INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 75-20,891 STEEN, Leslie Ewing, Jr., 1926FACTORS FACILITATING AND FACTORS INHIBITING THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETENCY-BASED CERTIFICATION OF EDUCATIONAL MEDIA SPECIALISTS BY THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1975 Education, general Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 FACTORS FACILITATING AND FACTORS INHIBITING THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETENCYBASED CERTIFICATION OF EDUCATIONAL MEDIA SPECIALISTS BY THE STATE OF MICHIGAN By Leslie E. Steen, Jr. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Instructional Development and Technology 1974 FACTORS FACILITATING AND FACTORS INHIBITING THE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETENCYBASED CERTIFICATION OF EDUCATIONAL MEDIA SPECIALISTS BY THE STATE OF MICHIGAN By Leslie E. Steen, Jr. The purpose of the study was to identify the facil­ itating factors and the inhibiting factors to effective implementation of competency-based certification of media specialists by the state of Michigan. The Delphi Tech­ nique was selected as the research method. Participants in the study were selected from the areas of education most likely to have considerable influ­ ence upon, knowledge about, and/or to be affected by edu­ cational certification in Michigan. Three instruments designed around the Delphi Technique were used in the study. of information and opin.v Appropriate feedback --v ompanied the second and third instruments. In Delphi Instruiuv I participants were asked to list their perception of facilitating factors and inhibit­ ing factors to the effective implementation of the desired certification. Delphi Instrument II included a list of seventeen facilitating factors and fourteen inhibiting factors selected as representative of the factors submitted Leslie E. Steen, Jr. on Instrument I. The participants were asked to rate the factors in Instrument II on a 1 to 5 scale indicating their perception of the relative importance of each factor. Delphi Instrument III was a duplicate of number II, with the exception that the mean, to the nearest whole number,' for each factor rating was indicated, thus providing group opinion. The participants were asked to again rate each factor in light of group opinion, as shown in Instrument III. The study provided seventeen facilitating factors and fourteen inhibiting factors. The top five facilitating factors, as perceived by the participants and listed in the order of relative importance, as determined by the participants through group consensus, are as follows: 1. State Board of Education recognizing certifi­ cation of media specialists as desirable. 2. Recognition by educators that well-trained, competent, professional media specialists are needed to properly manage educational tech­ nology . 3. Senate and House Education Committees' support of the concept, resulting in legislation provid­ ing the vehicle for such certification. 4. Department of Education's recommendation that such certification is desirable. Leslie E. Steen, Jr. 5. Several educational groups, including the Department of Education, favor competency-based criteria for certification programs. The top five inhibiting factors, as perceived by the par­ ticipants and listed in the order of relative importance, as determined by the participants through group consensus, are as follows: 1. Insufficient funding on the local school level to provide for certified media personnel rather than para-professionals may reduce support for the concept. 2. Concern of the educational community about who will measure the competencies, what procedure will be used, and who will be the agent for certification. 3. Failure of administrators and their state asso­ ciations to recognize the function of media specialists, related competencies, and the need for such qualified personnel. 4. Difficulty in determining which competencies are essential to a single certification program. 5. Failure of the educational community to recog­ nize any value to such certification. To make the most effective and immediate use of the factors generated by this study, it is recommended that some organization like the Michigan Association for Media in Leslie E. Steen, Jr. Education establish a committee whose charge is to work toward implementation of certification of media special­ ists in Michigan. The data collection techniques applied in this study have made persons who represent twelve educational groups having some influence on educational certification within the state of Michigan aware that: 1. Members of the Michigan Association for Media in Education desire certification by the state for media specialists. 2. Members of the Michigan Association for Media in Education desire a competency-based certi­ fication code. It seems appropriate to suggest that effort to implement such certification be carried out as soon as possible, while the awareness still exists. To my wife Betty. She provided the love, patience, and understand ing which enabled me to complete this study. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my committee chairman, Dr. Castelle G. Gentry, for his excel­ lent guidance and direction of the study. I also appreciate the counsel and assistance of the members of my committee and true friends, Dr. James L. Page and Dr,. George R. Myers. I want to thank Dr. Norman T. Bell and his daughter, Jean, for their help in the design and implementation of the statistical analysis. To D r . I. Carl Candoli and Dr. Robert J. Chamberlain, friends and colleagues, whose encouragement provided me with the incentive to complete the doctoral program, my special appreciation. To the participants in the study, whose persever­ ance in completing the Delphi Instruments made the study possible, my deepest gratitude. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ..................................... vi THE P R O B L E M ............................... 1 Chapter I. II. III. Purpose of the S t u d y ..................... Need for the S t u d y ....................... The Research Questions ................... L i m i t a t i o n s ............................. A s s u m p t i o n s ............................. D e f i n i t i o n s ............................. Overview of the S t u d y ................... 8 9 11 12 13 13 15 REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ................... 17 Certification of Educational Media Specialists ................... S u m m a r y ............................... Teacher Certification in Michigan . . . . S u m m a r y ................................ Delphi Technique ......................... S u m m a r y ............................... 18 44 45 .53 54 61 DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ....................... Research Method ......................... Participant Selection ................... Procedure of S t u d y ....................... Delphi Instrument I ................... Delphi Instrument II ................... Delphi Instrument III ................. Research Questions ....................... Treatment of D a t a .......................... S u m m a r y .................................... IV. 62 63 66 72 73 74 76 77 78 79 ANALYSIS OF D A T A ........................... 82 Facilitating Factors ..................... Inhibiting Factors ....................... Group D i f f e r e n c e s ....................... S u m m a r y .................................. 83 91 97 107 iv Chapter V. Page SUMMARY,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . Summary of the S t u d y ....................... C o n c l u s i o n s ................................ Research Question 1 Research Question 2 Recommendations ........................... Guidelines Committee ..................... Implementation Committee ................. Suggestions for Further Research ........... APPENDICES ...................................... 109 109 Ill Ill 113 116 117 119 123 125 A. FIRST LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS ............... 126 B. DELPHI INSTRUMENT I .......................... 129 C. SECOND LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS ............... 131 D. DELPHI INSTRUMENT I I ........................ 133 E. THIRD LETTER TO PARTICIPANTS 136 F. DELPHI INSTRUMENT I I I ........................ 138 G. APPENDIX T A B L E S .............................. 141 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . v ............... LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Page Selection of Participants According to Representative Groups .................... 69 Selection of Participants Within Representative Groups .................... 70 Participants in the Study According to Representative Groups .................... 71 Facilitating Factors to Implementation of Competency-Based Certification of Media Specialists Arranged by Means ............. 84 4.2 Delphi Instrument II— Rating Scores ......... 87 4.3 Delphi Instrument III— Rating Scores 89 4.4 Means and Standard Deviations for Facilitating Factors— All Participants 3.2 3.3 4.1 . . . . .. 92 Inhibiting Factors to Implementation of Competency-Based Certification of Media Specialists Arranged by Means ............. 94 4.6 Delphi Instrument II--Rating Scores ......... 98 4.7 Delphi Instrument III— Rating Scores 4.8 Means and Standard Deviations for Inhibiting Factors— All Participants 4.5 4.9 4.10 G1 . . . . . .. 100 102 The Top Five Facilitating Factors Listed in Priority Order for Each Educational Group Represented in the S t u d y ................ 105 The Top Five Inhibiting Factors Listed in Priority Order for Each Educational Group Represented in the S t u d y ................ 106 Means and Standard Deviations for Facili­ tating Factors and Inhibiting Factors: Michigan Department of Education ........ vi 142 Page Table G2 G3 G4 G5 Means and Standard Deviations for Facili­ tating Factors and Inhibiting Factors: Colleges of Education (Deans) ........ 146 Means and Standard Deviations for Facili­ tating Factors and Inhibiting Factors: Colleges of Education (Staff) . . . . 150 Means and Standard Deviations for Facili­ tating Factors and Inhibiting Factors: K-12 Systems (Print Expertise) . . . . 154 Means and Standard Deviations for Facili­ tating Factors and Inhibiting Factors: K-12 Systems (Nonprint Expertise) . . 158 vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The personnel area of instructional development and technology recently has expanded in scope to a point where it needs to be recognized and studied as a significant com­ ponent of the total field. A few years ago, one could classify those people working in the field of educational media as audio-visual personnel or librarians. Today, there are as many titles for personnel working in the field of instructional development and technology as there are functions that require varied and specific skills, e.g., instructional developer, media manager, media specialist, graphic artist, and technician. Only recently has any consideration been given to the necessity of studying the personnel area of instruc­ tional development and technology. The Media Guidelines Project, which was funded under a U.S. Office of Education grant, generated several studies relating to instructional development and technology personnel. One of the more significant of these studies, the JIMS study, classified the tasks performed by media personnel into three groups: 1 2 professional, technical, and aide."*" The DAVI-AASL Joint Standards defined the levels of personnel in educational media as: media specialist, media technician, and media aide, again three groups representative of the professional, technical, and aide. 2 The sudden realization that many types of persons exhibiting different competencies and expertise in varied areas are necessary (and desirable) to carry out the func­ tions of instructional development and technology creates the need for systematic studies of such related topics as: present and future availability of personnel, proper training of personnel, certification and licensing, classi­ fication of jobs, efficiency of different media programs; administrative procedures, etc. Recently, the topic of certification or licensing of professionals in instructional media has received considerable emphasis. Professionals in the media field are looking toward certification as providing: identification as a profes­ sional, indication of proper training or expertise in the media field, inter-state acceptance as a qualified media ^"James Wallington et al., Jobs in Instructional Media (Washington, D.C.: Department of Audiovisual Instruc­ tion, 1970), pp. 141-57. 2 American Association of School Librarians and Department of Audiovisual Instruction, Standards for School Media Programs (Chicago: American Library Association, 1969; Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969), pp. 7-17. 3 professional, and a method for qualifying and/or upgrading current practitioners in instructional media. Faced with financial cutbacks, many educational institutions around the country have adopted the policy of hiring more technicians and aides, with reductions at the professional level either through normal attrition or in some instances by elimination of the position. Some professional media practitioners appear to believe their certification as media professionals may provide the recog­ nition essential to prevent the reduction of professionals from the media field. 3 Whatever the specific rationale for considering certification of media professionals to be desirable, it is definitely a phenomenon that is rapidly growing through­ out the nation. In 1970, fourteen states had some type of certification specifically for nonprint media personnel working at the K-12 level of education. By 1972, the num­ ber of states offering such certification had increased to twenty-two.4 Of those states, only eight required training in both the areas of print and nonprint media, while only ^T. Burford and J. McWatt, "The Problem of Standards for Licensing/Certification of Media Personnel," paper pre­ sented at the Joint Spring Conference of the Michigan Audio Visual Association and the Michigan Association of School Librarians, Grand Rapids, Michigan, May 1973), pp. 1-4. 4William F. Grady, "Certification of Educational Media Personnel: A Developmental Look," Audiovisual Instruction, May 1973, p. 32. 4 three, namely New Jersey, Utah, and Washington, offered competency-based certification. Currently, the only media personnel certification offered by the state of Michigan is in the field of library science. Until recently, the institutions that recommend the student for certification in library science have pro­ vided little, if any, nonprint media training. In May of 1972, the Michigan Department of Education issued a docu­ ment entitled "Four Proposals Regarding the Certification and Professional Development of Michigan Teachers," which could have a significant bearing on future certification by that department, because it recommends changing basic certification from credit oriented to competency based, and provides for issuance of certification for other than teachers, i.e., administrators and curriculum specialists. 5 Early in the fall of 1972, the president of the Michigan Audio Visual Association appointed a special task force to deal with the topic, "Certification of Media Specialists in the State of Michigan." 6 The specific charge to the task force was to: 1. Analyze the Michigan Department of Education document, "Four Proposals Regarding the Certification and 5 Michigan Department of Education, "Four Proposals Regarding the Certification and Professional Development of Michigan Teachers" (Lansing, 1972). (Mimeographed.) ^Michigan Audio Visual Association, Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors, September 28, 1972. (Mimeographed.) 5 Professional Development of Michigan Teachers," for its implications regarding the certification of educational media professionals. The underlying assumption in this analysis is that' certification of media professionals is a desirable endeavor. 2. Analyze the same document for implications relating to the preparation and training of all profession­ ally certified educators in effective media utilization. 3. Determine the potential success for certifi­ cation of media professionals under: a. The competency-based certification approach as proposed in the Michigan Department of Education document. b. The present certification code. (This would con­ sist of inclusion of audio-visual/instructional media personnel under the existing certification of library science specialists.) 4. Recommend to the Michigan Audio Visual Asso­ ciation Board of Directors procedures and subsequent steps for effectively pursuing the question of media specialist certification, as well as the general preparation of educa7 tional professionals m media utilization. The Task Force's report to the Board of Directors included the following recommendations: ^Ibid., p. 3. 6 1. The Michigan Audio Visual Association should form a joint committee with the Michigan Association of School Librarians to develop guidelines for certification of media personn'el. If the Michigan Association of School Librarians declines the invitations to participate in such an endeavor, the Michigan Audio Visual Association should proceed to develop its own guidelines. 2. The Michigan Audio Visual Association should establish a committee whose basic charge will be to develop guidelines for preparing and training all professional edu­ cators in effective media utilization prior to their cer­ tification . 3. The guidelines created by either committee must be competency based, and the guidelines for certifi­ cation of media specialists should be suitable for inclusion under the provisions of section 852(c) 8 of the proposed 9 statute to amend the School Code of 1955. In December, 1972, a committee whose members rep­ resented both the Michigan Audio Visual Association and the Michigan Association of School Librarians was estab­ lished to pursue the issue of certification of media O Section 852(c) provides the State Board of Educa­ tion of Michigan with power to certify persons with instruc­ tional responsibilities employed other than as a classroom teacher including, but not limited to, administrators and curriculum specialists. 9 . . . . Michigan Audio Visual Association, "Certification Task Force," paper presented to the Board of Directors of the Association in November 1972, p. 2. 