A Job Announcement Analysis of Educational Technology Professional Positions

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/277907271
A Job Announcement Analysis of Educational

Technology Professional Positions
Article in Journal of Educational Technology Systems · March 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0047239515570572
CITATIONS READS
16 634
2 authors:
Youngju Kang Albert D. Ritzhaupt

University of Florida University of Florida
5 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS 93 PUBLICATIONS 1,089 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
spatial cognition View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Youngju Kang on 28 September 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Journal of Educational Technology
A Job Announcement Systems

2015, Vol. 43(3) 231–256
! The Author(s) 2015
Analysis of Educational Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Technology Professional DOI: 10.1177/0047239515570572
ets.sagepub.com
Positions: Knowledge,
Skills, and Abilities
YoungJu Kang1 and Albert D. Ritzhaupt1
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to identify the competencies of an educational
technologist via a job announcement analysis. Four hundred job announcements
were collected from a variety of online job databases over a 5-month period.
Following a systematic process of collection, documentation, and analysis, we derived
over 150 knowledge, skill, and ability statements from the job announcements them-
selves based on a conceptual framework. We coded the frequency to which the
competencies occurred in each announcement and summarized the results mean-
ingfully in our article. Results suggest educational technologists must be competent in
multiple areas, but especially in instructional design, project management, technical
skills, and soft skills. Results provide compelling evidence that educational technology
professionals must work with a wide variety of stakeholders in their work. The
findings of our research are relevant to professionals, professional associations,
and academic programs interested in competencies. A discussion for the results is
provided.
Keywords
educational technology, job announcement analysis, competency, KSA statements
1
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Albert D. Ritzhaupt, School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida, 2423
Norman Hall, PO BOX 117048, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Email: aritzhaupt@gmail.com
232 Journal of Educational Technology Systems 43(3)
Introduction
As trends of world business and job markets have been dramatically changed
since 2000 (Gueutal & Stone, 2005), competencies in the field of educational
technology have been expanded along with a rapid development of diversified
information technologies such as social media, mobile technology, and Web
2.0 technologies (Belkadi, Bonjour, & Dulmet, 2007; Byun, 2000; Furst-Bowe,
1996; Jenkins, 2006). Businesses, government organizations, institutions of
higher education, and K-12 schools are in need of not only effective educational
technologies applicable for their business systems (Byun, 2000), but also quali-
fied “instructional technologist with a broad range of skills and knowledge”
(Moallem, 1995, p. 4).
Such growing demands for emerging technologies have widely opened various
job opportunities in the field of educational technology (Byun, 2000;
Furst-Bowe, 1996; Moallem, 1995). Even though it is important to standardize
the competencies needed by educational technologists (Moallem, 1995;
Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2013; Ritzhaupt, Martin, & Daniels, 2010; Sugar,
Hoard, Brown, & Daniels, 2012), it has not been an easy or simple process to
identify the standard competencies or to develop specific expertise of educational
technologists. This is because the nature of educational technology is multidis-
ciplinary (Ritzhaupt et al., 2010). At the same time, the field of educational
technology is an emerging field combined with various concepts and contexts
(Furst-Bowe, 1996). It is not a simple process to identify some competencies
associated with fields that embrace a wide range of terminology (Furst-Bowe,
1996): “Multimedia,” “Instructional Technology,” “Learning Design,”
“Distance Learning,” “e-learning,” and “Online Learning.” Further, continu-
ous changes, upgrades, and replacements of the evolving new technologies are
quite challenging for educational technologists, who must keep track of the
standard competencies manually and systematically (Furst-Bowe, 1996).
To overcome these difficulties, various professional associations have
developed a body of knowledge within the field and published standard compe-
tencies for educational technologists (Ritzhaupt et al., 2010). These associations
include the Association of Educational and Communication Technology (AECT),
the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI), the American
Talent Development (ATD formerly ASTD), and the International Society for
Technology in Education (ISTE). Several researchers have reviewed job
announcement analysis as a method to inform theory and practice, which rep-
resent the various competencies in the field of educational technology (Ritzhaupt
& Martin, 2013; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Sugar et al., 2012). The researchers have
provided systematic procedures and methodologies to explain necessary compe-
tencies to be effective educational technologists (Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2013;
Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Sugar et al., 2012). Following this tradition of job
announcement analysis, this study examines the competencies of educational
Kang and Ritzhaupt 233
technology professional positions by analyzing 400 job announcements in asso-

ciation with knowledge, skill, and ability (KSA) statements.
Purpose
Competencies required to be a successful educational technologist are undoubt-
edly more complex and demanding than those of the past (Byun, 2000; Furst-
Bowe, 1996; Moallem, 1995). It is essential to identify core competencies of
educational technologists, in that knowing the competencies through accurate
job analysis enables them to upgrade their job search process more efficiently
and proactively. Thus, the purpose of the study is to identify current core com-
petencies of educational technology professionals by analyzing current job
announcements in our field which were collected from August 2013 to
December 2013. It is our hope that this research will contribute to the theory
and practice of our field, assisting in areas such as training and development,
performance appraisal, compensation and benefits, job descriptions, and job
design.
Job Announcement Analysis

