Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 1 Running Head: PROSPECTS FOR THE INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program at San José State University Jorge Oceja San Jose State University
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 2 Abstract This article analyzes the situation of the Instructional Technology (IT) program at San Jose State University (SJSU) and explores different initiatives taken by other master s degrees to stop the drop in the number of enrollments and improve the overall quality of their programs. First, the most relevant bibliography regarding trends and best practices in instructional design and technology was reviewed. Then, the enrollment data from SJSU and also from San Diego State (SDSU) and San Francisco State (SFSU) was gathered in order to explore how common this trend is. Also data about the student s needs and about the skills that companies are demanding was collected and analyzed. This helped to identify several imbalances between the needs and the actual curriculum at SJSU. Finally, the plans taken by SFSU and SDSU programs in the last years were collected due to the positive impact they have had in the enrollment numbers. All the actions and trends that could help SJSU program are summarized in the last part of the article.
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 3 Introduction The Instructional Technology M.A program at San Jose State University (SJSU), as other Instructional Design and Technology programs in California, is facing serious challenges. The most important one is a significant drop in the number of enrollments. Although the retention rate of the students is high, there is a need for finding the causes of this phenomenon. The purpose of this study is to obtain information from institutions, students and professionals to ascertain the reasons for this drop. Based on the data obtained, and also on the analysis of the actions that other institutions are taking, some possible solutions are identified. Besides the program at SJSU, the two main Master s degrees in Instructional Design and Technology in California are the ones offered by the Department of Educational Technology at San Diego State University (SDSU) and the Department of Instructional Technologies at San Francisco State University (SFSU). Informal conversations with colleagues and professors from these two campuses show that, at a certain point in time, both programs have struggled recruiting new students. Thus, the first research question that the article tries to answer is if the drop of enrollments at SJSU is common to the other programs. In any case, comments from students at SJSU suggest an imbalance between the skills demanded in the field of instructional design and the actual curriculum. This disparity seems to occurre also between the expectations of instructional designers and recruiters and the content of some courses. Therefore, the second research question is if there is an actual disadjustment between what it is being taught and what the students are demanding. The third question is if the skills and competences required by the labor market match the curriculum at SJSU. The paper also covers the initiatives developed by other institutions to maintain the number of enrollments and face future challenges. It also analyzes if the recommendations found in the literature
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 4 review have been followed. In this process, new best practices and innovations are identified. Instructional Design and Technology: Programs, Best Practices and Trends It is always difficult to mark out the field of instructional design and technology and differentiate it from other similar concepts such as instructional design, instructional technology, or educational technology. The definitions of the field have varied over time (Reiser, 2007) and the raise of different models based on Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) make difficult to restrict the term (Gustafson & Branch, 1997). However, the definition given by the Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) of Educational Technology summarizes what these approaches have in common. AECT refers to the field as the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources. Although with different names, the three programs mentioned in the introduction of this paper offer Master s degree programs that fit this definition. Different authors have addressed the importance of having quality programs in the universities. Winn (1997) highlights why and what theoretical content is needed in the discipline, and analyzes the role of the university preparing instructional technologist. Richey (1988) also emphasizes the influence of academic preparation in on-the-job success, and studies its relationship with other variables such as students characteristics and competency attainment. Other authors have focused on best practices and factors that could improve the quality of the programs. One of the most cited elements is the need of targeting the competencies that companies require. Deden-Parker (1981), for instance, analyzes the importance of how industry sees instructional technology skills, so students and programs can adapt their profiles to match these needs. In the same line, Moallem (1995) studies more than 150 job offers to dig up the skills demanded and make them available to the programs. In this process, he underlines the significance of creating electives that meet
