NARRATIVEIndiana State University has entered into a partnership with Ivy Tech State College and Vincennes University to develop seamless program articulations. This is more commonly known as DegreeLink. The main intention of DegreeLink is to provide access to a baccalaureate degree for Hoosiers who are time-bound, geographically-bound, and financially challenged. Students completing an articulated program can either transfer to ISU as a residential student or as a community-based student. Those students selecting the latter will receive courses through a variety of distance education technologies. Presently there are three approved programs (Electronics Technology, General Industrial Technology, and Industrial Supervision) being offered by Indiana State University. Each of these as well as other future programs will require students to earn approximately 15 semester hours in upper division courses.
This proposal requests financial resources to develop ECT 321 (A.C. Circuit Analysis) so that the course can be delivered on Internet/Web, and therefore, provide an asynchronous learning environment for student wishing to finish a B.S. degree in Electronics Technology. ECT 321 is a course required in the Electronics Technology program which is one of three approved programs for Degree Link. In phase 1 this course will be revised according to the prescriptions of an instructional design theory. Phase two will entail a detailed formative evaluation plan. Phase three will utilize non-interactive data collecting and provide summative evaluation. Finally, phase four requires an intercollegiate approach for the review by subject-matter experts from I.S.U., Ivy Tech, and Vincennes University. The plan promotes the sharing of knowledge in instructional design of electronics technology courses among the three universities.
This model will address real-world problems. The course will place the students in a leadership role for tomorrow’s business and industry. Teaching electronics through this model will be unique and have high potential to serve as a model for other distance education courses in electronics technology. A total of $29,841 is requested of which 60% or $17,841 will be provided by Indiana State University. The ISPE grant request is for $12,000.
3.1 Introduction
The goal of the program in Electronics Technology is to prepare students for highly technical and professional careers in instrumentation and control, technical sales, field services, electronics manufacturing, and electrical power operations. Student concentration areas are available in computer hardware technology, biomedical electronics, and instrumentation and control technology.
3.2 Target Audience
The constituents of the state of Indiana have expressed a need for post secondary technical education. This need has been exhibited by the formation of South Central Indiana Education Allegiance (SCIEA), and the approval of the DegreeLink by the Commission of Higher Education and state legislature. A brief description of SCIEA and DegreeLink is provided in Appendix A. Specifically, for the intent of this proposal, there is an expressed need for individuals knowledgeable of electronics technology.
The primary target audience will be DegreeLink students. These students will be completing a baccalaureate degree at remote sites. They will be time-bound, geographically-bound, and financially challenged. The asynchronous delivery mode will assist these students as well as others employed full-time or part-time to participate in the class instruction and learning activities in a time convenient for them.
The Department of Electronics and Computer Technology has worked arduously to develop distance education programs that meet the needs of SCIEA and DegreeLink. Because of limited available time on IHETS and because the ECT department wants to meet the needs of our students across the state, we need to develop asynchronous learning environments. Therefore, we propose ECT 321, AC Circuit Analysis, be offered on Internet/Web for students interested in completing a Bachelors of Science in Electronics Technology. ECT 321 is a course required by the program.
Eighty five percent of those responding to a 1997 Electronics Technology alumni survey stated that the knowledge they had gained in ECT 321 had been used by them in their workplace. Electronic Technology courses have been successfully offered on site at North Lawrence Vocational Center for the past two years. The local community has been very supportive of the program and the quality of education provided by the Department of Electronics and Computer Technology.
3.3 Program Objectives
The Department of Electronics and Computer Technology is committed to assisting individuals who have attained a two-year degree in electronics and would like to continue their education, or complete a four- year degree, without leaving their home, family, and job. By offering this course through Internet/Web means, we allow these people to continue their education while remaining productive to the industries that they presently serve. The goal is to provide access to higher education to the graduates of Ivy Tech and Vincennes University so that these students are able to remain in their home communities while completing their degrees. Many of these students are presently employed and require a system where they can work on the course when their time allows. Swing shifts and changing job demands do not allow them to enroll in a synchronous learning environment.
