It's Time to Rethink Instructional Technology Services in Higher Education

By Michael J. Albright

I nstructional technology services in one form or another have existed on college campuses since the very early 1900's, when "visual education" was assumed as a re- sponsibility by some university extension

divisions. Formal centers charged with maintain- ing and distributing media such as photographs and illustrations, models and realia, and projected devices such as films and slides were first estab- lished during the 1930's.

The 1940's saw the beginning of a major growth period for new instructional delivery systems, an era that continues today. Colleges and universities accepted and implemented such resources as in- structional television, programmed instruction, language laboratories, self-instructional learning centers, multi-media equipped classrooms, and in- structional computing. As these new delivery technologies evolved, new campus offices often were established to administer them. In addition, many academic departments and individual col- leges within universities not only developed their own collections of media equipment and materials, but they also built facilities and hired support staffs.

The practice of consolidating and centralizing media centers began in earnest in the late 1940's. However, the activities that have come to be known as "instructional technology" services to- day remain fragmented on most college campuses. While about 90 percent of all higher education in- stitutions have centralized their traditional "audio- visual" services, it is not at all uncommon to find instructional telecommunications services in a sep- arate ITV facility, instructional computing in the

Michael J. Albright is an instructional technology management consultant living in the Monterey, California area. He was formerly with the Media Resources Center at Iowa State University.

40 Tech Trends

computer center, instructional development (if it exists at all) in a faculty development center, a separate non-print media collection and learning center in the library, and independent learning re- sources centers and microcomputer labs in aca- demic divisions such as schools of education and medicine. Moreover, additional "pockets" of in- structional technology activity frequently exist, such as distance learning programs in continuing education offices, foreign language labs, photo- graphic services, and individual professors with special interests and projects involving instruction- al technology.

The author recently visited a large, public re- search university where computer graphics serv- ices for the campus are provided by the botany department, video production by the communica- tions department, and satellite downlinking by the foreign languages department, which will soon ini- tiate the university's only satellite uplinking ser- vice. The headend for the campus closed-circuit television (CCTV) system is in the undergraduate library, with the system under the operational control of the computer center. Coordination of the university's Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) system is in continuing education, and individual departments and colleges are re- sponsible for acquiring and distributing their own classroom media equipment. And this university has a centralized media center.

No suggestion is implied here that decentraliza- tion of instructional technology services is bad. While the case described above certainly is ex- treme, and while some media directors develop ul- cers over perceived erosion of their "turf ," we should be excited that instructional technology has achieved such penetration on our campuses. Most of us can look around our respective institutions and identify hotbeds of instructional technology- related activity, involving highly enthusiastic per- sonnel, in which our own centers are not direct participants. Instructional technology has never had a brighter future in higher education than in 1989.

So why are so many "media" centers being closed, cut back, absorbed into libraries, or consoli- dated with computer centers? Why is it so difficult for so many of us to obtain significant budget in- creases? Why are there so few instructional technol- ogy management positions listed in the Chronicle o f Higher Education, week after week? One of the possible answers to questions such as these is that we still tend to think of ourselves as being in the "media" business instead of the "instructional tech- nology" business, ignoring many of the potentially important services that could be offered under the umbrella of instructional technology.

Another possible answer is that we often adopt isolationist and sometimes even adversarial atti- tudes toward other campus agencies offering in- structional technology-related services, overlook- ing the point that we all share one common mis- sion. We all exist to improve the environment for teaching and learning at our institutions, and we can achieve that noble goal much more effectively and etficiently in an atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration. This article will address these two concerns.

The Roles of Instructional Technology in Higher Education

One of the factors inhibiting effective working relationships among instructional technology prac- titioners is that 20 years or so after the term evolved, many of us still do not have a clear un- derstanding of what instructional technology is, what role it should play in the context of the col- lege or university's academic program, and how it should be organized within the administrative structure of the institution. We all recognize the definition of instructional technology as "prod- uct"-- that is, the "media born of the communica- tions revolution," to quote the President's Com- mission on Instructional Technology. This in- cludes the traditional audio-visual media, of course, and now incorporates instructional com- puting and various forms of telecommunications, as well as interactive media such as the videodisc and compact disc families.

Not all of us are aware, however, that instruc- tional technology also has a "process" aspect. The Commission defined this perspective as "a systematic way of designing, carrying out, and evaluating the total process of teaching and learn- ing in terms of specific objectives, based on re- search in human learning and communication, and employing a combination of human and nonhuman resources to bring about more effective instruc- tion." The process interpretation became known as the "systems approach" to instruction, and it was applied through the practice of instructional development.

