UTAH STATE UNIVERSTIY
DEPARTMENT OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY
EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
April 22 & 23, 1991
The Department of Instructional Technology External Review Committee
visited the campus on April 22 and 23, 1991. The Committee member included
Dr. Edward Caffarella (University of Northern Colorado), Dr. John Cragun
(College of Business, Utah State University), and Dr. Paul Welliver (Pennsylvania
State University). Prior to the visit the committee members reviewed the
departmental self-study. Over the two day period the committee met with a
variety of constituencies including all program faculty, representative students,
and selected university administrators.
The committee finds that the Instructional Technology Department at Utah
State University has outstanding programs. The department is clearly ranked in
the top half dozen similar programs in the country. All of the indicators of quality
are in place in the department.
Instructional technology is a growing and dynamic field as evidenced in
the Utah State University program and at other similar programs. Recent reports
on the quality of education in the United States and restructuring efforts in
schools reflect a need to change schools. Instructional Technology provides a
means to bring about improvements in the educational system. The instructional
technology program at Utah State is contributing excellent leaders for these
efforts.
The self-study report provides a clear description of the program. Rather
than repeat the information provided in the self-study, this report of the external
review committee will comment on the various sections of the self-study and the
observations of the committee during the campus visit. The self-study report is
divided into the following sections: 1) General Information, 2) Students, 3)
Faculty, 4) Curriculum, 5) Administration, and 6) Resources and Facilities. This
report of the external review committee will follow the same outline.
General Information
The instructional technology department is a free standing department in
the College of Education. The department offers degree programs at the
masters, specialist, and doctoral levels. At the masters level there are three
program areas namely 1) Information Technology & School Library Media
Administration, 2) Instructional Development, and 3) Master Resource Teacher.
The specialist and doctoral programs are offered in the area of Instructional
Technology. Utah State University has the exclusive mandate from the Board of
Regents to provide graduate work in instructional technology
Students
The department does an excellent job in placing their students after
graduation. Graduates of the program can be found in instructional technology
positions throughout the country.
The department has been able to maintain extremely high entrance
standards for all of the programs. The department has been able to attract high
quality students without engaging in significant recruiting activities. The reason
for this partly stems from the reputation the department enjoys within the state
and nationally.
A recent state directive regarding public school library media specialists
may suggest that this department will experience a greater demand in this
particular area than it has for some time. The state is now requiring certified and
credentialed media specialists in the public schools. Part of the reason for this is
that they want to have experts who will be able to facilitate the integration of
media and computers into the classroom.
In some ways the department may want to recruit students with more
diverse backgrounds, particularly at the doctoral level. We noted that, at the
masters level, most of the students had Utah roots. This same pattern does not
seem to exist for the doctoral students. The committee also noted a relatively
small number of female students. This does not reflect the general pattern at
other instructional technology programs where at last half of the students are
female. The committee recommends that additional efforts should be expended
to recruit female students.
Faculty
As a group the faculty is perceived to be very strong. The review
committee recognizes that the demonstrated strength of the faculty is a result of
the efforts of the faculty to work together as a cohesive unit under the leadership
of the department head. He has an exceptional ability to generate enthusiasm,
loyalty, and productivity on the part of the faculty. Clearly the faculty is hard
working, has a willing attitude, and generally is viewed as being an excellent
faculty. The faculty within the department see themselves in a very positive
sense with a good self-image. The evidence we have from other administrators
and other faculty members outside of the department is this faculty is highly
respected by colleagues throughout the university.
The review committee notes with some concern although the entire faculty
is responsible for the national reputation of the instructional technology programs
two faculty members, namely Don Smellie and David Merrill, are particularly
visible at the national level. The committee is concerned that if either of these
individuals were to be lost to the university then the national reputation of the
programs might be in jeopardy. Other members of the faculty should be given the
opportunity and encouraged to further develop their research and leadership
potential. As new faculty members are recruited, an effort should be made to
identify individuals who can further enhance the national reputation of the
programs.
