1
I-Design 2.0 Strategies for Web 2.0 Adoption: Appropriate Use of
Emerging Technologies in Online Courses
Chapter Highlights
The contextual framework offered in the introduction to this chapter sets the stage for an
exposition on the underlying concepts of Web 2.0 adoption for online higher education.
Following a brief historical and theoretical description of Web 2.0, the reader will be introduced
to the foundations, functions, and expectations of IDs. The chapter will then introduce a modern
ID model that integrates personal leadership into design practice found to influence quality and
engagement. It is posited that appropriate learning designs for a Web 2.0 environment will
produce engaging (effective and memorable) learner experiences. Instances of Web 2.0
experiments from multiple studies provide concrete and authentic illustrations for analysis of
benefits and drawbacks. It is additionally posited that this analysis will increase awareness of the
potential for current and future adoption of social strategies within the online higher education
curricula. Implications for ID practice are expressed followed by basic checklists for rapid
evaluation and adoption of Web 2.0 strategies. Finally, the chapter concludes with a series of
critical questions to ask before and during the ID process, including those guided by personal
leadership, for quality and engaging learning outcomes.
Introduction
Increased investigations into the use of Web 2.0 technologies as instructional strategies
has paralleled a proliferation in social internet interactions with dimensions characteristic of a
movement—a movement that is gaining way into the online course room (Daniels, 2009).
Recent digital strategies for online learning include a suite of social networking and sharing
websites and applications termed Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2007)—virtual spaces that promote
collaborative expressions. Lang and Lang (1961) described movement leaders as directors and
examples of action by defining and solving problems, characteristics frequently found in the
designers of pedagogies, although often found to be insufficient for modern applications (Sims &
Koszalka, 2008). Some have suggested that an urgent need exists for increased awareness of the
essential leadership competencies required for design practitioners to convert from outdated
2
design strategies to those demanded by emerging digital learning tools and spaces (Kowch, 2009;
Naidu, 2007; Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2004). Others argued that, guided by a leadership
mindset (Author, 2012) critical to the sustainability of movements, instructional designers (IDs)
will add value to the social phenomenon represented by Web 2.0 practices by embracing its
potential for increased engagement in the online courserooms.
However, adoption of cutting edge technologies for use as higher education learning tools
raises concerns for their appropriateness in terms of affording engagement and quality of
learning (Magolda & Platt, 2009), program costs and institutional infrastructures (Stocker,
Griffin, & Kocher, 2011), and core pedagogical issues for meeting growing online learner
demands (Allen & Seaman, 2012). On the other hand, apprehension of new pedagogies can be
valuable. A degree of caution serves to challenge educators and IDs to avoid the pitfalls of
imposing ineffective means on unsuspecting students by prefacing design selections with
pragmatic research (Yanchar, South, Williams, Allen, & Wilson, 2010). The scope of research
might include definitions and prescriptions for current instructional strategies based on what
potential learners are doing in their personal lives that will inform authentic and engaging
learning activities. Statistics show that, since it went public in 2007, there are over 900 million
subscribers worldwide on Facebook, a mega-social networking site, with 45% of the one billion
human profiles on the internet under the age of 25 (Bennet, 2012). While most of the activity is
informal, the potential of tapping into the power of Web 2.0 for student use in learning is great
with obvious global implications.
However, without engagement learners will abandon the idea quickly (Nimon, 2007).
The literature is replete with the ID’s struggle with what increases engagement and how to
design a quality learning design. A sense of engagement with a learning episode is fundamental
for understanding and building a more knowledgeable community (Knowles, 1980). Without a
complete perspective from IDs of the type of presentations needed to facilitate new knowledge
and meaningful skills in a virtual learning situation, adoption of cutting edge social affordances
will be hindered. Therefore, it is argued in this chapter that a new generation of emerging
technologies demands a new generation of design practice standards imbued with leadership
competencies for meeting the expectations of the online community’s movement toward Web
2.0 learning tools.
3
Quality courses are not guaranteed by effort or familiarity with technologies rather
quality is an outcome of synthesizing processes, instruction and learning theories, current
research, and complex decisions for keeping pace with continually changing global and
multicultural influences (Reimers, 2009). An expert panel of designers with an agenda to
promote remote-learner engagement recently identified the characteristics required to
intentionally lead in formulating quality learning frameworks (Author, 2012)—quality-level,
effective, and satisfying instructional strategies underpinned by theory. In other words, learner
engagement is the required goal and outcome of a well-designed online course—and not just a
happy e-accident!
Inevitably, doubts will arise when charting new territories with precious cargo (students)
in tow. Echoing Faust’s (1977) abiding question for instructional strategy selection, “how do we
know which set of displays [strategies] is best in a given situation?” (p. 18), Magolda and Platt
(2009) stressed, “knowing when it is appropriate to invoke a technology to enhance learning is
much harder than knowing how to use it” (p. 11). Although not a new understanding, seasoned
or expert designers make certain selections for the learning event based on experience (Chi,
Glaser, & Rees, 1982), with a certain know-how or intuition. However, borrowing from design
theory, the decision-making process becomes more complex when inundated by developing fluid
technologies (Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell, & Haag, 1995) with unknown
consequences to learners. This suggests limitations exist in predictability for success with
rapidly advancing technologies and calls into doubt the efficacy of adoption.
Given the complexity of modern living and learning, designers need to possess theorybased, field-relevant competencies found by Dooley, Lindner, Telg, Irani, Moore, and Lundy
(2007) to promote excellence in online course production. It is for these reasons this author
submits that it is critical for the modern designer to adopt a leadership mindset to foresee what
has not yet been tested, not yet proven. Evidence shows that expert IDs have and promote a
vision for future technologies (Author, 2012), for creating quality designs that will further the
online education initiative (Campbell, Schwier, & Kenny, 2009; DeBlois, 2005); and since vision
is a characteristic of leadership (Howard & Wellins, 2008), it is reasonable to expect IDs to lead
in the adoption of Web 2.0 for an engaged learning experience. With this in mind, this chapter
will introduce a new concept of designing online academic courses from a leadership
perspective. The reader will be introduced to Web 2.0, the role of ID in designing for Web 2.0
4
learning, and will be given examples of appropriate ID specifications that culminate in adoption
potential.
An Introduction to Web 2.0 for Learning
Historical Snapshot of Web 2.0
Both opportunities and challenges confront academic course designers and developers
with emerging technology prospects in mind. Preterit internet social activities often included
playing web-based games, instant messaging, chatting in public or private virtual rooms, and cell
phone texting—1- and 2- way noneditable communications. With more recent inventions,
education was alerted to the potential learning power of the Web 2.0 multi-way communication
tools, especially for online course enhancements. However, this would require the suppliers
(designers) of pedagogical affordances to understand what Web 2.0 was and what value it
offered to learners; this chapter will show the need persists.
An idea in the mid-1990s to provide access to everyone wishing to interact with the
internet developed into the notion of free and open software (free to collaborate on and open to
input on improvements). It was a short leap from the revolutionary design-by-collaboration
Linux operating system, created by Linus Torvalds (Moody, 2002), to a suite of participatory
(social) applications. Today the selections range from social sharing and bookmarking
(MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Del.icio.us, digg), video and photo sharing (YouTube, Flickr),
blogs (personal online journals), and wikis (collaborated projects) to mashups (combinations of
applications resulting in a new one). The phenomenon, coined Web 2.0 by O’Reilly (2007),
introduced new ways for consumers to use and influence the world wide web of expanding
information.
Web 2.0 social sharing sites, including Facebook, Twitter, and blogs, are not 1-way
(email, texting), or 2-way (IM, chat) but multi-way unedited discussions that may get deleted or
hidden, but not changed except by the owner; as such, those sites represent technically closed
source or user-centered technologies. Facebook is accessed by logging into a personal account
and allows the owner to customize profiles and share personal information with ‘friends’.
Recently, businesses, newsgroups, and academic interests have joined the ‘conversation’ with a
Facebook presence.
5
Wikis are multi-user created and edited exemplifying true open source spaces usually
with unlimited viewership, unless privatized, and foster collaborative use. Wikis are groupcentered, thus, may be conceived as data visualization spaces where groups can collaborate from
anywhere to create text and multi-media pages and links in a virtual place. Wikis usually have a
common subject goal, may contain many pages, and are editable by anyone. The most
recognized wiki is Wikipedia™, a free online dictionary
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia) although is usually not recommended for academic use
due to its perceived unreliability. The premise is that peer review and editing is prone to error.
In addition, following a method of indexing or marking for future use called tagging, access to
topics of interest are sorted and classified and may populate a virtual personal file cabinet. Visits
to the information are either intentional by logging into specific discussions, or a user may
request unattended notifications through subscriptions to RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds
that keep would-be contributors apprised of changes as they occur.
Second Life™, which is either uni- or multi-user created and edited, is used for 3-D
concept modeling within virtual environmental variables and controls. The virtual world concept
has been activated for collaboration purposes although its initial generation by one owner
classifies it as creator-centered. Virtual worlds, such as Second Life™ are not always listed as
pertaining to Web 2.0 products due to a game-like appearance and perception of less social
interaction capability. However, the environment contains most of the elements for potentially
enriched learning in terms of authentic task representations with interaction features not afforded
by simulations, for example. In addition, Web 2.0 site innovators have created a mashup for
linking the Moodle LMS (Learning Management System) with Second Life™ created by Sloodle
(Simulated Linked Object Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) which can be found at
http://www.sloodle.org/moodle. The combination of distinct sites has served to inculcate the
virtual world concept into the online courseroom.
In spite of the benefits of connecting with others and forming relationships from a
distance, for educators to adopt learning in this way, evidence of additional value is needed such
as knowledge-building (Stahl, 2004) and collaboration for negotiating meaning (Vygotsky, 1978;
Wertsch, 1985). This notion requires an online pedagogical approach of learner-centeredness, a
concept that is not only based on personal-control of one’s path of learning but on individual
contribution to the creation and perpetuity of what is being learned for a personalized and
6
meaningful experience. Some view this as situating the learner so that “she can create meaning
through self-driven inquiry, experiential learning, and collaborative analysis” (Magolda & Platt,
2009, p. 13). To the purpose of this volume on Web 2.0 potential, learner-centeredness was
described by Sims (2003) as essential to engagement in an online environment.
On the other hand, self-control may be a threat to a traditional highly regulated institution
with paternal reign over learners. Should learner-centeredness with its modified concept of ‘free
and open’ (free to select and open to change) continue to proliferate, institutions and academics
may lose an element of control (Magolda & Platt, 2009) with unforeseen consequences. How
can an unknowing learner be a creator of her own learning path with the potential for following
flawed information? How will instructors keep the students within the prescribed parameters of
the syllabus and away from erroneous and superfluous external information? Won’t the value of
education be diluted from so many novice voices competing for attention? Together the
concerns raised accentuate the pioneer nature of adopting Web 2.0 tools into the curricula and
the critical role a professional ID might play as a leader to proactively explore and resolve the
problematic issues of the social learning movement.
Theoretical Considerations for Web 2.0
Increasing learner engagement via new technologies presents a problem of how to design
learning venues that will afford deep learning from often cursory glances at an array of data.
