,,,, 41

m6Digmgg966m6H5

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICES IN HIGHER EDUCATION

A SYNTHESIS REPORT

By Saeid Y. Eidgahy

This is the last in a series of articles regarding the ef- fectiveness of educational technology services in higher education. The first article presented an overview of the perceptions of the primary providers and users of technol- ogy. The second article was concerned with the views of institutional media directors. The third article presented the perceptions of faculty as the primary users of such ser- vices. This article is a synthesis report, which not only pro- vides a collective view but also concerns itself with gen- eral institutional and other factors not previously considered.

T his study was designed to determine the consis- tency of the perceptions of randomly selected fac- ulty and all the media directors in four-year state-

assisted higher education institutions in Ohio toward the (1) quality, (2) importance, and (3) budget commitment to educational technology services. Consistent and posi- tive faculty and media director's perceptions of these technologies could provide strong justification for in- creasing support for educational technology services.

This study was significant because it provided a comprehensive and clear view of the consistencies of perceptions regarding technologies. One major goal of this study was to determine areas where views are not consistent, so future studies could be made to clarify any discrepancies. The author has also provided a basis for similar studies elsewhere and under different condi-

Saeid Y. Eidgahy is President of SAS Technologies, Inc., Educational and Training Consultants, Toledo, Ohio.

tions. Previous articles outlined the existing major issues within the literature. As a result, this article only dis- cusses the synthesis factors which were not discussed. Namely, these areas include the difference of percep- tions between faculty and media directors as to the im- portance of educational technology services; demo- graphic factors in institutions, media directors, and faculty; and conclusions drawn on the basis of such data.

The population for this study consisted of all 15 media directors and 300 randomly selected faculty (20 from each institution) from all four-year state-assisted universities in Ohio. Several mailings of the question- naire resulted in all 15 media directors responding and 189 of 300 or 63.0 percent of the faculty responding.

The initial questionnaire was developed by A.D. Evans in 1981. The author utilized a two-step process for updating the questionnaire to reflect current services. First, AECT's 1989 guidelines were reviewed to identify major services which have come into practice since Evans' 1981 study. Second, the Bowling Green State University's Committee on Technologies reviewed the questionnaire for obsolete and/or redundant items. Also, the reliability of the questionnaire was tested by Coeffi- cient Alpha for internal consistency and yielded 0.90, 0.91, and 0.96. Thus, both the validity and the reliabil- ity of the 62 questionnaire items were established. Re- spondents were asked to rate each question in their order of importance on a scale with 1.0 the lowest score and 5.0 the highest.

Findings Table 1 provides the results of the view differences

between faculty and media directors as related to the im- portance of educational technology services for all 62 questionnaire items.

The results presented in Table 1 should be consid- ered in two different aspects. First, results for each insti- tution is explained. Three institutions' media directors re- sponded to more than ten educational technology services with "not applicable or na". Institution C's

Volume 37/Number 2/1992 37

Table 1 Difference Between Faculty and Media Directors' Responses

To Importance of Educational Technology Services for Each Institution Questionnaire Item

Institution (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O)

1. Providing a collection ol audiovisual equipment 1or instructional use. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.71 1.18 0.38 0.55 0.42 1.62 0.45 0.40 0.07 0.38 0.92 1.36 1.09 0.92 0.36

2. Providing pick-up/deliver service for audiovisual materials and equipment. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.710.18na 0,090.580.540.730.860.230.460.15 1.450.91 1,000.93

3. Providing operators of audiovisual equipment at faculty request. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H ) ( I ) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.71 1.45 na 1.64 0.92 0.23 0.27 0.50 1.07 0.15 0.77 2.09 0.27 1.33 1.71

4. Providing trainingin the operation of audiovisual equipment. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.71 1.27 1.00 0.55 0.92 2.08 0.90 1.43 1.08 0.69 0.31 0.45 0.27 1.83 0.50

5. Providing demonstrations of new audiovisual equipment. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.07 0.18 1.08 0.09 1.42 0.62 1.73 1.21 1.92 0.38 1.85 0.45 1.91 2.83 0.29

6. Providing preventive and repair maintenance of audiovisual equipment. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.29 0.00 na 0.55 0.42 0.23 0.36 0.80 0.50 1.54 0.23 1.36 0.91 0.00 0.07

7, Providing a catalog of campus audiovisual materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.50 1.36 0.77 0.36 0.83 0.46 0.64 0.87 0.29 0.08 0.08 1.09 1.09 0.75 0.21