Over the last two decades, job announcement analysis or job analysis has sig-
nificantly grown in scope and application (Singh, 2008). Research involving job
analysis also has been considered an important practice, in that “job analysis
provides the basis for performance review and appraisal, training, reward sys-
tems, staff development and career progression, and the design of working
methods and practices” (Mullins, 1985, p. 183).
Downs (1988) simply defined job analysis as the “systematic assessment of
jobs” (p. 363). It is the assessment of a single job and many jobs by comparing or
categorizing the jobs systematically (Downs, 1988). However, Sanchez’s (1994)
definition illustrated job analysis in connection to KSA statements. He described
it as “the process of identifying work activities and worker requirements or
Knowledge, Abilities, Skills, and Other Characteristics (KASOCs) of a set of
positions sharing the same job title” (Sanchez, 1994, p. 51). Job analysis data can
be used for many purposes: training and development, performance appraisal,
compensation and benefits, job descriptions and job design (Dessler, 2004;
Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2013; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Sanchez, 1994; Singh, 2008;
Wilson, 1974). Thus, job announcement analysis can be considered a substantial
and well-grounded practice that can improve communication and accommodate
change (Singh, 2008).
The analysis of job descriptions or announcements has been studied in the
field of educational technology as well as in different academic disciplines.
Moallem (1995) analyzed a total of 150 job announcements in the field of
instructional design and technology (educational technology) within a 3-year
time period, categorizing three types of organizations or institutions in which the

job positions were announced: University/College Districts, Business &
Industry, and Government/Military. In this study, the analysis of the job
positions in the aforementioned areas showed that different sets of skills and
areas of knowledge were required depending on the specific job requirements in
the positions. While the knowledge and skills about computers, multimedia
production, and advanced/media technology were important factors for the
required job positions in these areas, teaching/training experience was highly
demanded in the areas of University/College Districts (51.9%) and
Government/Military (33.3%).
Ritzhaupt et al. (2010) examined multimedia competencies of educational
technologists through a job announcement analysis and survey of professionals
and provided definitions of educational technology and associated KSA state-
ments. The researchers identified key multimedia competencies by analyzing 205
job postings and a survey of multimedia competencies from 231 professionals
within the field. The most frequently coded items in the job announcement
analysis were “knowledge of bitmap software” (80.98%) in the Knowledge
domain, “Graphic design skill” (68.78%) in the Skill domain, and “Ability to
create effective instructional products” (72.68%) in the Ability domain.
Meanwhile, the most important areas within the survey of professionals were
“Knowledge of instructional design models/principles” in the Knowledge
domain, “Written communication skills” in the Skill domain, and “Ability to
apply multimedia design principles to design and development” in the Ability
domain.
In a similar study to document necessary multimedia production competencies
of Instructional Design and Technology graduates, an analysis over 7 months’
worth of Instructional Design and Technology job advertisements (n ¼ 615) were
conducted (Sugar et al., 2012). The researchers divided the dataset into three job
settings (corporate, higher education, and combination). Over 90% of the job
announcements highlighted instructional design skills (Sugar et al., 2012).
Further, other skills like project management, web authoring, communication
skills, and office productivity tools were important (Sugar et al., 2012). Their
research also contrasted the differences in skills based on the job settings.
Job announcement analysis research has been conducted in the field of library
and information science. Croneis and Henderson (2002) analyzed 223 job adver-
tisements from 1990 to 2000 by examining four different components: position
title, functional area, institution, and year. According to the study, the number
of job announcements for librarians containing the keywords “electronic” and
“digital” dramatically increased between 1998 and 2000. The most frequently
requested job responsibilities in job titles with the term “electronic” were
“Reference” (50%), “Web site/Web pages” (47.1%), and “Instruction/training”
(41.6%). With “digital,” “Administration” (75%), “Supervision” (56.3%), and
“Digital projects/initiatives” (37.5%) appeared most frequently.
Similarly, Choi and Rasmussen (2009) examined qualifications and skills

required for professional librarian positions regarding digital resources, services,
and technology in parallel to new changes in the field of academic library. From
1999 to 2007, a total of 363 job announcements related to digital areas were
analyzed to identify specific qualifications on competencies such as knowledge,
skills, and experience in the digital librarian positions. The results of the study
showed that the most preferred or required competencies in job announcements
were technological knowledge and management. The most required techno-
logical knowledge and skill in the job announcement were of “current trends,
practices, standards, technology in digital library; digital library environment;
digital repositories in academic settings” (26.44%) and “HTML (coding prac-
tice), authoring tools” (17.24%). Also, “digital library (initiatives/projects/stra-
tegies); digital information systems or services” (25.29%) and “Web
development; web design; interface” (22.99%) were the most required compe-
tencies in the technological-related experience category.
Park, Lu, and Marion (2009) analyzed 349 job descriptions that
were announced in AutoCAT from 2005 to 2006, to assess job titles, required/
preferred job qualifications and skills, and responsibilities focusing on digital
environment in cataloging profession. The most frequently advertised categories
were “Cataloger/Cataloging librarian/Catalog librarian” (29.8%) when
assessing job titles, “Interpersonal communication skills” (75.6%) for required
qualifications/skills, “Integrated library system” (40.7%) for preferred job quali-
fications/skills, and “General cataloging” (60.5%) for responsibilities. These
three studies within the field of library study indicated that technology-based
KSA have become increasingly important in the digital library profession
because current digital library environments are rapidly changing along with
new emerging technology (Choi & Rasmussen, 2009; Croneis & Henderson,
2002; Park et al., 2009; White, 1999).
Interestingly, the following two research groups have different perspectives in
analyzing the job announcements focused on either potential employer’s or
employee’s point of view. Aguinis, Michaelis, and Jones (2005) conducted an
empirical research study on “whether potential employers require and/or prefer
human resources (HR) professionals who hold an HR certification” (Aguinis
et al., 2005, p. 160). A total of 1,873 HR job announcements were analyzed by
using content analysis and coding techniques. The results of the study revealed
that only 48% of the job announcements required an HR certification for the
positions, and only 3.73% of the job positions preferred any type of HR certi-
fication. However, there were high requirements for HR job experiences in some
special HR areas such as employee relations or manufacturing. In an alternate
method, Barber and Roehling’s research (1993) examined whether potential
employees consider applying for posted jobs after reading specific job descrip-
tions. Forty-nine undergraduate participants completed evaluations of the job
postings in regards to “the attractiveness of the job and their willingness to sign
up for an interview” (Barber & Roehling, 1993, p. 848). The researchers

