A MODEL FOR DEVELOPING POST-
GRADUATE PROGRAMMES IN EDUCATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY WITH EMPHASIS IN
INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
By
INANOYA IMOGIE
ABSTRACT:INSTRUCTIONAL Development within the broad domains of Educational Technology is seen as a field with lots of potentials for making maximum use of both the human and material resources to accomplish the effectiveness and efficiency of the process of education. The current involvement of Instructional Developers in decision-making and problem - solving tasks in a variety of work-settings, gives support to the suggestion that a broad-based post-graduate programme in Instructional Development is indispensable in Nigeria Universities.
An interactive instructional competency model with strong emphasis on professional activities and courses in a wide spectrum of fields is therefore designed with the hope of providing the Instructional Development graduates with the basic skills, attitudes and fulfil knowledge that will enable them to perform their duties and fulfil their responsibilities both effectively and efficiently.
INTRODUCTION:
The objective of this paper is to highlight the place of Instructional Development in the total instructional - learning processes in Nigeria. The highlight will be carried out through an examination of the concept of Instructional Development and its potentials towards the achievement of quality education in Nigeria. Finally, an attempt will be made to propose a model for organising Post-Graduate Programmes in Instructional Development in universities which are no
doubt the pivot of educational development in Nigeria.
Education has become a big business in contemporary society because of the belief that it is the aggregate of all the processes by means of which a person develops abilities, attitudes and other forms of positive behaviour of positive values to himself and to the society in which he lives. There is no surprise therefore, that governments, parents, companies, industries and organizations have invested and continued to invest huge sums of money and other resources on education.
In view of the enormous human and material investments on education there is justification in the demand for excellence from educational and training programmes. Therefore, some of the over-riding concerns dominating the educational field centre on how to make maximum use of both human and material resources to accomplish both effectiveness and efficiency of the processes and products. The increasing demand for quality education leads to questions being asked about what is to be learned, how are the contents to be organized and learned, and how can it be ensured that the contents have been delivered to the learners.
The concern for quality education calls for new techniques of designing, teaching and evaluation of instructional programmes. The challenges posed by these techniques led to the emergence of a group of educators known as Instructional Developers who are determined to bring about major instructional innovations, within the domain of the complex field of Educational Technology.
The belief is that the achievement of quality education depends very largely on the outcome of the efforts and contributions of the Instructional Developers. The increasing importance of Instructional Development in the society today, calls for a discussion of a number of Instructional Development - related issues. Some of these issues include: What is Instructional Development? Who is an Instructional Developer? What are the career opportunities in Instructional Development? What are the competencies necessary in Instructional Development? The outcome of the discussion will provide a framework for developing an Instructional Development Model for identifying and developing the type of skills, knowledge and attitudes which instructional developers need.
The need for an Instructional Development Model arises out of the growing concern about the disparities in the scope and contents of the many programmes in Educational Technology, especially in the area of Instructional Development in institutions of higher education in Nigeria. Therefore, a model for
identifying and developing Instructional Development competencies is needed to bridge the disparity gaps in the various universities post-graduates programmes in Instructional Development. Also the need for such a model has become urgent in view of the increasing demand for instructional developers in complex problem-solving and decision-making positions in a variety of settings such as universities, Polytechnics, Colleges of Education, public school systems, government services, military services banking, civil aviation, shipping and airlines, hospitals, management consultancy business, manufacturing and service industries, including retailing and wholesale training, food services, research and development organizations, parasatals, and even campaign organizations.
What is Instruction?
A fair awareness of what instruction is will serve as a good foundation for a good discussion on the concept and process of Instructional Development. Instruction is not just teaching which is any inter-personal means of influencing or changing the behaviour of other persons (Gage, 1963).
On the other hand, instruction is that subset of education which is involved in leading the learner through a sequence of statements and restatements of a problem or a body of knowledge that increase the learner's ability to grasp, transform and transfer what he is learning (Bruner, 1966, p. 49).
Used as a generic term, instruction is any specifiable means of controlling or manipulating a sequence of events to produce modification of behaviour through learning (Lumsdaine, 1964, p. 584).
