You are on page 1of 8

Annotated Bibliography: A Review of Instructional Design and Technology in Higher

Education
Caryn J Atwater
EAC 580: Designing Instructional Systems in Training and Development
Instructor: Dr. D. Petherbridge
October 2014

Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., & Kenny, R. F. (2009). The Critical, Relational Practice of
Iinstructional Design in Higher Education: an Emerging Model of Change Agency. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 645-663.
Purpose: To understand the role and impact instructional designers have on transforming
learning in higher education.
Summary: A 3 year study of 20 instructional designers at 6 Canadian universities. The article
seeks to address the questions of how do instructional designers extract meaning from their
daily practice? How do they construct and enact their professional identities? What do
instructional designers perceive their role and how do they describe the importance of what they
do? (p. 646) Interviews with the IDs revealed four categories of agency: interpersonal,
professional, institutional and societal. The designers effectiveness are related to their
relationships with their clients, the perceived academic status and credentials in teaching and
instructional design, the ability to align oneself with the tacit and explicit values of the host
institution, and to believe that what they are doing is making an impact in the world, beyond
their immediate work environment. These agencies often interact with each other on micro-,
meso-, and macro-levels. The micro level typically occurs within a particular project (ie:
interpersonal and professional agencies). Macro level interactions are characterized by
instances where institutional needs and goals interact with societal influence. (p. 659) Meso
level interactions occur when interpersonal or professional agency engages institutional or
societal agency. (p. 659) It is not unusual for there to be a conflict of values amongst the
agencies. The article also looks at the moral agency of instructional designers through their
stories as it relates to interpersonal, professional, institutional and societal levels.
Audience: researchers, instructional designers
Special Features: Snippets of the interviews with IDs
Weaknesses: While the research was fairly lengthy in terms of the number of years, the
researchers focused on only 20 instructional designers from a small sample of universities, which
were Canadian.
Evaluation: insights into how IDs feel about the work they do and the context in which they do
it and perceptions of faculty, conflicts of interest between the agencies, making a greater impact
on society at large

Elias, T. (n.d.). Universal Instructional Design Principles for Mobile Learning. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning. Retrieved October 23, 2014, from http://www.irrodl.
Purpose: To relate the opportunities and challenges of designing educational materials for
mobile devices (M-learning) using Universal Instructional Design and to argue for the need for
educators to focus on content design issues rather than seeking out the newest technology

Summary: The article begins with some of the challenges of M-learning: device variability,
limited internet access and slow download speeds, small screen sizes with poor resolution, color
and contrast, awkward text input and limited memory space. Some of the opportunities with
using M-learning are: relatively inexpensive learning opportunities, the ability to deliver
multimedia content, and ongoing learning. There is then a discussion of eight UID principles
and recommendations for their use with M-Learning (equitable use, flexible use, simple and
intuitive, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical and technical support,
community of learners and support, and instructional climate).
Audience: researchers, instructional designers, educators
Special Features: A table that makes recommendations for UID Principles for both distance
education and M-learning delivery methods
Weaknesses: No concrete examples of how M-learning is being used. No studies conducted or
conclusions offered
Evaluation: This article has not convinced me that M-learning is going to be relevant,
particularly in developing countries or that learners are even interested in learning anywhere and
everywhere, 24/7.

Herrington, J., & Parker, J. (2013). Emerging Technologies as Cognitive Tools for Authentic
Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 607-615.
Purpose: To argue that emerging technologies can be used as cognitive tools to create complex
and authentic learning experiences for students in higher education
Summary: It is not enough for pre-service teachers to learn how to use technology; they must
learn how to create learning experiences for their students utilizing the technologies. Pedagogy
must embrace using technology as a part of the learning experience, especially as digital media
literacy continues to rise in its importance as a key skill in every discipline and profession. (p.
608). The authors argue that merely using technologies does not cause an increase in the student
learning experience, such as when a teacher uses a blog to disseminate information but students
are unable to comment on it. Pedagogy and learning strategies must encourage learners to
practice and use technology in a collaborative fashion as opposed to creating awareness of the
tools. The extent to which emerging technologies contribute to effectiveness and/or outcomes
of teaching and learning remain unexplored. (p. 534) The article provides key themes that are
likely to shape the future research of uses of emerging technologies and how they will be used to
transform teaching and learning practices in higher education.
Audience: researchers, educators, administrators, instructional designers
Special Features: a table that offers learning strategies and the pedagogical tools to use to foster
those strategies, such as using Google.doc to share documents and work collaboratively
3

Weakness: Expansion of the study to different courses and populations would be nice
Evaluation: Pointing out that there is a difference between raising awareness of educational
technologies or using it simply to convey information. Promotes using technology to foster
learning in a collaborative fashion and teaching digital literacy. Asserts that Web 2.0 should not
be viewed as a particular set of technologies but as a practice.

