,- $ ‘0- 3 E 7": $.55 07.‘.‘“ Y ‘4 1 $3: 9;: '22.“; '3‘~. . 2‘35: ... 4 I EXPRESSED KNOWLEDGE 0F, ATTITUDE TOWARD, AND EXPERIENCE WITH INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AMONG ANDREWS UNIVERSITY FACULTY MEMBERS AS A FUNCTION OF SELECTED PROFESSIONAL VARIABLES DisSertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DONALD E. VAN DUINEN 1974 This is to certify that the thesis entitled EXPRESSED KNOWLEDGE OF, ATTITUDE TOWARD AND EXPERIENCE WITH INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AMONG ANDREWS UNIVERSITY FACULTY MEMBERS AS A FUNCTION OF SELECTED PROFESSIONAL VARIABLES presented by DONALD E:_VAN DUINEN has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in I. Do & To Date 'Friday. May 17, 1974 0-7639 ABSTRACT EXPRESSED KNOWLEDGE OF, ATTITUDE TOWARD, AND EXPERIENCE WITH INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT (ID) AMONG ANDREWS UNIVERSITY FACULTY MEMBERS As A FUNCTION OF SELECTED PROFESSIONAL VARIABLES BY Donald E. Van Duinen The purpose of this study was to determine the degree of difference, if any, among Andrews University faculty members in: 1. Expressed knowledge of ID 2. Expressed attitude toward ID 3. Expressed experience with ID. Comparisons were made: 1. Among teachers, administrators, and specialists; 2. Among faculty members with baccalaureate, masters, specialists, and doctoral degrees; 3. Between those with less than five years of professional experience and those with five or more. 4. Between male and female faculty members. Donald E. Van Duinen The population of this study consisted of the full- time and part-time faculty members at Andrews University during the 1973-74 school year. Two methods of data collection were used. A questionnaire, Expressed Knowledge of, Attitude Toward, and Experience with Instructional Development, was administered to 216 members of the Andrews University faculty. Mean scores were compared among the various sub-populations. A "significant difference" was defined as a difference which would arise with a probability of i .10, if random samples of the given sizes were taken from the finite pOpulation with known means and known standard deviations. Using an interview schedule,in-depth interviews were conducted with 39 department heads and other administrative officers responsible for the development and improvement of instruction at Andrews University. Data is reported in antecdotal form in the study. Similarity in responses to items was examined. Data analysis support the following findings: 1. Specialists has significantly more positive attitudes toward ID (at the .10 level) than did teachers and administrators. 2. Administrators had significantly greater experience with ID (courses developed) (at the .10 level) than did specialists. Donald E. Van Duinen Faculty members with masters degrees had significantly greater experience with ID (credits earned and clock hours spent with ID specialists) (at the .10 level) than did faculty members with doctorate degrees. Faculty members with five or more years of professional experience had significantly greater experience with ID (credits earned) (at the .10 level) than did those with fewer than five years. Female faculty members scored significantly higher in knowledge of, attitude toward, and experience (courses develoepd) with ID (at the .10 level) than did male faculty members. In all other comparisons no significant dif- ferences were found. Mean scores of the various sub-pOpulations were not significantly different (at the .10 level) from each other. From the statistical findings and the interviews, the following major conclusions were drawn: are: 1. 2. Administrators support the concept of well- develOped courses. Specialists.have positive attitudes toward instructional development and may be willing to assist. Determining factors other than specific differences found may be individually determined. Most applicable implications following the study Instructional development workshops should be conducted for small groups of faculty members at one time. Faculty members should be grouped in seminars based on their interests and backgrounds rather than as members of the same department. Donald E. Van Duinen 3. Faculty members should be identified individually as to their interests and attitudes about ID. Some of the observations noted from this study are: 1. Instructional developers at Andrews University can benefit from the implications of the study. 2. The questionnaire and the interviews served as procedures for exposing faculty members to ID. 3. No parallel research that supports or fails to support the results of the study were found in the literature. The methodology became a part of a chain of events that may be of value to instructional developers who may be interested in similar studies in other institutions. Researchers may wish to examine the procedures in order to make use of them for the diffusion of innovation. EXPRESSED KNOWLEDGE OF, ATTITUDE TOWARD, AND EXPERIENCE WITH INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT AMONG ANDREWS UNIVERSITY FACULTY MEMBERS AS A FUNCTION OF SELECTED PROFESSIONAL VARIABLES BY Donald E: Van Duinen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education Department of Instructional Development and Technology 1974 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Expressions of appreciation and gratitude are in order to Dr. James L. Page, my guidance committee chairman, for the detailed assistance and uncounted hours given to me during all phases of this study. His constructive critiques and encouragement provided inspiration for the completion of this project. Thanks are in order to my friends and colleagues at Andrews University who cooperated fully in providing information and assistance for this research. Special appreciation is expressed to Dr. W. G. A. Futcher, who spent many hours assisting with the analysis of the research data. The most gratitude and love is owed to my wife, Dorothy, my daughter, Judy, and sons, Keith and Loren, for their patience and sacrifice that made this disser- tation a reality. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . II. III. Purpose of the Study . . . . Andrews University . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . Need for the Study . . Questions to be Explored by the Research Hypotheses . . . . Organization of the Study . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . Attitudes . . . . . . . Innovation . . . . . . Instructional Development . . Related Studies . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . Interviews . . . . . . . Analysis . . . . . . . . Research Hypotheses . . . . Limitations . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . iii 'Page ii vi viii 29 29 43 61 78 81 84 84 84 86 87 88 89 9O 91 Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . 92 Analysis of Instruments . . . . . . . . 92 Presentation of Population Data . . . . . 93 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . 94 Sub- -Popu1ation Data and Analysis . . . . . 95 Professional Responsibility . . . . . . 96 Highest Degree Held . . . . . . . . . 103 Professional Experience . . . . . . . . 110 Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 138 Summary . . . . . . . . _. . . . . 138 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Implications . . . .. I. . . . . . . 147 Observations . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Recommendations for Further Research . . . 156 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Popularized version of the National Special Media Institute model showing substeps and decision points . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2. The nine-step Instructional Development model in use by National Special Media Institute groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Table 4.1. 4.17. 4.18. LIST OF TABLES Page Population Data . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Professional Responsibility-—Know1edge . Contrasts . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Professional Responsibility-~Attitude Contrasts. 98 Professional Responsibi1ity--Experience (Credits) Contrasts . . . . . . . . . 99 Professional Responsibility--Experience (Hours) Contrasts . . . . . . . . . . 101 Professional Responsibility--Experience (Courses) Contrasts . . . . . . . . . 103 Degree Held--Knowledge Contrasts . . . . . 104 Degree Held--Attitude Contrasts . . . . . . 106 Degree Held-~Experience (Credits) Contrasts . . 108 Degree Held-~Experience (Hours) Contrasts . . 109 Degree Held--Experience (Courses) Contrasts . . 111 Professional Experience-—Know1edge Contrast . . 112 Professional Experience--Attitude Contrast . . 113 Professional Experience-—Experience (Credits) Contrast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Professional Experience--Experience (Hours) Contrast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Professional Experience--Experience (Courses) Contrast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Sex--Know1edge Contrast . . . . . . . . 117 Sex--Attitude Contrast . . . . . . . . . 118 vi Sex--Experience (Credits) Contrast Sex--Experience (Hours) Contrast Sex--Experience (Courses) Contrast Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Data Compiled Compiled Compiled Compiled Compiled Compiled Compiled Compiled from from from from from from from from Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question One . Two . Three Four Five Six . Seven Nine Summary of Statistical Findings vii Page 119 120 121 124 125 126 129 130 131 132 135 140 Appendix A. Expressed Knowledge of, Attitude Toward, and Experience with Instructional Development B. Key to Knowledge Profile - Key to Attitude Toward Instructional Development . . C. Key to Demographic Data . . . . . . D. Interview Materials . . . . . . . E. University Committees . . . . . . F. Item-Difficulty Discrimination Index . LIST OF APPENDICES viii Page 168 180 182 184 189 203 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to determine the degree of difference, if any, in expressed knowledge of, expressed attitude toward, and expressed experience with instructional development among faculty members and administrators at Andrews University. Comparisons will be made among teachers, administrators and specialists, among faculty members with faccalaureate, masters, specialists, and doctors degrees, between those with few years experience and those with many, and between men and women. Andrews University Andrews University, located at Berrien Springs, Michigan, consists of five schools: the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Technology, the School of, Graduate Studies, the Seventh-day Adventist Seminary, and the K-12 Laboratory School. The faculty numbers about 235 members. The faculty is defined as those university employees who hold earned degrees, are salaried, and hold academic rank. The student body consists of 1680 undergraduate college students, 310 graduate students, 285 seminary students, and approximately 760 enrolled in the K-12 Laboratory School. The Seventh-day Adventist denomination founded Battle Creek College at Battle Creek, Michigan, in 1874. In 1901, the institution was moved to Berrien Springs and was given the name Emmanuel Missionary College. The Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary was organized in 1934 as the Advanced Bible School on the campus of Pacific Union College in Angwin, California. There it operated in summer sessions only, until in 1936 the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists voted to locate it on a more permanent basis in Washington, D.C., and named it the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary. In 1957 the Board of Trustees enlarged the scope of its operations by establishing a School of Graduate Studies. The institution was then known as Potomac Uni- versity. A new and larger site was sought to facilitate the strengthening and growth of the expanded institution. In 1959 the enlarged institution moved to the campus of Emmanuel Missionary College in Berrien Springs, Michigan. The Theological Seminary and the School of Graduate Studies were united under one chapter bearing the name Andrews University with an integrated board of trustees, adminis- tration, and faculty. Andrews University is approved by several profes- sional organizations with recognized accreditation by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools to confer degrees at the associate's, bachelor's, master's and doctor's degree levels. The institution has been on the North Central Association list of approved colleges since 1922. The American Association of Theological Schools has granted accreditation to the Master of Ministry, Master of Theology, and Doctor of Ministry degrees. The University serves as a training and research cen- ter for the world-wide activities of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It has as a primary concern the nurture and training of leaders for the church and its enterprises, and for the vocations and professions which by their nature are service- centered. The Board of Trustees also desires that Andrews University render service and guidance to society--locally, nationally, globally. The university community will ever remain cosmopolitan in outlook and composition. Definitions Attitude . Attitudes are learned predispositions to respond to an object or class of objects in a favorable or unfavorable 2 way. 1Andrews University Bulletin, 1973-74. 2Martin Fishbein, Attitude, Theory and Measurement (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967), p. 108. Change-agent A change-agent is a professional person who attempts to influence adoption decisions in a direction that he. feels is desirable. A change—agent usually seeks to secure the adoption of new ideas, but he may also at- tempt to slow the diffusion and prevent the adoption of certain innovations. Instructional Development . . . a systematic way of designing, carrying out and evaluating the total process of learning and teaching in terms of specific objectives based on research and human learning and communication and employing a combi- nation of human and non-human resources to bring about more effective instruction. Need for the Study Educational leaders at Andrews University are aware that as newer methods of transmitting knowledge are con— tinuously being developed, organized ways of presenting information to students in the university must be critically examined and carefully selected. Pressures from the high cost of education in a parochial institution, the desire to educate a greater percentage of the Seventh-day Adventist youth, and some dissatisfaction with the present practices demand that the process of determining effective methods of instruction become more and more systematic. The faculty members of Andrews University have a sincere desire 3Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York: The Free Press, 1962), p. 17. 4"To Improve Learning," The McMurrin Commission on Instructional Technology Reports, Educational Screen and Audiovisual Guide, Vol. 49, No. 3 (March, 1970), p. 5. to provide the best in Christian education for their stu- dents. Ellen G. White, who wrote widely on the subject during the early organizational period of the Seventh-day Adventist educational system, places much stress on the importance of a balanced education for each student. She wrote: True education means more than the pursual of a certain course of study. It means more than a prepa- ration for the life that now is. It has to do with the whole being, and with the whole period of existence possible to man. It is the harmonious development of the physical, mental, and the spiritual powers. It prepares the student for the joy of service in this world and for the higher joy of wider service in the world to come.5 For the youth of the Seventh-day Adventist church to be trained as leaders and eventually to bear responsi- bilities, they must be prepared to use their individual initiatives. Graduates from Andrews University serve as religious and educational leaders in nearly all parts of the world field of Seventh-day Adventist work, as well as in non-denominational employment. In her instructions to church educators, Ellen White states: Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator-- individuality, power to think and do. The men in whom this power is developed are the men who bear responsibilities, who are leaders in enterprise, and who influence character. It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train the youth 5Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, Cali- fornia: Pacific Press, 1903), p. 13. to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thoughts.6 It is assumed that many persons who are currently teaching at Andrews University have not developed a sys- tematic conception of teaching. DeCecco indicates that teachers and administrators need a better conception of teaching, for organizing our present knowledge about teach- ing, advancing knowledge through research, and guiding teaching practices.7 The responsibilities of the faculty of institutions of higher education are not only to teach, but to otherwise serve the society of which they are a part and by which they receive their support.8 Curriculum development will be influenced by many changes other than those related specifically to the areas of curriculum. Wider use of the computer, more independent study, and individualized in- struction will become the concerns of the future.9 At present the curricula in today's colleges and universities tends to fluctuate between an emphasis on 6Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education (Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Publishing Association, 1923)! p0 170 7John P. DeCecco, The Psychology of Learning and Instruction: Educational Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968), p. 6. 8Paul W. F. Witt,"Instructional Development: What? Why? How? Who?fl'a paper presented at the Symposium on Instructional Development, Michigan State University, May 3 & 7, 1970, p. 1. 9Ross L. Neagley and Dean N. Evans, Handbook for Effective Curriculum Development (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967), p. 302. content and an emphasis on method. At present the content of the disciplines is reCeiving the most emphasis. An understanding of the interrelationships and common areas of the disciplines should be stressed.10 As they continue to search for better ways to indi— vidualize instruction, colleges and universities must strive to assure nearly all students of successful learning experi- ences. As we plan to provide successful and satisfying learning experiences for the majority of our students, major changes must take place in the attitudes of students, teachers and administrators. Teaching strategies and methods of evaluation must undergo radical changes. The move should be toward changing the entire culture of what is now called higher education. Alternative ways of learning must be offered to students seeking an education. Complete reassessment of our priorities will be necessary before we can improve the quality of human life.11 Neagley and Evans are of the opinion that since the goals of education have changed little in the past fifty years, except in emphasis of past and present goals, there is little likelihood of their changing in the next twenty- five years. The very way American society is made up should 12 permit us to do a better job of coping with change. Despite lOIbid., p. 294. 11Ibid., p. 294. lzIbid., p. 294. all the talk about innovation, Dressel writes that under- graduate curricular requirements, as a whole, have changed remarkably little in recent years.13 There is too little evidence that the significant area for innovation, rethinking the total undergraduate program, has been given its due consideration.14 Rapid change in the American academic society must be understood so that educators can cope with it, and harness it toward ends that are acceptable. If change is anticipated and creatively utilized it can be integrating and unifying to the curriculum.15 Further consideration must be given to the advice of Ellen G. White to Church leaders some 60 years ago: Let those who are competent to teach youth, study themselves in the school of Christ, and learn lessons to communicate to youth. Sincere, earnest, heartfelt 1 devotion is needed. All narrowness should be avoided. 