University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Fostering competent professionals: instructional systems specialists at the instructional systems technology program

(USC Thesis Other)

Fostering competent professionals: instructional systems specialists at the instructional systems technology program

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIONALS 1
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIONALS: INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS
SPECIALISTS AT THE INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
by
Hannah Lee
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2016
Copyright 2016 Hannah Lee
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 2

Table of Contents
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 7
Organizational Context and Mission 7
Organizational Performance Goal 8
Related Literature 9
Importance of the Evaluation 11
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 13
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal 14
Stakeholder Performance Goal: Developing Specific Proficiencies 14
Methodological Framework 16
Definitions 17
Organization of the Study 17
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 19
Educational Technology in Teaching and Learning 19
History of Educational Technology in Teaching and Learning 19
Twenty-First Century Skills 21
Benefits of Educational Technology in Teaching and Learning 22
Transformation of Higher Education 23
Global Trends in Technology Integration 23
Global Demands on Technology Integration 24
Preparing K-12 Teacher Candidates in Technology Integration 26
Standards of Teacher Preparation Programs in the U.S.A. 26
Current Status of Teacher Preparation Programs 29
Models for Teacher Preparation Program 33
Challenges in K-12 Teacher Preparation in Technology Integration 38
Government Infrastructure 39
School Administrators 40
Teacher Candidates and Teachers 42
Teacher Candidate Effective Integration of Technology in Classroom Instruction 44
Teacher Candidate Knowledge and Skills Issues 44
Teacher Candidate Motivation Issues 47
Teacher Candidate Organization and Resources Issues 49
Conclusion 50
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 53
Methodological Framework 53
Assumed Performance Issues 55
Preliminary Scanning Data 55
Learning and Motivation Theory 58
Surveys 62
Interviews 63
Document Analysis 63
Validation of the Performance Issues 63
Data Analysis 66
Trustworthiness of Data 66
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 3

Role of Investigator 67
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 68
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 68
Sufficient Factual Knowledge About the Instructional Design with Technology 70
Sufficient Conceptual Knowledge About Instructional Technology Strategies 73
Sufficient Procedural Knowledge About Instructional Technology Integration 74
New Dimension in Metacognitive Knowledge About Technology Integration 77
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 78
Results and Findings for Motivational Causes 81
Students Choose to Integrate Technology for Learning in a Formal Setting 82
Students in the First Year vs the Second Year: Different Levels of Self-Efficacy 84
Students Find Extrinsic Value in Continuing Professional Development 85
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivational Causes 87
Results and Findings for Organizational Causes 88
The IST Program Goals Meet National Standards in Technology Integration 89
The IST Professional Development Concentrations Fulfill the Students Needs 91
The IST Provides Effective Program Design and Instruction to the Students 93
Organization Supports Students Online and Physical Learning Environment 93
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organizational Causes 95
Deficiencies in the IST Program 96
Request for Career Advising 97
Disparity Between the Academic and the Real-World Practice 97
Changes in Student Professional Concentrations 98
Needs in Instructors’ Syllabus Assessment 98
Administrators’ Lack of Support 98
Summary 99
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVALUATION 100
Effective Practices in the IST Program 100
Alignment with the National Professional Competency Standards 100
Professional Development Support 102
Different Performance Level by Academic Year Transition 103
Motivational Level Difference 104
Recommendations for the IST Program’s Continuing Success 105
Recommendation 1: Bolster Career Advising Through Collaboration 105
Recommendation 2: Hire Professional Expert for Curricular Development 109
Recommendation 3: Benchmark Other Institutions’ Practices 110
Evaluation Plan: Assessing Graduates’ Professional Practice 112
Level 1: Reaction 113
Level 2: Learning 114
Level 3: Transfer 114
Level 4: Impact 115
Limitations 115
Lessons Learned and Future Research 116
Conclusion 117
References 119
Appendix A Survey 131
Appendix B Interview Protocols for The IST Fall 2015 Cohort 136

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 4

List of Tables
Table 1: Mission and Goals 13
Table 2: AECT 2012 Standards 15
Table 3: AECT Mission and Vision 29
Table 4: International Society for Technology in Education Standards for Teachers 34
Table 5: InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards 35
Table 6: Summary of Validation for Assumed Issues, for Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Issues 65
Table 7: Knowledge Gaps Validated and Not Validated 69
Table 8: Summary of Assumed Knowledge Causes and Validation Findings 79
Table 9: Motivational Gaps Validated and Not Validated 82
Table 10: Summary of the Assumed Motivation Causes and Validation Findings 87
Table 11: Organizational Gaps Validated and Not Validated 89
Table 12: The IST Program Goals and Validation Findings via Interviews 90
Table 13: Summary of Results and Findings for Assumed Organizational Causes 96
Table 14: The IST Program Alignment with the AECT 2012 Professional Competencies 101
Table 15: The IST Program’s Promising Performance 102
Table 16: Academic Supports and Services by Four Different Instructional Design Programs111
Table 17: Evaluating E-Learning Programs: Level 1 (Reaction) 113

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 5

List of Figures
Figure 1: History of Media 20
Figure 2: Survey Item: In my course I learned how to analyze instructional technologies using a
variety of learning theories 71
Figure 3: Survey Item Findings: The Courses of the IST Students Registered in Fall 2015 72
Figure 4: Survey Results: What do you consider and implement during your instructional design?
74
Figure 5: Survey Results: I am proficient in computing related to teaching and learning 75
Figure 6: Survey Results: How do you choose which processes and resources to provide students
to improve learning? 77
Figure 7: Survey Responses Regarding Self-Efficacy 85
Figure 8: The IST Course Goals and Validation Findings via Document Analysis 91
Figure 9: Survey Responses Regarding the Professional Goal Alignment 92
Figure 10: Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Institutional Academic Support for
Distance Learning Students 95
Figure 11: The IST Curriculum Reform in Fall 2015 101

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 6

Abstract
Technology is emphasized as essential means in education transformation to engage and
empower learners’ achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Properly designed
curriculum and classes with educational technology can help personalize teacher candidates’
learning experiences. However, according to a National Center for Education Statistics report
(Kleiner, Thomas, & Lewis, 2007), a major barrier of teachers’ ability to integrate technology
was the lack of relevant training in their professional development program.
The primary goal of this study was to determine whether the Northern American
University (NAU, pseudonym) IST program curriculum launched in fall of 2015 prepared the
students for their professional competency development in educational technology integration.
As learning outcomes of professional development program indicate the program’s performance
outcome (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006), the Instructional Systems Technology (IST) students
were selected as a focus group of the study. The students’ performance, assessed by Clark and
Estes gap analysis framework (2008), resulted in no performance gaps were present. Therefore,
unlike the negative results of national education statistics in professional development, the IST
program’s effective practices can be useful to organizations in similar contexts for their learners’
professional development in educational technology integration. Nonetheless, none of
organizations are perfect and so is the IST program. Few deficiencies identified from the IST
program, and specific recommendations made for the particular subjects may help other
organizations for their problem investigation and performance improvement.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 7