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., Freeman, A. (2014). NMC Horizon Report: 2014
Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium
Purpose: To examine emerging technologies for their potential impact on and use in teaching,
learning, and creative inquiry within higher education. (p. 3)
Summary: An international body of experts identified eighteen topics that are likely to impact
technology planning and decision-making in higher education over the next five years. The
topics are then divided into six key trends, six significant challenges, and six important
developments in educational technology. The key trends are further reduced: two trends that are
fast-moving and will impact teaching, learning, and creative inquiry within the next year or two
(1- social media, 2- integration of online, hybrid and collaborative learning). The next two
trends are thought to be realized within three-five years (1- data driven learning and assessment,
2- shift from students as consumers to students as creators) and the last two trends will drive
changes in higher years in five or more years (1- entrepreneurial, agile approaches to change, 2the evolution on online learning). The six challenges are: solvable (1- low digital fluency of
faculty, 2- relative lack of rewards for teaching); difficult challenges (1- competition from new
models of education, 2- scaling teaching innovations); wicked challenges (1- expanding access,
2- keeping education relevant). The six important developments are: one year or less to
adoption (1- the Flipped Classroom, 2- learning analytics); two to three years for adoption (1- 3D
printing, 2- games and gamification); four to five years for adoption (1- quantified self, 2- virtual
assistants).
Audience: researchers, instructional designers, educators, administrators
Special Features: Each section provides links for further research and exploration. The report
also contains a Master List of Tracked Technologies
Weaknesses: None that are noticeable, especially when the panel consists of over four dozen
technology experts from 13 countries.
Evaluation: The report is compiled by a panel of 53 technology experts from 13 countries on six
continents. In doing their literature review and analysis of topics, their research questions
allowed them to focus on those technologies they felt are and will impact higher education in
both the short and long term.

Kuhlmann, T. (2008, July 22). What Everyone Ought to Know about Instructional Design.
The Rapid eLearning Blog - Practical, real-world tips for e-learning success.. The Rapid
eLearning Blog RSS. Retrieved October 23, 2014, from http://www.articulate.com/rapidelearning/
Purpose: To define the role of the Instructional Designer
Summary: Learning happens all the time, whether it is intentional or not. We learn when we are
by ourselves and also when we are with others. Formal instruction is an intrusion into the natural
learning path and the role of the instructional designer is to help the learners make sense of
the new information they get. Instructional designers help define the specific pieces learners
are to focus on. Analysis and collaboration are essential to incorporate multiple perspectives and
to ensure that critical pieces of information are not being missed. Instructional design saves time
by allowing learners to cut through a lot of extraneous information and get right to the
important stuff. To engage students, information needs to be clear and have meaning and
purpose for the learners for increased learning and retention. Instructional designers create
courses that are focused and meaningful.
Audience: educators, instructional designers
Special Features: blog contains a video with a moonwalking bear
Weaknesses: A tidy little article helpful to explain what the over-arching role of instructional
designers is but not much else
Evaluation: Simple and direct explanation of what instructional designers do and what their role
is with respect to designing courses.

Light, D. (2011). Do Web 2.0 Right. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(5), 10-15.
Purpose: To inform educators about how to implement Web 2.0 tools in their classes based on
interview findings with 39 educators across the country who are using Web 2.0 tools
Summary: Daniel Light is a researcher who studies how technology can transform classroom
culture and the ways students and teachers interact. He found that the teachers who are
successfully using Web 2.0 tools have created on-going, sustained learning communities where
communication and shared are key. He learned that these teachers shared 3 common elements:
instituting daily practice, carefully considering the audience, and teaching and enforcing
appropriate behavior. Blogs: individual blogs were successful when used for private
communication between the instructor and the student rather than being asked to blog as a
homework activity. Classroom blogs were used to explore prior knowledge and generate interest
5

