Self-Study and Curriculum Review of the ILT ID & Adult Learning Program at University of Colorado at Denver IT 6720 – Research in IT July 27, 2005 Michelle Boyer, Lisa Bradshaw, Cheryl Ide, Annie Persson, Michele Sutherland

Problem Statement  Is the ILT ID & Adult Learning program preparing graduates for careers in instructional design? Are there improvements that could be recommended for incorporation into the program?

Research Questions  How has the ILT program evolved, what changes have been made and proposed? 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.

Research Questions  How does the ILT curriculum map to professional standards (AECT, ASTD, ISPI)? 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.

Research Questions  How well does the ILT program prepare graduates for careers? We surveyed current students and alumni of the program as well as faculty members, to learn if these groups feel that the program currently prepares its graduates for their careers. We gathered suggestions and feedback that we hope will enable us to make recommendations for improvement in the program.

Research Questions  How does the ILT program compare to other top programs, and can features of other programs be incorporated into the ILT program? We examined other top programs across the U.S., to determine if they have features that make them exceptional. We investigated ways these programs are given high ranking. We compared characteristics of these programs with the ILT program, to help us recommend strategies and methods that might be incorporated into the ILT program to help improve it.

Methods  Action-research and program evaluation.  Survey current students, alumni, CU faculty, faculty from other schools.  Literature reviews: ILT program, other programs, standards.

Findings  How has the ILT program evolved, what changes have been made and proposed?  Instructional Technology program moved from Boulder to Denver in  Renamed Information and Learning Technologies in  Cohort program began in 2001, but difficult to sustain.  Three current tracks not listed in catalog.

Findings  How has the ILT program evolved, what changes have been made and proposed?  After accreditation report of 1993, courses broken into different categories.  Core listed under “Instructional Computing Core.”  3-12 additional hours from categories of: Instructional Design and Foundations Tools and Applications Product Design Languages

Findings  How has the ILT program evolved, what changes have been made and proposed?  Competencies formerly “objectives” then expanded to current list.  Previously, students completed one of four types of project.  Portfolio requirement today.

Findings  How does the ILT curriculum map to professional standards?  AECT, ASTD, ISPI lists compared to competencies.  Each course relates to an ILT competency.  Competencies reflect professional standards.

Findings  How well does the ILT program prepare graduates for careers in the adult instructional design/instructional technology/educational technology field?  Faculty, current students, alumni surveyed.  45.4% felt ILT degree did not help them obtain position.  81.8% felt there were gaps in the program.  Many have taken or plan to take additional courses.

Findings  How well does the ILT program prepare graduates for careers in the adult instructional design/instructional technology/educational technology field?  50% of faculty felt program missing important courses.  50% feel it is difficult to teach both K-12 and Adult Learning students in the same class.  66.7% disagree with having regimented course sequence.  Many offered other suggestions for improving the program.

Findings  How does the ILT program compare to other top programs, and can features of other programs be incorporated into the ILT program?  Numeric rankings may not be best source of data.  Comparison table helped to see program similarities.  Specialized courses offered in many programs.  Regular program review done by many programs.  Internship required for many programs.

Implications  Be sure ILT competencies are being met when replacement courses are taken.  Improve recruitment efforts into the ILT program.  Incorporate courses from other programs into the ILT curriculum.  Incorporate more focused and specialized courses into the curriculum.

Implications, continued  Collaborate with other university graduate programs.  Collaborate with business, industry, non-profit and government organizations.  Continue to perform regular reviews of the ILT program.

Possible Future Actions  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.