AN ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTORAL LEVEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN THE FIELD OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY AT SELECTED INSTITUTIONS THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF Ph. D. 7 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY : GLENN GARDNER am 1959 ' THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTORAL LEVEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN THE FIELD OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY AT SELECTED INSTITUTIONS presented by Glenn Gardner Snow has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY degree in College of Education £222,713 m Major professor Date 13 October 1969 0-169 AN ANALYSIS 1 IN TH] The pl into the Compe Sional Persom ation in the 1 The hj Pepulatmn san COHSQrtiUm in The U“i\’ers i t\ ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTORAL LEVEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN THE FIELD OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY AT SELECTED INSTITUTIONS BY Glenn Gardner Snow The purpose of this study was to gain some insight into the competencies and experiences needed by profes- sional personnel at the doctoral level for optimum prepar- ation in the field of Instructional Technology. The higher education institutions selected as the population sample are those that comprise the University Consortium in Educational Media and Technology. They are The University of Southern California, Michigan State Uni- versity, Syracuse University, Indiana University, and the Oregon System of Higher Education. Inasmuch as the Oregon System does not have a doctoral level program in Instruc- tional Technology, it has not been included in this study. Information was collected from a number of sources. The determination of course offerings, program content, and related work was made from catalog listings, course syllabi, promotional brochures, and student handouts. "Field perceptions" of personnel from the four institu- tions were determined by a written questionnaire sent to randomly selected students, graduates, and staff. Re- sponses to the items on the questionnaire were treated statistically to determine consistency, consensus, and/or variance’ To rec ounnerlda t i O osophers" in considera tion 1. Th bility or hie in the optimU ple in the fi cally, experi theory, syste research met} tional materi of media faci 9m. are key level. 2. TI internship toI‘Isidered n, Yerials and ”5' ed inst Y « bade Glenn Gardner Snow variance. To temper the findings from these two sources, recommendations from "scholars," "innovators," and "phil- osophers" in the field were incorporated in the overall consideration. Findings 1. There is agreement as to the relative desira— bility or hierarchy of particular elements to be included in the optimum preparation program for doctoral level peo- ple in the field of Instructional Technology. Specifi- cally, experiences with learning and communications theory, systems theory and design, educational psychology, research method and design, selection and use of instruc- tional materials and media equipment, the administration of media facilities, and curriculum design and develop— ment, are key elements in the preparation program at this level. 2. There is disagreement as to the value of an internship experience in Instructional Technology. Areas considered "desirable" deal with an overview of media ma- terials and equipment, use of classroom television, pro- grammed instruction, design of media facilities, and teaching experience. The "tool" areas; i. e., photogra- phy, graphics, production, cinematography, business administration, and statistics rated lower than did the "theory" or "academic" areas in the perception of those in the field. 3. T toral degree basic electr cation also Prep They must be Change is th toral level enough to sh enough that Some and staff to tiVe and an be limited b OperatiOn is Glenn Gardner Snow 3. The foreign language requirement for the doc- toral degree is considered inappropriate. Library skills, basic electronics, and administrative experience in edu- cation also received low value ratings. Implications of the Study Preparation programs can never remain static. They mast be subject to constant assessment and revision. Change is the only constant. If preparation of the doc- toral level person is to be functional it must be flexible enough to shift with the demands of society and stable enough that it does not collapse in the process. Some arrangement that will permit both students and staff to work together in teams with definite objec- tive and an opportunity to solve real problems rather than be limited by the traditional course - seminar type of operation is necessary to permit the introduction and use of all the experiences that are deemed to be essential. This type of operation is necessary at both the "general core" area and the speciality areas. The institutions included in this study are cur- rently making a concerted effort to make their programs more fundtional for their advanced graduate students. A set of suggested "guidelines" for new programs is in- cluded in the study. W "i AN ANA I- FRI“ in AN ANALYSIS OF THE DOCTORAL LEVEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN THE FIELD OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY AT SELECTED INSTITUTIONS BY Glenn Gardner Snow A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1969 V! . .v- 'I :52 Grat E. Miller, I Dr. Robert 1. been most v: The the Title v‘ “knowledge The truly helpe lated to it thanks are enra work ial includ. To for additi “ If (Io/£43 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful appreciation is expressed to Dr. Elwood E. Miller, Dr. Charles Blackman, Dr. Sheldon Lowry, and Dr. Robert Kline. Their encouragement and counsel has been most valuable in the preparation of this study. The interest and help given by my colleagues in the Title VI-B Institute for Instructional Development is acknowledged and appreciated. The encouragement and support of my family has truly helped to make this study and the activities re- lated to it a "family project." Special recognition and thanks are tendered to my wife, Joyce, for all of the extra.work of typing, editing and re-typing of the mater- ial included here. It has been invaluable help. To all those who have helped to bring this quest for additional educational experience to a successful plateau, the writer is indebted. Without their help, the work could never have been completed. ii ‘1 '7...'ll Chapter I. THE PF Pur; Plat ASSI Limf Def: Sum: II- REVIE‘ Int Gen Con Cer Rec Sun 111- ossn PrI Fin Chapter I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose of the Study Plan for the Study Assumptions Limitations Definition of Terms Summary II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction General Background Competency and Preparation Certification Recent Studies Summary III. DESIGN FOR THE STUDY . . . . . Preparation Programs _ Field Perceptions Population and Sample Instrumentation Distribution Treatment Recommendations from Scholars, and "Philosophers" Summary iii Innovators, 18 1+8 ‘1 IV. ANALT Bac Ad: COI Flt IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background Information Admissions Requirements Teaching Experience Grade Point Average Examinations Personal Interview Summary Course Offering Field Perceptions Distribution and Return of Questionnaire Statistical Analysis One-Way Analysis of Variance Newman-Keuls Sequential Range Test Rank Order Listing Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance Comments and Suggestions Recommendations from Scholars, Innovators, and "Philosophers" Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . Conclusions Implications of Study Summary Guidelines BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX B O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 0 iv 58 102 116 121+ 132 Table 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Listing of Requirements and Recommendations for Admission to Doctoral Program . . . . . Distribution and Return of Questionnaire . . . One-Way Analysis of Variance Item # 26 Public School Administration One-Way Analysis of Variance Item # 35 Statistics . . . . . . . One-Way Analysis of Variance Item # 45 Internship in Instructional Technology . . . . . . . . . . Rank Order Listing of Items from the Questionnaire as Determined by Group Means - Admissions Requirements . . . . Rank Order Listing of Items from the Questionnaire as Determined by Group Means - Course Work and/or Experiences . The Kendall Coefficient of Concordance Analysis of Variance Report . . . . . . . . . Newman-Keuls Analysis Item # 26 Public School Administration . . Newman-Keuls Analysis Item # 35 Statistics . . . . . . . . . . Newman-Keuls Analysis Item # AS Internship in Instructional Technology ,. . . . . . . . . . . Page 66 75 78 78 78 80 81 8A 132 1A7 1h8 1H9 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS The development of instructional technology might be considered as concurrent with that of the growth of for- mal instruction. The caveman, as he attempted to communi- cate by placing crude drawings on the walls of his dwell— ings, was the first "visual" technologist. Saettler refers to the early Sophists as the "ancestors of instruc- tional technology" and notes that some of the early con- tentions of Plato with the Sophists related to the conception that they had of the role of techne in the instructional process.1 Using figures in the sand as a visual medium is well known to those who studied Euclid— ean geometry before the advent of "modern mathematics." The fact that the majority of citizens in the Greco-Roman Empire were literate is well documented. It is assumed that as the "barbarians" destroyed these civilizations, this literate state was lost. An interesting contention is made by Highet. He says: Most of the townsfolk and city people in the Greco-Roman civilizations, and numbers of the farmers, had been literate, as we know from the wide 1Paul Saettler, A History of Instructional Techm nology, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968, p. 15. 1 distribution of literature and the many inscriptions put up all over the empire. But illiteracy came in with the barbarians, and settled down for centuries. It was almost universal in the Dark Ages. It was widespread in the Middle Ages, as we can see from shop signs and coats of arms. If your soldiers cannot read, you put up a shield azure with three rose gules upon it, to tell them their master's name and descent. If your customers cannot read it is useless to put up a sign saying PAWNBROKER: you hang out three golden' balls, borrowed from the coat of arms of the Medici bankers.1 The importance of the use of visual symbols as a precursor of a return to a literate state is doubly empha- sized in such an illustration. Before any individual, re— gardless of the level of culture or society that he lives in, can make meaningful use of the graphic symbols we call printing he must make some abstraction of his personal experience. Many scholarly arguments may be traced to the concern on the part of educational leaders and practi- tioners with the place of the concrete-abstract continuium in the learning process. The development of instructional technology has been significantly influenced by such educational leaders as Comenius, who proposed a different kind of teaching awareness when he wrote the Great Didactic2 and followed 1Gilbert Highet, The Art of Teaching, New York, Vintage Books, Inc., 195A, p. 199. 2Johann Amos Comenius, The Great Didactic, First English Edition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1953, Translated by Vladimir Jelenik, p. 239. (Original version, 1633). 3 it with a practical example, Orbus Pictus (The World in Pictures);1 and by such men as Rousseau who postulated that children should be educated in accord with their own natural interests. Others, such as Pestalozzi, following the lead of Rosseau, suggested "natural, harmonious" development in the expansion of thinking about methods of instruction. Piaget and Bruner have talked and written about active learning and the ever-increasing boundaries of individual growth that comes from a cognitive approach to the learning process.2 Thoughts and propositions such as these have all had a laudatory effect upon the develop- ment of instructional technology. Recent history has placed an increasingly signifi- cant emphasis upon the role of formal education in our present society and has also served to re-assert the im— portance of technology within the educational complex that serves society. Though there is less than total agreement as to the causes of this increased interest in the educa- tional mainstream, it is generally recognized that it was shortly after Sputnik that American public education, with all its alleged inadequacies, moved into center stage. 1 , Orbus Pictus - The World in‘ Pictures: Visible World or a Nomenclature and Pictures of All the Chief Things in the World, written by the Author in Latin and High Dutch, Translated into English by Charles Hoole, Little Britain, 1728. ZSaettler, loc. cit., p. 22. See also, W. R. Ful- ton and Fredrick A. White, "What Constitutes Teacher Com- petence in Audio-Visual Communication?" Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. xxxx, No. 4, (January 1959), p. 158. II The immediate federal reaction, in the form of legislation known as the National Defense Education Act, was viewed by some as Pandora's Box. It cannot be denied, however, that appreciable changes have taken place in American education since the Act was passed. The original version of the National Defense Education Act did not men- tion "instructional materials" or "media" pg; 32, Title III of the Act did specify "equipment" and this was inter- preted in most states to include "instructional materials" and media equipment. The implementation of Title III made the sequisition of these materials and equipment possible for public schools throughout the country and, in effect, awakened a new interest in the utilization of the "mater— ials of instruction." Token provision was also made for the Summer Institutes to give additional training and edu- cational experience to the teachers of science, mathema- tics, and modern foreign language. Subsequent legislation made provision for the extension of both equipment allotments and the Institute idea into other disciplines. By 1967 the fields included were: Arts and Humanities, Civics, Counseling and Guid- ance, Disadvantaged Youth, Economics, Educational Media, English, English for Speakers of Other Languages, Geogra- phy, History, Industrial Arts, International Affairs, 5 Modern Foreign Languages, and Reading.1 The guidelines of the United States Office of Education indicated that one of the responsibilities of the Director of each of these Academic Institutes was to include the development and utilization of media in the preparation and presentation of the scholarly material included in the Institute. This phase of the Institute program was not recog- nized nor well defined at the outset. As a result ancil— lary kinds of organizations have been formed to help alle- viate problems that have developed as the specialists in the various disciplines attempted to mediate their exper- tise. Following a number of discussions and planning conferences, an initial step in the formulation of these organizations was the drawing of a contract between the United States Office of Education and the University of Southern California to conduct a series of "Special Media Institutes (SMI)" for the Directors of the Academic Insti- tutes. Overall growth in this program made it practical for other higher education institutions to enter into this relationship, essentially as sub-contractors. Since 1965 these institutions have formed what has come to be known as the University Consortium in Educational Media and Technology. The members of the Consortium are: The Uni- versity of Southern California, Indiana University, 1The Mediated Dialogue, An Account of the Experi— mental National Media Institutes, Department of Instruc- tional Technology, University of Southern California, 1967, p. h. Michigan State University, The Oregon System of Higher Education, and Syracuse University. Most of the institu- tions have conducted or are conducting Special Media Institutes at this time (1969). Indiana University, how— ever, has not been an active participant in the Special Media Institute program. It has not been assumed that the Special Media Institute program was a direct cause of increased interest in advanced graduate programs in the field of Instruc- tional Technology/Educational Communications. These in- stitutions have long been recognized as leaders in the pre—service preparation of professional personnel in this area. It would appear, however, that the S. M. I. opera- tion has served as a catalyst for increased institutional involvement in the doctoral level programs in the field. Schuller says, for example: It should be noted that the four universities (M. s. U., U. s. 0., Syracuse, and Indiana) all have operated leading advanced-graduate level programs for the professional training of educational media person- nel for approximately the last decade. A very large share of the individuals holding doctorates who are now working in the field have received their training during the last five to ten years at these institu- tions.1 The problem of adequate personnel and well pre— pared manpower is a major concern of any functioning 1Charles F. Schuller, "Project Proposal to the United States Office of Education — A Project to Generate an Improved Professional Program in Instructional Develop- ment and Educational Technology," December 1, 1968, p. 6. program. It Instructional of educationa personnel has and developed Ely comments I At a as a fact, have far 6 Problems V tend to 1:} Possible 1 national c regional 5 occurring the world Practicing Specif field .113 I S \11) and Tech One 1 {Jannarynplogy 969) 7 program. It is a very real problem in the field of Instructional Technology. Recent federal action in terms of educational programs for larger groups of instructional personnel has accentuated the importance of well conceived and developed programs to meet an ever-expanding need. Ely comments on the situation this way: At a time when educational technology is accepted as a fact, the demands upon personnel in the field have far exceeded the number of people available. Problems which exist on local and regional levels ex- tend to the state and national scene. No longer is it possible for one institution to serve state—wide and national demands while continuing to provide local and regional services. With developments in the field occurring so rapidly in many parts of the country and the world the need for immediate communications among practicing educational technologists is urgent.1 Specific concern about the present preparation program is voiced by West: Who is training this educational specialist today? For the most part his training program seems to be trial and error learning. . . . the time has come for the numerous talents and resources in schools and col- leges to be identified, carefully selected, and put to work developing a new program to train the educational media specialist more effectively.2 It has been indicated that one of the purposes of the Consortium is to "improve graduate education in the field."3 It should not be implied that this "improvement" 1Donald P. Ely, "Consortium in Educational Media and Technology," Educational Technology, Vol. IX, No. 1, (January 1969), p. 33. 2L. Clinton West, "A New Partnership Is NeededI," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. XIII, No. 8, (October 1968), p. 926. 3Ely, loc. cit., p. 33. 