7 specialists in Michigan. In the spring of 1973, this com­ mittee surveyed the membership of both organizations to determine, among other things, approximately what percen­ tage of the membership supported the concepts of: national and/or state certification of professional media special­ ists, such certification based on print and nonprint media combined, competency-based certification, and exempting current practitioners from complying with the requirements for certification. Data from the survey indicated a majority of the respondents were receptive to: national and state certification of professional media personnel, standards for such certification to include both print and nonprint media, competency-based certification, and current professional media practitioners complying with certifica­ tion requirements. Faced with these apparent mandates from both mem­ berships, the Joint MAVA-MASL Certification Committee pro­ ceeded with the task of developing guidelines for competency-based certification of media specialists in Michigan. The Committee firmly believed that competency- based guidelines, developed by a cross-representation of media practitioners in Michigan, would provide the soundest and most workable basis for certification of media "^T. Burford and J. McWatt, "The Problem of Standards for Licensing/Certification of Media Personnel," paper presented at the Joint Spring Conference of the Mich­ igan Audio Visual Association and the Michigan Association of School Librarians, Grand Rapids, Michigan, May 1973, pp. 1-4. 8 professionals in Michigan. The Committee also recognized that the thrust for certification of media professionals in Michigan is by the media professionals, not from the Department of Education. Therefore, after the Committee has formulated the guidelines for certification of media i professionals, which meet with the approval of the new organization, the Michigan Association for Media in Edu­ cation,"^ a strategy will need to be developed and employed to bring about actual certification by the state of Mich­ igan, using these guidelines as the basis for such certification. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to: 1. Provide the media professionals who desire certification by the state of Michigan with facilitating and inhibiting factors that could be of value in expedit­ ing the achievement of such certification. 2. Make those educators who are in a position to influence the establishment of certification in Michigan, i.e., the State Superintendent, State Board of Education members, deans of Colleges of Education, and others, aware that media professionals desire certification and that such '^Michigan Association for Media in Education is the new organization formed after the dissolution of the Michigan Audio Visual Association and the Michigan Asso­ ciation of School Librarians on January 1, 1974. The membership of the new organization is essentially the combined memberships of the former organizations. 9 certification appears to be in the best interest of educa­ tion in Michigan. Need for the Study Dr. Thomas Burford of Wayne State University, Chairman of the Certification Committee for the Michigan Association for Media in Education, reviewed the concept of this study and expressed the opinion that the outcome of such research could be of considerable value to his committee and thus to the media profession in Michigan. Dr. George Grimes, 13 12 past president of the Michigan Audio Visual Association, concurred with Dr. Burford and sug­ gested that such research is essential to expediting the desired certification in Michigan. One of the stated purposes of the study is to make certain educators aware that media professionals desire certification. Since a new organization has recently formed in Michigan which represents the media profes­ sionals, namely the Michigan Association for Media in Education, a positive outcome of the study, if conducted in the name of the association, would be greater and more rapid recognition of the association than would naturally 12 . Thomas Burford, Wayne State University, to Charles Schuller, Michigan State University, 12 April 1974, Personal Files of Castelle Gentry, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 13 Dr. Grimes was president of the Michigan Audio Visual Association at the time the Certification Task Force was formulated. 10 occur. This result becomes more significant when one realizes that the Michigan Association for Media in Edu­ cation, still in its first year, represents over eleven hundred media professionals. From a national viewpoint, the results of this research, although basic to Michigan, might hold a similar significance for other states. As previously mentioned, most states either have some form of certification for media professionals or desire such certification; however, only New Jersey, Utah and Washington currently have any 14 form of competency-based certification. The methodology of the study might be worthy of duplication by state organ­ izations wishing to determine similar information related directly to their specific state. The literature indicates that, in the future, educational certification will most likely be based on verification of competency within the area in which cer­ tification is sought. If this becomes reality, the results of the proposed research should become significant beyond the confines of Michigan. The Association for Educational Communications and Technology recently has begun to publish several documents related to research findings concerning certification of media specialists. There would appear to ■^William C. Grady, "Certification of Educational Media Personnel," pp. 29-31. 11 to be a place in future editions of these and other related publications for the findings of this' study. This study could also provide support for related studies, for example, "The Roles of the School Library Media Specialist in the Future." 15 It might also comple­ ment or enhance current investigations such as "A Survey of the Current Practitioners' Opinion Regarding Certification of Media Specialists in the State of Michigan." 16 Both of these studies are more fully discussed in the related research section of this proposal. The Research Questions This study should produce data which will enable the investigator to answer the following research ques­ tions: 1. Based on the opinions of persons identified as those having some influence on educational certifica­ tion in Michigan: "What are the factors which are most likely to facilitate the effective implementation of competency-based certification of educational media specialists by the state of Michigan?" 15 Margaret Jetter, "The Roles of the School Library Media Specialist in the Future" (Ph.D. disser­ tation, Michigan State University, 1973) . ■^Gregory Overland, "A Survey of the Current Practitioners' Opinion Regarding Certification of Media Specialists in the State of Michigan" (Ph.D. dissertation underway at Wayne State University, 1974). 12 2. Based on the opinions of persons identified as those having some influence on educational certification in Michigan: "What are the factors which are most likely to inhibit the effective implementation of competency-based certification of media specialists by the state of Mich­ igan?" Limitations The broad area of the investigation is certifica­ tion of educators. More precisely, however, the study is designed to determine the facilitating and inhibiting factors to certification of media specialists by the state of Michigan. The basic purpose of the study is to provide those persons who seek to implement competency-based cer­ tification of media specialists in Michigan with predict­ able factors that facilitate or inhibit such an effort. Therefore, the population surveyed by the study is limited to and selected from those individuals determined to be most familiar with the current educational and political systems of Michigan. It is acknowledged that inherent in the study is the limitation that the facilitating and inhibiting factors are limited to those identified by the study participants. The investigator recognized the necessity for reviewing similar proceedings in other states to develop the most productive strategies for the design of the study. 13 Assumptions In dealing with the problem and attempting to answer the research questions, this study is based upon the following assumptions: 1. A group of persons can be identified whose opinions concerning certification of media specialists are apt to be quite reliable. 2. By applying the proper techniques, the opin­ ions of the above group of persons can be analyzed. 3. The analysis of their opinions will provide significant data upon which conclusions can be drawn in regard to the basic problem of the study. 4. Certification of educational media specialists in Michigan is considered a desirable process by many, if not the majority, of the media professionals in Michigan. 5. Media professionals in Michigan prefer competency-based certification. Definitions Terms used in the study are based on definitions found in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Exceptions are as follows: Competency Based— requires a person to demonstrate mastery of learning behaviors by meeting explicit perfor­ mance criteria, matched with explicit performance objec­ tives . 14 Delphi Technique— a process for the controlled elicitation of group opinion by an iterative use of ques­ tionnaires with a selective feedback of earlier group responses as an informational input for later reference by group members. Educational Media— those media which are used in the formalized educational process by the instructor or the learner or by both. Media Aide--a media staff member with clerical or secretarial competence. The aide receives specific instruc­ tions about the tasks he performs. Media Manager— a person who exercises direction and leadership for optimum operation of an educational media program. Media Specialist--an individual who has broad, professional preparation in educational media and meets the requirements for teaching. The services of the media specialist must be based on: 1. Insight into the learning and communications process. 2. Understanding of curriculum and new instruc­ tional patterns. 3. Ability to inspire and gain the respect of other professional staff members. 4. Skill in the management of media services. 15 5. Comprehension of the broad spectrum of tech­ nology in instructional communications and its place in education. Media Technician— a media staff member who has training below the media specialist level, but has special competencies in one or more of the following fields: graphic production and display, information and materials processing, equipment operations and simple maintenance, and photographic reproduction. Overview of the Study The background for the study was developed in Chapter I. This background included the purpose of the study, need for the study, the research questions to be answered by the study, the limitations and underlying assumptions of the study, definition of terms used, and an overview of the dissertation. A review of the research literature related to the study is presented in Chapter II. divided into three major areas: This review is certification of educa­ tional media specialists nationwide, certification of edu­ cators by the state of Michigan, and the Delphi Technique as a research method. In Chapter III the design of the oped. The information presented in this study is devel­ chapter includes: the research method, the method of participant selection, the procedures used in the study, a statement of the 16 research questions, a description of how the data are treated, and a summary of the chapter. The analyses of the data are treated in Chapter IV. A determination of the facilitating factors and inhibiting factors is presented. This is followed by a summary of the results and procedures used in arriving at these conclusions. In Chapter V the summary, conclusions and recom­ mendations are reported. These include recommendations concerning strategies for implementing certification of media specialists by the state of Michigan. Following Chapter V are the Bibliography and Appendices. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In preparing for this study, the writer found it necessary to review the literature in three basic areas: the certification of educational media specialists through­ out the United States, the certification of educators in general by the state of Michigan, and the development of the Delphi Technique as a research tool. These areas were chosen in order to provide: 1. A background on the certification of educa­ tional media specialists as it exists in other states. This would help to establish precedence for certification, as well as give some insight into the various certifica­ tion criteria. 2. Information concerning the history of educa­ tional certification in Michigan. This would help in establishing the types of certification issued by the state, the requirements for such certification, and pos­ sible future certification plans., 3. A basis for the selection of the Delphi Tech­ nique as the research method and to determine if there are advantages to using Delphi rather than the more 17 18 conventional methods, i.e., group discussion and personal interview. The literature for each of these areas is reviewed separately and each in its own chronological order. Certification of Educational Media Specialists During the past six years, considerable effort has been expended studying the broad area related to cer­ tification of media specialists. Prior to 1968, the need for certification of media specialists had been recognized by several states and a few of these had taken steps to develop guidelines for such certification.'*' The wisdom of certification was emphasized as far back as 1962 and documented in the September issue of Audiovisual Instruc­ tion, which stated: Slow but sure signs of the professionalization of the media specialist are beginning to appear in the requirements listed in state department certification manuals. These signs of recognition represent indi­ vidual and cooperative efforts within states. They are the product of hard work on the part of DAVI affiliates whose committees have drafted numerous minimum standards for administrators, state depart­ ment personnel, and other key educators; colleges and universities whose AV personnel have worked to get AV courses into'the curriculum; and dedicated AV consultants in state departments who have written countless memos to their superiors arguing for the recognition and definition of the media specialist's job.2 ^Before 1968, only seven states had any form of certification for media specialists and only ten states were developing guidelines for such certification. ^"Standards for the Media Specialist," Audiovisual Instruction, September 1962, pp. 464-67. 19 The material that followed this statement was a review of standards established in the states of Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota pertaining to the train­ ing of media specialists and its relation to certification in the individual states. It also gave an overview of the consideration being given to the subject in California, Ohio, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. 3 It is interest­ ing that at that time only Indiana actually had a form of certification in effect. Of the eight states considering some form of certification for media specialists in 1962, seven indicated it would be an endorsement to their stan­ dard teacher certification and that the endorsement would be predicated on the attainment of a specified number of credits or courses in media. Ohio offered certification for Educational Administrative Specialist in five areas, one of which was Instructional Service. However, no spe­ cific requirements for this certificate could be linked to the media specialists per se. Another interesting point is that in North Carolina discussion of a proposed certi­ fication plan indicated a desire to stress competency-based requirements and yet in 197 3, some eleven years later, an article was published, entitled "North Carolina Moves 4 Toward Competency-Based Media Preparation Programs." ^Ibid., pp. 466-67. 4James W. Carruth, "North Carolina Moves Toward Competency-Based Media Preparation Programs," Audiovisual Instruction, May 1973, pp. 33-34. 20 A review of the literature of 1965 shows the states of Illinois, Minnesota, and Florida to have some form of media specialist's certification in effect. It must be noted, however, that only Minnesota's certification appeared to hold any real potential significance to the media specialists. This point was brought out by Robert Bauman when he wrote: Even in its present state, the program of certifica­ tion has enhanced the AV program in the schools of Minnesota considerably since 1962. It has encouraged stronger AV training programs in the state's teacher education institutions, established greater respect for and more professionalism in the field and devel­ oped a unity through common experience for the field and especially the state organization.-* In contrast, James Sexson said of Illinois' certi­ fication code: Although the State Standard Special Certificate now allows the endorsement in audiovisual, library, and instructional materials, as well as in any of the subject areas, the value of this certificate is weak­ ened by the interpretation of the number of hours required in the area of specialization. The Certi­ fication Board has interpreted the required 32 hours of specialization to mean 32 hours in the field of audiovisual, and I strongly suspect that fewer than a dozen people in our state can qualify under this strict interpretation. To my knowledge, no one has ever applied for the certificate.6 Of Florida's certification code, as it existed in 1965, Ted Rosa stated: 5 Robert A. Bauman, "Minnesota," Audiovisual Instruction, December 1965, pp. 788-89. ®James E. Sexson, "Illinois," Audiovisual Instruc­ tion, December 1965, p. 787. 21 The past and present Florida certification require­ ments for "Library and Audiovisual Service" have been of little or no benefit to the audiovisual field because they are heavily weighted in the area of library science, making it very difficult for a per­ son interested in audiovisual instruction to enter this field. . . . Of the 24 semester hours required for certification in Library and Audiovisual Service, only two semester hours must be taken in audiovisual instruction, while six semester hours must be taken in books and related materials for young people; six semester hours in organization and administration of libraries, including a course in school libraries or material centers; two semester hours in classifica­ tion and cataloging.