Without time to form mental representations of an action’s meaning and consequences, transfer
to long-term memory (Driscoll, 2005) may be hindered. Specifically in question is the use of
rapid displays prominent in video games, some simulations, and potentially Second Life™
virtual spaces. The modern user of technology relies on hyper-text and hyper-media to leap from
one bit of information to the next often with minimal time spent on each display of data and
graphical metaphors. Rapidly moving from one display to the next may not allow sufficient time
to process what is seen (Bannert, 2002). Experiments by Sperling in1960 (in Driscoll, 2005)
found that, without further cognitive processing, information is lost within ¼ second, a
phenomenon known as visual decay. In addition, the speed of data input to the brain suggests a
lack of reflection on the relevance of facts and instructions needed for advanced thinking.
Another issue is the trend toward pop-up ‘helps’ that promotes the notion of omitting
foundational principles and concepts in lieu of instant information (Riel, 1998). While efficiency
may be promoted in some scenarios, it may be argued that learning for retention (Driscoll, 2005)
7
is restricted. An example from personal history may help to illustrate the point. During a career
in accounting simple bookkeeping processes were first learned from manually recording and
organizing numeric data in journals and ledgers. Manual mathematical balancing computations
assured proper placement of the data for accurate reporting of the financial impact of an entity’s
transactions for a given period of time. More complex entries provided various forecasting tools
for business managers based on precise historical data. The value of manual manipulation of the
numbers was in visualizing where each entry was recorded—known as encoding (Paivo, 1971)—
for later recall. In contrast, computerized accounting, in which data is entered into a field and is
machine-processed according to programmed codes, masks the interim steps from the user and
diminishes the need for knowing the principles and concepts behind the action. Consequently,
the financial records relied on for crucial business decisions are often produced by input
operators and not trained accountants creating the potential for procedural errors. Hence,
designers of modern educational systems must be aware of evaluating highly intuitive software
for its instructional ability to ensure mastery of foundational subject concepts.
On the positive side, a guiding theory for learning with Web 2.0 tools is found in social
negotiation, a theory proposed by Bruner (1986) who considered learning a “communal activity,
a sharing of the culture” (p. 127). Along with 20th century situated cognitivists who believed
learning occurs in certain settings, such as Vygotsky (1978), Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989),
Cunningham (1992), most modern educators recognize the validity of learning collaboratively
within one’s community. In this way collaboration is more than discourse with others in the
same location or venue; learning occurs from the shared beliefs, insights, and inventions of the
group. When viewed through this lens Web 2.0 ‘gatherings’ exhibit communal actions with
implications for learning.
Finally, a learning event must include the ‘why’ behind the ‘how’, the meaning behind
the user’s action (Bruner, 1957/1973; Reigeluth, 1999). Early and modern learning theory
encourages training in metacognitive skills (Flavell; Dixon & Dixon, 2010) for deciding if an
action is appropriate, problem-solving for unpredictable outcomes (Jonassen, 2010), or
determining the meaning behind an idea. If the mouse movement or key touches do not produce
an acceptable solution, what next? Is this blog, wiki, or virtual world giving me what I need to
learn this concept? What more do I need from this site, my peers, the instructor, or external
sources? What does this really mean to me? Along with the unknowns of mental impact and
8
learning capacity, the literature increasingly extols the value of socially created knowledge and
for higher level thinking. The question is, are the designers of courses that might benefit from a
Web 2.0 influence investigating the theoretical barriers as well as the benefits?
Role of Instructional Designers
Definition and History of ID
Instructional design is “the process of deciding what methods of instruction are best for
bringing about desired changes in student knowledge and skills for a specific course content and
a specific student population” (Reigeluth, 1983) and includes “tasks of management,
implementation, and evaluation…all in the service of designing and delivering good instruction”
(Wilson, 2005, p. 238).
Early conceptualizations of the nature of reality, origins of truth, the place of knowledge,
and complex phenomena of learning informed foundational theories of instruction (Molenda,
2008; Spector, 2008) and the structures required for presenting an organized academic course.
Driscoll (2005) traced the history of epistemological, philosophical, and psychological
approaches to knowledge comprehension and learning that stemmed from behavioral and
cognitive experimentation. From these early investigations, learning theory development led
instructional approaches that varied from behavioral to cognitive to constructivist to connectivist
(Siemens, 2004). At the same time, Reigeluth (1983) called for increased learner control over
the learning process conceptualized later as individual construction of knowledge through
meaningful interactions with immediate surroundings (Jonassen, et al., 1995). However, the
surroundings in an online environment take on a different meaning than in a confined classroom
situation which led Beaudoin (2007) to declare learning in this way different than from any
other—a new mode. It was thought of by Dede, Dieterle, Clarke, Jass-Ketelhut, and Nelson
(2007) as a new understanding of how learning actually occurs when mediated by computers.
The study (Dede et al., 2007) posited that student perceptions of learning are changed when
confronted with new patterns of “information-seeking, communication, expression, and
meaning-making” (p. 339). The upheaval in the way learning does and should occur in virtual
spaces confronted long-held epistemological beliefs and approaches to ID practice.
Adding to the undulations in theories were warnings of negative consequences for virtual
students subjected to the unknown effects of non-conscious cognitive processes (Clark,
9
1991,1994) and concerns that cognitive load (Kirschner, 2002; Sweller, van Merrienboer, &
Paas, 1998) would suffer imbalance from excessive media stimulus. It is interesting to note that a
recent meta-research into cognitive load theory (de Jong, 2010) determined a substantial
inconsistency in reports from data on a relationship between cognitive load and instructional
formats and suggested that precise measurement of cognitive capacity is problematic. Moreover,
de Jong (2010) pointed to a crucial unknown in the critical level that would indicate overload.
The study concluded that given the right conditions for a particular student’s cognitive ability,
cognitive load is merely a concept of which type of load the person is experiencing and does not
always have a negative effect.
The impact of cognitive processing represented just one condition of learning for
designers to comprehend before selecting pedagogies. As theories were added to the growing
body of human knowledge, course developers were expected to possess tacit knowledge of the
different domains of thinking—cognitive, affective, and psychomotor (Bloom, 1956), Bloom’s
Revised Taxonomy of Learning (Krathwohl, 2002), Gagné’s conditions of learning and nine
events of instruction (Gagné, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005), the different intelligences
(Gardner, 1983), diverse learning styles (Kolb, 1984), as well as a host of instructional methods
and techniques. Moreover with advancing technologies, a command of media development,
scripting, storyboarding, and web development was needed to keep pace with advancing
technologies. Synthesizing the collection of qualifications, an ID aligns the learning
environment, instructional strategies and outcomes from expertise as an expected function of the
profession (Richey, Klein, & Tracey, 2011). Given this extensive criteria for performance, IDs
are uniquely positioned to lend expertise and guidance when confronted with new and
sophisticated technologies. However, this chapter argues that it is critical to augment the
existing ID skillset with a leadership perspective for recommending adoption of Web 2.0 online
affordances. Therefore, the next section presents a model that supports a concept of a modern ID
model.
A Modern ID Model: I-Design 2.0
A foundational construct for a modified instructional design concept is synthesized from
the theories that guide the concept of ID described in the previous section, traditional standards
and codes of practice (IBSTPI, 2000; Richey, Fields, & Foxon, 2001), and a selection of theories
10
from business and educational leadership resources. The result is a model for modern ID with
enhanced competencies of leadership first so termed in this paper as I-Design 2.0.
ID standards and codes. An ID occupies a professional leadership role with an
overarching imperative to create structurally sound systems of learning with complex processes,
manage chaotic situations, negotiate competing objectives, predict success or failure, test and
revise and anticipate future consequences. This is why the members of the occupation consider
themselves to be design engineers through modeling and devising systems and processes or
learning architects providing foundational frameworks for instructional components and
techniques. More than this, IDs are guided by the principles that seek (a) learning aims, what to
achieve through learning goals and objectives; (b) ways, what path leads to learning goals
through instructional strategies; and (c) means, how to achieve the learning goals through
substantive, motivational, and engaging learning events.
A diverse complement of competencies ensures performing the tasks of unique learning
projects. At the turn of the 21st century, the International Board of Standards for Training,
Performance and Instruction (IBSTPI) organization developed a comprehensive list of
reasonable and essential competencies for conducting the work of ID. The taxonomy articulates
nearly two dozen standards of practice that must be adopted by a qualified ID (IBSTPI, 2000) in
terms of performance and includes typical managerial duties, however fall short of specifying
leadership capacities. Additionally, the ID field enjoys a professional standing with ethical
guidelines that promote a high level of duty and integrity to learners, colleagues, the local and
global community, and the environment (IBSTPI, 2010).
From this skillset an ID is tasked with preparing learners who must be equipped to exist
and thrive in a fluid, complex, and chaotic world with emergent ideas of learning and design
(Irlbeck, Kays, Jones, & Sims, 2006; Siemens, 2004; Sims, 2009). The future stability of our
world may depend on individuals who are competent in critical thinking (Barab & Roth, 2006;
Dabbagh & Denisar, 2005), change management (Beabout & Carr-Chellman, 2008; Campbell et
al., 2009), global awareness (Reimers, 2009; Rogers, Graham, & Mayes, 2007), team
collaboration (Durdu, Yalabik, & Cagiltay, 2009), and vision in their respective fields (Howard
& Wellins, 2008). In summary, the role of an ID accepts a duty to guide in the development and
improvement of emerging non-traditional learning events, including the recent Web 2.0 tools,
with a global impact.
11
The ID as leader. While the literature over the last century is inundated with diverse
notions and theories (Zenger & Folkman, 2009) of leadership, explicit characteristics are
generally represented in the quality of key attributes, behaviors, and skills attributed to those
perceived to be leaders (Dooley et al., 2007; Fullan & Scott, 2009; Katz, 1955; Sergiovanni &
Corbally, 1984). Leadership also denotes an ability to influence others toward excellence in
work and personal practices (Howard & Wellins, 2008; Kouzes & Posner, 2007) and to sway
others in a particular direction—to follow a vision. Therefore, another attribute ascribed to
leaders is that they are visionaries; they recognize innovation, forward-thinking, uniqueness, and
“respond creatively to world conditions and the current state of their own society” (Greenleaf,
1977, p. 321). The Scott, Coates, and Anderson report (2008) regarded this characteristic as a
capacity to see the big picture and to “read and respond to a continuously and rapidly changing
external environment” (p. 11). The environment referred to depicts the current complexities of
designing for a highly technical, rapidly changing, and complex student body. It is important,
therefore, to extend the parameters of ID practice to embrace a more prominent leadership role.
An expanded perspective on the role of ID is consistent with the ID’s duty defined previously to
guide and oversee the introductions of new learning interventions to ensure pedagogical
relevance and quality.
By adopting a leadership perception, IDs will lead by foreseeing changes that will impact
education and learners and will decide on theory-based strategies (Author, 2012) for what
Kowch (2009) foresaw as holistic solutions to web-based educational problems. Contextualized
for the higher education curricula design process, leadership adds a dimension to established ID
competencies generally restricted to work practices and skills (IBSTPI, 2000) described later in
the chapter. Dooley et al. (2007) concluded that, during the creation and implementation of
courses, critical decisions by IDs underpin high quality, effective, and relevant designs.
