per-ception of relative advantage. Strategic planning fordistance education must address the issues of tenureand promotion, as mentioned above. One incentivehere is the major savings in travel time, even though theprofessors will travel to each of the Centers during thesemester, they do so less often. Time is critical forprofessors engaged in research activities.

CompatibilityAccording to Rogers, compatibility means that theinnovation is a good fit with existing values, past expe-


riences and adopter needs. Issues of compatibility areespecially relevant to distance education, given thegeneral attitude of professors toward "unconventional"instruction, including instructional television. The de-velopment of the distance education program must beseen as compatible with the needs of the academic de-partment. Here, academic administration must bevocal in demonstrating compatibility with departmentgoals and existing values.

ComplexityRogers' research shows that innovations perceived ascomplex are less likely to be adopted. Distance educa-tion is a complex process of development and manage-ment, especially for college instructors who are used todeveloping their courses on their own. The basic strat-egy is to make the development process as transparentas possible, while maintaining quality of the product atthe same time.

Trialability and ObservabilityRogers demonstrates that if an innovation can be triedbefore it is wholly implemented, and if people canobserve how it works before making a commitment, therate of adoption is faster. At S.U., we encourage thefaculty member to try his/her ability in front of thecamera for a trial run. Engineering faculty have manyopportunities to observe distance education programs,both ours and theirs, through a downlink at their col-lege. They can pass by the open door to the controlroom near the studio classroom and watch what isgoing on. Demonstrations set up by CID art anotherway to get faculty involved.

SummaryWithin the next decade, distance education may play amajor part in adult education and in the training of ourworkforce. Like other universities, Syracuse Univer-sity could institutionalize and expand distance educa-tion to include additional degree offerings. To do this,the faculty and administration will have to have apositive experience with distance education. At S.U.,the experience gained from working out the bugs withthe College of Engineering should now make the proc-ess of adoption by other departments much easier.

ReferencesClark, T. & Verduin, Jr., J. (1989). Distance education:Its effectiveness and potential use in lifelong learning.Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research,12(4), 24-26.


Dillon, C. (1989). Faculty rewards and instructionaltelecommunications: A view from the telecourse fac-ulty. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 35-43.

Evans, R. (1968). Resistance to innovation in higher educa-tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Koontz, F.R. (1989, April). Critical barriers to the adop-tion of instructional television in higher education.Educational Technology, 29(4), 45-48.

Lewis, R. & Wall, M. (1988, Dec.). Exploring obstacles touses of technology in higher education. Paper preparedfor Technology in Higher Education: A round table discus-sion.

Managan, K.S. (1989). Distance learning courses gethigh marks from students, and enrollments are rising.The Chronicle of Higher Education, 36(4), A39.

Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed.New York: Free Press.

Rumble, G. (1987). Why distance education can becheaper than conventional education. Distance Educa-tion, 8(1), 72-94.

* Lynda Hanrahan is a doctoral candidate in theIDD&E program and the Instructional Video Coordi-nator for Center for Instructional Development (CID)at Syracuse University.

Further information on electrical and computer engi-neering telecourses may be obtained by completingand returning the coupon on the last page of thejournal.

23

Job-AidsAlex Romiszowski*

MAP #1 STRUCTURAL COMMUNICATION: Overview

Introduction The technique of "Structural Communication" was invented and developed in Britain in the late1960's and early 1970's. It was an attempt to apply Humanist philosophy and Cognitivepsychology principles to the design and development of auto-instructional materials. It was botha reaction to and an extension of the largely behavioral-psychology-based "programmed instruc-tion" that was popular at the time. Also, it was designed, from the beginning, as a technique for thegeneration of interactive, computer-based, "conversational" tutorials, although most of the earlyimplementations were in fact printed as booklets. Given current advances in computer technology,hypermedia and interactive video systems, the possibilities for the use of such instructional designsis on the increase. Given the "state of the art" of computer-based-instruction design and its largelybehavioral roots, it is high time that approaches such as structural communication become betterknown and more used.

Intention The principal intention, or goal of this article is: to explain the principles and the structureof "structural communication (S.C.)" study units; to give an example of an S.C. unit and toengage the reader in interactive study of this unit; to compare S.C. in action with otherforms of auto-instructional materials; to compare S.C. with more conventional teachingapproaches; to generate some categories of possible applications of S.C. in education andtraining and some guidelines for its use. A secondary intention is to indicate, in outline,the design and development process by which an S.C. unit is produced, and to indicatewhere further information on developing such units may be obtained. This will bedeveloped in point 2 of this article, to appear in the next issue.

Definition ofStructural Com-munication

Structural Communication is a technique for engaging a learner in a challenging, butgame-like, problem solving exercise. Although it may be used with precisely defined andhighly structured subject content (e.g., Math), it is particularly (uniquely?) applicable tomore open-ended subjects where many viewpoints and alternative solutions may bevalidly defended (e.g., history, management, etc.).

Examples of Ap-plications:

1. The earliest application of the technique was in the "exact sciences (chemistry; physics;biology) and in mathematics, but to topics where it is important to investigate the struc-ture of the knowledge-base (set theory; rings and fields; advanced optics and thermody-namics).

2. The technique was then extended to such subjects as history and art appreciation, whereit was capable of modeling (and teaching to students) the thought processes of historicalinquiry and inference, or aesthetic judgement and evaluation.

3. More recently, the technique has been applied in the development of interactive case-study exercises, simulations and guided discussions, in such topics as managementdecision making, systems analysis, literary criticism, instructional design and develop-ment, etc. Current projects at Syracuse University are investigating these types ofapplications.

Analogy The student's activity in an S.C. exercise is somewhat like the outlining of an essay toaddress a complex multi-faceted problem. The system's feedback to the student issomewhat like that provided by a knowledgeable personal tutor who espouses the prin-ciples of "Socratic dialogue" in commenting and discussing the essay.

24


MAP #2 STRUCTURAL COMMUNICATION: Structure & Process

Introduction The way that a structural communication exercise works is best understood by analyzing the 6component parts of a typical study unit and the function of each.

Component partsof an S.C. Unit Description Example/Use

1. Intention The Intention is the opening statement, whichdefines what is to be studied, provides an over-view, possibly an "advance organizer", andsometimes a rationale.

Map #1 serves as an example (albeit imperfect)of a statement of intention. Note the similarityto a statement of goals/aims and an overviewin conventional modules.

2. Presentation The Presentation is the material, experience,exercise, case study, etc. which supplies the es-sential facts and concepts of the domain beingstudied. This may be an existing text, a video, acase study, a simulation, or real-life experience,depending on the overall strategy of the exer-cise.

Maps 2 to 4 serve as a somewhat condensedpresentation of the main principles, and proce-dures of the S.C. technique. These are edited-down versions of longer and more complete"presentations" of these topics (to be found inEgan (1976), Hodgson (1974 b), and Romiszow-ski (1986).

3. Investigation The Investigation is a set of problems for solu-tion, which are designed to present the "intellec-tual challenge" that is an essential part of the S.C.methodology. These problems are interrelatedand are open-ended to allow multiple responsesand viewpoints.

At the end of this article, I present a somewhatedited version of a "structural communicationexercise on structural communication" (whichfirst appeared in Egan 1976). The four relatedproblems which you are to investigate, chal-lenge you to form your own view of S.C.

4. Response Matrix The Response "Matrix" is a randomized array ofitems which summarize key parts, concepts orprinciples from the knowledge base that is beingused and studied in the exercise. Often it re-sembles a "key point summary" of the Presenta-tion. The student composes a response (outlinesan essay) by selecting any number of these itemsas a "best" response to a given problem.

The response matrix in the example at the endis an array of 24 statements of the form "S.C.permits...." You can select any combination ofthese to respond to each of the four problems inthe investigation. There are millions of possiblecombinations, though a smaller number are"plausible." The same item may be used inmore than one response.

5. Discussion The Discussion has two parts: a DISCUSSIONGUIDE and a set of DISCUSSION COMMENTS.The GUIDE is a set of IF-THEN rules, which"test" the student's response for omission or in-elusion of certain significant items, or combina-tions of items. The COMMENTS are construe-tive statements which discuss in depth the ra-tionale for including or excluding certain items.

The exercise presented at the end, has, for prob-lem #1, a total of six testing rules (4 for certainomissions and 2 for certain inclusions). Each ofthese rules, if satisfied, generates a specificfeedback comment. The student may be re-quired to read several of the 6 comments. Notethat some of the comments are long and are richin extra content and insights.

b. Viewpoints The final component of a typical S.C. unit is anoutline of the author's, and other alternativeviewpoi nts; this may review some aspects statedin the Intention, make explicit some biases orstand points held dear by theauthor, draw atten-tion to other views in the literature, etc.

In this condensed "simulation" of a full S.C.exercise, the article by Pusch and Slee, else-where in this journal issue, presents some otherviewpoints on why S.C. is a significant contri-bution to the practice of interactive education,and what role it might play in future educa-tional and training systems.

Volume 7 (2) Summer 7990 25

MAP #3 STRUCTURAL COMMUNICATION AND PROGRAMMEDINSTRUCTION: A Comparison

Introduction

Compare/ContrastTable

As the bulk of computer-assisted instruction being used and developed at the present time stillcontinues to be heavily based on the programmed instruction traditions and techniques, it is usefulto analyze how S.C. is similar to and different from the programmed instruction that we have allknown. (Much of this analysis is based on Egan 2976.)

Programmed Instruction Structural Communication

1. Individualizationof Instruction

P.I. effectively individualizes the pace of learn-ing and only sometimes to some extent (in mul-tiple-choice "branching" sequences) the path-way that a student might follow to achieve agiven objective. Hardly ever does P.I. allow va-riety in the objectives to be achieved, individual-ity in the discourse or in what should be consid-ered a "correct" or "best" response.

S.C. goes much beyond this in terms of path-way and sequence. As there are millions ofpossible response combinations and hundredsof possible feedback-comment combinationsfor any one problem, it is rare for two studentsto have the same learning experience. Also, theoutcomes of learning may vary, as the style al-lows for tutor/student disgreement.

2. Efficiency of theinstructional proc-ess

The efficiency of P.I. lies in the rapid and uni-form achievement of lower-level types of learn-ing, such as memorization of facts, mastery ofsingle concepts, absorption of the work of givenscholars. Many consider that it may reducelearners' efficiency at critical thinking, etc.

S.C. goes beyond this, by demonstrating effi-ciencyin higher-order cognitive learning (prob-lem solving, judgment), in the adoption bylearners of scholarly methods of work and increative use of the facts, concepts, and prin-ciples of a discipline.

3. Control over theinstructional proc-ess

Almost exclusively "system control." Controlover outcomes by specifying single "correct" an-swers at each stage. Control over student suc-cess by diminishing the complexity of materi-als/exercises till all succeed. Control over thestudent through "conditioning."

System (author) control over the content/knowledge domain to be explored, but largeamoun'I of "learner control" over the processand the outcomes of this exploration. Multipleacceptable responses. Open-ended feedbackwhich is "constructive" rather than "corrective."

4. Levels of think-ing

Promotes low-level processing/thinking:[Using Egan's 1976 4-level model]- "Automatic" (data absorption without under-standing) or at best- "Sensitive" (data processing to create meaning-ful messages)

Promotes higher-level processing/thinking:- "Conscious" (information processing to gen-crate newknowledge/understanding),or whenwell-authored-"Creative" ("knowledge processing" to gener-ate new insights - "eureka")

5. Process of Learn-ing

Almost exclusively through the RECEPTION ofpreviously authored relationships and view-points. May ask for "rhetorical"criticism of theseviewpoints, but implants them first in the mind,by EXPOSITIVE presentation. Intuitive/crea-Live "leaps" by the learner are not encouragedand may indeed be inhibited by the excessivelya utocratic, system-controlled instructional proc-ess.

Encourages DISCOVERY of key relationshipsand structures, by setting learners an intellec-tual CHALLENGE in the problem sets and aSOCRATIC-like d ialogue in the discussion. Thechallenges promote and the discussion encour-ages "COGNITIVE LEAPS" or 'TRANSITIONSTO HIGHER LEVELS OF UNDERSTAND-INC" of a domain.

6. The ultimate out-comes

A "conditioned mind" that has learned to thinknot only linearly, but along the lines of the spe-cific authors or scholars involved /quoted in thespecific course.

A "deconditioned mind" in which concepts andfacts are easily loosened from previous associa-tions in order to form new ones. Non-linearthinking is encouraged.

Final Comment

26

This comparison is intentionally drawn in a harsh light. It should not be taken, however,that P.I. is always "bad" and S.C. is always "good." It is a question of appropriate balancein education and training between the two approaches.


STRUCTURAL COMMUNICATION IN THE CLASSROOM:MAP#4 Proven and Potential Uses

Introduction Much conventional instruction, even lectures or classroom based lessons, are closer in structure,process and outcomes to the "programmed instruction" model than to the "structural communi-cation" model. There are, however, some well known methodologies which break away from thisnorm. Examples are: the "guided discovery" lesson; case-study method; simulations and games;group discussions; self-analysis ; etc. In this map, we show that the S.C. methodology can be adaptedand used in most, if not all, of these contexts, and can often enhance the learning experience.

S.C. as discoverylearning

A typical S.C. study unit, as the one shown as an example at the end of this article, presentsbasic knowledge about the domain being studied, in the form of an EXPOSITIVE presen-tation. It is possible, however, to use just the interactive part of the model (INVESTIGA-TION, DISCUSSION, VIEWPOINTS) to discuss existing and create new understandingsof a real-life experience or of currently held views, attitudes and cognitive schemata. Inboth the above cases, however, the investigation and discussion may contain an elementof discovery of new relationships on the part of the learner. Discovery in a S.C. environ-ment is more structured, guided and predictable than in most other discovery-learningsituations.

S.C. as case-study One highly successful and growing use of the S.C. methodology is as a vehicle for the DIS-method CUSSION of a case. The case materials form the presentation. Then the investigation and

discussion follow the S.C. pattern. This approach has been used successfully to enhancelearning from Harvard Case Studies (Hodgson and Dill 1971), from Interactive-video-based cases (Romiszowski, Grabowski and Pusch 1988) and from classroom-based, role/play and interactive situational cases ( Romiszowski 1990). In all these situations, the S.C.method supplies an interactive but automated "debriefing" session that takes learningbeyond the "facts of the case" to the underlying general principles and the overriding op-erational structures and processes.

S.C. as simulation- Egan (1976) makes the point that simulations may actually simulate a situation/environ-game ment/phenomenon and also an approach or a thought process. The case-study method

extends to fully interactive situational simulations. The "discovery-learning" and "emu-lation of the scholar's critical thinking" aspects of S.C. are examples of simulating and prac-ticing cognitive approaches to problems, that are valuable in real-life situations. Thus, theS.C. investigation/discussion method may be usefully incorporated in many so-called"experiential learning" methodologies.

S.C. as "reflection inaction"

Another useful application is to take real problems from a job and create a matrix of realfacts and events in the job situation, as instrumentation to encourage the sort of "reflection-in-action" learning process suggested by Schon (1983, 1987).

S.C. as group dis- It is quite effective to "instrument" a small group discussion on a set of problems, by sup-cussion plying a response matrix for the group to reach consensus by jointly picking a set of pre-

ferred response items. The group leader armed with a discussion guide and an outline or"blueprint" of the comments related to each critical response-pattern, leads the discussion"live", without the use of printed feedback comments. This approach is an exceptionallyeffective way of ensuring focus and depth in the discussion. It also has the advantage ofallowing discussants to add their own non-matrix response elements, or to question, dis-agree with, or build further on, the planned discussion.

S.C. as an assess- It is possible to a sess the quality and depth a student's understanding of the knowledgement method domain of an S.C. exercise either intuitively (as one often does with essay questions) or ob-

jectively, by assigning weightings to the items in the response matrix. This latter approachis of interest, because it is considerably more objective than the methods commonly usedto assess open-ended essay-type exam questions, yet it does not have the mechanistic, low-discrimination power, lower-level-learning-oriented aspects of conventional multiple-choice testing procedures. This use of S.C. (as an assessment method) is worthy of furtherinvestigation. For a fuller discussion, see Egan 1976, chapter 4.


MAP #5 STRUCTURAL COMMUNICATION: A Practical Example

Introduction

Problems

28

1.

2.

3.

4.

We reproduce here an S.C. exercise, written by Kieran Egan, and first published at the end ofhis book "Structural Communication" (Egan, 1976). There are 4 problems in the set. We havepresented the discussion comments only for the first of these problems. Working through thisexcerpt will give you a taste for the S.C. Methodology. If you wish to take the exercise further,please respond to the other 3 problems on the response-slip at the end of theexercise. You mayalso add any further comments you wish. We will mail you, by return, an analysis of yourresponse and a further selection of discussion comments.

TREAT THIS AS AN OPEN-ENDED CORRESPONDENCE-COURSE EXERCISE. Wewill later write up our observations on the exercise and mail them to all those who chose toparticipate.

The heart of an S.C. unit is the challenge with which the student is faced, the challengebeing to compose a sensible response to each problem by means of the items providedin the matrix. The period of composing the response has been called the "challenge-response interval," during which the student's intellectual activity is at its highest level.Use the Response Matrix to describe what is t..;,abled to take place in this challenge-response interval because of the nature of S.C.

Little has been written in the Presentation about the theoretical background out of whichS.C. has developed, or about the experimental work from which its present formemerged. Rather, the concentration has been on describing the technique and some of itsuses, and arguing that it represents a particularly valuable contribution to the practiceof education, both because of its contribution to the kind of intellectual activity itpromotes, and the strategic advantages its design offers to the teacher. Concentrate inthis problem on this latter contribution of S.C., on what advantages it offers to the teacherplanning the organization of her classes. What features of the technique make a directcontribution to teaching strategies in the typical classroom?

Some of the features of S.C. have been described in the Presentation as advantages thatthe technique has over other methods in achieving particular ends, either on the groundsof economy or efficiency. For this problem, consider rather those features and uses of S.C.that are unique, that is, features that are not simply impr.,vements on other techniquesor methods but that represent a breakthrough to new capacities. Use the ResponseMatrix, then, to compose a picture of S.C.'s uniqueness.

The typical response to an S.C. Investigation Problem is a set of numbers correspondingto the student's thought about the issue within the constraints imposed by a limitedmatrix of items. What additional pedagogical advantages are made possible as a resultof this kind of response?


Response Matrix Structural Communication permits

uses for both individ-ual or group learning.

2

the objective meas-urement of sophisti-cated intellectualskills. 3

a number of func-tions to be performedby the same unit.

4

the diagnosis ofsubtle misunder-standings.

1

an economicalmethod of providinghigh-quality learning.

5

the loosening orfreeing of conceptsfrom past associa-tions. 6

taking the inquirybeyond the typicalpresentation of thesubject matter. 7

the delermining offuture stages by thestudent's response.

8

the replication of theauthor's understand-ir.g.

9

a restricted simula-tion of scholarly ac-tivity.

10

the reinforcement orcorrection of under-standing.

11

discriminatingsubthemes from agenerally relevant se-mantic field. 12

the using of particu-lar sections whenrequired.

13

progressive clarifica-tion of meaning.

14

a variety of responsestrategies in a con-trollable medium. 15

engaging the studentin a synthetic intellec-tual act. 16

the emergence of thestructure of thetheme in the processof communication.

17

an efficient method ofcommunicating therichness of a theme.

18

the identification anddiscussion of a stu-dent's judgementsand biases. 19

focusing and stimu-lating thought on therelevant material.

20

a self-containedteaching medium.

21

distinct yet interde-pendent sections todevelop an unam-biguous message. 22

an engaging gameaspect.

23

a comparison withthe author's under-standing.

24

Discussion onProblem 1

Response Coupon

"Complete, clip, andcommunicate"

Problem #1

Problem #2

Problem #3

Problem #4

L

in the charts below for: I : 3 and 7 --> A0 : 9 or 12 --> B

read:If you included in your response both item 3 and item 7, read comment A below.If you omitted from your response either item 9 or 12 read comment B below.

Problem 1: 0: 6, 7, 9, 14, 16 or 17 --> A0: any two or more of 10, 12 and 23 > B0: any two or more of 15, 18 and 20 > C0: 8 and 15 --> DI: any two or more of 1, 11, 19 and 24 --> EI: any two or more of 2, 3, 4, 5,13, 21 and 22 --> F

Now continue with the next Eoblems

For each of the 4 problems on the facing page, respond by noting down the number of all the itemsin the response matrix above, which you would include in your "best argued" response to theauthor. You may include as many items as you wish in each response (but don't "overkill" just forthe sake of it). Also, the same item may be used in response to more than one problem, if you thinkit fits. First respond to problem #1 and then check over comments on the following pages. Thenrespond to the other three problems, clip this coupon and mail it to us to receive further feedbackand discussion.

My response includes items:





Discussion Comments

A. It has been shown that the best way to teach a student ageneral concept, for instance "democracy," is not simply torepeat the characteristics of democracy until the student canproduce them on demand, but rather to give a set of ex-amples which indicate what the concept means in a varietyof contexts: democracy in a club, in a school, in a church,among a group of friends, in a society, and so on. By thismethod the student will come to a quicker and more flexibleunderstanding of the concept. I think the same principle isembodied in the challenge-response mechanism of S.C. butin a more general sense, enabling the efficient communica-tion of complex concepts and sets of related concepts andfacts. To achieve this more general comprehension, S.C.enables the author to engage the student in viewing con-cepts and facts in different sets of relationships. Indeed, inS.C. the student is engaged in composing these contexts forhimself. To to this, it seems to me, he must synthesize thematerial rather as he does in developing a flexible under-standing of "democracy." This kind of thinking, whichallows the building up of new patterns of ideas and facts,seems to be of a level which allows also the breaking downof simpler patterns, enabling the "bits" to be utilized in thenew st uctu re.

The ways the student composes his response in a typicalstudy unit enables the author to bring together the principalfeatures of his theme in a particularly efficient and concisemanner, ensuring that, as the student makes his response,the structure that is central to the author's own understand-ing is recomposed, synthesized and, so, understood. Thestudent may reject the new patterns of understanding, orinsights, of course, but the first aim of the educator is toexpose these new patterns to him.

If you have been directed to this comment I hope our dis-agreement is about the terms I usewhich I readily agree aresometimes vague, often controversial, and unhappily jar-gon-heavyrather than about the level of intellectual activ-ity that the technique can reliably generate, or about what ismade possible when one can focus this level of intellectualactivity on the crucial recomposition of a relatively complexset of facts, concepts, judgments, etc. If you remain dubiousabout the latter, because of the opaqueness of my descrip-tions, I recommend that you work through a couple of studyunits in your area of interest, and reflect on what happens. Ifyou still disagree after that, I guess we must simply agree todisagree for now.

B. The game-playing aspect of S.C. is certainly not utilizedto the full in this example. 1 have tried rather to concentrateon uncovering sources of possible disagreement, hopingthat I could count on your interest in the techniques tomotivate you to respond. In the example of the Anglo-Saxon study units described in Chapter 6, the motivation tolearn about Anglo-Saxon society could not be presumed, sothe game-playing aspect was more prominent. Those unitsdemand nice discriminations as students deal with prob-lematic and varied information like practicing historians.The kind of game playing involved in simulating scholarlywork at an appropriate level ensures that students gener-ally find these units fun. I mention the Anglo-Saxonssimply because those units exemplify most clearly the as-pects of game playing while simulating a relatively greater

or lesser extent in the way the student is challenged torespond in all well-constructed study units.

Perhaps you think that working through an S.C. study unitis a long way from a game, and a long way from simulatingscholarly inqury. If we boxed up a set of study units andtried to sell them from the toy counter of a department store,we probably wouldn's do too well. But the idea of gaminghas moved some way from that of children's games andsimulation needn't be simulation at the level of the scholar'sactivity. Perhaps I'm trying to get a bit of mileage out of fa-vorable associations, but I really don't think I'm either stretch-ing the language or misrepresenting the potential of thetechnique.

RESPONSE COUPON - COMPLETE, CLIP AND COMMUNICATE

You should writedown your response to all four problems (using the response-matrix) in the space provided on the reverseside of this coupon. Then clip the coupon and mail it to us in order to receive a further set of discussion comments. Don'tforget to fill in the details below.

Your Name:

Address:

Here is a space for any other comments you may like to make, either on one or other of the four problems presented, oron the S.C. methodology in general.

3(1 69 Instructional Developments

C. You have been directed to this comment because youomitted a couple of general points that seem to me tocontribute a fuller picture of what is entailed by respondingto S.C. problems. The immediate focusing on relevantmaterial and efficient contruction of a rich set of interrelatedmeanings, while still allowing the student considerablefreedom of strategy (not just choice of items) in responding,

outlines for me the advantages of S.C. as an effective indi-vidualized teaching medium. But these points are generallystated, and our disagreement may only be about some of theterms I have used. If it is more profound, I confess I find itdifficult to provide any further arguments, and will simplyrefer to the description of how S.C. works and hope thosecharacteristics will be seen as self-evident.

D. There is perhaps some ambiguity in the statement thatthe technique enables the determining of the futu:e stagesof the student's progress while he is in the process of corn-posing his response. It is significant, I think, that the kindsof decisions the student is making in composing his res-

ponse determines what kind of discussion he will later beengaged in. This relects another aspect of the interdepend-ence of the sections of the technique, which allows controlover the communication process while also allowingconsid-erable freedom to the student in responding.

E. I think you have included some items that the techniqueenables to take place not in the process of responding butrather as a result of a particular response having been made.For example, it is not until this section that an opportunityarises for us to compare our understanding, even thoughthe aim of the problems and matrix is often to get the studentto replicate the author's understanding. Similarly, only

after the response has been recorded can we move to correct-ing or reinforcing understanding, or discussing judgmentsand biases. Only at this point in the study unit can I attemptto correct you if you have included item 11. The problemasks what is enabled to take place in the challenge-responseinterval, not what can be done as a resi,lt of it.

F. If you've been directed to this comment, something iswrong somewhere. Perhaps the problem or matrix itemsare more ambiguous than they ought to be, or perhapsyou've misread something. I would consider all the itemsleading to this comment to be more or less unrelated to the

intellectual or technical processes to which the S.C. chal-lenge-response interval gives rise. I suggest you reread theproblem more carefully and interpret the items somewhatmore rigorously.

* Alex Romiszowski is a Professor of Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation, and the Director ofthe Training Systems Institute at Syracuse University.

* *

To ,:vatuate the materials in this journal edition and/or to request additional information, please completeand return the coupon below and mail to:

INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENTSSyracuse University364 Huntington Hall

Syracuse, NY 13244-2340Telephone (315) 443-3702

FAX (315) 443-5732

Name

Address

City State

ZIP Country

Please evaluate the sections in this issue on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) in terms of their value/insterest to you.

Feature articles Developments and innovations

Research reviews Job-Aids

Comments:

What other sections/themes would you like to see addressed in future issues?L(over)Volume 1 (2) Summer 7990

eJ7)

1

31

ERIC DATABASE POPULAR IN CD-ROM FORMAT

The increasing availability of ERIC on CD-ROM is causinga renewed interest in the 24-year-old education informa-tion system. Although only private vendors produce ERICon CD-ROM, it is in this format that many users aregaininga new appreciation of this U.S. Department of Educationsponsored database.

CD-ROM (compact diskread only memory) is a laserdisk format with vast data storage capability. A single disk,identical in appearance to an audio compact disk, can holdabout 550 megabytes of data. The entire ERIC database,with nearly 700,000 records, fits on as few as two CD-ROMs. A CD-ROM drive, connected to a personal com-puter, is used to read the data with the aid of informationretrieval software provided by the CD-ROM vendor.

The 1986 introduction of ERIC on CD-ROM was notablebecause it offered libraries and other educational institu-tions an alternative to costly online services. ERIC on CD-ROM is licensed on a set-fee subscription basis, allowingrelatively low per search costs at sites where the databaseis heavily used. In addition, ERIC CD-ROM products aredesigned to be used directly by people with little or nocomputer searching experience, making professional assis-tance optional and encouraging users to browse and ex-periment.

While a manual search of ERIC's printed indexes (Resourcesin Education and Current Index to Journals in Education) is stilla good way to access the database, both CD-ROM andonline searching offer special advantages: the entire data-

base or selected portions can be searched at once; severalsubject terms or other access points can be combined in asingle search statement; the full text of any record can besearched; Boolean logic (AND, OR, and NOT operators) canbe used to specify relationships between search criteria; andoutput can be printed in a chosen format or saved to disk.

The bibliographic records contained in the ERIC databaseare produced by the sixteen clearinghouses and two adjunctclearinghouses that make up the national system. Eachclearinghouse has a carefully defined scope area within thefield of education. Educational technology and library/in-formation science are covered by the ERIC Clearinghouseon Information Resources (ERIC/IR), located since 1977 atSyracuse University. In a single year, ERIC/IR acquires,selects, catalogs, abstracts, and indexes over 1,400 journalarticles and 950 documents in its scope area for input intothe database.

Journal articles cited in ERIC are selected from over 800titles in the field of education. Documents are obtainedfrom a variety of sources and include conference proceed-ings, curriculum guides, government reports, literaturereviews, and more. ERIC usually receives permission toreproduce these documents and makes their full text avail-able, in microfiche copy, at over 800 subscribing librariesand institutions. Paper or microfiche copies of documents

For more information about ERIC, please complete and re-turn the coupon below.

P

32

I am interested in obtaining further information on:

Electrical and Computer Engineering Tele-courses

Job-Aids

Students Literacy Corps Program

Other

Educational Resources Information Center Clear-inghouse on Information Resources (ERIC/IR)

International R&D Activities

CI Project Advance

Other


INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS NEEDS YOURHELP IN MEETING PUBLICATION COSTS. WE WOULD WELCOMEYOUR TAX - DEDUCTABLE DONATIONS, LARGE OR SMALL. CHECKSSHOULD BE PAYABLE TO SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY ANDSENT TO:

INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENTSSYRACUSE UNIVERSITY364 HUNTINGTON HALL

SYRACUSE, N.Y. 13244-2340

7 2


A Journal of the School of Education at Syracuse UniversityFall 1990 Volume 1, Number 3

Feature Articles

Moving From Pedagogy to Andragogy Roger Hiemstra

The Case-Study Methodology andInstructional Development

Research Reviews

Alex RomiszowskiMartin MulderJules Pieter

Background and Experiences Mardy Eimersof New Faculty

Interactive Video


Establishing an Instructional andFaculty Development Effort atSUNY-ESF: A Status Report andPerspective

Job-Aids

111111r

Karen Jost

Charses M. Spuches

Alex Romiszowski

school of educationSYRACUSE UNIVERSITY Ns


Editorial BoardArthur Blumberg

"fan CentraRobert DiamondPhil DoughtyDon ElyRoger HiemstraPaul Pedersen



Administrative AssistanceSandy Hokombe

Technical AssistanceJerry EdmondsCathy LaddTorn MoatsPaulina Pannen


INSTRUCTIONALDEVELOPMENTSis a publication of theSchool of Education atSyracuse University.



13244-2340(315) 443-3702FAX (315) 443-5732


This issue of Instructional Developments focuses on the adult learner, whether inhigher or in continuing professional education.

In the opening article, Roger Hiemstra outlines the paradigm shift that has occurredin adult education, from the teacher-directed pedagogical approach modeled onconventional school practices, to a learner-directed "andragogical" approach thattakes into consideration the previously acquired skills and experiences of adultlearners, as well as their current and future professional needs. Romiszowski,Mulder and Pieters follow with an analysis of the case-study methodology and itsparticular applicability to adult continuing education. They focus on the design,development and utilization of case studies in the teaching of heuristic problem-solving strategies, using the teaching of instructional design and developmentskills as a case example. One aspect that is stressed is the design of the casediscussion, or debriefing stage, which is critical to effective use of the method-ology, but is generally left to the course instructors, or facilitators, to figure outfor themselves. As the report on the World Conference on Case Method suggests,case-discussion facilitators require a range of skills that go beyond conventionalteaching.

Mardy Eimers follows on with an analysis of the background and experiences ofnew university faculty, showing that in general they tend to be strong on subjectexpertise, but not so experienced as teachers. Every effort should be made toprovide support and assistance in this respect early in the careers of new faculty.Charles Spuches describes an approach to providing such support and assistance,currently being implemented at SUNY-ESF. The instructional and facultydevelopment effort described involves seminars on instruction, consulting, courseand curriculum development projects, as well as direct attempts to impact theorganization's culture.

Another approach to providing support and assistance to adult educators is bymeans of networking. In her report on Syracuse University's Kellogg Project,Mary Beth Hinton describes how modem computer and telecommunicationstechnologies have been harnessed to permit international networking among adulteducators, both by accessing distant databases and by exchanging information ofmutual interest.

Instructional development may also extend to the selection or design and develop-ment of specific instructional materials. In her article, Karen Jost looks criticallyat the computer-based interactive video (CBIV) movement, in the context of pastmedia research and current research on learner control. This aspect is particularlyapt to adult education, in that the flexibility inherent in me CBIV medium mayprovide the levels of learner-direciedness and individualization that Hiemstrasuggests are important elements of an andragogic approach to adult education.

Thy,. .)b-aids section, this time, concludes the series on Structural Communication,which commenced in the previous issue, and continues on to describe proceduresfor the design and development of case materials and case-study exercises. Thesejob-aids follow on from the article on the case method in suggesting how one mightuse the methodology in a distance-education mode, utilizing computer/telecom-munications networks.

In this issue, we have not included a pre-printed response coupon to allow morespace for the journal content. This should not be taken as a sign that we arediscouraging feedback. Please write to the editor with your comments or querieson any of the articles. In particular, react to the job-aids. In the next issue, we shalldevote space to feedback on the questions, exercises and issues contained in the lastthree job-aids sections. There is still time for you to contribute to this.

Several readers have inquired about subscription rates. For the time being, wecontinue to distribute Instructional Developments free of charge. Some have sentvoluntary donations. We are thankful for these and encourage more of you to sendus financial contributions in order to enable us to continue publication.

7

Moving From Pedagogy to Andragogy

Roger Hiemstra*

There is little doubt that currently the most dominantform of instruction in Europe and America is peda-gogy. Notions regarding pedagogy tend to undergirdmuch of the thinking by educational theorists, admin-istrators, instructional designers, and practitioners. Acompeting idea in terms of instructing adult learners,and one that has gathered momentum within the pasttwo decades, has been dubbed andragogy. The pur-poses of this article are to provide some backgroundinformation regarding both instructional forms, an as-sessment of the status of andragogy today, and a com-prehensive bibliography related to andragogy for theinterested reader desiring to pursue the topic in greaterdetail. An annotated version of the bibliography ap-pears in Brockett and Hiemstra (in press).**

The pedagogical model of instruction was originallydeveloped in the monastic schools of Europe in theMiddle Ages. Young boys were received into themonasteries and taught by monks according to a sys-tem of instruction that required them to be obedient,faithful, and efficient servants of the church (Knowles,1984). From this origin developed the tradition of peda-gogy, which later spread to the secular schools ofEurope and America and became and remains thedominant form of instruction throughout much of theworld.

Pedagogy is derived from the Greek word paid,meaning child, plus agogos, meaning leading. Thus,pedagogy has been defined as the art and science ofteaching children. In the pedagogical model, the teacheror even the instructional designer has full responsibil-ity for making decisions about what will be learned,how it will be learned, when it will be learned, and if thematerial has been learned. Pedagogy, or teacher-di-rected instruction as it is commonly known, usuallyplaces the student in a submissive role requiring obedi-ence to the teacher's instructions. Although the notionof teacher-directed instruction is somewhat an over-simplification of a complicated concept, it is based onthe assumption accepted by many that learners need toknow only what the teacher as content expert or spe-cialist teaches them. The result is a teaching and learningsituation that actively promotes dependency on theinstructor (Knowles, 1984).

Up until very recently, the pedagogical model has beenapplied equally to the teaching of children and adults,and, in a sense, this is a contradiction in terms. Thereason is that as adults mature, they become increas-

Volume 1 (3) Fall 1990

ingly independent and responsible for their own ac-tions. They are often motivated to learn by a sinceredesire to solve immediate problems in their lives. Ad-ditionally, they have an increasing need to be self-directing. In many ways the pedagogical model doesnot account for such developmental changes on thepart of adults, and thus produces tension, resentment,and resistance in individuals (Knowles, 1984). How-ever, it must be noted that Knowles (1980) admits hehas come to realize that there is not a clear dichotomousdistinction between pedagogical and ar.dragogicalbeliefs in that many teachers today, regardless of theage o f their students, use various andragogical elementsin their instructional activities.

Andragogy PopularizedThe growth and development of andragogy as an

alternative model of instruction has helped to improvethe teaching of adults. But such improvement did notoccur overnight. In fact, an important event took placenearly twenty years ago that affected the direction ofadult education in North America and, to some extent,elsewhere as well. Andragogy as a system of ideas,concepts, and approaches to adult learning was intro-duced to adult educators by Malcolm Knowles (1968,1970). His contributions to this system have been many(1975, 1980, 1984; Knowles & Associates, 1984), andhave influenced the thinking of countless educators ofadults. The dialogue, debate, and subsequent writingsrelated to andragogy have been a healthy stimulant tosome of the growth in the adult education field duringthe past tr,N nty years.

The first use of the term "andragogy" to catch thewidespread attention of adult educators was in 1968,when Knowles, then a professor of adult education atBoston University, used the term (then spelled "and ro-gogy") in a journal article. In a 1970 book entitled TheModern Practice of Adult Education (a second editionwas published in 1980), he noted that and ragogy isderived from aner, meaning adult, and agogos. Hedefined the term as the art and science of helping adultslearn. In that book he used as a subtitle, "AndragogyVersus Pedagogy." As noted above, his thinking hadchanged from those initial ideas in 1968 to the point thatin the 1980 edition he used the subtitle "From Andra-gogy to Pedagogy" and suggested the following:

andragogy is simply another model of assump-tions about adult learners to be used alongsidethe pedagogical model of assumptions, thereby

1

providing two alternative models for testing outthe assumptions as to their 'fit' with particularsituations. Furthermore, the models are proba-bly most useful when seen not as dichotomousbut rather as two ends of a spectrum, with arealistic assumption (about learners) in a givensituation falling in between the two ends.(Knowles, 1980, p.43).

The andragogical model as conceived by Knowles ispredicated on four basic assumptions about learners,all of which have some relationship to a learner's abil-ity, need, and desire to take responsibility for learning:

1. Their self-concept moves from dependency toindependency or self-directedness.

2. They accumulate a reservoir of experiencesthat can be used as a basis on which to buildlearning.

3. Their readiness to learn becomes increasinglyassociated with the developmental tasks of so-cial roles.

4. Their time and curricular perspectives changefrom postponed to immediacy of applicationand from subject-centeredness to performance-centeredness (1980, pp. 44-45).

Based on these assumptions he developed a process forteaching adults that has become known as the andra-gogical model:

1. The establishment of a climate conducive toadult learning.

2. The creation of an organizational structure forparticipative planning.

3. The diagnosis of needs for learning.4. The formulation of directions for learning (ob-

jectives).5. The design of various learning activities.6. The operation of the activities.7. The rediagnosis of needs for learning (evalua-

tion) (1980, p.59).

Andragogy as a concept, set of assumptions aboutadults, or instructional approach was actually not newto Knowles' popularization of the term. Anderson andLindeman (1927) had first used the word in the UnitedStates via a published piece, although Stewart (1986a,1986b) notes that Lindeman apparently even used theterm as early as 1926. Brookfield (1984) suggests thatAnderson and Lindeman drew upon the work of aGerman author of the 1920's, Eugene Rosenstock.However, Davenport and Davenport (1985c) assertthat the word was first coined in 1833 by Kapp, aGerman teacher.

Several European countries, such as Hungary, Poland,and Yugoslavia, also had used the term and relatedconcepts prior to 1968. Hungarian educators, for ex-ample, place teaching and learning within an overall

7

system called "anthropogogy" (Savicevic, 1981). Thissystem is subdivided into pedagogy (dealing with youtheducation) and andragogy (concerned with adult edu-cation). There is some variety, too, in the application ofrelated terms. Some countries use adult pedagogy, one(the Soviet Union) uses the term auto-didactic amongothers to refer to adult education activities, and a fewcountries use andragology to refer to andragogicalscience (Knoll, 1981, p. 92).

Outside of North America there actually are two domi-nant viewpoints: one by which the theoretical frame-work of adult education is found in pedagogy or itsbranch, adult pedagogy ... and the other by which thetheoretical framework of adult education is found inandragogy as a relatively independent science thatincludes a whole system of andragogic disciplines(Savicevic, 1981, p. 88).

Knowles, in describing his particular version ofandragogy, associated it with a variety of instructionalsuggestions. He, too, detailed roles of facilitation forinstructors and talked about ways of helping learnersmaximize their learning abilities. His early work withandragogy and subsequent interpretation of the learn-ing projects research by Tough (1978) and others led toa 1975 publication on self-directed learning where heprovided a variety of inquiry projects and learningresources on the topic.

Knowles (1975) offered some reasons for his evolvingscholarship in the area of self-directed learning. Oneimmediate reason was the emerging evidence thatpeople who take initiative in educational activitiesseem to learn more and learn things better than morepassive individuals do.

He noted a second reason that self-directed learningappears "more in tune with our natural process ofpsychological development" (1975, p.14). Knowlesobserved that an essential aspect of the maturationprocess is the development of an ability to take increas-ing responsibility for life.

A third reason was the observation that the manyevolving educational innovations (nontraditional pro-grams, Open University, weekend colleges, etc.)throughout the world require that learners assume aheavy responsibility and initiative in their own learn-ing.

Knowles also suggested a more long-term reason interms of individual and collective survival:

... it is tragic that we have not learned how to learnwithout being taught, and it is probably moreimportant than all of the immediate reasons puttogether. Alvin ToffIcr calls this reason 'future

ry


shock'. The simple truth is that we are enteringinto a strange new world in which rapid changewill be the only stable characteristic. (1975, p. 15)

Andragogy as TheoryAn ability to carry out self-directed learning long afterthe stimulation of some activity like a class or work-shop is completed or long after association with ateacher or content specialist is so important for adultswho must cope with the constant and rapid changeToffler and others describe. The instructional tech-niques that have evolved from the andragogical frame-work in the past decade or so are changing the wayteachers and others work with adult learners.

However, andragogy, and thereby Knowles' writingshave evoked considerable criticism and debate. TheAdult Education Quarterly (formerly Adult Educa-tion), for example, has contained a number of articlesduring the past 18 years debating or critiquing aspectsof andragogy. Some have said that it is not a theory, butKnowles speaks to this point as follows:

A criticism that has been leveled against andra-gogy several times is that it is not a theory. Myproblem with this is that in the social scienceliterature there appears to be little agreement asto the meaning of the word theory. Webster'sNinthNew Collegiate Dictionary gives two definitionsthat apply to this kind of situation: (1) "Theanalysis of a set of facts in their relation to oneanother" and (2) "A belief, policy, or procedureproposed or followed as the basis of action." Ibelieve that andragogy qualifies as a theoryaccording to both definitions. However, I preferto think of it as a model of assumptions aboutlearning or a conceptual framework that servesas a basis for an emergent theory. It certainly hasserved its purpose as a stimulant for a growingbody of theoretical thinking in our field, and Ithoroughly applaud this use of it. (Knowles,1989, p. 112)

Another criticism is that andragogical theory has notbeen tested empirically. In reality, there is a growingvolume of related research, both quantitative andqualitative, reported in literature from around the world.Most of the qualitative and action research has gener-ally supported or refined the theory. Many of thequantitative studies have been involved with devel-oping some sort of instrumentation related to aspects ofandragogy.

Perhaps the best demonstration that andragogy hassubstance is its widespread employment in teaching,training, designing, and learning endeavors. For ex-ample, Hiemstra and Sisco (1990) have developed aprocedure for individualizing instructional activities

Volume 1(3) Fall 1990

through a facilitative process that builds on both andra-gogical and self-directed learning ideas. Many trainersin various organizational settings use andragogicalconcepts in their efforts (Daloisio & Firestone, 1983;Gelfand & Associates, 1975; Ingalls, 1973; Thorne &Marshall, 1985). Knowles and Associates (1984) de-scribe numerous applications of andragogy in busi-ness, industry, government, universities, professionalsettings, religious settings, K-12 settings, and evenremedial education.

Andragogy also can be used with scientific as well asbehavioral content and with people of all ages. Theconcept does not appear to be culture bound, either.Knowles and Associates (1984) report that it "has beensuccessfully applied in North America, Europe, Africa,Brazil, and Australia with individuals from every so-cioeconomic level" (p. 417). IIiemstra (1987) observedsuccessful implementation of andragogical conceptswith rural villagers in Tanzania. Knowles and Associ-ates (1984) suggest that several ideas have emergedfrom this research and from the use of andragogicalprinciples by various people over many years:

1. The andragogical model is a flexible system ofelements that can be adopted in whole or inpart for a variety of settings.

2. Appropriate starting points and strategies forapplying andragogical concepts are situation-ally-bound. In other words, not all elementsmust be employed every time for there to besuccess.

3. Learners normally will participate more res-ponsibly and enthusiastically in an andragogi-cal setting if they have some preparatory orien-tation to notions about adults as self-directedlearners.

4. Learners normally will experience some anxi-ety when exposed to new educational ap-proaches until they have had some experiencewith it.

5. Because many educators know only the peda-gogical model, they will require training tounderstand how they might employ an-dragogical principles.

6. Many institutions have policies, rules, andregulations that will inhibit the employment ofvarious andragogical elements and they mayneed to be changed or adapted.

The number of adults seeking continuing educationopportunities or involved in some training experiencewill continue to increase over time. Thus, it seemsimperative that educational researchers andpractitioners constantly work to ensure that suchinvolvement is successful. The andragogical modelprovides an important framework from which suchinstructional development can spring.

3

ReferencesAnderson, M. L.,& Lindeman, E. C. (1927). Educationthrough experience. New York: Workers EducationBureau.

Beder, H., & Carrea, N. (1988). The effects of andragogi-cal teacher training on adult students' attendance andevaluation of their teachers. Adult Education Quarterly,38, 75-87.

Brockett, R. G., & Hiemstra, R. (in press). Self-directionin learning: Perspectives in theory, research, and prac-tice. London, UK: Rout ledge.

Brookfield, S. D. (1984). The contribution of EduardLindeman to the development of theory and philoso-phy in adult education. Adult Education Quarterly, 34,185-196.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitatingadult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, H. W. (1985). Lateral thinking and andragogy:Improving problem solving in adulthood. LifelongLearning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 8(7), 22-25.

Carlson, R. A. (1979). The time of andragogy. AdultEducation, 30, 53-57.

Daloisio, T., & Firestone, M. (1983). A case study inapplying adult learning theory in developing manag-ers. Training and Development Journal, 37(2), 73-78.

Darkenwald, G. D., & Merriam, S. B. (1982). Adulteducation: Foundations of practice. New York: Harper &Row, Publishers.

Davenport, J., III. (1987). Is there any way out of theandragogy morass? Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus ofPractice and Research, 11(3), 17-20.

Davenport, J., & Davenport, J. A. (1985a). A chronologyand analysis of the andragogy debate. Adult EducationQuarterly, 35, 152-159.

Davenport, J. III, & Davenport, J. A. (1985b). Andra-gogical-pedagogical orientations of adult learners:Research results and practice recommendations. Life-long Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 9(1),6-8.

Davenport, J. III, & Davenport, J. A. (1985c). Knowlesor Lindeman: Would the real father of American an-dragogy please stand up. Lifelong Learning: An Omni-bus of Practice and Research, 9(3), 4-6.

Day, C., (et Baskett, H. K. (1982). Discrepancies between

4

intentions and practice: Reexamining some basic as-sumptions about adult and continuing education. In-ternational Journal of Lifelong Education, 1, 143-155.

Elias, J. L. (1979). Andragogy revisited. Adult Educa-tion, 29, 252-255.

Fisher, J. C., & Podeschi, R. L. (1989). From Lindemanto Knowles: A change in vision. International Journal ofLifelong Education, 8, 345-353.

Gelfand, B., & Associates (1975). An andragogicalapplication to the training of social workers. Journal ofEducation for Social Work, 11(3), 55-61.

Griffin, C. (1983). Curriculum theory in adult and lifelongeducation. London: Croom Helm.

Hadley, H. (1975). Development of an instrument todetermine adult educators' orientations: Andragogicalor pedagogical. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Boston University). Dissertation Abstracts International,35, 7595a.

Hartree, A. (1984). Malcolm Knowles's theory of an-dragogy: A critique. International Journal of LifelongEducation, 3, 203-210.

Hiemstra, R. (1987, May). Comparing andragogy intwo cultures: Tanzania and the United States. Paperpresented at Comparative Adult Education: An Interna-tional Conference, Oxford, England.

Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing in-struction for adult learners: Making learning personal,empowerful, and successful. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Holmes, M. R. (1980). Interpersonal behaviors andtheir relationship to the andragogical and pedagogicalorientation of adult educators. Adult Education, 31, 18-29.