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 5 students goals and also, the need of increasing software and hardware knowledge. Another important element is the portfolio that students create during their program. Participation of the students in the standards that the portfolio should meet, balance between these standards and creativity, and reusability by separating the content from the structure- are some of the advises given (Macedo, Snider, Penny, & Labone, 2001). Also the importance of the process (Mathies & Uphoff, 1992), the need of departments posting samples to follow (Ingram, Haynes, Davidson- Shivers, & Irvins, 2005), and the implementation of assessment procedures that include informational seminars, criteria for selecting the items to include, and explanation of the role that portfolios are intend to play, are addressed. The existing literature also mentions the need of building a sense of community. Rossett (1981) explains how San Diego s Program has attempted not only to educate students but also serve its community. In a similar way Ingram, Haynes, Davidson-Shivers & Irvins (2005) refer to the development of a systematic process for locating instructional design alumni that could provide feedback from their workplace. In addition to these best practices and recommendations, the literature analyzed shows some trends both in the field and in the programs. Within these, Ely (1989) cites tendencies such as the importance of research and development in the instructional design process -also mentioned by French (1985)-, the increase in the use of interactive video, and the role of distance education as a major vehicle for instruction. But probably the most important trend identified is the move from the sacred ADDIE model towards new paradigms based on collaboration, sharing and informal learning. Whichever term is used, Web 2.0 (O Rilley), Thinking Practices (Recker, Olson, Rodgers, & duplessis, 2000) or informal learning, the framework for instructional design and technology is changing drastically due to the increasing significance of these concepts. The construction of the instruments used in this report for gathering information, and even the design of the whole research project, are
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 6 guided by this critical trend. Method The study has had two phases. In the first one (quantitative), three different kinds of data were collected: Institutional data, data from students, and data from professionals working in the field of Instructional Design and Technology. First, the progress in the number of enrollments in the three programs was obtained. It allowed us to compare the drop of enrollments at SJSU with the other two programs. SJSU s data was obtained from the Office of Institutional Research, SDSU s from the Office of Analytic Studies, and SFSU s was provided by Ana Kozubek, Academic Office Coordinator. Next, a questionare to explore the needs and demands of the students was built using SurveyMonkey. Fig 1. Student s needs The link was sent to SFSU students using their mailing list (isan-l@sfsu.edu). SJSU students accessed it from their Google group (http://groups.google.com/group/sjsu_it). San Diego students were reached through SAGE (Students Association for Graduates in Educational Technology) at
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 7 sage@rohan.sdsu.edu. Only the first ten answers were collected and used in the report. The same questionnaire was sent to professionals working in the field of Instructional Design. In this case it was entitled Skills that an Instructional Designer should have. In order to reach this group, a message was posted in the discussion forum of The Elearning Guide, a prestigious community of practice for Instructional Designers. All these data allowed us to discover certain disadjustments between what is being taught in the SJSU program and what both the students and the labor market are demanding. On the second phase, an analysis of the initiatives taken over the years by SFSU and SDSU was developed. Also, actions planned but not executed yet were analyzed. To gather this information, a semi-structured interview was design and Dr. Brian Beatty (Assistant Professor at SFSU) was interviewed. Marcie Bober (Department Chair at SDSU) scheduled an interview over the phone for December 9 th but she was not able to attend. However, she shared with us information about the trends and state of the art of SDSU program through informal conversations. The information about SJSU was collected based on the author s knowledge of the program. The interview with Dr. Brian Beatty was organized around the following questions: 1. What initiatives has your program developed in the last years to maintain the number of enrollments and to continue being a successful M.A? 2. What are the strategies for the future? What role has had online/hybrid learning in the program? 3. How important is for the program the concept of community (students, alumni, faculty ) 4. How does the labor market affect and influence the program? 5. How have the knowledge and skills of the students been optimized for the benefit of the
