1
REPORT OF THE OFF-CAMPUS REVIEW COMMITTEE
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
Donald P. Ely, Syracuse University
M. David Merrill, University of Southern California
October 20-21, 1983
PROCEDURES
This report is based on a review of the self-study document prepared by the
Department Chairman, inspection of the course outline and related materials,
meetings with the faculty and student groups, and inspection of the facilities.
Individual interviews were conducted with some of the faculty and with a former
student now in graduate study at another institution. Dissertations and practicum
papers were read. The Library was visited. The reviewers met with the OnCampus Review Committee on two occasions.
With this information as a base, a preliminary report was drafted and shared with
the Dean, the Assistant Provost, and the On-Campus Committee before leaving
campus. The purpose of these meetings was to determine whether there was
any error in fact or misinterpretation of information obtained in the data gathering
process and to clarify the statements made in the draft report.
The reviewers then wrote separate sections independently and exchanged their
manuscripts for additions, corrections, and editing. The final drafts were merged
and are submitted with the endorsement of both external reviewers.
REACTIONS TO THE SELF-STUDY
Goals
The general curriculum goals (pp. 22-23) and the individual program goals (pp.
23-28) are specific and well-stated. They provide a sense of direction for current
students and prospective students. They give guidance to the faculty in teaching
and advising.
What is not clear is the direction of the Department as a whole. There is no plan
(or goals) for the future of the program. There are successful attempts to phase
in contemporary developments (e.g. computers and videodiscs in teaching and
learning) and to be sensitive to new placement opportunities (e.g. business and
industry) but these actions are more opportunistic than planned.
2
Program Areas
The four track Master’s program provides flexibility and focus rarely seen at this
level in the field of educational technology (or other fields within Education, for
that matter). Special commendation should be given for the creation of the
Master Resource Teacher sequence and the Computer Education program.
These cutting-edge programs are attractive to prospective graduate students and
meet some of the current personnel needs in Education.
The doctoral program is relatively new. It has attracted outstanding students and
promises to build upon a strong departmental base. Limiting the number to five
candidates at any one time is probably realistic for now but needs to be
reconsidered if the Department decided to amplify its research interests.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The thirteen strengths listed in the Self-study were confirmed during the site visit.
In addition, there is an unusually high esprit de corps among the faculty and
students.
Likewise, the eight weaknesses listed reflect a candor not always evident in such
reports. They are indeed the weaknesses which the reviewers observed.
Recommendations regarding several of these weaknesses are made in a later
section of this report.
Students
The Self-study assessments are essentially accurate and, in some cases,
understated. The fact is that there are continuing applications by prospective
students who apparently choose the Utah State Instructional Technology
program and do not submit application to other institutions. The Department staff
do not seem to know the source of stimulation for applicants. When the current
student group of about thirty was asked whether they were motivated to apply by
former graduates, only three answered positively.
Nonmajors are taking Instructional Technology courses in increasing numbers
and this fact places and extensive burden on the faculty.
It appears that the rejection rate of application to the Master’ program is about
10-20%. Applicants seem to be self-selecting in that most of them meet the
stated admission requirements at the time they apply. If applications continue to
increase, the faculty will have to tighten the requirements and in so doing even
higher quality students will enter the Department. The fact that Instructional
Technology is the only graduate level only program in the University should not
be a cause for alarm. This is a typical arrangement.
3
It is commendable that the Department carried out two alumni surveys. A good
rate of return indicates a continuing loyalty to the program. The results have been
incorporated into various parts of the Self-study and the suggestion that more
computer-related work be added has already taken place.
The lack of student writing crops up in several parts of the Self-study. It is
probably true that most any graduate program could increase its demands for
student writing and the Instructional Technology program is no exception. The
fact that major reports of the practicum experience are required by the
Department (not the College of Education) is a positive indicator of this concern.
A Sample of reports from the past several years read by one member of the
Review Team reflected good technical writing using basic research format in
most cases. It is understood that the reports are not theses but are, for the most
part, intellectually honest papers which have been carefully written and reviewed
by the faculty committee thus insuring some quality control.
