Instructional improvement centers in higher education

Gustafson, Kent; Bratton, Barry

doi:10.1007/bf02906234

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a similar vein, with a few exceptions (e.g., Diamond, 1989), instructional design practices had a minimal impact in higher education. Whereas instructional improvement centers in higher education were growing in number through the mid1970s, by 1983 more than one fourth of these organizations were disbanded and there was a general downward trend in the budgets of the remaining centers (Gustafson & Bratton, 1984). Burkman (1987aBurkman ( , 1987b provides an analysis of the reasons why instructional design efforts in schools and universities have not been successful, and contrasts these conditions with the more favorable conditions that exist in business and the military.…”

Section: The 1980s: Growth and Redirectionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In the mid 1970s, several branches of the United States military adopted an instructional design model (Branson et al, 1975) intended to guide the development of training materials within those branches. In academia during the first half of the decade, many instructional improvement centers were created with the intent of helping faculty use media and instructional design procedures to improve the quality of their instruction (Gaff, 1975;Gustafson & Bratton, 1984). Moreover, many graduate programs in instructional design were created (Partridge & Tennyson, 1979;Redfield & Dick, 1984;Silber, 1982).…”

Section: The 1970s: Burgeoning Of Interest In the Systems Approachmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design

Reiser

2001

ETR&D

293

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the second of a two-part article that discusses the history of the field of instructional design and technology in theIn Part I of this article, I presented the following definition of the field of instructional design and technology:The field of instructional design and technology encompasses the analysis of learning and performance problems, and the design, development, implementation, evaluation and management of instructional and noninstructional processes and resources intended to improve learning and performance in a variety of settings, particularly educational institutions and the workplace. Professionals in the field of instructional design and technology often use systematic instructional design procedures and employ a variety of instructional media to accomplish their goals. Moreover, in recent years, they have paid increasing attention to noninstructional solutions to some performance problems. Research and theory related to each of the aforementioned areas is also an important part of the field. (Reiser, in press) As was pointed out in Part I, the major features of this definition include (a) its listing of six categories of activities or practices (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation, and management) often associated with the field; (b) its identification of research and theory, as well as practice, as important aspects of the profession; and (c) its recognition of the influence the performance technology movement has had on professional practices. Moreover, the definition highlights two practices that have, over the years, formed the core of the field. These two practices are (a) the use of media for instructional purposes and (b) the use of systematic instructional design procedures (often simply called instructional design). As was mentioned in Part I, although many have argued about the value of employing these practices, they remain as the key defining elements of the field of

show abstract

Section: The 1980s: Growth and Redirectionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: The 1970s: Burgeoning Of Interest In the Systems Approachmentioning

confidence: 98%

A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design

Reiser

2001

ETR&D

293

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been widely believed that faculty development programs were in a decline due to widespread budget constraints. Of seventy-two faculty development centers listed by Gaff in 1975, 28 percent had closed by 1984(Gustafson and Bratton, 1984. Erickson (1986), however, paints a different picture.…”

Section: Faculty Development and Faculty Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty development and the future of college teaching

Lacey

1988

New Drctns for Teach & Learn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the accelerating demise of campus faculty development programs across the country (Gustafson and Bratton, 1983), faculty will have to learn about teaching in the traditional way, namely, through the written word. This book will aid them some, but it is not a "how to" book (as is, say, McKeachie's Teaching Tips).…”

Section: Senior Fellow Indian Council Of Social Science Research Nementioning

confidence: 99%