6 As we avoid thoughts of narrowness, we should ap- preciate that there is no single conception of teaching. The task ahead is to keep ourselves informed and open-minded regarding the changes in learning and resources and teach- niques of instruction that will continue to occur in every 13Paul L. Dressel and Francis H. DeLisle, Under- graduate Curriculum Trends (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1969), P. 75. 14Ibid., p. 76. 15Ibid., p. 1. 16Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Edu- cation, op. cit., p. 116. field of man's endeavor. By focusing on the goals of instruction that are evolving, the curriculum worker will best be able to select appropriate methods and resources for the total learning environment.17 According to Witt, we need to analyze critically our theoretical constructs regarding the ways in which instruction is developed, to assess our current resources for doing instructional development, to identify the princi- ple barriers to instructional development, and to determine ways and means for overcoming these barriers. Educating human beings is a very complex task and theories and practices for conducting this process are far from complete or universally applicable.18 A realistic approach to the improvement of instruc- tion lies in changes in the strategies of instructional planning and administrative arrangements, which might better utilize present facilities and learning resources. Sys— tematic procedures in developing instruction are being examined by some educators desiring solutions to the problems they face in colleges and universities as more and better alternatives to current procedures become available. It should be the desire of each person responsible for edu- cating youth to use the most effective and efficient learning 17 p. 204. 18 Ross L. Neagley and Dean N. Evans, op. cit., Paul W. F. Witt, op. cit., p. 5. 10 strategies to meet the learning needs and interests of their students. Each strategy must include some way of dealing with individual differences in learners through some means of relating the instruction to the specific characteristics of the learners. The nature of professional education provides limited opportunities for a researcher or teacher to work independently of his colleagues.19 Gillett indicates that he is committed to the propo- sition that education needs change, and that teachers must initiate reform or expect to have some outside agent impose it. He further states that tradition has been used as a rationale for most of the present teaching methods used in schools and colleges. Any practice or policy that cannot be defended for its educational advantage alone should be closely examined. In a plan for change, it is essential to define limits and to set immediate objectives. It is also necessary to establish a constant and continuing pattern of examination, evaluation, and implementation for all instruction. It is the teacher who should deter- mine what changes are needed and to direct the efforts to implement those changes. Change need not always be initiated from the top. The group responsible for innovation policies must have some authority of its own. 19 p. 295. 20Thomas D. Gillett, "Teachers can make Changes," Today's Education NEA Journal (April, 1973), pp. 44-46. Ross L. Neagley and Dean N. Evans, op. cit., 11 The present tremendous public interest in education offers an unparalled opportunity for educators to make some long-overdue improvement in our schools from kindergarten through college. Some strong and positive suggestions have been made by well-known educators for improving our schools. Dewey lists three possible directions of choice; (1) edu- cators may act so as to perpetuate the present confusion and possibly increase it, (2) they may select the new scientific technological and cultural forces that are producing change in the older order, and (3) they may become intelligently conservative and strive to make the schools and colleges a force in maintaining the old order intact against the impact of new forces. He believes that the second choice is the only one to be considered by educators of today. Even though many believe that innovative prac- tices are the only route to take, some may still fall into the other two categories.21 Taking the second position in Dewey's series, Trump proposed that all these innovations be incorporated into an integrated program. However, a single or best strategy for many situations has not been created. One of the models sug- gested by Trump has the following ten steps: (1) the problem is formulated, (2) solutions are developed, (3) initial test- ing and feedback, (4) solutions are modified, (5) communicate 21John Dewey, "Education and Change," Readings on the School in Society_(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1967), pp. 1-18. 12 and disseminate, (6) rigorous evaluation, (7) solutions are adjusted, (8) communicate and disseminate again, (9) rigor- ous evaluations, and (10) release the innovation from the cycle. Ideally, the tenth step should be a continuation of the eighth and ninth in the cycle. In other words, con- tinuous reappraisal and modification should be built into use and perfection of the innovation.22 Attitudes Toward Innovation Before innovations in the form of better teaching methods can take place, changes in the relationship between attitudes toward learning and present teaching practices must be examined. Educators are not giving adequate atten to students' attitudes toward learning. They need to give consideration to using a variety of learning modes, per- mitting students to select effective methods of learning. The purpose for studying attitudes is not to predict what behavior will occur in the future, but to get a better view of the person's present behavior by studying his atti- tude. With an objective view of the attitude, consequently behavior, it may be possible for the change agent or in- structional developer to guide and direct the person toward a new behavior and a new attitude. 22 Richard I. Miller, "Some Observations and Sug- gestions,‘ Perspectives on Educational Change, ed. by Richard I. Miller (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1967), p. 366. 13 Various researchers have reached conclusions indi- cating that attitude toward a field of study is improved during formal studies in that area. In-service training of teachers can be beneficial in improving their attitudes toward specific innovative practices. Further, teachers who used instructional television had more positive atti- tudes toward, not only instructional television, but the newer instructional media as well. This tends to bear out the concept that attitudes tend to follow behavior. Usually negative attitudes toward instructional media have been related to utilization barriers and not to educational media alone. Availability of equipment may be a curcial factor rather than opposition to the medium itself.23 Bhattacharya identifies attitude with opinions held. He further identifies attitude as a complex mental set-up. Guilford defines attitude as a tendency to favor or not favor some type of object or situation. Thurstone calls attitude the sum-total of man's inclinations and feelings, prejudices, ideas, fears, threats, and conventions about any specific topic. Allport defines attitude as a mental and neural state of readiness organized through experience, exerting a direct or dynamic influence upon individual response to all objects and situations with which it is 23Charles C. Aquino, "Teacher Attitudes Toward Audio- visual Instruction," A V Communication Review, Summer, 1970, p. 189. 14 related. Attitudes have been defined as the inferred basis for observed consistency in the behavior of individuals.24 The approaches and construction of the instruments to measure attitude vary, but their objectives seem to be the same. At present attitude scales are the most prominent, the most widely used and the most carefully designed methods of measuring how people feel about certain objects or situ- ations. Usually attitude scales do not measure attitude directly. What attitude scales require of an individual is a set of judgments of the acceptability or unacceptability of a series of verbal propositions. Attitude studies do not imply that any given belief will be correlated with the attitude, and further that it is inappropriate to predict the individual's future behavior as a result of his expressed attitude. Frequently the attitude is studied to get a better view of the individual's current behavior, since attitude expression tends to follow one's behavior. Rather than viewing beliefs and behavioral intentions as a part of attitude, Fishbein prefers to define them independently and to view them as phenomena that are related to atti- tudes. Doob argues that attitude is a learned predisposition to respond; that is, it is a learned mediating response. Thus attitude is usually considered as a simple unidimensional concept. This unidimensionality of the 24Srimbus Bhattacharya, Psychometrics and Behavioral Research (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, 1972), p. 145. 15 attitude concept is one reason why we cannot predict behavior from attitude.25 Attitude scales do not attempt to discover the complex factors which might enable the surveyor to predict individual reactions, and consequently no individual scores are kept. Rather than examining each separate item in an attitude scale, researchers look at the composite score. The data obtained in public opinion and attitude surveys may be used in either of two ways: (1) to discover the number or percentage of people who respond in a par- ticular way to a single statement, phrase, or other attitude indicator; or (2) to measure the strength of the attitude of each individual by a series of questions, the answers to which are combined into a single score for each person. Then the number or percentage of people holding attitudes of varying intensity may be ascertained. Likert's primary concern was with unidimensionality- making sure that all the items would measure the same thing. It must be remembered that attitude scales are techniques for placing people on a continuum in relation to one another, in relative and not in absolute terms. Also, in dealing with the dimensions of attitude, one is confronted with the question whether a person is for or against a given social 25Martin Fishbein, ed., Readings in Attitude, Theory and Measurement (New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), p. 478. 16 stimulus. The combination of the two dimensions, direction and degree represents the major concern of attitude studies. There is now sufficient evidence to suggest that, under certain conditions, one of the most effective ways to "change the hearts and minds of men" is to change their behavior. In fact this may be easier than the other way around. At present, there is still little, if any, con- sistent evidence supporting the hypothesis that knowledge of an individual's attitude toward some object will allow one to predict the way he will behave with respect to an object or situation. A person tends to bring his attitude into line with his behavior rather than from studies demon- strating that behavior is a function of attitude.26 Instructional Development It becomes more and more difficult to give a simple definition of the process of developing an instructional program after one examines the definitions given by a number of authors. Instructional development can be con- sidered as a way of thinking, or a way of ordering the processes of the mind. An instructional development ap- proach to curriculum planning can facilitate learning under the most efficient conditions. The development of instruction is considered a process based on a network of people, resources, and 26Daryl L. Bem, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Human Affairs (Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co., 1970), p. 54. 17 facilities. It is a continuous process involving refine- ment, feedback and improvement. It is very important that all of the elements of the process should be included. Many authors consider teaching as guiding and directing the learning process of the student, which includes the recog- nition of learner differences. It is the student who must be given top consideration when changes in instructional procedures are being given consideration.27 A system can be either large, including many ele- ments, or small, with a set of at least two well-defined elements. It is the relationship among elements within the system that clarifies the structure or organization of an orderly whole, clearly showing the interrelationships of parts to each other and to the whole itself.28 The educator must study the effect of technology on the instructional process, and keep in mind that technology consists of processes, systems, management, and control mechanisms, using both people and machines.29 27Floyd Urbach, "Instructional Development: An Overview" (an informal paper), Monmouth, Oregon: Teaching Research Division of the Oregon State System of Higher Education, 1970, p. 7. 28H. A. Bern, E. B. Montgomery, Leonard C. Silvern, John B. Haney, and Robert M. Diamond. "Reply to Questions About Systems," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. X, No. 5 (May, 1965): p0 367. 29James D. Finn, "AV Development and the Concept of Systems," Teaching Tools, Vol. 3 (Fall, 1956), p. 10. 18 Cost-effectiveness is to be considered as an im- portant aspect of the systems approach to instructional develOpment. Optimum use of human resources as well as nonhuman resources is essential as the process develops.3O Wittich and Schuller define instructional develop- ment as ". . . the application of an instructional systems approach to analysis of and development of practical solu— tions to teaching and learning problems." They further state that each step in the process has rather precise requirements; also, that there are substeps and additional steps that need to be followed if the true benefits of the Instructional Development process are to be achieved.31 The National Special Media Institute's definition of instructional development or I.D. is that it ". . . is a system approach to solving instructional problems. It involves: (l) a definition stage where the problem and all related instructional elements and resources, including management organization are identified; (2) a development stage where the behavior necessary to solve the problem is specified in measurable terms and a prototype learning experience is developed which employes the most effective methods and media learning theory and practical experience 30John G. Haney, "How Can an Instructional System be Put Into Practice?" Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. X, No. 5 (May, 1965)! p0 3630 31Walter A. Wittich and Charles F. Schuller, Instruc- tional Technology: Its Nature and Use (5th ed.; New York: Harper and Row, 1973), p. 631. 19 can suggest; and finally, it involves (3) a testing and application stage where the prototype system is tried out and revised repeatedly until some version(s) successfully teaches the desired behavior. Only then is the resulting system used by teachers who have been thoroughly trained to use it properly with qualified learners."32 It has been proven necessary to develop graphic models of system analysis as an approach to solving cur- riculum problems.33 Most models are product oriented, designed to produce gains in student learning. The models pinpoint and sequence functions that are interdependent. Adequate performance is assured through feedback loops. It is necessary for the media specialist to continually inform the instructor with whom he is working as to where they are in the process. Each step must be identified in order to find out about prior decisions and other important elements of the process as the team proceeds.34 The nine-step instructional development model is in use in instructional development institutes being offered by National Special Media Institutes in all parts of the United States.35 The graphic model appears on the following 32National Special Media Institutes, Attitude Toward Instructional Development, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1971, p. l. 33 John G. Haney, op. cit., p. 363. 34Ibid., p. 363. 35Walter A. Wittich, op. cit., p. 632. 20 page (see Figure l). The popularized version of the NSMI model, showing the numerous substeps and decisions points and the precise requirements which must be observed if the system is to function effectively is shown on the page (see Figure 2) following the nine-step model.36 Duncan points out that age of faculty members and years of professional experience are closely related. To Duncan it seems obvious that experience is a function of age, but age is not necessarily a function of experience.37 Leeds and Cook concluded that age, sex, length of training, teaching experience, grade level, and subject taught had little influence upon teacher attitude toward pupils. However, age and experience appeared to influence attitudes more than other factors.38 Other researchers, such as Wandt, Eichholz and Rogers found no significant differences in the number of years of teaching experience and expressed attitudes. The 36Ibid., p. 634. 37Marvin Earl Duncan, "Expressed Attitudes of three Selected Groups Toward Instructional Development as a Function of Age, (2) Years of Experience, and (3) Instructional Mode: An Exploritory Study" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972), p. 25. 38Carroll H. Leeds and Walter W. Cook, "The Con- struction and Differential Value of a Scale for Determining Teacher-Pupil Attitudes," Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 16 (1949): PP. 149-159. I 21 I STAGE I: DEFINE I FUNCTION I: IDENTIFY PROBLEM j l FUNCTION 2: ANALYZE SETTING I: I i FUNCTION 3: ORGANIZE MANAGEMENT STAGE II: DEVELOP L l FUNCTION 4: IDENTIFY OBJECTIVES I i FUNCTION 5: SPECIFY METHODS l FUNCTION 6: CONSTRUCT PROTOTYPES I STAGE Ill: EVALUATE l FUNCTION 7: TEST PROTOTYPES l FUNCTION 8: ANALYZE RESULTS I FUNCTION 9: IMPLEMENT/RECYCLE Figure 1. L .9.“ In." Fr? Oocieion Pomte C0mpere creme «no to odeel Propose tentetwe wlutuonltl Determme leemer cherecterm-cs Inventory xhool/commwuty resources Anon TAPS teem responutulmee Efleblrd‘ lam ot CMWDICONOH Speedy 9'0th pleonmg end control proceduree Stete termlnel pertorme obnctrve! Stete enebhno obpectryes end do termlne reletaomhops between obgectwe: Conltruct perlormenoe meeem‘ Speedy muwcuonel streteo-ee end meal. Iorms Speedy eltemetrye method: hepere comprehenuve cacao tron o! Instrucuonel deem pecrhcetvOrn Speedy person Ior eveluetion ot inflructronel end eyeluetion doe-9m Canduct techmcel "View of Instructnonel end eyeluet-on deems Speedy proceduree tor collector- end development o1 innructoond meteruen Oomtruct end mole metro:- tlonel metenels Specify proceduree to be uted by poronnel dunno tryout oI Instructnonel pretotype Cerry out instruction ee olenned Cerry out eueluetuon ee cleaned Tebulete end proceeu evolution DOWN!" releuoncuol between repute. metrical. oonecmee eno pelt lndlcete whet lance ot ruinous (W enyl ere ”netted by the Interpret-hon o! reuln. methods. obgectwee end will Oetermme ll suggested rwluons moccete thet the prototype II to be recycled or ut the demon (on be implemented mthout melor royrtlont. Popularized version of the National Special Media Institute model showing substeps and decision points. 