Since only one doctoral dissertation was available, it is difficult to make any
statement regarding the quality of the doctoral level writing. In comparison with
other Ed.D. dissertations completed in major instructional technology programs
across the United States, this study would be judged as being of marginal quality.
Faculty
The strengths, weaknesses, and descriptions of faculty activities are accurately
portrayed in the Self-study. They were confirmed in the individual and group
meetings with the faculty and in the student meeting.
One positive factor, which did not come clearly through the Report, is that almost
every faculty member is an active learner. Each person seemed to be engaged in
the process of learning something new or keeping up with new developments in
his/her specialization. It should be noted that these activities, however
commendable, are not inquiry-oriented. They are updating procedures to
maintain state-of-the-art knowledge rather than exploration of questions which
might yield new insights and understandings. Without losing sight of the lifelong
learning benefits, the purpose of these efforts could be redirected toward inquiry
while gaining knowledge of new developments.
Three of the professors in the Department could be assigned as persons of
national stature (DeBloois, Smellie, and Wood) based on their participation in
national organizations, publishing, and academic positions held.
The rather low incidence of publication in refereed journals may cause problems
for the Associate Professors at the time of promotion to full professor. Increased
publication in the major journals would enhance the visibility and , hopefully, the
reputation of the Department.
4
Curriculum
The analysis of the curriculum in the Self-study is accurate and informative. The
statements made in response to each question are data-based and honestly
reflect the status quo. The comments which follow are offered gratuitously for
consideration by the Department.
Evaluation is becoming a more important element in preparation of instructional
technologies. Field expectations have largely driven the demands. The Utah
State program requires only one evaluation course in one Master’s curriculum
(Training and Development). The Ed.S. program does require three courses—an
admirable breakthrough.
Most of the major instructional technology graduate programs offer the option to
pursue work in the diffusion and implementation of organizational innovations.
The need to know how to bring about change, once a person has acquired the
knowledge and skills to work in any field, is often as important as all the rest of
the professional preparation.
Any of the Master’s tracks can be completed with only two courses outside
Instructional Technology. It may be that students are advised to do work
elsewhere. This type of advisement helps students to broaden their graduate
education. The advantage of a university is the array of potential resources
available. To encourage parochial programs which omit useful opportunities
elsewhere in the University denies the student important linkages to other
resources of knowledge. It is difficult within the limited time of a Master’s program
to reach out to many other courses but such efforts need to be considered even
in a small way.
Administration
The Self-study Report provides a good overview of Departmental operations. It is
accurate and well-written. Several additional comments should be made.
There does not seem to be a comprehensive and coordinated plan for the
Department. The Recommendations section of this report will outline suggestions
along this line.
Students do seem to be involved in the decision-making process pertaining to
matters which directly affect them. It was stated that students had access to the
Self-study Report. Attempts are made to involve them in Department affairs.
The current budget seems to be inadequate to do all of the things the
Department would like to do—many of them to enhance the operation and to
improve the learning environment. The Chairman is a good steward of the funds
5
available and through supplements and creative financing seems to be able to
minimize the difficulties which are often apparent when funds are limited.
Resources and Facilities
The statement which appears in the Self-study confirms the perceptions of the
reviewers. There are, however, two additional concerns: (1) closing the
instructional facility for graphics and photography in another campus building will
cause a major hardship. Replacement and/or alternative space will have to be
found; and (2) the lack of a student lounge or work space places a damper on
communication among students and limits opportunities outside of class.
Summary
Rather than to make a summary statement regarding the Self-study report,
perhaps it would be useful to address an issue which must be confronted for
future planning. Is the Department of Instructional Technology satisfied with the
current program?
Well-prepared practitioners are coming out of the program. They are finding good
positions. They feel that they have received the necessary knowledge and skills
to perform in their profession. The employers seem to be pleased. What more
would the Department want?
There are sufficient qualified new students each year. They receive excellent
instruction in adequate facilities. They are challenged to produce quality
products. Are these satisfactory conditions?
The Department is a valued components in the College of Education and a
contributing member of the University community. Students from other fields
want to take courses in Instructional Technology. Should these relationships
continue and at what level?