There will be 15, 50 minutes lectures presented on videotape. Students will use Internet/Web for access to additional examples and practice problems. The practice problems will have diagnostic type feedback which will provide the precise nature of what the student is doing incorrectly.
3.4 Institutional support
The Department of Electronics and Computer Technology, the School of Technology, and Indiana State University are committed to DegreeLink. The reputation of the department, school, and the university are at stake with this innovative partnership with Ivy Tech and Vincennes University. There has been substantial media exposure to the public about the program. ECT 321 is a course required by the degree.
The department and school have been leaders in developing Distance Education programs at Indiana State University. The Myer’s Technology Center has a substantial amount of square footage dedicated to the preparation of Distance Education courses. The administration and faculty of the School and the University are absolutely committed to making DegreeLink as successful as possible. As Chairperson of the Department of Electronics and Computer Technology, I am convinced that time-bound, place-bound, and financially challenged students should have access to higher education after completing an associate degree.
Indiana State University has provided its full cooperation and supports the development of programs and courses for distance education. The Division of Continuing Education and Instructional Services, Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), Media Technology Resource Services (MTR), Academic Computing and Network Services (ACNS) and Faculty Computing Resource Services (FCRS) of Indiana State University are committed to assist this project by various means including videotaping, providing graphic design support, designing web sites, providing hardware and software for web course development. The PD has participated in the Course Transformation Academy (CTA) to enhance his skills in understanding how to prepare a distance education course.
3.5 Instructional Design Plan
ECT 321 is a three hour course on Alternating Current (A.C.) circuit analysis using both time and phasor domains. General methods of analysis covering nodal voltages and mesh currents. Network theorems comprising: superposition, Norton’s, Thevenin’s, Millman’s reciprocity; and maximum power transfer.
This proposal is to develop an instructional package that will allow ECT 321 to be presented in an effective, efficient, and appealing manner on Internet/Web. The PD’s doctorate is in Instructional System Technology with an emphasis on Instructional Design Theory. The design of the proposed course is an extension of his doctoral thesis which dealt with presenting ECT 221 D. C. circuit analysis on a computer network according to an instructional design strategy. Dr. Charles Reigeluth, the chair of my dissertation committee, is a nationally known expert in the area of Instructional Design Strategies. The goal of my dissertation was to improve his instructional theory. The results of the dissertation were presented to the American Educational Research Association, Society of Applied Leaning Technology, and Association for Educational Communication and Technology; and articles published by the Journal of Industrial Technology, Educational Research and Development. Students, who participated in this research endeavor, performed well on criterion referenced tests. The overall group average was 91.8. For purpose of comparison, the average test score for similar tests was 77.3 for 189 students taking the class during the previous two-year period.
Phase 1 will consist of the process of taking the instruction and redesigning the material as per an instructional design theory. Instruction at the micro level will be revised according to Merrill’s Component Display Theory, while the instruction at the macro level will be revised according to the Reigeluth’s Elaboration Theory of Instruction. The revisions will be developed consistently as possible with the prescriptions of the theory.
Formative research is appropriate to improve instructional models and a course. Under this approach, development projects are used as a means for conducting research and producing an optimal instructional package. An instructional product is designed and developed based purely upon an instructional theory. The product is therefore an "instance" of that theory. A series of one-on-one evaluations is conducted with a sample of the population of students to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the product, and ways of improving it. Since the product is an instance of the theory, the results reflect the weaknesses and strengths, and ways of improving the theory; and likewise ways of improving the course.
The focus of the formative research is to further develop an instructional model and develop an effective, efficient, and appealing course. The questions that must be answered to achieve this goal will be: "what worked", "what did not work", and what improvements can be made." These types of questions cannot be answered by using only quantitative data. Qualitative data are an important part of formative research because a student's suggestion of an improvement in instruction or an observed behavior showing a weakness in instruction cannot always be reduced to a statistic. Questions pertinent to improving the course can be directly answered by students being interviewed and observed as they use the instruction.
The procedure, data analysis and rationale is provided in Appendix B.