8. Providing catalo~ on audiovisual materials from off campus sources. (A) (g) (C) (U) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.57 0.64 1.00 0.64 1.25 1,69 0.91 0.43 1.71 0.69 0.38 0.45 1.82 2.92 1.21

9, Providing assistance in locating materials for preview. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.79 0.36 0.85 2.18 0.92 0.46 1.82 0.86 0.29 0.69 1.54 0.19 2.00 1.33 1.43

10. ,Providing facilities forpreview of audiovisual materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (]) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.64 0.27 0,77 0.45 1.17 0.46 0,82 1,07 0.57 0.69 038 0,00 1.82 0.50 0,07

11. Providing transfer from one video format to another. (A) (8) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 2.00 0.45 na 0.36 0.67 0.31 0.64 1.07 0.57 0.85 0.23 0.36 0.45 0.50 0.21

12. Providing facilities for viewing videotapes. (A) (B) (C) (D) (F) (G) (H) ( 1 ) 0 ) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.64 0.27 0.77 0.55 1.00 0.69 0.82 0.93 0.43 0.15 0.31 1.45 1.36 0.33 0.64

13. Providing maintenance (inspect clean, repair, and store) for a collection of audiovisual materia s. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.36 0.18 1.23 0.55 0.58 0.54 0.45 1.21 0.29 0.00 0.15 1.45 1.36 1.00 0.29

14. Scheduling the use of audiovisual materials and equipment. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.64 0.09 0.31 0.27 0.25 0.46 1.73 0.64 1.31 0.23 0.92 1.72 0.91 1.25 1.21

15. Providing rental/loan audiovisual material obtained from off campus sources. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.23 0.09 0.38 2.09 1.09 0.54 0.09 1.21 0.38 0.23 0.31 1.55 1.91 0.50 1.36

16. Providing a self instructional learning center. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.43 0.73 0.85 1.27 1.67 0.23 0.00 na 0.43 0.77 0.46 1.40 1.09 2.33 0.79

17. Providing an instructional area to field test new materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.001.270.081.551.422,150.91 na 0,230.232.251.270.91 1.671.21

18. Assisting students select resources for independent learning, (A) (8) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0,43 0.36 0.67 0.18 0,58 0.31 0.09 na 1,57 0.77 0.38 1.45 1.36 1.08 0.43

19. Providing specialized equipment and facilities to assist handicapped learners. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.57 0.36 1.08 0.18 na 0.85 0.00 na 0.79 1.31 0.77 0.73 1.27 1.42 0.71

20. Sponsoring seminars for faculty on topics related to instructional improvement. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (]) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.29 0,27 2.15 0.45 1.33 0.54 0.82 na 0.290.770.310,641.092.581.14

21. Sponsoring seminars for graduate "teaching assistants" on topics related to instructional improvements. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.14 0.00 0.77 0.90 1.00 0.42 0.09 na 0.21 0.77 0.46 0.40 0.27 1.83 na

22. Disseminating information concerning teaching and learning via newsletters or via newsletters or other means, (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (I) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 1.070,091.230.I01.820.230.00na 0,001.310.080.271.09na na

23. Providing [uodingthat supports innovative instruction. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.000.000.230,901.360.460.18na 0.291.620.31 1.181.18na na

24. Providing assistance in determining sequence and structure of learningactivities. 56. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (iN) (O)

33. Assisting faculty to analyze and modify instrudion. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.07 0.09 1.85 0.80 1.58 0.00 0.27 na 0.62 0.62 0.77 1.18 1.27 0.17 na

34. Assisting in the analysis and modification of classroom instruction by providing feedback through videotape analysis. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0,07 0.18 na 0.301.330.690.180.360.421.380.082.601.001.751:57

35. Assisting faculty in the analysis and modification of classroom instruction by providing feedback through skilled observers. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (O) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0,861.18na 1.900.250,082.00na 0.31 1,000.692.301.27na na

36. Copying print instructional materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.43 0.36 na 0.80 2.18 0.54 0.09 na 0,25 na 0.25 1.20 0.91 na na

37. Duplicating visual instructional materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.50 0.45 na 0,40 1.33 0.46 0.00 0.60 0.62 0.00 0.23 0.55 1.09 1.33 0,64

38. Duplicating audio instructional materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0,36 0,45 na 0,40 1,33 0.54 0.18 0.57 0,62 0.38 0.31 0,36 1,45 2.50 0.43

39. Photographically copying graphic materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.93 0.36 na 0.80 1.91 0.54 1.45 0.50 0.25 0.08 0.46 1.60 1.73 1.00 0.71