Please note that the "process" definition did not evolve into the "systems approach to instruc- tional media." It became the "systems approach to instruction." The operant term in the Commis- sion's definition was "the total process of teach-

ing and learning." This means that instructional technologists should do much more than dispense media hardware, software, and advice. Our mis- sion is to help college faculty members improve their teaching. In most cases, professors are hired because of their content expertise and evidence of scholarly activity, not because of demonstrated excellence in the classroom. They need help in such basic activities as course planning, conceptu- alizing learning activities, facilitating discussion, diagnosing student misunderstandings of course content, writing tests, and course evaluation. As instructional technologists trained in the systems approach, we are in the best position to offer serv- ices such as these, if we can overcome the limited view that the systems approach has to involve some sort of media. Instructional development methodology can be applied equally effectively to the solution of basic problems faced every day in the classroom by college teachers.

This does not mean that all instructional tech- nology practitioners ought to be capable of helping faculty clients design their lesson plans. Such services are best provided by specialists with ex- pertise in college teaching and instructional devel- opment procedures. However, the point here is that such assistance to faculty should be central to an institution's instructional technology support service, since it goes right to the heart of the teaching process itself.

FunctionalAreas oflnstrucUonalTechnology in Higher EducaUon

With that perspective in mind, let us examine the actual forms in which instructional technology services exist in higher education today. In May 1987, the AECT Postsecondary Standards Com- mittee solicited promotional materials, organiza- tional charts, annual reports, and other materials from about 200 college and university instructional technology centers, in an attempt to determine what services they were providing to their faculty clients. The mailing list, not a scientific sample, was selected to represent traditional media cen- ters, instructional/faculty development centers, telecommunications centers, and others that repre- sented the broad spectrum of instructional tech- nology services. About 70 responded.

The types of services offered, when grouped into logical functional areas, formed a model somewhat different from existing published models for instructional technology services, although none of these services are new, and most of us have been doing at least some of these things for decades. It is important to recognize that these a r e

the functional areas found at institutions, not nec- essarily within individual instructional technology centers. In fact, very few of the centers surveyed provided services in all of these areas; most of- fered several, and some provided only one or two, depending upon their stated missions. The follow- ing seven functional areas were identified.

Instructional~Faculty Development. Instructional and faculty development theoretically are different

OCTOBER 41

concepts, but they are combined here because many services could realistically be described as either, and most centers that offer one also offer the other. Briefly, instructional development (ID) services are those that improve the learning envi- ronment for students, while faculty development (FD) services improve the professional skills of faculty members. The difficulty of pigeonholing activities into one category or the other is repre- sented by the practice of training faculty in basic teaching skills, which could be described as either ID or FD. On the other hand, such uniquely facul- ty development services as career counseling and training in research methodology, grantsmanship, promotion and tenure preparation, and writing skills are beyond the scope of instructional tech- nology because they are not oriented toward in- structional improvement.

Instructional development activities appear in four different forms in postsecondary education. Course Level ID involves application of all or se- lected aspects of instructional development meth- odology to solving a wide variety of course or cur- riculum-related problems, large scale and small scale, long term and short term. Examples of Course Level ID activities include evaluating and reconstructing an existing course, developing a group learning activity or final project for a course, trouble-shooting reasons for poor exam performance or low course evaluations, helping a professor write an examinatiion, and administering an instructional development grant program.

Faculty Level ID provides programming intend- ed to improve the general teaching skills of the faculty. Examples include publishing a newsletter on college teaching, conducting new faculty and teaching assistant training/orientation programs, conducting luncheon seminars and workshops, maintaining resource centers with publications and media related to college teaching, and conducting individual consultations with faculty members re- garding teaching skills.

Media Development Level ID invloves applica- tion of instructional development methodology to the production of instructional materials, such as videotapes, overhead transparency sets, and workbooks. It also includes ID support for devel- opment of software for computer-supported learn- ing and courseware for delivery by some form of instructional telecommunications. Media Develop- ment Level ID is a means of providing quality control, so that the materials produced are most likely to be effective in meeting the purposes for which they were intended.

Media Utilization Level ID consists of assisting faculty members in the effective selection and uti- lization of educational media equipment and mate- rials. Activities at this level include showing a pro- fessor how to thread a 16mm film projector or use a videotape recorder, helping a faculty member in locating a learning resource for a specific purpose, or offering guidance in selecting learning activities prior to and following classroom media use. Media Utilization Level ID is the lowest form of instruc- tional development, although it is far and away the

42 Tech Trends

most common of the four levels and is the only form of ID provided by most media centers.

Learning Resources. Many instructional technol- ogists consider learning resources as a broad con- cept including materials, equipment, people, tech- niques, settings, et.al. For our purposes, however, this functional area will be limited to learning ma- terials commonly maintained and distributed for faculty and student use. The emphasis here is on educational software, such as videotapes, slides, transparencies, and 16mm films, but excluding computer software, which will be covered in an- other functional area below. Learning Resources services are often integrated within academic li- braries, and the standards for both college and university-level libraries, published by the Associ- ation of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) make specific provisions for this type of service. Media Utilization Level instructional development services are often provided by the Learning Re- sources functional area.

Learning Resources services include acquisition, maintenance, and circulation of a film/video library for on-campus use and, in some cases, off-campus rentals; acquisition, maintenance, and circulation of other non-print media such as filmstrips, photo- graphic materials, and sound recordings; operation of a media/learning laboratory for playback/viewing of the non-print collection; and a resource search and acquisition service for faculty members needing materials not available on campus.

Media Development. Media Development serv- ices design and produce educational materials in the traditional formats, including video, slide-tape, audio, film, and graphics, and some centers have capabilities in newer delivery technologies, such as videodisc. This functional area may also in- clude operation of a self-service media production facility for faculty and students, as well as an au- dio and videotape duplicating service and class- room video recording capability. Media Develop- ment units often produce materials for non- instructional purposes, such as for student recruit- ing, fund-raising, and institutional promotion. Me- dia Development Level instructional development services are often, but not always, provided as part of the media production process. This service area may also be responsible for producing courseware for the college or university's distance education programs, in which case Course Level instructional development may also be involved.

Classroom Technologies. Classroom Technolo- gies services include all activity related to the equipment and facilities necessary to experience educational materials and programming in the learning setting. Respondents to the Standards Committee survey indicated a long list of Class- room Technologies services, including mainte- nance of a centralized equipment pool and equip- ment satellites at strategic campus locations; in- stallation and maintenance of permanently- mounted equipment in classrooms and auditoriums; equipment repair and preventive

maintenance; operation of a campus closed-circuit television (CCTV) system; satellite reception and off-air recording services; centralized equipment purchasing and consultation; sales of media sup- plies and equipment; environmental scanning and facility needs assessment; and consultation in new/renovated building design.

Instructional Telecommunications. Whereas Classroom Technologies is responsible for all in- tra-campus telecommunications distribution sys- tems, Instructional Telecommunications is charged with all off-campus electronic distribution of courseware. This includes purchase, installa- tion, operation, and control of distribution sys- tems such as broadcast television and ITFS facili- ties, as well as satellite uplinking capability and in- terface with cable systems. This functional area also includes maintenance of equipment and facili- ties for both audio and video teleconferencing. Al- though course development is the responsibility of the Instructional Development and Media Devel- opment functional areas, these services may exist within the organizational structure of the Instruc- tional Telecommunications center itself.

Instructional Computing. Instructional Comput- ing services, especially those related to microcom- puters, have long been associated with library- media centers at the K-12 level. Higher education has been a lot slower in connecting instructional computing with instructional technology. Very few of the centers surveyed reported significant serv- ices in this area. Nonetheless, instructional com- puting has much more in common with traditional media services than with administrative data proc- essing (ADP) or computer services for research support. We share (or should share) the same in- structional support mission, the same methodolo- gy in software design and development, and the same concern for proper utilization of the medium within the educational context.

Instructional Computing services include the op- eration and maintenance of computer laboratories, both micro and mini; Media Development Level instructional development and programming sup- port to faculty members involved in the creation or adaptation of software for computer-supported learning; short-term loan of microcomputers and software to faculty members and students; and mi- crocomputer repair. Since these services are fre- quently assumed by campus computer centers ori- ented primarily toward research support and ADP, it is doubly important that the instructional com- puting component be recognized as an instruction- al technology functional area in and of itself.

Research and Evaluation. This is an area not al- ways associated with instructional technology pro- grams, but many of its functions are in direct sup- port of classroom instruction and involve elements of the systems approach. Research and Evaluation services may include instructor and course evalua- tion, test-scoring services, maintenance of a test item bank, development and administration of placement and achievement examinations, assist- ance to professors in conducting classroom re-

search, grant-writing assistance to professors seeking external funding for instructional projects, and responsibility for institutional research regard- ing the instructional program.

The Integrated Instructional Technology Services (/ITS) Model

Figure 1 illustrates how these seven functional areas may be viewed within the framework of an Integrated Instructional Technology Services (IITS) concept. Note that the Instructional/Faculty Development box is in the center of the model, symbolizing the centrality of this service. Arrows demonstrate the two-way interaction between In- structional/Faculty Development and each of the other functional areas. Relationships among the other areas are also designated by arrows. Dotted lines indicate natural functional ties to administra- tive units with additional responsibilities outside the instructional technology field. The model also indicates that instructional technology services of- fered on a campuswide basis should report to the chief academic officer or an immediate subordi- nate in that individual's office.

As we look at these seven functional areas, the only one that might be considered optional is In- structional Telecommunications. Many colleges and universities have no interest in distributing courseware off campus, and so this type of service is not necessary. All of the other functional areas are required in at least some form on every col- lege campus, regardless of size. Several other points need to be made regarding the model.

Feasibility at smaller institutions. The question may be asked whether the IITS concept is feasible at smaller colleges and universities. The mere fact that a professor works at a liberal arts college with an enrollment of 700 and a faculty of 65 does not mean that that individual should be deprived of any of these services. The need is every bit as great, and the services still require coordination. The variety of programming may not be as wide at smaller colleges, and one person may have to pro- vide services in several functional areas, but a professor who desires instructional or faculty de- velopment help or any of the other IITS services ought to be able to get it.

Relationships of the library and computer center to the HTS model. Does the IITS model endorse the positioning of a campuswide instructional technol- ogy service within an academic library, reporting to the library director? According to a study con- ducted by AECT's Division of Educational Media Management (DEMM) in 1982-83, about 40 per- cent of the centralized media centers in higher education were subordinate to library directors at the time.

While the ACRL standards specify that academ- ic libraries should provide learning resources serv- ices, they make no reference whatsoever to in- structional or faculty development services, tele- communications, instructional computing, media equipment services for classrooms, or media pro- duction services. After all, libraries do not write

OCTOBER 43

Chief Academic I Officer

Learning Resources

I I

Integrated

Classroom Technologies

Instructional Technology Services ( I ITS)

Media Development

Instructional/ Faculty

Development

Instructional Telecommu-

nications

Instructional Computing

I

Research/ Evaluation

I

L . . . . l

1

[ ] Telecommunications ] L Center l

I Computer ] Center [

IAca emcl I nsttutona L Support Support

FIGURE I. A model for Integrated Instructional Technology Services (IITS) in higher education.

books, so why should they be in the business of producing videotapes? Therefore, it is perfectly justifiable for a library director to scale back or eliminate classroom media equipment or produc- tion services, which are not covered by the ACRL standards, to preserve reference services or acqui- sitions, which are. Other than Learning Re- sources, instructional technology services simply are not part of an academic library's mission.

It must be acknowledged that this organizational structure can be successful if the library director is strongly committed to instructional technology services, as is the case on many college campuses. According to the DEMM study, media center di- rectors with the m o s t enthusiastic supervisors tended to work for librarians, rather than academ- ic vice presidents. However, those with the least supportive supervisors also tended to report to li- brarians.

When classroom Technologies Media Develop- ment, and/or other IITS functional areas beyond Learning Resources are integrated within the li- brary, these services need to be protected in two ways. First, they should receive their own budget from Academic Affairs, totally independent of the library's budget and therefore immune from the type of cuts described above. Second, the instruc- tional technology component should be directed by a trained, experienced instructional technology professional. An MLS from an ALA-accredited in- stitution does not qualify a person to manage the services described in the IITS model, with the possible exception of Learning Resources any

44 Tech Trends

more than a graduate degree in instructional tech- nology qualifies one to be a reference librarian.

The same concerns may be raised about the growing number of instructional technology cen- ters being grouped with campus computer centers under common administrators. In many cases, this common administrator is a computer specialist with little expertise or interest in instructional technology. The instructional technology center should never be placed in a position subordinate to anyone without a strong vested interest in its success.

Trends in instructional technology services. The model also enables us to visualize an important national trend in services provided by centralized instructional technology centers. At one time, our media centers provided nothing but basic "audio- visual" services, those in the Learning Resources and Classroom Technologies functional areas, and to a lesser extent in the area of Media Develop- ment. In fact, many centers, particularly at small- er institutions, still offer little else. There is no doubt that Classroom Technologies will remain a very important service, although we are seeing in- creasing numbers of divestitures or decentraliza- tion of equipment pools, to get the gear out on campus where it is needed, in satellite pools easily accessible to the faculty. The Learning Resources functional area is becoming decreasingly impor- tant, as more and more non-print media collec- tions are being shifted from media centers to aca- demic libraries.

Over the past few years, four functional areas

have rapidly gained in significance: Media Devel- opment, Instructional/Faculty Development, In- structional Telecommunications, and Instructional Computing, although, as noted above, the latter has been slower than the other three to take hold as an instructional technology function. Universi- ties are currently experiencing a boom in media development services, particularly in the areas of video and computer graphics. The expanding need to communicate on a worldwide basis and reach out to new student populations has resulted in a dramatic growth in telecommunications services. Instructional development expertise, particularly at the Course, Faculty, and Media Development Levels, seems to be in greater demand now than in the past several years. These four functional areas, along with Classroom Technologies activi- ties involving "high tech" delivery systems, will be the key instructional technology services in the 1990's and early 21st century, signaling a rather important shift from our "audiovisual" orientation of the past.

Emphasis on "Integrated". Although the func- tional areas identified in the IITS model already are present in one form or another on most college and university campuses, what seems to be lack- ing is recognition of their common denominator in that they are all instructional technology services. Because they have a common mission, enhance- ment of the environment for teaching and learn- ing, they need to function together as an instruc- tional technology team. All too often we tend to operate as individual players, without a sense of team mission and team spirit, and without a com- mitment to function together as a team to accom- plish team goals. In the real world, players in- clined to function as individuals instead of team members often find themselves on the waiver list or being released by the organization's manage- ment. In a way, that may be what has been hap- pening to us.

An important question is whether the need ex- ists for all these services to be structured under the same administrative umbrella. Interaction and coordination would likely be enhanced if all these functional areas were part of the same agency. However, they could operate effectively as sepa- rate centers without formal administrative ties as long as they communicate with each other on a routine basis and share services and activities. This means an active networking system and an instinctive readiness to call on specialists in other functional areas for consultation in matters of mu- tual interest. Such cooperation is the very founda- tion of an Integrated Instructional Technology Service. We can do a number of things to promote this unified effort.

1. Become better acquainted with each other's services and programs. Supposedly, we are in the communication business, yet we do not always do a good job of communicating with each other. (In fact, with the exception of a few states and uni- versity systems with regularly-established meet- ings and networks, our record of inter-institution communication is absolutely abysmal. For exam-

pie, how many readers can easily identify their counterparts at colleges and universities in adja- cent states? The points made in this article regard- ing intra-institution cooperation are equally appli- cable at the regional and national level.) Directors and key specialists from each pocket of instruc- tional technology on campus should get together for a spirited resource sharing session.

2. Set up a liaison committee. Form a liaison committee consisting of at least one representative of each of these units. The committee should meet regularly to discuss topics of mutual interest, such as joint programming and purchase and/or opera- tion of resources that can be shared, like equip- ment and computer software.

3. Draw upon each other's expertise. As noted above, instructional technology practitioners should be able to turn instinctively to each other for support and expertise to meet specific needs, with service charges applied only in the most un- usual circumstances, if at all.

4. Engage in common activities. Our impact can be magnified enormously through joint program- ming, such as seminars and workshops, newslet- ters, and instructional technology fairs open to the entire campus community.

5. Publish a joint catalog o f services. A highly valuable resource for prospective customers is a handbook listing all instructional technology ser- vice providers (in fact, all faculty support agencies should be included) and the services they offer, with a comprehensive index so that each user could easily identify the appropriate office provid- ing a needed service.

6. Publish a composite schedule. Another help- ful document could be a composite schedule of ac- tivities and programming to be conducted during the upcoming academic term or year. The compi- lation of such a schedule would likely serve to im- prove the coordination of these events among the sponsoring campus agencies.

The old cliche "in unity there is strength" has real meaning here. Instructional technology practi- tioners and service providers will have a much greater opportunity to operate effectively, main- tain visibility, and stimulate change if we operate in an atmosphere of mutual cooperation. We sim- ply cannot continue with independent, isolated, product-oriented, "business as usual" media serv- ices and expect to be there in good shape at the beginning of the 21st century. The IITS model is proposed to help identify all the players on the in- structional technology scene in higher education, in both product and process functional areas, and to emphasize the vitally important symbiotic rela- tionships that exist among them. �9

OCTOBER 45