Instruction is therefore a highly complex process whereby the environment of the individual is deliberately managed to enable him or her to learn to emit or engage in specified behaviours under specified conditions or as responses to specified conditions. In other words, instruction is more complex than teaching. However, instruction leads to training which is a planned and systematic sequence of instruction under competent supervision, designed to impart predetermined skills, knowledged or abilities with respect to designated occupational objectives. Therefore, instruction is not a haphazard exercise but one that requires special training and skills to carry out in a special manner through series of activities called Instructional Development.
There is no one accepted definition of the term Instructional Development. For example, when the Board of Directors of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) in the United States of America was asked in 1970 to approve the formation of a Division of Instructional Development within the organization, some of the members anxiously asked "What is Instructional Development?"
In responses to the question, various attempts were made thereof and have continued to be made to define the field of Instructional Development. Consequently, there are as many definitions of the term as there are practitioners or potential practitioners in field. For example, Dale Hamreus (1970) in his discussion of "the systems approach to instructional development" saw the field as one designed to get maximum benefit from media in improving learning outcomes by knowing what learning outcomes are expected of learners, the educational constraints to be encountered in the process, the specific learning processes involved and the conditions of learning. However, Robert Glaser (1970), looking from the perspective of instructional design, saw four major functions in instructional development. These functions including (a) Analysis of subject matter, (b) Analysis of student characteristics, (c) Task Analysis involving setting-writing of instructional objectives and design of instructional packages, and (d) assessment and evaluation of outcomes.
As part of the process of defining the field, Instructional Development is now accepted as a systematic way of designing, carrying out, and evaluating the total process of learning in terms of specific objectives, based on research in human learning and communication and employing a combination of human and non-human resources to bring about more effective instruction (Tickton, 1970, p. 7). In the same way, the following represent different attempts by several writers to define the field of Instructional Development:
Conceptually, instructional development is as difficult to define as educational or instructional technology (Hoban, 1974). However, whatever definition of instructional development is used, there is agreement that the term implies some sort of systematic approach to the design and / or improvement of instruction (Cooler, 1979). The term, Instructional Development therefore usually indicates an analytic approach to the preparation and management of sets of experiences and resources towards specific learning outcomes. That is to say that instructional development is a process of decision-making as well as of management.
development processes. These are the (i) Define (pre-instructional), (ii) Develop (instructional) and (iii) Evaluate (post-instructional) decisions.
The details of the three categories of decisions are fully summarised in the Instructional Development Institute Model (1970) developed" by the University Consortium for Instructional Development and Technology in the United States (Fig. 1)*
Instructional Development is a great academic specialization that may be defined as the systematic and continuous application of learning principles and educational technology to develop the most effective and efficient learning experience for students. (Gaff, 1975, p.47).
Instructional Development is a systematic data-based process for analyzing curricular and instructional problems in order to develop tested feasible solutions (Instructional Development Institute Glossary, 1972, p.6).
Instructional Development is a process of systematically designing, sequencing, implementing, evaluating and constantly monitoring' instruction with the intent of improving the quality and effectiveness and thereby improving learning, (Duncan, 1978, p.20).
Figure 1: A SUMMARY OF DECISION POINTS IN INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY: NATIONAL SPECIAL MEDIA INSTITUTE (NSMI) INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODEL (1970)
STAGE 1: DEFINE
FUNCTION 1: a. Compare status to ideal
IDENTIFY PROBLEM b. Propose tentative solution
FUNCTION 2: c. Determine learner characteristics
ANALYZE SETTING d. Inventory school-community resources FUNCTION 3: e. Assign TAPS team responsibilities ORGANIZE MANAGEMENT f. Establish lines of communication
g. Specify project planning and control procedures
STAGE II: DEVELOP
h. State terminal performance objectives
FUNCTION 4: i. State enabling objectives and determine IDENTIFY OBJECTIVES relationships between objectives
j. Construct performance measure.
FUNCTION 5: k. Specify instructional strategies and media forms. SPECIFY METHODS i. Specify alternative methods.
m. Prepare comprehensive description of instructional
n. Specify design for evaluation of instructional
and evaluation designs.
o. Conduct technical review of instructional and
FUNCTION 6: evaluation designs.
CONSTRUCT PROTOTYPES p. Specify procedures for collection and development
of instructional materials.
q. Construct and assemble instructional materials. r. Specify procedures to be used by personnel
tryout of instructional prototype.
during STAGE HI: EVALUATE
s. Determine the type of tryout (i. e. development,
validation, field trial).