8 is to result in identical programs in the institutions that form the UCEMT. The intent has been to identify the basic nucleus for the curriculum and to have sufficient flexibility in the design "to allow each institution to accent the program with its unique strength, expertise, and previous experience."1 Current (1969) interest is at an all time high in all areas of education. Much discussion has ensued relat- ing to differentiated assignments and the roles of persons working at all levels within education. These discussions have been of particular concern to those working in In- structional Technology because the role assignment in this area is somewhat elusive. Much of the debate has centered around the degree of expertise and the range of qualifica- tions required at the various levels of professional assignments. Though there has been marked increase in the num- ber of media courses offered at the graduate level at the universities throughout the country there is little evi- dence of cooperative work among the institutions in plan— ning or developing curricula for the people who are pre— paring for the professional levels in the field of Instruc— tional Technology. The Department of Audio Visual Instruction of the National Education Association is currently involved in a 1Schuller, loc. cit., p. 9 9 study, "Jobs in Instructional Media Study (JIMS)," funded by the United States Office of Education (1969). Its pri- mary emphasis is upon the para-professional or media sup- port kinds of assignments.1 The present emphasis of the Professional Education of Media Specialists (PEMS) Commis- sion of the Department of Audio Visual Instruction is directed toward the specialist and/or technician.2 The preparation of other professional level per- sons in the field has been the subject of some discussion. This study will attempt to explore and examine programs in Instructional Technology at the doctoral level. Purpose of the Study It is the purpose of this study to gain insights and hopefully to begin to answer the following question: What competencies are needed by professional level people at the doctoral level; what preliminary exper- iences are required; and what experiences should be provided within the program for optimum preparation in the field of Instructional Technology? Plan for the Study An indication of the current situation (1969), as well as its historical antecedents, has been determined from the literature. Inasmuch as a number of different 1James Wellington, Pryor Hale, Freda Douglas, "Toward Solving the Media Manpower Puzzle," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. XIV, No. 1, (January 1969), p. 36. 2Highlight of Commission and Committee Reports, Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. XIII, No. 6, (June-July 1968), pp. 656-663. 10 terms, such as "visual education," "audio-visual educa- tion," "media," "instructional technology," "educational communications," and others have been used at different times and places and all appear to be pertinent, all have been included in the literature survey. The competencies and experiences indicated from the review were considered in the formulation of the survey instrument. They were n23 considered as a comparison group in the statistical analysis of the data obtained from the field through the use of the questionnaire noted below. It has been assumed that a pattern of needed exper- iences and competencies will emerge as information and data from multiple sources are correlated. More informa- tion and discussion of this phase of the study will be presented in Chapter III. The five institutions that make up the University Consortium in Educational Media and Technology are recog- nized "leaders in the field." The preparation programs and the course offerings from each of these institutions have been critically analyzed. A comprehensive study and analysis of program structure and course outlines as de— termined from catalog listings, program brochures, and available syllabi has been used to give an indication of the latitude of competencies and experiences incorporated with the programs. Information was also collected by questionnaire 11 from those people who work in the field. Included in this group from whom "field perceptions" were made are (a) stu- dents currently enrolled and recent graduates of the exist— ing preparation programs, and (b) administrative and teach- ing personnel involved in the programs at each of the institutions included in the study. Other data have come from those in the field who have not only assumed the administrative roles in the existing programs but who are also on the "cutting edge" of new developments and ideas. These men, sometimes labeled "innovators" or "scholars" or "philosophers" by academicians are assessing the present situation and through writing and speaking are urging a look toward the future. By incorporating their viewpoints, programs can be more effectively designed for the "tomorrows" rather than the "yesterdays." The information gathered from each of the differ— ent sources has been treated statistically to determine (1) if there is consistency within the sub-groups included in the study; i. 9. students, graduates, and instructional and administrative personnel; and (2) if there is signifi- cant correlation among the various groups and other sources as to what comprises an optimum program for the preparation of people at the doctoral level in the field of Instructional Technology. The treatment and results will be discussed in more detail in Chapters III and IV. 12 The elements of an optimum program for the prepar— ation of professional personnel at the doctoral level in the field of Instructional Technology will be based upon the information obtained from the multiple sources cited above. The following is a paradigm of the study: Programs Proposed "Innovators" or -———)- ——->— "Philosophers" Need Pr°gram Field Perceptions Elements The findings and recommendations of this study will enable the institutions involved in the study to analyze their own programs. Equally important, however, the findings and recommendations may serve as an illustra- tion of the considerations that need to be incorporated in the development of new professional preparation programs. Assumptions There are a number of assumptions underlying the study. Some are "givens;" others refer to phases of the relationship among the institutions included in the study. Such things as the dissertation experience and preliminary screening of candidates were assumed as "givens" in this study. Though the first assumption was uniform in all of the schools the second showed enough variation that the findings have been included in Chapter IV. 13 It was also assumed, initially, that there were significant differences in the overall preparation pro- grams at the four institutions of higher education selected as the population group. The findings in rela- tion to this assumption are also reported in Chapter IV. Limitations There are limitations to a study of this nature. One of the more specific limitations is related to the use of a questionnaire to obtain information. deKeiffer says: A questionnaire survey can never be definitive because of the semantic difficulty involved in the interpret— ing of word symbols between the author and the respondent.1 This is a very real problem in an area such as Instructional Technology where there is still much debate as to meanings and inclusiveness of terms. .It has shown up in this study in the open-ended responses to suggested items. It was intended that some of the terms be "all-inclusive" and it is obvious that the respondent, in many instances, has made a very narrow interpretation of the terms used. The respondent then added items in the "Comments" sections of the questionnaire form that, in the perception of the writer, were already included. Similar problems may develop in relation to the 1Robert E. deKeiffer, "A V Activities of Colleges and Universities in Teacher Education," Audio Visual Commu- nications Review, Vol. 7, No. 2, (Spring 1959), p. 12h. 111 explication of written and spoken statements of a number of different people. It is apparent that disagreements and other misunderstandings are caused by a "semantic dif- ficulty" analogous to that cited above. This can be a problem in a statement of philosophy or of an operational procedure. Definition of Terms The terms cited below have been given operational rather than "dictionary-oriented" definitions. Admission Requirements those experiences and courses that are preliminary to formal admission to the "degree-seeking" status as a doctoral level student. This may include examinations, previous formal instructional experiences, and other specific requirements that must be completed prior to being admitted to the doctoral program Certification minimum legal requirements for the pro- fessional practice of a given service - usually spelled out by a certification board at the behest of a state governmental agency. Particular reference in this study will be to teaching and/or other specialties in the prac- tice of formal educational programs. Competencies being functionally adequate or having sufficient knowledge, judgment, or skill to perform the needed functions of an instructional technologist. Field Perceptions feelings and understandings of those 15 who are working actively as teachers, students, and admin- istrators with educational media and materials. Emphasis in this study is upon the program most directly related to higher education Instructional Technologist an all inclusive term as it is used in this study, having particular reference to the highest level professidnally trained person working in the media field. As Ofeish has said, the technologist has the responsibility for "continued in-depth Study of the growing relationships between the ‘techne' and the con- temporary problems."1 Instructional Technology the "application of scienti- fic knowledge toward the solution of problems in educa- tion." It has also been called "an applied man-machine system."2 In this study it has been used to denote the total media field as a kind of "blanket" term that includes such terms as media, audio-visual, and educational commu- nications Preparation Programs the formal course work, seminars, internships, and/or assistantships offered and/or required of students in completing their responsibilities in rela- tion to a doctoral degree with a major in Instructional Technology 1Gabriel D. Ofeish, "Tomorrow's Educational Engi- neers," Educational Technology, Vol. VIII, No. 13, (July 15, 1968), p. 6. 2Ibid. 16 Syllabi outline of the material to be covered and the method of instruction that will be used in the presenta- tion of particular course offerings ANOVAR a computer system designed to perform analysis of variance or covariance. Originally developed as a part of the AARDVARK system for the IBM 7040 by Hemmerle and Carney at Iowa State University. "It will perform analy- sis of variance or covariance for . . . both equal and unequal cell frequencies." Utilizes FORTRAN for the IBM 70hO/MAP Ah system. Summary Instructional technology and formal education developed concurrently in the time of the early Greeks and Romans. Though formal education seems to have grown more rapidly as man became more able to make abstractions of ‘ his experience, the need for technology was never obviated. Through the Dark Ages, as the literacy of the average man was lost, the technology of communicating with pictures appears to have been strengthened. The Renaissance gave man a new opportunity to make more effective use of abstract symbols and reaffirmed the need for increased educational experience. Within the last few years, once again additional emphasis has been placed on the value of formal education. The advent of the "Space Age" with Sputnik has resulted in increasingly important functions for the public school 17 program. This increase in development of viable educa- tional schemes has brought instructional technology to the forefront. A number of institutions of higher education have made, and are still making increasingly sophisticated attempts to fill the obvious gaps in the educational spec- trum. Known as the University Consortium in Educational Media and Technology, they are working to improve the pre- paration programs for professional level people in the field of Instructional Technology. It is the function of this study to assess the experiences and competencies that should be provided for optimum preparation in the field for professional people at the doctoral level. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction The review of the literature has been divided into a number of distinctive parts. This has been done for clarity in the development of the ideas proposed for the consideration of the reader. In the Summary to the chapter the most significant factors will be presented so they can be utilized in the other chapters along with the information derived from other sources. The topics considered in this Chapter are: (1) the general background, including historical efforts to develop and assess the preparation programs for the "visual" as well as the "audio-visual" technologist, (2) the relationship of teacher competency and the way that teachers are prepared for teaching, (3) the role of certification and the general licensing of teachers and their relationship to preparation programs, and (4) some of the current efforts that are being made to assess and improve media preparation programs. 18 19 General Background From the beginning, long before the formally re- corded events of history, it is apparent that men have tried to help their children to learn. The basic arts of survival had to be learned. Communication with others had to be learned. Legends such as that of Romulus and Remus to the contrary, human society has developed only as man, himself, has made increasingly sophisticated efforts to teach his children the skills and arts of survival and has developed greater competence in dealing with the buffetings of nature and the relations of one person with another. 'The anthropologists chose to call this process encultura- tion and the sociologists call it socialization. Gold- schmidt says: For the infant taken naked from his mother's womb is naked of culture as well. And all of us, however primitive or civilized we may be, have entered our culture in precisely this way . . . Nothing is more important . . . than to understand the processes by which the naked infant is clad in the uniform of his culture. Only a small part of this process takes place in the schools, even in our stage of civiliza- tion. The history of man's attempts to formally educate himself can be reviewed with little effort. The review brings recognition that in virtually every instance, the "educational process" involves multiple levels of opera— tion, and simultaneous approaches to common concerns. 1Walter Goldschmidt, Exploring the Ways of Mankind, Los Angeles, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960, p. 172. 20 Specifically, at one level while teaching is taking place there is also some learning being done, though almost always at a different level. The success of this teaching-learning venture depends upon many variables. Just what happens in this interaction of teacher and learner and the changes that develop in both, merits more serious consideration. ‘In all cultures, the older and more experienced members of the society have had the responsibility of transmitting; either formally or informally; the skills, ideals, attitudes, and values to the less experienced and more immature. As the cultures develop and become increas- ingly complex, the educational schemes which support them must also change. In the evolution of the apprenticeship types of training the greater varieties of skill develop- ment are indicative of this increase in complexity. As the society becomes more complicated the instructional work becomes more formal. It is no longer enough to teach skills; something must be done to help the individual mem- bers "feel at home" in the culture that is developing. The whole enculturation phase Becomes more important. It is in this arena of the evolvement of attitudes and values that some of the great teaching in the Western civiliza- tions has taken place. Highet, for example, says: Some of the most important men in history have been teachers. Many of the biggest advances in ' \— civiliza ti o cians or in teachers. The wide situations throz aculture reach. some type of "5.; ing development are concurrent. The change 1 Plex societi knowledge ax. Hut any ONO there develo the Young be rather thar1 ties the pra SChool or t}; ill, abs tract Hutchins flection of the he suggests that point in what he the whole aim of ' ° the frt Sweeping the \ I . I . Gllbert If-I .m, VIHtage Bor 5053', n S aturd . MI \all 3 I. RObert M 3131 Age n '5, w! Th e :09), ’ e C p. 88“ 21 civilization have been the chief work, not of politi— cians or inventors, not even of artists, but of teachers.1 The wide dispersion of formal teaching-learning situations throughout the world is very impressive. When a culture reaches a particular level of sophistication, some type of "school" comes into existence. The continu- ing development of the culture and that of the "school" are concurrent. According to Bruner: The change in the instruction of children in more com- plex societies is two—fold. First of all, there is knowledge and skill in the culture far in excess of what any one individual knows. And so, increasingly, there develops an economical technique of instructing the young based heavily on telling out of context rather than showing in context. In literate socie- ties the practice becomes institutionalized in the school or the "teacher." Both promote this necessar— ily abstract way of instructing the young. Hutchins says, "Any educational system is a re- 3 flection of the culture in which it operates." Further, he suggests that in the United States we have come to a point in what he calls the "post-industrial" state where the whole aim of education must change. He contends: . . . the frenzy for educational innovation that is sweeping the country suggests that people are becoming aware of the disparity between the drift of society 1Gilbert Highet, The Art of Teaching, New York, 195A, Vintage Books, p. 153. 2Jerome S. Bruner, "Culture, Politics, and Peda— gogy," Saturday Review, Vol. LI, No. 20, (May 18, 1968), p. 71. 3Robert M. Hutchins, "Anatomy of the Post-Indus— trial Age," The Center Magazine, Vol. II, No. 3, (January 1969), p. 88. 22 and aims of education. . . . nobody knows what to do next in education, but everyboy has a vague feeling that it ought to be different from what we have been doing.1 If the "past is prologue" as many have suggested, what is indicated for the whole of formal education and for professional educators in this setting? For a number of years there has been a growing recognition of the in- creased importance of an organized program of instruc- tional improvement that would include thoughtful consider- ation of the many problems facing the total educational complex. In the light of this recognition, it is appro- priate to ask what has actually been done to improve the quality and preparation of those who must make the needed changes in the school program? Heinich suggests: A fundamental cause of system redesign is the de- velopment of sufficient energy within a sub—system to force a new analysis-synthesis sequence, resulting in a change in the conceptual framework of the system.2 If we can assume that the educational enterprise is a "system," as Heinich does, it is not difficult to pin-point some of the generators of the energy that he refers to. There are many pressures at work upon the for- mal educational structure in the United States. Increased 1Ibid, p. 88. 