evaluated the participants’ responses by using the verbal protocol analysis
(VPA) technique. Results showed that job location and compensation were
the most critical factors for people’s decision of whether or not to apply for
jobs. These two studies not only showed how to effectively interpret current
job announcements in dynamic ways, but also showed how to realistically evalu-
ate situations where both potential employers and employees interact with each
other in the job markets. Additionally, these findings imply how to accurately
analyze specific competencies required for developing successful careers in
the fields.
Conceptual Framework
The fundamental conceptual framework of the research is adopted from previ-
ous research conducted by Ritzhaupt et al. (2010) and Ritzhaupt and Martin
(2013). The conceptual framework is based on AECT’s definition of educational
technology (Januszewski & Molenda, 2007; Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2013;
Ritzhaupt et al., 2010) and connects KSA statements together (Ritzhaupt &
Martin, 2013; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Wang, Schnipke, & Witt, 2005). In par-
ticular, the definition of educational technology addresses three actionable
terms: create, use, and manage. These three terms are used in explaining the
following statement: “Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of
facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and mana-
ging appropriate technological processes and resources” (Januszewski &
Molenda, 2007, p. 1).
Competencies described in this research are KSA statements. A knowledge
statement is defined as “an organized body of information” (Ritzhaupt &
Martin, 2014, p. 14) and refers to identifications, strategies, classifications,
principles, operations, and processes (Butler, 1978; Lysaght & Altschuld,
2000). A skill statement is referred to as the “manual, verbal, or mental manipu-
lation of things” (Ritzhaupt et al., 2013, p. 2) or “the proficient application
of knowledge and process to a task” (Butler, 1978; Lysaght & Altschuld,
2000, p. 96). Lastly, an ability statement represents “the capacity to perform
an activity” (Ritzhaupt et al., 2013, p. 2). The following conceptual framework
shows how KSA statements are all connected through the definition of educa-
tional technology.
As shown in Figure 1, KSA statements merge and overlap within three
actionable terms. Ritzhaupt et al. (2010) illustrated that this overlapping
through KSA statements is purposeful because “knowledge, skill, and ability
statements can be thought of as overlapping in which skills rest upon knowledge,
and abilities rest upon skills” (p. 427). For instance, “Ability to create effective
instructional products” requires various knowledge and skills to be able to
achieve the proposed ability statement. The ability might require knowledge
Figure 1. Knowledge, skill, and ability statements as core competencies in educational

technology (Ritzhaupt et al., 2010).
of instructional design theory, curriculum and instruction, and learning theory

as well as skills in documenting, graphic design, and printing.
Similar research from Norman’s “Know-Can-Do” hierarchy (Lysaght &
Altschuld, 2000, p. 96) can further explain why overlapping KSA statements
are appropriate. According to Lysaght and Altschuld (2000), the “knowledge”
level means to know a relevant discipline or procedure just as in a knowledge
statement. The “Can” level refers to “the ability to do something in a structured
setting under observation” (Lysaght & Altschuld, 2000, p. 96). The “Do” level is
considered the highest level of competency, which refers to “do[ing] something in
daily practice when unobserved” (Lysaght & Altschuld, 2000, p. 96). In this case,
“Do” depends on whether both “Know” and “Can” are happening at proficient
levels. “Do” level is unable to be executed as a single practice without the know-
ledge and ability level. Similarly, KSA statements are unable to be explained as a
single statement; overlapping KSA statements is a reasonable and necessary
process in explaining the proposed conceptual framework.
Several researchers have described the definition of competencies in relation
to KSA statements (Conn, 2003; Ley & Albert, 2003; Lysaght & Altschuld,
2000; Sanchez & Levine, 2009). Ley and Albert (2003) used competencies as a
more general term, explaining KSA statements as a set of personal characteris-
tics. On the other hand, Conn (2003) and Lysaght and Altschuld (2000) viewed
competencies in association with professions and professionals. For instance,
Conn (2003) defined competencies are “the types of knowledge, skills, and abil-
ities needed by professionals in a particular discipline” (p. 11). Similarly, Kane
(1992) and Queeny (1996) illustrated them as “the degree to which individuals
can apply the skills and knowledge associated with a profession to the full range
of situations that fall within the domain of that particular profession” (as cited
in Lysaght and Altschuld, 2000, p. 95).
Method
Summary
The job announcements were collected from August 2013 to December 2013.
To identify current core competencies of educational technology professionals,
the researchers selected five popular online job search databases in which com-
mon job titles and professional positions in the field were exclusively and mostly
available. The main job search databases used for the research were: Jobtarget
(http://www.jobtarget.com), Indeed (http://www.indeed.com), ASTD (http://
www.ASTD.org), Educause (http://www.educause.edu), and Collegegrad
(http://www.collegegrad.com). Specifically, Jobtarget and Indeed are very pop-
ular within job search communities. They have provided their database services
to academic institutions and major educational research organizations such as
AERA, AECT, and ISPI. A total of 43 job titles were searched through the
five job search databases, and 400 job announcements were found. Based on the
400 job announcement data from the online databases, KSA statements
were open coded and analyzed to investigate the most important
competencies necessary to be a successful professional in the field of educational
technology. We provide a very detailed account of the process in the following
sections.
Procedures
Selection of job search database. Even though the main focus of the research is
not about the online job search databases, selecting appropriate job databases is
still an important process of the research because many employers and job
seekers use popular databases. The main job search databases used for the
research were: Jobtarget, Indeed, ASTD, Educause, and Collegegrad. Aguinis
et al. (2005) utilized a similar methodological approach in selecting popular
online databases for their job announcement research (Kudlyak & Romero,
2013). In the study, the researchers selected three popular job search engines
such as “Monster.com,” “hotjobs.yahoo.com,” and “CareerBuilder.com” in
addition to a professional organization’s website, SHRM (http://www.shrm.org)
where desired job positions were exclusively announced. They used
these popular job search databases because the databases provided users
with rich job information generated from a vast amount of unique website
visitors.
Selection of keywords. The procedure of searching for relevant keywords through

