reseñas educativas (Spanish)    
resenhas educativas (Portuguese)    

This review has been accessed times since June 19, 2005

Heinich, Robert. (2004). Technology and the Management of Instruction: Monograph 4. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

198 pp.
$25.95     ISBN 1-59311-142-8

Reviewed by Richard Hartshorne
University of North Carolina at Charlotte

June 19, 2005

This book was originally prepared as a doctoral dissertation at the University of Southern California by Robert Heinich, in 1968 (originally entitled Instructional Technology and Instructional Management: A Proposal for a New Theoretical Structure), and published in edited form in 1970. Now it appears as an entry in Information Age Publishing's reprinting of the Classics in Instructional Technology. <http://www.infoagepub.com/www/products/product1/classics.htm>

The primary argument of the book/dissertation was “the paradigm of instructional management generated by comprehensive technologies of instruction is fundamentally different from the paradigm—and supporting superstructure—that has evolved ever since the person in face-to-face contact with students was vested in institutional authority” (p. 7). Heinich, as has been an increasingly accepted view in recent times, felt that the model of scientific revolutions, as laid out by Kuhn (1962) is applicable to fields such as education and that there needs to be a new paradigm of instructional management. The fact that this publication was originally a doctoral dissertation is important because of the focus of the work--questioning the existing paradigms of the fields of instructional technology and instructional management. This is a venture rarely undertaken even today by a doctoral candidate.

Originating as a doctoral dissertation, the structure of this book was straightforward. Heinich began with an introduction of the “problem,” provided support and operational definitions, discussed a proposed solution to the “problem,” and provided support and a rationale for the proposed solutions. He concluded with detailed implications of the new paradigm, as well as a discussion of suggested future research. This format is all very familiar to the intended audience of this book.

While there are areas of the book that could have been enhanced, Heinich did an exceptional job of laying out the foundation for his thesis (Chapter 1). He began by providing evidence of a developing paradigm change, an overview of theories and models, and a discussion of the paradigms of learning psychology. This argument began as Heinich presented the idea that “each period of scientific development is characterized by a dominant metaphor” (p. 18). For the field of instructional technology, this dominant metaphor is the systems approach and how it can apply to instruction. Heinich offered a number of supportive examples of ways in which the systems approach fails many educators. One such supporting statement was presented by Harcleroad (1960): “The curriculum begins when the teacher closes the door and faces the class, unless you are going to dispense with the teacher entirely” (p. 37). With this study, Heinich “intends to explore the systems approach to instruction as a means of identifying the proper functions of media personnel, particularly as they relate to other instructional staff” (p. 22). While this section did a nice job of providing operational definitions, examples, and support, at times, it was somewhat wordy. For example, many of the examples discussed were somewhat redundant and failed to significantly add to Heinich’s argument.

Following the introduction, Heinich presents a “Model for Paradigm Change" (Chapter 2). Here, he presented a masterful discussion of the creative process and the depiction of explanation that comes along with it. This is an interesting argument that provides support for a case against the absolutism of taxonomies, and further supports Heinich’s assertion that a new paradigm was needed. Heinich stated, “Unfortunately, too frequently in academic life, nothing is certain but death and taxonomies” (p. 37). Following this, Heinich provided a thorough overview of the inadequacies of the scientific method and its role in inhibiting the development of new paradigms. One aspect of his debate is that, “difficulties arise principally because individuals attempt to reach an understanding of a new paradigm through the application of the former one” (p. 38). This is problematic because “new paradigms stand in definite disjuncture with the old” (p. 39). Essentially, the scientific method stifles the development of new paradigms. After providing a foundation for the inadequacies of the scientific method, Heinich provided a penetrating discussion of the structure of fundamental change. Here, Kuhn’s (1962) analysis of scientific progress and its appropriateness for education was presented, with a focus on the movement from anomaly to paradigm to normal science. While Kuhn lays this out as the nature of the progress of science, Heinich felts that “the path of new paradigms is through normal science, by way of the anomaly” (p. 44). Heinich provided a number of excellent examples throughout history, discussed the thought process of paradigm development, and concluded that there should be a new paradigm of instructional management.