2Robert Heinich, "The Teacher In An Instructional System," in Media Competencies for Teachers, ed. by Wesley C. Meierhenry, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1966, p. 9. _‘ um— numbers of 511‘ problems at a alone providi and experienc among both pr pressure has ”knowledge e): made at all 1 Pressure has media field, lng an incree ceived an um in the media this manifes. Technologica tion A550cia the dafiniti out a need f 23 numbers of students have created serious organizational problems at all levels. Merely housing these people, let alone providing them with appropriate learning materials and experiences, has generated a great amount of concern among both professionals and the lay public. Additional pressure has come from what has come to be known as the "knowledge explosion." While adjustments have had to be made at all levels of the educational structure, this pressure has not been uniform throughout the system. The media field, being closest to the technology that is play- ing an increasingly important role in education, has re- ceived an unusual amount of emphasis. Responsible leaders in the media field have made valiant efforts to respond to this manifest need. To illustrate, early in 1963, the Technological Development Project of the National Educa- tion Association published Monograph No. 1 dealing with the definition of terms in the media field. In pointing out a need for a "definition," they said: A satisfactory definition of the field of instruc- tional technology will let us find common ground, will propose tomorrow's horizons, and will allow for a variety of patterns that specific individuals may fol- low in specific institutions with the single field. Research must be designed in terms of clear under- standing of instructional technology. Superintendents of schools are requesting criteria for new personnel needed in the various phases of instructional improve— ment. Teacher-education institutions need assistance in planning courses for pre-service and in-service educati standir rooms. Sir timml tech muversall} hithe medi muversal a a great amc an no fina 19689 West A {1 today _ SChool well-tr as Part His imPlica t0 the form field, 2h education that will provide the skills and under- standing which will be required in tomorrow's class- rooms. Since that time a number of definitions of instruc- tional technology have been proposed. No one of them is universally understood or accepted. Preparation programs in the media field have proliferated. Again there is no universal agreement or understanding. The programs have a great amount of variance. Some progress has been made, but no final solution has been reached. In the fall of 1968, West wrote: A new kind of educational specialist is needed today - but he is not being trained. Urban and rural school systems, government, and industry need well-trained educational media specialists to serve as partners in a growing educational complex.2 His implication is that very little has been done relative to the formal preparation of persons to work in the media field. This suggestion is not entirely valid. Over a number of years there have been many man hours and much effort expended in attempting to improve formal prepara- tion programs. Norberg says: We in the profession should acknowledge . . criticism but not be carried away by it to the point 1Donald P. Ely, The Changing Role of the Audiovis- ual Process in Education: A Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms, Monograph No. 1 of the Technological Devel- opment Project of the National Education Association, Special Supplement of A V Communication Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, (January-February 1963), p. 7. 2L. Clinton West, "A New Partnership Is Neededl," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. 13, No. 8, (October 1968), p. 926. of profe investig have bee viable I looked 0 their we ously re wa a fi Tork ment of teac two "three sideratiorl c Um movemenj materials ar tion. The s as the time 5Pull out t} 25 of professional hari-kari. Competent scholars and investigators as well as informed and wise teachers have been at work in the field for a long time. The viable results of their efforts should not be over- looked or forgotten. What is even more important, their work should be digested, analyzed, and continu- ously revised, refined, and extended. This is the way a field of inguiry develops and matures. (Italics mine)1 Torkelson suggests that a review of the develop— ment of teacher audio visual competency can be divided into "three broad time periods." He says, first, a con- sideration of the historical focus on the beginnings of the movement toward formal recognition of the use of more materials and machines in improving the quality of educa- tion. The second period he proposes "may be characterized as the time during which formal attempts were made to spell out the special competencies teachers were expected to possess." He then says that the third period, ". . . encompasses contemporary times marked by research and special emphasis upon teacher preparation for the compe- tencies in question."2 . One of the first reported courses in the field of "visual education" was taught by Albert Field at the 1Kenneth Norberg, "Theoretical Background Required By Teachers In The Use of Newer Media," in Media Competen- cies for Teachers, Wesley C. Meierhenry (ed.7, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1966, p. 43. 2Gerald M. Torkelson, "Competencies Needed By Teachers in the Use of Newer Media and Various Approaches to Achieving Them," in Media Competencies for Teachers, Wesley C. Meierhenry (ed.), University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1966, p. 170-171. adversity C however, and in 1922, she courses in t that two had gram. In ad offered cour when Starnes ferences in offered" Whe: The I "Visual" and Perceptibly 5 0fthe elect; Educaticm" cc requirement 1 ‘n-aS made firs Jersey introd Under 150: SDEeded l 1 26 University of Minnesota in 1918. Interest was not high, however, and when Dorris made a study of "visual education" in 1922, she found that only four normal schools offered courses in this area during the regular school term and that two had such an offering in their summer school pro- gram. In addition, a few universities and/or colleges offered courses in photography and graphics. By 1936, when Starnes made a similar study, he found "extreme dif- ferences in course content, materials used, and the credit offered" when compared with the earlier study.1 The growth and development of course work in "visual" and "audio—visual" education has been almost im- perceptibly slow. Many of the courses offered have been of the elective variety and not until 1935 was "visual education" considered important enough to be made a state requirement for teacher certification. This requirement was made first in the State of Pennsylvania. In 1937 New Jersey introduced such a course into their four-year teacher education program. California also made an "audiovisual" course a requirement for certification in the mid-forties. Parenthetically, this requirement was later dropped in the State of California. Under the pressure of the World War II effort, it became apparent that the use of audio-visual materials both speeded up and also improved the quality of training. 1Paul Saettler, loc. cit., pp. 131-135. Following this potential of 1 the contentior . . . the by educatc have seen While indictment it curriculum dew. as PSSC physic “Qt gain their ”1°59 in PUbli 01‘ some higher initiated at ( try}! Others, pmfession, he conceded the t I'kiucaters ’ 27 Following this, educational leaders became aware of the potential of this medium. This is a classic example of the contention made by Allen that: . . . the innovative programs have not been initiated by educators but by individuals and organizations who have seen a need outside the educational establishment. while it may not be wholly fair to make a blanket indictment it must be acknowledged that a number of recent curriculum developments in the public school realm, such as PSSC physics, BSCS biology, or UISCM mathematics, did not gain their initial impetus from within the ranks of those in public education or in the College of Education of some higher education institution. These programs were initiated at other places in higher education or in indus- try.2 Others, both in education and many from outside the profession, have made similar indictments. It must be conceded that this contention has some basis in fact. Educators, either by Virtue of their natural bent or as a result of their training and experience tend to be a con- servative group. Some allege that the people in the media programs are the most conservative of the whole of educa— tion. They make some pointed contentions in relation to 1William H. Allen, "Audiovisual Instruction: The State of the Art," in The Schools and The Challenge of Innovation, New York, The Committee for Economic Develop- ment, 1969, p. 219. 2John I. Goodlad, School Curriculum Reform in the United States, The Fund for the Advancement of Education, New York, 196k, p. 11. pro: of t its swee ity, tiC' 28 program development. For example, Mars asserts: . . . media utilization is not the be-all and end-all of education. . . . Yet, the ego involvement of in- dividuals in audio visual and media programs is tre- mendous, and unfortunately, the charge of "empire builders" is too frequently well taken. Rarely do we hear of a course being dropped or removed from the catalogue. . . . our programs are simply additive. This would appear to be a somewhat truncated view of the field of instructional technology, i. 9. media and its relation to the overall educational scene. It makes a sweeping generalization that may have some limited valid- ity, but is not wholly valid. Eboch takes a more pragma— tic view. He states: Audiovisual specialization is but one part of edu- cation. It is not all, perhaps not even a major part, of education. The growth of the audiovisual speciali- zation will depend upon the value and effectiveness of ‘specific functions being well performed.2 Just what are these specific functions that Eboch alludes to? He goes on to say that there is no generally accepted definition for the job specification and that there is a wide range of thought about what the job de- scription for the "instructional technologist" is or ought to be. To illustrate this divergency, Slack suggests that he, the instructional technologist, is a writer of pro- grams and/or workbooks. He decries the "hard-software 1Walter J. Mars, "Developing Appropriate Media Competencies," The Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. XVII, No. a, (Winter 1966), p. h3o. 2Sidney C. Eboch, "The A V Specialist: Some Re- flections on An Image," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. 8, No. 1, (January 1963), pp. 15-17. .Ns...i. 29 (computer programmer) boys" looking at themselves as in— structional technologists.1 On the other hand, Brown sug— gests that the instructional technologist or "educational media generalist" may need some degree of omnipotence in that he should be (1) a professional resource person, (2) a knowledgeable curriculum worker, (3) an administrator, (h) a professional practitioner, (5) a catalyst for inno— vation and, (6) an evaluator.2 These two different points of view may be illustrative of the divergent opinions about the job description. Edling seems to place the en- tire controversy in better perspective in this statement of the role expectation for the technologist. He says: At some point, first among the generalists, and later by formal training, a new specialist appears, one that is knowledgeable not only in a specific enter- prise but one who sees the relationships among services performed by others. . . . he advises and guides. This "new breed" we name "technologists" . . . to indicate the "study" of "applied sciences." (The technologist - the person who studies (at a high level) the application of inventions to social pur- poses. These people, then, are the ones that we are look- ing for. Where do we find them? Some have suggested that 1Charles W. Slack, "Who is the Educational Tech- nologist?" Educational Technology, Vol. VIII, (July 30, 1968). p. 13. 2James W. Brown, "Instructional Materials Services: Why, What, How?" in Report of A Multi-Media Approach To Learning, held in Provo, Utah, January 1967, p. 15-17. 3Jack V. Edling, The Contributions of Behavioral Science to Instructional Technology, The Oregon System of Higher Education, Teaching Research Division, Monmouth, Oregon, 1968, p. 1-2. . _:al meyn that 1 tion. this ] itsel' .4 r1- u. (3 ha r+ cf) (3 r+‘ *5 ‘ °€Y 1 Sign fiern can tech theH 30 they must come from the behavioral sciences. Others feel that only the exact sciences can provide adequate prepara- tion. Russell suggests that the best source of people for this kind of role assignment may come from education itself. He says that the man we need is: . . . one who is at home in two widely disparate fields. One is conventional pedagogy. He will need to know much more about learning, about human devel- opment, about the world of education as we know it. On the other side he will need to be sure-footed in the world of advancing science and technology. Com- puter development, electronic games, new forms of circuitry, the character of DNA and RNA, neurological research - a lot of fields of pure science must also be his preserve, buttressed by skill in the gadgetry that goes with them.1 In any event, the leader in instructional technol- ogy must have many skills and broad experience to have significant impact upon the educational community. Competengy and Preparation In a general way, competency has been a major con- cern for the professional educator over many years. If it can be assumed that the people working in instructional technology are involved in the overall system of education than this concern is also very real for them. The competency of the educational practitioner is determined in two basic ways. There is the formal deter- mination and also that which is done informally. There is expressed anxiety on the part of a sizeable portion of the 1James E. Russell, Change and Challenge in American Education, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1965, p. he. 31 personnel in public education about any attempt to for- mally determine their competency to serve in the public school system. Evaluation of competence, however, is not the concern of this study. The people who determine the competency of a pro- fessional person are many. The users of his services make a judgment of these services and his qualifications for rendering them. Competency is also judged by the profes- sional person's peers and/or associates. In addition, he will be judged by the community in which he works, whether they are the direct users of his service or not. Those who have administrative assignments in relation to his role will also make an assessment. Finally, those people who have been responsible for his training and education will make a judgment of his skills and abilities. These are all informal types of judgments. Interest in determining the competency of persons working in the media field is not new. Earlier we have cited instances of studies that have been made in an attempt to determine the kind and extent of formal prepar— ation the potential professional in the media field will‘ or should have. It is interesting to note that over an extended period of time many lists of required competencies and experiences have been drawn up. One of the first for- mal statements was that of Seaton prepared in 19hh for the American Council on Education. At that time she suggested that two kinds of training were needed in: "(1) operating “A I" 32 the projector and (2) effective methods of using visual materials."1 She went on to suggest that teacher training programs should include utilization of "audio-visual ma- terials and techniques" in methods and subject matter courses. Only higher education institutions that were properly equipped and staffed should offer courses in the training of "audio-visual specialists."2 Seaton's suggestions were not the only attempt made to define the preparation programs for teachers with particular reference to audio-visual competency. In the years immediately following World War II interest in this area was high. In 1997, Pascoe was commissioned by the State Department of Education in California to ascertain what competencies were needed by the teachers in the schools in the state. He reported his results where the competencies were divided into a number of sub-areas and then ranked into groups depending upon the way that the various groups of respondents indicated their opinions. The major headings in his listing were (1) knowledges and understandings, and (2) skills and abilities. Under the first heading he included principles of use, selection of materials, types of materials and equipment, sources of materials and equipment, services of audio-visual 1Helen Hardt Seaton, A Measure for Audio-Visual Programs in Schools, American Council on Education, Series II - Motion Pictures in Education, No. 8, Vol. VIII, October, 19hh, p. 19. 2Ibid, p. 19. 33 departments, materials for specialists, production of materials, results of research, single school services, administering of aids, and history of A. V.. Nine sub- headings were listed under the second major heading. In- cluded were utilization, selection, evaluation of use, equipment operation, appraisal, display, production, best physical conditions, and field trips. Pascoe indicates that these rankings come from a survey of 253 respondents from the State of California.1 Other listings have been made. The Noel and Leonard study indicated similar results. They, in fact, suggest these same items, as taken from the California Report, as a basis for the evaluation of "teacher educa- tion programs in audio—visual education." The Okoboji Leadership Conference, in 1958, devoted time and effort to dealing with the suggested structure of a teacher education program in relation to instructional materials. The report spells out, in some detail, the en- tire scope of things the participants felt were necessary 3 for adequate preparation for teaching. 1David Pascoe, "The Pascoe Report," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. IV, No. 1, (January 1959), p. 6-7. 2Elizabeth G. Noel and J. Paul Leonard, Founda- tions for Teacher Education in Audio-Visual Instruction, American Council on Education Studies, Series II - Motion Pictures in Education, No. 9, Vol. XI, 19h7, Washington, p- 2.3. 3Summary Report of the Fourth Annual Okoboji Con- ference Lake Okoboji, Iowa, Summer, 1958, pp. 1h-18. 3h Fulton and White noted many of the other listings and suggested four major classifications for "A V Competen- cies for Teachers." They are: proficiency in (1) selec- tion and evaluation, (2) the utilization of appropriate instructional materials, (3) the production of simple in- structional materials, and (h) the preparation and use of physical facilities.1 It is interesting to note that Meierhenry, in 1966, had envisioned the up-dating of these lists of com- petencies for teachers and that a number of the papers that were commissioned for his report had this as a theme. He says that he found that such an emphasis would not be appropriate: Previous lists of competencies had been developed to guide those responsible for the development of pre-service and in-service programs in teacher educa— tion. . . It was anticipated by the editor that a new list of competencies would be developed which would eliminate the activities now obsolete and up-date the list which was still current and add some new skills, understandings, and attitudes that the newer media seemed to require . . . At a seminar held in Washing- ton and a small group work conference held in Palo Alto it became clear that the proposed framework was not appropriate.2 This kind of statement gives rise to concern on the part of others who would be dealing with the determin- ation of needed competency and experience. It is something 1W. R. Fulton and Fredrick A. White, "What Consti- tutes Teacher Competence in Audio-Visual Communication?," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. xxxx, No. A, (January 1959), p. 158- 159. 2Wesley C. Meierhenry, Media Competencies for Teachers, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1966, p. 1. 