FUNCTION 7: t. Carry out evaluation, as planned. TEST PROTOTYPES
u. Tabulate and process evaluation data.
v. Determine relationships between results, methods,
FUNCTION 8: objectives and goals.
ANALYZE RESULTS w. Indicate what kinds of revisions (if any) are suggested by the interpretation of results, method
objectives and goal.
FUNCTION 9: x. Determine it suggested revisions indicate that the IMPLEMENT - RECYCLE prototype is to be recycled or if the design can be
implemented without major revisions.
In response to these major decisions, instructional development is the beneficiary of many areas of expertise including various fields such as psychology, communication theory, management-theory, information science, psychometric theory, cost-effectiveness analysis, curriculum theory and process, programmed instruction, computer-assisted instruction, individually-prescribed instruction and of course special educational media. The diversity of the areas of expertise involved in Instructional Development gives rise to the next questions and discussions on who is an Instructional Developer?
Who is An Instructional Developer?
There is no precise information about who an instructional developer is. It is not therefore, a surprise today to see all sorts of people calling themselves instructional developers in view of the great diversity in the emphasis of institutional training programmes in the field in the United States of America (Petridge and Tennyson, 1979) as well as in other countries. In general, Engel (1969) found that instructional development projects in higher education tended to take a team approach. The team usually consists of a director and several specialists such as media specialists, learning theory specialists, curriculum specialists, and testing - evaluation specialists. The team approach in
instructional development therefore gives room for several people from a variety of fields of human endeavour to call themselves instructional developers which they are not strictly, either by training or calling.
Today, the most common criterion for identifying instructional developer is to use the ideology - philosophy, focus, personal characteristics and operational locations of the people involved in instructional development projects in public schools and industries. Thus, a more recent approach to the identification of instructional developers is to view the field as a professional - social movement (Hoban, 1973). Hence, the entire active membership of the Division of Instructional Development of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) is often seen as a prototype of professional people with similar professional and ideological characteristics, and who are engaged in similar functions in the learning processes in a variety of work-settings.
Traditionally, instructional developers were primarily engaged in higher education and spent most of their time in activities such as the designing, teaching and administration of instructional units. Consequently, according to Hoban (1974, p. 4F4) most Instructional Development Agencies often engaged in the following activities:
i. Conducting workshops, seminars and institutes.
ii. Assisting departments in analysing, planning, and designing of curriculum.
iii. Assisting lecturers in the development of instructional materials. iv. Helping to write internal publications i.e. handbooks, project, reports. v. Consulting with individual lectures
vi. Providing test scores and analysing services vii. Providing instructional television and radio services viii. Administering and scoring standardized tests.
In a survey conducted by Liebler (1979, p. 27) on Instructional Development activities in Higher Education in the United States of America, it was found that most instructional development activities were often informal and were conducted by the learning resources centres and were designed towards the production of a lesson or series of lessons. It was also found that instructions or lecturers were highly actively involved in such instructional development production processes.
However, the current trends in the field is to see instructional developers shifting away from the foregoing traditional functions in higher education to more complex decision.
There is increasing demand for instructional developers in problem solving, decision-making, administrative and management positions in universities, elementary and secondary schools, government services, military services, banking, manufacturing and services industries, hospitals and medical institutions, publishing companies, development and research organizations, the increasing demand for instructional developers to serve mostly as instructors and specialists in these fields is a mark of the faith which client - systems have on the Instructional Developer's tools and techniques based on the systematic approach to problem-solving. Problem-solving is no doubt very challenging in terms of knowledge, skills and competencies.
Instructional Development Tool:
In performing the foregoing complex functions, one of the most reliable and common tool at the disposal of any Instructional Developer is any Instructional Development Model such as the one developed by Gustafson (1977), Brien (1977), Gerlach and Ely (1971) and the Instructional Development Institute (NSMI, 1970). However, numerous Instructional Development Models which can be adapted to particular instructional development activities exist.
Which ever model is adopted, modified or adapted for a particular situation, the following functions remain central to all instructional development models.