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Technology is emphasized as essential means in education transformation to engage and
empower learners’ achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Properly designed
curriculum and classes with educational technology can help personalize teacher candidates’
learning experiences. However, according to a National Center for Education Statistics report
(Kleiner, Thomas, & Lewis, 2007), a major barrier of teachers’ ability to integrate technology
was the lack of relevant training in their teacher training program. When educational technology
graduate programs at higher education institutions are not compliant with the standards in
engaging and empowering learning such as goals of the National Education Technology Plan
(NETP) (U.S. Department of Education, 2010), they risk potential leaders inappropriately
implementing educational technology in their professional practice.
Organizational Context and Mission
The Educational Leadership in Instructional Systems Technology (IST) Program at the
Northern American University (NAU, pseudonym) is a master’s program that prepares learners
to enhance teaching and learning in the foundations, principles, theories, applications, and
current trends in instructional technology and to hold the new masters/advanced “M” license in
instructional systems technology specialists. The mission of IST is aligned with the Department
of Educational Leadership at the NAU to prepare highly effective and ethical 21st century
professionals who have a positive impact on children, youth, families, community, and schools
and who are successful in urban and other diverse settings. The IST program opened in 1997 and
is a 100% online master’s degree program at the NAU. The NAU is an urban research institution
founded in 1946, located in the United States (U.S.). The NAU’s current total student enrollment
is 27,238, with approximately 5,000 graduate level students. The NAU consists of seven colleges
with 80 bachelor’s, 64 master’s, and 21 doctoral degree programs.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 8

In the fall of 2015, student enrollment at the IST program at the NAU was about 50 (with
90% being female) and the IST program employed two full-time faculty. Prospective students of
the IST program at the NAU are college graduates who already hold either an “A” or “G” level
teaching license from the Department of Public Instruction of the United States. Major
professional development concentrations of the IST program are school specialist, training and
development, and online learning and teaching. The IST program is a member of the Association
for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). In Fall 2015, the program
implemented a redesigned curriculum that is aligned with the AECT 2012 Standards and
Indicators (AECT, 2013). The program’s previous curriculum was based on AECT 1997
standards. Also, each course in the IST program was redesigned in accordance with the new
curriculum and proficiencies outlined by the Standards and Indicators. From Fall 2015 onward,
all students took courses with the new curriculum and syllabus. With these changes related to the
curriculum, the IST program aimed to increase their student enrollment rate.
Organizational Performance Goal
The IST program’s goal is that by May 2018, all graduates will demonstrate 100% of the
proficiencies outlined by AECT 2012 standards. The new goals of the IST are also aligned with
the NAU Department of Educational Leadership’s strategic performance goals established by
members of the department leadership council and faculty members during department meetings
in 2010, which are to increase competencies and proficiencies of graduates in their specific
professional settings. In Fall 2014, the Program Director of the IST established their goal after an
initial meeting with the IST faculty; they identified curriculum concentrations that need changes
in order for the IST to fulfill the standards’ indicators and to increase student enrollment.
The enrollment rate of new students in the IST had been decreasing in the last few years.
Before Fall 2015, the major professional development concentrations of the IST were school
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 9

specialist and training and development. In Fall 2015, a third professional concentration in online
learning and teaching was newly added. Hence, prospective and current students in the IST have
more options for their professional development concentration.
As noted previously, the IST faculty have redesigned the curriculum so that it is aligned
with the AECT 2012 Standards and Indicators. New curriculum design included updating course
titles, descriptions, and syllabus and reducing required total credit hours from 39 to 36 hours to
remain competitive when compared to similar academic programs.
Related Literature
Technology integration in higher education, along with the rapid global trend changes in
instructional media has brought revolutionary challenges in a global, national, institutional,
professional and personal level since 1995 (Banister & Reinhart, 2013; Chittleborough, 2014;
Goktas, Yildirim, & Yildirim, 2009); Jang, 2008; Jhurree, 2005; Kasworm, 2011; Moran, Vozzo,
Reid, Pietsch, & Hatton, 2013; Rajasingham, 2011; Reiser, 2001). Integration of technology is a
challenge that every individual in teacher education programs in higher education face (Aypay,
Celik, Aypay, & Sever, 2012; Dashtestani, 2014; Esterhuizen et al., 2013, Goktas et al., 2009;
Koc & Bakir, 2010) and is recognized as a core aspect of educational transformation in teacher
preparation programs by government and numerous scholars (Amelink & Scales, 2011; AECT,
2012, 2013; Banister & Reinhart, 2013; Earle & Persichitte, 2005; Inan & Lowther, 2010;
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), 2012; Council of Chief State School
Officers (CCSSO), 2011; Larson, 2005; Polly, Mims, Shepherd, & Inan, 2010; Sharp, 2014; Van
Laarhoven, Munk, Chandler, Zurita, & Lynch, 2012; Zeichner & Wray, 2001). According to the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2001) Education Ministers,
better performance of learners in problem-solving skills acquisition by Information and
Communication Technology (ICT) in schools was shown among the OECD Members’ schools.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 10

With ICT-based learning experiences, proficiency level of learners in problem-solving skill was
improved, including organizing higher-order information, identifying patterns, reasoning, and
exchanging findings (OECD, 2001).
However, there is significant evidence in teacher education programs that teachers are not
being prepared to integrate technology in class (Banister & Reinhart, 2013; Van Laarhoven et al.,
2012). First, adequate supports at a national and administration level that need improvement
include sustainable access to web-based resources and technology; opportunities for continuing
professional development related to technology integration (Jhurree, 2005, Litowitz, 2014;
Parkay, Stanford, & Gougeon, 2010; Spires, Morris, & Zhang, 2012; U.S. Department of
Education, 2010); overall support, technical support, and financial support (Bauer & Kenton,
2005; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther 2010; Pan & Franklin, 2011; Polly et al., 2010; U.S.
Department of Education, 2010); and understanding in effective technology integration in
teaching and learning (Berry & Marx, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007; Pan & Franklin, 2011; U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). Second, faculty in teacher education programs showed a low
digital proficiency and infrequent technology integration during their courses. It resulted in
preventing teacher candidates’ engagement in integrating technology during their coursework
and the future practice (Larson, 2005; Van Laarhoven et al., 2012). Third, although teacher
candidates were highly educated and skilled in using technology, they did not transfer their
technology knowledge and skills to a professional setting automatically (Kumar & Vigil, 2011;
Bennett, Maton, & Kervin, 2008). Also, they inconsistently integrate technology during their
practice. Numerous researchers found motivation factors impeded teacher candidates’ integration
of technology in their field experiences in teacher education programs, including challenges in
self-efficacy, beliefs, pedagogical beliefs, value belief, and goal orientations (Aypay et al., 2012;
Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Guo, Connor, Yang, Roehrig, &
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 11