^ In 1966, the Teachers Certification Board for the state of Illinois accepted reports that provided greater clarity to the existing requirement of thirty-two semester hours in the area of specialization for the standard g special certificate with an audiovisual endorsement. The reports provided for three different endorsements, namely the instructional media specialist, audiovisual, and supervisory. The basic requirement still remained thirty-two semester hours of specialization. However, for the instructional materials specialist these could be a combination of library science and audiovisual courses, for the audiovisual endorsement a minimum of sixteen semes­ ter hours in library science and sixteen semester hours in audiovisual education. 7 Ted Rosa, "Florida," Audiovisual Instruction, December 1965,. pp. 793-94. O James A. Boula, Maurice Iverson, and Loran C. Twyford, Jr., "Certification of Media Specialists: Illinois, New York, and Wisconsin," Audiovisual Instruction, February 1967, p. 117. 22 The New York State Education Department provided for the certification of directors of educational communications in 1967. 9 This was strictly an administrative position reflecting the expanded role of the audiovisual director. The requirements for such certification were merely an extension of one's education on the graduate level, and three years teaching experience. A total of sixty semester hours of graduate study, of which fifteen must be in educational communications, was the specific course work requirement. This certification became manda­ tory in 19 69 and remains the only media specialist type of certification in New York State at the time of this writing. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction adopted as part of its certification code the certifica­ tion of audiovisual directors and audiovisual coordina­ tors in 1966 to become effective by January of 1 9 6 7 . ^ Certification became compulsory for newly appointed per­ sonnel by the school year 1967-68. The Wisconsin Code stipulated that for certification as an audiovisual director, one must possess a valid Wisconsin teacher's certificate, have at least three years of successful teach­ ing experience, and have completed at least fifteen semes­ ter hours in audiovisual instruction. 9 Ibid. 10Ibid., p. 119. For certification 23 as an audiovisual coordinator, the qualifications were: possess a valid Wisconsin teacher’s certificate and have completed at least four semester hours in audiovisual instruction. The Wisconsin Code points out that certi­ fication as audiovisual director or audiovisual coordi­ nator is in relation to all technological aids to the instructional program such as films, recorded materials, radio, television, and other modern communications devices and materials; it does not specify print material, nor does it specify the acceptance of library science in its requirements. By 1968, national interest toward certification of media specialists was developing. Besides the articles that were written concerning the individual states' attempts at certification of media specialists, research and position papers provided some semblance of synthesis. One of these was a position paper prepared for the Board of Directors of the Department of Audiovisual Instruction of the National Education Association, which provided that board with an overview of technology in the modern school, role of the media professional, qualifications and func­ tions of the media professional, media professionals' functions at the various levels of education, and the general preparation required of the media professional.^ "^Kenneth Norberg et al., "The Role of the Media Professional in Education," Audiovisual Instruction, December 1967, pp. 1027-29. 24 The Department of Audiovisual Instruction's Certification Committee, chaired by Clark P. Shelby, 12 published a proposed audiovisual certification requirements guideline, in order to garner constructive criticism from the media profession, and to assist states seeking to develop guide­ lines for certification. The committee established three levels of professional endeavor with requirements as follows: I. Requirements for the Chief Audiovisual Media Specialist for a school district or regional instruction materials center: A. A Masters degree (or 30 graduate credits beyond the B.A.). B. A valid State Teaching and Administrative Certificate and three years of successful teaching experience. C. Thirty credit hours in the following areas: 1. Eighteen credits in audiovisual courses including Methods and Selection, Produc­ tion Laboratory, Administration, and Communications. 2. Twelve credits in the following areas (at least three areas must be represented in the courses taken): a. School Administration b. Elementary Education c. Secondary Education d. Supervision of Instruction e. Psychology of Learning f. Library Science g. Statistics and Methods of Research D. At least two years of experience as an Audio­ visual Building Coordinator or equivalent. E. Allowances 1 . Certified personnel currently administer­ ing district or regional audiovisual programs may be granted up to five years to acquire these certification requirements "^Clark A. Shelby, "Certification for AV Special­ ists," Audiovisual Instruction, December 1967, pp. 1032-34. 25 II. III. Requirements for the Building Audiovisual Media Specialist for high schools and junior colleges: A. Masters degree (or 30 graduate credits beyond the B .A . ). B. A valid state teaching certificate. C. Two years of successful teaching experience. D. Twenty credit hours in the following areas: 1. Twelve credits in audiovisual courses including Methods, Selection, Production, Communications, and Administration. 2. Eight credit hours from the following areas (at least three areas must be represented in the courses taken): a. Secondary Education b. Elementary Education c. Psychology of Learning d. School Administration e. Research Methods f. Library Science g. Supervision of Instruction Requirements for the Elementary School Building Audiovisual Coordinator: A. Baccalaureate degree B. A valid state teaching certificate and one year of successful teaching experience C. Twelve credits in the following areas: 1. Six credits in audiovisual courses including Evaluation, Utilization, Production, and Administration. 2. Six credits from: a. School Administration b. Elementary Education c. Secondary Education d. Supervision of Instruction e. Psychology of Learning f. Library Science g. Statistics and Methods of Research D. Allowances 1. Certified personnel currently functioning as Audiovisual Building Coordinators may be allowed up to two years to satisfy these requirements. Even though these proposed guidelines follow a pat­ tern similar to existing certification requirements in terms of minimum number of courses in prescribed areas, they 13Ibid., pp. 1033-34. 26 reflect another phenomenon of the time, of including all types of media training, both print and non-print. Many of the states by this time were developing unified instruc­ tional media programs, while still recognizing, as did Wisconsin, 14 the apparent need for media specialists with specific expertise in one of the two major areas, print and non-print. Occasionally, however, someone spoke out for the need of an educational media specialist with com­ petencies in both print and non-print media. spokesman was Clinton West, 15 One such who stated: A frequently missing agent in this picture of pro­ gress is the well-trained educational media special­ ist. He is usually responsible for establishing environmental facilities and content resources. He makes it possible for the teacher to use the best elements of our technological advances. In short, he maximizes the chances of success toward attain­ ment of a basic goal to provide an education limited only by the capabilities of the learner.16 Utah adopted a certification code for instructional media endorsement which became effective September, 1968. On the surface, the requirements appeared to be similar to those in other states, with the exception that in Wisconsin Department of Audiovisual Instruction, "The Role of School Librarians and Audiovisual Specialists," Audiovisual Instruction, April 1968, pp. 378-79. 15 L. Clinton West was with the Bureau of Educa­ tional Personnel Development Division of Program Admin­ istration of the U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C.. I /T L. Clinton West, "A New Partnership Is Needed," Audiovisual Instruction, October 1968, p. 926. 27 addition to holding a teaching certificate and a speci­ fied number of credits, the applicant needed to demon­ strate proficiency in specific areas. This is apparently the first certification that qualifies as competency based. Some researchers 17 fail to recognize Utah's cer­ tification as being competency based, most likely on the basis that a recommending institution attests to the pro­ ficiency level of the applicant and usually through course work. However, the state board of education issued a recommended proficiency guidelines document 18 of some twenty-two pages, which has in its introduction the fol­ lowing statement: Before recommending a candidate to the Utah State Board of Education for a media endorsement, the institution should be satisfied that he has acquired the necessary competencies. The recommending insti­ tution is free to determine how the competency will be demonstrated or ascertained. It is, however, recommended that when a candidate believes he already possesses the required competency, the evaluating institution provide a means by which actual posses­ sion of that proficiency can be determined. Competencies may be determined one at a time. In demonstrating competency, alternatives to written responses are encouraged. The competencies listed in this document are specific, leave no doubt about their meaning, and are written as behavioral objectives. 17 Grady, "Certification of Educational Media Personnel," p. 32. 18 Utah State Board of Education, Recommended Proficiency Guidelines for Media Endorsements (Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah State Board of Education, 1968). 28 By 1969, many articles began to appear under the headings of professionalism, certification, preparation of media personnel, all reflecting the movement toward certification of media specialists. In one such article by Sidney Eboch was the statement, "In attaining and main­ taining true professional status, one of the most powerful tools of any organized group is the licensing procedure for group membership," 19 which seemingly portrayed the feeling of a substantial portion of the educational media specialists community. Another significant trend in 1969 was that of specifying desired requirements for certification in terms of the functions or competencies of the media specialists. For example, Grady developed the role of the media special­ ist and the expectations of this person before translat­ ing them into recommended courses to meet certification requirements. 20 Grady was a member of the Department of Audiovisual Instruction Certification Committee and was reporting on the revision of the proposed certification requirements as published in the 1967 report by Clark Shelby. Shortly thereafter, the committee presented its report to the Board of Directors of DAVI, who endorsed it 19 Sidney C. Eboch, "Toward a Professional Cer­ tification," Audiovisual Instruction, April 1969, pp. 72-74. 20 William F. Grady, "The Preparation and Certi­ fication of Educational Media Personnel," Audiovisual Instruction, January 1969, pp. 29-31. 1. 29 and published it under the title 21 fication of AV Specialists. Guidelines for Certi- The final draft of this document provided for two levels of certification, the requirements for each level stated first in terms of hours of course work in specified areas and secondly, in terms of areas of competency. The two levels were identified as a minimal audiovisual program and a more sophisticated audiovisual program. These criteria for certification are still being published by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, the new name for the Depart­ ment of Audiovisual Instruction. The Department of Audiovisual Instruction and the American Association of School Librarians prepared a Set of Standards for School Media Programs 22 in 1969 and defined the media specialist as: . . . an individual who has broad professional prep­ aration in educational media. If he is responsible for instructional decisions, he meets requirements for teaching. Within this field there may be several types of specialization, such as (a) level of instruc­ tion, (b) areas of curriculum, (c) type of media, and (d) type of service. In addition, other media special­ ists, who are not responsible for instructional deci­ sions, are members of the professional media staff and 21 Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Guidelines for Certification of Media Special­ ists (Washington, D.C.: Association for Educational Com­ munications and Technology, 1972), pp. 5-8. 22 American Association of School Librarians and Department of Audiovisual Instruction, Standards for School Media Programs (Chicago: American Library Association, 1969; Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969) . 30 need not have teacher certification, e.g. certain types of personnel in television, and other media preparation areas.^3 The Standards did not recommend any criteria for certification of media specialists. Basically, however, it did recommend a unified media program for the school. This fact has stimulated considerable discussion and joint meetings between affected professional organizations, and is bound to reflect upon subsequent certification require­ ments . •Connecticut, Idaho, North Dakota, and Oklahoma had joined the ranks of states offering certification of media specialists by 1970. This brought the total number offering such certification to fifteen. Connecticut cer­ tification was for an administrative or supervisory role. The basic requirements were a master's degree, a teaching certificate, five years of teaching experience, and fifteen semester hours in audiovisual courses beyond the master's degree. Idaho offered certification for an educational media generalist, requiring a bachelor's degree, a teach­ ing certificate, three years of classroom teaching experi­ ence, and twenty-four semester hours of audiovisual courses including six in related areas. Certification in North Dakota and Oklahoma took on a more complex form, since it is possible to acquire more than one type of certification. North Dakota offered the following certificates: 23 Ibid., p . x v . 31 Library— requiring bachelor's degree, teaching certifi­ cate, recommended classroom teaching, sixteen semester hours of library science. Library— AV— requiring bachelor's degree, teaching cer­ tificate, one or more years of teaching exper­ ience, ten semester hours of audiovisual courses, sixteen semester hours of library science. Audiovisual— requiring bachelor's degree, teaching cer­ tificate, one or more years of teaching experi­ ence, twelve semester hours of audiovisual courses. Media Director--requiring master's degree, teaching certificate, one or more years of teaching experience, ten semester hours of audiovisual courses, and sixteen semester hours of library science. The differences in the types of media certificates issued in Oklahoma are related more to duration or advance­ ment than to level or function. There is a temporary certificate requiring a bachelor's degree, a teaching cer­ tificate, two years of teaching experience, and eight semes­ ter hours of audiovisual courses. Next is the provisional certificate requiring, in addition to the above, two semes­ ter hours of audiovisual courses and eight semester hours of 32 related courses. Finally, they offer an audiovisual specialist + standard certificate requiring an additional five semester hours of audiovisual courses and seven semester hours in related subjects. "When AV people congregate these days, chances are that before long some of them will ask who they are, what their function should be, and how much security can they expect in today's rapidly changing world," Vergis in 1970. 24 said John Dr. Vergis, of Arizona State University, was speaking at an open forum in Detroit, relative to the 1969 DAVI/AASL Standards. Most of his statements were built around the premise that media programs would even­ tually become unified and thus demand personnel well versed in media as communications. He concluded with a predic­ tion about personnel requirements of the future by stating, "As our field crystallizes into new and more exciting pat­ terns, there will continue to be a shift, a shifting of media personnel. Those with the most appropriate compe- tencies will displace those with the least." 25 Statements such as this on the national level indicated a trend for the 197 0's toward competency-based credentialing or certi­ fication. By 1970, however, only Utah had a certification 24 John Vergis, "An Open Forum— Together or Separate, Audiovisual Instruction, October 1970, p. 22. ^ I b i d ., p . 25 . 33 program for media specialists that could be termed competency based. In 1971, Massachusetts joined the ranks of those states offering some form of certification for media specialists, bringing the total to sixteen at that time. A letter from Dr. Phillip Sleeman, chairman of the Massa­ chusetts Audio Visual Association Certification Committee, to the Department of Audio Visual Instruction staff, dated July 10, 1970, contained the following statement: On June 22, 1970, the Governor signed into legislation for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a bill "Provid­ ing that the Board of Education Grant Certificates to Certain Audio Visual Media Specialists." For the first time in the history of the Commonwealth, per­ sonnel holding a media position must be certified. The philosophy, rationale and intent of this bill requiring certification of media personnel is simple: To guarantee that every child, teacher and adminis­ trator involved in the learning-teaching-administration process in the Commonwealth, be guaranteed the oppor­ tunity of working with media personnel certified to have the minimum competencies so necessary to main­ tain pace with the continual growth in our educational technological s o c i e t y . 26 Although Sleeman referred to necessary competencies for media personnel, Massachusetts certification (which did not become effective until 1974), 27 like that of most of the other states, was based on a degree, a teaching cer­ tificate, and a set number of semester hours of accredited media courses. 