35 that does, nevertheless, need to be considered if one is to make any statement of competency in relation to both teacher education and professionals in the field of in— structional technology. What is the purpose of a list of competencies? First, such a listing may be considered as an attempt to establish a written standard against which the persons as— piring to professional status in a given field may be com— pared. This kind of statement, as Meierhenry has indicat- ed, cannot be a static one. It must be ever-flexing and at the same time stable enough and complete enough that it indicates the overall scope of things that need to be con— sidered. It also has some basic functions that are not noted above. One of these is to protect the users of pro- fessional service from the charlatan and/or the incompe- tent; those who cannot perform at a satisfactory level in line with the expectation of the profession. Further, it does establish a professional level or standard of service that comes essentially from the "within group" pressure to continually improve the quality and quantity of service available. These reasons indicate that there is a direct re— lationship between the establishment of competency and the quest for certification that has been one of the goals of the Department of Audio Visual Instruction. Some years ago, the D. A. V. I. adopted the resolution that they would actively promote efforts of state groups to effect 36 certification requirements for audio visual personnel in each of the states. Gains have been made steadily, but not rapidly throughout the several states. It would seem appropriate, therefore, to make some notes of the history of certification and licensing of teachers as it applies to the teaching profession as it has developed in the HI United States. Certification Today, preparation requirements observed by the teacher education institutions and the stipulations for certification of educational personnel made by state agen- cies denote "hand-in-glove" types of relationships. This level of operation has long been a goal of professional groups working in educational circles. In 1958, for exam- ple, the National Commission on Teacher Education and Pro— fessional Standards of the National Education Association took the position that, . . . more and more emphasis is being placed on the approved-programs approach which allows teacher educa- tion institutions to develop, justify, and operate programs of teacher education within the limits pf a flexible framework of certification regulations. The increase in the number of programs of this type attests its increased favor by both the state regula- tory bodies and the teacher education institutions. The picture has not always been this "bright." 1Guy A. Curry, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, Personal Letter, July 27, 1958. 37 The history of licensing and certification of professional personnel has been erratic and varied. Budd contends that certification of teachers began because of the "low level of teacher preparation" and a desire, during the "Thirties" to keep "outsiders" from taking the jobs of teachers al- ready in-service. The licensing and certification of educational personnel is, in fact, much older than Budd implies. These activities began sometime prior to the Revolutionary War. They were largely perfunctory in nature, but did conL stitute a beginning. Many of the first attempts were based upon moral and ethical considerations, or political loyal- ty, rather than upon any academic qualifications. Most of the "certification" was done by individuals or groups with a religious objective. Givens and Farley indicate that: The qualifications of the personnel serving in the earliest colonial schools was dictated by their pre- dominantly religious objective. The Minister, or some- one selected by him as a teacher on the basis of his adherence to the appropriate creed, and a supervising school committee of members chosen by the church made up the teaching and governing bodies of the local . . . school.2 During the years that passed from the time of the Revolution to the Civil War, very little progress was made 1William C. Budd, "Certainty in Certification," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. xxxx, No. 5, (February 1959), — p. 209. 2Willard E. Givens and Belmont Farley, Our Public Schools, The Supreme Council 33°, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Free Masonry, Southern Jurisdiction, U. S. A., 1959, Washington, D. C., p. 41. 38 in the realm of teacher certification. Reports of various studies made recommendations, a number of plans were pro- posed and tried in some places, but at the outbreak of the Civil War no state had an effective licensing program for teachers. At thenclose of the Civil War, however, public pressure demanded that some further work be done in regard to the establishment of minimum requirements for many areas of professional endeavor. The teacher, and educa— tion in general, were caught in this forward move and many changes were wrought in the "hit or miss" program that had characterized teacher preparation and certification prior to the War.1 Following this breakthrough progress was slow. From requiring a high school diploma for certification through the six—week summer school to the two-year normal school certificate took many years. Finally full certifi- cation required a four-year college preparation terminat- ing in a bachelor's degree for teachers of both elementary and secondary schobl students. While this was not a re— quirement in all states, it was during the depressions of the Twenties and Thirties that this goal was achieved in a significant number of the states. It was at this time, as noted above, that there were more teachers than teaching positions and certification was one way of holding the 1Harry J. Carman, "The Historical Development of Licensing for the Professions," The Educational Record, Vol. 39. No. 3. (July 1958), pp. 268-278. 31w” 39 positions for those who met formal requirements. The impact of World War II upon education in the United States was multi-faceted. One of these facets was the re-creation of a shortage of teachers and the subse- quent issuing of "temporary" and sub-standard certifica- tion. This problem has continued to the present day. The professional groups, however, have gained more strength and have successfully worked for higher standards of cer- tification for all teaching personnel. Campbell notes that, "in 196h-65 more than 90 percent of public school teachers had bachelor's degrees and that 24 percent held master's."1 Why should a group of media generalists seek cer- tification? Carmen cites two reasons that may be factors that any association should consider in making this move to seek recognition. He says: First, (is) the opportunity afforded to raise ethical standards: . . . Second, membership in an association is a means of raising one's status in the community and enlarging one's compensation.2 Both of these reasons, coupled with a number that are implied from earlier discussion, are worthy of con- sideration for persons in the "education profession." The view that certification will solve many of our 1Roald Campbell, "Teaching and Teachers - Today and Tomorrow," in The Schools and the Challenge of Innova- tion, Committee for Economic Development, New York, 1969, p. 113. 2Carmen, loc. cit. p. 177. _ l -s..._._._.____.__l A‘_.__. 110 problems related to the determination of competency is not universally shared. Buehler questions the premise and says, "Since we in education have not and cannot come to grips with what constitutes competency in our field, we . . . 1 rely on artificial barriers — among them, certification." Recent Studies There have been many different approaches to the study and proposed improvement of the preparation programs for the persons interested in instructional technology. The Department of Audio Visual Instruction, for example, has appointed both committees and commissions to assist in the study and development of these programs. The Amer— ican Association of Colleges of Teacher Education has se;- lected a special committee to study the relationship of teacher education and media. A number of private founda- tions and governmental agencies have made funds available to support a variety of research projects inthis field. Universities and individuals have committed both time and funds to the improvement of preparation programs. An example of the current interest is the feder— ally-funded "Jobs in Instructional Media Study" being con- ducted by a special task force from the Department of Audio Visual Instruction. "The particular focus of this 1Ronald G. Buehler, "Competency: Yes, Certifica— tion: No," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. 10, No. 10, (December 1965), p. 766. 141 project is jobs in the instructional media field which are usually dubbed 'subprofessional' or 'para-professional.'" A similar study being conducted in Oregon is designed to, "develop and validate criteria for evaluating media train- ing."2 It also is federally—funded. These studies are among the most recent of a long series of formal efforts in developing more fundamental knowledge of the basic needs of those preparing to work in the field of instructional technology. Other examples of work that has been done in this area can be found in the reports of the Lake Okoboji Edu- cational Media Leadership Conferences. The report of the 1958 Conference states: . . . we have given little attention to deciding what levels of audio visual competency are desirable and/or essential in our efforts in teacher education. There exist numerous lists or statements, in course outlines, texts, and other places, of the kinds of competencies which teachers should possess; but with little or no agreement n even suggested standards with respect to degree or evel of competency in evidence.2 The Conference participants worked at developing guide- lines for the inclusion of media skills and knowledges in teacher education and suggested, 1Jim Wellington, Pryor Hale, and Freda Douglas, "Toward Solving the Media Manpower Puzzle," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. 14, No. 1, (January 1967), p. 36. 2Dale G. Hamreus, Progress Report, Prpject No. 8-O52O - Development and Validation of Criteria for Evaluating Media Training, May 1969. 3Summary Report of the Fourth Annual Okoboji Con- ference, Lake Okoboji, Iowa, Summer, 1958, p. 9. #2 What Every Teacher Should Know About the Use of A-V: . . . knowledge of what "good A-V" is and how to im- plement the curriculum with this knowledge . . . a working knowledge of a wide variety of instruc— tional materials . . . knowledge of where to locate and how to obtain the various instructional materials needed for a speci- fic teaching situation . . . relationship between A—V and the learninr pro— cess . . a better overall view of the curriculum and knowledge of how they and A—V fit into the program. Subsequent sessions of the Okobiji Conference have worked around the theme of preparation for the profes- sional in the field. Harcelroad, at the Seventh Confer- ence in 1961 proposed "a list of areas of knowledge essential for AVC Specialists." He presented these items for consideration: Content and materials (known in ways the content spee~ cialist may not know these) Principles of learning, EB depth Technological developments and what they can do for teaching and learning Statistical skills (for evaluation functions) Principles of arranging subject matter for effective teaching The process for the creation of materials, capacity to supervise their preparation Capacity to help teachers "program" their own teaching2 Following this presentation, the conferees proposed a four level professional preparation program beginning 1Ibid, p. 12. 2Summary Report of the Seventh Okoboji Leadership Conference, Lake Okoboji, Iowa, Summer 1961, p. 9. 113 with a Bachelor's degree and including both a Master's and Specialist's level in preparation programs. The fourth step was at the Doctoral level. Attention was also given to the description of a variety of job assign— ments in the media field as they related to differences in preparation expectations. At the 1965 Okoboji Conference, the Committee on Manpower suggested two professional classifications that were included in a "Master's level or higher" program. In the "Sixth year or higher" program, they proposed the placing of those job assignments such as, "Audiovisual Director or Instructional Resources Director, Curriculum Materials Supervisor or Educational Media Director, and Professor of Education" under the general heading of "Pro— fessional Direction, Supervision, and Teaching." The more specialized designations such as Graphic Supervisor, Com— puter Programmer, T V Director and Cinematographer were placed under the heading of "Professional Specialization at the Master's level or higher."1 The provisions of Title VII of the National Defense Education Act provided funds for a number of studies of various phases of education. Examples of those that have particular reference to the media field are the STEMS (Seminars on Training_of Education Media Specialists) study reported by Hall, the Study_of Regional Instructional 1Summary Report of the Eleventh Okoboji Leadership Conference, Lake Okoboji, Iowa, Summer 1965, p. hh. 44 Media Resources: Phase I - Manpower done by Martin, and the Media Competency for Teachers study completed by Meierhenry. All are comparatively recent, the first two being completed in 1964 and 1965 respectively, and the Meierhenry study in 1966. Foundation supported studies have made reference to the role of media in education. Some of the first of these were those done for the American Council on Educa- tion done by Seaton and by Noel and Leonard in the 1940's. The Rockefeller Fund and the Ford Foundation both have supported programs dealing with an overall study of edu- cation. Ford, particularly, has spent large amounts of money on projects dealing with the instructional use of television. Many unpublished and individual studies have dealt with the training and preparation and competency development of both teachers and the professional level people in the field of instructional technology. Illus- trative of these are deKeiffer's study of "The Status of Teacher—training in Audio-Visual Education in the Forty—eight States;"1 Ely's study of "The Organization and Development of Communications Programs in Selected 1Robert Eulette deKeiffer, "The Status of Teacher-training in Audio-Visual Education in the Forty—eight States." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1948. 45 Institutions of Higher Education;"1 Wiman's study of "An Interdisciplinary Approach to Planning a Program of Pro- fessional Preparation for Media Specialists;"2 and McMahan's study of ". . . the Feasibility of a System of 3 Pre-Service Education in Media." Summary r The story of man's progress is replete with accounts of his interest in helping his progeny to grow and develop. As society becomes more complex he relies increasingly upon formal educational experience to supple- ment the home and family as a primary source of instruction. The development of organized instructional systems is de- pendent upon the social order that conceives it. Changes in these systems are likewise functions of changes in the needs of the society. The development of instructional technology has been slow and somewhat erratic. Various pressures have both encouraged and blocked the extension of the use of 1Donald Paul Ely, "The Organization and Develop— ment of Communications Programs in Selected Institutions of Higher Education." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1960. 2Raymond Victor Wiman, Jr., "An Investigation of Factors Relating to an Interdisciplinary Approach to the Development of Training Programs for Educational Media Specialists." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Nebraska, 1963. 3Marie E. McMahan, flA Study of the Feasibility of a System of Pre—Service Teacher Education in Media." Un— published doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. 46 instructional materials and the supporting educational and/or training programs. The expansion of programs for the formal training of professional level personnel has likewise been inconsistent. Some have contended that this is the result of a "natural conservatism" on the part of professional educators. It must be acknowledged that a number of the innovations in the instructional program have come from outside the ranks of professional education. Noteworthy examples of this are the experiences of the military training programs during World War II and more recently the structured curricular innovations such as PSSC physics, BSCS biology, UICSM mathematics, and similar projects. Competency of professional personnel has long been a concern of the whole of formal education. With the in- creased emphasis upon technology in instruction, this con- cern has been magnified for those who are involved in in- structional technology. Over a period of years, studies have been made and projects launched to develop and evalu— ate programs that would improve the training of teachers and other educational personnel to insure maximum compe- tency. Closely related to program improvement has been the evolvement of state certification requirements for professional media personnel. The effectiveness of the certification standard as an approach to the determination of competency has been the subject of some controversy and debate. 47 The support of the federal government and interest of various foundations has made it possible to conduct a number of studies of the preparation programs for profes- sional personnel in the field of media. These projects supplement those that have already been done by both uni- versities and individuals in higher education. Each one has made a contribution to the growing knowledge about the role of instructional materials and trained people in the improvement of the whole of education. It should not be implied, however, that there has been a final conclusion in any of these reports as to what the optimum kind of program is. One of the things that has been found is that there is not a static list of courses and/or experiences that can be looked upon as the single "best" preparation for the professional level person in this field. This study is designed to obtain some insight into the most favorable experiences, their interplay, and their influence upon competency development. CHAPTER III DESIGN FOR THE STUDY The material presented in this Chapter will be divided into three different sections. Each of these sec— tions will be used to describe one of the principal sources of data and the treatment that it has received in the study. These sources of information are: (1) Preparation programs; as described in catalogs, brochures, and related materials; for doctoral level people in the field of Instructional Tech- nology at each of the five institutions that com- prise the University Consortium on Educational Media and Technology.* (2) "Field Perceptions" obtained from the students and the graduates of the existing preparation programs at each of the institutions cited above. Students and graduates were polled by means of a mailed questionnaire. In addition, teaching and *The five institutions that make up the University Consortium on Educational Media and Technology are: The University of Southern California at Los Angeles, Indiana University at Bloomington, Indiana, Michigan State Univer- sity at East Lansing, Michigan, The Oregon System of Higher Education - Teaching Research Division at Monmouth, Oregon, and Syracuse University at Syracuse, New York. 48 49 adminiStrative staff at each of the institutions were asked to respond to a questionnaire. (3) Suggestions and/or "promptings" from those identi— fied by the academicians as scholars, innovators or philosophers were taken from writings and speeches. Both current literature and audio tapes were used as sources of this information. Preparation Programs The first step in determining the scope of the formal preparation programs at each of the institutions was to examine the general catalog for each one of them. It was determined that all of the universities have the program for Instructional Technology included in the Col- leges of Education. More detailed study was then made of the requirements within the graduate program of the Col- lege of Education. In order to obtain current information, requests were sent to each university requesting a copy of the bul— letins for the College of Education and also for the Grad- uate School. Brochures and other promotional materials that might give more detail as to the admission require- ments, course offerings, and course requirements were also requested. Syllabi and "handout" materials for students were solicited. The request for catalogs and related promotional materials was promptly acknowledged and these materials 50 were received from each of the institutions. Other mater- ials, i. 9. class outlines and "hand—outs", were more dif- ficult to obtain. Three of the universities did send samples of this kind of information, however, A fourth institution neither acknowledged the request or sent any materials. Information about the program at this institu- tion was obtained from the library and other sources. It was determined that in the Oregon System of Higher Education it was not possible to obtain a doctor's degree with a major in the field of Instructional Tech- nology at this time. Consequently, information from the Oregon System has not been included in this portion of the study. The information gleaned from the general catalogs was supplemented by that obtained from the specific College of Education listing and the descriptions of courses found in the College catalogs and special promotional brochures describing the program in Instructional Technology. More complete information was obtained from the course syllabi and the student "handouts." In these materials, the course objectives were frequently stated in behavioral terms and this made the information more meaningful in terms of the experiences and competencies that might be included within the content of the course. The scope of the course was then easier to assess. Current literature also contributed to this phase of the data collection. A number of people serving on the 51 instructional or administrative staff at the universities included in the study have written articles for current periodicals dealing with their programs and some of the proposed changes that are still in the planning stages."2 Field Percepfiions "Field Perceptions" were obtained from people working in the field. The response to a written question- naire was used to determine their opinions and recommenda- tions. Population and Sample The population selected for this portion of the study was two-fold. The first group was the student/grad- uate group from each of the four institutions included in the study. The second aggregation consisted of the teach- ing and administrative staff from all of the institutions. Letters were sent to administrative personnel in the Departments of Instructional Technology at each of the universities that comprise the Consortium requesting list- ings of the names and addresses of students currently en- rolled in the doctoral level program. The same informa— tion was also solicited for people who had completed the 1L. C. Larson, "Developing a Graduate Program to Train Instructional Design and Media Specialists," Audio- visual Instruction, Vol. 14, No. 1, (January 1969), pp. 20-24. 