A study of instructional development knowledge and competency among primary and elementary teachers in the Roman Catholic School Board for St. John's, Newfoundland

• Main Author: Tobin, Jean Marie
• Format: Thesis
• Language: English
• Published: Memorial University of Newfoundland 1989
• Subjects: Newfoundland
• Online Access: https://research.library.mun.ca/4313/; https://research.library.mun.ca/4313/1/Tobin_JeanMarie.pdf; https://research.library.mun.ca/4313/3/Tobin_JeanMarie.pdf

The purpose of this study was to discover if primary and elementary teachers possess the instructional development algorithm which underlies all instructional development models. Knowledge of instructional development, whether at the algorithmic or heuristic levels, is deemed necessary to implement the resource-based teaching and learning approach that is being advocated in this province. This was accomplished through a written survey which questioned teachers on thirteen instructional development competency areas summarized from the Task Force Report on Instructional Development Competencies of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) published in 1982. One hundred and ninety-five teachers from the primary and elementary levels of the Roman Catholic School Board for St. John's received questionnaires. -- The results of the study were analyzed according to the thirteen competency areas summarized from the AECT Task Force Report which are as follows: conduct needs assessment, conduct learner analysis, develop and sequence behavioral objectives, conduct environmontal analysis, determine and sequence content, determine and sequence learner activities, determine appropriate resources, determine appropriate teaching strategies, evaluate and revise instructional units, create instructional units, conduct workshops, communicate effectively, and consult with individuals or groups. -- Results of the study revealed that the majority of the teachers who responded do not possess knowledge of the instructional development algorithm. However, due to a low response rate of 54%, the results are not indicative of the total sample, as information regarding the competencies of those teachers who failed to return questionnaires might have affected the results.