Senin, 03 September 2012

Instructional Technology Chapter 2


Chapter 2
The Domains of the Field

The 1994 definition is built around five separate areas of concern to instructional technologists: Design, Development, Utilization, Management, and Evaluation. These are the domains of the field. In this chapter there are definitions for each of these domains, the domain subcategories, and related concepts.


The Role of the Domains

The Functions of the Domains

To complete the task of defining a field, a means for identifying and organizing the relationships emerging from theory and practice must be developed. Taxonomies, or classifications, are often used to simplify these relationships (Carrier and Sales, 1987; Knezek, Rachlin and Scannell, 1988; Kozma and Bangert-Downs, 1987). A taxonomy is a classification based on relationships. In the classic Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain, Benjamin Bloom differentiates between a taxonomy and a simpler classification scheme. According to Bloom, a taxonomy : (1) may not have arbitrary elements, (2) must correspond to some real phenomena represented by the terms, and (3) must be validated through consistency with the theoretical views of the field.

The major purpose in constructing a taxonomy . . . is to facilitate communication. . . the major task in setting up any kind of taxonomy is that of selecting appropriate symbols, giving them precise and usable definitions, and securing the consensus of the group which is to use them (Bloom, 1956, p. 10-11).

An up-to-date taxonomic structure is essential to the future development of Instructional Technology and  in addition, the field needs a common conceptual framework and agreement on terminology. Without this framework it is difficult to make generalizations, or even communicate easily across sub-fields. Common understandings are especially critical since much of the work of instructional technologists is done in teams, and to be effective teams need to agree upon their terminology and conceptual framework.
The rapidity of technological change and modification necessitates the transfer of what is known from one technology to another. Without this 'transferability' the research base must be recreated for each new technology. By identifying taxonomic areas, academics and practitioners can work to resolve research issues, and practitioners can work with the orists to identify where theories are weak in supporting and predicting real world Instructional Technology applications. Without clearly delineated categories and functions, cooperation between academics and practitioners becomes even more difficult due to a variety of definitions of the same term. Consequently, the validation of theory and practice can be impeded.
Fleishman and Quaintance (1984) summarized several potential benefits of developing a taxonomy of human performance:
·         to aid in conducting literature reviews;
·         to create the capacity to generate new tasks;
·         to expose gaps in knowledge by delineating categories and sub- categories of knowledge, exposing holes in research, and promoting theoretical discussion or evaluation;
·         to assist in theory development by evaluating how successful theory organizes the observational data generated by research within the field of Instructional Technology.
Several of the previous approaches to taxonomies of Instructional Technology have used a functional approach. The 1977 definition of the field (AECT, 1977) proposed that instructional management functions and instructional development functions operated on instructional systems components. Ronald L. Jacobs (1988) also proposed a domain of human performance technology that included both theory and practice and identified the functions practitioners fulfill. In Jacobs' proposed domain there are three functions: management functions, performance systems development functions and human performance systems components which are the conceptual bases for performing the other functions. Each function has a purpose and components. The subcomponents of management are administrative and personnel. The subcomponents of development are the steps in the development process, and the subcomponents of human performance systems are concepts about organization, motivation, behavior, performance and feedback.

The Relationships Among Domains

The relationship among the domains shown in Figure 2.1 is not linear. It becomes easier to understand how the domains are complementary when the research and theory areas in each domain are presented. Figure 2.1, The Domains of Instructional Technology, summarizes the major areas in the knowledge base for each domain.
While researchers can concentrate on one domain, practitioners must often fulfill functions in several or all domains. Although they may focus on one domain or area in the domain, researchers draw on theory and practice from other domains. The relationship between the domains is synergistic. For example, a practitioner working in the development domain uses theory from the design domain, such as instructional systems design theory and message design theory. A practitioner working in the design domain uses theory about media characteristics from the development and utilization domains and theory about problem analysis and measurement from the evaluation domain. The complementary nature of the relationships between domains is shown in Figure 2.2, The Relationship Between the Domains of the Field.
It is clear from Figure 2.2 that each domain contributes to the other domains and to research and theory that is shared by the domains. An example of shared theory is theory about feedback which is used in some way by each of the domains. Feedback can be included in both an instructional strategy and a message design. Feedback loops are used in management systems, and evaluation provides feedback.

GAMBAR

Although four major subcategories are shown for each domain in Figure 2.1, there may be others that are independent, but not shown. These areas may not appear because the body of theory is insufficient or because they are currently less important. One example is the area of electronic performance support systems which may be given more importance in future definitions and domains of the field. Nevertheless, most areas of the field fit in the subcategories identified. Indeed, some fit in more that one subcategory as is the case with the media selection area which is part of the instructional utilization domain. The pursuit of definitional clarity could lead to specifying the taxonomic levels more completely by breaking each major subcategory into finer distinctions. This task will be left for the future.
The rest of this chapter will be devoted to a discussion of each domain and its relationship to the other domains. For each domain there will be an explanation of its roots, of what it encompasses, of the subcategories in the domain, and of the characteristics associated with each subcategory. Some trends or issues in the domain will be noted.

A Description of the Domains The Domain of Design                  

In part, the design domain had its genesis in the psychology of instruction movement. There were several catalysts: 1) the 1954 article by B. F. Skinner on "The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching" and his theory of programmed instruction; 2) the 1969 book by Herbert Simon on The Sciences of the Artificial which discussed the general characteristics of a prescriptive science of design; and 3) the establishment in the early 1960s of centers for the design of instructional materials and programs, such as the Learning Resource and Development Center dt the University of Pittsburgh. During the 1960s and 1970s Robert Glaser, director of that center, wrote and spoke about instructional design being the core of educational technology (Glaser, 1976). Many instructional psychology roots of the design domain were nurtured in these Pittsburgh associations. Not only was this the home of Simon, Glaser and the Learning Research and Development Center, but Skinner's influential paper "The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching" was first presented in Pittsburgh prior to its publication later that year (Spencer, 1988).