2Donald P. Ely, "Consortium in Educational Media and Technology," Educational Technology, (January 1969), P- 33- 52 requirements for the doctor's degree, with a major in In- structional Technology and were currently working in the field. Follow-up telephone calls were necessary in two instances, but listings were obtained from each of the schools. The lists received did not discriminate clearly between the people who had finished the degree require- ments and those who were still enrolled in the program. In order to Prevent bias introduced by trying to make an arbitrary distinction between the two sub-groups the de- cision was made to take a random sample from each of the lists. No attempt was made to sub-divide the lists into two parts. This decision was aided by the fact that the size of the lists varied from fifty to two hundred. It was felt that it would be more meaningful to determine the perceptions of similar size groups rather than attempt to obtain interpretable information from the disproportionate number balance. Accordingly, the lists were numbered and a sample of thirty-five names was drawn from each list using the Table of Random Numbers. Instrumentation The instrument used to assess "field perceptions" was a written questionnaire. It was prepared following perusal of the programs operating in each of the institu- tions involved in the study. Items suggested from this evaluation were included in the questionnaire. An 53 extensive review of the literature suggested other items that were added tp the form. Additional factors were sug- gested by members of the Advisory Committee. Advice from fellow students and Advisory Committee also resulted in some changes in the format of the questionnaire form. The form was divided into two parts. The first dealt with re- quirements for admission to the doctoral level program. The second portion listed course titles and/or experiences that were thought to be pertinent. Following each sug- gested item was Space for "Comment" to permit the respond- ent to react in an open—ended statement if he wished to do so. A larger space was provided at the end of each sec- tion of the questionnaire and also at the conclusion of the form. The original version of the questionnaire was given to five doctoral level students at Michigan State Univer— sity as a pilot run. Their responses, reactions, and sug- gestions prompted some additional alterations in the form and content of the questionnaire prior to submitting it to the total sample of students and staff members. Specifi— cally, the method of registering the response was changed to encourage more complete response and greater accuracy in interpreting the response madee Distribution Questionnaires were sent to one hundred—forty stu- dents and graduates from the four institutions. They were 54 also distributed to a total of twenty staff members from all the universities. The same form of the questionnaire was used in both cases. The cover letter was different. Samples of both the questionnaire and the cover letters are included in Appendix A. F Treatment i The data obtained from the questionnaire were of two types, one consistingrof scaled responses to suggested items; the other was composed of comments and suggestions i W- made by respondents. The direct responses to the items suggested on the form were treated statistically. The basic treatment was a One-Way Analysis of Variance for each of the items. To make this feasible, the ANOVAR pro- gram for the IBM 360 - Model 50 Computer was used. This gave an F-test of significance for each item from the questionnaire and also determined a "grand mean value" for each of the items. To give more sensitive indications of the significance of the response pattern among the five groups the Newman-Keuls Sequential Range Test and Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance were also applied to the data. The Newman-Keuls Test is a form of "post hoc comparison" that is used to pin-point the sources of difference when the One-Way Analysis of Variance shows a significant dife ference in the response patterns. The Kendall's Concord— ance Test indicates the extent of the agreement among the different groups. These treatments were used to determine 55 if (1) there was consensus as to which of the suggested items were "most important;" (2) if the different groups made similar or divergent responses to the items on the questionnaire; and (3) if there was consensus between the students and the teaching staff as to the relative impor- tance of the suggested items. Comments and statements related to the suggested items were not included in the statistical treatment. Most of these were in the form of either direct statements or questions. It appeared appropriate to discuss them in the general presentation of the findings of the study. The overall comments and suggestions have been noted in the general discussion. Recommendations from Scholars, Innovators, and "Philosophers" Much has been said and written about the prepara- tion of professional personnel in all of education. In- structional Technology has not been ignored in all of this material. Rather, it would appear that recently the field may have moved into a more prominent position. Many of the suggestions and "promptings" from those who have stud- ied and indicated a position or positions are available in both written and other media forms. The data secured for this section of the study were obtained from written and audio sources. A comprehensive review of the literature was made. 56 Book, pamphlet, report, and periodical sources were sur- veyed. Special reports of conferences and seminars were available and included in the survey. Some of these were in written form; others were obtained in the form of audio recordings. There was also limited opportunity to interview fr leaders in the field. These were made in face-to-face discussions and by telephone consultations. In addition, persons who are preparing special reports in this area that have not yet been released for publication, were gracious enough to make "progress reports" available. Summary Data for the study have been obtained from three principal sources. They are (1) a survey of the prepara- tion programs for doctoral level people at the higher edu- cation institutions that make up the University Consortium in Educational Media and Technology, (2) responses to a questionnaire submitted to students, graduates, and staff working in the field of Instructional Technology at these institutions, and (3) the suggestions and/or "urging" of scholars, innovators, or "philosophers" in relation to the present situation and their projections for the future. The programs from each of the universities was sur- veyed through the use of the General Catalog, the catalog for the College of Education, brochures and other promo- tional materials, syllabi for the various courses, and 57 student "hand-outs." Specific attention was given to ad- mission policies, to course offerings and course reiuire- ments, and the time involvement in the degree program. The questionnaire responses were treated statisti— cally with a One—Way Analysis of Variance test of each item to determine reliability, consensus or lack of con- sensus and the "most important" variables in the percep- tion of students, graduates, and staff at the schools included in the study. Additional statistical tests were used to check and verify the results of the ANOVAR compu- tation. Information secured from writings and speeches relative to teacher education generally and media specifi- cally has been included in the discussion. Hopefully this kind of "tempering" will make the overall study more mean- ingful and useful. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The information presented in this chapter follows the pattern outlined in Chapter III. The first section will give an analysis of the programs at four institutions that prepare doctoral level people that also are members of the University Consortium in Educational Media and Technology.* The second section will report the statisti- cal analysis of the findings of the questionnaire study of "field perceptions" of persons actively working in the field of instructional technology as students or members of the teaching - administrative staff at these instituifi tions. The final section will give the information ob- tained from current literature and from conference reports plus some personal interview data and material from addresses and unpublished materials. *The five institutions that make up the University Consortium on Educational Media and Technology are: The University of Southern California at Los Angeles; Indiana University at Bloomington, Indiana; Michigan State Univer- sity at East Lansing, Michigan; and Syracuse University at Syracuse, New York. The Oregon System of Higher Education - Teaching Research Division does not conduct a doctoral level program in Instructional Technology. See page 60. 58 59 Background Information In beginning an assessment of each of the four in- stitutions it was determined through the study of the gen- eral catalog from each school that the graduate program that included instructional technology was, in each in- stance, a department or sub-department within the College of Education. Consequently, the College or School of Education bulletins were used for more detailed study and analysis. Two different doctoral degrees are awarded by each University. The degree of Doctor of Philosophy is adminis— tered as a joint responsibility of the College of Educa- tion and the Graduate School. Ostensibly this is a more research-oriented degree. At the schools included in this study, however, it was determined that the major differ- ence between this degree and the Doctor of Education degree was the foreign language requirement. For example, the bulletin of the University of Southern California states: In accordance with established policy, the Ph.D. Can- didate must have a minimum reading knowledge of two languages. When the student demonstrates reading knowledge of one language above the minimum level, and on the recommendation of the student's Guidance Com- mittee, a formally demonstrated knowledge of advanced statistics may be substituted for the foreign language. A similar standard is in force at each of the other institutions. Syracuse University does, however, qualify their requirement, ". . . mastery of a foreign language is ¥ 1Bulletin of the University of Southern California School of Education, 1968-1970, Vol. 64, No. 4, p. 60n. o ‘ .. F . !‘ 4-1.. 60 one of the options that may be designated by the depart— ment concerned, but it may be chosen by the candidate only . where it is shown to be a useful research tool."1 The work for the Doctor of Education degree is ad- ministered through the graduate office of the School or College of Education. The requirements for this degree do not vary appreciably from those for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The title of the degree does not indicate any significant difference between the two classes of de- grees awarded at the institutions included in this study. The Oregon System of Higher Education is composed of Oregon State University at Corvallis; the University of Oregon at Eugene; Portland State University at Portland; The Oregon College of Education at Monmouth; Southern Ore- gon College at Ashland; Eastern Oregon College at LaGrande; and Oregon Technical College at Klamath Falls. At the present time none of these higher institutions offer a program that would enable a student to obtain a doctor's degree with a major in instructional technology. Conse- quently, their requirements and program offerings are 223 included in this report. Admissions Requirements Requirements for admission to the graduate program as "degree-seeking" or "matriculated" students at the —; 1School of Education, A Syracuse University Bulle— tin, Vol. XCII, No. 7, September 1968, p. 19. 61 doctoral level are similar for all of the institutions in- cluded in the study. It is assumed that all candidates have received the baccalaureate dégree. A master's degree is not required at all of the institutions, but is strongly recommended at both the University of Southern California and Michigan State University. No mention of a Master’s degree as a prerequisite is made by either Indiana or Syracuse Universities. Teaching Experience Some practical experience is recommended by all of the institutions included in the study. At the University of Southern California the requirement is very specific and asks for "two years of teaching or equivalent experience."1 No specific mention of experience for doctoral degree can- didates is mentioned in the Syracuse University catalog. Fdnrtheir "Certificate of Advanced Studies," however, one of the requirements is "satisfactory completion of at least two years of employment in the field of specialization."2 Indiana University qualifies their requirement for exper- ience by indicating, "Students preparing to use audio—vis- ual materials other than in public school work do not have to hold a teacher's certificate or meet the admissions TBulletin of the University of Southern California, 1969-1970, School of Education, Vol. 65, No. 4, September 1968, p. 61. 2School of EducationiyA Syracuse University Bulle— 213, Vol. XCVII, No. 7, September 1968, p. 18. v3.51 ' 62 requirement of 10 hours of education."1 Michigan State University makes no mention of teaching experience in their graduate catalog. In a brochure describing the graduate program in Instructional Development and Technol- ogy at Michigan State, however, this observation is made: Teaching or administrative experience is not a prerequisite to admission. However in the students program, it would be necessary to compensate for its absence by emphasizing appropriate internships or clinical experiences. Grade Point Average Each of the universities has indicated a minimum acceptable grade point average for work completed prior to application for admission to the doctoral program. Though some of these are not clearly stated in the graduate or general catalog, brochures describing particular programs are very specific. Indiana University, as an example,does not have a clear statement in the general catalog. One of their brochures describing a specific program in Instruc- tional Development, indicates a minimum acceptable grade 3 point average of "2.5 (where 2.=C)." Michigan State Uni- versity suggests that "(a) significant factors in 1School of Education. Graduate Division, Indiana University Bulletin 1969/70, January 30, 1969, p. 27. 2Michigan State University, College of Education, Egofessional Programs in Instructional Development and Ipchnology, 1968-69. 3Indiana University Audio Visual Center, An Insti- Igte for Training Instructional DevelOpers for Higher Edu- £§tion. p- 3 Till. .1. 63 determining ultimate acceptance as a candidate are . . . a grade point average of at least 3.0 (B) in the last two years of undergraduate work and/or 3.0 (B) at the M. A level."1 The catalog from Southern California specifies "a scholastic average of 3.00 (B) in all graduate work in which grades are assigned."2 Syracuse University indi- Fr 3 cates that a "3.25 or equivalent" average is necessary. Examinations Different levels or kinds of preliminary examina- tions are prescribed by the four universities. The Grad- uate Record Examination is the most common. Both Aptitude and Area sections of this examination are requested at Michigan State University, the University of Southern California, and Syracuse University. Only the Aptitude section is required at Indiana University. The results of the Miller Analogies Test are prescribed at Syracuse University and are listed as an option for the Graduate Record Examination at Michigan State University. Personal Interview Personal interview or evaluation is indicated as 1Michigan State University, College of Education, Professional Programs in Instructional Development and Technology, 1968-69, p. 5. 2Universityof Southern California Bulletin, 1968-1970, School of Education, Vol. 64, No. 4, September 1968, p. 61. 3School of Education, A Syracuse University Bulle- tin, Vol. XCVII, No. 7, September 1968, p. 18. 64 a basic requirement at both Syracuse University and the University of Southern California. Though personal inter- view is recommended at Indiana University and at Michigan State University, it is not a rigid pre-admission require- ment. It is apparently assumed at all of these institu- t7; tions that full admission to the doctoral program will 1 have been preceded by some time spent in residence. ? Though the catalogs do not specifically state that some' residence credit must be obtained before formal admission, it is strongly implied by the outline of procedural steps for admittance to the doctoral level programs. Summary Admissions requirements at the four institutions included in the study are very similar. There is no major variation in any one of them. Differences would be in degree rather than kind. All require a bachelor's degree and a grade point average in previous work ranging from 2.5 through 3.25 on a four-point scale. All require some preliminary examina- tion, preferably the Graduate Record Examination and/or the Miller Analogies Test. The requirement of previous teach- ing experience, however, is not universal. It is encourh aged by all of the institutions. Another requirement that is not universal is the personal interview prior to admis- sion. Two schools require it, and the other two recommend it. 65 The specifications for admission to the doctoral program at the four institutions are almost identical. For a tabular presentation of this information see Table I. Course Offering The number and variety of courses offered in in- structional technology by the four universities are sali- fl”? ent. Course titles and catalog descriptions are not as indicative of true course content as one would hOpe they would be, but do serve to give an idea of the total pic- ”. nl’u‘b-l'dt ‘ t in L. ‘. , ture of experiences and competencies considered to be important by the institution under study. The course syl- labi and handout materials give a more meaningful indica- tion of the course content. The similarity of total offering is noteworthy. Each of the institutions offers an introductory course in media at the graduate level. As might be ex- pected, the composition of this course varies with the school and the instructor. This is true also for the other courses listed in the catalogs, though it may not be quite as apparent in other courses. The catalog des- cription of the introductory course at Michigan State University, for example, places emphasis upon utilization of media in instruction. The catalog description cites work in "learning principles; nature and application of films, filmstrips, slides, . . . radio and television and equipment operation . . . includes evaluation and 66 .oo.m n m .00.: n 4 .6 .fl .oamom pcfiom such a moaflmma Ummefinafi Aonao>< pcfiom opmaav 24 .m .3 one OO.N u o F poaammoan ma om om cw GED. P59 .COHPMQflg Uhoomm GPQSUGHG QED. .HOM UmPgfiPmflgm 09. hdg Pmmm... meMOHg .HmHHfiz mg: mHoonom emansn one am macs op swam pom moon pcmoaaddm mnp ma pamaoaflSan mane moflMfiHmSU mamanaH * Pcmanfiddma oflman «.u m pamacaHSUma a you pan powwowmsm u w . upmmam>flab m 8 n is m m m m 3er sameness m om.m m *m m m dnmflnaH m mmd m m m m m oeaeessm m oo.m m m m m .maawo Cheapsom mo hpflm9o>flnp . . . mmwmoamQ< no whooom mocofiaoaxm moawon moawoa 3ofi>hoch w ¢ m w hoaafiz opmsnaam wamnodoa m.ampmmzfl m.aoaonodm MBHmmm>HZD Sarcoma 3988 8.. 