Self-Study and Curriculum Review

of the

Information and Learning Technologies (ILT) Program,

ID & Adult Learning,

at University of Colorado at Denver

Michelle Boyer, Lisa Bradshaw, Cheryl Ide,

Annie Persson, Michele Sutherland

July 27, 2005

Table of Contents
Self-Study and Curriculum Review.................................................................................1

of the.........................................................................................................................1

Information and Learning Technologies (ILT) Program,.....................................................1

ID & Adult Learning,....................................................................................................1

at University of Colorado at Denver................................................................................1

Michelle Boyer, Lisa Bradshaw, Cheryl Ide,.....................................................................1

Annie Persson, Michele Sutherland.................................................................................1

July 27, 2005..............................................................................................................1

Table of Contents...............................................................................................................1

Introduction.......................................................................................................................3

Background.......................................................................................................................4

Research Questions............................................................................................................5

Method.............................................................................................................................6

Data Collection Procedures...............................................................................................6

Data analysis..................................................................................................................8

Findings............................................................................................................................8

Instructional Design and Foundations...............................................................................10

Tools and Applications...................................................................................................11

Product Design..............................................................................................................11

Languages....................................................................................................................11

Implications for Practice....................................................................................................33

Possible Future Actions......................................................................................................35

References.......................................................................................................................36

Appendix A (Alumni Survey)..............................................................................................38

Appendix B (Faculty Survey)..............................................................................................42

Appendix C (Student Survey Questions)..............................................................................44

Appendix D (Questions About ILT History)...........................................................................46

Appendix E (Sample University Faculty Inquiry)....................................................................47

Appendix F (Program Comparison Table).............................................................................48

Appendix G (Course and Program Comparison)....................................................................63

2
Introduction
Simulations, project management, Captivate, Flash, return on investment (ROI), learning
management systems, EPSS, SCORM, outsource training, design documents… All of these terms
relate to jobs in the emerging field of instructional design in the corporate world. As more and
more companies turn to e-learning and Web-based training, more instructional designers need
training in this rapidly changing field. Two years ago, all but one of our group of researchers
began Master’s degrees in Information and Learning Technology, Instructional Design & Adult
Learning, at University of Colorado at Denver. Now, as we approach the completion of our
program, we have had time to reflect on what we need to be successful in our field and how those
needs have been met.

As a team, we chose to delve into a self-study of the ILT program. We also pursued a curriculum
review of other programs alongside our own. We explored these topics out of respect for our
program and from the desire to find opportunities to make positive changes for future Adult
Learning/Instructional Design students in the program. Our group of researchers included four
members for whom this course was the final requirement in the Master’s degree program.
Michelle Boyer recently transitioned from an eleven-year career as an educator into an
Instructional Designer position. Lisa Bradshaw is an Online Communication Developer for an
educational grant at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Cheryl Ide is an e-learning consultant,
on-line trainer, and documentation specialist. Annie Persson has a background in technical
writing, and recently accepted a design position with a local company. Michele Sutherland is a
Special Events Coordinator for a prestige cosmetics brand. All are students of the Adult
Learning/Instructional Design track in the ILT program.

From our diverse backgrounds, we found one major similarity amongst ourselves; all of us have
had concerns about gaps in the curriculum of our Master’s program in Adult Learning/Instructional
Design. We have invested a great deal of time and money to advance our learning and improve
our careers. While we are nearly finished with our program, and this research will not benefit us
directly, we hope to contribute to improvements for the benefits of future students.

Some of the learning experiences we had have been incredible, and they made us more aware of
ourselves as learners and educators. However, there are still areas in which we wish we had
received more guidance and experience. There are parts of our chosen field that we only learned
about on the job, instead of in the classroom. With the goal of performing a self-study of the
program’s history and curriculum, and a curriculum review of other top ILT programs, we will
recommend ways for CU-Denver’s ILT program to improve and adapt to changing conditions in

3
the professional field. We want to make recommendations that will enable the program to provide
all of its Adult Learning/Instructional Design graduates with a more comprehensive preparation
for the business world where we intend to pursue our careers.

Background
While we gained a great deal of information and learning experiences vital to developing our skills
as instructional designers, we believe there were gaps in our learning. Some of our classes were
cancelled due to low enrollment, and each member of our group has taken classes or independent
studies from departments outside of the ILT program to complete not only electives, but also core
classes. However, these substitutions expanded our horizons and added depth to our studies,
especially in several business aspects of instructional design; yet, questions remain about content
specific to Instructional Design.

We also made note of the changing nature of the ILT program. This field of study, while not new,
has changed dramatically with the advent and adoption of Web-based training. At the start of our
program, two years ago, we followed a specific plan of study in which classes were offered
sequentially, and K12 and Adult Learning cohorts had been eliminated. Shortly after the start of
our program, the ILT competencies were changed along with the ILT portfolio requirements.
Currently, students enrolling in the program have a different plan of study, including an internship
requirement, and competencies for the ILT portfolio have expanded.

In the rapidly evolving field of e-Learning instruction in both academia and on the job, change is a
requirement. In order for us to be well prepared students in a business driven world, we needed
guidance in the business aspect of Adult Learning/Instructional Design. We needed to understand
the importance of ROI, requiring management buy-in for training, proper feedback from trainings
that are executed, and the latest acquisitions in trends and applications in the field. Our
perspective on e-learning was different because just as educators must prove their worth as
teachers with increased student test scores, we must prove our worth as trainers and
instructional designers with proof of return-on-investment. However, since one of our group
members had not heard of the term “return-on-investment” until she took a Business School
course upon the cancellation of an ILT elective, we feel there is a disconnect between the
academic and business realities of our field in the program.

As corporate educators, we bring a different slant to what we feel is currently a K12-based

program. In casual conversation amongst our peers, we brainstormed about ways the ILT
program could be structured to better meet the needs of ID & Adult Learning students. This is the
main thrust of our research.

4
Research Questions
1. How has the CU-Denver ILT program evolved?

• What are some of the significant changes that have been made in the past to improve the
program? How did students and faculty receive the changes? Were there any decisions to
revoke changes and revert back to previous policy, and if so, why were the decisions
made?

• Are there proposed future changes to the program? If so, what changes are proposed, and
what are the reasons for choosing them?

We sought to learn about the background and history of the CU-Denver ILT program, when and
how it evolved, the ways that it has changed since its creation, and how students and faculty
received those changes. We wanted to find out if any of the changes could be revisited for clues
that might help us recommend future changes to the program that could improve it further.

2. How does the ILT Instructional Design and Adult Learning curriculum map to
professional standards? What courses fulfill each of the standards?

• AECT: what official accreditation standards currently in use map to the ILT curriculum?

• ASTD: what standards map to the ILT curriculum?

• ISPI: what standards map to the ILT curriculum?

We wanted to examine the professional standards of these three organizations, and how the CU-
Denver ILT program’s curriculum has been designed to fulfill them. We investigated possible
areas in our program’s curriculum that may not fully address the standards, to recommend ways
in which the curriculum could better prepare students to fulfill the standards.

3. How well does the ILT program prepare graduates for careers in the adult
instructional design/instructional technology/educational technology field?

• Do current students feel that the ILT program is preparing them for their careers in ID? If
not, how do they feel the program could be improved?

• Do alumni of the program feel that the ILT program has prepared them for their careers in
ID? If not, how do they feel the program could be improved?

We surveyed current students and alumni of the CU-Denver ILT program as well as faculty
members, to learn if these groups feel that the program effectively prepares its graduates for
their careers. We gathered suggestions and feedback that we hoped would enable us to make
recommendations for improvement in the program.

5
4. How does the ILT program compare to other top programs nationwide?

• What are the top programs nationwide? Who feels that these programs are exceptional?
What criteria are used to evaluate a program that is considered one of the top programs?

• What are some distinctive features of these programs? What are their similarities and
differences?

• Based on this analysis, what could be incorporated into the CU-Denver ILT program that
would improve it?

We examined other top instructional design and related programs across the United States, to
determine if the top programs have features in common that make them exceptional. We
investigated the ways these programs are given their high ranking. We sought to use our findings
to compare characteristics of these other top programs with the CU-Denver ILT program, and to
recommend strategies and methods that the other programs are using which might be
incorporated into the CU-Denver ILT program to help improve it.

Method
Each member of our team participated in a portion of the data collection process for this study by
developing data collection tools, administering them to participants or evaluating and interpreting
the results. This study required contact with current ID & Adult Learning track students of the ILT
program, ID & Adult Learning alumni of the ILT program, program faculty, program advisors
and/or chairs, and selected program correspondents from other schools throughout the country.
As current students ourselves, we considered ourselves subject matter experts in the area of
study and hoped to provide additional insight where applicable, while remaining objective.

Data Collection Procedures

This study required several methods to properly answer our research questions. Our matrix
depicts how data was collected for each question posed, followed by a more specific explanation
for each question.

Method Literature Correspondence Rubrics and Surveys with

Review with SMEs / Comparison Current ILT
University Faculty Tables Students / Faculty /
Alumni

Question 1 X X

6
 Question 2 X

Question 3 X X

Question 4 X X X

Figure 1: Data Collection Methods

For the first question, How has the CU-Denver ILT program evolved? we combined literature
reviews with personal interviews of the CU-Denver ILT program chair and former faculty
members. Since the inception of this program, many changes have been implemented for the
improvement of the program. Understanding the program’s history and the reasons for some of
the changes enabled us to make better recommendations for the future without “reinventing the
wheel” or making suggestions that may have already proven unsuccessful. Reviewing an old
course catalog and an accreditation report provided a clear understanding of the history of the ILT
program and allowed for more concise interviews with faculty members.

The second question, How does the ILT Instructional Design and Adult Learning curriculum map
to professional standards? What courses fulfill each of the standards? was answered through
literature reviews. Using a copy of the ILT Rubrics and a comparison table, we compared the ILT
competencies with AECT standards. As a requirement of the Current Trends and Issues in
Instructional Technology class, several members of this team mapped program competencies
against various industry standards, and we used our own research for those projects in finding
answers to this question. Standards for several professional organizations were easily available,
and we constructed additional comparisons as part of the final report.

The third question, How well does the ILT program prepare graduates for careers in the adult
instructional design/instructional technology/educational technology field?, required administering
online surveys to current students and alumni of the ILT program. These focused on personal
experiences and opinions of students of the program and sought to gain insight and suggestions
for future program suggestions. In this question we tried to identify areas which were
consistently lauded or lacking within the program so that these areas can be brought to the
attention of the curriculum developers. These surveys can be found in Appendices A and B
respectively.

Our final question, How does the ILT program compare to other top programs nationwide?
required multiple data collection methods. This question combined literature reviews of other
programs nationwide, anonymous surveys of CU-Denver ILT faculty, and follow-up
correspondence with similar program administrators nationwide. By giving CU-Denver ILT faculty
the option to remain anonymous in our survey we hoped to increase our potential for “honest”

7
answers, just as faculty evaluations administered to students are anonymous for each class at the
end of a term. The literature review of other programs was conducted both online, by visiting the
Web sites of others schools and programs, and through requesting program information from the
institutions themselves. We have contacted program leaders at targeted schools to ask more in-
depth questions that arose in our study.

Data analysis
Both our data collection and analysis methods were varied. Our surveys were evaluated for
trends and percentages by simple comparative analysis of each question’s responses. Charts and
tables were generated in Excel for selected findings. For any personal interviews and written
correspondence conducted, each interviewer followed a standard procedure of writing all
questions out in advance so that answers could be recorded directly during the interview. If
multiple sources were interviewed for the same purpose, the interview questions were included in
the appendix section. Results of these interviews, as well as any open-ended questions given in
our surveys, were reviewed for significant consistencies, inconsistencies and trends.

Findings
1. How has the CU-Denver ILT program evolved?

• What are some of the significant changes that have been made in the past to improve the
program? How did students and faculty receive the changes? Were there any decisions to
revoke changes and revert back to previous policy, and if so, why were the decisions
made?

• Are there proposed future changes to the program? If so, what changes are proposed, and
what are the reasons for choosing them?