GAMBAR

Complementing the instructional psychology roots was the application of systems theory to instruction. Introduced by Jim Finn and Leonard Silvem, the instructional systems approach gradually developed into a methodology and began to incorporate ideas from instructional psychology. The systems approach led to the instructional systems design movement as exemplified by the instructional development process used in higher education in the 1970s (Gustafson and Bratton, 1984). Interest in message design also grew during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The collaboration of Robert Gagne and Leslie Briggs at the American Institutes for Research in the 1960s (also in Pittsburgh) and at Florida State University in the 1970s brought instructional psychology expertise together with systems design talent. Together they brought the instructional design concept to life (Briggs, 1968; Briggs, 1977; Briggs, Campeau, Gagne, and May, 1967; Gagne, 1965; Gagne, 1989; Gagne and Briggs, 1974).
The domain of instructional design at times has been confused with development, or even with the broader concept of instruction itself. This definition, however, limits design to the planning function, but planning on the micro as well as the macro level. Consequently, the domain's knowledge base is complex and includes an array of procedural models, conceptual models, and theory. Nevertheless, the knowledge base of any field is not static. This is certainly the case with instructional design, in spite of its firm foundation in traditional bodies of knowledge. Moreover, because of the close relationship between instructional design and the other domains of Instructional Technology, the design knowledge base also changes to maintain consistency with development, utilization, management, and evaluation.
Design theory is more fully developed than those facets of the field that have greatly relied upon traditions of practice to shape their knowledge bases. However, with respect to the uses of technology, design research and theory have almost always followed practitioner exploration of the intricacies and capabilities of a new piece of hardware or software. This is certainly the case now. The challenge, for both academics and practitioners alike, is to continue to define the knowledge base as well as respond to the pressure of the workplace.
Design is the process of specifying conditions for learning. The purpose of design is to create strategies and products at the macro level, such as programs and curricula, and at the micro level, such as lessons and modules. This definition is in accord with current definitions of design which refer to creating specifications (Ellington and Harris, 1986; Reinluth, 1983; Richey, 1986). it differs from previous definitions in that the emphasis is on conditions for learning rather than on the components of an instructional system (Wallington, et. al., 1970). Thus, the scope of instructional design is broadened from learning resources or individual components of systems to systemic considerations and environments. Tessmer (1990) has analyzed the factors, questions and tools that are used to design environments.
The domain of design encompasses at least four major areas of theory and practice. These areas are identifiable because they are the categories into which research and theory development efforts fall. The design domain includes the study of instructional systems design, message design, instructional strategies and learner characteristics. Definitions and descriptions for each of these areas follow.

Instructional Systems Design. Instructional Systems Design (ISD) is an organized procedure that includes the steps of analyzing, designing, developing, implementing and evaluating instruction. The word 'design' has meaning at both the macro- and micro-level in that it refers to both the systems approach and to a step in the systems approach. The steps in the process each have a separate base in theory and practice as does the overall ISD process. In simple terms, analyzing is the process of defining what is to be learned; designing is the process of specifying how it is to be learned; developing is the process of authoring and producing the instructional materials, implementing is actually using the materials and strategies in context, and evaluating is the process of determining the adequacy of the instruction. ISD is generally a linear and iterative procedure which demands thoroughness and consistency. It is characteristic of the process that all of the steps must be completed in order to serve as a check and balance on each other. In ISD, the process is as important as the product because confidence in the product is based on the process.

Message Design. Message design involves "planning for the manipulation of the physical form of the message" (Grabowski, 1991, p. 206). It encompasses principles of attention, perception and retention that direct specifications for the physical form of messages which are intended to communicate between a sender and a receiver. Fleming and Levie (1993) limit messages to those patterns of signs or symbols that modify cognitive, affective or psychomotor behavior. Message design deals with the most micro of levels through small units such as individual visuals, sequences, pages and screens. Another characteristic of message design is that designs must be specific to both the medium and the learning task. This means that principles for message design will differ depending on whether the medium is static, dynamic or a combination of both (e.g., a photograph, a film or a computer graphic), and on whether the task involves concept or attitude formation, skill or learning strategy development, or memorization (Fleming, 1987; Fleming and Levie, 1993).

Instructional Strategies. Instructional strategies are specifications for selecting and sequencing events and activities within a lesson. Research on instructional strategies has contributed to knowledge about the components of instruction. A designer Uses instructional strategy theories or components as principles of instruction. Characteristically, instructional strategies interact with learning situations. These learning situations are often described by models of instruction. The model of instruction and the instructional strategy needed to implement the model differ depending on the learning situation, the nature of the content and the type of learning desired (Joyce and Weil, 1972; Merrill, Tennyson, and Posey, 1992; Reigeluth, 1987a). Instructional strategy theories cover learning situations, such as situated or inductive learning, and components of the teaching/learning process, such as motivation and elaboration (Reigeluth, I987b).
Reigeluth (1983a) differentiated between macro- and micro- strategies:

Micro-strategy variables are elemental methods for organizing the instruction on a single idea (i.e. a single concept, principle, etc.). They include such strategy components as definition, example, practice, and alternate representation . . . Macro-strategy variables are elemental methods for organizing those aspects of instruction that relate to more than one idea, such as sequencing, synthesizing, and summarizing (previewing and reviewing) the ideas that are taught (p. 19).

Since 1983, the terms have been used more generally to compare the design of a curriculum with the design of a lesson (Smith and Ragan, 1993a). The more typical use of the terms today is for micro-design to be synonymous with instructional strategy design and macro-design to refer to the steps in the ISD process. The phrases "micro-strategy" and "macro-strategy" are not often used today.
Micro-design has also broadened in meaning to provide for specifications for even smaller units of instruction, such a text pages, screens, and visuals. Thus, there are those now who use the term "micro-design", or "micro-ievel", to refer to message design, as well as to instructional strategy design. Micro-design at the message design level will be dis- cussed in Chapter Three.

Learner Characteristics. Learner characteristics are those facets of the learner's experiential background that impact the effectiveness of a learning process. Research on learner characteristics often overlaps research on instructional strategies, but it is done for a different purpose: to describe facets of the learner that need to be accounted for in design. Research on motivation is an example of an overlapping area. The instructional strategy area uses motivation research to specify the design of components of instruction. The learner characteristics area uses motivation research to identify variables that should be taken into account and to specify how to take them into account. Learner characteristics, therefore, impact the components of instruction studied under instructional strategies. They interact not only with strategies but also with the situation or context and content (Bloom, 1976; Richey, 1992).