28895. mom .nzo.He encourage comments and suggestions from the respondents. ThE’ responses give an indication of additional items 84 TABLE VIII THE KENDALL COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE 1&2? Ranked Data by University Groups U. S. C. .M. s. U. I. U. s. U. Staff 1. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2. 34.0 22.0 16.0 24.0 24.5 3. 38.0 29.5 22.0 28.5 28.5 4. 40.5 35.0 33.5 20.0 28.5 5. 24.5 19.5 25.0 17.0 33.0 6. 26.5 8.5 16.0 3.0 20.5 7. 42.0 39.5 40.0 40.0 41.5 8. 44.0 43.0 42.5 43.0 44.0 9. 21.5 13.5 22.0 4.5 24.5 10. 32.0 22.0 30.0 24.0 28.5 11. 4.5 22.0 7.5 4.5 16.5 12. 3.0 11.5 12.5 8.0 11.5 13. 7.5 8.5 7.5 8.0 9.0 14. 43.0 44.0 38.5 42.0 43.0 15. 40.5 41.0 30.0 36.0 38.0 16. 30.0 28.0 42.5 24.0 24.5 17. 21.5 24.5 12.5 11.0 16.5 18. 28.5 31.5 28.0 17.0 33.0 19. 26.5 39.5 33.5 38.0 41.5 :20. 10.0 8.5 22.0 8.0 9.0 221. 16.5 17.5 25.0 24.0 20.5 22. 11.0 17.5 14.0 28.5 4.5 23. 36.5 36.0 35.5 41.0 36.5 211. 13.5 26.5 16.0 24.0 4.5 25. 9.0 8.5 3.0 12.0 9.0 265. 36.5 29.5 41.0 35.0 40.0 27. 32.0 26.5 30.0 31.0 36.5 85 TABLE VIII Continued {ng Ranked Data by University Groups U. s. C. :M. s. U. I. U. s. U. Staff 28. 28.5 15.5 19.0 17.0 33.0 29. 4.5 3.5 7.5 13.5 4.5 30. 19.0 24.5 27.0 17.0 33.0 31. 13.5 5.0 10.5 17.0 4.5 32. 13.5 11.5 19.0 24.0 20.5 33. 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 34. 21.5 19.5 32.0 31.0 33.0 35. 13.5 33.5 19.0 38.0 13.5 4 36. 6.0 13.5 4.5 8.0 7.0 37. 7.5 6.0 4.5 8.0 11.5 38. 32.0 31.5 38.5 38.0 28.5 39. 21.5 33.5 37.0 31.0 20.5 40. 39.0 42.0 44.0 44.0 39.0 41. 16.5 15.5 10.5 13.5 16.5 42. 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 43. 24.5 37.5 25.0 34.0 16.5 44. 35.0 37.5 35.5 33.0 24.5 45. 18.0 2.0 7.5 24.0 13.5 The Kendall Coefficient of Concordance = 0.8425 Chi-Square value = 185.3482 Degrees of Freedom = 44 Significant at the .001 level 86 perceived as being important. Examples are: sensitivity training, simulation, perception theory, mathetics, sociol— ogy of education, writing, evaluation, semantics, informa— tion storage and retrieval, tele-communications, produc- tion, history and science of technology, copyright laws, and work in the affective domain. There was some indi— ur (W F Gated divergence in relation to such things as minor or cognate studies. Some indicated that such things as the ..'- vi"! ”5“”.‘30 ‘1 behavioral sciences, experimental design simulation, and F in-service work should be included in the program of pre- paration. To quote one respondent, ". . . I think a doc- toral student should have the equivalent of a minor in an 'unrelated field' - history, philosophy, English litera- ture, or math. It is absolutely essential that an in- structional technologist have this other dimension." Feeling about the place of the minor or cognate area was not uniform. It was contended by at least one respondent that the cognate should be limited to such things as radio and television, communications, or computer science. .Another equally positive point of view proposed that a Ininor in a "closely related field" should not be per- mitted . In addition to the supplementary suggestions that twere made to the list of needed experiences and competen— —< (J 4, “) ‘4 o _ ’1 1': 95 behavior is to be misled."1 It may well be that the edu- cational complex is too late to catch up with the needs of society. In spite of the contention of persons such as Goodlad, some educational personnel still argue about the feasibility of the use of media. Sheer numbers as well as relative inaccessibility of groups of urban and rural areas have impeded the progresstof improvement in instruc- tional techniques. Both of these factors have had an in— fluence, but it is not permanent. Dale says: Some persons discuss instructional technology as though there were a real choice whether we should introduce it in our schools. There is no such choice. Our only choice is whether we use educational tech- nology wisely and planfully or whether we use it grudgingly, ineptly, planlessly.2 The widespread institution of instructional tech- nology into the operating framework of public education is faced with a number of problems. Adequate financial sup- port is only one of the concerns of the professional in education. Just as real, and possibly more important in the long run, is the shortage of personnel With suitable preparation. Hayes notes: All properly organized school districts have the fi— nancial ability to employ "hardward" specialists. What should be the qualifications for such persons? Should they be technicians thrust into education to apply their trade to the learning process? 1John I. Goodlad, "The Future of Learning and Teaching," AudioVisual Communications Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, (Spring 1968), p. 12. 2Edgar Dale, "The Teacher and Technology," in Can You Give The Public What It Wants?, Cowles Educational Corporation, New York, 1967, p. 138-142. pl 96 Or should they be educators whose responsibility is to maintain currency on technology and correlative implications for learning? The potency of many of the products and the amount of money devoted to hardware argue for the latter approach, and rapidity of change dictates early refinement of preparation programs to meet the need.1 There is no ideal program, according to Larson. It should not be the goal of the professional to attempt to delineate such a program, he contends.2 This does not mean that there is no feasible type of program but rather, that we need to allow for diversity and individual needs in the planning and implementation of any program. Car- penter maintains that, "A multiphasic problem requires a pluralistic answer. There is no Single solution to the complex problem of learning because it 13 so enormously complex."3 The fact that the problem of training and educat- ing professional personnel is both "multiphasic" and not universally agreed upon, should not preclude the recogni- tion of the vast amount of work that has been done in relation to improving the quality and quantity of profes» sional preparation programs for the instructional technol- ogist. 1Dale K. Hayes, "Professional Educators: Policy Makers or Technicians," Educational Leadership, Vol. 25, NO. 8, p. 7260 2 L. C. Larson, Address to the PEMS Commission section, D. A. V. I. Convention, Portland, Oregon, 1969; from an audio tape of the session. 3C. R. Carpenter, "A Constructive Critique of Edu- cational Technology," AudioVisual Communications Review, Vol. 16, (Summer 1968), p. 17. pr: 80' re. 31' In ie be 97 Summary The requirements for admission to the doctoral program in Instructional Technology are analogous at the institutions included in this study. Any differences would be in degree rather than kind. All of the schools require a baccalaureate degree. A minimum grade point average is also required. This ranges from 2.50 at Indiana University through 3.25 at Syracuse University. Each of the universities requires preliminary examination. The Graduate Record Examination is preferable. The Miller Analogies Test is acceptable in lieu of G. R. E. scores at one of the schools. Previous teaching exper- ience and the requirement for a personal interview are both encouraged, but are not rigid injunctions at all of the schools. Catalog descriptions, assorted course syllabi, handouts to students, and personal interview indicate that there is significant commonality in the experiences pro- vided and the competencies needed at the advanced graduate level in all of the universities included in the study. Aside from some of the basic and/or tool courses it is also apparent that the programs are not mirror images of one another. There is inequality in the breadth of the programs offered under the aegis of the Department of Instructional Technology. This inequality is partially counter-balanced by improved interdepartmental 98 arrangements within the institutions. Overall, the course title and catalog description leave something to be de- sired in making a clear and complete explanation of the scope of the course offering. A better indication of the true composition of the course can be obtained from course syllabi and handouts given to students. On this basis, it is apparent that many of the experiences given and compee tencies required are the same. They are not, however, always developed and taught in courses with similar des- criptions or catalog numbers. The programs at all of the schools are in a state of flux. Indiana University has added a number of exper— imental courses to their offering. Syracuse University has just completed some redesigning and changes in the designation of some of their course work and Michigan State University has a faculty-student group working on revision of the total program. The University of Southern California is working under a particularly difficult eval- uation of their total program caused, at least partially, by the passing of Dr. James Finn. "Field perceptions" were made through the use of a written questionnaire. Students, graduates, and staff from four of the five institutions that comprise the Uni- versity Consortium in Educational Media and Technology responded to a listing of suggested items to be included in the preparation program for the doctoral level profesn sional in the field of Instructional Technology. These 99 responses were treated statistically with a OneaWay Analyu sis of Variance for each item. Significant differences in response patterns were Checked and analyzed through the use of the Newman-Keuls Sequential Range Test. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance was applied to all of the data to determine if there was agreement among the five groups of respondents. The One-Way Analysis of Variance indicated that the total group of respondents showed little difference in their responses to forty-two of the fortwaive items sug- gested. They did show some divergence in their response to public school administration, statistics, and the inn ternship for instructional technologists. This test also determined a grand mean value for each of the items and also made it possible to list them in rank order. Those« items having a low mean value were those judged by the respondents to be "most desirable" in the doctoral level program. The minimum admission requirement suggested was a bachelor's degree. Items related to academic experiences were learning and communications theory, systems theory and design, educational psychology, research methods and design, selection and use of printmnon—print materials and media equipment, the administration of media facilities, curriculum design and development, and an internship in instructional technology/educational communications. Many of the items were rated as "desirable — not essential." The lowest item on the list was foreign language 100 competency. Ranked just above this were the items relat- ing to library science, basic art and design, and elec- tronics. The Newman—Keuls Sequential Range Test was used to pin-point the sources of difference. In all of the in- stances of significant difference, the staff group re- sponse correlated positively with that of the student groups. Sources of difference were between the student-graduate groups from the four institutions. Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance showed a very significant positive relationship among all five of the groups making responses. A perfect correlation would have been shown by a derived value of 1.0. The derived value for this set of data was 0.8425. Recommendations from leaders in the field were varied. The more recent articles and addresses placed more emphasis upon such things as values, knowledges of subject matters and theory, and "intellectual skills." Programs need to be adapted to meet individual needs. Also recommended were patterns of program development that would be modelled after those for engineers or accountants. In a Position Paper prepared for the Department of Audio Visual Instruction eight areas were recommended for ink clusion in a general core for media professionals. They were utilization and evaluation of educational materials and media, design and production of materials, organiza- tion of media collections, administration and supervision 101 of media programs, the applications of technologies to instruction, communication, learning and perception theories, curriculum development, and the development of supervisory and in—service education activities. The function of media and the relation of instruc— tional technology to the whole educational framework has been the subject of conjecture. It was suggested that teachers need not be schooled only in the uSe of media in the classroom, under teacher control, but also how to use the variety of media applications as messagesources, i. e. the teacher on television or the one who designs and im- plements the "instructional package." Further, as more and more of the information becomes available, the teacher needs to be able to be the television teacher and/or the designer of the instructional package. He needs some training for this kind of experience in his pre-service work. Changes in preparation programs are more evolu- tionary than revolutionary. Institutions have made, and will need to continue to make, alterations in the struc- ture of preparation programs for both the teacher and the teacher of teachers to meet the ever-changing demands of society. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The growth of formal education and the increas- ingly important role of instructional technology have been concurrent throughout the history of man. Even in the Dark Ages the use of symbols helped men to communicate. With the return of civilization the use of more abstract forms of message design gave additive strength to the development of instructional technology. In recent years, more sophisticated "man-machine" systems have again pushed formal education into the spotlight. Criticism has come with this recognition. Both lay and professional people have expressed concern about the adequacy of the formal education at all levels. An integral part of this concern relates to personnel and the training that they have for the job that they are assigned to do. Because of the growth of mass media and more sagacious forms of communie cation, those who have responsibility for the improvement of instructional programs have borne the brunt of much of the criticism that has been leveled at education in gen- eral. The purpose of this study has been to gain some insight into the kinds of competencies and experiences 102 103 that are needed by professional level people in the field of instructional technology. With this augmented insight an indication of some of the elements of an optimum pre- paration program has been made. A number of different levels of supporting infor- mation were needed before attempting to make this kind of discrimination. They are best described by asking a num- ber of questions about the present situation and gathering some of the ideas from those who have spent both effort and time in getting an overall point of view of the educa— tional complex. The first question relates to the current status of preparation programs for the professional level person in instructional technology. The answer to this can be partially obtained from careful perasal of the general catalogs, special catalogs and brochures, class outlines and handouts, and other kinds of promotional material. This was the avenue used for this study. Secondly, how do the people in the field perceive the preparation program for instructional technologists at the doctoral level? What, in their opinion, are the most significant elements of this kind of program? This was determined from the responses that a selected group of people made to a written questionnaire. These responses were statistically treated to ascertain if there was con- sensus among groups and among the individual respondents. There was. The responses were also checked to decide if 104 there was a hierarchical ranking of the elements, accord— ing to perceived importance by the responding groups. Again there was. This was found to be consistent, statis— tically, for forty-two of forty—five proposed items. In order to temper the indicated program proposals derived from the first two sources of data a third set of factors were introduced into the prospectus. These were the recommendations of "scholars," "innovators," and "philosophers" working in the field. The intent of this addition was to make reasonable allowance for averages in the response patterns, but also to prevent the obvious in "equating averages with oughtness." Conclusions The following conclusions were reached using this threefold data base. 1. There is limited variation in the doctoral preparation programs in instructional technology at the four institutions included in this study. This difference is largely in organizational pattern and the breadth of course offering included under the aegis of the Department of Instructional Technology rather than a difference in the program content. There is not as much discrepancy in the program content as cursory examination would lead one to believe. Interdepartmental arrangements exist in all of the universities. The extent to which these kinds of services are utilized varies a great deal and appears to 105 be dependent upon the type of departmental status. 2. Experiences that are provided within the pre- paration programs are similar. As would be expected, the course numbers, titles, and catalog descriptions vary from one school to another. Syllabi, brochures, student ori- ented handouts, and other promotional materials indicate, however, that there is notable correspondence in terms of the overall objectives of the preparation programs. 3. Admissions requirements are analogous for the four universities. All require a bachelor's degree as the beginning point. A grade point average ranging from 2.50 through 3.25 (on a h.oo = A scale) is required by all of the institutions. A preliminary examination, either the Graduate Record Examination or the Miller Analogies Test, is required by all four schools. Previous teaching exper— ience is required by two of the universities but is only suggested by the other two for formal admission as a matriculated student. Personal interview is suggested by two of the schools and is stipulated by the other two. A Master's degree or its equivalent is required by one school. The others do not make the requirement but rec- ommend such a degree. h. There is agreement among the groups surveyed as to the desirability of specified experiences in an optimum program for the preparation of professional level people in the field of instructional technology. The statistical treatment of the scaled responses to the 106 questionnaire indicates that students, graduates, and mem- bers of the teaching-administrative staff from the univer- sities are in accord concerning the elements of an optimum preparation program. The One-Way Analysis of Variance teat of each of the items did not show any significant differ- ence on forty-two of the forty-five proposed items. Ken- dall's Coefficient of Concordance showed high concurrence among the groups in the ranking of the elements proposed. (0.8h25). 