ed-media 2006

B26 Current Major Competencies for Instructional Design and Technology Professionals Evren Sumuer Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology Middle East Technical University Ankara, Turkey [email protected] Engin Kursun Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology Middle East Technical University Ankara, Turkey [email protected] Kursat Cagiltay Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology Middle East Technical University Ankara, Turkey [email protected]

Abstract: In this study, it is aimed at finding out major competencies employers look for in instructional design and technology professionals. With this purpose, the competencies focused on the job announcements for instructional designers and technologists are assumed to be an indicator of the competencies which they are expected to have in corporate and academic settings. Therefore, three web sites including job announcements were selected. The job announcements were analyzed by using content analysis method. In this way, similarities and differences between academic and corporate settings were revealed in terms of demanded competencies for instructional technologists and designers.

Introduction The major competencies required for instructional design and technology (IDT) professionals are constantly changing because IDT continuously matures and develops as a profession (Rasmussen, 2002). New ideas and innovations affect the practice of individuals in the field, changing – often broadening – the scope of their work. (Reiser, 2002a). Therefore, it is difficult not only to define what the field of IDT is but also determine the characteristics of individuals working in this field. Although the use of instructional media and the use of systematic instructional design have been admitted as the center of the field (Reiser, 2002a), new trends and technological change have an impact on the IDT as they do other fields. In this aspect, it is important for the individuals in the field of IDT to be aware of the current major competencies that are required by employers. Until now, some studies have been conducted to determine sets of competencies for professionals in the field of IDT. One of them was carried out by International Board Standard for Training, Performance and Instruction (IBSTPI) in 1986, and suggested sixteen competencies that were commonly used in the IT profession. Another was led by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) in 1981 (Rasmussen, 2002).

ED-MEDIA 2006 Proceedings - Page 1617

According to Tennyson (2001), instructional technologist is a term used to describe a person who is employing instructional design process to solve learning and performance problems and needs in a technology-based learning environment. In this context, he indicates that an instructional technologist needs competencies in three basic core knowledge areas: educational foundations, instructional design development methodology and instructional development process. Moreover, Gustafson (2002) described the results of the effect of some broad political, economic, social and technological trends on instructional design. In this way, the need to focus on a variety of new activities in the field of instructional design is emphasized. A Delphi study was conducted by Ritchie and Earnest (1999) to identify emerging trends that members of academic and corporate groups believe will influence the field in the near future and the result of this study indicated six trends that may strongly influence instructional design over the next ten years. The influence of these trends on the competencies of IDT professionals seems to be inevitable. Kenny et al (2005) made a literature review to determine the activities and processes the IDT people use or might use, and they concluded that they do not only use techniques delineated by traditional, process-based instructional design models in a flexible fashion, but als o engage in a wide variety of other tasks that are not reflected in instructional design models such as communication skills, research, team building/collaboration, technology knowledge. As seen in the studies mentioned above, the current major competencies for IDT professionals were specified by focusing mainly on the activities and processes that they carried out and new trends emerging in the field of IDT. This study is set out to determine these competencies by looking from the point view of employers in the academic and corporate settings. The job announcements given by them were a useful resource to obtain their perspectives on this issue.

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to find out major competencies employers look for in instructional design and technology professionals. In addition, the similarities and differences between academic and corporate settings were revealed in terms of demanded competencies for them. In the meantime this study touched upon what other disciplines have an impact on the field. Considering the aims of this study, it may help to clarify the possible trends of the field, and to direct instructional technologists for their carrier developments.

Method It was assumed that to determine the current and required competencies which the instructional technologists should possess, the needed job qualifications for them in the academic and corporate areas can be good indicators. Accordingly, this study encompasses 101 job announcements which were posted to the web sites of Department of Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana University Bloomington (IST jobs), AECT and Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Job announcements were posted to these sites between 11/08/2005 and 06/02/2006. The selection of these job lists was based on the purposive sampling method. To determine accuracy, validity and consistency of the relationship between the purpose of the study and these websites, one expert in the field of instructional technology checked them. Table 1 shows the distributions of job descriptions for academic and corporation areas in each web site. In this sample, repeated job announcements, and job announcements which are not related to the field of IT were ignored in all mentioned web sites.