the job databases includes five steps: (a) search job categories in educational
technology from academic institutions, organizations, or relevant Web sites, (b)
identify common keywords from the job categories, (c) collect online job search
databases, (d) plug-in all the keywords into job search databases, and (e) finalize
a list of available keywords relating to the current job announcements in the field
of educational technology.
Data Analysis
The selected job titles were searched within the five online job search databases:
Jobtarget, Indeed, ASTD, Educause, and Collegegrad. A total of 461 job
announcements had originally been collected from the five different job search
databases. However, unnecessary, repetitive, or destroyed data were removed so
that the final 400 relevant job announcements were selected for the
job announcement analysis. The 400 job announcements were first open coded
and categorized under the common themes within the collected job descriptions.
Coding job announcement data. Coding is important and essential technique in this
research. It is defined as “the process of marking segments of data (usually text
data) with symbols, descriptive words, or category names” (Johnson &
Christensen, 2008, p. 534). There are no standard rules for coding data; however,
the process of coding has been generally practiced as an inductive process in
narrowing down meaningful and segmented data into broad theme (Creswell,
2008; Johnson & Christensen, 2008).
Followed by the general practice of the coding process, common
KSA statements were identified from the job descriptions. To find the common
KSA statements, the researchers reviewed each job description and counted num-
bers of the common categories in the 400 job announcement data. As a result, 100
common job description categories were identified and a detailed definition of
each category was entered into an Excel data sheet. Subsequently, the researchers
reviewed the aforementioned 100 common job description categories and selected
relevant categories that are directly related to current research of KSA statements.
This narrowed the list down to 21 job overview categories, and these were further
explored by the researchers.
The researchers carefully selected the most significant KSA statements,
which also have been widely present in the literature review. Detailed descrip-
tions of the KSA statements were recorded into a word processing document.
Lastly, the researchers selected the most essential KSA statements relevant
to the current research project and refined the descriptions of the job over-
view categories and the KSA statements in preparing the database.
This resulted in 81 knowledge statements, 42 skill statements, and 51 ability
statements (Figure 2).
21 common
Job
100 common The Final
Description The Final
400 Job Job Job
Categories KSA
Descriptions Description Description
related to Statements
categories KSA Categories
statements
Figure 2. Coding process in job announcement analysis. KSA ¼ knowledge, skill, and
ability.
Analyzing job announcement data. There were three basic techniques for analyzing
the job announcement data: grouping, matching and comparing, and counting.
The 400 job announcement data were grouped by the name of the job titles first.
The researchers reviewed all the job announcement data under the name of the
job titles. This process allowed the researchers to get general information about
each job title. Also, KSA statements were grouped based on similar concepts
and functions of the job title. The grouped data were matched and compared by
using significant and frequent KSA keywords or sentences in the data. Lastly,
the job descriptions were recorded into a database file. The data were analyzed
descriptively across the KSA statements using the database file.
Results
We present the job announcement analysis in this section. First, we will
contextualize the nature of the job announcements themselves. The job
announcements were for positions in nearly every state of the union (42
states) and the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Approximately 50% of
the job announcements require somewhere between 1 and 5 years of experience,
as shown in Table 1. As can be gleaned, many of these positions require exten-
sive numbers of years’ experience. More than 60% of the job announcements
were found in the Jobtarget database, followed by approximately 21% in the
next database—ASTD (Table 2).
Educationally, we found a very interesting piece of information. The minimal
educational requirements for more than 70% of the positions announcements
only required a bachelor’s degree. This poses an interesting dilemma for educa-
tional technology programs within the United States as most academic programs
in educational technology are graduate level programs. Very few of the job
announcements did not list educational requirements (n ¼ 33), and most pos-
itions announcements required a bachelor’s or beyond (97%) (Table 3).
As shown in Table 4, more than 70% of the job announcements were in the
context of business/industry, followed by the next highest distribution in higher
education at 23%.
Table 1. Years’ Experience in Professional Position.
Years’ experience n %
1–2 years 18 4.5

2–4 years 69 17.25
3–5 years 101 25.25
5–7 years 88 22
7–10 years 26 6.5
> 10 years 25 6.25
Not listed 73 18.25
Table 2. Job Announcement Source Databases.
Job source n %
ATD – formerly ASTD 83 20.75

Collegegrad.com 49 12.25
Educause.edu 8 2
Ideed.com 13 3.25
Jobtarget.com 247 61.75
Note. ATD ¼ American Talent Development.
Table 3. Educational Requirements of Job Announcements.
Education requirement n %
High school diploma 1 0.25

Associate of Science or Arts 8 2
Bachelors 295 73.75
Masters 56 14
Doctorate 7 1.75
Not listed 33 8.25
Table 4. Context of Job Announcements.
Context n %
Business/industry 281 70.25

Government 11 2.75
Higher education 92 23
K-12 12 3
Military 3 0.75
Not listed 1 0.25
Domain of Knowledge
Because we identified more than 80 knowledge statements, we only present
the results for those that occurred in at least 10% of the job announcements
in Table 5. For the full results of the knowledge domain, please see Appendix A.
Unsurprisingly, the most frequently found in the knowledge domain was know-
ledge of instructional design models and principles (55%). Perhaps surprisingly,
the second most frequently occurring competencies were knowledge of product-
ivity software tools, including word processing software (41.75%), presentation
software (39.25%), and spreadsheet (35.5%) software packages. These are gen-
eric tools that educational technology professional use on a frequent basis to
carry out their tasks (Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2014).
Table 5. Knowledge Statements Occurring in At Least 10% of the Job