26 "AECT News," Audiovisual Instruction, September 1970, p. 71. 27 Grady, "Certification of Educational Media Per­ sonnel," p. 29. 34. One of the motivational factors attributed to the movement toward certification of media specialists, according to Robert E. Fite, 28 is: "The grass roots mem­ bership in the Association for Educational Communications and Technology can't wait idly by and see their jobs being filled by those who have not successfully completed college or university-level audiovisual courses." 29 He called this fact a search for certification for identity. Whether this was truly a significant factor or not, the profession did witness a 73 percent increase in the number of states offering certification of media specialists by March, 1973, two years after the publication of Fite's article. Included in the 73 percent increase were Arkansas, Hawaii, Massa­ chusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming. Arkansas, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Washington offered certification at one level only. Their requirements included a bachelor's degree and a teaching certificate. Arkansas and New Jersey required teaching experience but Massachusetts, Nebraska, and Washington did not. New Jersey's and Washington's 28 Dr. Robert E. Fite was a former national member­ ship and affiliate relations director for the Department of Audiovisual Instruction and as such had an opportunity to familiarize himself with the many issues involved in certification nationwide. 29 Robert E. Fite, "Certification for Identity," Educational Screen and Audiovisual Guide, March 1971, p. 19. 35 certification was competency based, while Arkansas, Massachusetts and Nebraska required from eighteen to thirty semester hours of media or related areas. Three states provided for certification at two different levels; they were Hawaii, Missouri, and Oregon. The entrance level in all three states required a bach­ elor's degree, a teaching certificate, and eighteen to twenty-one semester hours in media work. None of the three required experience beyond student teaching at the entrance level. The advanced level of certification in these states had varying requirements. Hawaii required a master's degree or a minimum of thirty hours beyond the bachelor's teaching certificate, one year's experience, and twenty-one semes­ ter hours in media work. Missouri required a master's degree, a permanent teaching certificate, at least two years' media experience, eighteen semester hours in audio­ visual courses and eighteen semester hours in library science. Oregon merely increased the semester hour requirement by fifteen hours. South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming established three levels of certification. The only significant difference in the requirements at each level in South Dakota was an increase in semester hours of media work. South Dakota required a bachelor's degree, a teaching certificate, and ten to eighteen semester hours of media work, depending on the level of certification sought. The requirements in 36 Texas were: Level I— bachelor's degree, teaching certifi­ cate, and eighteen semester hours of media work; Level II— master's degree, teaching certificate, three years of teaching experience, and eighteen semester hours of media work; Level III--master's degree, teaching certificate, three years of experience at Levels I or II, and twelve semester hours of media work. The significant difference in the requirements by Wyoming at the three levels was in experience and semester hours of media work. All three levels required a bachelor's degree and a teaching certifi­ cate; however, the experience required varied from none to five years, and semester hours of media courses varied from twelve to thirty. Several states are currently in the process of developing plans for certification of media specialists and several more are revising existing certification codes. Among those currently seeking certification is Michigan. The Michigan Association for Media in Education has a com­ mittee developing guidelines for competency--based certi­ fication, which it hopes the Department of Education will adopt in the near future. This study was conducted to help expedite the implementation of that certification. Some of the states that are revising their existing certification appear to be seeking a competency-based 37 program. 30 The competency-based criteria for media cer­ tification is the most significant recent development in the certification process. In the past few years, several significant studies have emerged, which provide support for the development of competency-based certification. Among the most outstanting of these studies are: Jobs in Instructional Media Study, Behavioral Requirements Analy­ sis Checklist (an outgrowth of the School Library Manpower Project 31 ), and Media Guidelines. Jobs in Instructional Media S-udy 32 provided an abundance of information related to the types of tasks being performed by the various instructional media person­ nel across the nation. The report classified media per­ sonnel according to job-related tasks, which in essence provides us with job descriptions for the majority of instructional media personnel of that period. Data from this study have been and are being used for determining which competencies to include in certification programs. The JIMS study is the most comprehensive study of its type ^ J a m e s W. Carruth, "North Carolina Moves Toward Competency-Based Media Preparation Programs," Audiovisual Instruction, May 1973, pp. 33-34. 31 Robert N. Case and Anna Mary Lowrey, School Library Manpower Project Phase I— Final Report (Chicago: American Library Association, 1970). 32 The JIMS study was carried out under a grant from the Office of Education, Department of Health, Educa­ tion and Welfare. 38 to date, and its structure includes a list'of behavioral objectives developed for each function performed by media personnel. The Behavioral Requirements Analysis Checklist, known as BRAC, is a compilation of competency-based job functions and task statements for school library media personnel. Each major area of competency and its definition is presented as a separate section of BRAC. Each broad competency area is broken down into behaviorally stated job functions supported by task state­ ments. The task statements represent the required behaviors of the school library media specialist who functions as a generalist in a school library media center.3 3 A major difference between the JIMS study and BRAC is the inclusion of non-professional jobs and their related tasks by the JIMS study. Both studies, however, list tasks related to all types of media, both print and non-print. [The Media Guidelines Project] employed intensive job analysis and clustering techniques aimed at determining competencies currently being performed in managing, developing, and utilizing media in instruction. The purpose of the project was to pro­ duce guidelines and other information for planning media training programs and evaluating media-related training proposals and training program outputs. The ultimate purpose is to help insure that present and prospective training programs produce the 33 Robert N. Case and Anna Mary Lowrey, Behavioral Requirements Analysis Checklist (Chicago: American Library Association, 1973), p. ix. 39 competencies that will be required five or more years from n o w . 34 The concluding portion of Media Guidelines gave a detailed analysis of job-related functions reported in terms of the tasks performed by media specialists, very similar to the method used in the JIMS study and the Behavioral Require­ ments Analysis Checklist. As previously mentioned, Robert Heinich, president of AECT, appointed a task force to work on problems per­ taining to certification of educational communications and technology personnel in December, 1971. This task force held fifteen working sessions over the three-year period. Ten of these sessions were held to plan, to synthesize collected data, and to write and rewrite its report. Included in these meetings were three sessions to solicit feedback and reactions from the membership at large. The first was held at the Northeast Regional Leader­ ship Conference in January, 1973 in Newport, Rhode Island, with 80 persons in attendance. The second was held at the National Convention in April, 197 3 in Las Vegas, with 24 0 persons in attendance. The third and final meeting was held at the National Con­ vention in March, 1970 in Atlantic City with 320 persons in attendance.35 34 Dale G. Hamreus, ed., Media Guidelines: Develop­ ment and Validation of Criteria for Evaluating Media Train­ ing, Vol. II (Monmouth, Oregon: Division of Teaching Research, Oregon State System for Higher Education, June 1970) , p. i. 35William F. Grady and Clarence O. Bergeson, "Accreditation and Certification: A Report," Audiovisual Instruction, November 1974, p. 11. 40 During the National Convention of AECT in Atlantic City between March 17 and 22, 1974, the Certification Task Force presented the Board of Directors with a substantial written report. 36 In this report, the Task Force recom­ mended: 1. That serious consideration be given to the approval and publication of these guidelines; 2. That a vehicle be established whereby contin­ uing study can be made of the impact of the Guidelines in the field for further revision and refinement; 3. That a vehicle be established to develop guidelines for the certification of educational communi­ cations and technology personnel graduating from two-year programs; 4. That a vehicle be established to study the problems of "certifying" aides, as defined in this report; and 5. That a vehicle be established to study the role of the technician in instructional program develop4. 37 ment. 36 William F. Grady, James W. Brown, and Roland Mergener, "Certification Task Force: Report to the AECT Board of Directors" (Atlantic City, New Jersey, March 17, 1974) . "^Ibid., p. 2 . 41 The first of these recommendations has been complied with, and the guidelines were published in the periodical Audio­ visual Instruction. ^ The guidelines recognized three areas of responsi­ bility in the field, namely: media management, media product development, and instructional program development. Within each of these areas of responsibility, the guidelines call for certification at two levels of complexity, which are termed technician and specialist, the specialist being the more complex of the two. The Task Force then identi- fied nine functions within the three major areas. 39 A list of competencies or tasks that existed within these functions and that could be assigned a level of complexity was then determined. These competencies or tasks were adapted from the Jobs in Instructional Media Study pre•*. ^ 40 viously cited. The Task Force recommended that certification in each of the three areas and at the two levels of complex­ ity be based on: (a) appropriate competencies, (b) formal education, and (c) experience. 38 Certification Task Force, "Guidelines for Certification of Personnel in Educational Communications and Technology," Audiovisual Instruction, November 1974, pp. 2069. 39Ibid., p. 20. ^Certification Task Force, "Appendix A — A Compe­ tency and Task List for Specialists and Technicians in Media Management, Media Product Development and Instructional Program Development," Audiovisual Instruction, November 1974, p. 29. 42 It is interesting that even though the Task Force was aware of the prevalent practice of certifying media specialists by the states offering such certification, being based upon completion of a minimum number of semes­ ter hours of media courses, that it chose to base its recommendations upon specific competencies. It did not, however, state how a candidate for certification should be judged to possess the stated competencies. This may have been, in effect, leaving the way open for institutional recommendations for certification based upon satisfactory completion of a prescribed set of course offerings, which would include student learning of the required competen­ cies . Also worthy of note is the fact that all competen­ cies or tasks were extracted from only the JIMS study, rather than selection from the several major related studies, e.g., Behavioral Requirements Checklist and the School Manpower Project. The Task Force did not recommend certification for the technician level of instructional program develop­ ment at the time of its report, because there appeared to be an insufficient number of related tasks to warrant certification.4'^ ^Certification Task Force, "Guidelines for Cer­ tification," p. 21. 43 David Bender, Assistant Director, Maryland State Department of Education, Division of Library Development and Services, is chairman of the American Association of School Librarians Certification of Media Personnel Commit­ tee. Under Dr. Bender's leadership, a subcommittee of the Certification of Media Personnel Committee met in Pennsylvania in October, 1974, to develop a model for media personnel certification. 42 The model is being developed and field tested under the J. Morris Jones-World Book Encyclopedia-American Library Association Goals Award of $12,000 given to the American Association of School Libraries for 1974-75. While the two national organiza­ tions, AECT and AASL, representing media personnel are not working jointly on the question of certification, they are both actively engaged in individual endeavors to give direction to the certification movement. The model being developed by AASL is consistent with the new joint stan­ dards adopted by AASL and AECT according to the editors of American Libraries, which also states: "The certifica­ tion model will be offered to the states to assist in revising certification that is consistent with nationally and professionally accepted terminology in library media programs and education. 42 "Certification Model Developed," American Libraries, November 1974, p. 562. 4 3 t, • , Ibid. 44 Summary Even though interest in certification of media specialists was indicated over a decade ago, no signifi­ cant adoption of certification codes involving media specialists by individual states occurred prior to 1965. That year, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota offered some form of certification for media specialists. By 1971, there were sixteen states that provided for cer­ tification of media specialists and by 1973 twenty-six offered such certification. Of the states certifying media specialists in 197 3, the approximate average requirements included: a bachelor's degree, a valid teacher's certificate, and fifteen to twenty-four credits in media and related areas. Three of the twenty-six states offered competencybased certification. National media organizations, the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, and the American Association of School Librarians have developed certifica­ tion guidelines or models that are either competency based or task oriented. These national exemplary guides are designed to assist those states seeking certification, as well as those attempting to revise existing certification codes. Several major research studies are available that have determined a substantial number of the functions of 45 current media specialists and the competencies or tasks necessary to perform these functions satisfactorily. These studies, along with the national guidelines developed by AASL and AECT, should provide a significant base for the development of competency-based certification of media specialists. Teacher Certification in Michigan The first legislation to make mention of the cer­ tification of teachers was a law enacted in 1827 by the territorial legislature, to provide for a system of common or primary schools, as they were then called. In section four of the 1828 Territorial Act, the system for certifi­ cating teachers was defined: That the inhabitants of said townships respectively shall choose a suitable number of persons within their respective townships, not exceeding five, who shall be inspectors of schools in said townships respectively; which inspectors shall examine the teachers, and approve or disapprove of the same, . . . three or more of said inspectors shall be com­ petent, both to examine the teachers and the respec­ tive schools, and no person shall be employed as a teacher in any one of the schools in any of the town­ ships or districts in this territory, who shall not have been previously examined by the inspectors aforesaid, and have received a certificate, signed by at least two of said inspectors, importing that he is duly qualified to teach the school for which he may be an applicant, and is of good moral char­ acter; . . . 44 Michigan, Territorial Laws (1827), Vol. 2, p. 474. 46 Michigan became a state in 1835. The first legis­ lation under statehood to provide for teacher certifica­ tion was in 1837. Public Act LXIII provided that candi­ dates for teachers' certificates should be examined for their knowledge of the several branches of study usually taught in the primary grades, their moral character, and their ability to govern a school. 45 ... The responsibility for this certification was given to the township board of school inspectors. However, the legislation made no pro­ vision with respect to the educational qualifications of township inspectors. In 1857, Public Act 104 established the first teaching certificate, issued by the state of Michigan, to be valid in any township or county in the state. 46 This was also the first life certificate to be issued in the state. The act provided: That the board of instruction of the State Normal School is authorized to grant to graduates of said institution diplomas, which, when signed by the members of the State Board of Education. . . . Each diploma so conferred shall be accompanied by a certificate, signed by the board of instruction, which, when recorded in the office of the clerk of any township in this state, shall serve the holder as a certificate of qualification to teach in any primary school of said township. . . .47 45 Michigan, Legislature No. LXIII, p.123. Public Acts, 1837, Act 46Michigan, Legislature Act No. 104, pp. 231-32. Public Acts, 1857 Ibid 47 By 1867, the Legislature had established three certificating authorities: (1) The County Superintendent, (2) The State Normal School, and (3) the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The qualifications for certification had been broadened to include satisfactory examination in orthography, reading, writing, grammar, geography, and arithmetic. Certification of public school teachers was mandatory by this time. Certificates issued by the State Normal School and the Superintendent of Public Instruction were lifetime certificates (unless revoked), while the County Superintendent issued three grades of certifica­ tion. The certificates issued by the County Superintendent were valid only in the county issued and for the time specified. In 1891, the University of Michigan was authorized by Public Act 144 to issue life certificates to its graduates. 