Some members of the faculty have been directly involved in the efforts of
the College of Education and the university to install advanced technology
systems, particularly computers. These efforts, although laudatory, have diluted
to some degree the faculty time available for regular departmental activities. This
emphasis is particularly evident in the move of the department to the new
Education Building and also in the demands by the College of Education
generally. The impact of this effort has been to dilute program efforts of some
individuals in order to support programs outside the Department of Instructional
Technology. Their efforts have been widely recognized and appreciated within
the college, but some adjustments need to be made to relieve the faculty of this
burden and to permit one faculty member, in particular, the opportunity to engage
in more scholarly and research activities.
The perception of the review committee is there are two highly productive
individuals and several very productive individuals in the department. David
Merrill is nationally known for his theoretical and scholarly productivity. Don
Smellie is widely recognized for his management skills and professional
leadership. There are four other faculty members who are assets to the program
and bring a diverse set of skills to the program. These individuals should,
however, be encouraged to expand their scholarly efforts. There are two faculty
members who are good solid citizens but have not fully demonstrated any clear
measures of scholarly productivity. In addition, there are several strong faculty
members with split and adjunct appointments from other departments who
provide an expanded base for the department. All of the faculty work tirelessly to
contribute to the overall success of the program and have demonstrated their
willingness to become involved professionally and to broadcast the results of
their efforts very widely in the profession.
Since there is an opportunity to recruit a replacement for a faculty member
who is soon to retire, the committee feels the department should make every
effort to obtain the resources necessary to hire a proven scholar. This would ten
to solidify a faculty which lacks depth in the area of scholarly activity. While the
university may be unable to assemble the resources to hire at the full professor
level, the review committee recommends that the university hire someone,
possibly at the associate level, who has an established research program.
Finding someone who has a proven track-record with a high promise for
continued success will be very important to the future of the programs.
The review committee found that the faculty has heavy teaching loads.
This has an impact on research productivity and reduces opportunities to identify
and pursue a focuses research thrust. Complicating this problem is the
involvement of many faculty with Com-Net. To some extent the department could
be viewed as trying to be “all things to all people” and as such has been
remarkably productive. The faculty must, however, maintain an appropriate
balance between instructional, research, and service activities.
We feel the faculty have an excellent cross-section of skills but this also
makes them thin at the margin. They have 8 faculty members to offer graduate
degrees in 5 program areas and 3 degree levels.
We could not easily detect clearly demonstrated research thrusts by most
faculty members. They appear to have been responding in a more opportunistic
way in that, as they have had opportunities to find an outlet for an article or a
presentation, they are inclined to take advantage of it. Although this
demonstrates admirable initiative, in working with students at the Ph.D. level,
faculty members need a more focus research thrust. The fact that a department
is known for clearly defined areas of scholarship and research at the doctoral
level helps build the program’s reputation.
The self-study report does a good job of describing the relative strengths
and weaknesses of the department. We did note, however, that the research
strengths of Don Smellie and David Merrill were not adequately represented in
the report. Both of these individuals have strong scholarly reputations that could
be emphasized more in the self-study.
The faculty has very skillfully repositioned themselves from a production
orientation to a theoretical orientation. This transition is consistent with the
changes in the field of instructional technology over the past twenty years.
Curriculum
Our best judgment is that there is a reasonably good balance between
theory and application. The department has made a conscientious effort to
introduce a major theoretical component in order to insure the department in not
viewed only as a production oriented program.
The committee recommends that the faculty review the curriculum content
and course offerings. There seem to be an excessive number of courses in the
university catalog. Many of these courses may simply be “on the books” and not
taught on a regular basis. We did note that some of the courses are double-listed
and other are offered only every other year. On the other hand, the question
could be raised whether or not the configuration of courses, as they presently
exist, is necessary.