3.6 Course Evaluation Plan
Phase Two - Formative Evaluation
One-on-one formative evaluation will provide the direction during this phase. The formative evaluation process will be used to obtain data to increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and appeal of the instruction. The emphasis in formative evaluation is on the collection of data to revise the instruction and to assure that the instruction is free of inherent problems. The researcher will sit at the side of each student while he/she studies the material. During the interactive phase, there will be constant communication with the students to determine what methods will meet the educational objectives of the course.
Once the students are finished with the instruction they will be asked if they have any questions. A posttest will be given after all the lessons of a topic are presented. Upon completion of the posttest the students will be asked to fill out the attitude survey and then debriefed. The debriefing session will be audio taped in an attempt to maximize the thoroughness of collecting data. A debriefing log will be kept with comments. The debriefing concentrates on questions such as what the strengths and weaknesses of the instruction are, whether they like or dislike the instruction and why, and what suggestions they have for the improvement of the instruction. The students will be allowed to read a typed version of their comments of the instruction following data collection and will be allowed to change any comments.
Phase Three
Phase 3 will use the non-interactive data collection method. The students will work through the instruction by themselves while the researcher observes them. Completion time of each unit will be logged. The students will be observed as they work through the instruction and notes will be written about student comments and problems with the instruction. During this phase, the researcher will not communicate with the student except during the debriefing session, or if they have a problem. After each topic is completed, students will be asked if they have questions. They will be given the posttest and then asked to fill out the attitude survey. After the attitude survey is completed, the students will be debriefed again. The same questions will be used in all three debriefings.
Phase Four
The materials will be reviewed by three subject-matter experts, one professor from: Indiana State University, Vincennes University, and Ivy Tech State College. All professors have at least a M.S. in Electronics and Computer Technology from Indiana State University. An intercollegiate approach to developing a course on the Internet/Web can result in new knowledge about instructional design being shared by the three universities.
Instruments
Five instruments will be used to collect data. This entails: a posttest, a set of questions used during the interactive phase, a set of questions used during debriefing, an attitude survey, and a time log.
A posttest will be administered after each topic. A total of seven posttests will be administered. Their purpose will be to access achievement and measure the effectiveness of the instruction. A secondary purpose of the test is to have the students reflect upon the instruction. It is hypothesized that a posttest will give students more insight into how effective the instruction was and, therefore, they would be more critical of the instruction. It is hypothesized that the students will find more weaknesses in the instruction if they are critical.
There will be two qualitative instruments. First, there will be impromptu questions that will be asked of the student during the interactive data collection stage. These questions will be designed to identify particular aspects of the instruction that helped or hindered the student's comprehension and to clarify instruction that will be considered ambiguous. These impromptu questions will be used only during Phase 2. The nature of the questions is dependent upon comments by the student, student expressions, and progression through the instruction (the student taking an excessive amount of time working through a portion of instruction will be questioned so that the problem area can be determined and eliminated).
The second qualitative instrument will be questions used during the debriefing sessions of Phases 2 and 3. Students will be questioned to gain insight on things not directly observed (e.g., feelings, thoughts, and intentions that cannot always be observed). It is not always possible to observe how students perceive the instruction and the meaning they attach to what is going on during the instruction -- they will have to be questioned about those things. The purpose of these questions will be to enter into the student’s perspective. This instrument will be used to determine such things as what the students did and did not like about the instruction, what components helped them the most, what components didn't help, and whether the instruction was appropriate for them.
The advanced preparation of the set of debriefing questions will serve two purposes: it is a means of translating the research objectives into specific and measurable language, and it is a way of motivating students to share their knowledge of the phenomenon under study. The purpose of the debriefing questions is to find out what is on the student's mind during the instruction.
The debriefing questions allows students an opportunity to evaluate the instruction, to think about specific strengths or weaknesses not previously mentioned, and to make any suggestions that they had forgotten to make during the interactive data collecting of Phase 3. The same set of debriefing questions will be administered after each topic is covered.
Debriefing questions will be a combination of both open-ended and directed questions. The debriefing will start with open-ended questions and then move to directed questions in an attempt to acquire a more thorough data set. This combination will be utilized so that data about specific strategies will be acquired from all the students. It is hypothesized that the approach of using directed questions will tend to increase the number of responses; which will result in more accurate and thorough information.