Trends and Issues. Trends and issues in the design domain cluster around the use of traditional instructional systems design (ISD) models, the application of learning theory to design, and the impact of the new technologies on the design process. Although there is consensus that the more traditional systematic approach to instructional design is still of major significance, some are raising questions regarding the efficacy of ISD models, and the tendency to use them in an inflexible, linear manner. Dick (1993) advocates an enhanced ISD that incorporates elements of the performance technology approach, attempts to reduce the typical LSD cycle time, and places an increased emphasis on electronic performance support systems. There is also a growing concern about the absence of ISD in the schools as a means of curriculum design. Some are calling for a more thorough examination of the applicability of standard ISD procedures for use in schools whether one is planning instruction for children or staff development for teachers and administrators (Gustafson, 1993; Martin and Clemente, 1990; Richey and Sikorski, 1993).
One issue of great importance is the need for theory which relates learning classification to media selection. Each of the steps in the ISD process, from task analysis to evaluation, with the exception of media selection, has a basis in learning classification theory and procedures for implementing that theory. Although some media selection models require consideration of types of learning (Reiser and Gagne, 1982), ways to base these decisions on objectives and strategies while taking other variables into account are insufficiently developed.
With respect to other theoretical issues, there are concerns that practitioners typically emphasize only those general design steps highlighted in an 1SD model and ignore the use of general learning principles (Winn, 1989). However, there are also questions as to the most appropriate orientation to learning. The field has been voicing a cognitive stance, even though procedures and tactics reflect both a behavioral and cognitive orientation. Today there is also growing support for the constructivist position, resulting in an emphasis on learner experience, learner control and learner definitions of meaning and reality. This is consistent with the trend towards contextualization of content which is evident in the situated and anchored learning research (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1992), the performance technology movement and the systemic approach to designing instruction (Richey, 1993a). The search for collaboratively and cooperatively-based alternatives to individualized and independent learning approaches is another example of pressure to develop alternative strategies. Perhaps the more basic trend will be the acceptance of alternative approaches to design.
Regardless of one's philosophical or theoretical orientation, all designers are being affected by the rapid advancements in technology which provide new platforms for instructional delivery, as well as a means of automating facets of the design process itself. As a delivery alternative, these technologies allow not only more effective visualization, but also instant access to information, the ability to link information, more adaptable and interactive design, and learning through other than formal means (Hannafin, 1992). As a means of automating design, the new technologies allow designers to use more detailed rules for instructional strategy selection, implement "just-in-time" training, and efficiently respond to the expectations and requirements of their organizations (Dick, 1993). These trends are a reaction to issues and affect the fundamentals of instructional design (Richey, 1993a; Seels, 1993a;).

The Domain of Development

The roots of the development domain are in the area of media production, and through the years changes in media capabilities have led to changes in the domain. Although the development of textbooks and other instructional aids preceded film, the emergence of film was the first major landmark in the progression from the audio-visual movement to the modern day Instructional Technology era. In the 1930s theatrical film began to be used instructionally. As a result, the first film catalogs appeared; film libraries and companies were established; film studies were under- taken and commercial organizations, such as the Society for Visual Education, were established. These events stimulated not only the production of materials for education, but also journals about these materials, such as Educational Screen and See and Hear.

GAMBAR

During World War II, many types of materials were produced for military training, especially films (Saettler, 1968). After the war, the new medium of television was also applied to education, and a new genre of television program emerged. Concurrently, large scale government funding supported curriculum projects .which incorporated other types of instructional media. During the late 1950s and early 1960s programmed instructional materials were developed. By the 1970s computers were used for instruction, and simulation games were in vogue in schools. During the 1980s theory and practice in the area of computer-based instruction came to fruition, and by the 1990s computer-based integrated multimedia was part of the domain.
Development is the process of translating the design specifications into physical form. The development domain encompasses the wide variety of technologies employed in instruction. It is not, however, isolated from the theory and practice related to learning and design. Nor does it function independently of evaluation, management or utilization. Rather, development is driven by theory and design and must respond to the formative demands of evaluation and utilization practices and management needs. Similarly, the development domain does not consist solely of the hardware of instruction but incorporates both hardware and software, visual and auditory materials, as well as the programs or packages which integrate the various parts.
Within the development domain, there exists a complex interrelationship between the technology and the theory which drives both message design and instructional strategies. Basically, the development domain can be described by:
·         the message which is content driven;
·         the instructional strategy which is theory driven; and
·         the physical manifestation of the technology—the hardware, software and instructional materials.
The last of these descriptors, technology, represents the driving force of the development domain. Starting from this assumption, we can define and describe the various types of instructional media and their characteristics. This process should not, however, be thought of as simply a categorization, but instead as an elaboration of the characteristics that technology draws from theory and design principles.
The development domain can be organized into four categories: print technologies (which provide the foundation for the other categories), audiovisual technologies, computer-based technologies, and integrated technologies. Because the development domain encompasses design, production, and delivery functions; a material can be designed using one type of technology, produced using another, and delivered using a third. For example, message design specifications can be translated into script or storyboard form using a computer-based technology; then, the script or storyboard can be produced using audiovisual technologies and delivered using an integrated technology, such as interactive multimedia. Within the development domain, the concept of design assumes a third meaning. In addition to referring to macro-level instructional systems design (identifying goals, content, and objectives) and micro-level instructional design (specifying and sequencing activities), design can also refer to specialized applications, such as screen design in the development domain.
The sub-categories of the development domain reflect chronological changes in technology. As one technology gives way to another there is an overlap between the old and the new. For example, the oldest technologies are print technologies based on mechanical principles. The audiovisual technologies followed as ways to utilize mechanical and electronic inventions within an educational setting. Microprocessor-based technologies led to computer applications and interactivity, and today elements of the print technologies are often combined with computer-based technologies, as in desk top publishing. With the digitized age, it is now possible to integrate the old technological forms, and thus capitalize on the advantages of each.

Print Technologies. Print technologies are ways to produce or deliver materials, such as books and static visual materials, primarily through mechanical or photographic printing processes. This subcategory includes text, graphic, and photographic representation and reproduction. Print and visual materials involve the most basic and pervasive technologies. They provide the foundation for both the development and utilization of most other instructional materials. These technologies generate materials in hard copy form. Text displayed by a computer is an example of the use of computer-based technology for production. When that text is printed in hard copy to be used for instruction, it is an example of delivery in a print technology.
The two components of this technology are verbal text materials and visual materials. The development of both types of instructional material relies heavily upon the theory related to visual perception, reading, and human information processing, as well as theories of learning. The oldest and still the most common instructional materials occur in the form of textbooks in which sensory impressions, implied through linguistic mediators and printed visual material, represents reality. The relative effectiveness of different degrees of realism has been addressed by a number of conflicting theories (Dwyer, 1972; 1978). In its purest form, visual media can carry the complete message, but this is generally not the case in most instructional exchanges. Most commonly, a combination of textual and visual information is provided.
The manner in which both print and visual information is organized can contribute greatly to the types of learning which will occur. At the most basic level, simple text books provide sequentially organized, yet randomly accessible information in a "user-friendly" manner. Other forms of print technologies, such as programmed instruction, have been developed based upon other theoretical prescriptions and instructional strategies. Specifically, print/visual technologies have the following characteristics:
·         text is read linearly, whereas visuals are scanned spatially;
·         both usually provide one-way, receptive communication;
·         they present static visuals;
·         their development relies strongly on principles of linguistics and visual perception;
·         they are learner-centered; and
·         the information can be reorganized or restructured by the user.