Announcements.
Knowledge of. . . %
Instructional design models and principles 55

Word processing software 41.75
Presentation software 39.25
Spreadsheet software 35.5
Online teaching and learning 35.25
Learning Management Systems 33.75
e-Learning development 28
Assessment methods 27.5
Project management principles 27.5
Customer service 21
Authoring tools 20.25
Video software 19
Online/blended program management 18
Adult learning theory 17.75
Face-to-face teaching and learning 17.25
Educational authoring software 15.5
Computer hardware 14.75
Audio software 13
Markup languages 13
College/university administration 12.25
Organizational development 11.25
Though not occurring as frequently in the job announcements, other compe-

tencies are very relevant according to our data. These include things like online
teaching and learning, Learning Management Systems (LMS), e-learning devel-
opment, assessment methods, project management principles, and customer ser-
vice. Also important are those items that were not flagged as important
according the job announcements. This competencies like agile methodologies,
copyright laws, six sigma, and theories of leadership as shown in Appendix A.
Domain of Skill
For the full results of the skills domain, please see Appendix B. Table 6 illus-
trates the percentage of job announcements with various skill statements in at
least 10% of the announcements. In trying to carefully examine the patterns in
these data, we notice that the most frequently occurring skills in the job
announcements might be classified as “soft skills.” These include items like
oral and written communication skills (97.25%), collaboration skills (94%),
interpersonal communication skills (87.5%), customer service skills (42.5%),
organizational skills (40%), and leadership skills (36.5%).
Meanwhile, many of the lower occurring, but still more than 10% would be
classified as technical or “hard skills.” These might include skills like video pro-
duction skills (20.25%), computer software skills (16.5%), Web development
skills (12.5%), and graphic design skills (12%). While this pattern does not hold
up for every case, we do strongly believe this reinforces the concept of our field as a
sociotechnical system with both social and technical components. Those skills
rarely occurring in job announcements, as shown in Appendix B, include items
like print design skills, coping skills, conflict management skills, and typing skills.
Domain of Ability
The full results of the Ability domain can be found in Appendix C. Table 7 pro-
vides the ability statements that occurred in at least 10% of the job announce-
ments. The ability statements provide a clear picture about the competencies of
practicing educational technology professionals: They must have the ability to
collaborate with different team members (92.25%) and work well with others
(75%). This finding reinforces the fact that educational technology professionals
work with a wide range of stakeholders ranging from project managers to soft-
ware developers to graphic artists to clients to subject-matter experts.
Other important competencies emerged in the ability domain, as evidenced in
Table 7. From a project management perspective, the ability to work under
deadlines (20%), prioritize tasks (18.25%), manage multiple projects
(17.25%), advise and supervise employees (15%), manage multiple tasks
(14.5%), manage teams (13.75), and manage venders (11.25%) all emerged as
Table 6. Skill Statements in At Least 10% of the Job Announcements.
Skills %
Oral and written communication skills 97.25

Collaboration skills 94
Interpersonal communication skills 87.5
Customer service skills 42.5
Organizational skills 40
Leadership skills 36.5
Content development skills 34.75
Analytical/technical documentation skills 30.5
Project management skills 30
Tactical and strategic planning skills 29
Business analysis skills 27.25
Trouble-shooting skills 24.5
Research skills 23
Time management skills 22.75
Editing and proofing skills 22.5
Video production skills 20.75
Team building skills 20.25
Finance/budgeting skills 19.75
Coaching skills 18.25
Computer software skills 16.5
Logical problem solving skills 14.75
Audio production skills 13.75
Creative problem solving skills 12.5
Web development skills 12.5
Graphic design skills 12
Mentoring skills 11
key competencies in our data. From an instructional design perspective, the

ability to deliver training to learners (63.5%), develop course materials
(63.5%), evaluating learning products and programs (58.5%), develop in-
person training (20.75%), create workshops (14%), develop assessments
(12.25%), and write learning objectives (11.5%) also emerged as key competen-
cies in the ability domain. Again, many other competencies did not emerge as
relevant from our job announcement data analysis. This includes things like the
ability to develop computer applications and databases, communicate complex
material, recognize opportunities and take actions, accommodate different learn-
ing styles, and differentiate color.
Table 7. Ability Statements in At Least 10% of the Job Announcements.
Ability to. . . %
Collaborate with different team members 92.25

Work well with others 75
Deliver training to learners 63.5
Develop course materials 63.5
Evaluate learning products and programs 58.5
Create effective instructional products 52.75
Apply sound instructional design principles 37.25
Work with diverse constituencies 36
Troubleshoot technical problems 22.75
Develop in-person training 20.75
Work under deadlines 20
Advise and consult with faculty 19.5
Use audio/visual equipment 18.75
Prioritize tasks 18.25
Manage multiple projects 17.25
Demonstrate policies, procedures and new information 17
Adapt and acquire new things quickly 16
Advise or supervise employees 15
Build strong client relationships 15
Manage multiple tasks 14.5
Create workshops 14
Manage teams 13.75
Share constructive feedback 13.5
Think strategically 13
Adapt to evolving products and technology 12.25
Develop assessments 12.25
Learn quickly and independently 12.25
Work independently 12
Evaluate complex issues 11.75
Write learning objectives 11.5
Manage vendors 11.25
Exercise ethical judgment 10.25
Limitations and Delimitations