22 number of years did not seem to make a significant differ- ence in expressed attitudes.39 Beamer and Ledbetter found that experienced graduate students at North Texas State College, who had previous experience as guidance workers, had a mean score higher than the non-experienced graduate students. Results of their study indicate that there may be elements which cause teach- ers to change their attitudes negatively toward the pro- fession after gaining teaching experience.40 Valenti seems to agree with Beamer and Ledbetter and suggests that young teachers are more personal, informal and integrative in their roles than older teachers.41 The Need Knowledge of a client's attitude toward an innovation can he1p the change agent devise strategies most likely to bring about adoption in the shortest period of time. The 39Frank A. Scott, "The Development and Evaluation of an Instrument to Assess the Attitudes of Public School Principals," Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 26 (March, 1958), PP. 185-96. 40G. C. Beamer and Elaine W. Ledbetter, "The Re- lation Between Teacher Attitude and the Social Service Interest," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 50 (1957), pp. 655-66. 41J. J. Valenti, "Measurement of Fairmindedness," Teachers College Constructive Education, No. 176 (1925), pp. 244-52. 23 role of a change agent is that of influencing innovation- decisions.42 The instructional developer is one of the people who functions as a change agent in educational circles. Through adoption of the innovation, instructional developers hope to assist those who adopt and engage in the instruc- tional development process to bring about systematic changes in instruction which will result in more effective and effi- cient learning on the part of the students. Change agents, or instructional developers in this case, must have know- ledge of the attitudes of the people he works with, if he is to function successfully. According to Rogers, failure to look at attitudes is one reason change programs fail. Change agents must have knowledge of their Client's atti- tudes (among other things) if programs of change are to be tailored to fit the clients.43 Knowledge of, attitude toward, and experience with instructional development among Andrews University faculty members will be of value to administrators and other faculty leaders as expansion takes place in the form of new programs, schools, departments and courses. It is very likely that 42Richard J. Boutelle, "The Attitudes Expressed Toward Instructional DevelOpment by three Groups . . . ," op. cit., p. 7. 43Everett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker, Com- munication of Innovation (New York: The Free Press, 1971), p. 239. 24 faculty members will be more susceptible to the concepts of instructional development at the time these new programs are being established. It is assumed that it is of value to determine whether Andrews University faculty members are practicing instructional development as identified in this paper. However, some interest in instructional development has been expressed by some members of the various depart- ments. While this interest and expansion of offerings are at the forefront would be a good time to introduce the merits of instructional development to the faculty members. The results of the knowledge, attitude, and experience questionnaire and the verbal interview will give developers insights into faculty practices and interests involving instructional development. The results of the study will permit an examination of the knowledge, attitude and experi- ence of the faculty members, identifying groups which may be more interested in instructional development. The infor- mation should give instructional developers indications as to approaches that can be made. Internal examination of the results of the study will permit developers to compare spe- cific areas of interest giving further insights into faculty interest in instructional development. The study of expressed knowledge of, attitudeS- toward, and experience with instructional development among faculty members at Andrews University could provide: (1) information of value to change-agents at Andrews University 25 so that they can devise strategies for implementing the instructional development process among faculty members, (2) opportunities to discuss instructional development with department heads and other administrative officers during the interviews, (3) opportunities for faculty members to examine their own knowledge of, attitudes toward, and experience with instructional development, and (4) to obtain basic data for further research among the Andrews University faculty members in the field of instructional development. Questions to be Explored by the Study Is there a difference in eXpressed knowledge of instructional development as a function of: (a) profes— sional responsibility (as defined by teachers, administrators, and specialists), (b) highest degree held (as defined by baccalaureate, masters, specialist, and doctorate), (c) years of experience (as defined by less than five, and five or more) and (d) sex. Is there a difference in attitudes expressed toward instructional development as a function of: (a) profes- sional responsibility (as defined by teachers, adminis- trators, and specialists), (b) highest degree held (as defined by baccalaureate, masters, specialist, and doctor- ate), (c) years of experience (as defined by less than five and five or more), and (d) sex. Is there a difference in expressed experience with instructional development as a function of: (a) professional 26 responsibility (as defined by teachers, administrators, and specialists), (b) highest degree held (as defined by baccalaureate, masters, specialist, and doctorate), (c) years of experience (as defined by less than five, and five or more), and (d) sex. Professional experience was arbitrarily defined as coming between four and five years. Educational boards and administrators frequently consider individuals "experi- enced" if they have worked in an educational capacity for five or more years. Pay scales, promotions, and tenure policies seem to indicate that a break occurs somewhere near four or five years. Research Hypotheses The following research hypotheses were generated from the questions to be explored by the study. They were tested to determine if there is a difference among the various faculty categories specified. The areas to be tested were expressed knowledge of, expressed attitude toward, and expressed experience with instructional de- velopment among Andrews University faculty members: 1. There is no difference in expressed knowledge of instructional development as a function of professional responsibility among teachers, administrators, and specialists. 2. There is no difference in expressed attitudes toward instructional development as a function of professional responsibility among teachers, administrators, and specialists. 10. 11. 27 There is no difference in expressed experience with instructional development as a function of professional responsibilioy among teachers, administrators, and specialists. There is no difference in expressed knowledge of instructional development as a function of highest degree held among faculty members with baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, special- ist degrees, and doctorate degrees. There is no difference in expressed attitudes toward instructional development as a function of highest degree held among faculty members with baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, specialists degrees, and doctorate degrees. There is no difference in expressed experience with instructional development as a function of highest degree held among faculty members with baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, specialist degrees, and doctorate degrees. There is no difference in expressed knowledge of instructional development as a function of professional experience between teachers with less than five years experience and those with five or more years experience. There is no difference in expressed attitude toward instructional development as a function of professional experience between teachers less than five years of experience and those with five or more years of experience. There is no difference in expressed experience with instructional development as a function of pgofessional experience between faculty members with less than five years experience and those with five or more years experience. There is no difference in expressed knowledgo of instructional development as a function of pox, comparing male faculty members and female faculty members. There is no difference in expressed attitude toward instructional development as a function of pox, comparing male faculty members with female faculty members. 28 12. There is no difference in expressed experience with instructional development as a function of sex comparing male faculty members with female faculty members. Organization of the Study The study is organized as follows: Chapter I provides an introduction to the study, the purpose of the study, a description of Andrews University, questions to be answered by the study, the research hypothe- ses, definition of pertinent terms, and related studies. Chapter II presents a review of the literature on attitudes, attitude measurement, innovations, instructional development, and a summary. Chapter III contains the description of the popu- lation, the procedure, instrumentation, experimental procedure, hypotheses, analysis, and a summary of the chapter. Chapter IV contains the analysis of the data, and Chapter V discusses the findings and implications of the findings. Chapter VI provides information on observations of the study, implications, and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Attitudes In 1935, Allport termed attitudes ". . . the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary social psychology." Even though the philosophies of the various authors differ widely, attitude theorists continue to find the concept of attitude useful.1 A few definitions seem to be appropriate at this point. Kiesler, Collins and Miller point out that there has been no single definition of attitudes acceptable to all who do research on attitudes and attitude change.2 Rokeach defines attitude as ". . . a relatively enduring organization of beliefs around an object or situ- ation predisposing one to respond in some preferential manner."3 Thurstone indicates that "the concept of attitude 1Charles A. Kiesler, Barry E. Collins, and Norman Miller, Attitude Change: A Critical Analysis of Theoretical Approaches (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1969), p. 5. 2Ibid., p. l. 3Milton Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1970), p. 112. 29 30 is used to denote the sum total of a man's inclinations and feelings, predjudices or bias, preconceived notions, ideas, fears, threats, and convictions about any specified tepic . . . and that the concept of attitude is a subjective and personal affair."4 With these brief definitions in mind, Rokeach's extended definition of attitude is presented: An attitude is a relatively enduring organization of interrelated beliefs that describe, evaluate, and advocate action with respect to an object or situ- ation, with each belief having cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Each of these beliefs is a predisposition that, when suitably activated, results in some preferential response toward the attitude object or situation, or toward others who take a position with respect to the attitude object or situ- ation, or toward the maintenance or preservation of the attitude itself. Since an attitude object must always be encountered within some situation about which we also have an attitude, a minimum condition for social behavior is the activation of at least two interacting attitudes, one concerning the atti-5 tude object and the other concerning the situation. A predisposition would be defined as a hypothetical state of the organism which, when activated by a stimulus, causes a person to respond selectively, affectively, or preferentially to a stimulus. All beliefs are predisposi- tions to action, and an attitude is thus a set of interrelated predispositions to action organized around an object or situation.6 4L. L. Thurstone, "Attitudes Can Be Measured," The American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII, No. 4 (January, 1929), p. 530. 5Milton Rokeach, op. cit., 1970, p. 202. 6Ibid., p. 135. 31 Assuming that man acts according to his predisposi- tions, there is no better way to predict his response to a stimulus than to know his attitude toward it. If we know a person's attitude toward an object, we can predict his response to that object with some degree of certainty.7 Fishbein defines attitude as unidimensional as do Osgood, uci and Tannenbaum. Attitude's only affect may have positive, negative or neutral value for an individual. While attitude is an underlying predisposition to regard in a favorable or unfavorable ways, is specified as a learned mediating evaluation response, affected by the individuals interaction with his environment.8 Both opinion and attitude are regarded as inter- vening variables between which there is a high degree of mutual interaction. The most important interaction is the change in attitude that follows the change in opinion. Opinions, like other habits, tend to persist unless the individual undergoes some new learning experience. We must continually keep in mind that the terms opinion, attitude, and belief do not have fixed meanings in the literature, but generally refer to a person's 7Richard V. Wagner and John J. Sherwood, op. cit., p. 2. 8Martin Fishbein, ed., Readings in Attitude, Theory, and Measurement, op. cit., p. 21. 9Chester A. Insko, Theories of Attitude Change (New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1967), p. 12. 32 preferences for one or another side of a controversial matter. Opinion, attitude, and behavior are rational or emotional judgments on specific questions. They differ from one another in their generality or in the intensity with which they are held. Opinions and attitudes are presumably adapted to beliefs, and are more amenable to change. Opinions are sometimes called impressions or guesses. Attitudes are sometimes called convictions, beliefs are sometimes called values or sentiments. There are no hard-and-fast boundries for the terms, so that one man's opinion may be another man's attitude and still another man's belief. Given con- sistent support form historical and parential groups, peo- ple's opinions, attitudes, and beliefs are unlikely to change at all.10 Attitudes are not innate, but learned. The process of learning attitudes is not easily understood. Many atti- tudes do not seem to be taught at all, but rather appear to be acquired quite unintentionally from life experiences. This process of adoption of attitudes occurs long before the individual has had a background of integrated experi— ences. More than other forms of learning, attitudes are 10B. Berelson and Gary Steiner, Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings (Chicago: Harcourt-Brace, 1964). pp. 557-575. 33 transmitted through the process of imitation and associ- ation.11 People are apt to maintain their attitudes for one or two reasons, either they have met no new influence, because they have selected the nature of their perceptions, or they are able to exert counter pressures which are opposed to their views with various face—saving offenses, usually based on social support of some group. Despite the tendency of attitudes to preserve them- selves, they can be modified. Sometimes an attitude proves to be so personally inadequate that it can no longer be retained. When people change their attitudes they do so only as they find through experience that they are thwarted in satisfying basic human needs by keeping their attitudes. Usually a person will find some way to retain his beliefs even if it is illogical. It takes an overpowering array of facts to change the minds of people who become set in their ways. Factual approaches designed to change attitudes are only successful when the facts are presented in a one—sided way and there is a definite attempt to produce emotional entanglements to accompany these facts. Edward further asserts that in order to change an attitude, a situation must be created llRalph Edwards, "The Development and Modification of Elusive Attitudes," Education Forum, 28 (1964). p. 335. 34 which is similar to the one in which the attitude was originally developed.12 Attitudes and Behavior In the past several years, questions such as: (1) whether attitudes predict behavior, and (2) whether changing attitudes lead to changes in behavior have again begun to attract a considerable amount of attention. Fishbein states his views as follows: 1. The best predictor of a single act behavior is its corresponding behavioral intention. 2. A general attitude measure can predict a multiple act criterion better than a single act criterion. 3. Perceived difficulty of a performing behavior is its corresponding behavioral intent. 4. Level of commitment does not improve behavioral prediction.13 An investigation of attitudes should be concerned with behavioral intentions as well as with attitudes, beliefs and behavior. One cannot actually predict behavior accurately from attitudes alone. Behavioral intentions may 1 be necessary. Bem believes that beliefs and attitudes have their foundations in thinking, feeling, behaving and interacting 12Ibid., p. 357. 13Martin Fishbein, ed., Readings in Attitude, Theory, and Measurement, op. cit., p. 23. 14Ibid., p. 22. 35 with others. Our most fundamental primitive beliefs are so taken for granted that we are apt not to notice that we hold them at all; we believe that an object continues to exist even when we are not looking at it; we believe that objects remain the same size and shape as we move away from them even though their visual images change; and, more generally, we believe that our perceptual and conceptual worlds have a degree of orderliness and stability over time. Our faith in the validity of our sensory experience is the most im- portant primative belief of all.15 It is easy for most people to readily accept the idea that an attitude can cause a behavior. The concept that attitudes cause behavior is the prevailing view in American society. Stated another way, the inconsistency, or "dissonance," between an individual's beliefs or atti- tudes and his behavior will motivate belief or attitude change toward cognitive consistency.l6 To the observer, the most important clue to an individual's inner states are found in his behavior. When we want to know how a person feels, we look to see how he acts.17 Bem further writes that we have seen that behavior and conditions under which it occurs are one of the major 15Daryl L. Bem, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Human Affairs, op, cit., p. 5. l6 Ibid., pp. 54-55. l7lbid., p. 57. 36 foundations of an individual's beliefs and attitudes. And, although the cognitive, emotional, and social factors also have their effect, it remains true that changing an indi- vidual's behavior is one of the ways of causing Change in his beliefs and attitudes. His new behavior provides a source from which he draws a new set of inferences about what he feels and believes. By affecting a change in behavior, we can predict that a change in attitude will follow. This is a cause and effect sequence, the sequence in which behavior change causes attitude change.l8 Bem's illustration shows us that: We can now see one of the reasons why legislation and court decisions can change the 'hearts and minds of men, why stateways can change folkways.‘ They do so, in part, by effecting a change in behavior; then when behavior has been changed, attitudes often follow. This is not the whole story, however, for social norms are also involved in the attitude-change process.19 In contrast to Bem's theory, Festinger points out that an individual's opinion and attitudes tend to form clusters which are internally consistent, and his actions tend to be equally consistent with what he believes. He calls the situation, in which an individual decides to behave in a manner contrary to his beliefs or publicly expresses an opinion contrary to his private opinion, a force-compliance situation. According to him, such l8Ibid., pp. 66-69. 