Audiovisual Technologies. Audiovisual technologies are ways to produce or deliver materials by using mechanical or electronic machines to present auditory and visual messages. Audiovisual instruction is most obviously characterized by the use of hardware in the teaching process. Audiovisual machines make possible the projection of motion pictures, the playback of sounds, and the display of large visuals. Audiovisual instruction is defined as the production and utilization of materials that involve learning through sight and hearing and that do not depend exclusively on the comprehension of words or other similar symbols. Typically, audiovisual technologies project material, such as films, slides and transparencies. Television, however, represents a unique technology in that it bridges from audiovisual to computer-based and integrated technologies. Video, when produced and stored as videotape, is clearly audiovisual in nature since it is linear and generally intended for expository presentation rather than interaction. When the video information is on a videodisc, it becomes randomly accessible and demonstrates most of the characteristics of computer-based or integrated technologies, i.e. non-linear, random access and learner driven.
Specifically, audiovisual technologies tend to have the following characteristics:
·         they are usually linear in nature;
·         they usually present dynamic visuals;
·         they typically are used in a manner pre-determined by the designer/developer;
·         they tend to be physical representations of real and abstract ideas;
·         they are developed according to principles of both behavioral and cognitive psychology; and
·         they are often teacher-centered and involve a low degree of learner interactivity.

Computer-based Technologies. Computer-based technologies are ways to produce or deliver materials using microprocessor-based resources. Computer-based technologies are distinguished from other technologies because information is stored electronically in the form of digital data rather than as print or visuals. Basically, computer-based technologies use screen displays to present information to students. The various types of computer applications are generally called computer-based instruction (CBI), computer-assisted instruction (CAI), or computer-man- aged instruction (CMI). These applications were developed almost directly from behavioral theory and programmed instruction, but today reflect a more cognitive theoretical base (Jonassen, 1988). Specifically, the four CBI applications are tutorials, where primary instruction is presented; drill and practice, which helps the learner to develop fluency previously learned material; games and simulations, which afford opportunities to apply new knowledge; and databases, which enable learners to access large data structures on their own or using externally-prescribed search protocols.
Computer-based technologies, both hardware and software, generally have these characteristics:
·         they can be used in random or nonsequential, as well as linear ways;
·         they can be used the way the learner desires, as well as in ways the designer/developer planned;
·         ideas usually are presented in an abstract fashion with words and symbols and graphics;
·         the principles of cognitive science are applied during development; and
·         learning can be student-centered and incorporate high learner interactivity.

Integrated Technologies. Integrated technologies are ways to produce and deliver materials which encompass several forms of media under the control of a computer. Many believe that the most sophisticated technique for instruction involves the integration of several forms of media under the control of a computer. Examples of the hardware components of an integrated system could include a powerful computer with large amounts of random access memory, a large internal hard drive, and a high resolution color monitor. Peripheral devices controlled by the computer would include videodisc players, additional display devices, networking hardware, and audio systems. Software may include videodiscs, compact discs, networking software, and digitized information. These all may be controlled by a hypermedia lesson running under an authoring system such as HyperCard' or Toolbook' . A primary feature of this technology is the high degree of learner interactivity among the various information sources.
Integrated technology instruction has the following characteristics:
·         it can be used in random or nonsequential, as well as linear ways;
·         it can be used the way the learner desires, not only in ways the developer planned;
·         ideas are often presented realistically in context of the learner's experiences, according to what is relevant to the learner, and under the control of the learner;
·         principles of cognitive science and constructivism are applied in the development and utilization of the lesson; learning is cognitively-centcred and organized so that knowledge is constructed as the lesson is used;
·         materials demonstrate a high degree of learner interactivity; and
·         materials integrate words and imagery from many media sources.

Trends and Issues. Trends and issues in the print technologies and audiovisual technologies include increased attention to text design and visual complexity and to the use of color for cueing (Berry, 1992). Trends and issues in the computer-based technologies and integrated technologies areas of the development domain relate to design challenges for interactive technologies, application of constructivist and social learning theory, expert systems and automated development tools, and applications for distance learning.
For example, there is currently great interest in integrated learning systems (ILS) and electronic performance support systems (EPSS). ILS's are "complex, integrated hardware/software management systems using computer-based instruction" (Bailey, 1992, p. 5). These systems are characterized by lessons which are: 1) based on objectives; 2) integrated into the curriculum; 3) delivered through networks; and 4) include performance tracking components (Bailey, 1992).

Specifically these systems can randomly generate problems, adjust the sequence and difficulty of problems based on student performance, and provide appropriate and immediate feedback (in private). Instruction is 'individualized' and 'personalized' with ILS's (Bailey, 1992, p.5).

Gloria Gery (1991) similarly describes the sophisticated performance support systems used in industry which combine hardware and software components to pro ide an Infobase', computer-based management, expert tutoring, and job aids and tools within one system. EPSS is a concept, not a technology.
ILS's and EPSS's are examples of the trend toward greater integration of the development domain with other domains such as design, management, and evaluation. As instructional projects become more sophisticated, the demarcations between domains blur and the activities of one domain are inescapably dependent on the activities of another.