In order to understand the evolution of the Information and Learning Technologies program,
there were several aspects to research beginning with the study of curriculum changes and the
courses that have been omitted and/or changed. Additionally, we compared the program
objectives and the ILT Portfolio guidelines for the program from several years ago with the
current program.

In 1986, the program, as it is known today, Information and Learning Technologies, was moved
from the University of Colorado in Boulder to the Denver campus (Brent Wilson, personal
communication, July, 9, 2005). When the program was transferred from Boulder to Denver, it
was originally titled Instructional Technology. According to Dr. Brent Wilson, “the Boulder
program had an old fashioned media emphasis” (Brent Wilson, personal communication, July 9,

8
2005). However, after moving the program to Denver, changes began within the program. With
the birth of new technologies in the late eighties and early nineties, the emphasis of Instructional
Design changed to remain competitive. As a result, the focus of the program became
“performance technology, instructional design, newer technology…and cognition.” In 1992, the
program’s name changed to Information and Learning Technologies to reflect the needs and
changes of learning technologies (Brent Wilson, personal communication, July 9, 2005).

Enrollment in the program has been steady throughout its time at the CU-Denver campus.
Currently, the enrollment is at the same level the program experienced in the late eighties and
early nineties. The ILT program “experienced growth in the late nineties, continuing into early
2000. Demand for instructional designers and trainers peaked with the dot com boom, but
continues fairly strong in corporate and higher-ed settings” (Brent Wilson, personal
communication, July 9, 2005). One possible reason for the fluctuation in enrollment was the
dissolved cohort program. In 2001, in response to changes within the School of Education, the
entire ILT program implemented the cohort system. The cohort design for the adult learning
track lasted for three years. However, due to students’ complicated work schedules, the cohort
design proved difficult to sustain for the adult learning track. As a result, the ILT program
returned to the more flexible and less structured menu option (Brent Wilson, personal
communication, July 9, 2005).

In the course catalog for the academic year of 2001-2002, the ILT program’s emphasis was listed
as “Corporate Instructional Development and Training, Instructional Computing, Information and
Learning Technology, Interactive Technologies Design.” (University of Colorado, 2001-2002,
p.104). Currently, through the ILT Web site, the program is described as having three available
tracks; instructional design and adult learning, K-12 teaching, or school library media. Previously,
the description of the program was more in-depth without an obvious choice of educational
tracks. Also, there was one endorsement available; for the library media students. Most recently,
CU-Denver has created another option for students - a dual Master’s degree in Information and
Learning Technologies and Technical Communications (CU-Denver ILT program Web site, 2005).
Over the last few years, changes were made within the program curriculum. For instance, the
following classes were offered in 2001-2002 and through academic years of 2003-2005.

9
 Academic Years
2001 - 2002 2003 – Omitted/changed core
Core Classes 2005 courses
IT 5110: Instructional Design and X X
Production
IT 5600: Multimedia Authoring X X
IT 5710: Telecommunications & X
Networking for Learning
IT 5XXX: Design Studio I: Design X
and Development
IT 6720:Research in IT X X
IT 6740: Learning Processes X X
applied to IT
IT 6750: Current Trends and X X
Issues
IT 6XXX: Design Studio II: X
Management and Consultation
IT 6960: Masters Project or (IT X
6930: Internship)
IT 6999: Leadership & Practice in X
ILT

Figure 2: ILT Courses Offered 2001-2005 (University of Colorado, 2001-2002, p.115, 2005).

Within the accreditation report of 1993, the courses were broken into different categories. The
core courses were listed under “Instructional Computing Core” and the courses listed within this
category were asterisked denoting the importance of completing these classes early within the ILT
program. For the remaining categories the students were advised to confer with their respective
advisers and select 3-12 semester hours from the courses listed within each category. The
following lists included each category and a sampling of classes available for selection.

Instructional Design and Foundations

• Instructional Development: Applying Models and Strategies

• Instructional Message Design

• Cognitive Models of Instruction

• Analyzing Learner Characteristics

• Multicultural Education

10
Tools and Applications
• Computer-Based Tools for Learning and Productivity

• Computer Graphic Systems

• Special Topics: Desktop Publishing in Education

Product Design

• Producing Educational Materials

• Interactive Video

• Advanced Courseware Design Seminar

Languages

• Problem Solving with Pascal I

• Multimedia/Hypermedia Learning Environments

Over time, the ILT curriculum categories evolved based on the instructional design market’s
technological needs and changes, such as the increase in distance learning. Today, the ILT
program offers more workshop options as electives along with time spent at conferences for
credit. Also, there are fewer options for cognitive studies in adult learning and instructional
design (Wilson, 1993, pp. 4-7).

In recent years, the ILT program developed six competency areas in which students were
expected to show mastery upon completion of the program. Since 2003, the six (6) competencies
were expanded to include sixteen (16) different areas of competencies to be completed through
myriad of products through course work. In the 1993 accreditation report, competencies were not
explicitly listed, but they were referred to as six “objectives of the program” (Wilson, 1993, p.2).
Upon graduation, the expectation was that all students would be able to fulfill these objectives in
the working world. The six objectives described were:

• Understand how technology can support learning

• Plan for implementation of technology within classrooms and schools

• Design and develop instructional innovations using technology

• Implement technology-supported instruction within a teaching setting

11
 • Evaluate technology-based programs, systems, or materials in terms of their design and
potential for learning

• Manage technology resources and projects

(Wilson, 1993, pp.2-3).

There were a few minor differences, for instance, in the objectives from 1993. The first objective
requires graduates to “have a firm grasp of cognitive learning processes…” (Wilson, 1993, p. 3).
Since there were no classes that significantly focus on cognitive learning processes, this portion of
the objective was omitted and is not part of the current competencies.

The current planning and analysis competency is comprehensively focused on needs assessment
and analysis of performance and instruction (CU-Denver ILT Web site, 2005). In contrast, the
second objective from 1993 was loosely based on needs assessment, but was more specifically
geared towards the integration and knowledge of cost effectiveness and supporting teachers and
students with the integrated technology (Wilson, p. 2).

The third objective and current competency were based on design and development of
instructional technologies. The objective of 1993 was significantly expanded. By today’s
standards, students must be able to address learning theories, instructional design theories, and
theories of meaning and value. Students must also understand the diversity of learners and
organizations and develop products through technology by using the principles of message design
(CU-Denver ILT Web site, 2005).

The fourth objective listed was the implementation of technological instruction in a teaching
setting (Wilson, 1993, p. 3). The current competency under the heading of implementation also
includes change. The main difference between these headings was that the newest competency
allowed the students to apply different theories to a problem and to create a strategy for new
practices of learning in the respective environment. This competency also required students to
manage resistance to the proposed changes, to include timelines, and develop job aids to assist
with the implementation of the modifications (CU-Denver ILT Web site, 2005).

The fifth objective discussed the evaluation of “technology-based programs, systems, or

materials” (Wilson, 1993, p. 3). In comparison with the current competency, evaluation and
assessment, the objective was very similar. Both the objective and competency required students
to evaluate and assess solutions through products and programs related to the fit within the
organizational problem or curriculum. The original objective relied heavily on the function of
“computer based learning materials”, whereas the competency measured the solutions through

12
summative and formative evaluations along with research methods (Wilson, 1993, p. 3 and CU-
Denver ILT Web site, 2005).

The final objective and competency covered management. The management objective required
students to manage facilities and “hardware/software systems” (Wilson, 1993, p. 3). The
competency, in comparison to the objective, allowed for personnel management along with
leadership strategies such as collaboration and accountability on an instructional design project
(CU-Denver ILT Web site, 2005).

It was easy to deduce the reasoning behind the current competencies after studying the original
six objectives from 1993. Based on the scores of changes that the instructional design market has
undergone within the last twelve years, it was necessary that the objectives flex to the changing
environment of instructional design and adult learning to better prepare students for the working
world.

Today, in order to complete the ILT Master’s program, all students must complete a
comprehensive project portfolio that meets the necessary competencies of the program.
Previously, students of the ILT program had to also complete a comprehensive project of their
choice reflecting the knowledge acquired during their time in this Master’s program.

According to the accreditation report, students in 1993 were required to choose from four
different types of comprehensive projects. There choices are shown in the table below. Each
project choice had particular guidelines that are required for successful completion. The rationale
behind each project closely follows the objectives laid out for the program.

Development of an instructional course, unit, or other product

If a student chose to complete the development course, the student had to “follow a systematic
design model” and to demonstrate a need for new instructional design through a needs
assessment. The project also included defined goals, thorough analysis of learners via a “pre-and
posttest comparison.” In addition, a project report or narrative explaining the processes used to
create the project and any materials used in the production of the project were required for
assessment by faculty.

Evaluation of a curriculum unit or technology-based innovation

For the second product choice, there was less prominence to define an inherent need of
curriculum changes; rather the goal was to “use technology in an innovative way”. The student
plotted out the innovation through documenting the need of change in curriculum; create a
proposal for the innovation and the use of technology. Moreover, the students must assess
student learning and growth through a control group and analyze the results. Lastly, evaluation is
necessary to measure the success and effectiveness of the innovation.

Implementation of a technology-based innovation

13
Evaluation of a curriculum and innovation is the third choice for students to choose from. The role
of the student for this project is to isolate the particular problem or concern that is affecting the
overall performance of the curriculum or innovation. Similar to a research project, the student
should have specific methodology well considered for the project. A literature review should be
conducted to help assess what research had been done previously. After the research
methodology has been executed, the results should be analyzed and then reported in an
appropriate way for the study. Conclusions, strategies, suggestions should be discussed based on
the analysis of the final report.

Creation of a product portfolio

Lastly, the final the choice for students to choose from to complete their Master’s program is the
product portfolio. Students may elect to compile numerous products and display them through a
portfolio. This option will allow the student to showcase their knowledge, skills, and abilities in a
variety of settings. All products in the portfolio must contain a description and rationale for the
product, the design documentation showing the design process, including any revisions, and a
critique and evaluation of the product that demonstrates the usefulness of the product
showcased. Lastly, all products must include a reflection on the experience of the design,
development, and implementation of the product.

Figure 3: Comprehensive Projects Offered in 1993 (Wilson, 1993, p. 8-10).

In addition to the completed projects, students were required to include an account of the
processes related to the respective project, a self-evaluation of the project and individual
experiences in the program, and all materials used for completion of the project (Wilson, 1993, p.
10).

After studying the history of the ILT program at CU-Denver, obvious similarities to the present
program and the program of twelve years ago were discerned. Today, “competencies” as opposed
to program objectives are used. The objectives evolved over time, but the rationale behind the
systematic comprehension, design, development, implementation, evaluation and management
stayed the same. Projects evolved from four choices to one large portfolio to showcase products
that reflect the competencies acquired. One of the most significant and important changes was
reflected in the curriculum of the ILT program. Some classes were dropped to elective status
rather than required, and other courses were retooled to reflect the ever-changing environment of
the instructional designer whether the environment was in a real classroom or a virtual one.

2. How does the ILT Instructional Design and Adult Learning curriculum map to
professional standards? What courses fulfill each of the standards?

• AECT: what official accreditation standards currently in use map to the ILT curriculum?

• ASTD: what standards map to the ILT curriculum?

• ISPI: what standards map to the ILT curriculum?

14
Standards have become an important fixture in education in the past several years. They provide
a framework of accountability - a way to point to a school or a program and say, “Yes, our
students have learned these specific things.” In conducting this self-study, we wished to map the
ILT program standards to three of the prominent standards-making professional associations in
our field, and then determine whether those standards are being met in the classroom setting.

The Association for Educational Communications and Training (AECT) began its quest for
accreditation and certification standards in 1971. The initial task force spent three years reviewing
and researching the topic of standards before publishing the first set. Currently AECT is on its
Fourth Edition of the Standards.