Houle, C. 0. (1972). The design of education. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ingalls, J. D. (1973). A trainer's guide to andragogy. (Rev.Ed.). Washington, D C: U. S. Department of Health,Education, and Welfare.

Jahns, I. W. (1973). Review of modem practice of adulteducation. Adult Education, 24, 72-74.

Jarvis, P. (1984, October). Andragogy a sign of thetimes. Studies in the Education of Adults, 16, 32-38.

Kerwin, M. A. (1981). Andragogy in the communitycollege. Community College Review, 9(3),12-14.

Knoll, J. H. (1981). Professionalization in adult cduca-


tion in the Federal Republic of Germany DemocraticRepublic. In A. N. Charters (Ed.), Comparing adulteducation worldwide (pp. 90-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, M. S. (1968). Androgogy, not pedagogy!Adult Leadership, 16, 350-352, 386.

Knowles, M. S. (1968). How andragogy works in lead-ership training in the girl scouts. Adult Leadership,17,161-162, 190-194.

Knowles, M. S. (1970). Modern practice of adult education:Andragogyversuspedagogy. Chicago: Follett PublishingCompany, Association Press.

Knowles, M. S. (1973). The adult learner: A neglectedspecies. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning. New York:Association Press.

Knowles, M. (1979). Andragogy revisited part II. AdultEducation, 30, 52-53.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). Modern practice of adult education:From pedagogy to andragogy. Revised and updated.Chicago: Follett Publishing Company, AssociationPress.

Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species.(3rd ed.), Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Knowles, M. S. (1989). The making of an adult educator:An autobiographical journey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knowles, M. S., & Associates (1984). Andragogy in ac-tion: Applying modern principles of adult learning. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knudson, R. S. (1980). An alternative approach to theandragogy/pedagogy issue. Lifelong Learning: TheAdult Years, 3(8), 8-10.

Komisin, L., & Gogniat, D. (1987). Andragogy, adultexpectations, and international programs. ContinuingHigher Education, 35(1), 13-15.

McCullough, K. 0. (1978). Andragogy and communityproblem solving. Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years, 2(2),8-9, 31.

McKenzie, L. (1977). The issue of andragogy. AdultEducation, 27, 225-229.

McTernan, E. J. (1974). Androgogical education in thehealth services. Adult Leadership, 23, 136, 148.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Finding your way through the

Volume 1 (31 Foll IWO

maze: A guide to the literature on adult learning.Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research,11(6), 4-7.

Meyer, S. (1977). Andragogy and the aging adultlearner. Educational Gerontology, 2(2),115-122.

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learningand education. Adult Education, 32, 3-24.

Newton, E. S. (1970). Andragogy: Understanding theadult as learner. journal of Reading, 20, 361-363.

Nottingham Andragogy Group. (1983). Toward adevelopmental theory of andragogy. Adults: Psycho-logical and Educational Perspective No. 9. Nottingham,England: Department of Adult Education, Universityof Nottingham.

Peterson, C. H., Adkins, D., Tzuk, R., & Scott, M. (1981).Adult problem solving training: An experimental in-vestigation of andragogical counseling techniques.Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Adult EducationResearch Conference (pp. 159-163). DeKalb, IL.

Peterson, D. A. (1983). Facilitating education for olderadults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Podeschi, R. L. (1987). Andragogy: Proofs or premises.Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research,11(3), 14-17, 20.

Pratt, D. D. (1984). Andragogical assumptions: Somecounter intuitive logic. Proceedings of the Twenty-fifthAnnual Adult Education Research Conference (pp.147-153).Syracuse, NY: Printing Services, Syracuse University.

Pratt, D. D. (1988). Andragogy as a relational construct.Adult Education Quarterly, 38, 160-171.

Rachal, J. (1983). The andragogy-pedagogy debate:Anther voice in the fray. Lifelong Learning: The AdultYears, 6(9), 14-15.

Savicevic, D. M. (1981). Adult education systems inEuropean Socialist countries: Similarities and differ-ences. In A. N. Charters and Associates, Comparing ad ulteducation worldwide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Savicevic, D. M. (1988, May). Conceptions of andra-gogy in different countries: Comparative considera-tions. Paper presented at the1988 Study Seminar: Com-parative Research in Adult Education, Rome, Italy.

Savicevic, D. (1989). Conceptions of andragogy indi fferentcountries: Comparative consid erations. In M.Lichtner (Ed.), Comparative research in adult education:Present lines and perspectives (pp. 65-72). Roma, Italy:Centro Europe() Dell Eiucazione.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Sheridan, J. (1986). Andragogy: A new concept foracademic librarians. Research Strategies, 4(4056-167.

Sheridan, J. (1989). Rethinking andragogy: The case forcollaborative learning in continuing higher education.Continuing Higher Education, 37(2), 2-6.

Stewart, D. H. (1986b). Perspectives. Lifelong Learning:An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 9(5), 2.

Stewart, D. W. (1987). Adult learning in America: EduardLindeman and his agenda for lifelong education. Malabar,Fl: Robert Krieger Publishing Company.

Suanmali, C. (1982). The core concepts of andragogy.(Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College,Columbia University). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional, 42, 4471a.

Tennant, M. (1986). An evaluation of Knowles' theoryof adult learning. International Journal of Lifelong Educa-tion, 6, 113-122.

Terry, E. F. (1988). Using andragogy to foster moraldevelopment of adults within the institutional church.Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research,12(2), 4-6.

Thorne, E. H., & Marshall, J. L. (1985). Managerial-skills development: An experience in program design.Personnel Journal, 55(1), 15-17, 38.

Tough, A. (1978). Major learning efforts: Recent re-search and future directions. Adult Education, 28, 250-263.

Travis, A. Y. (1985). Andragogy and the disabled adultlearner. Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice andResearch, 8(8), 16-18, 20.

Warren, C. (1989). Andragogy and N. F. S. Grundtvig:A critical link. Adult Education Quarterly, 39(4), 211-223.

Yeo, G. (1982). 'Eldergogy' a specialized approach toeducation for elders. Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years,5(5), 4-7.

Yonge, A. D. (1985). Andragogy and pedagogy: twoways of accompaniment. Adult Education Quarterly, 35,160-167.

Vacca, R. T., & Walker, J. E. (1980). Andragogy: Themissing link in college reading programs. LifelongLearning: The Adult Years, 3(6), 16, 24-25.

* Roger Hiemstra is a Prof2ssor of Adult Educationand a researcher with the Kellogg Project at SyracuseUniversity.

** The narrative in this article is adapted from Hiemstraand Sisco (1990).

SYRACUSE FACULTY PRESENCE IN INDONESIA

Syracuse University participated this summer in a widevariety of Indonesian academic events. In several instances,multiple member teams offered workshops and symposiafor higher ed ucation faculty and administrators. IndividualSU faculty frequently trained with Indonesian facultycounterparts, and also presented short courses, workshopsand symposia. Several of these were designed primarily forgovernment and corporate managers responsible for trainingand human resource development.

Sponsored primarily by the Indonesian Open Universityand the Inter-University Center for Improvement andDevelopment of Instructional Activities (IUC-IDIA),sessions and courses were often jointly hosted by otherprivate and public institutions of higher education as wellas such centers as the Indonesian Banking DevelopmentInstitute.

Robert Diamond, Peter Gray and Alton Roberts from theCenter for Instructional Development and Ron Cavanaugh,Vice President for Undergraduate Studies, served as a teampresenting examples of the Syracuse approach toorganizational change, institutional improvement, facultydevelopment and comprehensive evaluation.

Robert Bogdan conducted a workshop on QualitativeResearch Methods, Phil Doughty on a) workshops on NeedsAssessment and Cost Effectiveness in Training, and b) seminaron Human Resource Development Functions, Paul Pedersenon Fvaluation o f Training Programs used by the Peoples Bankof !3nesia for the Harvard Institute for InternationalDevelopment, and Alex Romiszowski on EducationalTechnology Applied to the Planning of Training.


The Case-Study Methodology andInstructional Development*Alex Romiszowski, Martin Mulder, and Jules Pieters**

This study examines the relationship between the case-study methodology and instructional developmentfrom two viewpoints:

a) Case studies on/about the Instructional Development (I.D.) processto what extent is thecase-study methodology appropriate for the teaching of instructional development /design.

b) The Instructional DevelopmentlDesign processes that are appropriateluseful for the produc-tion of case-study materials/exercises.

In the first part, we examine some of the theoretical justifications for the use of case studies in educationand training, identifying aspects of the I.D. process that may be good candidates for teaching by means ofthis methodology.

In the second part, we examine some specific approaches to the design, development and use of the case-study methodology, illustrating these with examples related to aspects of the I.D. process.

Case studies on/aboutInstructional Development1. Characteristics of the Case-Study Methc.1

The case-study methodology is, in its essentials, thepresentation of information about a situation or a proc-ess-in-action, for analysis and discussion by a student,or (more frequently), by a group. In general, the casepresented is expected to act as an example situation,from which something of more general applicabilitycan be learned.

As a methodology of instruction, the case study offersmany potential advantages. Significant among theseare: the pooling of the experience of a group of stu-dents; the promotion of the process of synthesis ofseveral concepts and principles into one multi-facetedexplanation or plan of action (strategy); the promotionof a problem-solving-based learning situation that is aclose simulation of the real-life situation from whichthe case data is extracted. Several other potentialadvantages are listed by Eitington (1984). These in-clude: personal involvement; group cooperation; rela-tionship to a known situation; recognition of differentpersonal viewpoints; realization that there is not alwaysone unique solution to a problem; improved interper-sonal skills; improved communications skills; attitudechange.

There are also some difficulties and disadvantages inthe use of the case-study methodology. Notable amongthese is that it is very time-consuming as compared tomore direct, expositive teaching methods. Another is


that the ultimate objective, of developing a general-izable skill and ability to apply it across a wide range ofreal cases, requires more than just exposure to anddiscussion of the specific case. It also requires theparticipants to engage in deep-processing of the gen-eral principles involved, through a process of reflectionand abstraction. The promotion and control of thisprocess in turn requires special skills and expert knowl-edge on the part of the session leader. Other potentialdisadvantages identified by Eitington (1984) are:simulation of the decision- making process is incomplete;the stresses and constraints of reality are missing; theprocess is incompatible with some learning styles; itoverstresses the need for a solution.

There are many variations of the case-study methodol-ogy. The best known (or "classic") one is referred to asthe "Harvard" case method (McNair, 1954; Glover,1947/73). This involves the presentation of a verydetailed "dossier" of information about a case forgroupdiscussion and problem-solving. A characteristic of themethod is that there is no one correct solution. Manypossible avenues may be explored. The session leaderis supposed to act as facilitator of the discussion, butshonld avoid forcing it in a given direction. Othervariations of the case study method include: short, one-incident cases; the "mousetrap" technique; multiple-case techniques; audiovisual/mediated presentationsof case situations to supplement/substitute printedcase-histories; live, acted-out case situations. Theseand others are further described and illustrated inEitington (1984).

The case-study methodology can be seen as one groupof techniques that attempt to use "reality" as the context

7

for learning, but reality in a simplified/packaged/simulated form. Percival and Ellington (1980) suggestthat the case study is related to other reality-basedmethods, such as role-play, simulations and games.An analysis of the various examples described byEitington illustrates that sometimes it is difficult todraw exact boundaries between case studies, role-playsand simulations.

2. Case-Study Methodology Applied to the Teaching ofInstructional Development

The nature of the Instructional Development process issuch that reality-based, problem-solving-based meth-odologies of instruction would seem to be particularlyappropriate to its teaching. The case-study methodshould be of great value whether part of a basicallyexpositive or experiential strategy.

In an experiential strategy, the case would be studied atthe beginning, and the general principles of I.D. wouldbe "generated" by the course participants in subse-quent reflective discussions, led but not dominated bythe session leader/facilitator. This process is referredto by some authors (e.g. Schon, 1987) as "coaching thereflective practitioner."

In an expositive strategy, the principles of I.D. wouldbe presented, perhaps by 'mans of assigned readings,and would be illustrated by means of example cases oftheir application. Further cases would then be used aspractice exercises in the application of the previouslypresented principles. This is the approach currentlybeing used by the present authors in the courses theyteach and in the structure of a forthcoming textbookbased on the case-study methodology (Romiszowski,Mulder and Pieters, in press).

We shall return to the consideration of the design anddevelopment of such case-study materials later on. Forthe time being, we are concerned with the use of suchmaterials and methods as part of one's overall ap-proach to the teaching of instructional development.

Eitington (1984) states that the case study alone can bea very academic exercise. He suggests that, to ensuregreater involvement, the method should be used withother techniques (group work, role-plays, fishbowls,brainstorming, etc.) We would stress, particularly, theneed for expert debriefing of all these activities toensure that the participants progress from consideringthe specific case to reflecting on the general principlesthat are at play and to considering how they would berelevant to other situations.

In an experiential (or "guided discovery") lesson, thedebriefing process is of paramount importance, as it is

in this phase that the instructor, by means of question-ing and prompting, helps the students to reflect on theevents and data of the case in question, in order togeneralize the cause-effect relationships observed,generate (discover) principles or concepts and build(schematize) new theories or strategies applicable tofurther similar cases/real-life situations.

In an expositive instructional sequence, _-nuch (if notall) of the relevant knowledge base (concepts, prin-ciples, theories, and strategies) is presented "up-front"either by the instructor or by means of instructionalmaterials. This first phase will, ideally, incorporateexercises and corrective feedback at the "understand-ing" level of Bloom's taxonomy (Bloom et. al. 1956).In I.D., we are almost always involved in heuristicproblem-solving situations, the instructional plan thenproceeds to the presentation of case examples thatclosely resemble the real-life problems that may beencountered in the future. This provides opportuni-ties for the evaluation of learning at the "application"level of the taxonomy.

There remains, however, the question of "transfer oflearning" to a wider range of possible real-life situ-ations and the development of competence at the"analysis, synthesis and evaluation" levels. In a formalcourse on Instructional Development, there is a limit tothe number of different cases that can be studied orprojects that can be attempted. Therefore, a debriefingphase that causes the students to reflect on the moregeneral implications of the cases studied is also a desir-able part of an expositive strategy. In this phase, thestudent should be helped to form a cognitive schema,which links the earlier presented theoretical knowl-edge base to another that represents "practical reality."

It appears, therefore, that there are three importantaspects to the case-study method: the facts of the caseand their relation to a broader reality; the methodologyof integrating the case study into the overall instruc-tional plan; the final debriefing discussion and thedepth of reflection that it promotes.

The Design and Development ofCase Studies1. The DesignIDeoelopment of Case Materials /Descriptions

Traditionally, (e.g. Andrews, 1953) guidelines for thedevelopment process are restricted to the design of theinitial "stimulus" case materials and to some guide-lines for the instructor/facilitator on how to lead thesession and exploit the materials effectively. There maybe some "questions to guide participant's thinkingabout the problem presented" (Boyd, 1980). Less fre-quently, a plan is provided to guide the instructor inconducting the debriefing process (Van Ments, 1983).


There are two typical approaches to the design of casematerials. The first proceeds from the principles (theorybase) you wish to point up, to the selection or design ofa situation (practice base) that demonstrates the "the-ory-in-action" (Boyd, 1980). The second proceeds fromthe identification of a problem area in "reality," whichrequires attention (this gives us our case), to the analy-sis of the case in order to identify the principles/concepts/theories which help to explain or solve thesituation (that is, from the "practice base" to the "theorybase" (Romiszowski, 1988). Both approaches then pro-ceed to the design of the case structure and the devel-opment of the materials.

2. The Design of an Appropriate Case-Study Methodology

Once the case description is developed, one may wishto plan and (possibly) instrument the case-study ses-sion. Eitington (1984) suggests several useful ideas andapproaches. However, he does not distinguish, as wedo, between questions that focus on the facts of the caseand questions that focus on the theoretical/conceptualstructure on which the facts of the case can be hung.These are, in our view, two distinct stages (case-analy-sis and reflection-for-transfer) that should both be thesubject of specific design/development effort. The firstof these may be part of the case's instrumentation. Thesecond is the debriefing plan.

Let us concentrate here on the instrumentation of the"case-analysis" phase. This may be in the form of an"instructor's guide" of questions to explore with thegroup. or may be written out for students' to analysewhat type of final decision/action/solution is calledfor. A third possible approach is yet more rigorously"programmed" in that the final "findings" or "recom-mendations" are prompted /facilitated by first ad-dressing a sequence of subsidiary or "lead-in" ques-tions. In one application (Romiszowski, 1986), thissequence of questions follows a particular theoreticalmodel/procedure for "performance problem analysis"(Mager and Pipe, 1970). When using this case studyas part of an experiential learning lesson, the studentsare later encouraged to discover the general form ofthis model and to reflect on the general applicabilityof the model across a wide range of job-performance-deficiency problems.

In contrast, an expositive approach to the teaching ofthe same "performance-problem-analysis" skills, alsoused by theauthors (Romiszowski, Mulder and Pieters,in press), is based on the assigning of basic readings and"worked" case examples as initial study material. Thisis followed by an "interactive case study" readingassignment, developed and instrumented according tothe "Structural Communication" methodology(Hodg, on, 1974; Romiszowski, 1986). This assignmentincludes its own multi-faceted evaluation of the indi-


vidual student's thinking on the case problem pre-sented and a complex "debriefing feedback" protocol.Only after this assignment is completed does furthergroup-based work seek to establish transfer to othercase contexts and lead the students to take "reflection-in-action" to get greater depth of generality.

3. The Design of a Debriefing Methodology

We we already discussed the importance of debrief-ing in both experiential and expositive applications ofthe case-study method.

The danger of overlooking, or skimping, the debrief-ing stage was dramatically illustrated by some re-search performed on the effectiveness of "DECISIONPOINT," a commercially available interactive-videosimulation-game (described by the developer, DigitalEquipment Corporation, as a "Living Case Study"). Ithas long been demonstrated that the presentation ofcase materials in film or video may often be beneficial(Green and Cotler, 1973). In particular, this has beenfound to enhance the acceptability of the case, its real-ism and the affective involvement of the participantsin the exercise. When the interactive dialogue possi-bilities of modern computer-controlled interactivevideo are added, one could expect an exceptionallymotivating and effective instructional product.

However, evaluative research showed that the productwas indeed strong on motivation, but weak on theteaching of the general principles of management thatwere involved. This weakness was demonstrated to becorrectable by the addition of a de-briefing session thattook the participant to the appropriate level of abstractreflection on the concrete facts of the case (Romiszow-ski, Grabowski and Damodaran, 1988). Furthermore,this debriefing could be designed for interactive com-puter-based, delivery, rather than requiring group-based discussion with a skilled and knowledgeablefacilitator (Romiszowski, Grabowski and Pusch, 1988).

The instructional design approach used in this auto-mated debriefing exercise was "Structural Communi-cation," a methodology that had earlier proved itselfeffective for the automated discussion, at a distance, of"Harvard" case-study materials (Hodgson and Dills,1971). In current work, the Structural Communicationmethodology isbeing further extended as a basis for thedesign of case analysis and debriefing materials.

Conclusion: A Paradigm Shift?The progressive stages of dea..efing attempt to lead theparticipant(s) into ever deeper and wider-ranging re-flection on the generality and limits of applicability ofthe principles illustrated by the case. The philosophy

9

behind the design of the debriefing discussions is similarto Schon's (1983,1987) approach to "educating the reflec-tive practitioner," One difference is that the reflection isinstigated by selected cases, rather than the actual prob-lems and events encountered in the course of real (profes-sional) life.

Boxer (1985) argues that this distinction is of great im-portance, in that prepared case studies encourage the"revelatory" teaching paradigm when used in an experi-ential manner and the "instructional" teaching para-digm when used as part of an expositive strategy. Heconsiders both these paradigms to be inferior to a fullyreality-based approach, involving "reflective analysis"and encouraging what he calls the "conjectural" teachingparadigm.

Our reply is that for certain professions (for exampledoctors, consultants and indeed instructional develop-ers), the professional reality is the analysis and solution ofan ever changing range of cases. Case study is so close toreality as to make no difference. Furthermore, the Struc-tural Communication method of debriefing a case in-vestigation, coupled to the endorsements described above,promote, in our view, a form of reflective analysis notmuch different from the one advocated by Boxer. Thus,aspects of the "conjectural" teaching paradigm may beembedded into either the "revelatory" or "instructional"paradigms, rendering these distinctions somewhat fuzzy.

The fact that such reflective analysis and open conjecturecan be promoted effectively by a methodology that is inlarge part pre-designed, pre-packaged and capable ofreplication, or delivery over distance, is also significant.Do we continue to call such systems "instructional sys-tems," thus extending our concept of "instruction" waybeyond the meaning ascribed to it by Boxer? Or do welook for a different name?

ReferencesAndrews, K.R. (ed) (1953). The case method of teachinghuman relations and administration. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.

Bloom, B.S. et al (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives,handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay

Boxer, P. (1985). Judging the quality of developmentIn (Boud, D. et al - editors). Reflection: Turning experienceinto learning. London: Kogan Page.Boyd, B.B. (1980). Developing case studies. Training andDevelopment Journal, June 1980.

Ellington, J.E. (1984). Maximizing participation andlearning in the case method. In The winning yrainer.Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Company.

10

Glover, J.D. et al (1949,1973). The administrator: Cases onhuman aspects in management. (5th Edition 1973).Homewood, Illinois: Irwin.

Green, T.B. & Cotter, M. (1973). Do filmed casesimprove the case method? Training and DevelopmentJournal, May 1973.

Hodgson, A.M. (1971). An experiment in computer-guided correspondence seminars for management. InPackham D. et al. (eds). Aspects of Educational Technol-ogy VI. London: Pitman.

Hodgson, A.M. (1974). Structural communication inpractice. In Romiszowski, A.J. (ed). APLET Yearbook ofEducational and Instructional Technology,1974 /75. Lon-don: Kogan Page.

Mager, R.F. and Pipe, P. (1970). Analysing performanceproblems. Belmont, California: Fearon.

McNair, M.P. (ed) (1954). The case method at the HarvardBusiness School. New York: McGraw Hill.

Percival, F. and Ellington, H.I. (1980). The place of casestudies in the simulation /gaming field. In Race, P. andBrook, D. (eds). Perspectives on academic gaming andsimulation: 5. London: Kogan Page.

Romiszowski, A.J. (1981). Designing instructional sys-tems. London: Kogan Page.

Romiszowski, A.J. (1986). Developing auto-instructionalmaterials. London: Kogan Page.

Romiszowski, A.J., Grabowski, B. and Damodaran, B.(1988). Structural communication, expert systems andinteractive video: A powerful combination for a non-tra-ditional CAI approach. Paper presented at the 1988 Con-vention of the Association for Educational Communi-cations and Technology (AECT). New Orleans, Loui-siana, January 1988.

Romiszowski, A.J., Grabowski, B. and Pusch, W. (1988).Structural Communication: A neglected CAI methodologyand its potential for interactive video simulations debriefing.Paper presented at the 1988 Conference of the Associa-tion for the Development of Computer-based Instruc-tional Systems (ADCIS). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,November 1988.

Romiszowski, A.J., Mulder, M. and Pieters, J. (in press)Case studies in instructional development. London: KoganPage.

Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflectivepractitioner. New York:Basic Books.


Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Van Maas, M. (1983). The effective use of role-play.London: Kogan Page.

* This paper is based on a presentation given at the 1988ETIC International Conference on Educational Tech-nology, Birmingham, U.K.

** Alex Romiszowski is a Professor of InstructionalDesign, Development and Evaluation at Syracuse Uni-versity. Martin Mulder and Jules Pieters are facultymembers in the Toegepaste Onderwyjskunde at theUniversity lf Twente, in the Netherlands.

THE CONFERENCE IN THE NETHERLANDS FOCUSES ON PROBLEM SOLVING WITH CASES -AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO SIMULATION IN A TEACHING-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

The Seventh International Conference on Case Method Researchand Case Method Application, organized annually by the WorldAssociation for Case Method Research and Application (WACRA),was co-sponsored this year by the European Network for SystemSimulation and Management Gaming and held in Enschede, TheNetherlands, at the University of Twente, April 9-11. The programwas made up of some 60 presentations, including 6 invited keynotelectures, 34 formal papers, and 20 symposia, workshops, demon-strations and poster presentations. The emphasis was very muchon the educational uses of the case method either by itself or as partof simulations and games. The majority of these papers discuss theimplementation and use of the case method in education or train-ing. They will be available in book form from Hans Klein ofWACRA.Among the invited papers, Klaus Breuer from Paderborn, Ger-many, presented a cogent analysis of the design principles that aretypically applied in many educational simulations, games and casestudies. Concentrating principally on computer based exercises, hedemonstrated the preponderance of behavioral principles under-lying most available examples. He then argued that a cognitivepsychology basis was more in line with the aims and the philoso-phy of educational simulation and gaming. He outlined a theoreti-cal framework derived from cognitive psychology literature andlisted guidelines for the design of related conditions for learning,presenting some evaluation studies to support the practical effec-tiveness of the approach.

A significant number of participants addressed the use of instruc-tional technology in the design and development of case materialsand utilization systems. Some also discussed the design of casesspecifically for the training of teachers and instructional designers.Sean O'Connor, from Washington College, Chestertown, USA,described the design and useof simple simulations and case s tu di esfor the training and development of teachers in such areas as:problem-solving capacity; ability to adopt alternative viewpointsand perspectives on an issue; and self-esteem. Still closer toinstructional technology, Feteris, Martens and Terlouw describedthe development, experimental application and evaluation of casesdesigned to promote the learning of instructional design problemsolving skills. These case studies have been designed at theUniversity of Twente and have been experimentally implementedin the university's educational technology program over the lasttwo years. The case design methodology used has been the subjectof several research projects.

Alex Romiszowski, from Syracuse University, provided the firstday's keynote address, which also had a strong instructional designflavor. This presentation focused on "The Case Study Method,Interactive Media and Instructional Design Theory." The mainthem e of this presentation was that the coming information age willrequire ever more people to exercise in their daily work a high level

of problem solving skills, evaluation and judgement - exactly thetypes of skilled activity which are particularly well developed bymeans of case study and simulation methods. On the other hand,the opportunities to engage in group instruction will diminish dueto the shifting economics of conventional versus distance educa-tion. Therefore it is particularly important to research appropriatemethodologies for the development of case study experiences thatcan effectively be utilized on an individual basis or at a distance.

Examples of case materials employing the structural communica-tion methodology were demonstrated. These were applications tothe development of key instructional design and developmentskills, such as front-end analysis (see the example in the Job-Aidssection), course and curriculum planning and lesson design. Manyof these cases, as well as those being developed at Twente univer-sity, are to appear in a book devoted to "Case Studies in Instruc-tional Development" (Romiszowski, Mulder and Pieters, in press,Kogan Page, London).

There were also several papers that addressed the question ofeffective utilization of the case method in a more general sense. Themost powerful one of these was the invited keynote presentation ofLouis Barnes of Harvard University, who addressed, in great depthand with great passion, the question of case method leadership. Hecommenced by outlining the "case materials crafting process," thatis, the skills and procedures of case writing. While this is important,the subsequent "case discussion becomes our major process vehiclefor shared learning and deeper inquiry, led by one who 'knows'some things about the case and the class - but not everything."

While acknowledging the point made in Romiszowski's presenta-tion, that skilled case discuAbion leaders are in short and everdiminishing supply (in relation to growing demand), Barnes pre-ferred to seek the solution in the development of more and betterleaders, rather than in the application of instructional design andinteractive media to the task of substitution or technological sup-port of the case leader. He sees the case method as very stronglydependent on the instructor /leads, who should be: "both expertand ignorant amateur; problem seeking more than problem solv-ing; complicating in order to simplify; leading while following;placing high value on both individual learning and collectivelearning; demonstrating both high standards of discipline andsincere empathy; combining equal emphases on analysis, diagno-sis and action."

That certainly is an extensive list of skills and virtues. It is nowonder that exemplary case discussion leaders are hard to come by.However, that is one more reason for the development of tools thatmight support the case discussion leadtr:s we do have, renderingthem more accessible to more students. The distance-educationcase method is one approach to achieve this.


Background and Experiencesof New Faculty

Mardy T. Eimers *

IntroductionIn the past several years there has been a growinginterest in the experiences of new faculty members. By"new faculty" we mean individuals who have secureda full-time, tenure-track appointment for the first timeat a college or university. Most of the research reportedin this writing assumes that the new faculty memberhas just received his/her PhD or will receive it in thefirst few semesters of employment. Likewise, this re-view focuses primarily on new faculty at four-yearcolleges.

The review highlights some of the key findings con-cerning the background and first year experience ofnew faculty.

I. The Background Characteristicsof New FacultyAn individual's decision to enter academia has beenexplored by a number of scholars. Finkelstein (1984)reported potential explanations of how individualsenter the professoriate: 1) the decision to enter theprofessoriate comes after graduating from college asind ividuals realize that they have an intrinsic interest inconducting research and/or teaching, 2) the decisionwas stimulated by an influential undergraduate pro-fessor or mentor, or 3) the decision to enter the profes-soriate was not "consciously" made at all; the indi-vidual "drifted" into the academic profession.

With the exception of two-year institutions most col-leges and universities desire to hire new faculty withthe terminal degree. Katz and Hartnett (1976) reportedthat the focus of the specific graduate programs mayaffect the type of institution the PhD recipient seeks andthe level of preparation the recruit has mastered totackle certain first-year responsibilities. For instance,Katz and Hartnett (1976) shared a study conducted bythe Graduate Record Examination (GRE) Board thatdetermined what the deans of graduate schools inspecific disciplines would rank as their school's pri-mary purpose. According to the report, those deans ofthe Physical and Biological Sciences tended to centermore on preparing researchers. In the Social Sciencesand especially in the Humanities, the purpose focusedmore on preparing college teachers. (Practice was iden-

12

tified in each discipline as the lowest ranked objective.)

In addition, the study revealed that the prestige of thegraduate program may have some influence on howprepared new faculty are to meet first-year responsi-bilities. The GRE study concluded that, principally,those PhD recipients who attended private and/orhighly ranked graduate programs tended to concen-trate more on scholarship and research, and those whoattended lower ranked graduate programs were accli-mated more toward the virtues of instruction.

Whether the primary purpose of a given graduateprogram focuses on developing teachers or research-ers, or both, the significance of this purpose surely hasan influential and enduring impact on graduate stu-dents and how they perceive their future role as aprofessor. The culture of graduate school often rein-forces and encourages the merits of scholarship incontrast to instruction. As Katz and Hartnett (1976)explained, the socializing power during graduate schoolis significant:

For whatever reason and with whateverbackground students have, the experience ofgraduate school has a conditioning power thathardly anyone could anticipate.

Most new faculty have received direct training in theirdiscipline but have never learned how to teach. Edgerton(1988) illuminated:

Faculty members come to us strong in contentand blissfully ignorant of anything having todo with theories of learning and strategies ofteaching rooted in pedagogical knowledge. Intheir knowledge of their disciplines ...theystand on the shoulders of giants; in theirknowledge of teaching, they stand on theground.

Clearly, the primary focus of graduate programs (re-gardless of the specific discipline and perceived qualityof the graduate program) is to develop research schol-ars in contrast to educators. And although there may bedifferent emphases at different graduate programs, areview of any graduate curriculum reveals courses inthe discipline and courses in research skills, methods,and application. There are few if any courses in collegeteaching and student learning. When programs pur-port to be developing college teachers, potential faculty


members serve as teaching assistants or these pro-grams assume that knowledge in a specific disciplinequalifies one to be an effective instructor. Nonetheless,it is not formal preparation for the teaching role.

PhD recipients seldom procure their first position at aninstitution/ department that is ranked higher in qualitythan the institution/department from which they re-ceived their PhD (Caplow & Mc Gee, 1958). At best,PhD recipients find a position at a comparable institu-tion, and more than likely they accept an appointmentat a less prestigious college or university. Wilson (1942)contended that although PhD recipients usually obtaintheir first faculty appointment at an institution loweron the "ladder of prestige," it is seldom significantlylower. This finding, though, is probably less relevant inthe past two decades as the supply of PhDs, especiallyin some disciplines, has increased beyond the demand(Muffo & Robinson, 1981). Many PhD recipients were"forced" to accept employment at institutions lower onthe "ladder of prestige" than past trends would haveanticipated.

What criteria do selection committees use to determinenew faculty members? Fink and Morgan (1976) inves-tigated this question by surveying the chairperson andtwo colleagues of a given geography department atseveral types of institutions, (the chairperson and twocolleagues representing, an "artificial selection com-mittee"). The authors explained, "Teaching was givenmore weight than research in all categories of depart-ments and institutions, even in the large graduate-oriented institutions." Fink (1984a) hypothesized thatthese results may be reflective of the common beliefthat teaching qualifications are most important for thefirst appointment but that publication and scholarlyproductivity are most important for promotion, tenure,and job changes among institutions (especially a jobchange to a more prestigious institution). Caplow andMc Gee (1958) elaborated:

The radical ambiguity of a profession in whichone is hired for one purpose, expected to carryout another, and prized for achieving a third:Teaching, research, and prestige are indepen-dent variables, besides being incommensu-rable per se.

If teaching is indeed the most important criterion forfirst-year appointment, then how do selection commit-tees assess the teaching skills of new faculty? Again,referring to the Fink (1984a) study, he reported:

Knowledge that the candidate had been ateaching assistant was the single most avail-able and useful type of information. ... almosthalf of the candidates had not given a v;sitinglecture to the department before they wereappointed.


II. The Common Experiences ofFirst-year FacultyMost institutions have at least some form of new facultyorientation at the institutional level and/or at the de-partment level. These programs primarily focus onorienting new faculty to the procedures, traditions,expectations, culture and mission of the institution,and in some cases, of the department or college. Someorientation programs have extended their format toinclude training in teaching and/or research skills.Fink (1984a), however, found that new faculty areusually so busy that this type of training is often notimplemented by new faculty during the first year.

Other researchers have concluded that faculty work-shops and orientation programs may not be as effectiveas what is often hoped. These investigators draw theirconclusions based on the premise that most frustra-tions are believed by faculty to be beyond a facultymember's direct control and difficult or unlikely tochange (Geis & Smith, 1979, 1980). Shaeffer, Mc Gill, &Menges (1989) reporter:. that teaching assistants heldsimilar perceptions. These frustrations would seemespecially acute for new faculty.

The background experiences and characteristics of anew faculty member undoubtedly influence the firstfew semesters of full-titne appointment. Fink (1984b)hypothesized that new faculty members identify witheither their graduate school experience or with theirundergraduate experience. For instance, if the newprofessor identifies primarily with his/her under-graduate experience and the values espoused by thisexperience (regardless of the graduate school influ-ence), then it is highly probable that this faculty mem-ber will find satisfaction forthcoming at a liberal artsundergraduate institution. The opposite, presumably,would also hold true.

One theme continued to appear in nearly all studiesdone on new faculty: new faculty are extremely busy(Boice & Turner, 1989; Mc Keachie, 1986; Fink, 1984b;Sorcinelli, 1988; among others). Boice and Turner (1989)elaborated:

The overwhelming majority (83%) of thesenew faculty reported a level of "busyness"which resulted in stress-related symptoms(e.g., sleep disturbances, anxiety attacks, fre-quent and salient mood shifts, etc.). Approxi-mately a third of the sample claimed to be thebusiest they've ever been in their lives and73% reported their perceived level of busy-ness to be a source of significant personalstress.

Similarly, Sorcinelli (1988) summarized the impact thatthis busyness can have on new faculty's personal life:

b7 13

Most new faculty concur that during the firstyear it is hard to find room for a life outside ofwork. ...New faculty were frustrated by lackof opportunities to meet other new faculty,and by the lack of time to exercise, to go to theopera, to establish friendships, to attend tofamily.

What factors might contribute to this busyness andaccompanying levels of stress? Atelsek and Gomberg(1978) found that only 52.9% of new faculty in 1976-77"had either received the (doctorate) degree or were ex-pected to within the next year."

Probably the most significant factor determining the"busyness" of new faculty is the responsibilities thatacct avany teaching. Sorcinelli :1988) reported that forthe majority of new faculty, the biggest problem wasthe adjustment to teaching. Fink (1984b) hypothesizedthat there are primarily three factors that determine theoverall effort expended by new faculty: 1) the nature ofthe teaching load, 2) the type of institution, and 3) thelevel of experience the new faculty member has prior toaccepting the position. Fink (1984b) described the im-portance of the teaching load:

The most disturbing aspect .. . in this respectis that more than 50 percent of the new collegeteachers in every type of institution had fouror more separate courses to prepare and teachduring their first year. ... Apparently, it is notthe number of classroom hours itself that cre-ates problems for new teachers but rather thenumber of class preparations and the numberof students involved.

Boice and Turner (1989) reported that new faculty intheir study averaged five courses and three new prepa-rations in the first year; Sorcinelli (1988) reported fournew preparations per new faculty. The Boice and Turner(1989) and Sorcinelli (1988) studier, were both con-ducted at large research universities.

Much of the busyness and resulting stress from teach-ing probably comes from the lack of experience andtraining new faculty have in instruction, and this leadsto feelings of incompetence and insecurity which arereflected in their teaching. But whatever the specificcauses, Boice and Turner (1987) labeled the symptomsof the new faculty member as "assistant pro fessoritis,"that is:

... new faculty overprepare, feel compelled toteach everything they know, provide littletime or incentive for student participation,impress students as aloof and unapproachable,receive poor stucient evaluations, and blamethis outcome on the poor quality of students intheir classroom.

14

These negative first-year teaching experiences can per-manently taint the forthcoming career of new faculty.Mc Keachie (1986) reinforced this possibility:

Experiences during this period (the first teach-ing experience) can blight a promising teach-ing career or can start one on a path of contin-ued growth and development. ... One likelyresponse of the teacher is retreat retreat toreading lectures with as little eye contact withstudents as possible retreat to threats of lowgrades as a motivating device retreat toresearch and other aspects of the professionalrole.

The demands of teaching also affect the research pro-ductivity of new professors. Boice and Turner (1989)revealed that new faculty fully expected to spend 50%of their time in this quest during the first year. Unfortu-nately, new faculty fell well short of their own expecta-tions. The authors reported that, on the average, facultyonly spent about 15% of their time engaged in scholarlypursuits. Much of this they blamed on their own pro-crastination even though research was a high prior-ity as new faculty found it difficult to procure thetime or the motivation to write. In addition, Boice andTurner (1989) reported that their interviews revealedthat teaching responsibilities were most often cited asthe primary cause of a new faculty member's modestresearch productivity.

Several investigators have reported that new facultyexpress feelings of incompetence, loneliness, and alien-ation that often lead to dissatisfaction. Sorcinelli (1988),identifying a primarycause of this dissatisfaction, statedthat "new faculty reported lack of collegial relations asthe most surprising and disappointing aspect of theirfirst year" and that "political divisions within depart-ments were particularly stressful for new faculty."Boice and Turner (1989) concurred:

Relationships with colleagues were the mostsalient and pervasive source of dissatisfactionamong all subsamples of new faculty. ... Fewfaculty reported the support, stimulating con-versations, mentors, collaborators, and friendsthey had hoped for.

In addition, the authors reported that senior facultyseemed especially distant, the overall quality of colle-gial relations in their departments was "poor" or "fair,"and "the level of intellectual stimulation and compan-ionship they experienced was inadequate to theirneeds." Other investigators have described similar sce-narios with teaching assistants (Peverly & Centra 1990;Stanton & Darling 1988).

Nonetheless, some of the "blame" may rest on newfaculty members themselves. Boice and Turner (1987)explicated:

d Instructional Developments

Despite their expressed desire for collegialinteraction, new faculty in their first year werenot themselves proactive in this regard. Theyrarely initiated informal professional interac-tion with colleagues and rarely sought adviceor mentoring from senior colleagues.

Department chairs also influenced the experience ofnew professors. In most cases, department chairs werea significant and positive influence on new faculty(Sorcinelli, 1988). In fact, in the Boice and Turner (1989)study, the authors reported that new faculty identifiedthe chairperson as the most important individual dur-ing their first year. Nonetheless, there were caseswhere the chair failed to provide adequate support;this clearly added to the new faculty member's disen-chantment. Lucas (1989) explained that most depart-ment chairpersons have had little if any formal trainingin leading, motivating, or supporting faculty. As aresult, chairpersons may not recognize or know howto provide guidance and direction to regular faculty,as well as, and especially, to new faculty members.

Despite the numerous reports in this writing directed atthe frustrations and potential dissatisfaction that first-year faculty members encounter, new faculty were forthe mos'c part optimistic about their forthcoming career(Boice & Turner, 1989; Sorcinelli, 1988). Boice and Turner(1989) revealed that the overall satisfaction of newfaculty on the campus they studied to be 7.5 on a 10.0point scale, and that "most planned to remain at theuniversity for 10 years or more." Sorcinelli (1988) con-curred: "This study found that new faculty members atour university were generally enthusiastic about theircareers. ... They saw their work as providing a senseof accomplishment, autonomy, and opportunity forcontinued learning."

ReferencesAtelsek, F. J., & Gomberg, I. (1978). New full-time faculty1976-77: Hiring patterns by field and educational achieve-ment. Higher Education Panel Reports, No. 38. Wash-ington DC: American Council on Education.

Boice, R., & Turner, J. L. (1987). Starting at the begin-ning: The concerns and needs of new faculty. (Eds.) InTo improve the academy, (pp. 41-55). Stillwater, OK: NewForums.

Boice, R., & Turner, J. L. (1989). Experiences of newfaculty. Journal of Staff, Program, and Organizational De-velopment, 7(2), 51-57.

Caplow, T., & Mc Gee, R. (1958). The academic market-place. New York: Basic Books.

Edgerton, R. (April 20, 1988). Melange. The Chronicle ofWhet- Education, B2.


Fink, L. D. (1984a). The backgrounds of new teachers.(Eds.) New directions for teaching and learning, (pp. 17-35). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fink, L. D. (1984b). The situational factors affectingteaching. (Eds.) In New directions for teaching and learn-ing, (pp. 37-60). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fink, L. D., & Morgan, D. L. (1976). The importance ofteaching in academic geography. Professional Geogra-pher, 28(3) 290-98.

Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American academic profes-sion. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

Geis, G. L., & Smith, R. (1979). Professors' perceptions ofteaching and learning: Implications for faculty development.Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Educa-tion Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Katz, J., & Hartnett, R. T. (1976). The making of scholars.Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Lucas, A. F. (1989). Motivating faculty tc improve thequality of teaching. (Eds.) In New directions for teachingand learning, (pp. 5-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mc Keachie, W. J. (1986). Teaching tips: A guidebook for thebeginning college teacher. (8th ed.). Lexington, MA: D.C.Heath.

Muffo, J. A., & Robinson, J. R. (1981). Early scie.-. iscareer patterns of recent graduates from leading re-search universities. Journal of Higher Education, 5(1,1 -13.

Peverly, S., & Centra, J. A. (1990). The first teaching ex-perience: The teaching assistantship. Paper presented atthe AERA Conference, Boston, MA.

Shaeffer, J. M., Mc Gill, L. T., & Menges, R. J. (1989).Graduate teaching assistants' views on teaching. (Eds.)In To improve the academy, (pp. 173-83). Stillwater, OK:New Forums.

Smith, R., & Geis, G. L. (1980). Professors' views of teach-ing and improvement. Paper presented at the CSSEMeetings, Montreal.

Sorcinelli, M. D. (1988). Satisfactions and concerns ofnew university teachers. (Eds.) In To improve the acad-emy, (pp. 121-33). Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

Stanton, A. Q., & Darling, A. L. (1989). Socialization ofteaching assistants. (Eds.) In New directions for teachingand learning, (pp. 15-21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, L. (1942). The academic man. London: OxfordUniversity Press.

* Mardy T. Eimers is a doctoral student in the HigherEducation program at Syracuse University.

85 15

Computer-Based Interactive Video: ThePotential for Effective InstructionalEnvironmentsKaren Lee Jost*

Introduction: Past Media ResearchPast media research tried to show that the mediumitself made a difference. To do this, comparisons weremade between media, often comparing a new mediumwith traditional instruction where the two forms ofinstruction were made as similar (as equal) as possible.The only difference was in the medium delivering theinstruction. Research studies employing experimentaland quasi-experimental designs to compare instruc-tional technologies have produced few useful outcomes(Reeves, 1986; Clark, 1983; Hoban, 1958).

Media comparison studies most often result in "nosignificant difference" conclusions. When such studiesdo show differences in learning 1.-;;.-tween treatments,where the treatments use different media to deliverinstruction, Clark (1987) argues that the differences aredue to confounding and are not attributable to any onemedium over another. He also identifies the mostcommon sources of confounding in media research tobe the uncontrolled effects of instructional method orcontent differences between treatments and the nov-elty effect of newer media, which tends to disappear intime (Clark, 1983).

Another problem with research using comparisonsbetween media is that it assumes a prototypical oruniform medium. It does not consider within-mediumdifferences as relevant. A further problem with muchof the media research of the past is that it assumeduniform effects for all learners. Both Aptitude-Treat-ment-Interaction findings and observations of differ-ences in how learners approach and perform activitiesrender this assumption unwarranted.

Clark further disputes the theory that different mediacontribute to learning by providing attributes that cul-tivate cognitive skills. He notes that whenever anattribute seemingly specific to a medium is found thatdoes cultivate a cognitive skill, it is not necessary forthe acquisition of the skill because other attributes orpresentation forms exist that will teach the same cogni-tive skill (Clark, 1987).

Salomon (1979) demonstrated that the symbolic modesemployed by media can affect the mastery of mentalskills, and how differences among symbol systems

16

affect the acquisition of knowledge and affect cogni-tion. He identified four aspects of media that maypotentially affect learning: the technology they use, thesymbol systems they employ, the content they convey,and the setting in which they are encountered. Winn(1987) added a fifth aspect: the thoroughness that goesinto the design of the messages that they convey. ButWinn then goes on to explain that symbol systems,contents and setting are simply correlates of amedium's technologies. They represent the generalcase of how a medium is used. They are not attributesthat are inherently present in a medium and they maynot be unique to any one medium.

In terms of research in instructional technology, theabove distinction is very important. Research needs tobe directed not at the medium, but at such things asinstructional methods, the settings in which instructiontakes place, the cognitive processes engaged throughthe use of symbol systems, the effect of how content isstructured, and the use of learning strategies. It is alsoimportant to explain how individual differences affecthow learners process or carry out instructional activi-ties and to investigate the impact that various kinds ofinteractions can have on different learners. Refinedquestions focusing on specific salient attributes andqualities of a medium, such as the depiction of move-ment, also furnish us with important information whichcan be applied to the design of effective instruction.Research on symbolic elements of media must be donewith caution. Elements producing an effect may besufficient but not necessary to produce a cognitiveeffect (cf. Clark & Sugrue, 1989). The development ofinstructional theory is dependent on identifiying nec-essary conditions for learning.

Salorc 'n has demonstrated that the way a learner per-ceives the source of information, i.e. the medium, i nflu-ences the amount of mental effort expended in thelearning process, and therefore, may affect learning(Salomon, 1983). He has also shown the importance ofstudying the context and environment within whichinstruction takes place (Salomon & Gardner, 1986).Relevant to research on instruction delivered by com-puters, as learning activities become more interactiveand less structured, giving more control to the student,the range of experiences that students can encounter


increases as does the range of possible outcomes fromthe instruction (Salomon & Gardner, 1986; Linn, 1985).The diversity of possible outcomes presents difficultiesfor research which assumes the attainment of commongoals.

Given all of the above problems that media research,including research on interactive video, has had in thepast, why is there still interest in interactive video?What can it accomplish that other media can't alreadyaccomplish? Are there any real benefits from its use?

Analyzing the Task Before Choos-ing the MediumBefore proceeding with a discussion of the capabilitiesof CBIV as an instructional medium, it is important tobegin with a method for analyzing an instructional goalwhich will facilitate the selection of an appropriatedelivery medium. The selection of a presentation me-dium should not be predetermined before analyzingthe problem before us. The effective design of instruc-tion begins with an analysis of the instructional objec-tives, learner characteristics, and the environment inwhich instruction is to take place. Jonassen (1985)presents a taxonomy for interactive, adaptive lessondesign which is helpful in analyzing the instructionalrequirements necessary for guiding the selection of anappropriate medium. He suggests that the instruc-tional requirements be considered in terms of:

task/content requirements of the objectives;type/level of learner-medium interaction;type/ level of adaptation by the medium thatis required;the characteristics of the medium needed toprovide that adaptation.

Task/ContentTask requirements may vary as a function of the con-tent or as a function of the objectives for the program.Learners should receive the treatment that best modelsthe processing requirements of the task. The sequenceof the presentation may also be altered to accommodatedifferences in task or content requirements. For ex-ample, the discovery or inductive approach (EGRULE)is recommended if the goal of instruction is for learnersto be able to transfer rules to novel situations.