Step 1: Diagnostic of Needs Step 2: Formulation of Objectives Step 3: Selection of Contents Step 4: Organization of Contents
Step 5: Selection of Learning Experiences Step 6: Organization of Learning Experiences
Step 7: Determination of Criteria for Evaluating the Programmes. Instructional Development models have gradually become indispensable tools of the Instructional Developers especially as models are a set of procedures which assumably, when used, will result in better products and results. Models are idealized set of tools that can be used to solve, design or evaluate a
problem-solving situations using the identified procedures selectively. However, the above advantages do not suggest that any one model is perfect for all situations. It is good to know always that there is no more model that is good for every occasion and time. Above all, the ability to select and use appropriate Instructional Development models call for the acquisition of variety of competencies on the part of the practitioners.
Instructional Development Competencies:
Generally, there is the acceptance that Instructional Development Models and function should serve as frame of reference by instructional developers. In the same vein, there is no doubt that there are competencies that are generally compatible with Instructional Development models and functions. Such competencies can best be acquired through training, especially at the Post-Graduate Programme levels in our universities.
Although, there has not been" a uniform approach to the issue of designing post graduate programmes, most institutions of higher education especially in the United States, have programmes which have been tailored to the development of certain skills, knowledge and competencies in their students who are potential Instructional Development practitioners. Observations have shown that the emphasis of most Post-Graduate Programmes in Instructional Development differ from one institution to another.
In general, most graduate programmes in Instructional Development give top priority to the following areas in which they expect students to acquire relevant competencies (Patridge and Tennyson, 1972, p. 22).
a. Instructional Development - The Development of a unit of instruction; the development of a curriculum.
b. Instructional Psychology - Theories of Learning, Data Analysis, Theories of Instruction and Experimental Design.
c. Management and Administration - The management of programme and personnel, the management of media.
d. Measurement and Evaluation - Test and measurement techniques, course evaluation, product evaluation and programme evaluation.
e. Design of Media Software Facilities.
f. Educational Media - The production of media materials: video, audio, computers, visual etc.
g. The use of Media Equipment - video, audio, computer, visual etc. h. Evaluation of Media Materials
A second and even more comprehensive list of competencies required of Instructional Developers is contained in the Diagnostic Competency Instrument (DCI) designed by the Far West Laboratory For Educational Research and Development {Table 1:)
Table 1: DIAGNOSTIC INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT INSTRUMENT (DCI)
Category of Competency Specific Activities or Indicators
2. Obtaining information on problems
COLLECTION OF 2. Locating strategies for development
INFORMATION 3. Preparing research strategy
4. Evaluating information relevance
1. Writing proposals for action
2. Using instructional theories in designing activities
ANALYZING 3. Reviewing field tests for revision
4. Classifying instructional objectives
1. Budgeting
2. Specifying formats of materials
PLANNING 3. Sequenceing learning activities
4. Preparing estimates (costs-analysis and time-
lines)
1. Conferring with specialists
2. Writing instructions, specifications
PRODUCTION examples and samples
3. Preparing the final programme
1. Conducting case studies
2. Checking outcome - products against
specifications
EVALUATION 3. Trying out the programme
4. Collecting data on the outcome
5. Analyzing the collected data
6. Revising the programme for final adoption
1. Writing position papers
2. Discussing products with users
COMMUNICATION 3. Interacting with staff members
4. Dessimination of information
Source: Far West Laboratories for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco.
A third example of competencies that needed to be in Instructional Development Post-Graduate Programmes were listed at the 1978 Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) in Kansas City (Missouri) by as many as six directors of Instructional Development Graduate Programmes in the United States of America (AECT Newsletter, 1976). These competencies are in the area of:
i. Decision-making ii. Innovation-Diffusion iii. Administration iv. Evaluation v. Management vi. Budgeting
vii. Communication - Public Relations viii. Academics - Cognitive Knowledge
A Model for Developing Competencies in Instructional Development:
In view of the diversity and the complexities of the foregoing competencies, no postgraduate programme in Instructional Development can be considered absolutely efficient and effective as far as the development of all of the competencies required for instructional development functions are concerned. Consequently, the search for and the discussion on the need for a reliable model continues. Therefore, the following model represents an attempt to identify and categorise the many categories of knowledge, activities and attitudes which can facilitate the acquisition of the complex competencies at the level of either the Masters or Doctorate post-graduate training programmes in Instructional Development in Nigerian Universities.
The merit of the proposed model can be found in the attempt to provide a framework for categorising and integrating different competencies required by Instructional Developers into one comprehensive training package which can be adopted and adapted by any Nigerian University in designing post-graduate training programmes in Instructional Development. It is the hope of the writer, that when the model is so adopted and adapted by the various Nigerian Universities, the disparities in the scope and intensity of Instructional Development competencies which the existing training models in Nigerian Universities will be minimized.