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 8 program? Therefore, the study was a mixed design method. More specifically, it was an explanatory mixed method design as data was gathered in two phases, with the qualitative collection following the quantitative. The first phase, by itself, can be considered a survey design as most data was collected from surveys made to students and professionals. Descriptive Analysis Results First Phase Enrollments. The following tables show the number of enrollments in the last ten years for the three programs. Then, basic descriptive statistics are shown. In the case of SJSU, only data for the fall term has been published. Tab 1. ITEC (SFSU) Enrollments Semester Enrollments Fall 1998 136 Spring 1999 135 Fall 1999 151 Spring 2000 175 Fall 2000 206 Spring 2001 187 Fall 2001 178 Spring 2002 182 Fall 2002 178 Spring 2003 181 Fall 2003 172 Spring 2004 166 Fall 2004 141 Spring 2005 138 Fall 2005 117 Spring 2006 94 Fall 2006 108 Spring 2007 101 Fall 2007 114 Spring 2008 121 Fall 2008 117
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 9 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics ITEC (SFSU) Enrollments ITEC (SJSU) Mean 147.52 Median 141 Mode 178 Standard Deviation 32.83 Sample Variance 1077.86 Range 112 Minimum 94 Maximum 206 Sum 3098 Count 21 For SFSU the mean was 147.52 and the standard deviation 32.83. The median score 141 and the mode 178. The enrolment went from 206 in the best year (2000) to 94 (2006) with a range of 112. Tab 3. EDTEC (SDSU) Enrollments Semester Enrollments Fall 1998 146 Spring 1999 131 Fall 1999 114 Spring 2000 113 Fall 2000 119 Spring 2001 113 Fall 2001 112 Spring 2002 105 Fall 2002 102 Spring 2003 85 Fall 2003 78 Spring 2004 78 Fall 2004 97 Spring 2005 86 Fall 2005 90 Spring 2006 65 Fall 2006 62 Spring 2007 49 Fall 2007 72 Spring 2008 65 Fall 2008 109
Table 4. Descriptive statistics EDTEC (SDSU) Enrollments Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 10 EDTEC (SDSU) Mean 94.80 Median 97 Mode 113 Standard Deviation 24.94 Sample Variance 621.86 Range 97 Minimum 49 Maximum 146 Sum 1991 Count 21 For SDSU the mean was 94.80 and the standard deviation 24.94. The median score 97 and the mode 113. The enrolment went from 146 in the best year (1998) to 27 (2007) with a range of 97. Tab 5. IT (SJSU) Enrollments Semester Enrollments Fall 1998 N/A Spring 1999 N/A Fall 1999 82 Spring 2000 N/A Fall 2000 65 Spring 2001 N/A Fall 2001 93 Spring 2002 N/A Fall 2002 142 Spring 2003 N/A Fall 2003 148 Spring 2004 N/A Fall 2004 136 Spring 2005 N/A Fall 2005 138 Spring 2006 N/A Fall 2006 108 Spring 2007 N/A Fall 2007 82 Spring 2008 N/A Fall 2008 37
Table 6. Descriptive statistics IT (SJSU) Enrollment Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 11 IT (SJSU) Mean 103.1 Median 100.5 Mode 82 Standard Deviation 37.52 Sample Variance 1407.43 Range 111 Minimum 37 Maximum 148 Sum 1031 Count 10 For SJSU the mean was 103.1 and the standard deviation 37.52. The median score 100.5 and the mode 82. The enrollment went from 148 in the best year (2003) to 37 (2008) with a range of 111. Students needs. The following tables show the answers and percentages regarding the student s needs. Then maximum, minimum and range values are analyzed. Table 7. Student s needs ITEC (SFSU)
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 12 For SFSU students, Theoretical Instructional Design is the most important skill (4.1/5) and Virtual Environments the one considered less important (2.7/5). All the skills score within a window of 1.4. One additional comment was added. Table 8. Students needs EDTEC (SDSU) For SDSU students, Theoretical Instructional Design is the most important skill (4.1/5) and both XHTML + CSS and Flash are the ones scoring less (3.1/5). All the skills score within a window of 1 point.
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 13 Table 9. Student s needs IT (SJSU) For SJSU students, Learning and Content Management Systems and Specific Training applications are the most important competences (4.3/5 and 4.2/5). On the other hand, Theoretical Instructional Design ranks the lower with 3.1/5. All the skills score within a window of 1.2. One additional comment was added. Professional s perspective. The following table shows the answers collected from professionals actually working in the field of Instructional Design.
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 14 Table 10. Professional s Perspective For these professionals research is the most important skill that an instructional designer should have (3.8/5). Both virtual environments and XHTML + CSS rank the lower with 2.7/5. All the skills score within a window of 1.7. Inferential Analysis Enrollments. As expected, the three programs have experienced a significant drop in the number of enrollments in the last 10 years.