In Chapter 3, Heinich continued presenting his argument with a discussion of theories and models, providing additional context and definitions. This includes an overview of the differences between theories and experimental laws, with citations of multiple views of theories and their purposes. Heinich took great care in following this with a presentation of definitions, functions, and forms of models, particularly noting differences between theories and models. Some major points here are that the purposes of theories are to explain phenomena in a systematic manner and to provide strategies for research. Models, on the other hand, provide a structure for the content of theories. Additionally, models are much more detailed and provide more specific explanations than theories, as well as being useful for developing new theories through structural comparisons of existing theories. Heinich concluded by presenting the idea that models of learning theory are not directly transferable to instruction, a point that was of pivotal importance to his thesis.

In Chapter 4, Heinich provided more evidence of the need for a new paradigm for learning theory. Following his discussion of theories and models, he presented an overview of two instructional paradigms: behaviorism and cognitivism. These overviews include the major tenets of each, as well as their limitations. Limitations of behaviorism, as discussed by Heinich, include not paying attention to the brain and a lack of effectiveness at predicting complex behaviors. Limitations of cognitivism include a lack of explanations, an unwillingness to analyze behavior, and a lack of focus on simple behaviors. Interestingly, these criticisms are commonly accepted today. These two paradigms are very far apart and neither is satisfactory for the field of instructional management. Additionally, while new paradigms have been proposed, Heinich felt that none had been comprehensive enough to replace the then current paradigms. He proposed information processing theory as a new paradigm. He stated, “There is nothing in S-R psychology which cannot be absorbed by information theory and, certainly, complex behavior will be dealt with in far more rigorous fashion, and with a precision that cognitivists never even approximated” (p. 101). An additional benefit of information theory is that it “may help in bridging the gap between theories of learning and theories of instruction” (p. 101), which is critical to the new paradigm. Heinich proposed that the field was heading toward a paradigm that would subsume both behaviorism and cognitivism—information theory.

Chapter 5 continues with a discussion of the new paradigm for instructional management, focusing on a movement towards a general systems theory. Here, differences in systems and their relationship to the new paradigm are presented. For example, in science, systems theory seeks to unify principles and find better explanations. However, in applied sciences, systems theory seeks arrangements which allow for management. These differences are also primary differences between learning theory and instruction. This is important because “the central problem of education is not learning, but the management of learning” (Hoban, 1965, p. 24). Additional support for the development of this new paradigm, related to Kuhn’s (1962) model of scientific revolution, was then provided. Heinich stated, “Developments in instructional technology have created anomalous situations, which cannot be resolved by the current paradigm of instructional decision making” (p. 113). It was clear that this anomalous situation will be subsumed by a new paradigm. Heinich continued with a discussion of the roles of various individuals in the teaching and learning environment—the mediated teacher and the classroom teacher. In his model, the roles of traditional classroom teachers, the methods, materials, and sequencing of instructional materials, will change. According to Hoban (1962), “Innovations (technology) deprive the classroom teacher of previous status as a master teacher…and a significant realignment of responsibilities for control over instructional processes takes place” (p. 21). Heinich agreed and stated, “It seems strange that under the present paradigm, we shift the best minds we have to the other side of the machine and then place their efforts at the mercy of teachers admittedly ill-prepared in the subject” (p. 144).

Finally, Heinich presented his new paradigm of instructional management, as well as implications and discussions for future research. He wrote:

The decisions in regard to use of mediated and classroom instruction must be made at the curriculum planning level, and are arrived at by teams which include both media teachers and classroom teachers as well as curriculum specialists and media specialists. Courses are broken down and specific instructional assignments made—assignments to media teachers and to classroom teachers. To put this in different terms, the curriculum planning level is the center of instructional strategy where decisions are made regarding the tactics of instruction” (p. 146).