The Domain of Utilization

Utilization may have the longest heritage of any of the domains of Instructional Technology, in that the regular use of audiovisual materials predates the widespread concern for the systematic design and production of instructional media. The domain of utilization began with the visual education movement which flourished during the first decade of this century when school museums were established.. The first systematic experiments in the preparation of exhibits for instructional purposes were con- ducted. Also during the early years of the twentieth century, teachers were finding ways to use theatrical films and short subjects in the class- room, thus creating a market for films designed specifically for educational purposes. By 1923 visual education budgets in city school systems covered projectors, stereopticons, film rentals and lantern slides. Among the earliest formal research on educational applications of media was Lashley and Watson's program of studies on the use of World War I military training films (on the prevention of venereal disease) with civilian audiences. The focus was on how these films might be used to best effect. McCluskey and Hoban's research in the 1930s also focused primarily on the classroom effects of different film utilization practices (Saettler, 1968; 1990).
After World War H, the audiovisual instruction movement organized and promoted the use of materials. The available supply of instructional materials expanded as production increased leading to new ways to assist teachers. During the 1960s instructional media centers were established in many schools and colleges, and curriculum projects incorporating media became available. These events all contributed to the utilization domain. Probably the most significant event, however, was the publication in 1946 of the first post World War II textbook devoted to utilization, Audiovisual Materials in Teaching (Dale, 1946), which attempted to provide a general rationale for the selection of appropriate learning materials and activities. Published in several languages and used all over the world, new editions of this text appeared regularly for the next 20 years. It led to other textbooks on utilization that were used in a widely taught course introducing teachers to audiovisual materials. In 1982 Heinich, Molenda, and Russell's Instructional Materials and the New Technologies of Instruction was published. This updated the utilization information presented to pre- and in-service teachers, and became another landmark text on utilization. After several editions, the ASSURE model presented in this text has become a widely disseminated procedural guide to help instructors plan for and implement the use of media in teaching. The steps in this model are: Analyze learners, State objectives, Select media and materials, Utilize media and materials, Require learner participation, Evaluate and revise.
The growth of theory during the 1970s and 1980s produced several texts on media selection. Media selection processes are represented through instructional design models because they are systematic (Reynolds and Anderson, 1991). Media selection is a step in instructional systems design, and when the teacher selects media, he or she is performing an instructional design function, not a utilization function. Media selection is so closely related to utilization that it overlaps the design and utilization domains. When media selection is done by someone who uses a systematic design process, it is a design task. When it is done based on subject content or media characteristics using a simpler design process, it is closer to a utilization task. Thus, here again we see the integrated nature of the taxonomy associated with the 1994 definition of the field.
For many years the utilization domain was centered around the activities of teachers and media specialists who aided teachers. Models and theories in the domain of utilization have tended to focus on the user's perspective. In the late 1960s, however, the concept 'diffusion of innovations', referring to the communication process used to spread information and involve users in order to facilitate adoption of an idea, was introduced and attention turned to the provider's perspective. This area was stimulated by the publication of Diffusion of Innovations by Everett M. Rogers in 1962. This book has gone through several editions. Starting with 405 studies culled from fields as diverse as education, medicine, public policy, and farming, the author analyzed and synthesized findings from these fields. The synthesis was reported with a model and case histories to substantiate propositions about the stages, process and variables involved in diffusion, which was defined as the spread, adoption and maintenance of an innovation. More recently, Rogers (1983) expanded the study to over 3000 case histories. The importance of this area for the utilization function is that utilization depends on the promotion of aware- ness, trial and adoption of innovations. Since the book was first published other scholars have pursued questions related to innovation, contributed to the knowledge base in this area, and developed other innovation and diffusion models.
AECT's 1977 definition linked utilization and dissemination into one function, Utilization-Dissemination. The purpose of the function was "to bring learners into contact with information about educational technology" (AECT, 1977, p. 66). The 1977 definition also included a separate function called utilization which was similarly defined as "bringing learners into contact with learning resources and instructional systems components" (p. 65). In the 1994 definition, dissemination tasks, meaning "deliberately and systematically making others aware of a development by circulating information" (Ellington and Harris, 1986, p. 51), are included in the diffusion of innovations sub-category of the utilization domain.
Once a product has been adopted the processes of implementation and institutionalization begin. In order to evaluate the innovation, implementation must occur. While the instructional design literature con- siders implementation a required step prior to evaluation, it is not considered necessary for the step to occur before specifications for instruction are determined. Consequently, little design literature addresses the implementation process. Like summative evaluation and diffusion planning, implementation planning is often omitted due to a shortage of time and money.
The research base of implementation and institutionalization is not as well developed as other areas, although contributions have been made from the literature on organizational development and education. Organizational Development (OD) is defined as "a response to change, a complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies, markets, and challenges, and the dizzying rate of change itself' (Bennis, 1969, p. 2). As such, it promotes planned organizational change. (Cunningham, 1982). The difference between diffusion of innovations and organizational development is that OD is primarily concerned with change in organizations, and diffusion of innovations is primarily con cemed with individuals accepting and using ideas. The overlap between these two concepts is evident. The literature on organizational development is helpful in understanding implementation and institutionalization.
The concept of institutionalization is prominent in other sectors of education. It refers to the integration of the innovation within the structure of the organization. The process and variables affecting implementation and institutionalization of curricular innovations are described in a tenyear follow-up study of the quarter plan to provide year-round schools in grades 9-12 in Buena Vista, California. Based on this study, the administration, faculty, and students recommended that their board of education institutionalize the four quarter system including a voluntary fourth quarter by providing adequate funds (Bradford, 1987).
Historically, each domain has policies and regulations associated with it. It is the domain of utilization, however, that is most affected by policies and regulations. The use of television programming, for example, is heavily regulated. The copyright law affects the use of print, audiovisual, computer-based and intergrated technologies. State policy and regulations affect the use of technology in the curriculum. Thus, the study and practice of institutionalization may lead to involvement in issues of policy formation, political behavior, organizational development, ethics, and sociological or economic principles. Institutionalization may require the adjustment of laws, regulations, or policies either at the local level or higher.
The utilization function is important because it addresses the interface between the learner and the instructional material or system. This is obviously a critical function because use by learners is the only raison d'ĂȘtre of instructional materials. Why bother acquiring or creating materials if they are not going to be used? The domain of utilization encompasses a wide range of activities and teaching strategies.
Utilization then requires systematic use, dissemination, diffusion, implementation, and institutionalization. It is constrained by policies and regulations. The utilization function is important because it describes the interface between the learner and instructional materials and systems. The four subcategories in the domain of utilization are: media utilization, diffusion of innovations, implementation and institutionalization, and policies and regulations.
Utilization is the act of using processes and resources for learning.Those engaged in utilization are responsible for matching learners with specific materials and activities, preparing learners for interacting with the selected materials and activities, providing guidance during engagement, providing for assessment of the results, and incorporating this usage into the continuing procedures of the organization.

Media Utilization. Media utilization is the systematic use of resources for learning. The media utilization process is a decision-making process based on instructional design specifications. For example, how a film is introduced or "followed-up" should be tailored to the type of learning desired. Principles of utilization also are related to learner characteristics. A learner may need visual or verbal skill assistance in order to profit from an instructional practice or resource.

Diffusion of Innovations. Diffusion of innovations is the process of communicating through planned strategies for the purpose of gaining adoption. The ultimate goal is to bring about change. The first stage in the process is to create awareness through dissemination of information. The process includes stages such as awareness, interest, trial and adoption. Rogers (1983) describes the stages as knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. Characteristically, the process follows a communications process model which uses a multi-step flow including communication with gatekeepers and opinion leaders.

Implementation and Institutionalization. Implementation is using instructional materials or strategies in real (not simulated) settings. Institutionalization is the continuing, routine use of the instructional innovation in the structure and culture of an organization. Both depend on changes in individuals and changes in the organization. However, the purpose of implementation is to ensure proper use by individuals in the organization. The purpose of institutionalization is to integrate the innovation in the structure and life of the organization. Some of the past failures of large scale Instructional Technology projects, such as computers in schools and instructional television, emphasize the importance of planing for both individual and organizational change (Cuban, 1986).

Policies and Regulations. Policies and regulations are the rules and actions of society (or its surrogates) that affect the diffusion and use of Instructional Technology. Policies and regulations are usually constrained by ethical and economic issues. They are created both as a result of action by individuals or groups in the field and action from without the field. They have more effect on practice than on theory. The field of Instructional Technology has been involved in policy generation related to instructional and community television, copyright law, standards for equipment and programs, and the creation of administrative units to support Instructional Technology.