48 By 1893, the State Board of Education was author­ ized to grant teaching certificates to any person receiv­ ing a bachelor's, master's, or doctor's degree from any college in the state having a course of study of not less than four years, and a teacher preparation program approved by the State Board of Education. 49 48 Michigan, Legislature, Public Acts, 1891, Act No. 144. 49 Michigan, Legislature, Public Acts, 1892, Act. No. 136. 48 With the turn of the century, a trend toward shifting of certification responsibility from several agencies to one state authority began to develop. In 1903, the certification authority of the four state nor­ mal schools was transferred to the State Board of Education. 50 By 1929, the state superintendent was either an active member of each agency issuing teaching certificates or was authorized to prescribe the conditions under which the agency could issue a certificate. Certification of all Michigan teachers was finally delegated to one agency, the State Board of Education, in 1935. 51 The State Board of Education was charged with the development of a teacher certification code which, prior to this time, really never existed. To accomplish this goal, the State Board referred the matter to the Extra Legal Advisory Planning Commission. 52 The Commission examined the types of certificates then in use in Michigan, studied policies and procedures being practiced, reviewed certification requirements in other states and involved interested groups in the state. 50 Michigan, Legislature, Public Acts, 1903, Act No. 202. 51 Michigan, Legislature, Public Acts, 1935, Act No. 55. 52 Lee B. Lonsberry, "A Study of the Historical Development of Teacher Certification in Michigan" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970) . 49 Based on this background, the Commission recommended a certification code, which the State Board of Education adopted in 1936. 53 Since this code, with only minor revisions, was to stand until 1967, it seems appropriate to review the changes brought about by the code: 1. The fifteen former kinds of Michigan teachers' certificates will be replaced by five significantly named certificates: The Elementary Provisional-Permanent Cer­ tificate, the Secondary Provisional-Permanent,...Certificate, the Junior College Certificate, the State Limited Certifi­ cate, and Renewal. 2. "Blanket" certification is eliminated, and certificates will be granted to teachers for elementary grades, or secondary grades or Junior Colleges. 3. Life Certificates will not be granted. 4. Provisional Certificates will be granted to f* graduates from teacher training institutions offering approved four-year courses. 5. Elementary Provisional Certificates will become permanent upon submission of evidence of three years of successful teaching. 6. Secondary Provisional Certificates will become permanent upon completion of three years of successful teaching and additional college work. 53 Ibid., p. 132. 50 7. Provisional and Permanent Certificates will become invalid when the holder is unemployed as a teacher for five years. 8. Limited certificates will be granted to candi­ dates who complete specific one- or two-year courses of study. These certificates are renewable upon completion of additional prescribed college work. Limited certifi­ cates have restricted validity. 9. The regulations of the Certification Code will be placed in force over a period of years. For instance, no Life Certificate will be granted after June 30, 1939. No part of the new Certification Code is retroactive. The State Board of Education will administer the certifi­ cation program in such a manner that no present professional teacher will be penalized. 54 Only minor changes in the 1936 code were made and adopted from its inception in 1936 until its demise in 1967. The development of the 1967 certification code began in 19 54 when the State Board of Education directed its Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Certifica­ tion to proceed with its study of proposed plans for 54Michigan, Department of Public Instruction, Teachers' Certification Code, Bulletin 601 (Lansing: Department of Public Instruction, 1936), p. 8. revision of the certification code. 55 Subsequently, the work of this committee and a second committee was the . basis for the certification code adopted by the State Board of Education in 1967. Despite the sincere efforts of those involved in development of the 1967 code to upgrade the professional level of the Michigan teacher, a careful review of the code provisions reveals that it amounts to little more than an increase and/or shift in emphasis on college credits and degrees. There is no reference in the code to competency of teachers or com­ petencies of teaching. One of the best examples in the 1967 code demonstrating the emphasis on the accumulation of credits rather than on the achievement of competence in teaching is the requirement that teachers with Pro- • visional Certificates must complete an eighteen-semesterhour planned course of study beyond the bachelor's degree. The full implementation of the 1967 code is scheduled for 1976. In 1972, the Michigan Department of Education sub­ mitted to the State Board of Education a document entitled "Four Proposals Regarding Certification and Professional 55 State Board of Education, Minutes of meeting of the Michigan State Board of Education, Lansing, Michigan, December 10, 1954, p. 63. 5 fi Michigan Department of Education, Rules Govern­ ing the Certification of Michigan Teachers (Lansing, Mich. Michigan Department of Education, 1967), Rule 32, p. 29. 52 Development of Michigan Teachers." 57 The introduction reminded the Board of their responsibilities concerning certification and professional development of those per­ sons currently certified. The purpose of the document was to propose the following: 1. That a system of fees be charged for teacher certificates and permits. 2. That a competency- or performance-based cer­ tification system be developed. 3. That a comprehensive professional development program be developed. 4. That a commission on teacher certification and professional development be established to work directly with the State Board of Education. 58 This document holds some relevance to the issue for the competency-based certification of media special­ ists by the state. First, the proposal concerning competency-based or performance-based certification of teachers would establish a preference for this type of cer­ tification over the current system involving credits. Appendix C to the document consisted of a proposed statute to amend sections 851 and 852 of Act No. 269 of the Public 57 Michigan Department of Education, "Four Proposals Regarding Certification and Professional Development of Michigan Teachers" (Lansing, Mich: Department of Education, 1972). (Mimeographed.) 53 Acts of 1955. 59 The proposed revision of Sec. 852 pro­ vided for the State Board of Education's issuance of certificates: " (c) To persons with instructional respon­ sibilities employed other than as a classroom teacher including, but not limited to, administrators and curriculum specialists." 60 This revision could provide for certification of media specialists. Currently, the method of certification, other than that of a classroom teacher, by the state of Michigan is through endorsement of the teaching certificate. are two areas with endorsement at this time: There vocational and counseling. In 1972, the state established a penalty to be assessed against those school districts hiring unqualified teachers. "A district employing teachers not legally qualified shall have deducted the sum equal to one-half the amount paid the teachers." 61 The deduction was to be made from the state support of the offending school dis­ trict. Summary Certification of teachers in Michigan dates back to 1827, before Michigan became a state. From that time 59 Ibid., Appendix C. ^ I b i d ., p. 19 . 61 Michigan, Legislature, Public Acts, 1972, Act No. 258, Sec. 163. t 54 until 1935, certification was generally based on the moral character of the applicant as well as limited educational attainments. The authority for issuing certification shifted many times during this period. The State Board of Education became the sole agency for issuing teacher certification in 1935. In 1936, a certification code was adopted by the Board and remained in effect, with minor revisions, until 1967. This code recognized college degrees and credits in educational training as the basis for certification. In 1967, the present certification code was adopted with full implementation to be effective in 1976. To this code have been added amendments providing for certifica­ tion endorsement in the areas of vocational and counseling. The State Board of Education is currently considering, among other changes, the feasibility of establishing competency-based certification, additional endorsements to the teaching certificate, and certification of educa­ tional personnel other than classroom teachers. Delphi Technique This section of the review of the literature is devoted to examining the utilization made of the Delphi Technique as a method of research, particularly in the field of education. Much of the early development of the process called Delphi Technique can be attributed to Drs. Olaf 55 Helmer and Norman Dalkey. Brownlee Haydon, in a presenta­ tion to the Chevrolet Academy at Wayne State University in 1967, gave Helmer and Dalkey credit for development of the Delphi Technique and stated: Twenty years ago, they suggested that it might be possible to get a better notion of what lies ahead if you ask a panel of experts to give their opin­ ions. The idea is inherently logical, but it attracted little attention at the time. They made a few pilot tests that satisfied them that the idea had promise. Helmer and Dalkey call this the "Delphi technique." 62 Helmer and Dalkey, researchers at the Rand Corpor­ ation, a research and development organization, utilized versions of the Delphi Technique in several of their pro­ jects. Much of their work was in conjunction with military and government contracts and not until recent years have they adapted the technique to educational research. 63 Helmer described the technique this way: The so-called Delphi Technique is a method for the systematic solicitation and collation of expert opinions. It is applicable whenever policies and plans have to be based on informed judgment, and thus to some extent to virtually any decision-making pro­ cess . Instead of using the traditional approach toward achieving a consensus through open discussion, the Delphi Technique in its simplest form, eliminates com­ mittee activity altogether, thus reducing the influ­ ence of certain psychological factors, such as specious persuasion, the unwillingness to abandon publicly expressed opinions, and the bandwagon effect of /T p Brownlee Haydon, The Year 2000 (Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1967), p. 7. Olaf Helmer, The Use of the Delphi Technique in Problems of Educational Innovations (Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1966). 56 majority opinion. This technique replaces direct debate by a carefully designed program of sequen­ tial individual interrogations (best conducted by questionnaires) interspersed with information and opinion feedback derived by computed consensus from the earlier parts of the program.64 In regard to the uses of the Delphi Technique in the field of education, Helmer stated: . . . a district superintendent of public schools, intending to institute a curriculum reform, may want to take opinion soundings through the Delphi Tech­ nique among selected administrators and teachers within his district; a state educational planning office might decide on a building program after first consulting, via Delphi, with the local superintendents; a university's long-range expansion program must recon­ cile the views of its various departments, and a Delphi approach, using one or two administrators and a crosssection of departmental representatives as a panel of respondents, may well be the most appropriate way to achieve this; . . .65 In this same publication, Helmer described in detail a pilot experiment utilizing the Delphi Technique, conducted at the Institute of Government and Public Affairs, UCLA, and sponsored by the Kettering Foundation. The conclusions drawn from the study indicate the methodology used was found to hold much promise for future studies. 66 In a publication prepared for the Revista Italiana di Amministrazione Industriale, Helmer wrote: The effect has been to extend customary planning horizons into a more distant future and to replace haphazard intuitive gambles, as a basis for planning, 64 ., .. Ibid., p . 1. ^^Ibid., p . 6. ^ I b i d . , p . 22 . 57 by sober and craftsmanlike analysis of the opportu­ nities the future has to o f f e r . 67 In elaborating upon this statement, he indicated that there were new and more effective ways of doing something about the future. Further, he projected the idea that a great deal could be said about future trends in terms of probability, and moreover that through proper planning we could exert considerable influence over these probabili­ ties. Of the Delphi Technique as a research method, Helmer said: Among the new methods mentioned above that are under development is one that has become known as the Delphi Technique, which attempts to make effective use of informed intuitive judgment. It derives its impor­ tance from the realization that projections into the future, on which public policy decisions must rely, are largely based on the personal expectations of individuals rather than on predictions derived from well-established theory.68 Much of the Delphi research conducted at Rand was by Dalkey, who defined Delphi as "the name of a set of pro­ cedures for eliciting and refining the opinions of a group of people. In practice, the procedures would be used with a group of experts or especially knowledgeable individuals." 69 Dalkey said the Delphi procedure has three distinctive /* n Olaf Helmer, Analysis of the Future; The Delphi Method (Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1967) , p. 1. ^®Ibid., p . 4 . 69 Normal C. Dalkey, Delphi (Santa Monica, Cali­ fornia: Rand Corporation, 1967), p. 1. 58 characteristics, that of anonymity, controlled feedback, and statistical group response. In support of the Delphi procedure, some of the experiments performed at the Rand Corporation indicated that "when opinions are involved, face-to-face discussion may, more often than not, result in a group opinion which is less accurate than simply the average of the individual opinions without discussion." 70 Robert M. Campbell used the Delphi Technique in a study in which business and economic indices were fore­ cast. He conducted a controlled experiment using stu­ dents in two graduate seminars in business forecasting. Each seminar was divided at random into two equal groups. One group in each seminar used the traditional methods of making business forecasts and the other used the Delphi process. The traditional method allowed participants to interact freely with others in the group for the purpose of obtaining information relative to the forecasts. The Delphi experimental group gave individual responses to a series of four questionnaires over a period of six weeks The group participants who used the Delphi process made more accurate forecasts than the group using the traditional business forecasting technique. 71 70 Norman C. Dalkey, Predicting the Future (Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1968), p. 7. 71 Robert M. Campbell, "A Methodological Study of the Utilization of Experts in Business Forecasting" (Ph.D dissertation, UCLA, 1966). 59 Nicholas Rescher explored the possibility of 72 using the Delphi method in research involving "values.” Rescher reasoned that the Delphi Technique was a tool for testing group opinion and therefore could be directed at group opinion about values as well as facts. He felt the relevant techniques could be deployed in much the usual way, as a means for discovering and sharpening an area of group consensus in the value sphere. In 1970, the dean of the School of Education of the University of Virginia, Dr. Frederick R. Cyphert, used the Delphi Technique in an attempt to assess the needs, desires, and opinions of the school's clientele. 73 In the first Delphi instrument, the participants were asked to suggest prime targets on which the School of Education should concentrate its energies and resources in the next decade. The use of four Delphi instruments was made with a relatively large group of participants. In the research­ ers' conclusions regarding the use of the Delphi Technique, they suggested limiting the number of participants as well as the number of instruments. They suggested three instru­ ments as sufficient to bring about the desired consensus. 72 Nicholas Rescher, Delphi and Values California: Rand Corporation, 1969) . (Santa Monica, ^Frederick R. Cyphert and Walter L. Gant, "The Delphi Technique: A Tool for Collecting Opinions in Teacher Education," Journal of Teacher Education, Fall 1970, pp. 417-25. 60 Concerning the value of the study's findings, the research­ ers concluded, "The data generated by this study are quite usable for assisting in formulating the future targets of the School of Education. 1,74 Timothy Weaver concluded, after studying the Delphi Technique, that any consideration of the future should attempt to clarify what can reasonably be made to happen, in order to furnish the foundation for decision making and for choosing desirable alternatives. 75 Further, said Weaver, the more promising educational applications of the Delphi Technique are in the areas of: (a) a method for studying the process of thinking about the future, (b) a pedagogical tool or teaching tool which forces people to think about the future in a more complex way than they ordinarily would, and (c) a planning tool which may aid in probing priorities held by members and constituents of an o r g a n i z a t i o n . ^6 One of the more recent studies utilizing the Delphi Technique was that of Margaret Jetter at Michigan State University. 