The standards are arranged in the following categories:

• Design (including instructional design, message design, instructional strategies, and

learner characteristics)

• Development (including print technologies, audiovisual technologies, computer-based

technologies, and integrated technologies)

• Utilization (including media utilization, diffusion of innovations, implementation and

institutionalization, and policies and regulations)

• Management (including project management, resource management, delivery system

management, and information management)

• Evaluation (including problem analysis, criterion-referenced measurement, formative and

summative evaluation, and long-range planning)

(Earle, 2001, pp. 15-28)

The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) and the International Society for
Performance Improvement are two other professional organizations with performance standards.
Upon checking into the standards for these sites, we quickly discovered that the two organizations
shared the same standards, which they refer to as Performance Technology Standards for the
Certified Performance Technologist Program. The standards were originated by IPSI and work
upon creating them began in 2000 with a task force devoted to the matter.

The 10 Standards of Performance Technology used by ASTD and IPSI are the following:

• Focus on results and help clients focus on results.

• Look at situations systemically taking into consideration the larger context including
competing pressures, resource constraints, and anticipated change.

15
 • Add value in how you do the work and through the work itself.

• Utilize partnerships or collaborate with clients and other experts as required.

• Systematic assessment of the need or opportunity.

• Systematic analysis of the work and workplace to identify the cause or factors that limit
performance.

• Systematic design of the solution or specification of the requirements of the solution.

• Systematic development of all or some of the solution and its elements.

• Systematic implementation of the solution.

• Systematic evaluation of the process and the results.

(ISPI’s Performance Technology Standards, 2002, ¶ 2)

We became quite familiar with our own standards, or competencies, for the ILT program. Our
professional portfolio was structured around providing evidence of each competency at least once
in our projects. Most of our classes included assignments that were geared toward the inclusion
of competencies in the process of completion of group projects. These projects, in turn, could be
used in our portfolios to prove our mastery of competencies.

In order for us to get the most out of gearing our projects to the ILT competencies, we needed to
know whether the current ones mapped to those of professional groups such as ISPI/ASTD and
AECT. The following table compares the current ILT Competencies with both sets of professional
standards.

ILT Competencies AECT Standards IPSI/ASTD Performance

Technology Standards

Reflective practice – Take a systems view: Look

at situations systemically
• Take a systems view;
taking into consideration the
• Use cycles of larger context including
reasoning/problem- competing pressures,
solving resource constraints, and
anticipated change. (2)
• Promote collaboration,
partnerships, and
relationships for full
inclusion
• Be a lifelong learner and
professional

16
Planning and analysis Focus on the Outcome:
Focus on results and help
• Conduct a needs
clients focus on results. (1)
assessment
Take a systems view (2)
• Conduct a
learning/problem Needs or Opportunity
analysis Analysis: Systematic
assessment of the need or
• Participate in the
opportunity. (5)
process of preparing a
technology plan for your
unit or organization

Design and development Design - design conditions Cause Analysis: Systematic

for learning through ISD, analysis of the work and
• Apply various
message design, workplace to identify the
theories/strategies and
instructional strategies, and cause or factors that limit
current research, and
learner characteristics performance. (6)
consider local needs
and constraints to Design: Systematic design
design activities and of the solution or
Development - including
experiences for learning specification of the
print technologies,
requirements of the solution.
• Design learning and audiovisual technologies,
(7)
performance products computer-based
and resources that technologies, and
reflect an understanding integrated technologies
of the diversity of
learners and groups of
learners
• Develop products and
resources to support
learning and
performance (with
documentation)

Evaluation and assessment Evaluation - evaluate the Focus on the Outcome (1)
adequacy of instruction and
• Evaluate effectiveness Add Value: Add value in
learning through problem
of programs, products, how you do the work and
analysis, criterion-
or practices through the work itself. (3)
referenced measurement,
• Assess formative and summative Work in Partnership with
student/participant evaluation, and long-range Clients (4)
learning planning
Development:
• Utilize research
Systematic development of
methods to investigate
all or some of the solution
a learning or
and its elements. (8)
performance problem,
issue, or trend. Evaluation: Systematic
evaluation of the process and
the results. (10)

Implementation and change Utilization - use processes Focus on the Outcome (1)

17
 • Applying theories of and resources for learning
diffusion, adoption, and by applying principles and
Add Value (3)
change to a local theories of media
problem, develop a utilization, diffusion, Cause Analysis (6)
change strategy implementation, and policy-
Implementation:
making
• Participate in an Systematic implementation
implementation process of the solution. (9)
or change strategy.

Management Management - plan, Work in Partnership with

organize, coordinate, and Clients (4)
Employing effective strategies
supervise instructional
(e.g., team leadership, Development (8)
technology by applying
collaboration, accountability),
principles of project, Implementation (9)
manage one or more of the
resource, delivery system,
following endeavors:
and information
• Instructional-design management
project
• Other development
projects (information,
Web, etc.)
• Facilities such as lab,
library, or classroom
• Classroom and students
• Resources such as
software collections,
hardware, etc.
• Personnel
• Information resource

Figure 4: ILT Program and Industry Competencies

Our findings indicated that the ILT competencies do map to the standards of both AECT and
ASTD/IPSI. The ILT competencies reflected valuable and timely features that improved the
practice of our instructional design. Since the ASTD/IPSI performance standards were more
corporate-based, this indicated that, overall, the competencies of our program map to the
standards needed to be successful in the instructional design field.

The next part of our question was whether the courses themselves reflected all of the
competencies. We wanted to see whether each core course corresponded to the professional
standards. Currently, the core courses are as follows:

• IT 5110 Instructional Development and Production

18
 • IT 6750 Current Trends and Issues in Instructional Technology

• IT 5600 Multimedia Authoring: Web

• IT 5610 Principles for Designing Multimedia

• IT 5830 Workshop: Assessment and Technology

• IT 6720 Research in Information and Learning Technologies

• IT 6740 Learning Processes in Instructional Technology

• IT 6930 Internship

Twelve hours of electives are required, as well, preferably from the following list:

• IT 5370 Digital Video for Interactivity

• IT 5650 Designs for Online Learning

• IT 5710 Telecommunication and Networking in Education

• IT 5998 Professional Development Activities

• IT 6515 Leadership for Learning Technologies Integration

• IT 6960 Master's Project

• IT 6999 Leadership and Practice in ILT

As mentioned earlier, standards have become an important driver of education. The ILT program
had already taken this into consideration and done its own comparisons. The following chart,
given to our team by the Head of the ILT Department, Dr. Brent Wilson, was evidence of how in
the design of the program; the competencies aligned the core courses. This plan of study was
enacted in the fall of 2003.

ILT Competencies Courses/Experiences Assessment

Operations and concepts
(prerequisite)
Reflective practice - take a
systems view; cycles of
reasoning/problem-solving;
collaboration; lifelong
learning
IT 5110; IT 5710; IT 5520
IT 5110; IT 6720; IT 6120;
IT 6999; IT 6960; IT 6930
Tech Integration Competency
Exam (TICE), completed in IT
6740
Philosophy statement
Portfolio letter
Resume
Values/Diversity Analysis

19
 Planning and analysis -
needs assessment;
learning/problem analysis
Design and development -
Design
activities/experiences;
design resources for
diversity; develop resources
for learning and
performance support
Evaluation and assessment
- effectiveness; students
Implementation and change
- diffusion and change;
implementation process
Management – project and
team management;
consultation, accountability,
field experience
IT 5110; IT 6120; IT 6720;
IT 6530; IT 5650
IT 5110; IT 5120; IT 6740;
IT 5130; IT 5370; IT 5600;
IT 6120; IT 6530
IT 5110; IT 6120; IT 6530;
IT 6720; IT 6130
IT 6120; IT 6999; IT 5510;
IT 6720
IT 6120; IT 5510; IT 6999;
IT 6930; IT 6960
Needs assessment or
problem/learning analysis
Product or resource for
learning/performance support
(with design documentation)
Design critique
Performance assessment
Qualitative survey or interview
instrument
Formative evaluation of learning
resource
Summative evaluation
Action inquiry or change report
Optional: Tech
planning/integration plan
Management/field report

Figure 5: ILT Competencies and Core Courses (Wilson, 2003).

Each of the courses listed in the preceding chart related to an ILT competency. The competencies,
in turn, reflected the professional standards we examined. In conclusion, our research found that
the competencies and curriculum of the ILT program map to professional standards.

3. How well does the ILT program prepare graduates for careers in the adult
instructional design/instructional technology/educational technology field?

• Do current students feel that the ILT program is preparing them for their careers in ID? If
not, how do they feel the program could be improved?

• Do alumni of the program feel that the ILT program has prepared them for their careers in
ID? If not, how do they feel the program could be improved?

Faculty, current students and alumni of the CU-Denver ILT program were surveyed in an effort to
find answers to this question. We received a total of 11 responses from alumni of the program, 19
responses from current students and 6 faculty members replied. Of the alumni, the majority

20
(45.5%) were 2004 graduates and the remaining respondents ranged from 1996 to 20061. The
industries our alumni respondents currently work in included corporate learning, government,
healthcare and education; 79% of our currents students surveyed are currently working in the
field of Instructional Design/Educational Technology/Adult Learning/ or Training. The alumni
respondents work as instructional designers, training or technology specialists and have just
recently become employed in their position or have held it for as long as 8 years. The faculty
respondents were both full-time with advisement responsibilities or part-time instructors and
taught both K12 and ID & Adult Learning track students.

One of the most crucial questions asked of alumni was “Do you feel that your ILT degree from
CU-Denver was beneficial in helping you obtain this position?” 45.4% of respondents answered
No. The most common reason for the negative response was because “{the program} did not
provide the skills needed for a corporate environment.” Other answers stated that it was not the
program as much as the degree itself that was the benefit and still others felt that they had
already started realizing employment gains before completing the program.

We asked the alumni to “Please list the courses from the program you felt were most beneficial to
your current position, in order of their importance.” The following courses ranked most often in
the top 3:

1. Instructional Design & Development (Production)

2. Dreamweaver (5600), Web, Multimedia

3. Evaluation, Formative/Summative Evaluation

4. Adult Learning Theories, Learning Processes Applied to Instructional Technology

5. Instructional Message Design

The next question we asked alumni was “Do you feel there were any gaps in the curriculum of the
ILT program?” A resounding 81.8% of respondents answered yes. In an effort to determine the
areas most commonly seen as gaps, we followed this question with a series of questions based on
whether or not the alumni had taken, or planned on taking, courses outside of the ILT program to
address these gaps. The following courses were most commonly mentioned:

Have taken Plan to take

1
We received one alumni survey from a current student, but decided to keep the results since we
were asking questions of opinion and the answers from the current student were clearly
distinguishable.

21
 Project Management Leadership, Trainer Skills

Web Design Programming Classes, Graphics Design, Database classes, Motivation

classes

Instructional Strategies ROI, Needs Assessment, Basic Adult Learning Theory

Flash Analyzing Instructional Systems, Analyzing Learners and Outcomes,

Designing Constructivist Learning Environments, Learning Processes,
Performance Technology

JavaScript Organizational development, Change management, Adult motivation

to learn, Learning styles

Figure 6: Additional Courses Taken or Planned by Alumni

This range of answers clearly indicated our most recent alumni feel there are significant gaps in
the areas of Technology, Business and Adult Learning.

Faculty were asked a similar question; “Do you feel that the ILT program is missing any
important courses within its curriculum?” and the results were evenly split at 50% “Yes” and 50%
“No.” One respondent replied that courses in the areas such as “intro to performance-
improvement principles, including: --performance/problem analysis --evaluation and assessment,
including levels of impact --incentives and management --corporate culture and organizational
change I'd also like to see more emphasis on consulting and contracting, possibly a separate
course, but more realistically, embedded within a management course” would be helpful. Other
respondents felt that a course in adult learning theory as well as more instructional design and
instructional design management needed to be offered, because current students are taught to
author but miss out on other areas crucial to success in the industry.

The question “Do you find it difficult to meet the needs of both K12 and corporate students in the
same classroom?” again produced a 50/50 split of opinions, but the follow up question offered
several good suggestions for how instructors deal with the differences. One faculty member
provides “cases and examples from both settings” and allows students to choose their own groups
and projects, while another tries to customize their course to the needs of the students. The
same faculty member that felt instruction in areas such as instructional design and its
management suggested that the program’s efforts in teaching authoring as actually hurting the
students more than helping them, and would like to see that change in the future. Positive
responses for mixing the two types of students included “I like the mixture and think it creates
some excellent synergy.”

