Search results

While there is significant existing literature on learner analysis in instructional design and separately in cultural issues in education, these two areas are rarely examined in tandem. This paper aims to bring these two areas together.

This research uses qualitative methods within the context of a case study. A dual role is played by the author as instructor‐researcher in gathering and analyzing the data.

One area of success in the course is that it served to increase the coverage of the area of instructional design in addition to expanding the literature base in this area of study that has only recently begun to receive attention.

One limitation of the course is that while it is designed to provide a blended mix of learning opportunities, the instructional design field is quite large and it is impossible to explore all relevant topics.

A challenge of the course is that socio‐cultural concepts are broad and it is recognized that a single course is not enough to effectively cover all relevant issues. Careful course design is therefore important.

Feedback from this study can serve as a resource for decision making about existing and additional courses, and specific content that could be incorporated into similar courses.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the perceived challenges of attempting to integrate topics related to social and cultural issues into the coursework in graduate programs in Instructional Design and Technology (IDT).

An open‐ended online survey instrument was developed for this study for three reasons. First, the study aimed at investigating what is actually happening in IDT programs in terms of integration of social and cultural issues into coursework. Using an online questionnaire, data were collected from IDT instructors and instructional designers.

Findings of the study indicated that while there is a general agreement and interest in infusing content that addresses socio‐cultural perspectives challenges into courses, the challenges include the existence of a common framework for defining and prioritizing socio‐cultural issues, and difficulties in identifying the most important issues to address, and appropriate instructional approaches to address sensitive topics.

There were some limitations to this study. First, the data were collected primarily through a survey instrument as indicated above. Nonetheless, the qualitative data collected were rich and informative. Second, as noted earlier, a majority of the participants indicated they are based in the USA. Thus, study findings may be more specific to IDT programs in this context. Third, participation in the study was voluntary, hence demographics were not controlled for. However, this opened up opportunities for attaining multiple perspectives from the participants.

A recommendation that this study brings out is that while it is impossible practically to address all potential topics, a starting point may be to identify and address the most pertinent topics, such as those which may cause misunderstanding or reinforce the wrong ideas.

While instructional designers and instructors cannot be expected to be cultural experts in every single context or topic, there are certain content issues, such as authentic activities and design strategies that would warrant further attention. Of course this will vary by content and context and instructors and instructional designers should at least be prepared to recognize these unique issues.

The paper highlights some issues worth discussing: the complexity of directly incorporating socio‐cultural issues into IDT curricula; the broad elusive nature of the knowledge of socio‐cultural issues; and the difficulty in defining socio‐cultural content, including what to teach and how to teach it. These three issues address the role of coursework in professional preparation, and the structure of instructional design courses and curricula.

This study was conducted to examine how proficiencies, motivation, and training impact the success of faculty development for web‐based instruction (WBI) at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in the USA.

Data in this mixed‐design exploratory study came from responses to an online questionnaire and follow‐up interviews. Seven four‐year public HBCUs that offered online curricula and provided faculty development opportunities in various forms such as workshops and seminars were examined.

The results of the study indicated that faculty were proficient in basic technologies, but less proficient in more demanding technologies; provision of incentives such as time off to attend training was motivating for WBI participation; and faculty preferred individualized training and workshops.

Successful faculty development is as a complex process that involves several integrated components which should be viewed as an intentional, ongoing, and systemic process. Nonetheless, it plays an important role, particularly if programs are available to help faculty link effective delivery in their own teaching and research areas.

Meaningful faculty development should be extendable to all instruction, whether in‐class, web‐based, or web‐enhanced. Faculty development opportunities extending beyond the basic uses of technology and seeking connections between curriculum, pedagogy, technology, and administration to technology success is paramount.

Feedback from this study can serve as a resource for decision‐making about WBI projects. The results of the study should provide data and information that supports the technological mission of institutions.