The paradigm focused on shared instructional responsibilities and the concept of curriculum construction. Essentially, curriculum specialists, including media specialists and instructional technologists make content development and delivery decision, and classroom teachers implement these decisions in the classroom, as part of the delivery system. Heinich proclaimed that the model proposed would pave the way to a technological society in instruction. “Eventually, technology will shake up education the same way it has industry” (p. 154). Heinich continued by stating that, when this occurs, the current paradigms will not be appropriate. With the new paradigm, there are a number of implications. First, the role of the classroom teacher will be altered and the teacher will become more that of a mediated teacher. Second, Heinich proposed that media can take over all aspects of the classroom. However, we need to further study what teachers bring to the instructional environment. Heinich also stated that “technology makes instruction visible” (p. 157). By this, he meant that it makes teachers more aware of sequencing issues, the instruction itself, and characteristics and shortcomings of instructional strategies. It is interesting to note that many of these issues are evident today nearly forty years later. Heinich concluded with a discussion of future research, such as examining the relationship and transferability of the paradigm to theories of instruction, the role of the teacher and media, the role of communication media in teaching and learning, an examination of the profession in a technological culture, and resistance to the paradigm.

Heinich presented a very clear argument and provided a great deal of support for his viewpoints. It is also extremely interesting to read this book, originally written as a dissertation in 1968, and relate its contents to occurrences in the field of instructional technology since. For example, Heinich stated, “Eventually, technology will shake up education the same way it has industry: A reshuffling and reassignment of personnel” (p. 154). To some degree, this has occurred. Also, Heinich stated, “We may find that the research on teacher behavior may combine with media research to produce an optimal mix” (p. 157). Currently, this is a major area of research in the field of instructional technology. Additionally, Heinich presented a discussion of the limitations of behaviorism and cognitivism that is now generally accepted. There are numerous examples of commentaries such as these throughout the book. Finally, Heinich’s discussion of educational paradigms and the need for a new paradigm raises important questions about paradigms and how they change. This has been an area of prominence in the field of instructional technology over the past 20 or more years.

While this book was very well written and clearly laid out, there are a number of issues that could have been addressed to enhance the book. First, throughout the text, there was a great deal of attention paid to providing operational definitions of various terms, presenting detailed overviews, discussing limitations of certain elements, and providing supporting examples laying the foundation of the argument for a new paradigm of instructional management. However, it was evident that not as much care and detail was given to discussing Heinich’s proposed new paradigm and the model that illustrated this new paradigm. There were times in which the discussion of the new paradigm and supporting model was somewhat confusing. In addition, while there was a statement to the effect of other paradigms having been suggested but found inadequate, there was no discussion of these “suggested paradigms” or their inadequacies. These discussions would have been excellent additions to the text. Additionally, Heinich, while providing many viewpoints throughout the outline of his thesis, did not do so when presenting his final argument. Finally, there were a number of terms that were used somewhat interchangeably, which might be confusing to some readers. This was particularly prevalent during Heinich’s presentation of the then current paradigms, their tenets, and limitations. For example, the terms associationism, behaviorism, and S-R seemed to be used interchangeably, and without explanation. With all of the detail given to defining terms, there seemed to be somewhat of an inconsistency to this practice. Even with these deficiencies, this was a very well written and thought provoking book. Much of what Heinich discussed is still relevant today. This book is very appropriate for a variety of individuals in the field of instructional technology, such as curriculum developers, graduate students, media specialists, and others.

On a side note, an interesting addition to this book would have been “Technology and the Management of Instruction: Revisited”. Reading this book, I could not help but think of the current state of the field of instructional technology and Heinich’s comments regarding the future of instructional technology from a “1970” perspective. It would be very interesting for experts in the field to comment on assertions made by Heinich in 1970 in relation to the current state of instructional technology.

References

Harcleroad, F. F. (Ed.). (1960). The education of the AV communication specialist. AV Communication Review, 8(5).

Hoban, C. F. (1965). From theory to policy decisions. AV Communication Review, 13, 121-139.

Hoban, C. F. (1962). Research in new media in education. Paper presented to the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

About the Reviewer

Richard Hartshorne, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of Instructional Systems Technology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. His research interests primarily involve the production and effective integration of instructional technologies into the teaching and learning environment. The major areas of his research interest are rooted in technology and teacher education and the integration of technology into the k-post-secondary curriculum. He is also interested in how teachers use new instructional technologies, the effects of various types of instructional technologies on teaching methods and philosophies, the effects of various types of educational technologies on student achievement, and teachers’ views towards educational technologies and innovation.

Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.

~ ER home | Reseñas Educativas | Resenhas Educativas ~
~ overview | reviews | editors | submit | guidelines | announcements | search ~