40. Processing film. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.64 0.36 na 1.002.251.000.180.710.170.230.542,820,000.001.36

41. Providing photographers for field work. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.36 0.18 na 1.700.360.000.551.210.231.670.232.362.271.921.14

42. Providing photographers for studio work. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (]) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0,210.00na 1,401.670.250.641.000.311.170.312.362.731.832.00

43. Providing photos for passports, publications or award presentations. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (]) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.21 0.18 na 2.20 na 0.00 0.73 na 0.38 0.46 0.54 1.00 2.45 na 0.36

44. Providing a self-service area where faculty can create their own instructional material, (A) (8) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.21 0.18 na 2.20 na 0.00 0.73 na 0.38 0.46 0.54 1.00 2.45 na 0.36

45. Providing assistance in script writing. (h) (B) (C) (O) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (I) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.21 0,82 na 0,91 2.58 0.54 0.45 1.07 0,08 1.46 0,15 1,73 1,B2 1.17 1.86

46. Providing narrators for media productions. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.00 0.18 na 0.73 0.67 0.23 0.27 0.86 0.42 1.46 0.15 1.64 0.82 2.17 - -

47. Providing offset printing, collating and binding. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (l) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.070.09ha 0.55ha 0,150.09na 0.23ha 0,080.551.18na - -

48. Providing typesetting services. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (|) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.71 0.18 na 0.36 2.33 0.23 0.18 2.07 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.55 1.09 na - -

49. Providing grants to support the production of innovative and exemplary instructional materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) LI) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.07 0.09 na 0.50 1.83 0.67 0.09 na 0.38 1.23 0,31 0.00 1.27 1.17 na

50. Producing graphics to illustrate print materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) O) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.71 0.27 na 1.27 1.75 0.46 0.09 0.86 0.46 0.08 0.31 1.18 2.00 0.08 0,29

51. Providing graphics for conversion to other presentation formats such as slides an transpareoc~es. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0,290.00ha 1.55-- 0.380.180,860.690,230.31 2 .09- - 0.330.50

52. Producing graphics for display in the form of signs, charts or posters. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.360.09na 0.45 1,080.540.180,930.230,230.31 1.73-- 2.172.00

53. Producing slideltape programs. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (I) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.210.I0na 1.452.830.460.180.790.540.460.23 1.362.000.250.79

54. Producing multi-image programs. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.62 0.18 na 0.82 2.73 0.38 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.46 0.23 0.64 2.27 1.42 2.29

55. Providing programmed instruction materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.21 0.09 1.83 0.55 2.33 0.08 0.18 na 0.31 0.46 0.08 1.00 2.27 2.33 na Producing video materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O)

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32,

0.860,820.620.900.092.150.64na 0.920.920.921.200.360.50na 0,790,09na 0,271.500.230.091.000.69na 0,231.552.091.671.71 Providing assistance in selecting media formats. 57. Producing motion picture materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) (A) (B) (C) (D)(E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 1.07 0.82 1.46 0.70 0.50 0.69 1.36 1.64 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.82 1.18 1.00 2.36 0.07 1.00 na 0.09 na 1.00 0.82 na 0.62 na 0.85 1.09 0.18 0.00 na Providing consultation in the design of learning laboratories and other instructional spaces. 58. Producing audio materials.

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.210.00na 0.55 1,420.31 0.91 1.071.150.620.001.452.180.672.14 2.07 0.73 na 1.100.451.772,092.000,931.851.000.602.912.251.71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Providin o consultation to facul ~, or d e n ~ , ~ ;, ~h,~ ~i~,-~n ~.,,~ ~ - c ,. ~ troy u nR a tac ~I w th common m cro-compu[ers ava ao e for use by students .-, .z t.~,u,~,,~ ,,, ~,~ ~ , ~ u,, o,~ ~ , ca,. on - - . nf instnlctinnal ~Hinn'~nt for n . r c h ~ and staff~, includlng prlnters and software. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (l) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) (A) (B) (C) (1~) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 1 4 3 0 1 8 1 8 3 1 3 6 0 3 1 0 0 0 h a 023na 0 6 2 3 0 0 n a 0.86 0.45 na 0.70 0.55 0.38 0k821,33 0.31 1.15 0.50 1.00 2.00 0.50 2.14 . . . . - - . . . . . 2.67 na Providing assistance in designing instruction. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) ((3) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 1.00 0.27 1.54 0.10 1.92 0.31 0.09 na 1.15 0.31 0.00 0.00 1.73 1.00 na Providing assistance in designing individualized instruction. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) ((3) (H) (I) (I) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.07 0.27 1.54 0.70 1.75 0.23 0.09 na 0.08 0.23 0,00 1.10 1.55 0.25 na Providing assistance in designing new or remodeled instructional spaces, (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) ((5) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.07 0.91 na 0.100.000.000.092.001.151.920.690.642.821.252.21 Selecting instructional materials for preview by (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (j) UlIK) (L) (M) (N) (O)

facty.