Trends and Issues. Trends and issues in the utilization domain often center around policies and regulations which affect use, diffusion, implementation and institutionalization. Another issue associated with this domain is how the influence of the school restructuring movement might affect the use of instructional resources. The role of technology in school restructuring is still evolving. The proliferation of computer-based materials and systems has raised the economic and political stakes for those contemplating adoption. Instructional Technology professionals are now involved in decisions about multi-million dollar expenditures, affecting not just individual teachers and individual classrooms, but whole school districts, colleges, and corporations. The field is increasingly involved in political and economic issues at the level of the whole organization. These factors often have an impact on the ways in which utilization is conducted.

The Domain of Management

The concept of management is integral to the field of Instructional Technology and to roles held by many instructional technologists. Individuals in the field are regularly called upon to provide management in a variety of settings. An instructional technologist might be involved with efforts such as the management of an instructional development project or the management of a school media center. The actual goals for the management activity may vary greatly from setting to setting, but the underlying management skills remain relatively constant regardless of setting.
Many instructional technologists have position titles that imply a clear management function. For example, an individual may be the Learning Resources Center Director at a university. This individual is responsible for the entire learning resources program including goals, organization, staff, finances, facilities, and equipment. Another individual may be employed as the media specialist in an elementary school. This individual may have the responsibility for the entire media center program. The programs administered by these individuals may differ greatly, but the basic skills necessary to manage the program will remain constant. These skills include organizing programs, supervising personnel, planning and administering budget and facilities, and implementing change. Although each author uses slightly different terms, these types of management are described in Chisholm and Ely (1976), Prostano and Prostano (1987), and Vlcek and Wiman (1989).
The management domain evolved originally from the administration of media centers, programs and services. A melding of the library and media programs led to school library media centers and specialists. These school media programs merged print and non-print materials and led to the increased use of technological resources in the curriculum. In 1976 Chisholm and Ely wrote Media Personnel in Education: A Competency Approach which emphasized that the administration of media programs played a central role in the field. AECT's 1977 definition divided the management function into organization management and personnel management as practiced by administrators of media centers and programs.
As practice in the field became more sophisticated, general management theory was applied and adapted. As projects in the field, especially instructional design projects, became more and more involved, project management theory was applied. Techniques for managing these projects had to be created or borrowed from ocher fields. New developments in the field have created new management needs. Distance learning depends on successful management because several locations are involved. With the advent of new technologies, new ways to access information are becoming available. As a consequence, the area of information management has great potential for the field.
One theoretical base for information management comes from the discipline of information science. Other bases are emerging from practice in the integrated technologies area of the development domain and from the field of library science. The information management area opens many possibilities for instructional design, especially in the areas of curriculum development and implementation and self-designed instruction.
Management involves controlling Instructional Technology through planning, organizing, coordinating and supervising. Management is generally the product of an operational value system. The complexity of man aging multiple resources, personnel, and design and development efforts is multiplied as the size of the intervention grows from small, one-school or -company departments, to state-wide instructional interventions and global multi-national company changes. Regardless of the size of the Instructional Technology program or project, one key ingredient essential to success is management. Change rarely occurs at only the micro-instructional level. To ensure the success of any instructional intervention, the process of any cognitive behavior or affective change must occur in tandem with change at the macro-level. With few exceptions (Greer, 1992; Hannum and Hansen, 1989; Romiszowski, 1981), managers of Instructional Technology programs and projects looking for sources on how to plan for and manage these multiple macro-level change models will be disappointed.
In summary, there are four subcategories of the management domain: project management, resource management, delivery system management and information management. Within each of these sub- categories there is a common set of tasks that must be accomplished. Organization must be assured, personnel hired and supervised, funds planned and accounted for, and facilities developed and maintained. In addition, planning for short- and long-term goals must occur. To control the organization the manager must establish a structure that aids decision- making and problem-solving. This manager should also be a leader who can motivate, direct, coach, support, delegate, and communicate (Prostano and Prostano, 1987). Personnel tasks include recruiting, hiring, selecting, supervising and evaluating. Fiscal tasks encompass budget planning, justification and monitoring, accounting and purchasing. Responsibility for facilities entails planning, supporting and supervising. A manager may have responsibility for developing a long range plan. (Caffarella, 1993).

Project Management. Project management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling instructional design and development projects. According to Rothwell and Kazanas (1992), project management differs from traditional management, which is line and staff management, because: (a) project members may be new, short-term members of a team; (b) project managers often lack long-term authority over people because
they are temporary bosses, and (c) project managers enjoy greater control and flexibility than is usual in line and staff organizations.
Project managers are responsible for planning, scheduling and con- trolling the functions of instructional design or other types of projects. They must negotiate, budget, install information monitoring systems, and evaluate progress. The project management role is often one of dealing with threats to success and recommending internal changes.

Resource Management. Resource management involves planning, monitoring, and controlling resource support systems and services. The management of resources is a critical area because it controls access. Resources can include personnel, budget, supplies, time, facilities, and instructional resources. Instructional resources encompass all of the technologies described in the section on the development domain. Cost effectiveness and justification of effectiveness for learning are two important characteristics of resource management.

Delivery System Management. Delivery system management involves planning, monitoring and controlling "the method by which distribution of instructional materials is organized . . . fit islet combination of medium and method of usage that is employed to present instructional information to a learner" (Ellington and Harris, 1986, p.47). Distance learning projects, such as those at National Technological University and Nova University, provide examples of such management. Delivery system management focuses on product issues, such as hardware/software requirements and technical support to users and operators, and process issues, such as guidelines for designers and instructors. Within these parameters decisions must be made that match the technology's attributes with the instructional goals. Decisions about delivery system management are often dependent on resource management systems.

Information Management. Information Management involves planning, monitoring and controlling the storage, transfer or processing of information in order to provide resources for learning. There is a great deal of overlap between storing, transferring and processing because often one function is necessary in order to perform the other. The technologies described in the development domain are methods of storage and delivery. Transmission or transfer of information often occurs through integrated technologies. "Processing consists of changing some aspect of information [through computer programs] . . . to make it more suitable for some purpose" (Lindenmayer, 1988, p. 317). Information management is important for providing access and user friendliness. The importance of information management is its potential for revolutionizing curriculum and instructional design applications. The growth of knowledge and knowledge industries beyond the scope that today's educational system can accommodate means that this is an area of great importance to Instruc- tional Technology in the future. An important component of the field will continue to be the management of information storage systems for instructional purposes.

Trends and Issues. The trend towards quality improvement and quality management that is seen in industrial settings is likely to spread to educational settings. If so, it will have an influence on the management domain. A synthesis of diffusion of innovations, performance technology and quality management could provide a powerful tool for organizational change: Diminishing availability will challenge managers to make better use of current resources. The marriage of information systems and man- agement will grow and affect Instructional Technology in that management decision-making will be more and more dependent on computerized information.