5. Students, graduates, and staff members rank learning and communications theory, systems theory and de- sign, educational psychology, research method and design, selection and use of instructional materials and media equipment, the administration of media facilities, and curriculum design and development as being "highly desir- able" (somewhere between essential and desirable on the scale used on the questionnaire) elements in the prepara- tion program for doctoral level people in the field of instructional technology. These should be developed at both the knowledge and the skill levels. 6. The internship in instructional technology, an overview of media materials and equipment, methods and techniques of classroom television, programmed instruction, the design of media facilities, and previous teaching ex- perience were rated more in the "desirable - not essen- tial" ranking. Still lower, in the "useful" category, were the "tool" kinds of experiences. Examples of some 107 of these are still photography, television production, statistics, cinematography, and business administration. Cautions were expressed by many of the respondents rela- tive to placing too much emphasis upon the "machine" por- tion of the "man-machine system" known as instructional technology. Again, emphasis should be given to the devel- opment of both knowledge and skill. 7. There was almost universal agreement in indi- cating that the foreign language requirement for the doc- toral degree is inappropriate. This item was given the lowest ranking on the total list. Also of interest was the relatively low ranking of the items relating to library science and library cataloging and filing. Implications of Study On the basis of the findings and conclusions of this study, it is recommended that: 1. Funds and time be provided for those who do the actual instruction to meet together to discuss their programs and to begin working out some of the suggested details for achieving the objectives of the University Consortium in Educational Media and Technology. This will involve meetings of those who are doing the teaching as well as those in administrative positions. It may well be that students in the advanced graduate program can make significant contributions to this kind of instruc- tional development. More effective and affective 108 communication resulting from these kinds of face-to face meetings will have laudatory effects upon program develop- ment and cooperation. 2. Provisions be made to permit advanced graduate students to work in programs that are not hampered by the confines of traditional course organization and the rela- tion of formal courses, seminars, and independent study. Rather, it is proposed that some arrangement be made to permit both instructional staff and students to work to- gether in instructional teams, with definite objectives and an opportunity to solve real problems.1 3. A reassessment of the role of the Department of Instructional Technology within the College of Educa- tion specifically, and the total university generally, be made. This will help increase the scope of the prepara- tion program. This evaluation has a number of facets. One is a survey of the internal relationships that exist between and among the courses and instructors who are assigned directly to the Department of Instructional Tech- nology. The other would involve the relationship of In- structional Technology to other departments within the College, 1. e. curriculum, administration, special educa- tion, reading, teacher education, and media or instruc- tional technology. Another part of this reassessment 1Personal interview with Dr. Paul W. F. Witt, Director of Instructional Development, Instructional Materials Center, Michigan State University, August, 1969. 109 should include role definition in terms of the service function, the training function, and the instructional development function throughout the total university. h. The requirement for a foreign language compe- tency be dropped for the doctoral level degree in Instruc- tional Technology. Whether this is done through the limiting of Instructional Technologists to the Doctor of Education degree or changing the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree has not been determined by this study. (Note: The foreign language requirement has recently been changed at Michigan State University.) This may be the subject of some additional study. 5. The relationship between Instructional Tech- nology and Library Science needs to be investigated. This study would infer that the relationship is not a positive one at this time. The ostensive agreement be- tween these two fields appears to exist more at the ad- ministrative level than it does at the functional level. The respondents to the survey instrument used in this survey indicate that people in the field see Library Science as being a relatively unimportant link in the total field of Instructional Technology. 6. The preparation program in Instructional Technology should provide many different opportunities for a general core of experiences that would be available to all advanced graduate students. Integral parts of this common core should include such things as learning and 110 communications theory, systems theory and design, educa- tional psychology, research methods and design, selection and use of instructional materials and equipment, the administration of media facilities, and curriculum design and development. Where possible, an internship in In— structional technology should be provided. In order to permit some experience and competency development in spe- cialized areas beyond the general core, opportunities should be provided to work in systems design, learning theory, research, television, photography, programmed instruction (for both computer and printed materials), de— sign and administration of media facilities, cinematogra— phy and others of the specialty areas. An optimum program offering including all of the specialty areas in the field can be offered only with ex- treme difficulty by all of the schools that have instruc- tional departments dealing with Instructional Technology. The proposal of the University Consortium in Educational Media and Technology referring to the exchange of students and/or instructional personnel should receive prompt con— sideration by all of the institutions comprising the mem- bership of that organization. This kind of cooperation will permit them to continue their leadership in the devel- opment of new and innovative programs for the education of professional people in the field. Summary It has been a popular pastime to decry the lack of uniformity in course offerings and experiences provided by higher education institutions working in the field of In- structional Technology. The results of this study would infer that at the present time this is more of a semantic exercise rather than one with substance. There is similarity in the kinds of experiences provided, though they are not always found in analogous courses. Detailed study of course syllabi and related materials suggest that they are available, nevertheless. Differences in overall concept on the part of both teacher and student dictate the relationship of these experiences. It is this quality that provides the unique character of each school. The divergence that exists in the organiza- tional structure of the departments results from the per- ceptions of personnel, not only within the organization, but in their associations with related departments across the university. Recognition of personalities and inter-personal relationships implies that no two students are going to obtain identical preparation experiences. To deprecate these differences would be short-sighted. They are the strengthening qualities of any developing program. Only as an overall program is based upon a broad, multi-faceted foundation can it be flexible enough to make its maximum 112 contribution to a changing, growing society. Some have contended that a viable program for pre— paration cannot be defined until a comprehensive job des- cription is completed. The rationale for this contention is sound but may be limiting when considered in the light of the rapidity of change. Neither job descriptions nor the programs for preparing people to take the jobs des- cribed can remain static. They are both subject to con- stant re-evaluation and change. The schools included in this study are currently making a concerted effort to make their programs more functional for their advanced graduate students. Guidelines On the basis of the findings of this study and personal experience, both within and prior to enrollment in the doctoral level program, the writer proposes some "guidelines" or "ground rules" for consideration in the development of new doctoral level preparation programs in the field of Instructional Technology. 1. There should be a more systematic way of assessing the "initial competency" of persons entering into doctoral level programs. Evaluation of previous aca- demic~w0rk, related job experiences, scores on standard- ized evaluation instruments, and personal interview should be used in this determination. The initial assessment has a double purpose: (1) to permit the institutional 113 representatives to evaluate the candidate and suggest a curricular pattern that will best meet the individual needs of the candidate, and (2) permit the candidate to evaluate the institution and the instructional offering in terms of his individual needs and desires. 2. There should be a "common core" of learning experiences for all persons working at professional levels in Instructional Technology. This is not necessar— ily a series of courses but rather activities designed to develop and assess skills and knowledges permitting the individualization of program structure. All post-bacca- laureate programs in this field should include work in theory and academic areas relating to learning, communica- tions, systems design, research, educational psychology, and curriculum design as well as work in the selection and utilization of instructional materials and media equipment. 3. The learning experiences provided within the preparation program should be "overlapping." Rather than being organized in a ladder-like pattern they should assume more of a "Venn Diagram" type of configuration with those working at the doctoral level having the opportunity and responsibility for more in-depth study than either the master's level or specialist's level candidates. Deter- mination of the ultimate depth of study and experience in a given area should be made by the individual, in 11h consultation with his advisory committee. It should take into consideration the role that he expects to fill fol- lowing the completion of the formal preparation program. h. The preparation program at the doctoral level should be inter—disciplinary. Experiences should be pro- vided within the program for work in the behavioral sciences, i. e., education, psychology, sociology, polit- ical science, anthropology, communications, research and statistics. Every effort should be made to encourage in- dividuals preparing to work at the professional level in the field of Instructional Technology to have a broad knowledge base in one or more of these areas. 5. To adequately support the inter-disciplinary approach referred to above, provision should be made for a "team approach" to the staffing of the post-baccalureate instructional program. Within the staff structure there should be persons representing a variety of knowledges, skills, and expertise. 6. In drawing constraints around the preparation programs recognition must be made of the rapidity of change as well as the growth of knowledge. Provision for the ter— mination of the formal instructional program should make allowance for a reasonable time commitment (three to four years) beyond a bachelor's degree. Ideally, the program structure would be such that students develop not only skill with the learning process but also an awareness and 115 philosophy of the necessity for continual personal learn- ing. 7. Recognition of the changes that have been, and will continue to be, made in the "needs" for professional level personnel in the field of Instructional Technology should preclude the potential rigidity that tends to plague innovative programs. Continued flexibility must be an in- tegral part of any truly functional preparation program. BIBLI OGRA PHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Allen, William H. "Audiovisual Instruction: The State of The Art." in The Schools and the Challenge of Inno- vation. The Committee for Economic Development. New York: 1969. Campbell, Roald. "Teaching and Teachers - Today and Tomor- row." in The Schools and the Challenge of Innova- tion. The Committee for Economic Development. New York: 1969. Comenius, Johann Amos. The Great Didactic. Translated by Vladimir Jelenik. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. First English Edition. Comenius, Johann Amos. Orbus Pictus - The World in Pic- tures: Visible World or a Nomenclature and Pic- tures of All the Chief Things in the World. Translated into English by Charles Hoole, Little Britain, 1728. Written by the Author in Latin and High Dutch. Dale, Edgar. "The Teacher and Technology." in Can You Give the Public What It Wants? Cowles Educational Corporation, New York: 1967. Edling, Jack V. The Contributions of Behavioral Science to Instructional Technology. Monmouth, Oregon: The Oregon System of Higher Education, Teaching Research Division, 1968. Givens, Willard E., and Farley, Belmont. Our Public Schools. Washington, D. C.: The Supreme Council 33°, Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Free Masonry, Southern Jurisdiction, U. S. A. 1959. Goldschmidt, Walter. Exploring the Ways of Mankind. Los Angeles: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1960. Goodlad, John I. School Curriculum Reform in the United States. New York: The Fund for the Advancement of Education, 196A. 116 117 Goslin, David A. The School in Contemporary Society. Chicago: Scott Foresman and Co., 1965. Hammond, Allen. A Flow Model for Higher Education. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1968. Heinich, Robert M. "The Teacher In An Instructional Sys- tem." in Media Competencies for Teachers. Edited by Wesley C. Meirhenry. Lincoln, Nebraska: Uni— versity of Nebraska, 1966. Highet, Gilbert. The Art of Teaching. New York: Vintage Books, Inc., 1954 Meierhenry, Wesley C., ed. Media Competencies for Teachers. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 1966. Norberg, Kenneth. "Theoretical Background Required by Teachers in the Use of Newer Media." in Media Competencies for Teachers. Edited by Wesley C. Meierhenry. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 1966. Russell, James E. Change and Challenge in American Educa— tion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1965. Schueler, Herbert, and Lesser, Gerald S. Teacher Educa— tion and the New Media. Washington, D. C.: Amer- ican Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, 1967. Torkelson, Gerald M. "Competencies Needed By Teachers in the Use of Newer Media and Various Approaches to Achieving Them." in Media Competencies for Teachers. Edited by Wesley C. Meierhenry. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 1966. Saettler, Paul. A Histogy of Instructional Technology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. Reports — Published Brown, Laurence D. "The Doctorate in Education: Impli- cations for the Preparation of College Teachers of Education." Frontiers in Teacher Education. Nineteenth Yearbook, American Association of Teacher Education, 1966. 118 Ely, Donald P. The Changing Role of the AudioVisual Proe cess in Education: A Definition and a Glossapy of Related Terms. Monograph No. 1 of the Technologi- cal Development Project of the National Education Association, Special Supplement of A V Communica- tions Review. Vol. 11, No. 1, (January-February 1963). Hall, Robert O. The Content and Pattern for the Profes- sional Training_of Audiovisual Communications Specialists. U. S. Office of Education, Final Re— port. N. D. E. A. Title VII, No. B 208. Noel, Elizabeth G., and Leonard, J. Paul. Foundations for Teacher Education in Audio-Visual Instruction. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education Studies, Series II - Motion Pictures in Education, No. 9, Vol. XI, 1947. Oliver, G. G. A Study of Pre-Service Teacher Education in the Use of Media of Communication for Classroom Instruction, N. D. E. A. Title VII, No. 130. Seaton, Helen Hardt. A Measure for Audio-Visual Prpgrams in Schools. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education. Series II - Motion Pictures in Edu— cation, No. 8, Vol. VIII, 19h4. Summary Report of the Fourth Annual Okoboji Conference. Lake Okobiji, Iowa: Summer, 1958. Summary Report of the Seventh Okoboji Leadership Confer- ence. Lake Okoboji, Iowa: Summer, 1961. Summary Report of the Eleventh Okoboji Leadership Confer- ence. Lake Okoboji, Iowa: Summer, 1965. U. S. Congress. Joint Economic Committee. Automation and Technology in Education. A Report of the Subcom- mittee on Economic Progress. Wright Patman, Chairman. 89th Congress, 2d. Session, 1966. Periodicals Broudy, Harry. "The Education of Teachers of Teachers." The Journal of Teacher EducationJ XIII (September 1962), 290 Bruner, Jerome S. "Culture, Politics, and Pedagogy." Saturday Review, LI (May 18, 1968), 71. 119 Budd, William C. "Certainty in Certification." Phi Delta Kappan, xxxx (February 1959), 209. Buehler, Ronald G. "Competency: Yes, Certification: No." Audiovisual Instruction, X (December 1965), 766. Carmen, Harry J. "The Historical Development of Licensing for the Professions." The Educational Record, IXL (July 1958), 268-78. Carpenter, C. R. "A Constructive Critique of Educational Technology." Audiowisual Communications Review, XVI (Summer 1968), 16-22. deKeiffer, Robert E. "A V Activities of Colleges and Universities in Teacher Education." Audio Visual Communications Review, VII (Spring 1959), 12h. Eboch, Sidney C. "The A V Specialist: Some Reflections On An Image." Audiovisual Instruction, VIII (Janu— ary 1963), 15—17. Ely, Donald P. "The Invisible College." Audiovisual In- struction, XII (December 1967), 1038-39. Ely, Donald P. "Consortium in Educational Media and Tech— nology." Educational Technology, IX (January 1969). 33. Ely, Donald P. "The Communications School: Neophyte in Higher Education." Audiovisual Communications Re- view, XVIII (September-October 1966). Finn, James D. "Professionalizing the Audio-Visual Field." Audiovisual Communications Review, I (Winter 1953), 6-16. Finn, James D. "The Marginal Media Man." Audiovisual In- struction, X (December 1965), 762-65. Fulton, W. R. "A. V. Competencies and Teacher Preparation." Journal of Teacher Education, I, 1960. Fulton, W. R., and White, Fredrick A. "What Constitutes Teacher Competence in Audio-Visual Communication?" phi Delta Kappan, xxxx (January 1959), 158-9. (39r1aoh, Vernon S. "The Professional Education of the Media Specialist." Audiovisual Communications Re- view, XIV (Summer 1966), 18h-2o1. 120 Gerrero, Richard, and Margoles, Richard Allan. “Emerging Educational Industry-—Its Needs for Media Personm nel." Audiovisual Instruction, XII (February 1967), 1h3-h7. Goodlad, John I. "The Future of Learning and Teaching." Audiovisual Communications Review, XVI (Spring 1968), 12. Harcelroad, F. F. "The Education of the AV Communications Specialist." Audiovisual Communications Review, VIII (September-October 1960), 3—96. Hartsell, Horace C. "Are You Part of the Problem or a Part of the Answer?" Audiovisual Instruction, XIII (April 1968), huo. Hayes, Dale K. "Professional Educators: Policy Makers or Technicians." Educational Leadership, XXV, 726. Highlight of Commission and Committee Reports. Audiovisual Instruction, XIII (June-July 1968), 656, 663. Hutchins, Robert M. "Anatomy of the Post-Industrial Age." The Center Magazine, II (January 1969), 88. Larson, L. C. "Developing a Graduate Program to Train In- structional Design and Media Specialists." Audio— visual Instruction, XIV (January 1969), ZO-Zh. Mager, Robert F. "The Instructional Technologist." Educa- tional Technology, VII (May 1967), 1-h. Mars, Walter J. "Developing Appropriate Media Competen— cies." The Journal of Teacher Education, XVII (Winter 1966), h30. Martin, James S. "The Audio-Visual Department Comes of Age." American School and Universipy, X1, 24. Meierhenry, Wesley C. "Teacher Competencies Project." Audio- visual Instruction, XII (December 1967), 1030-31. Morris, Barry. "The Function of Media in the Public Schools." Audiovisual Instruction, VIII (January 1963), 9—1#. 