19Ibid., p. 69. 37 force-compliance occurs generally only when the pressure to comply is accompanied by an offer of a reward for compliance or a threat of punishment for noncompliance.20 Wagner and Sherwood contend that the psychologist conceives of attitudes as aids in predicting behavior. The psychologist must investigate the conditions under which they are and are not good predictors. They refer to what LaPiere pointed out in 1934, that people do not always act in accordance with the attitudes they express. One simple indication of the difficulties involved in determining the predictive validity of an attitude is the fact that atti- tudes seldom exist as separate intities. There are other factors such as the intensity of the evaluation of the object, that tend to complicate the use of attitudes to predict behavior.21 Attitude Measurement There are different types of attitude scales. One of which is a summated rating scale (also called the Likert- type scale) consisting of a set of attitude items, all of which are considered of approximately equal "attitude value," and to each of which subjects respond with degrees 20Richard I. Evans, Resistance to Innovation in Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1968), pp. 102-103. 21Richard V. Wagner and John J. Sherwood, The Stuoy of Attitude Change, op. cit., p. 2. 38 of agreement or disagreement, in other words intensity. This means that there is no scale of items, as such. One item is the same as any other item in the attitude value. The respondents are scaled; this "scaling" comes about through the sum, or averages, of the individual's responses. Summated rating scales allow for the intensity of attitude expression. Subjects can merely agree or they can agree strongly. The main advantage of summated rating scales is that greater variance results.22 In the case of summated ratings, the investigator selects a series of statements in such a way that a reader can respond by checking one of the five positions for each, strongly approve, approve, un- decided, disapprove, and strongly disapprove. Weights from one to five are assigned to each position so that the high score always represents the extreme for the same attitude direction. The series of statements are administered to a number of subjects who express the degree of approval or disapproval. Weights are next assigned to each individual response. These weights are summated so that there is a single numerical score representing each individual's ratings. When the total scores for a large number of subjects are available, the responses of extreme value are retained for the scale. This method of summated ratings 22Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research (Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964), pp. 843-44. 39 depends on internal consistency of criteria. For the un- favorable items the scoring procedure is reversed. These total scores are next arranged from very high to very low. Then 25% of the subjects with the highest total scores and 25% of the subjects with the lowest total scores are taken. Thus two contrasted groups are formed and their responses are compared. The final attitude scale is then constructed by choosing 20 to 25 items from the total list which show the greatest discrimination. These items are used with the same five "agree-disagree" response categories, and scoring is done in the same way.23 The data obtained in public opinion and attitude surveys may be used either to discover the number or percentage of people who respond in a par- ticular way to a single statement, phrase, or other atti- tude indicator, or to measure the strength of the attitude of each individual.24 This method of summated ratings for measuring atti- tudes has enjoyed great popularity. Since its development by Likert in 1932, it may have been used to a greater extent than the Thurstone scales. Likert-type scales yield results comparable to Thurstone results. Because of the reliability of Likert-type scales and because of the 23Srimbus Bhattacharya, Psychometrics and Behavioral Research, op. cit., pp. 146-152. ' 24Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls, and Samples: Practical Procedures (New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1966). PP. 193-94. 4O possibility that this method may be less time consuming, Likert scales have been widely used in attitude studies. An attitude scale should deal with one thing at a time in as far as possible. This concept is known as unidimensionability or homogeneity. Likert's primary con- cern was making sure that all the items would measure the same thing.25 Validity of an attitude scale tells us whether the scale measures what it is supposed to measure. The attitude scale investigator may wish to correlate his scale with an older, well established scale or he may wish to use criterion groups, such as political party members. At present, there is no way of making sure that an atti- tude scale is valid. Reproducibility on an attitude scale might show, by means of a single figure, which statements the respondent agrees with and which ones he disagrees with, thus telling us his place on the attitude continuum.26 Construct validity of an attitude scale implies that what the scale measures is indicated by the manifest content of the items; others rely on groups of judges for ascertaining what the items measure. Predictive validity shows that behavior does not have a simple one—to-one relationship with one type of 25A. N. Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966), PP. 121, 134. 26Ibid., pp. 122-123. I.I|'I.I1II| 'III‘I III! fllllll AIIIIIIIIII {11.th (Ill-III 41 inner determinant such as an attitude. The relationship is conplex and will involve both other attitudes, character traits, and environmental determinants. Behavior is a compromise, a resultant of the interaction of mutiple forces. The results of the analysis are easily assemilated in the form of a scalogram. Scalogram analysis is not a method for constructing or developing an attitude scale. Scalogram analysis can perhaps be most accurately described as a procedure for evaluating sets of statements or existing scales to determine whether or not they meet the require- ments of a particular kind of scale.28 If the responses of subjects to the statements are in accord with the theoretical model of a unidimensional scale of statements, we would have confidence in inter- preting scores of subjects based upon the statements as also falling along the same unidimensional continuum.29 Attitude Change The question of how attitudes are changed is of vital importance to people who are concerned with such 271bia., pp. 152-153. 28Ralph Edwards, "The Development and Modification of Elusive Attitudes," op. cit., p. 172. 291bid., p. 176. 42 things, especially in the field of education.30 .The func- tional approach suggests that attitudes develop and change as they serve to promote or support goals of the individual; that is, attitudes are instrumental to the person's satis- faction of his needs. Attitudes change and develop because they satisfy psychological needs of the individual, so that the psychologist must be aware of what need is being served by an attitude in order to predict the nature of the change.31 Mayhew and Walker believe that much of the lasting value of education is obtainable only in so far as student's attitudes, beliefs, life goals, and values are affected. Precise laboratory techniques are soon forgotten, but the mental set toward experimental methods should remain.32 Wendt appraises the status and changes in attitudes and in Opinions by controlled experimentation in the area of audiovisual instruction, and indicates that it has been confined largely to films. He cites one early experiment with theatrical films that showed student's bias toward certain racial groups (and other problems) could be modified 30Chester A. Insko, Theories of Attitude Change, op. cit., p. 1. 31Richard V. Wagner and John J. Sherwood, The Study of Attitude Chapge, op. cit., p. 4. 32Lewis B. Mayhew and H. Hill Walker, "Attitude Inventories," Journal of Higher Education, 21 (1950), p. 375. 43 by a film.33 Successive exposures to similar films with the same point of View have resulted in pronounced changes in attitude, and this new attitude remained to a measurable extent for months. Further research findings indicate, that exposure to a series of films over a period of time have a considerable effect in changing student's attitudes. The problem is not so much to change their important attitudes as it is to implant a new attitude or nurture one already present.34 One must not think that knowing all there is to know about attitudes can immediately solve all problems. Such a view would be oversimplified and naive. The study of attitudes is only one facet of a complex puzzle. But the puzzle is present and the study of attitudes toward the beginning of a solution to the puzzle.35 Innovation Many articles in newspapers and periodicals reflect public dissatisfaction with higher education. State legis- latures have been increasingly reluctant to provide additional funds to educational institutions thereby suggesting that 33Paul R. Wendt, Audio-Visual Instruction (Washing- ton, D.C.: National Education, 1957): pp. 12-13. 34 Ibid., p. 13. 35Harry C. Triandis, Attitude and Attitude Change, op, cit., p. 2. '44 present practices in the field of education be examined.36 In like manner, Woodring reveals that life on the campus has undergone more change during the past decade than in the previous half century, however this has not only been change in the classroom, nor in the curriculum, but in the dramatic transformation of student life during ont-of—class hours, affecting the total college experience. College students have gained most of the personal freedom they want and are now demanding a role in policy making.37 As a result of these student demands, the modern educational institution is in a stage of flux. It is experiencing tremendous change from within as a result of pressure from within and without. These changes are placing pressures on classroom teachers which are leading them to understand that "learning is an active process and that their chief classroom tasks are to serve as diagnosticians and organ- izers, or managers, of functionally varied learning experi- 38 ences." The present generation of students is qualita- tively different, and Woodring predicts that the generation 36Gerald Gage, "Accountability in the American Col- lege," a paper delivered at the Instructional Development and Technology Luncheon, Michigan State University, July 14, 1971, p. 1. 37Paul Woodring, "Higher Education in This Decade," Education Digest, Vol. XXXVI, No. 4 (December, 1970), 20—23. 38Charles B. Klasek, Instructional Media in the Modern School (Lincoln, Nebraska: Professional Educators Pub., Inc., 1972), p. 16. 45 of students coming to maturity will be still different, enough different to make the student of the sixties seem old-fashioned.39 Leeper points out that the tempo of change in schools and colleges of the United States has increased in recent years and is continuing to accelerate.40 The need for change in American educational insti- tutions is evident nearly everywhere. Many people, including educators, have come to the conclusion that fundamental and 41 Formal education is in farreaching changes must be made. an important respect outmoded, since students learn outside of educational institutions in ways which differ materially from the ways they learn inside schools and colleges. Edu- cational institutions make scant use of the potent means of communication that modern society finds indispensable and that occupy so much of young people's time out of school.42 In today's schools, technology touches only a small fraction of instruction. Colleges, universities and schools have been using technology to only a limited extent.43 One 39Paul Woodring, "Higher Education in This Decade," op. cit., p. 20. 40Robert R. Leeper, ed., Strategy for Curriculum Chango (Washington, D.C.: Association for Curriculum Development, 1965), p. v. 41 "To Improve Learning," op, cit., p. 13. 421bid., p. 7. 43Ibid., p. 7. 46 of the reasons schools do not use more technology is because they tend to continue doing what they have been doing and were established to do, holding themselves relatively stable resisting attempts at reconstruction. Neither external groups, such as parents, and board members, nor internal groups, such as teachers and administrators usually play the roles of change-agents for instructional innovation of a major scope.44 Before a change-agent can successfully introduce an innovative concept, his clients must perceive a need for it. Not only should a change agent's clients perceive a need for a new idea before it can be success- fully introduced, but a change-agent should select inno- vations for introduction on the basis of existing needs among his clients.45 After exploring the concepts of the client's needs, the change-agent must understand the process of planned change. A typical model of planned change as introduced by Grimes and Doyle involves the following stages: (1) development of a need for change, (2) establishment of a change relationship, (3) examination of alternative routes and goals as well as establishing goals and intentions of action, (4) transformation of intentions into actual change 44Carlton W. H. Erickson and Donald Pl Ely, "The Media Specialist: Object of Change," Audiovisual Instruc- tion, Vol. 10, No. 6 (June, 1965), pp. 448-53. 45Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, op. cit., p. 280. 47 efforts, (5) generation and stabilization of change, and (6) achieving a terminal relationship.46 We must further understand that the heart of edu- cation should be student learning, and the value of any technology used in education must therefore be measured by its capacity to improve learning. Formal education is not responsive enough to technology, colleges take too little account of even what is now known about the process of human learning, particularly the range of individual differ- ences among students.47 Technology could bring about far more productive use of the teachers' and the students' time. Everett Rogers defines an innovation as "an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an individual."48 As far as human behavior is concerned it does not much matter if the innovation is new as measured by the passage of time since its first use or discovery. What matters in terms of an individual's reaction to an idea is his perception of the newness of the idea. Rogers states this concept as follows: 'New' in an innovation idea need not be simply new knowledge. An innovation might be known by an indi- vidual for some time (this is, he is aware of the 46George H. Grimes and James Doyle, "Development, Design and the Process of Change in Education," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. 16, No. 10 (December, 1971). p. 54. 47 "To Improve Learning," op. cit., pp. 7-8. 8Everett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker, op. cit., p. 19. 48 idea), but he has not yet developed a favorable atti- tude toward it, nor has he adopted or rejected it. The 'newness' aspect of innovation may be expressed in knowledge, in attitude, or regarding a decision to use it.49 In one situation described by Rogers, 50 years elapsed after development of a new educational practice before its adoption by all public schools. Putting this concept in another way, the average American school lags 25 years behind the best practice.50 The question is immediately asked: Why is the diffusion or communication of educational ideas so much slower than farm innovations or medical drugs? Rogers believes it may be because of: (1) absence of a scientific source of innovations in education, (2) lack of change-agents to promote new edu- cational ideas, and (3) lack of an economic incentive to adopt. "Unfortunately there seems to be no possible profit motive in being an educational innovator." Adaptability, essentially a synonym for innovative- ness, was defined by Rogers as "the capacity of a school to take on new practices and discard outmoded ones." He quotes Mort and Cornell as follows: To operate schools today in terms of the understanding of a half century ago is to waste school funds and school time. Adaptability, or the capacity to meet 491bid., p. 19. 50Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, op. cit., p. 2. 511bid., p. 41. 49 new needs by taking on new purposes and new practices, is indispensable to the effective functioning of nay school system.52 Statements such as this seem to leave little doubt that innovativeness of schools is perceived as desirable.53 Even though educators recognize the need for change there is a continued resistance to change. It seems that many who live or work in highly organized institutions, including schools, tend to resist change. However, re- sistance to change is not all bad. Many of the changes in education that were once reported with enthusiasm subsequent- ly warranted considerable circumspect and tentativeness.54 According to Van Wyck, innovations are less likely to be resisted if they can be used in a variety of edu- cational tasks rather than in one specific area. An inno- vation in the use of instructional media faces less chance of resistance if it supports or slightly modifies current educational practice, rather than changing or replacing the practice. Obviously it is necessary for teachers and administrators to work cooperatively to initiate desired changes in an instructional program. In addition to those two groups, other influential groups and individuals within 52Ibid., p. 40. 53Ibid., p. 40. 54Steven M. Corey, "The Nature and Implications of Educational Change," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. 10, No. 6 (June/July, 1965), p. 445. 50 an institutional system have significant roles in imple- menting and fostering the growth of an innovation.55 Those who foster change in the schools and colleges must recognize that any ideas of change might seem out of place, and that people do not want change. There is an element of truth to this idea. A definite conservatism does exist in all cultures, and probably necessarily so, according to 56 As individual educators who would Arensberg and Niehoff. change the curriculum, we immediately list the number of barriers that stem from outside the institution itself, such as the state department, local or state legal require- ments, college requirements, budgetary control, all seeming to have been contrived to prevent change of any kind from taking place.57 Van Wyck presents a list of reject re- sponses, or teacher opinions: l. rejection through ignorance--the innovation was unknown or its complexity led to a lack of understanding; 2. rejection through default--admitting a knowledge of the innovation without any interest in its use; 3. rejection by maintaining the status quo-- innovation not accepted because it has not been used in the past; 55William F. Van Wyck, "Reducing Teacher Resistance to Innovation," Audiovisual Instruction, Vol. XVI, No. 3 (March, 1971), P. 90. 56Conrad M. Arensberg and Arthur H. Nichoff, Intro- ducing Social Change (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971), p. 66. 57George Sharp, Curriculum Development as Re- education of the Teacher (New York: Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1951), p. 17. 