The Domain of Evaluation

Evaluation in its broadest sense is a commonplace human activity. In daily life we are constantly assessing the worth of activities or events according to some system of valuing. The development of formalized educational programs, many funded by the federal government, has brought with it the need for formalized evaluation programs. The evaluation of these programs required the application of more systematic and scientific procedures.
Curriculum specialist Ralph Tyler is generally credited with promulgating the concept of evaluation in the 1930s (Worthen and Sanders, 1973). The year 1965 saw the passage of the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act, mandating formal needs assessments and evaluation of certain types of programs. Since that time, evaluation has grown into a field of its own, with professional associations (e.g. the American Evaluation Association) and a long list of published books and journal sources.
The publication of Robert Mager's Preparing Instructional Objectives in 1962 was an important event in the evolution of evaluation.When preparing for a workshop on programmed instruction, Mager decided to use programmed instruction as an introduction to writing measurable objectives. The program was refined and later published. It is probably one of the most influential publications in the field. Other important contributions historically were the development of the domains of educational objectives (Bloom, 1956; Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia, 1964) and learning classifications (Gagne, 1965).
In the late 1960s Stuffiebeam (1969) introduced another approach to evaluation which has now become classic, one which sought "not to prove but to improve" Stufflebeam (1983, p. 118). His model suggested four types of evaluation: context, input, process, and product (CIPP). The four elements in the CIPP model provide for considering information relating to: needs assessment; design decisions which address content and strategy; guidance for implementation; and outcome assessment (Braden, 1992).
With the concern for more formalized evaluation, it became evident that to evaluate one needed to compare results with goals. Thus, the area of evaluation came to encompass needs assessment. With this orientation, Roger Kaufman (1972) presented a conceptual structure for analyzing the appropriateness of teaching goals.
The evaluation domain grew as the educational research and methodology field grew, often in tandem.or parallel with that field. Important distinctions between traditional educational research and evaluation became clearer as both areas developed. Scriven (1980) emphasized the difference between evaluation and other types of research. He said that while evaluation is the process of determining the merit, worth or value of a process or product and that this is a research process, the purpose of educational evaluation is different from the purpose of other educational research. The purpose of evaluation is to support the making of sound value judgments, not to test hypotheses.
Evaluation research and traditional research, then, are distinguished by several characteristics. While they often employ similar tools, the ends are different. For traditional research, the end is an increase in knowledge broadly defined. For evaluation research, the end is the provision of data for decision making in order to improve, expand, or discontinue a project, program or product. The aims of traditional research are less time and situation specific because it attempts to uncover principles that apply more broadly. With evaluation research, the object being evaluated is most often. a specific program or project in a given context. In other words, much less attention is paid to the question of generalizing the findings to a larger population. While both types of research have common roots historically and share many characteristics Ad processes, the enterprises in practice are quite distinct.
Evaluation is the process of determining the adequacy of instruction and learning. Evaluation begins with problem analysis. This is an important preliminary step in the development and evaluation of instruction because goals and constraints are clarified during this step.
In the domain of evaluation important distinctions are made between program, project and product evaluations; each is an important type of evaluation for the instructional designer, as are formative and sununative evaluation. According to Worthen and Sanders (1987):

Evaluation is the determination of a thing's value. In education, it is formal determination of the quality, effectiveness or value of a program, product, project, process, objective, or curriculum. Evaluation uses inquiry and judgment methods, including: (1) determining standards for judging quality and deciding whether those standards should be relative or absolute; (2) collecting relevant information; and (3) applying the standards to determine quality (pp. 22-23).

As seen in the root concept of the word, the assignment of value is central to the concept. That this assignment is done fairly, accurately, and systematically is the concern of both evaluators and clients.
One important way of distinguishing evaluations is by classifying them according to the object being evaluated. Common distinctions are programs, projects, and products (materials). The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1981) provided definitions for each of these types of evaluation.

Program evaluations—evaluations that assess educational activities which provide services on a continuing basis and often involve curricular offerings. Some examples are evaluations of a school district's reading program, a state's special education program, or a university's continuing education program (p. 12).

Project evaluations—evaluations that assess activities that are funded for a defined period of time to perform a specific task. Some examples are a threeday workshop on behavioral objectives, or a threeyear career educational demonstration project. A key distinction between a program and a project is that the former is expected to continue for an indefinite period of time, whereas the latter is usually expected to be short lived. Projects that become institutionalized in effect become programs (pp. 12,13).

Materials evaluation (instructional products)--evaluations that assess the merit or worth of content-related physical items, including books, curricular guides, films, tapes, and other tangible instructional products (p. 13).

An important distinction here is the separation of personnel evaluation from other categories. In practice, such a distinction is difficult to accomplish. People become personally involved with the development or success of a program or product; even though an evaluator may constantly refer to a separation, with statements like: "People are not being evaluated here. We just want to know if this model program works or not." The people responsible for creating and maintaining these entities are justifiably concerned about the outcomes-of the evaluation. In practice, people's effectiveness is often judged by the success of their program or product, regardless of what definitional distinctions one would like to make.
Within the domain of evaluation there are four subdomains: problem analysis, criterion-referenced measurement, and formative and summative evaluation. Each of these subdomains will be explained below.

Problem Analysis. Problem analysis involves determining the nature and parameters of the problem by using information-gathering and decision-making strategies. Astute evaluators have long argued that the really thorough evaluation will begin as the program is being conceptualized and planned. In spite of the best efforts of its proponents, the program that focuses on unacceptable ends will be judged as unsuccessful in meeting needs.
Thus, evaluation efforts include identifying needs, determining to what extent the problem can be classified as instructional in nature, identifying constraints, resources and learner characteristics, and determining goals and priorities (Seels arid Glasgow, 1990). A need has been defined as "a gap between 'what is' and 'what should be' in terms of results" (Kaufman, 1972), and needs assessment is a systematic study of these needs. An important distinction should be offered here. A needs assessment is not conducted in order to perform a more defensible evaluation as the project progresses. Instead, its purpose is more adequate program planning.

Criterion-Referenced Measurement. Criterion-referenced measurement involves techniques for determining learner mastery of pre-specified content. Criterion-referenced measures, which are sometimes tests, also can be called content-referenced, objective-referenced, or domain- referenced. This is because the criterion for determining adequacy is the extent to which the learner has met the objective. A criterion-referenced measure provides information about a person's mastery of knowledge, attitudes or skills relative to the objective. Success on a criterion-referenced test often means being able to perform certain competencies. Usually a cut-off score is established, and everyone reaching or exceeding the score passes the test. There is no limit to the number of test-takers who can pass or do well on such a test because judgments are not relative to other persons who have taken the test.
Criterion-referenced measurements let the students know how well they performed relative to a standard. Criterion-referenced items are used throughout instruction to measure whether prerequisites have been mastered. Criterion-referenced post-measures can determine whether major objectives have been met (Seels and Glasgow, 1990). Curriculum designers and other educators were interested in criterion-referenced measurement before Mager described behavioral objectives (Tyler, 1950). Early contributors to the application of criterion-referenced measurement in Instructional Technology came from the programmed instruction movement and included James Popham and Eva Baker ( Baker, 1972; Popham, 1973). Current contributors include Sharon Slirock and William Coscarelli (Shrock and Coscarelli, 1989).