Morrison, 2012; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Kereluik, Mishra, Fahnoe, & Terry,
2013; Kumar & Vigil, 2011; Pan & Franklin, 2011; Spires et al., 2012; Yeung, Tay, Hui, Lin, &
Low, 2014). In sum, in order to create quality learning experiences in teacher education to
prepare teacher candidates competent in technology integration, joint efforts of several
stakeholders in education system are required.
Importance of the Evaluation
This study focused on a mid-year assessment of student learning for the fall, 2015 IST
new student cohort in relationship to the proficiencies outlined by the AECT 2012. It was
important to evaluate whether the new curriculum and syllabus were efficacious early on to
insure IST student learning and development.
As an AECT member, the IST is responsible to prepare their graduates as competent
instructional technology facilitators. If the IST’s curriculum is not aligned with the AECT 2012
standards, it risks readiness of their graduates in their specific professional setting. Properly
designed curriculum for professionals ensures that the IST is able to provide supports to their
graduates to become competent professionals as school specialists, for training and development,
and online teaching and learning. Additionally, evidence of a significant relation between
teachers’ readiness for personal adoption of technology and technology integration in their
professional practice has documented by various scholars (Galloway, 2007; Yepes-Baraya, 2002;
Inan & Lowther, 2010). Evaluating the IST’s performance would enable stakeholders to gather
formative data that can be used to assess and adjust IST’s new curriculum so that it positively
prepares graduates’ to be competent professionals. Finally, it is important to evaluate the
effectiveness of the new curriculum as it impacts the school’s reputation as graduating qualified
graduates.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 12

Educators’ readiness to integrate technology is recognized as a critical element in the U.S.
national education system (CCSSO, 2011; U.S. Department of Education, 2010; U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). Regarding teacher readiness program in four-year
postsecondary education, the Educational Technology in Teacher Education Programs for Initial
Licensure survey was conducted with a 95% response rate among 2,500 teaching license-
granting institutions in the 50 states (Kleiner et al., 2007). The research shows both positive and
negative factors in teaching preparation programs for integrating instructional technology in
school. While 93% of all of these institutions provided implementing educational technology
courses and 79% of all taught educational technology in the field experiences, two major barriers
to all these institutions existed. The most significant faculty-related barrier was lack of time
(45%); major supervising teacher candidates-related barrier was competing priorities in the class
(74%) and availability of institutional technology infrastructure (73%).
To develop the best trained instructional technology specialists, the IST program includes
competencies from several national and regional standards: the AECT 2012 standards (2013),
ISTE standards for coaches (2011), and North Carolina Department of Public of Instruction
(NCDPI) facilitator standards (NCDPI, 2014). Among these standards, AECT includes most
mutual competencies for instructional technology specialists. AECT 2012 standards (2013)
present performance goals of educators for technology integration with a set of indicators along
with each standard in instructional technology. There are five standards and 11 indicators:
content knowledge, content pedagogy, learning environments, professional knowledge and skills,
and research in standards; and creating, using, assessing/evaluating, managing, ethics, diversity
of learners, collaborative practice, leadership, reflection on practice, theoretical foundations, and
method in indicators (AECT, 2013).

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 13

Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
The primary stakeholders of the IST program at the NAU include faculty, administrators,
and students. The stakeholders collaborate to contribute to the achievement of the IST program’s
performance goal. The IST faculty prepare students as professionals to work on instructional
design and technology position. To establish educational experiences of their students, the
faculty design and implement the IST program curriculum and syllabus based on the Indicators
of the AECT 2012 Standards. Therefore, the IST program students demonstrate the competencies
outlined by the AECT 2012 standards.
Table 1
Mission and Goals

Organizational Mission
The Educational Leadership in Instructional Systems Technology at the Northern American
University’s mission is to prepare highly effective and ethical 21
st
century professionals who
have a positive impact on children, youth, families, community, and schools and who are
successful in urban and other diverse settings.
Organizational Performance Goal
By May 2018, the IST program graduates will demonstrate 100% of the proficiencies outlined
by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) 2012 standards.
The IST Full-time Faculty
By August 2015, 100% of IST
faculty will implement the
new curriculum aligned with
AECT 2012 standards.
Administration
By April 2015, administrators
in the Department of
Educational Leadership at the
NAU will demonstrate
guidance for the IST faculty to
design the new curriculum.
New Students (Fall 2015)
By December 2015, 100% of
2015 cohort IST students will
demonstrate the instructional
technology competencies
addressed by courses to date
for their specific professional
setting.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 14

Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal
While the collaboration of all stakeholders would contribute to the achievement of the
overall organizational goal of demonstration of proficiencies outlined by AECT 2012 standards,
it was important to evaluate the competency of the IST students with regard to their performance
goal. Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study were the IST students enrolled in Fall
2015. By December 2015, enrolled IST students would demonstrate proficiencies in the
foundational competencies needed that were addressed by courses to date for their specific
professional setting. Demonstration of foundational competencies included acquiring knowledge
and skills in technological pedagogical content, instructional setting, media selection, research
and evaluation, learning theories, contemporary issues and trends in instructional systems
technology for personalized learning. Failure to accomplish this goal would lead to low
professional competencies of graduates. Low professional competencies of the IST graduates
would lead to low qualification of graduates and low enrollment rate, which adversely impacts
the organization’s ability to provide support and proper and practical knowledge and skills in
instructional systems technology to its students. It further negatively would impact on the
organization’s overall goal of demonstration of 100% of graduates’ proficiencies outlined by the
AECT 2012 standards.
Stakeholder Performance Goal: Developing Specific Proficiencies
The AECT 2012 standards and proficiencies are noted Table 2 below.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 15

Table 2
AECT 2012 Standards
Standards
1
Content Knowledge. Candidates demonstrate the knowledge
necessary to create, use, assess, and manage theoretical and
practical applications of educational technologies and processes.
2
Content Pedagogy. Candidates develop as reflective practitioners
able to demonstrate effective implementation of educational
technologies and processes based on contemporary content and
pedagogy.
3
Learning Environments. Candidates facilitate learning by
creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning
environments.
4
Professional Knowledge and Skills. Candidates design, develop,
implement, and evaluate technology-rich learning environments
within a supportive community of practice.
5
Research. Candidates explore, evaluate, synthesize, and apply
methods of inquiry to enhance learning and improve performance.
Note. Adapted from “Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT)
Standards,” by AECT, 2013.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
Students in the IST program in Fall 2015 took one to three courses. Courses offered
included EIST 5100 Technology Integration in Education; EIST 6100 Foundation of
Instructional Systems Technology; EIST 6101 Learning Principles in Instructional Systems
Technology; EIST 6121 Advanced Instructional Design; EIST 6130 Instructional Multimedia
Development; EIST 6140 Instructional Video Development; EIST 6170 Human Performance
Technology; and EIST 6149 Internship in Instructional Systems Technology. Each course syllabi
indicated that students are expected to gain competencies that align to four or five standards in
AECT 2012, depending on the course objectives. Therefore, whichever course that student
would take; all IST students were able to develop their profession and competencies in
accordance with the guideline in AECT 2012 standards.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 16

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the graduates’ proficiencies related to the
foundational courses in the new IST curriculum. The analysis focused on the efficacy for this
problem due to the IST graduates’ knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational issues.
The analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed skills and degree of efficacy and
then by examining these systemically to focus on actual or validated acquisition and satisfaction
level. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis was the students of the IST program
enrolled in Fall 2015.
The questions that guide this study were the following:
1. In December of 2015, what will be the status of 100% of the students’ knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources with regard to their goal of demonstrating the
proficiencies, based on courses completed to date, outlined by the AECT 2012 standards?
2. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivations, and organizational resources?
Methodological Framework
A qualitative data gathering and analysis was conducted to evaluate the new IST students’
current performance in relationship to their performance goal in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources. The IST students’ performance was evaluated using
surveys, interviews, literature review and content analysis. Research-based recommendations and
evaluation were presented in a comprehensive manner analyzing the IST program’s performance
gaps related to the IST program new curriculum efficacy.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 17