If learners are aware of the structure of knowledgebeing studied, their comprehension of the content im-proves. The structure or organization of the contentthat is being presented can be signaled explicitly tomake it easier to comprehend. The structure of thecontent may also be reflected in the structure andsequence of the presentation. Structuring content at


this level attempts to represent things the way they are.The different classes of content structure have beenconceptualized to include world-related, concept-re-lated, and inquiry-related perspectives (Posner andStrike, 1976).

Learner-Medium InteractionThe interactive dimension of interactive technologiesdescribes the way in which learners respond to aninstructional program. The more rnentallyactive learnersare as they process information from instructionalmaterials, the more likely they are to generate meaning(Jonassen, 1985). The nature of learner-medium inter-actions can be viewed in terms of the task, the level ofprocessing required to complete the task, and the con-text in which the instructional program will be used.

Task analysis needs to consider both the nature of thelearning task and the content level of the materialbeing processed. Learning tasks represent either "re-member" or "use" learning behaviors. A "remember"task entails only recall; at the "use" level learners applyknowledge. Content level refers to the type of infor-mation being processed, which determines the type ofknowledge constructions necessary for acquisition.There are a number of taxonomies which classify con-tent. Merrill's Component Display Theory distin-guishes between facts, concepts, procedures, rules andprinciples. Landa (1983) makes a clear distinctionbetween knowledge and skills, emphasizing theirinterconnectedness (cf. Dijkstra, 1990). It is importantto make both instruction and evaluation proceduresconsistent with the nature of the task to be learned.

Learning is a constructive process. Interactive instruc-tional designs should encourage the learner to con-struct more elaborate mental representations, ratherthan respond reflexively to information on a screen. Indesigning interactive lessons, the designer needs toencourage the learner to access prior learning andrelate the new material more consistently to it.

Adaptation by the MediumAdaptive designs enable the delivery of alternativeinstructional sequences based upon a variety of learner,content, or situational characteristics. Lesson strategyor content can adapt to the learner (external) or to theinformation (internal). External adaptation can occurthrough:

branching on performance;diagnosing prior learning;accommodating to learner characteristics;learner control of instruction;knowledge-based systems;curricular adaptations.

9i 17

Instructional programs can internally adapt in terms oftask requirements, content sequencing, content struc-ture, and curriculum development.

Characteristics of the MediumComputer-based interactive video is a complex combi-nation of technologies. In order to fully understand itsattributes, capabilities, and potentials we need to lookat its many component parts. From an educationalstandpoint, we are not only interested in how they havebeen typically used, but in what they can potentially bemade to do.

The aspects of media identified by Salomon and Winn(Salomon, 1979; Winn, 1987) as potentially affectinglearning are important factors to consider when de-signing instruction and choosing a medium to use. Athorough analysis of the critical features of a medium ortechnology, its most essential characteristics, and theactivities afforded by the medium, are also importantconsiderations in choosing a delivery vehicle for in-struction.

The most important capabilities afforded by computersas part of an instructional system include: the ability toengage the learner (requires interaction); levels of con-trol (adaptability); and management capabilities (e.g.data storage and manipulation). CBIV is an interactive.echnology. Interaction need not be thought of as re-quiring an observable response. The activity shouldkeep the learner mentally active through the use ofauthentic activities. The instruction needs to supportlearners in the construction of knowledge. Activitieswhich require the learner to access prior knowledge toclassify, compare or contrast to discover relationshipsor a structure to the content itself, support the level ofinteraction needed for the learner to acquire a meaning-ful understanding. Instruction can be designed whichexplicitly supplants mental operations accomplishingspecific cognitive functions that some learners do notpossess the skills to accomplish on their own. Supplan-tation can be used both to facilitate knowledge acqui-sition and to cultivate mastery of the mental skill in-volved. It has been suggested that the amount ofcompensation be manipulated, beginning with fullsupport which is gradually withdrawn.

The effectiveness of an interactive design is dependentnot only on the interaction itself,but on the way that theinstruction responds or adapts as a result of the inter-action. Instructional designs can adapt to the learner orto the information by adaptation of the lesson strategyor content (see Adaptation By the Medium above).Adaptation can also occur through learner control ofthe instruction. CBIV can provide learners with controlover the range and depth of content, including the levelof difficulty. It can also provide learners with strategy

18

options, choice of examples (e.g. context, number), andchoice of amount of practice. L-!arners may also begiven control of the density of presentation, modalityoptions, and navigational control, including the abilityto exit and reenter the program. Learners are oftengiven control over the pace of presentation, particu-larly where text is concerned.

While the idea of giving students control of their ownlearning has a strong intuitive appeal, research hasshown that learners do not always choose what is bestfor them. Low-ability students often rush throughinstruction, while high-ability learners explore everypossible branch of the instruction.

Research on Learner ControlResearch on learner control of instruction indicatesmixed results in terms of student achievement. Kinzie(1990) discusses possible explanations for the inconsis-tent results from research c n learner control. The use ofa behaviorist rather than a cognitivist orientation ispresented as a possible source of inconsistent findingsin learner control research. A cognitivist design allowsfor student control over direction and monitoring of thelearning process. In a cognitivist design instructionalso tends to be at higher difficulty levels and is pre-sented in larger chunks. This type of instruction is more"far transfer" where the relevant outcome is long-rangeachievement and continuing motivation to learn.Therefore, in research where achievement measuresare used which are more typical of a behaviorist design,(i.e. immediate recall, more "near transfer"), the realeffects of learner control may not be measured.

The second possible source for inconsistent findings inlearner control research, cited by Kinzie, is that ofindividual student differences. Individual differencesplay an important role in how learners process infor-mation and utilize control of instruction. One cannotassume that control is mindfully experienced (Salomon& Gardner, 1986; Chanowitz & Langer, 1980). Moti-vation, perception of task, and preferred learningstrategy all affect how individuals tend to, or choose to,process information or perform activities presented tothem during instruction (Salomon & Gardner, 1986;Salomon & Leigh, 1984). Learner control research hasidentified student aptitude, degree of inquiry, andprior conceptual understanding as individual differ-ences which affect the use of learner control. Studentspossessing high aptitude, high inquiry, and prior con-tent knowledge tend to benefit from the use of learnercontrol.

The third source identified by Kinzie is that of dis-comfort/inexperience in exercising control options.To adequately measure the possible benefits of learner

ti


control, whether achievement or attitude, students needto be experienced with using the technology and mustknow how to effectively exercise control. Instructionshould include information about learner control op-tions and practice in exercising them. Control optionsalso need to be both appealing and non-threatening.

Research on learner control has shown that learnersdon't always make the right decisions in controlling ormanaging their own learning. This may often be due todeficient learning strategies, meta-cognitive skills, ex-isting conceptual schemata, or motivation. Adaptiveins truction, where computer-based algorithms prescribethe best strategies for individual learners, has pro-duced higher levels of achievement than total learnercontrol. But learner control studies do support long-term retention, positive attitudes, and a strong, intui-tive appeal for learner control (Milheim and Azbell,1988).

Learner control with advisement not only appears to bea good compromise between the benefits of adaptationand the appeal of learner control, but is also supportedby research when compared with learner or adaptivecontrol. Advisement can make suggestions on how toexercise control and when to use it. Advice can be givenas to the optimal amount of practice which is needed,based on sophisticated models. Advice can also be inthe form of information to aid learners in makingdecisions in managing their own instruction, such ashow the student's performance comp.tes to programcriteria. Based on performance, students can also beadvised to review previously presented content. Whenadvising, a rationale should be provided so that stu-dents can make informed selections and may learn tomanage their own instruction (Milheim and Azbell,1988).

One alternative to full learner control is to limit theinitial control which is given to the student, until thestudent can demonstrate that he/she possesses thebasic knowledge schema required to make meaningfuldecisions as the instruction proceeds. As tise learnermasters the required basics, control can gradually beturned over to him/her. While students can be allowedto choose what instruction they feel they need, ratherthan simply allowing them to omit important informa-tion, they could be given the option of testing out of theinstruction.

The Potential of Interactive VideoIf media are only vehicles for instruction and do notdirectly influence learning, when is it appropriate touse them? Clark views the benefits derived from theuse of media in education and training as being primar-ily economic in terms of saving a significant amount of


instructional development, learning and delivery time,and money (Clark, 1987).

Bosco (1984) discussed several issues with regard to theimplementation of videodiscs in education. He statedthat , "Effective utilization involves an understandingof the points of convergence between capabilities of theinteractive video system and the nature of educationaltasks." (p. 14). The capabilities that he views as benefi-cial to the educational use of interactive video include:

replicability and cost of instruction;responsiveness to human variability;active participation;the use of video information;assessing and managing instruction;the video chalkboard;the video (reference) book;the video teacher (intelligent tutor).

Some of the above capabilities are due to the computercomponent, others are due to the video component,while others are only possible through the uniquecombination of these capabilities.

Interactive video combines characteristics of video withcharacteristics of computers. When designing interac-tive video, the strengths of each are utilized. Comput-ers and video complement each other; the strengths ofone offset the limitations of the other. The primarystrengths of video are its realistic depictions and abilityto show motion. It also provides for quality audio.Video is generally limited by an inflexible linear pres-entation and an inability to engage the learner, whoremains a passive observer instead of becoming anactive participant. Video does not easily lend itself tothe instruction of higher order skills and does not adaptto individual learner needs. The primary strengths ofcomputers are their flexibility, levels of control, abilityto engage the learner, and management capabilities.They are limited by a lack of realism and dramaticpower. CBIV gives us the power to create a learningenvironment that engages the learner, can adapt tolearner characteristics, can empower learners to takecontrol of their own instruction and can utililize realimages and motion, thus being capable of teaching notonly higher order concepts, principles, proved u res, a ndmotor skills, but also lending itself to instruction deal-ing with attitudes. CBIV can also be used as a powerfultool to aid the learner in acquiring learning strategiesand meta-cognitive skills.

One additional powerful application for interactivevideo is in distance education. The Yugtarvik MuseumProject in Alaska is a good example of this type ofapplication. This project developed cultu rally-relevantinteractive programs so that students in distance edu-cation courses would be less dependent on learningover the telephone and more likely to become self-

93 19

learners through on-site interactive systems. The dualaudio track on the videodisc made it possible to havethe program presented in both English and Yup'ik (cf.Sponder and Schall, 1990).

The use of interactive video can provide both on-campus and distance students with a richer, moreeffective environment for learning. It can provide theadditional benefits of magnifying live demonstrations,the ability to replay in slow motion, to show close-ups,to pause and rewind, and to choose time and place,that are not present with live lectures. CBIV can aidstudents in internalizing complex ideas and skills. Itcan offer applications in numerous contexts to aid inthe transfer of skills to multiple situations. CBIV canprovide students with a supportive environment withinwhich they are allowed to think at their own pace, aregiven the opportunity to rethink assumptions, andhave the time to reflect on their own learning (Ehrmann,1990).

ConclusionThe potentials of computer-based interactive videowill only be realized through the design of qualityinstructional programs and proper and effective im-plementation. In order to design quality programs,numerous interacting factors which affect the designneed to be considered and thoroughly understood.Among these are the factors depicted in Figure 1.

When designing CBIV, the interactive and adaptivecapabilities should be used to engage learners mentally,providing learners with activities which will aid themin constructing their own understanding rather thanpresenting information to be absorbed. Effectivelydesigned instruction should help students to developlearning strategies and meta-cognitive skills. We shouldnot use this powerful medium to present informationto passive learners from which only the rote recall ofinformation is required. Not only is such a use a wasteof resources, but we will be running the risk of learnersperceiving the medium as requiring little effort.

Most importantly, the best designs will not be effectiveif both teachers and students aren't taught how toeffectively use both the technology and specific pro-gram options. The way that an instructional programis used is crucial.

ReferencesBosco, J. J. (1984). Interactive Video: Educational Toolor Toy? Educational Technology, 24(4), 13-19.

Chanowitz, B. and Langer, E. (1980). Knowing more (orless) than you can show: Understanding control throughthe mindlessness-mindfulness distinction. In J. Garberand M.E.P. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness: Theoryand application. New York: Academic Press.

Factors Influencing The Effectiveness OfComputer-Based Interactive Video

Environment

(Computer

Video

Content

InstructionalDesign

IMessageDesign

FIGURE 1. From Designing CBIV: Factors to Consider, Hypercard Stack developed by K.L. Jost

209 4


Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learningfrom media. Review ofEducational Research, 53,445-459.

Clark, R. E. (1987). Which technology for what pur-pose?: The state of the argument about research onlearning from media. Presented to the AECT AnnualConvention, Atlanta, Georgia.

Clark, R. E. and Sugrue, B. M. (1989). Research oninstructional media, 1978-1988% Educational Media andTechnology Yearbook, 19-36.

Dijkstra, S. (1990). The description of knowledge andskills for the purpose of instruction. In S. Dijkstra et. al.(Eds.), Research on instruction: Design and effects.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publi-cations.

Ehrmann, S. C. (1990). Reaching students, reachingresources: Using technologiesto open the college.Academic Computing, April, 1990, 10-14 and 32-34.

Hoban, C. F. (1958). Research on media. AV Commu-nication Review, 6(3), 169-178.

Jonassen, D.H. (1985). Interactive lesson designs: Ataxonomy. Educational Technology, 25(6), 7-17.

Kinzie, M. B. (1990). Requirements and benefits ofeffective interactive instruction: Learner control, self-regulation, and continuing motivation. Educational-Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 5-21.

Landa, L. N. (1983). The algo-heuristic theory of in-struction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional designtheories and models. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Linn, M. C. (1985). The cognitive consequeces ofprogramming instruction in classrooms. EducationalResearcher, 14(5), 14-29.

Milheim, W. D. and Azbell, J. W. (1988). How past re-search on le,,rcer control can aid in the design of interactivevideo matenals:"Taper presented at the annual meeting

of the Association for Educational Communicationsand Technology, New Orleans.

Posner, G. J. and Strike, K. A. (1976). A categorizationscheme for principles of sequencing content. Review ofEducational Research, 46(4), 665-690.

Reeves, T. C. (1986). Research and evaluation modelsfor the study of interactive video. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 13(4),102-106.

Salomon, G. (1984). Computers in education: setting aresearch agenda. Educational Technology, 24(10), 7-11.

Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of media, cognition, andlearning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment ofmental effort in learning from different sources. Edu-cational Psychologist, 18(1), 42-50.

Salomon, G. and Gardner, H. (1986). The computer aseducator: Lessons from television research. EducationalResearcher, 15(1),13-19.

Salomon, G. and Leigh, T. (1984). Predispositionsabout learning from print and television. Journal ofCommunication, 34(2),119-35.

Sponder, B. and Schall, D. (1990). The Yugtarvik Mu-seum project: Using interactive multimedia for cross-cultural distance education. Academic Computing, April,1990, 6-9 and 42-44.

Winn, B. (1987). Are media merely vehicles for in-struction? Presented to the AECT Annual Convention,Atlanta, Georgia.

* Karen Lee Jost is a doctoral candidate in the IDD&Eprogram at Syracuse University.

AN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AT THE NETHERLANDS IN 1991

The University of Twente, Enschede, in The Netherlands,will host the Second International Research Conference onCorporate Training and Development. AlexanderRomiszowski of Syracuse University is on the organizingcommittee. The Conference will convene September 25-27, 1991, and is structured around the topics: Training anddevelopment in a changing environment; Instructional design,instructional media and effective performance; Effectiveness oftraining programs; and (Inter)national studies.

Paper proposals are invited to the Conference on these


topics. There will also be a free track, in which papers canbe presented that are more or less loosely related to the maintheme of the Conference. Proposals for poster sessions,demonstrations, symposia and workshops are also invited.Paper proposals are to be submitted before March 1, 1991.The completed papers are required on July 25, 1991.

Please address paper proposals and all inquiries about theConference to: Martin Mulder, University of Twente, De-partment of Education, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, TheNetherlands.

9J 21

Establishing an Instructional and FacultyDevelopment Effort at SUNY-ESF:Status Report and PerspectiveCharles M. Spuches *

We are in the midst of an unprecedented period ofinterest in the quality of teaching and learning in highereducation. Criticisms and solutions for assessing andimproving the quality of education at the post secon-dary level abound in the academic and popular media.This article profiles one institution's proactive responseto the challenge of maintaining and improving thequality of academic programs through an instructionaland faculty development effort. Although severalunique factors shaped this effortthe specific goalsand expectations, the particular character and priori-ties of the institution, the key individuals involved, andthe resources availableit provides lessons and ex-amples that have implications for similar effort.. Thisreport on our efforts here at the State University of NewYork, College of Environmental Science and Forestry(SUNY-ESF) is intended to be of practical value toinstructional cl,welopers and academic leaders involvedin similar effo. Is to establish or enhance instructionalimprovement programs in other college, university, ortraining and development settings.

Background/ContextThe instructional and faculty development effort de-scribed in this paper is being conducted at SUNY-ESFin Syracuse, New York. ESF has approximately fifteenhundred undergraduate and graduate students andone hundred thirty faculty in eight academic units.Within its professional, disciplinary and research areasthe College is one of the largest and most productiveinstitutions in the country. The College enjoys a solidtradition and in several areas has an international repu-tation. ESF also has a long-established affiliation withits neighbor institution, Syracuse University.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s virtually all SUNYschools, including ESF, established Educational Com-munications Units. These units were equipped withone or more television studios and photo labs and werestaffed with personnel versed in television production,photography, graphics, audio, film productio, and, onoccasion, instructional development. While an instruc-tional development line existed in the EducationalCommunications Unit at ESF, it was never filled. Overthe years, through attrition and reassignment, the unit's

22

staff decreased from eight to four (a television engineer,a media engineer, a photographer, and a secretary). Itsrole in providing support to the College's instructional,research, and public service programs, however, hascontinued.

In the spirit of renewed interest in linking college-widecourse and instructor evaluations to instructional im-provement, along with the initiation of a learning re-sources center concept within its library, ESF in 1986initiated a search for a Coordinator of InstructionalDevelopment. The Coordinator position was to reportto the Director of the Library and Learning ResourcesCenter (LLRC) and to have two major areas of respon-sibility: (1) supervise the educational communicationsunit (renamed Instructional Services) of the LLRC and(2) provide instructional consultation and support tofaculty and administrators. Instructional Services-re-lated duties included supervision of the Unit's person-nel, operations (e.g., media services, teleconferencing,video production), and budgets, as well as of the relo-cation and renovation of several of the Unit's majorfunctions and facilities. The instructional developmentduties were not as clearly defined; rather they began totake shape during the first year and they continue toevolve. The remainder of this article will focus on theconsiderations that were addressed and the currentelements in the instructional and faculty developmenteffort.

The InnovationBy the fall of 1987 the College had in place its firstCoordinator of Instructional Development and an in-structional development effort was initiated. The neweffort was guided by two key considerations: first, notto reinvent the wheel, and second, to ma t:e sure that thewheel fit. Every attempt was made to integrate andadapt to the ESF context the best of instructional devel-opment theory and practice in higher education con-veyed through theli teratt.re (e.g., Diamond, 1989; Sachs,1984) and gained through experience. There was akeen awareness and eagerness to avoid imposing ap-proaches that were incompatible with the culture andpriorities of ESF.


Although well established at several institutions, in-structional development the position as well as theperson holding the positionwas new to ESF and wasconsidered an innovation as defined by Rogers (1983),(i.e., "an idea, practice or object that is perceived as newby an individual or other unit of adoption"). Iheimplementation process was therefore guided by in-structional and faculty development and diffusion ofinnovation principles (e.g., Centra, 1978; Davis, et. al.1982; Kozma, 1985; Rogers, 1983; Shrock, 1985). Itbecame immediately apparent that established ap-proaches, especially the Syracuse Model (Diamond,1989) with its emphases on a team approach to plan-ning and on the cost effective use of resources, couldserve as excellent starting points. It was imperative,however, to properly adapt and to further develop themodel for ESF. ESF's particular characteristics, such asits size, science and engineering orientation, state affili-ation, and unionized environment had to be fully con-sidered.

An initial step was to identify key decision makers andopinion leaders (Rogers, 1983) who could guide, con-tribute to, and promote instructional improvement ac-tivities. This informal team consisted of the academicadministration, department chairs, and faculty govern-ance leaders, particularly the chair of the Committee onInstruction. An extension of this team consisted ofcurriculum coordinators (present in several depart-ments) and individuals who had been recognized fortheir teaching excellence by campus and SUNY awards.Through formal meetings, a variety of publications,and informal conversations, this group (along withmany other faculty) helped to identify the prioritiesand direction of the College and to formulate a plan thatoptimized instructional development resources (forexample, see Diamond, 1989).

In time, two primary goals were established for theinstructional development effort: (1) to complementand yet contribute in a unique way to the College'sestablished network of instructional improvement ef-forts; and (2) to move beyond the efforts of a smallnumber of individuals by engaging the majority of thefaculty in new development efforts, thereby realizingthe institutionalization of an enhanced instructionalimprovement program.

Since the use of instructional development services isvoluntary (what Rogers, 1983, describes as an individ-ual or optional type of innovation-decision process),the credibility of the developer as a colleague as well asthe utility of the development process had to be estab-lished among the faculty. To this end, the instructionaldevelopment effort was portrayed as one facet of analready ongoing system for enhancing the quality ofteaching and learning. The appointment of an in-house

Volume 1(3) )7alt 1990

instructional consultant with expertise in instructionalsystems and experience as a faculty member was sub-mitted as tangible evidence of the College's recognitionof and commitment to assisting faculty with their often-times competing responsibilities of teaching, researchand service. It provided a person whose chief respon-sibility was to work jointly with faculty as a resoune,linker, and consultant in order to facilitate their instruc-tional improvement efforts. This approach, it wasbelieved, would contribute to achievement of the firstgoal and would likely result in the acceptance andinvolvement of instructional development assistancein instructional, course, and academic program plan-ning and decision making.

Realization of the second goal, institutionalization ofan enhanced instructional improvement effort, wasnecessary if the effort was to result in long-term signifi-cant, positive impact upon the quality of the academicprogram and the environment in which it exists. Thisrequired broad-based commitment and active involve-ment in instructional development activities by facultyand all others associated with the academic environ-ment. As Diamond (1989) explains:

While we may focus on courses and curricu-lum, we should also keep in mind that whatgoes on in the classroom cannot be separatedfrom the total instructional experience of stu-dents. No matter how effective we are asteachers, and no matter how well-designed ourcourses and curricula are, we will not be suc-cessful if our libraries are not conducive tostudying, if our residence halls provide ourstudents with little personal support, if fewopportunities for recreation exist, and if we, asfaculty, are rarely available to meet with stu-dents outside of the classroom, laboratory, orstudio. Optimum learning requires a rich social,cultural, and physical environment. Such asetting does not happen by chance; it must benurtured and planned and must involve theparticipation of staff from the offices of studentaffairs, residential life, and numerous other of-fices throughout the institution (p. 3).

The primary task during the effort's first few years wasto guide faculty through the innovation-decision proc-ess. As described by Rogers (1983), "the innovationdecision process is essentially an information-seekingand information-processing activity in which the indi-vidual is motivated to reduce uncertainty about theadvantages and disadvantages of the innovation."Rogers conceptualizes this as a five step process involv-ing: (1) knowledge, (2) persuasion, (3) decision, (4)implementation, and (5) confirmation.

23

The particular mix of instructional development serv-ices and activities was selected based on the nature ofthis process, the goals outlined above, and on consid-erations of constraints and resources available. Keyinnovation characteristics that relate strongly to adop-tion and institutionalization, namely the innovation'srelative advantage, compatibility, complexity, triala-bility, and observability (Rogers, 1983) were also con-sidered in the planning process. These criteria aidedthe selection of strategies that would provide to facultya balance of both short-term/immediate experienceswith instructional development along with experiencesthat required long-term involvement. As an additionalperspective, teaching was thought of as both a folk artand a fine art: a creative process that requires presenceand spontaneity, similar to the improvisational abili-ties of a jazz musician or the adjustments of a mastercarpenter, as well as preplanning, analysis and design,much like the preparation and deliberations of a com-poser or architect. Resources and support were se-lected to address each dimension.

Elements of the ESE InstructionalImprovement EffortBrief descriptions of the current major elements of theinstructional and faculty development effort are pro-vided in the following section.

Seminars on instruction. A series of instructional andfaculty development seminars entitled "Seminars onInstruction" was established. This approach was cho-sen to complement the once-a-year format alreadyused by the institution. It was felt that instructionalimprovement, as a substantive process, required con-sistent if not constant stimulation. The seminars wereintended to be a convenient way to keep the spirit ofinstructional improvement alive and active in theminds and schedules of our faculty. They were pro-moted as a means to introduce new concepts andapproaches to teaching as well as to discuss and recon-sider familiar topics. Also, since the development staffconsisted of one individual, seminars were seen as anefficient means to disseminate information and inter-act with a wide cross section of faculty.

Seminars were scheduled regularly throughout thesemester as noon-hour brown-bag lunch meetings.Coffee or other refreshments were provided. Facultywere invited to join with their colleagues to discussimportant issues related to teaching and learning at theCollege. Seminars were presented either by the Coor-dinator of Instructional Development, by faculty,jointly, or by outside guests. An emphasis was placedon encouraging active faculty participation and dis-cussion.

24

At the beginning of each semester a letter describingthe tentative schedule and list of seminar topics for thatsemester was sent to department chairs and to facultygovernance leaders. Their assistance in encouragingfaculty participation was requested along with theirideas for future seminar topics. Key objectives were toselect seminar topics that directly addressed facultyrequirements and interests and to schedule them tocoincide with the ebb and flow of the academic calen-dar. Topics to date have included, for example, sylla-bus development, collecting and using informal stu-dent feedback, instructor and course evaluations, theSUNY faculty grants program, and academic advising.

Announcements for each seminar are distributed to allfaculty several days in advance and include a shorttear-off at the bottom. Faculty are asked to completeand return the tear-off section to indicate their intentionof participating or to share comments, again to gatherideas on topics of interest. Aware of the full schedulesof faculty, the day before each seminar all faculty whoindicated they would attend received a mailed re-minder.

All seminars conclude with a short evaluation consist-ing of three closed- and two open-ended questions.These data, along with any and all anecdotal commentsprovided, are used to adjust seminar scheduling andformat and to select future seminar topics. At theconclusion of each semester, a letter is sent to individ-ual faculty to acknowledge their participation in theseminar or seminars attended as a demonstration oftheir active interest and commitment to our collectivegoal of instructional quality. A copy of each letter issent to the appropriate department chair or supervisor.

Participation in the first six seminars totaled over onehundred faculty and staff, approximately seventy-fivepercent of full time teaching faculty. Related effortshave included offering a seminar for faculty new to theCollege and a seminar on academic management fordepartment chairpersons to be offered in the fall of1990.

Not all faculty have attended nor are they expected to.In effect, the seminar approach is a broad brush stroke.The downside of this approach is that it is difficult todetermine if the ideas raised and information gained inseminars makes its way into the classroom or directlyresults in an improved teaching/learning environment.Nevertheless, the opportunity for faculty from acrosscampus to gather to address teaching and learningissues is a cost effective and gratifying way to furtherthe cause of instructional improvement. This opportu-nity for con and interaction between faculty and theinstructional consultant has resulted in a number ofrequests for follow up assistance.


Consulting. A second facet of the instructional devel-opment efforts is consulting. Consultations involveindividual or occasionally small groups of faculty whowant to explore a particular instructional topic or prob-lem. Issues may be triggered by a recent seminar oremerge directly from the faculty member's currentteaching assignment. While some consultations with afaculty member may require only one session and arecomprised of a brief discussion, the sharing of materi-als, or the referral to another resource person, manyinvolve several meetings over the course of severalweeks. A high priority is given to all requests forconsultation and are considered an important compo-nent of the development mix.

The time and effort spent consulting one-on-one withfaculty is not without its limitations. Brief consulta-tions often do not provide the opportunity for carefulin-depth analysis of an instructional problem. Perhapstoo often a quick fix to a symptom is addressed at theexpense of identifying and analyzing an underlyingproblem. But such interactions do create opportunitiesfor further development. If the faculty member findsthis a productive experience, then consulting opportu-nities can be viewed as a preliminary step to moreformal course or curriculum projects.

Course and curriculum development projects. By theSummer of 1988 there were opportunities for severalcourse level projects. Course development projectsinvolve working with individual or faculty groups torevise, update or restructure an existing course or toplan and develop a new one. Such projects followstandard procedures of established development unitsor agencies. They involve a team approach (developer,faculty as content expert, production staff, etc.) and areguided by project management, consulting and in-structional design principles (for example, see Evenskyand Spuches, 1989). In this mode, the developer worksnot from a discipline perspective but in a process facili-tator role, providing instructional design expertise andproject management skills. The process routinely in-volves helping faculty to clarify goals, organize con-tent, design materials, and select teaching/learningstrategies; in other words, to help make explicit manyof the aspects of instructional planning that are oftenimplicit or on occasion absent. The tangible outputs orproducts of such a process often include an enhancedsyllabus or course guide, significant changes in con-tent, and revisions in the instructional format of thecourse.

Two issues related to recent course development proj-ects deserve comment. First, there have been occasionswhen new course or curriculum redesign efforts haveoccurred in which development services have not beenutilized. On other occasions, development assistance


was requested after critical design decisions were al-ready made or were assumed to have been made. Thechallenge of overcoming resistance, of involving fac-ulty, and of being involved in educational develop-ment projects is an issue addressed often in faculty andinstructional development literature.

The concern for integration and utilization at ESF is, inpart, the result of the voluntary nature of the innova-tion-decision process, although a voluntary approachis the favored, one among instructional change practi-tioners. It maybe a result, too, of instructional develop-ment being located within the LLRC, instead of beingtied directly to the office of the chief academic officer,where it may gain more immediate visibility and credi-bility (Diamond, 1989; Sachs, 1984; Weimer, 1990). It isalso due to factors commonly thought to impede fac-ulty participation in development projects such as thecompeting demands on faculty time (for example, seeSpuches & Doughty, in press). In any case, furtherformal and informal communication about the sub-stantive role the development process can serve isnecessary if the impact of instructional developmentservices is to increase.

Second, many of the course development projects un-dertaken have involved either special topics, low en-rollment, or elective courses. The opportunity to workon projects of this type could very often not be affordedat a larger institution which, even with the benefit oflarger staffs, often must focus on the promise of higherimpact. This opportunity to focus on projects that maybe considered incidental in some contexts, underscoresone of the unique benefits of in-house educationalconsulting services at a smaller institution. With a lowdevelopment staff-to-faculty ratio a greater amount offlexibility and attention may be achieved.

Participation in College Faculty Governance. TheCoordinator of Instructional Development position is aprofessional staff position. Shortly after the positionwas created, however, the College faculty voted togrant the Coordinator of Instructional Developmentlocal faculty status. This designation carried with it theopportunity to vote in governance meetings, serve onthesis and dissertation committees, and other privi-leges and responsibilities. Most notable was the oppor-tunity to participate in faculty governance, first as amember and then as chair of the Subcommittee onInstructional Quality (a subcommittee of the Commit-tee on Instruction, one of three core faculty governancecommittees along with research and public service).Involvement as an elected member of faculty govern-ance was unanticipated. It has, nevertheless, come to beconsidered potentially one of the most effective and,without doubt, one of the most valued opportunities to

25

sense, a formal role in faculty governance legitimizesthe role of the instructional developer as an instruc-tional change agent and integrates instructional devel-opment within the faculty system.

A major undertaking of the Subcommittee on In-structional Quality was the recent initiation of theCollege's first newsletter on teaching and learning. Tobe published three times a year, this newsletter is adeclaration of the faculty voice that quality teachingand learning is valued. The newsletter includes newson instruction-related events (seminars, grants andawards, etc.), articles written by ESF faculty, and ex-cerpts or reprints of timely and relevant materials froma variety of sources. Although only two issues havebeen distributed, comments from faculty and adminis-trators suggest the newsletter will serve as an effectiveway to disseminate information as well as to focusattention on and give recognition to the faculty's indi-vidual and collective instructional improvement efforts.

SummaryThe mix of instructional and faculty development ac-tivities implemented at ESF is designed to optimize theimpact of a single development staff member and toachieve both breadth and depth of involvement andeffectiveness in facilitating instructional improvement.Although seminars and newsletters require moderateinvestments of production time, they reach a largenumber of faculty and reap important short-term re-wards, particularly in addressing the initial stages ofthe innovation-decision process. Activities such asconsulting and coordinating projects require more in-vestment of time and take longer to establish but arelikely to achieve more substantive long-term benefits.Involvement in faculty governance indicates a signifi-cant degree of faculty acceptance of instructional devel-opment and suggests that the development effort is onits way to institutionalization.

Certainly all expectations and goals have not been fullyachieved, but with the concerted efforts of faculty andadministrators, a foundation has been built for furtherwork. Priority in the near future is to obtain externalfunding support for instructional improvement proj-ects and to continue to build broad-based support for,and involvement in current instructional improvementefforts.

ReferencesCentra, J.A. (1978). Types of faculty developmentprograms. Journal of Higher Education, 49, 151 - 162.

Davis, R.H., Strand, R., Alexander, L.T., ez Hussain,M.N. (1982). The impact of organizational and innova-tor variables on instructional innovation in higher edu-

26

cation. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 568-586.

Diamond, R. M. (1989). Designing and improving coursesand curricula in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Evensky, J. & Spuches, C.M. (1989). The SyracuseUniversity experience: Lessons in multiteacher coursedesign. The Journal of Economic Education, 20 (2), 181-198.

Kozma, Robert B. (1985). A grounded theory of instruc-tional innovation in higher education. Journal of HigherEducation, 56, 301-319.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.).New York: The Free Press.

Sachs, S.G. (1984). Supporting real innovation in the80'sCharacteristics of ID units that will make it hap-pen. (Occasional paper) Washington, D. C.: Division ofInstructional Development, Association for EducationalCommunications and Technology.

Shrock, S.A. (1985). Faculty perceptions of instruc-tional development and the success/ failure of an in-structional development program: A naturalistic study.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 33(1), 16-25.

Spuches, C.M. & Doughty, P.L. (in press). A study ofthe use of irstructional development in selected collegeand university continuing professional education pro-grams. Innovative Higher Education.

Weimer, M. (1990). Improving college teaching. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Base.

'Charles M. Spuches, an alumnus of Syracuse Univer-sity, is the Coordinator of Instructional Developmentat the State University of New York College of Environ-mental Science and Forestry.

1u0 Instructional Developments

Job-AidsAlex Romiszowski*

MAP #6 DEVELOPING STRUCTURAL COMMUNICATION EXERCISES:Procedure

Introduction

Procedure

This job-aid is a continuatinuation of the maps structural communication methodology and their use in the designof automated case study excercise. This map can be no more than an overview of the process of designing,developing and producing Structural Communication units. Each step in this procedure mould require one, orseveral, further maps to describe and document it fully. I have, however, given references to sources that describespecific steps of the procedure more fully. I have given references to sources that describe specfic steps of theprocedure more fully. Full references are listed at the end of the article by Pusch and Slee, in the previous journalissue.)

Step/Activity Example/Method

1 "Macro"Analysis

1.1 Identify a DomainChoose a subject area/issue/ complex skill/problem area which justifies expenditure ofresources in order to improve human com-petence in "higher order cognitive skills".

Criteria for selection may be economic or drawnfrom educational philosophy, curriculum, ideal-ism, humanism, or popular demand.

1.2 Study the Domain InvolvedIs there a complex structure that must be"understood"? Does "understanding" at adeep level transfer to life/job competence?

Study expert/novice discrepancies and their rootcauses. Attempt a first "mapping" of the domain.

1.3 Assess Suitability of S.('Check that the domain being considered hasmany complex problem areas that requireanalysis/understanding/solutions. Thesuccessful expert strategies in the domainare not algorithmic, but require heuristicexpertise and judgment.

"Understanding" is a variable rather than a fixedentity. Alternative viewpoints/theories exist andshould be compared. Successful problem solvinginvolves the weighing up of alternatives thathave positive and negative aspects.

1.4 Define "the overall intention"What is it that we aim to achieve by the S.C.exercise? What "insights" and "understand-ings" (rather than specific behaviors) are wehoping to promote? What overall problemareas are we going to investigate?

The "intention" at th is stage is the goal we hope toachieve. To that extent, it is analogous to an"overall objective", but it may well be phrased in"process" rather than "product" terms. Later, this"intention" will be communicated to students, asa form of introduction.

2. "Micro"Analysis

2.1 Analyze the Selected DomainWhat are the concepts, principles and keyfacts of our domain? What are the relation-ships that exist among the elements? Howdo experts use or study this domain ofknowledge?

Techniques abound: brainstorming; pattern not-ing (Field 19 ); mind-mapping (Buzan 1974). Theanalysis of experts' use of the domain may drawon any of the emerging knowledge acquisitiontechniques (card-sort; personal construct grid).

2.2 Develop a "concept map"This is a visual representation of the struc-ture of the domain, which may act as a guideto your later exercise design and develop-ment. The concept map is also a tool forvalidating your understanding of the domainagainst other experts. It may be developedby a team of experts, but if it is an individualcreation, should be debated with other ex-perts (of various "denominations," if pos-sible). Two common ways of conceptmapping are: (a) Entailment Meshes (Pask19 ) that show "clustering" of ideas, and (b)Dirczted graphs/networks that show de-pendence/relationships.

b F

C

Volume I (3) Fall 1990

REST COPY AVAii.ABLE 1 (-)

27

2.3 Identify Dimensions and ViewpointsThe analysis of the domain and the devel-opment of an overall concept map servesto identify the principal DIMENSIONS(content oriented) and VIEWPOINTS(people oriented) which underlie debate/divergence/uncertainty/opinion in theselected domain. These should be inter-related in order to identify the issues thatmight most usefully be addressed in yourS.C. exercise. The dimensions and view-points can be better identified and IN-TERRELATED by constructing a DI-MENSIONS-VIEWPOINTS TABLE. Theexample shows a table produced for aBusiness case study.

Viewpoints

Dimensions

Technical Social Financialviability necessity viability

Management ? ? ?

Shareholders ? ? ?

Trade unions ? ? ?

3. Design ofthe Exercise

3.1. Select Overall Strategy In "expositive" lessons, the S.C. exercise would bethe "practice" stage which follows prior teaching offacts and theory. In "experiential" lessons, it mayprecede any teaching, presenting an initial "situ-ation" for analysis, and in the discussion stage,leading to the "discovery" of both basic conceptsand their interrelationships.

The decision between basically "exposi-tive" (reception-learning) and "experien-tial" (discovery-learning) approaches willinfluence most of the later design anddevelopment activities. Also, it is impor-taut to decide whether individual studyor group discussion will be the primarymode of interaction with the S.C. pack-age.

3.2 Define the "intellectual challenge" The kind of challenge which is appropriate d ependson the SPECIFIC INTENTIONS and on the STRAT-EGY selected, as well as on a variety of STUDENTCHARACTERISTICS. The "challenge" must bringthe student "up against it" so he cannot remainpassive towards the exercise. This is probably themost creative part of the S.C. authoring process.

This is the element of "deconditioning" ofpreviously held assumptions, togetherwith the element of "excitement" broughtabout by engagement in an interestingand complex problem-solving exercise.How will you author the exercise toachieve these two effects? What "specifictactics" can you think of?

3.3 Define problem-set The process of defining problem areas may bevisualized as follows:

Situation Problem Areas Stated problems

011111110*/) 0

00

The issues to be explored (2.4) may alreadydefine the problem areas adequately. Butit is important that the problems posedinteract with each other presenting alter-native/conflicting perspectives on asituation. Typically, between 3 and 6interrelated problems should be definedat this stage.

4. DetailedDevelopment

4.1 Select Response-Matrix ItemsHaving got a first draft of the problems tobe set (3.4), you can select/brainstormitems worthy of inclusion in the response-matrix. All the items pertain to the knowl-edge domain under study and most willrelate to one or several of the problems(often in different ways). Typical rela-tions are: Essential; Contradictory; Sub-sidiary; Irrelevant. By drawing up a "rele-vance grid" one can map the relationshipof each item to each problem. This willhelp to select the most useful /powerfulitems. Here is a relevance grid for theselection of the response matrix items.Typically, continue to develo p thelist untilyou have 15-30 useful /powerful items.

ItemNumber

Problem

1 2 3 4

1

2345678

EI

I

SC

I

SI

I

I

CE

I

EI

S

SS

I

I

EI

E

C

SECCE

CE

I

102 Instructional

4.2 Develop the Discussion-GuideBy examining the relations of all the items toa given problem, the author/expert/teachermay hypothesize (or indeed know from ex-perience) why certain items that are essen-tial may be omitted or why some contradic-tory items are often included, etc. This allowsthe author to plan a set of feedback com-ments related to particular misconceptionsor viewpoints.

2,4assume he has "'N

provide

misconception 1 Comment A

assume he has provide

misconception 2`Comment B

4.3 Develop the PresentationThis may be an existing document or situa-tion from which the domain structure (2.1-2.3), problems (3.2-3.4) and response-matrix(4.1) were developed. Alternatively, it maybe necessary fo write/produce a set of spe-cially designed presentation materials, suitedto the study skills of the target group.

Developing the presentation may call on specialauthoring skills such as:- Story /dialogue writing;- Case-study writing;- Role-play design;- Simulation/game design.In all cases, it is important that the materials"make sense" to the target students and that keyrelationships are neither tco easy nor too difficultto discern.

4.4 Develop the CommentsThe comments must be written so as tosimulate a real dialogue with the reader.Also, they must interact with the presenta-tion, intention, problems and viewpoints, soas to give a sense of "wholeness" to the S.C.exercise.

Some authoring hints:- use a conversational style;- avoid a dogmatic style;- avoid "right/wrong" classification;- ensure that the reader has some thinking to do asa result of comment;- indicate that the author's diagnosis of a student'sresponse is tentative and open to error/bias.

4.5 Editing/FinishingIf necessary, write a final viewpoints sectionto round off the exercise. Review all thesections to ensure that they interact as ex-pected.

- Are all sections similar in style/difficulty/chal-lenge?- Are all comments related to problems and pre-sentation in a clear and meaningful way?

5. FormativeEvaluation

5.1 Developmental TestingAsk several students to work through early/incomplete versions of the study unit. Theseshould be one-on-one situations, as the stu-dent can make free comments.

Problems must be in a fully defined state, but thefeedback comments may in part be "ad-lib" ordeveloped on-the-spot in response to studentdifficulties or questions.

5.2 Expert ReviewAsk several experts/authorities to workthrough the study unit. Note their commentsand the exercise in general and their specificresponses to the problems.

Look for:- Technical inadequacies, and gaps in the "map"of the domain, incorrect diagnosis of studentresponses; inaccurate comments.- Viewpoints divergence, or the extent and specificissues on which the experts tend to disagree.

5.3 Field TestingTry-out of prototype study unit under theconditions in which you expect it to be usedin the future.

Consider use of the "coherence index" as a mea-sure of the effectiveness of the unit. This index isa weighted measure of the number of points onwhich the student and the author "disagree".Identify any user factors that may affect the pro-cess of using the unit.

5.4 Final RevisionsAs required.

Continue 5.1-5.4 for as many iterations as neces-sary to ensure the quality of the S.C. unit.

Volume 1(3) Fa ll 1990

BEST COPY AVE IAELE

105 29

MAP #7 DESIGNING AND DEVELOPING CASE MATERIALS: Procedure

Introduction

Procedure

One form of presentation that may form the core of a Structural Communication exercise is a case-dsscription. This is a "scenario" describing a situation that requires comment or action on the part of theparticipants. The article on the Case-Study Methodology, elsewhere in this issue, outlined some generalprinciples of case-study design. Here we shall elaborate on the design and development of the case materials.The procedure suggested here is, of course, also applicable to the design of case materials to be used in themore conventional, classroom- based, teacher led, case discussion methodologies. Aspects of this procedure aredrawn from the Havard Method of case-study. Others are based on Message Design principles.

Steps/ Activities Exam les

1. Define the"problem"

Define the concepts and principles to beexemplified/pointed out by the case.What generality or generally applicableskill should the participants practicethrough study of the case.

Harvard business cases generally focus on onemanagement principle/strategy, such as effectivedelegation, or effective communication. The SU/IDD &E case studies give practice in specific heuris-tic skills, such as front-end-analysis or lesson plan-ning.

2. Analyze the Look for relevant examples in the par- Sources of ready-made case material, for adoptionproblem andassemble the

ticipants' real-life (or future) environment,that can act as the basis of the case. True

or adaptation, include: books/collections of casestudies; articles in journals; conferences/work-

data. Select or cases maybeselected foradaptation. They shops. Sources of ideas and raw data for the cre-create a may be found in the professional litera- ation of a case include: personal experience; ex-"situation." ture. "Fabricated" cases must often be perience of colleagues, organizational archives;

created in order to meet the exact re- articles in newspaper/magazines; evaluationquirements of the "problem." studies.

3. Design the case The "symptoms": of the case are the In a case that is to exemplify the pressures andsituation. factors that should "catch the eye" of the motivations on university faculty with respect to

student and lead to an appropriate "di- lesson preparation, a "strongly" presented symp-(a) Symptoms agnosis" of the general principles/phe- torn might be: "the promotion and tenure system

nomena that the case is exemplifying. does not reward my time investment in betterThese symptoms may be designed at teaching." A "weaker" version of this symptomdifferent levels of "strength," thus mak- might read: "I did not get the student handouting the case more "obvious" or more written because I had this deadline to meet on an"difficult." Some should be "critical" tothe case, others "incidental" and some

AECT paper."

"irrelevant." The "mix" of these is anotherfactor in the "difficulty of the case."

The symptoms are embedded in a strut- A case situation involving faculty development in(b) Structure ture--the interrelating elements or sub- a university may be designed as a system of view-

systems of the case situation. Think of the points of the various interested partiesthe u n i-situation in systems-engineering terms.Map out the sub-systems and their rela-

versity administration, the faculty itself, students,etc. These may be established in terms of generalities

tionship to each other. Often these sub- (e.g. a table of data from a staff or student survey)systems are the "characters" of people or as specific characters who voice characteristicwho present the case data. Sometimes viewpoints on the problem in question (e.g. Fredthey are the characteristics of a given Aspen is head of faculty developmenthe sees thedepartment or organization or group. problem as follows ...).Other structural factors to consider are:time-scale; a narrative, story-like context;fair balance between alternative view-points, reflecting reality; elements tocreate interest and motivation in the tar-get group.

30


4. Develop thecase material

(a) ScenarioDatabase

(b) Questions

Write the core description in detail. Thiswill involve the creation of concise butclear and complete descriptions of all as-pects of the situation, full "scripts" ordialogues for the characters, etc. Caremust be taken to embed the previouslydefined "symptoms" in the case descrip-tion at the required level of "difficulty."Care must also be taken to establish real-ism. Data and complex information shouldbe tabulated or graphed and placed inwell organized annexes foreasy reference.

Usually, the case description is accompa-nied by questions. These have alreadybeen defined in earlier design stages.Theymust now be written, to match the detailsof the scenario. They may be open ques-tions (e.g. what do you think should bedone now) designed for group discussion,or more "Instrumented" (e.g. the use of aresponse matrix in Structural Communi-cation).

Some hints on style/structure:-Use past tense for evaluative (what wentwrong) cases and present or future tense fordecision-making (what will you do now)cases;

-Use factual, unbiased style, avoidingimplied comment/criticism;

-Use common technical jargon and slang butavoid academic or over-technical descriptions;

-Avoid the inclusion of teaching material(definitions, concepts, theories) in the body ofthe case material;

-Avoid the passive voiceput words intothe mouths of real characters and give the

characters names;

An "open discussion" question might be: "havingstudied the viewpoints of the interested parties,what would you recommend to the head of facultydevelopment at XYZ University"? An "instru-mented" question might be: "Use the performanceproblem analysis schema of Romiszowski (1981)select all the actions you think are appropriate tothis case."

5. Evaluate thecase material(a) Content

(b) Style

(c) Develop-mentalTesting

(d) Field Testing

The factual content should be checked forauthenticity, plausibility, technical valid-ity.

The Style and structure should be checkedby other specialist case-writers.

If possible, perform some developmentaltesting, by giving early versions of thecase materials to two or more typicalstudents. Revise and produce furtherdrafts.

Perform field-testing under the sameconditions that are expected in futuregeneral use of the case.

-Use several subject experts as critics of the firstdrafts.

-Several (possibly 3 or 4) different style/writingexperts should be consulted.

-Give the early drafts of the materials to samplemembers of the target group in a one-on-one situ-ation. Record their decisions, misconceptions, andaffective reactions to the material.

-If the case material is planned for group discus-sion, then field test under these conditions. If thecase is for individual study, then replicate theseconditions. Some cases should be field tested inboth of these modes.

6. Developing aLesson Plana) Briefing

b) Case-Study

c) Debriefing

Case materials are a part of a lesson. Theyshould be established in an overall lessonplan. It may be necessary to specify to theuser, just how the context of the case, andits importance should be introduced.

There may be a particular "dynamic" tothe case-study stage. Also it may require"instrumentation".

