scholarly journals The Increasing Quest for Instructional Designers and Technologists in Higher Education and Corporate Settings

2022 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. ep345
Author(s):  
John Nworie
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Instructional Designers

Outcomes-based approach to quality assessment and curriculum improvement in higher education

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 158-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Tam
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Student Learning ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Instructional Designers ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Curriculum Improvement ◽  
Improving Student Learning ◽  
Views And Perceptions ◽  
Traditional Structures

Purpose – This paper was written for practitioners in higher education, including academics and instructional designers who are engaged in curriculum revision. It aims to examine the notion of outcomes-based education, survey the literature and provide a critical review of the outcomes-based approach to quality assessment and curriculum improvement in higher education. The outcomes-based approach is completely student-centred, which focuses on what students know and can actually do. Sharpening the focus onto student learning outcomes goes beyond mere tinkering with traditional structures and methods; it really constitutes a paradigm shift in educational philosophy and practice. Design/methodology/approach – This paper begins with a summary of developments in institutional quality assessment and curriculum improvement in higher education in recent decades. Then, it identifies the underlying concepts and principles that characterize the outcomes-based approach for the design and improvement of curriculum and instruction in higher education. Finally, the outcomes-based approach is critically reviewed for its value from the perspectives of both practical and philosophical considerations. Findings – In so doing, it is directed to the heightening of sensitivity as to the manner and situations in which the outcomes-based approach may be employed. Originality/value – A final note is that while learning outcomes approaches are useful, care is needed to take into account the different views and perceptions of those involved in defining learning outcomes and to keep the ultimate goal of improving student learning clearly in mind. Care must also be taken to avoid rigidity and conceptual reification during implementation in curriculum and instructional design.

Factors Influencing Virtual Learning System Usage in Higher Education

2020 ◽  
pp. 296-321
Author(s):  
Indira Padayachee
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Higher Education Institutions ◽  
Virtual Learning ◽  
Learning System ◽  
Instructional Designers ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
System Usage ◽  
Actual Usage ◽  
Software Designers ◽  
Factors Influencing

Virtual learning systems (VLSs), commonly referred to as learning or course management systems, have been formally adopted at many higher education institutions. However, knowledge of the actual usage of VLSs is limited in terms of what specific functional and non-functional characteristics are deemed useful and how this influences system usage. Furthermore, little is known about the role of other non-system-related factors related to VLS usage, such as pedagogic, organisational, and individual difference factors. This chapter proposes and describes the virtual learning system usage model (VLSUM), which represents the factors influencing VLS usage in higher education institutions. The VLSUM is based on a conceptual framework integrating multiple dimensions and is confirmed by the results of an empirical study. A mixed-methods research design was adopted in the development of the VSLUM. This model is valuable to educational technologists, instructional designers, and software designers for VLS implementation in higher education.

Designing for Interdisciplinarity in Higher Education: Considerations for Instructional Designers

TechTrends ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iryna Ashby ◽  
Marisa Exter
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Instructional Designers

Bridging the Instructional Designers and Lecturers in Technology Education

2011 ◽  
pp. 215-237
Author(s):  
Samuel Ng Hong Kok ◽  
Tang Buay Choo ◽  
Myint Swe Khine
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Educational Technology ◽  
Communities Of Practice ◽  
Technology Education ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Education Institution ◽  
Learning Objects ◽  
Instructional Designers ◽  
Higher Education Institution

This chapter examines an initiative to create educational technology (ET) Champions and leaders within a higher education institution in Singapore. It examines how the concept of communities of practice was applied to an initiative for transforming teaching and learning through educational technology. Instructional designers coached ET Champions in the principles of creating learning objects who later returned to their respective colleges to work with other lecturers. ET Champions progressed through five stages, which included peripheral, legitimate, core, strategic and transformational membership. Each stage required support and guidance within the community.

Instructional Challenges in Higher Education Online Courses Delivered through a Learning Management System by Subject Matter Experts

2011 ◽  
pp. 330-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
George L. Joeckel III ◽  
Tae Jeon ◽  
Joel Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Management System ◽  
Online Courses ◽  
Learning Management System ◽  
Instructional System ◽  
Instructional Designers ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
Learning Management ◽  
Instructional Challenges

The authors are Instructional Designers developing online courses in higher education. These courses are facilitated by Subject Matter Experts and delivered through a Learning Management System. They propose that instructional alignment with pedagogic beliefs is the best instructional foundation for original course designs in this instructional context, and examine three factors unique to this context. They propose new instructional design models and a new instructional system of design to address the instructional challenges specific to their learning system context.

scholarly journals What is an ID?

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olysha Magruder ◽  
Daniel Arnold ◽  
Mel Edwards ◽  
Shaun Moore
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Instructional Design ◽  
Postsecondary Education ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Instructional Designers ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
Job Descriptions ◽  
Career Plans ◽  
Content Development

Instructional design positions in higher education require greater depth and breadth of knowledge, far beyond the bulleted qualifications found in typical job descriptions. The eDesign Collaborative Research Team wished to explore the discrepancies that exist between commonly identified competencies and those deemed necessary by instructional designers (IDs) actively working in postsecondary education. This study identifies the work performed by instructional designers and compares that work to the competencies and tasks identified in literature focused on instructional design and designers. Likewise, the study sought to explore the career plans and goals of IDs and their access to professional development. A majority (56%) described the ID role as a mix of both faculty and content development. When asked about what they would rather be doing with their time, an even mix between working with faculty more and working on content development more was observed. Many individuals also mentioned an interest in working more with technology and innovative projects. Collaboration with subject matter experts (SMEs), content experts, faculty, and instructors was by far the most important competency, both in importance and time spent. Research and marketing seemed to be least important and garnered the least amount of employee time.

scholarly journals Promoting Critical Thinking and Learning in a Large-Enrolment Humanities Class

2022 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kiruthika Ragupathi ◽  
Zi Hui Yeo ◽  
Hui Chieh Loy
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Course Design ◽  
Student Experience ◽  
Instructional Designers ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Mass Higher Education ◽  
University Courses ◽  
Qualitative Responses

To promote the development of critical thinking abilities in an introductory undergraduate humanities course in the context of mass higher education, we implemented a course design that employed a series of scenario-based multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and informal peer discussions. Using an online survey to gather perception data and self-reported behavioral data, this study examines the extent to which the course design was effective at promoting critical thinking and student experience. Deductive analysis of students’ qualitative responses indicate that the course design was successful in promoting students’ development of critical thinking. Both deductive and inductive analysis of students’ qualitative responses also suggest that students largely had favorable attitudes towards this course design, though there are also some who express concerns. Our design may be useful for instructors and instructional designers aiming to promote critical thinking and learning in university courses.

scholarly journals Examining Higher Education Instructor Perceptions of Roles and Competencies in Online Teaching

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Florence Martin ◽  
Swapna Kumar ◽  
Liane She
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Professional Development ◽  
Online Teaching ◽  
Online Courses ◽  
Instructional Designers ◽  
Online Instructors ◽  
Teaching Online ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Lifelong Learner ◽  
Online Instructor

Online instructors adopt various roles and perform various competencies in the design and delivery of online courses. In this study, online instructor roles are categorized into eight types including Subject Matter Expert, Course Designer and Developer, Course Facilitator, Course Manager, Advisor/Mentor, Assessor/Evaluator, Technology Expert, and Lifelong Learner. Through survey-based research with 141 online instructors, this study examines competencies that online instructors perform based on various roles. When rating competencies, overall categorical means for all the roles were rated above 4.00, which showed that they used all these roles. The highest rated items and lowest rated items are discussed in addition to the connection between research and practice in online teaching. Online instructors who participate in training and who collaborate with instructional designers rated the frequency with which they perform the competencies to be higher. This study has implications for online instructors, instructional designers, and administrators who design and deliver online learning and offer professional development for online instructors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document