In order to address the curriculum design itself, we asked “Do you feel it would be beneficial to
have a regimented course sequence for students for better progression through the ILT

22
program?” The majority of faculty (66.7%) respondents disagreed with sequencing for a number
of reasons, including having implemented it into the program in the past and receiving negative
feedback about the results. Most faculty members feel that it is too difficult to adequately
sequence a program and meet the varying needs of adult students due to changes they each face
in their day-to-day lives. One faculty member supported sequencing and suggested that a
moderate amount of sequencing would allow faculty members to incrementally build upon the
students’ knowledge, rather than facing a wide mix of new and seasoned students in the same
class.

Hoping to gain insight into the needs of our faculty, we asked them if there were areas in which
they felt they could use additional training. Several respondents said they would like additional
training for the online course shells, and added that it would also be beneficial to share access to
course shells across instructors so that ideas and knowledge could be passed back and forth.
Another faculty member suggested it would be helpful to receive demographic information on
their students and that program information on items such as program and portfolio requirements
be better distributed.

We asked alumni which areas they felt the ILT program excelled; the following responses were
given:

1. Design Studio

2. Instructional design process, Design, Professors

3. Theory, Faculty, Access to resources, Library

4. Instructional Message Design

5. IT 5130 was exceptional

6. ID, especially task analysis

7. Web Applications

8. Multi-media training, Learning Theory

9. Performance Technology, Cognition and Instruction

Our next question asked for suggestions to improve the program; “Thinking back to your CU-
Denver education, can you think of any suggestions for improvement for the ILT program?” we
received some very interesting and thought-provoking comments. Due to the importance of
providing feedback, we’ve decided to share the responses here2:
2
Spelling errors were corrected in responses for the purpose of increased readability.

23
• Yes, a class on evaluation - particularly addressing Kirkpatrick's four levels. Students
should have to implement the evaluations in an online learning class and in a face-to-face
class. Also, a class on change management, where students go through the entire change
management process.

• Trainer skills, 'How to be a consultant'

• Project Management Technical Writing/Non Instructional Deliverables (Support Tools,

Specific Authoring Tools I would like to see a PBL approach to the program
supplemented with deliverables (projects).

• Update the program to include more adult learning theory, motivating learners, how to
deal with SMEs to get answers to questions. Get the program current with what is actually
going on in the corporate environment.

• Separate the K-12 and corporate students so the curriculum can be specific to the needs
of those learners. I don't feel we have addressed learning theory as well as it should be.
Offer courses more than once a year. If you skip one course, you have no chance of
graduating within two years. Offer basic learning theory as part of the program. Heck,
make it an elective if you want, but this program is being 'sold' as something you can
enter if you are simply a SME who wants to 'get into the field.' If you don't have any
educational background, you have no chance. Recruit a greater variety of professors for
differing viewpoints.

• Either set up the program to allow students take electives from other schools such as Penn
State or North Carolina or University of Florida (Florida State) in order to get the electives
that best suit the individual needs of a student.

• I would have liked more experience with the technical part of design. More with
Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks, and other programs. Also more experience with
management systems like Blackboard, Web CT, eCollege etc.

• Increased amount of adult learning theory especially for learning at work. The working
adult has different motivations or expectations for learning or resisting learning at work. It
would be very helpful to have a greater background/resources in techniques and methods
to use. I rely heavily on Raymond Wlodkowski's book, Enhancing Adult Motivation to
Learn.

• Instructor-led training isn't addressed at all, and many of the jobs I've seen out there
require some type of instructor led work.

24
 • I think programming has become an artificially important area that people need to know. I
mean as in learning Flash or Dreamweaver. Even though the academic focus should not be
on these programs, they are necessary in the real world. I don't know how the program
addresses that these days.

Interestingly enough, we received many of the same suggestions from the current students we
asked the same question of. This was the only non-demographic question asked of current
students. Here are their suggestions3:

• More business emphasis

• The following items should be included in the curriculum for the ILT program. 1. Project
management 2. Managing training environments 3. Adult learning theory 4. Understanding
the relationship between management and the training department

• I think the curriculum would be vastly improved if it were more cohesive - it's not so much
that subjects are missing, but more that they don't work together to provide a cohesive
overview.

• Not yet. So far the skills I am acquiring seem to fit perfectly into my job. I have met with
my advisor. After reviewing the courses I will take for the next few semesters I did not
notice any topics that I thought should be covered. This may change, as I get further into
the program.

• More project management emphasis. Less focus on K12 issues.

• I would like to see training in specific technologies such as how to use the "clickers".

• Criterion referenced instruction (CRI), performance analysis, goal setting, cost benefit
analysis, ROI, evaluating performance measures

• It seems that there should be a full-semester class on the topic of learning program
assessment and evaluation. The class could cover the various theories and methodologies,
and provide opportunities for practical application. The ultimate goal of the course would
be to give the students the tools they need to build a corporate learning program that can
not only teach learners, but also demonstrate its own (the learning program's own)
training expenditure ROI.

• I thought the 5110 class was pretty useless. I'm not sure what we were supposed to learn
there. It could be that this is a useful class and we just had a sucky instructor. I think my

3
Spelling errors were corrected in the responses for the purpose of increased readability.

25
 biggest frustration was the lack of technology course alternatives. I don't think everyone
needs the beginning and advanced Web classes and I wasn't sure what I could substitute
these with. I'd like to see more adult learning theory courses that focus on specifically how
to reach adult learners in corporate online training settings. It seemed to me that much of
the curriculum focused on techniques higher ed would be able to use but that are
unrealistic in corporate settings. Another suggestion I have is that all courses show how
they will meet the competencies. I think that will help keep the instructors on track as well
as letting the students know how the course fits into the curriculum.

• They have added the assessment area and that was the area I wanted to learn more
about.

• I would have liked to have more adult learning theory and instructional design theory
information. I really liked learning the technical side of instruction, but would also like to
learn more about the adult learning theory and principles behind the design. I think we
have had some of it, but would like more built into the curriculum.

• Online courses. The difference of learning and teaching and building within online learning.

• I expected much more emphasis on software and development skills. Originally, I was a
teacher, and already had a very strong background in ID, so I was hoping for more
software exposure and skill development.

• Business and training classes More access to information about classes in other
departments Instructors with corporate backgrounds Real world clients and problems
Access to online course areas throughout program

Both alumni and current students suggested that more classes be offered in the areas of Training,
Adult Learning and Business. This corresponds with our survey question addressing gaps in the
program.

The alumni were next asked to rank-order the following traits and characteristics of the faculty
and the program:

1. Encourages creative thinking and problem solving

2. Incorporates real-world activities or scenarios into the learning projects

3. Challenges you in class

4. Requires groupwork in class

5. Allows for optional groupwork in class

26
 6. Provides real-world examples or scenarios to base your projects

7. Allows for individual project development

8. Provides clear assignments and expectations

9. Provides rubrics to clarify assignment expectations

10. Faculty member is easily accessible

11. Materials are useful following completion of class

12. Online class area (eCollege/Blackboard) remains accessible for duration of program

Importance of Faculty & Program Traits

100%
100%
Percent of Respondents

80%
64%
60% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55%

40%

20%

0%
Trait/Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Very Important Important Not Very Important Not At All Important N/A

Figure 7: Alumni Ranking of Faculty and Program Traits

While the majority of respondents (55%) felt that all of these aspects of the program and its
faculty were very important to them, the most important trait to all students was for faculty to
incorporate real-world activities or scenarios into the learning projects.

Finally, the alumni had some great suggestions for the program:

27
 • The real world problems in the class were the most valuable. I think a PBL curriculum
would model real world work while providing a collaborative approach to work.

• Main thing is to get the current programs. Get professionals in the field involved. Get
some of the big names in the field as speakers. Adapt the classes to benefit the learners.

• This program has been lacking in fundamentals, in my opinion. I feel that classroom time
has not been spent well - half of it is spent arguing, and the other half is spent trying to
revamp the agenda because we're off target. It really needs to have a more cohesive
structure. I realize it just underwent a transition to a new structure, so there is bound to
be some growing pains - but it really lacks focus. I feel like I'm learning on my job and
then bringing that knowledge to class - not the other way around.

• I thought the program was good and enjoyable to learn.

Overall, current students and ILT program alumni felt that the areas of Technology, Adult
Learning and Business could all be expanded or improved upon in order to close some of the
perceived gaps in the program.

The last question we asked of faculty related to competitive programs across the nation. Some of
the faculty members did not express an opinion on this question, but of those who did, here are
the results:

1 2 3 4 5
Univ. of Missouri,
Indiana San Diego State Utah State Columbia Penn State

Wayne State Florida State Indiana University San Diego State

University University - Bloomington University Purdue University
Georgia Indiana Utah State Florida State Penn State

28
 Figure 8: ILT Faculty Top-Ranked Programs

Indiana, San Diego State, Utah State and Penn State repeatedly ranked among the top five from
our respondents. These schools also rate among the top ranked schools in the nation based on
our literature review and research findings.

4. How does the ILT program compare to other top programs nationwide?

• What are the top programs nationwide? Who feels that these programs are exceptional?
What criteria are used to evaluate a program that is considered one of the top programs?

• What are some distinctive features of these programs? What are their similarities and
differences?

• Based on this analysis, what could be incorporated into the CU-Denver ILT program that
would improve it?

In our research for the top ranking instructional design Master’s programs, we asked how the ILT
program compares to other top instructional design and instructional technology graduate
programs nationwide. To answer this question, we first examined ranking systems for top
programs, and visited Web sites for other similar graduate programs to read about their methods,
policies, and specific coursework, and reviewed articles about academic program ranking in
general. We compared the curriculum and course offerings of the higher-ranking schools to the
curriculum in the CU-Denver ILT Master’s program, by viewing the programs’ Web sites and
contacting their faculty leaders. We tried to identify courses and strategies which are not
currently offered in the ILT program, but which might be incorporated into our program.

We used several resources to determine top ranking programs nationwide. The ITForum Poll #1,
conducted by the University of Georgia, was forwarded to us by Dr. Brent Wilson. The poll was
conducted by surveying instructional technology professionals working in higher education as well
as business and industry. It lists the top 35 IT programs ranked by professionals in higher
education and business/industry, and breaks out the rankings of the top ten programs of each of
those two groups (ITForum Poll #1, 2000).

A search in Google for the words “masters program rank,” “masters degree rank,” “graduate
program rank,” and “graduate degree rank” located the USNews.com Web site, which ranks
programs based on the field of Education in general, and also by Specialties. The two Specialties
that most closely compared with the CU-Denver ILT program were Curriculum/Instruction and
Vocational/Technical. We looked at the differences in the curriculum of the top graduate schools
in Education listed by the USNews.com report. Our findings indicated that the higher-ranking
instructional design Master’s programs, such as those listed by the USNews.com report, shared

29
many similarities with the ILT program and its curriculum and course offerings (USNews.com,
2005).

Staff at the Auraria Library’s Reference desk recommended The Gourman Report, which ranks top
programs in Graduate Education by assigning a numerical score to 20 different criteria (Gourman,
1997, pp. 208-209). Peterson’s Graduate Programs in Business, Education, Health, Information
Studies, Law & Social Work, also recommended by Reference desk staff, lists schools that offer
programs in Educational Media/Instructional Technology, and provides more detailed information
about various programs, listed alphabetically (Peterson’s Graduate Programs, 2005, pp. 821-
1062).

We hoped to use the rankings lists as resources to help us determine top programs for
comparison, so that we could then evaluate them based on their descriptions, requirements, and
course offerings. A search of the Auraria Library’s database, however, led us to several articles
about the pros and cons of such academic program rankings. Our readings indicated that ranking
systems that apply numeric values to programs can be misleading, when they are used for
marketing purposes, compare university programs based on criteria that don’t have much to do
with the quality of education, or incorporate unverifiable data and results that cannot be
replicated (Hunter, 1995, pp. 10-11, Stuart, 1995, p. 17, McGuire, 1995, p. 59).