A survey instrument will be used to access 1) the appeal of the instruction, and 2) the student’s attitude toward the instruction. The students will be asked to rate on a scale from 1 to 5 the degree which they: liked the sequence of the instruction, felt the instruction was effective, felt the organization of the instruction was appropriate, etc. This instrument serves as a way of cross-checking the qualitative statements that the student had previously made.
The time that each student took to complete the lessons will be recorded in a log. A cumulative log will be established for each student (i.e., length of time for each topic plus a cumulative figure for all topics). This procedure served as a record of efficiency of the instruction.
Peer review
There will be four phases to the study. In the first phase, a course on circuit analysis will be revised according to the prescriptions of the instructional design theory. Phase two will use interactive data collecting and will be conducted to eliminate any problems with the instruction, instruments, and procedure. Phase three will utilize only non-interactive data collecting. Qualitative data analysis will be performed and include a summation of the portfolio of data representing the effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal of the instruction. The outcome of the qualitative data analysis provided insight into ways of improving the course and the model of instructional design.
In phase four the instruction will be reviewed by three subject-matter experts. One professor from Indiana State University, Vincennes University, and Ivy Tech State College. All three professors have a M.S. in Electronics and Computer Technology from Indiana State University. An intercollegiate approach to developing a course on Internet/Web can result in knowledge in instructional design being shared among the three universities.
3.7 Project schedule
Phase 1 - Summer 1998 (May 15 through July 1) - Course transformation - revising instruction according to the prescriptions of the instructional design theory, putting notes on Internet/Web, creating video presentations, putting examples and practice problems on Internet/Web, etc.
Phase 2 - Summer 1998 (July 1 through August 15)
Phase 3 - Fall 1998 (August through December 1998)
Phase 4 - Spring 1999 (Jan through May of 1999)
3.8 Key Course Development Personnel
Brief list of professional activities about Dr. Robert E. English
Chairperson, Department of Electronics and Computer Technology Spring 1995 to present
Acting Assistant Dean for the School of Technology 1994
Professor of Electronics and Computer Technology 1982 to present
Technical Research Consultant 1985 to 1988
Manufacturing Engineering Manager, Zenith Radio Corp. 1977 to 1982
Doctorate of Education - Instructional Systems Technology 1992
Dr. English has served as a Key Researcher for three major research endeavors: CATWILD project ($980,000), MicroLink project ($750,000), and BEECO project ($1,500.000). In the CATWILD project Dr. English designed instruction for Ford Motor Co and General Motors. Dr. English is the Education Officer at the 181st Fighter Wing, Indiana Air National Guard in Terre Haute, IN. The Education Office has won national recognition for it’s innovative programs.
The National Association of Industrial Technology (NAIT) is the accrediting organization for the Department of Electronics and Computer Technology. NAIT conferred the Outstanding Professor of Industrial Technology Award (Region 1) upon Dr. English in recognition for his exceptional performance in the following areas: Excellence in Teaching, Scholarship, and Service to the Profession and Community. From 1988 to present, Dr. English has had an average of eighty six percent of his students rate the quality of his instruction as either excellent or good.
Since 1983, Dr. English has been the Summer Honors Director of the Electronics and Computer Hardware Technology Seminar. In this capacity he has had excellent reviews from participants and has consistently had outstanding seminars. His program has lead the university in the percentage of seminar participants who later enrolled at Indiana State University and the number of students that rate the seminar as academically challenging. Ninety three percent of students rated his class as either superior or above average in terms of academic worth.
Appendix A
Degree Link provides Ivy Tech and Vincennes graduates with an opportunity to earn the remaining two years of their bachelors degrees from Indiana State University. These degree program are available at all twenty two Ivy Tech campuses across Indiana as well as Vincennes University sites in Vincennes, Jasper, Elkhart and Indianapolis. It utilizes a variety of formats including: live satellite transmissions, video and audio tapes, audio-conferencing, e-mail and the Internet/Web. The electronics program is one of three programs approved by the commission of higher education.