51 4. rejection through societal mores--teacher feals society finds the innovation unacceptable and will not use it; 5. rejection through interpersonal relationships-- colleagues do not use it, therefore neither will I; 6. rejection through erroneous logic--the use of rational but unfounded reasons for the rejection of worthy innovations; 7. rejection through substitution--using one practice over another practice requiring the use of an innovation; 8. rejection through fulfillment--teacher is confi- dent of the success of using his own methods, making innovation unnecessary; and 9. rejection through experience--discussing with others the failure of some innovations.58 With a climate of strong resistance to change such as described by Van Wyck, it is essential that an assess- ment of attitudes toward instructional development take place in order to identify those educators who are either favorable toward instructional development or who are at least less negative toward the concept one might conclude them to be in view of their past record of resistance. The purpose for examining all the reasons educators resist and reject new approaches to instruction is so those interested in change can formulate strategies to combat and overcome this resistance.59 Certain conditions must be present before an innovation has a chance to succeed: 58William F. Van Wyck, op. cit., p. 90. 591bid., p. 90. 52 1. the educational community must perceive and emphatically express a specific need for change; 2. the need must be recognized by the community at large; 3. a state of the art in both methodology and media must exist to meet the need in a cost-effectiveness manner; 4. sufficient funds must be available for paying the cost. The necessity for preparing teachers for change is a fifth condition.60 Numerous authors have expressed their concern with regard to the kind of climate or environment which exists in education with respect to educational change of any kind. Witt states that: The history of innovation in American education makes it clear that a new process or practice such as instructional development, no matter how promising, is not likely to be widely adopted in a brief period of time. In view of what has almost always happened in the past, quite the contrary is likely to happen.61 Regarding education's history of resistance to change,vans is very much in agreement with Witt's perception: . . . social institutions rarely include mechanisms for facilitating change . . . (and) the greatest resistance to change will be found in those insti- tutions whose traditional primary function has been the perpetuation of society's folkways, mores, and values, such as religious and educational institutions. In general, changes in educational methods have been exceedingly slow, due primarily to the climate of resistance and the educator's often outright hostility toward change.62 60Ibid., p. 90. 61Paul W. F. Witt, op. cit., p. 18. 62Richard I. Evans, op. cit., p. 213. 53 Corey speaks to the need for involvement in the curriculum and the content by those who would advocate change: I believe that the best approach . . . is not simply encouragement of the use of the various new instruc- tional techniques and equipment, but rather emphasis upon the analysis of the teaching task in terms of the best information we have available on curriculum development and in the behavioral sciences. . . . The strategy behind this approach . . . is to give academic respectability . . . to media.53 Arensberg and Niehoff recognize that despite the conservatism existing in all cultures, a certain measure of which is certainly necessary, change is constant. The View that life is as it was hundreds or thousands of years ago anywhere in the world is based on superficial observa- tions.64 This does not mean that educators should change merely for the sake of change and call it progress. Change should be undertaken only after a strategy has been devised 65 It is necessary to enlist the sup- for implementing it. port of influential groups or individuals in the schools, particularly in the establishment of a traditional program to bridge the gap between the old and the new. Teacher 63Steven M. Corey, op. cit., p. 457. 64Conrad M. Arensberg and Arthur H. Nichoff, op. cit., p. 67. 65Richard 1. Miller, "An Overview of Educational Change," Perspectives on Educational Change, ed. by Richard 1. Miller (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967), P. 333. 54 involvement and understanding are essential to the accept- ance and enduring success of an innovation.66 Everett Rogers of Michigan State University describes the innovator as: . . . a young, respected, adventuresome cosmopolite of high social status who has the ability to understand and use complex technical information, and is not discouraged by failure. His cosmopolite interests lead him to develOp social relationships that may extend over wide geographic areas. In traditional systems he is sometimes referred to as a dreamer, odd ball, agitator.67 The change-agent is further described by Rogers, as a professional person who attempts to influence adoption decisions in a direction that he feels is desirable. In most cases, a change agent seeks to secure the adoption of new ideas, but he may also attempt to slow the diffusion and try to prevent the adoption of certain innovations. A new idea may compete with or supersede an old idea sponsored by the change-agent. A change-agent may seek to prevent the adoption of a non-recommended innovation.68 The change-agent or instructional developer must realize that his initial actions will be judged critically. If he is unpredictable or creates such an impression with school people, they will tend to withhold full cooperation 66William F. Van Wyck, op. cit., pp. 90-91. 67Steven M. Corey, op. cit., p. 455. 68Everett M. Rogers, op, cit., pp. 454-55. 55 on his project or future projects which appear similar.69 In practically all instances a specialist who wishes to convince people to adopt some new idea will have to initiate communication. This can be either personal or impersonal, or some combination of the two. Whichever he chooses, how- ever, communications will continue in the form of inter- personal contact within the group. Its common name is gossip. People start talking about significant events in the school or community, and this talk is a powerful force in decision making in the community, and should not be overlooked. Everyone knows that gossip exists, but most people just condemn or ignore it. The times it gets conscieous attention is when by chance a change agent hears a garbled rumor of his efforts. Gossip is a private communication and an outsider is not freely included in such conversations. But if he works hard to gain acceptance and identifies key people, he can do much to tap the intragroup communication network. Gossip can be thought of as either positive talk or negative rumors, both of which are important kinds of information to the change agent. He can rest well-assured that local response is favorable to an innovation if the . . . . 70 goss1p lS pOSItive. 69Conrad M. Arensberg and Arthur H. Niehoff, op. cit., p. 109. 70Ibid., pp. 98-99. 56 Chin deals more explicitly with the type of relation- ship which must be established by the professional developer if he is to experience a reasonable degree of success in his efforts: Planned change is implemented because of the quality of the relationship between the change-agent and the client-system. This approach does not assume that the change-agent has a solution he must get across to the client, and yet it does not reject the fact that the change-agent does have some specialized valid knowledge about new technology and procedure.71 Knowledge of a client's attitude toward an inno- vation can help the change-agent devise strategies most likely to bring about adoption in the shortest period of time. This knowledge is crucial to the instructional developer. According to Rogers, failure to look at atti- tudes is one reason change programs fail. Change-agents must have knowledge of their client's attitudes, among other things, if programs of change are to be adjusted to fit the various clients.72 Kelley expands this concept further when he states that the attitude that the teacher holds regarding the use of audiovisual materials will greatly affect the success of any audiovisual program. The realization is rapidly growing that attitudes, the way individuals and groups 71Robert Chin, "Some Ideas on Change," Perspectives on Educational Change, ed. by Richard I. Miller (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967), p. 333. 72Everett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker, op. cit., p. 17. 57 feel about the various aspects of their world, are probably more determinative of behavior than mere cognitive under- standing of this world.73 In Kelley's study, twenty-two statements regarding attitude were selected which covered the continuum from a very negative to a very positive atti- tude toward the use of audiovisual materials. The returned rating scales were scored and placed in rank-order according to size of score obtained. These scores were divided into three categories corresponding to high, medium, and low attitudes toward audiovisual materials. He found that for some unknown reason, "Women tend to score higher on an attitude rating scale relating to use of audiovisual materials than do men."74 Kelley also found what appears to be a relationship between the grade level on which a teacher works and his attitude toward audiovisual materials. This comparison was highly significant. Kinder- garten and elementary level teachers tend to have better attitudes (score higher on the rating scale) toward audio- visual materials than do those in junior high school and high school. He found that on the college level the dis- tribution of attitudes was about normal.75 He found it interesting that there is a highly significant relationship between the teacher's sex and his 73Gaylen B. Kelley, op. cit., p. 119. 74Ibid., p. 120. 75 Ibid., p. 120. 58 attitude toward audiovisual materials. There is a definite tendency for women to have better attitudes (score higher on the rating scale) toward the use of these materials than men.76 Kelley also found a significant relationship between the number of years of formal education and attitude toward audiovisual materials. Teachers with one to four years of training beyond high school have better attitudes toward audiovisual materials than do those with five or six years of training. He found that the subject matter area in which one teaches is not a significant factor in determining atti- tudes toward the use of audiovisual materials. He dis- covered that age is not a significant factor, except that teachers between the ages of 40 and 50 tend to have lower attitudes toward audiovisual materials.77 The study by Kelley concerning teacher attitudes toward the utilization of audiovisual materials in class- room instruction provides a knowledge of attitudes about only a small part of the total instructional development process. It should not be inferred that any sample popu- lation's attitudes toward media would be the same as their attitudes toward instructional develOpment. The application of systems theory to the design, carrying out, and evaluation of the instructional process is a totally different concept 76Ibid., p. 120. 77Ibid., p. 121. 59 than is the utilization of audiovisual materials as in- structional media.78 The results of Kelley's study empha- size the importance of recognizing the place of attitude in any attempt to analyze the use of instructional media.79 Bennis has accurately described the instructional developer as a change-agent. Instructional development must be characterized as planned change. The concepts of instructional development and instructional technology will continue to be peripheral with insufficient resources until the educational community gives it top-level commitment which results in a favorable climate in which change can occur and provides a favorable organization of time, space, and money which allows change.80 Instructional media have been criticized by edu- cators and noneducators alike. But new exciting evidence of media emerging as a truly "modern" school finally re- sponding to the needs of the students and listening to the valid critiques of knowledgeable and qualified critics.81 This concept is further developed by Duncan: Instructional development is a systematic process of bringing relevant instructional goals into effective learning activity. . . . It is a relatively new con- cept which must be spread throughout the academic 78Richard J. Boutelle, op, cit., p. 6. 79Gaylen B. Kelley, op. cit., p. 121. 80Charles B. Klasek, op. cit., p. 8. 811bid., p. 8. ‘60 community of its full potential is to become a reality. Therefore the assessment of attitudes toward instruc- tional development as an innovation is a necessary step prior to the diffusion process since the concept must be diffused and accepted before the innovation itself is diffused and adopted. The concern here is with the perception of innovation rather than the innovation per se. Most instructional development efforts are not likely to be such that an individual developer is working directly with one faculty member. The team approach should be used. All the skills and knowledge needed to carry out the systematic process of instructional development could not be possessed by one person. The organization should involve people representing the following areas: (1) cur- riculum, (2) communication, (3) specialist in content, (4) learning theorists, (5) evaluation specialist, (5) con- tent specialist, and (6) media specialist, as well as, the instructor who is directly involved. The coordinator of the team should be the instructional developer.83 Klasek indicates ". . . that the most significant change now being introduced into the schools is the systems approach to education . . . and that this approach that has emerged from the technological sector of our society has the potential to restructure much of the thinking about ways of attaching educational problems."84 82Marvin Earl Duncan, op. cit., p. 2. 83Ibid., pp. 23-24. 84Charles B. Klasek, op. cit., p. 13. I III III 11‘ III II I lull 61 Results of research have shown that there is a distinct advantage to instructional techniques and strate- gies that make imaginative use of instructional media. The key to the instructional success of media was provision of adequate resources, utilization of unique qualities of the various media, and the integration of media into the in- structional program to meet specific behavioral objectives. For this specific reason media use is expanding within a systems or instructional development concept. Both stu- dents and teachers have found instructional development very effective in planning of units of instruction within a particular subject area.85 Instructional Development Seattler describes the introduction of instructional development into education in the following manner: During the 1953-1960 period, the systems analyst, programmer, and systems designer emerged, and the term 'systems approach' was introduced to combat prevailing engineers' concept that hardware was the key to a successful system. About 1960 the phrase 'total systems approach' came to be used to describe the interaction of men and machines within the context of an organization in terms of specific tasks and outcomes.86 As a result of pioneer military applications, there is an accelerating development of systems technology in 851bid., pp. 15-18. 86Paul Seattler, A History of Instructional Tech- nology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), p. 269. 62 industrial, scientific, business and governmental sectors, as well as in education. Ever since the early beginning, educators have been urged, in the literature, to take a systems approach to solving its problems.87 A number of authors have attempted to define instructional development, which is known at various levels by a number of names, such as systems approach, systems analysis, instructional tech- nology, as well as instructional development. In the first definition offered by Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, as system is: "A regularly interacting or independent group of items forming a unified whole."88 Erickson and Curl further define instructional development to include an audiovisual communication system as an integrated collection of media and materials designed to get a definite message across with predicted results to an identified audience under specified conditions.89 Wittch and Schuller indicate that instructional development means the application of an instructional systems approach to the analysis of and development of practical solutions 87Jack E. Bratten, "The Systems Approach to the Improvement of Instruction," Media and Methods: Instruc- tional Technologykin Higher Education, ed. by Derick Unwin (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969). P. 159. 88Carlton W. H. Erickson and David H. Curl, Funda- mentals of Teaching with Audiovisual Technology (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1972). p. 65. 89 Ibid., p. 65. 63 to teaching and learning problems.90 Brown, Lewis, and Harcleroad offer this definition for those who are not well acquainted with the terminology of instructional technology: . . . instructional technology goes beyond any particu- lar medium or device. In this sense, instructional technology is more than the sum of its parts. It is a systematic way of designing, carrying out, and evaluating the total process of learning and teaching in terms of specific objectives, based upon research in human learning and communication, and employing a combination of human and non-human resources to bring about more effective instruction.91 This definition implies that, for improvement of instruc- tion, systematic planning and the wise and skillful use of the products of technology are basic.92 The President's Commission on Instructional Tech- nology has offered the following definition of instructional technology which also serves as a most comprehensive and exacting definition of the concept of instructional develop— ment: . . . a systematic way of designing, carrying out and evaluating the total process of learning and teaching in terms of specific objectives based on research and human learning and communication and employing a combination of human and non-human resources to bring about more effective instruction.93 90 p. 631. 91James W. Brown, Richard B. Lewis, and Fred F. Harcleroad, A V Instruction: Technology, Media and Methods (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), p. 3. 92 Walter A. Wittich and Charles F. Schuller, op. cit., Ibid., p. 3. 93Commission on Instructional Technology, op. cit., 64 A systems approach to curriculum development is a problem-solving method of analyzing the educational process and making it more effective. All of its parts and aspects of the process taken as a whole are to be incorporated into the system including content, the instructional materials, the instructional strategy, the physical environment and the evaluation of instructional objectives.94 Bratten further states that system problems are specific and real, not abstract, and that the approach is not a single-event search for a solution but, rather the embedding of a specific problem-solving mechanism in a larger process that will systematically alter solutions based on observed outcomes and varied availability of resources.95 The development of instruction is a process based on a network of people, resources and facilities. It is a continuous process involving refinement, feedback and improvement. According to Urbach, instructional develop- ment is ". . . a systematic way of designing, carrying out and evaluating the total process of learning and teaching in terms of objectives, based on research in human learning and communication, and employing a combination of 94Thomas E. Cyrs, Jr. and Rita Lowenthal, "A Model for Curriculum Designing Using a Systems Approach," Audio- visual Instruction, Vol. 15, No. 1 (January, 1970), p. 16. 95 Jack E. Bratten, op. cit., p. 165. 