Campbell, et al. (2009) found that ID’s perceptions on issues of practice included a sense of duty
that inspired intentional decision-making, an action regarded as maximizing capacities and
capabilities (Kubicek 2012) from a decisive stance. In other words, leaders make critical
decisions (Sackney & Mergel, 2007) with intentions of producing exemplary results (Ulrich,
Zenger, & Smallwood, 1999) manifested through personal leadership. Consistent with the
conclusions, Author (2012) found that, in order to produce quality learning designs, decisions
12
made by designers of online courses necessitated leadership competence, in addition to practical
skills, while guided by current research and projections of shifting trends.
Sergiovanni (2003) approached leadership from the understanding of strategy, one that is
enacted not from rules rather on ideas that underpin decisions with purpose and for future
expectations. While studying the effectiveness of leaders, Zenger and Folkman (2009)
summarized strategy as “translat[ing] organizations vision and objectives into challenging and
meaningful goals for others” (p. 70). Through a practitioner’s lens, personal leadership was
found in the Author (2012) study to strategically influence the prescriptions of relevant
pedagogies with characteristic properties for meeting the goals of engagement and learner
satisfaction. Author’s study expanded on earlier calls for leadership, especially for online course
designers, by noted leaders in the field who emphasized the competence of leadership as critical
for aligning practice with modern learning environments (Beaudoin, 2007; Kowch, 2009; Naidu,
2007; Reeves et al., 2004; Sims & Koszalka, 2008).
In a chaotic environment, leadership envisions, strategizes, and acts to coalesce
multifarious elements of the milieu into organization and meaning. Complex issues require
exemplary competence in more than one area as Zenger and Folkman (2009) derived from a
perceptual survey study of nearly 25,000 leaders. From analysis of the results that measured
leadership on numerous characteristics, the researchers (Zenger & Folkman, 2009) made
conclusions on what it takes to be an extraordinary leader. They found that nine per cent of the
leaders achieved a ninety percentile rating when observed acting from one measure of leadership
competency (Interpersonal Skills), 13% were rated in the 90th percentile when demonstrating a
second and additional skill (Focus on Results); although when more than one competency was
observed in operation, 66% were considered in the top 10% of leaders. Given this evidence, it is
conceivable that a combination of appropriately selected instructional strategies will return
extraordinary design results and, in this way, mimic instructional design leadership in action.
Finally, since leadership usually drives change through adoption of future-oriented
inventions (Fullan, 2001; Fullan & Scott, 2009), it is likely that the addition of leadership
competencies and characteristics to the ID toolbox will result in increased appropriate Web 2.0
strategies in online courses. It is conceivable that from a more complete set of ID competencies
quality online academic courses will be created with engaging instructional strategies followed
by Web 2.0 inclusion in institutional programs. In other words, an extended personal leadership
13
skillset for ID suggests a new model of practice I-Design 2.0 (Instructional Design for Web 2.0
strategies).
Quality and Engagement for Web 2.0 Instructional Strategies
Definition of Instructional Strategies
An early definition of instructional strategies is relevant today “specific types of displays
used in a given situation, their sequence, and the relationship among displays” (Faust, 1977, p.
18). Merrill (1999) later updated the definition,
Instructional strategies include the presentation of the appropriate knowledge
components, practice with or student activities involving these knowledge components,
and learner guidance to facilitate the student’s appropriate interaction with these
knowledge components. (p. 400)
From a broader view, distinct themes from the Author (2012) study framed the concept of
leadership for ID from which various characteristics of a quality design for online course
emerged, including appropriated instructional strategies. The goal of a pedagogical strategy is to
match an activity with a theory-based approach for what type of knowledge is to be accessed and
gained. As an example of an appropriate selection, the methods for a laboratory lesson in
anatomy may specify examination of a human corpse for identifying parts of the body with
students taking turns looking at what the instructor chooses to present. An online lesson in
anatomy might involve a simulation during which the student guides a virtual three dimensional
camera over the corpse to peer directly at various parts and into hidden cavities. The learner has
control over what part is viewed and in what order. The learning goal has not changed rather the
approach to presentation and manipulation of concepts as determined by the learning venue and
strategies. The specification depends on not only what is being taught, but how the learner will
access and apply the information. In brief, an instructional strategy will afford alignment of
goals and methods for an engaging outcome within a flexible context.
Contextual Definition of Quality
Quality of online learning has been defined as meeting research-based pedagogical
standards that, when applied to a learning design, meets learner needs with effective outcomes,
irrespective of delivery methods (Quality Matters™, 2006). When conceptualized as a learning
14
goal quality is an integral outcome of an academic course design (Author, 2012). This definition
implies that a quality of design is built with relative and effective instructional and learning
strategies. Various studies have revealed significant predictors of quality instructional
affordances such as personalized learning (Sims & Stork, 2007), alignment of objectives and
assessments with learning strategies and activities (Sims, 2011); as well as, adopting pedagogies
to the learning environment (Naidu, 2007). In addition, characteristics of relevant and effective
instructional strategies in the form of activities and assessments included authentic or real-world
tasks for problem-solving and transference (Jonassen, 1991, 2011); critical thinking challenges
(Barab & Roth, 2006); interaction and feedback with students, instructors, and content (Bernard
et al, 2009; Dunlap, Sobel, & Sands, 2007; Gallien & Oomen-Early, 2008; Moore, 1989); while
collaborative assignments and interactivity were found to be proven predictors of achievement
(Bernard et al., 2009; Jonassen et al., 1995; Ostlund, 2008; Sims, 2003; Weaver, 2008). Such
characteristics have been linked to engagement, a predictor of quality (Author, 2010).
In an interesting study the use of multiple strategies in one course resulted in increased
engagement. The Bernard et al. (2009) study showed outcomes from an activity following
collaboration to have a significant effect (.38 over alternative treatments) when an interaction
treatment was included in the curricula. The results were interpreted as increasing cognitive
engagement and meaning-making and, therefore, suggested an exponential increase in quality
when more than one condition exists.
To specify characteristics for effectiveness, quality, and engagement in online course
designs the Author’s (2012) study group ranked essential instructional strategies—authentic
tasks, collaboration, interaction, feedback, problem-solving, and critical thinking. In addition to
definitions, examples of each characteristic are provided in Table 1 followed by predictors of
engagement described in Tables 2 and 3.
15
Table 1
Characteristics of quality online course design
Characteristic
Definition
Example
Authentic tasks
Modeling knowledge of concept to solve
a real-world problem; strategizes for
solutions that have real-world relevance
and utility, that provide varying levels of
complexity with student control
Online civics course: conduct a feasibility study on a
proposed local water conservation project and submit
report to local town council and upload to course LMS
Collaboration
Plan, organize, strategize, create in
cooperation with others
Cultural issues for online Health course: Plan a multipurpose event to bring awareness to the on-going
problem of AIDS in the US as well as raise funds for
research; video and upload to YouTube
Interaction
Influential actions between two or more
entities or persons as in student to
student, student to instructor, and student
to content
Online math course: courseroom discussion on the
implications of using the Pythagorean principle in the
construction of a skate board ramp instructor is building;
share personal examples of using the principle
Feedback
Reinforcement of ideas, quality of work,
progress in mastery of subject;
scaffolding for increase learner control;
timely response to learner inquiry,
problems
Any course: qualitative responses to assignments,
meaningful grading, personalized evaluations; training
and assigning peer mentors; frequent online presence
and interactions; instructor responses to email within 24
hours
Problem-solving
A process of finding optimal solution (s)
to a given set of variables within a
specific domain
Online geography course: use online GPS mapping to
locate a nearly inaccessible tribe and then design a
system of transportation to fit the needs and preferences
of the culture; work with hosting country advisors to
resolve indigenous issues
Critical-thinking
An approach to learning that asks
questions of the obvious and dogmatic
beliefs; higher-order thinking; elevated
cognition
Online political science course: engage in moderated
online debate on the topic of over fishing and impact on
the environment and small fishing businesses; after both
students argue opposing positions, they must explain
how much more understanding they have of the other
position
Contextual Definition of Engagement
Engagement has been defined as “the amount of physical and psychological energy that
the student devotes to the academic experience” (Astin, 1984) and “the degree to which students
value their learning” (McInnis, James, & Hartley, 2000). While defining engagement for what it
is relative to prescriptions for instructional strategies, it is helpful to suggest what it is not:
capturing attention without rapid diminishment of the initial aesthetic response and with no
sustained interest-building activities; surfing via web links with little time spent on-task;
16
knowledge of or casual use of social sites with little meaningful interaction; rule-following such
as in video game protocols with no opportunity for critical thinking. In contrast, engagement
requires “continual struggle and expectation” (Parrish, 2009) for deep learning to occur.
Allocating five benchmarks of quality, the NSSE (2008) report revealed that online courses
provided engagement by stimulating intellectual challenge, ready entrance into collaborative
tasks, and deeper learning as well as increased engagement with technologies (summarized in
Table 2).
Table 2
NSSE Benchmarks for Engagement
Benchmark
Example
Level of academic challenge
Higher-order thinking, integrative learning, reflective learning,
analyzing, synthesizing, making judgments, applying to other or
new situations
Active and collaborative
learning
Multiple drafts of a paper, collaborative research projects, class
presentations, tutored other students, service-learning projects
(community)
Student-faculty interaction
Frequent instructor interactions; various types of instructor interactions; instructor feedback; grading turn-around time
Enriching educational
experiences
Cultural training and interactions; co-curricular activities; practicum, internship, clinical assignment, other; community service,
volunteer work; use of electronic media to complete assignments
Supportive campus
environment
Institutional support with social, personal, academic life; quality
relationship with students, faculty, admin
Note. Benchmarks cited from findings of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE).
(2008). Promoting engagement for all students: The imperative to look within—2008 results.
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from
http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2008_Results
Table 3
Sims and Stork (2007) posited that the key components for engagement are a learnercentered design approach which leads to personal knowledge construction displayed in Table 3.
17
Table 4
Descriptions of Learner-control Conditions for Engagement Components
Component
Description
Conditions
Learner-centered
Design strategies will afford
learners opportunity to construct
knowledge and meaning through
an individualized perspective
Based on prior knowledge, personal experience
Students apply learning to personal context, situation
Structured for all learning styles, not specified
Personal
knowledge
construction
Design structure will afford
personalized learning, that
knowledge acquired will be
individualized by the learner
Student contextualizes within his/her culture (individual
worldview offers unique perspective)
Student controls how to advance his/her learning
Student chooses preferred media for learning
Note. Adapted with permission from Sims, R., & Stork, E. (2007). Design for contextual
learning: Web-based environments that engage diverse learners. In J. Richardson & A. Ellis
(Eds.), Proceedings of AusWeb07. Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University. Retrieved from
http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw07/papers/refereed/sims/index.html
In spite of best efforts to support learning objectives with appropriate instructional
guides, at times the use of modern technologies is ill-fitting and must be evaluated for adoption
or abandonment. Designers must ask, is this a good place for open source learning objects
(Caswell, Henson, Jensen, & Wiley, 2008)? For example, in a case study of students in an online
course with Web 2.0 inclusions, Cifuentes, Alvarez, and Edwards (2011) found a contrast
between “surface learning and chaos” from Web 2.0 environments and “deep learning and selfregulation” (Cifuentes et al., Title, p. 1). Various levels of engagement with design features
rested on a balance of cognitive load levels while interacting with multiple representations. The
study involved an in-depth explication and analysis of cognitive load impact on computermediated learning which is discussed more thoroughly in the Implications section of this chapter.