The research that has been performed on numeric ranking systems and the controversy about the
validity of such rankings has prompted us to distrust much of the published commercial data, and
we have decided to use the list of best programs in the industry ranked primarily by opinions of
professionals in the field, such as those who participated in the University of Georgia poll and in
our surveys. Appendix F contains a table with the results of our program comparisons. We did not
feel that we needed to assign numeric rankings to our list but tried to identify the programs best
recommended by professionals for comparison to the CU-Denver ILT program. After we had a list
of the programs that we believed to be the best recommended based on real-world experience,
we reviewed the course listings and program descriptions, and contacted program directors,
chairs, and other faculty leaders at the top programs to help clarify information that was not
apparent on the programs’ Web sites, and to gather more information and insight about why they
felt their programs were highly rated. Appendix E shows a sample e-mail sent to a faculty leader.
The additional information gained from the faculty members’ comments was added to Appendix F.

In our comparison table, we also listed courses and strategies that other top programs
incorporate into their curriculum. In some cases we found that these programs offered a wider
range of more specialized courses, or focused their curriculum on specific goals of the program.
For example, Indiana University at Bloomington offers three courses on the topic of analysis:

30
Instructional Task Analysis, Needs Analysis and Assessment, and Learner Analysis in the
Instructional Technology Process. Other courses offered at Indiana University include Computer-
Mediated Learning and Business and Economic Dimensions of Training and Development (Indiana
University Web site, 2005). Such topics are likely to be introduced in the ILT program through a
student presentation in a broad topic-based course such as the Current Trends and Issues in
Instructional Technology class. At CU-Denver, we had the option to take some courses outside
the department, such as courses in the School of Business or in the Communications program.
Some of the top programs we studied incorporate more specialized types of courses within the
program. A table of course offerings and program strategies can be found in Appendix G.

Utah State University follows the specialized topic approach in their program. We found that Utah
divides its courses into three categories: core, allied, and tools. Students can combine classes
based on their area of interest. The core courses are similar to the ILT program in that they
discuss instructional design, analysis, theory, and evaluation. However, the core courses we found
differ from ILT in that the Utah program divides each of the “ADDIE” processes into its own
course. The second allied courses are considered complimentary to the core classes and explore
some of the core subjects in more detail. The tools courses include instruction with tools in the
industry such as HTML, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash, Director, and Cold Fusion. In the CU-
Denver Multimedia Authoring course, the student is introduced to Macromedia products such as
Dreamweaver and Flash, but the course is not specifically about the tool or application (Utah
State University Web site, 2004).

Dr. Lloyd Rieber at University of Georgia wrote that one of the highlights of the UGA Master’s
program is the Studio Experience, a design-oriented series of three classes in multimedia design,
in which topics overlap. He wrote, “we borrow the idea of a studio approach that is prevalent in
fields such as art, graphic design, and architecture” (L. Rieber, personal communication, July,
2005).

Offering specialized courses in the areas of business, psychology of adult learning, project
management, and technical skills was what distinguished the curriculum of some programs from
others. Our questions and assumptions about the responsibilities of an instructional designer in
the corporate world were reflected in the curriculum of other higher-ranking programs, and why
they are highly regarded. While it may be more costly to provide additional courses, these
programs may have a larger enrollment base that can support them. The following quote supports
this assumption: “...each approach to teaching is a particular blend of costs and outcomes”
(Wilson, 1995).

31
Several of the program leaders mentioned regular program review as a key to the quality of their
programs. As Dr. Rita Richey at Wayne State University wrote, “programs also maintain
excellence only through constant analysis and change. We try to do this” (R. Richey, personal
communication, July, 2005). Elizabeth Boling, Chairperson at Indiana University Bloomington,
wrote that the UI program’s core curriculum has been reviewed by faculty each year for a decade.
She also mentioned the importance of the UI courses being real-world and team-based (E. Boling,
personal communication, July, 2005).

Our research reinforced this concept, with factors identified as important in the success of
program review described in the table below:

Leadership Identify leaders and empower them.

Information should be credible and should flow in both

Communication
directions.
Integration of Review with
Review should be incorporated into other aspects of
Budget, Planning, and
management without becoming invisible.
Assessment
View Program Review in Cycles Reviews occur periodically and build on the previous cycle.

Figure 9: Factors in Program Review Success (Mets, Lessons Learned, 1995, p. 87).

When program review does not result in improvement, those hoping for positive outcomes may
become disillusioned. When asked if their program had improved as a result of a program review,
some department chairs said their program was worse off after the review, because the program
had not undergone change as a result of it. This indicates that program review is viewed as “a
mechanism for change or as a tool to improve the quality of a department. This implies that the
status quo is no longer acceptable” (Mets, Program Review, 1995, p. 31).

32
Implications for Practice
1. Be sure ILT competencies are being met when replacement courses are taken

On paper the ILT program reflected professional standards as evidenced by competency

comparisons and inclusion of all competencies within the curriculum. However, the reality of the
program has been, in our experience, one in which the described core classes have not been
available due to cancellations stemmed from low enrollment. While it is very good to know that
the program has been planned around ILT competencies that do, in fact, correspond to two major
sets of professional standards, another question arose. When classes are cancelled and students
must take courses in different departments, how were our ILT competencies being addressed?
This was not within the scope of our research, but it is something that should be considered.

2. Improve recruitment efforts into the ILT program

We felt that the program takes the professional standards of instructional design seriously, and
much work has been done to align the ILT competencies with its curriculum. Currently the only
recommendations in the area of standards we had were to first put more effort into recruitment of
students to ensure the courses offered are not cancelled due to low enrollment. That way, the
hard work of planning for a core curriculum and electives offerings that meet the competencies
and professional standards would not be put to waste.

3. Incorporate courses from other programs into the ILT curriculum

Aligning some of the more popular and available School of Business and School of Education
elective offerings/course substitutions to the ILT competencies would be a good idea to provide
students more choice and flexibility while still providing alignment to professional standards. This
could include compiling a list of all courses within the CU-Denver system that would allow ILT
students to expand their offerings and increase their knowledge of ILT. This list could be posted
on the CU-Denver Web site and could include links to information about the professor teaching
the course as well as the course syllabi. A brief description of each course with details of how it
relates to and would benefit the ILT student would also be helpful. This list could be accessed by
both students and faculty and provide a consistent source of cross-course information.

In the area of specific course change recommendations, we deduced a few opportunities for
change from our research. Our survey results indicated that students, alumni, and faculty all felt
that a Project Management course specifically geared towards corporate instructional design is an
important component of the program that was lacking in our curriculum. The addition of this
course to the program could greatly benefit students by introducing them to project management
skills including client services, budgeting, Microsoft Project and resource management.

33
We should also point out that a new dual Master’s degree in Information & Learning Technologies
and Technical Communications is now offered. While this program does require that the student
enroll in both programs, and complete 54 credit hours versus the 36 credit hours required by the
ILT program, this dual degree is an option for students who want to increase their specialization.
Similar dual degrees could be offered combining ILT program requirements with School of
Business offerings, and other department programs.

4. Incorporate more focused and specialized courses into the ILT curriculum

In our research, we noticed that some of the other top programs nationwide offered some courses
that are more focused and specialized than many offered in the ILT program. Suggestion #2,
above, was to improve recruitment efforts to bring more students into the ILT program. If
enrollment and tuition revenue were increased, perhaps it would be possible to offer more of
these specialized courses. This would allow ILT students to focus their study and become more
proficient in specific topics.

5. Collaborate with other university graduate programs

According to Virginia Polytechnic Institute’s Associate Professor Barbara Lockee, their

Instructional Technology department is currently developing a tool to encourage different
universities’ programs to share curriculum elements (B. Lockee, personal communication with Dr.
Brent Wilson, July, 2005). This type of interaction between university programs could allow them
to benefit from and to strengthen each other. It will be interesting to see how the curriculum
sharing tool evolves, how it is used, and the results of the collaboration.

6. Collaborate with business, industry, non-profit and government organizations

An ideal way to implement this program and justify the costs of its addition would be to offer
reduced-rate ‘contracts’ to organizations in need of project assistance to allow them to hire a
group of students and receive a finished project at the end of the semester. This scenario would
give students a hands-on opportunity to learn the skills necessary to succeed in the corporate
world while providing the organizations a much-needed service. University of Denver’s Daniels
College of Business uses this capstone course process for both business and marketing courses –
businesses are charged a small fee for use of this service and students are required to present
the paper and project to the organization as the end of the semester (University of Denver Web
site, 2005).

7. Continue to perform regular reviews of the ILT program

Our research has shown that high ranking programs perform periodic reviews to ensure they are
on track with other leading programs and are meeting the needs of their students. Our readings

34
of the program review process itself, and studies of results of reviews, indicate that program
reviews are best performed on a regular cycle, with communication about the review flowing up
the hierarchy to university leaders, and down to other faculty, staff, and students. Since a
program review and subsequent program improvements require time and effort, budget
considerations must be approved, allotted for, and written into a clearly defined review plan. A
review leader who is empowered to take action to use the information gathered to improve the
program is essential to the success of the review. Finally, since a program review is viewed as an
indicator of impending improvement to the program by its stakeholders, the findings of a review
should be used as guidelines to take action in the improvement of the program.

Possible Future Actions

With the support of students, staff, and alumnae, and the feedback recieved from the data
research survey for this report, the long-term goal of our research is to enhance the ILT program
so that it will continue to keep pace with other highly rated schools discussed in this report.

It is our intention to bring the findings from our collective research to the attention of CU-Denver
ILT program faculty, staff, current students, and future students, with the hope that
improvements will continue to be regularly made to the program and that these improvements
address the concerns we have heard expressed by students and alumni. Our goal is that our CU-
Denver ILT program will continue to be acknowledged nationally in years to come for being the
high-caliber program it strives to be. As future alumni of the CU-Denver ILT program, we are
proud of our efforts and our school and want to be able to recommend it to others.

35
References

America’s best graduate schools 2006. (2005). Retrieved July 10, 2005 from
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/rankindex_brief.php

Earle, Rodney S. (Ed.). (October 2001). Standards for the accreditation of programs in
educational communication and instructional technology. Retrieved June 28, 2005, from
http://www.aect.org/standards/standards2001.doc

Gourman, J. (1997). The Gourman Report (8th ed.) (pp. 70-84). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hunter, B. (1995). College guidebooks: Background and development. In R. Dan Walleri, Marsha
K. Moss (Eds.), New directions for institutional research: Evaluating and responding to
college guidebooks and rankings, (no. 88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers.

ILT Competencies. (2005). Retrieved July 10, 2005, from CU-Denver ILT ID & Adult Learning site:
http://thunder1.cudenver.edu/ilt/id_and_adult_learning/req_competencies.htm

Indiana University Instructional Systems Technology. (2005). Retrieved July 22, 2005 from
Indiana University Bloomington School of Education Web site:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ist/courses.html

Instructional Design and Adult Learning. (2005). Retrieved July 10, 2005 from CU-Denver ILT ID
& Adult Learning site: http://thunder1.cudenver.edu/ilt/id_and_adult_learning/index.htm

International Society for Performance Improvement. (2002). ISPI’s Performance Technology

Standard. Retrieved June 28, 2005 from http://www.certifiedpt.org/standards.pdf

ITFORUM Poll #1. (2000). Retrieved July 10, 2005, from University of Georgia Web site:
http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/polls/poll1.html

McGuire, M.D. (1995). Validity issues for reputational studies. In R. Dan Walleri, Marsha K. Moss
(Eds.), New directions for institutional research: Evaluating and responding to college
guidebooks and rankings, (no. 88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers.

36
Mets, L.A. (1995). Lessons learned from program review experiences. In Robert J. Barak, Lisa A.
Mets (Eds.), New directions for institutional research: Using academic program review,
(no. 88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers.

Mets, L.A. (1995). Program review in academic departments. In Robert J. Barak, Lisa A. Mets
(Eds.), New directions for institutional research: Using academic program review, (no. 88).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Publishers.