One scenario, if played out, would yield continuation of the status quo program—
and that might not be bad if it is a conscious decision. Parts of the program would
be modified, weakness would be strengthened, and the reputation of the
Department as a solid producer of practitioners would continue. There is some
merit in retaining a good position.
There are alternative scenarios, each of which would entail some risk. One would
accelerate the transition from instructional media to instructional technology.
More emphasis would be placed on instructional development and an inquiry
orientation would pervade the faculty at first and then the student body. The
doctoral program would be expanded as the service courses are turned over to
self-instructional formats. Even more highly qualified candidates would apply and
the instruction would be characterized by the balance between theory and
6
practice. Students would come from more states and foreign countries than do
the present group. Peer perceptions of the program would probably change and
Utah State would be among the “top ten” in the Nation.
Other scenarios are possible and ought to be considered before a plan for the
future is developed.
QUESTIONS FROM GUIDELINES
What is the state of the art in discipline, and how well does this department
reflect it?
Many departments of Instructional Technology are moving toward an
increased emphasis on instructional design with a somewhat decreased
emphasis on production skills. The Department of Instructional Technology at
USU has been and continue to be very responsive to this trend. The evolution of
their program over the past several years clearly reflects this increased emphasis
on instructional design skills.
With the availability of inexpensive personal computers has come a flurry
of activity in designing educational software. The field at large is only beginning
to recognize this demand for persons who have training in the design and
development of quality instructional software. The Department of Instructional
Technology has established a leadership position with their program track in
Computer Education. The quality of their faculty in this area is outstanding and
the course offerings very responsive to the need of this growing area. Graduates
of this program will be in high demand.
The recent work of this department in the area of interactive video disc
technology has been nationally recognized. While their leadership in this
important area may have slipped some with renewed effort in reporting their work
their leadership in this area could easily be reestablished.
How do the goals of the department compare to those of the rest of the
profession?
The self study document and the Program Planning Guidebook for the
Graduate Students contained goals for students in the various of the program.
We felt that these goals tended to be a little too broad and tended to promise all
things to all people. These goals may be more useful if they were a little more
concise and merely identified the skills the students should acquire by
participation in the program. Statements such as “…perform the inherent
responsibilities of a professional individual” and “…develop a mature
perspective…” do little to identify the substance of the program track.
7
The most significant weakness identified by the review committee was the
lack of specified department goals. None of the documents we reviewed
contained a plan for the future direction of the department. The direction seems
to be determined by expediency rather than by plan. Because no goals have
been articulated it is difficult to compare these goals with the profession at large.
There is evidence, as indicated above, that the department is responsive t to
current directions in the field (such as increased emphasis on instructional design
and new track in educational computing) but it is difficult to determine if these
directions are expedient or by plan. The danger is that if they are expedient the
direction may fluctuate making future planning and significant contribution to
these new directions less likely.
Closely related to the lack of departmental goals was the seeming lack of
an agenda for disciplined inquiry on the part of the individual faculty members.
When asked for their short range and long range agendas for scholarly activity
most of the faculty described current projects, few seemed to have a long range
plan. Plans for personal improvement also seemed somewhat expedient rather
than planned or anticipated in advance.
What should be the role of this department in the university? Is it successfully
fulfilling this role?
There are special areas of competence that this department should share
as service to the university. The Department of Instructional Technology is
providing service courses in Computer Literacy, Library Use, and Media
Production. These are areas for which this faculty have particular skills which are
valuable to students in a wide range of majors. A comment on the Computer
Literacy course may be appropriate. With the rapid increase in computer use
there is an increased need for courses which teach applications of computers to
a wide range of activities. Such applications are probably more appropriately
taught by the Department of Instructional Technology rather than the Department
of Computer Science. Application computer literacy is not the same as learning
to program a computer or learning how a computer works. By analogy this is a
course in driver education rather than a course in auto mechanics. We predict
that the enrollment in this course will expand rapidly.