For purposes of exampling both positive and negative outcomes of using Web 2.0 as
strategies of learning, in the next section, a representative number of Web 2.0 tools will be
analyzed and mapped to quality and engagement predictors—Facebook, wikis, and Second
Life™.
Examples of Web 2.0 Applications
From the perspective that the level of instructional strategies must be elevated with the
onset of Web 2.0 tools and conditions, a more complex educational system and a more
18
sophisticated learner requires a broader view of instructional design. The following studies of
new Web 2.0 tools that may integrate with certain learning situations highlight the importance of
intentional decisions for leading in current theories of how to effectively engage modern
learners. The first three examples are activity assignments that were evaluated for engagement
components and outcomes, while the last example examined the potential for viewing an online
activity as the assessment.
The Study: Facebook
A literature review and analysis study by Lester and Perini (2010) was guided by the
assumption that social networking communities have the potential to mediate engagement in
community college online student groups. To create a modified engagement model, the popular
Web 2.0 site Facebook was used as an example of a media-rich website for expanding educationrelated sharing opportunities.
The results. Initially, the study identified three areas of interaction needed for
engagement but not sufficient when traditional classroom methods were applied online—
instructor feedback, student to student interaction, and student to environment relationship. In
contrast, Lester and Perini (2010) found that observations of online activity culminated in linking
engagement through use of social sites to three major predictors of online success. First,
students connected more readily with administrative services and student supports, which created
a sense of being cared for often lacking in distance learning. A second vital link to active
learning was found through frequent and immediate inquiry and feedback (instant messaging and
chat functions), shared research notes (uploading and downloading capabilities), and
collaborative assignments (built-in collaboration applications). The third link was to meaningful
interactions with faculty and students through shared ideas, thoughts, pictures, and videos and
resulted in formation of important community networks. Altogether a rich, engaging experience
was provided in the Facebook strategy.
Along with advantages, the study (Lester & Perini, 2010) identified several areas of
adoption challenges that warrant attention for designers. For instance, some students were
reluctant to integrate school-related interactions with places reserved for non-school
socialization. This problem was viewed as easily resolved by setting up separate and distinct
profiles from that of the private student. Another challenge was the lack of familiarity by faculty
with social sites. Designers were advised to provide seamless integration of social networking
19
sites into the curriculum with requisite instructor training prior to implementation of the course.
Further, they suggested professional development and peer mentoring for additional mastery of
the learning tool. Finally and without minimizing their importance, college infrastructures, legal
questions, privacy issues, and ethical use were briefly addressed as adoption hurdles future
online providers will need to clear.
Analysis. While the Lester and Perini (2010) study did not address all of the components
listed as critical for engagement by the Author (2012) study, the all-important strategy of
interaction was designated from a holistic relational perspective. The researchers also observed
collaboration and problem-solving opportunities for students while participating in activities
requiring cognitive complexity as demonstrated in textual ‘updates’. The learning outcomes
resonated with another study (Tu, Sujo-Montes, Yen, Chan, & Blocher, 2012) of online course
students that created a personal learning environment (a collection of tools required for an
individually constructed learning experience). One tool represented a sharing site similar to
Facebook in which students demonstrated mastery of self-regulation abilities. Deep learning
skills were evident in activities such as tagging, by which students collectively applied
organization and critical thinking; and, discourse in discussions during which students relied on
multiple types, or dimensions, of communication aids demanding deeper thinking to adapt to the
non-linear format. Overall in both studies learner control and satisfaction fulfilled engagement
requirements delineated by the Author (2012) study.
An additional study (Stocker et al., 2011) measured understanding and use of various
Web 2.0 tools by students in a criminal justice program. Essentially a mini-blog (Tu et al., 2011)
Twitter was marginally familiar to them and students reported minimal use, while Facebook was
used by near two-thirds of the study group. There was no analysis offered as to preference for
each social site; however, the authors made clear the value of understanding the nature of sites
where potential criminal intentions and activity are made public. An analogy was drawn
between user skills either for casual or training and analytical purposes.
Learning through social networking will remain a focus of research for some years to
come. Determinations of value will be made through social as well as empirical studies, yet may
never be more exquisitely expressed than in a recent Facebook interchange I happened to see and
greatly enjoy. Two young men were discussing the role of compromise and selfishness in the
success of marital relationships. After several volleys from three or four discussants, the two
20
men dominated by offering definitions from the dictionary in an attempt to create a common
understanding of the underlying motivations for the conversation. This line of thinking spawned
several more definitions, with what seemed to result in even more confusion, until one
participant suggested that dictionary definitions do not adequately contextualize or situate the
meaning. In a thread of 14 messages, a complex and meaningful negotiation of shared concerns
and goals (a functioning and satisfying relationship) had evolved into critical-thinking exercise
and resolved into a rich learning experience. The feeling that washed over me was refreshing
after experiencing numerous frivolous and unintelligible interchanges on Facebook such as the
following (all original sequences, punctuation and grammar, as well as anonymity have been
preserved),
 “where have u been, havent seen u in a grip! ;)”
 “I only too 3 runs – it was sooo windy – plus I was technically working? when we taking
runs?”
 “What up butt nugget? I miss you=)”
 “Light me up…”
 “Man your like a retarded giraffe tryin to run on the ice”. (Anonymous, 2012)
For some, social sharing and networking is a playground for undisciplined banter and exchanges
of commonly recognized subcultural jargon; although for others, it is a valuable resource for
collaboration and meaningful interaction. Finding the mode that will facilitate the latter is
critical for IDs with hopes of engaging true learning.
The Study: Wikis
Armellini and Aiuegbayo (2010) provided a study of e-tivities (online activities) in terms
of designers who embedded appropriate modern pedagogies into six university academic course
redesign interventions during a 2-day workshop. The methodology utilized pre and post
interviews for measuring changes in design processes that were modified to create course
designs with technologies that promote learner engagement.
The results. In all, 32 e-tivities were developed with Web 2.0 tools finding prominence
and wikis in particular. The designers shifting from content-focused selections to task-based and
learner-centered activities found wikis to be useful for collaboration and engagement with peers
in “creative, purposeful ways” (Armellini & Aiuegbayo, 2010, p. 933). Among the critical
outcomes were timely feedback, group knowledge construction, and the importance of an
21
effective e-moderator. Findings indicated instructor/designers learned basic online skills from
positioning themselves temporarily in the learner experience with an effect of making changes in
their approaches to pedagogies for learner engagement.
Analysis. This instance of Web 2.0 tools was different from the others in that the study
participants—course designers—were asked to role-reverse, to become a student designer, in
order to experience the learners’ needs and engagement with technologies before making
selections for academic designs. When assessed in terms of the Author (2012) study’s predictors
for quality and engagement, the wiki demonstrated both high quality and effective engagement in
the strategies selected. Learner satisfaction was expressed from exposure to collaborative
assignments, interaction, feedback, faculty (e-moderator)-student interactions, collaborative
learning, knowledge construction, and enriching educational experiences by creating with media.
In addition, an authentic, or real-world, task was employed when the redesigned courses were
subsequently taught by the instructors.
In comparison, a particularly meaningful use of the wiki was demonstrated in the Tu et
al. (2012) experiment and highlighted an element of innovation required critical to engagement.
Students developed chapters on course topics which were later compiled into a textbook for
future learners to use and revise. The authentic nature of this task magnifies the potential for
learning with Web 2.0 technologies as designers align the strategy with an activity with which to
meet the objectives while the process as well as the end result becomes the assessment (Ching &
Hsu, (2011). The students also participated in the indexing strategy of tagging for categorization
and retrieval. By this the learners transcended the benefits that come from participation in
community knowledge growth (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1994): monitoring updates in a tagging
activity increases learning skills. Tu et al. (2012) indicated that “analysis, contextualization, and
conceptualization” (p.15) take place when an activity is shared by a group and considered those
as being cognitive learning activities that culminated in “distributed cognition” (p. 15).
Referring to the Armellini and Aiuegbayo (2010) wiki example, one position taken aligns
with others cited throughout this chapter,
The use of tools, such as wikis, blogs or GoogleDocs in e-tivity design does not make etivities inherently collaborative, now does it mean that learners will be motivated to
respond to them. If learners do not engage, the design or the moderation of the task that
makes use of those tools should be reviewed. (p. 934)
22
In comparison, Campbell and Ellingson (2010) discovered that satisfying outcomes may result
from a well-developed design plan when underpinned by expertise. During observations of an
MBA accounting class technique for integrating in-class learning with a wiki, students offered
mostly positive feedback. However, the utilization of a wiki for group projects was not a total
success when presentation of the wiki content proved troublesome. After discovering that the
LMS-embedded wiki prevented simultaneous group presentation, administrators disallowed
student control over imaging which may have resolved the issue. This left the instructor to
manage and coordinate the display with narration, although he had not participated in the project.
In addition, a discovery that only one group member could partake in the presentation at a time
left the group feeling less than fruitful in their sharing efforts exhibited in the finished product
prior to presentation. The disappointing encounter with the wiki’s limitations resonated with a
recurring theme in the examples in this chapter, the issue of familiarity of the tool.
In the Stocker et al. (2011) study it was found that nearly 30% of study respondents were
unfamiliar with the term wiki while over 40% of the university students claimed that they nearly
never or never used a wiki. One example of lack of acquaintance with the tool by faculty or
designers is strikingly similar to the Campbell and Ellingson (2010) study however is found in
Author (2012). One ID participant was expounding on the critical need to conduct research and
to have a thorough grasp of a new technology before prescribing and implementing one when
she was asked to share a personal experience with new pedagogies for modern learners,
There was one time when I brought in a wiki; for me it was new. I had a class exercise set
up around this wiki. I made sure I knew how to use it and all the rest. Well, wikis aren't
very good at simultaneous editing…and it was just awful. (p. 139)
The example illustrated how an appropriate strategy can be inappropriate if the instructor or
learners are not trained sufficiently to apply the technology in a meaningful way, possibly
creating more of a distraction than an aid to learning. The example illustrates how designers and
implementers of wikis provide engagement with Web 2.0 tools when leading the way as the
experts in underlying theories and technical functions.
The Study: Second Life™
One of the first empirical studies of the effects of engagement in Second Life™
educational setting was conducted by Hornik and Thornburg (2010) on a first-year university
accounting course. After completing the hybrid course, which included four assignments to be
23
completed in Second Life™, 110 students completed a survey that measured engagement, time
on task, and performance. In addition, demographic questions informed the results. This study
looked at factors of engagement from a student perspective rather than an instructional one thus
provided an important lens through which to evaluate learning potential.