Finally, it is necessary to plan the processof promoting reflection ad discoverylearning.

The briefing may be part of a "teacher moment"(group-discussion ones), or it may be an introduc-tory presentation to be studied by the student (in-dividual case study).

Individual study/ small groups; special instru-mentation; recording viewpoints; reporting back;synthesizing.

This is considered to be the most important andmost difficult part of the task of case-methodleadership.

Volume 1(3) Fall 19901 0 5

MAPWI

F URTHERSTRUCTURAL CO

NGMMS

UNICA TION AND CASE-METHOD:w READI

1. Structural Communication

Egan, K. (1976). Structural Communication. Belmont,CA: Fearson Publishers.

Hodgson, A.M. (1974). "Structural Communica-tion in Practice". In Rominszowski, A.J. (ed.) APLETYearbook of Educational and Instructional Technology.,1975-75. London, U.K.: Kogan Page.

Romiszowski, A.J. (1986). Developing Auto-Instruc-tional Materials. London, U.K.: Kogan Page.

2. Case-Method

Bromley, D. B. (1986). The case study method in psy-chology and related disciplines. Chiclerter, U.K.: Wiley.

Chiesel, N. (1979). The interactive case: Computerized

techniques to teach the business case method. Technologi-cal Horizons in Education. 6(5). 38-39.

Christensen, C.R. (1987). Teaching and the case method.Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School PublishingDivision.

Masoner, M. (1988). An audit of the case study method.New York: Praeger.

Pigors, P. (1976). "Case Method", in Craig, R.L. (ed.).Training and Development Handbook. New York: McGrawHill.

* Alex Romiszowski is a Professor of InstructionalDesign, Development and Evalaution at Syracuse Uni-versity.

The SU-Indonesian Alumni Reunion and IUT Conference.One important and thoroughly enjoyed component of theSyracuse summer adventure in Indonesia involved partici-pating in the first comprehensive SU alumni reunion held inthe country. Hosted by the Indonesian Open University, theNational Center for Family Planning and the National Cen-ter for Communications and Technology, an evening ofpresentations, gift sharing, faculty remembrances and ex-cellent dining was enjoyed by all. Syracuse schools andcolleges represented includeed Maxwell, Management andNewhouse, and from the School of Education the AdultEducation, Counselor Education and Instructional DesignDevelopment and Evaluatio a graduate programs.

In addition to Syracuse administrators, staff and facultymember participation, over one hundred Indonesian SUalumni and family members participated in the event held inJakarta. Over twenty-five additional alumni hosted SUparticipants at the Improving University Teaching (IUT)Conference in Jogyakarta.

Syracuse was well represented at the sixteenth internationalconference on Improving University Teaching held thissummer in the first week in July. Jointly sponsored inYogyakarta, Indonesia by the Indonesian Open University,Gadjah Mada University and the University of Maryland,over 250 educational planners, researchers, developers andfaculty met to discuss strategies and plans for instructionalimprovement in higher education.

Faculty, staff and administrators from Syracuse engaged ina variety of activities including a) theme sessions presenta-tions, b) structured issue discussions, c) paper panels and

d) workshops. In addition, many SU Indonesian alumnialso presented papers, led discussions and joined with theSU contingent on panels.

Other obligatory conference events required participants toattend a traditional ballet with cast and orchestra of over 200members, to have dinner at the Sultan's palace and to visitthe Bourabador Temple, one of the seven wonders of theworld, built in the 6th Century as a monument to Buddha.

Conference topics represented in the papers and presenta-tions offered by Syracuse representatives included the fol-lowing:

I. Ron Cavanaugh, Robert Diamond, Peter Gray and TonyRoberts - Changing Priorities at the Research Institution:Focus on Teaching.

2. Robert Diamond - Developing Teaching Skills DuringGraduate Education; A Practical Approach to the Design,Implementation and Evaluation of Courses, Programs andCurricula.

3. Phil Doughty - Aspects of the University Business Con-nection.

4. Peter Gray - Using Formative Data for Faculty, Course/Program, and Student Development.

5. Tony Roberts - Dealing with Problems: Lessons fromSyracuse University's Sears Project.

6. Alexander Romiszowski - Use of Computer MediatedCommunications as a support to campus based courses.

32 Instructional Drycloprnerus

The Syracuse University Kellogg Project Enters Its Fir al YearThe Syracuse University Kellogg Project, a five-year research effortfunded in 1986 by a grant from the Kellogg Foundation, is in itsfifth- final year. The project has two main goals:

1. To process, promote research on, and provide broad access to theUniversity's outstanding Adult and Continuing Education Re-search Collection, using optical disk and computer technologies.The collection contains more than 800 linear feet of manuscriptsand other materials reflecting the development of professionaladult education in the United States.

2.To promote information exchange through computer-mediatedcommunications and, as appropriate, through nonelectronicmeans.

The following components have been developed to reach theproject goals:

KLARS (Kellogg Library and Archive Retrieval System) wasdesigned to bring computer power to bear on the process ofresearching archives and manuscripts in the Adult and ContinuingEducation Research Collection at Syracuse University. In KLARS,facsimile images of document pages are stored on optical disks,which can hold about 20,000 pages each. The system is designed togive researchers flexible access to these documents, using threedifferent search strategies:

1.Browsing through documents that have been grouped on thesystem as they might be in a traditional archive. In archives,finding aids show users how the holdings are grouped withinfolders, within boxes, within collections. Individual documentsare not specifically identified. Likewise, users of KLARS seescreens that describe the contents of collections and folders,which users can then browse through electronically.

2.Referring to on-line contextual information about associatedpersons, organizations, or topics. Unlike books and periodicals,manuscripts such as letters, memos, meeting minutes, and thelike were not written with scholars in mind. They are, rather, theartifacts of conducting business. So instead of looking for author,title, or subject, archival researchers ask about contexts, e.g.,Which committee would have addressed this topic and when?Equipped with information about the contexts in which thedocuments were generated, users can more easily move aroundthe data.

3.Conducting word sex.dtes. The system accommodates ASCII(machine readable) words about the documents, and it can alsotranslate images of text into ASCII form. Users can tell thecomputer to look for certain word combinations likely to leadthem to relevant materials. The system also ranks retrievalsaccording to their presumed relevance to the search query.

KLARS allows users to cut references (which tell the computer howto fmd certain images again), take online notes, print out the notes,and order prints of selected facsimile pages (subject to copyrightrestrictions). For technical and administrative reasons, KLARS willnot be fully implemented as a tool for researching the Adult andContinuing Education Collection. However, the solutions it offersto the problems of computerizing archives may be applied in otherfields as well as adult education.

AEDNET is an international electronic net work that in dud es peoplefrom the Americas, Europe, and the Pacific Rim. Technically,AEDNET is a listsery address on BITNET, which has links to yetother worldwide networks.

Approximately 260 people from 38 sites located in 10 countries areAEDNET members. Participants are primarily adult educationprofessors and students, who tend to enjoy easy access to electronicnetworking. However, AEDNET encourages participation bypractitioners and others outside academe.

Through AEDNET adult educators exchange information of mu-tual interest, while exploring this still-new medium for interna-tional information sharing. Network activities include: (a) net-

work-wide discussions; (b) continuing small-group discussions onspecial interest topics; (c) job, conference, special event, and publi-cation announcements; and (d) specific query and response ex-changes. AEDNET relies heavily on participants' contributionsand suggestions.

The network also serves as the distribution channel for the project'srefereed electronic journal, New Horizons in Adult Education,which circulates free of charge to some 260 AEDNET subscribers.Designed in 1987, the journal's goal is to use the speed of electronictransmission to promo te the exchange of current ideas among adulteducators worldwide. Participants without computers may, how-ever, submit articles and receive copies of the journal in paper form.

Past issues have carried articles by students, professors, and prac-titioners on topics such as adult development, feminist researchmethodology, adult literacy, and community development. Pastissues are indexed in ERIC (Educational Resources InformationCenter).

The International Information Sharing Network (IISN) was de-signed to enable those without access to electronic comm unica ti on sto exchange information. The network is based on a model devel-oped by Professor Marta Dosa of the Syracuse University School ofInformation Studies. Usirg traditional mail, the IISN links adulteducators through an "information counselor," who responds toqueries. A typical response includes referrals to knowledgeablenetwork participants, addresses of publishers or organizations,and copies of articles, etc.

To date, the IISN has received more than 100 queries from adulteducation researchers, practitioners, and policy makers, more ofthem from Africa than from other continents. The IISN newletter,which includes contributions from participants, circulates threetimes a year to 355 people in 74 countries.

The Computers and Elderly Program is developed to provide thecomputer trair ing to older adults who increasingly are usingcomputers as vehicles for self-expression, communication, andlearning. During the 1989-1990 academic year, four volunteerinstructors at the project introduced 34 elders to word processing,data bases, simple programming, and telecommunications.

All older adults participating in computer classes must join Senior-Net, a nonprofit organization in San Francisco that was designed tocreate an international community of computer-using older adults.SeniorNet supports an electronic network that links elders with 28sites throughout North America and Hawaiiincluding one at theKellogg Project.

Some participants in the Computers and Elderly Program choose tobecome "computer volunteers," introducing local school childrento computers. During the past year, eleven of these volunteerinstructors taught 240 second- aid third-grade children in twoschools.

The Visiting Scholar Program is designed to enable scholars andpractitioners to engage in individual research projects using theAdult and Continuing Education Research Collection. The pro-gram has also sponsored an international literacy conference andtwo conferences in adult education history. The literacy conferencegave literacy practitioners from 18 countries an opportunity tomeet on campus and discuss topics such as motivation, retention,and program development. The history conferences enabled schol-ars both to conduct individual research in the collection and toparticipate in group sessions.

The Kellogg Project has also been exploring computer-mediatedcommunications as a distance-education medium. A computerconferendng software program was used successfully to deliver acourse taught by Professor Roger Hiemstra in 1989.

"Further information on various project components may beobtained through the journal.

107


A Journal of the School of Education at Syracuse UniversitySpring/Summer 1991 Volume 2, Number 1

Feature Articles

The Syracuse UniversityFocus on Teaching Project:Changing Priorities at aResearch University

Research Reviews

What is the Role of EducationalTechnology in Generating Changein Public School Education?


Establishing a Self-InstructionalDevelopment Facility at NAARM:A Status Report and Perspective

Formative and SummativeEvaluation Procedures forInteractive Video in theNuclear Industry

Automated Job Aids forInstructional Design andDevelopment: Can RelationalDatabases Cut Costs?

Job Aids

Robert DiamondPeter GrayAlton Roberts

Richard Kenny

Aradhyula GopalamK. V. Raman

Barbara GrabowskiBliss Slee

Michael Olson

Alex Romiszowski

108

a

school of education!SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY Ns fag


Editorial BoardJohn CentraRobert DiamondPhil DoughtyDon ElyRoger HiemstraPaul PedersenDan Sage



dministrative AssistanceSandy Holcombe

Technical AssistanceMary Beth HintonLiz KahlCathy LaddEdwina MacDonaldWende Pasch

Production ConsultantGladys L Cleland


Permission to copy, republish,or distribute, and all otherqueries should be addressed to:


13244-2340(315) 443-3702FAX (315) 443-5732


This issue of Instructional Developments focuses on the improvement ofinstruction and the role of Instructional Systems Development in thisimprovement process. Three papers describe instructional improvementprojects at the institutional (strategy) level. The remaining papers addresstactical issues of implementing cost-effective instructional development.

The opening paper, by Robert Diamond, Peter Gray, and Alton Roberts,outlines work undertaken at Syracuse University over the last three yearsto improve instruction, particularly in undergraduate courses. This workcommenced in 1989 with support for one year from the Sears Re:buckFoundation; it has continued uninterrupted and has already had a signifi-cant impact on undergraduate teaching. An interesting aspect of this workis its multidisciplinary nature: a real-life example of front-end analysiswithin an educational institution, carried through to the implementationof "systemic" multifaceted solutions. Performance technology in a univer-sity setting!

Richard Kenny's paper analyzes several approaches recently proposed forimproving instruction in the public schools. These include drastic "top-down" reorganization or restructuring of the total system, "bottom-down"approaches that hinge on intensive and extensive training of teachers ininstructional design and delivery, and "diffusion of change" models thatcast educational technologists in the role of change agents, or organiza-tional developers. The SU approach, outlined in the opening paper, is anexample of this third approach.

The paper that follows was written by Aradhyula Gopalam, a FAO Fellowat Syracuse University, and K. V. Raman, both from the National Academyof Agricultural Research Management in India. It outlines the regularrevision and updating process that all agricultural education curricula inIndian universities undergo every three years. It also describes a large-scale project for the improvement of instruction in universities by meansof intensive use of mediated self-instructional materials to support class-room teaching activities, or to supplement them by means of distanceeducation.

Barbara Grabowski and Elisa Slee examine current practices and modelsfor formative evaluation of instructional materials, and suggest approachesfor evaluating interactive media such as computer-based instruction andinteractive video. As a case study, they describe a formative evaluationstudy of an interactive video program for safety training in the nuclearpower industry, performed by staff and students from the School ofEducation's Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation (IDD&E)program.

Michael Olson discusses system components, examining progress in de-veloping computer-based tools that may improve instructional design anddevelopment while reducing time and costs. As a case study, he describesa relational database management tool, called TRACE, specifically de-signed for use in large-scale instructional development projects.

The job-Aids section this time is devoted to feedback and discussion ofproblems posed and issues raised in the earlier articles in this series. Anyfurther reader comments that this feedback generates are most welcomeand will be printed in future issues.

109

The Syracuse University Focus onTeaching Project: Changing Priorities ata Research University

Robert M. Diamond, Peter J. Gray, & Alton 0. Roberts *

BackgroundIn the spring of 1989, Syracuse University received atwelve-month grant from the Sears Roebuck Founda-tion entitled "Affecting Priorities at a Research Institu-tion: Focus on Teaching." Directors of the project wereRonald R. Cavanagh, Vice President for UndergraduateStudies, and Robert M. Diamond, Assistant Vice Chan-cellor for Instructional Development. Alton 0. Robertsand Peter J. Gray of the Center for Instructional Devel-opment (CID) played key roles in the development ofthe proposal and of the project guidelines. Because ofthe administrative commitment to the project and itspotential impact on undergraduate programs, the effortwas based in the office of the Vice President of Under-graduate Studies.

The goal of the Sears Project (as it became known oncampus) was to enhance the perceived importance ofundergraduate teaching at the University. The projecthad three purposes related to this goal: First, to helpdeans and department chairs gain a better understand-ing of how they influence faculty attitudes and priori-ties regarding teaching; second, to assist them in iden-tifying activities and resources they could use to influ-ence faculty attitudes and priorities most beneficially;and third, to indicate ways in which the Central Ad-ministration could support deans and chairs in theseefforts.

The decision to focus the effort on deans and chairs wasbased on two major factors: First, these administratorsare essential in changing both programs and facultyattitudes. As faculty leaders, deans and chairs influenceinstructional effectiveness in that their guidance andencouragement largely determine the level of effort thatfaculty de vote to their teaching. In addition, deans andchairs have considerable impact on faculty members'perceptions of priorities and rewards, as well as depart-mental norms regarding the importance of teaching,and they allocate instructional resources.

Second, the size of Syracuse University (fourteen schoolsand colleges and over seventy-five departments and

Volume 2 (1) Spring/Summer 1991

academic divisions) demands that change be imple-mented efficiently and effectively. Working with deansand chairs brought this effort to the greatest number offaculty in the least possible time with the greatestimpact.

The First YearDuring the first year of the project a committee con-ducted a survey, two campus-wide meetings, and atwo-day meeting of chairs and deans from each schooland college.

Survey of PerceptionsAs the first step, the Sears Project developed and ad-ministered a set of surveys for distribution to faculty,deans, and chairs regarding their current perceptionsof the balance between teaching and research at Syia-cuse University, the direction in which they felt theinstitution was moving, and the balance between thetwo that they would consider ideal. The survey hadthree main purposes: First, to provide data on thepresent climate of the institution; second, to identifystrengths and weaknesses of the present reward sys-tem; and third, to provide base-line data against whichchanges over time could be compared.

The response rate to the survey was 70% from deans(10), 59% from chairs (27), and just over 40% fromfaculty (352). The data revealed respondents' percep-tions that the Syracuse University campus as a wholevalued research activity more highly than teaching.All three groups agreed, however, that a balance be-tween teaching and research wa s essential for the healthof the institution. The data also tended to show that theadministration was perceived as placing far greateremphasis on research than on teaching. A significantnumber of respondents took the time to write powerfulresponses to the optional, open-ended questions on thesurveys, which suggests that the issue is a highlycharged one.

0 1

Summer Campus-Wide ConferenceThe project's advisory board used the results of thesurvey in planning a two-day conference for deans andacademic chairs held in mid-July 1989. This conferenceprovided participants with background informationrelated to the goals and purposes of the Sears Projectand developed support for the activities that were tofollow. Topics covered at the conference included thestatus of higher education in the United States, anoverview of national problems, a report of the surveyresults, a discussion of the roles of chairs and deans inthe support of teaching, and a review of the role evalu-ation plays in improving instruction.

To provide the participants with some background forthe conference, CID compiled a book of readings,Improving Teaching: A Book of Readings for Deans andDepartment Chairs, and distributed it to all participantsprior to the conference. The readings cons!sted of dis-cussions of the roles of chairs and deans in improvingteaching and described effective instructional strate-gies that could be shared with faculty members. Timewas set aside at the conference for deans and theirrespective chairs to develop school /college action plansto improve teaching in their units. Participants werealso asked to make recommendations to the CentralAdministration regarding actions it could take to sup-port teaching. To aid in developing action plans, re-ports of the survey's quantitative and narrative results,organized by school or college, were distributed to thedeans and chairs. These surveys led to extensive con-versations at the school/college level with many of theteams working late into the evenings on their actionplans. These preliminary action plans were designed toserve as the focus for further school/college-wide dis-cussions in the fall 1989 semester. The recommenda-tions of the participants were sent to the Central Ad-ministration for review. A number of specific actionsresulted. Announced in early December 1989, theseresults are described below in the section on the Fall1989 Conference for Deans and Chairs.

In planning the summer conference, the ad visoryboardhad anticipated no more than 35 to 40 participantsbecause many faculty and administrators travel orstudy during the summer. Attendance far exceededthis estimate. Over 70 administrators attended, includ-ing all but one dean and 40 chairs and division heads.

School and College MeetingsWith the start of the fall 1989 semester the deans andchairs from each school or college began formaldiscussions on the action plans developed by theirrepresentatives at the summer conference. While someof these meetings included entire schools or colleges,others took place within departments. These discussionsfocused on such topics as evaluating teaching for

promotion and tenure, improving teaching, andimproving the overall undergraduate experience. Themodification of the existing promotion and tenureguidelines began in some units. Several groupsdeveloped teaching support programs for new facultyduring this period.

During September and October 1989 the project direc-tors met with the deans and chairs of each school orcollege to discuss the activities that were und erway andthe problems they were encountering. A major area ofconcern that surfaced during these meetings was withthe existing emphasis on traditionally defined "re-search." Most professional programs reported that the"traditional approach" to research and scholarship wasoften inappropriate in their fields. As a result theyreported that significant scholarly work by some oftheir faculty was not being given adequate weight inthe existing reward system. In some instances facultywere devoting their energies to "research" activitiesthat were perceived as both inappropriate and counter-productive. On the other hand, they reported thatcourse and/or curriculum improvement was hamperedby a lack of rewards for these efforts.

Fall Conference for Deans and ChairsOver 100 deans, associate deans, academic directors,and chairs attended this half-day conference in Decem-ber 1989, which built on the activities that had begun inthe summer. The conference began with a presentationby Russell Edgerton, President of the American Asso-ciation of Higher Education, who focused on profes-sional service activities and recommended their inclu-sion in the faculty evaluation process. Following thispresentation, representatives of various schools andcolleges reported on the status of their action plans toimprove teaching. By this time some of the depart-ments and colleges had already formulated, and insome cases implemented, specific programs to im-prove instruction.

In response to the recommendations made by the sum-mer conference participants, the Central Administra-tion announced several faculty instructional grant pro-grams. In the ini tial year 58 faculty grants were awarded.In addition, CID announced a syllabus review servicefor faculty. Over 30 individual faculty and severalwhole departments have taken advantage of this offer.

While the Sears Project budget was modest, this exter-nal support enabled Syracuse University to implementsome activities that would have had far less chance ofbeing supported by the academic community if spon-sored internally. The one-year Sears project formed thebasis for an ongoing university-sponsored Focus onTeaching project .

2 Instructional Developments1 ;

The Second YearDepartmental efforts continued and the program wasexpanded during the spring, summer, and fall of thesecond year, 1990.

Spring Semester 1990Although the 12 months of the Sears project had beencompleted, the Central Administration, supported bythe deans and chairs, was committed to continuing theefforts begun through this project. The advisory boardwas asked to function as the coordinating body for thiseffort.

Based on the interest in the Sears project expressed byother institutions, two proposals (one to the Fund forthe Improvement of Post-Secondary Education andone to the Lilly Endowment) were submitted duringthis period by CID and later funded. During the springof 1990, schools, colleges, and departments continuedwork on their action plans. The stated 1990-91 projectgoals for each school or college were to:

develop and implement standards for promo-tion and tenure that would evaluate and rewardteaching;develop a definition of scholarly and creativeactivity appropriate for their discipline;formulate and implement within their academicareas a program in support of teaching; andobtain an appropriate balance between teachingand research/scholarly activity in their facultyreward system, promotion, tenure and annualsalary review procedures.

The advisory board decided that during the 1990-91academic year the project would focus on the two majorelements of the faculty reward system: in the fall onevaluating teaching and then, in the spring, on re-defining and evaluating research and scholarlyactivities.

Summer 1990 Workshop on the Evaluation

of TeachingAt the invitation of Syracuse University's Chancellor,more than 135 administrators and faculty membersparticipated in a one-day workshop just before the startof classes in late August 1990. The faculty who wereinvited were nominated by their deans because of theirimportant roles on tenure and promotion committees.

The workshop assumed the following premises:

that teaching can be evaluated;that the evaluation materials used must be sensi-

Volume 2 (1) Spring /Summer 1991

tive to the specific teaching assignment of theindividual faculty member;that evaluation data can support improvementof teaching and intelligent promotion, tenure,and salary decisions;that the evaluation procedures and the methodsof reporting must be appropriately adapted tothe intended use.

In placing this workshop in perspective the Vice Chan-cellor for Academic Affairs stated:

In a very direct sense, our declaration of anenhanced role for teaching and learning at Syra-cuse must be matched by an increased emphasison quality performance and this must be re-flected in our academic reward system. To re-ward such quality we must be able to evaluate itin a highly professional mannerjust as we evalu-ate research, scholarship and creative profes-sional accomplishment. For this reason alone,today's workshop and the activities it will un-doubtedly spin off are of great importance to ourfuture at Syracuse.

Following a brief history of the project, four depart-ment chairs distributed detailed information about theteaching evaluation plans their departments had de-veloped. These chairs were selected because each haddeveloped a different approach. The chairs, from Eco-nomics, Bioengineering, Foreign Languages and Lit-eratures, and the Writing Program, discussed howtheir plans had been developed, the rationale behindthem, and the problems that they had encountered. Inaddition to focusing on the evaluation of teaching, thedirector of the Writing Program also addressed theissue of research and its definition in that academicarea.

Following these discussions, the deans met with theirchairs and faculty participants to begin developingplans for programs to evaluate teaching effectiveness.To facilitate the process, each team was provided witha planning worksheet (see Figure 1) that focused onboth the various purposes of the evaluation and thespecific questions that were addressed in a report to besubmitted at the end of the fall semester.

To assist them further, all participants were providedwith a copy of A Guide to Evaluating Teaching forPromotion and Tenure (Centra, J., Froh, F. C., Gray, P.J., & Lambert, L. M., Diamond, R. M., ed.; 1987; Acton,MA: Copley Publishing Group). The final session of thesummer workshop introduced the teaching portfolio,which was recommended for possible use by second-year faculty in preparation for their third-yeaf reviewand for use by promotion and tenure committees.

1123

SCHOOL OR COLLEGE WORKSHEET

There are five areas that have the potential forbeing the focus of teaching effectiveness evalu-ation:

1. Annual review and merit pay decisions.2. Formative evaluation for new faculty (focusing

on the improvement of teaching).3. The promotion and tenure process begin-

ning with the third-year review and endingwith promotion to full professor with tenure.

4. Periodic review of professors with tenure.5. Annual rehiring decisions for part-time, non-

tenure line, and adjunct faculty.

Consider the following questions relative to eachof these situations:

Should evaluation of teaching be required orvoluntary?Who should be involved in the design of theevaluation process? (department chair, pro-motion and tenure committee chair, CIDevaluation professional, etc.)If problems are identified, what steps shouldbe taken to correct them? Who and what of-fices should be involved?In which year(s), and how often should evalu-ation take place?

Figure 1.

Fall Semester 1990As schools and colleges continued to develop theirplans for evaluating teaching, a major effort began toinform the entire campus (students, faculty, and staff)about the on-going project and its significance. Thesummer workshop on evaluating teaching was fea-tured in The Syracuse Record, the weekly administra-tive publication of the University, and was reported inthe local press and in U.S. News and World Report. Amajor portion of the Chancellor's Annual Report to theFaculty was also devoted to the importance of teachingand to this project, its activities and significance.

As of April 1991 formal plans for evaluating teachinghave been completed by a number of schools andcolleges, while others are in the process of developingplans and having them approved by the appropriatecommittees. Many of the plans have common elements;however, several of the larger schools/colleges haveallowed individual departments to develop their ownplans using college-wide guidelines (e.g., College ofArts and Sciences, the Maxwell School of Citizenship,College of Engineering).

4

The Third YearWhile attention will continue to be paid to the evalu-ation of teaching, the focus will shift during year three(1991) to the development of discipline-specific defini-tions of research/scholarship. This activity will buildon the recent work of Ernest Boyer and Eugene Rice.

Three major activities in 1991:

April In mid-April 1991 our 400 facultyattended a major address byErnest Boyer, President, Carne-gie Foundation for the Advance-ment of Teaching, on "The NewAmerican Scholar." This activitywas sponsored by the Chancel-lor's Office, with faculty, deans,and chairs receiving personal in-vitations.

May A seminar "On the Nature ofScholarly Work" was held in earlyMay, with over 80 deans, chairs,faculty, and administrators in at-tendance. Co-chaired by the VicePresident for UndergraduateStudies and the Vice President forResearch, this working seminarwas structured to set the stage forschool and college discussionsthat will begin in the fall. After anintroductory presentation by Eu-gene Rice, participants had theopportunity of discussing vari-ous aspects of scholarly work inboth cross-disciplinary groupsand by individual schools and col-leges.

Fall At the direction of the individualdeans, school/college and pro-gram discussions on the nature ofscholarly work would continue.These will likely result in appro-priate modifications of the crite-ria for reward, promotion, andtenure.

The third year of the project will continue to focus onimproving support systems for teaching faculty, withparticular emphasis on evaluating the performance oftenure-track faculty in their second through fifth years.In addition, a new proposal to work directly with anumber of major national professional associations inthe redefinition of scholarly work has been submittedfor funding. It is hoped that work will begin on theproject in the fall of 1991.


A Final ObservationWhile there may have been some skepticism about thefeasibility of realizing particular objectives, this wasclearly the right project at the right time for SyracuseUniversity. Students were increasingly vocal abouttheir perception that inadequate attention is paid toteaching (a national movement, Undergraduates for aBetter Education, was founded at Syracuse). Facultyand administrators were also becoming increasinglyuncomfortable with the conflicts between the researchand instructional missions of the University.

Significant change seldom happens by chance. It re-quires the commitment of key academic leaders, sensi-tivity to the environment of the institution, and a sys-tematic and participatory approach to change. Fromthe very beginning this project has involved academicleaders including deans, academic chairs, and facultymembers. Each year the number of deans, chairs, andfaculty members attending project-sponsored activi-ties has increased until, in its third year, the projecthopes to reach the entire academic community with thescheduled lecture by Ernest Boyer.

Throughout the project many different people in theacademic community have been involved in develop-ing the crite 'a, evaluation instruments, and supportprograms that are necessary for the long-term successof a project intended to improve both the perceivedimportance and actual quality of undergraduate teach-ing. From it. inception this project has enjoyed thegeneral backing of most campus faculty and adminis-trators. For many people, stressing the importance ofteaching and of improving instruction was not only a

For Further Information:

goal that they could support, but one to which theywillingly devoted time and energy.

In addition, the availability of a center with expertise inevaluation and faculty development was essential forthe smooth implementation of this project. In essence,CID served as the support agency for the day-to-dayoperation of the project, as well as the special project-sponsored events.

While the current fiscal and enrollment problems com-mon to private colleges and universities have reduced,to some degree, the energies and resources available forthis project, there is little doubt that the issue of teach-ing at Syracuse has been elevated in importance andthat the rewards for teaching excellence are increasing.It will be several years before we can determine whetherwe have achieved the ultimate goal of our project, toimprove the perceived importance and quality of teach-ing, particularly at the undergraduate level, by thebalanced integration of teaching and research. To date,although progress toward this goal has varied substan-tially, many academic units have far exceeded expecta-tions in the scope of their action plans, the energydevoted to this project, and the speed with whichelements of the plans were implemented.

* Robert Diamond is Assistant Vice Chancellor forInstructional Development at Syracuse University;Peter Gray is Director for Evaluation and Research, andAlton 0. Roberts is Director for Instructional Develop-ment for CID.

The Syracuse University Focus on Teaching Project (A Progress Report: The FirstTWo Years), 67 pages, $6.00

The Syracuse University Focus on Teacher Project-School and College Plans forImproving Teaching (Selected Examples), 85 pages, $9.00

Available at: Syracuse UniversityCenter for Instructional Development111 Waverly Ave., Suite 220Syracuse, NY 13244

A Guide to Evaluating Teaching for Promotion and Tenure, 63 pages, $12.95.

Available at: COPLEY PUBLISHING GROUP138 Great RoadActon, MA 01720

Volume 2 (1) Spring /Summer 1991 5

What is the Role of EducationalTechnology in Generating Change inPublic School Education?

Richard F. Kenny *

IntroductionThe need for change in public education has been atopic of much discussion during the past decade. Whilethe field of educational technology has not been im-mune from the debate, it has yet to make a strongimpact upon the schools. Salisbury (1987) notes that"while instructional design skills and approaches werebecoming well accepted in business and industrialtraining, it was difficult [for educational technologists]to make inroads in improving instruction in publicschool settings" (p. 2).

Such remarks presuppose that schools need to im-prove. But do they? This question can be answeredfrom a number of points of view. Fullan (1982) stressesthat educational changes are not ends in themselves butmust be considered in relation to the basic purposesand outcomes of schools. Innovations should be intro-duced to help schools accomplish their goals moreeffectively by replacing some programs or practiceswith better ones. He lists two major purposes forschools:

to educate students in various academic or cog-nitive skills and knowledge;to educate students in the development of indi-vidual and social skills and knowledge neces-sary to function occupationally and sociopoli ti-cally in society (p.10).

Modern society, however, has not remained static and,therefore, both the academic and social skills requiredof its citizens must of necessity adapt. Schools reflectsociety and are constantly under pressure to changewith it. A current example of this is the technologicalimpact of computers and the development of the infor-mation society. In this aspect, society is changingrapidly. Schools, though, have been slow to adapt(Dalton, 1989). Successful examples of computer use inclassroom practice are still relatively rare (van denAkker, Keursten Sr Plomp, in press). And yet, technol-ogy will continue to shape our processes and systems ofschooling and will have an important role to play in thefuture of education (DiSessa, 1987, Foster, 1988). Even

6

in the absence of overt demands, the need for change isalways there.

More expressly, in the United States, and to a lesserdegree in Canada, there has been a repeated demandduring the past decade from various sectors of societythat public education be restructured. In the UnitedStates, various reports and books indicating the "need"for improving the quality of instruction have abounded(e.g., Boyer, 1983; Goodlad, 1983). The National Com-mission on Excellence in Education, created because of"the widespread perception that something is seri-ously amiss in our [U.S.] educational system" (1983,p.1), was particularly critical of American schools.Theorists in the field of educational technology havealso advocated wholesale change (Reigeluth, 1987;Branson, 1987). The overt, sometimes strident, tone ofthe debate in the United States may reflect the largeinvolvement of the federal government in education aswell as perceptions of the competitive position of Ameri-can society in the world order.

Canadians appear to be less concerned about the stateof their educational system. Maguire (1986) indicatesseveral reasons: Education is strongly entrenched as aprovincial responsibility; there is a tradition of a con-servative, non-interventionist supreme court; and thetime lag between the creation of ideas in the U.S. andtheir movement to Canada leaves space to evaluate andpick the best. Indeed, Canadians appear generallysatisfied with their schools. Lee (1988) found that, inManitoba, 48% of the public gave elementary schools a"B," while 41% awarded high schools a "C." A Cana-dian Education Association sponsored Gallup poll(1984) found respondents more confident about Cana-dian schools than about other institutions. As well,43.8% gave their schools good grades. While positive,"B" and "C" grades do indicate that Canadians thinktheir schools can improve.

Fullan indicates several reasons, based on research,why schools require change:

Many innovative teaching practices of the newcurricula of the 1960s and 1970s have not beenimplemented despite their endorsement in na-

1 bInstructional Developments

tional, regional and local policy statements.There is an almost arbitrary variation and em-phasis in classrooms on some subjects over oth-ers, with many teachers teaching in subject areasfor which they have limited preparation.Teachers do not have time for reflection or analy-sis either individually or collectively about whatthey are doing.There is every reason to believe that the textbookindustry dominates the teachers' field of choicein many states in the U.S. and several provincesin Canada.Change is needed because many teachers arefrustrated, bored, and alienated.Most teachers do not take the initiative to pro-mote changes beyond their classroom because oftheir cultural conditions and practical concerns(1982, pp. 116-120).

And finally, Fullan, Bennett, and Rolheiser-Bennett(1990) have indicated that more is now known abouteffective schools. Educators have learned a great dealabout classroom and school improvement recently andare able to make more informed decisions. From al-most any point of view, it seems, there is a need forchange in public school education.

The Role of EducationalTechnology' in Public SchoolEducation ChangeGiven that change is both needed and possible in publicschool education, what role can educational technolo-gists play in the process? Salisbury (1987) notes threedistinct approaches to improving public schools: schoolsystem reorganization, the teacher-training approach,and the diffusion/adoption approach.

Change the SystemOne approach is to argue that long-lasting change willonly occur if school systems are radically reorganized.However, views of how to do this vary widely (Hein-ich, 1984, Reigeluth, 1987; Branson, 1987).

Heinich (1984) claims that the application of educa-

t AECT's Definition Committee currently defines instruc-tional technology as "a discipline concerned with the sys-tematic design, development, evaluation and managementof instruction and instructional materials" (Branch, 1990,p.6). Educational technology has variously been viewed aseither including, or a part of, instructional technology.Regardless, the field is most often associated with thesystems approach.


tional technology can result in superior instruction inschools. In his view, "the basic premise of instructionaltechnology is that all instructional contingencies can bemanaged through space and time... Primary emphasisis given to the development of more powerful technolo-gies along with the development of organizationalstructures that facilitate their use" (p. 68). Such organ-izational structures would place subprofessionals(aides) in the most frequent contact with students andreserve professional contact for specific, instruction-ally-oriented purposes. Educational technologistswould create change in public education by creatinglarge-scale mediated instructional systems to replacethe current system.

Branson (1987) postulates an upper limit hypothesis. Heattributes declines in school performance and qualityto an obsolete management model, improvements towhich "have reached their practical upper limit; that is,performing in the vicinity of 97% to 98% as well as theycan ever function according to the current design phi-losophy" (p.16). This archaic classroom concept shouldbe abandoned in favor of a school environment that isdesigned for function; that is, both individual learningand group processes. Branson advocates the use of thesystems approach, but in conjunction with changemodels, improved management models. and otherapproaches for improving instruction. Educationaltechnology has a role but is not the sole player.

Reigeluth (1987) offers the most explicit vision. He callsfor the development of a third wave educational system,one which would "make use of a variety of means oflearning, including peer tutoring, discussion groups,projects, and group activities of various kinds, in addi-tion to well-designed individualized resources andlearning environments" (p.5). Piecemeal modificationsof the present system will not work, and system-wideplanning and modification are required. Reigeluthoffers a blueprint for a cluster system operating on anentrepreneurial basis. Teachers, working cooperativelywithin clusters, would serve as guides to help eachchild meet individual goals. Much of the instructionwould be provided by independent learning labs towhich the clusters would have access. Like Branson,Reigeluth views educational technology in a service,not commanding, role.

Which, if any, of these positions is feasible? AlthoughHeinich insists that educational technology provides aclear alternative, his position on the capabilities of thefield is in dispute (e.g., Clark & Sugrue, 1988; Kerr,1989). Nor does he take change theory into account.His approach demands fidelity of implementation orwhat Berman (1981) termed a technologically dominantprocess. Berman, however, notes that "the interactionbetween an educational technology and its setting canbe uncertain because of the technology's characteristics

1167

or how it is used" (p. 262). How an innovation isimplemented may be as important to outcomes as itsinitial technology. Neither Heinich nor Reigeluth haveaddressed this point. Only Branson discusses changemodels. Regardless, the pressure for large- scale changesis not likely to bear fruit because of the diversity created[in the U.S.] by state and local control of education andbecause "that control is rooted in the United StatesConstitution by the strongest kind of political support"(Burkman, 1987, p. 31). That argument holds true inCanada as well. Further, considerable research (Ber-man, 1981; Fullan, 1982) has indicated the difficulty ofimplementing and institutionalizing even small-scalechange.

Teach the TeachersOther educational technologists propose to train teach-ers to use the systems approach to improve instruction.Snelbecker (1987) advocates that teachers be taughtinstructional design skills both in preservice andinservice education. He contends that teachers "needat least fundamental instructional design strategies toplan, evaluate, and modify instruction as a regular andcontinuing part of their classroom duties" (p. 35). Heoffers several suggestions for addressing "technologytransfer" problems, including providing assistance toteachers in recognizing how instructional design tech-niques can be made relevant for their day-to-day activi-ties, assistance for integrating content and method, andassistance in recognizing how some aspects of a theorymay be adopted or adapted for their setting. Further,Snelbecker postulates that contemporary uses of mi-crocomputers in education might lead to increasedinterest in instructional design skills and provide awindow of opportunity.

Shrock and Byrd (1987) suggest that educational tech-nologists would "find it instructive to examine themessages that are currently being delivered to teachersthrough staff development [because it] is one of themost influential forces currently impinging on teacherbehavior" (p. 45). They argue that the instructionaldesign model has much in common with both theeffective teaching message and the reflective teachingmessage, but offers a more comprehensive schema.They advise educational technologists to become in-volved in preservice teacher education in order toprovide teachers with a "frame of reference to putinstructional research findings into perspective and toapply the results conditionally" (p. 52). As well, educa-tional technologists should enter the debate takingplace within the field of staff development.

Schiffman (1987) takes a different tack. She suggeststhat educational technologists train internal changeagents. That possibility exists in the role of the school

8

media specialist. It is her view that "technological de-velopments and the growing interest in informationliteracy have brought school library media centers toprominence among educators" [and that] "the comput-erization of library systems is also finally making itpossible for school library media specialists to devote aportion of their time to instructional matters" (p.41).Schiffman notes that more than a third of all graduatesof educational technology programs take positions inschool library media centers but tend to come fromprograms that emphasize "media" rather than "in-structional systems design." She argues that theseschool library media specialists be competently trainedin instructional design theory and the use of computerand information technologies. Thus armed, they wouldbe well equipped to act as in-house change agents byproviding design and production advice to teachers.

Such indirect approaches are more likely to succeedthan advocacy of wholesale change to the public schoolsystem. Rather than an implementation dominantprocess, they represent what Berman (1981) terms mu-tual adaptation; that is, both the innovation (the applica-tion of the systems approach) and the organizationadapt. Berman suggests that effectively implementedinnovations are characterized by this process. As well,by considering teacher practice, they are also indicatingthe appropriateness of the innovation, an importantstep according to Fullan (1982).

However, it is not clear that any of these proposals takeinto account all three dimensions of change that Fullanconsiders necessary to achieve change. `i hey addressthe possible use of new teaching approaches and thepossible alteration of beliefs, but not the provision ofnew or revised materials. It is presumed that teachers,or school library media specialists, will use the newlyacquired skills to develop their own. These proposalsfall one step short. Even educational technology gradu-ates often find it difficult to make full use of the systemsapproach in the field (Rossett,1987; Lange & Gravdahl,1989).

Take a Diffusion/AdoptionPerspectiveSome educational technologists believe that membersof the field can be effective external change agents. Theystress the application of change theory in effectingreorganization in public school education.

Burkman (1987) claims that current school practicedoes not even meet the minimal requirements for in-structional systems design (ergo educational technol-ogy). Goals often remain tacit and objectives leftunstated in behavioral form. The most realistic way toget instructional systems design utilized in the class-


room is to work to reduce the complexity of the existingsystem. He advocates focusing at the local schoolsystem level, developing projects that concentrate on asingle subject, and focus on subjects that are skill-oriented and easy to attack with these techniques.

Dalton (1989) asserts that educational technologistsmake ideal change agents. The systems approachallows them to determine whether a change is needed,analyze the environment, evaluate the consequences oftheir actions, and decide on courses of action based onthe best evidence available. The problem with past usesof the systems approach, he points out, are that "ourefforts to create 'teacher-proof materials neglect thebasic motivations of the most significant obstacles tochange in that [the school] environment: the teachers"(p. 22). He advocates that educational technologistsexamine their solutions in light of the wants of theimplementors.

Dalton offers several suggestions, some of them similarto previously discussed proposals, e.g., train selectedschool personnel as educational technologists and cre-ate magnet schools to demonstrate alternatives. Themajority, however, involve creating instructional ma-terials and working with teachers directly to effectchange. These suggestions include: (a) building coop-erative computer-based learning environments andfriendlier computer interfaces, (b) developing softwareintegrated with routine curriculum objectives, (c) pro-viding teacher training in the use of the particularinnovation, (d) letting the teacher make the decisionabout the use of computer technologies, and/or (e)defining new roles for the teacher as counselor, devel-oper, and manager.

Kerr (1989) concurs with many of Dalton's points. Herejects the views of Heinich and others who wouldstrictly apply the systems approach for ignoring schoolsas social institutions and focusing narrowly on thetransmission of information. He outlines four areas ofcongruence among the concerns of the educationaltechnology and school reform communities:

the preparation of models of teaching-with-tech-nology;the design of software;the creation of computer-based tools to supportteachers' professional development;the improvement of research on teaching-with-technology.

Mappin and Campbell-Bonar (1990) provide an ex-ample. They developed an approach to the develop-ment and implementation of interactive video thatstressed building client involvement and presentingalternative approaches to instruction and theory atdifferent points in the process. Their approach beganwith the identification of an instructional problem and


identified seven selected points of intervention:

audience analysis, keeping both the instructorsand students in mind;identifying educational and training needs;stating detailed learning objectives in terms of"plausible" responses to classroom situations;media selection appropriate to instructor needs;acceptance of the final design by key decisionmakers;(the production phase) working with a core de-sign team with the provision to allow key decis-ion makers to review work at specific points;(the implementation phase) introducing the finalproduct; holding inservice sessions for instruc-tors'at the beginning of the term; and supportingmaterials, a utilization consultant, and ongoingequipment and technical support (pp. 8-11).

Emphasizing the importance of implementation led toa model that helped ensure that process but also led tomaterials more directly tied to perceived problems.

ConclusionIt is the diffusion approach advocated by this last groupthat appears to offer educational technologists the great-est likelihood of success of eliciting change in the publicschools. It takes full advantage of their expertise byallowing them to apply their instructional design skillsto the improvement of instruction and also takes intoaccount Fullan's (1982) three dimensions of change. Infact, these writers have independently suggested manyof the criteria advanced by Fullan, Miles, and Anderson(1988) as necessary for an effective strategy for imple-menting microcomputers such as local responsiveness,initial acceptance of an uncertain target, provision forincreasing target clarity, and intense, sustained, re-sponsive assistance.

Educational technologists must maintain a realisticview of what their design techniques can achieve andcontinue to improve them in light of developing theoryand technology. That, coupled with a sound knowl-edge of change as a process and a willingness to acceptthe role of external change agent working in coopera-tion with teachers, administrator, and other educators,could make them valuable indeed in initiating neededchange in public school education.

ReferencesBerman, P. (1981). Toward an implementation para-digm. In R. Lehming & M. Kane (Eds.) Improvingschools: Using what we know. Beverly Hills, CA: SagePublications.

1 (.5rt

9

Boyer, E.L. (1983). High school: A report on secondaryeducation in America. New York: Harper and Row.

Branch, R. (1990). Some thoughts on improving instruc-tion. Instructional Developments,1(2), 2-7.

Branson, R.K. (1987). Why the schools can't improve:The upper limit hypothesis. Journal of Instructional De-velopment,10(4),15-26.

Burkman, E. (1987). Prospects for instructional systemsdesign in the public schools. Journal of InstructionalDevelopment, 10(4), 27-32.

Canadian Educational Association (1984). Speaking out:The 1984 CEA poll of Canadian opinion on education.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 259435).

Clark, R.E. & Sugrue, B.M. (1988). Research on instruc-tional media, 1978-1988. In D.P. Ely (Ed.). EducationalMedia and Technology Yearbook. Englewood, CO: Librar-ies Unlimited.

Dalton, D.W. (1989). Computers in the Schools: Adiffusion/adoption perspective. Educational Technol-ogy, 29(11), 20-27.

DiSessa, A.A. (1987). The third revolution in comput-ers and education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,24(4), 343-367.

Foster, D. (1988). Technology Implications for long-range planning. Educational Technology, 28(4), 7-14.

Fullan, M.G. (1982). The meaning of educational change.New York: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M.G. (1985). Change processes and strategies atthe local level. Elementary School Journal, 85(3), 391-420.

Fullan, M.G., Bennett, B. & Rolheiser-Bennett, C. (1990).Linking classroom and school improvement. Educa-tional Leadership, 47(5), 13-19.

Fullan, M.G., Miles, M.B., & Anderson, S.E. (1988).Strategies for implementing microcomputers in schools: TheOntario case. Toronto, Canada: MGS Publications.

Goodlad, J. (1983). A place called school: Prospects for thefuture. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructionaltechnology. Educational Communications and TechnologyJournal, 32(2), 67-87.

Kerr, S.T. (1989). Technology, teachers and the searchfor school reform. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 37(4), 5-17.

Lange, R.R., & Gravdahl, E.C. (1989). Does anyonereally use instructional systems design? EducationalTechnology, 29(10), 34-3.

10

Lee, L.E. (1988). Teacher attitudes towards educationalissues. A report of the Planning and Research Branch.Winnipeg, Canada: Manitoba Department of Educa-tion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED256 726.)

Maguire, T.O. (1986). Is Canada a "Nation at Risk "? Whatthe reports on U.S. education signify for us. President'sInvited Address to the annual meeting of the CanadianEducational Researchers Association, Montreal, Can-ada, May 30.

Mappin, D.A., & Campbell-Bonar, K. (1990). Usingmodels of planned change as a design factor in developingvideodisc materials for use by teacher educators. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the Association forEducational Communications and Technology, Ana-heim, CA, January 30 - February 5.

National Commission on Excellence in Education.(1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educationalreform. Washington, DC: UnitedStates GovernmentPrinting Office.

Reigeluth, C.M. (1987). The search for meaningfulreform: A third-wave educational system. Journal ofInstructional Development, 10(4), 15-26.

Rossett, A. (1987). What your professor never told youabout the practice of instructional design. Tech Trends,32(1), 10-13.

Salisbury, D.F. (1987). Introduction to special issue.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 2.

Schiffman, S.S. (1987). Influencing public education: A"window of opportunity" through school library me-dia centers. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4),41-44.

Schrock, S.A. & Byrd, D.M (1987). An instructionaldevelopment look at staff development in the publicschools. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 45-53.

Snelbecker, G.E. (1987). Instructional design skills forclassroom teachers. Journal of Instructional Develop-ment, 10(4), 33-40.

Van den Akker, J., Keursten, P. & Plomp, T. (in press).The integration of computer use in education. Interna-tional Journal of Educational Research.

* Richard F. Kenny is a doctoral candidate in theIDD&E program at Syracuse University.