65 human and non-human resources to bring about more effective instruction."96 Gustafson is even more emphatic and explicit with respect to the emphasis which must be placed upon the human component. He expresses this view as follows: Without a doubt the most important element of the instructional development system is people. People are its energy, its insight, its product and its consumer. To engage in ID is to change people. . . . To ignore any segment of the population is to invite frustration and probably failure. . . . A balance must be struck between product develOpment and people development.97 Instructional development is not well-known among educators, even today. Erickson and Curl point out that: the implications of the shift in technological focus from classroom to curriculum planning-from tactics to strategy--are not at all well accepted, particularly as they affect roles of personnel, instructional management rearrangements, budgetary considerations, and research requirements.98 Erickson and Curl suggest that planning is the secret of systematizing or recombining ideas. It is helpful to begin by drawing a map-~called a flow diagram of the desired behavior or activity. The flow diagram should indicate all components of the system or learning process and show the 96Floyd Urbach, op. cit., p. 7. 97Kent L. Gustafson, "Toward a Definition of In- structional Development: A Systems View," a paper presented to the Symposium on Instructional Development, Michigan State University, May 3 and 7, 1971, p. 1. 98Carlton W. H. Erickson and David H. Curl, op. cit., p. 65. LIIIll tl.‘II| 66 paths and alternatives that may be followed by the learner as he proceeds through each step of the process. A flow diagram is an abstract graphic model of a process. Such a model makes it easier to visualize the system at the planning or design stage, while changes may still be made easily. Each segment of the system represents a minute individual part of the system, including decisions, and activities, each of which is related to the whole system.99 One nine-step instructional development model in use in instructional development institutes being offered by the National Special Media Institutes (NSMI) is pre- sented here as an example of instructional development block-and-arrow diagrams assisting in the clarification of the process called instructional development (see Figure 2). Another method of presenting the model is in outline form, which identifies each stage and the steps in each stage: 1. Define Stage 1. Identify Problem 2. Analyze Setting 3. Organize Management II. Develop Stage 4. Identify Objectives 991bid., pp. 75-76. I DEFINE II DEVELOP III EVA LUATE Figure 2. 67 I ”3"7-W‘IY 2 Analyze 3 Organize: Prue/em Setting .".'.'_arI;I-.'enTe/7t “I Assess need: (m, Audience (my Tasks .- Establish Conditions Resp msibilities priorities Relevant Time lines State problem resources 4 Identify 5 Specify 6 Construct Ob/ecnves Methods Prototypes Terminal ITO) ,_ Learning ._, Instructional Enabling IEO) Instruction materials Media Evaluation materials :d 7 Test 8 Analyze .9 lmp/ement/ Protorypes Results Recycle Conduct tryout I Objectives Review + Collect Methods DeCIde evaluation Evaluation Act data techniques I The nine-step Instructional Development model in use by (National Special Media Institute) groups. 68 5. Specify Methods 6. Construct Prototypes III. Evaluation Stage 7. Test Prototypes 8. Analyze Results 9. Implement/Recycle In order to further identify the various steps in the concept of instructional development process which an individual or an instructional development team needs to go through, the following discussion is presented to amplify and clarify the block-and-arrow chart illustrated on the preceding page. I. Define Stage 1. Identify Problem: This beginning defi- nition step is of critical importance. It involves the assessment of needs, the ideal situation, identification of causes of the problem, a commitment to apply the necessary time and energy, and resources to carry through to an adequate solution. Substantial amounts of relevant information are necessary in order to carry out other phases of the instructional development process. At this point it may be beneficial to indicate that the instruc- tional development process is not, in the stricted since, a linear process. The several stages must be dealt with consecutively and simultaneously during the process. 00 100Walter A. Wittich and Charles F. Schuller, op. cit., p. 636. 69 2. Analyze Setting: This phase deals with the human and functional factors involved in any signifi- cant change in the existing system. The members of the instructional development team need to be able to recognize and identify the peOple in the institution who serve as decision makers, opinion leaders and change agents. These considerations need special care and thoroughness when an important new program is at stake.101 Input data on the student population for whom the curriculum will be developed must be gathered, as well as the development of new tests to be used. Level of skill development, knowledge level, and attitudes that each student will bring with him must be established at this time. Students need to be pretested to determine to what 102 degree they have already mastered the unit objectives. 3. Organize Management: As a systematic process, instructional development requires well-defined organization, management and scheduling. Controls must be established to assure that task assignments are carried out, that expert assistance is identified and arranged for when needed, and that appropriate communications take place with others on ideas, problems, and other developments as they occur.103 lOlIbid., p. 636. 102Thomas E. Cyrs, Jr. and Rita Lowenthal, op. cit.. p. 17. 103Walter A. Wittich and Charles F. Schuller: op. cit., p. 638. 70 II. Develop Stage 4. Identify Objectives: Specific objectives must be spelled out in terms which will permit determination of whether or not they have been met. There are several kinds of objectives, but there are two which are important in the instructional development process. These are termi- nal performance objectives and enabling objectives. En- abling objectives are intermediate steps to attainment of the terminal or ultimate objectives. The instructional development team must know whether or not terminal objec- 104 tives have been achieved. Objectives must be stated in terms of student performance. Students must know exactly what is expected of them and how they will be evaluated.105 Instructional development principles imply a careful study of the kind of treatment required by each student, and the time when it is needed, in order to attain the objectives sought.106 5. Specify Methods: Once objectives have been established, the best methods and materials to employ under the circumstances must be selected. The instructional development team must consider what is practicable in terms l°4Ibid., p. 638. 105Thomas E. Cyrs, Jr. and Rita Lowenthal, op. cit., p. 17. 106William Clark Trow, Teacher and Technology (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963), p. 119. 71 of available resources, personnel, equipment, and facilities. At this point in the process, "trade-offs" must be made to reach a workable decision. Some types of alternatives may be too costly or not available. The team must find the 107 best practical alternatives. 6. Construct Prototypes: This is the design, procurement, and production phase of the instructional development process. This stage may involve considerable review and examination of available materials as well as consideration of a variety of instructional approaches.108 Once the content has been chosen, the media considered most suitable for its presentation will be selected.109 Production of those instructional materials not available commercially is suggested for consideration at this point. A media production and duplication center should be estab- lished locally to help develop the kinds of materials necessary to ensure achievement of the objectives.110 III. Evaluation Stage 7. Test Prototypes: During this part of the evaluation stage the team is ready to try out the 107Walter A. Wittich and Charles F. Schuller, op. cit., p. 638. lOBIbid., p. 638. 109Thomas E. Cyrs, Jr. and Rita Lowenthal, op. cit., llOIbid., p. 18. 72 package that has been selected or produced. It is very probable that certain revisions will be needed before the new system is tried out in a regular classroom, which is 111 the next step in the process. 8. Analyze Results: During this stage of the evaluation process the team will observe all aspects of the program closely and note further adjustments that may be needed. They will test along the way to ascertain how well the enabling objectives are being met, and how well the terminal objectives are being achieved. In addition, data and information for an overall assessment 112 and evaluation by the team will be given consideration. 9. Implement and Recycle: A decision as to whether or not the new system is ready to put into a regular classroom for use must be made by the team during this stage of the evaluation. More than likely, however, it will require certain revisions and retesting before the in— structional development team is satisfied with its product. Provisions should be made for continued evaluation and modification even after the product goes into regular use. This implementation is the final step of putting the course or program into practice. We must recognize, however, that continuous feedback should be obtained from learners which 111Walter A. Wittich and Charles F. Schuller. op. cit., p. 639. llZIbid., p. 639. 73 will eventually lead to a cycle of updating and modifi- 113 cation. These field tests and validation procedures provide Opportunities to try out newly developed instruc- tional units with a representative sampling of students.114 Perhaps the chief value in using a model is to assure that when a full scale instructional development project is attempted all steps or design elements are at least considered. Until recently, the human factors, as they relate to instructional development, have not been given very much attention. Witt notes that leaders in instructional development have not paid as much attention to these factors as they have to the process of designing instruction.115 Gustafson warns that continued neglect of human factors will result in more and more of what he calls "ID casualties." He goes on to say that he has seen: . . . too many examples of faculty members begged, conjoled, and wheedled through an ID project from which a fine product emerged. . . . He (the faculty member) is proud of his product as is the returning war veteran of his purple heart but neither wishes to return to the battle.116 The project should probably be considered a failure since the faculty member will more than likely have a 113 p. 77. 114Ibid., p. 77. 115Paul W. F. Witt, op. cit., p. 16. 116Kent L. Gustafson, op. cit., p. 7. Carlton W. H. Erickson and David H. Curl, op. cit., 74 negative attitude toward instructional development and not wish to engage in it again. In dealing with the human factor or people aspect of instructional development, it seems important that peoples' attitudes toward instructional development be assessed as their attitudes may in large measure determine the nature of their initial or continued involvement in ID procedures.117 The systems approach to instruction provides teachers and curriculum designers, or instructional developers with a bludprint for planning which assists them in examining an instructional problem and establishing a procedure for 118 As a result of this close examination of solving it. the problem at hand more appropriate instructional materials and teaching strategies can be selected to ensure achievement 119 These objectives are not possi- of the state objectives. ble unless they are embedded in an activity. The activity, in turn, influences the choice and the nature of the objectives.120 Probably the most difficult question to answer in describing instructional development is the purposes or 117Ibid., p. 7. 118Charles B. Klasek, op. cit., p. 17. 119Thomas E. Cyrs, Jr. and Rita Lowenthal, op. Cit-r p. 17. 120James B. MacDonald and Bernice J. Wolfson, "A Case Against Behavioral Objectives," The Elementary School Journal, XXXVI, No. 6 (February, 1971), p. 24. 75 objectives of the system. It is necessary to name the system product that can be counted, weighed, or somehow evaluated to indicate how well the system performs. Crucial to a systems approach is agreement, by all persons viewing the system, on a definition of effectiveness.121 As is the case in many other situations, in teaching there are no cut and dried final answers, each situation is unique. The goals that instructional developers are trying to achieve is the improvement of learning and teach- ing and to permit teachers to interact as human beings in a climate where man controls the environment for their own best purposes. In the case of instructional development it is the students and their goals that most motivate and guide efforts of educational planners.122 In many of the models that exist in the area of instructional development, the student is the central figure. When planning for teaching, as well as teaching itself, it should be student- centered.123 Brown, Lewis, and Harcleroad further state that the goal of individualized instruction is to provide each student with appropriate experiences that will cause him to learn to the best of his ability and at his own rate. The central acceptance of each student as the 121Jack E. Bratten, op. cit., pp. 165-166. 122James W. Brown, Richard B. Lewis, and Fred F. Harcleroad, op. cit., pp. 3-4. 123Ibid., p. 16. 76 central, all-important guide to processes and resources used to help him reach planned objectives.124 One top-priority problem is to increase the choices available to the learner. Already educators are trying, but unless educational technology can provide help for teaching, it won't go anywhere. Instructional technology is providing alternatives to the learners. Innovation must be fitted into the existing educational structure. This may create some difficulties.125 The only way we can agree on measures of effective- ness is to keep the student central. The learner always comes first. Even though we use such words as technology, objectives, resources, and efficiency in discussing in- structional media, we are not, as some people are quick to assume, trying to program the lives of individual students. What thoughtful educators are attempting to systematize and regulate are facts and facilities, artifacts and ap- paratus, specimens and situations. What the systems ap- proach does for education is not to confine or control the student so much as to make it possible for him to explore man's knowledge more quickly and to discover, with somewhat 124Ibid., p. 13. 125Marilyn Judd, "Educational Technology Reap- praisal," Educational Screen and Audiovisual Guide, Vol. 49, No. 2 (February, 1970), p. 33. 77 less frustration and anxiety, what his own place might be in the general scheme of the universe.126 Haney writes that to enlarge the group who feel that would benefit by change, it is necessary to do the following: Individual teachers must be shown how the systemization of instruction can produce net gains for them for non- systematic alternatives, in increased time, money, or professional satisfaction; departmental administrators must be assigned performance objectives which cannot be accomplished by nonsystematic means; and individual students must be convinced of the practical advantages in scheduling and learning effectiveness without the feeling of dehumanization.127 Saettler states that if we are to compete adequately with the urgent needs and problems of education in a swiftly changing technological culture, a more systematic approach to communication and learning is vital. He further states that because the approach to instruction hitherto has been piecemeal, the result has been a disconnected, fragmented series of innovations. What is needed, he believes, are integrated, organized systems of instruction, perhaps computer-controlled, in which all components, including teachers, of the instructional process are fitted together into a system that is capable of providing individualized . . . 128 instruction for each learner-communicant. 126Carlton W. Ha Erickson and David H. Curl, op. cit., p. 67. “‘— 127 . John G. Haney, op. Cit., p. 369. 128 Paul Saettler, op. cit., p. 270. 78 Related Studies Kelley (1960) studied the attitudes of selected teachers toward audiovisual materials. Age, which is closely related to experience was one of the independent variables studied. Kelley found: that younger teachers tend to have a more positive attitude toward the use of audiovisual materials than did older teachers. Teachers between the ages of forty and fifty tend to have less positive attitudes towards media than younger teachers and those over fifty years of age tend to be more moderate or conservative in their attitude toward these materials.129 A study directed by Ryans had as its major emphasis the dimensions of teacher attitudes, verbal understanding, educational viewpoint and emotional stability. The analysis of data analyzed the degree of difference or similarity which existed between verbally—expressed attitudes and exhibited classroom behavior as a function of: (1) age, (2) experience, (3) marital status, (4) sex, (5) school level, (6) grade, and (7) subject taught. Ryans found that trends with respect to extent of teaching experience are not substantially different from those noted when teachers were classified according to age.130 129Gaylen B. Kelley, "A Study of Teachers' Attitudes Toward Audiovisual Materials," Educational Screen and Audio- visual Guide, Vol. 39, No. 3 (March, 1960). PP. 119-121. 130David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers: Their Description, Comparison and Appraisal (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960): pp. 79-116. 79 Boutelle indicated in his study that the results of the analysis clearly indicated the lack of significance when the respondents were classified as teachers, adminis- trators, and specialists. In other words there was no significant difference in attitude toward instructional development among teachers, administrators, and specialists. Further Boutelle found no significant difference between teachers of non-academic (skill-centered) and aca- demic (subject-centered) subjects. Boutelle found no significant difference between teachers with B.S. degrees and teachers with masters degrees. In summary Boutelle found: 1. The level of professional responsibility (teacher, administrator, policy maker, and specialist) has no significant effect upon the attitudes which are expressed toward instructional develOpment. 2. No significant differences in attitude toward instructional development were found to exist when teachers were classified as having an academic or non-academic curricular responsibility. 3. No significant differences in attitude toward instructional development were found when the teachers were grouped according to the degree held.l3l Trombley tested three different groups and found that administrators at the K-8 level had more positive 131Richard J. Boutelle, "The Attitudes Expressed Toward Instructional Development by three Groups as a Func- tion of Selected Professional Variables" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972), pp. 86-88. 8O attitudes toward instructional development than did adminis- trators at the 9-12 level. She also found that teachers at the 9-12 level had significantly more positive attitudes toward instructional development than did teachers at the K-8 level. However, she states that this may have been attributable to chance. No significant difference in attitude toward instructional develOpment between males and females was found irrespective of groups.132 A study conducted by Kliejunas at Michigan State University in 1969 was designed to systematically examine the relationship between attitude and behavior. Kliejunas's thesis was that an individual's behavior depends upon, or is in some way directly influenced by his attitudes. The result of his study revealed the following: 1. Attitudes, properly conceptualized and measured, can be accurate predictors of behavior. 