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 15 Fig 2. Comparative chart of the enrollments at SFSU, SDSU, and SJSU programs 250 200 150 100 50 0 Fall 1998 Spring 1999 Fall 1999 Spring 2000 Fall 2000 Spring 2001 Fall 2001 Spring 2002 Fall 2002 Spring 2003 Fall 2003 Spring 2004 Fall 2004 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2007 Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 SFSU SDSU SJSU For both SDSU and SFSU the beginning of the decade represents the most successful years. Probably this was due to the emerging use of Internet and the.com phenomenon. This tendency appeared later at SJSU (around 2002) but it still can be attributed to the same causes. Halfway through the decade the three programs started struggling. Even though it is not a purpose of this study to answer the question, informal conversations show that budget cuts, lack of definition of the profession, and the amount of years the programs were targeting the same market could be causing this recession. However, SFSU and SDSU seem to have recovered in the last years due to the initiatives taken by their departments. On the other hand SJSU kept up struggling recruiting new students reaching the worrisome number of 37 new enrollments in the last fall. This analysis gives an answer to our first research question: The decline in the number of enrollments at SJSU s IT program occurred also at SDSU and SFSU. Nevertheless, these two programs seem to have recovered from their crisis, inverting this tendency in the last years. Due to the mentioned decline in the number of enrollments, the data gathered about the students needs and the skills that instructional designers consider more important, turn to be a critical
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 16 element that could bring light about the reasons behind this trend. Students Needs and Professional s Perspective. Considering the data gathered in the first part of the study, it can be concluded that all the skills presented in our survey are relevant to both students and professionals. In most of the cases their values go from Important to Critical. To facilitate the inferential analysis, a comparison graph with the answers of the students (SFSU, SDSU, and SJSU) and the professionals is presented. Fig 3. Students needs and Professional s perspective 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 SFSU SDSU Theoretical Instructional Design Research Graphic Design Video Production Learning and Content Management Systems XHTML + CSS Flash SpeciOic Training Applications Web 2.0 Virtual Environments SJSU Professionals SJSU program covers the needs related with Research and Theoretical Instructional Design through two specific courses. However it seems that is not giving the other items the importance they disserve. The fact that these skills are trends required by the actual labor market and also by the students, could be having a negative impact in the quality of the program and, as a result, in the drop of the number of enrollments. Therefore, the second and third research questions have an answer: There is a disadjustment between the actual curriculum at SJSU and the needs of both professionals and students. This is more evident when considering the small amount of training offered in video
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 17 production, advanced graphic design, and specific training applications. However, the most worrisome circumstance is an absolute lack of curriculum targeting Content Managament Systems, XHTML + CSS, Web 2.0, and virtual environments. Second Phase ITEC Program (SFSU) The interview with Dr. Brian Beatty, took place in his department at SFSU. The meeting last for an hour. Dr. Brian Beatty was extremely collaborative and showed a deep interest for the prospects of all the programs. His constant commitment and innovative approaches have helped the SFSU program to face the different challenges it has faced. This is a summary of the ideas that he shared during our conversation. 1. Programs need to transition towards online, hybrid, or hy-flex models 2. His hy-flex model (the student can come to class or follow the course entirely online using both synchronous and asynchronous tools) is reporting clear benefits 3. Programs should not be articulated only around the K-12 world. Corporate issues, trends, and developments should be a critical part of the curriculums. At the SFSU program 80% of the students are corporate related while 20% K-12. 4. Programs should be more modular an adapt to the students needs 5. Programs should use the expertise of students (banks of knowledge), other centers (Krause center of innovation, etc.) and online resources (Lynda.com, etc.) while focusing on training instructional design skills 6. It is not only about How can I recruit more students?. More students imply more cost, so the key is how can I keep a continuous enrollment, maintain high standards, and serve the community.