Establishing a Self-InstructionalDevelopment Facility at NAARM:Status Report and PerspectiveAradhyula Gopalam and K. V. Raman

The Role of NAARM in ImprovingAgricultural University EducationOver the last four decades, Indian agriculture has re-corded remarkable increases in agricultural produc-tion and has acquired considerable resilience and sta-bility, largely through the generation of better technol-ogy in land and water management, input use, controlof pests and pathogens, and adoption of scientific pro-duction techniques (Anonymous, 1989). This successhas underlined the necessity for better management ofagricultural research, education, and transfer of tech-nology systems to production in the agricultural sector.Realizing the need for an institutional setup to imparttraining in agricultural research-project managementand for adopting principles of educational technologyin agricultural education, the Indian Council of Agri-cultural Research established the National Academy ofAgricultural Research Management (NAARM). Theacademy has conducted numerous training programs,workshops, and seminars in educational technologyand structured learning for the faculty of agriculturaluniversities. The Educational Systems and TechnologyUnit of the Academy is especially interested in organ-izing research and in conducting training programs inhigher agricultural education with an emphasis oncurriculum development, instructional systems, pro-duction of learning resource materials, evaluation andassessment, and educational administration. NAARMhas undertaken several research projects and case stud-ies to help generate more effective and efficient ap-proaches and methods in the higher agricultural educa-tion system.

OverviewIn Indian agricultural universities the curriculum isrevised every five years to introduce new subject areas.The faculty often find it difficult to cope with revisingsubject matter areas without curtailing the instruc-tional hours in their own schedules. However, therevision is necessary because agricultural graduateswith outdated knowledge in their fields of specializa-


tion cannot do justice to the farmers or the employersrecruiting them. Thus Indian agricultural educationfaces two important challenges. First, the curriculumundergoes an upward revision at designated intervalsto accommodate the latest knowledge on such interdis-ciplinary topics as tissue culture and pesticide residues.Second, the faculty offer resistance to change in instruc-tional management and delivery systems, often plead-ing that, in the best interests of their learners, certainfundamental aspects of their respective subjects cannotbe ignored. If instructional hours are to remain thesame while new areas are introduced, then self-instruc-tion for specific course segments may be a realisticsolution.

This article seeks to explore the underlying principlesof self-instruction as applicable to Indian agriculturaleducation and the efforts of NAARM in bridging thegap between learner-centered and teacher-centeredinstruction.

Present Scenario of Instruction inthe Indian Agricultural UniversityAgricultural education in general, and instruction inparticular, is designed as part of a social system at-tempting to address the food scarcity problem. Instruc-tion continues to become increasingly complex withthe need to modify curricula to accommodate newlyemerging subjects, along with their interdisciplinaryand multidisciplinary configurations. As new subjectmatter has to find a place in the undergraduate curricu-lum alongside the elementary aspects already taught,possible solutions include either teaching some of thesesubjects at the pre-university level or creating them asself-instruction. It is in these new contexts that self-instructional systems of teaching and learning appearnot only necessary but urgent. Nonetheless, self-in-structional systems have yet to take root.

Indian agricultural colleges and universities may re-quire their students to learn from specially preparedteaching materials. Teachers and trainers may have toinvolve themselves increasingly with self-instructional

1.211

materials. This may be done through on-site self-in-struction or through correspondence (distance learn-ing). In both of these modes, learners must rely onspecially prepared teaching materials, as they have lesspersonal contact with teachers than do traditional stu-dents, who meet regularly in classes. Private studymaterials need not be as carefully prepared in conven-tional instruction as in self-instruction, where materi-als are specially selected, written, and modified withparticular learning objectives in mind. Self-instruc-tional materials have to be preplanned, prerecordedand prepackaged (Heidt, 1989). Subject matter may bepresented in instructional texts, tape slide presenta-tions, videotapes, or computer-aided tutorials, assign-ments, and exercises. These materials must carry outtraditional teacher functions such as clarifying, exem-plifying, elaborating, guiding, motivating, provoking,expounding, explaining, reminding, discussing alter-native answers, appraising each learner, and givingappropriate remedial or enrichment help.

NAARM has developed an infrastructure for creatingand imparting models of self-instruction. The facultyof the agricultural universities are invited to useNAARM facilities for improving instruction. There arehigh quality professional studios where resource ma-terials can be generated for use in agricultural univer-sities. Subject matter specialists visit these facilities andgenerate the resource materials for this purpose. Asummer institute is held annually for the faculty ofagricultural universities where the major emphasis isplaced on curriculum planning and design. The coursecontent of each of the subject matter areas is carefullyscrutinized and suggestions are made for developingthe curricula and for including new subject matter.

Design Steps for Self-Instructional PlannersIn December 1990 NAARM conducted a national work-shop on self-instructional systems. At this workshopeducational planners, course authors, and curriculumdesigners suggested that planners of self-instructionconsider the following steps in creating self-instruc-tional materials:

formulate aims and objectives for materials pro-duction;identify the skills, knowledge, and attitudes thatlearners must possess before using the materials;sequence the materials to help learners proceedlogically;select appropriate areas of study and matchingmedia formats;write scripts to suit the media and desired self-instructional outcomes of given programs;

12

design assessment tests or situations that will as-sess learners' terminal behaviors;test modules in a pilot study to determine theireffectiveness in achieving stated learning objec-tives;improve the designed materials in light of evalu-ation results prior to wider dissemination.

There are advantages and disadvantages in developingself-instructional course content. Advantages includemaximum freedom in choosing content, treatment,sequence, and production scheduling. The instructioncan be designed as a coherent whole with no obviousgaps or undue repetitions. Emotional energy need notbe wasted in defending the course content and method(Romiszowski, 1988). The course material can beadapted and updated to accommodate the learner'sexperience.

The disadvantages are that faculty will have limitedpersonal contact with students. Also, a lack of technicalskills in such areas as typography, audio-video taping,and graphics may hamper effective presentation of thematerial. In addition, more time may be required toproduce the required course material than is available(Anonymous, 1990).

Establishment of Self-AidedInstructional Laboratory (SAIL) inNAARMIn NAARM efforts were made in 1990 to establish aSelf-Aided Instructional Laboratory (SAIL) to improvelearning and teaching within agricultural universityeducation. The laboratory provides a computer termi-nal, one VCR color monitor assembly, and one telexcararnate. There is a work space for recording observa-tions, with a common discussion area and an area forlaboratory exercises. The facility was established forindividual use by students and trainees. The teacher isnot directly involved. A table partitioned with paneldividers creates individual learning spaces known ascarrels. These carrels are distinctly different from typi-cal library carrels. They are equipped to accommodatea variety of learning resources such as tape recorders,phonographs, slide and overhead projectors, readingmachines, and computers. The growing trend is toequip each carrel electronically so that prerecordedsessions, programs, and other resources can be trans-mitted to them. Generally, carrels are located in librar-ies, classrooms, study areas, or separate learning labs.

Carrels and other facilities in SAIL have created anenvironment conducive to the intellectual pursuits ofboth students and teachers. As a result of activities inthe laboratory, a number of learning modules have

12iInstructional Developments

been prepared by different subject matter experts fromvarious agricultural universities. These self-instruc-tional materials have immediate use. For example,agricultural entomologists were not competent :n or-ganic chemistry, so that they did not understand suchmatters as the structure and metabolism of pesticides.To compensate for this deficiency, self-instructionalmaterial was designed and provided to them. Also, thepesticide residue chemistry course, which cannot beadded to the curriculum because it would increasestudent credit loads, was introduced through a self-instructional package. SAIL was designed to facilitatesuch learning processes by addressing it.,iividuallearner needs in this manner.

In December 1990 a national workshop on self-instruc-tional systems for higher education in agriculture wasintroduced to the professionals in the field. The facultywere exposed to various learning modules and equip-ment. A study conducted in this workshop providedfeedback on the design of the workshop, as well as thedevelopment of an effective system for learning andteaching agricultural subjects in NAARM.

ConclusionAs new areas of development in science and technol-ogy are included within the agricultural educationsystem, learner-focused instruction is gaining ground,as cornImmd to teacher-focused classroom instruction.The Deans' Committee of the Indian agricultural uni-versities, appointed in 1989 for the modification ofcurricula, has indicated that credit loads i^ agriculturaleducation are not sufficient for a basic undergraduatecourse. The basic science component that should beimparted in undergraduate courses is also being de-bated. With faculty not ready to compromise by de-creasing credit loads for undergraduate students, andstudents feeling the heavy burden of the already exist-ing syllabus, El e concept of self-instruction has becomesignific

Each year Indian agricultural universities introducenew co, "SC3. Given the need to implement instruc-tional management on the forefront, it is worth devis-ing a more effective method for imparting education.The incorporation of self-instruction into Indian agri-cultural education should be an important means forimproving the quality of the present educational sys-tem and a step toward improving learner interaction innew areas of development. At the same time it is a steptoward progress, equality, and the democratization ofeducation.

References

Volume 2 (1) SpringISummer 1991

Anonymous. (1989). Information bulletin of the NationalAcademy of Agricultural Research Management. Rajen-dranagar, Hyderabad, India: Director of the NationalAcademy of Agricultural Research Management.

Anonymous. (1990). Proceedings of the workshop on self-instructional systems for higher education for agriculture:workshop manual. Hyderabad, India: National Acad-emy of Agricultural Research Management.

Heidt, Erhard U. (1989). Instructional media and theindividual learner. A classification and systems appraisal.London: Kogan Page Limited.

Mager, R. F. (1988). Preparing instructional objectives.Palo Alto, California: Fearon Publishers.

Sudarsanam, R. (1981). Educational learning /teaching.Coimbatore, India: Tamil Nadu Agricultural Univer-sity.

Romiszowski, A. J. (1981). Designing instructional sys-tems: Decision making in course planning and curriculumdesign. London: Kogan Page.

Aradhyula Gopalam is an Associate Professor in theEducational Systems and Technology Unit; K. V. Ramanis the Director of the National Academy of AgriculturalResearch Management, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad500030, Andhra Pradesh, India.

1?2 13

Formative and Summative EvaluationProcedures for Interactive Video in theNuclear Industry

Barbara L. Grabowski & Elisa J. Slee *

IntroductionWhile there is evidence that new technologies are preva-lent in homes, schools, businesses, and organizations,there is a growing awareness that the present evalu-ation of new technologies is inadequate. H4nnafin andPeck state, "Despite its promise...evaluation is proba-bly the most overlooked component of systems mod-els" (1988, p. 299). An examination of the literaturereveals that, in spite of the existence of interactive videofor over a dozen years, there is little documented re-search on its effectiveness, or in-depth formative orsummative evaluation projects. Most predominant inthe literature are descriptions of use, descriptions ofhardware and software capabilities, and guidelines forthe future design of interactive video.

An argument could be made that computer-based inter-active video (CBIV) provides the means for incorporat-ing effective instructional designs because of its com-bination of computer and video technologies in a singleinstructional medium having the capabilities of text,graphics, realistic video images, motion, audio, andintelligent branching in which the sequence and selec-tion of output are determined by individual user inputto the system. Each of these attributes presents an areafor possible research and/or evaluation.

While more empirically-based research and evaluationstudies are appearing in the literature, the lack of exist-ing evidence of the effectiveness of design strategiesusing new combinations of attributes available withthis technology is of some concern. This concern arisesbecause of the fact that poor or ineffective instructionaldesign could condemn the technology to the same fateas linear video in the 1960s or could lead to a negative"page-turning" image of computer-based instruction.That fate of CBIV could include inappropriate use aswell as dissatisfaction or outright rejection of the prod-uct by users and trainers.

This article will focus on the area of evaluation ofinteractive video in general, addressing current prac-tices in the field. It will then describe one successfulevaluation project for nuclear training.

14

Current Strategies Employed inEvaluation of Interactive VideoTypically, evaluation of interactive video products iscarried out at the prototype stage of product develop-ment rather than throughout the entire project. Johnston(1984) cites some of the reasons why the contribution ofevaluation to new technologies is not as great as itmight be:

product development is done by people who arenot aware of the contribution that formative re-search can make,there is not a demand for summative evaluationdata,there is no controversy about the impact of thenew technologies,evaluators have found it difficult to adapt thetraditional evaluation models to the new tech-nologies.

Braden (1987) warns, however, that an increasing num-ber of educational technologists think of forma tive evalu-ation as end-product only. He strongly urges thatdesigners and developers start at the front end of thedesign process, suggesting that the procedures used todevelop the product need to be evaluated, as well as theproducts themselves.

Current Practices of FormativeEvaluationThe purpose of formative evaluation is to determine theeffectiveness of instructional products as they are beingproduced and in their near-final form. In a CAI context,Hannafin and Peck (1988) havedefined evaluation as anongoing process used to (a) determine whether lessonobjectives have been met, (b) identify the reasons for theobserved performance, and (c) identify those portionsof the lesson that require modification. Dick and Carey(1985) posed three stages of formative evaluation thatare standard in most development projects. The first


stage, One to One Evaluation, is informal. It is used toidentify major problems associated with the planneddesign. In this stage, the designer might consult andobserve another designer, subject matter expert, and/or student while they proceed through the design.Valuable information concerning a lesson can be ob-tained before unnecessarily expending energy to de-velop the lesson.

The next stage, Small Group Evaluation, is conductedwhen the lesson is nearly done. Its purpose is to deter-mine the effectiveness, acceptability, and appropriate-ness of strategies and materials, and the extent of com-pliance with constraints identified in the needs assess-ment. This stage is more formal than the one to onestage. It does not have to be conducted in the actualsetting. Performance data are collected to identifywhere, or if, lesson improvements are needed. The finalstage, Field Test Evaluation, is conducted in the actualsetting. Lessons are of final-draft quality and formaltechniques are employed. There is little designer-student interaction at this point.

Suggestions for the Evaluation ofInteractive TechnologiesWhile these stages and procedures for formative evalu-ation are essential, there are other points and strategiesin the development of interactive video where forma-tive evaluation could save expensive redesign. Sincepressing a disc results in unedi table video, any designproblems with the video must be identified early in theproject. Any redesign after that must be dealt with byeliminating the video sequence, either by program-ming around it, or by including computer images.Unique evaluation strategies are necessary to combatcomplicated procedures for trial runs due to branching(Patterson and Bloch, 1987). Also, interactive videotechnology is not one type of media, but rather sev-eraleach of which requires its own evaluation crite-ria. Finally, the end product is very difficult to envisionduring the earlier stages of development.

In the literature, evaluators suggest several strategiesfor evaluating interactive technologies. Pearson (1988)reviewed evaluation models and suggested three use-ful attributes for the evaluation of microcomputercourseware, which may be applied to the evaluation ofCBIV: measurement of student outcomes (Tyler's Ob-jectives), professional judgement (Provus DiscrepancyModel), and assessment of incidental learning (Scriven'sGoal-Free Model). He tested these models in theevaluation of CAI instruction and found them to beeffective. It follows that they would be appropriate forevaluating interactive video as well.

Use of case studies is one evaluation methodology


posed by several evaluators. Johnston (1984) advocates"greater use of naturalistic observation and case stud-ies to develop hypotheses about how technology inter-acts with users and context" (p. 83). Ingle (1984), Rice(1984), and Johnston (1984) used this strategy to evalu-ate how learners interacted with microcomputers andinteractive video products. These video case studieswere useful for examining how hardware and softwarefactors influenced user responses to programs. Riceargued that these media "offer new communicationfunctions and new technological designs, require newhuman capabilities, and suggest new specification ofcontemporary theories." When Ingle evaluated ProjectBEST using this method, he used the videotape toprovide an aggregate of vivid concrete instances of howpractitioners handled the introduction and use of mi-crocomputers. Thus generalizations were easily por-trayed and interpreted by others. More appropriatedecisions could be made because the stakeholders wereable to get a vivid sense of the effects of the microcom-puters in actual classrooms. The video case studyapproach also allowed the design team to compareapplications across several school sites. Further re-search areas were generated from the review of thetapes and the comparisons made by the evaluation.The tapes provided contextual information that is oftenbypassed in normal research reports.

Fedale (1985) recommends another method for circum-venting some of the typical design problems encoun-tered by new designers of interactive video programs:using a video template of the design flowchart as partof the formative evaluation process. With a charactergenerator, Fedale produced different colored screensto represent video sequences, menus, still frames, andgraphics. The videotape of the design flowchart wasthen presented to the designer for review, which re-sulted in a number of design changes. Fedale felt thatthe video representation approximated the final prod-uct more closely than the typical review of the story-board. Since it was a more realistic portrayal, designchanges were made that might have been missed in apaper review. Employing such a procedure as a type offormative evaluation saved later expenses in interac-tive videotape production and editing. A similar pro-cedure could be used for formative review of interac-tive video discs by subject matter experts to considererrors of content, sequence, terminology, definitions,descriptions, message design, and branching.

Dick (1987) asks whether there is a fundamental con-flict between the design of interactive instructionalsystems and the application of formative evaluationprocedures to improve the effectiveness of these sys-tems. He argues that many CBIV projects seem to havemisunderstood the potential of the new media for theimprovement of education. CBIV designers seem towork to maximize the use of the presentation options

15

and branching capabilities rather than concentratingon maximizing the learning outcomes. One's choicebetween these approaches to the design and develop-ment process will influence the type of data collectedand the evaluation process selected.

Evaluation Project for GeneralEmployee Training in the NuclearAreaThe training staff of a local nuclear power companyrecently developed a computer-based interactive videoproject to improve the consistency of General Em-ployee Requalification Training. The computer-basedinteractive video was to address problems of labor-intensive instruction for instructors and trainees, vari-ous trainee backgrounds, and varied employee sched-ules without diluting quality. Expected results in-cluded greater flexibility, convenience, and a reductionof training time. The interactive nature of the mediumwas also expected to increase retention and motivationfor learning the material.

An Instructional Design, Development and Evaluationteam from the Training Systems Institute at SyracuseUniversity School of Education wascontracted to evalu-ate the development of this project. An importantadvantage was that Ile team was contracted early in theproject so that recommendations could be made atevery stage of the development process.

There were five tasks associated with this project:

Task 1: Courseware flowchart and script analy-sis (evaluation of the instructional design speci-fication, or "blueprint");Task 2: Talk-through protocol (equivalent toDick and Carey's first stage of one-on-one evalu-ation of instructional effectiveness);Tasks 3 and 4: Technical and mechanical review(debugging the courseware);Task 5: Beta test (approximates to Dick andCarey's second stage of small-group formativeevaluation of instructional effectiveness).

Task 1: Flowchart and Script Analysis. There werethree subtasks associated with the flowchart and scriptanalysis. The first included a review of the designdocument and preliminary material. Goals and objec-tives were reviewed at this stage for clarity and meas-urability. Criteria for evaluating the objectives weremade clear to the development team so that they wouldunderstand the rationale behind any recommenda-tions made.

Following this review, the flowcharts were analyzedfor effective design and logical flow. Several recom-

16

mendations were made at this stage, based on prob-lems with the performance strategy that the team hadidentified. Much discussion of the ramifications ofvarious strategies ensued before the development teamfinally selected a strategy that would accomplish theirgoals and be within their budget constraints.

Scripts were written by the development team and thenreviewed by the evaluation team. These were reviewedfrom several perspectives to take into consideration thevariety of media available in computer-based interac-tive video. These perspectives included "design" todetermine whether the content matched the objectives,"flow" to determine if the interactivity of the computerwas being used appropriately, and "video" to deter-mine whether principles of good message design werebeing employed with the motion video and computerscreens. Much discussion resulted as various advan-tages and disadvantages were presented for strategiesthey were employing. The decisions the developmentteam ultimately made were much more informed anddeliberate than those presented beforehand.

Task 2: Talk-Through Protocol. From these scripts,video was shot on tape and computer graphics weredeveloped. With these, a talk-through of the lesson wasconducted. The purpose of the talk-through protocolwas to examine the functional and informational valueof the script and video. Specifical:y, instructional,learner control, and learner input and output compo-nents were evaluated. A naive learner was selected forthis task. The video was shown via tape with thedeveloper controlling the sequence. The learner readthe scripts and viewed the videotape and computergraphics where appropriate. Several areas of confusionwere identified through this valuable exercise. Most ofthe value arose from identifying confusing areas withinthe video.

As a result of this talk-through, video segments werereshot prior to videodisc production, graphics wererevised, and content was rewritten. The lesson wasthen programmed ° computer, and the videodiscwas sent to mastering.

Tasks 3 and 4: Technical and Mechanical Review.While the technical and mechanical review was tc ayebeen conducted prior to the pressing of the master disc,this was deemed unnecessary because of the fruitfulresults of the talk-through. The review then consistedof identifying typographical and logistic errors in thecomputer program after the beta test and prior to full-scale implementation. This review is a very importantstep in preserving the integrity of the program becauseit prevents frustration in the actual students who ulti-mately will use the program.

Task 5: Beta Test. Once the videodisc was pressed andthe computer lessons programmed, a beta test was


conducted to provide comparison data on four types oftraining effectiveness indicators: time-to-completion,performance, student satisfaction, and efficiency. Thesecomparison data were important to determine whetherinteractive video would be an appropriate alternativeto existing training strategies, and to determine whereproblems existed in the interactive video lessons them-selves.

The four comparison groups included (a) those naivelearners who had received instructor-led training andthen took the testing portion of the interactive videolesson, (b) those who used a print study guide and thentook the interactive video test, (c) those who took theinteractive video lessons and the interactive video test,and (d) those who just took the interactive video test.

Numbers of correct and incorrect responses, amountsof time per session, and interest and appeal data werecollected via computer, surveys, and interviews. Thesedata were analyzed and recommendations were madefor revision. Three significant problems were identi-fied, and it was strongly recommended that they beaddressed prior to full-scale implementation. Addi-tional minor problems with recommended revisionswere also flagged as non-critical areas.

General StrategyThe strategy the team employed was a factor thatcontributed to the effectiveness of the evaluation proj-ect. The materials produced for each of the tasks werereviewed by the evaluation team. Recommendationswere then summarized and presented verbally to thedevelopment team fe,- discussion at the plant site. Thisdiscussion resulted in a mutual understanding of thespecific objectives of the project and the rationale forrecommended revisions. This personal iteration wasviewed as a critical component of the success of theevaluation process, because it allowed misunderstand-ings, which often occur with written documents, to becircumvented immediately. Trust was developedamong the team members, which helped the evaluationprocess to work. Production tips were also passedalong throughout the project to make the process easierfor the development team. Very positive commentswere made by the development team throughout theproject regarding the value of the recommendationsbeing put forth.

ResultsFull-scale evaluation of each phase of the design pro-cess resulted in a product that is used and enjoyed bythe majority of employees. Although the novelty of thenew technology currently may be carrying the lesson, itis clear that the lessons themselves are motivating, and


the additional advantages of reduced time and moreflexible and convenient scheduling will ensure that thelessons continue to be used. If the three-phase processalone had been employed, developers probably wouldhave been too frustratedto sustain the effort of produc-ing the final product. Even if they had, the productwould not have been as effective.

ConclusionThis article stressed the importance of in-depth evalu-ation of interactive video development projects, somecurrent thinking about how it should be conducted,and one evaluation example. There are, however, addi-tional questions that suggest the need for a broader,total-systems approach to CBIV project evaluation.Does the technology get used? By whom? For whatpurposes does it get used more than other techniques?What is the social impact of the technology? How doesthe new technology replace what existed? When doesit supplement or totally replace other alternatives?How pervasive is the new technology and how does itimpact other elements of the organization?

There is much to be learned about the impact of inter-active technologies, and empirically-based, process-oriented evaluation projects will begin to provide someof the answers needed to launch effective interactiveinstruction.

ReferencesBraden, R. (1987). Instructional design: Forms of forma-tive evaluation. Educational Technology, 27 (1), 33-34.

Dick, W. (1987). Formative evaluation of interactivevideo. EducationalTechnology, 27 (10), 55-58.

LAck, W. & Carey, L. (1985). The systematic design ofinstruction (2nd ed.). Illinois: Scott, Foresman andCompany.

Fedale, S. V. (1985). A video template for pretesting thedesign of an interactive video program. EducationalTechnology, 25 (8), 30-31.

Hanna fin, M. & Peck, K. (1988). The design, development,and evaluation of instructional software. New York:Macmillan.

Ingle, H. (1984). Microcomputers in the schools: Thevideo case study as an evaluation tool. In J. Johnston(Ed.), Evaluating the new technologies (pp. 43-52). SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Johnston, J. (1984) Research methods for evaluating thenew information technologies. In J. Johnston (Ed.),Evaluating the new technologies (pp.43-52). San Fran-cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

171i

Patterson, A., & Bloch, B. (1987). Formative evalu-ation: A process required in computer-assisted instruc-tion. Educational Technology, 27 (11), 26-31.

Pearson, R. (1988) The development of an evaluation planfor microcomputer courseware. Unpublished manuscript,Syracuse University.

Rice, R. E. (1984) Evaluating new media systems. In J.Johnston (Ed.), Evaluating the new technologies (pp. 43-52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

* Barbara L. Grabowski, until recently a faculty mem-ber at Syracuse University, is now an Associate Profes-sor of Education at The Pennsylvania State University.Elisa J. Slee is a doctoral candidate in the IDD&Eprogram at Syracuse University.

THE TRAINING SYSTEMS INSTITUTE/SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNSELORTRAINING PROJECT

Training Systems Institute (TSI) has developed trainingmanuals to be used by the Division of Substance AbuseServices (DSAS) of New York State for training 10,000substance abuse counselors who work throughout thestate. Although these counselors have diverse back-grounds and perform varied functions, they all needcertain basic competencies. The curriculum being devel-oped will supply training in the knowledge and skillsrequired to achieve these competencies.

A variety of organizations and specialist groups providetraining for substance abuse counselors. The project alsoinvolves looking at the courses currently offered andrevising them both to update them and to transform theminto competency-based materials that incorporate self-study wherever possible. This is intended to reduce thelength of courses and to make training more accessible toa larger number of counselors.

The project is conducting occupational analysis to iden-tify key competencies within all the job categories thatcall for substance abuse counseling. The analysis is beingdone by means of a Delphi study, which commencedwith an exhaustive list of competencies identified duringsome half-dozen previous projects, mainly in the area ofalcoholism and alcohol counseling.

These activities will contribute to the creation of anoverall curriculum plan, plus some of the courses andmaterials to be used in implementing that plan. Themethodology for writing the materials is a modified

version of information mapping. This approach to tech-nical writing was invented by Robert Horn and hiscolleagues in the late '60s and early '70s. Informationmapping makes it possible to modularize the materialsdown to the single concept or to the one-page level. Theresulting document is similar in structure to Hypertext,although it is not stored and retrieved by electronicmeans. The manuals produced by information mappingallow learners to have more control over their learningprocess in that they can move from one piece of informa-tion to another in a non-linear way, thus filling gaps intheir knowledge as they discover them.

By the end of this project, several thousand such informa-tion maps will have been written, and this material willcover most of the basic competencies needed by sub-stance abuse counselors.

Project staff are also exploring electronic storage anddissemination of these information maps with their net-work structure . Eventually, it may be possible for usersto access training or reference materials through an onlinesystem using actual Hypertext software or somethingsimilar.

It may take a year or two to develop a prototype for fieldtesting. As a research element within the project, thiseffort could be particularly important because it mayresult in an online learner-controlled teaching system thatcould become a model for adult-vocational education andtraining systems of the future.

18

12'1Instructional Developments

Automated Job Aids For InstructionalDesign & Development: Can RelationalDatabases Cut Costs?

Michael J. Olson *

Why Use A Database?Instructional development is expensive, particularlywhere multi-skilled teams are needed to produce com-puterized training systems. The literature reports thatcosts of instructional design alone account for 14% ofthe overall costs of development (Bernstein et al., 1987).For computer-based instruction (CBI), developmentra tios ha ve ranged from 1 to 4000 hours of developmentfor every hour of instruction (Orlansky, 1979; Jay, 1989).

The reasons for high costs are varied; most are situa-tionally dependent with a wide range of variables. Oneof the more mundane problems a development teamfaces is transferring data from one format to another tobuild up and track information through different de-velopment phases. Changes caused by a terminologyshift as well as changes in the target system configura-tion can cause considerable "breakage" in instructionalmaterials and related documentation. On large multi-expertise teams, even trivial problems caused by nu-ances in acronyms, abbreviations, or the meaning ofverbs in objectives can introduce expensive rework.

Projects with long development schedules also havepersonnel turnover problems; inexperience compoundsthe data consistency problem during development andevaluation cycles. A database, however, should makestaff more efficient over time. Productivity increaseswhereby key people yield valuable time savings andschedule relief throughout the development process.Another common, expensive problem in large projectsis the tendency for production teams to redo the techni-cal content work completed by subject matter expertsduring earlier phases; a database should reduce suchunnecessary rework (Gibbons). In the final report of astudy focused on cost factors in CBI development,revisions and the lack of clear specifications were citedby 166 a velopers as the two most significant problemsaffecting costs (Bernstein et al., 1987). A good relationaldatabase management system (RDBMS) attacks theseproblems directly and forces a systematic approach todevelopment. High costs of development have spurredinterest in software tools to reduce costs and increasestandardization (Reakes,1989;Samuelsson,1989).Gov-ernment R&D proposals (e.g., as published in the


Commerce Business Daily) report interest in expertsystems or automated tools, which can aid inexperi-enced designers with the complex process of instruc-tional design and can help subject matter experts withdesign tasks (Maxey, 1989; Olson, 1990). Evidence ofinterest in automation is easily found by scanning topicheadings and abstracts of annual professional confer-ences, e.g., the Society for Applied Learning Technol-ogy's conference "Development of Effective InteractiveInstruction Materials" (Cox & Cox, 1989; Cross et al.,1989).

There has also been a strong interest in intelligenttutoring systems with their capability for individualiz-ing instruction, as well as related authoring systems.David Merrill at Utah State University, for example, inconjunction with Media Share, Inc. and various gov-ernment research agencies, has been developing soft-ware that operationalizes ID2, or Second GenerationInstructional Design. This software, called ID Expert, isdirected at improving the development of interactiveinstructional materials by "guiding instruction to teachintegrated sets of knowledge and skills...producingpedagogic prescriptions...and selection and sequenc-ing of instructional transaction sets..." (Merrill, 1989).

Expert systems also require knowledge acquisition; nomatter how expert the capabilities of an expert systemare, raw content data must still be defined, refined,input, and represented by people. The "GIGO" prob-lem (garbage in, garbage out) will not disappear with adatabase or an expert system; sloppy use can exacer-bate the problem. A database system, however, has aninherent advantage over expert systems; RDBMS soft-ware is designed to optimize the procedural tasks ofdata input, search, storage, and change while in anexpert system. These tasks require custom program-ming and laborious manual editing of code; thereforeexpert systems are notoriously clumsy vehicles forprocessing lexical data. Database systems are readily"learnable" by people who have to input data. Expertsystems designers, on the other hand, are people withvery hard-to-find skills.

The methodologies for collecting data during instruc-tional systems development are proven and have been

12619

around for years; what has been missing is a practical,comprehensive database tool to collect this basic, con-tent defining/limiting knowledge. This knowledge in-cludes such items as lists of tasks, systems, knowledgeand skills, objectives, task factors, curriculum/courseoutlines, lesson specifications, and scripts. Relationaldatabases are a natural host for this information andshould be considered an essential component for anyCBI authoring system, expert system shell, or even acustom intelligent tutoring system. Inasmuch as data-base technology is here today, this approach offers theopportunity for CBI developers to be ready for import-ing data to expert systems once the latter are matureenough to be released to consumers (Olson, 1990).

The classic "non- linear" systems models used for in-structional development all stress iteration amongphases on the theoretical (and accurate) premise thatfeedback among steps followed by revision are essen-tial ingredients of instructional design models (Trimby& Gentry, 1984). Iteration can be viewed more simply:as analysts delve more deeply into a problem they getsmarter and have to fix things that get "broken." Per-sonal experience of the author has shown that top levelmanagers are suspicious of claims of the "developers'need to take feedback and return to an appropriateearlier phase to refine assumptions made when lesswas known about the content"; such statements tend tocreate the impression that the job was not done right thefirst time. Given the costs implicit in revision, thisnegative impression is not a completely unwarrantedsuspicion even if this same management initially re-fused to invest adequately in analysis, design, andspecification.

Because of the difficulty and costs of manually docu-menting analysis, the goal of true iteration is difficult toachieve on complex, multi-year development projects.Databases, however, provide a practical means to up-date and maintain data, making iteration a viable andcost- efficient part of the development process. Ulti-mately, a good database system should facilitate pro-ducing consistent output, augmenting technical skills,and protecting data. Relational database systems are aproven technology and can be used as a practical, "non-expert" job aid which helps instructional designersproduce instruction that is "good, fast and cheap"(Doughty, 1990) in data-intensive training environ-ments.

When is a Database System anAppropriate Tool?Relational databases are not for everybody all the time.The cost-effectiveness/suitability decision a managermust make before implementing a training database

20

system boils down to assessing the core issues of vol-ume, organizational impact, and accountabilityof train-ing. The volume issue deals with distribution, retrain-ing, customized training, and depth of jobs. A sophis-ticated database could be a cost-effective solution ei-ther where there are many different job classificationsin a range of content areas or where the training targetis complex (depth) and constantly evolving. If an or-ganization is facing a major systemic change such as aplant upgrade or the introduction of a major systemplatform (e.g., aircraft) on a reasonable schedule, arelational database may be a viable tool. On the otherhand, for unique training projects on a tight schedule,a database may not be a good short-term solutionunless staff members are already an experienced andcohesive team working with a familiar, stable, normal-ized database system.

High accountability training is a rich justification for adatabase system regardless of data volume issues. Thecapability to map a trainee to systems and performancerequirements is a sine qua non for pilot training, nuclearplant operation, weapons systems, process control, ormarketing/ sales areas. An organization's motivationto produce high-quality training in these situations isoften very high.

Because a sophisticated database system brings with itan implied organizational/methodology change andrelated costs, the factors that make the expense practi-cal must be considered carefully. An organizationshould not only quantify potential return-on-invest-ment goals. It must also be prepared to have a change-agent committed to bringing a database into use withinthe organization. In addition to investments, there arenoticeable recurring costs in implementing databasesystems. A complex database that will be trackingmillions of data items will probably require a net-worked environment of powerful computers, a staffperson to act as database administrator (DBA) and asmall core of instructional designers/developers whoare proficient database users.

The underlying capability of the host kernel (softwareprogram) to manage and control data is a critical tech-nical issue. Not all kernels are created equal in thisregard. Security of the data from loss, read/write con-trols, password protection, portability between plat-forms, and statistical processing/analysis are capabili-ties that are not uniform among kernels. The most"easy-to-use" database system may have weak datamanagement and control capabilities or other limita-tions not immediately obvious to the buyer. Such limi-tations may be counter-productive to the intendedfunction of the database and may risk the investmentmade in the data.


What are the Saving/Benefits ofan RDBMS?Risk factors examined by standard cost-analysis proce-dures in estimating development costs typically in-clude: reliability/stability of documentation, skill ofstaff, schedule urgency, personnel loading, availabilityof experts, scope and difficulty of the effort, political/institutional stability, client relationship, and projectgoals (Kearsley, 1982; Mikos, 1987, 1988; Casey, 1988;Head, 1987). Estimates of savings from implementingany RDBMS must include the impact of implementi .ga systematic development process. An organizationthat does not currently use a sound Systems Approachto Training (SAT) model will experience far greatersavings than one which has well established methodsand experienced teams; the former organization willnot be able to sort out savings that are directly attribut-able to the RDBMS.

Figure 1 represents a conservative estimate of savingsthat might be achieved in a hypothetical worst-casesituation with a specific RDBMS. The recommendedmethod to arrive at an estimate for the feasibility of thedatabase and the break-even point is to estimate devel-opment variables normally, that is, to give particularattention to deriving a detailed assessment of all riskfactors and multipliers at as great a level of detail as theschedule will allow time to generate. A conservativeview of the savings can be produced by reducing therisk factors (those that can be quantified as a percentile)by the numbers indicated in Figure 1. The differencebetween investment/operation and risk reduction isthe net estimated costs avoided. Only time will provethe reliability of these broad estimating guidelines.

FIGURE SAVINGS WITH TRACE

ESTIMATED EXPENSE REDUCTION

ANALYSIS, DESIGN, & DOCUMENTATION COSTS - 50%

DEVELOPMENT COSTS -30%

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS -10%

REDEVELOPMENT COSTS - 40%

RECURRING COSTS - 30%

Figure 1.

An organization may wish to consider the alternative ofbuilding their own database rather than purchasing anapplication. Defining the requirements and perform-ance needs for a new database application is far morecostly than the application development process itself.Many of the costs can be attributed to the repercussionsand changes to processes and procedures caused byinstalling applications. Organizational turf battles and


in-fighting over approaches are frequently the biggestcause of the application development expense (Atre,1980). In the author's opinion, purchasing almost ready-made applications will be more cost-effective and be asource of less vituperation or delays than building ahome-grown system.

Somewhat analogous to the problems in predictingcost-effectiveness of media alternatives, the cost-effec-tiveness of using relational databases will be difficult tosubstantiate without prior cost histories in a trainingorganization. Post-implementation evaluation shouldbe planned. It would not be unreasonable to expect thatthe full benefits of using a database system will bequantifiable only after several years of experience withthe database. Then the organization will have theability to look at the real bottom line as well as student -unit hour costs, volume changes, and overall corporateprofitability.

What is TRACE?TRACE, an acronym for "Training Requirements/At-tributes Concurrence Evaluation," is a sophisticatedtool which automates the input, processes, and outputof instructional systems development (ISD) data, andaddresses the problems and issues stated herein. ThisRDBMS provides a means to define training devicerequirements, locate training materials affected by sys-tem upgrades or configuration changes, and track com-monalities, including single-source identification oftraining materials across multiple training programs.TRACE is designed to process, correlate, and controlmillions of data items, particularly in operations andmaintenance training environments. This RDBMS helpsmanage inventory, projects, source documentation, andthe data itself; it is a tool for automating the SystemsApproach to Training, or the ISD process. A reasonableexpectation is to achieve 10% to 30% reductions in thelife-cycle costs of training.

How Does TRACE Work?TRACE has five modules supporting the needs of in-structional design, as well as a set of management anddevelopment tools (see Figure 2). Analysts develop amodel of the physical structure of the target hardware/software system, down to function numbers (symboldesignators), names, and part numbers. Training re-quirements and proficiency objective measurementsare correlated to the hard ware/software/content struc-ture. Once a population group's ability to meet profi-ciency objectives has been analyzed, the user can or-ganize objectives into curriculum structures, defineinstructional treatments and media, and conduct acost-analysis. Lesson/Element Specifications define

o21

instructional treatment packages for teaching the ob-jectives incrementally, the final treatment being a pro-ficiency test. A Lesson Specification report outputs allrelevant data collected in previous modules (e.g., de-scriptions of equipment collected during the systemsanalysis). An inventory module maintains records ontraining materials used to support execution of train-ing programs. TRACE has a variety of managementadjuncts for planning, establishing milestones, and

Figure 2

the status of any training system activity (such asplanned and actual completion dates and individualresponsibility). The user can identify and qualify theinput or reference sources for all data, including docu-ments, experts, or system tests, and changes in versionsof data. Special tools enable anyone with word process-ing skills to prepare data by working with ASCII files,including selecting data from ASCII versions of techni-cal manuals for bulk input into the database.

TRACE MODULESSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS MANAGEMENTSYSTEMS LISTINGS INFORMATION ACQUISITION COURSE RESOURCE A SCHEDULER

SYSTEMS BREAKDOWN 1MILESTONE MANAGER MEDIA INVENTORY CONTROL

CONTROLS & INDICATORS DATA CONTROL STUDENT LISTINGS

PARTS LIST INSTRUCTOR LISTINGS

DEVICE LISTINGS COURSE LISTINGS (SYLLABUS)

REQUIREMENTS SYSTEM DESIGNTASK LISTINGS POPULATION DESCRIPTION

CONDITIONS & STANDARDS POPULATION DIFFERENCES ANALYSIS

STEP.

1

POSITION. CONTINGENCIES CURRICULUM OUTLINEFACTORS ANALYSIS & MEDIA OBJECTIVES - OUTLINE LINK

KNOWLEDGE & SKILLS EXPERT MEDIA SYSTEM" (EMS)CLASSIFICATIONMEDIA ANALYSISCOMPARATIVE COST ANALYSIS

TESTING SPECIFICATIONSPERFORMANCE MEASURES(NON-IDENTIFYING)

LINE OPERATION SIMULATION(SPECIFICATION)

DETAILED DESIGNLESSON SPECIFICATION

LESSON ELEMENT SPECIFICATION'MEDIA SPECIFICATION INVENTORY LINK

ELEMENT TOPIC SPECIFICATION

11

STANDARD REPORTS I AD-HOC REPORTS

SQL REPORT WRITER

FORMS EDITING(SQL FORMS')

TRIO I READER t CREATOR

UTILITIES

ANSI-STANDARD SOL FORTRAN PASCAL

Who is Using TRACE, and forWhat?Delta Air Lines is the first site to use TRACE. Delta hastwo primary reasons for going to a database system.One reason is to respond to a new FAA option called theAdvanced Qualification Program (AQP). AQP allowsairlines to reduce training pipelines and take advan-tage of new training technology, provided they canverify that all training requirements are being met. Theother reason is to reduce training expenses and im-prove the skills of pilots. Each year Delta provides twoten-day recurring training sessions for its 8,000 pilots;the goal is to eliminate one of the training sessions andreduce the number of days spent in recurring training.By systematically focusing on quantifiable factors andidentified training needs it will be possible to eliminateunnecessary training. Although initially the systemwill be used for pilot training, Delta is aware thatsubstantial portions of their analysis work (systems

22

data and task lists) are transferrable both among air-craft and to maintain training projects as well. Deltaexpects that using TRACE and the systems approach totraining will reduce their expenses by a significantlygreater margin than the estimates in this article.

Another project in substance abuse counselor trainingis beginning at Syracuse University's Training SystemsInstitute under a contract from New York State. TraceTechnologies will participate in this contract from anR&D standpoint to evaluate the methodology and dataprocessing requirements made on a database for a soft-skills training problem. This project is starting with acurriculum upgrade focus (instead of task or systemsanalysis) where the product will be materials devel-oped in accordance with information mapping tech-niques. Initially TRACE will be used to track interrela-tionships of the maps and eventually will be correlatedto specific drug counselor competencies. This correla-tion should allow the production of custom coursesbased on an individual's actual abilities.


ConclusionInitial use of a database system may increase invest-ments in collecting data that have previously beenignored, postponed, or avoided in the early stages ofthe development process. Databases are built to findand change data rapidly. Noticeable savings will berealized whenever there is a change in the target oftraining, such as an update to the target system causedby an engineering enhancement; in this case all trainingmaterials affected by this change can be found with asimple database query. In the long run, investment andrecurring costs of designing, developing, executing,and maintaining training programs will go down whenwell-organized relational databases are introduced intotraining development organizations.

ReferencesAtre, S. (1980). Data base: Structural techniques for design,performance and management. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Bernstein ,K., Gunderson, S., & Jay, J.(1987). EstimatingCBT development times: Final report. Army ResearchInstitute for Behavioral and Social Sciences. (DTIC).

Casey, R.J., Jr., et al. (1988). Capturing skill in estimat-ing training development effort: A follow-up final re-port. Performance and Instruction, 27(9), 40-44.

Cox, Courtney, J., & Cox, Curtis J. (1989, August).Automating and enhancing interactive video-basedcourseware development: Applied Science AssociatesInc. (ASA) in-house technique using computer auto-mation to speed up and increase quality assurance.SALT Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on InteractiveVideodisc in Education and Training. Arlington, VA.

Cross, B. II, Wunderlich, D.A., Sullivan, D.J., McDon-nell Douglas Computer Based Training Systems. (1989,November). Automating the instructional systems de-sign and development process. Proceedings of the Elev-enth Inter- service /Industry Training Systems Conference(ITEC) (pp. 24-33). Fort Worth, TX.

Doughty, P. (1990). Instruction and goals for educa tors.Instructional Developments, 1 (1), 5.

Fowler, W.R. Cost justifying your training project. SALTProceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Develop-ment of Effective Interactive Instruction Materials. Arling-ton, VA.

Gibbons, A. S., & O'Neal, A. F. The concept and opera-tion of an instructional design data base. WorkingPaper, WICAT Systems, Inc.

Head, G. (1987). Training cost analysis: A practical guide.CO: Marlin Press.


Jay, J. (1989, July). Estimating CBT development costs(Part 3). CBT Directions.

Kearsley, G. (1982). Costs, benefits, and productivity intraining systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub-lishing.

Maxey, J. L., & Ahlers, R.H. (1989, November). Devel-opment of a front-end analysis tool. Proceedings of theEleventh Inter- service /Industry Training Systems Confer-ence (ITEC) (pp. 24-33). Fort Worth, TX.

Merrill, D.A. (1989). The second generation ID researchprogram. Logan: Utah State University, Department ofInstructional Technology (84322-3205).

Mikos, R. et al., (1987, July), Estimating training ef-forts/costs: A follow-up "final report "(Part I). Perform-ance and Instruction, 26 (5), 24-29.

Mikos, R. et al. (1987, Sept.) Estimating training ef-forts/costs: A follow-up "final report" (Part II). Per-formance and Instruction, 26 (7), 33-43.

Mikos, R., & Sullivan, D.J. (1988, April). How to esti-mate workloads and costs for training developmentefforts. Annual Conference of the National Society for Per-formance and Instruction, (NSPI).

Olson, M. J. (1990). Task analysis workstation as a frontend to knowledge acquisition for expert systems: TheTRACE system. Journal of Interactive Instruction Devel-opment, 3 (1), 24.

Orlansky, j. & String, J. (1979, April). Cost effectivenessof computer-based instruction in military training: Institutefor Defense Analysis Science and Technology Division(Contract No. DAHC 15 73 C 0200, Task T 134).

Reakes, M. (1989, November). Requirements of a train-ing management system for aircrew training. Proceed-ings of the Eleventh Inter-Servicellndustry Training Sys-tems Conference (ITEC). Fort Worth, TX.

Richards, B. F. Should instructional designers designexpert systems? ETR&D, 37 (3), 81-94.

Samuelsson, V.A. (1989, August). Software developersdiscuss strengths and weaknesses of various authoringsystems and courseware development programs. PanelDiscussion at the SALT Eleventh Conference on InteractiveVideodisc in Education and Training. Arlington, VA.

Trimby, M.J., & Gentry, C.G. (1984) . State of ID systemsand approach models. In R.K. Bass & C. Dills (Eds.),Instructional development: State of the art. (pp. 80-93).Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

* Michael J. Olson is a doctoral candidate in the IDD&Eprogram at Syracuse University and the Vice Presidentfor Trace Technologies Inc. in Fayetteville, NY.

132 23

Job-Aids

Alex Romiszowski*

Introduction In this issue, the job-aids section is devoted to feedback and discussion of the exercises and problemspresented in previous issues. In Vol. 1, No. 1, we posed two problems for discussion, concernedwith the presentation and visual layout of job-aids. In Vol. 1, No. 2, we presented an exercise onthe topic of Structural Communication.The reader may wish to refer to the two earlier issues whilereading the following article.

1 Job -Aid Presentation (Vol. 1, No. 1, Map 3)Two problems were posed in the first job-aids section. Both were concerned with aspects of the organization andpresentation of a procedural job-aid to the user/learner.

1.1 Alternative Presentation to Flow-ChartsSeveral readers submitted ideas on the restructuring of the two job-aids presented as flow-charts in Figures 1 and2 (Vol. 1, No. 1, Map 1). Some of these maintained the flow-chart presentation, but reorganized the page layoutin an attempt to improve clarity of communication. For Figure 2 (the Capital Gains Tax example), a layout asindicated by the following diagram was suggested.

START

The content of the boxes would be identical to the original flow-chart. This reorganization attempted to "chunk"the cases where tax has to be paid (to the left), where tax can be deducted (to the right), and where there is no taxissue (to the bottom). The reader also suggested repeating essentially the same outcome box (at the bottom) twicein order to avoid the visual effect of two arrows entering the same box possibly confusing a user who is not veryskilled at reading flow-charts. Those with an eye for visual presentation might like to compare the aboveschematic with the one published in Figure 2 of Vol. 1, No. 1, Map 1. Is any communication benefit likely to beachieved? Are there any other visual/layout changes that might improve communication?

A larger group of readers abandoned the flow-chart presentation altogether, on the grounds that most potentialusers may be unfamiliar with the presentation conventions and may therefore have difficulty in interpreting theflow-charts. The preferred alternative was the IF-THEN chart. Here is a typical example. Note that the languagehas, once more, been kept very close to the original version.