2. The importance of situational attitudes and their interaction with attitudes toward objects has been generally overlooked in past research in the relationship between attitude and behavior.133 Perhaps, as Rokeach and Kliejunas point out, there will remain inconsistent findings as long as the predictive 132Sigrid Ann Trombley, "An Assessment of Attitudes Expressed Toward Instructional Development by three Groups as a Function of (1) Teaching Level and (2) Sex" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971), p. 76. 133Peter J. Kliejunas, "Attitudes Toward Object and Attitude Toward Situation as Predictors of Behavior" (un- published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). 81 relationship is based solely on attitude toward object and failure to consider the importance of the interaction between the object and the situation.134 In a study conducted by Duncan, it was revealed that there was no significant difference between the age categories regardless of group. He tested three different groups, a control group consisting of teachers who had not been exposed to instructional development, an introductory instructional media class, and a group attending an in- structional development institute. Duncan further found that the attitudes of respondents in the instructional media class and those of the participants in the instructional development institute were more positive toward instructional development than were the attitudes of respondents among the control group consisting of teachers who had not been exposed to instructional development. He further found no signifi- cant difference in the correlation between the variable age and that of attitude, and no significant difference between the variable of experience and that of attitude.135 Summary Authors of attitude studies indicate that knowing an individual's attitude toward an object or situation 134Ibid. 135Ibid., pp. 80-85. 82 makes it possible to predict his response to that object or situation with some degree of certainty. It is believed that changing an individual's behavior is one of the best ways of causing change in the individual's beliefs and attitudes. Likert-type attitude scales have been widely used to measure intensity of attitude expression. Atti- tudes change and develop because they satisfy psychological needs. Change-agents need to know what need is being serviced by an attitude in order to determine the nature of the change. Changes in educational modes are taking place rapidly in higher education. Change-agents or instructional developers must keep instructors alerted to new developments in the area of instructional technology. With a climate of strong resistance to change, it is essential that assess- ment of educator's attitudes toward change be made so that strategies can be worked out for approaching individual instructors. Early adopters of an innovation are usually opinion leaders, who adopt new ideas early and then influence their colleagues to accept them. Instructional development is an innovative process and should be studied accordingly. In- structional development is a regularly interacting or independent group of items forming a unified whole. For the improvement of instruction, systematic planning and 83 the wise use of technology are basic. It is a problem- solving method of analyzing the educational process and making it more effective. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine the express-knowledge of, attitude toward, and experience with instructional development among Andrews University faculty members. This chapter consists of descriptions of the population, procedures that were followed, descriptions of the instruments: Knowledge of Instructional Development Profile, Attitude Toward Instructional Development, and Experience With Instructional Development Profile. The Chapter contains the questions to be answered, the research hypotheses, the statistical procedures and a short summary. The results of this study will not be generalized to other populations. No inferences are to be made to populations that may be similar to the faculty at Andrews University. Procedure The Procedure for this study include: 1. Origination of a multiple-choice knowledge profile of the various concepts of instructional develop- ment identified as, Knowledge of Instructional Development Profile. ‘_’-‘"" 84 85 2. Permission to slightly modify, and use, Attitude Toward Instructional Development, an attitude assessment scale produced under a grant from the United States Office of Education, Bureau of Libraries and Educational Technology, Division of Educational Technology (see Appendices A and F). 3. Development of an experience questionnaire, Experience with Instructional Development Profile. The experience profile assesses course credits, hours with specialists, and courses formally developed. 4. A pilot study with the three-part instrument with a random sample of the Loma Linda University faculty at Riverside, California. Loma Linda University is a sister Seventh-day Adventist institution of higher edu- cation with a faculty population similar to that of Andrews University. 5. Modification of the knowledge profile section of the instrument based on the analysis of results from the pilot study. 6. Administration of the instrument to the Andrews University faculty members. 7. The conduction of interviews with department heads and other administrative officers at Andrews University who have responsibility for the development and improvement of instruction. 86 Instrumentation Knowledge of Instructional Development Profile was developed because no other instrument existed to assess individual's expressed knowledge of instructional develop- ment. The instrument consists of an eighteen-item multiple- choice questionnaire. The instrument was administered to a stratified random sample of the Loma Linda University faculty to determine its suitability with respondents similar to those who would make up the target population. After the questionnaires were returned from the pilot sample, the various multiple-choice questions were examined through an item-difficulty discrimination index (see Appendix G). Using this as a basis for analyses and with the assistance of instructional development specialists, one item was discarded, one item was re-written, and several items were reworded for clarification. Reliability is unknown. Attitude Toward Instructional Development was chosen for use in this study because it is one of the few instruments available designed specifically to assess indi- vidual's attitudes toward instructional development. The instrument consists of a fifty-item Likert-type scale based on a questionnaire developed by four leading universities specializing in instructional development. The instrument has been administered to over 200 groups with nearly 200,000 respondents, undergoing numerous revisions for improvement. 87 A few words were in the instrument were changed so make it more appealing to respondents in higher education. Experience With Instructional Development Profile was developed because no instrument existed to gather data concerning respondent's expressed experience with instruc- tional development. The instrument consists of three direct questions asking about credit for course work in the area of instructional development as defined specifically for respondents, clock hours with instructional development specialists, and courses developed with the assistance of instructional development specialists. The three-part questionnaire was administered to the Andrews University faculty in general session with instructions to complete the area on knowledge prior to referring to the definition of instructional development. After completing the section on knowledge, that section was handed in and the sections on attitude and experience were completed and collected. Following the faculty meeting members who were absent received by mail the entire three- part questionnaire with instructions to complete the know- ledge section before referring to the definition on in- structional develOpment. The completed instruments were then returned by inter-department mail. Interviews Interviews were conducted with heads of departments and other administrative officers responsible for the 88 development and improvement of instruction at Andrews University. No attempt was made to convert interview responses to quantitative form for purposes of statistical analysis. Summaries of the responses are reported in Chapter IV. The interview schedule is listed in Appendix D. Analysis The 18 item multiple-choice knowledge profile section of the three-part questionnaire was presented to a sample of the Loma Linda University faculty as a 19 item, four alternative, multiple-choice instrument. Thirty respond- ents returned the completed questionnaires, which were analyzed for internal consistency reliability. Some of the items were termed "too easy" and others somewhat mis- leading. As a result, one item was discarded, one item was restructured, and four items were reworded slightly for clarification. The three—item experience instrument did not undergo any changes following the pilot study. Each item was left Open-ended, permitting each respondent to complete them based on interpretation of his own experience with instruc- tional development. The three-part instrument was administered to the Andrews University faculty. Scores for each of the sections were summed for each respondent. Means and standard devi- ations were computed for each of the various faculty groups, 89 professional responsibility, highest degree held, profes- sional experience, and sex. Comparisons were made among means of the various categories of faculty members. Research Hypotheses The following research hypotheses were generated from the questions to be answered by the study. They will be tested to determine if there is a difference among the various faculty categories specified. The areas to be tested are expressed knowledge of, expressed attitude toward, and expressed experience with instructional develop- ment among Andrews University faculty members: 1. There is no difference in expressed knowledge of instructional development as a function of professional responsibility among teachers, administrators, and specialists. 2. There is no difference in expressed attitudes toward instructional development as a function of professional responsibility among teachers, administrators, and specialists. 3. There is no difference in expressed experience with instructional development as a function of professional responsibility among teachers, administrators, and specialists. 4. There is no difference in expressed knowledge of instructional development as a function of highest degree held among faculty members with baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, special- ist degrees, and doctorate degrees. 5. There is no difference in expressed attitudes toward instructional development as a function of highest degree held among faculty members with baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, specialists degrees, and doctorate degrees. 9O 6. There is no difference in expressed experience with instructional development as a function of highest degree held among faculty members with baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, specialist degrees, and doctorate degrees. 7. There is no difference in expressed knowledge of instructional development as a function of professional experiencp between teachers with less than five years of experience and those with five or more years of experience. 8. There is no difference in expressed attitude toward instructional development as a function of professional experierce between teachers with less than five years experience and those with five or more years experience. 9. There is no difference in expressed experience with instructional development as a function of professional experience between faculty members with less than five years experience and those with five or more years experience. 10. There is no difference in expressed knowledge of instructional development as a function of sex, comparing male faculty members and female faculty members. 11. There is no difference in expressed attitude toward instructional development as a function of pop, comparing male faculty members with female faculty members. 12. There is no difference in expressed experience with instructional development as a function of oog, comparing male faculty members with female faculty members. Limitations Findings from this study will be limited to the 1973- 74 Andrews University faculty members as the population and may not be applicable to other groups. 91 The three dependent variables (knowledge, attitude, and experience) will be examined separately. No attempt will be made to determine interaction among them. Summary The population of this study consisted of 215 of the 235 members of the Andrews University faculty at Berrien Springs, Michigan. The University is made up of the under- graduate college, the School of Graduate Studies, the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, and the Labo— ratory School. A three-part questionnaire, Knowledge of Instructional Development Profile, Attitude Toward Instruc- tional Development, and Experience With Instructional Development Profile was used. A demographic data sheet was developed in order to gather information relative to the variables investigated in the study. This data was gathered at the time the instrument was administered. The data was analyzed by direct analysis. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Analysis of Instruments Before administering the instrument, Knowledge of, Attitude Toward, and Experience with Instructional Develop- ment, it was necessary to determine if the instrument was reliable. See Appendix (A) questionnaire. The knowledge section was adjusted after pilot questionnaires were returned to eliminate ambiguous items and to correct vocabulary. The attitude section was reworded to adjust the vocabulary for instructors and professors in higher education. Since na- tional norms exist for the attitude section, reliability was not a factor. The section on experience with instruc- tional development did not require refinement since it was open-ended. The experience section consists of term credits earned, clock hours spent with instructional development specialists, and courses developed with the aid of specialists. Since these three areas could not con- veniently be combined, they are handled as three separate dependent variables. After the instruments were modified, they were ad- ministered to the entire Andrews University faculty as the total population. Of approximately 235 full-time and 92 93 part-time faculty members, 92% returned the completed questionnaires. Approximately 100 respondents completed the instrument during a faculty meeting, with the re- mainder using the university's interdepartment mail system. The composite scores for each of the dependent variables was subjected to statistical analysis. Presentation of Population Data Data for the population, the 215 faculty members, includes the five dependent variables: knowledge, attitude, credits, hours, and courses. Credits, hours, and courses, are a part of the dependent variable, experience. The five areas are each part of the four independent variables: professional responsibility, degree held, professional experience, and sex. The population data in Table 4.1 identifies for each dependent variable the possible range of scores, the mean TABLE 4.1. Population Data. Total Possible Pop. Actual Stiggard Pop. Range Mean Range Dev1ation Knowledge 215 0-90 53.60 15-85 13.29 Attitude 215 50-250 174.04 90-240 27.64 Experience Credits 215 1-7 1.40 1-7 .98 Hours 215 1-7 1.43 1-7 1.04 Courses 215 1-7 1.17 1-7 .64 94 for each variable, the actual range and the standard devi- ation. The population data provides basic information for interpreting analysis of data in the various tables dealing with written questionnaire information in Chapter IV. Statistical Analysis When dealing with population statistics, all differ- ences between means are true differences. Inferences are not usually needed. Ninety-two per cent of faculty members at Andrews University responded to the written question- naire. "Significant difference" is defined as a difference which would arise with a probability of i .10 if random samples of the given sizes were taken from the given finite population with known means and known standard deviations. The probability level of .10 selected as alpha level is not a consideration, that is, the probability of making a type I error (rejection of a true null hypothesis). Inferences are not being made to other populations. Having found the population means and standard devi- ations for each dependent variable for the total pepulation and each of the sub-populations, comparisons were made. Statistical procedures are given here fer the independent variable, sex, and the dependent variable, knowledge, as an example. The population mean for knowledge in the category of sex is 53.60. For the 151 male faculty members, the sub-population is 52.28, and for the 64 female faculty members, the sub-population is 56.64. With the above data, the following comparisons were made. The mean of 52.28 for the 151 male faculty members was placed on a normal curve and compared with the mean of 56.64 for the 64 female faculty members. The means of the two sub-populations were compared as follows: —.._——-_—— 0321 - I2 k”If + a}; = /.59412 + 1.39417- : 1.5154 56.64 - 52.28 4.36 Z = = -———-—-= 2.8771 1.5154 1.5154 The probability that two random samples of the given sizes would differ so greatly is .004 (p=.004). Such comparisons were made for each of the five dependent variables on each of the four independent vari- ables. In each case comparisons were made of all possible pairs of means among the sub-populations for a given independent variable. Sub-Population Data and Analysis Each of the independent variables has two or more sub-populations. Means and standard deviations were recorded for sub-populations for each of the five dependent variables. Professional responsibility consists of teachers, adminis- trators, and specialists. Highest degree held is made up of baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, specialist degrees, and doctorate degrees. Professional experience 96 consists of faculty members with four or less years of professional experience and those with five or more years of professional experience. Male faculty members and female faculty members make up the category of sex. Table 4.2 shows, for the professional responsibility sub-population, the differences of means in scores in column 2. In column 3, the Z relates the sub-population along the normal curve; a difference between two sub- population means along a normal curve with a mean equal to zero (mean = 0). The fourth column P shows the proba- bility of this Z arising by random sampling from the whole population. Professional Responsibility Knowledge In the dimension of professional responsibility, the population is divided into three categories, or sub- populations: teachers, administrators, and specialists. For each of the five dependent variables, the mean scores of the sub-populations were compared to each other. The sub-population means for the three categories of faculty members are: 144 teachers,54.58; 43 adminis- trators,54.76; 28 specialists,51.25. It will be noted that all of the figures in the "P" column in Table 4.2 are greater than .10. Therefore, in 97 TABLE 4.2. Professional Responsibility--Knowledge Contrasts. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Teacher Nél44 X=54.58 Administrator Né43 .28 .15 .88 X=54.76 Teacher Nél44 X=54.58 Specialist §=28 3.33 1.37 .17 X=51.25 Administrator Ns43 X=54.76 Specialist N:28 3.61 1.22 .22 X=51.25 * Denotes a significant difference. accordance with the criterion established on page 94, none of the differences is significant. The data presented in Table 4.2 fail to reject the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed knowledge of instructional development as a function of pro- fessional responsibility among teachers, adminis- trators, and specialists. Attitude In the dimension of professional responsibility, the sub-pOpulation mean for the three categories of faculty members are: 144 teachers,l70.95; 43 administrators,l75.95; 28 specialists,187.00. 98 It will be noted in Table 4.3 that only one of the figures in the "P" column is greater than .10. The other two figures in the "P" column are smaller than .10. There- fore, in accordance with the criterion established on page 94. the difference between the mean scores of teachers and administrators is not significant. However, specialists attitude scores are significantly more positive than the scores of the teachers. Likewise, specialists attitude scores are significantly more positive than that of the administrators. TABLE 4.3. Professional Responsibility--Attitude Contrasts. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Teacher Eél44 X=l70-95 Administrator Né43 5.01 1.25 .21 X=175.95 Teacher Nsl44 X=170.95 Specialist §;23 16.06 3.18 .002* X=187.00 Specialist Né28 X=187.00 * Administrator Né43 11.05 1.79 .075 X=175.95 *Denotes a significant difference. 99 The data presented in Table 4.3 fail to reject part of the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed attitudes toward instructional development as a function of profes- sional responsibility among teachers, administrators and specialists. Experience (Credits) In the area of professional responsibility, the sub- population means for the three categories of faculty members are: 144 teachers 1.38; 43 administrators 1.58; 28 special- ists 1.29. It will be noted in Table 4.4 that all of the figures in the "P" column are greater than .10. Therefore, in TABLE 4.4. Professional Responsibility--Credits Contrasts. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Teacher N§l44 X=l.38 Administrator Né43 .20 1.41 .16 X=1.58 Teacher Nél44 X=138 Specialist §;28 .09 .50 .62 X=l.29 Administrator §é43 X=1.58 Specialist Né28 .29 1.32 .19 X=1.29 * Denotes a significant difference. 100 accordance with the criterion established on page 94. none of the differences is significant. The data presented in Table 4.4 fail to reject the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed experience (term credits earned) with instructional develop- ment as a function of professional responsibility among teachers, administrators and specialists. The independent variable, professional experience consists of: (l) the number of term credits earned by faculty members in the area of instructional development, (2) the number of clock poopo spent with instructional development specialists, and (3) the number of courses, currently being taught, develOped with the aid of instructional development specialists. Because the three areas of professional experience could not be combined into one summed score, they are being treated as separate dependent variables. Scores were compared, statistically analyzed, and reported in conjunc- tion with related hypothesis. Experience (Hours) In the area of professional responsibility, the sub- population means for the three categories of faculty members are: 144 teachers,l.44; 43 administrators,l.49; 28 special- ists,l.39. It will be noted in Table 4.5 that all of the figures in the "P" column are greater than .10. Therefore, in 101 TABLE 4.5. Professional Responsibility--Experience (Hours) Contrasts. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Teacher EF144 X=l.44 Administrator E?43 .05 .33 .74 X=l.49 Teacher Nel44 X=l.44 Specialist E?28 .05 .26 .80 X=l.39 Administrator N543 xrl.49 Specialist Né28 .10 .43 .67 X=l.39 * . . . . Denotes a Significant difference. 102 accordance with the criterion established on page 94, none of the differences is significant. The data presented in Table 4.5 fail to reject the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed experience (hours) with instructional development as a function of professional responsibility among teachers, administrators, and specialists. Experience (Courses) In the area of professional responsibility, the sub- population means for the three categories of faculty members are: 144 teachers 1.15; 43 administrators 1.35; 28 special- ists 1.04. It will be noted in Table 4.6 that only one of the figures in the "P" column is greater than .10. The other two figures in the "P" column are smaller than .10. There— fore, in accordance with the criterion established on page 94, the difference between the mean scores of teachers and administrators is significant. Administrators scored significantly higher than teachers. The difference of means between teachers and specialists is not significant. The administrators scored significantly higher than the specialists in the area of courses developed by instruc- tional development specialists. The data presented in Table 4.6 fail to fully reject the following hypothesis: 103 TABLE 4.6. Professional Responsibility--Experience (Hours) Contrasts. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Teacher Nél44 X=1.15 Administrator §;43 .20 2.18 .03* X=l.35 Teacher E?l44 X=l.15 Specialist N=28 .11 .95 .34 X=1.04 Administrator Né43 X=l.35 * Specialist Né28 ..31 2.19 .03 X=1.04 *Denotes a significant difference. There is no difference in expressed experience (courses) with instructional development as a function of professional responsibility among teachers, administrators, and specialists. Highest Degree Held Knowledge In the area of highest degree held, the sub-population means for the four degree levels are: 12 faculty members with baccalaureate degrees,52.9l; 102 faculty members with masters degrees,54.75; 11 faculty members with specialist degrees,49.09; 90 faculty members with doctorate degrees 52.94. 104 It will be noted in Table 4.7 that all of the figures in the "P" column are greater than .10. Therefore, in accordance with the criterion established on page 94, none of the differences is significant. TABLE 4.7. Degree Held--Knowledge Contrasts. _. Difference Contrasts of Mean Z P Baccalaureate Degrees Nélz X=52.91 Masters Degrees §;102 1.84 .48 .63 X=54.75 Baccalaureate Degrees Nélz X=52.91 Specialist Degrees Nell 3.82 .71 .48 X=49.09 Baccalaureate Degrees EFIZ X=52.91 Doctorate Degrees N=90 .03 .01 .99 X=52.94 Masters Degrees N=102 X=54.75 Specialist Degrees Nell 5.66 1.41 .16 X=49.09 Masters Degrees §;102 X=54.75 Doctorate Degrees Né90 1.81 1.26 .21 X=52.94 Specialist Degrees Doctorate Degrees Né90 3.85 .95 .35 X=52.94 *Denotes a significant difference 10's The data in Table 4.7 fail to reject the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed attitudes toward instructional development as a function of highest degree held among faculty members with baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, specialist degrees, and doctorate degrees. Attitude In the area of highest degree held, the sub-population means for the four degree levels are: 12 faculty members with baccalaureate degrees,180.58; 102 faculty members with masters degrees,l74.77; 11 faculty members with specialist degrees,l70.9l; 90 faculty members with doctorate degrees, 172.72. It will be noted in Table 4.8 that all of the figures in the "P" column are greater than .10. Therefore, in accordance with the criterion set up on page 94, none of the differences is significant. The data in Table 4.8 fail to reject the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed attitudes toward instructional development as a function of highest degree held among faculty members with baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, specialist degrees, and doctorate degrees. Experience (Credits) In the area of highest degree held, the sub-population means for the four degree levels are: 12 faculty members with baccalaureate degrees,l.42; 102 faculty members with 106 TABLE 4.8. Degree Held--Attitude Contrasts. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Baccalaureate Degrees gslz X=180.58 Masters Degrees §;102 5.81 .72 .47 X=l74.77 Baccalaureate Degrees fiélz X=180.58 Specialist Degrees Eéll 9.67 .86 .39 X=170.9l Baccalaureate Degrees gélz X=180.58 Doctorate Degrees §é90 7.86 .97 .33 X=l72.72 Masters Degrees §=102 X=l74.77 Specialist Degrees E?ll 3.86 .46 .65 X=l70.9l Masters Degrees §;102 X=l74.77 Doctorate Degrees EF90 2.05 .69 .49 X=l72.72 Specialist Degrees Eéll X=170.91 Doctorate Degrees §é90 1.81 .21 .83 X=l72.72 *Denotes a significant difference. 107 masters degrees,l.SO; 11 faculty members with specialists degrees,l.45; 90 faculty members with doctorate degrees: 1.28. It will be noted in Table 4.9 that all, but one of the figures in the "P" column are greater than .10. There- fore, in accordance with the criterion set up on page 94, only one comparison is significantly different. Comparison of means of faculty members with masters degrees (mean of 1.50) is significantly higher than the mean of faculty members with doctorate degrees (mean of 1.28). Therefore the data in Table 4.9, i3: all but. one comparison, fail to reject the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed experience (credits) with instructional development as a function of highest degree held among faculty members with baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, specialist degrees, and doctorate degrees. Experience (Hours) In the area of highest degree held, the sub-population means for the four degree levels are: 12 faculty members with baccalaureate degrees,l.42; 102 faculty members with masters degrees,l.34; 11 faculty members with specialist degrees,l.45; 90 faculty members with doctorate degrees, 1.56. It will be noted in Table 4.10 that all, but one of the figures in the "P" column are greater than .10. There- fore, in accordance with the criterion set up on page 94: 108 TABLE 4.9. Degree Held-—Experience (Credits) Contrasts. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Baccalaureate Degrees Eélz X210 42 Masters Degrees flélOZ .08 .28 .78 X=1.50 Baccalaureate Degrees EélZ X=12 Specialist Degrees Eéll .03 .08 .94 X=l.45 Baccalaureate Degrees fiélz X=l.42 Doctorate Degrees E690 .14 .48 .63 X=l.28 Masters Degrees géioz X=1.50 Specialist Degrees fléll .05 .17 .87 X=l.45 Masters Degrees §;102 X=1.50 * Doctorate Degrees §é90 .22 2.07 .04 X=l.28 Specialist Degrees Eéll X=l.45 Doctorate Degrees Eé90 .17 .57 .57 X=l.28 * . . . Denotes a Significant difference. 109 TABLE 4.10. Degree Held-~Experience (Hours) Contrasts. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Baccalaureate Degrees Eélz X=l.42 Masters Degrees §§102 .08 .26 .79 X=l.34 Baccalaureate Degrees Eélz X=l.42 Specialist Degrees Eéll .03 .07 .94 X=l.43 Baccalaureate Degrees E?12 X=l.42 Doctorate Degrees _=90 .14 .46 .65 X=1.50 Masters Degrees §;102 X=l.34 Specialist Degrees yell .ll .35 .73 X=l.45 Masters Degrees §=102 X=l.34 Doctorate Degrees Eé90 .22 1.95 .05 X=1.56 Specialist Degrees §;11 X=l.45 Doctorate Degrees 3:90 .11 .33 .74 X=1.56 * Denotes a significant difference. 110 only one comparison is significantly different. Comparison of means of faculty members with masters degrees (mean of 1.34) is significantly smaller than the mean of faculty members with doctorate degrees (mean of 1.56). Therefore the data in Table 4.10, in all but one comparison, fail to reject the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed experience (hours) with instructional development as a function of highest degree held among faculty members with baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, specialist degrees, and doctorate degrees. In the area of highest degree held, the sub—population means for the four degree levels are: 12 faculty members with baccalaureate degrees 1.17; 102 faculty members with masters degrees,l.ZO; 11 faculty members with specialist degrees,l.09; 90 faculty members with doctorate degrees,l.l6. It will be noted in Table 4.11 that all of the figures in the "P" column are greater than .10. Therefore, in accordance with the criterion set up on page 94, none of the differences is significant. The data in Table 4.11 fail to reject the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed experience (courses) with instructional development as a function of highest degree held among faculty members with baccalaureate degrees, masters degrees, specialist degrees, and doctorate degrees. Professional Experience Knowledge In the area of professional experience, the sub- population means for the two levels are: 31 faculty members 111 TABLE 4.11. Degree Held-~Experience (Courses) Contrasts. ——. m." Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Baccalaureate Degrees §?12 X=l.17 Masters Degrees §é102 .03 .16 .87 X=l.20 Baccalaureate Degrees gélz X=l.17 Specialist Degrees Eéll .08 .31 .76 X=1.09 Baccalaureate Degrees EFlZ X=l.17 Doctorate Degrees E?90 .01 .05 .96 X=l.16 Masters Degrees E?102 X=l.20 Specialist Degrees Eéll .ll .57 .57 X=l.09 Masters Degrees §é102 X=l.20 Doctorate Degrees §é90 .04 .58 .56 =1.16 Specialist Degrees Eéll X=1.09 Doctorate Degrees §é90 .07 .36 .72 X=l.16 * . . . . Denotes a Significant difference. 112 with less than five years of professional experience, 51.45; 184 faculty members with five or more years of professional experience, 53.96. It will be noted in Table 4.12 that the figure in the "P" column is greater than .10. Therefore, in ac- cordance with the criterion set up on page 94, the differ- ences are not significant. The data in Table 4.12 support the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed knowledge of instructional development as a function of pro- fessional experience between faculty members with less than five years of professional experience and those with five or more years of professional experience. TABLE 4.12. Professional Experience--Knowledge Contrast. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Four or Less 5:31 X=51.45 Five or More E?184 2.51 1.12 .26 X=53.96 *Denotes a significant difference. Attitude In the area of professional experience, the sub- population means for the two levels are: 31 faculty members with four or less years of professional experience,l75.06; 113 184 faculty members with five or more years of professional experience 173.87. It will be noted in Table 4.13 that the figure in the "P" column is greater than .10. Therefore, in ac- cordance with the criterion set up on page 94, the differ- ence is not significant. The data in Table 4.13 support the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed attitudes toward instructional development as a function of professional experience between teachers with less than five years professional experience and those with five or more years of professional experience. TABLE 4.13. Professional Experience--Attitude Contrast. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Four or Less EF31 X=175.06 Five or More §é184 1.19 .26 .80 X=173.87 * . . . . Denotes a Significant difference. Experience (Credits) In the area of professional experience, the sub- population means for the two levels are: 31 faculty members with less than five years of professional experience, 1.13; 183 faculty members with five or more years of professional experience, 1.46. 114 It will be noted in Table 4.14 that the figure in the "P" column is less than .10. Therefore, in accordance with the criterion established on page: 94, there is a signifi- cant difference between the number of term credits earned in the area of instructional development between faculty members with four or less years of professional experience and those with five or more years of professional experience. Those with five or more years have a mean score significantly greater than faculty members with less than five years. The data presented in Table 4.14 fail to reject the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed experience (credits) with instructional development as a function of professional experience between faculty members with less than five years of professional experience and those with five or more years of professional experience. TABLE 4.14. Professional Experience—-Experience (Credits) Contrast. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Four or Less §?21 X=l.13 * Five or More §é184 .33 1.95 .05 X=l.46 * . . . . Denotes a Significant difference. 115 Experience (Hours) In the area of professional experience, the sub- population means for the two levels are: 31 faculty members with four or less years of professional experience,1.30; 184 faculty members with five or more years of professional experience,1.46. It will be noted in Table 4.15 that the figure in the "P" column is greater than .10. Therefore, in accord- ance with the criterion established on page 94, there is no significant difference between faculty members with four with less than five years of professional experience, 1.30; 184 faculty members with five or more years of professional experience, 1.46. There is no difference in expressed experience (hours) with instructional development as a function of professional experience between faculty members with less than five years of professional experience and those with five or more years of professional experience. TABLE 4.15. Professional Experience--Experience (Hours) Contrast. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Four or Less §s3l X=l.30 Five or More E?184 .16 .89 .37 X=l.46 *Denotes a significant difference. 116 Experience (Courses) In the area of professional experience, the sub- population means for the two levels are: 31 faculty members with less than five years of professional experience, 1.13; 184 faculty members with five or more years of professional experience, 1.18. It will be noted in Table 4.16 that the figure in the "P" column is greater than .10. Therefore, in accord- ance with the criterion set up on page 94, the difference between the two mean scores is not significant. The data in Table 4.16 support the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed experience (courses) with instructional development as a function of professional experience between faculty members with less than five years of professional experience and those with five or more years of professional experience. TABLE 4.16. Professional Experience--Experience (Courses) Contrast. Difference Contrasts of Means Z P Four or Less §=31 X=l.13 Five or More §?184 .05 .47 .64 X=l.18 *Denotes a significant difference. 117 Sex Knowledge When comparing male faculty members and female fac- ulty members, the sub-population means for the two categories are: 64 female faculty members,56.64; 151 male faculty members,52.28. It will be noted in Table 4.17 that the figure in the "P" column is smaller than .10. Therefore, in accord- ance with the criterion established on page 94, the differ- ence of the means between male faculty members (mean of 52.28) and female faculty members (mean of 56.64) is a Significant difference. The females scored Significantly higher than the male faculty members. Therefore, the data in Table 4.17 fail to support the following hypothesis: There is no difference in expressed knowledge of instructional development as a function of sex, comparing male faculty members with female faculty members. TABLE 4.17. Sex--Know1edge Contrast. Difference Contrast of Means Z P Female flé64 X=56.64 Male §;151 4.36 2.88 .004* X=52.28 * Denotes a Significant difference. 118 Attitude When comparing male faculty members with female faculty members, the sub-population means for the two categories are: 151 males,l72.13; 64 females,178.41. It will be noted in Table 4.18 that the figure in the "P" column is smaller than .10. Therefore, in accord- ance with the criterion established on page 94, the differ- ence of the means between the female faculty members (mean of 56.64) and the male faculty members (mean of 52.28) is 51significant