National Association of Graduate-Professional Students. (2001). The 2000 national doctoral

program survey. Retrieved July 10, 2005 from http://survey.nagps.org/index.php

Peterson’s Graduate Programs in Business, Education, Health, Information Studies, Law & Social
Work (Book 6). (2005). Lawrenceville, N.J: Thomson Peterson’s.

Stuart, D.L. (1995). Reputational rankings: background and development. In R. Dan Walleri,
Marsha K. Moss (Eds.), New directions for institutional research: Evaluating and
responding to college guidebooks and rankings, (no. 88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Publishers.

University of Colorado at Denver. (2001-2002). University of Colorado 2001-2002 catalog (USPS

651-060). Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder.

University of Denver, Daniels College of Business and Marketing. (2005). Retrieved July 25, 2005
from University of Denver Web site:
http://www.daniels.du.edu/marketing/degreeoptions.cfm

Utah State University. Instructional Technology. (2004). Retrieved July 22, 2005 from Utah State
University Web site: http://it.usu.edu/faqs.html

Wilson, B. G. (1995). Situated instructional design: Blurring the distinctions between theory and
practice, design and implementation, curriculum and instruction. Retrieved July 9, 2005,
from http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/sitid.html

Wilson, B. G. (Ed.). Masters program in instructional computing and technology. (1993). Denver,
CO: University of Colorado at Denver School of Education.

37
Appendix A (Alumni Survey)
Welcome to the Adult Learning/Corporate Track Alumni Survey

Thank you for participating in our survey of Adult Learning/Corporate track alumni who completed
the ILT program at the University of Colorado at Denver.

The following questions will give you an opportunity to provide input about the program as you
see it. Please answer honestly; your responses will remain anonymous unless you choose to
complete the contact information in the survey.

If you are not an alumni of the ILT program at CU-Denver, we would like to thank you for taking
the time to participate and ask that you select the “exit this survey” link in the upper right hand
corner of this screen.

If you are in Adult Learning/Corporate track ILT program alumni, thanks for taking the time to
participate. Please click “>>Next” below to complete this survey.

If you have any questions about this survey or its results, please contact one of us through the
email addresses are displayed at the end of the survey.

Michelle Boyer
Lisa Bradshaw
Cheryl Ide
Annie Persson
Michele Sutherland

1. What year did you graduate from the ILT Master’s program at CU-Denver?

2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996

Other, please specify

38
2. In what industry are you currently working?

3. What is your current position/job title?

4. How long have you held this position?

0-6 months
6-12 months
1-2 years
2-3 years
4-5 years
Other, please specify

5. Do you feel that your ILT degree from CU-Denver was beneficial in helping you obtain this
position? Yes/ No

6. If no, please explain:

7. Please list the courses from the program you felt were most beneficial to your current position,
in order of their importance.

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:

8. Do you feel there were any gaps in the curriculum of the ILT program?

9. If yes, have you taken any courses outside of the ILT program to address the gaps you found
within the program? Yes/No

10. Please list below any courses you’ve taken independent of your plan of study to address gaps
in the ILT program?

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:

11. Do you plan to take any courses independent of your plan of study to address gaps in the ILT
program? Yes/No

39
12. If yes, please list below any courses you plan to take to address gaps in the ILT program in
the next year.

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:

13. Thinking back to your ILT program education, in which areas do you feel the program
particularly excelled? Please list all that apply. If there were no areas of excellence, please list
‘none.’

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:

14. Thinking back to your CU-Denver education, can you think of any suggestions for
improvement for the ILT program? Please list any suggestions. If you have no suggestions, please
enter ‘none.’

15. Thinking back to your ILT program education, how important are each of the following traits
in faculty?

Very Important Not Very Not at all N/A

Important Important Important

Encourages creative
thinking and problem
solving

Incorporates real-world
activities/scenarios into
the learning projects

Challenges you in class

Requires group work in

class

Allows for optional group

work in class

Provides real-world
examples or scenarios to

40
 base your projects

Allows for individual

project development

Provides clear
assignments and
expectations

Provides rubrics to clarify

assignment expectations

Faculty member is easily

accessible

Materials are useful

following completion of
class

Online class area

(eCollege/Blackboard)
remains accessible for
duration of program

Thank you for taking the time to complete our survey. We hope that with your help we will be
able to present a sound and valuable research report to the University of Colorado at Denver’s
School of Education ILT program administration that will enable this program to continue to grow
and prosper.

If you have any questions about this survey or about the research project we have undertaken,
please don’t hesitate to contact one of us at the following email addresses:

Michelle Boyer
Lisa Bradshaw
Cheryl Ide
Annie Persson
Michele Sutherland

Thanks again for your time!

41
Appendix B (Faculty Survey)
Welcome to the ILT program faculty survey.

Thank you for participating in our survey of the ILT program faculty at the University of Colorado
at Denver.

The following questions will give you an opportunity to provide input about the program as you
see it. Please answer honestly; all responses are anonymous unless you choose to complete the
contact information in the survey.

If you have any questions about this survey or its results, please contact one of us through the
email addresses are displayed at the end of the survey.

Michelle Boyer
Lisa Bradshaw
Cheryl Ide
Annie Persson
Michele Sutherland

Faculty Questions:

1. Please indicate your faculty status:

Full time with advisement responsibilities

Full time

Part time

Other, please specify

2. Do you feel that the ILT program is missing any important courses within its curriculum?
Yes/No

3. If yes, what would you like to see included in the ILT program that is not currently in the
program? For example, computer software courses, subjects, prerequisites, etc.

4. Do you find it difficult to meet the needs of both K-12 and corporate students in the same
classroom? Yes/No

5. If yes, how do you compensate for the differences in students in your classroom?

6. Do you feel it would be beneficial to have a regimented course sequence for better progression
through the ILT program? Yes/No

42
7. Please explain your reasoning for, or against, sequencing:

8. What kind of staff development would most benefit your classroom teaching in the ILT
program? If you don’t feel you could benefit from staff development, please enter ‘none.’

9. In your personal opinion, what do you think are the top five programs for Instructional
Design/Instructional Technology/Educational Technology, aside from the ILT program at CU-
Denver? (A response must be entered in each field for no response, enter NR).

1:
2:
3:
4:
5:

10. Please add any other comments or suggestions you have:

11. May we contact you for a personal interview? Yes/No

12. If yes, please enter your contact information below:

Name:

E-mail address:

Phone:

Times you may be contacted:

Thank you for taking the time to complete our survey. We hope that with your help we will be
able to present a sound and valuable research report to the University of Colorado at Denver’s
School of Education ILT program administration that will enable this program to continue to grow
and prosper.

If you have any questions about this survey or about the research project we have undertaken,
please don’t hesitate to contact one of us at the following email addresses:

Michelle Boyer
Lisa Bradshaw
Cheryl Ide
Annie Persson
Michele Sutherland

Thanks again for your time!

43
Appendix C (Student Survey Questions)
Welcome to our survey of Adult Learning/Corporate track students in the ILT program at the
University of Colorado at Denver.

The following questions will give you an opportunity to provide input about the program as you
see it. Please answer honestly; your responses will remain anonymous unless you choose to
complete the contact information in the survey.

If you are not currently a student following the Adult Learning/Corporate track, we would like to
thank you for taking the time to participate and ask that you select the “exit this survey” link in
the upper right hand corner of this screen.

If you are in Adult Learning/Corporate track ILT program alumni, thanks for taking the time to
participate. Please click “>>Next” below to complete this survey.

If you have any questions about this survey or its results, please contact one of us through the
email addresses are displayed at the end of the survey.

Michelle Boyer
Lisa Bradshaw
Cheryl Ide
Annie Persson
Michele Sutherland

1. Are you currently employed in the Instructional Design/Educational Technology/Adult

Learning/Training field? Yes/No

2. If no, do you plan to seek employment in the Instructional Design/Educational

Technology/Adult Learning/Training field? Yes/No

3. Do you have ideas about improving curriculum in the ILT program for the ID/Adult Learning
program? For example, are there specific skills or topics, which are not currently taught but
should be? Please describe.

4. May we contact you for a personal interview? Yes/No

5. If yes, please enter your contact information below:

Name:

E-mail Address:

Phone:

44
 Available times:

Thank you for taking the time to complete our survey. We hope that with your help we will be
able to present a sound and valuable research report to the University of Colorado at Denver’s
School of Education ILT program administration that will enable this program to continue to grow
and prosper.

If you have any questions about this survey or about the research project we have undertaken,
please don’t hesitate to contact one of us at the following email addresses.

Michelle Boyer
Lisa Bradshaw
Cheryl Ide
Annie Persson
Michele Sutherland

Thanks again for your time!

45
Appendix D (Questions About ILT History)
When did the ILT program begin at CU-Denver?

When did the Adult Learning/Instructional Design track become apart of the ILT program?

How many faculty members were onboard in the ILT program at its inception?

On average, how long do faculty members actively teach within the ILT program?

How many students were enrolled in the ILT program during the first year?

On average, how many students finish the ILT program within two (2) years?

How long have you been the ILT program coordinator?

If applicable, how many other ILT program coordinators have there been?

As the current coordinator, is there a year that you think has been the most productive regarding
enrollment, curriculum offered, or overall feedback from faculty and students about the ILT
program?

How long was the ‘cohort’ program part of the ILT program?

Why was the ‘cohort’ program dissolved?

In your opinion, what are some of the most significant changes that the ILT program has
endured? For example, curriculum changes, faculty changes, dissolution of cohort program.

Did the impact of the various changes have a negative or positive affect on the faculty of the ILT
program?

Are there any currently proposed changes for the ILT program? If yes, what are the proposed
changes?

46
Appendix E (Sample University Faculty Inquiry)
Questions about the <University Name> Instructional Technology Program

Dear Dr. <Name>,

I am a Master’s student in the Information and Learning Technologies program at University of

Colorado at Denver. I am currently involved in a program review project, and am researching
other similar programs for comparison to the CU-Denver ILT program.

I have visited the <University Name> Instructional Technology Web site for information about
your program, and I have some questions about it.

From reading the Web site, it appeared to me that your Technology Integration Program is
primarily designed for teachers/practitioners, and the General Instructional Design &
Development has more of a business focus. Also, I noticed that Master’s candidates are required
to complete a portfolio, and an internship is offered as an elective. Am I correct?

The <University Name> Instructional Technology program has been ranked as one of the top
programs of its kind in the nation. Are there specific aspects of your program that you think make
it exceptional, and if so, what are they?

Are there any additional comments about the Instructional Technology program that you would
like to add?

I would appreciate hearing your thoughts and comments about your program. Thank you for your
time.

Lisa Bradshaw
Master’s Candidate
Information and Learning Technologies
University of Colorado at Denver
lisa.bradshaw@earthlink.net
(303) 513-5209

47
Appendix F (Program Comparison Table)
School Program Courses, Policies, Ranking(s)
Name/Degree Strategies

University of M.Ed., Ed.S., Ph.D. Master’s program #1 overall in UGA poll

Georgia Instructional seems to have higher
#1 in UGA Higher Ed
Technology education and
poll
corporate focus.
Contact for IDD
Second link #5 in UGA
Master’s: Master’s offer
Business/Industry poll
Technology
Dr. Lloyd Rieber
Integration Program #1 by Brent
lrieber@uga.edu for
#1 by Faculty C
teachers/practitioners,
(706) 542-3986
and General #5 in USNews.com Ed
E-mailed for info; Instructional Design & Vocational/Tech
replied 7/21/05. Development.
#10T in USNews.com
Mary Ann Fitzgerald Instructional Design & Curriculum/Instruction
Development track
Program Leader of the #3T in NDPS General
focus is on variety of
School Library Media Education
business and
Program
educational settings.
mfitzger@UGA.EDU
Courses offerings
include Educational
Television Production,
Michael Orey
Management of
Program Leader of the Instructional
Technology Technology Projects,
Telecommunications/
Integration Program
Distance Learning,
mikeorey@uga.edu
Adult Education,
Administration of
Media Programs,
Information
Technology,
Information Literacy,
Special Problems in
Instructional
Technology.
Studio Experience is
design-oriented series
of three classes in
multimedia design, in
which topics overlap.
Students then post
their work in an online
showcase.