IF THEN

1Selling Price greater than Market Value ANDMarket Value greater than Cost Price

Tax charged on Selling Price lessMarket Value, less Expenses

2Selling Price greater than Cost Price ANDCost Price greater than Market Value

Tax charged on Selling Price lesscost Price, less Expenses

3a

3b

Selling Price greater than Cost Price ANDMarket Value greater than Selling Price

No Tax either charged or allowedor if

Selling Price greater than Market Value ANDCost Price greater than Selling Price

4Market Value greater than Cost Price ANDCost Price greater than Selling Price

Tax allowed on Cost Price lessSelling Price, plus Expenses

5Cost Price greater than Market Value ANDMarket Value greater than Selling Price

Tax allowed on Market Value lessSelling Price, plus Expenses

The authors of this version of the IF-THEN chart argued for the use of full sentences (as in the original) and forrepetition of phrases, so that each of the condition-outcome rows of the table are self-sufficient. This versionrequires little knowledge of special visual communication languages/conventions, but good verbal comprehen-sion skills. Some other readers submitted similar IF-THEN charts, as regards the decision structure, but usedsimplified language/abbreviations/mathematical symbols. For example:

2

If SP>MV>CP then pay on (SP-MV-Exp)

If SP>CP>MV then pay on (SP-CP-Exp)

3a

3b

If MV>SP>CP

If CP>SP>MVthen no tax to pay or claim

4

5

If MV>CP: SP then claim on (CP-SP+Exp)

If CP>MV>SP then claim on (MV-SP+Exp)

Naturally, it is assumed in all cases that the decision-making job-aid is preceded by clear and effective definitionsof the terms Selling Price, Market Value, Cost Price, and Expenses as they relate to the particular case of CapitalGains Tax.

No reader went so far as to change the style of the job-aid completely. Yet this is possible. By studying thesymmetry of the flow-chart, or of the IF-THEN charts, one notices that the value of the Selling Price, in relationto the other two values involved, is the key to the whole exercise. It is obvious why this should be so, even withoutfull knowledge of the tax laws upon which the example is based. When the Selling Price is GREATEST, you makea profit, and when it's the SMALLEST of the three, you have a loss and may expect tv claim it on your tax return.That can beexplained in one sentence (as i have just done). What remains is to explain how to evaluate the amountof tax to pay/claim.

This example may seem a bit more complex than the earlier charts. On the other hand, it does two things theearlier charts did not: It imparts some understanding of the rationale for the procedure, and it presents a workarea for the calculations, which eliminates the need for the user to interpret a verbally stated math problem.

Volume 2 (1) Spring /Summer 1991 134 25

1 (a) Write down the value of - Selling Price (SP)

- Market Value (MV)

- Cost Price (CP)

(b) Also write the value of your allowable Expenses (Exp) here.

2 Now compare the values of SP, MV, CP.Which is greatest, which is smallest, which is the middle value?

(a) If SP is the GREATEST of all,you will PAY tax on SP less theNEXT GREATEST (the middle) value.Calculate the amount on whichtax is due as follows.

Then transfer this value to your tax return.

Write SP

Middle Value

Subtract

Write Exp

Subtract

(b) If SP is the SMALLEST of all, you may claim atax deduction based on the difference betweenSP and the NEXT GREATEST (the middle) value.Calculate the amount allowable as follows.

Then transfer this value to your tax return.

Middle Value

SP

Subtract

Write Exp

Add

(c) If SP is the Middle value, then you neither paynor claim tax. No calculation is necessary.

Now let us move on to the other job-aid that readers were invited to redesign: the flow-chart to assist a player ofTIC-TAC-TOE never to lose a game, shown originally in Figure 1 (Vol. 1, No. 1, Map 1). Some readers commentedthat the flow-chart format is the ideal one in this case, due to the recursive or "looping" nature of the procedure.The flow-chart demonstrates this clearly, with an economy of words. Some, however, attempted to construct anIF-THEN chart. The best one, which looks more like a higher-order computer-language program than a"classical" IF-THEN chart, is reproduced here. It appears to have some communication advantages: It does notrely on flow-chart reading skills; it clearly separates that part of the procedure which is specific to the first movefrom that part which is recursive. But many prefer the spatially laid out flow-chart. It can be taken in at a glance;it seems to better portray the dynamics of the game; and it does not introduce a perhaps unfamiliar "IF-THEN-E LSE-GO-TO" convention. Any further observations? Perhaps some readers have yet further criticisms or brightideas for improvements of what we have presented here.


a)

0

;...

1.

2.

3.

4.

Wait for opponent (X) to make the first move.

It- X occupied the center square, THEN place 0 in any corner and GO TO 5.

IF X occupied a corner, THEN place 0 in the center square and GO TO 5.

IF X occupied the rnicidle of a side, Place 0 in either of the two corners next to X and GO TO 5.

u) 5. Wait for X to move. IF X has 2 crosses in a line with the 3rd square vacant, THEN prevent X from

0>winning by placing 0 in 3rd square and GO TO 9, ELSE GO TO 6.

6. IF the center square is still vacant, THEN place 0 in the center square.

t. 7. IF only 2 vacant squares left, THEN place 0 anywhere you like and GO TO 11, ELSE GO TO 8.

cr'a)cr)

.121

8. IF there is an X in the center, THEN place 0 in any vacant corner, ELSE place 0 in any squareadjacent to the square in which X has just played.

c.t) 9. IF no vacant squares left THEN GO TO 11, ELSE GO TO 10.

,<'' 10. IF you can get 3 O's in a line, THEN make the winning move and GO TO 12, ELSE GO TO 5.

11. The game is over and is drawn.

12. You have won the game.

1.2 The computer-based storage and presentation of job-aids.The second problem, posed in the first job-aids issue, did not produce as much correspondence as the first one,which we just discussed. Few readers commented on the questions when/how/why computer-based job-aidsare preferable to simple paper-based ones. Those who did comment focused on the aspect of complexitycomplexity of interrelated, interdependent factors to be considered; complexity of the process of calculating aresult (complex weighting, probability factors, formulae, etc); and complexity of note-taking; as well as sheernumber of questions to ask and sheer size of flow-charts or checklists if presented on paper. To summarize andextend these reader comments, I will embed them in a short case study of computer-based and paper-based job-aids.

Among the examples of job-aids included in Vol 1, No. 1, there is a "weighted checklist," or questionnaire, thatpresents a series of questions to help the reader decide whether computer-based training (CBT) would be anappropriate choice for a given course. This two-page questionnaire was prepared by an IDD&E graduate student,Shih-Shien Chang, by analyzing a section of a commercially available "expert system" (CBT Analyst, publishedby Park Row Software, 1986). The software itself is based on the expertise contained in a book (Computer BasedTraining, by Greg Kiersley, Addison-Wesley, 1984). The software has five sections, or chapters, dealing withaspects of CBT projects, such as costs and evaluation, as well as a section on "Selecting a Course for CBT," whichwas the basis for our checklist. The checklist, and the computer-based version of it, are summaries of the originalbook, which is itself the summary of the expertise, or the informed opinions, of one instructional designprofessional (the book's author).

The question is, What would other, perhaps less well-informed, professionals find most useful to assist them inmaking the decision whether to employ CBT for a given course they are developing? The computer-baseddecision-making software? The paper-based, two-page weighted checklist? The original book with its detailedexplanations? The book plus the soi tware package? The book plus the checklist as an appendix? Answering thisquestion is not as easy as it may seem. If "find most useful" is interpreted in behavioral terms, then we must discoverwhat such professionals will actually use as a job-aid and what they will reject. An opinion survey of a group ofIDD&E students who used both the computer-based and the paper-based versions of CBT Analyst revealed thatabout half preferred to use one and the other half preferred the other. All the students, however, said they wouldlike to read the original book to satisfy themselves that they understood the rationale embodied in the job-aid.

Volume 2 (1) Spring/Summer 1991 136BEST COPY AVAILABLE

27

If, on the other hand, we interpret "find most useful" in performance terms, then we must discover which of thealternatives leads to the most significant improvement in job performance, that is, under which conditions are "thebest" decisions taken in respect of the utilization, or not, of computer-based training. Questions of both thevalidity and the reliability of the job-aid as a decision-making tool must be raised. The question of validity reflectsboth on the original expertise encapsulated in the job-aid and on she skill with which this expertise was"engineered" into the job-aid. We are touching here on the issue of "knowledge engineering,' which is theidentification of expertise, knowledge acquisition from the expert(s), and knowledge representation in a form thatcan be processed by computers (or, in our case, by less expert persons). Although validity is of fundamentalimportance, here we will concentrate on the question of how to present the job-aid to the user.

The question of reliability has two aspects: (a) How reliably is the decision-making process executed by the job-aid, once the necessary data on a specific case is provided by the user? and (b) How reliably is this basicinformation collected in the first place? The old adage "GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out) applies here too.

Ir relation to the first aspect, the computer-based version of the job-aid is, of course, 100% reliable in correctlycumputing the questionnaire score and presenting the appropriate recommendation. Our experience with 30students using the paper-based version, each one dealing with four case examples (total of 120 cases) resulted inone instance of an addition error in the final computation, an error rate of less than 1%. However, replication ofthis study with a job-aid that involved a much more complex computation process than the simple additionrequired by CBT Analyst, resulted in a human error rate in computation and interpretation of the result in excessof 20%. Whereas a 1% human error rate may not justify investme at in automation, a 20% error rate probably does.

Regarding; :he second aspect, we used four short cases, or scenarios, typical of situations in which a tool like CBTAnalyst might be used. Each scenario briefly described a specific course and the context in which it was to be-nplemented, in sufficient detail to allow a reader to deduce the answers to the questions posed by CBT Analyst.

For example, one scenario described a high school algebra course to be implemented across a large school district.The subject matter was stable, adequate course materials already existed, and the approximate number ofstudents per annum who would take the course was known. Thirty graduate students of instructional design anddevelopment were asked to read each scenario and use one or another version of CBT Analyst (paper- orcomputer-based) to come to a decision on whether CBT should be considered a delivery medium for the course.

The results of the study were interesting. No great differences were found between the computer- and paper-based versions. Regarding speed of resolution of problems, some of the students were consistently faster on thecomputer-based version, but a similar number were consistently faster when using the paper questionnaire.Procedural and computational error rates were insignificant, as was mentioned earlier.

However, the reliability of the final recommendations did not seem to be very high. On each of the four casestudies, there was significant variability in the final recommendations received from the job-aid. For one of thefour cases, students received recommendations across the whole spectrum of possibilities, from "THIS COURSEIS AN EXCELLENT CANDIDATE FOR CBT' to THIS COURSE IS NOT A CANDIDATE FOR CBT." Giv, thatthis was not due to procedural or computational errors, it must be due to variance in the way that individualstudents responded to the 16 specific questions posed by CBT Analyst. As all 30 students were working f,T,Tr, thesame cases, their interpretation of these scenarios must have varied considerably. The scenarios were written insuch a way as to replicate the amount of interpretation of given data that is typical in a real-life setting whereinstructional methods and media decisions are taken.

Similar results have been observed in the field testing of other expert systems. These observations suggest thatthere is some serious rethinking to be done in relation to expectations of improved instructional designerperformance when expert decision-making support tools are used.

My own feeling is that the tools are as yet unreliable, but are not useless. They should, however, be presentedto the user as a "model to think with," rather than a "substitute for thinking." The presentation of a simplenotnecessarily complete or comprehensivechecklist in the guise of an "expert system," with all the mystique thatcomputer presentation may have for some users, is perhaps a disservice. This is not to argue against thepresentation of an instructional design decision-making tool by means of a computer. It is rather to question howone designs and presents the tool. A more transparent presentation, showing the checklist for what it is , may bebetter. A more thorough back-up of the checklist, with fuller discussion of the rationalebehind the questions, mayimprove reliability by eliminating misunderstandings on the part of the user. Before we know it, we are creatinga hypertext version of a book on the expert domain, rather than substituting for the book an unreliable expertsystem. Please send us any comments you may have on this issue.

28 13i Instructional Developments

2 Structural Communication (SC)In Vol. 1, No. 2 of Instructional Developments, the job-aids section was devoted to describing the potential useof Structural Communication materials in education and training. An example of the method was included,adapted from an exercise first published by Kieran Egan (1976). A discussion of one of three problems waspresented as an illustration of the method in action. A response coupon was included, so that interested readersmight try their hand at the exercise, mail in their responses, and engage in a distance-seminar on the topic. Wepresent here the comments and the discussion guide for Problems 2, 3, and 4. In this exercise there are noabsolutely correct or incorrect responses. Rather, we are exchanging vie .points on the topic of SC and itspotential for implementing some of the currently fashionable cognitive-psychology-based instructional prin-ciples in practical and simply-developed self-instructional materials.

Readers should refer to the Job-Aids section of Volume 1, No. 2, before reading on. You may wish to review the descriptionsof SC presented in Maps 1 to 4. Then, in Map 5, four problems are presented. All can be responded to in a ery open-endedmanner, by use of some combination of some of the 24 items in the Response Matrix. The discussion of Problem #1 was

presented in Volume 1, No. 2. We now discuss the other three problems.

The Discussion Guide presented here will guide the reader through the ensuing Discussion Comments. However,we strongly recommend that you make your own response to the problem before proceeding on to the Discussion.

Problem #2Discussion Guide


IF YOU THEN YOU MIGHTWANT TO READ

INCLUDED any three or more of 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12,15, 16, 17, 1, and 24

14,COMMENT G

OMITTED any two or more of 4, 5, and 23 COMMENT H

OMITTED 2,13, or 21 COMMENT I

INCLUDED any two or more of 1, 3,10, and 20 COMMENT J


OMITTED 3,15, or 22 COMMENT K

OMITTED 9 and 24 COMMENT L

OMITTED 12 and 17 COMMENT M

OMITTED any two or more of 2, 4, 5,13, and 17 COMMENT N

INCLUDED more than two but less than six of 1, 6,7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23. COMMENT 0

INCLUDED all the items COMMENT P

OMITTED all the items COMMENT Q

Volume 2 (1) Spring /Summer 1991 29



OMITTED 1, 3, 11, 19, or 24 COMMENT R

OMITTED any two or more of 2, 8, 7,12, and 20 COMMENT S

OMITTED 15 and 18 COMMENT T

OMITTED 14 COMMENT U

INCLUDED any three or more of 4, 5, 9, 10, 17, and 22 COMMENT V

INCLUDED any two or more of 6,16, 21, and 23 COMMENT W

The feedback comments (G to W) which follow, were written by Kieran Egan for the original 1976 presentationof this exercise. Comments A to F, which refer to problem #1, have already been presented in Vol. 1, No. 2 of thisjournal. Readers may note how the same item from the response matrix may figure as part of a valid responsefor more than one of the problems posed. However, the inclusion or omission of this item generates differentauthor comments depending on the problem. This illustrates the structural nature of the communication processthat this tecitnique generateshence its name.

Discussion PointsG. Well, if you've been directed to this comment, I supposethe wording of the problem cannot have been preciseenough.I wanted to distinguish between the contributions that SCcan make to the kind of intellectual activity that a teacherwould be happy to encourage in class, and its more practicalor technical contributions to allowing greater flexibility inorganizing the structure of the classes. I admit this isn't tooclear, or realistic, a distinction; the kinds of intellectualactivities made possible will have implications for the way

the teacher will organize lessons. But this problem isconcerned less with the characteristics of the techniquethat may indirectly affect class structure than with thosethat offer direct possibilities for various kinds of organiza-tional strategies. Leak again at the response matrix andomit from your response those items that don't suggestimmediate strategic advantages for the teacher, then re-cycle through the discussion guide.

H. Certain strategic advantages result from the "economy"of SC's form. SC units permit various kinds of educationalfunctions to be performed more or less simultaneously; aunit may engage the student in role playing and, while helearns from simulating some educationally significant taskin a structured format, the teacher may diagnose from therecord of his responses something about his rate of prog-ress, his learning style, his areas of misunderstanding, andsoon. This economy of function, combined with an in-builtmotivating form, recommends SC to teachers.

If you have been guided to this comment after rigorouslypruning from your response all merely indirect contribu-tions to SC's ability to aid the teacher in planning classes,you may feel that I am arguing for things that are no moredirect than some of the items you had included earlier.The line separating direct from indirect in this context isnot all that sharp, of course, but I'd want to draw it aboutthe point represented by the combination of items 5, 13,and 24.

I. Programmed Instruction is a tool that can help ease thepressures of teaching thirty or more students in a class.Students who arebehind or ahead of the rest of theclass canwork by themselves, using programmed materials. SC is aneven more valuable tool for such circumstances. Being self-contained, a study unit maybe used by individual studentsas desired. Because of the potential for fruitful group work,it is possible to break the class down and have a number ofgroups working on the same, similar, or different materi-

alswhatever suits their needs. SC has the further ad-vantage of being dissectable; that is, the teacher maydecide to give only the problems and matrix to somestudents, covering the presentation and discussion inclass in her own way; or she may give the presentationand problems, or the problems, matrix, and comments inpreparation for a more detailed class discussion, and soon. This versatility of SC adds to the strategic possibilitiesopen to the teacher.


J. I would omit from my response to this problem items thatoffer only indirect advantages to the teacher who is plan-ning classes. Hopefully, all the items in the matrix would bereasons why teachers might want to use SC. Here, though,we are concentrating on those factors that contribute di-rectly to the range of strategic possibilities opened to theteacher in planning the form of a class. Take a morerigorous look at the items you have selected and see

whether you might not want to drop a couple on thegrounds of indirectness. That SC can focus thought onrelevant material, measure certain intellectual skills objec-tively, and diagnose student responses to reveal misun-derstandings and biases, I would tend to consider just overthe boundary of direct contributions. Maybe that's tooharsh. I guess this would be rather a disagreement aboutthe interpretation of the problem than about SC as such.

K. I know of no other technique that allows the studentsuch freedom in responding and yet so precisely controlshis progress from that response to reinforcing, corrective,or other material, while continuing to build an unambigu-ous message. Nor do I know of any technique that at thesame time allows the potential for reliably measuringsophisticated intellectual skills. These seem to me to lie at

the heart of SC's uniqueness. It would probably be idle tooffer any further argument for these pointsthat unique-ness has been both the reason for and the subject of thisbook. Counterarguments, if you disagree with me, mustcome in the form of examples of other means of achievingthese ends. If they exist, I don't know about them.

L. I think SC offers a means both of getting the student toreplicate the author's understanding of a topic, and also ofallowing a comparison of the student's and author's un-derstandings. Comparing may be one of the steps towardachieving the replication, especially if discussion and recy-cling the student through the matrix a number of times isnecessary.

Of course this process can fail, and often must. You maythink that the terms, "replicate" and "compare" are toostrong, suggesting more than the technique can possiblyachieve. Maybe. However, I don't know what terms wouldbe more appropriate. Only if we insist on a strict interpre-tation of the terms would I concede their inappropriate-

ness, and I think my use of them here is fair: the structurethe successful student composes will be like that built bythe author into the structuring of the unit; it will reflect hisown understanding of the topic. The discussion guide andcomments allow a comparison of the student's under-standing with the author's by clarifying how certain termsare usedas hereor what additional items are required,how items are related, and so on.

I think that kind of replication of understanding is uniqueto SC. The comparison of author's and student's under-standing is perhaps possible to achieve by other means,but certainly not with such economy of time and space.

M. The student responds by composing from a set of items,all relevant to the general theme, a set of inter-relatedsubthemes according to prescribed viewpoints, ensuringthereby the emergence of the structure of the theme in thecourse of responding. This seems unique to SC. A talentedteacher or poet might achieve the same end, but even that

seems doubtful given the nature of the material withwhich SC is usually concerned. Certain concepts of chemi-cal bonding seem rarely to have provided the inspirationfor poetry. I wouldn't want to push this too hard, but Ithink these factors contribute to an understanding of SC'suniqueness.

N. The conciseness of SC makes learning experiences pos-sible in a variety of situations. The flexibility of the tech-nique's form, which allows sections to be detached,eachmaking a different contribution to different activities, also

makes it unique. A gifted teacher might duplicate thesefunctions, adding that further flexibility only a live teachercan provide. But rarely does a teacher have time for thissort of interaction with individuals.

0. You have included a set of items here that seem some-what over-generous to SC, or under-generous to alter-native forms of programmed instruction, textbooks, or

other means of teaching. Think of other modes of presen-tation at their best, then reassess your response. See whetheryou wouldn't lop off a few items.

P. Well, I can hardly agree with you. Of course, you areright that the full uniqueness of SC is to be seen in thecombination of all the items. However, it may have been a

more useful strategy on your part to be more selective andinclude in your response only the items that are particu-larly strong examples of the uniqueness of SC.


140BEST COPY AVAILABLE

31

Q. See comment P, to which those who gave exactly the difference of opinion regarding the uniqueness of SC.opposite response were directed. We obviously have a

R. The kind of response made to an SC problem leaves a"trace," that is, the numbers corresponding to the set ofitems the student considers the best answer. This "trace" ofhis response allows us to draw certain inferences about hismisunderstandings, his biases, his progress, his level ofachievement, how well he is able to organize the material,and so on. By analyzing these, or preanalyzing possible

responses, we may prepare corrective or reinforcing com-ments; we may compare the student's understandingwith the author's; we may produce scores which will be ofvalue in making decisions about the student's futurecourses, etc. These advantages seem to follow directlyfrom the kind of response SC calls forth.

S. The response left by the student makes a number ofstrategies possible for future work. It allows guidance ofthe individual student to further material for which hisresponse indicates a need, or it can serve as a directingmechanism to a group discussionin both cases probablyleading the student(s) beyond the level of understandingachieved either from reading the presentation or from

working through the problems and matrix themselves. Itdoes this by focusing more precisely on the relevantmaterial and continuing to refine the discriminations thestudent was asked to make from the matrix. Without therecord of the responses, these functions would necessar-ily be absent from the technique.

T. SC doesn't just allow a variety of response strategies tothe student, it also allows the author to prepare a variety ofresponse strategies to the student's response. This varietyof ways of dealing with individual responses is important

for ensuring that the communication is achieved clearlyand efficiently with as much richness as desired. The lackof the student's response would surely impoverish whatone might securely communicate.

U. There is a degree of unavoidable ambiguity in construct-ing the items. If this were a teaching unit, I would use thisopportunity to clarify my meaning and direct you throughthe matrix again with a clearer understanding of what eachitem signifies. The items are useful for communication only

when we are clear about their meaning. Without therecorded response this would be impossible in SC, and awhole dimension of precision would be lost. For thisreason I consider item 14 essential to a response to thisproblem.

V. I think you are being either too generous to SC's re-sponse mechanism or are confusing the problem's require-ments. We are concerned here with those activities orfunctions made possible by the kind of response that

results from working through the problems and matrix.Look again at your response and consider whether therearen't a number of items that really don't follow fromhaving available a typical SC response.

You seem to have interpreted a number of items differ-ently from me. As this isn't a teaching unit, I'm not veryperturbed by this. I can see interpretations of the items thatbrought you to this comment that would make them appro-

priate, if somewhat peripheral, to building a picture of theadvantages following from the response mechanism ofSC. I guess this is a non-comment.

* Alex Romiszowski is a Professor of IDD&E, andDirector of the Training Systems Institute at SyracuseUniversity.

141



A Journal of the School of Education at Syracuse UniversityFall 1991/Spring 1992 Volume 3, Number 1

Feature Articles

Research as a Chain ofReasoning

Research Reviews

Affective Objectives: A Discussionof Some Controversies

The Writings of David Krathwohl:A Scholar's Eyeview of hisContribution to the Literature

Methods of Social Science andEducational Research: AnIntegrated Approach

"11111111111111

Review of David R. Krathwohl,How to Prepare a Research Proposal:Guidelines for Funding andDissertations in the Social andBehavioral Sciences, Third Edition,1988, Syracuse University Press,Syracuse, New York


David R. Krathwohl

Cheryl Ackerson

Charles R. Dills

Chillies R. DillsVincent Tinto

Deborah M. FournierNick L. Smith

Research in Hypertext: Focus on Lydia HaJnosz DotyStructure in Literacy

Job-AidsAlexander RomiszowskiAndrew Abrahamson

142 school of education!SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY =I iiii


Editorial BoardJohn CentraRobert DiamondPhil DoughtyDon ElyRoger HiemstraPaul PedersenDan Sage




Technical AssistanceShamili Ajgaonkar

Sandi ford



Permission to copy, republish,or distribute, and all otherqueries should be addressed to:


13244-2340(315) 443-34E02 S zs 7FAX (315) 443-5732

© 1992 Syracuse University

This is a double-size issue of Instructional Developments, cover-ing two semesters of our work in the School of Education. As usual, it hastwo themes. Though not specifically related, these themes can be seen ascomplementary: one looks backwards reviewing the considerable contri-bution to our field of the work and writing of Professor David R. Krathwohl;the second looks forward in an attempt to see educational rhyme andreason in the latest technological bandwagons multimedia andhypermedia.

It is most appropriate that we should devote one of our principlethemes to the work of Dave Krathwohl, given that the publication of thisissue coincides with Dave's retirement from our faculty, and also with thepublication of his most recent book entitled: Methods of Social Science andEducational Research: An Integrated Approach. Dave has based the featurearticle of this issue on the organizing framework for this book, which viewsresearch as a 'chain of reasoning'.

Elsewhere in the issue, we present a review of this book, from theviewpoint; of both student and professor. Another of Dave's influentialbooks, dealing with 'how to prepare a research proposal' is also reviewed.To round off our 'farewell Dave' message we also include a short personalreview by 'Charles Dills, of the influence of Dave Krathwohl's publishedworks on students and researchers in the field of instruction.

Finally, still related to Dave Krathwohl's contribution to our field,Cheryl Ackerson analyses recent literature on instruction in the affectivedomain. She compares and contrasts two distinct strands discernable inthe literature. One is a concern with the general climate of the teaching/learning situation and with techniques that foster a general positiveattitude to ward learning. The other is a concern with the attainment ofspecific affective objectives, related to the content or the overall goals of agiven program. The first of these bodies of literature bristles with a varietyof (conventional and unconventional) general suggestions on how to planand implement a 'user-friendly' form of instruction. The second is morefirmly based on systematic instructional design, development, and evalu-ation. In this area, the pioneering taxonomies of educational objectives andrelated evaluation mel.hods developed by Benjamin Bloom, DavidKrathwohl, and their collaborators, still stand as cornerstones aroundwhich innumerable curriculum and course design projects are structured.

The second main theme of this issue is concerned with the emerg-ing instructional technologies spawned by recent developments in com-puting and telecommunications. This is a theme that we shall develop overseveral issues. In this first pall, we take a somewhat critical and question-ing look at the new 'buzzwords' of 'Hypertext', 'Hypermedia', and 'Inter-active Multimedia'.

First, Lydia Doty reviews some of the recent research on the use ofhypertext in education. She compares the philosophical arguments forhypertext as a 'cognitively more appropriate' manner of presenting infor-mation (that reflects the way knowledge is stored in the human mind) withthe pragmatic arguments for hypertext as an effective and efficient 'infor-mation management tool'. She notes that the current research base isinconclusive on both counts and proceeds to relate the hypertext literatureto the other existing bodies of research on writing and rhetoric.

The Job-Aids section follows on by developing a meaningfulstructure for the many overlapping and much abused concepts that springup in this 'new technology'. This leads into some suggestions on how togo about selecting and designing useful applications of Interactive Multi-media for education.

Research as a Chain of Reasoning'

David R. Krathwohl *

Several federal reviewers are chatting about journalarticles that were final reports of projects they hadfunded:

"I had a hard time with that one. She started right offdescribing her data and it was only later that I learnedhow and where she had gathered it. In the end, she hadanswered all my questions, but I guess I have a set ofcustomary expectations about how a report of researchshould be written. I'm surprised this journal permittedsuch a deviation."

"Move over, I have the same expectations, there are a lotof us in that 'rut.' I must say though, yours was anexception; that last one I reviewed was a dream. Every-thing was there and in good logical order."

"The report is the one thing for which we don't providea standard federal form. I guess it is so the researchersare free to write their report in any way that makessense to them. Sometime I wish we did enforce aparticular sequence or outline, especially for those re-ports that are not in journal article form. lt. would makethem easier and faster to read and critique."

"Whoa!! Come on now you don't really! There is morethan enough bureaucratic regulation around here! Givethem some freedom."

"Okay, I'll grant we don't want to stifle creativity. Butmost journals create expectations in their readers andauthors that certain parts of the research will be re-ported in a particular order. I think we should too. Itmakes such good logical sense to build one's case thatway."

"Yes, and if there are headings, one knows just where tolook for certain items."

"Sure, but even without headings, the organization ofthe write-up provides an orderly sequence so one canfollow the argument and find what one needs."

This conversation simply reinforces the fact that re-search is a social process; the researcher is communicat-ing with her audience to properly convey the study andhow carefully it was done. Similarly, the reader orreviewer is trying to follow it: raising and answeringquestions as the report is read, judging whether it doesindeed support the knowledge claim that is being as-serted. It is not surprising therefore that a ratherstandard form or sequence of presentation has evolved.The standard has been informal, and accepted by au-thors, instead of being required by journals; thoughsome journals rarely seem to depart from it. Depending

Volume 3 (1) Fall 1991 /Spring 1992

on the journal's past record, it may be expected byreviewers.

Articles that present a research-based knowledge claimfor a generalization are typically presented as a logicalargument. Its parts correspond to what might bethought of as a prototypical or model chain of reason-ing. That chain of reasoning applies to any researcharticle, however. Even if information is not presentedin the usual order, all the parts of the chain are requiredto supply adequate information to make the case. Onemay ask, "Is this true even of qualitative researchstudies which use an inductive method to gather andanalyze their data?" If the purpose of the study is notmainly description, but that of presenting and support-ing one or more generalizations, then a qualitativestudy is usually presented deductively. A picture ofthe chain of reasoning appears as Figure 1.

Explanation or rationale

Design

Situa-tio

Analysis

Explanation or rationale of next study

Figure 1: A prototypical chain of reasoning

This chain of reasoning serves as a general model of thelogical argument. To make the research chain of rea-soning more than an abstract conceptualization, let ussee how it applies to an experiment. In the case of an

144

experiment which is usually planned deductively, wecan examine it as a model both for reporting and foranalyzing the choices available at each link in the chain.

The Chain of Reasoning Applied toan ExperimentConsider the example shown in Figure 2 adapted fromKrathwohl (1985). The research literature suggeststhere are naturally occurring zones of activity in theclassroom normally occupied by high achievers. Therationale for the study which grows out of this litera-ture is that maybe this phenomenon could be turnedinto a treatment for those who achieve poorly by plac-ing them where high achievers normally

Most acheivingstudents prefer tobe seated frontand center of thedassroom(Wulff, 1977, Becker et al., 1973)

1

There are action zonesin the classroom andthose who sit front andcenter interact moreoften with one anotherand with the instructor(Hare and Bates, 1963)

Links topreviousstudies

If there are action zones in class discussion,seat placement in the most active zone (frontand center), where the high achievers prefer

sit, ought to increase achievement

Rationale

I Hypothesis

Seating poor students frontand center will incease theirachievement

Figure 2: The first links in the chain of reasoning of a classroomseating placement study

Where this is an already published study, the choices inthe chain of reasoning would seem obviouseasy onesto make. Like looking through binoculars focused on aparticular phenomenon, one's attention is circumscribedand limited to the characteristics of the study as re-ported. But, when you turn the binoculars around andlook through the other end you see the phenomena ofinterest imbedded in a distracting context where it isdifficult to tell figure from ground. That is how it iswhen one considers a study in the context of its devel-opment; the choices are numerous and their combina-tions escalate exponentially. Figure 3 shows, in the nextlinks of the chain, a sampling of the alternatives thatface the researcher in translating this simple hypothesisinto a design. While only touching on the possibilities,it gives an idea of the decisions involved in designchoice. The chosen design in the figure suggests a set ofreasonable alternatives. These might be combined intoa study that would lead to a final link, the conclusion.

CollSecoEl

College students, Economics class, random sample ofpoor students mixed into center with good ones, finalexam, random assignment to control andexperimental classes, semester

Chosen design I

Figure 3: Design choices and the chosen design in the classroomseating placement study

It, in turn, might then be the basis for another study asindicated in our prototypical chain of reasoning. Let usexamine each of the links in more detail.

Explanation, Rationale, Theory, or Point ofViewHow does the typical article begin? The first para-graphs usually describe the rationale underlying therelationship the researcher intends to demonstrate.They discuss previous research studies, showing theirrelationship to this study and indicating how this study"stands on their shoulders." Thus, this study mightbegin with a statement about how most teachers haveprobably noticed that discussions seem more generallyto involve students seated in the front and center of theclassroom than those in the periphery. This suggests apattern that might be used as a treatment to helpunderachieving students. One would cite Hare andBates (1963) to the effect there are action zones in theclassroom and that those students who sit in the frontand center seem to interact more often with one anotherand with the instructor. One could then reinforce thiswith Wulff (1977) and Becker et al. (1973) by noting thatmost achieving students prefer to be seated in front andcenter. Does this contribute to their achieving? That isthe question to be answered by this study which hy-pothesizes that it does.

The explanation, rationale, theory or point of view underly-ing a hypothesized relationship is very important sinceit is the basis for understanding and interpreting therest of the presentation. An explanation indicates howthe relationship works. A rationale indicates the basisfor thinking that it works this way. A theory indicates

2 14 L) Instructional Developments

how this relationship fits into a larger scheme of things,how these variables relate to others. A point of viewindicates how this researcher views this relationship inrelation to how others have. In building this section ofthe study, one draws upon previous relevant work,selectively citing it to indicate that this idea is not a "boltfrom the blue," but is solidly based on what has gonebefore. In Figure 1, this is represented by the combina-tion of the small links at the top of the figure labeled"Links to previous research studies." The large link towhich they are fastened represents the explanation,rationale, theory, or point of view which is based onthem. Figure 2 translates Figure 1 into the particularstudies cited and the rationale derived from th-m forthe study.

Questions, Hypotheses, ModelsJoined to the "explanation, rationale, etc.," in Figure 1is the "questions, hypotheses, models" link. In ourexperimental study, the hypothesis is: "Seating poorstudents front and center will increase their achieve-ment." It is a hypothesis since we know enough to gobeyond merely stating a question that tells us where tolook. We know what we shall look for, improvedachie'c ement. We don't know how much achievement,nor exactly how it is linked to a certain amount of thetreatment, so we can't make a precise prediction. That isthe next level up when we know even more about thephenomena. When we can link all, or a great many, ofthe variables in the situation (the length of treatment,how students would be arranged in the center, how theteacher would react to them, etc.) and can then make amore precise prediction, then we have a model. In thiscase, there is enough previous research to suggest theremaybe a relationship, but not enough to make a preciseprediction or build a model. We have more thanenough for a question which tells us where to look butnot what to expect. So we have a hypothesis.

At this level in the chain of reasoning, we have aquestion, hypotheses, or model, depending on howmuch previous research gives us a basis for knowingwhat will happen?

Research DesignAfter stating the expected relationship, the article wouldbegin describing how the study was carried out. Car-rying out the study means translating the various facetsof the presumed relationship into aspects that, so tospeak, dramatize it. A playwright, having described aplot as "Susie falls in love with John," must then writea script that translates that into a scene where individu-als move to certain places at certain times, say certainthings that convey "love," etc. Just so, the researchermust translate in this study such terms as "poor stu-dent," "good students," experimental class." But, thatis not all that has to be translated.


We think of there being six aspects to look for when weexamine the translation of the hypothesis link into astudy. Together they constitute the design of the study,and are represented in the six rings interlinked withdesign. These rings correspond to the "five W's and anH" that all journalists learn to include in a story: who,when, where, what, why, and how? For research wewant to know: (1) Who was involved in the study(subjects), (2) Where (situation), (3) Why did an effectoccur (what was the causethe treatment), (4) Whateffect occurred (observations or measures), (5) How dowe know an effect occurred (basis for sensing attributesor changes tells us), and, finally, (6) When, that is, inwhat sequence did the various parts of the study takeplace (procedurewho got what treatment and whatmeasures or observations and when and how thesewere given).

Let us examine the choices made in these six facets ofthe study as indicated in the ring labeled chosen design.Yo truly operationalize the choices we will have to bemuch more specific than even the choices indicated inFigure 3. For example, we might specify that thesubjects are sophomore college students in economicsclasses at Zerbino University enrolled in the introduc-tory course in economics, Econ 201, a large multisectioncourse. "Poor students" are those who achieved agrade point average of 1.75 or lower their first year.This translates the subjects and situation links intochoices.

The cause or treatment (the "why" of the study) is amixture of four poor and four "good" students (opera-tionally defined as students with a first-year GPA of 3.0or better) randomly selected from those enrolled inEcon 201. The first day of the experimental class theinstructor begins by assigning these eight individualsto seats front and center, acting as though he were goingto assign everyone to seats. Then exclaiming "This istaking too much time!" tells everybody to take seatsquickly and then sign the seating chart on the clipboardas it is passed around the room. In the control class,students are allowed to take seats as they enter. Theysimilarly sign the seating chart on the clipboard. Bothcontrol and experimental sections have the same in-structor who indicates the assigned seats are so that hecan learn their names more quickly and get to know theclass. He asks them to keep the same seats for thesemester. This translates part of the procedure: indicat-ing who gets what treatment and how. Note again howmuch specificity must be added to operationalize thetreatment.

The observation or measure by which the effect issensed is the common final examination given atsemester's end and jointly prepared by all the sectioninstructors. This translates the rest of the procedure.

146 3

The "how" by which the effect was sensedthe "basisfor sensing attributes or changes"is the comparisonof the achievement of students in the experimental andcontrol class sections on the course final examination.Random selection of the students and random assign-ment to treatment and control groups helps rule outcertain alternative explanations of the effect.

All the important information regarding the designand structure of the study is usually presented in themid-section of the write-up, typically under a headingof "procedure." The concepts used in the explanationthat were pulled together into a hypothesis, have beentranslated into actions. These are the basis for gather-ing the data for analysis.

Data Analysis and ConclusionThe data of the study would be presented next showingwhether the hypothesized relationship is demonstratedoverall, whether there are differences among the sec-tions, and, if there are, what characteristics might ac-count for them. The latter helps us build a fullerunderstanding of how the treatment acts, and whatvariables moderate it through potentiating it or weak-ening it. This, in turn, is summarized in the conclusion,the last link in the chain of reasoning for this study.

The Next StudyThe last three links shown in Figure 1 actually belong tothe next study which builds upon this. In that study, thetop one of those links is one of those "links to previousstudies," rings shown at the top of the figure represent-ing this study. It would use the data from this one toundergird some further explanation of this or a relatedphenomenon.

In summary, the chain of reasoning begins with links tothe results of previous studies that are used to buildforward to an explanation, rationale, or point of view.Depending on how much previous knowledge is found,one draws from it a question, hypothesis, prediction ormodel. This, in turn, is translated into a design whichconsists of choices of subjects, situations, treatment (orindependent variable), observation or measures, basisfor sensing attributes or changes, and procedure. Thedesign guides one in the collection of data which per-mits one, by data analysis, to demonstrate a relation-ship. The demonstration of the relationship and con-clusion, in turn, may be picked up by a new study.

Four Useful Characteristics of theChain AnalogyIf, as most chains are, the chain of reasoning were madeof metal, it would have certain physical properties.These, by analogy, are useful in understanding the useof the chain of reasoning in re earch. Three proposi-

4

tions, one of which is a corollary of the first, flow fromthis analogy (Krathwohl, 1985). Let us examine them.

A Chain is Only as Strong as its Weakest LinkJust as a metal chain breaks at the weakest link, so doesan argument for a knowledge claim. As much as anypart of the argument for a knowledge claim can befaulted, the whole chain is weakened and one is lesslikely to accept the claim. If the fault is serious enough,the chain fails and the claim is rejected. For example,suppose one believes that, rather than because it in-creases their achievement, good students choose to sitfront and center because it gives them greater visibilityto display their abilitiesit is an "ego trip." For suchpersons, the stated rationale might be unconvincing.Suppose this belief is further combined with the factthat the study was done on only either a single pair ofsections or only a few sections. If one has any realizationof the great variability among class sections due simplyto random factors, one might prefer to accept the alter-native explanation that the apparent confirmation ofthe hypothesis is merely a chance occurrence. The chainof reasoning fails to be convincing.

All Links in the Chain Should Be EquallyStrong

A second characteristic of a metal chain, and a corollaryof the first, is that all links in the chain should be built toabout the same strength. This is, of course, typical of ametal chain; one does not find a set of strong linksinterrupted by a small thin link. Yet, that sometimeshappens in a study's chain of reasoning without onerealizing it occurred or its seriousness. It makes littlesense to have one link in the chain thick enough toanchor a building in a hurricane and others as thin as adecorative gold chain. Thus, there would have beenlittle point in allocating considerable resources to theobservation and measure link (maybe constructing aspecial final examination that would emphasize eco-nomic reasoning in contrast to memory of facts) if onehad not done something to assure that the instructionwas designed to give practice in improved economicreasoning.

In whose judgment should the links be of equal strength?One's audience makes the final judgment; one is build-ing a chain intended to achieve a consensus about theinterpretation of the findings. One must satisfy one'sown personal standards first, but the interpretation ofthe data being advanced will be accepted by others onlyif their standards are met as well. Anticipating whattheir thresholds are is a problem, but it is one that cannotbe avoided. Knowing these standards is part of thesocialization process which maintains science as a so-cial process.

14'x' Instructional Developments

The real problem occurs when one's personal prioritiesabout what to strengthen differ from those of otherpersons, and the resources are not sufficient to satisfyboth. Resources are always limited, usually too muchso. This is a situation where trade-offs are required andin which entirely satisfying all parties is not possible.One tries, as best one can, to find the choice that opti-mizes satisfaction for all.

This is one of many trade-offs hidden in the researchprocess. Because researchers differ about trade-offsolutions, one is faced with more than one "right" wayto do a study, an unanticipated characteristic of science.It is a characteristic that makes many people uncomfort-able; indeed, some will argue there is only one best wayto do a studya position you will find is difficult tosupport. But, such arguments are also part of the socialprocess of research. They get resolved as there areefforts to replicate or build on studies. As such effortsare successful a consensus builds around the trustwor-thiness of the generalization and it is accepted as knowl-edge.

Each Link in the Chain is Determined by thePrior OneThe third characteristic is a statement of the way theinformation must be presented to logically link it to-gether. Each link is dependent on the preceding one.The explanation or rationale is built upon previousresearch. The question, hypothesis, or model grows outof that rationale or explanation. As earlier indicated, theextent of knowledge about the problem determineswhether a question, hypothesis, or model is formulated.So the second link is dependent upon the first.

The next link, the design of the study, is a translation ofthe prior link into the operations which constitute thestudy. What can be shown in the next link, demonstra-tion of the relationship, is dependent on the designchoices. This, in turn, leads to the conclusion, which isclearly dependent on how the data turned out.

By the way each step advances the argument for theknowledge claim, it sets boundaries for the next; eachstep is shaped by the argument to that point. Thus,being aware of the desired breadth for the lower links,we need to build in sufficient breadth in the upper ones.If one wished to generalize beyond economics, onemight include a variety of different subject matters andinstructors in the experiment.

Where Links Share the Load, One of ThemMay be Strengthened to Compensate forWeakness in AnotherThe last characteristic of the chain is not quite as obvi-ous. Though it rarely occurs with mr.tal chains, it isimportant. Where several horizontal links across the

Volume 3 (1) Fall 1991/Spring 1992

chain's breadth connect the links above and belowthem, each of the horizontal links shares the load.Therefore, a weak link may be tolerated if another ofthe horizontal links is made stronger. In the researchchain of reasoning, this situation occurs at the designlevel where all six facets of design together link thedesign as a whole to the demonstration of the relation-ship. For example, in the study being considered, if onebelieved that the treatment might be effective, but onlyweakly so, then one might compensate by increasingthe number of classes in the study.

The Chain Applies to Reports of Research;It May or May Not Apply to the ResearchProcessIt probably is clear to everyone, especially qualitativeresearchers, that while the chain of reasoning may welldescribe how research is reported, it is not a descriptionof how a typical research study is carried out. Certainlya typical qualitative study is not done deductively, butprobably most experiments don't start at the top andproceed through the links either. Sometimes one hasan interesting sample of students, or a new measureand wonders what one can do with itone starts in themiddle of the chain to develop the study. Or one findsleads in the literature that makes one think one has aproblem, starts to translate it, and finds one must goback and answer some new questionsoperationalizing variables makes one think concretelyand often results in many iterations of a study's design.Sometimes a researcher picks a single finding out of amass of data and constructs a report around it, makingit appear as though this were the whole study ratherthan just one small part of a larger one. So althoughthere are occasions when a study is designed from thetop down, as often as not, the chain of reasoning is amodel for the research report rather than the process.

SummaryAll studies setting forth a generalization as true areexpected to supply certain information which al-lows readers to evaluate the study and make ajudgment whether to accept the interpretations ofthe evidence being advanced.Most, though not all, studies follow a standardsequence in presenting the findings of their re-search. If they do not follow the sequence, theynevertheless include the same data.The case for a generalization is presented (or couldbe arranged) in a sequence which is a chain ofreasoning.A universal or prototypical model of such a chain ofreasoning may be constructed which contains theessential elements of the chain.

148

Such a model begins with an explanation, rationale,theory, or point of view which is linked tothat is,grows out ofprevious research studies and writ-ing.The generalization which is being advanced flowsfrom this explanation, rationale, theory, or point ofview.The stronger the previous evidence, the more de-tailed in its development, the more comprehensivein its breadth, the stronger the explanation, ratio-nale, theory, or point of view, the stronger the nextlink that flows from it.With the strongest prior knowledge, one can pose amodel that links many variables. With less priorknowledge one may still be able to make a reason-ably precise prediction of how big an effect willoccur, as well as where and how it will happen. Withstill less, one may have a hypothesis that describeswhat direction things may take and how they arerelated. And with the least prior knowledge, aquestion focuses one's attention on certain aspects ofthe phenomena of particular interest which presum-ably have potential for guiding further research.The question, hypothesis, or model is translated intothe design of the study. This results in makingchoices of who (subjects), where (situation), why(treatment), what (observations or measures), how(basis for sensing attributes or changes), and when(procedure).These choices determine how one gathers data whichdemonstrate whatever relationship is being studied.A conclusion is drawn to represent the most appro-priate interpretation of the data.The chain of reasoning model is analogous to a metalchain and has some of the same properties:

It is only as strong as its weakest link.All links should be of the same strength exceptwhere they share the load.The nature of each prior link in the chainconstrains the nature of successive links.Where links share the load, as they do between"design" and "analysis" one or more of thoselinks may be made stronger to compensate forthe weakness in one or more of the others.

Footnotes' This article was adapted from Chapter 5 of the author's textbook, TheMethods of Social Science and Educational Research: An Integrated Ap-proach, which is scheduled for publication by Longman in 1992.Copyright 1991Z, D. R. Krathwohl.

2 The chapter from which this material is taken bases the discussionon an article reproduced in the text. That article interposes a para-graph at this point in the chain which summarizes the rest of thearticle. The point is then made, referring to that article, that the chainof reasoning is a format to be followed in presenting one's case, butnot "...slavishly or rigidly. Each author adapts the format to the

6

requirements of the readers. In this case, this article appeared in ajournal...predominantly devoted to [natural sdence] ...reports. Non-social scientists might be interested enough to read a few paragraphs,but not...the whole article. Placing the summary early, right after therationale and hypothesis is clever writing..." (Krathwohl, In press).Because this summary of the chapter is based on a different study, thepoint is made in this footnote instead of the presentation above.

3 This journalist's ditty, borrowed from Rudyard Kipling, may beuseful mnemonic for the six facets of design:

I keep six honest serving menThey taught me all I knew:Their names are What and Why and WhenAnd How and Where and Who.

For research application,WhoWhereWhy (the cause)

What (the effect)

How

When

References

this translates into:Subjects (Who are they?)Situation (Where did it take place?)Treatment (This is why something wouldbe expected to occur)Observations or measures (These tell whatoccurred)Basis for sensing characteristics andchanges (This tells us how we know aneffect occurred)Procedure (When did what subjects receivewhat treatment, which observations ormeasures did they receive, and where didthey receive the treatment, measures and/or observations?)

Becker, F.D., et. al. (1973). College classroom ecology.Sociometry, 36, 514-525.

Hare, P. and Bates, R. (1963). Seating position andsmall group interaction. Sociometry, 26, 480-487.

Krathwohl, D.R. (In press). The methods of social scienceand educational research: An integrated approach. WhitePlains, NY: Longman.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1985). Social and behavioral scienceresearch: A new framework for conceptualizing, implement-ing, evaluating research studies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wulff, K.M. (1977). Relationship of assigned classroomseating area to achievement variables. Educational Re-search Quarterly, 2, 56-62.

* David R. Krathwohl was a Hannah Hammond Profes-sor of Education and is now Emeritus at SyracuseUniversity.


Affective Objectives: A Discussion of SomeControversies

Cheryl Ackerson *

IntroductionThe literature on the affective domain (I reviewed over200 abstracts) seems to be pursuing two different al-though connected ideas: (a) affective education, as atype of education, and (2) education that includes affec-tive objectives in specific content areas, which I willrefer to simply as affective objectives. In this paper Ifirst attempt to draw a distinction between the two.Next, I focus on the controversies over objectives in theaffective domain and discuss the difficulties and suc-cessful strategies for identifying and evaluating theseobjectives. Finally, I pose research questions in the areaof evaluation of affective objectives.

Affective EducationAffective education is described by various authors as:

focusing on students as personstheir mentalhealth and personal development, social skills,roles in society (Sonnier, 1990);assisting students in developing "joy in learn-ing" (Sonnier, 1990);the characteristics of values, academic self-esteem, anxiety, interests, locus of control, atti-tudes and preferences (Anderson, 1982).