77 Her study was designed to elicit the opin­ ions of experts, through the Delphi Technique, concerning their conception of the roles of the school library media specialist of the future. She chose to limit the number 74Ibid., p. 425. 75 Timothy Weaver, "The Delphi Forecasting Method," Phi Delta Kappan, January 1971, pp. 267-71. 7^Ibid., p . 271. 77Jetter, "The Roles." 61 of participants to between fifty and seventy-five, a number considered by some researchers to be the most manageable from a statistical viewpoint. Also, her use of only three Delphi questionnaires is in agreement with the findings of Cyphert, who felt that more than three produce no significant change in opinion and can result in loss of participation. 78 Summary The Delphi Technique is a research method that attempts to make systematic, effective use of informed intuitive judgments by persons in a given field of inquiry about the future conditions of that field. The technique utilizes a series of questionnaires interspersed with information and opinion feedback derived from previous questionnaires. It relies on individual, anonymous response so that each participant can respond according to his own perceptions, with no outside pressure to influence his judgment. By determining a statistical group response, the individual opinion is reflected in the group response. Review of the literature also revealed the Delphi Technique to be of value as a research method in educa­ tional research. ^Ibid. , p. 70. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study was to determine the factors most likely to facilitate and those most likely to inhibit the implementation of competency-based cer­ tification of educational media specialists by the state of Michigan. Since this work was a study of future possi­ bilities, the Delphi Technique, as developed by Olaf Helmer at the Rand Corporation, was selected as the research method.^ This research method in recent years has gained a great deal of recognition as a technique used with the behavioral sciences in the area of prediction. Leading educators were asked to consider what might be the facilitating factors and inhibiting factors to implementation of competency-based certification of Several papers have been published by the Rand Corporation, which explain the development and applica­ tion of the Delphi Technique; e.g.: Bernice B. Brown, Delphi Process: A Methodology Used for the Elicitation of Opinions of Experts (Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1968); Normal C. Dalkey, The Delphi Method: An Experimental Study of Group Opinion (Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1969); Olaf Helmer, Analysis of the Future: The Delphi Method (Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, 1967). 63 educational media specialists by the state of Michigan. '2 These participants were asked to submit a list of factors that, in their opinion, would facilitate competencybased certification of educational media specialists by the state of Michigan and the factors they felt would inhibit such certification'. Next, the participants were asked to evaluate and rate each of the suggested factors, both facilitating and inhibiting, thus indicating the relative importance of each factor as they perceived it. Finally, the participants were provided the opportunity to agree or disagree with the average rating given to each factor (facilitating and inhibiting). The research method, participant selection, proce­ dure of study, research questions, treatment of data, and a summary are included in this chapter. Research Method The Delphi Technique was the method of research selected for this study, because it permitted the acquisi­ tion of individual and group opinion concerning the certification of educational media specialists without 2 These educators were representative of one of the following groups: State Board of Education, Michigan Department of Education, Michigan Education Association, North Central Accreditation Association, Colleges of Education, Colleges of Library Science, Michigan Associa­ tion of Elementary School Principals, Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, Superintendents of K-12 districts, and media staff members (representing K-12 districts and intermediate districts) . 64 encountering some of the problems often associated with the more recognized methods, i.e., interview technique, group discussion, single structured questionnaire, and opinion survey. Olaf Helmer adapted the Delphi Technique to edu­ cational research as a method of data collection to help alleviate the less desirable aspects of the alternate methods listed above. 3 By employing a series of question­ naires, which provide for individual input as well as opinion feedback and the opportunity to change one's opinion, the Delphi Technique overcomes the common group discussion dilemma of compromising divergent views. Influ­ encing factors in the group discussion, i.e., lack of equal participation by all members of the group, domineering individuals, desire to conform, and reluctance to change expressed opinion, are negated by this relatively new tech­ nique . The basic Delphi Technique utilizes a series of questionnaires, 4 usually three or more, each successive one providing information and opinions garnered from the previous one. The technique is intended to make systematic, effective use of informed individuals' intuitive judgments ■^Helmer, Analysis of the Future, p. 7. ^See Appendices B, D, and F. 65 about the future conditions which are most likely to exist in their field of expertise."* The first of the questionnaires provides the par­ ticipant in the study with the opportunity to have direct, individualized input to the total data. No attempt is made at this point to influence or structure the partici­ pant's initial reactions to the stated problem; he is merely requested to consider the situation and state his opinions concerning it. The second questionnaire is basically a compila­ tion of the opinions expressed by all participants respond­ ing to the first questionnaire, and requests the participant to rate the opinions in the order of importance as he per­ ceives them. Thus, participants are given an opportunity to reevaluate their initial thinking, to concur with it or to rate their opinions with those supplied by their col­ leagues . The third questionnaire indicates the results of the ratings established on the second questionnaire, and asks the participants to consider these ratings and to express agreement or disagreement with each one. Subsequent questionnaires provide the participants with the results obtained on the previous one and again seek to develop additional consensus, if any exists. 5 Helmer, Analysis of the Future, p. 4. This 66 technique allows the investigator to ascertain if group consensus about the predictions can actually be substan­ tiated. The interview method was originally considered by the investigator for this study. To achieve the basic results produced by the Delphi Technique, however,.it would have necessitated interviewing each participant at three different times, an extremely difficult task in terms of scheduling and expense. A single interview would have produced initial participant response without the benefit of group feedback, a procedure which provides one with the opportunity to reflect on his decision and to support or revise it. In addition to the advantages previously referred to, the Delphi Technique provides at least two indirect but significant features. The first of these is the participant's development of an awareness of possible options for the future concerning the field of study. This is certainly essential to any significant future long-range planning. The second feature provides a desirable spin­ off in many cases--that of creating an awareness, among influential members of the field of inquiry, of the possi­ bility for future development within the area of study. Participant Selection The selection of participants for the study was primarily determined by first establishing the areas of 67 education whose current practitioners were most likely to have a viable input to the proposed research. With the help of several leading educators in the state of Michigan, 6 the following areas of education or educational groups were determined to have considerable influence upon, knowledge about, and/or be affected by educational cer­ tification in Michigan: State Board of Education Michigan Department of Education Michigan Education Association North Central Accreditation Association Colleges of Education Colleges of Library Science Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals Superintendents of K-12 districts Media staffs serving K-12 districts Previous research has indicated that approximately fifty participants provide the anticipated interaction, and that larger groups become unmanageable in terms of Dr. George Grimes, past president of the Michigan Audio-Visual Association; Ms. Jeannine Marchand, past president of the Michigan Association of School Librarians; Dr. Thomas Burford and Mrs. June McWatt, Co-Chairpersons of the Certification Committee of the Michigan Association for Media in Education; and Dr. James Page of Michigan State University contributed to the determination of the areas for inclusion in this study. 68 questionnaire development. 7 With the limit of fifty par­ ticipants in mind, the determination of how many from each selected area of education had to be made. In arriving at this decision, the following questions were considered: 1. Which organizations or groups within those selected for inclusion in the study would have the greater direct input to implementation of educational certification? 2. Which personnel within the organization are most likely to have the greater influence upon educational certification? 3. Which personnel within the organization are most likely to be affected by educational certification? 4. How large is the organization in terms of personnel? 5. What individual or small group of individuals can best represent the total organization? Utilizing the questions established above, the investigator made the participant selections. It should be noted that the study was conducted by the investigator under the auspices of the Michigan Association for Media in Education. 7 All letters carried the Association letterhead Frederick R. Cyphert and Walter L. Gant, "The Delphi Technique: A Tool for Collecting Opinions in Teacher Education," Journal of Teacher Education, Fall 1970, p. 422. 69 and all other communications indicated that it was an Association study. Data in Table 3.1 report the selection of partici­ pants from representative groups. Table 3.1.— Selection of participants according to representative groups. Group Represented Number Selected State Board of Education 1 Michigan Department of Education 9 Michigan Education Association 2 North Central Accreditation Association 1 Colleges of Education 15 Colleges of Library Science 2 Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals 1 Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals 1 0 Superintendents of K-12 districts Media staffs serving K-12 districts3 Total 8 13 53 aSee Table 3.2 for representation of groups within the major group. Data in Table 3.2 report the selection of par­ ticipants within certain representative groups. 70 Table 3.2.— Selection of participants within representative groups. Representative Group Internal Group Number Selected Executive Branch 2 General Education 3 Teacher Education 1 Library 2 Deans 7 Librarians 4 Instructional Developers 4 Superintendents of K-12 Districts Large Districts 4 Small Districts 4 Media Staffs Serving K-12 Districts Local Michigan Department of Education Colleges of Education Intermediate 10 3 Fifty-three persons were originally selected from the ten representative groups to constitute the partici­ pants in the study. Each of the fifty-three was invited to participate in the study by a personal letter from the investigator. Forty persons agreed to participate; ten failed to reply, two were leaving the state, and one felt his response might bias the data. agreement was 76 percent. Actual participation Data in Table 3.3 report the actual number of participants in the study according to 71 representative groups and the percentage participation of those invited to participate. Table 3.3.— Participants in the study according to repre­ sentative groups. „ . , ~ epresen e roup Number Participating Percentage of Selected Number State Board of Education 1 100 Michigan Department of Education 7 78 Michigan Education Association 1 50 North Central Accredita­ tion Association 1 100 10 67 2 100 Colleges of Education Colleges of Library Science Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals 1 100 Michigan Association of Elem. School Principals 1 100 Superintendents of K-12 Districts 4 50 12 92 40 76 Media Staffs Serving K-12 Districts Total 72 Of the forty persons responding to the first instrument, only thirty-nine responded to the second instrument. This did provide a 97 percent participation response to the second instrument, however. Thirty-nine participants were sent the third and final instrument. Of these, twenty-eight were returned within the requested time interval. The remaining eleven participants were contacted by telephone and all eleven responded within a reasonable time interval. The reasons for their original delay varied, but the majority hinged upon vacations occurring during the period of data collec­ tion. The response to the third instrument represented 100 percent participation. Procedure of Study Three instruments designed around the Delphi Tech­ nique were used in the study. Each instrument was intro­ duced through an accompanying letter to the participant. Previous Delphi studies determined that three instruments properly designed and administered would produce movement toward consensus. The use of more than three instruments seems to produce little, if any, significant difference in g the opinions, while tending to reduce participation. ^ I b i d ., p . 423. 73 Delphi Instrument I The accompanying letter (Appendix A) with Delphi Instrument I introduced the selected participant to the Michigan Association for Media in Education, explaining that it was formed by a merger of the memberships of the Michigan Audio-Visual Association and the Michigan Association of School Librarians. It further indicated that the Association had a committee developing guidelines for competency-based certification of media specialists since it was the membership's desire to bring about such certification. The letter then stated that the investi­ gator had been charged with the responsibility for deter­ mining those factors most likely to facilitate and those factors most likely to inhibit the effective implementation of competency-based certification of educational media specialists by the state of Michigan. The investigator explained the methodology of the Delphi Technique and the procedure to be followed in the development and adminis­ tration of the three Delphi Instruments. Also indicated was the proposed deadline for return of the instrument. Enclosed with the introductory letter was Delphi , Instrument I (Appendix B) and a stamped envelope addressed to the investigator for return of the instrument. Delphi Instrument I explained that a recent survey of educational media specialists in Michigan indicated a desire on their part for certification by the state. As did the cover 74 letter, the instrument pointed out the current effort toward developing guidelines for competency-based certi­ fication. Based on these facts, the participant was asked to indicate in the spaces provided facilitating factors and inhibiting factors to the effective implementation of the desired certification. There was a space provided at the end of the instrument for the participant's name, followed by a notation that names would not be used in published tabulations of the results of the study. Most participants listed three or more facilitating factors and three or more inhibiting factors. Delphi Instrument II The letter (Appendix C) that introduced the par­ ticipant to Delphi Instrument II (Appendix D) opened by thanking the addressee for participating in the MAME Delphi Study on certification of media specialists. Introduction to Delphi Instrument II was accomplished in the letter by indicating that the identified factors were combined by related ideas into generic statements with an attempt to retain the basic idea in each new statement. The partici­ pant was then asked to indicate on Delphi Instrument II his opinion of the relative importance of each facilitating and inhibiting factor to the implementation of competencybased certification of media specialists, by the following rating scale: 75 1. highly significant 2. above average significance 3. average significance 4. below average significance 5. least significant i The participant was then asked to be discriminating in the assignment of the ratings by using the total range of high to low in order to establish definitive significance among the factors. Some difficulty was experienced in the development of Delphi Instrument II, which appears to this investi­ gator to be the more difficult phase of the Delphi Tech­ nique. The ideal method would be to use all original statements from Delphi Instrument I in the development of Delphi Instrument II. However, in most studies this would create an instrument of such magnitude that low partici­ pation would likely occur, thus defeating the value of the research method. To bring about the greatest degree of success, then, the data from Instrument I, if voluminous in nature, must be analyzed and related ideas combined into generic terms, retaining as nearly as possible the basic concept of the originals. This would, in most studies, create a second instrument felt to be manageable by the participant and constructed of ideas or concepts he recognizes as his own, as well as those of others. This 76 latter phenomenon is the more difficult portion of the instrument construction process. Delphi Instrument II was constructed utilizing the above concept. There were approximately 108 original facilitating factors, which were analyzed and combined into seventeen generic statements. tors originally totaled 102. The inhibiting fac­ These were analyzed and combined into fourteen generic statements. Delphi Instru­ ment II consisted of two pages containing the seventeen facilitating factors followed by the fourteen inhibiting factors. Each factor was preceded by numbers 1 to 5 with the word high above the 1 and 2, the word low above the 4 and 5. As previously mentioned, the participant was instructed to rate each factor relative to its importance to the implementation of competency-based certification of media specialists. Delphi Instrument III The final letter (Appendix E) thanked the partici­ pant for completing the second instrument in the MAME Delphi study. It stated the final instrument was enclosed, described how the instrument was constructed, and provided instructions to the participant for the completion of the instrument. A final date for return of the instrument was established and an addressed, stamped envelope provided for this purpose. The participant was thanked on behalf 77 of the Michigan Association for Media in Education for his valuable contribution to the study. Delphi Instrument III (Appendix F) was basically a duplicate of Delphi Instrument II. The rating most often selected by the participants for each factor was circled on the scale preceding each factor. The partici­ pants were instructed to consider this rating in light of their original appraisal and then to determine if they agreed with the majority rating or whether, in fact, they felt the relative importance of certain factors to be different from that expressed by the majority. If they agreed with the majority rating, they were to place an X in the circled rating. If they felt another rating more appropriate, they were to place an X on the rating selected. Research Questions This study should produce data that will enable the investigator to answer the following research questions: 1. Based on the opinions of persons identified as those having some influence on educational certification in Michigan: "What are the factors that are most likely to facilitate the effective implementation of competencybased certification of educational media specialists by the state of Michigan?" 