We feel there may be other courses within the university which may be
particularly appropriate for instructional technology students. Granted, in taking
these courses, something would need to be given up but doing a cost-benefit
analysis of the relative options would be justified. For example, there may be
courses in psychology or in the College of Business which would be appropriate
in broadening the program of several students, particularly in the instructional
development area and for students planning to enter the business world.
We would like to question the need for a research requirement such as the
thesis at the masters level, at least to the extent that it presently exists. This
matter needs to be discussed with the graduate dean to find out to what extent
the existing requirements are a result of history and tradition at Utah State
University or to what extent it may be a function of the desires of the Instructional
Technology faculty. The masters committee structure seems to consume an
inordinate amount of time for a faculty that is involved with numerous higher
priority activities. As a means of saving faculty time we would question the need
for all of the various maters degree meetings.
We encourage the department to continue to emphasize the importance of
training in dealing with diversity and demographic differences in the workplace.
Consideration should be given to individuals who are not within the norm but
have special circumstances which cause them to be looked upon as individuals
who have different characteristics which are not in keeping with the norm. A part
of this diversity is giving consideration to a more global orientation, particularly in
the instructional development degree.
Administration
Without question, the impact that Don Smellie has had on the department
has been remarkable. He has moved the department ahead in a very significant
fashion. The loyalty and dedication of his faculty is certainly unquestioned. He
has been able to extract from them a high level of productivity and at the same
time has generated a positive self-image about the department and where it is
headed. Don is seen in a very positive light by the other department heads and
also by the Dean of the College of Education. While Don has been a department
head for many years, his level of commitment and effectiveness has continued to
grow.
By offering joint appointments to individuals in other university
departments the instructional technology program has been able to expand the
program expertise and diversity at minimal costs. Several departments
throughout the university employ instructional technology graduate students. By
cultivating opportunities such as this the instructional technology program has
been able to leverage its resources.
Facilities and Resources
The new College of Education building provides an excellent facility for the
programs. The design of the building reflects careful planning by all participating
parties. The building has appropriate spaces for instructional, scholarly, and
service activities. The layout of the instructional technology spaces encourages
communication among the faculty and students. The affective considerations of
the building are outstanding and provide a very positive feeling to the visitor.
We felt that the department is well equipped with appropriate hardware.
We recognize there are other pieces of equipment which could be purchased and
be profitably used by the faculty and students. In general, however, the
department has a good supply of equipment.
There is evidence that the regular departmental funds for teaching or
graduate assistants is limited. By drawing upon other university resources,
particularly grant projects, the department has been able to provide financial
support to a majority of its students. Although this is commendable and appears
to be functioning effectively, the instructional technology programs are vulnerable
to the success and good will of the other departments.
The committee feels that having only one departmental secretary to
service the needs of the faculty members is inadequate. Without sufficient
secretarial assistance many faculty members are forced to become their own
secretaries. This is not an efficient use of faculty time.
The regular department budget is insufficient to provide for the normal
operation of the department. The department spends in excess of $40,000 for
operating expenses but the university only provides $14,000 through the regular
operating budget. The department meets its operating expenses by combining
the regular resources with a variety of other funds. This makes the department
very vulnerable to resources over which it does not have direct control. If the
supplementary resources were to evaporate, the department would be in dire
condition.
In looking for a replacement for Dr. Branyan-Broadbent, the department
should aim high and find someone who is an established and recognized
performer. If there is someone else in the department who could assume the
responsibilities for the media specialist program area, the department may have
some flexibility in the role for the new individual.
The lab school is a very positive opportunity for this department. It
provides an excellent chance for them to experiment and develop new systems
for the public school environment.
Summary
The external review committee commends the faculty, administration, and
students of the Instructional Technology Department for outstanding programs.
The observations and suggestions outlined in this report are intended to be
helpful. They should not detract from the fact that overall the program is clearly
one of the top programs in the country. The national reputation of the program
was well known to the reviewers prior to the campus visit. The opportunity to
review the program first hand has confirmed this outstanding reputation.