Definitions
Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT): A professional
association of thousands of educators and others whose activities are directed toward improving
instruction through technology (AECT, 2012).
Educational Technology: The practical application of scientific and/or other knowledge to
accomplish given educational tasks (Galbraith, 1967).
Instructional Systems Design: A formal process for designing training, be it computer-based or
traditional instructor-led training. The instructional development process includes analysis,
design, development, implementation, and evaluation (Gentry, 1994, p. 381).
Instructional Technology: Hardware, software, and/or processes to facilitate learning (Smaldino,
Lowther, & Russell, 2008, p. 371).
Instructional Design: Process of determining and specifying objectives, strategies, techniques,
and media for meeting instructional goals (Gentry, 1994, p. 381).
Instructional Development: A systematic approach to the design, production, evaluation, and
implementation of systems of instruction (Gentry, 1994, p. 381).
Technology Integration: The sustainable and persistent change in the social system of K-12
schools caused by the adoption of technology to help students construct knowledge (Belland,
2009, p. 354).
Organization of the Study
The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the initial concepts of gap
analysis were introduced in Chapter One. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature
surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of educational technology, instructional systems
technology, technology integration in teaching and learning, and teachers’ competencies are
addressed. Chapter Three details the assumed causes for this study as well as methodology when
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 18

it comes to choose of participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and
results are presented and analyzed. Chapter Five provided recommendations, based on data and
literature, for closing the perceived gaps.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 19

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this chapter is to examine and to offer the literature regarding preparing
technology integration in teacher education. It begins with a context for the changing nature of
educational technology and how it contributes to 21st century skills in teaching and learning.
Next, the chapter offers global trends and demands in technology integration affecting
transformation of higher education. It provides relevant perspective on the focus of this study.
The standards and suggested models and current status of K-12 teacher education programs show
the gaps between intended performance goals and current performance level of the teacher
preparation in technology integration. Also, challenges that government infrastructure, teacher
education school administrators, teacher candidates, and teachers are facing demonstrate how
teacher education programs better prepare teacher candidates for their future practice in class.
Finally, relevant knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues of teacher and teacher
candidates are discussed as predictors of individual professional development success in teacher
education programs and their future teaching profession.
Educational Technology in Teaching and Learning
Worldwide, the importance of educational technology in teaching and learning in K-12
and postsecondary education is growing (Inan & Lowther, 2010; Jenkins, Browne, Walker, &
Hewitt, 2011; Spires et al., 2012). Researchers define educational technology as
multidisciplinary activity and instructional design science (Issroff & Scanlon, 2010) comprised
of design, development, implementation, management, evaluation, assessment, and performance
technology (Reiser, 2001) in educational setting.
History of Educational Technology in Teaching and Learning
Emerging educational technology in teaching and learning has brought
interconnectedness among various fields such as education, psychology, economics, human
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 20

computer interaction and other areas (Saettler, 2004; Issroff & Scanlon, 2010). Thus, evolving
educational technology has affected changes in its terminology and media as well as context in
education system (Bennett et al., 2008; De Castell, Bryson, & Jenson, 2002; Issroff & Scanlon,
2010; Reiser, 2001; Mishra, Koehler, & Kereluik, 2009)
In the early 20th century, educational technology was initiated for instructional purposes
in the United States (Reiser, 2001). Educational technology is also called instructional design
and technology in accordance with the changes in instructional media referring not only
instructional tools but also instructors (Reiser, 2001).
From the early 1900s until now, instructional media has evolved from visual instruction
medium as supplementary curriculum materials to Internet-based resources. Briefly, there are
several major historical events in instructional media, including the national visual education
movement in 1908; audiovisual instruction movement with curriculum visualization; military
and industry training with film and other audiovisual resources during and after World War II;
instructional television channels; computer-assisted instruction with microcomputer development
in 1980s; and uses of computer, other digital technology and Internet in higher education as well
as distance education with complex interaction since 1995 (Figure 1) (De Castell et al., 2002;
Reiser, 2001; Saettler, 2004).

Figure 1. History of Media
Finally, educational technology or instructional design technology has changed in
education contexts. Broader concepts of audiovisual instruction were applied to educational and
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 21

instructional technology in early 1970s (Reiser, 2001). Advancing technology has led to uses of
new technology tools such as cellular phones for instruction, and calls for careful approaches to
various content areas for teaching and learning (Mishra et al., 2009). Mishra et al. (2009)
claimed that Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) called for educators’
need to take personal responsibility for facilitating personalized learning environment with
technology. Educators need to facilitate the process of the design, implementation, and
evaluation for teaching and learning (Issroff & Scanlon, 2010). Both researchers and
professionals in education addressed the strengths of educational and instructional technology
that are personalization and transformation of curriculum, pedagogy, teaching practice with a
managerial role as well as learning experience to motivate learners’ engaging achievement (De
Castell et al., 2002).
Twenty-First Century Skills
In the 21st century, educators need to demonstrate proficiency in new literacy skills such
as media literacy and digital knowledge, is needed in order to support traditional learning (Sharp,
2014; Young, 2012). As K – 12 students fail to link literacy and communication, Young (2012)
suggests media literacy as a gateway to establish, enhance and engage learners’ traditional
literacy skills: writing with targeting a specific audience, critical reading and evaluating
arguments. Facilitating problem-based learning with integrating technologies that enable learners
to embrace in the real-world inquiry and practice is also highlighted (Brears, MacIntyre, &
O'Sullivan, 2011; Copeland & Gray, 2002; Spires et al., 2012). There are several important 21st
century literacies that many educators in the United States and China and studies perceived:
problem solving with critical thinking, communication, collaboration, initiative and self-direction,
ICT literacy, and pedagogical content knowledge (Kereluik et al., 2013; Spires et al., 2012). To
enhance meaningful learning, teachers need to know when, why, and how to use technologies
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 22

and consider multiple aspects such as context of specific content areas, interactive and learner-
centered teaching methodologies, cultural competence development, facilitating meaningful
interactions, and required learning goals (Archambault, Wetzel, Foulger, & Williams, 2010;
Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Kereluik et al., 2013).
Benefits of Educational Technology in Teaching and Learning
In the digital age, the benefits of technology enhanced learning (TEL) are recognized in
teaching and learning in higher education (Al-Khatib, 2011; Archambault et al., 2010; Pickering
& Walsh, 2011). Benefits of purposeful technology integration in teaching and learning that
includes pedagogical application within the curriculum is also emphasized (Amelink & Scales,
2011; Donovan, Green, & Hansen, 2012). Technology-based tools with pedagogical applications
allow students new opportunities to experience and change their own learning environment,
encourage their participation and collaboration with others in their coursework not only during
the class but also anywhere outside of the classroom (Amelink & Scales, 2011). Also, when
learners’ purposeful technology integration is expected by educators with given 24/7 access to
technology tools, it is significantly influential to learners’ beliefs in technology integration and
their technology uses (Donovan et al., 2012).
Web 2.0 tools, social networking tools such as blogs, wikis and web services, are used by
teachers to transform their own pedagogy and student’s meaningful learning, as well as teacher
candidates’ enhanced learning experiences and environment (Archambault et al., 2010; Pan, Lau,
& Lai, 2010; Tur & Marí n, 2015). Uses of Web 2.0 for redesigning curriculum unit impact on
teacher educators not only offer a collaborative professional development opportunity as learner-
centered environment facilitators provide feedback and enable learners’ collaboration through
communication and feedback with one another, but also experience learners’ achievement with
better quality product development (Archambault et al., 2010). Use of Web 2.0, with activities
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 23