The results. Since students are the focus of instruction, they are in the best position to
evaluate satisfaction (Konings, Brand-Gruwel, & van Merriënboer, 2005). Konings et al.’s
(2005) concluded that learners contextually determine quality of learning rather than teachers. In
this case, several regression models were constructed to display the results of student perception
of engagement including one that showed a need for spatial presence, being immersed in the
content as a condition for engagement. The findings showed a positive relationship between
engagement and better performance and better learning outcomes across the spectrum of
participants. However lower performance on exams was evident in students with higher internet
skills suggesting those spent less time on course material and more on perfecting computing
skills. Another model showed 15% of participants experienced adverse physical and
psychological affects complaining of dizziness, nausea, and eyestrain; that group scored lowest
on performance, assumed by the researcher (Hornik & Thornburg, 2010) as a result of less time
on task. Overall, time on task increased with immersion in activity although the results were
mediated by adverse effects. A gender factor was noted: females with adverse reactions opted
out quicker than males.
Analysis. The Hornik and Thornburg (2010) results were displayed in the authentic task
strategy in terms of collaboration and interaction both with students and the content in the form
of avatars and animated objects. The researchers described accounting concepts that assumed
various shapes and conversed with the students as in a talking ‘debit’ explaining its position in a
‘T-account’. Problem-solving and critical thinking were encouraged during the assignments as
questions were asked of the concept avatars, recorded on a virtual whiteboard, and discussed by
the learner avatars until a correct display of the concept was confirmed by the concept avatars.
Heightened interest in learning increased time on task as well as facilitated understanding of the
content. In addition, feedback was available when a paging system alerted the students to the
presence of the instructor in the connecting virtual office. Analysis of the Second Life™
strategy determined that there was a clear alignment between course objectives, activities, and
assessment of the outcomes through the learning that was conveyed in performing the tasks
24
accurately and with authenticity. Further, the outcomes of engagement were clear in student
control and student satisfaction recorded in the terminal course survey although was mediated by
those that experienced negative effects of the 3-D graphical interface.
In contrast, a study (Gunter, 2011) looked for associations between variables in various
strategies for engagement utilized in the online component of a mega-sized hybrid accounting
class. Streaming lectures, screen captured lectures, a discussion tool, Twitter, and Second Life™
each measured for level of participation and learning effectiveness. In the virtual study room
learners and teachers took on the form of an avatar for the purpose of attending a lecture on an
accounting concept. When measured for effectiveness, Second Life™ (one of several strategies
measured) showed no increase in engagement rather the majority surveyed considered it a
hindrance to learning. This is not surprising considering Second Life™ attendance scored in the
lower quartile. It was the lack of perceived value from the Second Life™ tool finding that drew
my attention, the assumption being that business-oriented students would know of and find value
in the fast-growing use of virtual world technology by businesses (Salmon, 2009). Another
factor of disengagement was evident in that only 12% reported a teaching presence in the venue.
Instructor presence has been strongly linked to student engagement (Garrison, Anderson, &
Archer, 1999) and is expected of a lecture assignment!
Other factors for low engagement included the potential of redundancy. In addition to
the virtual lecture, there were two other required lecture-based learning options (video-streamed
and screen-captured presentations) which together may have over-loaded the students’ tolerance
to engage in yet another lecture. The question is, did university-level students need three
representations of the same concept for content mastery or was this an error in design? Second,
although there was a measure of creativity exhibited in accessing and using the space, the
minimal tasks of creating an avatar and finding their way to the virtual class could not be
considered a fully authentic learning experience. In addition, if the teacher did not show up there
have been no instructor feedback; conversely, if the teacher was there, a lecture would follow—
on the same topic as the video and slide presentations with no problem-solving or critical
thinking challenges to struggle with. Third, there was very little learner control if a lecture did
proceed, simply the choices of attendance and avatar control. Clearly, the sum of what could be
found in learning predictors was minimal and was represented in the student’s ratings of
dissatisfaction with the tool.
25
A personal design experience illustrates another approach using an authentic task strategy
in Second Life™. History students were required to reconstruct an ancient civilization—its
geography, culture, daily activities and military actions—using the virtual world environment,
objects, animations, and language. The learners were required to generate avatars, acquire and
develop property, and script actual events such as a major battle. To achieve an accurate
representation the learners conducted research and applied the personally-discovered facts to the
civilization under construction. Forming small groups, students allocated tasks to facilitate
completion by the assignment due date. A group grade was issued according to a rubric for level
of learning, although, individual assessment was based each student’s knowledge and use of
facts about the era, authenticity of the people and culture, a war with accurate outcomes, and so
forth. As a result, the learning objectives were achieved while engaging the students at multiple
points. Moreover, the activity became the assessment (see next study for more on this concept).
Learning outcomes included decision-making, predictions of cause and effect (Bruner,
1957/1973), strategizing as a group for intended outcomes, management of team dynamics. In
addition, the project afforded quality and engagement predictors of self-regulation, learner
control, personal knowledge construction, interaction, collaboration, accountability, peer
learning, and occasional instructor feedback.
There are speculative reasons for the Gunter (2011) reported design failure—virtual room
design, instructor inexperience with the technology, or lack of collaborative opportunities.
Lester and Perini (2010) suggested faculty often attempt to integrate new technologies however
fail to include tasks for collaboration and active learning which may be the result of expertise in
design or the strategy itself. The researchers suggested an ID involvement for ensuring
appropriateness. Antidotes for lack of attendance may be similar to those applied in a traditional
classroom and lie with engaging, tantalizing learning opportunities. Gilly Salmon (2009) has
written an article on Second Life™ from a futures view and discusses the potential of Second
Life™ in higher education, particularly for online learners. Her position is that for high success
from using virtual worlds to create authentic experiences, learners must be afforded exploration
and discovery occasions. The analysis (Salmon, 2009) goes on to advise that optimal scaffolding
and student technical support are necessary in a new complex technology. To address the
problem of inexperienced users and instructors, an online press released announced that a new
Linden Labs (creator of Second Life™) CEO has recently implemented changes to make access
26
and manipulations more user-friendly. As an outcome of the upgrade the company has seen a
40% increase in Second Life™ users since early 2011 of (Dutton, 2012). Further, to prevent
strategy failure, instructors would do well to become very familiar with the technology in order
to provide a rich alternate universe for learning.
The utility exists in Second Life™ to offer content in the traditional online courseroom
manner with Powerpoint slides, video lectures, and so forth however the richness of learning is
evident both in the Hornik and Thornburg (2010) and Author (2012) examples. Conversely, the
use of an emerging technology in the Gunter (2011) study was neither quality-driven nor
engaging, but with visionary, strategic re-design could be made to be so.
The Study: Concept Mapping
Ching and Hsu (2011) explored a strategy of online learning that combined an activity
and an assessment for a more authentic approach to learning with Web 2.0 tools. Online
graduate students studying instructional design were observed during a concept mapping activity
that was added to regular curricular assignments. During the course 37 students formed small
groups to collaborate on displaying concepts of a course development process relying on the
ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) concept from which
several typical ID models are derived. They compared and contrasted models using concept
mapping as well as evaluated the use of Web 2.0 tools as future personal teaching aids. Student
perceptions of self and peers were evaluated from open-ended questions at the end of the course.
The results. The task resulted in a sophisticated representation of course topic
knowledge from group collaboration. Mastery was demonstrated in the communal creation of an
online concept map which was also an outcome of interactivity. In addition the learners used
email, Moodle discussion, chats, and phone conversations to plan and problem-solve for
integration of individual maps into one aggregated map. It was found that the groups created a
more intricate map than the individuals did through the process of collaboration and the
formulation of group shared meaning. Although most of the groups found satisfaction in the
process, group work did not appeal to some who preferred convenience and autonomy of
individual creations as well as a personally-earned grade over ‘lump’ group grade.
Ching and Hsu (2011) drew a direct link between the case study findings and
foundational learning theories from cognitive processing psychology: externalization,
explanation, and elaboration (Dillenbourg & Bétrancourt, 2006). In this way the activity was
27
shown to be the assessment. The researchers (Ching & Hsu, 2011) listed three areas of
cognitive earning and collaboration that are typically used in formal assessment of student
knowledge and satisfaction: “1) formative feedback on knowledge construction and
communication, 2) summative assessments on group concept maps and self as well as 3) peer
assessments on one’s contribution to the collaborative process” (p. 788).
Analysis. Through this study the researchers (Ching & Hsu, 2008) informed IDs on
maximizing the Web 2.0 tools they may prescribe by building into the activity a rubric for
assessing in four areas (a) shared goals as well as individual learning, (b) group process and
product, (c) social interaction and collaboration, and (d) grades awarded for both individuals and
group. In effect, assessment was viewed from a more comprehensive perspective. Inclusion of
collaboration in learning designs is considered an important competence and a critical standard
for conceptualizing learning requirements (Richey et al., 2001). In addition, they concluded that
a purpose for group collaboration for a shared goal is essential for interaction; we have already
understood that without meaning behind the activity, learning is limited.
Additionally, the objective to demonstrate learning of a complex process (ID) resulting in
a group-generated outcome with a related assessment (comprehensive concept map) validated
the instructional strategy (use Web 2.0 tool, scaffolding, shared goals) including related activities
(map creation, collaboration, logging). The researchers, additionally, offered recommendations
for modern designs to include shared goals and interaction for knowledge construction, two
engagement predictors named in this chapter.
Activities have been used for assessment in a variety of ways such as planning and
implementing a lab experiment with a predicted outcome, designing a business plan, or writing
and directing a play. In the Author (2012) study contextual assessment as well as an alignment
of objectives, assessments, strategies, and activities was a recurring theme as a predictor of
quality. However, Dede (2009b) has not found assessments to include authentic learning such as
capabilities demonstrated in teamwork, “mediated interaction” and “abilities to transfer their
[students’] understanding to real world situations” (p. 3). Dede called on 21st century education
providers to assess 21st century skills with a comprehensive set of standards that abandon all 20th
century epistemologies and approaches. This author agrees that training a student population
who were born into 21st century technologies for a 21st century workforce requires like kind
knowledge, meaning, and assessments. An ID leader is call upon to promote this vision.
28
Although not a part of the studies we surveyed, a voice of caution seems worth
entertaining for significance to the contemporary alteration of society. Jaron Lanier is a
computer scientist and considered a visionary of the web and its potential for changing the world.
However, the book he has written amounts to a clarion call for supporters of social media and its
value to the global citizenry (Lanier, 2010). While an advocate of global collaboration and
knowledge building, he is concerned about the effects of social media on the individuality and
creativity it may in fact stifle. He described a social dynamic observed in the positioning of a
stronger participant and the outcomes of the vying for dominance seen in the eventual
acquiescence of the weaker in order to maintain equilibrium and acceptance by the group.
Rather than building on ideas, the effect can be compromise, relinquishment of original thoughts,
groupthink, and bullying. The need for increased research in this area is urgent. Indeed the
studies we have analyzed in this chapter have shown resistance to group projects and
collaboration. We still don’t know at what level sharing is beneficial and when it is a barrier to
human potential.