Affective education is concerned with the student'sexperience of learning. In Sonnier's (1990) AffectiveEducation: Methods and Techniques, several discussionsrevolve around the importance of acknowledging indi-vidual differences in students' learning styles (andteachers' teaching styles) because these differences cansignificantly influence an individual student's experi-ence of a particular learning activity. Emphasized areindividual differences due to hemispheric dominance,a simplistic explanation of the theory being that stu-dents with left-brain dominance are more analyticallyand verbally oriented and those with right-brain domi-nance are more visually oriented and creative. Sheargues that traditional educational approaches typi-cally have favored the more analytic learners, leavingvisual learners labeled as daydreamers, inattentive,and slow. Sonnier encourages a "neuroeducational"approach, which she defines as "holistic education"(teaching of both cerebral hemispheres simultaneouslyand concurrently) with metacognitive development(the students' awareness of knowledge acquisition)" oras "hemisphericity-based instructional management


with accountability." This issue of accountability isdiscussed in rather strong terms by Sonnier who statesthat ignoring individual differences has resulted inmany students experiencing "psychological brutaliza-tion, hurt, and frustration."

In addition to the "humanistic" concerns for individualstudents (the person being taught is as important aswhat's being taught), why else is affective educationimportant? Sonnier (1990) mentions several consider-ations about this issue:

the impersonality of society is propagated byschools, which focus solely on cognitive skills;attending to affective issues can increase at-tainment of cognitive skills (a theory that is, bythe way, supported by motivational principlesin behavioral sciences [Fleming and Levie,19781);

the broad aims of education have always beenconcerned with values and attitudes, and it'stime these general aims were brought into theclassroom at the level of specific objectives;lack of attention to this domain could explainstudents' perceptions that what happens in theclassroom is irrelevant to their lives;cognitive teaching and learning promotes emo-tional distance from content areas, a seriousproblem for many subjects (e.g., cultural sensi-tivity);affective education may be able to help ana-lytic learners become more visual and visuallearners become more analytic.

Clearly, according to Sonnier affective education is, orought to be, a broad, critical concern of educationtoday. Sonnier is not alone in her use and promotion ofthis concept. The other contributing author to heredited book shares her conviction and her understand-ing of the term affective education. They are part of agrowing movement among educators to favor ap-proaches to teaching that engage the learner emotion-ally, that "exercise both hemispheres" (described byHoward Gardner, 1983), that use visualization tech-niques such as "guided imagery" to enhance learners'belief in their ability to learn and may even use tech-niques that verge on hypnotism, based on the"suggestopaedia" approaches pioneered by Lozanov(1978). These approaches to teaching have gained anumber of generic labels, for example "accelerated

150

learning," (as in the U.S.-based SALT, or Society forAccelerated Learning Technology), or "integrativelearning" (as in the U.S.-based National Academy ofIntegrative Learning), or indeed "affective learning"(as in the U.K.-based SEAL, Society for Effective Affec-tive Learning).

Affective ObjectivesAccording to Krathwohl et. al. (1964), affective objec-tives "emphasize a feeling, an emotion, or a degree ofacceptance or rejection. They vary from simple atten-tion to selected phenomena, to complex but internallyconsistent qualities of character and conscience. [Theyare often] expressed [in educational objectives] asinterests, attitudes, appreciations, values, and emo-tional sets or biases." Examples include:

a willingness to take part in musical activities;to perform simple experiments relating to bio-logical or physical sciences to satisfy his curi-osity about scientific questions;to assume responsibility for drawing reticentmembers of a group into conversation;to reject stereotypes of people of various races,cultures, national origins, and occupations;to change opinion on controversial issues whenan examination of the evidence and the argu-ments calls for revision of opinions previouslyheld.

Krathwohl's well-known model or "taxonomy" of theaffective domain suggests five hierarchically organizedcategories of affective objectives (which correspond tothe five examples listed above):

Receiving: sensitivity to and a willingness totake in or attend to certain phenomena;Responding: willingness to participate activelyin a given category of task or activity;Valuing: consistently attaches worth to a phe-nomenon;Organization: bringing together different val-ues and beginning to build an internally con-sistent value system;Characterization by a value or value complex:synthesis and internalization of a value sys-tem.

This taxonomy has been a useful guide to teachersdeveloping instruction aimed at the affective domain,but has also fed a concern over the distinction beingdrawn between the cognitive domain and the affectivedomain. It may be seen to suggest a division of theseareas which, in reality, does not exist. For example, thehighest level of the cognitive domain involves evalua-tionjudgments about value and worthessentially,an affective skill, and the affective level of

8

conceptualization certainly implies a cognitive skill.The two domains are actually closely intertwined butteachers and instructional designers often forget this somuch so that Martin and Briggs (1986) felt it necessaryto suggest a model for the planning of integrated in-struction in the affective and cognitive domains. Ac-knowledging this inter-connectedness between the twodomains is important in understanding the need for asmuch of an emphasis on carefully developed and evalu-ated affective objectives as there is on cognitive domainobjectives in education.

The Distinction Between AffectiveEducation and AffectiveObjectives: Fact or Fantasy?In the previous sections I have briefly described howcertain authors define affective education and affectiveobjectives. The distinction they seem to imply here isthat while affective education concerns itself withbroad issues concerning the students' experiences ofthe educational process, affective objectives are fo-cused on the development of a particular content-related affect. However, Swirlier (1990) also states byway of example that affective education might be con-cerned with attitudes to the learning of science (enjoy-ment, satisfaction in science courses), whereas an affec-tive objective might be the development of a certainscientific attitude ("tolerance of the views of others,""suspended judgment"). This would seem to addconfusion rather than clarity to the distinction, giventhat both of these examples fit very comfortably intoone or other of the categories of Krathwohl's (1964)taxonomy of affective objectives.

It might help to clarify this confusion by focusing on ageneral distinction that may be observed in the writingof both "camps" (if that is an apt term). Objectives, bydefinition, are the desired outcomes of a teaching-learn-ing process, and affective objectives are no different inthis respect. However, most of the writings that ema-nate from the affective education "camp" stress aspectsof the teaching-learning process itself. Looking at thetwo bodies of literature from this "systems" viewpoint,we may conceptualize one "camp" as emphasizingPROCESS, whilst the other is emphasizing PRODUCT.Of course, both emphases are equally important inpractice (as are CONTEXT and INPUT which refer tothe societal, cultural, and prior learning factors in learn-ing).

Although a distinction is being emphasized by theaffective education camp, the notion of affective educa-tion usually includes the accomplishment of affectiveobjectives. Whether these objectives are related tospecific subject matters or related to overall broad aims


and goals of the educational system is where the dis-tinction lies, according to Sonnier. My own interpreta-tion of the distinction is somewhat different. As men-tioned before, the unique aspects of what most writersdescribe as affective education are concerned with theprocess of teaching and learning. However, the primeobjectives of an affective educator may on occasion beprincipally cognitive. For example, the most spectacu-lar claims of the suggestopaedia movement relate todramatic reduction in the time required to master aforeign language (cognitive objectives) when affectivelearning processes (such as relaxation, mood music,vis ialization, and suggestion) are used to overcomelearning inhibitions and promote belief in one's abilityto succeed. If these latter outcomes are what Sonniermeans by the "objectives of affective education," thenall well and good. However, let us be clear that strivingfor such "process" objectives in no way reduces theneed to define and achieve specific "outcome" objec-tives, both cognitive and affective.

Controversy about AffectiveObjectivesOne reason for controversy about affective objectives isthe important distinction in this country made betweeneducation and indoctrination. According to Krathwohlet. al. (1964), "...education helps the individual to ex-plore many aspects of the world and even his ownfeelings and emotions, but choice and decision arematters for the individual. Indoctrination, on the otherhand, is viewed as reducing the possibilities of freechoice and decision." Because of this concern withindoctrination or propaganda, education has becomefocused almost solely on cognitive areas.

Another reason for controversy stems from a largelyheld cultural belief that our values, beliefs, morals, andattitudes are private business and that one does nothave to share these publicly unless one chooses to.Affective objectives are seen as possibly infringing onthis right to privacy (Krathwohl et. al., 1964).

Another issue is a sometimes commonly held beliefthat if cognitive learning is achieved, affective learningwill be a natural by-product. This is not necessarilytrue. Students could, for example, gain much in theway of knowledge about literature, but might gain anaversion to reading great literary works.

It is indeed more probably true that achievement ofcognitive objectives requires as a prerequisite an ad-equate level of positive affect towards the content of thelearning exercise. This is a position not only defensiblefrom cognitive or humanist psycholigy standpoints,but even from the principles of operant conditioning,that states that to be reinforcing a reinforcer must be


desired by the organism (for success in learning to bereinforcing, the learner must approach the learningtask with a desire to succeed) (Gilbert, 1962).

Perhaps the most common cause for controversy oneencounters when discussing affective objectives is theconcern over evaluating these objectives. It is oftenbelieved that these objectives refer to inner states ofmind and emotions and therefore it is impossible toobjectively and concretely measure whether or not anaffective objective has been obtained. There is greatconcern over the possibilities of subjective scoring/grading in these areas and that favoritism could resultin one student gaining a higher score than anotherbecause the criteria are so vague. The topic of evaluat-ing affective objectives deserves further discussion.

Evaluating Affective ObjectivesThe question and answer posed by Fogleman (1982) isa good place to begin this discussion. "How do youmeasure something inside a person's mind? Get themto translate an internal attitude into an external behav-ior " This seems to be the crux of the problem ofevaluating affective objectives. First, the objective mustbe written in such a way that it can be measured. Smithand Reyes (1982) suggest that one reason we havedifficulty in writing clear affective objectives is thatwe're used to seeing a specific behavior and thendrawing a generalization from that behavior. To writean affective objective, one is usually attempting to dojust the opposite, go from a generalization (a desiredaffective outcome) to a specific behavior. They suggestone ask the following questions:

1. What kinds of things do people do who havethis desired general characteristic that others(who don't have it) do not do?

2. (a) Are people who have (the desired charac-teristic) more likely to do (the behavior that'sbeen identified in #1). (b) Are people who donot have (the desired characteristic) also morelikely to do (the behavior that's been identi-fied)?

The answer to (a) should be yes and the answer to (b)should be no if the objective has been written clearlyenough.

Stuart and Wallace (1988) suggest that Mager's (1968)five step process for goal analysis can be helpful inwriting clear affective objectives:

1. Write down the goals.2. List the performances that, if observed, would

indicate the goal is achieved.3. Sort the listdelete duplications and un-

wanted items. Repeat steps 1 and 2 for anyremaining abstractions (fuzzies) consideredimportant.

152

4. Write a complete statement for each perfor-mance, describing the nature, quality oramount you will consider acceptable.

5. Test the statement with this question, "Ifsomeone achieved or demonstrated thesewould you say he has achieved the goal?"

Once an affective objective has been written clearlyenough to identify the observable behaviors that wouldindicate the achievement of the affect, then an evalua-tive or measurement process must be identified. Thereare many reasons for evaluating affective (and othertypes of) objectives. Fogleman (1982) identified thefollowing:

determine the progress that a student is mak-ing toward achieving the goals of the programhelp the individual student maintain strengthsand eliminate weaknesses motivate the stu-dent.

This brings us to the issue that is the source of most ofthe concern about affective objectives an the reasonsteachers tend to avoid including them in their lessonplans. How do you evaluate the achievement of affec-tive objectives? The literature (Ohio State University,1984; Moore and Harbeson,1986) revealed the follow-ing as possibilities:

attitude scales: both rating scales and semanticdifference scales,structured and unstructured interviews,oral tests,essay test items,problem-solving test items,anecdotal records,behavioral checklists,student journals,interviews,tally charts,rating scales,sentence completion sheets,questionnaires,profile sheets,records of behavior management systems,sociograms,feedback from students, teachers, parents and /or peers.

Thorndike and Hagen (1969) identify the ad vantages ofobservational assessments as being a record of actualbehavior and its application to a natural setting and thedisadvantages as costs of observer time, effect of fittingan observer into the setting, eliminating subjectivityand bias, determining meaningful and productive setsof behavior categories to observe, determining signifi-cance of an isolated item of behavior, the externalcharacter of observation, and observing a behavior out

10

of context. Fogleman (1982) suggests that the majordisadvantages seem to be subjectivity and bias and thatthese can be diminished with proper construction ofthe evaluative tool.

Krathwohl et. al. (1964) discusses in some detail ways toevaluate and test the achievement of objectives. It isstated that as one reaches the fourth level of affectiveobjectives (organization of a value system), the mea-surement of their achievement necessarily becomesmore complex, And, in the fifth level (characterizationby a value or value complex), measurement is evenmore difficult. In fact, Krathwohl suggests that educa-tion rarely attempts to achieve this level of the affectivedomain. However, detailed discussion of ways tomeasure and evaluate affective objectives on all thelevels is offered. Many of the suggestions includestrategies such as those included on the list above.There are many attitude scales, rating instruments invarious subject matters and behavioral checklists avail-able.

Given these available aids and possibilities for evaluat-ing affective objectives, why does this area of learningcontinue to be avoided by many curriculum developersand classroom teachers? Perhaps the reasons are thosecultural beliefs and attitudes about privacy and "pro-paganda" noted above and not so much the difficulty inevaluating them that is so often mentioned. Manystudies certainly reveal that most teachers are attempt-ing to achieve affective outcomes in their students,even though these outcomes may not have been statedin the formal objectives. The problem, however, withthis situation is that there is no way to then measurewhether or not the desired outcome has actually beenachieved, and therefore no feedback to the teacher as towhether or not her strategies/ methods/ techniques havebeen effective (or perhaps even damaging!). Given thisstill vague or loose sense about the place of affectiveobjectives in education, what are the research issues yetto be explored?

Research Issues to be ExploredIn the over 200 abstracts reviewed, there were only twostudies identified that specifically tested the utility ofKrathwohl's taxonomy on developing and evaluatingaffective objectives. One study (Valois, 1985) evaluatedthe relationships between cognitive and affective taxo-nomic outcomes of a college course in personal healtheducation. The study devised valid assessment instru-ments to measure cognitive and affective outcomesand evaluated the relationship between hierarchicalpatterns of the cognitive and affective domains devel-oped by IMoom/Krathwohl/Masia (1956 and 1964).The assessment questionnaire contained two items re-lated to objectives for each sub-level of each level of thehierarchy in both domains. Conclusions were drawn

15d Instructional Developments

that a relationship does exist between the taxonomies.

One area of research that seems important would be onthe techniques for evaluating the achievement of affec-tive objectives, testing Krathwohl's ideas to determinetheir feasibility and practical use. Another area wouldbe to research the current status of affective objectivesat the level of the classroom lesson planning. Is it stilltrue that there is an avoidance of these objectives? If so,it would be interesting to see if the "erosion of affectiveobjectives" identified by Krathwohl et. al. (1964) is stilloccurring, that is, that affective goals are included inbroad curricular descriptions, but seem to be droppedas the instructional planning reaches levels closer andcloser to the classroom.

ConclusionAn attempt has been made to clarify the distinctionbetween what has been labeled affective education andaffective objectives. The new term seems to be born outof a growing concern for the engagement of the emo-tions in the learning process, and in no way supplants, orargues against, the need for the more venerable con-struct of affective objectives as desired outcomes oflearning. The controversy over affective objectives hasbeen explored with an emphasis on the issue of evalu-ating affective objectives. The available means forevaluation of affective objectives seem to be greaterthan previously believed and so the reason for avoid-ance of formally written affective objectives still isunclear. The areas for potential future research seemnumerous.

ReferencesAnderson, L. and Anderson, J. (1982). Affective Assess-ment is Necessary and Possible. Educational Leadership,39(7): 524-525.

Bloom, B.S., et. al. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Ob-jectives, Handbook 1: The Cognitive Domain. New York,NY: David McKay Company, Inc.

Fleming, M. and Levie, W.H. (1978). Instructional Mes-sage Design. Englewood, NJ: Educational TechnologyPublications.

Fogleman, J.M. (1982). Evaluation of Affective Traits ofMedical Technology Students. Master's Thesis. Pennsyl-vania State University.

Goldner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York, NY:Basic Books.

Gilbert, T.F. (1962). Ma thetics: The Technology of Edu-cation. Journal of Mathetics, 1(1).

Hunt, C. (1987). Teaching and Learning in the AffectiveDomain: A Review of the Literature. Olympia, WA: Wash-ington Office of the State Superintendent of Public


Instruction.

Krathwohl D.R., Bloom B.S., Masia, B.B. (1964). Tax-onomy of Educational ObjectivesThe Classification of Edu-cational GoalsHandbook II: Affective Domain. New York:David McKay Company, Inc.

Lozanov, G. (1978). Suggestology and Outlines ofSuggestopedy. New York, NY: Gordon and Breach.

Mager, R.F. (1968). Goal Analysis. Belmont, CA: FearonPublishers.

Martin B.L. and Briggs L.J. (1986). The Affective andCognitive Domains: Integration for Instruction and Re-search. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational TechnologyPublications.

Moore Y. and Harbeson C. (1986). Program for AffectiveDevelopment: Lexington County School District One, Cur-riculum Guide. Lexington, SC: Lexington School Dis-trict One.

Ohio State University. (1984). Assess Student Perfor-mance: Attitudes (2nd Ed). Module D-3 of Category D-Instructional Evaluation. Professional Teacher Educa-tion Module Series. National Center for Research inVocational Education. Ohio State University. Colum-bus, OH.

Smith R. and Reyes D. (1982). Implementing AffectiveObjectives in Curriculum and Instruction. Opinion PaperERIC Ed# 223545.

Sonnier, I.L. Ed. (1990). Affective Education: Methods andTechniques. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technol-ogy Publications.

Sonnier, I.L., Fontecchio G., and Dow, M.G. (1990).Quantity and Quality Education: Measuring AffectiveLearning. In Sonnier, I.L. (Ed.) Affective Education: Meth-ods and Techniques. Englewood Cliff, NJ: EducationalTechnology Publications.

Stuart, J.A. and Wallace, G., Jr. (1988). AnalyzingAffective Goal Statements. Performance and Instruction,27(10): 10-14.

Thorndike, R.L. and Hagen, E. (1969). Measurement andEvaluation in Psychology and Education. New York, NY:John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Valois, R. (1985). An Evaluation of the Relationship be-tween Cognitive and Affective Taxonomic Outcomes of aUniversity Health Education grogram. Paper presented atThe Annual Meeting of the American Alliance forHealth Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. April17-21. Atlanta, GA.

* Cheryl Ackerson is a student in the master's programin Instructional Design, Development, and Evaluationat Syracuse University.

15411

The Writings of David Krathwohl: A Scholar'sEye-view of his Contribution to the Literature

Charles R. Dills *

David Krathwohl has been a prolific writer throughouthis career, spanning the period from the early 1940s tillthe present. The first book I ever read when I enteredgraduate school (more years ago than I would like toremember) included a chapter by Dave (The Psycho-logical Basis of Integration, in the 57th Yearbook of theNational Society for the Study of Education). And, aswith a great many of Dave's writings, this one was morethan technically good or useful, but was both interest-ing and compelling. That chapter still influences mythinking even today. I am sensitized to the fact that allinstructional materials and activities are integrated,through their effects, with all other such materials andactivities, as well as all non-instructional events, in thelives and psychologies of the students, whether weplan it that way or not. Therefore, Dave has remindedme, through his article, that we had better plan it thisway if we want to achieve what we say we do. I havefound this to be particularly important when designingintegrated military training systems, such as the cur-rent Canadian Patrol Frigate project I am working on,and I regret that not only Dave's chapter, but his ideabehind the chapter, are not emphasized often enoughin instructional development courses or projects.

Even though I have only recently come under the directinfluence of Dr. Krathwohl, by moving to SyracuseUniversity, he has touched me in significant waysthroughout my career. Many themes can be foundintertwined throughout Dave's writings, and several of0,2se have had broad impact upon both the field ofeducational technology and also the more general areaof educational research practices.

Further, Dave has written not only for the technicalspecialist, but also for teachers and students of theteaching process. For example, I next ran into Dave'swork when I learned about the Taxonomy of EducationalObjectives(1956) a work still considered to be a basic tooland a classic book in the field. It was co-authored byDave, Benjamin Bloom and others (Bloom et al., 1956).This work established a uniform "language" with whichto think and talk about educational objectives in thecognitive domain. Designed as a tool to assist in theplanning of educational goals, specific objectives, andappropriate test instruments, it has served as such togenerations of educators and instructional designersfor over 35 years, and despite many efforts to designalternative tools, still stands as the most-used tax-onomy.

12

The first handbook on the cognitive domain was fol-lowed by a second on the affective domain (Krathwohlet. al., 1963). This has enjoyed similar acceptance in itsnearly thirty years of continous availability and hasbeen enormously influential on both curriculum andtest design. It is perhaps unfortunate that this pioneer-ing work was never concluded by extending the tax-onomies into the psychomotor domain and beyond.Several attempts have been made by other authors todevelop a similarly useful design tool for psychomotorobjectives selection and testing, but none of these havestood the test of time as well as Bloom's and Krathwohl'shandbooks for the cognitive and affective domains.

Dave's versatility is shown by another area in which hehas had a long-persisting interest, the nature of theresearch process. He has v,ritten widely in this area forspecialists, beginning with the editing of an issue of theReview of Educational Research in 1957, and continu-ing through recent papers, such as those on the natureof validity, to his current book (The Methods of SocialScience and Educational Research: An Integrated Approach),which is reviewed elsewhere in this journal issue.

Not all of Dave's work has been in research. He hasdevoted a great deal of effort towards helping studentsand those practicing in non-research oriented profes-sions to better understand and conduct research. Oneof his most recent books, How to Prepare a ResearchProposal (1988), (also reviewed in this issue) has quicklybecome a required tool for graduate students. But Davehas also written many other works to help students,such as his many articles in works as the Social ScienceEncyclopedia (1985),the Concise Encyclopedia of Psychol-ogy (1987), the Encyclopedia of Education (1971) and theWiley Encyclopedia of Psychology (1984). He has alsowritten special articles on research methodology forsuch people as architects (1964) and librarians (1963).

Not all of Dave's work has been devoted to generalizedresearch methodology. He has also made many spe-cific contributions to subject-matter areas, such as theteaching of handwriting (1963), counseling therapyusing video tape (1972, 1963), stimulated recall (1965),curriculum and materials development (1965), pro-grammed instruction (1967), teacher evaluation (1968),performance-based instruction (1971) and value-freeevaluation (1981, 1980).

Dave Krathwohl is verging upon retirement, but hisbest work is still to come. Dave has been writing a book

bInstructional Developments

which unites many of the strands of his interests overthe years in a single, integrated treatment. The book,Methods of Social Science and Educational Research:AnIntegrated Approach (1992) is designed to teach thestudent about statistics, research design, data interpre-tation and hypothesis formulation. But more, it isdesigned to introduce the student to science, and bringhim or her into science, as a human activity.

This book is intended to serve as a textbook for graduatestudents, and will undoubtedly become a best selleramong such books. More interestingly, this book isgoing to be read by many who have been practicingresearch for years. Gaps exist in the education of mostresearchers, especially with regard to the sociologicaland anthropological nature of science, the creative sideof research, and the intuitive shaping of their sense ofthe research process. This book will go a long waytowards not only producing better-prepared gradu-ates, but also towards generally improving the level ofself-understanding among the researchers already outin the field.

It is hard to imagine Dave ever having an achievementthat surpasses this book, but he probably will. Hiscontributions to the field are not likely to stop merelybecause of some administrative arrangement such asretirement. I suppose my professional life will continueto be influenced by his future work, just as it has been inthe past, and still is being at the present time (I justbecame aware of his work on stimulated recall as I writethese lines, a topic I currently need information about;his influence never seems to stop). But most peoplewho read this will not find this conclusion unusual,since they have also probably had this experience withhis writings.

ReferencesBloom, B.J.(Ed.), Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Krathwohl,D.R., and Hill, W.H. (1956). Taxonomy of EducationalObjectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Hand-book I: The Cognitive Domain. New York, NY: DavidMcKay.

Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D.R., and Miller, R. (1963). Simu-lated Recall in Therapy Using Video-Tape: A CaseStudy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 10(3): 237-243.

Krathwohl, D.R. (In press). Methods of Social Science andEducational Research: An Integrated Approach. WhitePlains, NY: Longman Publishing Company.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1988). How to Prepare a ResearchProposal:Suggestions for Funding and Dissertations in theSocial and Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.). (Privately pub-lished) Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press (dis-tributor).

Krathwohl, D.R. (1987). Entries titled: Control Groups,


Criterion Measures, Double-Blind Research, Experi-mental Designs, Sampling. In R. Corsini (Ed.), ConciseEncyclopedia of Psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1985). Experimental Design. In A.Kuper and J. Kuper (Eds.), The Social Science Encyclope-dia. London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1984). Entries titled: Control Groups,Criterion Measures, Experimental Design, Double-BlindResearch, Sampling. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Wiley Encyclo-pedia of Psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1981). The Myth of Value-Free Evalu-ation and the Evaluator as Negotiations Facilitator-FactFinder. In CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation, 9 , 102-131. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, LosAngeles.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1980). The Myth of Value-Free Evalu-ation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2(1):102-131.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1971). Cognitive and Affective Out-comes of Learning. In L.C. Deighton (Ed.), The Encyclo-pedia of Education, Vol. 2 (pp. 196-201). New York, NY:Macmillan.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1968). Suggested Research to Im-prove Teacher Education. In H.E. Tempero (Ed.), TeacherEducation for the Future: New Directions and New Develop-ments. Ann Arbor, MI: National Society of CollegeTeachers of Education.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1965). Stating Objectives Appropri-ately for Program, for Curriculum, and for Instruc-tional Materials Development. The Journal of TeacherEducation, 16(1): 1 83-92.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1964). Suggestions on the Prepara-tion of Research Proposals. In M. Whiffen and H. Bush-Brown (Eds.), The Te ching of Architecture. Washington,DC: American institute of Architecture.

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., and Masia, B.B. (1964).Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook II: AffectiveDomain. New York, NY: McKay.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1963). Proposal of Consultants forthe Improvement of Research in Handwriting. In V.E.Herrick (Ed.), New Horizons for Research in Handwriting.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1963). Experimental Design in Edu-cational Research. Library Trends, /3(1): 54-67.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1958). The Psychological Bases forIntegration. In N. Henry (Ed.), 57th Yearbook, NationalSociety for the Study of Education, Part III. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1957). Chairman, Methodology ofEducational Research Issue. Journal of Educational Re-search, 51.

15 13

Krathwohl, D.R., and Payne, D. (1971). Defining and ness. Counselor Education and Supervision, 1I(3): 179 -Assessing Educational Objectives. In R.L. Thorndike 186.(Ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd ed.) (pp. 17-45).Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Payne, D.A., Krathwohl, D.R., and Gordon, J. (1967).The Effect of Sequence on Programmed Instruction.American Educational Research Journal, 4(2): 25-132.

Ward, R.G., Kagan, N., and Krathwohl, D.R. (1972). AnAttempt to Measure and Facilitate Counselor Effective-

* Charles R. Dills is a doctoral candidate in InstructionalDesign, Development, and Evaluation at Syracuse Uni-versity; and a Senior Educational Researcher for Ana-lytical Concepts, Inc., Syracuse, New York.

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: ARABIAN PENINSULA EXCHANGE PROJECT

The Office of Citizen Exchanges (E/P) of the United States Information Agency selected the Training Systems Instituteat Syracuse University to sponsor the development of a two-way exchange program on learning and physical disabilities.This program began with a three-week U.S. seminar/study tour for 10 senior level representatives from government,universities, and philanthropic organizations from the Arabian Peninsula to the U.S.

Goals for the program are:observe and discuss ways counterpart organizations in the U.S. educate, train, and provide treatment forindividuals with learning and physical disabilities;look at training opportunities for educators, administrators, and caretakers responsible for the implemen-tation of programs for people with handicapped conditions;analyze the historical development and societal reaction to the implementation of the Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA);observe the ways various private and public organizations charged with implementing programs forpeople with disabilities interact to provide support and services to the clientele; andexpose delegates to various types of Special Education programs available in the U.S. with an ultimate goalof providing possible models for use in Gulf institutions.

Representatives of the Governments of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates arrived in theUnited States in early February. They spent one week in Washington, D.C. visiting professional associations and selectedgovernment agencies. An international teleconference was organized by WORLDNET to link the U.S. embassies in eachparticipating Gulf country with the group in Washington. The second week was spent in rural 'Fez .nessee visiting localeducational and community-based organizations and projects.

On February 24th, the group, along with two U.S. State Department interpreters, began their Syracuse area visit. Theagenda for the Syracuse component of their schedule included visits to schools, projects, R&D centers, training andpublishing organizations, and an SU Carrier Dome basketball event.

Phase II of the Project involves a visit to the respective countries by three members from Syracuse University. An extensiveitinerary will expose the U.S. team to the problem that is being addressed, its extent, and its characteristics, as well as tothe local resources and expertise for dealing with it. On the basis of this eLperience, specific sub-projects will be plannedand implemented.


Methods of Social Science and Educational Research:An integrated Approach

Charles R. Dills and Vincent Tinto *

David Krathwohl has just authored another book, Meth-ods of Social Science and Educational Research:An Inte-grated Approach (1992), on the nature of research and itsmethodology. The author claims that his book beginsfrom an intuitive base possessed by all of us. It thenuses this base as a framework for the understandingand zonducting of research. It does this through mak-ing the intuitive concepts more conscious, more preciseand more organized into a conceptual structure. Butthis book accomplishes much more than this claimmakes evident.

The book has been written primarily for students, not toimpress the professor who teaches the course. At thesame time, its contents have been chosen so as to helpthe professor teaching the course, and to fill in holes inthe professor's background when necessary. The bookmakes prolific use of teaching aids, such as graphics,simple examples, stories, mathemagenic devices, andpictorials. Each chapter begins with an overview, atable of contents, a list of key terms, summary boxes,and application problems. There are two appendices,one a glossary and one a discussion of the variouschoices involved in the design of an experiment orother study. Conspicuously missing from the appendi-ces, or the book in general, are the many sets of statis-tical and other tables usually found in the back of anybook on research methodology. Also missing from thebook is the academic style of writing that many stu-dents, as well as academics, have difficulty reading.Technical terminology is not missing, however, and thecombination of appropriate language, both technicaland literary, makes the book, for a statistics textbook,fun to read.

The real value of the book, however, as with almost anyother piece of writing, lies in its conceptualization.First, the contents. The content of the book is chosen togive the student a broad understanding of method,with enough breadth to allow an instructor the choiceof topics to include in a course, and enough depth togive the student more than just a passing acquaintancewith each topic covered.

This has resulted in the inclusion of much material notnormally included in research courses such as concaptanalysis, the nature of causality, and the nature ofliterature indices. Thus the student will have a broaderunderstanding of the foundations of research than istypically possible.

Vo!ume 3 (1) Fall 1991 /Spring 2992

Second is the way in which the book was designed to beused. It is largely a front-end loaded text, by which theauthor means that the book begins by presenting anover-view of the field, then follows with chapters de-signed to fill in the details. This results in a book thatcan be used in either a top-down teaching approach orin a detailed, building-block approach, at the instructor'sdiscretion.

Third, research is represented as being a systematicproblem-solving process, but the general problem-solv-ing model is not taught. This is because several lines ofresearch have indicated that the novice already followsthis approach, and differs from the expert only inspecific knowledge of the field. Thus the emphasis is onteaching this expert knowledge, and on problems de-signed to lead the student to use this knowledge in hisproblem-solving efforts.

Three other characteristics of the expert have influ-enced the design of the book. First, the student is led tothink at a high level of conceptualization, using asubsumptive process called chunking. Chunking is thegrouping together of many details in a single concep-tual structure, so that many things can be considered atthe same time. This is encouraged through the concep-tual structure of the book, and through explicitly relat-ing details to higher-level chunks.

The second characteristic derived from a study of ex-pert thought is that experts do not think in terms ofstatistical formulas and abstract equations, but in termsof the concepts upon which these formulas and equa-tions are based. This book has remarkably few formulasand equations for a textbook on research. Instead, thestudent is led to understand research in terms of con-cepts, with statistical tools deriving from these con-cepts as detailed implementations. Thus, understand-ing, not mechanical manipulations, are encouraged.

One aspect of the book with which the reader might notfeel compatible is the explicit use of a particular modelof the research process. Krathwohl adopts a socialconsensus model of research, and builds the bookaround it. Those who reject this model, or who acceptan alternate model, might find this apprcach incompat-ible with their own teaching goals or styles. In anyevent, the book is so well organized that it could easilybe used without advocating this model, if so desired.

A second aspect that some might find unusual is the

153 15

informal style in which the book is written. This stylewas chosen to make the text easier to read, more inter-esting, and clearer to the student. But it is an unusualstyle to find in college texts, and may require somegetting used to on the part of potential adopters. Onceadopters are acclimated to the style, however, they arelikely to find that this style makes the teaching ofdifficult concepts easier. And students will probablyfind the style to be a welcome, beneficial change.

Finally, Krathwohl's book is designed to be not only atextbook, but later in the student's life to be used as areference book and as a source for further independentstudy and review. In this regard, it stands out from thecrowd of books on research methods in education thatbarely skim the surface of complex research problems.Readers of Krathwohl's book will find that it retains itsusefulness, indeed becomes more useful, as they ac-quire more research experience.

Like all classics, Krathwohl's work will grow, ratherthan diminish, in value as time goes by.

ReferencesKrathwohl, D.R. (In press). Methods of Social Science andEducational Research: An ;ritegrated Approach. WhitePlains, NY: Longman Publishing Company.

* Charles R. Dills is a doctoral candidate in InstructionalDesign, Development, and Evaluation at Syracuse Uni-versity; and a Senior Educational Researcher for Ana-lytical Concepts, Inc., Syracuse, New York.Vincent Tinto is a Professor in Cultural Foundations,Syracuse University.

SIXTH ANNUAL EDWARD F. KELLY CONFERENCE HOSTED AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

The Edward F. Kelly Evaluation Conference was established in 1987 as a tribute to the late Dr. Kelly, a Professor ofEducational Evaluation at Syracuse University and later at SUNY Albany, who was very supportive of students andcommitted to their professionalization. The conference, dedicated to the ideals of Edward F. Kelly, is an annual studentorganized event which is supported and alternately hosted by the three sponsoring institutions, Cornell University,SUNY Albany, and Syracuse University. This year, the conference was held at the Goldstein Student Center of SyracuseUniversity on April 3. It provided the continuing opportunity for graduate students from the three institutions to presentand discuss their past evaluation findings and research results as well as current works-in-progress in education, thesocial sciences, and related disciplines.

This year's keynote session was delivered by a panel of recent graduates from the three institutions Valerie Caracellifrom Cornell University Cynthia O'Brien from SUNY Albany, and Barbara Yonai from Syracuse University. Thepanelists addressed issues and challenges involved in the transition from the role of graduate student to professionalresearcher or practitioner.

The keynote address was followed by a format first introduced this year, the topical roundtables. The nine roundtableclusters were organized around a broad range of areas in evaluation to allow for additional informal discussion amongstudents with similar interests. The themes included: cross-cultural evaluation; health programming evaluation;evaluating new technologies; evaluation dilemmas in practice; international evaluation; ethics and evaluation; internalevaluation; issues of authentic assessment; and engendering our own sociological imaginations as researchers.

The afternoon began with a spirited half hour poster session. The graphic displays consisted of an eclectic blend of charts,diagrams, elaborate models, photographs, and thought-provoking questions presented by nine students who stood bytheir work to answer questions and encourage participatory involvement. The remainder of the day was devoted to thedelivery of 15 student papers and one panel presentation. As with the posters, the papers which were presented at thisconference were recommended for inclusion in the program by selection committees at the respective universities. Threesessions were held concurrently, thus permitting participants to move between rooms, based on interest.

In addition to the 80 graduate student and alumni participants, faculty from Cornell University, SUNY Albany, andSyracuse University were available throughout the day to share ideas, information, and insights, both conceptual andpractical, with their student colleagues in attendance. The Kelly Conference provides a unique avenue for professionalnetworking and information dissemination. This conference, developed out of a concern for the professional develop-ment of students, will be hosted next year by Cornell University, as the vision and spirit of Edward Kelly live on.


Review of David R. Krathwohl, How to Prepare aResearch Proposal: Guidelines for Funding and Dis-sertations in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, ThirdEdition, 1988, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse,

New York

Deborah M. Fournier and Nick L. Smith *

David Krathwohl's How to Prepare a Research Proposalhas had a long and increasingly successful history. Thefirst edition was published in 1965 and was just 50pages. The second edition followed in 1976 at 112pages, and the third edition appeared in 1988 with 305pages. The sales of the third edition have averaged wellover 2000 copies a year since 1988, and the edition hasbeen adopted for courses in over 200 institutions. Thethird edition is published by David Krathwohl, but itis marketed, advertised, and distributed by SyracuseUniversity Press, who report being very pleased tohave it on their list, for it is one of their strongest sellers(personal communication).

All reviews of both the second and third editions havebeen extremely positive. Major reviews of the thirdedition have been published in Educational And Psycho-logical Measurement (Nolan, 1989), the journal of theSociety of Research Administrators, SRA Journal (Sink,1989), The Grant Advisor (Garrity, 1990) and EducationalTechnology (Borich, 1989). Additional reviews haveappeared in the Journal of Academic Librarianship (1988),Australian Journal of Psychology (1989), and R & D Man-agement Digest (1988). A few excerpts from these re-views will convey the high praise accorded this vol-ume:

"This book is a good reference for inclusion ina grants office library, one that encompassesmore disciplines than its title indicates. Itwould be valuable as a textbook in a graduate-level course on research techniques." (Garrity,1990, p. 19).

"I found this book to be well and clearlywritten. The author is very good at carryingthe reader from step to step and at explainingthe different points which are necessary for agood proposd...The section on dissertationwriting brings together in one place all thethings a student hears piecemeal from facultyand other students. This book should be awelcome addition to any faculty or student's


bookcase." (Nolan, 1989, p. 300).

"With this latest revision, Krathwohl's trea-tise now ranks among the best available in thecurrent "grantsmanship" literature. With theadditional information for graduate/doctoralstudents, his monograph is more comprehen-sive than Lauffer's Grantsmanship (1983),Bauer's The How to Grants Manual (1984), orMeador's Guidelines for Preparing Proposals(1985.)" (Sink, 1989, p. 47).

We believe these reviews, though highly positive, mis-construe Krathwohl's volume as merely a "how-to"cookbook for generating a research proposal. OnlyBorich seems to recognize the broader conceptual con-text within which Krathwohl situates his recommen-dations:

"...is a book that goes beyond the "nuts andbolts" of proposal writing to convey anunderstanding of and sensitivity to the deci-sion-making context in which proposals arewritten...a research proposal is portrayed notsimply as a tool for getting an idea funded butrather as a system of shared values constitut-ing a decision-making context in which bothproposer and reviewer choose to work."(Borich, 1989, p. 57).

This book is much more than a technical guide. Pro-posal preparation like any other type of communica-tion involves both technical ability and the context inwhich it is employed. A researcher may know thelanguage, but to be effective and appropriate she/hemust know whom is being spoken to, when, where,and whythe social processes involved.

The strongest asset of this book is its combination of thetechnical knowledge of how to write proposals with anunderstanding of the decision-making contexts, logicalchains of reasoning, and underlying social processes ofthe creation of knowledge. This is not just a book abouthow to write a proposal, but how to get funded within

160 17

the knowledge production enterprise as understood byKrathwohl. This third edition thus reflects and sup-ports Krathwohl's earlier statement of the nature ofsocial research: Social and Behavioral Science Research: ANew Framework for Conceptualizing, Implementing andEvaluating Research Studies (1985).

The 302-page third edition consists of 17 chapters infive primary sections. The chapters are related to eachof the ten steps of proposal development identified atthe beginning of the book. Throughout the discussiontwo viewpoints are shared with the reader, that of theproposer and of the reviewer. This dual-perspectivepermits the reader to consider each view while workingthrough each step involved in developing a competitiveproposal.

Section I introduces the reader to the nature of propos-als, general concerns, and the steps of proposal devel-opment, the content is organized as a series of questionsand answers.

Section II, Preparing and Submitting the Proposal, dis-cusses the technical procedures for developing eachaspect of the proposal, including supporting rationales.The interdependency among problem definition, re-lated activities, procedures, and resources is highlighted.The four chapters that comprise this section addresssuch issues as developing problem statements, review-ing the literature, selecting methodology reflective ofthe problem, and producing budget and work plans.

Section III presents six chapters that polish the under-standing conveyed in the previous section by tailoringit to 11 different kinds of studies commonly encoun-tered by researchers. The assumption is that informa-tion must be relevant to a specific audience if it is toeffectively communicate. Also, the earlier material isgathered into 13 guidelines for critiquing proposalsand later expanded into a more comprehensive check-list for complex proposals such as RFPs. To help avoidcommon pitfalls, Chapter 10 summarizes the currentresearch on why proposals fail to be funded. Chapter11 contains a most important and ambitious discussionof the criteria for judging studies, trade-offs, howvarious types of researchers emphasize different crite-ria, reasoning, and ultimately how research findingsbecome knowledge. The criteria for good studies,subsequent judgments, critiquing guidelines, complexproposal checklists, pitfalls, trade-offs, and tailoringsuggestions in this section serve to fine-tune a competi-tive proposal.

Section IV provides useful advice and practical sugges-tions on how to find federal and foundation funding,including identifying possible sources of support, un-derstanding agency procedures, and responding totheir interests.

Lastly, Section V deals with beginning researchers,

18

especially doctoral students preparing dissertation pro-posals. It discusses the dissertation process from theperspectives of both students and faculty, stressing theimplications of these different views. It addresses suchissues as how to select committee members, dealingwith criticism, emotional experiences, resolving con-flicts, and preparing for the dissertation defense.

The book provides 24 extremely useful examples, suchas a human subjects declaration, proposal application,peer review score sheet, and sample budget. Goodsubject matter indexing permits easy access to specificareas of interest. The appendices provide a wealth ofinformation including a 32-item annotated bibliogra-phy on sample proposals, funding, writing, and disser-tation research; a 20-item source on federal funding; a168-item source on foundation funding; 86 references;and a 44-item glossary. A powerhouse of informationis packed into these last 27 pages.

This third edition is an invaluable asset for the newlyventuring student, as well as for the more seasonedresearcher. It is a unique example of a thorough tech-nical guide produced within the framework of a strongconceptualization of the nature of research. Its univer-sally positive reception suggests it will make an in-creasingly significant contribution to the preparationand practice of researchers.

ReferencesBorich, C.D. (1989). Review of How to prepare aresearch proposal. Educational Technology, 29(2), 57-58.

Garrity, E. B. (1990). Review of How to prepare aresearch proposal. The Grant Advisor, Summer, 1990.

Krathwohl, D.R. (1985). Social and behavioral scienceresearch: A new framework for conceptualizing, implement-ing, and evaluating research studies. San Francisco, CA:Jossey Bass.

Nolan, B.F. (1989). Review of D.R. Krathwohl, How toprepare a research proposal. Educational and Psycho-logical Measurement, 49 (3), 298-300.

Sink, J.D. (1989). Review of D.R. Krathwohl, How toprepare a research proposal. SRA Journal, 20 (2), 46-47.

* Deborah M. Fournier is a doctoral candidate in In-structional Design, Development, and Evaluation atSyracuse University.Nick L. Smith is a Professor in Instructional Design,Development, and Evaluation at Syracuse University.


Research in Hypertext: Focus on Structure in Literacy

Lydia Hajnosz Doty *

What is Hypertext?Hypertext/hypermedia or "nonsequential writing"provides fora new way of reading/ writing that mirrorsthe associative ways that people think. This new me-dium has produced much excitement in the educationcommunity as it is seen as having potential applicationsin education, training and in information transfer.However, introduction of this new medium is highlyproblematic because of its redefintion of the notion oftext.

Hypertext is an idea that radically opposes Westernconcepts of philosophical thought (the Platonic con-cepts of systematic linear thinking) that are embodiedin the printed book. (Heim 19,37). In contrast, hypertext,a reflection of the current Cognitive paradigm of think-ing, is seen as having the power to "mimic the brain'sability to store and retrieve information by referentiallinks for quick and intuitive access" (Fidero 1988).

Several issues are of importance in hypertext literacy:the ability to locate information in texts, the ability toliterally comprehend (recall) what is read vs the abilityto make meaning (synthesis & application) of the infor-mation read, and the reciprocal relationship betweenreading/writing hypertext documents. The concept ofstructure (both the local structure of individual textsand sections of them and global structures of networksof texts) is an essential idea for understanding theseissues.

Although there is no clear consensus about howhypertext should be defined, what its essential at-tributes are, and what design standards (especially interms of structure) should be followed, one idea seemsagreed on: in hypertext, "nodes" or discrete units ofinformation/ideas are connected by "links." Theoreti-cally this means that readers are no longer constrainedby the traditional, linear structure of text since hypertextpermits them to read freely, to "browse," or to follow"paths" through the structures of nodes/links as theywish. The size of nodes, what should be linked and howthese links should be made are unresolved problems.

In thr debate over the definition/attributes of hypertext,two sets of issues relevant to instructional text remainhighly controversial. One set of issues centers on"constrained hypertext" or structured hypertext vsunstructured hypertext with capability for unlimitedfree browsing. Some argue that it is essential forhypertext to be organized in some fashion. To elimi-nate becoming lost in tangled webs of nodes and links

Volume 3 (1) Fall 1991ISpr:ng 1992

(the "lost in hyperspace" problem), readers need guid-ance in identifying and traversing carefully constructedsequences of links (paths) whose "order of presentationare made by the author in advance" (Zellweger 1989).However, others vigorously resist this notion as itseems a throw-back to the constraints of traditional textstructuring and cognitive models that these propo-nents of hypertext seek to overthrow. The other conflictcenters on the questioncan a hypertext be considered"true hypertext" if it is a "static" read-only databaseinstead of a "dynamic" database that permits reader(s)to make links and to annotate texts, etc? Proponents ofthe static view point out that over time, a database'scomprehensibility (or fidelity to a knowledge base)would erode if unlimited numbers of links/additions/changes could be made. On the other hand, advocatesof annotatable databases say that to achieve its poten-tial for collaborative knowledge construction or gen-erative learning, hypertext documents must providefor read-write capabilities. Both of these issues, criticalto the design of instruction, are centered on learner/user control and the unpredictable outcomes that canoccur when a high degree of freedom is afforded read-ers. If hypertext becomes a viable instructional me-dium, these unresolved issues could challenge existingInstructional Design models which presently focus onobjectives and predictable instructional outcomes.

Why Hypertext in Education?Although electronic hypertext is frequently discussedin the education literature, it is difficult for non-special-ists to form clear-cut ideas about the applicability of themedium since few of them have first hand-experienceof it. Although the concept of a large network of linkeddocuments (hypertexts) that could be searched andread nonsequentially or "browsed" is an old ideathepaper library card catalogue, HG Well's "World Brain"concept, (Harmon 1988) and Bush's discussion of the"Memodex" (1945) are classic examples of the con-cepthypertext, most efficiently realized in electronicform, is a concept that has come of age with the rise ofthe computer. In the 1960's, Englebart's Online System(now Augment ) and Nelson's (originator of the term"hypertext") Xanadu demonstrated how large hypertextsystems could be efficiently operationalized in power-ful computer environments. (Nielsen 1990, Saffo 1987).Since hypertext has been primarily viewed as a re-search construct, most hypertexts have been demon-stration systems. However, there arc a few examples oflarge-scale experimental hypertext systems being used

16219

in instruction. Brown University's Intermedia project,a widely cited mainframe experiment, (Yankelovichet.a1.1987), Harvard's Perseus, a HyperCard Classicsproject, (Crane and Mylonas 1988), and SouthernCalifornia's Project Jefferson's "Electronic Notebook," aHyperCard shell for interdisciplinary research and writ-ing are among the best known examples of hypertextsystems being used to teach courses. However, theseexperimental instructional systems do not have com-mercial counterparts nor have comprehensive judge-ments of their pedagogical effectiveness yet been made.

The "foreignness" of the hypertext concept is com-pounded because few readers outside of the academic/research community are familiar with good examples.Many of the readily available hypertext documents(often commercially produced HyperCard stacks orshareware) are crudely written or are merely linear,online files that don't take advantage of the medium'scapability, using its links merely as page turners orfancy footnotes. Even hypertext work with seriousliterary and scholarly merits such as Michael Joyce'sinteractive, electronic fiction, "Afternoon" (written as aprototype document for the hypertext system,Storyspace and often cited as a model for the aestheticsof creative electronic writing) (Moulthrop 1989), andthe Association of Computer Machinery's database ofhypertexts about hypertext (currently being producedas an experiment in collecting and converting existingpaper documents to hypertext) can be disorienting forreaders skilled in conventional reading strategies. Or-dinary readers often think of hypertext documents asesoteric experiments detached from the ordinary rhe-torical purposes and conventions that they have cometo identify and expect in texts.