0.930.182.150.100.170.850.91 na 0.080.000.690.501.552.082.50 Providing criteria and forms for evaluating instructional materials. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 0.000,090,380.I00.000.150.09na 1.150.230.151.000.91 1.832.79

60. Providing a program which ensures user compliance with relevant copyright la'~ and software licensing aglreements. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) 0) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 2.57 1.09 2.00 1.00 1.50 1.31 0.91 1.29 0.38 2.54 3.15 0.82 1.36 0.58 1.79

61. Providing a program for educating students and faculty in the evaluation of software. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) O) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 1.71 0.450.25 1.18na 0.750.18na 1.460.080.770.91 na na na

62. Providing at least one staff member who is sufficiently familiar with the operatio~ of microcomputers to assist users in planning for microcomputer usage. (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (O) 1.461.271.672.45-- 0.77 0.73na 0.31 na 1.620.18na na 2.29 na indicates that the media director responded with not applicable. - - indicates that the media director did not respond to that particular questionnaire item,

88 T~h Trends

Table 2 Demographic Variables

Demographics of Institutions

Item Frequency* Percent 1

Highest degree offered by institution: Bachelors 2 13.3 Masters 1 6.7 Doctorate 12 80.0

Total number of undergraduate students: 0-10,000 4 26.7 10,001-20,000 6 40.0 20,001-35,000 3 20.0 35,001-60,000 2 13.3

Total number of graduate students2 : 0-1000 4 30.8 1001-3000 4 30.8 3001-10,000 3 23.1 10,001-20,000 2 15.4

Total number of faculty members: 0-750 5 33.3 751-1500 6 40.0 1501-3000 2 13.3 3001-5000 2 13.3

Demographics: Media Directors

Academic Discipline: Social Sciences 3 20.0 Arts 1 6.7 Professional 11 73.3

Rank: Instructor I 6.7 Assistant Professor 1 6.7 Associate Professor 1 6.7 Professor 1 6.7 Administrative 11 73.3

Highest degree earned: ~*" Bachelors 2 13.3 Masters 7 46.7 Doctorate 6 40.0

Years of service at the institution: 3-10 4 26.7 11-20 7 46.7 21-24 4 26.7

Age: Up to 40 3 20.0 41-50 9 60.0 51-57 3 20.0

Demographics: Faculty

Academic Discipline: Scienceffechnical 55 29.1 Social Sciences 30 15.9 Arts 34 18.0 Professional 44 23.3 Other 21 11.1 No Response 5 2.6

Rank: Instructor I0 5.3 Assistant Professor 56 29.6 Associate Professor 62 32.8 Professor 52 27.5 Administrative I 0.5 No Response 8 4.2

Highest Degree Earned: Masters 31 16.4 i~ocCialist 9 4.8

torate 139 73.5 No Response 10 5.3

Years at the Institution: 0-10 83 43.9 11-20 62 32.8 21-30 35 18.5 31-36 3 1.6 No Response 6 3.2

A~e30 6 3.2 31-40 48 25.4 41-50 64 33.9 51-60 43 22.8 61-69 10 5.3 No Response 18 9.5

* n = 1 5 1 Percentage totals may not equal

00.0 due to rounding. Total number of institutions with

graduate students equals 13; therefore percentages are based on a total of t 3 rather than 15.

media director responded with 31 na's (half of question- naire items), and those of institutions H and O re- sponded with 24 and 15 na's respectively. Since the en- tire number of institutions in the study was only 15, twenty percent of the participating colleges had a differ- ent collection of educational technology services. This may be an indication that these colleges had unique char- acteristics which required a lower number of services or simply a different set of technologies.

Second, results should be explained for each ques- tionnaire item in terms of availability at each institution. Thirteen services out of a total of 62 questionnaire items (twenty-one percent) yielded responses of not applicable from three or more institutional media directors. This may indicate that these technology services may not be as comprehensively available across the various colleges as anticipated. In other words, the collection of technolo- gies represented on the questionnaire may not be applica- ble to all institutions of various or the same types. In short, Table 1 indicates two results: (1) Various institutions' technologies may not always be compara- ble, and (2) that some of the services studied here are not applicable to all colleges. Both of these findings refer to the differences between various universities.