Implications of ID Leadership for Web 2.0 Adoption
Implications from this discussion include the impact of Web 2.0 on demands of ID to
respond and lead in appropriating engaging learning events. Although leadership has not
typically been a requirement of being a good instructional designer, leadership is an outcome of
an extraordinary (visionary and strategic) mindset for designing affordances for a changing,
complex world of connected knowledge-seekers. After concerted analysis and reflection on the
current ethos of education, it is the position of this author that personal leadership is required for
the kind of design decisions that will link instructional strategies to the type and level of
engagement that will ensure depth of learning, especially with emerging Web 2.0 technologies
for online education. In this way, leadership extends the role of IDs toward guiding the adoption
of Web 2.0 tools for online learning exemplified by a modern ID model—I-Design 2.0.
Through this lens, it is important to consider the flexibility a designer must embrace for
creating designs with pedagogies that will engage a modern learner who is virtually connected
virtually all the time? On the one hand, the advance in technologies grant an outlet for
expression and reciprocity, for instance in social networking venues, while on the other the user
is exposed to a barrage of alluring choices for accessing even more digital dalliances. This is not
29
to say a rich inventory of knowledge building and usefulness is not available through social
networking as demonstrated in blogs and wikis; however the delivery format avails a potential
learner to an endless periphery of non-learning selections which burdens the ID to invent
competing alternatives. Lester and Perini (2010) remarked that adoption of Web 2.0
technologies, with hopes of engagement, requires comprehending the shifting habits of student
use and “adapting to the changes before they become superseded by future innovations” (p. 75).
This is what compounds the dilemma of designing for emerging technologies that Siemens
(2004) called “nebulous environments of shifting core elements” (Connectivism section); will
the strategies be outdated or abandoned before the course is ready for implementation? To meet
these challenges of change, specific competencies have been identified in this chapter that are
deemed necessary for carrying forward the mission of creating learning products with adaptivity
and flexibility demanded by distributed learners.
Given the evidence presented in this chapter, quality pedagogies are not just happy eaccidents, but are intentionally designed with best practices for learning based on current
theories. However, the issues presented remind IDs of the complexity of interweaving
instructional and learning theories including those from cognitive science. For example, recent
empirical studies continue to demonstrate the wisdom of integrating evidence of impact on
cognition—measurements of cognitive load levels, learning efficiency, cognitive flexibility,
shared cognition, nonconscious learning—(Cifuentes, et al., 2011; Clark, 2010; de Jong, 2010).
In a Web 2.0 for online courses study, quality instruction and design was linked by Cifuentes et
al. (2011) to a pedagogical ability to balance cognitive load through cognitive flexibility in the
type and variety of tools used; although the feat poses a formidable (perhaps impossible)
scenario for what Hannafin, Hannafin, and Gabbitas (2009) considered an unpredictable
environment. The evidence from these few studies alone underscores the need for referral by
IDs to on-going extensive and current research to keep pace with evolutions in learning with
technologies.
Regarding deliberate and intentional design, other predictors of quality and successful
engagement in Web 2.0 learning environments were presented including those related to the
structural affordances of well-designed online courses populated with relevant instructional
strategies and assessments (Dede, 2009b). From a pragmatic viewpoint Ching and Hsu (2011)
stated that “Web 2.0 practices will not simply ‘happen’ if there is no deliberate design of the
30
learning and assessment to enable the practices” (p. 784). Examples in this chapter from recent
studies contained many implications for IDs to reflect on and consider before selecting what may
or may not be appropriate in an online course. Decisions by IDs have consequences for quality
of online pedagogies and theory-backed decisions persuade others of the ID’s professionalism
and judgment (Yanchar et al., 2010). Leadership denotes inculcating strategic and visionary
decisions with moral purpose into the workplace. Hence, a practicing ID will demonstrate
personal leadership as the decisions and actions incorporated into the learning design reflect
visionary, strategic, and moral affordances. To the point of this chapter, leaders don’t get caught
up with fads, but examine the evidence for viability in specific situations. What drives the
quality of outcome for the learner is anticipation for the unique situation, strategizing for
engaging and satisfying experiences, and provision for rapid changes in technology.
There are typically barriers and resistance to new technologies which designers and
adopters of Web 2.0 tools will struggle with in the future. Some learners will be reluctant to
integrate school-related interactions with places reserved for non-school socialization. Course
developers may opt to integrate social networking into the LMS rather than create external sites
to segregate the learning goals and activities. Another challenge is the lack of familiarity by
faculty with social sites. One answer to lack of instructor expertise is that designers provide
instructor training within the context of the course (Lester & Perini, 2010). For leaders of the
design of academic events, questions abound. If an instructional tool does not afford the
techniques for learning that will produce an acceptable outcome, was the cause the type of tool,
the application of the tool, the topic being presented, the learning environment, the instructor,
technical training level, some or none of all of these? The complexity of issues for design
practice is clear and yet, in the embryonic stages of Web 2.0, design possibilities only increase.
Moreover, leading in a movement to blend Web 2.0 tools with learning means to ensure
technologies and tools prescribed are weighted for value to the intended learning event. IDs may
want to become masters of checklists (Gawande, 2011). By using checklists Gawande (2011)
demonstrated improvement in the processes of experts with dramatic results in saved lives.
Therefore, several checklists are offered in this chapter as jumping off points to remind the
designer of crucial elements needed to provide appropriate course strategies.
Technologies will change, requiring enduring principles of design to prevail for
alignment of potential pedagogies to what is known to ensure effective and engaging learning.
31
Magolda and Platt (2009) offered advice to IDs to know when to use strategies for learning, to
resist jumping to use the latest discovery, and to spend time in reflection. The authors articulated
an important consideration,
The hype of moving to a learning paradigm in which students define and control their
own learning is just that—hype—without a commensurate pedagogical and philosophical
change initiated by institutional faculty and staff. (p. 15)
Another perspective addressed the ‘hype’ factor in the context of issues surrounding Web 2.0 use
for government oversight. In relationship to cost/benefit Osimo (2008) suggests caution in
adoption without a complete evaluation of the collaborative and interactive value,
One of the most common mistakes, typical of a hyped technology such as web 2.0 now,
is considering that adding wiki, blogs and social networking features on a website is
sufficient to achieve the goals of user involvement and contribution…One of the great
advantages of web 2.0 is that it lowers the cost of errors, as very little investment is
needed to launch a collaboration. However, simply adopting the technologies, without
embracing the value, will have little or negative impact. (p. 47)
Adding social value is an important life learning lesson as one participates in communal
responsibility for doing something that might otherwise not have occurred (Brown et al., 1989).
Lately Twitter, for instance, has gained ground for educational use with remarkable speed as
individuals enjoy a platform for concise articulation of ideas, opinions, and recommendations
that when applied to the context of learning events mimics a face-to-face Socratic dialog.
Given all of the evidence presented in this chapter an overwhelming increase in learner
value is apparent from Web 2.0 platforms when the learning design affords appropriate strategies
for pedagogy and learning. To ensure this trend continues on-going evaluation and investigation
into engagement with the tool and ultimate impact on learning is essential, with a willingness to
discontinue or revise the strategy as needed. This view resonates with a leadership mentality,
one that applies vision and strategy to a plan for success in unpredictable ways and with a
contingency plan. An experienced researcher in educational technology with a futures
perspective on education articulated a goal of modern ID, “A well-designed learning experience,
like an accurate map, does not detract from the learning journey nor does it necessarily dictate
the final destination” (Salmon, 2009). Stipulating to the intent of the quote for emphasizing
32
learner control along the learning path, reaching the goals may benefit from an exponential value
that is perceptible by adding the leadership characteristics of vision and strategy for envisioning
and creating quality instructional strategies that contain the same exponential factoring—more
than two components—for exceptional outcomes. With this in mind, an ID will activate personal
leadership competencies while activating quality online academic courses using Web 2.0
learning tools when he or she begins with theory-based decisions for activities and assessments
that align with proven predictors of engagement and culminate in learner satisfaction.
Checklists for Engagement with Web 2.0
This chapter has explored factors and definitions for engagement with Web 2.0 social
learning tools. However, simple checklists provide a quick and helpful evaluation that designers
and developers could apply to provide leadership for course selections. Tables 4 and 5 display
foundational elements deemed critical for quality and engaging online instructional strategies.
Table 4 combines strategies identified in the Author (2012) study with Sims (2011) OASA
model for alignment of course major components.
Table 5
Instructional Strategies Checklist for Quality
Checklist for quality
Theory-based
Authentic tasks
Collaborative assignments
Interaction activities
Feedback opportunities
Problem-solving scenarios
Critical Thinking challenges
Alignment of objectives, assessments,
strategies, activities
Instructional strategy
Facebook Wiki
Second
Life™
Other
33
In Table 5 NSSE benchmarks for engagement (see Table 2) are combined with Sims and
Stork’s (2007) conditions for engagement (see Table 3). In addition, Tables 6 and 7 contain lists
of questions to ask through the process to remind the designer of pertinent theories and
considerations. A suggested procedure for using the checklists is to (a) evaluate each strategy for
predictors of quality to determine if the proposed strategy contains some or all of the components
(multiple checks increase the probability); (b) evaluate each strategy for characteristics of
engagement; (c) ask questions from Table 6; and (d) select a strategy or approach for
development.
Table 6
Instructional Strategies Checklist for Engagement
Checklist for engagement:
Instructional strategy
Facebook Wiki
Second
Life™
Other
Level of academic challenge (cognitive
complexity, deep learning objectives)
Active and collaborative learning (in online
shared activities)
Rich student-faculty interaction (in online
forum)
Enriching educational experiences (creating
with online media)
Supportive campus (online) environment
Learner-control
Learner-centered, flexible orientation
Personal knowledge construction outcomes
Following selection of an approach, customization to the course content is expected
followed by iterative questioning for continuous improvement on the strategy. The questions in
Table 6 are suggested for prompting alignment with quality and engagement predictors. The
template is intended to be layered with the two matrices in Tables 4 – 5 for each strategy in
general as well as each component of the strategy. In other words, the iterative process may
involve visiting each table multiple times throughout the design and development stages. As a
34
note to the reader, the question lists are not exhaustive however link to the issues addressed in
this chapter as essential to appropriate selection for eventual adoption of a Web 2.0 strategy.
Table 7
Questions to Ask Before, During, and After Design
Condition
For this learning event or component, ask
Question
What are the Objectives? Learning goals?
What Instructional Strategy is the best tool?
Select a tool, then ask
How will this change the learner? (Outcome)
How will we know? (Assessment)
What are the guiding theories, instructional and
learning?
What does the literature say about potential for
engagement? About overall quality? Cognitive load
implications? Other adverse reactions?
If the strategy calls for an authentic task, ask
Does this strategy afford a level of reality for easy
transfer to learner’s world?
Is there appropriate complexity level?
Does it require collaboration in the same way the real
world scenario would?
Is there a high probability of interaction—with the
content, students, instructor, technology, other cultures?
If the strategy calls for a collaborative tool, ask
Will the learner be included in shaping a shared goal?
Are the objectives for ultimate interactivity welldefined?
Does the task call for problem-solving? Criticalthinking?
Is feedback built in?
If the strategy calls for interaction, ask
What level of interaction is intended?
Will collaboration be an outcome?
How will interactions be measured?