The results of our study must be interpreted within the limitations and
delimitations of these data and our method. There are a few problems with
job announcement analysis in that the appearance of a statement within a job
announcement or the exclusion of a statement is in the control of the person
or people writing the job announcement. Simply because something is not
included does not mean it is unimportant to educational technology profes-
sionals. For instance, our data suggest that knowledge of copyright laws
was not frequently occurring in the job announcements. While a novice
might assume that this is therefore unimportant to the field, we know from
practice that knowledge of copyrights is increasingly important to practi-
tioners in our field. Further, we did not attempt to use any inferential stat-
istics to make statistical claims about the population under investigation like
Sugar et al. (2012). Rather, we paint a descriptive picture or our data using
frequencies.
Some job announcements in our dataset were rich and descriptive with con-
tent while others were written using vague and unclear language about the
expectations of the individual they wish to employ. Obviously, employers
should seek to improve the language used in their job announcements, but the
lack of information provided in the announcements themselves clearly influ-
enced the coding process we went through to identify relevant competencies
(KSA). Our job announcements came from the United States. There is no guar-
antee that individuals practicing in other countries would have the same com-
petencies. Finally, we note that this research only provides a temporal instance
of the competencies of professionals within our field. The job announcements
were collected from one period of time and may not be relevant to future dis-
cussions about professionals in our field.
Discussion
With these items in mind, our data did lead to several important findings. We
will highlight some of the findings from our dataset and try to compare and
contrast our work with that of other scholars in our field, attempting to define
the characteristics of educational technology professionals. Unquestionably, our
data suggest that educational technology professionals must be abreast in many
competencies according the job announcements in our field. We derived through
our analysis of job announcements more than 150 competencies organized into
KSA statements. Specifically, this resulted in 81 knowledge statements, 42 skill
statements, and 51 ability statements. While not all competencies are equal in
their use in job announcements, the vast numbers of competencies identified
through this process demonstrate that our professionals must be talented
professionals.
One area that seems to be emerging from multiple studies is that of the collab-
orative and team-based nature of our work (Giberson, 2010; Hartley, Kinshuk,
Koper, Okamoto, & Spector, 2010; Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2014). Increasingly, edu-
cational technology professionals are expected to work with diverse constituencies,
including stakeholders such as clients, subject-matter experts, graphics designers,
software developers, project managers, and more. This has implications for our
professionals, professional associations, and our academic programs. How are we
preparing aspiring educational technology professionals to work with diverse stake-
holders? Do we provide ongoing professional development to our existing profes-
sionals to increase their capacity to work with the stakeholders? Unfortunately, our
findings generate more questions than answers in this regard.
Another key finding is the importance of what many professionals simple call
“soft skills,” which include things like oral and written communication skills,
interpersonal communication skills, customer service skills, organizational
skills, and leadership skills. There is clearly a link to our first point about working
with diverse stakeholders and the importance of soft skills. Ritzhaupt and Martin
(2014) sought to identify multimedia competencies of professionals in our field,
but found that soft skills were rated as much more important by the professionals
that responded to their survey. Again, important questions emerge from these
findings such as how are our academic programs teaching soft skills to our aspir-
ing professionals or how can professional refined these skills in their practice?
One area that emerged as a high priority is that of traditional instructional
design knowledge and skills. Our data clearly show competencies related to
instructional design are prevalent in our data including competencies like know-
ledge instructional design models and principles, ability to develop course mater-
ials, ability to create effective instructional products, or the ability to evaluate
learning products and programs. Thankfully, we know from the research base
that instructional design remains a hallmark of professionals in our field (Gagne,
Wager, Golas, Keller, & Russell, 2005; Giberson, 2010; Hartley et al., 2010;
Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2014). Thus, it is imperative to our professionals, profes-
sional associations, and our academic programs that we continue this tradition
of teaching robust instructional design methods and processes.
Yet another important area to emerge as a competency is one often neglected
in our field—project management. While the current definition of our field
clearly highlight management and project management as pillars of the defin-
ition (Januszewski & Molenda, 2007), our practice of project management lags
behind (Brill, Bishop, & Walker, 2006; Van Rooij, 2010). Our data across the
three domains of KSA highlight project management competencies as key ingre-
dients to a successful practitioner, including ability to work under deadlines,
prioritize tasks, manage multiple projects, advise and supervise employees,
manage multiple tasks, manage teams, and manage venders. We must ensure
that our academic programs and professionals are abreast in the area of project
management (e.g., PMI’s PMBOK).
A final consideration is our professionals must be competent in both the