2. Based on the opinions of persons identified as those having some influence on educational certification in Michigan: "What are the factors that are most likely 78 to inhibit the effective implementation of competencybased certification of media specialists by the state of Michigan?" Treatment of Data The perceived facilitating factors and inhibit­ ing factors to the effective implementation of competencybased certification of educational media specialists by the state of Michigan were the major data produced by this study. These data obtained from Delphi Instrument I were subjected to content analysis providing for: elimi­ nation of duplicate responses, editing without distortion of submitted opinions and care not to introduce the investigator's bias. 9 The data from Delphi Instrument II and Delphi Instrument III were subjected to a statistical analysis to determine if group consensus occurred. A mean score and standard deviation for each of the facilitating factors and each of the inhibiting factors was computed from the rating data on both instruments. A decrease in the stan­ dard deviation would indicate progress toward group con­ sensus . It was anticipated that there would be a differ­ ence in relative importance assigned the individual factors 9This procedure was gleaned from the advice given by Olaf Helmer to Margaret Jetter during their phone con­ versation of April 7, 1972. See Jetter, "The Roles," p. 73 79 both facilitating and inhibiting, by the various groups participating in the study, i.e., Michigan Department of Education, Colleges of Education, Colleges of Library Science, Superintendents, etc. Another statistical analy­ sis was made of the factor ratings in order to determine consensus within the various groups -of participants. A mean score and standard deviation for each of the factors were determined from the data obtained from the second and third instruments for each group of par­ ticipants. A decrease in the standard deviation indi­ cates movement toward consensus. Summary Utilizing the Delphi Technique, thirty-nine par­ ticipants provided the study with a list of facilitating factors and inhibiting factors to the effective implemen­ tation of competency-based certification of educational media specialists by the state of Michigan. Participants in the study were selected on the basis of having some influence on educational certification in Michigan. Three successive Delphi Instruments were administered to the participants in the Delphi Technique. The first Delphi Instrument sought the partici­ pants' perceived concept of the factors most likely to facilitate and the factors most likely to inhibit the effective implementation of competency-based certification of educational media specialists by the state of Michigan. 80 Delphi Instrument II was a list of the facili­ tating factors and inhibiting factors that had been devel­ oped by the investigator, from those submitted by the participants, through eliminating duplicate responses, editing and combining similar opinions. Care was taken not to distort submitted opinions or to interject the investigator's bias. The participants were asked to rate each factor on a 1 to 5 scale, 1 indicating the factor to be highly significant and 5 indicating the factor to be of least significance. The third Delphi Instrument was a duplicate of Instrument II, with the exception of the majority rating indicated for each factor. The participants were to rate each factor again, either agreeing with the majority or disagreeing. Data provided by the study were the facilitating factors and inhibiting factors with their ratings of sig­ nificance . The data were subjected to a statistical analysis to determine if two different types of group consensus occurred: 1. Movement toward consensus among the total group of participants on the seventeen facilitating fac­ tors and the fourteen inhibiting factors. 2. Movement toward consensus among the partici­ pants within each of the individual groups, i.e., Michigan 81 Department of Education, Colleges of Education, and Media Staffs, on the seventeen facilitating factors and the fourteen inhibiting factors. The results of the analysis of the data are pre­ sented in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The techniques for analyzing the factors facili­ tating and inhibiting media certification, as perceived by the study's participants, are presented in this chap­ ter. A statistical analysis of the rating scores for both sets of factors, comprising a mean and standard deviation for each factor, is presented for the purpose of determining movement toward group consensus regarding the relative importance of each factor. A similar statis­ tical analysis of the rating scores of individual groups of participants (i.e., Michigan Department of Education, Colleges of Education, and K-12 systems) is presented in Appendix G and briefly discussed in this chapter. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the differences of opinion regarding the relative importance of both facili­ tating and inhibiting factors among the several groups who participated in the study. Participants in the study were representative of the following groups: Michigan Department of Education, Colleges of Education (deans), Colleges of Education (staff), North Central Accreditation Association, Michigan Education Association, Michigan Board of Education, Michigan Association of Elementary 82 83 School Principals, Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, K-12 media specialists, regional media special­ ists, and K-12 superintendents. Facilitating Factors Delphi Instrument I (Appendix B) solicited the opinions of the participants regarding the important facil­ itating factors and inhibiting factors to effective imple­ mentation of competency-based certification of media specialists. The 108 facilitating factors obtained from Instrument I were combined by related ideas into seventeen generic statements with an attempt to retain the basic idea in each new statement. The same process was con­ ducted with the 102 inhibiting factors, producing fourteen generic statements. Delphi Instrument II (Appendix D) lists these seventeen facilitating factors and fourteen inhibiting factors. In Table 4.1, the facilitating factors obtained from the study are arranged in the order of the means as derived from the ratings on Delphi Instrument III (Appen­ dix F ) . The arrangement of factors in Table 4.1 should be viewed as relative values, since all seventeen were initially established as the most important factors to be considered in the study. Of the five most important facilitating factors as shown in Table 4.1, numbers 1, 9, and 14 relate directly 84 Table 4.1.— Facilitating factors to implementation of competency-based certification of media specialists arranged by means. Mean Facilitating Factors 1.23 1. State Board of Education recognizing certification of media specialists as desirable. 1.23 2. 1.33 9. Senate and House Education Committees' support of the concept, resulting in legislation providing the vehicle for such certification. 1.85 1.95 Recognition by educators that well-trained, competent, professional media specialists are needed to properly manage educational technology. 14. Department of Education's recommendation that such certification is desirable. 7. Several educational groups, including the Department of Education, favor competency-based criteria for certification programs. 2.10 12. The acceptance and encouragement given to the cer­ tification program by school administrators. 2.26 16. Schools of Education desire to establish preparation programs leading to their recommendations for such certification. 2.28 15. MAME's willingness to provide the basic guidelines to such certification. 2.56 6. Michigan Association for Media in Education supports the concept of a single media certification program, competency based. 2.56 11. Educators with personnel selection responsibilities desire a recognizable form of competency in media specialists. 2.69 13. 2.74 Adoption of broad competency-based processes, rather than detailed skills which will tend to vary from job to job. 8. Publication of the new national joint standards for school media programs and the emphasis at the national level for certification in relation to these. 85 Table 4.1.— Continued. Facilitating Factors Mean 2.85 3. 3.00 10. The fact that certification of some specialists (i.e., school nurses) does exist, thus extablishing precedence. 3.00 17. MAME's willingness to provide an assessment model for determining the effect certification brings about. 3.36 4. A number of the states have a certification program for media specialists; some are competency based. 3.36 5. Substantial professional literature defining media competencies is available for development of competency-based certification. Proposed North Central Accreditation Association standards for elementary schools encourage media centers with professional staff members. to the mechanical aspect or method for obtaining certifica­ tion. This analogy becomes much more meaningful if the three factors are stated in the following sequence: (14) Department of Education's recommendation that such certification is desirable; (1) State Board of Education recognizing certification of media specialists as desir­ able; (9) Senate and House Education Committees' support of the concept, resulting in legislation providing the vehicle for such certification. The other two factors selected in the top five, numbers 2 and 7, are more directly associated with the necessity for well-trained professionals in media and the method for determining well trained when founded on competency-based criteria. Number 2 reads 86 "Recognition by educators that well-trained, competent, professional media specialists are needed to properly manage educational technology," and number 7, "Several educational groups, including the Department of Education, favor competency-based criteria for certification programs." Further study of the data in Table 4.1 shows that less significance is placed on the facts, that other states offer such certification and that media competencies have been defined in current professional literature, e.g., factors 4 and 5. Also, among those facilitating factors rated lower on relative value was factor 3, "Proposed North Central Accreditation Association standards for elementary schools encourage media centers with professional staff members." Only two other factors dropped as much in relative value on group rating, between Delphi Instrument II and Delphi Instrument III, while still obtaining movement toward group consensus, as did factor 3. (See Table 4.4.) This phe­ nomenon suggests that North Central Accreditation standards may not be held in as high a priority as perhaps they would have been in earlier years. Data in Table 4.2 report that in Delphi Instrument II ratings, participants failed to use the extreme ratings 1 and 5 for only five factors--2, 7, 8, 9, and 11. Table 4.3 indicates that in Delphi Instrument III ratings, participants did not use the extreme ratings 1 and 5 for 87 Table 4.2.— Delphi Instrument II--rating scores. High © LOW Facilitating Factors 2 6 3 6 4 0 5 1 State Board of Education recognizing certi­ fication of media specialists as desirable. 20 2 8 3 4 4 5 5 0 Recognition by educators that well-trained, competent, professional media specialists are needed to properly manage educational technology. 1 4 2 14 14 4 3 5 2 Proposed North Central Accreditation Associa­ tion standards for elementary schools encour­ age media centers with professional staff members 1 1 2 9 15 4 8 5 4 A number of the states have a certification program for media specialists; some are competency based. 1 2 2 11 12 © 4 11 5 2 Substantial professional literature defining media competencies is available for develop­ ment of competency-based certification. 1 4 20 3 6 4 4 5 3 Michigan Association for Media in Education supports the concept of a single media cer­ tification program, competency based. 1 13 19 3 5 4 1 5 0 Several educational gro u p s , including the Department of Education, favor competencybased criteria for certification programs. 1 5 © 15 3 13 4 4 5 0 Publication of the new national joint stan­ dards for school media programs and the empha­ sis at the national level for certification in relation to these. 20 2 11 3 3 4 3 5 0 Senate and House Education Committees' support of the concept, resulting in legis­ lation providing the vehicle for such cer­ tification. 1 1 2 13 14 0 4 8 5 2 The fact that certification of some special­ ists, i.e., school nurses, does exist, thus establishing precedence. 24 0 0 0 © © © 88 Table 4.2.— Continued. LOW High Facilitating Factors © 4 5 '5 0 11. 13 Educators with personnel selection respon­ sibilities desire a recognizable form of competency in media specialists. 3 12 4 3 5 1 12. 15 The acceptance and encouragement given to the certification program by school admin­ istrators . 1 4 2 13 © 5 3 13. 11 4 7 Adoption of broad competency-based processes, rather than detailed skills which will tend to vary from job to job. 1 15 3 8 4 0 5 1 14. 14 Department of Education's recommendation that such certification is desirable. 1 15 © 3 11 4 2 5 2 15. MAME's willingness to provide the basic guidelines to such certification. 1 6 2 14 1 8 © © 7 <0 18 3 5 4 4 5 1 16. 9 Schools of Education desire to establish preparation programs leading to their recommendations for such certification. 1 7 2 13 Q 4 7 5 2 17. MAME's willingness to provide an assess­ ment model for determining the effect cer­ tification brings about. 1 Note: 8 The number of participants selecting each score is indicated under the rating scale for each factor. 89 Table 4.3.— Delphi Instrument III— rating scores. Low High 0 3 3 33 0 30 1 3 1 0 1 1 2 9 3 0 0 2 5 28 2 1 4 5 0 0 Facilitating Factors State Board of Education recognizing certi­ fication of media specialists as desirable. 4 0 5 0 Recognition by educators that well-trained, competent, professional media specialists are needed to properly manage educational technolgoy. 1 5 2 Proposed North Central Accreditation Asso­ ciation standards for elementary schools encourage media centers with professional staff members. 4 © 4 5 28 5 5 0 2 3 22 4 7 5 6 A number of the states have a certification program for media specialists; some are competency based. 5. 1 2 0 22 3 8 4 5 5 2 1 7 0 27 3 5 4 0 5 0 1 2 1 19 0 4 5 5 3 4 1 5 0 9. 4 6 5 0 10. 0 31 1 0 11 2 4 3 3 0 2 6 27 Substantial professional literature defin­ ing media competencies is available for development of competency-based certification. Michigan Association for Media in Education supports the concept of a single media certification program, competency based. 7. Several educational groups, including the Department of Education, favor competencybased criteria for certification programs. Publication of the new national joint stan­ dards for school media programs and the emphasis at the national level for certifi­ cation in relation to these. Senate and House Education Committees' support of the concept, resulting in legis­ lation providing the vehicle for such cer­ tification. The fact that certification of some special­ ists (i.e., school nurses) does exist, thus establishing precedence. 90 Table 4.3.— Continued. Low High Facilitating Factors 4 3 5 0 11. 18 Educators with personnel selection respon­ sibilities desire a recognizable form of competency in media specialists. 3 2 4 3 5 0 12. 30 The acceptance and encouragement given to the certification program by school admin­ istrators. 1 3 2 10 4 2 5 1 13. 23 Adoption of broad competency-based pro­ cesses, rather than detailed skills which will tend to vary from job to job. 1 12 3 4 4 1 5 0 14. 22 Department of Education's recommendation that such certification is desirable. 3 9 4 2 5 0 15. MAME's willingness to provide the basic guidelines to such certification. 3 5 4 2 5 1 16. Schools of Education desire to establish preparation programs leading to their recommendations for such certification. 