such as debate, can engage teacher candidates in active participation, support understanding of
the given topic, and extend teacher candidates’ use of social media in their future instruction (Tur
& Marí n, 2015). As an attempt to connect classroom experience with real teaching practice,
merging Web 2.0 into an e-Learning platform can encourage teacher educators collaboratively
advancing teacher candidates’ teaching practice and, allow teacher candidates the space and
means for knowledge transfer, generating new ideas, and reflecting their own understanding of
the teaching profession (Pan et al., 2010).
Transformation of Higher Education
Global movement in knowledge-based economic growth, powered by technological
infrastructure, puts emphasis on demands that the higher education system transform so as to
prepare a competent workforce (Jhurree, 2005; Kasworm, 2011; Rajasingham, 2011). Current
literature reveals that technology integration is a key factor for global education transformation,
which is comprised of knowledge exchange, ICT, and an Internet-driven environment (Banister
& Reinhart, 2013; Chittleborough, 2014; Goktas et al., 2009; Jang, 2008; Jhurree, 2005;
Kasworm, 2011; Moran et al., 2013; Ng’ambi, 2013; OECD, 2001; Rajasingham, 2011).
Global Trends in Technology Integration
Many countries’ governments have proposed national transformation of education, with
new strategies in technology integration for teaching and learning in order to cope with the
rapidly changing technology infrastructure (Banister & Reinhart, 2013; Chittleborough, 2014;
Goktas et al., 2009; Jang, 2008; Moran et al., 2013; Ng’ambi, 2013). The U.S. Department of
Education developed the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS), which are
frameworks of accomplishments and competencies for stakeholders in the education system:
students, teachers, administrators, coaches, and computer science educators (ISTE, 2012). They
also initiated Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) plans for meaningful
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 24

teaching and learning with technology integration (Banister & Reinhart, 2013; Polly et al., 2010).
The South African government addressed effective education through improved access to
technologies (Ng’ambi, 2013). In 2001, in order to remain competitive and improve national
strength, the Taiwanese government promoted the concepts of information technology, the
pleasures of active learning, creativity with cooperation, and lifelong learning (Jang, 2008).
Australia initiated a Teaching Teachers for the Future program using the TPACK framework to
yield improvement of teacher candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge and skills with
technology in 2010 (Chittleborough, 2014). Additionally, teacher candidates are required to
present a digital portfolio demonstrating their use of educational technologies based on the
Australian professional teaching standards (Moran et al., 2013).
Global Demands on Technology Integration
In an effort to drive transformation of education, numerous international studies
presented recommendations in professional development strategies for teacher educators and
teacher candidates (Admiraal, Janssen, Huizenga, Kranenburg, Taconis, & Corda, 2014; Al-
Zahrani, 2015; Banister & Reinhart, 2013; Chittleborough, 2014; Dashtestani, 2014; Esterhuizen,
Blignaut, & Ellis, 2013; Jang, 2008; Latham & Carr, 2012; Koc & Bakir, 2010; Moran et al.,
2013; Ng’ambi, 2013; Pan et al., 2010; Parker, Maor, & Herrington, 2013; Motteram, 2006;
Tondeur, van Braak, Sang, Voogt, Fisser, & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012; Tur & Marí n, 2015); and
promoting factors enabling technology integration of teacher candidates (Aypay et al., 2012;
Dashtestani, 2014; Esterhuizen et al., 2013; Goktas et al., 2009; Koc & Bakir, 2010). To provide
authentic learning environment and experiences to teacher candidates, South African teacher
educators had hands-on professional development experiences in online, technology-enhanced
course design, through course content development, learner support, learning task assessment,
and examination of teacher candidates’ papers (Esterhuizen et al., 2013). Australian teacher
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 25

educators took an authentic e-design course with online learning management system (LMS) that
consist of learning guidelines for interactive and authentic course design and experiencing
Internet-based learning from learner perspective (Parker et al., 2013).
Some teacher education programs provided opportunities for collaboration work through
small communities (Latham & Carr, 2012; Moran et al., 2013; Pan et al., 2010). Others
developed technology-rich curriculum or courses (Al-Zahrani, 2015; Banister & Reinhart, 2013;
Chittleborough, 2014; Motteram, 2006; Jang, 2008; Tur & Marí n, 2015). Collaborative learning
communities of teacher candidates were based on research (Latham & Carr, 2012; Moran et al.,
2013; Pan et al., 2010). One community created e-portfolios together as part of a national
accreditation process with ICT-enhanced meetings for 12 months (Moran et al., 2013). Another
community established a task force for exploring learner-centered and authentic learning with
technology through changing roles as learner and practitioner (Latham & Carr, 2012).
Recommendations the way of conveying technology-rich teaching preparation experiences were
shown in the several studies from the United Kingdom, U.S., Taiwan, Australia, and Spain:
restructuring entire teaching programs by integrating technology aligned with NETS T (Banister
& Reinhart, 2013); the development of blended learning modules comprised of self-directed
computer-mediated learning, communication, and research (Motteram, 2006); methodology
course redesign involving observing and writing teaching strategy activities (Jang, 2008); and the
extension of personal learning environment with microblogging platform used for debate
activities (Tur & Marí n, 2015)
Some factors for technology integration in teaching preparation present significant
challenges. The barriers in preparing teacher candidates’ integration of technology include low
level of teacher candidates’ technology acceptance in teaching and learning (Aypay et al., 2012);
learning environments that lack of pedagogical technology implementation training (Koc &
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 26

Bakir, 2010); lack of vicarious learning experiences observing pedagogical integration of
technology (Tondeur et al., 2012); and lack of training in uses of various technologies, computer-
assisted teaching methodologies, and facilitating learning environment (Dashtestani, 2014).
According to Ng’ambi (2013), based on a nationwide study, transformative pedagogical teaching
model with integrating technologies that consists of interaction between instructors, learners, and
resources was necessary in South African higher education teaching programs.
A nationwide study in Turkey revealed that major barriers perceived by deans, teacher
educators, and teacher candidates in 63 public and private schools of teacher education were lack
of continuing professional development training, and lack of hardware and adequate software
(Goktas et al., 2009). Researchers also showed promising practices for engaging integration of
technology in teaching practice were, including collaborative learning with exchanging ongoing
feedback and experiences (Tondeur et al., 2012) and national technology plans (Goktas et al.,
2009).
Preparing K-12 Teacher Candidates in Technology Integration
There are different kinds of emphasis on teaching technology integration in teacher
education programs (Amelink & Scales, 2011; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Larson; 2005; Sharp, 2014;
Van Laarhoven et al., 2012). The following section describes standards for being a certified
teacher or an educational technology professional in a school, and current issues and
recommendations for teacher education programs to prepare educators in technology integration
in the U.S.
Standards of Teacher Preparation Programs in the U.S.A.
Being a teacher in the U.S. requires meeting specified standards (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009;
CCSSO, 2011; Zeichner & Wray, 2001). The AECT provides standards for educational
professionals (AECT, 2012, 2013; Earle & Persichitte, 2005).
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 27