socioside and the technical side of the sociotechnical system. Our data clearly
suggest that professionals must be competent in a wide variety of software pack-
ages and information systems ranging from productivity software to LMS to
educational authoring tools. Several studies have tried to address these more
technical competencies from a variety of methodological perspectives, including
Ritzhaupt and Martin (2014), Ritzhaupt et al. (2010), and Sugar et al. (2012).
As information and communication technologies continue to emerge and evolve,
we must periodically check on the status of these things to ensure our profes-
sionals are prepared for the 21st century learning environments.
Our study has highlighted several areas that require careful attention by pro-
fessionals, professional associations, and academic programs in the field. As we
continue to identify, document, and master the competencies in our field, we
must ensure that the research that we conduct is disseminated widely within our
community. For instance, some of our professional associations like ATD (for-
merly ASTD) and ISPI have created formal credentials for practicing professionals
in our field including the CPLP and CPT credentials, respectively. Other profes-
sional associations have created formal standards, including AECT and ISTE,
which are regularly used in our profession. The competencies used in these certifi-
cations and standards should be periodically updated to reflect the current times.
As a closing remark, we strongly believe that professionals within the field of
educational technology must stay current with the times and trends in the 21st
century. Therefore, this study and other relevant research that have discussed
the competencies of professionals in our field (Brill et al., 2006; Giberson, 2010;
Hartley et al., 2010; Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2014; Ritzhaupt et al., 2010; Sugar
et al., 2012; Van Rooij, 2010) should be carefully read and considered in making
professional development, training and development, performance appraisal,
compensation and benefits, job descriptions and job design decisions. We
hope that this manuscript has meaningfully contributed to this important dialog.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
References
Aguinis, H., Michaelis, S. E., & Jones, N. M. (2005). Demand for certified human
resources professionals in internet-based job announcements. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 13(2), 160–171. doi: 10.1111/j.0965-075X.2005.00310.x
Barber, A. E., & Roehling, M. V. (1993). Job postings and the decision to interview: A
verbal protocol analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 845–856. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.845
Butler, F. C. (1978). The concept of competence: An operational definition. Educational
Technology, 18(1), 7–18.
Choi, Y., & Rasmussen, E. (2009). What qualifications and skills are important for digital
librarian positions in academic libraries? A job advertisement analysis. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 35(5), 457–467. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2009.06.003
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quanti-
tative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Croneis, K. S., & Henderson, P. (2002). Electronic and digital librarian positions: A
content analysis of announcements from 1990 through 2000. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 28(4), 232–237. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(02)00287-2
Furst-Bowe, J. A. (1996). An analysis of the competencies needed by trainers to use
computer-based technologies and distance learning systems. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 9(4), 57–78. doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.1996.tb00738.x
Giberson, T. R. (2010). Performance capabilities and competencies at the undergraduate
and graduate levels for performance improvement professionals. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 22(4), 99–120. doi:10.1002/piq.20070
Hartley, R., Kinshuk, Koper, R., Okamoto, T., & Spector, J. M. (2010). The education
and training of learning technologists: A competences approach (Report to IEEE
Technical Committee on Learning Technologies). Educational Technology & Society,
13(2), 206–216.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY:
New York University Press.
Kane, M. T. (1992). The assessment of professional competence. Evaluation and the
Health Professions, 15(2), 163–182. doi: 10.1177/016327879201500203
Moallem, M. (1995). Analysis of job announcements and the required competencies for
instructional technology professionals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Park, J. R., Lu, C., & Marion, L. (2009). Cataloging professionals in the digital environ-
ment: A content analysis of job descriptions. Journal of the American society for
information science and technology, 60(4), 844–857. doi:10.1002/asi.21007
Queeney, D. S. (1996, October). Redefining competency from a systems perspective for the
21st century. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for
Adult and Continuing Education, Charlotte, NC.
Sugar, W., Hoard, B., Brown, A., & Daniels, L. (2012). Identifying multimedia production
competencies and skills of instructional design and technology professionals: An analysis
of recent job postings. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(3), 227–249.
Van Rooij, S. W. (2010). Project management in instructional design: ADDIE is not
enough. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 852–864. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8535.2009.00982.x
Wang, N., Schnipke, D., & Witt, E. A. (2005). Use of knowledge, skill, and ability
statements in developing licensure and certification examinations. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(1), 15–22. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2005.00003.x
White, G. W. (1999). Academic subject specialist positions in the United States: A content
analysis of announcements from 1990 through 1998. The Journal of Academic
Librarianship, 25(5), 372–382. doi:10.1016/S0099-1333(99)80056-1
Wilson, M. (1974). Job analysis for human resource management: A review of selected
research and development (Stock Number 2900-00224). Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Author Biographies
YoungJu Kang is an active instructional designer, online learning content devel-
oper, and researcher at the University of Florida. Currently, she is completing
her PhD degree in Educational Technology at the University of Florida. Her
special interests are instructional design for online education, arts and technol-
ogy integration, and computer game-based virtual learning environment for all
educational levels.
Dr. Albert D. Ritzhaupt is an associate professor of educational technology in

the School of Teaching and Learning at the University of Florida. His primary
research areas focus on the design and development of technology-enhanced
learning environments and technology integration in education. His publications
have appeared in multiple venues.
Appendix A
Table A1. Knowledge Statements.
Knowledge of. . . %
Instructional design models and principles 55

Word processing software 41.75
Presentation software 39.25
Spreadsheet software 35.5
Online teaching and learning 35.25
Course/learning management systems 29
e-Learning development 28
Assessment methods 27.5
Project management principles 27.5
Customer service 21
Authoring tools 20.25
Video software 19
Online/blended program management 18
Adult learning theory 17.75
Face-to-face teaching and learning 17.25
Educational authoring software 15.5
Computer hardware 14.75
Audio software 13
Markup languages 13
College/university administration 12.25
Organizational development 11.25
Operating system software 9.75
Virtual environments 9.25
Classroom-based technology integration techniques 8.75
Laws, policies and procedures in training programs 8.75
Web design principles 8.75
Synchronous distance learning methodologies 8.5
Bitmap image software 8.5
Data management software 8
Screen recording software 8
(continued)
Table A1. Continued
Knowledge of. . . %
Professional development 7.75

Web authoring tools 7.75
Mobile learning platforms 7.25
Flash 6.75
Learning object standards 6.75
Human resources management 6.5
Web 2 technology 6.25
Cascading Style Sheets 6
Global and local training planning 6
Virtual classrooms 5.25
Instructional simulation and game design 5
Client-side scripting languages 4.75
Web-based data collection tools 4.75
Content management systems 4.5
Social media technologies 3.75
Communications hardware 3.5
Programming languages 3.25
Common Core State Standards 3
Project management software 2.75
Server-side scripting languages 2.5
Vector image software 2.5
Assessment software 2
Blended learning techniques 2
Cloud technologies 2
Interface design 2
Statistical analysis tools 2
Streaming video technology 1.75
Cost-benefit analyses 1.5
Accessing and analyzing data 1.25
Data communications 1
Human Performance Technology principles 1
21th Century skills frameworks 1
Desktop publishing software 1
Motivation theories 1
Formative and summative evaluation 0.75
Accessibility software 0.75
(continued)
Table A1. Continued
Knowledge of. . . %
Cognitive learning theory 0.75