48
 Internship elective.
Portfolio required.

Indiana University M.S., Ph.D. Offers Residential #3 overall in UGA poll

Bloomington Instructional Systems option with mostly
#2 in UGA Higher Ed
Technology face-to-face meetings,
poll
and Distance option
with no campus visit #1 in UGA
Contact for IST: required. Business/Industry poll
Elizabeth Boling, Residential students #2 by Brent
Chairperson may take up to 6
#1 by Faculty A
credits in a
URL for e-mail form
specialization; #3 by Faculty B
(812) 856-8467 Distance courses are
#2 by Faculty C
not as flexible.
E-mailed for info;
#5 in Gourman
replied 7/20/05. Focus is on design and
General Education
instruction, then
technology as it is #10T in USNews.com
appropriate to that Curriculum/Instruction
focus.
#1T in NDPS General
Core curriculum has Education
been reviewed by
faculty each year for a
decade. Courses are
project-based and
team-oriented.
Courses include
Effective Writing for
Instructional
Technology,
Computer-Mediated
Learning, Evaluation
and Change in the
Instructional
Development Process,
Business and
Economic Dimensions
of Training and
Development Process,
Instructional Task
Analysis, Needs
Analysis and
Assessment, Learner
Analysis in the
Instructional
Technology Process,
Change Management
Consulting and Group
Training.
Portfolio, instructional

49
 project required.
Internship optional.
Distance students
usually don’t pursue
internship as they are
usually already
working.

Pennsylvania State M.Ed., M.S., D.Ed., M.Ed. is for #4 overall in UGA poll
University Ph.D. Instructional practitioners, M.S.
#4 in UGA Higher Ed
University Park Systems focus is on research.
poll
New online program
#7T in UGA
for teachers to
Contact for IS: Business/Industry poll
integrate technology
Dr. Alison Carr- into classrooms. #5 by Faculty A
Chellman, Professor in
Combines educational #5 by Faculty C
Charge
psychology and
#6 by Brent
aac3@psu.edu applied psychology,
instructional systems #4 in USNews.com Ed
(814) 865-0624
design, computer Vocational/Tech
E-mailed for info; science, evaluation
#2T in NDPS General
replied 7/22/05. methodologies,
Education
communication
theory.
Courses in Corporate
Training Sequence
include Performance
Technology, Managing
and Consulting for
Instructional
Development.
Final paper or thesis
required for all
Master’s students.
Portfolio optional.
Internship required for
MEd.
About 30% of
publications and
presentations that
faculty complete are
in collaboration with
students.

Florida State M.S., Ph.D. IS degrees based on #2 overall in UGA poll

University Instructional Systems psychology,
#3 in UGA Higher Ed
communications and
M.S. Open and Distance poll
management fields.
Learning
#2T in UGA

50
 IS Master’s available Business/Industry poll
residentially or online.
Contact for IS: #4 by Brent
ODL Master’s available
Dr. Robert Reiser #2 by Faculty B
online or mostly
Program Director online. ODL core #4 by Faculty C
courses include
rreiser@mailer.fsu.edu #2T in NDPS General
Introduction to
Education
(850) 644-4592 Distance Learning,
Development of
E-mailed for info;
Multimedia
replied 7/21/05.
Instruction.
ODL electives include
Contact for IS Distance Philosophy of
Learning: Teaching and
Learning,
Dr. Allan Jeong
Management and
Program Director Production Techniques
for Information
jeong@coe.fsu.edu
Technology, Managing
(850) 644-8784 Networks and
Telecommunications,
A Systems Approach
e-mailed for info to the Management of
Change, Human
Resource
Development.
Internship in core.
Portfolio required.
A recent survey found
that three of the five
most frequently
required textbooks,
including the top two,
were authored or
edited by current or
recently retired FSU
faculty. Another
survey of
approximately 150 ID
professionals and
members of AECT,
ASTD, and ISPI found
FSU the top IS
program to prepare
students for careers in
business and industry.

Arizona State M.Ed., Ph.D. In the Division of #5 overall in UGA poll

University Educational Technology Psychology in
#5T in UGA Higher Ed
Education.
poll

51
 Contact for ET: Course offerings #10T in UGA
include Distance Business/Industry poll
James D. Klein
Education Theory and
#7 by Brent
Program Coordinator Practice, Instructional
Video Technology,
James.Klein@asu.edu
Computer Literacy,
(480) 965-0349 Computer Graphics
and Animation,
Instructional Media
e-mailed for info Design, Multimedia
Presentation
Technologies,
Development of
Computer-Based
Instruction,
Development of Web-
Based Instruction,
Hypermedia.
ET Master’s includes
internship or
practicum as part of
core.
Portfolio not required?

Utah State M.Ed., M.S., Ed.S., M.Ed. program #6 overall in UGA poll
University Ph.D. Instructional designed for teachers
#3T in UGA
Technology and administrators.
Business/Industry poll
M.S. is more general
Second link M.S. Instructional
program. #3 by Brent
Development
M.Ed. program offered #3 by Faculty A
as distance learning
#3 by Faculty C
Contact for IT: program with some
F2F courses.
Dr. Byron Burnham
Department Head Specializations in
Educational
byron.burnham@usu.ed
Technology and
u
School Library Media
(435) 797-2692 Administration.
E-mailed for info; Course offerings
replied 7/21/05. include
Implementation and
Management of
Instruction, Digital
Video Disk Production,
Instructional
Simulations,
Performance Systems,
Instructional
Technology in Adult
Education, Visual

52
 Literacy, Digital Audio
Video Production,
Toolbook, Flash,
Director, Cold Fusion.
Project or internship
required.
Portfolio required.

Virginia Tech M.A. Instructional M.A. offered as #8T overall in UGA

Technology, online or completely online poll
traditional program or on-
Second link #5T in UGA Higher Ed
campus. Most
Interactive poll
Master’s students take
videoconferencing
Third link the program online. #3 in USNews.com Ed
program for M.S. Career
Those who take it on- Vocational/Tech
& Technical Education
campus study with
Ed.S., Ed.D., Ph.D. Doctoral students.
Instructional
M.S. in CTE is
Technology
interactive
videoconferencing
program with some
Contacts for IT
online courses.
Master’s:
Currently developing a
Dr. Kathy Cennamo
tool to encourage
Associate Professor & different universities’
IDT Program Area programs to share
Leader curriculum elements.
(540) 231-5653 Core includes
Advanced Educational
cennamo@vt.edu
Psychology. Course
E-mailed for info; offerings include
replied 7/21/05. Instructional
Technology: Audio-
Visual and Computer
Barbara Lockee Uses, Principles of
Media Product Design,
Associate Professor
Distance Education, IT
barbara.lockee@vt.edu Planning and
Management,
(540) 231-9193
Instructional
Technology Policy
Issues, Planning, and
e-mailed for info
Management, Topics:
ID: Project
Contact for IT Online Management,
Evaluation/Supervisio
Master’s:
n of Instruction,
Dr. Ken Potter Program and Product
kpotter@vt.edu Evaluation, Behavioral
Methods I,

53
 Introduction to
Qualitative Research,
Distance Education,
Problems in
Education.
Online core includes
Telecommunications
and Distance
Learning, Applied ID
Project, required for
Online IT Master’s.
Course offerings
include Educational
Software Evaluation,
Digital Video, Digital
Audio.
Portfolio required.
Internship optional.
Many students work
as graduate
assistants. Funding
generated from on-
line program and
grants is available for
students to present at
conferences.
Student base largely
international over the
past few years.
Recent focus on
awareness of field,
history, language, and
cultural differences.
Doctoral program
underwent review last
year; Master’s
program will undergo
review soon.

Wayne State M.Ed., Ed.D., Ph.D. Tracks for #8T overall in UGA
University Instructional Performance poll
Technology Improvement &
#1 by Faculty B
Training (emphasizes
Second link
solutions/intervention #4 in UGA
Contact for IT: s to performance Business/Industry poll
problems) and
Rita Richey, Ph.D. #3T in NDPS General
Interactive
Education
Professor & Program Technologies
Coordinator (emphasizes
design/development,

54
rrichey@wayne.edu technology and e-
(313) 577-1736 learning).
Online program may
E-mailed for info;
be coming soon.
responded 7/25/05.

Course offerings
include Designing Web
Tools for the
Classroom, Web-
Based Courseware
Development,
Internet in the
Classroom,
Multimedia for
Instruction, Advanced
Multimedia for
Instruction,
Foundations of
Distance Education,
Developing
Instructional Video for
Education and
Training,
Understanding the
Adult Learner,
Designing Instruction
for Older Adult
Learners, Project
Management,
Knowledge
Management,
Strategic Planning for
Training and
Organization
Improvement,
Performance
Consulting,
Application of New
Technologies:
Technology Facilities
Design, Delivering
Professional
Presentations, Media
Literacy, Educational
Product and Program
Evaluation, Needs
Assessment and
Program Validity,
Performance
Technology.

Real-world projects

55
 with actual clients.
Internship elective.
Portfolio not required,
but may be in near
future.

Syracuse M.S., Ph.D. Four M.S. #7 overall in UGA poll

University Instructional Design, concentrations:
#8 in UGA Higher Ed
Development & Design and
poll
Evaluation Development,
Interactive #6 in UGA
Technology and Business/Industry poll
Philip Doughty Distributed Learning,
Project Management
Associate Professor and
and Human
Chair
Performance
Pldought@syr.edu Technology,
Evaluation.
(315) 443-3703
Core includes
Information
e-mailed for info Technologies for
Educational
Organizations,
Techniques in
Educational
Evaluation, Analysis
for Human
Performance
Technology Decisions,
Capstone Practicum in
Design, Development
& Evaluation,
Strategies in
Educational Project
Management.
Course offerings
include Digital Media
Production,
Instructional
Strategies for
Videoconferencing,
Design and
Management of
Distance Education,
Computers as Critical
Thinking Tools,
Modeling and
Simulations in
Education, Issues in
Program Management
and Human

56
 Performance
Technology, Cost-
Effectiveness in
Instruction and
Training, Performance
Improvement:
Promise and Practice,
Planned Change and
Innovation, Motivation
in Instructional
Design, Knowledge
Management in
Instructional Design,
Educational Media
Theory and Research.
Capstone practicum:
project solution to
problem required.
Internship elective.
Portfolio not required?

Brigham Young M.S., Ph.D. Development, #28T overall in UGA

University Instructional Psychology research, and poll
& Technology evaluation /
#5 by Brent
measurement are the
department’s foci.
Contact for IPT:
Specializations are
Dr. Andy S. Gibbons Instructional Design
and Production,
Chair
Multimedia in
andy_gibbons@byu.edu Education, or
Research and
(801) 422-3674
Evaluation.
E-mailed for info;
Focus on independent
responded 7/26/05
study.
Depth in evaluation,
assessment, and
measurement.
Program strength in
moral dimensions of
education and
training; role of
designer / instructor
as being one of Help,
as a doctor would see
their role as a helping
one.
Core includes
Empirical Inquiry and

57
 Statistics, Evaluation
in Education,
Assessing Learning
Outcomes.
Courses offered
include Advanced CAI
Programming,
Instructional Print
Design, Instructional
Visual/Video, Project
& Instruct. Resource
Management,
Measurement Theory,
Evaluation of
Educational Programs
and Curricula,
Quantitative
Reasoning,
Psychology courses,
Statistics courses.
Master’s requires 6
hours of project or
thesis credit.
Internship required.
Portfolio not required.

San Diego State M.A., Ed.D. Educational Master’s program #2 by Faculty A

University Technology offered on-campus
#4 by Faculty B
and online.
#7T in UGA
Course offerings
Contact for ET: Business/Industry poll
include Introduction to
Marcie Bober, Ph.D. Distance Learning, #3T in NDPS General
Distance Learning, Education
Chair
Simulations and
bober@mail.sdsu.edu Games, Psychology of
Text-Based Learning,
619-594-6718
Learning Environment
Design, Cyberculture
and Learning
E-mailed for info;
Systems,
replied 7/20/05.
Management of
Educational
Technology,
Informational and
Instructional
Technologies for
Organizations,
Psychology of
Technology-Based
Learning.