First, the U.S. teacher candidates can be certified by completing teacher education
programs, including required credit hours, and passing the state licensure examination (Akiba &
LeTendre, 2009). The state licensure examination assesses teacher candidates’ content
knowledge in Professional Assessments for Beginning Teachers (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009).
Akiba and LeTendre (2009) defined characteristics of teacher qualifications for improving
student achievement by analyzing empirical studies, government documents, and professional
teacher standards in the U.S. and other countries. The researchers categorized them into three
groups: full certification such as teacher certification; subject content including subject-matter
and pedagogical knowledge; and teaching experience. In their study, curriculum of teacher
education programs included four items: general education, subject major content, pedagogy and
teaching methods, and student teaching. Subject major can also be earned by completion of
subject-specific content credit hours and is a significant indicator of teacher quality, yielding
improved student achievement. Teaching experience is another teacher quality indicator.
InTASC (CCSSO, 2011) ensure alignment with government and state standards for
beginning and experienced K-12 teachers to be prepared for initial licensure. A set of model core
teaching standards, InTASC (CCSSO, 2011) was developed by the Council of Chief States
School Officers and written by the InTASC Core Standards Update Committee members
nominated by 19 national education organizations in the US. InTASC outlines knowledge, skills
and responsibilities that beginning and experienced K-12 teachers should have for student
achievement in learning and preparation for the workforce. There are five dimensions of InTASC:
the learner and learning, including learner development; learning differences and learning
environments; content, including content knowledge and application of content; instructional
practice, including assessment, planning for instruction, and instructional strategies; and
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 28

professional responsibility including professional learning and ethical practice and leadership
and collaboration.
The teaching portfolio is another element of teacher qualification to earn a teaching
license (Zeichner & Wray, 2001). States require teaching portfolios to see whether teacher
candidates’ level of proficiency in teaching is at acceptable level for an initial teaching licensure
(Zeichner & Wray, 2001). Also, according to Zeichner and Wray (2001), the U.S. National
Board Certification requires experienced instructors to help teacher candidates developing
portfolios to be a master teacher, and states require the portfolios for teachers who are relicensing.
The benefits of the teaching portfolio are a contribution to teacher candidates’ development and
growth in teaching; an opportunity for self-reflection in teaching and subject-specific content and
collaborative activity in teaching; and growth of self-efficacy in their practice (Zeichner & Wray,
2001).
Second, to foster technology related competent professionals in education, AECT reviews
initial and advanced School Media and Educational Technology Specialists (SMETS) programs
(Earle & Persichitte, 2005). AECT became a liaison member of the National Council for the
Accreditation of Teacher Education in 1978 and received constituent membership of the Council
in 1980. Accredited SMETS institutions are responsible for helping candidates complete SMETS
preparation programs and demonstrate the proficiencies outlined in the standards. Typical initial
SMETS programs are certification, licensure, and master’s degree programs; advanced programs
demonstrate competencies outlined in the both AECT initial and advanced standards (Earle &
Persichitte, 2005).

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 29

Table 3
AECT Mission and Vision
Mission
To provide international leadership by promoting scholarship and best
practices in the creation, use, and management of technologies for
effective teaching and learning
Vision
To be the premier international organization in educational technology,
the organization to which others refer for research and best practices
Outcomes
AECT is internationally recognized and valued by policymakers and
stakeholders as experts in the improvement of teaching and learning.
AECT members are actively engaged professionals and leaders in the
field and within the organization
Note. Adapted from “Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT)
Standards,” by AECT, 2012.

In 2012, AECT indicated a new set of standards with indicators adopted by AECT board
of directors from the book, Educational technology: A definition with commentary (Januszewski
& Molenda, 2008). The standards (AECT, 2013) are categorized into five dimensions and the
associated indicators consist of 11 items. For instance, sub-domains of design are instructional
systems design, message design, instructional strategies, and learner characteristics (AECT,
2013).
In sum, to prepare competent future educators and professionals, the U.S. teaching
licensure, InTASC, and AECT commonly call for their understanding of content knowledge and
pedagogy, gaining professional knowledge and skills, and practice experiences in professional
setting (AECT, 2012, 2013; Amelink & Scales, 2011; Earle & Persichitte, 2005; Inan & Lowther,
2010; Larson; 2005; Sharp, 2014; Van Laarhoven et al., 2012). Professionals in educational
setting need to engage themselves with reflecting their practice and their growth and readiness in
profession (Zeichner & Wray, 2001).
Current Status of Teacher Preparation Programs
A growing body of evidence has begun to document the low proficiency of faculty in
teacher education and instructional design programs in integrating technology into coursework
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 30

(Larson, 2005; Van Laarhoven et al., 2012). Research shows this lack of proficiency and
impedes teacher candidates’ implementation of future instructional practice with technology
(Van Laarhoven et al., 2012).
Professional development of teacher educators and teacher candidates showed contrasting
results in their performance outcomes (Banister & Reinhart, 2013; Van Laarhoven et al., 2012).
Van Laarhoven et al. (2012) conducted a ten-year project, Achieving Creative & Collaborative
Education Preservice Teams (ACCEPT), on the faculty integrating assistive technology expertise
in teacher education programs in the University in Illinois. Besides several curricular
enhancements and expanding the Assistive Technology Lab, three faculty development strategies
were applied increasing faculty’s assistive technology integration: co-teaching arrangements,
workshops, and written and video tutorials. Reported perceptions of the faculty on the
Familiarity and Comfort with Assistive Technology surveys indicated faculty’s positive response
related to the effectiveness and outcomes of the professional development strategies (Van
Laarhoven et al., 2010). However, only 11% faculty independently integrated assistive
technology, therefore, more intensive instruction and experiences on assistive technology
integration was recommended in order for the faculty to integrate assistive technology in their
own courses. Van Laarhoven et al. (2012) found that faculty rarely used assistive technology
integration strategies due to low confidence and relied on experts’ assistance.
Analysis in the proficiencies of teacher candidates related to the National Educational
Technology Standards for Teachers (NETS T) revealed a significant improvement of teacher
candidates in technology proficiency and integration (Banister & Reinhart, 2013). A university in
Ohio had a Preservice Infusion of Computer Technology (PICT) project consisted of using
intensive modeling and helping teachers with technology integration within their general
preparation, educational foundations, and teaching methods courses (Banister & Reinhart, 2013).
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 31