If strategy calls for feedback exercise, ask
Will the activity include discussion, Q & A with
instructor?
In what form will feedback be delivered? How often?
If the strategy is to solve a problem, ask
How will scaffolding be applied? To what degree?
When will scaffolding be removed?
Will this be a group project? If so, how will
collaboration be facilitated? If not, what interaction and
feedback will be expected from instructor?
Will the activity introduce complexity, chaos, risk?
Will the answers be provided? How will the individual
learner be assessed?
If the strategy is to induce critical-thinking, ask
Will external resources be prescribed or selected by the
learner?
Will the learner be directed to explore multiple avenues
of thought through novel ways?
How will critical-thinking be measured?
35
To determine congruency of the design, ask
Do the objectives (outcomes) line up with the strategy
proposed and does the activity line up with or become
the assessment?
How can the activity be structured to become the
assessment?
For the level of learner-control, ask
Does the learner choose own path? In what ways?
Can the learner opt out if experiences adverse reaction?
If so, is there an alternative?
To determine if the learner is satisfied, ask,
Do we assess during the event? At the conclusion?
Both?
What do we assess? Time on task? Grades? Quality of
questions asked? Quality of project? Level of difficulty?
Amount of collaboration and interaction?
The questions in Table 7 are suggested for prompting evaluation of design structure and
strategies for alignment with quality and engagement from a leadership perspective.
Table 8
Questions to Ask From a Leadership Perspective
Condition
From a visionary leadership perspective, ask
Question
How will the event affect the learner in one month, one
year, ten years?
What will be the outcomes for the course, institution,
community, online initiative, future technologies
adoption?
Will the time (cost) investment leverage the learning
value?
From a strategic perspective, ask
Is the strategy portable? For any OS or LMS? For
mobile learning platforms? Will it go into space?
Is the strategy scalable? For mega-courses-is it just as
effective for a class of 600 as 10?
Is the strategy flexible? In different conditions of
learning? In the cloud or on a server?
For other leadership concerns, ask
ethical considerations
security issues to overcome
Is the strategy adaptive? For any culture, age, gender,
learning preference? For a community college, technical
institute, or university?
Is it safe? Private?
36
design requirements (development team)
Is there a plan for team selection, oversight, and
coaching?
Is there a plan if failure in power, in satellite?
Interruption from weather or natural disaster? From
political, social changes? From economic downturn?
if there is a major disruption
environmental impact from this strategy if it
proliferates
Do we need a study to project potential harm to the
environment?
results from tests for quality, engagement, satisfaction
in its planned form
What is the course of action if it fails?
The questions offered merely scratch the surface of the considerations for a proper ID
process; however, what has been suggested serves to critically analyze a Web 2.0 tool as a
learning strategy. In particular, the leadership questions alert proponents of the strategy to the
wisdom of obtaining leadership from an ID for successful adoption.
Conclusion
In this chapter clear links have been drawn between the importance of ID leadership
competencies-in-use and implications for the future of emerging technologies as pedagogical
agents in quality online courses. The notion challenges the leaders of design to make the tough
decisions to take the lead in developing resources argued to be essential to tomorrow’s global
learning demands. The ID is both burdened with and blessed by the opportunity to create
environments and structures within which learners may play and experiment with ideas and
concepts until fashioned into meaningful mental models with personal application. Winter,
Cotton, Gavin, and Yorke (2010) contended that without meaning for the learner, electronic
pedagogical tools will remain useless distractions. Given the recent advances in technologysupported learning affordances, creators of pedagogies are challenged to evaluate the learning
value and rich knowledge acquisition opportunities Web 2.0 tools afford. To this end, first and
foremost designers must be imbibers of research on modern complex issues to appropriately
apply instructional strategies for learning.
More critical than in previous epochs, IDs must appropriate leadership competencies and
qualities into the work of designing, especially for the complexities of modern technologies.
With an understanding that ID is a profession with visionary goals and high standards will
37
venture into new territories with navigational expertise when accompanied by an innate foresight
for the impact and consequences of her decisions. In this regard, designers must rethink the
powerful influence of personal leadership in driving a modern phenomenon and the pedagogical
value of social knowledge construction. Moreover, IDs are urged to match design practices with
the realities of modern learners who are immersed in Web 2.0 websites. Finally, IDs must
contend for educational adoption based on empirical data, to lead so that others will follow in
providing exemplary learning events. Therefore, ID may be re-envisioned and reconceptualized
as I-Design 2.0.
In closing, I urge researchers to consider the potential for social networking and sharing
sites as a new gathering place, an unprecedented forum, conceptualized by Dr. Chris Dede of
Harvard’s Graduate School of Education (Dede, 2009a) as an opportunity for researchers to
explore and collaborate with increased “pace and quality”, to create wisdom—the end goal for
both educators life-long learners.
References
Allen, A.I., & Seaman, J. (2012). Going the distance: Online education in the United States,
2011. Sloan-C. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf
Armellini, A., & Aiyegbayo, O. (2010). Learning design and assessment with e-tivities. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01013.x
Ashbaugh, M. L. (2012). Online pedagogical quality questioned: Probing instructional designers’
perceptions of leadership competencies critical to practice. [Dissertation Study].
Available from http://gradworks.umi.com/3460621.pdf
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student Involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Bannert, M. (2002). Managing cognitive load—recent trends in cognitive load theory. Learning
and Instruction, 12, 139-146. Retrieved from
http://institute.nsta.org/scipack_research/Managing_Cognitive_Load.pdf
Barab, S. A., & Roth, W. M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from
an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3-13.
doi:10.3102/0013189X035005003
Beabout, B., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2008). Change agentry. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J.
van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 619-632). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
38
Beaudoin, M. F. (2007). Distance education leadership: An appraisal of research and practice. In
M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 391-402). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bennet, S. (2012). The numbers just keep on getting bigger: Social media and the internet 2011
[Statistics]. Retrieved from http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/social-media-internet2011_b17881
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamin, R. M., Surkes, M. A., &
Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance
education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289. doi:
10.3102/0034654309333844
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals. New York, NY: Longman.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018001032
Bruner, J.S. (1957/1973). Going beyond the information given. In J.M. Agnlin (Ed.), Jerome S.
Bruner: Going beyond the information given. New York, NY: Norton.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, K., & Ellingson, D.A. (2010). Cooperative learning at a distance: An experiment with
wikis. American Journal of Business Education, 3(4), 83-90. Retrieved from
http://cluteonline.com/journals/index.php/AJBE/article/view/418/407
Campbell, K., Schwier, R., & Kenny, R. (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. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9061-6
Caswell, T., Hensen, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open Educational Resources: Enabling
universal education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 9(1). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/469/1001
Chi, M.T.H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Sternberg (Ed.),
Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ching, Y-H., & Hsu, Y-C. (2011). Design-grounded assessment: A framework and a case study
of web 2.0 practices in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 27(5), 781-797. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/ching.html
Cifuentes, L., Alvarez, O., & Edwards, J.C. (2011). Learning in web 2.0 environments: Surface
learning and chaos or deep learning and self-regulation? The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 12(1), 1-21. Retrieved from
39
http://www.mendeley.com/research/learning-web-20-environments-surface-learningchaos-deep-learning-selfregulation/
Clark, R. E. (1991). When researchers swim upstream: Reflections on an unpopular argument
about learning from media. Educational Technology, 31(2),34-40.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media and method. Educational Technology Research & Development,
42(3), 7-10.
Clark, R. E. (2010). Cognitive and neuroscience research on learning and instruction: Recent
insights about the impact of non-conscious knowledge on problem solving, higher order
thinking skills and interactive cyber-learning environments. Presentation at The 11th
International Conference on Education Research (ICER), New Educational Paradigm for
Learning and Instruction, 2010, Seoul, South Korea. Retrieved from
http://www.aect.org/publications/whitepapers/2010/ICER3.pdf
Cunningham, D.J. (1992). Beyond educational psychology: Steps toward an educational
semiotic. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 165-194.
Dabbagh, N., & Denisar, K. (2005). Assessing team-based instructional design problem solutions
of hierarchical versus heterarchical web-based hypermedia cases. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 5-24. doi: 10.1007/BF02504863
Daniels, P. (2009). Course management systems and implications for practice. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies and Societies, 7(2), 97-108.
DeBlois, P. (2005). Leadership in instructional technology and design: An interview.
EDUCAUSE Quarterly (EQ), 28(4). Retrieved from
http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolu
m/LeadershipinInstructionalTechn/157370
Dede, C. (2009a). Technologies that facilitate generating knowledge and possibly wisdom: A
response to “Web 2.0 and classroom research.” Educational Researcher, 38(4), 60-63.
Dede, C. (2009b). Comparing frameworks for “21st century skills”. Retrieved from
http://watertown.k12.ma.us/dept/ed_tech/research/pdf/ChrisDede.pdf
Dede, C., Dieterle, E., Clarke, J., Jass-Ketelhut, D., & Nelson, B. (2007). Media-based learning
styles. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 339-352).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
de Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: Some
food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105-134.
Dillenbourg, P., & Bétrancourt, M. (2006). Collaboration load. In J. Ellen & R.E. Clark (Eds.),
Handling complexity in learning environments: Theory and research. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier.
40
Dixon, R., & Dixon, K. (2010). Pedagogical effectiveness - towards a framework in adult
learning contexts: Collaborative metacognitive support. In Proceedings 2nd Paris
International Conference on Education, Economy and Society 2010. pp. 138–147.
http://analytrics.org/Documents/Vol1.pdf#page=138
Dooley, K., Lindner, J., Telg, R., Irani, T., Moore, L., & Lundy, L. (2007). Roadmap to
measuring distance education instructional design competency. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 8(2), 151-159. Retrieved from
http://www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=89&i=4
Driscoll, M. (2005). The psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Durdu, P., Yalabik, N., & Cagiltay, K. (2009). A distributed online curriculum and courseware
development model. Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 230-248. Retrieved from
http://www.ifets.info
Dunlap, J. C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D. I. (2007). Supporting students’ cognitive processing in
online courses: Designing for deep and meaningful student-to-content interactions.
TechTrends, 51(4), 20-31. doi: 10.1007/s11528-007-0052-6
Dutton, F. (2012). Pioneering MMO Second Life plots a comeback. Eurogamer.net, March,
2012. Retrieved from http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-15-pioneering-mmosecond-life-plots-a-comeback
Faust, G.W. (1977). Selecting instructional strategies or once you’ve got an objective, what do
you do with it? Journal of Instructional Development, 1(1), 18-22.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.) The nature
of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Hillsdale, MH: Erlbaum
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Gallien, T., & Oomen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the
online classroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic
performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal on
ELearning, 7(3), 463-476.
Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional
design (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The story of multiple intelligences. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
41
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment:
Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3),
87-105.
Gawande, A. (2011). The checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York, NY: Picador.
Greenleaf, G. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness/essays by Robert K. Greenleaf. Mahway, NJ: Paulist Press.
Gunter, G. (2011. Effective online tools for creating social presence in large online classes
[Presentation]. 2011 AECT International Convention, Jacksonville, Florida.
Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Re-examining cognition during studentcentered web-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(2),
767-785.