Formative and Summative Evaluation. Formative evaluation involves gathering information on adequacy and using this information as a basis for further development. Summative Evaluation involves gathering information on adequacy and using this information to make decisions about utilization.
The emphasis on both formative evaluation in the early stages of product development and summative evaluation after instruction is a prime concern of instructional technologists. The distinction between these two types of evaluation was first made by Scriven (1967); although Cambre has traced these same types of activities to the 1920s and 1930s in the development of film and radio instruction (Cambre, cited in Flagg, 1990).
According to Michael Scriven (1967):

Formative evaluation is conducted during the development or improvement of a program or product (or person, etc.). It is adevaluation which is conducted for the in-house staff of the program and normally remains in-house; but it may be done by an internal or external evaluator or (preferably) a combination. The distinction between formative and summative has been well summed up in a sentence of Bob Stake's "When the cook tastes the soup, that's formative; when the guests taste the soup, that's summative" (p. 56).

Summative evaluation is conducted after completion and for the benefit of some external audience or decision-maker (e. g. funding agency, or future possible users; though it may be done by either internal or external evaluators for a mixture. For reasons of credibility, it is much more likely to involve external evaluators than is a formative evaluation. It should not be confused with outcome evaluation, which is simply an evaluation focused on outcomes rather than on process—it could be either formative or summative (p. 130).

In product development, the use of formative and summative evaluations are particularly important at varying stages. At the initial stages of development (alpha stage testing), many changes are possible, and formative evaluation efforts can have wide ranging scope. As the product is developed further, the feedback becomes more specific (beta testing), and the range of acceptable alternative changes is more limited. These are both examples of formative evaluation. When the product finally goes to market and is evaluated by an outside agency, which plays a "consumer reports" role, the purpose of the evaluation is clearly summative—i. e. helping buyers make a wise selection of a product. At this stage, without a wholesale revamping of the product, revision is virtually impossible. Thus, we see that in the development of a product, the uses of formative and summative evaluation vary with the stage of progress and that the range of acceptable suggestions narrows over time.
The methods used by formative and sunimative evaluation differ. Formative evaluation relies on technical (content) review and tutorial, small-group or large group tryouts. Methods of collecting data are often informal, such as observations, debriefing, and short tests. Summative evaluation, on the other hand, requires more formal procedures and meth- ods of collecting data. Summative evaluation often uses a comparative group study in a quasi-experimental design.
Both formative and summative evaluation require considerable attention to the balance between quantitative and qualitative measures. Quantitative measures will typically involve numbers and will frequently work toward the idea of "objective" measurement. Qualitative measures frequently emphasize the subjective and experiential aspects of the project and most often involve verbal descriptions as the means of reporting results.

Trends and Issues. Needs assessment and other types of front end analyses have been primarily behavioral in orientation through their emphasis on performance data and on breaking content down into its component parts. However, current stress on the impact of context on learning is giving a cognitive, and at times a constructivist, orientation to the needs assessment process. This emphasis on-context is evident in the performance technology movement, situated learning theories, and the new emphasis on more systemic approaches to design (Richey, 1993). Consequently, the needs assessment phase is gaining in importance. In addition, many are recommending that the needs assessment phase assume greater breadth, moving beyond concentration on content and placing new emphases on learner analysis and organizational and environmental analysis (Richey, 1992; Tessmer and Harris, 1992). The performance technology movement is also making an important contribution to the new needs assessment emphasis. Performance technology approaches may cause a broadening of the designer's role to include identifying aspects of the problem that are not instructional and working with others to create a multi-faceted solution.
The quality improvement movement will affect the evaluation domain. Quality control requires continuous evaluation including extending the cycle beyond summative evaluation. Confirmation evaluation (Misanchuk, 1978) is the next logical step in the cycle. In a 1993 article Hellebrandt and Russell argue that:

Confirmative evaluation of instructional materials and learners completes a cycle of evaluative steps in order to maintain performance standards of an instructional system. Following some time after formative and summative evaluation, a team of unbiased evaluators uses tools like checklists, interviews, rating scales, and tests to answer two fundamental questions: first, do materials still meet the original objectives; second have learners maintained their level of competence?

Other researchers are re-examining criterion-referenced measurement techniques. For example, Baker and O'Neil (1985) explore in-depth the issue of assessing instructional outcomes including new directions for criterion-referenced measurement. They present a new model of evaluation adapted to the new technologies. Their model takes into account the goals, intervention, context, information base and feedback loops.
Other areas of great interest are the measurement of higher level cognitive objectives, affective objectives and psychomotor objectives. Research on computerized criterion-referenced measurement will stimulate this domain as will the research on qualitative measures, such as port- folios and more realistic measurement items like case studies and evaluation of taped presentations. Cognitive science will continue to influence this domain in terms of newer approaches to diagnosis (Tennyson, 1990). These areas will be discussed further in Chapter Three.
New technologies have raised further issues in the evaluation domain and created a need for new techniques and methods. For example, attention needs to be directed toward improving the evaluation of distance learning projects. These tend to be evaluated superficially. It is important that evaluation of distance learning cover many aspects, i. e. personnel, facilities, equipment, materials, programming (Clark, 1989; Morehouse, 1987). Reeves (1992) recommends formative experimentation which uses a small scale trial and error approach to study a variable in real life context.
Tessmer (1993) proposes a formative evaluation model which accommodates a 'layers of necessity' approach. This approach takes into consideration the resources and constraints of each project, and attempts to avoid planning layers of formative evaluation which cannot be realistically accomplished within a project.
Eastmond (1991) presents a scenario of an evaluator's dilemma in 2010. In the scenario, the evaluator's role becomes one of questioning data collected by sophisticated information management tools. Duchastel (1987) suggests a triangular procedure of checks and balances on data collected for the evaluation of software. Thus, product review, checklist procedure, user observation and objective data evaluations are used together to give a more complete picture of the software. This approach supports the trend towards a combination of quantitative and qualitative data gathering techniques (Seels, 1993c).

Summary

The five domains of Instructional Technology highlight the diversity of the field. In addition, these domains are complex entities in themselves. This chapter emphasizes the taxonomic nature of the domain structure. One could continue the definition process and develop more specific levels of the taxonomy. The future work of instructional technologists will shape more finite definitions of the subcategories and the areas within them.

Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar