Keywords

Education -- Aims and objectives, Educational evaluation, Educational technology, Employees -- Training of, Instruction, Instructional systems -- Design, Log linear models, Teaching, Teaching -- Aids and devices

Abstract

A sample of corporate instructional designers and professors of instructional design completed the "Corporate Instructional Design Scale." The data yielded information on the extent of agreement that descriptive statements identified conventionally and systematically designed instruction.

Descriptive and asymmetric log linear (statistical) analyses were conducted. In the asymmetric log linear analyses, the extent of agreement was used as the dependent variable. The three independent variables with three levels each were Program type (conventionally designed instruction, both conventionally and systematically designed instruction, and systematically designed instruction), Instructional component (instructional intents, instructional strategies, and instructional assessments), and Trainer type (professional trainers in manufacturing, professional trainers in non-manufacturing, and professors of instructional design). The asymmetric log linear analysis using 16 models was a 3x3x3x3 factorial design.

The extent of agreement on the indicators of conventional instruction was lower than the extent of agreement on the indicators of systematic instruction. The extent of agreement for instructional assessment indicators was lower than the extent of agreement for instructional intents and strategies. There were only minor differences between the extent of agreement on indicators classified as intents and indicators classified as strategies. the extent of agreement on the indicators which differentiated conventionally and systematically designed instruction was higher for the professors of instructional design than for the trainers in manufacturing and non-manufacturing companies.

Study results should be carefully considered by professors of instructional design when designing their instructional design courses. The high extent of agreement by professors of instructional design on items that distinguished conventional instruction and systematic instruction suggest that academia is fairly clear about the indicators of instructional design, specially instructional intents and instructional strategies, while the practitioners of instructional design have a substantially lower extent of agreement. These results suggest at least two conclusions. First, the academic world of instructional design is not in tune with the corporate world. Academia has been promoting idealized procedures for instructional design, while practitioners have adjusted their instructional designed to corporate realities of time and cost. Second, corporate instructional designers have found academic world suggestions unrealistic. Corporate instructional designers have made modifications to their instructional designs. Their instructional designs may actually only approximate whatever type of instruction the professional trainers or corporation where they are employed may advocate.

Notes

If this is your thesis or dissertation, and want to learn how to access it or for more information about readership statistics, contact us at STARS@ucf.edu

Graduation Date

1987

Semester

Fall

Advisor

Lange, Robert R.

Degree

Doctor of Education (Ed.D.)

College

College of Education

Department

Curriculum and Instruction

Format

PDF

Pages

213 p.

Language

English

Rights

Public Domain

Length of Campus-only Access

None

Access Status

Masters Thesis (Open Access)

Identifier

DP0020682

Accessibility Status

Searchable text

Download

Share

COinS