Academic IST Jobs

34

Corporation

Total

15

49

AECT AACE Total

18 14 32 8 12 20 60 41 101 Table 1. The Distribution of Job Announcements for Each Web Site The research design for this study was descriptive in nature, using content analysis research method. In this manner, it was intended to obtain the descriptive information about the required qualifications in the published job descriptions relevant to IT in all three web sites. The manifest content and latent content of job announcements were used. In other words, not only surface content in the job qualifications, e.g. the words and phrase, were examined, but also the meaning underlying what is indicated in the job responsibilities and qualifications was considered. As stated by Fraenkel and Wallen (2006), the best way is to employ both manifest and latent methods whenever possible in the content analysis . With this method, researchers examined the job announcements’ content separately to specify the main categories and terms representing competencies for instructional technologists in the academic and corporation areas, and then they compared and combined findings under the same framework. Although, there were some coding differences between researchers, many of them were mainly similar. This process also contributed to the reliability of the study. In this framework, terms reflecting or implying competencies for instructional technologists in both academic and corporation area were gathered under the four main categories, namely, professional foundations, educational foundations, technical foundations and instructional technology foundations. Practical skills and professional requirements for successful and productive career were gathered under professional foundations; skills and knowledge related to educational background such as pedagogical knowledge, teaching experience under educational foundations; competencies that require software and hardware knowledge and experience under technical foundations; knowledge and expertise pertaining to field of IT such as, capability of integration of technology in education under instructional technology foundations. During the content analysis, each time a competency mentioned explicitly or implicitly in the job announcements was found, it was counted. In this way, the frequency number for each specified competency under four main categories was obtained at the end of the analysis. Then, the mean score for each main category was calculated and the competency whose frequency number was above or equal to the mean score of its main category was regarded as a major competency for instructional technologists. Finally, the findings of this study were interpreted in the light of this consideration.

Results In this part, the results of this study were handled separately for academic and corporation settings. Academic Settings As regarding competencies related to professional foundations in academic setting, the frequency number for working collaboratively in a team environment (ƒ=35*), communication skills (ƒ=22*), project management (ƒ=18*), organizational skill (ƒ=14), interpersonal skill (ƒ=9), interaction with/in other cultures and diverse population (ƒ=6) were found as prospective competencies. When the frequency number of the competencies which was above or equal to the category mean (µ= 17.33) was considered, it can be said that working collaboratively in a team environment, communication skills (Verbal and written) and project management (e.g. leadership, managing projects


within deadlines and budgets etc.) skills are the major competencies in the academic area in terms of professional foundation. In terms of competencies in the educational foundations category related to academic setting, the frequency number for teaching exp erience (ƒ=30*), conducing and publishing research (ƒ=29*), knowledge of pedagogy (ƒ=29*), supervising the students (ƒ=21), ability to consult and provide support for faculty (ƒ=15), and developing curriculum (ƒ=5) were revealed as expected competencies for IDT professionals. According to this, teaching experience especially in K-12 and online environment, ability to conduct and publish research studies on learning and technology, and knowledge of pedagogy especially in the instructional design and learning theories are mostly looked for by employers in terms of educational foundations as they are above and equal to the mean of the related category (µ= 21, 5). Moreover, supervising the graduate and undergraduate students in many educational issues should not be overlooked although the frequency number of this component is about the mean of educational foundations category. The expertise in web programming and scripting (ƒ=14*), web authoring tools (ƒ=13*), multimedia production tools (ƒ=11*), the use of software (ƒ=11*), image editing tools (ƒ=10*), course management systems (ƒ=10*), audio/video editing (ƒ=8), hardware (ƒ=7) and database design and use (ƒ=4) were found respectful competencies in the technical foundations category of the academic setting. Accordingly, the demanded competencies in this category which are above and equal to the its own mean (µ= 9,8) require expertise in web programming and scripting (e.g. HTML, XML, SQL, script languages), web authoring tools (e.g. FrontPage, Dreamweaver), multimedia production tools (e.g. Flash, Director etc.), software (e.g. Microsoft suite), image editing tools (e.g. Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator) and course management systems (e.g. Blackboard, WebCT). The potential competencies in the instructional technology foundation category of academic setting were appeared as the expertise in instructional technologies (ƒ=22*), instructional design process (ƒ=14*), integration of technology (ƒ=11*), a background in emergent technologies and their function in an instructional environment (ƒ=7), management of technological systems (ƒ=6) and assessment for quality ensure (ƒ=6). As considering the competencies which are above and equal to the mean (µ= 11), it can be said that the major ones for instructional technologist are expertise with instructional technologies especially with distance education and web-based learning, instructional design process for particularly web based learning and experience integration of technology in K-12 and in-service and pre-service teacher education. Corporate Settings Taking competencies related to professional fo undations into consideration in the corporate setting, working collaboratively in a team environment (ƒ=23*), project management (ƒ=21*) communication skill (ƒ=20*), organizational skill (ƒ=11), giving or working under supervision (ƒ=8) and interpersonal skill (ƒ=5) are found as a prospective competencies. From these findings, the majority of demanded competencies which are above or equal the category mean (µ= 14.17) in professional foundations for corporation settings require working collaboratively in a team environment, having good communication skills (verbal and written) and project management ability (e.g. managing multiple projects within deadlines and budgets). According to the information obtained from job announcements related to corporation area, the demanded competencies in educational foundations are knowledge of pedagogy especially in instructional design (ƒ=18*) and adult learning theories and content development mainly for online course (ƒ=10*), support and training (ƒ=8), curriculum development (ƒ=5), conducting and publishing research (ƒ=5). In these results, knowledge of pedagogy especially in instructional design and adult learning theories and content development mainly for online course are found above or equal the category mean score (µ= 9,4). In the technical foundations main category in the corporate setting, the use of multimedia production tools (ƒ=12*), use of software (ƒ=9*), web programming and scripting (ƒ=8*), experience with course management systems (ƒ=8*), the use of web authoring tools (ƒ=6), the use of image editing tools (ƒ=6), database design (ƒ=4) and use audio/video


editing (ƒ=4) was found as a prominent (outstanding) competencies. Among these competencies, there are four major competencies above or equal to the mean (µ= 7.12), namely the use of multimedia production tools (e.g. Macromedia Flash) and software (Microsoft suite), experience in learning management systems (e.g. WebCT), knowledge of web programming and scripting (e.g. HTML, JavaScript, Asp) and use of audio/video editing tools (e.g. Adobe Premiere) Finally, for competencies related to instructional technology foundations in corporate area, instructional design process (ƒ=16*), developing and delivering training programs (ƒ=13*), expertise with instructional technologies (ƒ=12*), developing storyboard (ƒ=10*), developing instructional course material (ƒ=9), assessment for quality ensure (ƒ=5), usability knowledge (ƒ=4) was found. From these results, four competencies are above or equal to the category mean (µ= 9,86) for instructional technologists in the corporate area. These are instructional design process especially for online and multimedia environments, developing and delivering training programs for both online and traditional training, expertise with instructional technologies particularly for distance education, and developing storyboards.

Limitations There are some limitations for this study. Firstly, job announcements were taken from only three web sites. Secondly, this study merely focused on job announcements in USA to determine the major competencies of instructional technology and design professionals. There may be quite a big difference between what employers think they would like, what they get and what actually works. To remove this limitation, the data can be triangulated by using different source of data. Lastly, assigning the critical point to determine main competencies for each category can be considered as a limitation for this study.

Discussion and Conclusions The results of this study explicated that even though the job announcements for academic and corporations shared some common characteristics in terms of competencies under mentioned categories, there were some differences between two settings. Firstly, in terms of professional foundations, for both academic and corporation settings competencies related to working collaboratively in a team environment, communication skills , and project management are mostly looked for by the employers. Secondly, with respect to educational foundations, job qualifications in both academic and corporation areas include knowledge of pedagogy. This knowledge is mainly referred to instructional design, learning principles and theory (adult learning theory was more emphasized in the corporation area), and e-learning techniques. On the other hand, academic settings require more experience in teaching and conducting, publishing research studies for instructional design and technology professionals whereas the corporate settings emphasize more on content development competency especially for training programs. Thirdly, experience with course management systems (e.g. WebCT, Blackboard), the use of multimedia production tools (e.g. Macromedia Flash) and software (e.g. Microsoft Suite), and knowledge of web programming and scripting (e.g. HTML, XML, ASP, JavaScript, SQL) are more demanded competencies for both areas in the category of technical foundations. However, the competency related to the use of image editing tools (e.g. Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustration) appears as one of the major competencies in the academic area. Finally, like the academic area, the corporate area mainly looked for expertise with instructional technologies and instructional design process in the category of instructional technology foundations. In fact, distance education and web-based learning are more advocated for these major competencies. On the other hand, academic setting puts more stress on integration of technology especially in K-12 and pre-service and inservice teacher education while the corporate setting gives more importance to developing and delivering training programs , and developing storyboards.


When the major competencies revealed in the academic and corporation settings are examined, we see the impact of computer science and educational science on the field of instructional design and technology by looking the demanded competencies. As conclusion, as can be shown above, there are some similarities and differences between academic and corporation areas in terms of the competencies mostly needed for instructional design and technology professionals. In fact, it is apparent that web technologies and strategies are more stressed on the competences in the categories of educational, technical and instructional foundations for not only academic areas but also corporations. In this context, it can be inferred that one reason underlying this trend can be the need for life long learning. Yet, the roles of the competencies under professional foundations should not be underestimated in this life long learning journey. Lastly, as a practical implication of this study, instructional technology departments may take these findings into consideration to adapt their programs for the needs of industry and academy.

References Rasmussen, K. L. (2002). Competence at a glance: Professional Knowledge, skills and abilities in the field of instructional design and technology. Ch 29 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J. A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Merrill/Prentice Hall. Reiser, R.A. (2002a). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. Ch 1 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Merrill/Prentice Hall. Reiser, R.A. (2002b). A History of Instructional Design and Technology. Ch 3 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Merrill/Prentice Hall. Tennyson, R.D. (2001). Defining core competencies of an instructional technologist. Computers in Human Behavior. (17). pp. 355-367. Gustafson K. L. (2002). The Future of instructional design. Ch 25 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J. A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River , New Jersey : Merrill/Prentice Hall. Ritchie, D., & Earnest, J. (1999). The Future of Instructional Design: Results of A Delphi Study. Educational Technology. 39(1), 35-42. Kenny, R.F., Zhang Z., Schwier, R.A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 9 – 26. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006), How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York USA.