4 6 5 1 17. MAME's willingness to provide an assessment model for determining the effect certifica­ tion brings about. l 2 2 16 l 4 1 2 0 © © 26 1 2 29 1 1 2 6 © @ © © 25 ten out of the seventeen factors. Delphi Instrument III thus reveals a movement toward group consensus. A determination of significant movement toward group consensus regarding relative value of the facilitating fac­ tors was brought about by comparing the mean score and standard deviation for each factor in Delphi Instruments II and III. When comparing standard deviations for the same factor, a decrease from instrument II to instrument III 91 denotes a movement toward group consensus. This comparison for all facilitating factors is reported in Table 4.4, and indicates movement toward group consensus on all factors except number 8. Facilitating factor number 8, "Publication of the new national joint standards for school media programs and the emphasis at the national level for certification in relation to these," received a considerable increase in lower ratings, in instrument III (Table 4.3) over ratings in instrument II (Table 4.2), while the number of higher ratings remained the same on both instruments. The reason for this divergence of opinion is not clear; perhaps additional Delphi Instruments would have produced convergence, thus indicating eventual consensus. Another possibility is that the new joint national standards had not been published at the time of data collection. Thus many participants may have felt an uncertainty as to their emphasis on certification. Inhibiting Factors As indicated in the discussion of the facilitating factors, Delphi Instrument I produced 102 suggested inhibit­ ing factors, which in turn were the basis for development of the fourteen generic statements used as inhibiting factors in Delphi Instrument II (Appendix D ) . The inhibiting factors to implementation of certi­ fication of media specialists, as obtained from the study, are shown in Table 4.5, arranged by means derived from the Table 4.4.— Means and standard deviations for facilitating factors— all participants. Facilitating Factors Instrument Mean Standard Deviation 1. State Board of Education recognizing certification of media specialists as desirable II III 1.59 1.23 .96 .58 2. Recognition by educators that well-trained, competent, professional media specialists are needed to properly manage educational technology. II III 1.84 1.23 1.09 .43 3. Proposed North Central Accreditation Association standards for elementary schools encourage media centers with professional staff members. II III 2.59 2.84 .98 .81 4. A number of the states have a certification program for media specialists; some are competency based. II III 3.14 3.36 1.00 .74 5. Substantial professional literature defining media competencies is available for development of competency-based certification. II III 3.00 3.36 1.01 .93 6. Michigan Association for Media in Education supports the concept of a single media certification program, competency based. II III 2.51 2.56 1.10 .97 7. Several educational groups, including the Department of Education, favor competency-based criteria for certification programs. II III 1.84 1.95 .75 .56 Table 4.4.— Continued. Facilitating Factors Instrument Mean Standard Deviation 8. Publication of the new national joint standards for school media programs and the emphasis at the national level for certification in relation to these. II III 2.43 2.74 .87 .99 9. Senate and House Education Committees1 support of the concept, resulting in legislation providing the vehicle for such certification. II III 1.70 1.33 .94 .74 10. The fact that certification of some specialists (i.e., school nurses) does exist, thus establishing precedence. II III 2.92 3.00 .94 .56 11. Educators with personnel selection responsibilities desire a recognizable form of competency in media specialists. II III 2.45 2.56 .92 .72 12. The acceptance and encouragement given to the certifi­ cation program by school administrators. II III 2.32 2.10 .99 .68 13. Adoption of broad competency-based processes, rather than detailed skills which will tend to vary from job to job. II III 2.79 2.69 1.12 .80 14. Department of Education's recommendation that such certification is desirable. II III 1.89 2.28 .92 .65 15. MAME's willingness to provide the basic guidelines to such certification. II III 2.16 2.28 1.19 .65 16. Schools of Education desire to establish preparation programs leading to their recommendations for such certification. II III 2.19 2.26 1.02 .75 17. MAME's willingness to provide an assessment model for determining the effect certification brings about. II III 2.57 3.00 1.17 .73 94 Table 4.5.— Inhibiting factors to implementation of competencybased certification of media specialists arranged by means. Mean Inhibiting Factors 1.90 5. Insufficient funding on the local school level to provide for certified media personnel rather than paraprofessionals may reduce support for the concept. 1.90 7. Concern of the educational community about who will measure the competencies, what procedure will be used and who will be the agent for certification. 1.95 1. Failure of administrators and their state associations to recognize the function of media specialists, related competencies and the need for such qualified personnel. 1.97 2. Difficulty in determining which competencies are essen­ tial to a single certification program. 1.97 10. Failure of the educational community to recognize any value to such certification. 2.05 11. State Board of Education's reluctance to provide for certification of media specialists. 2.05 13. Conflict between the state and the teacher associations over who should control the certification process in g eneral. 2.15 8. Teachers in general and their associations are opposed to competency-based certification. 2.21 6. Schools of education are currently not responsive to competency-based instruction, which implies a new role for their faculty members. 2.95 12. Co n c e r n by most educators that certification of too many types of specialists will reduce the significance of basic certification. 3.08 14. Lack of support from the 3.10 Michigan Education Association. 4. Failure of North Central Accreditation Association to recognize the need for certified media specialists, thus not supporting the concept. 95 Table 4.5.— Cont inued. Mean Inhibiting Factors 3.13 9. Difficulty in providing the legal basis which will permit state certification of media specialists. 3.85 3. Fear that the established competencies may become irrelevant in the near future. rating scores on Delphi Instrument III. The mean score arrangement denotes relative value of each factor in regard to every other factor; thus the first factor listed held the highest priority and the last factor listed the lowest priority. It must be recognized, however, as with the facilitating factors, that all factors were initially determined to be important and the use of Delphi Instruments II and III was primarily to establish relative importance. Data in Table 4.5 show the means of the first seven of the fourteen statements to be separated by .15 or less on a scale of 1 to 5; i.e., statements 5 and 7 have a mean rating of 1.90, while statements 11 and 13 have a mean rating of 2.05, with statements 1, 2 and 10 somewhere in between 1.90 and 2.05. This narrow separation between 50 percent of the inhibiting factors on the upper end of the scale suggests the participants had difficulty in determin­ ing the relative value of these seven and would tend to indi­ cate their importance as a group. 96 A reciprocity of opposites appears to exist with statements 10 and 11 of Table 4.5 and 2 and 1 of Table 4.1, i.e., "Failure of the educational community to recognize any value to such certification,11 and "Recognition by educators that well-trained, competent, professional media special­ ists are needed to properly manage educational technology." Although it is true that failure to accomplish a facilitating factor could certainly be an inhibiting factor, the data show that corresponding factors in Table 4.1 and Table 4.5 do not necessarily carry the same relative value to the other factors on those tables; e.g., facilitating factor number 5 is given the lowest priority and yet as an inhibit­ ing factor, number 2, it ranks quite high in priority. Another interesting example of this situation is facilitat­ ing factor number 9, "Senate and House Education Committees' support of the concept, resulting in legislation providing the vehicle for such certification," rated very high, and inhibiting factor number 9, "Difficulty in providing legal basis which will permit state certification of media special­ ists," rated very low. This apparent contradiction would seem to imply that the factor is a must for implementation of certification while at the same time not as difficult to achieve as some other factors. Inhibiting factor number 3 ranked the lowest in significance and its mean score was much higher (meaning 97 less significant) than the factor above it, as well as higher than any of the facilitating factors. Data in Table 4.6 show that in Delphi Instrument II ratings, participants used the extreme ratings 1 and 5 in all fourteen statements. In Table 4.7, showing the rat­ ing scores of Delphi Instrument III, the extreme ratings of 1 and 5 were utilized in seven of the fourteen statements. This comparison of ratings shown in Tables 4.6 and 4.7 indicates a movement toward group consensus. Also indicative of a movement toward group con­ sensus is the comparison of standard deviations between Delphi Instrument II and Delphi Instrument III as shown in Table 4.8. As standard deviation decreases, movement toward group consensus increases. Data in Table 4.8 show a decrease in standard deviations for all fourteen inhibiting statements. Group Differences Means and standard deviations for each factor on both Instruments II and III were computed for each educa­ tional group represented by four or more participants. These data are reported in Tables G1-G5 of Appendix G. All groups had one or more factors whose standard deviations indicated divergence, thus a movement away from consensus. The group with only one such factor, as indicated by Table G3, was the Colleges of Education (staff). Table G 2 , 98 Table 4.6.— Delphi Instrument II— rating scores. High Low 1 Q 14 .18 Inhibiting Factors 3 5 4 0 5 1 1. Failure of administrators and their state associations to recognize the function of media specialists, related competencies and the need for such qualified personnel. 12 3 10 4 3 5 1 2. Difficulty in determining which competencies are essential to a single certifica­ tion program. 1 2 2 6 3 10 /4J IT 5 7 2 0 11 8 4 7 5 6 4. Failure of North Central Accreditation Association to recognize the need for cer­ tified media specialists, thus not support­ ing the concept. X 12 1 6 0 3. Fear that the established competencies may become irrelevant in the near future. 1 15 10 3 9 4 3 5 1 5. Insufficient funding on the local school level to provide for certified media per­ sonnel rather than paraprofessionals may reduce support for the concept. 1 9 10 3 12 4 3 5 4 6. Schools of education are currently not responsive to competency-based instruction, which implies a new role for their faculty members. 1 14 15 3 6 4 2 5 1 7. Concern of the educational community about who will measure the competencies, what pro ­ cedure will be used and who will be the agent for certification. 3 9 4 4 5 3 8. Teachers in general and their associations are opposed to competency-based certification. 6 4 7 1 12 1 11 0 9 2 5 0 5 7 9. Difficulty in providing the legal basis which will permit state certification of media specialists. 99 Table 4.6.— Continued. High l 9 © 11 Inhibiting Factors LOW 3 12 4 3 5 3 10. Failure of the educational community to recognize any value to such certification. l 16 © 9 3 7 4 3 5 2 11. State Board of Education's reluctance to provide for certification of media special­ ists. 1 6 2 8 0 17 4 6 5 1 12. Concern by most educators that certifica­ tion of too many types of specialists will reduce the significance of basic certifi­ cation. 3 11 4 5 5 1 13. 9 Conflict between the state and the teacher associations over who should control the certification process in general. 2 9 O 4 6 5 2 14. 11 Lack of support from the Michigan Education Association. * 1 12 1 9 0 Note: The number of participatants selecting each score is indicated under the rating scale for each factor. 100 Table 4.7.— Delphi Instrument III— rating scores. High 1 9 Low © 1 8 Inhibiting Factors 3 24 5 4 1 5 0 3 5 4 1 5 0 © 27 5 4 3. Fear that the established competencies may become irrelevant in the near future. 5 3 4. Failure of North Central Accreditation Association to recognize the need for certified media specialists, thus not supporting the concept. 25 1. Failure of administrators and their state associations to recognize the function of media specialists, related competencies and the need for such qualified personnel. 2. Difficulty in determining which competencies are essential to a single certification program. 1 0 2 3 2 6 1 3 2 7 © 15 4 11 1 8 27 3 4 4 0 5 0 5. Insufficient funding on the local school level to provide for certified media person­ nel rather than paraprofessionals may reduce support for the concept. 1 6 22 3 8 4 3 5 0 6. Schools of education are currently not responsive to competency-based instruction, which implies a new role for their faculty members. 1 11 24 3 2 4 1 5 1 7. Concern of the educational community about who will measure the competencies, what pro­ cedure will be used and who will be the agent for certification. 1 7 24 3 4 4 3 5 1 8. Teachers in general and their associations are opposed to competency-based certification. 1 2 © 0 6 25 4 5 5 9. 3 Difficulty in providing the legal basis which will permit state certification of media specialists. 101 Table 4.7.— Continued. Low High O Inhibiting Factors 3 3 4 0 5 0 10. Failure of the educational community to recognize any value to such certification. 3 5 4 1 5 2 11. 20 State Board of Education's reluctance to provide for certification of media specialists. 1 2 2 4 0 4 4 5 1 12. 28 Concern by most educators that certifica­ tion of too many types of specialists will reduct the significance of basic certi­ fication. 1 7 3 2 4 2 5 1 13. 27 Conflict between the state and the teacher associations over who should control the certification process in general. 1 2 0 4 6 5 3 14. 5 Lack of support from the Michigan Education Association. 1 4 32 1 11 © © Note: 2 23 The number of participants selecting each score is indicated under the rating scale for each factor. Table 4.8.— Means and standard deviations for inhibiting factors— all participants. Inhibiting Factors Instrument Mean „ ■ « Deviation Failure of administrators and their state associations to recognize the function of media specialists, related competencies and the need for such qualified personnel. II III 1,84 1.95 .86 .69 2. Difficulty in determining which competencies are essential to a single certification program. II III 2.18 1.97 1.06 .67 3. Fear that the established competencies may become irrelevant in the near future. II III 3.35 3.85 1.21 .67 4. Failure of North Central Accreditation Association to recognize the need for certified media specialists, thus not supporting the concept. II III 2.89 3.10 1.33 1.05 5. Insufficient funding on the local school level to provide for certified media personnel rather than paraprofessionals may reduce support for the concept. II III 2.08 1.90 1.10 .55 6. Schools of education are currently not responsive to competency-based instruction, which implies a new role for their faculty members. II III 2.55 2.21 1.25 .80 7. Concern of the educational community about who will measure the competencies, what procedure will be used and who will be the agent for certification. II III 1.97 1.90 1.00 .82 102 1. Table 4.8.— Continued. Inhibiting Factors 3 x Instrument Mean Standard _ . ,. Deviation Teachers in general and their associations are opposed to competency-based certification. II III 2.38 2.15 1.28 .90 9. Difficulty in providing the legal basis which will permit state certification of media specialists. II III 2.83 3.13 1.54 .77 10. Failure of the educational community to recognize any value to such certification. II III 2.47 1.97 1.18 .43 11. State Board of Education's reluctance to provide for certification of media specialists. II III 2.08 2.05 1.21 1.00 12. Concern by most educators that certification of too many types of specialists will reduce the significance of basic certification. II III 2.68 1.02 2.95 .72 13. Conflict between the state and the teacher associa­ tions over who should control the certification process in general. II III 2.32 2.05 1.14 .83 14. Lack of support from the Michigan Education Association. II III 2.54 3.08 1.19 .90 103 8. 104 Colleges of Education (deans), show ten factors exhibiting divergence, the largest number shown by any group. The dis parity between these two groups' ability to move toward con sensus may lie in the fact participants representing Col­ leges of Education (staff) were in the field of media and therefore more closely associated with the situation upon which the study was based than were the deans of Colleges of Education. Table 4.9 was developed to make a brief comparison of the top five facilitating factors as determined by total group consensus and the top five as determined by each educational group represented by the participants. The data in Table 4.9 indicate that six of the twelve groups included all of the top five factors, as determined by total-group consensus in their top five, while only two of these had the five factors in the same order of priority The factor most often listed, which was not consistent with the top five, as determined by total-group consensus, was factor number 12. Factor number 12 was rated sixth in priority by total-group consensus. Table 4.10 lists the top five inhibiting factors in rank order, as determined by total-group consensus and then as determined by each educational group represented by the participants. Data in Table 4.10 indicate only one group having the same five factors as the total group, and these were also ranked the same. Two groups failed to list H H Group Consensus VO to M State Board of Education H -J 4.9.— The to Circled VO Table Note: -J top indicate those not appearing in top five H Michigan Department of Education M NJ -U VO H to Colleges of Education (deans) M NJ H ov H VO to Colleges of Education (staff) -J H 4* H VO to Michigan Education Association -J VO to H Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals VO ■o to H Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals H H -u to H North Central Accreditation Association M VO to H to H >e» VO H f—1 NJ VO to VO to 1— 1 H1 VO -J of group M 4*. H H K-12 Systems Superintendents K-12 Systems Media Special­ ists (Print Expertise) ' H K-12 Systems Media Special­ ists (Non-Print Expertise) K-12 Systems Regional Media Specialists SOT each u> for to order H >S» five facilitating factors listed in priority educational group represented in the study. figures V£> T to on Group Consensus l-> 00 State Board of Education I- 1 H H oo Michigan Department of Education ~u Circled t—1 those not appearing in top KJ M 00 CO CTl I- 1 M O on Colleges of Education (deans) to 00 H '-J on Colleges of Education (staff) 1—1 o in to -j Michigan Education Association H O to H -J on Michigan Association of Elementary School Principals to H -o U1 h-1 t—1 Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals