February 2019 until Present
Instructional Design and Innovation Adoption During A Crisis Period: A Case Study
A dissertation presented to
the faculty of
The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Kyle L. Rosenberger
April 2021
© 2021 Kyle L. Rosenberger. All Rights Reserved.2
This dissertation titled
Instructional Designers and Innovation Adoption During A Crisis Period: A Case Study
by
KYLE L. ROSENBERGER
has been approved for
the Department of Educational Studies
and The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education by
Gregory Kessler
Professor of Instructional Technology
Renée A. Middleton
Dean, The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education3
Abstract
KYLE L. ROSENBERGER, Ph.D., April 2021, Instructional Technology
Instructional Designers and Innovation Adoption During A Crisis Period: A Case Study
Director of Dissertation: Gregory Kessler
This study explored how instructional designers work with faculty during a crisis
by exploring topics such as technology adoption, quality teaching continuity, and
communication. Using a case study methodology, this study relied on the account of
instructional designers at Ohio University, while during the COVID-19 pandemic,
worked with faculty to transition their in-person courses to an online modality. Findings
from the data analysis uncovered that a number of the instructional designers undertook a
“minimalist” approach to instructional design, while also relying largely on the use of
professional judgement in their method of recommending best practices in instruction.
Findings further supported the practice of building relationships and using empathy as
means by which a number of the instructional designers used communication during the
COVID-19 pandemic. These results helped to spark new ideas around future research
about the professional identity of instructional designers, the intersection of instructional
design and innovation, and the future of the profession.
Keywords: instructional design, innovation diffusion theory, professional identity,
crisis period, higher educationFor my parents
4
Dedication5
Acknowledgments
The completion of this dissertation not only represents the culmination of an
educational experience, but a milestone on my journey as a lifelong learner. Throughout
the way, I have experienced highs and lows, but have been carried through and inspired
by a multitude of individuals; each of which I would like to like to extend my gratitude to
as I write this acknowledgement.
I would like to first extend my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Gregory
Kessler, and the subsequent members of my dissertation committee: Dr. David Moore,
Dr. Peter Mather, and Dr. Krisanna Machtmes. Each of you have taken the time and
commitment to not only be part of my dissertation committee, but to also inspired me to
pursue a crazy idea I had nearly a decade ago of obtaining a Ph.D. I would like to thank
you each for your wisdom and guidance as I traversed this arduous journey.
To Dr. Daniel Skinner, for years, you have been someone who has shown me
support, been a mentor, and most importantly, a friend. You have inspired me to ask big
questions, to challenge the norms of my profession, and raise a little bit of havoc. I know
the completion of my doctoral program would not have been possible without your help
and I could not be more thankful for your support throughout the years.
I would also like to give a specific acknowledgment to several other individuals at
Ohio University’s Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine. To Dr. William Burke,
Brian Thompson, Pam Dixson and Dr. Jody Gerome, thank you for giving me a chance.
Each of you have provided opportunity, inspiration, friendship, and motivation, not only6
on a professional level, but personal as well. I would not be where I am today if it were
not for each of you and I will always be grateful for that.
My gratitude also extends to several individuals in the Ohio University’s Office of
Instructional Innovation. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Bradley Cohen and Candi
Morris for their leadership and influence in my trajectory as an instructional designer. I
would also like to give a specific acknowledgement to Jody Monk, Larry Hess, and
Sylvia Mickunas for being my most relied on colleagues and pivotal figures in my
development as an instructional designer.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the following individuals for their
unwavering support and friendship through the years: Tyler, Bree, Grace, Jake, JT,
Fulone, and Eddie. Each of you have been a source of inspiration, not only through the
process of obtaining a Ph.D., but through my navigation of this thing called life. You all
continue to inspire me to be a better student, professional, and most importantly, a better
person.7
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract ...........................................................................................................................3
Dedication .......................................................................................................................4
Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................5
List of Tables................................................................................................................. 11
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................. 13
Background of the Study .......................................................................................... 13
COVID-19 and Higher Education ............................................................................ 14
A Major Adjustment for University Faculty ............................................................. 16
Instructional Design and Online Learning ................................................................ 18
Unprecedented Crisis for Instructional Designers ..................................................... 20
Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 20
Purpose of Research................................................................................................. 21
Research Questions .................................................................................................. 21
Significance of Study ............................................................................................... 22
Theoretical Focus .................................................................................................... 22
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 25
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................. 26
Organization of Study .............................................................................................. 27
Chapter 2: Literature Review ......................................................................................... 28
The Role of the Instructional Designer in Higher Education ..................................... 28
Course Design .................................................................................................... 30
Technology Use and Support ............................................................................. 30
As Administrators, Researchers, and Creatives ................................................... 31
Faculty as Subject Matter Experts in Higher Education ............................................ 34
Faculty Autonomy and Academic Freedom ........................................................ 34
Institutional Constrains ...................................................................................... 35
Cultures within the Academy ............................................................................. 37
The Relationship between Instructional Designer and Faculty .................................. 41
Relationship Issues ............................................................................................. 438
Overview of Faculty Adoption ................................................................................. 44
Faculty Adoption of New Technology and Instructional Methods ...................... 44
Innovation Diffusion Theory .................................................................................... 47
Overview of Innovation Diffusion Theory .......................................................... 47
Innovation-Decision Process .............................................................................. 48
Perceived Attributes of Innovations .................................................................... 50
Communication Channels .................................................................................. 51
Applicability of the IDT Framework .................................................................. 52
Summary ................................................................................................................. 53
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................ 56
Rationale for the Selected Case ................................................................................ 57
Research Design ...................................................................................................... 59
Research Setting ................................................................................................ 59
Participants ........................................................................................................ 60
Timeframe ......................................................................................................... 61
The Researcher and Their Suppositions .............................................................. 62
IRB Procedures .................................................................................................. 65
Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 65
Interviews .......................................................................................................... 65
Interview Memos ............................................................................................... 67
Documentation ................................................................................................... 67
Data Collection Procedures ...................................................................................... 68
Interviews .......................................................................................................... 68
Sampling ............................................................................................................ 69
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 70
Validity and Reliability ...................................................................................... 72
Construct, Internal, and External Validity........................................................... 72
Reliability .......................................................................................................... 74
Summary ................................................................................................................. 75
Chapter 4: Results.......................................................................................................... 77
Research Questions .................................................................................................. 77
Question 1: Working with Faculty during a Time of Crisis....................................... 77
A Minimalist Approach ...................................................................................... 789
Time Crunch ...................................................................................................... 81
Operating in Support Mode ................................................................................ 81
Professional Identity .......................................................................................... 83
The Future ......................................................................................................... 85
Conclusion of Question 1 ................................................................................... 86
Question 2: Balancing Best Practices during a Time of Crisis .................................. 87
Time Constraints and Suggesting Best Practices ................................................. 87
Nudging Faculty ................................................................................................ 89
Using Professional Judgement ............................................................................ 91
Conclusion of Question 2 ................................................................................... 92
Question 3: Innovation and Communication during a Time of Crisis ........................ 93
Appetite for Innovation ...................................................................................... 94
Innovation and University Administration .......................................................... 96
Communication Methods and Approaches ......................................................... 98
Building Relationships and Rapport ................................................................... 98
Taking Initiative ............................................................................................... 100
Conclusion of Question 3 ................................................................................. 102
Summary ............................................................................................................... 104
Chapter 5: Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion ......................................... 106
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 106
Summary of Study ................................................................................................. 106
Research Questions ................................................................................................ 110
Discussion of Findings ........................................................................................... 110
Finding 1: Working with Faculty During a Time of Crisis ...................................... 110
A “Minimalist” Approach to Instructional Design ............................................ 111
Instructional Design is Not Technology Support .............................................. 114
Solidifying Identity .......................................................................................... 116
The Future ....................................................................................................... 119
Summary of Finding 1 ........................................................................................... 120
Finding 2: Balancing Best Practices During a Time of Crisis ................................. 121
Working with the Constraint of Time ............................................................... 122
Faculty Autonomy and Academic Freedom ...................................................... 124
Leading by Example ........................................................................................ 12510
Using Professional Judgement .......................................................................... 127
Summary of Finding 2 ........................................................................................... 131
Finding 3: Innovation and Communication During A Crisis ................................... 132
The Opportunity for Innovation ........................................................................ 133
Innovation, Administration, and the Future ...................................................... 135
Communication Methods and Approaches ....................................................... 138
Using Agency .................................................................................................. 139
Comparison to Innovation Diffusion Theory .................................................... 142
Communication Channels ................................................................................ 147
Innovation Diffusion Theory During a Crisis ................................................... 148
Summary of Finding 3 ........................................................................................... 150
Implications of the Study ....................................................................................... 152
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 158
References ................................................................................................................... 162
Appendix A: March 13th Message from Ohio University on COVID-19 Measures ....... 174
Appendix B: March 23rd Message from Ohio University on COVID-19 Measures ....... 177
Appendix C: Interview Guide ...................................................................................... 181
Appendix D: Questions and their Relationship to the Innovation-Decision Process ...... 182
Appendix E: Coding Category Mapping ...................................................................... 184
Appendix F: Case Study Protocol ................................................................................ 18611
List of Tables
Page
Table 1 Stages of the Innovation Diffusion Process ................................................ 23-24
Table 2 Stages of the Innovation Decision Process.................................................. 48-49
Table 3 Five Attributes that Define the Rate of Innovation Adoption ............................ 50
Table 4 Participants and their Primary Supported College ............................................. 6112
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1. Timeline of the Ohio University Response to COVID-19 in Spring 2020. ....... 6213
Chapter 1: Introduction
Background of the Study
The turn of the decade has been defined by a singular event: the spread of the
COVID-19 virus. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) (2020a) COVID-
19 is a novel coronavirus that has not been previously seen in humans and has had a
significant impact on human life. As of January 2021, there have been nearly 23 million
cases in the United States alone that have resulted in over 387,000 deaths (CDC, 2021).
Worldwide, the virus has infected over 93 million individuals, resulting in over 2 million
deaths as of January 2021 (WorldOMeter, 2021). Because of its impact on human life,
the COVID-19 virus was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization
(WHO) in March of 2020 (WHO, 2020).
Because this strain of virus was classified as “novel,” no vaccine existed prior to
the end of 2020. As such, various global efforts have been undertaken to reduce the
prevalence of the virus. In the United States, one of these largest efforts has been the
practice of “social distancing” (WHO), which according to the CDC (2020b), includes
the practices of (1) maintaining a space of six feet from others, (2) not gathering in large
groups, and (3) avoiding mass gatherings or large groups of people. The practice of social
distancing has undoubtedly influenced individuals and social institutions across the
globe. More specifically, in the United States, the practice of social distancing has had a
significant impact on the economy, including entities such as small businesses,
commodities, and the stock market (Oliver, 2020; Kinery et al., 2020).14
COVID-19 and Higher Education
Higher education is another entity that has been significantly affected by COVID-
19. In the wake of the pandemic declaration, many colleges and institutions made a
significant pivot to transition their courses online instead of having students on campus.
The effect of this transition has been unprecedented, causing tremendous financial
constraints, which has led the U.S. government to allocate nearly 6.2 billion dollars to the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (Inside Higher Education
Staff, 2020). The CARES Act provides continuity funding for colleges and universities as
they navigate the differentiated landscape produced by the COVID-19 outbreak. In a
statement by U.S. Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, CARES Act funds are meant to
ensure “learning continues when unexpected circumstances arise” and that funds are to
“expand remote learning programs, build IT capacity, and train faculty and staff to
operate in a remote learning environment” (U.S. Department of Education, 2020, para. 2).
DeVos’s statements and the move by the Department of Education to allocate the
funding indicates the importance of maintaining and improving a remote learning
environment for students in higher education. At the present time, it is unclear what the
next move will be for many institutions regarding resuming courses in a physical
location; and some schools have already taken hard positions on the subject. For
example, Boston University has contemplated postponing re-opening until January 2021
(Adams, 2020).
Regardless of when colleges and universities reopen in-person classes, the
landscape of higher education is predicted to change significantly. According to Kim15
(2020), blended learning is set to increase as is the strategic priority of online education.
The emphasis and prioritization of online or remote education has been a major shift not
only for students, but for many faculty members in higher education. Those who have
never used these technological tools or have never operated in a digital environment have
had to learn new techniques and tools (Luthra & Mackenzie, 2020).
However, the occurrence of learning new technologies and teaching methods is
not new for faculty in higher education. Yet, with the onset of COVID-19, these faculty
have not necessarily been given a choice on whether to adopt new technologies and
pedagogical practices. This occurrence can be compared to the work of Rogers (2003),
Godin (2009), and Moore (2014), who reference the “Adopter Categorization on the
Basis of Innovation” or the “Technology Adoption Lifecycle.” In these models, Rogers
(2003) and Moore (2014), in particular, denote how people typically fall into a number of
categories when looking to adopt a new technology or innovation. These categories
consist of: 1) innovators, 2) early adopters, 3) early majority, 4) late majority, and 5)
laggards (Rogers, 2003; Moore, 2014). While this model is typically applicable to
“normal” situations, it may not necessarily reflect a situation when people do not have a
choice on whether or not to adopt a new technology or innovation; for example, during
the COVID-19 crisis. Thus, it is understandable that some of these models might not be
completely applicable during crisis situations. Therefore, it can be assumed that for each
of the categories of these models may need to make significant adjustments to
accommodate for a new technology or innovation. In the case of higher education and
COVID-19, this may require a significant intervention of administration to help with16
those who may be in the “late adopter” or “laggard” category mainly due to the
constraints of time or the unwillingness to adopt a new practice or technology.
A Major Adjustment for University Faculty
According to a recent survey of 826 faculty and administrators, nearly 65% of
faculty who have had to transition to online education have had no prior experience in
online teaching (Lederman, 2020). What this statistic represents is a significant need for
faculty to adopt new or innovative teaching technologies. In the past, higher education
has had a reputation for being slow to change, especially when it comes to the adoption
of new technologies or teaching methods (Gurmak & Hardaker, 2014). Therefore, the
pandemic has given rise to the need for support and facilitation of new teaching methods
and technologies. To meet this need, many colleges and universities have been using
administrative support units to develop resources and live support to aid the in the
transition (Baker, 2020). Administrative support units, within the context of Baker
(2020), can refer to those who aid faculty, such as those in faculty development and
instructional technologists.
While the name and personnel of such administrative support units vary per
academic institution, one position that has been elevated during this time has been that of
the instructional designer. Traditionally, an instructional designer is one who uses
“systematic instructional planning” to develop instructional programs and courses
(Koszalka et al., 2013, p. 147; Gibbons, 2014). Instructional design is rooted in the audio-
visual educational movement of the 1950s and the unified field of human psychology and17
systems development. In short, instructional design focuses on the use of validated
instructional procedures (Gibbons, 2014).
The use of instructional designers to address a crisis is not unprecedented and
aligns to the historical context of the use of instructional designers. According to Reiser
(1987), the interest in programmed instruction and the emphasis on a systematic approach
to it began to be of peak interest with the onset of World War II. According to Reiser
(1987), “During the war, a large number of psychologists and educators who had training
and experience in conducting experimental research were called upon to conduct research
and develop training materials for the military services” (p. 22). As a result of this, Reiser
(1987) notes that many of the concepts associated with the systems-based approach to
instruction arose because of this era. As such, the field of instructional design could be
considered a by-product of a crisis period and could potentially evolve with the advent of
future crises, such as COVID-19.
The use of instructional designers in higher education has been on the rise in the
past few years. In 2016, it was estimated that around 13,000 positions related to
instructional design existed in higher education (Intentional Futures, 2016). According to
the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018), these positions have a faster than
average projected growth trend through 2026. Similarly, the bureau projects around
16,900 job openings for instructional designers from 2016‒2026 (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics).
According to Richardson et al., (2018), instructional designers can play a crucial
role in shaping the instructional process and practice of faculty members through18
professional collaboration. Within this relationship lies an opportunity for collaboration
between designers and faculty to create opportunities that can result in positive student
outcomes and the adoption of new instructional technologies and pedagogical practices
(Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2017; Richardson et al., 2018). With this in mind, it becomes clear
why many institutions employ instructional designers to help with the central tenets of
their mission statements.
Instructional Design and Online Learning
Instructional designers work in a variety of capacities. For example, they are
employed not only in higher education, but also in the corporate sector and military
organizations. Furthermore, instructional designers operate within a capacity that is
related to training and human performance improvement, as well as other teaching-
orientated positions, such as faculty development. However, within the higher education
environment, instructional designers have largely been tasked with the design and
development of online courses (Drysdale, 2019).
Online learning rose to prominence with the advent of the Internet and other
computer-to-computer networking platforms (Finkle & Masters, 2014). Since that time,
there has been an exponential growth of students and online programs within higher
education. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2019, Table
311.15), there were nearly 6.9 million students enrolled in a distance education courses at
a degree granting institution in the fall of 2018. The increase in the popularity of online
education has also spawned a number of innovative changes within the higher education
landscape, such as the rise of massive open online courses (MOOCs), technologically19
enhanced learning management systems, and use of data-driven analytics (Finkle &
Masters, 2014; Muljana & Luo, 2020). Furthermore, the rise of online education has
increased a number of institutional changes in higher education, such as the rise of fully
online for-profit schools and alternative credentialing systems. As such, the impact
distance education has had on higher education has been unprecedented and as new
technology develops, the impact of these will continue to shift and shape the landscape of
the higher education environment.
To navigate the changes of the new landscape and shifting technological changes,
many colleges and universities are turning to instructional designers who are equipped
with a versatile skill set that can greatly improve the quality and design of online courses.
This skill set and expertise generally comes from the crossover of knowledge between
pedagogy, learning science, and technology, which makes instructional designers an asset
for institutions who are looking to move their courses and curriculum online. This is
exceptionally relevant given the position many institutions find themselves in because of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, at the same time, instructional designers are finding themselves in a
unique position. With employment numbers for instructional designers on the rise, it
could be estimated that these numbers will see another significant uptick. With this in
mind, and with the uncertainty of the future of higher education, instructional designers
will need to explore how to operate within a crisis period, and more specifically, how this
new environment shifts the way designers work to ensure quality education. Furthermore,20
this work environment could potentially shift how instructional designers communicate
with subject matter experts and how that relationship functions as a whole.
Unprecedented Crisis for Instructional Designers
Since the rise of COVID-19 is new and unprecedented, the literature is currently
sparce in many areas, in particular, within higher education. However, this is not to
suggest that the crisis response literature is lacking as that body of work encompasses a
wide array of sectors, including business, healthcare, and the economy. Though, within
the context of this study, the literature is thin regarding how instructional designers work
with faculty during a crisis period to adopt new innovative practices and technologies.
Therefore, it is central to this research to explore this area through the lens of an
instructional design unit at a mid-size midwestern university. Through such an inquiry,
instructional design units and individuals will be able to see the methods and tactics that
were employed during a crisis implementation and will be better prepared to face such
circumstances in the future.
Problem Statement
The COVID-19 pandemic has propelled higher education into uncharted territory.
The massive mobilization of in-person instruction to an online environment has been a
test for institutions in general, but also for those in faculty and administrative positions.
Instructional designers, for example, are one group that has been significantly affected.
They are uniquely positioned to work with faculty on the adoption of new technologies,
but also to work with them to maintain the quality of their instructional practice during
the COVID-19 crisis era.21
This study aims to explore how instructional designers work with faculty during a
crisis by exploring topics such as technology adoption, quality teaching continuity, and
communication. Findings from this study will help illuminate some practical practices of
instructional designers regarding how to work during a crisis and what techniques or
practices are the most successful for learning outcomes.
Purpose of Research
The purpose of this study is to explore how instructional designers work with
faculty to adopt new instructional technologies and practices during a crisis period. At
this stage in the research, “crisis period” can be defined as a period of time that has
altered the normal state of things due to adverse circumstances.
Research Questions
This study is guided by the following research questions pertaining to how
instructional designers work with faculty to adopt new technologies and practices during
a crisis period:
1. How do instructional designers work with faculty in a crisis to implement new
technologies?
2. How do instructional designers balance best practices in instruction during a time
of crisis?
3. How do instructional designers communicate with faculty about innovating their
instructional practices during a time of crisis?22
Significance of Study
COVID-19 has had a significant impact on higher education, and many colleges
and universities had to pivot their traditional in-person course offerings to the online
environment. As a result of this process, many faculty have had to adapt by learning new
technologies while maintaining a rigorous and fruitful educational experience for their
students. To assist in this process, instructional designers have helped facilitate the
transition by working with faculty to modify their instruction and adopt new
technologies.
Instructional designers are uniquely positioned within higher education to be a
conduit of change. However, the literature is scarce on how instructional designers
effectively work with faculty during a crisis. Research into this area can illuminate
deficiencies in the practice of instructional designers with the specific aim of identifying
how they work with faculty, how they balance best practices in instruction, and how they
communicate with faculty about innovating their instructional practice. Findings from a
study of this nature can be used in future situations where instructional designers are
called upon to help with a rapid transition of courses to an online environment.
Theoretical Focus
The adoption of innovative instructional practices can be likened to the
acceptance or widespread use of any new process, technology, or methodology.
Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) is a theoretical perspective that intends “to provide an
account of the manner in which any technological innovation moves from the stage of
invention to widespread use (or not)” (Samaradiwakara & Gunawardena, 2014, p. 24).23
Widely popularized by Rogers (2003), IDT is centralized on the way innovations are
either accepted and diffused into or discarded by a population. An “innovation,” as
described by Rogers (2003), is “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an
individual or other unit of adoption” (p. 12). Central to this theory is what Rogers
describes as “the innovation-decision process,” which is:
the process through which an individual (or other decision-making unit) passes
from gaining initial knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward the
innovation, to making a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new
idea, and to confirmation of this decision. (p. 168)
The innovation-diffusion process is the amalgamation of research in the field of
diffusion that contends that an individual’s decision regarding whether or not to accept an
innovation is a process that occurs over time (Rogers, 2003). The process itself is
delineated into five distinct stages, as described by Rogers (2003, p. 169) in the following
table:
Table 1
Stages of the Innovation-Diffusion Process
Stage Description
Knowledge Occurs when an individual (or other decision-
making unit) is exposed to an innovation’s existence
and gains an understanding of how it functions.24
Table 1 Continued
Persuasion Occurs when an individual (or other decision-
making unit) forms a favorable or an unfavorable
attitude towards the innovation.
Decision Takes place when an individual (or other decision-
making unit) engages in activities that lead to a
choice to adopt or reject the innovation.
Implementation Occurs when an individual (or other decision-
making unit) puts a new idea into use.
Confirmation Takes place when an individual seeks reinforcement
of an innovation-decision if exposed to conflicting
messages about the innovation.
Note. Adapted from Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003).
The use of Innovation Diffusion Theory (and more specifically, the innovation-
decision process) is the theoretical framework by which this study seeks to establish a
baseline for the practice of instructional designers’ ability to diffuse innovative
instructional practices to faculty members during a time of crisis. Furthermore,
comparing the approach instructional designers take with faculty members, particularly
within the realm of communication, with that of the Innovation-Decision Process may
help to illuminate why “lack of faculty buy-in” ranks among the top issues for25
instructional designers. More importantly, identifying any incongruences can help
designers modify their practices, which can not only alleviate some of their professional
woes but have positive implications for institutions looking at encouraging faculty
innovation.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the central focus of this study is how
instructional designers work with faculty to adopt new instructional technologies and
practices during a crisis period. However, instructional designers are not the only
personnel who may or may not have influence on the instructional practices of faculty.
Other personnel, such as department chairs, colleagues, and administrative units, also
interact with individual faculty on a frequent basis. Other factors, such as institutional
culture, faculty autonomy, and academic freedom, could all influence the findings of this
study. These factors should all be considered when reviewing the findings.
Second, this study does not intend to identify a comprehensive framework for
how instructional designers should work with faculty to adopt new instructional
technologies and practices. However, it acts as a means to establish insight into what
happens during the faculty and instructional designer conversation around the topic.
Findings are then compared to that of IDT. This framework was selected by the
researcher because of its seeming relevance to the topic at hand, but is not the only
theoretical framework that could have been used. Therefore, viewing this specific topic
through the lens of a different theoretical framework could lead to a separate
interpretation of the results. However, results from this study have identified a potential26
need for a new framework as to how instructional designers operate within a crisis
period, specifically, around the subject of technology and pedagogical practice adoption.
It is outside the scope of this study to have identified such a framework; however, the
results from this study demonstrate a potential value in having one developed for the field
of instructional design, should another crisis period arise.
Definition of Terms
• Crisis Period: A period of time that has altered the normal state of things due to
adverse circumstances.
• Instructional Designer: An individual who uses “systematic instructional planning
including needs assessment, development, evaluation, implementation, and
maintenance of materials and programs” (Koszalka et al., 2014, p.147).
• COVID-19: A novel coronavirus that originated in 2019 that has caused a global
pandemic (CDC, 2020a).
• Innovation Diffusion Theory: A technological acceptance theoretical framework
that is an “account of the manner in which any technological innovation moves
from the stage of invention to widespread use (or not)” (Samaradiwakara &
Gunawardena, 2014, p. 25).
• Innovation Decision Process: “The process through which an individual (or other
decision-making unit) passes from first knowledge of an innovation to forming an
attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation
and use of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision” (Rogers, 2003, p.
457)27
Organization of Study
The remainder of this study is structured into five distinct chapters and concludes
with a bibliography and appendices. The second chapter provides a review of the
literature relevant to the central themes, including instructional design, online learning,
and technology adoption. The third chapter expounds on the research design used for this
study. This delineation includes an overview of the instrument to collect the data, the
research procedures, and the criteria for sample selection. Results of the data collection
are presented and accompanied by a discussion in the fourth chapter. The fifth chapter
summarizes the major outcomes of the study and points toward recommendations for
future research. Following this final chapter is a bibliography and appendices.28
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter 1 addressed the changing landscape of higher education due to the rise of
COVID-19. More specifically, it focused on how instructional designers work with
higher education faculty to adopt new instructional technologies and techniques during
this crisis period. This topic includes issues related to the instructional designer and
faculty relationship, such as communication, role determination and delineation, faculty
adoption of technology, and innovation.
The focus of this chapter is to position my dissertation within the context of the
existing literature focusing on 1) the role of the instructional designer in higher education,
2) the role of the faculty member in higher education, 3) research regarding instructional
designer and faculty relationships, 4) research on “faculty adoption” of innovations, and
5) innovation diffusion theory. This comprehensive review identifies current gaps while
providing a contextual framework for the remainder of this study.
The Role of the Instructional Designer in Higher Education
Since its conception, the role of an instructional designer has been convoluted as a
result its integration in multiple disciplines, including technology, systems theory,
learning science, and design thinking. However, the foundation of the position of an
instructional designer ties directly to the rise of systems-based thinking in the design of
instruction (Reiser, 1987). While the idea of a systematic approach to instruction was not
a new revelation or insight in the modern era, but the basis of the ideology gained
popularity during the mid-20th century with the rise of audio-visual learning materials
and the popularity of the behaviorist approach to instruction (Reiser, 1987). Underlying29
behaviorism and this systems approach was the ideology that an empirical approach to
the design and improvement of education was possible. Championed by those such as
B.F. Skinner (1962), it is this very foundational idea that continues to perpetuate and
underpin recent movements in the field, such as learning engineering (Long, 2019).
However, since the creation of the profession nearly five decades ago, the position
continues to tread the line between several disciplines. For example, a study by
Intentional Futures (2016) indicated the four significant categories of instructional
designers to be:
1. To design instructional materials and courses, particularly for digital delivery;
2. To manage the efforts of faculty, administration, IT, other instructional designers,
and others to achieve better student learning outcomes;
3. To train faculty to leverage technology and implement pedagogy effectively; and
4. To support faculty when they encounter technical or instructional challenges (p.
3).
The study by Intentional Futures (2016) included instructional designers from
different industries and institutions, including higher education, corporations, and the
military. While the conclusions of their survey outlined broad functions of instructional
designers, it did not precisely delineate what they do within specific contexts. For this
study, a clear understanding of what instructional designers do in higher education is in
order. Furthermore, the survey by Intentional Futures only highlights data from their
study but does not extensively capture the role of instructional designers, and more
specifically, instructional designers in the context of higher education, which is one that30
has been documented, not extensively. What the research to date indicates is that the
instructional designer performs several high-level functions within the realms of course
design, technology support, administration, and creative projects. These four main
groupings tend to provide a comprehensive look at the modern-day instructional designer
within the higher education landscape.
Course Design
Of the reported roles assumed by an instructional designer within higher
education, the ability to assist in the design and development of courses is among the
most profound. Studies conducted by Kumar and Ritzhaupt (2017), Villachia et al.,
(2010), Kenny et al., (2005), and Cox and Osguthrpe (2003) all place course design as the
primary function an instructional designer plays in the higher education setting. The term
“course design” in these studies focuses on specific components, such as determining
goals and objectives and creating course documentation and materials; however, it does
not distinguish a significant difference between face-to-face and online courses. Also, the
design and development of course materials included the design and construction of
interactive multimedia learning objects using e-authoring software and even the use of
learning management systems (Klien & Kelly, 2018; Kang & Ritzhaupt, 2015).
Technology Use and Support
Another significant role that instructional designers play within the setting of
higher education is one that uses technology to support the facilitation of learning. For
example, several studies have indicated that instructional designers need to possess a
functional knowledge of how technology can be a tool to reach specific pedagogical31
goals (Fyle et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2002). Technological expertise can include many
actions, from the selection of technology to perform a particular pedagogical strategy to
demonstrating to a faculty how a specific technology may work in the classroom setting.
Furthermore, instructional designers need to be well-versed in such technological
processes as developing online courses or transitioning a face-to-face course to an online
environment. Aside from technology use with regards to pedagogy, the literature has
identified instances where instructional designers provide technical support to subject
matter experts and other professionals in higher education. For example, Kumar and
Ritzhaupt (2017) suggested that instructional designers spend a significant amount of
time troubleshooting learning management system issues, as well as those with e-mail
and even proctoring systems.
As Administrators, Researchers, and Creatives
A secondary role in which the modern-day instructional designers find themselves
is that of the administrative professional. In this capacity, instructional designers serve on
academic or administrative committees and help make institutional decisions (Kumar &
Ritzhaupt, 2017). Instructional designers are uniquely positioned within this space as they
can be a source of institutional knowledge, depending on their scope of work and position
within such an institution (Boyle, 2011; Fyle et al., 2012). As such, instructional
designers can also be viewed within the context as a “change agent,” being that they can
help make informed decisions concerning pedagogy and institutional strategy (Campbell
et al., 2007).32
Another area where instructional designers find themselves in today's
environment is research and creative activity. While the current literature base for this
aspect of an instructional designer’s role is small, it is nonetheless growing and is
essential to the field. For example, Linder and Dello Stritto (2017) indicate that 71.1% of
instructional designers who participated in their study had engaged in research. This
ability and function for instructional designers and research can link efforts to promote
creativity and innovation within the field as well. As noted earlier, many colleges and
universities are creating and resourcing departments that aim to bring about creativity and
innovation. Instructional designers in these departments are tasked with bringing this type
of ingenuity to their educational institutions (Hokanson et al., 2008; Ashbaugh, 2013). As
such, these institutions are in a unique position to explore the use of new technologies
and innovations in ways that support pedagogical purposes. As the focus of instructional
designers tends to be the achievement of specified goals and objectives, they can focus on
such efforts.
In all, the role of an instructional designer in the higher education environment is
diverse and contextual. Concerning specific duties, the design and development of
instructional programming (often designated at the course level) remains their top
function. However, within this area, there are a multitude of sub-categories, such as the
development of course materials, documentation, and interactive learning objects.
Instructional designers may also have the task of helping to develop course activities and
assignments in conjunction with the subject matter at hand as a means of course design
and development. Below that exists the development, use, and support of technology to33
help facilitate the learning process. Furthermore, technical support is often provided by
instructional designers as a means of troubleshooting errors, as opposed to identifying the
best use of technology for pedagogical purposes.
Finally, instructional designers have assumed peripheral roles within institutions
that can be non-traditional. For example, serving in an administrative capacity to make
pedagogical decisions for institutions and serving in a primary role as a researcher are
two that are becoming more common in the field. Finally, the role of “innovator” is
something that has recently been assumed by instructional designers. Within this context,
instructional designers are tasked with helping individuals explore new pedagogical
methods, technologies, and processes. With this, institutions are counting on instructional
designers to encourage faculty to provide engaging and learner-centered experiences to
improve student learning outcomes. The literature in this area is sparce, but it is
nonetheless apparent when looking at how much higher education units have been
investing in instructional design.
Although the primary function of an instructional designer at a specific institution
or organization, central to the role is the act of working with a subject matter expert. In an
ideal setting, the instructional designer acts as a conduit by which the subject matter
expert can translate their expertise into a medium that is most efficient and produces the
most significant learning outcomes. However, the role of a faculty member exceeds that
of just being a subject matter expert and includes a blend of roles that also encompass
research and service-related duties.34
Faculty as Subject Matter Experts in Higher Education
As noted earlier, faculty members assume the role of the subject matter expert
(SME) in higher education. Though each faculty position is unique within the setting of
its contractual requirements, most positions allot time for instruction, research, and
service. For the instructional designer, the most essential of these three is the faculty
member’s requirement of instruction. As such, faculty must assume a role that requires
them to interface with students in a pedagogical manner, imparting their content
knowledge and expertise. It is this role, and some of the following benefits of assuming
it, that is the primary distinction between the roles of instructional design and faculty. As
noted earlier, instructional designers can participate as administrators in various
capacities and have also been documented participating in research. These two
components can be compared to a faculty member’s responsibilities for research and
service. Though comparing the duties of the roles can be vast and differentiated, they are
nonetheless related. What does stand out when comparing instructional designers and
faculty is that faculty directly interface with students and are the primary decision makers
when it comes to how and what they will teach.
Faculty Autonomy and Academic Freedom
One of the distinguishing features faculty members have at their disposal as
leaders of their classroom is academic freedom. Though it has been a widely debated
topic, academic freedom gives agency and power to faculty to determine how they
discuss their subject within the educational context. As noted by Jumonville (2014),
academic freedom provides faculty a “great extent of control and self-determination35
concerning their teaching, their research, and their other activities as college and
university professors” (p. 536). Therefore, academic freedom is a mechanism faculty to
have control of their learning environment and to facilitate the most effective way to
convey their content and expertise.
Institutional Constrains
Faculty autonomy is, however, seemingly infringed upon because of specific
institutional structures. For example, many colleges, universities, and particular programs
must meet accreditation standards and state authorization standards (Fain, 2019;
Greenberg, 2014). In the broadest sense, the need for accreditation is to ensure the
“quality” of education programs by aligning what is taught to standards determined by
outside entities of external stakeholders and governmental agencies (American Council
on Education, 2002; Hegji, 2017). The implication of meeting accreditation standards has
a massive impact on higher education institutions, ranging from their ranking amongst
peers to the types of degrees that can be offered and whether they can receive Title IV
federal funding (Hegji, 2017).
Another institution constraint that could potentially impede academic freedom is
of institutional infrastructure. While this is a rather broad category, infrastructure and all
its resources, both physical and digital, can be all that a college or university possesses.
Often, significant decisions made from a logistical standpoint can have a direct impact on
the ways and means an instructor can choose to deliver content. For example, a university
may decide to move a course or entire program online because it would reach a much36
larger audience, thus, generating more revenue. A faculty member did not want to teach
in an online environment could be a point of contention.
Similarly, if an instructor teaches in an active learning classroom (ALC), they
might have a greater chance of creating an engaging learning environment for students.
These decisions, while sometimes driven by faculty, often come down to what an
institution can support from a logical and resource perspective. Therefore, even possessed
with academic freedom, faculty are still unable to have full “freedom” to teach what they
want and how they want.
Examples of accreditation and institutional infrastructure are but two examples of
several constraints. Though “constraint” tends to have a negative connotation, many of
these exist to promote positive ventures, such as delivering quality instruction and
providing responsible financing to students. Then again, constraint does have a negative
slant when compared to academic freedom and a faculty member’s ability to express their
content, views, and ideologies in a way that best supports their content. However, these
constraints also affect the entire faculty and instructional designer relationship. Moreover,
the instructional designer is often constrained more than a typical faculty member. The
very nature of instructional designers in higher education puts them within a contextual
role as a “service provider,” thus, making them subject to providing whatever support is
requested of them. However, this is not always the case when working with a faculty
member and an instructional designer. Because of the variability of instructional design
roles and those of faculty, no baseline standard for a mutual working relationship exists.37
In reviewing both the roles of the instructional designer and individual faculty
member, it is apparent where the delineation of duties exists. However, the relationship
between instructional designers and faculty members is complex as a result of a
convoluted process of decision making, communication, and interpersonal relationships.
The following section of this literature review examines the integration of these two
roles, what issues tend to exist, and the importance of communication within the
relationship.
Cultures within the Academy
Another important aspect to consider about the faculty member’s role as a subject
matter expert in the academy is the role culture plays. Rather, more specifically, how
culture can impact or change how a faculty member operates within the academy. One of
the best accounts of how culture influences the academy is presented in Bergquist &
Pawlak’s (2008) Engaging the Six Cultures of the Academy. Within their work, Bergquist
and Pawlak provide an in-depth analysis as to how six specific cultures play a diverse
role within the academy. According to Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), these six cultures
include: 1) the collegial culture, 2) the managerial culture, 3) the developmental culture,
4) the advocacy culture, 5) the virtual culture, and 6) the tangible culture. Each of these
are distinct in their conception, but also in how they address specific issues,
circumstances, and opportunities for faculty within the academy.
Within the context of this study, the virtual culture described by Bergquist and
Pawlak is the most applicable. According to Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), the virtual
culture “connects with the postmodern world. It creates meaning by first having38
interactions with information that is generated throughout this world. It connects this
informational socially and creates knowledge in meaningful ways” (p. 150). One of the
main arguments Bergquist and Pawlak make in regard to the virtual culture is that the
academy cannot be exempt from engaging in it. As noted by Bergquist and Pawlak
(2008):
The global virtual culture affects the academy in two ways. First the academy
must interface with information-based technology (most notably computers) and
the way this technology can be networked (for example, the Internet). Second, the
virtual culture incorporates new ways of organizing managing and indeed
envision the purposes and activities of the academy. (p. 151)
As indicated by Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), the virtual culture of the academy is one
that must interface with technological changes as a means of both looking towards the
future of how the academy operates, but also how information is generated and
discovered. This point is particularly important for the study at hand as this study aims to
provide an account of just what that looks like from an institutional perspective. For
example, the transition of in-person courses to an online modality because of COVID-19
is an example of how the academy is not exempt from embracing the virtual culture.
The embracing of this culture; however, is easier said than done. According to
Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), “Like faculty members aligned with the other cultures,
those aligned with the virtual culture believe (and feel) that their sense of self-worth and
competency, as well as, their traditional ways of being in and perceiving the world, are
being challenged” (p. 163). This sense of challenge as to the identity of the faculty39
member may be a result of such instances, such as the onset of COVID-19 and the
migration of classes to an online or remote format. Yet, this requires those individuals to
go through changes in the way they perceive their role as faculty and subject matter
experts, and quite possibly, their view of technology. According to Bergquist and Pawlak
(2008), “the greatest challenge of the digital revolution is that the professor must undergo
some major changes. As lecturers, professors have control of the information transmitted;
as coaches in a virtual culture, they must respond to queries that may not be within the
realm of their expertise” (p. 168-169). This sentiment is followed up with another
account by Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), who suggest that “faculty members are no
longer automatically situated at the top of the knowledge (and power) pyramid” (p. 169).
The accounts provided by Bergquist and Pawlak on the “virtual culture” of the
academy compliments the framework of this study, in particular, with the account of
faculty needing to adopt new or innovative teaching practices and technologies as a result
of COVID-19. More specifically, as pointed out by Bergquist and Pawlak, faculty must
possess some form of openness to technology and the shifting mechanisms brought on by
its integration into the academy. For the context of this study, the COVID-19 pandemic
has brought about a prioritization for remote and online education, regardless of how a
faculty member feels about the modality. Thus, for an institution to remain forward
thinking and successful, a certain opinion of innovation and openness to adopt new
technologies must exist in some form. As technological advancements take place, as well
as, instances that may accelerate the need for technological acceptance (for example,
COVID-19), the academy must be ready to embrace the results of such change.40
Within the context of this study, Bergquist and Pawlak’s account of the virtual
culture is applicable to remote and online education brought on by the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is interesting to assume what this looks like beyond
just online and remote education. While still hypothetical in conception, one could
speculate how the COVID-19 pandemic may end up changing education just beyond our
current notion of online and remote learning. More specifically, the surge in this type of
learning modality may propel many colleges and universities to continue to operate in
this space, instead of returning to the amount of in-person, on-campus instruction they
once provided. Furthermore, it can be speculated that the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic has accelerated the development of new and innovative tools that could shift
how online and remote education is conducted. Both of these scenarios, while still
hypothetical at this point, may be a real future in which faculty need to operate and exist
in. As noted by Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), “certain conditions must exist in order to
change the structure and processes of institutions so that they can more fully align with
the virtual culture. Initially, there may be some sort of impetus to being this change” (p.
171). Within the context of this study, this impetus may be the COVID-19 pandemic and
could be the catalyst by which faculty must take a much more forward-looking approach
to technology. While the identification of COVID-19 as the pure catalyst of making this
transition happen is outside the scope of this study, it is nonetheless complimentary to
many of the themes that are explored within it. More specifically, the idea of technology
adoption, faculty willingness to change and modify their practice, and a general sense of
what innovation looks like in a time of crisis all compliment Bergquist and Pawlak’s41
account of how this can affect the virtual culture of the academy at large. On a more
granular level, it can certainly also influence how instructional designers interact and
approach faculty with the goal of modifying their instructional practices. This approach is
largely influenced by a number of factors, but mainly centers around the effective use of
communication.
The Relationship between Instructional Designer and Faculty
Central to the role of instructional design is the relationship a designer has with
the subject matter expert (SME) (Lowell & Ashby, 2018; Klein & Kelly, 2018). Within
the context of higher education, the SME can typically be considered the faculty member
a designer is tasked to work with on a project. The range of tasks performed by the
instructional designer varies greatly but includes actions such as full-on collaborative
course design, the development of instructional materials, providing technical support for
instructional tools, and faculty development (Drysdale, 2019; Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2017).
Reports also suggest that designers engage in less evident activities such as academic
research, project management, and administrative functions (Linder & Dello Stritto,
2017; Bawa & Watson, 2017). However, aside from the many roles a designer could
assume, the primary generally consists of providing consultation to a faculty member on
the strategic design and development of an instructional course. This consultative
function often results in a collaborative working relationship between the designer and
the faculty member.
Despite the function of an instructional designer in a specific context, it is widely
accepted that collaboration and communication are central to the practice of instructional42
design. According to Kosalka et al., (2013), the ability to communicate is an essential
skill for a designer regardless of their role within a project. This frame of communication
not only stems from gathering information from the faculty or SME, but also includes
negotiation, resolving conflict, building consensus, and collaboration (Kosalka et al.,
2013). In a study by Kumar and Ritzhaupt (2017), designers reported that the ability to
communicate effectively was paramount in their daily role as an instructional designer.
Furthermore, the study indicated that designers must have the ability to communicate to
help ascertain faculty “buy-into” their suggestions (Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2017). However,
the ability to verify this buy-in also depends on developing trust between the designer and
faculty member. A means of accomplishing this stems from a designer’s ability to align
their perceptions with those of the faculty they are working with (Richardson et al.,
2019).
Therefore, for an SME and an instructional designer to effectively delineate their
roles, effective communication must be a central focus. A designer must be able to
communicate their skillset and positionality within a particular project productively. For
faculty, the ability to communicate their role as the SME who has the utmost authority to
dictate the final delivery of the course should be made clear. This authority, garnered by
academic freedom, should be made clear and explicitly understood by the designer and
their unit as a whole. Furthermore, an initial agreement between the instructional designer
and faculty member should be clear from the outset of a project to help mitigate any
potential constraints that might jeopardize a project.43
Relationship Issues
The collaborative relationship between the faculty member and the instructional
designer does not come without complications, which can stem from internal and external
factors, but which are primarily the faculty members’ lack of awareness about
instructional design. For example, Halupa (2019) contends that many faculty members
have not been exposed to or worked with an instructional designer. This lack of
awareness leads to unintended consequences, such as faculty not responding well to the
expertise instructional designers possess (Miller & Stein, 2016). Furthermore, the role of
the instructional designer has been misunderstood as primarily one of technological
support, instead of relying on their expertise in the fields of learning or design (Akella,
2015).
The relationship is also complicated from the perspective of the designer. For
example, Halupa (2019) warns that instructional designers should be careful when
working with faculty not to cross boundaries such as “acting like or superseding the
faculty member, who is a subject matter expert” (p. 9). Halupa (2019) has referred to a
designer assuming this role as an instructional “dictator,” which has a detrimental effect
on the faculty-designer relationship (p. 59). This point is particularly important
considering that the designer-faculty relationship is one of “mediating differences of
option and value” while “working towards consensus from two different perspectives”
(Drysdale, 2019, p. 61). Central to this is the role of power dynamics and how that can
infiltrate the relationship between the designer and faculty member. As addressed earlier,
the primary function of the SME is to teach their course, an action that is guided by the44
executive decision-making abilities given by academic freedom. Thus, an instructional
designer in a service role for the SME will often be coming into an effort from a place of
less decision-making authority. Therefore, a power dynamic exists between the designer
and the SME, who will have the final decision authority for the course (or other academic
initiatives) and that of the recommendations and consultation of the instructional
designer.
Overview of Faculty Adoption
The idea of studying the process of faculty adoption is widespread throughout the
literature. Aside from instructional designers, other agents in higher education have been
interested in the concept. These individuals range from administrative units at colleges
and universities, department chairs, fellow faculty, and corporate stakeholders. Within the
context of this study, this literature is valuable as part of the current study’s direct focus
on the way instructional designers achieve faculty adoption and buy-in.
Faculty Adoption of New Technology and Instructional Methods
A central idea in this study is the process of faculty members adoption of new
instructional practices, technologies, or methods. The current literature base for this
subject is diverse in both the different professions attempting to gain faculty buy-in, as
well as, for what purposes faculty buy-in is desired. Furthermore, the literature is varied
regarding approaches to take with faculty, factors that influence a faculty member’s
acceptance of innovations, and the positive results of this adoption. Together, the
amalgamation of this research paints a picture of the current landscape of attempts to
diffuse innovative teaching techniques into the higher education landscape.45
A significant area in the literature points to the attempt to gain faculty buy-in for
differentiated teaching methods. For example, Blumberg (2016), explored factors that
influence faculty adoption of learner-centered approaches. Similarly, Van Horne and
Murniati (2016), Aragon et al., (2017), Porter and Graham (2016), and Hou and Wilder
(2015) have explored the adoption of diverse and differentiated teaching methods with
faculty members in the realms of blended learning, inclusive pedagogy, active-learning
classrooms, and service learning. While each of these articles has differentiated findings,
they nonetheless demonstrate a growing interest in studying how new and innovative
teaching approaches are adopted. Another critical area of research that exists when
exploring faculty buy-in is the use of specific instructional technologies. For example,
Braddlee and VanScoy (2019) and Jung et al., (2017) explored the perception and
adoption practices of faculty regarding the use of open education resources. Other
instances of studies regarding the adoption of instructional technologies include
Cavanaugh et al.’s (2013) study of faculty adoption of iPads for mobile learning, Pereira
and Wahi’s (2017) study on the adoption of course management system adoption for
faculty, and Swan’s (2009) study of the adoption of e-portfolio systems.
While the studies mentioned earlier are just a snapshot of the current literature
surrounding faculty adoption of new technologies and methodologies of teaching, they
nonetheless represent a recurring interest in faculty adoption. Many institutions across the
higher education landscape have prioritized the consistent push for faculty and
institutions to promote and push the integration for new technologies to support student
learning outcomes. Moreover, as mentioned in Chapter 1, many colleges and universities46
are investing significant amounts of money, time, and resources into establishing
campus-wide units aimed at supporting the adoption of innovative practices and
technologies. Thus, the alignment between the literature and the actions of many colleges
and universities support the idea that the adoption and integration of new and innovative
instructional technologies into the higher education landscape is something that has been
prioritized.
However, the onset of COVID-19 and the mass migration of institutions to online
instruction has opened a new area of inquiry when studying faculty adoption of new
technology and instructional methods. Because of the relatively recent development of
this phenomena, the research is currently scarce. However, instructional designers are
uniquely positioned within higher education to assist faculty in the adoption of new
instructional innovations and practices. This position can be described as a “change
agent,” which Rogers (2003) defines as “an individual who influences clients’
innovation-decisions in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency” (p. 27).
However, at this point, there is no baseline as to how to determine how instructional
designers communicate with faculty about innovations and attempt to gain their buy-in
during a crisis. Thus, one of the central purposes of this study is to explore how
instructional designers are using their position to aid in the facilitation of technology
adoption. Furthermore, a sub-position of this research is to see whether instructional
designers see themselves change agents.47
Innovation Diffusion Theory
Alongside researching why one specific group of people adopt or do not adopt
certain technologies also comes the composite adoption of technologies by large groups
of individuals. These studies have ultimately culminated in theoretical frameworks such
as TAM, TAM 2, and UTAUT (Samaradiwakara & Gunawardena, 2014). Innovation
Diffusion Theory (IDT) emerged from these frameworks. Pioneered by Everett Rogers,
IDT attempts to “provide an account of how any technological innovation moves from
the stage of the invention to widespread use (or not) (Samaradiwakara & Gunawardena,
2014, p. 24). This section will outline IDT and establish why it is an acceptable
framework to use for the current study.
Overview of Innovation Diffusion Theory
IDT is a framework that explains how an innovative idea becomes adopted by a
societal group. Primarily spearheaded by Everett Rogers (2003), IDT was based around
identifying a framework by which to speed up the rate of diffusion of a specific
innovation or idea. As noted by Rogers, the adoption of an innovation could take a very
long time to uptake. A central component of IDT is to identify what this process looks
like with the ultimate goal of identifying strategies for speeding up the adoption of
innovations. Rogers begins his framework by identifying four main components of
diffusing innovations: 1) the innovation itself, 2) communication channels, 3) time, and
4) social systems. In short, Rogers (p. 11) summarized this by stating that diffusion “is
the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time48
among the members of a social system.” The idea of diffusion, and the process outlined
by Rogers, forms a foundational basis for the theoretical framework.
Innovation-Decision Process
A more in-depth look into the theoretical framework of IDT reveals several useful
sub-frameworks related to the adoption of innovations. One of these sub-frameworks is
the innovation-decision process (IDP). According to Rogers (2003), the IDP is:
the process through which an individual (or other decision-making unit) passes
from gaining initial knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward the
innovation to making a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new
idea, and to confirmation of this decision. (p. 168)
According to Rogers, the idea of a process is central to the idea because adoption
of innovation is not instantaneous, but can best be described as a process. Thus, the
primary component of IDP is to create an evidence-based outline. As a whole, the process
is generally outlined with the following five stages:
Table 2
Stages of the Innovation Decision Process
Stage Description
Knowledge Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making
unit) is exposed to an innovation’s existence and gains
an understanding of how it functions.49
Table 2 Continued
Persuasion Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making
unit) forms a favorable or an unfavorable attitude
towards the innovation.
Decision Implementation Takes place when an individual (or other decision-
making unit) engages in activities that lead to a choice
to adopt or reject the innovation.
Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making
unit) puts a new idea into use.
Confirmation Takes place when an individual seeks reinforcement of
an innovation-decision if exposed to conflicting
messages about the innovation.
Note. Adapted from Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003).
Central to the IDP, and IDT as a whole, is that of the interpersonal relationship.
More specifically, IDP and IDT place a strong emphasis on the role of interpersonal
relationships as they exist within the same social group and how well communication
channels exist among the members (Rogers, 2003). For example, Rogers notes that mass
media can be a popular method for introducing knowledge of a new innovation to a group
of individuals, but it is the interpersonal communication that is key within the context of
persuading people to adopt a change. Thus, while different communication strategies
have benefits at various stages of the IDP, interpersonal communication channels are the
ones that have the most impact during the persuasion and decision phase.50
Perceived Attributes of Innovations
Rogers (2003) also dedicates much of his theoretical framework to how people
perceive innovations. According to Rogers, the perception of an innovation is one of the
most important aspects of its rate of adoption. More specifically, Rogers suggests five
specific attributes that play into the rate of adoption of an innovation including 1) relative
advantage, 2) compatibility, 3) complexity, 4) trialability, and 5) observability (p. 221). A
description of these five attributes can be seen in Table 2.
Table 3
Five Attributes that Define the Rate of Innovation Adoption
Attribute Description
Relative Advantage The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
better than the idea it supersedes (p. 229).
Compatibility Complexity Trialability Observability The degree to which an innovation is perceived as
consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and
needs of potential adopters (p. 240).
The degree to which an innovation is perceived as
relatively difficult to understand and use (p. 257).
The degree to which an innovation may be experimented
with on a limited basis (p. 258).
The degree to which the results of an innovation are
visible to others (p. 258).
Note. Adapted from Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003).51
Each of these attributes plays a role in the perception of an innovation to a
societal group of individuals. The perception of an innovation is therefore linked to its
rate of adoption, which is determined by how favorable this perception is. While these
five categories are stagnated, Rogers contends that a standard framework using them
should be avoided and that scales be developed for individual innovations. For that
reason, this sub-framework, while important and relevant, will not form a basis for this
study. Rather the proprietary sub-framework focused on exploring the communication
processes of instructional designers will focus on the innovation-decision process.
Further studies exploring the adoption of individual innovations would benefit greatly
from a framework based on the attributes of innovations outlined by Rogers.
Communication Channels
Central to the research questions at hand is the concept of communication
channels as outlined by Rogers. According to Rogers, a communication channel “is the
means by which messages get from one individual to another” (p. 18). Communication
channels can refer to several different mediums including mass media or individualized
communication (Rogers, 2003). Communication channels are essential not only for
influencing the IDP, but also the perceived attributes of an innovation. Together, the IDP
and perceived attributes of an innovation directly influence the rate of adoption.
For the purpose of this study, the role and work of an instructional designer can be
viewed as an interpersonal communication channel to faculty members. Instructional
designers who work with faculty are in direct contact with them regarding differentiated
and innovative approaches to their instruction. However, it has yet to be documented just52
how instructional designers do this and if they are successful in their approach.
Therefore, it is a central focus of this study to gather data to help illuminate this area of
study.
Applicability of the IDT Framework
The IDT framework and the study of how ideas, technology, and items are
diffused into social systems transcends a number of industries and sectors including
government, the environment, and healthcare and business (Wonglimpiyarat & Yuberk,
2005; Zheng & Jia, 2017; Lee & Shih, 2009). Another industry that has seen the
application of the IDT framework is that of higher education. In particular, the literature
demonstrates an interest in applying the IDT framework to understand the adoption of
technological and instructional innovations within the higher education realm. For
example, Carey and Stefaniak (2018) used the IDT framework in their multi-case study
exploring factors that impede or facilitate the adoption of digital badging systems.
Another example can be seen by Gillies’ (2016) qualitative inquiry into student adoption
of mobile device use in the classroom setting. Other examples of the use of IDT in higher
education stem from quality improvement of instructional programs to the adoption of
active learning classrooms (Szabo & Sobon, 2003; Van Horne & Murniati, 2016).
Therefore, the applicability and transferability of this framework makes it ideal
for the study at hand. As instructional designers operate in a variety of venues, including
the business, governmental, and education sectors, IDT and the communication strategies
it promotes can be highly applicable. Furthermore, the demonstrated use of this
framework in the context of higher education also lends itself to showing its utility for53
further studies within the sector. While the literature base using IDT is not as substantive
in higher education as it is in some other fields, it nonetheless presents an opportunity for
further research. The study at hand aims to help fill this gap by viewing the
communication methods of instructional designers through the lens of IDT. Not only will
this help to identify several ideas about the work and methods instructional designers
employ to help faculty innovate their instructional practices, but it also further
demonstrates the utility that IDT has within the higher education landscape.
Summary
To build the case for the primary research questions at hand, this chapter provided
illumination regarding the current literature based on several of the core tenets of this
project. First, this chapter delineated the roles of both the instructional designer and
faculty member. As noted in the literature, instructional designers within the context of
higher education are primarily tasked with course creation, multimedia development, and
technology support. However, instructional designers also assume supporting roles such
as researchers and administrative leaders. Regarding faculty, they have maintained their
traditional role as the subject matter experts who exercise academic freedom to deliver
instruction to students. However, the role of the faculty member also extends to research
and service-based positions, which are often part of the tenure and promotion process. As
such, it is apparent that instructional designers and faculty have two very distinct roles
within the context of higher education.
However, the rising employment rates of instructional designers in higher
education has perpetuated the collaboration of faculty members and instructional54
designers. As noted in the literature, the working relationship between these two
professions is one of collaboration, but may still lack some understanding of the
delineation of roles and responsibilities. Also, the intersection of expertise and ownership
over content development has led to differences in the power dynamics of the
relationship. However, this can be mitigated through the use of effective communication
on the part of the instructional designer.
The use of effective communication can also be a mechanism to ascertain faculty
buy-in for new technologies and innovative instructional practices. The concept of faculty
adoption of these innovations is well documented in the literature ranging from the
adoption of new instructional techniques to new instructional technologies. Much of the
research surrounding faculty adoption has examined both the processes by which
adoption was attempted and why faculty decided not to adopt a particular technology or
innovation.
However, one such area that was lacking was research on how instructional
designers can help to ascertain faculty buy-in for such innovations during a crisis period.
Because of their collaborative relationship with faculty, instructional designers are
uniquely able to assist in the effort to get faculty to adopt innovative instructional
practices. Yet, research on how instructional designers do this in the midst of a crisis, like
the COVID-19 pandemic, is virtually nonexistent. This research project aims to establish
a baseline by which instructional designers work with faculty to ascertain buy-in to new
technologies and teaching methods.55
To aid in the possible development of such a baseline, it is essential to compare
the current approach instructional designers take when attempting to gain faculty buy-in
with that of an already established structure. For this study, the approach of instructional
designers will be compared to that of Rogers (2003) Innovation Diffusion Theory.
Rogers’ theoretical framework outlines several components that are unique to the
adoption process, such as time, communication, and social systems. Furthermore, Rogers
also describes the Innovation Decision Process, which outlines a five-step process by
which innovations are either accepted or rejected by particular social groups. By
structuring the research around this theoretical framework, we may also be able to see
which “lack of faculty buy-in” has been identified as one of the barriers instructional
designers face. As such, in the beginning, to identify processes that are prohibitive to the
adoption of innovative instructional practices, instructional designers can modify their
relationship and communication channels with faculty to help mitigate such issues.56
Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter outlines the research methodology used for this dissertation study,
the purpose of which, is to explore how instructional designers work with faculty to adopt
new instructional technology and practices during a crisis period. The research study is
driven by the following research questions:
• How do instructional designers work with faculty in a crisis to implement new
technology?
• How do instructional designers balance best practices in instruction during a
time of crisis?
• How do instructional designers communicate with faculty about innovating
their instructional practice during a time of crisis?
The following sections outline the processes and methodologies used by the
researcher in carrying out this project. First, a rationale for the selected case is provided.
Second, the overall research design used for this research is explained, including the
setting, context for study, and a description of the participants. Third, the researcher’s
role in this study and identification of his suppositions in relation to the central research
topic is explained. Fourth, the IRB processes and data collection procedures are explored.
Finally, the components of trustworthiness, validity, and credibility are addressed. The
final section of this chapter concludes with a summary of the research methods and
procedures.57
Rationale for the Selected Case
According to Creswell and Creswell (2013), a defining feature of case study
research is to identify a case that can be bounded by factors such as place and time. The
case for this study was selected for a variety of reasons, including relevance to this
study’s central research questions, proximity to the researcher, and access to the
participants.
The current outbreak of the COVID-19 virus caused a major shift in the way
colleges and universities offer instruction (Mintz, 2020). One of the major changes was
the shift from in-person classes to the online environment because students were not
allowed to return to campus. This shift in the way instruction is delivered was a dramatic
change to many faculty members who have never taught online, as well as to students
who may have never taken an online course (Gewin, 2020). For many institutions, this
shift caused a massive mobilization of administrative support units to assist faculty and
students and ensure continuity of instruction (Dever & Justice, 2020).
One such administrative support unit has been that of instructional designers
(Lederman, 2020) who are equipped with a unique skillset to help in the transition of
course formats. Moreover, a major task of instructional designers has been the act of
introducing and supporting new technologies and instructional methods to faculty
members. These individuals were well poised to assist universities as they responded to
the COVID-19 crisis and withstand the impact it had on the way colleges and universities
offer instruction.58
Ohio University is an example of one institution that relied heavily on their
instructional designers during the COVID-19 crisis period. These instructional designers
were responsible for providing support for faculty, the implementation of new
technology, and working with cross-institutional departments to operationalize the
university’s curriculum (Ohio University, 2020c).
The group of instructional designers at Ohio University was selected as the case
for this research because of several reasons. First, study of this specific group of
instructional designers and their situation lends themselves to answering the research
questions that are central to this study. Second, the researcher is one of the instructional
designers of this unit, which allowed for a wide range of access to information about the
unit’s functions and status. Finally, since the researcher is part of this instructional design
unit, he had close access to the participants.
Studying this group of instructional designers during this moment of crisis will
help further the understanding of how instructional designers work with faculty in times
of crisis. More specifically, this study aims to identify how instructional designers work
with faculty to implement new technology, as well as best instructional design practices.
A deeper understanding of how instructional designers work with faculty at a time of
crisis can help fill a major gap in the research literature. Furthermore, identifying the
methods and tactics instructional designers use could potentially be beneficial for
developing new instructional design models that focus on the rapid development and
deployment of online courses, while still attempting to integrate best practices in course
design and development.59
Research Design
The research design identified for this project was that of a qualitative case study.
According to Creswell (2013), case study research “involves the study of a case within a
real-life, contemporary context, or setting” (p. 97). Similar to this definition is a
description by Yin (2018), who suggests that a case study “investigates a contemporary
phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident” (p. 15). Case
studies can be highly variable regarding the context of the study; however, specific
research questions tend to favor this methodology over others. For example, Yin notes
that research questions with an emphasis on “how” and “why” are more suited for a case
study. As suggested by Yin (2018), “how” and “why” questions allow “the tracing of
operational processes over time, rather than mere frequencies or incidence” (p. 10). This
insistence and focus on process are also echoed by Merriam (1988) who suggests case
studies be used as methods for “exploring why things happen” (p. 19). Another rationale
for a case study as the primary methodology is that it lends itself well to instances of
contemporary events of which the researcher has little to no control (Yin, 2018, p. 12).
As suggested by Yin (2018), “case studies are preferred when the relevant behaviors still
cannot be manipulated and when the desire is to study some contemporary event or set of
events” (p. 12).
Research Setting
The research setting for this case study was Ohio University, a mid-size
midwestern university. Located in the foothills of Appalachia, Ohio University was60
founded in 1804 and supports upwards of 250 academic programs (Ohio University,
2020a). More specifically, the setting for this research involved a group of instructional
designers who work for the university’s Office of Instructional Innovation. The main
purpose of the department is to serve as a “catalyst to spark bold experimentation and
sustainable discovery of innovative instructional models that fulfill the University’s
promise of a transformational educational experience” (Ohio University, 2019, para. 1).
According to Ohio University (2020b), this includes services supported by instructional
designers, such as course and programmatic design, multimedia development, and
“helping faculty deliver the highest quality instruction within well-constructed learning
environments” (para. 1).
Participants
The participants were instructional designers who work in Ohio University’s
Office of Instructional Innovation, which at the time of this study, employed eight
instructional designers. However, as the researcher was one of these eight employees, he
was removed from the study. This group of instructional designers was selected because
the researcher had direct access to these individuals and a significant understanding of the
office in which they work. Thus, the researcher had the opportunity to engage all
participants, while being able to provide in-depth and contextual information about their
direct work environment. According to Yin (2018), strong level of access is a perfectly
acceptable criteria for selecting cases for a study if it also aligns with the central research
questions.61
The office used a distributive model where each of the instructional designers was
dispersed to a specific college on campus. Table 3 provides an overview of this
distribution.
Table 3
Participants and their Primary Supported College
Participant Number Primary Supported College
1 College of Communication
2 Engineering
3 Business
4 Fine Arts and Education
5 Health Science and Professions
6 Arts and Sciences
7 Regional Higher Education
Note. Pseudonyms have been assigned for the participants in this study.
Timeframe
According to Yin (2018), an important aspect of case study design is to define a
temporal period that helps bound the case. The intent of this case study was to collect
data from the participants within one month of students resuming classes at Ohio
University. Students ended their Spring Break and resumed classes on March 23, 2020.
Thus, the intent for this study was to capture the reflections of the identified participants62
between March 23, 2020 and April 20, 2020. This bounded timeframe of four weeks was
selected as a means by which to capture the data in a timely fashion as data can be lost if
a study is delayed. The following Figure demonstrates this timeframe:
Figure 1
Timeline of the Ohio University Response to COVID-19 in Spring 2020
March 13, 2020:
University announces
their transition to online
instruction for the
remainder of the
semester. (Appendix A)
April 20, 2020: A month
after students have
resumed their classes.
Window for data
collection ends.
March 23, 2020:
Students end their
Spring Break and resume
classes in an online or
remote format. Window
for data collection.
(Appendix B)
The Researcher and Their Suppositions
As noted by Creswell and Creswell (2018), it is vital for a researcher to outline
his/her own role and relativity to research topics at hand. More specifically, this practice
is aimed at identifying past experiences and how they may shape the interpretations of the
research results and findings (Creswell & Creswell). To identify any potential biases, the63
following section outlines the position of the researcher within the current study, why the
topic was chosen, and what the general presuppositions of the researcher.
The researcher of this study is a graduate student in instructional technology and a
full-time instructional designer. As such, he spends most of his day interacting with
faculty, with the aim of helping them with the design and development of their courses.
Therefore, the researcher has many and first-hand experiences with the how instructional
designers work with faculty members to innovate their instructional practices. Moreover,
the researcher has had extensive experience working with faculty to transition their in-
person courses to an online environment. Therefore, he possesses a deep knowledge of
how this process generally works, what resources are needed, and how to work with
faculty with the introduction of new technologies and teaching methods. Along with
these past experiences, the current experience of the researcher as an instructional
designer during the COVID-19 crisis provides another interesting and beneficial context
to this study. As such, the lived experience of the researcher is directly related to the
central phenomena of this study. This lived experience provides unique insight into how
instructional designers are working with faculty during the crisis and how instructional
designers may be able to effectively and efficiently work with faculty in such times. This
lived experience also brings a unique perspective into the more global issue at hand
regarding how COVID-19 is affecting the higher education landscape.
It is a supposition of the researcher that the expansion and prevalence of the
COVID-19 virus and the impact it has had on colleges and universities is unprecedented.
While the effects of the virus are widespread and varied, one of the most salient is that64
the university’s learning environment has seen a mass migration to online courses.
According to Lederman (2020), most institutions are not fully prepared to make this
transition for a variety of reasons that range from the physical infrastructure that a
university may be lacking to support such an effort to the lack of training faculty may
have had when it comes to teaching a course online. Because of this, many colleges and
universities are currently in a triage state where they are generally embracing low levels
of technology and using practices that may not qualify under the “high-quality online
education” banner (Lederman, 2020). It is understandable, from the perspective of the
researcher, that many colleges and universities are in a reactive state when it comes to
moving their courses online. The sheer volume and resources required for such an
undertaking, not to mention the short timeframe, requires that significant decisions, such
as quality, need to be considered. Furthermore, many colleges and universities who lack
such resources have been some of the hardest hit by the crisis.
The move by institutions to move the courses online has had a significant effect
on all school administrators, including instructional designers. As an instructional
designer for a university undergoing this transition, the researcher has seen firsthand how
instructional designers have been affected. Increased workloads, a shift of traditional
duties, and work with a broader group of faculty are just a few changes in the
researcher’s instructional design unit.
However, as instructional designers work is in a service role, they need to be
prepared to work in times of crisis. While working with barriers, such as faculty buy-in to
new technologies and methods, instructional designers need to be vigilant to ensure the65
continuity of instruction. The current literature base surrounding the work methods of
instructional designers in times of crisis is almost non-existent. Therefore, the researcher
has seen this tumultuous period as an ideal time to collect and analyze data for the
betterment of the profession.
IRB Procedures
In accordance with Ohio University’s research ethics and regulatory guidelines,
an application for approval of this research was sent to the university’s Institutional
Review Board (IBR). In particular, because this research study involves human subjects,
the proper IRB procedures were submitted for review and approved by the board. The
study at hand commenced when the researcher obtained approval from Ohio University
IRB.
Data Collection
To answer the research questions, specific data collection procedures were
followed. More specifically, these procedures were followed in line with the overarching
qualitative case study framework and are outlined below, as is in the IRB form. As noted
by Yin (2018), case study methods rely on collecting numerous amounts of information
and from a variety of sources, including interviews, memos, and documentation.
Interviews
The primary method for collecting data for this project was personal interviews.
According to Privitera and Ahlgrim-Delzell (2019), interviews are used to “collect
information about the attitudes and perceptions of individuals, one-on-one or in groups”
(p. 128). They can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. For the purpose of this66
research study, semi-structured interviews were used. According to Rubin and Rubin
(2012), semi-structured interviews are conducted when “the researcher has a specific
topic to learn about, prepares a limited number of questions in advance, and plans to ask
follow-up questions” (p. 31). The selection of semi-structured interviews, as opposed to
unstructured or structured, was because the researcher determined that the ability to ask
follow-up questions to responses was essential for gathering complete data about the
research questions.
The researcher developed a list of 10 questions prior to the interviews and
compiled them into an interview guide (Appendix C). The original questions for the
guide were developed with the intent on having a one-on-one relationship with the stages
in the Innovation Decision-Process by Rogers (2003). However, as the study progressed,
the questions were slightly altered, resulting in some of the questions not aligning as
clearly (Appendix D). The interview guide was not distributed to the participants
beforehand; but rather, was presented to them in question form from the researcher.
Interviews were audio and video recorded using videoconferencing technology and lasted
30-45 minutes. Contained within the interview guide were several questions related to
knowledge, feelings, and background. These three types of questions, as noted by Patton
(2002), aim to collect information on differentiated information, such as facts, opinions,
and demographic information. These types of questions were used to collect data that was
central to answering the primary research questions. Once the interviews were conducted,
the recordings were transcribed and processed using specific coding methods. The results
are reported in Chapter 4.67
Interview Memos
Another form of data that was collected and used as part of this research project
was the interview memo, which are additional notes the researcher writes during the
interviewing process. These notes are general observations that take place outside the
respondent’s answer to the questions. Interview memos can take note of things such as
the disposition of the interviewee, their overall tonality during the question answering
process, and any other observations the interviewer wishes to note. These memos can
then be analyzed and interfaced together with the responses of the interviewee. Notes
taken by the researcher for the purpose of this study were not shared with the participants.
Documentation
The final source of data in this study was documentation. According to Yin
(2018), documentation can take a variety of forms, including e-mails, letters,
administrative documents, and evaluations. For the purpose of this research, the
researcher was open to collecting any documentation the participants wished to submit.
An example of this could have been a process document used by the instructional design
department regarding the processes they use in collaborating with faculty.
Though documentation was hoped to be collected, none of the participants
submitted documentation directly to the researcher. Rather, the research was able to use
publicly available documentation, such as the instructional design unit’s website, to help
gain a further contextual understanding of the participants, their respective roles as
instructional designers, and the information obtained from their in-person interviews.68
Overall, data collection for this research project was centered firmly around the
information gathered from semi-structured interviews. Though case studies generally rely
on a multitude of data sources, it is the opinion of the researcher that the information
collected from the semi-structured interviews yielded the most useful information.
Together, these sources of data were interfaced and used to help answer the research
questions of this study.
Data Collection Procedures
As part of any research project, specific data collection procedures should be
outlined. For the purpose of this section, the researcher will outline the specific
procedures that were taken. It is the goal of the researcher to outline the information in a
manner that is specific enough to be replicated. Furthermore, the disclosure of specific
data collection procedures will be in accordance with human-subject research protocols
and those outlined by specific IRB policies.
Interviews
Because semi-structured interviews were the primary method in collecting data
for this research project, the steps are outlined here. Interviews took place using video
conference technology. The interviews began with a quick introduction by the researcher
then proceeded to the questioning. During the interview, the interviewees were able to
ask clarifying questions about the study, interview questions, or research methods if
needed. At any time, if the interviewee wished, they were be able to exit the interview.
This information was outlined in the consent form that was sent to the interviewees prior
to the interview. As some of the participants were located some distance away, signatures69
were not collected for practical reasons. As such, if the interviewee agreed to be
interviewed, they were, by default, consenting to the study at hand.
As noted earlier, participants were not able to see the interview questions prior to
the interview. The researcher determined that there is no benefit in doing so; however, the
interviewer would have provided the interviewee the questions prior to the interview if
there was interest. Interviews were conducted and recorded using video recording
technology. Once the interviews were conducted, they were transcribed and prepared to
analysis.
Sampling
Purposeful sampling was used because, according to Creswell (2013), it is an
appropriate sampling method for case studies. Though there are various thoughts around
purposeful sampling, its definition, and purpose, it can further be delineated to provide
more specificity (Palinkas et al., 2015; Patton, 2003; Coyne, 1997). Therefore, for the
sake of providing further clarity around this research project, criterion-based sampling
was the specific method used, which according to Creswell (2013), is when “all cases that
meet some criterion.” This methodology was chosen because this project looked
specifically for instructional designers who work in Ohio University’s Office of
Instructional Innovation. Thus, the participants had to meet the following criterion: be an
instructional designer currently working at Ohio University’s Office of Instructional
Innovation and be over the age of 18.
To recruit participants, email notifications were sent to each of the seven
instructional designers. This notification outlined the overall aims of the study, the70
requirements for participation, and the contact information of the researcher should any
of the participants have concerns.
Data Analysis
Once the interviews were transcribed, appropriate coding methods were employed
to analyze the data. In a broad sense, a code can be defined as “a word or short phrase
that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing and/or evocative
attitude for a portion of language-based or visual data” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 4). In essence,
coding is used as a method for analyzing mainly qualitative data, such as texts,
documentation, and interview transcripts, but can also be used for visual data such as
video, observation, and images. Coding is a method of qualitative analysis that allows for
the meaning-making of qualitative data and allows the researcher to draw conclusions
from the data. There are many different types of coding, each with their applicability
toward specific research questions and projects. Within the context of coding, the
researcher should focus on the research questions and research methodology to determine
which coding method is appropriate (Saldaña). Coding can be completed by hand but is
generally done using qualitative analysis software.
For the purpose of this case study, first-cycle coding was used to code the
collected data. First-cycle codes are those that are generally applied during the initial
analysis of the data (Saldaña). For the purpose of this study, in vivo coding was used
because it “refers to a word or short phrase from the actual language found in the
qualitative data record” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 105). According to Saldaña, in vivo coding is
an appropriate method for case study research and is also a good selection when71
researching practitioners in a particular field. While there is no required number of codes
considered appropriate for in vivo methods, Saldaña recommends that second cycle
coding can help if there is an abundance of coding.
Once the first-cycle coding was conducted, a second-cycle approach was taken as
it helped make connections between the codes of the first cycle and was a mechanism for
combining codes into the major themes (Saldaña). As such, second-cycle coding helped
identify significant themes that arose from the in vivo analysis of the data. The second-
cycle coding method was pattern coding, which is “a way of grouping those summaries
into a smaller number of categories, themes, or concepts” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 236). The
application of pattern coding helped reduce the number of codes, but it also helped form
themes and concepts from the codes. Additionally, pattern coding can assist in the
development of “examining social networks and patterns of human relationships”
(Saldaña, 2016, p. 236). Therefore, because the central research question examines
instructional designer and faculty relationships, pattern coding was a tool to illuminate
what the data means.
Once the first- and second-cycle coding methods were concluded, the findings
were presented in Chapter 4 of the dissertation and discusses the results of the data
analysis by pointing out the significant findings, themes, and concepts that emerged. It
should be noted that the researcher did not have a co-rater for interrater reliability. This
was done because the researcher did not have a co-investigator and did not see a need for
it. Additionally, a logic explanation of how the codes and themes were developed can be
found in Appendix E. Following up on Chapter 4 is Chapter 5 that discusses the results of72
the analysis and how it compares to the overall body of literature. Furthermore, Chapter 5
illuminates overall conclusions that can be drawn from the data and postulate areas for
future research within the area.
Validity and Reliability
As with any research study, the concepts of validity and reliability were
addressed. Case study research has a unique relationship with these two concepts because
they are addressed in ways that may be exclusive to case study research and not other
research methods (Yin, 2018). Those processes are outlined here and are included within
the research project at large. Overall, the idea of ensuring validity and reliability helped
build trustworthiness and credibility for the results of the study.
Construct, Internal, and External Validity
Construct validity refers to “identifying correct operational measures for the
concepts being studied” (Yin, 2018, p. 42). Within a case study, construct validity can be
achieved using multiple sources of evidence and by having key informants review drafts
of the case study report prior to its publication (Yin). This can be done accurately by
identifying multiple sources of evidence that support the conclusions. Additionally,
construct validity can be achieved through clearly defining the case and appropriately
defining operational measures that are conducted through the case study (Yin).
Conversely, internal validity is mainly a concern for explanatory case studies,
mainly “when an investigator is trying to explain how and why event x led to event y”
(Yin, 2018, p. 45). Internal validity within case studies typically resides in the data
analysis phase. During this phase, components such as pattern matching, explanation73
building, explaining rival explanations, and the use of logical models are all mechanisms
that can help to address internal validity in case study research (Yin).
Finally, external validity can be addressed as a means of “knowing whether a
study’s findings are generalizable beyond the immediate study” (Yin, 2018, p. 45).
Addressing external validity can be drawn back to the research design phase of the
project. More succinctly, the use of theory in single-case studies and replication logic in
multiple case studies help address external validity. Doing this within the context of a
single case study will refer the researcher to review their research questions and their
position within a “how” or “why” context. As Yin notes, positioning a case study outside
of “how” or “why” research questions can make it extremely difficult to come to
generalizable conclusions.
This chapter addresses how these tests of validity were addressed. First, construct
validity was addressed by outlining the case and several key definitions that reside within
it. For example, defining concepts like “instructional design,” and “crisis period” are just
a few examples of definitions that fit within the context of this study. Furthermore, in
addressing construct validity, the researcher allowed trusted individuals to review a draft
of the case study report prior to its publication. This review took take place with fellow
instructional designers who were participants of the study.
Regarding internal validity, Yin (2018) suggest that internal validity for case
studies “is mainly a concern for explanatory case studies, when an investigator is trying
to explain how and why events x led to event y” (p. 45). Yin (2018) further suggests that
the type of logic building passed on internal validity processes, such as pattern matching,74
“is inapplicable to descriptive or exploratory studies (whether the studies are case studies,
surveys, or experiments), which are not concerned with this kind of causal situation” (p.
45). Since this is not an exploratory study, this study omitted the suggested methods of
case study internal validity, such as pattern matching, explanation building, addressing
rival explanations, and using logic models.
Third, external validity was checked by reviewing the central research questions
at hand to ensure they are aligned with Yin’s recommendation of the use of “how” and
“why” questions.
Reliability
Reliability in case study research is similar to that of most other studies, as it is
the intent to replicate the study at a later time. However, as noted by Yin (2018),
“opportunities for repeating a case study rarely occur” (p. 46). Yet, this does not mean
that reliability should be looked over within the context of case studies. This can be done
by methods such as using a case study protocol, developing a case study database, and
maintaining a chain of evidence (Yin). In general, the emphasis for determining
reliability resides in one's ability to document their procedures in carrying out the
research study appropriately. As noted by Yin (2018), “the general way of approaching
the reliability problem is to make as many procedures as explicit as possible and to
conduct research as if someone were looking over your shoulder” (p. 46).
For this research project, the idea was to outline each of the data collection and
analysis procedures in enough detail that they can be replicated. For the case study at
hand, this was done by producing a protocol that outlines each of the specific procedures75
that were followed (Appendix F). Furthermore, the use of multiple sources of evidence
will be a method used to help ensure the reliability of the project. Case studies rarely
benefit from having just one source of data, but rather, benefit from a multitude of data
that can be cross-referenced. This process of cross-referencing within the context of this
research project will result in the cross-comparison of interview transcriptions, interview
memos, and documentation. Furthermore, the findings and conclusions for this report
were cross-referenced with results from similar studies that are empirical in nature.
Summary
This chapter outlined a case study research design that aims to answer the central
research questions and described the rationale for using a case study methodology, the
binding of the case, the data collection procedures, sampling, and data analysis
techniques. The primary emphasis was to present an overview of the research procedure
that could be carried out by another researcher with a similar interest in the topic. Though
case study research is generally not replicated, it was nonetheless a goal of the researcher
to be thorough and precise in regard to their specific processes. Furthermore, and perhaps
most importantly, was the review of validity and reliability. Appropriately addressing
these areas helps provide a solid foundation on which to base this study and its findings.
Finally, this chapter positioned the researcher, his biases, and general interest in the
research topic in context. The importance of this will help those interested in the findings,
as well as the researcher, navigate and outline the procedures and processes needed to
carry out the data analysis and discussion of the results. The next chapter will focus on76
the results of the data analysis, with a subsequent chapter discussing the findings and the
broader implications they may have on the field of instructional design.77
Chapter 4: Results
This study explored how instructional designers work with faculty to adopt new
instructional methods and technologies during a crisis period. Data was collected for this
exploratory case study from instructional designers at a mid-size midwestern university
(Ohio University) in the US. An analysis of the data from the interviews, interview
memos, and provided documentation are reported in this chapter. To protect the
anonymity of the participants, pseudonyms have been assigned. The reporting of the data
has been divided into three themes that correspond to the three research questions and
provide a comprehensive look at the data followed by a concise summary of the results.
A further discussion of the results and the implications on the broader instructional
design community can be found in Chapter 5.
Research Questions
1. How do instructional designers work with faculty in a crisis to implement new
technologies?
2. How do instructional designers balance best practices in instruction during a time
of crisis?
3. How do instructional designers communicate with faculty about innovating their
instructional practices during a time of crisis?
Question 1: Working with Faculty during a Time of Crisis
One theme that emerged from the data in relation to the research questions was
how instructional designers work with faculty during a crisis period. Upon analysis of the
data, several sub-themes emerged that encompass various facets, such as how designers78
approach their work with faculty during a crisis period, how the crisis period affects their
day-to-day duties, constraints on their profession, and ultimately questioned their
professional identity. Through the analysis of this data, each of these sub-themes
contributes to the broader question at hand about how instructional designers work with
faculty in a crisis to implement new technologies during a crisis period.
A Minimalist Approach
The first sub-theme that emerged was the general approach of instructional
designers when working with faculty during a crisis period. In the interviews, the
designers mentioned how their overall approach had shifted during the COVID-19 crisis
to a more minimalist approach. As Logan explains, “I saw some room for innovation, and
I even talked to the [department] chairs about what that might look like, and I even got a
little bit of pushback from the chairs saying they just want minimal level of work.” This
“minimal level of work” was perpetuated by the mass mobilization of in-person courses
to an online environment in a rapid timeframe. Charles noted that some faculty were
anxious “to do many things within a very short period of time.” In response to this,
Charles indicated that he “prioritize[d] what was very important and [what could be
done] without.” He said, “So, I have a goal, I have an objective that I need to achieve.
Trying to see what is achievable and what is a bare minimum versus the best practice; it
is a very delicate balance in my view.” A similar approach was described by Erik, who
stated that “with the faculty members that I have had to help do this [introducing new
technologies], it’s really just been a minimalist approach, given how they are stressed.”
Erik continued to describe his approach by mentioning that “during this time, again we79
are crunched for so many things. People have anxieties and we know from experience,
given that I know you’re a designer yourself, that normally technology, faculty is a little
apprehensive [regarding] new technology.” Erik’s approach was further perpetuated by
what he described as being in “reactionary design mode” where he is “quickly trying to
figure out what is needed at the barest minimum.” According to Erik, “Before the
pandemic, we had time, we actively thought through what we wanted the experience to
be. In the pandemic we are acting to put the best products we can out there, that is what
the biggest change pre- and post-pandemic has been; it’s reactionary design.” Erik
continued his explanation of reactionary design by saying, “I’m quickly trying to figure
out what is needed at the barest minimum.”
Marie, another instructional designer interviewed, indicated that her minimalist
approach to working with faculty came about because of a shift in her role as an
instructional designer. Marie indicated that she had been asked “to do a lot more
professional development” and “just one-offs as opposed to large, full course designs.”
The shift in duties, and the means by which they are conducted, was also mentioned by
Scott:
I think the most notable change has been that we [his instructional design unit]
have shifted from a one-on-one approach; before this [the COVID-19 pandemic]
we were really working with one faculty [member] at a time, building out courses,
having consultations, things like that. . . .[This approach consisted of] producing
content that is mass distributed through a website, through email, through any80
other sorts of mediums besides just that one-to-one interaction that we typically
do.
Elizabeth also noted a shift in her practice with instructional design to move away
from a traditional approach to course design to one that is focused on a quick solution.
According to Elizabeth, “we’re not talking about full-blown course design at this point,
so I definitely am not saying let’s start at the beginning; it’s more like, how can I meet
you where you are and help you cope?” This approach, according to Elizabeth, has been
perpetuated by the fast-paced nature of transitioning traditional courses to the online
environment. According to Elizabeth, “I think that this crisis period has been, at least for
me, both from top-down and bottom-up. There has been a very much ‘hurry up and wait’
kind of game, so you need to hurry up and do something.” Similar to this was an account
by Marie who indicated that “there’s been a lot of training, a lot of demoing, some things
I’ve just done for faculty for the sake of time. So, [it’s been a] ‘I have to give an exam in
two days, can you help me?’ kind of thing.”
Elizabeth’s comments about needing to “hurry and do something” and Marie’s
account of rapidly training and demoing for faculty coincides with Erik’s
conceptualization of “reactionary design,” where the precedent of time has shifted the
normal duties of an instructional designer at their institution. This concept of reactionary
design and taking a minimalist approach to instructional design has been further
perpetuated by the massive amount of work that was distributed to the instructional
design team during the pandemic. The majority of participants noted that their workload
had definitely increased as did their mode of working with faculty because of the81
pandemic and the university’s decision to transition the majority of their courses to an
online format within a very short time frame.
Time Crunch
The minimalist approach to working with faculty was also largely influenced by a
time crunch to migrate existing in-person courses to an online environment for safety
reasons. During the time of data collection, the instructional designers interviewed were
in the midst of assisting faculty with their course transitions. Because of the newly
increased workload, many of the instructional designers moved to protect their time,
mainly to continue their work on existing projects. As Logan noted, “I think now more
than ever to protect my time and to protect what we are as instructional designers; it’s
good to remind people what we do for a living, and not just, ‘The answer to your problem
is at this link, let me know if you need anything else.’” This time crunch also forced some
instructional designers to reallocate and prioritize their time based on the immediate
needs of the faculty. According to Elizabeth, “[I] had to postpone a series of courses for
Quality Matters reviews to free up my calendar.” Erik also mentioned the shifting of his
priorities as a designer; he said, “For me personally, I have had to compromise on a lot of
things,” but he also mentioned that he had no issue with it “because time is of the
essence.”
Operating in Support Mode
When asked about their work with faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic, a
number of instructional designers regarded their work as “support.” As noted by
Elizabeth, “Our instructional design positions are really faculty support positions. I mean,82
we’re very high-level support, but ultimately, that’s what we are.” Elizabeth’s assertion
can be compared with Erik’s: “Now we have to be in active support mode, active
troubleshooting mode.” Similarly, Logan said,
“It’s almost like I’ve taken on a help desk
kind of support” as opposed to his traditional way of working with faculty. Other
designers agreed; Marie described her role as “most of the time it’s, at least for me, it’s
‘Here’s what we can do right now.’ But then I always say, ‘Let’s meet after this semester
is over and we have some more time to think through how else we could do this [course
design].’” Maire continued by suggesting her approach was “a valuable step in them
reaching out and engaging later.”
This approach of being in “active support mode” and “active troubleshooting
mode” also fundamentally changed many of the duties of the instructional designers
interviewed. More specifically, the designers saw a surge in the amount of technology
support they offered during the COVID-19 pandemic and the mass transition that Ohio
University faced. According to Marie, “I’m supporting a lot more of the OIT [Office of
Information Technology] support side. . . .[My current role is] less me introducing new
technologies and more of them [faculty] just needing the support on new technologies
because they’re forced to use them.” This sentiment was shared by Jean who said, “I feel
like, at times, and I think we’re all doing this right now, is I feel more like I’m a technical
service desk.” Jean continued, noting that she felt like she is dealing with more “technical
problems than what it used to be” because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the shifting
priorities of the university. The dealing with more technical issues than course design and
other instructional design related activities led Logan to “reflect on that [his role as a83
designer] over the last week, and I think more than anything, it’s been a huge addition of
extra work around instructional technology, and not necessarily design.” The
conversation around differentiating “instructional technology” and “instructional design”
has largely been discussed and debated in the literature. The sentiment explained by this
group of designers suggest that the debate and conversation of the topic is very much
alive and may have been exaggerated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Furthermore, the prevalence of this conversation within the data suggests that the
pandemic may have had an effect on the professional identity of instructional designers
and ultimately, how instructional design is done.
Professional Identity
A by-product of working with faculty noted by some of the instructional designers
was the fact that it helped provide some clarity around their professional identity.
According to Scott, “In this time of crisis, our job has shifted into what I think is a more
accurate reflection of what we should be doing [as instructional designers].” However,
there seemed to be a continual perception by many faculty members who still did not
understand the function of the instructional design unit. Scott said, “At least for me, the
faculty who know me have been relying on me, but unfortunately, I think. . .there’s a lot
of folks out there who don’t know what we do or who we are. . . .There’s a lot of folks
out there who still think we’re part of our Office of Information Technology.” Scott’s
comments can be connected with an account by Charles who suggested the pandemic and
the rapid shift to classes online have brought new awareness to the profession:84
This goes to those faculty members who never knew anything about instructional
design. Or they never knew what instructional designers do and, all of a sudden,
they realize, “I need to put these things online and I can’t do it. So, who else is
here to help?” Many people have realized the importance of having a designer and
how the designers can help them improve their courses and design their courses
and do everything in consideration to best practices in the field [of teaching and
learning].
In addition to helping provide some clarity around the professional identity of
instructional designers, some of the participants mentioned how the pandemic has also
had an effect on the practice of instructional design itself. According to Erik, “I see that
one of the effects that the crisis will have on the profession of instructional design, is how
design is done. It’s no longer just about designing for particular stakeholders in your
course now. It’s about looking at a holistic view of instruction.” Scott had a similar
comment: “And I think a lot of times with instructional designers, we’re in a situation
where we’re so focused on the micro that we’re not really thinking about the macro, and
this is the first time I think in a long time we’ve sort of collectively lifted our heads.” Erik
and Scott’s comments appear to suggest that the pandemic has introduced new factors to
consider when conducting instructional design. More specifically, the two participants
suggested a more “holistic” and “macro” approach to instructional design, as opposed to
a more narrowed focus on goals and objectives. To further demonstrate this point, Erik
suggested that “designing for wellness for the students in your class and for the teachers
[and also] designing for social community building.” To Erik’s point, factoring in new85
elements of course design focused on concepts such as “wellness” and “social community
building” may have been perpetuated as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. Erik and Scott’s
comments on how the pandemic may have altered the way instructional design is done
can also give rise to the question of what things might look like in the future for
instructional designers as a profession, but also at their respective institutions.
The Future
According to the participants, the pandemic has brought many changes to their
university, the way they work with faculty, their professional identity, and the way their
jobs are conducted. While there have been some setbacks, the pandemic and the sifting of
university priorities has also presented some opportunities for the future of these
designers. For example, operating during the pandemic has allowed the opportunity to
develop new relationships with faculty who have not worked with instructional designers
in the past; furthermore, it has allowed the designers to build new relationships with
interdepartmental units on campus. For example, Scott said, “We should have closer
collaboration with our technology office, which is what we’re doing now.” Marie also
suggested that the pandemic has been a catalyst for giving the instructional designers “the
opportunity to meet new faculty and build relationships.”
As a result of the pandemic, the massive shift of courses to an online modality,
and the building of relationships across the university have foreshadowed how
instructional design may look at Ohio University in the future. According to Erik, “I think
that post-crisis faculty will rely more on designers. I feel like there’ll be a shift from
modality-dependent instruction design to modality-independent instruction design, post86
crisis.” Scott perpetuates this idea by suggesting that many faculty members have been
propelled into new and uncharted territory with their teaching. According to Scott, “I
think the moment a lot of the education infrastructure started to kind of break at the end
of the semester, a lot of learning sprouted up. Kind of thinking about it like a forest fire.
It ripped through the cleared-out growth and now some new stuff is sprouting.” Similarly,
Charles noted that faculty have generally had a good response towards using more
technology with their teaching and learning, despite not having an option due to the
pandemic. He said:
You just have to embrace the new idea or the new mode of doing things and put
[it] into practice. . .and they [faculty] are changing; there is a change in attitude
and there’s a change in approach. . . It’s a very good opportunity that has really
propelled us to do a lot of things that are related to technology in a very short time
and in a very positive, receptive environment that we might not have gotten if we
were to do these things under normal circumstances. So, it’s a blessing in
disguise.
Related to Charles’s comments, Logan said, “I guess I can see how this [faculty
adoption of new technologies] is beneficial for Ohio University. . . .But, it’s beneficial for
a lot of other universities that are our competition.”
Conclusion of Question 1
The first theme of this data analysis revealed a number of salient points of
discussion related to the research questions. As noted by the instructional designers, the
COVID-19 pandemic has had an array of effects on how they work with faculty—from87
taking a minimalist approach to operating in a support-type mode that encompasses
duties outside those of a traditional instructional designer. The participants noted that
significant changes have occurred with regard to how they work with faculty; however,
there is room to dive even deeper into the subject of how these designers work with
faculty during the pandemic. More specifically, this study looked at how these
instructional designers balanced best practices in teaching and instruction during the
pandemic. It is this area of inquiry that has led to the development of the second theme.
Question 2: Balancing Best Practices during a Time of Crisis
This theme, how instructional designers balance in instruction during a time of
crisis, connects with the second research question: How do instructional designers
balance best practices in instruction during a time of crisis? Again, a number of sub-
themes were uncovered during the analysis of the data. Overall, the accounts of the
instructional designers paint a broad picture of how best practices in instruction were
balanced with faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Time Constraints and Suggesting Best Practices
One of the first sub-themes that emerged was that it was difficult to suggest best
practices in instruction to faculty during the pandemic. Marie said, “I suggest best
practices, but most of the time there’s just not time because faculty are working day by
day to be ready for the next day.” Marie remained optimistic about the future by
suggesting, “I’m kind of hoping they [Ohio University] make the call to go online for fall
if that’s what we’re going to do as soon as possible so that we can really dig in and help
shift as many courses as possible towards those best practices that we love to promote.”88
Scott also commented on how time influenced how he approached best practices with
faculty: “The month of March was just triage. So, it was getting things up, not worrying
necessarily about the best tool, but simply a tool to get things done.” Erik also mentioned
his struggles managing best practices due to time:
As designers, normally we think across the entire framework of the course, we
think about what the best experience given all the stakeholders should be. We
think about ensuring course integrity, ensuring course alignment and ensuring
content structure or content to mapping or content delivery formats, integrity,
stuff like that. You are deciding with accurate reasoning or backing evidence for
everything you are doing. . . .Now my role as a designer is “Okay, I have x
amount of time which isn’t enough time, how best can I put this [a course] in a
different modality that at least I can deliver some form of learning till the end of
the semester?” Because we are rushing to do things rather than actually designing,
taking deliberate decisions to accomplish things.
Jean also mentioned her frustrations with time and working with faculty: “At that
time [during the pandemic] they [faculty] were just trying to figure out how [to teach
online], we didn’t really have time to talk about pedagogically what you should be
doing.” Elizabeth noted, “I try to really focus on what they [faculty] need from me in the
moment. . . .I never use phrases like ‘best practices’ and things like that.”
However, this is not to suggest that the instructional designers were completely
unable to talk about best practices during the pandemic period. According to Scott, the
pandemic, and the shifting of courses at Ohio University to an online format provided an89
opportunity for dialogue around best practices. He said, “I’m finding myself now, talking
more and more about best practices because they’re [faculty] now more receptive. . .
.Now, it’s ‘ok I’ve done the online. Now it’s just I want to teach better, I want to teach
more effectively online. How do I do that?’ Now is the time for conversations on best
practices. I think the audience [faculty] is more receptive to it.” Scott’s comments align
with Elizabeth, who said, “I haven’t had any resistance from anyone.” Jean also noted
that she believes the response to using new technologies and best practices has been
positive; she said, “I think they [faculty] want to try some new things.” From these
comments, we can see that even though time constraints played a large role in the
discussion of best practices, there was an appetite for them and for faculty to innovate
their teaching practices during this time. Whether this is the cause of faculty being
“forced” to alter their teaching from in-person classes to online is up for debate.
However, the account from the designers in this study demonstrates that some form of
desire arose from the faculty to integrate best practices or to innovate their prior teaching
methods.
Nudging Faculty
Another sub-theme that emerged was that during the pandemic, instructional
designers tended toward nudging faculty to adopt best practices in instruction and
technology. This strategy, as noted by several designers, was successful. As Scott said, “I
think the faculty got more comfortable with doing things online, that now is the time I’m
just starting to introduce those new tools just a little bit, of like, ‘here’s how to amplify
your game just a little bit.’” This plays into Scott’s overall strategy of working toward90
faculty literacy in online teaching. He added,
“I think that as instructional designers, what
we need to be focusing on is that now is the time to get our faculty literate in online
teaching.” Erik also mentioned a similar approach of starting small when it comes to
technology introduction; he said, “When faculty have to move rapidly to do what they
know, you don’t have time to introduce them to tools they do not know. So, as the
designer, your best bet is to help them utilize the tools that they know best, or the tools
that they have some skills on.” Jean also encourages the practice of keeping faculty
aligned with what they are familiar with; she tells them, “We can do what you did
normally, it’s just going to be done in a different way. So you’re still going to meet your
goals. It may just not look the same.” Similar to Jean’s comments is the approach taken
by Elizabeth: “I would say that my support efforts would fall somewhere in-between
maintaining and innovating, so I’m trying to maintain the level, maintain the integrity of
their course and maintain the integrity of their teaching style while introducing more
efficient ways to do it.” The approach taken by these designers to nudge faculty into
trying new teaching methods and technologies is one that includes empathizing with
where they are in their competence and ultimately, encouraging them to try new things.
According to Scott, the pandemic has presented a good opportunity for faculty to dive
into these new practices, simply by doing them. According to Scott, “So we [instructional
designers] can start to show all that functionality and really just learn by doing. I think
that’s been really the most critical part of all this is—the faculty have been learning by
doing.”91
Using Professional Judgement
Another sub-theme related to suggesting best practices is how instructional
designers exercise professional judgement. More specifically, this sub-theme illuminates
how instructional designers use experience and intuition to determine the approach they
take with faculty. For example, Elizabeth said, “I like to talk with them and maybe size
up who I think they are, what their values are, what’s important to them, how receptive
they are to different kinds of feedback, and then either introduce or not introduce new
technology.” Scott mentioned a similar approach regarding technology and best practices:
“I’ve always been a little reluctant to discuss best practices. Like the first time I work
with a faculty member, I try not to be too preachy, but just sort of let that come out
organically during the design process. . . .I think [it’s best to] let the faculty that you’re
working with have the agency that they’re used to.” This “agency” alludes to faculty
autonomy and academic freedom, two practices that are widely practiced and valued in
the higher education landscape.
Regarding the use of professional judgement, instructional designers also
mentioned how they operate from a goal-oriented perspective. Charles, for example, said
this about introducing new technology:
This is what I do most of the time; I don’t really say that I’m going to introduce a
new technology. I go with, ‘What do you want to achieve? What are you trying to
do? What is the outcome or what is the end result of what you’re trying to
achieve?’ And then from there, we start looking at different solutions that may92
solve that problem. It does not really necessarily mean that problem is going to be
solved by technology.
Elizabeth also mentioned how her goal-focused approach determines how she
suggests or recommends technology to faculty; she said, “Well, the answer to that
[technology usage] really depends on what you need to do and what you’re trying to do. .
. .The response [from faculty] has been overall very positive. I haven’t had any resistance
from anyone, but again, I’m never really too prescriptive anyways, and I haven’t changed
that.” Logan also mentioned that his approach is less prescriptive; he said, “I think my
design kind of philosophy or whatever, my design practice, design and practice, has
worked well for a crisis like this, because I typically don’t overburden [them] with
research and links, and I don’t have to back up my knowledge of educational design,
because I’m an instructional designer.” Charles, Elizabeth, and Logan’s accounts
demonstrate how, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining a goal-focused
approach was a means by which these instructional designers used professional
judgement while recommending best practices in instruction. Furthermore, they described
how their less prescriptive approach and trying not to overburden faculty during this time
has been successful.
Conclusion of Question 2
The second theme of this analysis uncovered a number of interesting insights into
how instructional designers balance best practices in technology and instruction during a
crisis period. In short, they noted how time constraints placed on them during this time
made it difficult to prescribe some of the best practices that they would normally93
recommend; it required them to shift their regular working regime and adapt to meet the
immediate needs of the faculty and institution at large. However, the designers did
mention that the pandemic provided some opportunities to explore new technologies and
teaching methods since change was occurring across the institution.
Because of this change and a deep need for faculty to alter their teaching, the
instructional designers resorted to nudging faculty to try new things. According to the
designers, this period of change presented a good opportunity to show faculty the
affordances of new technology and instructional methods, while encouraging their use
through support. However, the designers did not suggest completely moving faculty away
from the technology they are used to, but to use that as a starting point, and eventually,
move them into a position to use differentiated technology and teaching practices that
reflect best practices.
Finally, these instructional designers noted their use of professional judgement as
a factor in balancing best practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted by several
designers, intuition and professional practice determined many factors related to working
with faculty, such as approach, design philosophy, and prioritization. Moreover, the basic
premise and practice of these instructional designers was to remain goal focused and
solution oriented.
Question 3: Innovation and Communication during a Time of Crisis
The third major theme derived from the data was insight into how the
instructional designers communicated with faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic,
specifically, around the idea of innovation. As noted previously, the instructional94
designers found that this time was one where faculty had to embrace a plethora of
changes in a very short period of time. As instructional designers operate in a supportive
role for faculty, their work during this time often resulted in them communicating with
faculty directly. Because decisions and processes were now handed down by the
administration, designers needed to interact directly with faculty to adopt new teaching
and learning practices, new technologies, and other innovations. Therefore, this third
major theme encompasses the faculty’s general appetite for innovation and the
communication strategies the designers employed to navigate that landscape.
Appetite for Innovation
The first sub-theme that emerged was the instructional designers’ general account
of how innovation was viewed. According to Marie, “People are at least evolving [their
instructional practice], if not innovating, in ways that hopefully will persist past the
pandemic.” Elizabeth also agreed with Marie, saying, “I think at this point today when
you’re asking me, yes, they [the faculty] are starting to [innovate], and I hope to see that
increase over the next month or so.” According to Scott, during this time, many faculty
have “taken the time to shake up their class a little bit. . . .I think it [the pandemic] is
really kind of shaken up their routine and gotten them to think differently about how
content can be delivered. So, that’s been really exciting.” Maire provided an example of
this:
People actually have to think about course design and how to deliver things online
like they may have never thought before. I met with one faculty who was like,
‘Do you think this’ll be the way forever?’ And I took it as like, ‘No, we’re not95
going to teach online forever.’ But he meant like, ‘Do you think people will adopt
some of these things and keep using them?’ I don’t know if this is innovative, but
at least its enhanced course design practices.
Marie’s comments not only allude to the idea that innovation was occurring during this
time, but also lends itself to a much broader discussion of what innovation is.
Another aspect geared towards innovation was that some designers needing to
“reel back” some of the appetite for innovation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Marie
said, “So a lot of the faculty I work with in the [specific university college] are super
innovative by nature. So, some of them actually have had to reel back, which is different,
I would assume than a lot of places.” Marie seemed to attribute this reeling back based on
her professional judgment as an instructional designer. She said, “It’s almost pulling them
back from some new technologies because it’s not a great time to start something that
could be more detrimental to students.” This idea of reeling back innovation for the sake
of the students was also echoed by Jean who suggested, “I don’t want to throw a lot of
technologies at them [faculty] and the students, that they [faculty and students] have to
troubleshoot and figure out how to work. So, I go through, and I never bring up tools,
they always want to bring up technology first, I think that’s just the way it is.” Scott also
mentioned students during the conversation around innovation: “They [faculty] are trying
to reach out to students with immediacy. And so, they're willing to try new things and
fail. I’ve seen faculty try things and it didn’t go well, but they tried it again, which has
been super awesome.” The idea of reeling back faculty innovation can be seen as a
professional judgement call by some of the instructional designers; however, it was not a96
practice that was noted by all of the designers. One, if not the biggest, factor noted by the
participants in making this decision was simply based on time and immediacy.
Innovation and University Administration
A second sub-theme that emerged illustrated how innovation was approached
within a more global context, from looking at where the administration at Ohio
University was projecting to go to where and or what instructional design may look like
in the future, post COVID-19. The account of these instructional designers during the
time frame in which this case study took place can help account for how departments
may want to proceed in the future, under similar circumstances.
As noted earlier, the onset of the COVID-19 crisis and the quick shift to an online
format was a significant event for the instructional designers interviewed. The
instructional design team was propelled into new territory as leaders at their institution.
For example, Marie stated that because of the crisis,
“our team has been asked to create a
strategy to lead the entire institution to the switch online. . . .There’s definitely more
[work] to do, and. . . all of our leadership is focused. So, we’re required to lead from
place and innovate in this time of opportunity.” As a result, some of the instructional
designers saw this as an opportunity to innovate the current teaching and learning
practices at the university. Scott, for example, noted:
The optimist in me says that we may be able to leverage this [the response to the
pandemic] to make some much-needed changes in thought processes at our
university. . . .I think we’re just getting that chance to strike out, try a few things,
collaborate in ways that we didn’t have time to do before and show finished97
products that people can get behind and get on board with that I think is really
kind of interesting. So, we’re able to innovate in a lot more flexible way now that
we just couldn’t do previously.
In the conversation around innovation during the time of the pandemic, one the
instructional designers interviewed also gave insight into how the administration may use
instructional designers in the future. When asked if instructional designers will be relied
on more in the future, Elizabeth predicts designers will play an essential role in new
technology-based mandates:
I think there is going to be an implied mandate moving forward that faculty
members must use university-provided or enterprise solution technologies in
specific ways, and I think we’ve already heard administration hint at things like
that. . . .What we know about technology use in mandatory settings compared to
voluntary settings is that the motivation is very different, and I do think that
instructional designers will play an important role in helping navigate those new
expectations.
Elizabeth’s comments correlate with some of the statements made earlier in this
chapter by Erik, Scott, Logan, and Charles about what the future looks like for
instructional designers.
While the majority of the instructional designers predict the their role will
increase in the future, it is interesting to think about why this is the case. Two scenarios
tend to present themselves. First, the use of instructional designers may see an uptick in
use as faculty relate more to the profession and recognize and appreciate the services that98
instructional designers can provide. On the other hand, Elizabeth’s comments specifically
address a potential scenario where working with an instructional designer, and university
supported technology, may be a mandate from the administration. Each of these scenarios
presents an interesting opportunity for the role of instructional designers in the future.
Regardless, as universities continue to wade through the complicated landscape that the
COVID-19 pandemic has created, the role of instructional designers will continue to
evolve.
Communication Methods and Approaches
The final sub-theme derived from the interviews relates to how instructional
designers communicate with faculty during a crisis period. More specifically, the theme
relates to the practice of innovating a faculty members’ teaching and learning experience
during the crisis. As already indicated, the instructional designers saw an uptick in
innovation during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as a rise in the use of instructional
designer services. This sub-theme dives deeper into addressing how, specifically, this
group of instructional designers communicate with faculty to innovate their teaching and
learning practices.
Building Relationships and Rapport
During the interviews, a few of the instructional designers commented on the
importance of building relationships and rapport with faculty. Marie said:
I’ve also found that faculty I’ve worked with in other colleges who I don’t support
anymore, who liked working with me in the past, I’ve become their go-to more so
than the designer maybe in their school who might be, I don’t know, just have a99
different type of relationship or they’ve never worked with [a designer] before. . .
.It’s relationship building, [and] I’m working with a bunch of faculty and graduate
assistants I’ve never met before. So even just them knowing that I’m a resource is
a valuable step in them reaching out and engaging later.
Instructional designers also relied on the use of empathy and being sympathetic as
communication strategies to help build rapport with faculty. When working with faculty
during the pandemic, Elizabeth said, “I try to be really, really sympathetic and I try to
empathize with the faculty member who has responsibilities far beyond what they come
to me about.” Similarly, Charles noted, “But now, because it’s a crisis we are supposed to
really understand and be very understanding.” As an example of using empathy, Jean
mentioned that she tries to relate with how faculty have approached teaching and learning
in the past. For example, Jean noted, “You meet with the faculty member, you talk about,
‘what did you do,’ if they have taught the course before, ‘what did you do in the
classroom?’ Asking them questions about what types of assignments they were doing,
just getting them to talk about their teaching styles.”
The building of rapport and relationships seemed to benefit the instructional
designers during the COVID-19 crisis. More specifically, using empathy and
understanding with faculty members helped the instructional designers not only to do
their jobs, but also to innovate the way that faculty approach instruction and use
technology. However, this was not the only approach taken by the instructional designers
during this time to encourage the further use of new instructional methods and
technologies from a communication perspective. As such, a number of the designers100
resorted to encouraging the use of new instructional methods and technologies through
active demonstration.
Taking Initiative
Related to the “learning by doing” strategy, many of the instructional designers
took the initiative and exercised professional judgement as part of their communication
strategy during the pandemic. For example, Jean focused on using her minimalist
approach to work with faculty; she said, “And my, I don’t know about yours and anybody
else’s, but I’m always like, ‘Keep it simple stupid,’ right? I don’t say stupid obviously. I
say, ‘Keep it simple because you’re new to this [online teaching].’” Other designers, such
as Scott, took a more proactive approach with faculty by implementing best practices in a
faculty’s course and discussing it after the fact. According to Scott, “They’ll put their
material into the course and then I might just implement some of those best practices of
my own accord. And then we’ll discuss it after the fact.” This agency and Scott’s
approach to integrating and communicating best practices with faculty also coincides
with Logan’s approach where faculty allow him to research best practices and bring that
information forward for a more productive working session; he said, “So they [faculty]
allow me room to research, they allow me room to investigate best practices around what
they’re trying to do, and then we start to move into solutions or creative discussions back
and forth.” Charles also noted instructional designers and faculty can work in a back and
forth manner: “It’s a matter of negotiating with the faculty, negotiating with yourself, and
having a very realistic goal in mind.”101
Another strategy used by these instructional designers during the COVID-19
pandemic was to encourage faculty to learn new and innovative teaching methods and
technologies by hands-on testing. Erik described his process of introducing new
technologies and teaching methods: “So I have just been, ‘I show it to you, I have you
practice and if it works, then [you] go with it.’” Jean followed a similar approach with an
underlying philosophy that if they practice with technology, they will consistently use it
in the future. Jean said, “I want them to use technology throughout [the instructional
design process]. Not just introduce it, use it once and then they don’t use it again. So, I
try and tell them as well in the nicest way I can that it needs to be consistent.”
The use of professional judgement and the ability for instructional designers to
have agency with faculty during this crisis period was noted as successful by the
instructional designers. As indicated earlier, the use of professional judgement played a
significant role in the decision-making process of the instructional designers. Moreover,
the ability to use professional judgment and take initiative seemed to be a viable strategy
for helping and empowering faculty adopt best practices in teaching and instruction
during this time. This empowerment goes a long way when combining it with these
instructional designers’ communication approach of using empathy and understanding
with faculty members. In all, the strategies provided by these designers demonstrated a
viable way to work with faculty during a crisis period and highlighted some of the
communicative methods by which instructional designers (or those in related fields) can
use in the adoption of new teaching methods and technologies.102
Conclusion of Question 3
The third theme of this analysis looked specifically at how innovation was
approached by the instructional designers during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition,
and perhaps more specifically, this theme looked at how instructional designers used
communication to encourage faculty to innovate their instructional design practices in the
new teaching environment. As mentioned earlier, the COVID-19 pandemic presented a
very complex and convoluted landscape to be navigated by faculty looking to move their
instruction online and by instructional designers to make the transition as smooth as
possible. As part of this transition, faculty was required to make changes and adopt
innovations, both technological and pedagogical, to their instruction, and the instructional
designers were in a prime position to help usher in this change.
The data within this theme resulted in several interesting sub-themes that align
with the research questions. First, a number of the instructional designers noted how there
was an increase in the appetite for innovation during this period. Though the pandemic
presented obstacles and seemingly disrupted the routines of many faculty members, some
of the instructional designers seemed to perceive that as an opportunity for innovation. In
some cases, the instructional designers had to reel back some faculty from innovating
their teaching due to constraints, mainly time and immediacy. In all, instead of the
pandemic producing an overall sense of fear and conservatism when it comes to a faculty
member’s approach to technology and instruction, the participants of this study noted that
it was a time for change and opportunity.103
Another interesting aspect related to faculty innovating their instructional
practices during this time was the role the administration played in the transition. A
number of the designers noted how the administration allotted the group agency to help
determine the strategies necessary in moving forward. Others noted that the move to
position instructional designers as a necessity during this period could lead to an increase
in their use in the future. While this has yet to be determined, it is an interesting to predict
if, and to what extent, instructional designers will be utilized in the future. The
implications of this could help a number of institutions make decisions around the
prioritization of instructional design units in general.
This theme also highlighted the way in which the instructional designers moved
forward with developing and preserving relationships with the faculty. As indicated by
the designers, these relationships were essential in getting faculty members to innovate
their teaching practices. One of the major communication strategies exercised by these
instructional designers was to use empathy to build rapport, which the designers said was
paramount in gaining buy-in and support for what they were trying to do. Moreover, the
use of empathy and understanding presented the opportunity for instructional designers to
not only complete their baseline objectives with faculty, but also presented an interesting
moment to innovate with the faculty.
Finally, this theme also highlighted how instructional designers used their
professional judgement and initiative as a form of communication with faculty. As noted
by several designers, their approach to working with faculty determined the way that they
communicated and demonstrated technology with them. Moreover, the designers noted104
how faculty allowed the instructional designers agency to research and present best
practices and information to the faculty. This approach, and the way instructional
designers communicated those practices back to faculty were also highlighted. More
specifically, and perhaps a means by which to encapsulate the overall sentiment of these
designers, it was suggested that the relationship was about negotiation, which played a
pivotal role in the innovation and adoption of new technologies and teaching methods
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Summary
In summary, this chapter presented the results of the data analysis for the study at
hand. More specifically, it painted a narrative picture of how instructional designers work
with faculty to adopt new instructional methods and technologies during a crisis period.
Several major themes and sub-themes emerged from the data that provides insight into
answering the relative research questions and provides an in-depth look at the experience
of the instructional designs at Ohio University and their experience working with faculty
during the COVID-19 crisis.
The findings of this study illuminated a wide array of topics related to the central
research questions, including the instructional designers’ minimalist approach to working
with faculty during a pandemic, how time became a significant constraint, and how the
pandemic also affected the professional identity of instructional designers. Moreover, the
results from this analysis also touch on how instructional designers worked with and
encouraged faculty to innovate their teaching practices during the time of the pandemic.
Through the use of empathy and professional judgement, these instructional designers105
were able to navigate the constraints and unprecedented territory brought on by the
pandemic. These approaches and accounts by the instructional designers provide insight
and clarity around the research questions that deal with communication and innovation
during a crisis period.
The next chapter will provide a comprehensive discussion of the findings from
this study, including a review of the main research questions, as well as a dissemination
of each of the major themes that were uncovered in this chapter. Furthermore, the
limitations of the study will be addressed, and implications and conclusions that can be
drawn from the collected data will be discussed. Finally, the next chapter will identify
recommendations from the researcher for further research topics and areas of study
related to the research questions.106
Chapter 5: Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion
Introduction
This chapter aims to provide a conclusion to the study at hand by providing an
overall summary of the study, a review of the central research questions, a discussion of
the findings, and what the ultimate implications and conclusions for the study are.
Furthermore, this chapter provides a section on recommendations for future research.
Following this chapter are a list of references and appendices related to the study.
Summary of Study
This study sought to explore how instructional designers work with faculty to
adopt new instructional technologies and practices during a crisis period. More
specifically, this study aimed to capture the ways an instructional design unit navigated
the onslaught of constraints brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the spring of
2020, many colleges and universities were forced to move in-person instruction to an
online environment. As a result, those who are traditionally involved with course design,
technology integration, and other academic services were tasked in the migration from in-
person courses to an online or remote modality.
Instructional designers, who are employed at a large number of institutions across
the country, were one of these support units that were tasked in the assistance of course
migration during the COVID-19 pandemic. As course design and creation are a primary
function of instructional designers, this group was well positioned to be the subject of
inquiry for the study at hand. More specifically, this study, and the researcher at hand,107
opted to study one specific instructional design unit to gain an understanding into the
inner workings of an instructional design department during a crisis period.
The instructional design unit selected for this study was that of Ohio University.
Ohio University’s instructional designers are part of the Office of Instructional
Innovation and aim to assist faculty with the design and development of instruction,
among other academic endeavors. This instructional design unit consists of eight
instructional designers, one of which, is the primary researcher for this study. Each of
these instructional designers participated in the research at hand and helped to provide an
in-depth look at how they worked during a crisis period, specifically, regarding the
adoption of new technologies and instructional practices.
Using a case study methodology, this study mainly relied on semi-structured
interviews with the instructional design unit at Ohio University from March 23, 2020 to
April 20, 2020. This specific timeframe was selected as faculty at Ohio University were
busy just before the March 23rd date transitioning their courses to an online format. As of
the 23rd, students were to return from Spring Break and resume their courses. However,
as mandated by the university, and because of the COVID-19 pandemic, courses were to
be resumed and finished in an online format. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, this
timeframe for which the case study was bounded was an excellent choice. Because data
was able to be collected directly from the instructional designers at Ohio University
during this time, the researcher has been able to capture an incredible insight into how
this instructional design unit operated during the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to
helping faculty adopt new technologies and teaching methodologies.108
The results of the data analysis revealed a number of interesting findings in regard
to the research questions of this study. First, this study provided an insight into how this
group of instructional designers have worked with faculty during a time of crisis. This
includes a minimalist approach to instructional design, working within specific time
constraints, and operating within a ‘support mode’ capacity to provide faculty with the
assistance they needed during the pandemic. Moreover, it was also revealed to what
effect the pandemic, and the massive migration of courses to an online format had on the
professional identity of instructional designers at their specific institution. Finally, the
first theme that was uncovered also gave insight into what the future may look like for
this group of instructional designers as it relates to working with faculty. More
specifically, the insight provided by the instructional designers also included predictions
of what instructional design may look like in a more global capacity post-pandemic.
The second major theme that was uncovered by the data looked at how
instructional designers balanced best practices during a crisis period. Within this theme,
instructional designers commented on how they best approached working with faculty
with regard to time constraints and what best practices they chose to focus on during this
time period. The instructional designers in this study also commented on their approach
to ‘nudging faculty’ to implement new technologies and teaching methods. Finally, the
instructional designers also commented on how the use of professional judgement played
a major role in how they worked with faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The final theme that was looked at within the context of this study was that of
innovation and how instructional designers communicated with faculty during this time109
to encourage faculty to innovate their instructional practice during the COVID-19
pandemic. This theme took a major look at the appetite for innovation during the time
period which bounded this case study and how the university administration approached
the thought of innovation during this crisis period. Furthermore, this theme looked at
what specific types of communication strategies this group of instructional designers
employed to help faculty innovate during such a disruptive time. These communication
strategies included building rapport and relationships with faculty, to having the
instructional designers leading by example with the demonstration of best practices in
technology and instruction.
This chapter aims to bring these points into a much broader discussion than was
previously addressed. More specifically, this chapter will extrapolate on each of the
themes and subthemes that were derived from the data. After an explanation of each of
the themes, there will be a discussion as to the relevance to the primary research
questions of this study. Finally, each of the themes will be discussed as to their
implications to the broader instructional design community and what the findings of this
study could have in a more global aspect. The chapter will then be followed by a quick
synopsis of the implications of the study on the field of instructional design and learning.
Finally, the chapter will conclude with a final recommendation on future research and
areas of inquiry related to this study. This chapter will be followed by a comprehensive
reference list, as well as, several appendices providing supporting documentation for the
study at hand.110
Research Questions
1. How do instructional designers work with faculty in a crisis to implement new
technologies?
2. How do instructional designers balance best practices in instruction during a time
of crisis?
3. How do instructional designers communicate with faculty about innovating their
instructional practices during a time of crisis?
Discussion of Findings
This section will contain an in-depth discussion of each of the major themes and
sub-themes from this study. Each will include a brief overview of the finding and then
discuss the broader implications of that finding to the primary research questions of this
study and then conclude with what that finding may have in a more global sense. It
should be noted that with this research, the researcher aimed to tell the story of the
instructional designers in this study, through a narrative form, from what they
experienced during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the discussions
based on these findings are reliant on the interpretation of the findings by the researcher.
Finding 1: Working with Faculty During a Time of Crisis
The first major theme that derived from the data was that of how instructional
designers worked with faculty during a time of crisis. More specifically, the theme
looked at how instructional designers worked with faculty on the implementation of new
technologies and teaching methods during the COVID-19 crisis. For the instructional
designers interviewed in this study, this included a large migration of in-person courses to111
a remote and online format. For that to happen, the instructional designers in this study
needed to alter their approach to instructional design to meet the immediate needs of the
faculty and the institution at large. As a result of this, the instructional designers in this
study have provided an insightful look at what this approach looked like, as well as,
provided information on what constraints they faced. Furthermore, the designers provided
an account of how this crisis may have positively influenced how they work with faculty
moving forward. Finally, the designers provided an account of how the COVID-19
pandemic may (or may not) influence the use of instructional designers, both at their
parent institution, but of that in a more global sense as well.
A “Minimalist” Approach to Instructional Design
The major sub-theme from this part of the data analysis was that of working as a
minimalist. By “minimalist” a number of the instructional designers in study noted how
their approach to instructional design during the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly
influenced by time and what the administration wanted from them at the time. Moreover,
some of the instructional designers outlined their approach as being “reactionary”, as in
doing what was needed immediately at the time in working with faculty members. Within
another context, the approach of being “reactionary” can be viewed as that of having
these instructional designers inserted into the middle of a course design, whereas opposed
to starting a brand-new course design with faculty from the beginning.
Another insight that came in from this sub-theme was that of what instructional
designers were doing from a job aspect. For example, some of the instructional designers
noted that their duties shifted from a full-on course design approach, to helping out in112
one-off consultations, creating mass distributed content, and doing more professional
development. Other instructional designers noted that they became more of a “help-desk”
for technology related questions, as opposed to questions surrounding pedagogy.
While it was not confirmed by the instructional designers directly, the approach of
being reactionary combined with a major influx of work seemingly shifted what this
group of instructional designers performed from a job aspect. Because of the COVID-19
pandemic and the shift of in-person courses to an online setting, altered the primary
function of these instructional designers. As noted by studies such as Kumar & Ritzhaupt
(2017), Villachia et al., (2010), Kenny et al., (2005), and Cox and Osguthrpe (2003), the
main function of an instructional designer is that focusing on course design. While the
instructional designers in this study noted that they did still assist in course design during
the COVID-19 pandemic, they noted that it was different in that they were used in an
immediate capacity and in more of a one-off nature. Also, it was noted that because of
time and the full capacity of the instructional designers, prioritization needed to be given
to what the instructional designers and faculty could achieve during this time.
What may be most beneficial to learn, or question, about this sub-theme is what
exactly does “minimalist” instructional design look like from an operational perspective.
The idea of a “minimalist” approach to instructional design should not be confused with
the work of Hans van der Meij and John Carroll, who have proposed theoretical ideas and
conducted research to support a way of “designing minimalist instruction” (van der Meij
& Carroll, 1995). Traditionally, instructional design models and theories involve
multiple steps in order to construct a curriculum, course, or training. However, if pinched113
for time, how might instructional designers functionally achieve this level of instructional
design integrity in faculty courses? It may very well be that it is impossible during a crisis
period to take a faculty member through an entire course design using traditional
instructional design methods and theories. Then, of course, enters the question of if an
instructional designer cannot complete an entire course design using method and theory,
what then becomes the essential steps or components that instructional designer needs to
complete? While I do not believe the study at hand supports a definite answer to this
question, it nonetheless brings it into light for a much broader conversation.
If anything, the COVID-19 pandemic has (or should) bring into the conversation
what ‘minimalist instructional design’ looks like from a functional perspective. An
answer to this question would not only benefit the larger research community on
instructional design, but be a lifeline to many instructional design units. While not
directly stated by the instructional designers in the study, they did note that their services
did range during the COVID-19 pandemic. While instructional designers do have a
variety of functions that they perform, providing a clear picture of what services are
available and provided during a pandemic, and to what level these services are provided,
could prove to be beneficial for faculty looking for assistance. Looking past the
pandemic, the concept of ‘minimalist instructional design’ could also have an effect on
how instructional design units operate moving forward. With many colleges and
universities making budget cuts and reduction in workforce, a more lean operation may
benefit units that offer instructional design services. Knowing what the bare or minimal
essentials are for course design and development could help these units to save time and114
resources. Moreover, this may allow instructional design units to uniquely position
themselves as essential resources at colleges and universities, by clearly defining their
services and promoting the trade as an essential service that can contribute to the
construction of quality educational programming.
Moreover, the concept of looking at the evolving structure of a systems-based
approach to instruction plays into the historical lineage of instructional design. As noted
in Chapter 1, a large portion of the systems-based approach to instruction was based out
of a result of the World War II conflict. This ability to evolve a field from a crisis period
adds into the conversation at hand about the evolution of instructional design in general.
Perhaps the COVID-19 pandemic could act as a catalyst to re-think how the systems-
based approach to instruction is done. More specifically within the context of this study,
it could be an opportunity to develop or revise models that specifically support
differentiated contexts, such as those brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Instructional Design is Not Technology Support
The importance of clearly stating the purpose and services of an instructional
design unit cannot be understated, especially during a crisis period. As noted by a number
of the instructional designers in this study, the designers were operating in a ‘support
mode’ that often consisted of troubleshooting technology issues faculty were having. As
specifically noted by one instructional designer, “I feel like, at times, And I think we’re
all doing this right now, is I feel more like I’m a technical service desk.” The sentiment
of this statement, and those who provided similar accounts bring into light the115
relationship that may need to exist between instructional designers and those who provide
technical support for instructional technologies.
While there is undoubtedly some overlap in the duties and knowledge of those
who use instructional technologies for the design and development of instruction and
those who provide technical support for such technologies, a clear delineation should
likely be established during a time of a crisis. The miscalculation of these two roles is
likely not at fault of the faculty, especially if said faculty have not worked with an
instructional designer in the past. As noted by Fyle et al., (2012) and Liu et al., (2002),
instructional designers need to possess a working knowledge of how to use instructional
technologies in order to reach specific pedagogical goals. However, as noted by Kumar
and Ritzhaupt (2017), this working knowledge gets convoluted with providing
technological support for such tools.
From the research at hand, it is clear that the faculty who worked with the
instructional designers in this study needed both assistance with tools to reach
pedagogical goals and also help from a technical aspect. As reported by several
instructional designers in this study, they had taken on both roles of being consultative in
nature about how to use the technology to aid in instructional and also troubleshooting
from a technical standpoint. This dilemma brings in a number of questions that should be
addressed from a functional standpoint, particularly when a unit is working during a crisis
period. First and foremost, university leadership (or those in leadership positions of
instructional design units) should try to make explicitly clear what are the core services
provided by instructional designers. While not directly confirmed by the research at hand,116
it is easy to speculate that the reason by which faculty approached these instructional
designers with a plethora of technology support questions was that they misunderstood
their role. If this is the case, a clear and thorough messaging to faculty should be provided
to help maintain the integrity of instructional design services, and those provided by units
on campus that do assist with technological support problems.
A suggestion to help mitigate such confusion in the future would be to have a
closer collaboration between instructional design units and those who provide technical
support for instructional technologies. A further suggestion would be to give the
instructional designers working directly with faculty the agency to re-route faculty to
support units if they so choose. While not explored within this study directly, an
interesting question can be derived of why these instructional designers were operating in
a ‘support mode’ and fielding a large number of technology support questions, and if the
same problem was had at other institutions. While that finding is outside the scope of this
study, it would be an interesting field of research as the findings of that study could point
(or confirm) that a greater delineation of duties needs to be had between such support
units for faculty during a crisis period.
Solidifying Identity
The two aforementioned sub-themes of working in a “minimalist mode” and “in a
support mode” bring in the much larger question about instructional design as a
profession. More specifically, how instructional design has (or has not) established a
solidified professional identity. As noted by a few of the instructional designers in this
study, the COVID-19 pandemic helped with this in some regards. Most noticeably, one117
participant commented, “Many people have realized the importance of having a designer
and how the designers can help them improve their courses and design their courses and
do everything in consideration to best practice in the field [of teaching and learning].”
However, this statement, and those provided by the other instructional designers, do not
explicitly state which services they provided to faculty to make them realize the
importance of working with an instructional designer. If, as noted in this study,
instructional designers were providing services outside of the traditional role (such as
technology-based support) it is worth questioning what other types of services these
instructional designers were providing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, it is not at the fault of the instructional designers if they were providing
non-traditional services within their role. As noted by researchers such as Kumar &
Ritzhaupt (2017), Boyle (2011), and Fyle et al. (2012), instructional designers take on a
plethora of different roles within the administration of an institution. As such, the
individual working capacity of an instructional designer may change from others that
exist within the unit. While not fully explored within this study, it is well within
questioning if the job duties and roles of these instructional designers varied between the
different designers. If so, the variance in job duties could lead to a multitude of confusion
for faculty in regard to what services an instructional designer provides and what they do
not. This idea would help to support the notion that there was an uptick in the amount of
support these instructional designers provided for a technology support aspect. If this is
the case, this further supports the idea of having a firm communication plan delineating
the services provided by instructional designers and those in technology support units.118
However, this plan of communication may be more difficult as the profession of
instructional design continues to evolve. As noted earlier in Chapter 2, instructional
designers take on a large number of peripheral roles within academic institutions
including being researchers, supporting innovative programs or initiatives by the
university, and serving on administrative committees. Therefore, if instructional
designers are expected to provide such an array of services, it would make sense that
confusion would surround the profession by those who do not have a firm understanding
of the role. As indicated by the study at hand, this became problematic of the interviewed
instructional designers as they became entrenched in duties that were seemingly outside
of the scope of their traditional duties. This finding leads to the idea that instructional
design units should be able to provide a very clear description of what their function is,
most importantly, to faculty and those units that utilize their services. However, it also
brings up a much broader question about what the core function of instructional designers
should be.
Within the scope of this study, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the instructional
designers in this study to focus on a very minimal approach to instructional design, but
that is not to assume that the designers ceased to perform their duties outside of course
design. The larger question at hand, mainly for the profession at large, is what minimal
functions of an instructional designer should be. Furthermore, the question of
professional identity should be questioned as instructional designers are seemingly taking
on more unique roles within colleges and universities. While the findings of this research119
do not aim to directly answer these questions, the findings nonetheless support this area
of future research and inquiry.
The Future
The final sub-theme addressed by the instructional designers in this study
surrounds how instructional designers operate in the future. According to a number of the
instructional designers in this study, the COVID-19 pandemic has been beneficial in
some ways, such as allowing them to work with and develop relationships with a large
number of faculty at Ohio University. As a by-product of the development of these
relationships a number of instructional designers noted that faculty will begin to rely
more on instructional designers in the future.
However, the idea that faculty will rely on instructional designers more in the
future brings up a number of considerations, mainly about how faculty will use
instructional designers moving forward. As previously discussed in this chapter, and by
the accounts given by the instructional designers in this study, there was a somewhat
convoluted interpretation of the services the instructional designers provided. Mainly, the
instructional designers in this study noted that the largest misinterpretation was that they
acted in a “technical support” capacity to help troubleshoot technology-based issues.
Therefore, it becomes clear that a question should be asked about in what capacity
instructional designers will be used in the future. If faculty are mainly concerned with
troubleshooting technology issues, as opposed to, using instructional design from a
pedagogical standpoint, does that change the function of the instructional designer?
While the study at hand did not directly measure to what degree technical support was120
requested from these instructional designers, the participants made it clear that it had a
somewhat significant impact on their work. Moreover, it could be inferred that the effect
also had a significant effect on their professional identity as instructional designers.
While this study did not investigate the larger population of instructional
designers in the field to see if they had a similar experience, it nonetheless brings into
more global questions that can be applicable to this population. For example, if
instructional designers are going to be relied on more in the future by faculty, and if there
is a seemingly misunderstood conception of their job, this needs to be remedied to
maintain the integrity of the profession. As a means of combating this, a strong
communication plan and stance on what instructional designers actually do could go a far
way. In some ways, the pandemic may have aided in this pursuit as instructional
designers were forced to work in a minimalist capacity. This minimalist capacity could
help to illuminate what the essential functions of an instructional designer are, which
would be helpful for those looking to employ their services. Furthermore, the
identification of such services would help to solidify the professional identity of
instructional designers, that is seemingly getting stretched with a growing number of job
variations and duties that may not remain consistent between everyone in the field.
Summary of Finding 1
In summary, the first finding of this study in regard to how instructional designers
work with faculty during a crisis period illuminated a number of interesting points. First,
the instructional designers in this study noted that their work shifted into a minimalist
approach to help faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic. This minimalist approach was121
perpetuated by a large influx of work for the instructional designers, of which, a
significant amount was related to technology troubleshooting. Combined together, the
influx of work, the minimalist approach to instructional design, and the assisting of
technology troubleshooting also raised a number of questions surrounding the
professional identity of these instructional designers. This combination also led to a
number of the instructional designers predicting that their use and work with faculty in
the future was set to increase in volume. If the prediction of these designers comes to
fruition, it would be an interesting area of study to see what the long-term effects the
COVID-19 pandemic has had on the profession of instructional design.
Finding 2: Balancing Best Practices During a Time of Crisis
The second major theme addressed in this study was how instructional designers
balanced best practices in pedagogy and technology during a crisis period. As noted
earlier, the instructional designers in this study navigated the crisis by approaching their
work from a minimalist perspective. However, the second theme of this study dives
deeper into what this approach looks like, more specifically, from a perspective of
balancing best practices. As noted earlier, instructional designers aim to assist faculty in
the creation of courses and instructional programming that uses best practices in teaching
and instruction. However, the COVID-19 pandemic poised to position a number of
constraints on just how instructional designers went about recommending these best
practices to faculty. This theme, and its subsequent sub-themes, aimed at addressing this
question directly.122
Working with the Constraint of Time
The first sub-theme related to this topic was how the aspect of time influenced
how instructional designers in this study suggested best practices with faculty. As noted
by a number of the instructional designers in this study, the increased influx of work,
compounded with time constraints strongly influenced how they approach best practices
with faculty. One of the largest reasons for this time constraint was caused by the mass
migration of in-person courses to an online format because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
As a result of this, a number of instructional designers noted how this immediacy and
“reactionary design” influenced how they approached suggesting best pedagogical
practices with faculty. As noted by one of the instructional designers in the study, “I
suggest best practices, but most of the time there’s just not time because faculty are
working day by day to be ready for the next one.”
This account brings up a variety of interesting questions that can be poised about
the practice of instructional design. If instructional design relies on methods and theories
that aim to optimize instruction for students, is that actually possible to achieve during a
crisis period? As noted earlier, the instructional designers relied on a minimalist approach
to their role during the COVID-19 pandemic. This approach, according to a number of
the designers, caused them to operate in an abbreviated capacity compared to their
traditional role as instructional designers. This sentiment, therefore, aims to question if
traditional instructional design theories and models are still operable during a crisis
period. Furthermore, if traditional instructional design theories and models are not able to
be implemented, then to what extent are instructional designers useful during a crisis123
period? As noted by one of the instructional designers in this study, “Now my role as a
designer is ok, ‘I have x amount of time which isn’t enough amount of time, how best can
I put this [a course] in a different modality that at least I can deliver some form of
learning till the end of the semester?’ Because we are rushing to do things rather than
actually designing, taking deliberate decisions to accomplish things.” This sentiment,
combined with earlier accounts of these instructional designers being significantly relied
on for technology troubleshooting brings into question to what extent instructional design
is actually needed during a crisis period.
However, this question was partially answered by the instructional designers in
this study who reported that faculty were more receptive to trying new things related to
best practices in teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one
of the instructional designers in the study, “I’m finding myself now, talking more and
more about best practice because they’re [faculty] now more receptive.” This account,
and others provided by the instructional designers in this study, bring up larger questions
as to why faculty were more willing to adopt best practices compared to a non-crisis time
period. While this study did not directly address this question, it is certainly worth further
investigation. A possible explanation for this openness for adoption may have been
perpetuated by the opportunity for faculty to innovate or modify their instructional
practices as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the case of these instructional
designers, and of Ohio University, the COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity and
platform for faculty to innovate their instructional practice. However, this opportunity124
lends itself to a much larger conversation around how concepts such as faculty autonomy
and academic freedom were approached during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Faculty Autonomy and Academic Freedom
The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a large number of institutions to move their
in-person courses to an online format. During the time the instructional designers for this
study were interviewed, their university was in the middle of this transition. This
transition was not only an interesting undertaking from a logistics perspective, but also
from a perspective with relation to how faculty work. In particular, the forced
mobilization of in-person courses to an online environment seemingly by-passed many
institution structures, such as faculty autonomy and academic freedom. While this study
does not go into detail in regard to how these structures were mitigated during the crisis,
the instructional designers in this study had to take them into consideration when working
with faculty during the crisis period.
However, the instructional designers in this study mainly noted that faculty were
more open to trying new things in regard to their instructional methods. As noted by one
of the instructional designers, “The response [from faculty on using new technology], I
haven’t had any resistance from anyone.” Other accounts provided by the instructional
designers noted a similar mindset from the faculty they were working with. This
openness to innovation is an interesting concept considering the COVID-19 pandemic
forced many faculty to adapt their teaching, without regard to faculty autonomy and
academic freedom. As noted earlier in Chapter 2, faculty are not always exempt from
particular constraints when it comes to their teaching. For example, external125
accreditation, state authorization, and federal mandates all have taken their toll, to some
degree, on faculty autonomy and academic freedom. The COVID-19 pandemic presents
another area of constraint on these structures; however, the response by the faculty as
noted in this study, seemed to take this constraint as an opportunity to innovate their
teaching practices.
Leading by Example
The instructional designers in this study used this openness to innovation to their
benefit, and also encouraged the practice by nudging faculty. By ‘nudging’, the
instructional designers seemed to encourage and work with faculty to try new things
during the COVID-19 pandemic, in relation to their teaching. This tactic seemingly
aimed to capitalize on the faculty’s willingness to shift their instructional teaching
methods and use of technology. As noted by one of the instructional designers in this
study, “I think faculty got more comfortable with doing things online, that now is the
time I’m just starting to introduce those new tools just a little bit.” This sentiment was
shared by other instructional designers involved in this study where faculty were open to
shifting their traditional approaches to instruction for new methods or modalities. The
instructional designers in this study noted that their approach in nudging faculty to
innovate involved a soft approach, often comparing these new methods with what faculty
have done previously, as to not overwhelm them with too many new things at once.
The approach to nudging faculty is not necessarily a new concept, but one that
should be carefully looked at from the perspective of instructional design. As noted
earlier in this study, the profession of instructional design is often confusing to126
understand, due to the seemingly differentiated services provided by instructional
designers. Furthermore, the identity of instructional designers can, in the case of these
instructional designers, become convoluted in regard to assisting with the use of
instructional technologies. However, as noted by some of the literature, many faculty
have not worked with instructional designers before, which could seemingly lead to
apprehension to their suggestions as experts in the field of teaching and instruction
(Halupa, 2019). As noted by Miller & Stein (2016), this misunderstanding can often lead
to an unwelcome reception from the suggestions of instructional designers with relation
to working with faculty.
However, the instructional designers in this study noted that faculty were
generally receptive to new suggestions amidst the changes brought on the COVID-19
pandemic. While the cause of this could be due to a multitude of factors, the instructional
designers in this study seemed to capitalize on it by taking a soft touch approach to
working with faculty in regard to suggesting best practices for teaching and learning.
While it was not identified in this study if this is the general approach used by this
specific instructional design unit, it does nonetheless bring into a much larger question
about how instructional designers take about theory and methods when working with
faculty. As noted earlier, the field of instructional design comprises a number of
complicated theories and methods that could be viewed as foreign to someone outside of
the field. A strong handed approach to integrate these methods and theories could be seen
as dictatorial; acting in a means to usurp the faculty member (Halupa, 2019).127
As instructional design is primarily a service-based role, a service-based approach
should be a common practice as to how designers work with faculty. More specifically,
the role of the instructional designer is there to support a faculty members capacity to be
an instructor. A strong handed approach to instructional design with faculty members
(and other subject matter experts) could be detrimental to the mutual goal of both parties
aiming to enhance the student learning experience. From the account of the instructional
designers in this study, a gentle nudging approach seemed to work well for them in
balancing best practices in instructional and technology, even during a crisis period.
While the concept of instructional design approaches should be an area of further inquiry,
the account of these instructional designers compliment that approach that resembles a
soft touch; one that respects faculty autonomy and academic freedom, without also
bearing down faculty with extensive theory.
Using Professional Judgement
The approach by the instructional designers in this study with faculty during the
COVID-19 pandemic was strongly influenced by their ability to exercise professional
judgement. Furthermore, this ability to use professional judgement was a keen ability that
aided in helping balance best practices in instruction during the transition of many in-
person courses to an online modality. The study at hand provided an in-depth and
interesting look at how these instructional designers decided to exercise their use of
professional judgement in the way they provided services to faculty during the COVID-
19 pandemic.128
The instructional designers in this study provided a number of means by which
they exercised professional judgement with faculty in regards to implementing best
practices in teaching and instruction. For example, one designer noted, “I like to talk with
them and may size up who I think they are, what their values are, what’s important to
them, how receptive they are to different kinds of feedback, and then either introduce or
not introduce new technology.” This type of approach seemingly embodies a soft touch
approach, while also respecting the faculty’s right to autonomy. Other instructional
designers noted a similar type of approach, for example, another designer noted, “I’ve
always been reluctant to discuss best practices. Like the first time I work with a faculty
member, I try not to be too preachy, but just sort of let that come out organically during
the design process.” Again, this type of approach aims to not inundate faculty with
stringent instructional design theory, but to allow for both the instructional designer and
the faculty member to naturally come to a middle ground on their approach to teaching
and instruction.
As stated earlier in this chapter, and supported by the findings in this sub-theme,
instructional designers seem to benefit from the position of being able to use professional
judgement in the approach they take for their profession. With regard to the topic at hand,
this strategy seemingly worked for the instructional designers in this study with regard to
suggesting best practices with faculty during a crisis period. What this finding also
suggests is that there might not be a ‘one size fits all’ approach for instructional designers
and their work with faculty. This idea brings into some serious questions with regard to129
the methods and theories of instructional design that have perpetuated the field for so
long.
If instructional design is to be viewed as a service that can be employed, within
the case of this study, in higher education, then instructional designers need to be very
clear and adherent to the concepts of faculty autonomy and academic freedom. Without a
clear understanding of this, instructional designers may be perceived by faculty as
somewhat authoritative in such a structured approach to the profession (Halupa, 2019).
Furthermore, as noted by Kumar and Ritzhaupt (2017), instructional designers need to be
able to ascertain faculty “buy-in”, which strongly relies on communication skills. An
inability to do this, would likely result in a failed approach to assist a faculty member in
improving their instructional practice. This scenario therefore brings into questions the
argument of if “instructional design” as defined as the use of “systematic instructional
planning including needs assessment, development, evaluation, implementation, and
maintenance of material and programs” (Koszalka et al., 2014, p. 147), is even possible if
faculty buy-in is not attained. Alternatively, the basis of “systematic instructional
planning” becomes problematic if faculty do not agree to completely follow the
processes. As such, we arrive back to a question that was posed earlier in this chapter
about what a minimalist approach to instructional design looks like. Furthermore, it could
be speculated that if faculty decide not to follow the systematic approach to instruction
poised by instructional designers, is instructional design even possible? These more
global questions, while not answered by this study, can be seen as somewhat existential130
questions to the field of instructional design. Yet, they remain essential to answer as
instructional designers become more integrated into the fabric of higher education.
Furthermore, instructional designers need to be cognizant of the training, or lack
thereof, faculty have in regard to teaching and pedagogy. According to Alsop (2018),
“teaching remains undervalued in the context of doctoral training and the profession at
large.” Therefore, it is important while taking initiative with faculty for a designer to
remember that they may have more pedagogical training than the faculty they are
working with. This value-added expertise can be of extreme value in improving the
pedagogical practices of the faculty member the designer is working with. Furthermore, it
can allow for an opportunity for the instructional designer to demonstrate their value and
the value of instructional design to the faculty member they are working with.
However, what this study does illuminate is the benefit of allowing agency to
instructional designers to approach their craft as they see fit. This approach was
beneficial for the instructional designers in this study, in particular with their approach to
working with faculty to adopt best practice in teaching and learning during a crisis
period. The COVID-19 pandemic and the quick transition of in-person courses presented
a scenario where people needed to quickly adapt their practice to meet the needs of the
learners they are looking to support. Instructional designers should be no different in that
an abbreviated approach to their craft should not only be viewed as appropriate by the
profession at large, but identified as an area for future inquiry. A look at how
instructional designers can be used in a rapid, fast-moving capacity could have a
significant benefit for colleges and universities that are looking at responding to facets131
such as market demand for new programs. Colleges and universities that can rapidly
respond to such a volatile market, particularly within higher education, could be in a very
fruitful position to expand and outpace their competition. While the COVID-19 crisis did
not help to fully determine what this looks like from a functional standpoint, it
nonetheless highlighted the importance of knowing how to rapidly use instructional
designers, not only for the continuity of curricular offerings, but how they can be used in
a rapid capacity to further the educational agenda of an institution.
Summary of Finding 2
In summary the second finding of this study illuminated the question on how
instructional designers balanced best practices with faculty during a crisis period. The
instructional designers in this study further illuminated their approach during the
COVID-19 pandemic by describing their approach as “reactionary”, mainly due to time
constraints. This brought into question a much larger discussion on if instructional design
is even possible during a crisis period, when compared with traditional models and
theories.
The instructional designers in this study also illuminated the fact that faculty were
willing and receptive to trying new instructional methods and technologies during the
pandemic. While the question of why this is was not aimed at being answered by the
study and hand, it nonetheless brings up an interesting area of inquiry. However, the
instructional designers saw this as an opportunity to approach faculty with new
instructional methods and technologies with respect to faculty autonomy and academic
freedom. In doing so, the instructional designers moved towards an approach of132
‘nudging’ faculty, instead of a heavy-handed approach to the adoption of new teaching
methods and technologies. This approach was seemingly beneficial for the instructional
designers in this study, and also the faculty they worked with during the COVID-19
pandemic.
Finally, the instructional designers relied on the use of professional judgement in
their approach to working with faculty during this crisis period. This approach, as
opposed to one requiring a systematic and stepwise process, seemed to benefit the
instructional designers in this study. This approach, while somewhat juxtaposed to
traditional approaches to instructional design, may present an opportunity to revisit some
of the core components of instructional design. While that is a much larger task and
outside the scope of this study, it nonetheless presents an opportunity to raise big
questions about the profession and what it looks like within a shifting higher education
environment.
Finding 3: Innovation and Communication During A Crisis
The final theme illuminated by the study at hand addressed how instructional
designers used communication to assist faculty with innovating their instructional
practice during a crisis period. As addressed in this chapter, the instructional designers
noted that during the COVID-19 pandemic the faculty they worked with were generally
open to the idea of innovating their instructional practices. While the cause of this was
not specifically identified in this study, one potential cause of this may have been with
the communicative approach taken by the instructional designers at Ohio University. This133
final theme aims to take a look at this approach and compare it with the theoretical
framework underlying this study: Innovation Diffusion Theory.
The Opportunity for Innovation
As noted earlier in this chapter, the faculty who worked with instructional
designers at Ohio University during the COVID-19 generally showed an interest and
appetite for innovation. As specifically noted by one of the instructional designers in this
study, “I think it’s [the pandemic] really kind of shaken up their [faculty] routine and
gotten them to think differently about how content can be delivered. So, that’s been really
exciting.” This sentiment was shared by a number of other instructional designers who
noted a positive outlook and approach to innovation during a crisis period. Most
interestingly, an area that was illuminated by this research was that the instructional
designers in this study actually had to reel back some faculty from trying to be too
innovative or disruptive during the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted by another
instructional designer, they accounted, “It’s almost pulling them back from some new
technologies because it’s not a great time to start something that could be more
detrimental to students.” The idea of pulling faculty back can also be attested to these
instructional designers' ability to exercise professional judgement during the COVID-19
pandemic.
While not directly investigated by the study at hand, it is an interesting area of
inquiry as to why innovation seemingly peaked for these instructional designers. It could
be speculated that since faculty were forced to change their teaching modality, that they
were open to other changes as well. Furthermore, it could be speculated that faculty were134
introduced to teaching methods and practices not known to them prior to the COVID-19
pandemic While these are all speculations at this point, it does bring about a conversation
about how instructional designers can respond positively to faculty that are wanting and
willing to adapt their instructional practices. As noted earlier, instructional designers are
entering more diverse spaces within the higher education landscape. One of which is to
assist or be a catalyst for innovation at colleges and universities. For example, the
instructional designers in this study work for Ohio University’s Office of Instructional
Innovation. Thus, as the name implies, that those working in the office should have some
capacity for introducing and facilitating the adoption of innovative approaches to
instruction.
This idea brings some larger questions into play, such as how units like Ohio
University’s Office of Instructional Innovation defines “innovation”. Moreover, it would
be interesting to investigate how the field of instructional design defines innovation and
plans for it during their systematic approaches to instructional planning. One could also
take a deeper dive and question if there is room for innovation within a systematic
approach to instruction. If faculty are not given the room to explore, test, experiment, and
revise their instructional methods, then does a construct like instructional design stagnate
a faculty’s ability to be innovative? While these questions are speculative and outside the
scope of the study at hand, they nonetheless are important questions to answer. As
instructional designers work on the front lines with faculty who are in innovative spaces,
they should possess an ability to help nurture and guide such ideas.135
What is at stake if instructional designers cannot help to successfully facilitate
faculty innovation is progress within the field of teaching and learning. Moreover,
without the ability to help sprout new and innovative ideas, colleges and universities
could potentially fall victim to operating with old and dated instructional methods and
technologies. Therefore, departments like Ohio University’s Instructional Innovation,
should have a firm grasp on how they define and approach innovation, within the context
of working with faculty. Units that take a strong approach to this will be well off to help
faculty who are looking to be on the forefront of their instructional practice.
Innovation, Administration, and the Future
However, a strong approach to innovation not only needs to be had by
instructional design units that aim to support such ventures, other administrative units
need to have the same as well. In the case of the instructional designers in this study, the
administration was heavily reliant on their ability to foster the uptick in innovation
brought on by the faculty of Ohio University during the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted
by one of the instructional designers, “Our team has been asked to create a strategy to
lead the entire institution to the switch online.” The participant further clarified their
statement by explaining, “There’s definitely more to do [work for instructional
designers]. And there’s less..all of our leadership is focused. So, we’re required to lead
from place and innovative in this time of opportunity.” Another instructional designer
noted a similar account by saying, “I think we’re just getting that change to strike out, try
a few things, collaborate in ways that we didn’t have time to do before and show finished
products that people can get behind and get on board with that I think is really kind of136
interesting. So, we’re able to innovate in a lot more flexible way not that we just couldn't’
do previously.”
The comments by these two instructional designers bring up a number of
interesting points that should be addressed. First, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the
administration of Ohio University clearly relied on instructional designers to help in the
transition face-to-face instruction. However, there was also a significant reliance on this
group to help foster and relate the innovative ideas faculty were proposing during a crisis
period. This point reinforces an idea proposed earlier about instructional designers (and
instructional design units as a whole) having a firm grasp on how to approach, facilitate,
and nurture innovative ideas proposed by faculty. However, this approach needs to be
firmly resourced and supported by top-level administration to ensure its ability to
succeed.
However, one of the instructional designers brought up a comment regarding
“mandating” in relation to the use of specific instructional technologies moving into the
future. As accounted by the instructional designer, “I think there is going to be an implied
mandate moving forward that faculty members must use university-provided, or
enterprise solution technologies in specific ways, and I think we’ve already heard
administration hint at things like that.” The instructional designer future clarified that,
“What we know about technology use in mandatory settings compared to voluntary
settings is that the motivation is very different and I do think that instructional designers
will play an important role in helping navigate those new expectations.”137
The account by this instructional design brings up a number of important
considerations with regard to how administration approaches mandating the use of
technology and instructional methods, as opposed to, allowing faculty to chart their own
path forward. This is ultimately a complicated question as it toes the line between what is
within the respective realm of university decision making and faculty autonomy.
However, somewhere within these lines resides the instructional designer, who is a
service provider to faculty, and should not necessarily be seen as someone who is
enforcing decisions. As suggested by Halupa (2019), superseding faculty can have a
detrimental effect between an instructional designer and faculty member. Thus, pinning
the instructional designer as a “middle man” between institutional mandates and the
faculty could be detrimental to the instructional designer’s work and could potentially
stifle a faculty member's willingness to innovate and improve their instructional practice.
We therefore revisit the idea suggested earlier in this chapter about providing very
clear communication around what instructional design is and what instructional designers
do with a college or university. Without such a clear ability to communicate, the
profession (and those in such roles) could potentially see themselves operating within a
convoluted space. Moreover, if there is confusion amongst the instructional designers as
to their primary purpose and role, it will subsequently be difficult for faculty to
understand it as well. For example, in this case study, the faculty saw many of these
instructional designers as technical support for instructional technologies, as opposed to,
what their primary function should be. What is apparent through the COVID-19
pandemic is that communication channels surrounding instructional services at a college138
or university need to be prioritized. Not only does this prioritization service the people
that occupy such positions, they also serve those who are patrons of that service, who are
ultimately the faculty.
Communication Methods and Approaches
While a large amount of this discussion has surrounded the idea of clear
communication, the definition of services, and the purpose of instructional design, this
study also illuminated how specifically instructional designers at Ohio University used
communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. By far the most apparent approach
taken by these instructional designers was that of developing a strong rapport and
relationship with the faculty members they were working with. As noted earlier in
Chapter 2, the instructional designer and faculty relationship is one that can be easily
complicated, due to a misunderstanding of roles and power dynamics. However, as noted
by the instructional designers in this study, the ability to build rapport and develop a solid
working relationship with faculty supports the agenda of both parties. This type of
support and trust-building can be viewed as somewhat essential when working with a
crisis period.
The means by which these instructional designers built rapport and relationships
with faculty was somewhat varied, but strongly relied on communication. In particular,
the instructional designers within this study relied on using empathy as a mechanism for
building relationships with faculty. As noted by one of the instructional designers, “I try
to be really, really sympathetic and I try to empathize with the faculty member who has
the responsibilities far beyond what they come to me asking about.” This was echoed by139
another designer who mentioned that, “But now, because it’s a crisis we are supposed to
really understand and be very understanding.” The ability to empathize and understand
the position of a faculty member not only takes a working knowledge of how institutions
work, but also the role of a faculty member specifically. Therefore, it could be suggested
that it is inherently important for instructional designers at large to have a firm
understanding of what it means to be a faculty member at a college of institution. A deep
understanding of the role that instructional designers aim to support not only benefits the
instructional designer, but the faculty member. This type of understanding could also go a
long way of preserving the relationship between the two roles, which may culminate in a
more productive working relationship. Conversely, the understanding of the faculty
member as to the roles and responsibilities of an instructional designer can help to
mitigate misunderstood misconceptions such as relying on instructional designers for
technology support, which was expressed by the instructional designers in this study.
Using Agency
Another means by which instructional designers operated with faculty during the
COVID-19 pandemic was that by taking initiative. As addressed earlier in this chapter,
professional judgement was exercised regularly by the instructional designers in this
study. However, the ability to take initiative and exercise a ‘learning by doing’ approach,
can be seen through a communication lens. More specifically, the instructional designers
in this study seemed to use the agency and ability to take initiative as a means of breaking
through with faculty, to help and support their ideas and means by which to innovate
during the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted by one of the instructional designers in this140
study, “So they [faculty] allow me room to research, they allow me room to investigate
best practice around what they're trying to do, and then we start to move into solutions or
creative discussions back and forth.” This agency also provided an opportunity for these
instructional designers to negotiate with faculty in regards to the use of best practices in
teaching and technology. For example, another instructional designer noted that “It’s a
matter of negotiating with the faculty, negotiating with yourself, and having a very
realistic goal in mind.”
The accounts of these instructional designers and their ability to take initiative in
their work with faculty brings up an interesting conversation around trust and
communication. For faculty to relinquish some of their control over their teaching to an
instructional designer shows that trust can be built between the two. It is within this type
of trust that instructional designers gain agency to exercise their expertise within the
realm of teaching and learning. As noted in Chapter Two, power dynamics do play a part
within the instructional design and faculty working relationship (Drysdale, 2019).
However, being able to communicate and build trust despite issues that may arise is a
specific skills instructional designers may be able to learn.
This idea brings up a much larger question about how instructional designer’s are
trained, mainly, in the way of interpersonal communication. If, as suggested by the
instructional designers in this study, communication should be prioritized throughout an
instructional designers course of study. The benefits are clear that those who are able to
communicate their respective role as an instructional designer may be suited to work in
the higher education environment than those who are not. This case study shows an141
example of this as many faculty initially mistook working with instructional designers as
working with someone who provides support for instructional technologies. However,
being able to overcome this barrier led these instructional designers to exercise
professional judgement and foster innovative approaches to teaching and learning with
the faculty they were working with. This ability presumably positioned these instructional
designers to be successful in their work with faculty, even during a crisis period.
Along with the idea of interpersonal communication training for instructional
designers comes the idea of rapport and relationship building. As noted earlier in this
chapter, building rapport and relationships with faculty using strategies such as empathy
building seemed to strongly benefit these instructional designers. Thus, as part of an
increased move to train instructional designers on communication methods, there should
also be training on tactics for relationship building. As noted by Halupa (2019), the
instructional designer and faculty relationship needs to be carefully managed by both
sides, but strongly relies on the ability of the instructional designer. From a functional
standpoint, if an instructional designer is unable to gain faculty buy-in to what they are
suggesting, the goal of using instructional design may be severely compromised. Other
situations that may occur is that if faculty are mandated to work with an instructional
designer. While not covered within the scope of this study, it can be presumed that this
approach could have significant problems, such as a determinant to faculty autonomy.
Therefore, the importance of communication training for instructional designers should
not be understated and should be a much broader area of future research. In doing so,
instructional designers will be well equipped to navigate the interpersonal relationship142
that exists between them and faculty. Moreover, instructional design as a profession will
continue to solidify itself within the field of higher education, setting itself apart from
those who are in roles that provide technological support.
Comparison to Innovation Diffusion Theory
Aside from just identifying the types of communication methods and strategies
the instructional designers in this case study used, a goal of this research was to compare
it to the strategies outlined within Innovation Diffusion Theory. As noted in earlier
chapters, Innovation Diffusion Theory was the underlying theoretical framework for this
study. Pioneered by the work of Everett Rogers, Innovation Diffusion Theory takes a
strong position of how new ideas are adopted by societal groups. More specifically,
Rogers framework draws largely the importance of the diffusion of innovations, which
refers to how innovations are adopted by groups of individuals. This process, as outlined
by Rogers, relies on four main components such as: 1) the innovation itself, 2)
communication channels, 3) time, and 4) social systems. For the scope of this study, the
component of communication channels was to be a primary focus. Mainly, how
instructional designers used the communicative components of Innovation Diffusion
Theory to support the adoption of innovative instructional methods and technologies
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The first component of comparing the account of the instructional designers in
this study to Innovation Diffusion Theory is to look at how their work compared to the
framework. More specifically, the aim for this research was to see how the work of the
instructional designers during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the five stages of the143
Innovation Decision Process. The Innovation Decision Process is a sub-framework of
Innovation Diffusion Theory that aims to account for the process by which someone (or a
group of individuals) goes from obtaining knowledge of an innovation to a confirmation
that such innovation is beneficial and successfully adopted. The Innovation Decision
Process is mainly composed of five different stages including, 1) knowledge, 2)
persuasion, 3) decision, 4) implementation, and 5) confirmation.
From the account of the instructional designers in this study, a number of them
accounted for the stages of the Innovation Decision Process. For example, the
instructional designers within this study were positioned during the COVID-19 pandemic
to help shift a large number of in-person, faculty-led courses to the online environment.
This included both faculty who have taught online before, as well as, faculty who have
never taught online before. In this respect, the instructional designers were tasked with
introducing this concept, and the subsequent supporting technologies, to those faculty
members who have never used them before. As accounted by the instructional designers
in this study, their approach involved a minimalist approach to their instructional design
approach. This minimalist approach can be interpreted with the frame of the Innovation
Decision Process as providing minimal exposure to innovations, within the context of
teaching and technology. This approach taken by the instructional designers was
accounted for by suggesting that time was mainly the greatest constraint they were facing
during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, other constraints also played into their
decision making process such as faculty autonomy and administrative mandates. Another
interesting aspect to the scenario for these instructional designers was that faculty did not144
necessarily have a choice of whether or not to adopt online teaching as a methodology
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, the instructional designers in this study were
responsible for being knowledgeable experts on online learning, as well as, the teaching
methodologies and technologies to help facilitate successful learning during the
pandemic.
As the instructional designers passed through the various stages of the Innovation
Decision Process, it should be noted that the means by which they communicated with
faculty provided a means by which to account their process. For example, in regards to
persuading faculty to adopt or form a favorable opinion of innovation, the instructional
designers were accompanied by a number of scenarios. First, the instructional designers
relied on a number of communication-based techniques to help faculty in the process of
innovating their instructional practices during a time of crisis. For example, the
instructional designers in this study relied on a number of methods and techniques for
building rapport and relationships with the faculty they were working with. This
approach seemingly helped to facilitate the persuasion aspect of the Innovation Decision
Process. According to Rogers (2003) the persuasion stage of the Innovation Decision
Process involves having individuals (or societal groups) form a favorable (or
unfavorable) opinion towards an innovation. To assist in the facilitation of this process,
the instructional designers strongly relied on their ability to form relationships and a
rapport with the faculty they were working with.
The process of building these relationships also benefited from these instructional
designers being able to exercise their professional judgement and decision making. This145
correlates with the “decision” stage of the Innovation Decision Process, where
individuals take part in actions that lead to the acceptance (or rejection) of an innovation.
The instructional designers in this study accomplished this by a number of means, in
particular, by their approach to nudge faculty towards the adoption of new technologies
and methods during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, using professional
judgement to obtain agency gave instructional designers a level playing field when it
came to the instructional designer-faculty relationship. This level playing field seemingly
allowed for mutual decision making between the instructional designer and faculty in
regard to the adoption of new and/or innovative teaching methods and technologies.
Along with playing a role in the first three stages of the Innovation Decision
Process, the instructional designers in this study also acted within a capacity to help
faculty implement best practices in instructional and technology during the COVID-19
pandemic. The implementation stage of the Innovation Decision Process revolves around
an individual (or group) decides to put a new idea into use. The instructional designers in
this study noted that they were involved with helping the faculty to this with regard to
implementing new teaching methods and technologies. However, this does not suggest
that each and every innovation was acted upon and implemented by the faculty. As noted
earlier, the instructional designers used their professional judgement to mitigate the risks
and benefits of the implementation of such innovations. Furthermore, the instructional
designers in this study were significantly compromised by time, as they had little time to
work with faculty to implement large-scale innovations.146
The account of the instructional designers helping faculty through the
implementation state of the Innovation Diffusion Process brings up a number of
interesting points. First, this application of instructional designers can be a testament to
their utility and use within higher education. Furthermore, it moves to show that
instructional designers can occupy a unique space to help nurture and promote
innovation. A combination of knowledge around instructional methods, design, and
learning science makes an instructional designer a unique service provider for faculty.
Within this capacity, an instructional designer can be a helpful “change agent” who can
assist faculty in helping them reach their pedagogical goals. Furthermore, instructional
designers can be well poised to help administration make decisions, particularly around
curriculum and program development.
The final stage of the Innovation Decision Process revolves around
“confirmation”, that is, when an individual or group seeks reinforcement around their
decision to adopt an innovation. Because this study was bounded within a very specific
timeframe, the data did not necessarily capture how the instructional designers navigated
the final stage of the Innovation Decision Process. However, it should be noted that
future studies of a similar nature can be broader in scope to help capture what this final
stage of the Innovation Decision Process looks like. More specifically, the idea brings up
more interesting questions around the entirety of the Innovation Decision Process and
what that looks like during a crisis period. As noted by the instructional designers in this
study, the appetite for innovation was strong for many of the faculty they were working
with. Future studies can attempt to account for why this rise in innovation occurred.147
Furthermore, future studies could also take a more longitudinal measurement of how
these innovations, if adopted during a crisis period, persisted after the crisis period had
subsided.
Communication Channels
Another component of Innovation Diffusion Theory that was applicable to this
study was that of Communication Channels. As noted by Rogers (2003), communication
channels are “the means by which messages get from one individual to another” (p. 18).
Within the scope of this study, the instructional designers acted as a communication
channel between the faculty and administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. More
specifically, these instructional designers were operating on a front-line capacity with
faculty as they looked to adapt their instructional process because of the crisis period. As
noted earlier in this study, instructional designers are uniquely positioned with faculty to
develop interpersonal relationships. These relationships can be a key factor in helping
faculty reach their pedagogical goals, as well as, working as a conduit by which to usher
in administrative decisions.
Within the scope of this study, the instructional designers mainly used rapport
building and empathy as their main mode of developing communication channels with
faculty. While not captured by the data in this study, it would be interesting to discuss if
that approach is standard by the instructional designers, or if that approach was chosen
because of the crisis period. While the literature is thin on just how exactly instructional
designs go about establishing a rapport or empathy-based communication channel with
faculty, it is surely an interesting topic for future research. As stated earlier in this148
chapter, there are a multitude of opportunities to study how instructional designers
communicate with faculty. More specifically, there are opportunities that reside
specifically within how instructional designers approach the concept of innovation,
define it, and encourage it with faculty.
Innovation Diffusion Theory During a Crisis
Another interesting question to ask as a result of this study is to what extent
Innovation Diffusion Theory is applicable to crisis situations. Rogers (2003) does note
that an innovation generally takes some time before its eventual adoption by individuals
and larger societal groups. This therefore gave rise to sub-concepts within his theory and
more specifically, his identification of what defines the rate of innovation adoption.
According to Rodgers (2003) there are five attributes that play into the speed at which an
innovation is adopted. These attributes are: 1) relative advantage, 2) compatibility, 3)
complexity, 4) trialability and 5) observability. Each of these attributes have been
covered in detail in Chapter Two of this study.
An interesting question to ask; however, is just how viable these attributes are
during a crisis period. As noted by the instructional designers in this study, the pandemic
seemingly caused an uptick in the faculty at Ohio University in regard to innovating their
instructional practice. However, as noted by Rogers (2003) and his attributes of the rate
of innovation adoption, time plays a significant role. The instructional designers in this
study noted that time was a primary constraint on their work and the way they approach
the faculty they were working with during the pandemic. As such, we are presented with
another interesting situation with regard to the conversation around innovation.149
One major idea that comes to mind in regard to innovation during a crisis period
is if an idea or approach is to be considered “innovative” if there is no option but to adopt
a new idea. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the faculty of Ohio University
(and many other universities) to transition their courses from an in-person modality to
that of an online format. Many of the faculty involved with this did not have a choice on
whether or not they wanted to transition their courses, which leads to the question if
something is innovative if the concept, idea, or process is forced upon someone. This
reverts us back to the question posed earlier about what and/or how innovation is actually
defined. More specifically, within the scope of this study, it would be interesting to
investigate just how instructional designers view innovation through their lens as a
professional. The significance of this area of study could help illuminate how
instructional designers not only define innovation, but approach it, especially as being
conduits in their work with faculty.
Though the instructional designers in this study noted an uptick in the appetite for
innovation by the faculty they were working with, it does call into question as to how
much of the innovative ideas were eventually adopted and persisted post pandemic. As
addressed earlier, this study was bounded within a timeframe that did not allow for the
measurement of such a statistic; however, it would be an interesting question to
investigate. As proposed by Rogers (2003) and his five attributes for innovation adoption,
it is well within the possibility that during a crisis period, there is not enough time for
individuals to transgress these stages. As such, it is worth further investigation as to how150
innovations persist post-crisis period, or within a period where an individual or group is
forced
While there is certainly a number of avenues for future research within this
theoretical framework and the work of instructional designers, the framework was
applicable to this study for a number of reasons. In particular, the focus and intersection
between Rogers’ concept of Communication Channels and this study’s attempt to capture
how instructional designers used communication to encourage the use and adoption of
best practices in instruction during was an essential component of this study.
Furthermore, comparing the approach of instructional designers to that of Rogers’
Innovation Decision Process, in particular, during a crisis period was also illuminating
and necessary to answer the primary research questions of this study. Finally, the use of
Innovation Diffusion Theory as a theoretical framework for this study helps to prompt a
number of questions and considerations for future research within the field of
instructional design. In particular, if instructional designers are to be considered “change
agents” moving forward in many colleges and universities, then a number of questions in
regard to instructional design and innovation need to be answered. While not necessarily
within the scope of this research, it has nonetheless opened up a number of avenues by
which to start this line of inquiry and conversation.
Summary of Finding 3
In summary, the third findings of this summary in regard to how instructional
designers communicate with faculty about innovating their instructional practice during a
time of crisis raised a number of interesting points. The instructional designers in this151
study noted a rise in the appetite for innovation during this crisis period, but were
significantly constrained by the shortness of time they had to implement such
innovations. While this instance brought up a number of questions around innovation, in
particular, during a crisis period, it also helped to illuminate how these instructional
designers used communication as a mechanism by which to not only foster innovation,
but to implement it during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The main communicative approaches used by these instructional designers
included building relationships with faculty using rapport and empathy. The process by
which to build these relationships stemmed from these instructional designers’ ability to
exercise their professional judgement in their approach to faculty during the COVID-19
pandemic. As such, these instructional designers were able to navigate some of the
complicated situations that arise during the faculty and instructional designer
relationship.
Digging deeper into the communicative methods of instructional designers, the
approach was applicable to be compared to the theoretical framework used with this
study: Innovation Diffusion Theory. As addressed earlier in this chapter, Innovation
Diffusion Theory encompasses a number of frameworks, each dedicated to the study of
how innovations are adopted by an individual or a societal group. Within the context of
this study, the use of the sub-framework of the Innovation Decision Process was used to
illuminate how the instructional designers in this study went about navigating the uptick
of innovation proposed by the faculty at Ohio University.152
Furthermore, other sub-frameworks within the larger scope of Innovation
Diffusion Theory, such as Rogers’ (2003) description of Communication Channels and
attributes that define the rate of adoption of innovations, further assisted in helping to
answer the research questions at hand. Moreover, the use of these frameworks helped to
bring about a number of questions for future research around how instructional designers
approach innovation, define it, and more importantly act as a change agent for faculty
looking to push the boundaries of their instructional practice.
Implications of the Study
As addressed throughout this chapter, this study has brought about a number of
implications and conclusions that are helpful to consider for future research. Primarily,
these considerations are related to the three main research questions that drove this study
forward. As such, these implications and conclusions should be viewed within the
specific scope of this study. Also, in consideration should be the fact that this study only
followed one instructional design team through their process of working though the
COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the results of this study are not necessarily relatable to
all instructional designers currently working in the field. However, the conclusions from
this study help to illuminate a number of areas worth further investigation and raise some
big questions about the profession of instructional design.
The first implication that can be drawn from this study is an idea of how some
instructional designers operate within a crisis period. More specifically, the study
illuminated how much of a factor time is with the instructional design process. As noted
by some of the instructional designers in this study, the lack of time to work with faculty153
caused them to take a minimalist approach to the profession of instructional design. A
further area of inquiry would be to discuss what exactly composes a minimalist approach,
that is, to consider what are the most essential parts of any instructional design process.
The instructional designers in this study did provide an account of what a minimalist
approach looked like from their perspective; however, a further inquiry into how other
instructional designers work within a minimalist capacity would be well worth studying.
This minimalist approach compared with other instructional design methods and theories
that contain a multitude of steps, could help to provide a larger conversation around what
instructional design is and how it is done.
A second implication that can be drawn is that surrounding the professional
identity of instructional designers. Throughout this study, the instructional designers
noted an increase of faculty coming to them for support in troubleshooting academic
technologies. While there is likely some crossover in the role between an instructional
designer and an IT specialist, there should also be very clear distinctions between the
two. This study helped to show that this misunderstanding still occurs in the higher
education setting, but instructional design units should make it clear what their essential
functions are. Not only will this play a role in solidifying the professional identity of
instructional designers, but be of assistance to faculty, who are the primary client
instructional designers aim to serve. Within the scope of this study, having a firm identity
and defined services can help to prioritize how instructional designers work within a
crisis period, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the solidification of services154
can help units outside times of crisis to be more functional and productive in their work
with faculty within the higher education landscape.
A third implication from this study revolves around how instructional designers
balance best practice in instruction during a time of crisis. The instructional designers in
this study made it clear that, while approaches may have been slightly different, a large
amount of that relied on the use of professional judgement. More specifically, the
instructional designers in this study noted that the way they best worked with faculty
during this time of crisis was determined by their ability to make decisions. This concept
can go a long way in regard to how instructional design units allow their instructional
designers to operate in their work with faculty. Allowing instructional designers to have
agency in decision making proved to be beneficial for this group of instructional
designers during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is, therefore, a recommendation that
instructional design units gauge how much, or to what extent, instructional designers
have decision making abilities as to how they conduct their job. This concept ties into an
earlier idea around professional identity and establishing oneself as a distinct unit, with
specific services to offer faculty.
This implication is of particular importance because of how it ultimately
influences students. The ability for instructional designers to assist faculty with the
adoption of best practices in instruction not only can increase the effectiveness of the
faculty member, but also help to create a significant learning experience for students.
Though not extensively addressed in this study, the impact instructional design work has
on students should not be overlooked. While it is outside the scope of this study to155
directly measure what that impact looks like, it can be inferred that the work instructional
designers do has an impact on the student learning experience. Whether that is the
implementation of new technologies or the suggestion of a new teaching methodology,
the work conducted by instructional designers and faculty can have a direct impact on the
type of learning experience a student has. Ultimately, what is of importance here, is the
“trickle down” effect instructional designers can have when working with faculty. In
particular, this effect takes place when designers are working with faculty to implement
new and innovative teaching technologies and practices. At the center of this practice is
always the idea students will benefit, whether that is through an experiential means or
benefit from having a more structured and coherent learning experience.
A final implication from this study centers on how the instructional designers
worked with faculty to innovate their instructional practice during a time of crisis. As
addressed earlier, this study was not set to assume that this occurrence happened
throughout the general population of instructional designers; however, the instructional
designers at Ohio University had an interesting experience during the COVID-19
pandemic. As noted by a number of the instructional designers, there was a significant
uptick in the appetite for innovation within the realm of teaching and technology use
during the pandemic. The occurrence of a rise in innovation, whether or not during a
pandemic or not, should be something that opens up a much broader conversation about
the interplay between innovation and instructional design.
As more instructional designers are being housed within departments that aim to
support innovation, it is important that instructional designers not only know how to156
respond to innovation, but how to define it. The instructional designers in this study,
while noting there was an uptick with faculty, had to also mitigate how the administration
wanted to approach innovation during a crisis period. This is an interesting scenario
where an instructional designer can easily find themselves playing a middle man between
faculty and administration. It would likely serve the instructional design community if
instructional designers aimed to look at a unified approach to innovation, being one that
is clear and aligns with the foundations of the field. More specifically, instructional
designers should look to define and encourage innovation that is supported by the
evidence of learning and design science.
However, with this recommendation comes a caveat that there should also be
room for experimentation within the field of instructional design. While many
instructional design theories and models are rigid and based on a “systematic approach”
to instruction, instructional designers should aim to push the bounds and break these
systems. Within this approach, instructional designers can work within a capacity that
helps to propel their field, with the idea of asking more existential questions about it. For
example, does instructional design itself have a goal and identity or is it amorphous to
that of a unit of which aims to employ its services? The answers to these questions are far
outside the scope of this research, but nonetheless bring big questions that should be
asked about the profession. In doing so, instructional designers will not only be able to
find their solidified place within higher education, but begin to propel the profession
forward and encourage a new cohort of forward-thinking and innovative professionals.157
Finally, this study aimed to capture just how instructional designers used
communication with faculty about innovating their instructional practice during a time of
crisis. While again, not suggesting the findings of this study apply to all instructional
designers, those in this study used a variety of techniques to help facilitate and encourage
the innovation of instructional practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most
prevalent communication method used by these instructional designers was that of
building rapport and empathy with the faculty they were working with during the
pandemic. While this approach may have been different for other instructional design
units, it seemed to be essential for the group at Ohio University during the course of this
study.
The idea of relationship building and use of empathy within instructional design
should be something that takes a significant position on how the profession moves
forward. The ability for an instructional designer to navigate such constraints as faculty
autonomy, academic freedom, and institutional priorities, is something that likely comes
with time and experience. However, future instructional designers should be aware of
such mechanisms as they will certainly have some type of impact on their role. This
brings into the question as to if more communication-based courses need to be integrated
into instructional design programs. While it is not a new idea that instructional designers
need to have communication skills, it does beg to determine how essential these skills are
compared to others. For the instructional designers in this study, their communicative
skills, and those of their professional identity truly aided them in navigating a diverse
landscape of change during the COVID-19 pandemic. While this example cannot be158
extrapolated to everyone in the instructional design community, it does help to reinforce
the idea that instructional designers need to be prepared for their role, which can be
strongly classified as service. This idea of service is one that needs to be clearly defined;
yet needs to also provide agency and experimentation, to not only preserve the integrity
of the profession, but mainly to help faculty achieve their instructional goals.
Conclusion
This study aimed to capture the experience of a group of instructional designers as
they navigated the tumultuous era of the COVID-19 pandemic. More specifically, the
study was performed in order to understand how instructional designers work and
communicate with faculty during a crisis period. Throughout the course of this
dissertation a number of themes, ideas, and revelations were uncovered through the
analysis of these instructional designers' experience.
First and foremost, this study illuminated how instructional designers approach
their work during a crisis period. Assuming a more minimalist approach to instructional
design, these professionals aimed to perform at the top of their skill while navigating
constraints brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these constraints, time played the
biggest role in influencing how these instructional designers approached their work.
Interestingly, a second major constraint was that of a limited knowledge of an
instructional designers’ professional identity. As a result of this, instructional designers
saw an uptick in the amount of technology troubleshooting they were doing with faculty.
These constraints, and the account of the instructional designers in this study, brought
about a fruitful discussion around what are the essential components to the instructional159
design process and also what needs to happen to help further solidify the professional
identity of instructional designers.
Second, this study aimed at looking how instructional designers worked to
balance best practice in teaching and instruction with faculty during the COVID-19
pandemic. The findings for this theme also illuminated how instructional designers work
within a crisis period, yet also highlighted some of the more interpersonal workings of
the instructional designers at Ohio University. This particular group of instructional
designers relied on their sense of professional agency and decision in their work with
faculty. Also, the instructional designers in this study accounted for a respect for other
professional ethos that exist within higher education, such as faculty autonomy and
academic freedom. The findings of this study encouraged a further discussion around the
importance of institutional knowledge that should be possessed by instructional designers
as they work with faculty. In addition, these findings also opened a discussion around the
process of instructional design and to what extent instructional designers have agency in
navigating it.
Finally, this study looked at how instructional designers used communication in
their approach to innovation and working with faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the timeframe of this study, the instructional designers noted a rise in the interest
of faculty to innovate their instructional practice. The account provided by these
instructional designers brought up significant conversations around the interplay of
innovation and instructional design. More specifically, the findings of this study helped to
facilitate a conversation around how traditional approaches to instructional design, that160
are heavily reliant on systematic approaches adhere to the changes brought about by the
desire to innovate.
Part of this final theme also revolved around how instructional designers used
communication in their work with faculty during a crisis period. As noted by the majority
of instructional designers in this study, the idea of building relationships with faculty and
using empathy to build trust between themselves and the faculty proved to be beneficial.
Related to this was the idea of instructional designers, ‘leading by doing’ where they
were allowed to take initiative in their work with faculty. This idea, again, plays into one
of the major themes of this study where instructional designers benefit from the use of
professional judgement and agency to provide the best service as possible.
Finally, the communication methods and general approach of these instructional
designers were compared to the Innovation Diffusion Theoretical Framework pioneer by
Rogers (2003). This comparison shows how instructional designers can be key agents in
supporting many of the factors that play into how innovation is not only generated, but
eventually adopted by individuals or groups. This idea gives credence to the recent move
by many colleges and universities that are aiming to support new and innovative
approaches to instruction, to invest and incorporate instructional design into their
institutional framework.
The implications of this study are not only timely, but can act as a catalyst for
future studies and conversations around the profession of instructional design. While a
relatively new profession by comparison, instructional design is still looking at a means
by which to solidify its professional identity in the highly competitive higher education161
landscape. As such, many questions around the profession can and should be asked by
researchers as to what it actually means to be an instructional designer and what
instructional design looks like in the future. With the changing landscape of higher
education, advances in learning and design science, and technological innovation, the
field of instructional design has a number of important existential questions to ask. In
doing so, it is my position that instructional design will not only find its identity, but learn
to highlight what it does best and what it’s ultimate goal is. Until that point arrives;
however, instructional designers need to remain tenacious in their push to enhance
instructional experiences, build relationships, nurture innovative ideas, and stake their
claim as leaders in higher education.162
References
Adams, S. (2020, April 13). Boston University is the first to announce it may postpone
opening its campus until January 2021. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/
susanadams/2020/04/13/ boston-university-is-first-to-announce-it-may-postpone-
its-fall-term-until-january-2021/#67c17d614bd5
Akella, N. (2015). Sifting through muddy waters: A critical look at contemporary
instructional design. Instructional Technology, 12(6), 39‒56.
Alsop, E. (2018, February 11). Who’s teaching the teachers? Chronical of Higher
Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/whos-teaching-the-teachers/
American Council on Education. (2012). Assuring academic quality in the 21st century:
Self-regulation in a new era. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Accred itation-
TaskForce-revised-070512.pdf
Aragón, O. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Graham, M. J. (2017). Colorblind and multicultural
ideologies are associated with faculty adoption of inclusive teaching practices.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(3), 201–215. http://dx.doi.org.
proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1037/dhe0000026
Ashbaugh, M. (2013). Personal leadership in practice: A critical approach to instructional
design innovation work. TechTrends, 57(5), 74–82. https://doi-org.proxy.libr
ary.ohio.edu/10.1007/s11528-013-0694-5
Baker, V. (2020, March 25). How colleges can better help faculty during the pandemic.
Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/03/25/
recommendations-how-colleges-can-better-support-their-faculty-during-covid-19163
Bawa, P., & Watson, S. (2017). The chameleon characteristics: A phenomenological
study of instructional design, faculty, and administrator perceptions of
collaborative instructional design environments. The Qualitative Report, 22(9),
2334-2355.
Bergquist, W., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy. Jossey-
Bass.
Blumberg, P. (2016). Factors that influence faculty adoption of learning-centered
approaches. Innovative Higher Education, 41(4), 303–315. https://doi-
org.proxy.library.ohio.edu /10.1007/s10755-015-9346-3
Boyle, K. (2011). Instructional designers as potential leaders in community colleges.
Community College Enterprise, 17(2), 7–18.
Braddlee, D., & VanScoy, A. (2019). Bridging the chasm: Faculty support roles for
academic librarians in the adoption of open educational resources. College &
Research Libraries, 80(4), 426–449. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu
/10.5860/crl.80.4.426
Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., Kenny, R. F. (2009). The critical, relational practice of
instructional design in higher education: An emerging model of change agency.
Educational Technology Research Development, 57(5), 645‒663. https://doi-
org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s11423-007-9061-6
Carey, K. L., & Stefaniak, J. E. (2018). An exploration of the utility of digital badging in
higher education settings. Educational Technology Research and Development,164
66(5), 1211–1229. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s11423-018-
9602-1
Cavanaugh C., Hargis J., Kamali T., & Soto M. (2013). Substitution to augmentation:
Faculty adoption of iPad mobile learning in higher education. Interactive
Technology and Smart Education, 10(4), 270–284. https://doi-org.proxy.library.
ohio.edu/10.1108/ITSE-01-2013-0001
Center for Disease Control. (2021). United States Covid-19 cases and deaths by state.
CDC COVID data tracker. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/?CDC_AA
_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-
ncov%2Fcases-updates%2Fcases-in-us.html#cases_casesper100klast7days
Center for Disease Control. (2020a). Frequently asked questions. Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus /2019-ncov/faq.html#
Coronavirus-Disease-2019-Basics
Center for Disease Control. (2020b). Social distancing. Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-
sick/social-distancing.html
Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend
their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 45–47. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.
1007/bf02763476
Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research: Purposeful and theoretical
sampling; merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, (3) 623‒
630.165
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches. SAGE.
Creswell, J., & Creswell, D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. SAGE.
Dever, C., & Justice, G. (2020, March 27). Coming together in crisis times. Inside Higher
Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/03/27/during-pandemic-crisis-
faculty-and-administrators-must-move-beyond-their
Drysdale, J. T. (2019). The collaborative mapping model: Relationship-centered design
for higher education. Online Learning, 23(3), 56‒71. https://doi-org.proxy.
library.ohio.edu/10.24059/olj.v23i3.2058
Fain, P. (2019, November 1). New rules on accreditation and state authorization. Inside
Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news /2019/11/01/education-
department-issues-new-regulations-accreditation-and-state-authorization
Fyle, C., Moseley, A., & Hayes, N. (2012). Troubled times: The role of instructional
design in a modern dual-mode university? Open Learning, 27(1), 53–64.
https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1080/02680513.2012.640784
Gewin, V. (2020, March 24). Five tips for moving teaching online as COVID-19 takes
hold. Nature. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00896-
7
Gibbons, A. (2014). An architectural approach to instructional design. Routledge.
Godin, S. (2009). Purple cow: Transform your business by being remarkable. Penguin
Group.166
Greenberg, M. (2014, January 27). It’s time for a new definition of accreditation. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Its-Time-for-a-
New-Definition/144207
Halupa, C. (2019). Differentiation of roles: Instructional designers and faculty in the
creation of online courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 55–
68.
Hegji, A. (2017). An overview of accreditation of higher education in the United States.
Congressional Research Service Report 7-5700. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/
R43826.pdf
Hokanson, B., Miller, C., & Hooper, S. (2008). Role-based design: A contemporary
perspective for innovation in instructional design. TechTrends. 52(6). https://doi-
org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s11528-008-0215-0
Hou, S., & Wilder, S. (2015). How ready is higher education faculty for engaged student
learning? Applying transtheoretical model to measure service-learning beliefs and
adoption. SAGE Open, 5(12), https://doaj.org/article/8a177349a3664d98ac4d6645
98c2ecf2
Inside Higher Education Staff. (2020, May 29). Live updates: Latest news on coronavirus
and higher education. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com
/news/2020/04/21/live-updates-latest-news-coronavirus-and-higher-education
Intentional Futures. (2016). Instructional design in higher education: A report on the
role, workflow, and experience of instructional designers. https://intentional167
futures.com/static/instructional-design-in-higher-education-report-
5129d9d1e6c988c254567f91f3ab0d2c.pdf
Jumonville, A. (2014). The role of faculty autonomy in a course-integrated information
literacy program. Reference Services Review, 42(4), 536‒551. https://doi-org.
proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1108/RSR-07-2014-0020
Jung, E., Bauer, C., & Heaps, A. (2017). Higher education faculty perceptions of open
textbook adoption. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 18(4), 123–141.
Kang, Y., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2015). A job announcement analysis of educational
technology professional positions: Knowledge, skills, and abilities. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 43(3), 231–256. https://doi-org.proxy.library.
ohio.edu/ 10.1177/0047239515570572
Kenny, R., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R, & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional
designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of
Learning Technology. 31(1). https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.21432/
T2JW2P
Kim, J. (2020, April 1). Teaching and learning after COVID. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/learning-innovation/
teaching-and-learning-after-covid-19
Kinery, E., Ludlow, E., & Kishan, S. (2020, April 18). A month of lockdowns on main
street and aid already ran out. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/168
articles/2020-04-18/covid-19-small-businesses-face-a-dim-outlook-as-virus-airan-
out
Klein, J., & Kelly, W. (2018). Competencies for instructional designers: A view from
employers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 31(3), 225–247. https://doi-
org.proxy.library .ohio.edu/10.1002/piq.2125
Koszalka, T. A., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Reiser, R. (2014). Instructional designer
competencies: The standards (4th ed.). Information Age Publishing.
Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2017). What do instructional designers in higher education
really do? International Journal on E-Learning, 16(4), 371‒393.
Lederman, D. (2020, March 24). The state of online education, before coronavirus. Inside
Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/03/25/survey-gauges-
state-online-education-landscape-pre-coronavirus
Lederman, D. (2020, April 22). How teaching changed in the (forced) shift to remote
learning. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning
/article/2020/04/22/how-professors-changed-their-teaching-springs-shift-remote
Lee, T., & Shih, Y. (2009). Using innovation diffusion theory to improve implementation
of nursing information systems. Journal of Nursing, 56(3), 18–22.
Linder, K., & Dello Stritto, M. (2017). Research preparation and engagement of
instructional designers in U.S. higher education. https://ecampus.oregonstate.
edu/research/study/research-instructional-designers/research-instructional-
designers-study.pdf169
Liu, M., Gibby, S., Quiros, O., & Demps, E. (2002). The challenge of being an
instructional designer for new media development: A View from the practitioners
[Paper presentation]. ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Denver, Colorado.
https://files.eric.ed.gov /fulltext/ED477056.pdf
Long, P. (2019). The role of the learning engineer. In C. Dede, J. Richards, & B. Saxberg
(Eds.), Learning engineering for online education: Theoretical contexts and
design-based examples (pp. 17‒35). Routledge.
Lowell, V. L., & Ashby, I. V. (2018). Supporting the development of collaboration and
feedback skills in instructional designers. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 30(1), 72–92. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/
s12528-018-9170-8
Luthra, P., & Mackenzie, S. (2020, March 30). 4 ways COVID-19 could change how we
educate future generations. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/
agenda/2020/03/4 -ways-covid-19-education-future-generations/
Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education. Jossey-Bass.
Miller, S., & Stein, G. (2016, February 8). Finding our voice: Instructional designers in
higher education. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles
/2016/2/finding-our-voice-instructional-designers-in-higher-education
Mintz, S. (2020, March, 24). What lies ahead. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.
insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/what-lies-ahead170
Moore, G. (2014). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling disruptive products to
mainstream customers. Harper Collins.
Muljana, P. S., & Luo, T. (2020). Utilizing learning analytics in course design: Voices
from instructional designers in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s12528-020-09262-y
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Distance learning. https://nces.ed.gov/
fastfacts/display.asp?id=80
Ohio University. (2020a). Fast facts. https://www.ohio.edu/ohio-facts#all-facts
Ohio University. (2020b). Instructional innovation services. https://www.ohio.edu/instru
ctional-innovation/services/course-design.html
Ohio University. (2020c). Teaching continuity contacts. Ohio University. https://www.
ohio.edu/keep-teaching/resources-and-support/contacts
Ohio University. (2019). Office of instructional innovation. Ohio University. https://www
.ohio.edu/instructional-innovation/
Oliver, L. (2020, March 30). It could take three years for the US economy to recover
from COVID-19. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/
2020/03/economic-impact-covid-19/
Palinkas, L., Horwitz, S., Green, C., Wisdom, J., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015).
Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method
implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental
Health Services. 42(5), 533‒544. https://doi org.proxy.library.ohio.edu
/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y171
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE.
Privitera, G., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2019). Research methods for education. SAGE.
Pereira, A., & Wahi, M. (2017). Strategic approaches to increase course management
system adoption by higher education faculty. Journal of Higher Education Theory
& Practice, 17(2), 61‒69.
Porter, W., & Graham, C. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of
blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology,
47(4), 748–762.
Reiser, R. (1987). Instructional technology: A history. In R. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional
technology: Foundations (pp. 11-48). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Richardson, J., Ashby, I., Alshammari, A., Cheng, Z., Johnson, B., Krause, T., Lee, D.,
Randolph, A. & Wang H. (2019). Faculty and instructional designers on building
successful collaborative relationships. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 67(4), 855–880. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s
11423-018-9636-4
Rogers, E. (2003). The diffusion of innovations. Free Press.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. SAGE.
Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.
Samaradiwakara, G. & Gunawardena, C. (2014) Comparison of existing technology
acceptance theories and models to suggest a well improved theory/model.
International Technical Sciences Journal, 1(1).172
Singh, G., & Hardaker, G. (2014). Barriers and enablers to adoption and diffusion of
eLearning A systematic review of the literature – a need for an integrative
approach. Education + Training, 56(2), 105. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.
edu/10.1108/ET-11-2012-0123
Skinner, B. (1968). The technology of teaching. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Swan, G. (2009). Examining barriers in faculty adoption of an e-portfolio system.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 627–644.
Szabo, M., & Sobon, S. (2003). A case study of institutional reform based on innovation
diffusion theory through instructional technology. Canadian Journal of Learning
and Technology, 29(2). https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.21432/T2MK6Q
Van der Meij, H., & Carroll, J. (1995). Principles and heuristics for designing minimalist
instruction. Technical Communication. 42(2), 243-261.
Van Horne, S., & Murniati, C. (2016). Faculty adoption of active learning classrooms.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 72–93. http://dx.doi.org.
proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s12528-016-9107-z
Villachica, S., Marker, A., & Taylor, K. (2010). But what do they really expect?
Employer perceptions of the skills of entry-level instructional designers.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(4), 33–51.
Wonglimpiyarat, J., & Yuberk, N. (2005). In support of innovation management and
Roger’s innovation diffusion theory. Government Information Quarterly, 22(3),
411–422. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1016/j.giq.2005.05.005173
World Health Organization. (2020, July 15). Rolling updates on coronavirus disease
(COVID-19). https://www.who.int/emergencies/ diseases/novel-coronavirus-
2019/events-as-they-happen
WorldOMeter. (2021, January 16). COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. https://www.
worldometers. info/coronavirus/
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Occupational Employment Statistics. https://
www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes259031.htm
U.S. Department of Education (2020, April 21). Secretary DeVos delivers 6 billion in
additional grant funding to support continued education at America’s colleges,
universities. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-delivers-6-
billion-additional-grant-funding-support-continued-education-americas-colleges-
universities
Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. SAGE.
Zheng, K., & Jia, S. (2017). Promoting the opportunity identification of industrial
symbiosis: Agent-based modeling inspired by innovation diffusion theory.
Sustainability, 9(5). https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/http://dx.doi.
org/10.3390/su9050765174
Appendix A: March 13th Message from Ohio University on COVID-19 Measures175176177
Appendix B: March 23rd Message from Ohio University on COVID-19 Measures178179180181
1. Appendix C: Interview Guide
How has your role as an instructional designer changed since the COVID-19
crisis hit the university?
2. What duties are you performing now that are typical for an instructional designer?
What duties are not?
3. How have you been introducing new technologies or teaching methods to faculty
since the crisis began?
4. What has the emphasis on innovating a faculty’s teaching practices been during
this time?
5. How do you balance best instructional design practices with faculty during this
time of crisis?
6. What has been the response of faculty to using new technologies and instructional
methods during this time?
7. What effect has the crisis had on your workload? Do you think faculty are relying
more on instructional designers now than they did before?
8. What communication strategies have you been using to get faculty to adopt new
technologies and teaching methods during this crisis period?
9. What has been the most difficult challenge in working with faculty during this
crisis period?
10. Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the topic at hand?182
Appendix D: Questions and their Relationship to the Innovation-Decision Process
Question Related Stage in the Innovation-
Decision Process
1. How has your role as an
instructional designer changed
since the COVID-19 crisis hit the
university?
N/A
2. What duties are you performing
now that are typical for an
instructional designer? What
duties are not?
N/A
3. How have you been introducing
new technologies or teaching
methods to faculty since the crisis
began?
Persuasion Stage
4. What has the emphasis on
innovating a faculty’s teaching
practices been during this time?
Persuasion Stage
5. How do you balance best
instructional design practices with
faculty during this time of crisis?
Persuasion Stage
6. What has been the response of
faculty to using new technologies
and instructional methods during
this time?
Confirmation Stage
7. What effect has the crisis had on
your workload? Do you think
faculty are relying more on
instructional designers now than
they did before?
Confirmation Stage
8. What communication strategies
have you been using to get faculty
to adopt new technologies and
teaching methods during this crisis
period?
Persuasion / Decision Stage
9. What has been the most difficult
challenge in working with faculty
during this crisis period?
Implementation Stage183
10. Is there anything else you would
like to add regarding the topic at
hand?
N/A
Note. As the study progressed, some of the original questions were revised. The original
intent of the study was to have all questions with a direct relationship to one of the stages
in the Innovation-Decisions Process.184
Appendix E: Coding Category Mapping
The following is an example of how the progression of the coding took place.
More specifically, this structure looks at how the coding process took on a taxonomical
progression. According to Saldaña (2016, p. 278-279), a taxonomical structure is where
“categories and their subcategories are grouped but without any inferred hierarchy; each
category seems to have equal weight.” An example of this can be seen below:
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Category 1A Category 2A Category 3A
Category 1B Category 2B Category 3B
Category 1C Category 1C
Note. Adopted from Saldaña (2016, p. 279)
Within the context of this study, the researcher completed first-cycle coding using
In-Vivo coding. Then, the researcher proceeded to use Pattern Coding for a second-cycle
method. This second-cycle method led to the development of a taxonomical coding
category. An example can be seen below:
(1) Working with Faculty
(2) Balancing Best
during a Time of Crisis
Practices
(1A) A Minimalist
Approach
(1B) Time Crunch (2A) Time Constraints and
Suggesting Best Practices
(2B) Nudging Faculty
(3) Innovation and
Communication during a
Time of Crisis
(3A) Appetite for
Innovation185
(1C) Operating in Support
(3B) Using Professional
(3B) Innovation and
Mode
Judgement
University Administration
(1D) Professional Identity (3C) Communication
Methods and Approaches
(1E) The Future (4C) Building
Relationships and Rapport
(5C) Taking Initiative186
Appendix F: Case Study Protocol
Section A: Overview of the Case Study
The goal of this case study is to explore how instructional designers work with
faculty to adopt new instructional technology and practices during this crisis period. The
case study is driven by the following research questions:
1. How do instructional designers work with faculty in a crisis to implement new
technology?
2. How do instructional designers balance best practices in instruction during a
time of crisis?
3. How do instructional designers communicate with faculty about innovating
their instructional practice during a time of crisis?
The theoretical framework underlying this case study is that of Innovation
Diffusion Theory, which aims to outline the adoption process of innovations into certain
societal groups. Innovation Diffusion Theory was selected because it aligns with the
central theme of this research inquiry regarding faculty adoption of technologies and the
innovating of one’s own instructional practice. The case study protocol outlined here
serves as the agenda for the researcher’s line of inquiry.
Section B: Data Collection Procedures
The researcher conducting the study is Kyle Rosenberger. He can be reached by
phone at 419-206-7414 or by email at rosenbek@ohio.edu.
Data will be collected through the use of semi-structured interviews, interview
memos, and documentation. The roles of those who are set to be interviewed are187
instructional designers who work at Ohio University’s Office of Instructional Innovation.
No direct events are to be observed other than the planned individual interviews.
Documentation will primarily consist of what the participants want to submit. In
anticipation of the field work, a literature review was conducted around the topics and
themes highlighted in the research questions. This review influenced the protocol
questions.
Once the data has been collected, coding will take place using first- and second-
cycle coding methods. For the first-cycle coding, in vivo coding has been selected as the
primary method. For the second cycle, pattern coding has been selected. Once these two
cycles have taken place, the results will be presented in Chapter 4 of the dissertation.
Section C: Protocol Questions
1. How has your role as an instructional designer changed since the crisis hit the
university?
2. What duties are you performing now that are typical for an instructional designer?
What duties are not?
3. How have you been introducing new technologies or teaching methods with
faculty?
4. What has the emphasis on innovating a faculty’s teaching practices been during
this time?
5. How do you balance best instructional design practices with faculty during this
time of crisis?188
6. What has been the response of faculty to using new technologies and instructional
methods during this time?
7. What effect has the crisis had on your workload? Do you think faculty are relying
more on instructional designers now than they did before?
8. What communication strategies have you been using to encourage faculty to
adopt new technologies and teaching methods during this crisis period?
9. What has been the most difficult thing in working with faculty during this crisis
period?
10. Is there anything else you would like to add about the topic at hand?
Section D: Tentative Outline for the Case Study Report
1. Adaptation of instructional design duties since the crisis hit the university.
2. The introduction and adoption of new technologies with faculty during the time of
crisis.
3. Working with best practices with faculty during the crisis period.
4. How communication has changed (or not changed) when working with faculty
during a crisis period.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Thesis and Dissertation Services
Matthew K. Grunewald
Instructional Designer
© Copyright. All rights reserved.
We need your consent to load the translations
We use a third-party service to translate the website content that may collect data about your activity. Please review the details in the privacy policy and accept the service to view the translations.