Description of the Model:
The interactive Instructional Development competency Model for designing postgraduate training programmes in Instructional Development is characterised by two main features, namely COURSES and ACTIVITIES.
The type of post-graduate training programme envisaged is either at the Master (M.Ed) or Doctorate (Ph.D) levels, depending on the depth and intensity of the course descriptions and outlines.
Courses
Professional General Behavioural
Care Education Cognate
Professional v
General v
Altitudes v
Figure 2: An Interactive Instructional Development Competency Model Courses:
These are basic courses which must be included in any Post-Graduate training programme in Instructional Development. These courses which have been categorised as Professional (Core) courses, General Education courses and Behavioural - Cognate courses are significant as they constitute the main sources of students' potential skills and cognitive knowledge required for performance in Instructional Development.
Secondly, there is no attempt to fix any minimum of maximum number of courses required for graduation, especialy as this requirement varies from one University to another University. However, efforts should be made by each particular University using the model to select courses to meet its required graduation credit - requirements. In other words, the intention is not to give any impression that every course in the model should be offered in order to obtain a post-graduate degree in Instructional Development. As a matter of fact, it is also possible to merge some of the courses asterisked (*).
Thirdly, an attempt has been made in the model to suggest the credit-load of each of the suggested courses in the three categories of courses. Similarly, a percentage weight of the courses out of the total credit hours required for graduation has been suggested for each category of courses to be offered by any student pursuing either the Masters (M.Ed) or Doctorate (Ph.D) degree programme in Instructional Development.
(i) Professional (Core) Courses: (60 %)
* Instructional Design and Technology * Educational Media in Instruction (Survey) * Introduction to Libraries & Materials Centres * Computer Assisted Instruction
* Instructional Simulation * Programmed Instruction
* Educational Media in Instructional Development * Instructional Television
* Instructional Development Seminars * Administration of Educational Media Programmes * Photography in Instruction
* Graphics Design and Use in Education * Laboratory Experiences in Educational Media * Independent Studies in Educational Media * Research in Educational Media
* Field Experience - Internship * Research - Dissertation
(ii) General Education Courses: (25%)
* School Learning - Learning Theories * College Teaching Instruction
* Instruction & Supervision
* Educational Research & Evaluation Methods * Administrative Leadership in Education * Principles of Curriculum Improvement * Curriculum Design or Construction * Comparative Foundations in Education * Historical Foundations in Education * Crucial Issues in Education
* Philosophical Foundations in Education * Futuristics in Education
* Experimental Design in Educational Research * Independent Study
* Economics - Sociology of Education * Educational Psychology
* Communication & Change: Diffusion of Ideas & Innovation * Interpersonal Communication
* Communication Theory * Organizational Theory
* Applied Engineering Design * Public Finance and Budgetting * Personnel Management * Library Sciences * Telecommunications * Business Law
* Cross Cultural Relations * Sociology and Anthropology
* Guidance and Counselling Services
ACTIVITIES:
The following are activities which an Instructional Development should carry out continuously both as a student and as a field worker in the field. The activities have been designed to make Instructional Developers become more of actors, practitioners and direct participants than of passive observers, theoreticians or philosophers.
(i) Professional Activities:
1. Membership of both international and national associations involved in Instructional Development related activities.
2. Reading both international and national Journals which are professionally devoted or involved in Instructional Development activities.
3. Writing and reviewing professional articles.
4. Attending and participating in professional conventions, seminars, workshops, tours, and staff development programmes.
5. Consulting specialists for advice.
6. Conducting research studies and reading research reports. 7. Attending in-service courses (short and long term)
organizations.
(ii) General Activities:
Developing interest, currency and expertise in the following: (a) Current educational issues
(b) Education - related political issues (c) Community resources
(d) Sources of funding for educational projects
(e) Knowledge of the local - state - federal structure and systems of education.
(iii) Attitudes: Cultivations of:
(a) Articulate and flexible attitudes towards the processes and products of Instructional Development.
(b) Creativity and ability to analyze and synthesize existing situations to create new solutions to the existing problems.
(c) Capability to build a network of support for programmes.