The effectiveness and outcomes of the technology-rich project was assessed by 194 teacher
candidates in their final year participating in the Wayfind Teacher Assessment (WTA). The
WTA has a 100- to 500-point scale and the ranges are below basic (below 200), basic (201-300),
proficient (301-400), and advanced (401-500). The assessment found that all the participants in
PICT were proficient (WTA score 350) in all five NETS T standards–student learning and
creativity, digital age learning experiences and assessments, digital age work and learning,
digital citizenship and responsibility, and professional growth and leadership.
How teacher candidates and teachers use technology in K-12 can be an indicator of how
teacher education programs are preparing future educators. Research found that adequate
preparation of teacher candidates included teaching the importance technology in teaching and
learning (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). Researchers found similarities and differences in
technology uses between K-12 teacher candidates and teachers (Kumar & Vigil, 2011;
Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). Kumar and Vigil (2011) conducted a questionnaire to 320
teacher candidates to examine how teacher candidates use new technologies in daily life.
Comparing their educational and informal usage of technologies revealed that teacher candidates
mainly used new technologies informally (Kumar & Vigil, 2011). Based on the results, Kumar
and Vigil (2011) asserted that teacher candidates do not automatically transfer informal
technology skills into an educational environment; therefore, teacher education programs need to
prepare teacher candidates to value technology integration. Nationwide research examined the
similarities and differences of technology use in teaching and learning between teacher educators
and PK-12 teachers (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). Four hundred twenty-six institutions
completed the questionnaire and 316 individuals met the criteria (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al.,
2012). Researchers (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012) found several differences between the two
groups. While teacher educators emphasized preparing teacher candidates using technology in
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 32

teaching and learning (30.6%), utilizing technology for personal productivity (21%), and
documenting professional growth (20.8%), 47.4% of PK-12 teachers indicated they utilize
technology to support higher-order thinking. Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. (2012) suggested that
partnerships and collaboration between teacher preparation programs and teachers are necessary
in order for professional development in best teaching methodologies of integrating technology.
Transformation of pedagogy with integrating technology and its impact on learning
achievement was found from studies (Archambault et al., 2010; Denton, 2014; Donovan &
Green, 2010; Donovan et al., 2012).
A faculty professional development project at a university in Arizona focused on changing
instructional approaches with technology (Archambault et al., 2010). The project was designed
with workshops and activities using Web 2.0 tools (Archambault et al., 2010). The TPACK
model was adopted to ensure the professional development not only integrated technology in
teaching and learning but also helped faculty transform pedagogy (Archambault et al., 2010).
The assessment of the professional development project indicated positive shifts in technological
pedagogy and content, student achievement, and changes in instructors’ roles and responsibilities
in the classrooms (Archambault et al., 2010). Eighty percent of teacher educators believed that of
integrating technology tools in courses impacted student achievement (Archambault et al., 2010).
These teacher educators saw themselves more as facilitators with student-centered learning (42%)
and expanded their roles in redesigning courses (33%) (Archambault et al., 2010).
Teacher preparation programs in California conducted two studies (Donovan & Green, 2010;
Donovan et al., 2012) to investigate the effectiveness of a technology-rich environment teacher
education. In their pilot study, Donovan and Green (2010) examined perception and perspectives
of the faculty about innovative adoption related to changed teacher education environment
facilitation by one-to-one computing of teacher candidate to laptop. One-to-one computing
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 33

environment of teacher education program resulted in faculty’s changes of their concerns in the
innovation adoption (Donovan & Green, 2010). There are seven stages of concerns in the
questionnaire: Self concerns (Awareness, Information, Personal), Task concern (Management),
and Impact concerns (Consequence, Collaboration). While overall faculty showed higher level
Self concerns, Task and Impact concerns appeared to be below than 50% level (Donovan &
Green, 2010). This study implied that differences in roles and responsibilities of the faculty need
to be considered to provide different assistance, and to prepare them before the one-to-one
initiative with collaboration offers (Donovan & Green, 2010). In a second study, Donovan et al.
(2012) administered pretest and posttest surveys comparing teacher candidates’ beliefs,
disposition, and technology integration in two teacher education program models: one-to-one
computing environment program (laptop candidates) and in a traditional credential program
(nonlaptop candidates). In this project, both of one control group with laptop candidates and non-
control group with nonlaptop candidates participated in courses and student teaching (Donovan
et al., 2012). Each laptop candidate received a laptop, tutorials utilizing specific applications at
the beginning of each semester, and had instructors managing technology-rich classroom. Based
on the analysis of Technology Proficiency Survey results, although laptop candidates’ beliefs in
technology utility and technology proficiency were lower at pretest, their beliefs, dispositions
and technology usage appeared to increase by the posttest. Likewise, ubiquitous access to
technology in teacher education better promotes 21st century skills in teacher candidates
(Donovan et al., 2012).
Models for Teacher Preparation Program
Needs of innovation in teacher preparation program has recognized from research:
expanding teachers’ views on professional development with connecting knowledge and
pedagogy in technology integration; technology evolution instead of revolution; and easy access
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 34

to supportive human and technological infrastructure (Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon, & Byers, 2002). To
meet the needs, national standards were developed to guide teacher educators so they can
increase learning achievement (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Sharp, 2014).
First, all stakeholders in education system are required to collaborate for improved learning
achievement of learners. The ISTE (2012) developed standards for administrators, coaches,
computer science educators, students and teachers for best practices and excellence with
technology. To begin with, teachers need to apply ISTE Standards for students (ISTE S) (2007)
by designing, implementing, and assessing learners’ experiences in order to engage learners with
learning improvement (ISTE, 2008). ISTE S (2007) emphasizes “creativity and innovation;
communication and collaboration; research and information fluency; critical thinking, problem
solving, and decision making; digital citizenship; and technology operations and concepts (pp. 1-
2).” ISTE T (ISTE, 2008) implies needs in various teachers’ roles for enhancing these learning
outcomes.
Table 4
International Society for Technology in Education Standards for Teachers
Standard 1
Facilitator. Teachers use content knowledge with pedagogy and technology
for learners’ experiences bringing advance learning and creativity
Standard 2
Instructional designer. Teachers develop and examine authentic learning
experiences and assessments meeting ISTE S
Standard 3
Innovative professionals. Teachers model knowledge, skills, and digital age
work processes
Standard 4
Professional practitioners. Teachers promote digital culture and citizenship
with ethics and responsibilities
Standard 5
Literacy practitioners. Teachers continue professional development as
leaders in schools and communities with using technologies tools and
resources effectively
Note. Adapted from “International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for
Teachers” by ISTE, 2008.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 35

Second, national teacher accreditation standards also emphasize technology integration for
teaching and learning. InTASC model in core teaching standards (CCSSO, 2011) also specified
technology integration in teaching and learning. Technology’s powerful role in promoting
learners’ independent and collaborative learning experiences was addressed along with the
teachers’ uses of information and communications technology to facilitate access to content
knowledge (CCSSO, 2011). To guide learners’ performance with social interaction and self-
motivation, InTASC emphasized teachers’ technology integration and collaboration with others
to facilitate technology-enhanced learning environments (CCSSO, 2011). Self-directed learning
with communication and collaboration are given to teachers as their adequate mission.
Table 5
InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards
Standard 1
Understanding of interpreting adequate interactive information
technologies to learners’ achievement
Standard 2
Understanding and using instructional strategies based on empirical
resources and various human and technology resources for personalized
learning and learner engagement
Standard 3
Understanding impact of media and technology on content knowledge and
skill development and analyzing quality, accuracy, and efficacy of these
resources
Standard 4
Continuing professional development in technology integration for
analyzing learners to meet learners’ needs with appropriate and ethical uses
of information technology sources
Note. Adapted from “InTASC model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue.” by
CCSSO, 2011.