Hornik, S., & Thornburg, S. (2010). Really engaging accounting: Second Life™ as a learning
platform. Issues in Accounting Education, 25(3), 361-378. doi:
10.2308/iace.2010.25.3.361
Howard, A., & Wellins, R. S. (2008). Global leadership forecast 2008|2009: Overcoming the
shortfalls in developing leaders. Retrieved from
http://www.ddiworld.com/pdf/globalleadershipforecast2008-2009_globalreport_ddi.pdf
International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction. (2010). Code of
ethical standards. ibstpi. Retrieved from
http://www.ibstpi.org/Competencies/codesofethicalstandards.htm
International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction. (2000). Instructional
design competencies report. ibstpi. Retrieved from
http://www.ibstpi.org/downloads/InstructionalDesignCompetencies.pdf
Irlbeck, S., Kays, E., Jones, D., & Sims, R. (2006). Phoenix rising: Emergent models of
instructional design. Distance Education 27(2), 171-185. doi:
10.1080/01587910600789514
Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical
paradigm?. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
doi: 10.1007/BF02296434
Jonassen, D.H. (2010). Research issues in problem solving. The 11th International Conference
on Education Research New Educational Paradigm for Learning and Instruction
September 29 – October 1, 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.aect.org/publications/whitepapers/2010/JonassenICER.pdf
Jonassen, D.H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving
learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.
42
Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and
computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of
Education, 9(2). doi: 10.1080/08923649509526885
Katz, R. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33-42.
Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J-W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic
collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology, Research & Development
52(3), 47-66. doi: 10.1007/BF02504675
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Konings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Towards more powerful
learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and
students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 645-660. doi:
10.1348/000709905x43616
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:
Wiley.
Kowch, E. (2009). New capabilities for cyber charter school leadership: An emerging imperative
for integrating educational technology and educational leadership knowledge.
TechTrends, 53(4), 41-48.
Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Association Press.
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. Retrieved from
http://www.unco.edu/cetl/sir/stating_outcome/documents/Krathwohl.pdf
Lang, K., & Lang, G. (1961). Collective dynamics. New York, NY: Crowell.
Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget: A manifesto. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf (Random
House).
Lester, J., & Perini, M. (2010). Potential of social networking sites for distance education student
engagement. New Directions for Community Colleges, 150. doi: 10.1002/cc.406
Magolda, P.M., & Platt, G.J. (2009). Untangling web 2.0’s influences on student learning. About
Campus, July-August, 2009. Online publication. Retrieved from
www.interscience.wiley.com. doi: 10.1002/abc.290
McInnis, C., James, R., & Hartley, R. (2000). Trends in the first year experience. Canberra,
Australia: DETYA Higher Education Division.
43
Merrill, M. D. (1999). Instructional design based on knowledge objects. In C. M. Reigeluth
(Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory,
Volume II. pp. 397-424. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Molenda, M. (2008). Historical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer,
& M. P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational communications and
technology (3rd ed., pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Moody, Glyn (2002). Rebel code: Linux and the open source revolution. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1-7. Available from http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hajd20/3/2
Moule, P., Ward, R., & Lockyer, L. (2010). Nursing and healthcare students’ experiences and
use of e-learning in higher education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(12), 2785-2795.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05453.x
Naidu, S. (2007). Instructional designs for optimal learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of
distance education (2nd ed., pp. 247-258). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2008). Promoting engagement for all
students: The imperative to look within—2008 results. Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2008_Results
Nimon, S. (2007). Generation Y and higher education: The other Y2K. Journal of Institutional
Research, 13(1), 24-41. Retrieved from http://www.aair.org.au/2006Papers/Nimon.pdf
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? The O’Reilly Network. Retrieved from
http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government: Why and how? JRC Scientific and Technical Reports.
EUR – Scientific and Technical Research series – ISSN 1018-5593. European
Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.
Available from http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/home/
Ostlund, B. (2008). Prerequisites for interactive learning in distance education: Perspectives from
Swedish students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 42-56.
Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet
Paivo, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson.
Parrish, P. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 57(4), 511-528. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9060-7
Quality Matters Project: Rubric for online and hybrid courses. (2006). Retrieved from
http://www.qualitymatters.org/Rubric.htm
44
Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online
collaborative learning. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 52(4), 53-65.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1983). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their
current status. New York, NY: Routledge.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1999). Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. II): A new
paradigm of instructional theory, (pp. 5-30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reigeluth, C. M. & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M.
Reigeluth & A.A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.) Instructional-design theories and models (Vol.
III): Building a common knowledge base (pp. 3-26). New York, NY: Routledge.
Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The
standards (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: Eric.
Richey, R., Klein, J.D., & Tracey, M. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory,
research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Riel, M. (1998). Education in the 21st century: Just-in-Time learning or learning communities.
[Paper]. The Fourth Annual Conference of the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and
Research, Abu Dhabi, May 24-26, 1998. Retrieved from
http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/mriel/office/papers/jit-learning
Reimers, F. M. (2009). Leading for global competency. Educational Leadership: Teaching for
the 21st Century, 67(1). Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/sept09/vol67/num01/Leading_f
or_Global_Competency.aspx
Rogers, P., Graham, C., & Mayes, C. (2007). Cultural competence and instructional design:
Exploration research into the delivery of online instruction cross-culturally. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 55(2), 197-217. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9033x
Sackney, L., & Mergel, B. (2007). Contemporary learning theories, instructional design and
leadership. In J. M. Burger, C. Webber and P. Klinck (Eds.), Intelligent Leadership (Vol.
XI). (pp. 67–98). Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6022-9_5
Salmon, G. (2009). The future for (second) life and learning. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40(3), 526–538.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 3(3), 265-283.
Schuh, K. L., & Barab, S. A. (2008). Philosophical perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill,
J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 67-82). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
45
Scott, G., Coates, H., & Anderson, M. (2008). Learning leaders in times of change: Academic
leadership capabilities for Australian higher education. [Report]. University of Western
Sydney and Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from
http://research.acer.edu.au/
Sergiovanni, T. (2003). A cognitive approach to leadership. In B. Davies & J. West-Burham
(Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management. (pp. 12–16). New York,
NY: Pearson/Longman.
Sergiovanni, T., & Corbally, J. E. (1984). (Eds.). Leadership and excellence in schooling.
Educational Leadership, 41(5), 4-13. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upmdata/11217_Serg___Article_1.pdf
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Sims, R. (2003). Promises of interactivity: Aligning learner perceptions and expectations with
strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 87-101.
doi:10.1080/01587910303050
Sims, R. (2009). From three-phase to proactive learning design: Creating effective online
teaching and learning environments. In J. Willis (Ed.), Constructivist instructional design
(C-ID): Foundations, models, and practical examples (pp. 379-391). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Sims, R. (2011). Reappraising design practice. In D. Holt, S. Segrave, & J. Cybulski (Eds.),
Professional education using e-simulations: Benefits of blended learning design. IGI
Global.
Sims, R. C., & Koszalka, T. A. (2008) Competencies for the new-age instructional designer. In J.
M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Erlbaum.
Sims, R. & Stork, E. (2007). Design for contextual learning: Web-based environments that
engage diverse learners, in J. Richardson & A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of AusWeb07.
Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University. Retrieved from
http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw07/papers/refereed/sims/index.html
Spector, J. M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van
Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of research on educational
communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 21-28). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. In J-W.
Strijbos, P. Kirschner, & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And
implementing it in higher education (pp. 53-86). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
46
Stocker, D.K., Griffin, P.M., & Kocher, C.J. (2011). Evaluating the knowledge and use of web
2.0 technology among criminal justice students at two-year and graduate level institutions
of higher learning. Sociological Viewpoints, Fall. Retrieved from
http://www.pasocsociety.org/article7-stocker.pdf
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296. Retrieved from
https://files.nyu.edu/jpd247/public/2251/readings/sweller_cog_arch.pdf
Tu, C-H., Sujo-Montes, L., Yen, C-J., Chan, J-Y., & Blocher, M. (2012). Personal learning
environments & open network learning environments. TechTrends, 56(3), 13-19.
Ulrich, D., Zenger, J., & Smallwood, N. (1999). Results-based leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Review.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weaver, D. (2008). Academic and student use of a learning management system: Implications
for quality. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 30-41.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, B. G. (2005). Foundations for instructional design: Reclaiming the conversation. In J. M.
Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaack, & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional
technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 237-252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Winter, J., Cotton, D., Gavin, J., & Yorke, J.D. (2012). Effective e-learning? Multi-tasking,
distraction and boundary management by graduate students in an online environment.
ALT-J, 18(1), 71-83. doi: 10.1080/09687761003657598
Yanchar, S. C.; South, J. B.; Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with
theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design.
Educational Technology, Research & Development, 58(1), 39-60. doi 10.1007/s11423009-9129-6
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J (2009). The extraordinary leader: Turning good managers into great
leaders (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
47
Author Biography
Marcia L. Ashbaugh, PhD
Marcia Ashbaugh has over 25 years of experience in technology, implementation, and training
for a wide range of industries. Leadership positions in systems development, curriculum, and
instruction for businesses and non-profits provide foundation and add depth to her research
goals—particularly for online higher academics. Always on the cutting edge of technology,
Marcia built and managed early versions of Novell and Microsoft Server/LAN installations and
trained staff on integrated information systems; she instituted enterprise-wide email, web access,
and security protocols; devised a fax server for handling thousands of incoming concurrent
general contract bids; and clients such as the San Diego City Schools and the US Navy required
modernization of corporate systems to allow paperless drawing submittals and financial
transactions over the internet. More recently, as an instructional designer, Marcia has designed
courses for university and high school computing education as well as developed a number of
tangential projects including an EPSS for a university research lab, a prison online education
plan, meth awareness training, and others and is currently principal consultant and researcher for
MLA Instructional Designers. Recent research projects include innovations in educational
technologies including Web 2.0 and her primary interests—online pedagogical quality, design
leadership competencies, alignment of instructional strategies to learning environments, and
contextual relevance. Dr. Ashbaugh’s education includes a PhD in Instructional Design for
Online Learning from Capella University, an MEd in E-Learning Technology & Design from
Jones International University, and a BS in Computer Science: Management of Information
Systems from Colorado Christian University.
Publications and Presentations
Ashbaugh, M. L. (2011). Use of a modified QM rubric to validate qualitative research.
Presented at The Third Annual Quality Matters Conference, 2011, Baltimore, MD.
Ashbaugh, M. L. (2012). Online pedagogical quality questioned: Probing instructional designers’
perceptions of leadership competencies critical to practice. [Dissertation Study]. Available from
http://gradworks.umi.com/3460621.pdf
Ashbaugh, M. L. & Sims, R. C. (waiting for publication date). Changing online design practice
through enhanced leadership competencies. [To be published by ETR&D]. Copy available at
www.DrMLAshbaugh.com
Ashbaugh, M. L. (accepted for Fall 2012 presentation). Expert instructional designer voices:
Leadership competencies critical to global practice and quality learning designs. [To be
presented at the AECT 2012 International Conference, Louisville, Kentucky).
Contact Information
Affiliation:
MLA Instructional Designers, principal consultant
Email:
marcia.ashbaugh@gmail.com