Mobile application development 0.75
3D modeling tools 0.5
Constructivism 0.5
Flipped classroom 0.5
STEM 0.5
SWOT analysis 0.5
Accessibility 0.25
Business intelligence 0.25
e-commerce application development 0.25
Game engines 0.25
Agile methodology 0
Copyright laws 0
Six Sigma 0
Theories of leadership 0
Appendix B
Table B1. Skill Statements.
Skills %
Oral and written communication skills 97.25

Collaboration skills 94
Interpersonal communication skills 87.5
Customer service skills 42.5
Organizational skills 40
Leadership skills 36.5
Content development skills 34.75
Analytical/technical documentation skills 30.5
Project management skills 30
Tactical and strategic planning skills 29
Business analysis skills 27.25
Trouble-shooting skills 24.5
Research skills 23
Time management skills 22.75
Editing and proofing skills 22.5
(continued)
Table B1. Continued
Skills %
Video production skills 20.75

Team building skills 20.25
Finance/budgeting skills 19.75
Coaching skills 18.25
Computer software skills 16.5
Logical problem solving skills 14.75
Audio production skills 13.75
Creative problem solving skills 12.5
Web development skills 12.5
Graphic design skills 12
Mentoring skills 11
Quality control skills 8.75
Relationship building skills 8.25
Game and simulation skills 5.25
Talent management skills 5.25
Storyboard design skills 4.75
Interviewing skills 4
Self-management skills 4
Animation design skills 3
Database programming skills 3
Computer programming skills 2.25
Statistical analysis skills 2.25
Negotiation skills 2
Typing skills 2
Coping skills 1.25
Conflict-management skills 0.75
Print design skills 0.75
Appendix C
Table C1. Ability Statements.
Ability to. . . %
Collaborative different team members 92.25

Work well with others 75
Deliver training to learners 63.5
Develop course materials 63.5
Evaluate learning products and programs 58.5
Create effective instructional products 52.75
Apply sound instructional design principles 37.25
Work with diverse constituencies 36
Troubleshoot technical problems 22.75
Develop in-person training 20.75
Work under deadlines 20
Advise and consult with faculty 19.5
Use audio/visual equipment 18.75
Prioritize tasks 18.25
Manage multiple projects 17.25
Demonstrate policies, procedures and new information 17
Adapt and acquire new things quickly 16
Advise or supervise employees 15
Build strong client relationships 15
Manage multiple tasks 14.5
Create workshops 14
Manage teams 13.75
Share constructive feedback 13.5
Think strategically 13
Adapt to evolving products and technology 12.25
Develop assessments 12.25
Learn quickly and independently 12.25
Work independently 12
Evaluate complex issues 11.75
Write learning objectives 11.5
Manage vendors 11.25
(continued)
Table C1. Continued
Ability to. . . %
Exercise ethical judgment 10.25

Analyze industry trends in learning technologies 9.75
be goal-oriented 9.75
Analyze complex data 9
Inspire and influence people 9
Provide critical feedback 8.75
Teach in virtual learning environments 8.75
Use data to make educationally sound decisions 8.75
Act as a liaison with other departments 8.25
Teach face-to-face 8
Be a self-starter 7.5
Articulate the basic concepts, terms and theory 6.75
Integrate theory and research into practice 6.25
Translate strategic goals 5.25
Breakdown a business process 4.75
Develop computer applications and databases 4.5
Communicate complex material 3.25
Recognize opportunities and takes action 2.75
Accommodate different learning styles 2.5
Differentiate color 0.75
View publication stats

A Job Announcement Analysis of Educational Technology Professional Positions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Job Announcement Analysis of Educational Technology Professional Positions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A Job Announcement Analysis of Educational

Article in Journal of Educational Technology Systems · March 2015

Youngju Kang Albert D. Ritzhaupt

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

spatial cognition View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Job Announcement Systems

YoungJu Kang1 and Albert D. Ritzhaupt1

technology professional positions by analyzing 400 job announcements in asso-

Job Announcement Analysis

time period, categorizing three types of organizations or institutions in which the

Similarly, Choi and Rasmussen (2009) examined qualiﬁcations and skills

up for an interview” (Barber & Roehling, 1993, p. 848). The researchers

Figure 1. Knowledge, skill, and ability statements as core competencies in educational

of instructional design theory, curriculum and instruction, and learning theory

Selection of keywords. The procedure of searching for relevant keywords through

Table 1. Years’ Experience in Professional Position.

1–2 years 18 4.5

Table 2. Job Announcement Source Databases.

ATD – formerly ASTD 83 20.75

Table 3. Educational Requirements of Job Announcements.

High school diploma 1 0.25

Table 4. Context of Job Announcements.

Business/industry 281 70.25

Table 5. Knowledge Statements Occurring in At Least 10% of the Job

Instructional design models and principles 55

Though not occurring as frequently in the job announcements, other compe-

Table 6. Skill Statements in At Least 10% of the Job Announcements.

Oral and written communication skills 97.25

key competencies in our data. From an instructional design perspective, the

Table 7. Ability Statements in At Least 10% of the Job Announcements.

Collaborate with different team members 92.25

Limitations and Delimitations

A ﬁnal consideration is our professionals must be competent in both the

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Dr. Albert D. Ritzhaupt is an associate professor of educational technology in

Table A1. Knowledge Statements.

Instructional design models and principles 55

Table A1. Continued

Professional development 7.75

Table A1. Continued

Cognitive learning theory 0.75

Table B1. Skill Statements.

Oral and written communication skills 97.25

Table B1. Continued

Video production skills 20.75

Table C1. Ability Statements.

Collaborative different team members 92.25

Table C1. Continued

Exercise ethical judgment 10.25

View publication stats

You might also like