Recently, this rarefied view of hypertext has been re-vised, as hypertext/hypermedia has become a widelycited topic in the general education literature and in thepopular press. Authoring systems that do not requireextensive computing/programming expertise havebeen introduced. In 1987, the introduction of Apple'sHyperCard (a system that trades relatively limitedhypertext capabilities forease of use) has made hypertextauthoring feasible for educators. Since hypertext docu-ments have, in essence, come out of the laboratory andare now a "real" possibility, instructional designers/teachers must make decisions about their use in ordi-nary instructional contexts.

In the literature of Education, Training, and Informa-tion Science claims have been made for the utility ofhypertext software for pedagogy, research, and infor-mation transfer. For example, hypertext has been pro-posed as an ideal medium for tutorials, electronic text-books, reference materials and technical manuals thatcan be used by learners according to their individualdifferences,neecls and preferences. Since large hypertextknowledge bases can be efficiently searched, linked

20

and added to by multiple users with many perspec-tives, hypertext systems have the potential to be used asonline teaching environments. (ie. like Intermedia orPerseus). In addition, hypertext can be used to buildunique tools with instructional applications. Accord-ing to Horn (1989), hypertext is an ideal medium forstoring and presenting information as a modularizedand organized structure of "maps" that can be utilizedby a variety of target populations for a variety ofobjectives (both initial learning and later reference).Educational claims for hypertext might be roughlydivided into two aspects of how hypertext functions asa tool.

The first of these views, a more traditional perspective,sees hypertext as an important information manage-ment tool that allows students to interact with informa-tion to construct knowledge. Tchudi (1988) posits thatHypertext databases can be used to develop criticalthinking skills in students who use them in inquirylearning activities. Students who engage in these kindsof inquiry activities learn by exploring topics throughinterdisciplinary materials and by making their owncontributions to the knowledge base that they study.Echoing Tchudi, Multiple Intelligence theorist, anddevelopmental psychologist, Howard Gardner (1989)suggests in his "Individual Schooling Plan" thatHypertext is a medium (by nature of its attributes andunderlying symbol system) that may help to fostercreativity; it can be used to support the kinds ofdiscovery learning (free inquiry) that is essential incertain cognitive developmental phases and in the nur-turing of specific intelligences. Hypertext's ability tofacilitate flexible, intuitive information searches o f largedatabases and its linking and annotating attributesmake it well suited to this kind of instructional activity.

In the other related perspective, hypertext benefits areassociated with its ability to insinuate itself in thethinking process, to become a kind of cognitive tool.Hypertext's webs of nodes/links mirror Cognitivepsychology's conceptual models of information pro-cessing and storage. For Dede (1987) hypertext's valuelies in that it is a "cognitive enhancer" that allowswriters to externalize in the hypertext system the knowl-edge schemata that are stored in their long term memo-ries. In a related line of thinking, jonassen (1988,1988a),while tempered in his claims by his acknowledgment ofthe slender research base, theorizes that hypertext willbecome a tool for generative learning activities that willhelp students to deeply process information. Usinghypertext will allow students to relate and incorporateexisting knowledge structures into their own schematato create personally meaningful, new knowledge.Hypertext may contribute to instruction because itincreases the "mindfulness" and mental effort learnersneed to expend in processing information (Salomon,1983).


The Research BaseSince hypertext research and development is a multi-disciplinary (but not always cooperative) effort, rel-evant data, reported in numerous discipline-specificforums, is difficult to collect. A selected review ofEducation-Training, Info i illation Science, and Compo-sition-Rhetoric literatures yields some case studies ofthe major research systems, anecdotal evidence of indi-vidual teachers' experiences with hypertext, many de-scriptions of pilot projects and prototype systems, theo-retical discussions, and design guidelines. However,there are few reports of formal research that measureslearner-user gains from using hypertexts. Since read-ing is the primary way of interacting with or learningfrom hypertext, many of the extant studies seemed tofocus on measures such as recall, reading comprehen-sion, time on task, accuracy of retrieval of information,etc. At this point in the research,what has been reportedis inconclusive, merely suggestive of possible gains.

Since there is little specific research directed toward theeffects of hypertext reading/ writing on student perfor-mance, relevant online reading and composition re-search was reviewed. The hypertext studies that werelooked at seemed to support the findings of previousresearch in traditional online writing/reading (Haas1987, 1989; Haas & Hayes 1985,1986; Hansen & Haas1988) which shows that users preferred paper and werefaster and more efficient when using the traditionalmedium. Student writers working online often havedifficulties with a "sense of text"; they have problemsreading onscreen text or with reading electronic docu-ments critically. Many writers print hard copies of theirwork in order to revise effectively (i.e. to rethink ideasor to rework structure). In a related finding, Kowalski(1990) found that college students, who were compe-tent peer editors of paper texts, were unable to effec-tively critique the work of other writers when they readit online. Except for workstations, with larger screensizes where "results are closer to paper" (Hansen &Haas 1988), paper reading/ writing environments haveproved superior. The state of current technologysmall screens, poor CRT resolution and related humanfactors were partly held responsible for paper'ssuperiority. These types of findings seem to parallelmany students' experiences with hypertexts. For ex-ample, in an anecdotal report, David Jonassen (Nov.1990) told a Syracuse University colloquium audiencehow professors of students using the Intermedia sys-tem complained that their students did not studyhypertext course material online. Rather, studentsprinted paper copies of their hypertexts for study offlineand presumably reread the documents in linear fash-ion.

Preference for linear structure and traditional media


was a major theme in other hypertext studies. Evenwhen students did just as well in performing tasks withnonlinear electronic text, they preferred linear text (inpaper or electronic forms). Talbert & Umphress (1989)showed mixed results when students who studiedfrom a hypertext tutorial developed by the researcherswere tested on recall. When students were tested viaconcept-mapping, they were able to reproduce many ofthe themes they read about in the hypertext. However,when the same group was tested via objective tests onthe same material, they did poorly. In addition, Talbert& Umphress' student subjects reported dissatisfactionwith learning the material in hypertext because it was"not the usual method of reading." Similarly, Wang &Liebscher (1988) reported that library graduate stu-dents were able to find information faster, experiencedmore satisfaction, and achieved better results whenthey used ordinary paper indexes and databases thanwhen they used hypertext databases or browsed onkeywords in the hypertexts.

Hypertext use seemed more successful when users hadsome experience of the knowledge base and hypertextsoftware, when they were not required to read fulltexts, and when they dealt with well-structured, techni-cal information. Egan et. al. (1989) found that subjectswith statistical background could locate statistical in-formation faster in running text using hypertext. Con-versely, information in headings was located fasterusing paper texts. The researchers concluded thathypertext was useful to locate information in otherways than by the way it was originally structured by itsauthor. In another study, students who were ques-tioned about information in a 1000 word general sub-ject article in hypertext and in a linear, paper text hadbetter recall of information from the paper version(Gordon et. al. 1988). However, when the subjectmatter was switched to technical content, readers' re-call of information in both types of texts was aboutequal. The research team attributed the differences inoutcomes to possible student inexperience withhypertext and to the fact that hypertext does not seemsuitable when reading a text in its entirety is required.Monk et al. (1988) found that recall of information in asmall hypertext was improved when structural mapsof the content were provided.

Discussion of Current Research

Some general themes are evident in this sample ofstudies:

reader preference for the traditional mediumpaper;

reader preference for linear text overnonsequential text;

16421

better success when locating well-structuredkinds of information (e.g. factual information);better information retrieval/recall when ex-tensive reading online (with its heavy storagedemands on users' short term and long termmemory) was not required.

An analysis of these themes has implications for futureresearch.

1) Users are experiencing the kinds of problems withreading hypertext that have often been predicted andextensively discussed in the design literaturethe prob-lems of disorientation and cognitive overload. Thestate of knowledge about these problems and theircauses still needs considerable refinement.

2) There are other important implications for hypertextin that readers are not abandoning their preferences forlinear or paper texts. These preferred options may bejust ingrained habits. While conceding that processingelectronic text might be different from processing pa-per-based text and that this possibility needs furtherexploration, Hartley (1987) suggests that difficultieswith online reading might be a result of the fact that itis a "newish activity" which people need time to adjustto. Pointing out that effective use of hypertext calls fora new kind of training in literacy new strategies ofreading/writing, Marchionni (1988) calls for a system-atic training of teachers to "teach the new tools oflearning." Wang & Liebscher (1988) also note thatalthough designers of hypertexts claim that little train-ing is needed to use the software, their research sub-jects' performances were positively affected by practiceon the Hyperties system used in their study. Assess-ment ofypertext's effectiveness can only be con-founded if subjects are not first trained in the appropri-ate methods and strategies of the medium's use.

3) The preferences for paper also are indications thatthe orienting structures afforded by traditional, papertext structures (or even linear online texts) are missingin hypertexts and thus user performance and compre-hension are impaired. Hypertext's presentation ofinformation in discrete nodes oftentimes eliminateslocal discourse cues that readers use to comprehendtexts. For example, traditional structural techniqueslike using signal words that offer sequential or rela-tional information (such as "first," "however" "in addi-tion") or using pronoun reference to make a text coher-ent may not work in hypertext because the readerbypassed nodes that contained this information.Charney (1987) theorizes that without these global orlocal clues, readers make poor choices about how tostructure their reading (selection of links to follow).

In his psycholinguistic studies of cognitive strategies inhypertext processing, Rouet (1990) points out that intraditional texts topics are sequentially organized with

22

physical proximity reflecting semantic relationships;however, not all semantically related topics are locatednear each other in the text. In hypertext reading,readers can pursue their own reading objectives (notnecessarily the ones intended by the author). They canread topics as they choose unrestrained by the physical,sequential structure of the text. The "trade off," how-ever, is that many readers experience disorientationwhen they are no longer able to rely on the relationalclues provided by authors or the physical clues for-merly provided by the traditional text. In studies ofadolescent hypertext readers working with relativelysmall databases, Rouet found that nonlinear text pro-cessing requires two cognitive strategies"global ori-entation," purposefully selecting text until objectivesare met and "local orientation," understanding the-matic organization of nodes of information and select-ing consistent links based on that understanding.Younger readers and readers with weaker, traditionalreading skills (who were more dependent on the miss-ing clues) did poorly. They were ineffective in monitor-ing the two orientations and experienced disorienta-tion and cognitive overload.

In another related (ongoing) study of the reader disori-entation problem, Castelli et al. (1990) have identifiedcognitive factors which they theorize are related toeffective hypertext use. They are in the process ofdeveloping a hypermedia problem-solving test thatpredicts how successful a user of hypertext will bebased on that user's cognitive style.

4) The fact that users with background in a subjectdomain or who only search for discreet units of infor-mation are the more successful users of hypertextsmight imply that not all types of texts are suitable to berendered in hypertext versions.

Structure as a Major Focus for Re-searchIn the last part of the paper I would like to look moreclosely at structure as a major factor in comprehendingtext. From its inception, hypertext was thought of as aliberation from the confines of structure. However,that liberation also has brought user frustration, disori-entation, incoherence and cognitive overload. Non-linear text as it is conzeived of in unstructured hypertexttheory may even be antithetical to the concept of textsince many theorists see structure as meaning. Also,"formless" hypertext unbounded by the communica-tion practices and conventions of a "discourse commu-nity" seems to have limited practical applications oncei ts a u thor directs it to o utside readers. Thus, as hypertextbecomes a mature technology, authors are looking forways of structuring hypertext while preserving itsunique characteristics. Psycholinguistics, Semiotics,

1.63Instructional Developments

and Rhetoric are some of the disciplines to which theyare turning for guidance.

Psycho linguistic Text ProcessingModels' Influence on HierarchicalHypertext StructuresCognitive psychology and psycholinguistics have beenimportant influences for structuring hypertext. Sev-eral text processing models are seen as a basis fordeveloping the idea of hierarchical structuring ofhypertext documents and have exerted considerableinfluence on development of evolving conventionssuch as chunking, node size, types of structural clues.Meyer (1975); Meyer, Brandt & Bluth (1980) identifiedeight recurring relationships that are used to organizeparagraphs and provide clues to meaning. (Interest-ingly enough these relationships are similar to patternsdescribed in Classical Rhetoric such as cause/effect,comparison etc.) Readers recall these relationshipsbetter if they were arranged in a tree structure orhierarchical order. "Signaling" or prouiding clues to causalor logical connections of these relationships also facili-tates recall of information. Another significant influ-ence is the Kintsch & Van Dijk (1978) model whichpostulates that macro-operators reduce information togists (summaries) which are under the control of sche-mata (theoretical formulations of the reader's goals,many of which presumably are informed by conven-tions formed via social, educational and cultural influ-ences). Readers mentally structure text as sets of propo-sitions that they relate to new propositions by means of"bridging inferences." Only a limited number of work-ing propositions can be held in working memory, and thelonger a proposition is active, the more likely it will beencoded in long term memory.

Based on this research, the "conventional wisdom" inhypertext design literature privileges hierat chical struc-ture (and the linking strategies it implies) as the opti-mal method for structuring hypertexts. J. Smith et. al.(1987) U. Smith 1989) predicts that looser hypertetorganizational patterns (ie. environments that focus onthe "experience of the reader," directed graphic struc-tures) are fine for games, research systems or literaryforms. However, he cautions that "no forceful, action-oriented communication" can result from hypertextsthat lack hierarchies and overviews. To demonstratethis end, he and his associates have built a prototypesystemWE (Writing Environment)that guides writ-ers through the process of construction of documentsto "transform loose associative networks of ideas intoa hierarchical structure that can be transformed into anelectronic or paper document." In texts meant foronline information retrieval, hierarchy is also privi-leged. Girill (1985) suggests that online text that is

Volume 3 (1) Fall 19911Siring 1992

searched should be organized hierarchically and not bynarrative (progressive disclosure) or autonomous (fullycontained) structures. Girill sees the hierarchical struc-ture as one that conserves system memory and facili-tates rapid, efficient information retrieval.

Of the many hypertext systems based on these text-processing models, Horn's (1989) Information Mappingis a particularly interesting example of how a hierarchi-cal hypertext structuring system that is highly con-strained can be implemented for certain types of texts.In Information mapping, information is decomposed intochunks of "relevant" information (considering shortterm memory constraints). These chunks are expressedin a consistent format as labeled information "blocks"(classified according to Horn's scheme of types of infor-mation). Blocks, in turn, are arranged in hierarchicallyordered "information maps" which contain graphicand textual "signals" and headings and subheadingswhich substitute for traditional discourse clues. Ulti-mately, content is structured by "hypertrails" or sets ofrelated maps; the hypertrails and overview maps allowreaders to see finely-grained perspectives of all levels ofthe document's hierarchical structure and thus makereading choices. While Horn claims that this system isa totally new system of writing, many of the system'sfeatures seem based on principles/intentions of Classi-cal Rhetoric, albeit more systematically and clearlyimplemented.

Constrained, hierarchical systems such as InformationMapping or WE may make hypertext a viable and attrac-tive option for many purposes because they, in effect,give the reader many options to get to a predeterminedgoal or rhetorical purpose, and they decrease the dan-ger of cognitive overload. However, the implied claimsof being a generic structure suitable for all types of textsmay not be valid. As Romizowski (1990) observes, anauthor's decision to utilize the hypertext medium shouldbe based on a thorough analysis of the nature of thecommunications problems being addressed.

Structure as a Reflection ofPurpose/MeaningWhile hierarchical organization is a concept whoseutility (especially in terms of making text easily under-standable and retrievable) has been validated bypsycholinguistics as well as by traditional Rhetoric, it isnot the only method of ordering meaning. Semioticsand literary theory (and many educational theorists eg.Salomon & Gardner 1986, Muffoletto 1987, D. Smith1988, Bowers 1988, Cunningham 1984, Hlynka 1989)assert that structure is one of the many elements of atext's (or media's) meaning that cannot or should not beseparated from its message(s). Constructivist theories

16623

suggest that each reader "composes" or constructs herown unique meaning of a message based on the inter-action of many interrelated elements such as informa-tion content, social context, structure and media at-tributes (Tierney & Pearson, 1983). In context of thisview, understanding or "making meaning" is morethan just acquiring new information. These theorieswith their insistence on the inseparability of media,message, information content, social context and mean-ing are in direct contrast to concepts, most notably thoseproposed by Richard Clark (1983), which imply thatinformation flows through a neutral delivery system (amedium) unaffected by that medium into the mind ofthe reader/user. Clark's theory implies that informa-tion and meaning are synonymous, and while his them yallows that a badly constructed message or inappropri-ately chosen delivery media might impede efficientinformation transfer, he claims that medium itself ulti-mately does not play a significant role in the informa-tion derived from the message it conveys. If one wereto view a hypertext through a constructivist paradigminstead of through Clark's information transfer model,structure, as an essential attribute of the medium, be-comes an element of hypertext's meaning and not justa vehicle to convey information (Doland 1989,Moulthrop 1989). Therefore, if structure is an elementof meaning, an exclusive insistence on one type ofstructure (such as a hierarchical one) could limit orchange the possible meanings of a hypertext. Alterna-tive types of hypertext structures must be explored.

One ordering principle might follow from the rhetori-cal concept of analyzing purpose or the design dic-tum"form follows function." DeYoung (1990), basedon her work with her prototype, Electronic WorkingPapers, a hypertext system that models the intellectualprocesses involved in doing audits, suggests that thestructure of hypertext links should reflect the structureof the task being performed. When aesthetic consider-ation becomes an organizing principle, a ttention shouldbe focussed on a discussion of narrative structure andnot the number of links to be made (often the commonstructuring idea employed by many writers). Thus,from this perspective Anderson (1990) proposes a "rheto-ric of paths" (a conscious choice of patterns of se-quences or "syntagmas" that could be invented orborrowed from semiotics/rhetoric). Anderson stressesthat the multiple structures (paths) for reading must bepreplanned to be coherent, but more importantly, theyneed to be aesthetically pleasing in order to makereading a meaningful experience. In another concept ofordering according to function, Franklin (1988) sug-gests that hypertexts with instructional purposes bebased on path structures informed by Salomon's (1979)statement that media can initiate thought processes andthat attributes of media can help to supplant mentalskills that learners may not possess. Therefore, Franklinsuggests guided, concurrent paths through the same

material that supply information, activate thought pro-cesses, and teach mental skills.

Social Implications of HypertextsMuch of the "hype" surrounding hypertext has dealtwith its information management capabilities. How-ever many of the social implications involved in themedia have not been carefully considered. Few writerspoint out that being able to locate or browse informa-tion at will is not equivalent to having knowledge,understanding or even aesthetics enjoyment. If theSemiotic viewpoint holds that texts are reflections ofand influences on social relationship. then by chang-ing the way we read and the the way we construct texts,we may influence society. By using hypertexts in theirclassrooms teachers must realize that they may beaffecting the larger views of their students. For ex-ample, hypertext changes meaning when it decom-poses ideas into units of information and arranges themhierarchically. These online texts are meant to beviewed analytically instead of holistically. Thus frag-mented texts take on new meanings "as sources ofinformation rather than models of human experience tobe transmitted from one generation to the next" (Baron1988, 380). Baron also speculates about how conditionsof reading (ie."under a tree" or at a CRT) changecognition or if personal relationships change when acomputer mediates human communication (ie. col-laborative hypertext?). Even the construction (infor-mation content/structure) of instructional hypertextsneeds close consideration. Doland (1989) observes thathypermedia is not a hermeneutically neutral act, that it"possesses its own meaning and impresses its ownmeaning on texts." Like traditional writing, hypertextsare "rhetorical tools" whose function is to persuade,influence, and inform readers of an author's views/values. Just as traditional writers construct the mean-ing of their texts by making deliberate rhetorical choices(such as information content, style, diction, structure),hypertext designers must also make considered choicesthat shape their electronic messages. Sir.ce all textspaper or electronic convey meanings and values inaddition to their intended information content, all writ-ers and designers must be aware of the effects of theirrhetorical choices. This "gatekeeper" function is espe-cially important in developing educational hypertextssince certain political, social, and cultural messages canbe amplified or distorted. Also naive readers maymistake a constructed viewpoint (a network of manytexts) as a "given," mirror of reality (Doland 1989,Bowers 1988, Muffoletto 1987).

The social implications are an important aspect ofhypertext's meaning. However, as D. Smith (1988)notes Classical research methodologies are not helpfulto guide educators in this problem and new researchmethods must be developed. Seeing hypertext from a

24 Instructional Developmentst;

Constructionist/Social/Semiotic view as unique, me-dia must change the nature of Hypertext research itself.

ReferencesAnderson, P.(1990). Toward an aesthetics of hypertextsystems. A semiotic approach. In Hypertext: Concepts,Systems and Applications. Proceedings of the1st EuropeanConference on Hypertext. Versailles, France: Cambridge.

Baron, N. (1988). Low on RAM: the semiotics of com-puting. In T. Sebeok and J. Umiker-Sebeok (Eds.), TheSemiotic Web 1988. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bowers, C. A. (1988). The Cultural Dimensions of Educa-tional Computing Understanding the Non-neutrality ofTechnology. NY: Teachers College Press.

Bush, V. (194,7., July 1). As we may think. AtlanticMonthly, pp.101-108.

CasteIli, C., Colazzo, L., Lnisa, M., and Molinari, A.(1990). Measuring User Disorientation Between HypertextStructureand Cognitive Structure. Presented at the PosterSession, 1st European Conference on Hypertext.Versaille, France.

Charney, D. (1987). Comprehending non-linear text. InHypertext '87 Proceedings. Nov. 13-15. Chapel Hill.pp.109-120. NY: Association for Computing Machin-ery.

Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learningfrom media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4), 445-459.

Crane, G. & Mylonas, E. (1988). An interactive curricu-lum on classical Greek civilization. Educational Tech-nology, 28 (11), 25-32.

Cunningham, D. (1984, April). What Every Teacher ShouldKnow About Semiotics. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation, New Orleans.

Dede, C. (1987). Empowering environments,hypermedia and microworlds. Computing Teacher, 15(3), 20-24.

DeYoung, L(1990). Linking considered harmful. InHypertext: Concepts, Systems and Applications. Proceed-ings of the1st European Co nference on Hypertext. Versailles,France: Cambridge.

Doland, V. (1989). Hypermedia as an interpretive act.Hypermedia, 1 (1), 6-19.

Egan, D.E., Remde, J.R., Landaver, T.K., Lochbaum,C.C., Gomez, L.M (1989). Behavioral evaluation andanalysis of a hypertext browser. In Human Factors inComputing Systems. Proceedings of Association forComputing Machinery CHI'89 Conference, pp. 205-210.Austin, TX.


Fidero, J. (1988, Oct.). A grand vision. Byte, pp.237-244.

Franklin, C.(1988, June). The hypermedia library. Da-tabase, pp.43-48.

Gardner, H. (1989). To Open Minds. Basic Books: NY

Girill, T.R. (1985). Narration, hierarchy, and autonomy:The problem of online text structure. In ASIS '85.Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the AmericanSociety for Information Science, 22, 345-357.

Gordon, S., Gustave], J., Moore, J., and Hankey, l .(1988).The effects of hypertext on reader knowledge represen-tation. In Proceedings of Human Factors Society 32ndAnnual Meeting, 296-300.

Haas, C. & Hayes, J. (1985). Effects of Text Display Vari-ables on Reading Tasks: Computer screen vs. Hard Copy.CDC Technical Report No. 3. (ERIC Document Repro-duction Service No. ED 260 387)

Haas, C & Hayes, J. (1986). What did I just say? Readingproblems in writing with the machine. Research in theTeaching of English , 20 (1), 22-35.

Haas, C.(1987, March) What Research With ComputersCan Tell us About the Uses of Reading in Writing. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 284 252)

Haas, C. (1989). Does medium make a difference? Twostudies of writing with pen and paper and with com-puters. Human Computer Interaction, 4 (2), 149-169.

Hansen, W. & Haas, C. (1988). Reading and writingwith computers: a framework for explaining differencein performance. Communications of the ACM September1988, 31 (9): 1080-89.

Harley, J. (1987). Designing electronic text: The role ofprint-based research. Educational Communication andTechnology, 35 (1), 3-17.

Harmon, G. (1988). Toward Encyclopedic Intelligence.Bulletin of the American Society fo; Information Science,15 ,24-27.

Heim, M. (1987). Electronic LAnguage: A PhilosophicalStudy of Word Processing. New Haven: Yale U. Press.

Hlynka, D. (1989, Feb.). Applying semiotic theory toeducational technology. In Proceedings of Selected Re-search Papers Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Asso-ciation for Educational Communication and Technology.Dallas, TX.

Horn, R. E . (1989). Mapping Hypertext: The Analysis,Organization, and Display of Knowledge for the Next Gen-eration of Online Text and Graphics. Lexington, MA:Lexington Institute.

Jonassen, D. (1988). Designing structured hypertextand structuring access to hypertext. Educational Tech-nology, 28 (11), pp.13-16.

168 25

Jonassen, D. (1988a). Integrating learning strategiesinto courseware to facilitate deeper processing." In D.Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional Designs for MicrocomputerCourseware. Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.

Kintsch, W & Van Dijk, T(1978). Toward a model of textcomprehension and production. Psychological Review,85 (5), 363ff.

Kowalski, R. (1990). Problems in using computers inpeer editing. Educational Technology, 30 (1), 37-40.

Marchionni, G (1988). Hypermedia and learning: Free-dom and chaos. Educational Technology, 28 (11), 9-12.

Meyer, G.J.F. (1975). The Organization of Prose and itsEffects on Memory. Amsterdam: North Holland Pub. Co.

Meyer, G. J. F., Brandt, D.M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Useof top-level structure in text: Key for reading compre-hension of ninth grade students. Reading Research Quar-terly, 1,172-103.

Monk, A. F., Walsh, P., & Dix, A.J. (1988). A comparisonof hypertext, scrolling and folding mechanisms forprogram browsi ng. In D.M. Jones and R. Winder (Eds.),People and Computers IV, pp.421-435. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Moulthrop, S. (1989). Hypertext and the 'hypereal'. InHypertext '89 Proceedings. Nov. 5-8, Pittsburgh, Penn.pp. 259-267. NY: Association for Computing Machin-ery.

Mu ffoletto, R. (1987). Technology and texts: Breakingthe window. Educational Media International (EMI), 24(2), pp.105-109.

Nielsen, J. (1990). Hypertext and Hypermedia. Boston,MA: Academic Press.

Roiniszowski, A.J. (1990). The Hypertext/HypermediaSolution - But what exactly was the problem? In D.Jonassen and H. Mandel (Eds.), Designing Hypermediafor Learning. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Rouet. J. (1990). Interactive text processing by inexperi-enced (hyper-) readers. In Hypertext: Concepts, Systemsand Applications. Proceedings of the 1st European Confer-ence on Hyper:text. Versailles, France: Cambridge.

Saffo, P.(1987). What you needed to know abouthypertext. Personal Computing, 111 (12), 166-173.

Salomon, G. & Gardner, H. (1986). The computer aseducator: Lessons from television research. EducationalResearcher, 15 (i),13-19.

Salomon, G. (1979). Interaction of Media, Cognition, andLearning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Salomon, G. (1983). The differential investment ofmental effort in learning from different sources. Educa-tional Psychologist, 18 (1), 42-50.

26

Smith, D (1988). Institutional contexts for interactivelearning media (or semiology meets the 'beeb'). Pro-grammed Learning and Educational Technology (PLED , 25(4), 340 -343.

Smith, J. B., Weiss, S., & Ferguson, G. (1987). A hypertextwriting environment and its cognitivebasis. In Hypertext'87 Proceedings. Nov. 13-15. Chapel Hill. pp.1195-1214.NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Smith, J. B. (1989). In B. Britton, & S. Glynn (Eds.),Computer Writing Environments: Theory, Research, andDesign. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Publisher.

Talbert, M. & Umphress, D. (1989). Object-oriented textdecomposition: A methodology for creating CAI usinghypertext. In Maurer, H. (Ed.), Computer Assisted Learn-ing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 360, 560-578.Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Tchudi, S. (1988). Invisible thinking and the hypertext.English Journal, 77 (1), 22-30.

Tierney, R.J. and Pearson, P.D. (1983). Toward a com-posing model of reading. Language Arts, 60. 568-80.

Wang, X & Liebscher, P. (1988). Information seeking inhypertext: Effects of a physical format and search strat-egy. In ASIS '88. Information Technology. Proceedings ofthe 51st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Infor-mation Science, 25, 220-228.

Yankelovich, N., Smith, K., Garrett, L. & Meyerowitz,N. (1987, Spring). Issues in designing a hypermediadocument system, pp. 35-86. In Learning Tomorrow:Multimedia in Education. Apple EAC.

Zellweger, P. (1989). Scripted documents: A hypermediapath mechanism. In Hypertext '89 Proceedings. Nov. 5-8, Pittsburgh, PA. NY: Association for ComputingMachinery.

*Lydia Hajnosz Doty is an alumnus (MS) of Instruc-tional Design, Development, and Evaluation at Syra-cuse University.


Job-AidsInteractive Multi-Media for Education, Part 1: Concepts/Applications

Alexander Romiszowski and Andrew Abrahamson *

MAP #1 1MM IN EDUCATION: AN OVERVIEW

Introduction This is the first of a multi-part series of reference materials on the topic of "interactive multi-media" (orIMM) and their use in education and training. The first three parts will cover:

1. Concepts and applications of IMM2. Design of instructional applications of IMM3. Developing IMM: tools and techniques.

This first part can be seen as dealing with the what and why of IMM.

What is IMM? There are almost as many definitions of IMM as there are writers on the topic. It has become the"buzz word" for the latest computer developments in digital storage and processing of graphicsand video for whatever purpose. But in education, there is a long history of the use of this term,or at least its components media, multimedia, and interactivity.

The first few maps that follow "unpick" the term and clarify (maybe extend) the meaning weshould be giving to IMM in the context of education and training applications.

Why IMM? As the technological possibilities of capture, storage, interlinking, transmission, and use ofinformation (in any format) expand, we are inexorably driven to apply the new technologies injust about every field, including education. But what do educators hope to gain from theseapplications? In what specific ways can the new IMM technologies really make a difference tothe quality and cost-effectiveness of educational and training programs? The answers are notall that clear.

Why ask? An illustrative example of the need for more clarity, in both concept and purpose, is the storyof the reasons behind the organization of the International Interactive Multimedia Symposium,in Perth, Western Australia, January 1992.

The main conference organizer/sponsor was the School of Electrical and Computer Engineer-ing of Curtin University, where, for over 5 years, some 20 faculty members have beendeveloping interactive multimedia for use in their own teaching. The conclusion of over 100work years of communal experiences was that "it had made no difference to learning whatare we doing wrong? ' organize an international conference to find out." Incidentally,perhaps because of this angle to the theme, it was one of the best IMM conferences ever!

What's coming up next?1 whatIMM in education OP--irwhy

5Interactivity

Multimedia 1111111. Hypertext

4Hypermedia

How to select an educational application of IMM

Volume 3 (1) Fall 1991/Spring 1992 27

1

MAP #2 MULTIMEDIA

Introduction Imagine that you are in a kindergarten class full of excited 5 year olds. One student draws with a crayon.Another student spreads finger paint on a long sheet of paper. A third student uses building blocks. Theteacher shows a film strip. Imagine that all these people are trying to show what the White House lookslike.

If you look at only one of these presentation forms, you would gl-t only one mental picture. If you view allthese presentation forms, you get a much richer mental picture.

Definition Multimedia is the use of multiple presentation forms to display information. These presentationforms, referred to as media, may include either high or low technologies.

Diagram

Historical The use of multimedia is not a new practice. However, the use of multimedia controlled orDevelopment enhanced by computer technology is a recent innovation. Today, when we think of multimedia,

we often associate the term with high technology presentation forms such as videodisc and CDtechnologies.

The possibility of storing all forms of information presentation as digital data on one convenientstorage device and then rapidly accessing any combination of parts of this data base has revivedearlier interest in the use of complex multimedia presentations.

Multimedia Multimedia can be thought to consist of three elements: media, technology and products.Elements In the past we have focused primarily on the media. In recent years we have paid more attention

to the technology involved in computer-aided multimedia. In order to develop the mostappropriate media for an instructional episode, instructional designers must also consider theproducts of multimedia presentations.

Examples ofElements

MEDIA TECHNOLOGY

rio

PRODUCTS

TEXT

OpticalStorage

Computer

VideoTechnology

VideoNotebooksVideo EditingToursSimulationsAdventure GamesTalking BooksTutorialsTeacher Lecture Aids

WordsNumbersAUDIOMusicSpeechVISUALSStill ImagesMoviesAnimationetc.


MAP #3 HYPERTEXTIntroduction Imagine that you are creating an interactive computer-based presentation on an important historical

novel. You have obtained and stored the book electronically on a hard disc. Now you want to include textwhich describes:

1. the book, it's storyline, it's style, it's period2. the author3. the importance of this work in relation to the period it is set in4. its relationship with other works by this author and works of other authors5. other works that deal with the same historical period.

Traditional texts have been linear in nature. They flow from one idea to the next. However, the creatorof this presentation would want a text that is not linear, but one that links one idea with another onethat connects one set of information with another.

Definitions 1. A text written and organized as a structure of interlinked information chunks or nodes, thatcan be read in many different sequences, for different purposes, at different levels of detail ordifficulty, depending on the reader's interest, needs, and abilities.

2. Computer software that enables authors to create and store such information structures, andreaders to browse through them rapidly and convienently.

Purpose Hypertext allows words or ideas, to be associated with other words or ideas. Hypertext fostersnon-sequential thinking/working/creating that enables users to associate chunks (NODES) ofinformation together through a variety of LINKS or connections. It enables users to accessgreater depths of information by moving between related documents which share thematicconnections. Hypertext aids the user in forming an idea of the STRUCTURE of a body ofinformation.

Diagram The essential attributes of a hypertext (NODES and LINKS, which form a browsable STRUC-TURE of information) are illustrated in this representation of a hypothetical knowledge base.

Examples 1. Hypertext is usually associated with electronically stored screens of information, which canbe "browsed" by activating "buttons" built into the text. Clicking on a button brings upanother screen or a "window" containing related/more detailed information. The mostwidely known examples of hypertext are the many browsing databases created by users ofApple Computer's "Hypercard" authoring software.

2. However, hypertext need not be electronically stored. Encyclopedia Britannica is an exampleof a form of hypertext in that it stores information in small chunks that can be interlinked bythe user, at will, through use of the indexing and cross-referencing facilities provided.


17229

History We often associate hypertext with Apple's Hypercard. However, hypertext predates Apple'sproduct by nearly 30 years. Before the advent of the microcomputer, Theodore Nelson coinedthe term "hypertext" in 1965. He conceived of a "worldwide network of the word's storedwritings, graphics and data." Before the term was coined, the concept was already made to workin a computer-based environment, by Douglas Engelbart (1962 onwards), who developed theAugment system at Stanford. The concept is now commonly accredited to Vannevar Bush, whoproposed the Memex system of electronically interlinked documents as early as 1945. However,the origins of structuring information as "nodes" which are interrelated by defined "links" areprobably centuries old, originating in the habits of researchers to create personal sets of "notecards" to structure a complex subject matter, and then to create reference works, like dictionariesand encyclopaedias, to communicate the subject to others.

Some VariableDimensions of theHypertext Concept

Philosophy

The non-sequential multi-dimensionalstorage of information is a characteris-tic of the human mind. Associativelinking is a characteristic of creativethinking. So it should be more "natural"and more "useful" to structure externalknowledge bases in a similar way.

s Pragmatism

It is impossible to predict the informationneeds of a particular individual reader,so it is more effective and more economi-cal to structure a knowledge base so thatit can serve the information needs of anyreader, under "user-control."

Constructivism

Knowledge structures are personalunique representations of reality whichare formed through interaction withone's environment, colleagues, etc. Ahypertext is an external record of theunique structure imposed on a domainof knowledge by an individual or acollaborative group.

s Objectivism

A given domain of knowledge may heanalyzed, structured, and therefore pre-sented in a manner which will be optimalfor both initial learning and later refer-ence. The network of information nodesand the links between them representsthe inherent structure of the knowledgedomain.

Collaborative Creativity

The network of information nodes andthe links between them is therefore theresult of an act of creativity or insight onthe part of the author(s). Any usershould be free to annotate or otherwiseadd to the hypertext.

vs Systematic Design

The preparation of hypertext is a special-ist task to be performed by a few skilleddesigners for the benefit of many readers.Additions or changes to this structurewill be the result of the systematic cre-ation of new knowledge.


MAP #4 HYPERMEDIAIntroduction Imagine a mechanic who wants to learn about adjusting the idle on a modern, computer-controlled

automobile. What are the ways that this mechanic could learn? He or she could:read a text report describing various techniques and procedureswatch a motion video of another mechanic successfully adjusting the idlelisten to a description and watch a motion video of the procedureview slides of various engine parts.

Imagine this mechanic being able to use all of these presentation forms, jumping from one medium to anotherwith the touch of a button.

Definition Hypermedia is an extension of the hypertext concept, to incorporate a variety of media forms.Hypermedia extends the linking or association capabilities of hypertext to the following presen-tation formats: graphics, animation, scanned images, voice, sound, music, still video, full-motionvideo.

Diagram This picture shows how the concept of Hypermedia is a fusion of hypertext and multimedia.

Hypermedia (1) Interactive VideoDelivery Interactive Video (IV) is the fusion of video and computer technologies. A videoprogram andSystems a computer program run in tandem under the control of the user. In interactive video, the user's

actions, choices and decisions affect the way in which the program unfolds. When the videocomponent is stored on a laser disc, the same disc may also store still images, text, audio, etc. (i.e.multimedia). When access is multi-dimensional, non-sequential, and under user control, wehave hypermedia.

(2) Interactive Still VideoInteractive still video stores images on a reusable 2" floppy diskette. These images can becombined with graphic overlays, menus, and branching routes. Digital cameras will store imagesdirectly onto diskettes, thus providing inexpensive, in -house production of a visual knowledgebase. Hypertext software (eg. Hypercard) may be used to create the browsable structure elementof hypermedia.

(3) CD SystemsDigitally stored data and music, on the compact disc format, are now commonplace (CD-ROM,CD-music). More recently, advances in technology have made available systems which store stilland moving images on this format. Progress is making such CD-based multimedia/hypermediasystems cheaper and more versatile.

(4) Workstation-based systemsAs computer power and memory increase, it is becoming increasingly possible to store full-colorgraphics, photographic quality still images and even motion video on the hard disc, or conven-

Volume 3 (1) Fall 1991 /Spring 1992 31

174;

tional peripheral storage devices, where they are structured as a hypermedia knowledge base,browsasble under user control.

(5) Network-based systemsAs computer networks proliferate and data-compression technologies progress, it is becomingincreasingly feasible to share information in any presentation format between geographicallyseparated information sources (libraries, archives) and users. The networked "world multimedialibrary" predicted by Bush and Nelson is becoming a technical possibility.

Hypermedia The development of hypermedia (and indeed most linear multimedia) presentations requires aDevelopment workstation that provides:Systems ways of accessing and capturing information in a variety of presentation modes (audio, video,

text) from a variety of sources (paper, videotape, online TV, slides);image-processing capabilities (similar to the capabilities of text editing offered by a wordprocessor);an authoring system capable of originating computer-based text and graphic screens, over-lays, etc. (like any CAI authoring system) and also creating the browsable network of nodesand links (a hypertext authoring system).

Example The IBM Audio Visual Connection (AVC) System is one of the most sophisticated integratedhypermedia/multimedia workstations available today. The heart of the system, the AVCauthoring language, lets the user design hypermedia by manipulating story elements by way ofan "object-oriented" language. Objects such as motion video, still video, graphics and text canbe manipulated one at a time or simultaneously.

IBM's AVC System

Viewing Monitor

Videodisc

Videotape

Microphone

I AVC

CD Player

Audio captureplayback adapter

Video captureadapter / A

Projection TV

Headphones

..-----

PS/

Amplifier

Speakers

\N LAN

8514/Adisplay adapter


MAP #5 INTERACTION AND INTERACTIVITYIntroduction In order to understand interactive multimedia/hypermedia and their role in education, it is important to

define clearly the various dimensions of interactivity that may be incorporated, singly or in combination,in a given instructional presentation.

The issue to consider is illustrated in the cartoon. How can we be sure that the "active" student on theleft is in fact learning more, or better, than the "couch potato" on the right?

The Student

Active Passive

Interactive Interactive media involve the viewer as a source of input to determine the content or durationMedia of a message, which permits individualized program presentation. The individualization may

involve "system-control" or "learnercontrol" or a combination of the two.

System- In the past years, technology -based instructional programs have had the reputation of beingControlled electronic page-turners. The earliest computer-assisted instruction, based on Skinner's teachingInteraction machines, did not provide the learner with adaptive control of the instructional program.

Current practice in computer-based instruction has focussed on more interactive, and oftenelaborate, instructional programs. However, the bulk of such CBI (or CAI) packages control theinteraction process by eliciting specific responses to specific questions or tasks, and on the basisof a response-analysis, select the next segment for presentation. Such instructional systems mayalso be classified as "CONTROL BY FEED-BACK."

Learner- Instructional research and practice during the past 20 years has included more emphasis onControlled learner control. Some studies suggest that at certain levels, learner or user control can be aInteraction positive enhancement, allowing branching and individualized routes of instruction. Interactive

media, used as instructional tools, can provide the user with the opportunity to have variedamounts of control over the instructional segments presented. The typical procedure is to offerthe learner a "menu"of choices of what to do or where to go next. Such systems could be usefullyclassified as "CONTROL BY FEED-FORWARD."

Frequency of The most obvious characteristic of interactive instructional/informational systems is that theInteraction user is actively engaged in the clicking a mouse, touching a screen, entering information with

a keyboard, etc. Many potential users (and indeed designers/developers) view this as theprincipal (perhaps only) measurable characteristic of interactivity. The frequency of clicking/touching/keying becomes a measure of the degree of interactivity of the system. Someprominent writers (eg. Bork, 1987) hay even gone so far as to define the optimal number ofseconds between such physical interactions (eg., 15-20 seconds).

Depth of A somewhat overlooked (but in instructional contexts much more important) measure of theInteraction the degree of interactivity of a system is the extent to which the interactions cause the user to

"think." Are the interactions purely "surface" level jumps from one topic to another, withoutthe need to relate the topics clearly to each other in the mind, or are the challenges set up by thesystem such as to encourage a "deep" level of reflection on the topic?

Volume 3 (1) Fall 1991/Spring 1992 33

176

Diagram

high

Fre

q

en

y

low

INTERACTIVITY

This graph attempts tc illustrate two dimensions of interactivity. Each point represents apossible interactive multimedia/hypermedia system.

A Third Imagine that the points on the diagram above are in fact at different heights above the page,Dimension representing where the system lies on the dimension of "control."Control

Learner-Control

Mixed-Initiative Control

System-Control

Reference Bork, A. (1987). Lessons from computer-based learning. In D. Laurillard (Ed.), Interactive Media:Working Methods and Practical Applications, pp. 28-43. Chichester, U.K.: Ellis Horwood.


MAP # 6 SELECTION AND DESIGN OF IMM APPLICATIONSIntroduction There are two convenient general ways to classify educational /training applications of IMM (or indeed of

most other categories of educational materials): by category of CONTENT; or by category of INTENT.Classifying by objectives, or INTENT, is useful in that it focuses on the intended outcomes as a way ofidentifying appropriate teaching methods and media. Classifying by CONTENT is useful in that it focuseson the media that may be appropriate for storage, transfer, and access and also on the structure of theknowledge base.

INTENT 1) Informational IMM. There is a body of knowledge to be disseminated and this knowledgeto inform exists (or can exist) in a variety of media formats. Bringing this knowledge together in a common,

digital format as an organized and structured knowledge base will make it more accessible andmore useful, both as a basis for learning and as a general purpose reference resource (amultimedia library). The system provides FEED-FORWARD interaction (guidance/advice) toallow user control over content/sequence.

to teach 2) Teaching IMM. Although an information system may be used in teaching, it must be enhancedto become a full teaching system. There are two sub-categories:

2.1 Instructional IMM Systems. Instruction implies that specific learning objectives are to beachieved. This in turn implies evaluation of learning and FEED-BACK, usually of a correctivenature. This sub-category may offer little learner control over the process of use and interaction(i.e. multi-media CAI) or learner control over content and system control over intent (i.e.instructional hypermedia).

2.2 Conversational IMM Systems. Conversation here implies that both learner" and "teacher"may initiate interaction, that the objectives and content of a session are negotiable, but there isstill a "teacher's" responsibility to help the student to learn. Such systems have to be rich in bothFEED-FORWARD and FEED-BACK interactivity. Moreover, the interactions must be "deep"rather I han "surface." "Structural Communication" (see Instructional Developments, 1(2)) is amethodology for implementing conversational systems in a multi-media environment, whichstops short of the complexity of intelligent tutoring systems.

to motivate 3) Motivational IMM. Although much is said about "engaging" the learner, instructionaltheories (and conversational theories) do not, in general, address the issue of generating initialinterest and motivation for learning (a notable exception is John Keller's ARCS model). Profes-sionally designed mediated presentations (e.g. Hollywood movies) are often highly effective inthis respect. The role of IMM in gaining ATTENTION and establishing RELEVANCE (the A andR of ARCS) may be its most important role in education.

to entertain 41 Entertaining IMM. Using IMM to entertain may be part of a teaching strategy for a dull activity(e.g. drill-and-practice). If may also be indicated as an opening pre-instructional event, in orderto relax the learner and create a receptive climate for learning. However, beware of "educational"IMM that are exclusively entertaining, without any intent to inform, teach or motivate.

CONTENT Factual content (specific factual information, routine procedures, etc) is often unnecessary tofactual vs learn (memorize) if it can be made available as "user friendly", convenient and effective reference

conceptual material. IMM may often be an ideal approach to the creation of on-the-job "performancesupport systems."

Conceptual content (concepts, principles, theories, strategies) has to be "understood" so it can beapplied across a range of case examples. IMM may assist both in the presentation of the contentin a more understandable way and in the provision of a variety of realistic cases /examples.

loosely Loosely structured content (discrete, independent items) lends itself to presentation in anvs highly "encyclopedia" format, with each "mini-presentation" catalogued and indexed to be accessiblestructured under user-control by means of glossaries, key words, and other search tools.

Highly structured content (complex knowledge domains) requires the component items to beinterrelated, so that a user may learn the "big picture" as well as the details. A "hypermedia"format is appropriate, designed on the basis of a thorough content analysis and providing both"feed-forward" and "feed-back" links and frequent advance organizers and summaries.


17835

Summary ofDesign Issues

INTENT IS TO: 1) IMM Potential 2) Design bases 3) 1....ev design issuesENTERTAIN Slick presentations Film design

Graphic designLinear, system controlledpresentations are better

User involvement Game designSimulation design

Should be interactive, underuser control

MOTIVATE Gain attention throughimpact

ARCS modelMotivation theories

Seek "emotional engage-ment" in the task

Show relevance to real life Needs analysisAudience analysis

Many examples or contextsfor a varied audience

Use Information Mappingand other organizing tools

INFORM Structured knowledgebase

Information scienceContent analysis

Networking of informationsources

Multimedia instruction"

Computer scienceLibrary science

ObjectivismInstructional theory

Compatibility and accessproblems must be solvedProvision of practice andfeedback is essential

TEACH

Networked "conversation" ConstructivismConversation theory

Structural Communicationor "ICAI" as design models

CONTENT IS:FACTUAL Quick reference knowledge

basesOnline performance support

terns

Job-performance-aidsdesignExpert systems design

Some "intelligence" in theFEED-FORWARD functionis desirable (a "librarian"interface)

CONCEPTUAL Visualization of abstractconceptsApplicatim to realexamples

Message designContent analysisAudience analysisSituated cognition

Some "intelligence" in theFEED-BACK function isdesirable (a "tutor"interface)

LOOSELYSTRUCTURED

MultimediaencyclopediasGeneric media banks/archives

Library sciencesAudience analysisContent analysisInterface design

Possible use of mul-tiple authors/sourcesfor the separate corn-ponents of the system

HIGHLYSTRUCTURED

Hypermedia networksSpecific user applications

Schema theorySubject expertiseContent analysisInformation mapping

There must be a centralteam responsible fordesigning the structureand the components

Alexander Romiszowski is Professor of InstructionalDesign, Development, and Evaluation at Syracuse Uni-versity.

Andrew Abrahamson is a doctoral candidate in In-structional Design, Development, and Evaluation atSyracuse University.

36 1'/3 Instructional Developments

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITYInstructional Developments364 Huntington HallSyracuse, New York 13244-2340

NON-PROM' ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDSYRACUSE

UNIVERSITYSYRACUSE, NEW YORK

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 350 973 IR 015 783 TITLE Instructional Developments. A Journal … ·...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME ED 350 973 IR 015 783 TITLE Instructional Developments. A Journal … ·...