58
 Either Master’s Thesis
or Capstone
Sequence/Exam
required.
Internship, portfolio
not required.

Vanderbilt M.Ed. Curriculum and This school seems to #9 in UGA Higher Ed

University Peabody Instructional Leadership focus on non-profit, poll
College higher ed, psychology,
#5 in USNews.com
and K12 but not
General Education
corporate.
#8 in USNews.com Ed
Curriculum/Instruction

University of M.A., M.S., Ph.D. Course offerings #1 in Gourman

Michigan Ann Learning Technologies include Principles of General Education
Arbor Software Design for
#9 in USNews.com
Learning, Instructional
General Education
Contact for LT: Gaming, Distributed
Learning, Culture #6 in USNews.com
Rodney Williams
Design and Curriculum/Instruction
Coordinator Technology,
#3T in NDPS General
Leadership Learning
rodw@umich.edu Education
Organizations and
(734) 615-1266 Technology,
Internship is part of
core.
Portfolio required?

Stanford M.A. Learning, Design, One-year program. #4 in Gourman

University and Technology General Education
Required internship.
Ph.D. Learning Sciences #3 in USNews.com
Not specifically an
and Technology Design General Education
adult Master’s
learning program. #4 in USNews.com
Curriculum/Instruction
#2T in NDPS General
Education

Northwestern M.A., Ph.D. Learning Cognition, social #9T in Gourman

University Sciences context, and design General Education
are the three foci.
#6 in USNews.com
Courses offered General Education
include
#2T in NDPS General
Macrocognition:
Education
Intelligence in Action,
Education and the
Changing Workplace,
Human Motivation.

59
University of Educational Could not find – there #6 in Gourman
Illinois Urbana Technology?? is a Technology General Education
Champaign Studies program that
#6 in USNews.com Ed
seems to be K12
Vocational/Tech
oriented.
#7 in USNews.com
Curriculum/Instruction

Massachusetts ?? cannot find on their #10 overall in UGA

Institute of site poll
Technology
#7 in UGA Higher Ed
poll

University of West M.Ed. Instructional Students select two #10 in UGA Higher Ed
Florida Technology specializations in poll
addition to core:
Curriculum and
Technology,
Development,
Technology
Leadership,
Telecommunications.
Courses offered
include Instructional
Television.

Georgia State M.S., Ed.S., Ph.D. Adult learning focus. #7T in UGA
University Instructional Internship and Business/Industry poll
Technology portfolio required.
Courses offered
include Instructional
Simulations, Human
Performance
Technology.

Nova Southeastern M.S., Ph.D. Program mostly #10T in UGA

University Instructional distance education Business/Industry poll
Technology & Distance with a long face-to-
Education face weekend during
tern.

University of M.Ed., Ed.S. Master’s in ET has #4 by Faculty A

Missouri Columbia Educational Technology track for teachers and
#9 in USNews.com Ed
track for designers.
Ph.D. Information Vocational/Tech
Science & Learning
Technologies

Purdue University M.S. Instructional Offers focus on IT for #5 by Faculty B

Technology school personnel or
business/industry.

60
 Core includes
Advanced Educational
Psychology,
Interactive Video and
Multimedia, Project
Management, and
Philosophy of
American Education
OR Multicultural
Education.

Harvard University M.Ed. Technology in No required core #2 in Gourman

Education courses. All courses General Education
require face-to-face
#1 in USNews.com
attendance.
General Education

University of M.A., M.Ed., Ph.D. Collaborative #7 in Gourman

Minnesota Twin Learning Technologies instruction from three General Education
Cities departments:
#2 in USNews.com Ed
Curriculum and
Vocational/Tech
Instruction;
Educational #9 in USNews.com
Psychology; and Curriculum/Instruction
Work, Community,
and Family Education.
Master’s has
practitioner and
research tracks.

Ohio State M.A., PhD, Workforce Corporate focus. #9T in Gourman

University Development and General Education
Columbus Education
#1 in USNews.com Ed
Vocational/Tech
#5 in USNews.com
Curriculum/Instruction

New York M.S. Instructional Focus on eLearning #8 in Gourman

University Design and online learning. General Education
#11 in USNews.com
General Education

Columbia M.A., Ed.M., Ed.D. Adult Programming and #9T in Gourman

University Learning and telecommunications General Education
Teachers College Leadership courses offered in
#4 in USNews.com
core curriculum. ALL
Second link M.A., Ed.M., Ed.D. General Education
degree seems to have
Instructional
HR/management #3 in USNews.com
Technology and Media
focus. Curriculum/Instruction

UCLA Grad School M.A., Ph.D. Higher Does not seem to #2 in USNews.com
of Education & Education and have a corporate General Education

61
Information Organizational Change focus. #2T in NDPS General
Studies Education

Cornell University M.P.S., M.S., or Ph.D. Emphasis on global #3 in Gourman

Adult Education & learning General Education
Extension

Michigan State M.A. Educational ET degree has track #10 in Gourman

University Technology for teachers and track General Education
for designers.
M.A., Ph.D. Higher, #2 in USNews.com
Adult, and Lifelong HALE does seems to Curriculum/Instruction
Education emphasize higher
education and public
agencies.

University of M.S., Ph.D. Educational Master’s applicants #9 in USNews.com

Wisconsin Madison Communication and must have previously General Education
Technology completed 12 hours of
#7 in USNews.com Ed
education courses, or
Vocational/Tech
be admitted with
deficiencies, which #1 in USNews.com
must be made up. Curriculum/Instruction

University of Don’t see anything #7T in USNews.com

California Berkeley comparable to ILT. General Education

University of M.S.Ed., Ed.D., Ph.D. Focus seems to be on #7T in USNews.com

Pennsylvania Teaching, Learning & educational settings, General Education
Curriculum not corporate.

Texas A&M College M.Ed., Ph.D Educational Business and industry #8 in USNews.com Ed
Station Technology focus. In the Vocational/Tech
Psychology
department.

Iowa State M.S., M.Ed., Ph.D. Web site down #10T in USNews.com
University Curriculum & Ed Vocational/Tech
Instructional
Technology

Oklahoma State M.S., Ph.D. in Teaching, Industry focus. #10T in USNews.com

University Learning, and Ed Vocational/Tech
Stillwater Leadership:
Occupational Education
Studies

62
Appendix G (Course and Program Comparison)
Course Listings and Program Offerings by Category

Based on the table created as Appendix F (please see the table for the complete listings for each
program name), we have tried to identify some of the more unique courses in other top programs
nationwide. Some of the topics that stand out as unique or specialized include:

• Adult Education (Georgia)

• Instructional Technology in Adult Education (Utah)
• Understanding the Adult Learner (Wayne State)

• Designing Instruction for Older Adult Learners (Wayne State)

While the ILT program offers a Management course as part of the core, several of us opted for an
Independent Study course or courses offered by the CU-Denver School of Business as a
management requirement instead, after cancellation of our required Management course. Some
of the programs in our study offer a wider range of management courses, or more specialized
ones:

• Management of Instructional Technology Projects (Georgia)

• Administration of Media Programs (Georgia)
• Evaluation and Change in the Instructional Development Process (Indiana)
• Business and Economic Dimensions of Training and Development Process (Indiana)
• Change Management Consulting (Indiana)
• IT Planning and Management (Virginia Tech)
• Instructional Technology Policy Issues, Planning, and Management (Virginia Tech)
• Project Management (Wayne State)
• Knowledge Management (Wayne State)
• Strategic Planning for Training and Organization Improvement (Wayne State)
• Performance Consulting (Wayne State)
• Issues in Program Management and Human Performance Technology (Syracuse)
• Cost-Effectiveness in Instruction and Training (Syracuse)
• Performance Improvement: Promise and Practice (Syracuse)
• Planned Change and Innovation (Syracuse)
• Motivation in Instructional Design (Syracuse)
• Knowledge Management in Instructional Design (Syracuse)
• Strategies in Educational Project Management (Syracuse)
• Management of Educational Technology (San Diego)
• Informational and Instructional Technologies for Organizations (San Diego)

63
 • Learning Environment Design (San Diego)

• Technology Facilities Design (Wayne State)

Several of the programs we investigated offer multiple options for needs and learner analysis,
evaluation, and assessment:

• Instructional Task Analysis (Indiana)

• Needs Analysis and Assessment (Indiana)
• Learner Analysis in the Instructional Technology Process (Indiana)
• Educational Software Evaluation (Virginia Tech)
• Evaluation/Supervision of Instruction (Virginia Tech)
• Program and Product Evaluation (Virginia Tech)
• Educational Product and Program Evaluation (Wayne State)
• Needs Assessment and Program Validity (Wayne State)
• Techniques in Educational Evaluation (Syracuse)

• Analysis for Human Performance Technology Decisions (Syracuse)

Some of the intriguing technical courses offered by other programs include:

• Educational Television Production (Georgia)

• Telecommunications/Distance Learning (Georgia)
• Telecommunications and Distance Learning (Virginia Tech)
• Information Technology (Georgia)
• Digital Video Disk Production (Utah)
• Instructional Simulations (Utah)
• Toolbook (Utah)
• Flash (Utah)
• Director (Utah)
• Cold Fusion (Utah)
• Instructional Strategies for Videoconferencing (Syracuse)
• Modeling and Simulations in Education (Syracuse)
• Advanced CAI Programming (Brigham Young)
• Instructional Print Design (Brigham Young)

• Simulations and Games (San Diego)

We also noticed several critical thinking, literacy, problem-solving, and other miscellaneous
courses offered by other top programs:

• Computers as Critical Thinking Tools (Syracuse)

64
 • Information Literacy (Georgia)
• Media Literacy (Wayne State)
• Psychology of Text-Based Learning (San Diego)
• Cyberculture and Learning Systems (San Diego)
• Psychology of Technology-Based Learning (San Diego)
• Effective Writing for Instructional Technology (Indiana)
• Delivering Professional Presentations (Wayne State)
• Special Problems in Instructional Technology (Georgia)

• Problems in Education (Virginia Tech)

We noticed that an online or distance learning Master’s program in a similar field is offered by
several of the programs in our study (although not all program leaders responded to confirm their
requirements):

• Florida State University

• Indiana University Bloomington
• Pennsylvania State University (new online program for teachers)
• San Diego State University
• Utah State University (mostly distance learning M.Ed.)

• Virginia Polytechnic Institute

In addition, several top programs require an internship to complete the Master’s degree (again,
not all program leaders responded to inquiries for confirmation of their program offerings):

• Florida State University

• Pennsylvania State University (for M.Ed.)
• Utah State University (requires either project or internship)
• Arizona State University

• Brigham Young University

Some programs offer multiple tracks or emphases in their programs, such as:

• University of Georgia’s Master’s program has both higher education and corporate focus.
UGA’s Master’s program offers Technology Integration Program for teachers/practitioners,
and General Instructional Design & Development. The Instructional Design & Development
track focus is on variety of business and educational settings.
• Penn State offers a Corporate Training Sequence.
• Florida State University offers an M.S. in Instructional Systems and an M.S. in Open and
Distance Learning
• Utah State’s M.Ed. program is designed for teachers and administrators, while its M.S. is a
more general program. Utah also offers an M.Ed. program as distance learning program
with some F2F courses. Utah’s program offers specializations in Educational Technology

65
 and School Library Media Administration.
• Virginia Tech offers an M.A. in Instructional Technology, and an Interactive
videoconferencing program for its M.S. Career & Technical Education through a separate
department.
• Wayne State offers tracks for Performance Improvement & Training and Interactive
Technologies.
• Syracuse offers four M.S. concentrations: Design and Development, Interactive
Technology and Distributed Learning, Project Management and Human Performance
Technology, and Evaluation.

• Brigham Young offers specializations in Instructional Design and Production, Multimedia in

Education, or Research and Evaluation.

66