in a topic. They were also used to spark student debates and to allow students to receive peer
feedback. Audience: teachers were careful to create appropriate communities for their activities
and thoughtful about asking to students to participate in those communities. Peer pressure and
fear of critical feedback cab prohibit students from posting their work and ideas in a public
arena. All community members need an engaging reason to read the work of others and share
ideas. (p. 12) Appropriate Behavior: teachers need to model and foster a supportive
community in the classroom which is then translated into the online and offline communities
where ideas are shared, intellectual risks can be taken, and critical feedback is both given and
taken respectfully. Online learning communities need to be seen as an extension of the
classroom and not a place for social and personal interactions to take place.
Audience: educators
Special Features: None
Weaknesses: Doesnt say whether they interviewed and observed students and teachers in
elementary, middle or high schools.
Evaluation: Provides some good insights into the interior world of students and teachers when
using Web 2.0 tools in a public domain
Shibley, I., Amaral, K.E., Shank, J.D. & Shibley, L.R. (2011). Designing a Blended Course:
Using ADDIE to Guide Instructional Design. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(6), 80-85.
Purpose: To describe how the ADDIE model was used to successfully redesign a General
Chemistry class using a blended design to improve student success, satisfaction, and retention.
Summary: A team of six professionals (faculty, instructional designer, multimedia specialist and
administrators) redesigned a General Chemistry course over the course of 18 months to make the
course more engaging both in and out of the classroom. While students work collaboratively
inside the classroom, they included a multitude of multimedia and interactive activities for
outside the classroom. Analysis: audience analysis, identifying course and learning objectives,
qualitative analysis of instructor and student perceptions and quantitative analysis of test scores,
analysis of how well objectives were being met, and analysis of student attitudes of the learning
environment. Design: f2f time trimmed by 25%, identification of critical thinking, team work,
and logical analysis as the most important learning outcomes to be achieved through a
collaborative learning environment, and the development of multimedia resources that would
provide online assistance for the most difficult concepts. (p. 81) Development: creation of a
class guide to: 1) support online learning 2) identify, scaffold (pre-class assignments) and
organize critical content, 3) provide learning goals, action items, a learning resources page, 4)
provide learning materials to enhance out-of-class learning experience with difficult topics.
Multimedia included: video clips, animations, interactive online tutorials and instructor created
6

mini podcasts. Implementation: students placed into groups and immediately engage in
activities. Clickers required. Peer mentors are present in class. Individual accountability comes
through quizzes and exams constituting the bulk of the grades. Evaluation: evaluation of
average student grade in course, an analysis of Fs and Ws compared to A and B grades.
Measured students earning a C or better. Students provided with an open-ended questionnaire to
rate several aspects of the class, including which aspects of the course helped them through the
material. Likert scale also used. Most of the course was altered by applying the ADDIE
model. (p. 84)
Audience: administrators, educators, instructional designers, multimedia specialists
Special Features: description of course guide
Weaknesses: Discussion pertained solely to chemistry classes
Evaluation: Loved seeing how ADDIE was specifically applied to the course redesign and
especially liked learning more about a blended course design.

Sinkinson, C., Werner, M. J., & Sieber, D. E. (2014, June 14). RAIT: A Balanced Approach to
Evaluating Educational Technologies. EDUCAUSE Review Online | EDUCAUSE.edu.
EDUCAUSE Review Online | EDUCAUSE.edu. Retrieved October 23, 2014, from
http://www.educause.edu/ero
Purpose: To promote the use of Rapid Assessment of Information Technologies (RAIT) by
universities to enable them to quickly identify, evaluate and recommend new education
technologies.
Summary: Technologies come and go at an extremely rapid pace. Universities, typically the
dinosaurs of the 21st century, are unable to keep up with emerging technologies yet are expected
to graduate students who are technologically literate and competent. Implementing new
technologies is disruptive; there are hurdles and obstacles to overcome such as faculty resistance,
resources and funding, security issues, IT infrastructure, and training and support. The authors
advocate a middle-out approach to technology adoption, where middle managers and
practitioners drive technological change on campuses rather than a bottom-up approach, where a
handful of innovative faculty engage in new technologies, causing inconsistencies in how
students may experience the technology in their classes, or a top-down approach, where senior
level managers focused on strategic goals and concerned with funding and infrastructure choose
a technology based on its perceived value and either provides too much functionality or doesnt
meet the needs of other teachers and even learners. With RAIT, in just three months, [a] team
can run a pilot and produce a report describing the teaching and learning affordances a
technology provides, as well as any support issues that might arise. Thus, a project can go from
initial idea through pilot phase to adoption within an academic year. Members of the team can
7

consist of anyone, from faculty to librarians, educational technologists and administrators. The
only caveat is that they work collaboratively. The pilot studies focused on the GoingOn
academic social network in seven communities (classes and campus units) and was expanded a
year later to research Google Apps for Education in four classes ranging in topics.
Audience: faculty, administrators, instructional designers
Special Features: authors walk readers through the their first RAIT study, including make-up of
team, teaching and learning focus, the process overview, their goals, methods, and results. The
authors also address the risks of using the RAIT approach.
Weaknesses: None that I could see. The authors did a thorough job of describing the nuts and
bolts of the process and addressing both the risks and benefits of using RAIT.
Evaluation: University of Colorado at Boulder is a pretty large university. The pilot included
not only classes from the sciences and humanities but campus committees and a research group.
Authors covered: Teaching and Learning Focus, Process Overview, Goals, Methods, Results,
Reporting, Risks, and Benefits. Sounds like those involved in the project learned quite a bit and
encouraged cooperation between different constituencies.