We observe that the course work for students in this department tend to
be limited to courses only in the department. As a mild suggestion it would seem
advisable to explore adding courses from outside the department and the School
of Education to the curriculum of the department. Likely candidates for such
cooperative involvement might include Computer Science, Graphic Arts and
Photography and Psychology. The review committee did not examine the course
offerings in these areas for appropriateness to the department offerings.
How does the quality of the department compare with departments elsewhere in
the areas of teaching, research, student, etc.?
8
The teaching in the department seems to be exceptionally good. The
rapport with the students is outstanding indicating a considerable dedication of
this faculty to student needs.
The students represent a surprisingly diverse population considering the
relative isolation of the USU campus. The screening procedures have resulted in
a very talented student body who seem motivated to acquire an education rather
than merely obtain a degree.
A second important weakness observed by the review committee is the
seeming lack of an attitude of inquiry on the part of the faculty. For the most part
faculty are engaged in interesting design and development activities however,
they do no seem to approach these activities with a series of questions to be
answered and consequently they do not seem to write about what they have
learned from their activities. Too often the product of the design or development
effort seems to be an end in itself rather than an vehicle for investigation.
Given the resources at hand, are they being effectively used?
Given the limited equipment budget of the department they have been
very effective in using soft money to obtain the equipment necessary for
computer labs and other needs.
The only concern the review committee had in regard to resources was
the increased load that the service courses seemed to put on certain faculty
members. With the growth of these courses there is danger that the time
available for inquiry and for attending the graduate program may be eroded by
the service course load.
Provide recommendations concerning the direction the Department should take
if: resources remain constant; additional resources become available.
See the next section of this report for our recommendations.
In summary, what do you perceive to be the strengths and weaknesses of this
department?
Strengths:
The esprit de corps of the faculty and students.
Faculty dedication and attention to students.
Responsiveness to current directions in the field.
Good use of available resources.
Weaknesses:
Lack of departmental goals.
Lack of research agenda for individual faculty.
9
Insufficient attitude of inquiry.
Danger of overtaxing key faculty with service.
Too heavy reliance on part-time faculty.
Primary Recommendations
1. The department should formulate short range (less than 2 year), intermediate
range (2 to 5 year) and long range (more than 5 year) goals.
2. Individual faculty members should formulate short term, intermediate term,
and long term goals for (a) personal improvement and (b) disciplined inquiry.
Progress toward these goals should become part of the faculty evaluation
process.
3. The department should increase its emphasis on disciplined inquiry. Faculty
members should write about as well as do instructional product development.
This recommendation requires elaboration. The review committee does
not wish to imply that individual faculty members should change the type
inquiry in which they engage. We are not suggesting that individual faculty
members should abandon product development to engage in more
experimental types of research. This recommendation does imply that a
faculty member should undertake every development activity with a desire
to learn something new, answer a question, test a technique or explore a
new method. This recommendation does imply that data collection for
inquiry should be built into products from their conception, not added on
after the fact. It does imply that new projects should be undertaken only if
there is something to be learned, a new technique to be explored, a new
method to be tested, etc. Development activities using known
methodologies and techniques is best accomplished by commercial
enterprises and should not use up the valuable resources of the university.
Finally, this recommendation does imply that in addition to the decision
and development of the product, faculty members should write reports
describing the design and development process. These reports should
describe new methodologies, share new insights and report evaluation
findings related to the development effort. It is the opinion of the review
committee that some very interesting work has been and is being done by
members of this department but that the insights gained from this activity
is not being adequately reported to the professional community.
4. The department should develop ways to decrease the labor intensive demand
of its service course.
The following elaboration may clarify the intent of this recommendation. The
department how offers courses in three service areas: computer literacy,
library use and media production. The computer literacy area is on the
10
leading edge of a geometric growth curve. Already it is demanding too much
time from faculty members who are also responsible for the Computer
Education track of the graduate curriculum. Very soon this growth will
seriously interfere with the effectiveness of the department in this important
new area.
The library use course is also showing steady growth. The impact of this
course is somewhat less severe than the computer course. However, Brenda
Boardbent, who carries this course at present, has considerable ability which
could be used to strengthen the Library Media Center Administration
program. The demands of this service course will increasingly interfere with
her contribution to the graduate program.