1Vorberg, Kenneth; Meierhenry, Wesley C.: Ely, Donald P.; Kemp, Jerrold; and Hyer, Anna L. "The Role of the Media Professional in Education." A Position Paper prepared for the Board of Directors of the Depart- ment of Audiovisual Instruction, National Education Association. Audiovisual Instruction, XII (December 196777 1026—29. 121 Ofeish, Gabriel D. "Tomorrow's Educational Engineers." Educational Technology, VIII (July 15, 1968), 6. Pascoe, David. "The Pascoe Report." Audiovisual Instruc- tion, IV (January 1959), 6—7. Saettler, Paul. "Design and Selection Factors." Review of Educational Research, XXVIII (April 1968), 115. Saettler, Paul. "Instructional Technology: Problems and Prospects." Audiovisual Communications Review, XV (Summer 1967), 133-h5. Slack, Charles W. "Who Is The Educational Technologist?" Educational Technology, VIII (July 30, 1968), 13. Swartout, Sherwin G. "Professional or Paraprofessional?" Audiovisual Instruction, XII (February 1967), 126:31. Torkelson, Gerald E., and Driscoll, John P. "Utilization and Management of Learning Resources." Review of Educational Research, XXXVIII (April 1968), 129- 152. Wallington, James; Hale, Pryor; and Douglas, Freda. "To- ward Solving the Media Manpower Puzzle." Audio— visual Instruction, XIV (January 1969), 36. West, L. Clinton. "A New Partnership Is Needed!" Audio- visual Instruction, XIII (October 1968), 926. Wiman, Raymond V. "An Interdisciplinary Approach to Plan— ning a Program of Professional Preparation for Media Specialists." Audiovisual Instruction, XII (February 1967), 110-113. University Catalogs and Brochures Indiana University Audio Visual Center. An Institute for Training Instructional Developer for Higher Educa- tion, 1969. School of Education, Graduate Division, Indiana University Bulletin 1969/70, January 30, 1969. Description of Courses and Academic Programs for Graduate Study - 1969, Michigan State University, Vol. 63. No. 8, December 1968. 122 Michigan State University, College of Education, Profes- sional Programs in Instructional Development and Technology, 1968-69. Bulletin of the University of Southern California, 1968- 1970. School of Education, Vol. 6h, N0. 4, Septem- ber 1968. School of Education Course Listing. A Syracuse University Bulletin, Vol. XCVII, No. 7, September 1, 1968. School of Education, A Syracuse University Bulletin, Vol. XCVII, No. 7, September 1968. Focus, sponsored by the Student Audiovisual Association and Audio-Visual Center, Indiana University, Vol. 3, No. 1, (April 1969), p. 8. The Mediated Dialogue. An Account of the Experimental Na- tional Media Institutes, Department of Instruc- tional Technology, University of Southern Cali- fornia, p. Unpublished Materials Curry, Guy A., Jr. Assistant Secretary of National Commis— sion on Teacher Educatipn and Professional Stand- ards, Personal letter, July 27, 1958. deKeiffer, Robert Eulette, "The Status of Teacher-training in Audio-Visual Education in the Forty-eight States." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1948. Ely, Donald Paul. "The Organization and Development of Communications Programs in Selected Institutions of Higher Education." Unpublished Doctoral disserta- tion, Syracuse University, 1960. Hamreus, Dale G. "The Domain of Media." Unpublished paper, Teaching Research Division, Oregon System of Higher Education. (Mimeographed) Hamreus, Dale G. Progress ReportL Project No. 8-0520-Devel— opment and Validation of Criteria for Evaluating Media Training, May 1969. (Mimeographed) Indiana University, Syllabus for R546, Survey of Audio-Vis- ual Communications, 1968. (Mimeographed) 123 McMahan, Marie E. "A Study of the Feasibility of a System of Pre-Service Teacher Education in Media." Un- published Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Schuller, Charles F. "Project Proposal to the United States Office of Education — A Project to Generate an Improved Professional Program in Instructional Development and Educational Technology." December 1, 1968. (Mimeographed) Wiman, Raymond Victor, Jr. "An Investigation of Factors Relating to an Interdisciplinary Approach to the Development of Training Programs for Educational Media Specialists." Unpublished Doctoral disser- tation, University of Nebraska, 1963. Papers Brown, James W. "Instructional Materials Services: Why, What, How?" Paper presented at Special Conference sponsored by the Knapp School Libraries Project, A Multi-Media Approach to Learning at Provo, Utah, January 29, 1967. Gagne', Robert. "Characteristics of Instructional Technol- ogists." Paper presented at a Symposium on In- structional Technologists, American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Berkeley, California. February 6, 1969. Larson, L. C. Paper presented to the Professional Educa— tion of Media Specialists Commission Section Meet- ing at the Department of Audio Visual Instruction Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon. April 29, 1969. APPENDIX A 104 THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS INTENDED TO SAMPLE THE PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONS ACTUALLX'WORKING IN THE FIELD OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY/EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS TO HELP DETERMINE WHAT EXPERIENCES AND/OR COMPETENCIES ARE VALUABLE ELEMENTS OF THE PREPARATION PROGRAMS FOR PROFESSIONAL PERSONS AT THE DOCTORAL LEVEL. Please indicate your reaction to the proposed items by writing the appro- priate number from the RATING Column RATING SCALE 1. Necessary - Essential and by placing a Check (9’) in the 2. Desirable - Not Essential Second Column if you have had this experience. Any observation or com- }. Useful - Not Essential ment that you may wish to make about 4. Inappropriate - Of N9_Value any of the items will be appreciated. 5. No Opinion Prior to admission to the Doctoral level program.in Instructional Technology/Educa- tional Communication the candidate should have: 1. A Bachelor's Degree Comment: RATING Have had this experience (V3 2. A Master's Degree Comment: 3. A Grade Point Average of 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale) or better Comment: A. Acceptable scores on the Graduate Record Examination and/or Miller Analogies Test Comment: 5. Previous experience with audio visual materials and equipment Comment: 6. Previous Teaching Experience Comment: 7. Administrative experience in education Comment: 8. Experience in Library cataloging and filing Comment: 9. Personal interview/oral examination Comment: 125 10. A feasible financial plan for the completion of the degree program Comment: RATING SCALE 1. Necessary - Essential 2. Desirable - Not Essential 3. Useful - Not Essential A. Inappropriate - Of'Ng_Value 5. No Opinion Have had this RATING . experience ( General Comment: DOCTORAL STUDIES SHOULD INCLUDE COURSE WORK AND/OR EXPERIENCES IN THE FOLLOWING: 11. An Overview (survey) of audio visual materials and equipment Comment: 12. Selection and use of both print and non-print instructional materials Comment : 1}. Selection and utilization of media equipment Comment: 14. Basic Electronics, as would be used in equipment maintenance and repair Comment: 15. Basic Art and Design Comment: 16. Graphics Production Comment: 126 RATING SCALE 1. Necessary - Essential 2. Desirable - Not Essential 3. Useful - Not Essential 4. Inappropriate - Of N9_Value 5. No Opinion 17. Still Photography Comment: Have had this RATING experience ( /) 18. Cinematography Comment: 19. Use and operation of duplicating equipment Comment: 20. IMethods and techniques of classroom utilization of television Comment: 21. Instructional Television Production Comment: 22. Programmed Instruction Comment: 23. FUndamentals of Library Science Comment: 24. Computer Applications in Education Comment: 25. Administration of Media Facilities Comment: 26. Public School Administration. Comment: 27. Business Administration, including Budget and Finance Comment: 28. Proposal Writing (for federal, state, and foundation grants, etc.) Comment: 127 29. Systems Theory and Design Comment: RATING SCALE E1. Necessary - Essential 1 2. Desirable - Not Essential 3. Useful - Not Essential 4. Inappropriate - Of N9 Value 5. No Opinion Have had this RATING experience (./3 30. Personnel Management/Development Comment: 31. Curriculum Design and Development Comment: 32. Diffusion and Dissemination of Innovation (Change Theory) Comment: 33. Learning/Communications Theory Comment: 34. Public Relations Comment: 35. Statistics Comment: 36. Research Method and Design Comment: 37. Educational Psychology Comment: 38. Cybernetics Comment: 39. Philosophy of Education Comment: 40. History of Education Comment: 41. Design of Media Facilities Comment: 128 RATING SCALE 1; Necessary - Essential , 2. Desirable - Not Essential i 3. Useful - Not Essential ( 4. Inappropriate - Of N2 Value I 5. No Opinion Have had this RATING experience (9/3 42. Foreign Language Competency Comment: 43. WOrk in a Cognate Area Comment: 44. Comprehensive Oral and Written Examinations in Major and Cognate Comment: 45. Internship in Instructional Tech- nology/Educational Communications Comment: - ...................................................... A ............... This is not an exhaustive listing of the experiences and course work that need to be included in a Doctoral Program in Instructional Tech- nology/Educational Communications. Chances are that something that you feel strongly about has not been included. If this is so, will you please indicate those things in the blanks below. 1. 2. 3. 129 Any comments and/or observations that you may wish to make about the proposed project will be appreciated: If you would like an abstract of the results of the study, please indi- cate your name and mailing address below: Name Number and Street City State Zip Code THANK YOU! 130 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY wrummo- MICHIGAN 13323 INSTRUCTIONAL mu CENTER Dear May we have your help? As member of the instructional staff of one of the leading institutions in the United States having a functioning doctoral level program in the field of Instructional Technology/Educational Communications you are in a key position to help assess the competencies and experiences that should be incorporated into a program that will provide the most complete and effective preparation for those who are enrolled. Enclosed is a questionnaire that suggests a number of different experiences and courses that may be included in such a preparation program. Will you please react to this listing? It is not an exhaustive list. Any additional items that you may wish to add will be appreciated. Space is provided on the last page of the questionnaire for these comments and/0r suggest- Ions. We appreciate your consideration of this request and hope that it is not too much of an infringement upon your valuable time. A stamped self-addressed envelope has been enclosed for your convenience in returning the questionnaire to us. We Shall look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely yours, aflwzfméé Elwood E. Iiller, Associate Professor of Education and Director of the EPDA Institutes G. Gardner Snow, Graduate Paglow Title VI-B Institute 1" .an l osure 131 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing, Michigan 48823 Instructional Media Center Dear May I have your help? You are in a key position to assess the competencies and experiences that should be required of doctoral candidates in the field of Instructional Technology/Educational Communications. As a student, or former student, in this area you have opinions and perceptions about the experiences that you are having or have had concerning your own preparation program. Enclosed is a questionnaire that suggests a number of different experiences that are designed to help students achieve an optimum competency to serve in the leadership/teaching role in higher education. It is not an exhaustive list. Additional items that you may wish to add to the list will be appreciated. Space is provided on the last page of the questionnaire for any additional suggestions that you may have. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I hope that it is not an infringement upon your valuable time and have taken the liberty of enclosing a stamped self-addressed envelope for your convenience in returning the questionnaire to me. Sincerely yours, G. Gardner Snow Enclosure APPENDIX B 132 TABLE 9 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Item # 1 Bachelor's Degree Source SS df MS F Groups 0.2740 4 0.0685 0.81 Error 7.8994 93 0.0849 Total 8.1743 97 Item # 2 Master's Degree Source SS df MS F Groups 1.7386 4 0.4346 0.62 Error 65.2049 93 0.7015 Total 66.9795 97 Item # 3 A Grade Point Average of 3.0 (on a 4.0 scale) or better Source SS df MS F Groups 2.4233 4 0.6058 0.84 Error 66.9235 93 0.7196 Total 69.3469 97 133 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 4 Acceptable scores on the Graduate Record Examin- ation and/or Miller Analogies Test Source SS df MS F Groups 5.9297 4 1.4824 1.87 Error 73.6723 93 0.7921 Total 79.6020 97 Item # 5 Previous experience with audio visual materials and equipment Source SS df MS F Groups 1.0496 4 0.2624 0.38 Error 64.9503 93 0.6983 Total 66.0000 97 Item # 6 Previous Teaching Experience Source SS df MS F Groups 4.6611 4 1.1652 1.96 Error 55.2265 93 0.5938 Total 59.8877 97 134 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 7 Administrative experience in education Source SS df MS F Groups 1.8053 4 0.4513 1.05 Error 40.0416 93 0.4305 Total 41.8469 97 Item # 8 Experience in library cataloging and filing Source 88' df MS F Groups 1.2189 4 0.3047 0.66 Error 42.6179 93 0.4582 Total 43.8367 97 Item # 9 Personal interview/oral examination Source SS df MS F Groups 2.8104 4 0.7026 1.29 Error 50.7507 93 0.5457 Total 53.5612 97 135 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 10 A feasible financial plan for the completion of the degree program Source SS df MS F Groups 2.7217 4 0.6804 0.87 Error 72.9109 93 0.7839 Total 75.6326 97 Item # 11 An Overview (survey) of audio visual materials and equipment Source SS df MS F Groups 4.0062 4 1.0015 1.19 Error 78.2386 93 0.8412 Total 82.2448 97 /> Item # 12 Selection and use of both print and non-print materials Source SS df MS F Groups 2.1626 4 0.5406 0.83 Error 60.2965 93 0.6483 Total 62.4591 97 136 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 13 Selection and utilization of media equipment Source SS df MS F Groups 0.2537 4 0.0634 0.10 Error 60.2054 93 0.6473 Total 60.4591 97 Item # 14 Basic Electronics, as would be used in equip- ment maintenance and repair Source SS df MS F Groups 3.4317 4 0.8579 1.22 Error 65.2621 93 0.7017 Total 68.6938 97 Item # 15 Basic Art and Design Source SS df MS F Groups 1.9905 4 0.4976 0.71 Error 65.0401 93 0.6993 Total 67.0306 97 137 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 16 Graphics Production Source SS df MS F Groups 0.6815 4 0.1703 0.23 Error 67.4919 93 0.7257 Total 68.1734 97 Item # 17 Still Photography Source SS df MS F Groups 1.0844 4 0.2711 0.44 Error 57.5379 93 0.6186 Total 58.6224 97 Item # 18 Cinematography Source SS df MS F Groups 1.8481 4 0.4620 0.66 Error 65.1416 93 0.7004 Total 66.9897 97 138 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 19 Use and operation of duplicating equipment Source SS df MS F Groups 5.9980 4 I 1.4995 1.46 Error 95.1958 93 1.0236 Total 101.1939 97 Item # 20 Methods and Techniques of classroom utilization of Television Source SS df MS F Groups 2.4871 4 0.6217 1.21 Error 47.6454 93 0.5123 Total 50.1326 97 Item # 21 Instructional Television Production Source , SS df MS F Groups 1.4504 4 0.3626 0.65 Error 51.6107 93 0.5549 Total 53.0612 97 139 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 22 Programmed Instruction Source SS df MS F Groups 3.5309 4 0.8827 1.62 Error 50.6731 93 0.5448 Total 54.2040 97 Item # 23 Fundamentals of Library Science Source SS df MS F Groups 0.9733 4 0.2433 0.25 Error 91.2307 93 0.9809 Total 92.2040 97 Item # 24 Computer Applications in Education Source SS df MS F Groups 3.6324 4 0.9081 1.45 Error 58.3675 93 0.6276 Total 62.0000 97 140 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 25 Administration of Media Facilities Source SS df MS F Groups 0.5076 4 0.1269 0.27 Error 43.9821 93 0.4729 Total 44.4897 97 Item # 26 Public School Administration Source SS df MS F Groups 7.5564 4 1.8891 2.50* Error 70.3312 93 0.7562 Total 77.8877 97 * Significant at the .05 level Item # 27 Business Administration, including budget and finance Source SS df MS F Groups 1.5275 4 0.3818 0.47 Error 75.3805 93 0.8105 Total 76.9081 97 141 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 28 Proposal Writing (for federal, state, and foundation grants, etc.) Source SS df MS F Groups 1.8059 4 0.4514 0.77 Error 54.2450 93 0.5832 Total 56.0510 97 Item # 29 Systems Theory and Design Source SS df MS F Groups 2.4921 4 0.6230 1.77 Error 32.7731 93 0.3523 Total 35.2653 97 Item # 30 Personnel Management/Development Source SS df MS F Groups 1.3687 4 0.3421 0.48 Error 66.6312 93 0.7164 Total 68.0000 97 142 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 31 Curriculum Design and DevelOpment Source SS df MS F Groups 2.2623 4 0.5655 1.38 Error 38.1968 93 0.4107 Total 40.4591 97 Item # 32 Diffusion and Dissemination of Innovation (Change Theory) Source SS df MS F Groups 1.8528 4 0.4632 0.66 Error 64.9634 93 0.6985 Total 66.8163 97 Item # 33 Learning/Communications Theory Source SS df MS F Groups 0.2079 4 0.0519 0.23 Error 21.3941 93 0.2300 Total 21.6020 97 Item # 34 Public Relations 143 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Source SS df MS F Groups 2.8963 0.7240 1.00 Error 67.6036 93 0.7269 Total 70.5000 97 Item # 35 Statistics Source SS df MS F Groups 8.6262 2.1565 3.29* Error 61.0063 93 0.6559 Total 69.6326 97 * Significant at the .05 level Item # 36 Research Method and Design Source SS df MS F Groups 1.3303 0.3325 0.69 Error 45.0778 93 0.4847 Total 46.4081 97 144 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Item # 37 Educational Psychology Continued Source SS df MS F Groups 0.2463 4 0.0615 0.09 Error 63.9985 93 0.6881 Total 64.2448 97 Item # 38 Cybernetics Source SS df MS F Groups 4.9361 1.2340 1.66 Error 68.9821 93 0.7417 Total 73.9813 97 Item # 39 Philosophy of Education Source SS df MS F Groups 7.3206 4 1.8301 1.85 0-9895 Error 92.0263 93 Total 99.3469 97 145 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 40 History of Education Source SS df MS F Groups 7.0082 4 1.7520 2.16 Error 75.4917 93 0.8117 Total 82.5000 97 Item # 41 Design of Media Facilities Source SS df MS F Groups 0.0856 4 0.0214 0.05 Error 44.1184 93 0.4743 Total 44.2040 97 Item # 42 Foreign Language Competency Source SS df MS F Groups 1.5565 4 0.3891 0.77 Error 46.7801 93 0.5030 Total 48.3367 97 146 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REPORT Continued Item # 43 Work in a cognate area Source SS df MS F Groups 7.0152 4 1.7538 1.98 Error 82.3316 93 0.8852 Total 89.3469 97 Item # 44 Comprehensive oral and written examinations in major and cognate Source SS df MS F Groups 4.5268 4 1.1317 0.97 Error 108.0955 93 1.1623 Total 112.6224 97 Item # 45 Internship in Instructional Technology/Educa- tional Communications Source SS df MS F Groups 6.2699 4 1.5674 3.16* Error 46.1381 93 0.4961 Total 52.4081 97 * Significant at the .05 level 147 Hosea mo. one so pesosuaemam * noe.m .p .m A: amn.o $0. 0 mm a . m empomazm ooa.o mem.o mmo.o one.o mum.m .o .m .s nms.o mmo.a sem.e mmF.o asm.o mmn.o abs.m uuopm mes.e mnm.m mmm.m Fmo.n mas.o smm.o osu.o sonm.o nnm.m messesH uuoum .o .m .p 88st .s .m .2 350.5 made: 3.90.5 as names doaaosaoasaaps scorch oaaasm u om_m_steH mHmsuaza.muemswzazzmz 148 Hosea mo. as pesoauasmam .x. mmm.e .o .m .p eeo.c oeo.o meo.e semen Ree one; . me.o sem.c ppm.a mesaosH mem.e aom.m msa.n osm.o me.o *soe.o oom.m .s .m 12 ama.o mms.a oao.m cme.m boa.o oas.c seme.o *mes.c mem.m oesosssm .p .m .2 assess Eden .0 .m .p @802 095.096 mHmwg gig :. "H1548 refinances .. mm m. 93H 149 Hosea mo. one so pesoamasmam * mi; .2 .m .2 mom.a 6nd Rm; masses“ 602.0 sum.e mmo.o nas.o mae.e macaw mom.o mnm.o smm.m 200.2 esa.o *som.o map.e .o .m .2 002.0 mmm.o can.e mme.n 09.0 8nd mama smote m5; oasest .o .m .2 madam econofi .2 .m .2 320.5 mass: 320.5 23085309 HasompoapmsH mm 0.380an 1 me am 89H mHmmng ”Sang Neg