SCIEA South Central Indiana Education Allegiance (representing Indiana State University, Indiana University--Bloomington, Southeast; Ivy Tech State College--Bloomington, Sellersburg, Purdue University State Wide Technology; and Vincennes University -- Jasper and Vincennes and the Alliance Learning center in Bedford) comprise a collaborative, community-based effort to serve an undeserved rural, six county region. The effort can be characterized as being responsive to community needs (increased workforce development training opportunities and intact degree programs, particularly in technical fields) and performed in cooperation with community and industry leaders.
Appendix B
Procedure
There will be interactive and non-interactive phases of data collection in the study. In the interactive data collection the investigator interfaced with each student (Those having a problem and those not having any problems. In the non-interactive data collection the investigator will observe the student without any direct communication occurring.
All phase 3 students will work through the instruction in a computer laboratory in a small group environment. The students will be asked on a daily basis "what works" and "what doesn’t work". This will help students focus on methods that they liked or disliked. Phase 3 students worked through the instruction on an independent basis. The same instructions will be given to all students.
There will be two types of data collection in the study. The method distinguishes the two types of data collection. The second phase will be interactive while the third phase involved only non-interactive data collection. As a student’s response or behavior will be observed during Phase 3, certain questions will arise that need to be addressed then -- otherwise the student will not remember the problem or the situation, and details will be lost.
Standard procedure required that full notes be written or revised as soon as possible after direct observation. Comments will be spoken into a tape recorder or written during the observation period, it will be necessary to reread the comments and verify with the students as soon as the observation will be completed. This practice will be an attempt to produce data as accurate as possible.
The tape recorder will capture all comments about the instruction. The resulting tape and log served as evidence (proof) of where students are having problems or which part of the instruction the student likes or dislikes (through oral comments, etc.). It also served as evidence (providing audio information) of when students will be taking more time than necessary.
Information from the audio tapes that will focus on the instruction will be important and serve to validate responses of the debriefing questions. The attitude survey will serve the purpose of validating the comments from the debriefing questions. The debriefing session, of both phases, made use of one-on-one interviewing techniques.
Data Analysis
Data will be collected and analyzed from multiple sources that include: debriefing questions, direct observation, video and audio transcripts, pretests and posttests, notes of the investigator, and summary reports for each student. A primary purpose of the analysis phase will be the identification of common data for the purpose of improving the course and the instructional model. The purpose of these activities will be to gain insight into the major strengths and weaknesses of the instruction as mentioned by the students from their debriefing sessions, notes, comments, etc. Since the instruction will be an instance of the theory, these suggestions indicated improvements for the prescriptions from the instructional model. The audio tapes from both debriefing sessions will be transcribed and then summarized according to the category of questions that will be asked (i.e., weakness, strengths, likes, dislikes, most useful, least useful, etc.). The audio tapes from both debriefing sessions will be transcribed and then summarized according to the category of questions that will be asked (i.e., weakness, strengths, likes, dislikes, most useful, least useful, etc.).
Appendix C
Rationale
The primary focus of the study is to develop an optimal course in A.C. circuit analysis. A secondary focus is the further develop an instructional model that can be used by other course developers. To improve the course and improve the instructional theory it will be necessary to answer such questions as "how can the prescriptions be improved", and "what are their strengths and weaknesses." To answer these types of questions required an approach that illuminated an understanding of humans interacting in a dynamic learning situation and required concrete inferences from an instance concerning human behavior. An approach will be required that would get as close to the student as possible through direct observation in a natural setting and access subjective facts, i.e., ideas, feelings, etc., as compared to an approach that would utilize solely derivative data such as scholastic tests, etc.
The use of multiple methods of collecting data is one form of "triangulation." Methodological "triangulation" combines dissimilar methods such as debriefings and observations to study the same unit. The logic behind this tactic is that the flaw of one method is often compensated by the strength of another and that by combining methods the researcher can achieve the best of each while overcoming the intrinsic deficiency of each. Multiple sources of evidence took the form of the investigator's notes, students' comments, interviews with the students, audio tapes from debriefing sessions, the posttests, and the attitude survey.