Table 2 represents the demographic variables of the institutions, their media directors and randomly se- lected faculty members.

Results gathered in Table 2 were divided into the three categories of institutional, media directors, and fac-

ulty demographics. In the first section of Table 2, an institutional demographic profile can be built. The typical institution in this study was a doctoral granting institution (80.0 percent). The typical num- ber of undergraduate students was 10,001 to 20,000 and had a graduate student population of up to 3,000. Finally, the typical number of faculty at the institution was between 751 and 1500.

In the second part of Table 2, media directors' demographics are outlined. The typical director had a professional degree (73.3 percent) and held an administrative rank (73.3 percent) within the institution. The professional degree of the director was typically at the masters level (46.7 percent) and he/she had a service record of 11-20 years at that institution. Finally, the typical age of the media director was 41-50 years (60.0 percent).

In the final part of Table 2, faculty demo- graphic variables indicate that the typical academic discipline was science or technical (29.1 percent), and that faculty member held an academic rank of associate professor (32.8 percent). Typically the highest degree earned by the faculty was a doctor- ate (73.5 percen0 with a service record of 0-10 years at the institution (43.9 percent). Finally, the typical age of faculty respondents was 41-50 years (33.9 percent).

Conclusions and Recommendations Results in Table 1 indicated strong differ-

ences between the responses of media directors from twenty percent of the institutions in the study. The difference was mainly in that these di- rectors responded with a significant number Of "not

applicable's". This was possibly an indication of the dif- ferences between the characteristics of various institu- tions. Therefore, further studies are needed to clarify how the institutional characteristics impact the provision of educational technology services.

Another result from Table 1 indicated that 13 out of 62 (21.0 percent) services yielded responses of not ap- plicable from three or more institutional directors. These services varied across different categories and could not be grouped together for discussion purposes. One possi- ble explanation for this outcome is that some services may simply not be utilized across all institutions. Thus, further inquiry should be made into which services are more universally utilized in colleges and why certain ser- vices are not available within certain institutions.

In Table 2, eighty percent were doctoral granting universities, but 13.3 percent awarded only a bachelors degree. There were also variations across number of both undergraduate and graduate students, as well as fac- ulty. As a result, a controlled study is needed to identify any possible causal relationships between such demo- graphic variables and the provision of educational tech- nology services. For example, is there a significant dif- ference (in terms of services) between institutions awarding only bachelor's degree and those awarding doc- toral degrees?

Furthermore, media directors' and faculty demo- graphics presented significant differences. For example, the typical media director had a master's degree in a pro- fessional field and held an administrative rank at the in-

Volume 37/Number 2/1992 39

stitution; whereas the faculty respondent had a doctoral degree in a science or technical discipline and held an academic rank of associate professor. Future research should explore these and other types of demographics to see if such differences impact the views of providers and users of technology across various institutions. For exam- ple, does academic preparation impact, in any way, the way educational technologies are perceived? If so, how?

Epilogue Over the last four articles, the author has identified

a number of areas where discrepancies exist between the views of faculty and media directors. A significant body of literature has been examined to explain such differ- ences. Yet, many questions remain which need to be an- swered. In this final article, questions of different ser- vices across institution and demographic factors were also examined and found to present some areas of varia- tion. As stated initially, the author's goal was not to re-

solve questions, but simply to identify some of the areas requiring further study. Comments on these results, and those of possibly ongoing similar studies are invited. These comments may be sent through Compuserve E- Mail at 70314,1002.

References Association for Educational Communications and

Technology. (1989). Standards for college and university learning resource programs: Technology in instruction. Washington, DC.

Evans, A.D. (1981). "Development and validation of cafeteria system to assess faculty perceptions of in- structional development services at four-year higher edu- cation institutions" (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tional, Vol. 42: 1916A. �9

ET l{D

Educational Technology Research and Development

ETR&D has it all f r o m . . . THEORY TO PRACTICE

Features well documented articles on the practical aspects of

research as well as applied theory in educational practice. A comprehensive source of

current research information in instructional technology.

Offers practical articles that focus on technique reports, case studies and reviews on products and systems. Brings you the most recent information. Special issues give indepth coverage and analysis.

Yes! Enter my 1-year subscription today.

Name & Title

Organization

Address

City/State/Zip

..Check

Card #

Signature

VISA __MasterCard Diners Club _ _ C a r t e Blanche

4/year, AECT Members, $30 Nonmembers, $45

Foreign Surface, $53 Foreign Airmail, $73

ETR&D, 1025 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20005 Published by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology

40 Tech Trends