Conclusion:
The nature and the increasing number of problem-solving tasks in education, especially in the instructional field, make the Instructional Development field a unique one in the Nigerian society. This view is relevant because the field is not only totally integrative but it also provides rational grounds for the development of new devices, materials and methods that can be used to solve complex instructional problems in formal school systems in particular and in education in general. Also, in view of the scope of the competencies which are involved in the field, it is often said that to a very large extent, the educational future belongs to those who can grasp the significance of instructional development.
On the other hand, it takes time to be an effective instructional developer through a continuous process that cumulates in the development and acquisition of a variety of competencies. The type of competencies necessary for effective instructional development cannot be fixed or acquired on a terminal basis, because of the dynamic new trends dominating the field of instruction today. In view of the unpredictability of the human nature, more and additional competencies have to be required over time. There is a need for proactive or
futuristic programmes of learning, and activities designed to provide post-graduate students in Instructional Development with competencies relevant to the responsibilities which they will assume in various instructional and other problem-solving capacities in society. But for any post-graduate programme to be able to provide for these wide range of expertise, it has to be competency-based and field-oriented as prescribed in the Interactive Instructional Development Competency Model suggested in this paper for designing post-graduate training programmes in Instructional Development in Nigerian Universities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) "Preparing Instructional Development for the 1980's, in Division of Instructional Development Newsletter, Vol. 9, No. 1, July 1978.
Bruner, Jerome S. "The Cognitive Consequences of Early Sensory Deprivation," in Sensory Deprivation (ed) (Philip Silomon. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1961)
Brien, Robert L. and Towle, Nelson J. "Instructional Design and Development: Accelerating the Process", in Educational Technology, Vol. 17 No. 2, 1977.
Davies, I and Schwen, T. (Eds) Toward a definition of Instructional Development. An occasional paper of the Division of Instructional Development of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University, 1972.
Duncan, M.E. "The Intricacies of Instructional Development", in Instructional Development: the State of the Art (ed) R. K. Bass, et al (Columbus, Ohio: Collegiate Publishing Inc., 1978).
Engel, D. "An Study to determine the status of Instructional Development -within Institutions of Higher Education, Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Indiana University, 1969.
Far West Laboratories for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco
Gaff, J.G., Toward Faculty Renewal: Advances in Faculty, Instructional and Organizational Development (San Francisco; Josey Bass, Inc. Publishers, 197F)
Gage, N.L., "Paradigms for Research on Teaching", in Handbook of Research on Teaching (ed) N.L. Gage, (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1963).
Gerlach, V.S. and Ely, D.P., A Systematic Approach to Instruction: Teaching and Media, A Prentice - Hall, Inc; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1971.
Glaser, Robert, The Psychology of Learning and Instructional Technology (Microfiche), Washington, D.C., ERIC Document Reproduction Service, 1970.
Cooler, D., "Instructional Development in Developing Nations" in Journal of Instructional Development (J1D) Vol. 2 No. 2 Winter, 1978-79.
Gustafson, K.L., Toward a Definition of Instructional Development, A Paper presented to the Instructional Development Division, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Philadelphia, March 1971. Hamreus, Dale, "The Systems Approach to Instructional Development", The
Contribution of Behavioural Science to Instructional Technology (Teaching Research Publication: A Division of Oregun State System of Higher Edcuation), 1970.
Hoban, D., A Study to determine the Characteristics of Instructional Developers (Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973).
Hoban D., "The Instructional Developer", in Audio Visual Communications Review (AVC'R) Vol. 22 No. 4 Winter 1974.
Liebler, H., "Survey Results of Instructional Development Activities in Higher Education" in Journal of Instructional Development. Vol. 2, No. 2 1978-79. Locatis, C. "Some uneasy inquiries into instructional development," Educational
Technology July 1973 pp. 46-FO.
Lumsdaine, A.A., "Educational Technology, Programmed Learning, and Instructional Science", in Theories of Learning and Instruction (e) E.R. Hilgard, Part I of the 63rd Year-Book of the National Society for the study of Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
National Special Media Institute, Instructional Development Institute (IDI), University Consortium for Instructional Development and Technology, 1970.
Patridge, M.I. et al "Graduate Education in Instructional Systems: A Review of Selected Programs", \n Journal of Instructional Development Vol. 2 No. 2 1978-79.
Tickton, S.G. To Improve Learning: An Evaluation oj Instructional Technology, Vol. 1. 1976.