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 18 7. There is a need of building a strong sense of community. In this process three dimensions should be covered: The relationship between the student and the faculty, the connection between the student and other students, and his identification with the institution. SFSU covers this through informal gatherings and an very active mailing list. 8. Costs can be reduced through the use of innovative approaches. For instance, labs cost could be reduced by making a requirement owning a personal laptop. 9. Programs in California (specially those in Silicon Valley) should sell their brand image and target new markets. Specifically, Europe and Asia were mentioned. 10. Programs should work closer with companies and provide them with students services on a regular basis. EDTEC Program (SDSU) As explained in the method section, Dr. Marcie Bober did not attend to the interview scheduled for December 9 th. However, informal conversations both with her and with students at SDSU, and the fact that many of the actions taken have been extensively widespread, give some clues about their most important initiatives. 1. Halfway through the nineties, the program started a transition towards an online model. Nowadays the whole program can be completed online, which allows them to target a huge population of international prospective students. 2. The program cares about its brand image and tries to spread out the idea of cutting edge courses with plenty of practical applications. 3. Integration of technology. EDTEC site provides the user with meaningful video content, podcasting, and other technologies that enchant his experience. 4. Balance between research and practice through highly qualified faculty. Most of SDSU faculty are active members of the instructional design and technology academic
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 19 community where they frequently participate in seminars, conferences and publications. A good example is the international impact that Bernie Dodge s contributions (Webquest) have had in recent years among both researchers and teachers. 5. Community involvement. As mentioned in the literature review, SDSU program has always attempted not only to educate students but also serve its community. Conclusion The drop in the number of enrollments that the IT program at SJSU has been experiencing in the last years is not an isolated fact. Also the EDTEC program at SDSU and the ITEC program at SFSU started to lose students at a certain point halfway through this decade. However, these two programs developed and executed plans that helped to improve their overall quality and recover from the problems they were facing. The fact that they overcame their difficulties through the implementation of different actions and initiatives shows that SJSU program can do it too. This report demonstrates that one of the main problems at SJSU is the disadjustment between the needs of students and professionals and the actual curriculum. This imbalance becomes more evident when the weigh of web 2.0, virtual environments, and other cutting edge technologies is measured. All of these elements should be integrated in the curriculum while keeping or increasing the importance of research and instructional design principles. The program has to rethink its role in a society where collaborative and informal learning are becoming critical issues. An instructional design masters degree cannot be 90-100% based in face-to-face instruction anymore. Although the quality of the program could and should be improved through the hiring of the best possible professionals (a combination of top researchers and practitioners), a transition towards a hybrid, hyphlex, or online model it is also necessary. This move should come together with other initiatives such as building up a strong sense of community among students, professors and professionals, defining and spreading a brand image,
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 20 reducing costs through the use of innovation, optimizing the knowledge students already bring to the program, and rising the standards by paying close attention to what it is being done in the corporate world. SJSU program has a great history of professionalism and achievements. By integrating the practices gathered in this report, conducting a rigorous needs analysis, and being creative this program can come back where it always had to be.
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 21 References Deden-Parker, A. (1981). Instructional technology skills sought by industry. Performance and Instruction, 20(1), 24-25,30. Ely, D. P., (1989). Trends and issues in educational technology. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources French, M. (1985). Research and theory into instructional practice: A realistic challenge or an impossible dream. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (Anaheim, CA, January 17-23, 1985) Gustafson, K. L, & Branch, R. (1997). Revisioning models of instructional development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 73-89. Ingram, K. W., Haynes, L. L., Davidson-Shivers, G. V., & Irvin, R. (2005). Building an alumni support community: Tracking alumni for program evaluation and added value. College Student Journal, 39(2) Macedo, P., Snider, R., Penny, S., & Laboone, E. (2001). The development of a model for using E- portfolios in instructional technology programs. Paper Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (24th, Atlanta, GA, November 8-12, 2001). Volumes 1-2. Mathies, B., & Uphoff, J. K. (1992). The use of portfolio development in graduate programs Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (San Antonio, TX, February 25-28, 1992). Moallem, M. (1995). Analysis of job announcements and the required competencies for instructional
Prospects for the Instructional Technology Program 22 technology professionals Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, April 1995). O'Reilly, Tim (2005, 9 3). What is web 2.0. Retrieved November 8, 2008, from 0'Reilly Web site: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html Recker, M. M., Olson, D., Rogers, J., & duplessis, J. (2000). A thinking practices framework for instructional technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April 24-28, 2000). Reiser, R. A. (1986). Some questions facing academic programs in instructional technology and some means for answering them. Journal of Instructional Development, 8(3), 20-23. Richey, R. C. (1988). Instructional technology academic preparation, competency, and on-the-job success. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (New Orleans, LA, January 14-19, 1988). Rossett, A. (1981). Instructional technology as link between university and community. Performance and Instruction, 20(1), 26-28. Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a theory-based curriculum in instructional technology. Educational Technology, 37(1), 34-41.