At present the media production area is being well presented by Leon
Beutler. This represents perhaps the best use of his special talents. The crisis
in this new area will be delayed until his retirement. Nevertheless, it is not too
soon to begin planning for this event so that the burden of this area will not
fall to the already overloaded existing faculty or will require the addition of
faculty to handle this area when new faculty strength is more critically needed
in the design area.
The Department of Instructional Technology has special ability in the
design of individualized, self-instructional materials. The implication of this
recommendation is that resources should be directed toward the preparation
of the self-instructional laboratories in these service areas which could be
managed by graduate assistants thus freeing the valuable time of the
graduate faculty to more adequately attend to the graduate programs of the
department.
In the short term this recommendation may require some additional
resources from the university. Such resources would be well spend and in the
long run preserve the faculty resources of the department while enabling the
department to generate the tuition income necessary to a cost effective
program.
5. The department should establish a better balance between part-time and fulltime faculty by adding an additional faculty member in the area of instructional
design.
If the department is to successfully make the necessary transition from a
media production department to an instructional design department the
faculty strength in the area of instructional design must be increased. This
new faculty person should have strong inquiry skills and provide a model of
the type of disciplined inquiry suggested in recommendation 3. While not
wishing to tell the department how to conduct a search the committee would
like to suggest that the department would probably be strengthened if this
11
person came from outside the university and was trained somewhere other
than Indiana University. Three of the current faculty members represent the
Indiana flavor of training in the instructional design and development and a
new viewpoint would add balance to the faculty.
This recommendation would require the reallocation of existing resources
plus additional resources. The growth of the service areas of the department
and the likely increase of enrollment in several of the graduate programs
would more than justify this increased expenditure.
Additional Recommendations
1. The Department should consider expanding the doctoral program if a more
active research emphasis is part of a new plan.
2. Some effort should be devoted to redesigning some of the courses to reflect
the instructional design and development principles which are taught and
advocated in some of the courses. Such procedures as reassigning
instructors, formation of development teams, and use of student as
developers could be followed.
3. The library collection should be reviewed against current bibliographies (e.g.,
Wiley, Sources of Information for Instructional Technology). There should be
an acceleration of the process to convert the Library from the Dewey system
to the Library of Congress classification system. Separation of books is a
major deterrent to use of these resources as is the separation of the indexes
to ERIC (RIE and CIJE). RIE, CIJE, and ERIC microfiche collection, which
provides access to the documents listed in RIE, is on the third floor. They
should be brought together.
4. As part of course revisions or redesigns, students should be required to write
more and faculty should make their standards known and then follow them.
There is nothing quite so helpful on student papers than instructor comments
and specific suggestions. Perhaps students in advanced courses could be
encouraged to write draft articles for specific instructional technology
publications. Such efforts might bring about actual publications.
5. Weekly or bimonthly informal, non-required meetings for all students, faculty,
and guests should be set-up to encourage exchange of ideas, briefing on new
projects, and articulation of ideas which need to be tested.
6. A survey of current students and applicants should be made to determine the
source of information about the program. Knowledge of the source of
students could help in targeting future recruiting efforts.
12
7. A more deliberate effort should be made by the full time Instructional
Technology faculty to publish in refereed journals. Wherever possible, coauthored publications with graduate students should be encouraged.
8. Consider requiring (or strongly recommending) one evaluation course for the
Computer Education, Library Media, and Master Resource Teacher Master’s
programs.
9. Initiate exploratory conversation with people in Communications (graphics
design and photography) and Computer Science to determine possible areas
of cooperation, e.g., placement of Instructional Technology students in related
courses, sharing facilities such as student darkrooms, teaching special
sections of courses for students in areas of specialization, and other matters
of mutual interest.
10. Consider formal coordination of placement activities with a job file, candidate
list, and special counseling for placement.
The review team thanks the faculty, students, and staff of the Department of
Instructional Technology for making available the time and information which
made the preparation of this report easier. The team will continue to be available
for further clarification and consultation.
DPE and MDM
November 10, 1983