Third, the NETP, the U.S. Department of Education (2010) emphasized technology
integration in American education that encourages professional educators to establish their
capacity in interrelating technology and teaching. Through collaborative works with other
practitioners, educators are able to access data and analytic tools and use the insights from these
resources in their classroom. In this connected teaching model, a team activity is essential, such
as learning communities online that includes other educators, professional experts, learners and
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 36

their peers and parents, and members of professional organizations. NETP (The U.S. Department
of Education, 2010) asserted that inducing connected teaching in American education system and
organizational innovation supporting educators in their professional setting are required. To
engage and empower learning, also, individuals in educational setting are necessary to learn how
to utilize technology just as professionals routinely using Web 2.0 tools and digital content for
their professional research, collaboration, and communication and gathering and analyzing data
with real-world visualization tools (The U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Finally, many studies showed the growing importance of teacher and faculty
development in technology integration strategies (Hestness, McDonald, Breslyn, McGinnis, &
Mouza, 2014; Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Polly et al., 2010; Tondeur, Braak, Sang, Voogt, Fisser
& Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2012; Yilmazel-Sahin & Oxford, 2010).
Researchers conducted a document analysis of a number of publications from the
Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) initiative of the U.S. Department of
Education (Polly et al., 2010). They looked for effective strategies for the transformation of
teacher education through technology integration. Based on the TPACK (Koehler & Mishra,
2009) framework, themes related to teacher education that Polly et al. (2010) found were: the
mentoring teacher educators; promoting TPACK of teacher candidates; the developing
technology-rich instructional materials; and administrative support in PT3 projects. Through the
teacher education programs’ curricula development with TPACK for general and methods
courses, teacher educators experienced not only their technological knowledge improvement but
also more frequent technology uses in courses. In addition, teacher candidates appeared to have a
positive perception of technology and more frequently used technology integration during their
study as well as own teaching (Polly et al., 2010). Furthermore, administrative support in teacher
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 37

education programs prioritizing PT3 projects with other initiative alignment positively
influenced PT3 projects implementation (Polly et al., 2010).
Seven teacher education faculty development models in technology integration were
identified and analyzed by researchers for excellent faculty professional development outcomes
(Yilmazel-Sahin & Oxford, 2010). Researchers categorized these models into three types:
workshops, mentorship, and the university-school collaborations. Among these models, the
project-based workshop model was the most effective among workshop models with increased
participants’ awareness of their own needs and follow-up. Recommended criteria for faculty
development model were: organizational and strategic goals for change and prolonged quality
improvement; planning based on a participants’ needs assessment; hands-on experience
involvement; relevant and clear material offering; implementation involving adequate activities,
structures, and collaboration; attitude and beliefs related component; support and incentives in
various forms; generating commitment to further steps; and connected to organizational reward
or recognition (Yilmazel-Sahin & Oxford, 2010).
Transformation in teacher preparation programs calls for preparation in integration of
instructional technology both of teachers and teacher candidates. Recommended teacher
candidate development strategies were establishing online support community (Strycker, 2012),
aligning theory and practice (Tondeur et al., 2012), and interconnecting TPACK and skills
(Hsetness et al., 2014). Online support community promotes assistance from educational
technology professionals and other teacher candidates during this teaching experience, as teacher
candidates do not have access to proper support (Strycker, 2012). In this study (Strycker, 2012),
most teacher candidates showed higher interest in community development and participating in
the community. They dominantly demanded the general support during field teaching experience
and a place for sharing personal experiences of successes and failures. In Fall 2012, the
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 38

institution developed an online community support system with two considerations: balancing
community members knowing each other and keeping user anonymity and continuing
contribution of community members (Strycker, 2012). Teacher professional development with
TPACK is also addressed in K-12 science education related to climate change education
according to Hsetness et al. (2014). Based on the researchers’ science education literature review,
teachers’ proficiency and approach in technology integration connecting technology, content,
and pedagogy is required in order to promote learners’ better understanding and engagement in
science and technology.
Teacher candidates’ preparation in technology integration in their future classrooms is
emphasized by researchers from Belgium, China, the Netherlands, and the U.S (Tondeur et al.,
2012). A systematic review of 19 empirical studies from six different countries found excellence
in teacher candidates’ preparedness with content and delivery methods (Tondeur et al., 2012).
The researchers developed an overarching model for teacher candidates’ preparedness in
technology integration based on their findings. The model emphasized in “aligning theory and
practice, and systematic and systemic change efforts (Tondeur et al., p. 141)” at micro level as
well as institutional level.
In sum, collaboration between stakeholders in education system is essential for successful
transformation in teacher education programs. To do that, variety roles of the stakeholders with
their technological pedagogical content (TPACK) knowledge and skills are necessary in order
for improved learning achievement enhancement.
Challenges in K-12 Teacher Preparation in Technology Integration
Despite the progress that educational institutions have been made, teacher preparation
institutions and K-12 schools need extensive support to prepare educators to integrate technology
in their practice. To promote learners’ achievement with technology, collaborative effort among
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 39

government infrastructure, administration support, teacher candidates, and K-12 teachers are
important (Parkay et al., 2010).
Government Infrastructure
Challenges with regard to government infrastructure in technology integration are
inevitable in the U.S. (Jhurree, 2005; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Two major
challenges establishing a comprehensive infrastructure with technology integration at a national
level are: sustainable access to technology and enabling transformation of education in teaching
and learning empowered by technology; and developing standards and technology-based
assessments measuring competencies and proficiencies in every content area (Litowitz, 2014;
Parkay et al., 2010; Spires et al., 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). First, availability
of 24/7 access to technology for learning resources and experts outside the classroom depends on
family socioeconomic background, with students from low-income families generally having
lower access and use of 21
st
century technologies (Parkay et al., 2010). Educators felt restricted
due to the lack of access to hardware and software as well as to useful Internet sites (Spires et al.,
2012). Although schools are more equipped than in the past with latest technologies, many US
schools need funding to replace or update technologies and technical support is needed. (Parkay
et al., 2010; Spires et al., 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Access to 21
st
century resources means not only availability of necessary materials, but
also having opportunities for professional training and development (Parkay et al., 2010; Spires
et al., 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Professional development is required to
minimize the gap in the levels of understanding technology integration and the uses of
technologies in teaching and learning in educators’ specific content areas (Spires et al., 2012;
U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Second, in a national education system, developing
improved national standards and technology-based assessment within the context of related
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 40

issues and problems in society is urgent (Litowitz, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
For instance, composite curriculum and accreditation guidelines should be determined and
updated to better prepare teacher candidates in technology, and engineer teacher education
programs in accordance with the latest changes in the field (Litowitz, 2014). Sufficient
communication between decision makers and educators is recommended to align standards,
curriculum with 21
st
century skills, and assessment for lifelong learning (Spires et al., 2012).
School Administrators
Current literature shows inconsistent technology integration of teachers in schools due to
lack of support from administration, which results in teachers not having necessary training and
equipment (Barron, Kemker, Harmes, & Kalaydjian, 2003; Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Hew &
Brush, 2007; Pan & Franklin, 2011; Spires et al., 2012; Van Laarhoven et al., 2012).
In order for the professional development to improve teachers’ implementation of
technology integration, administrators need to know teachers’ levels of technology integration
through a system of observation and to find the barriers preventing effective technology
integration (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Pan & Franklin, 2011). The different levels of educators’
knowledge and skills and understanding of technology integration must be considered. More
intensive and extended professional development opportunities with hands-on experiences are
necessary, especially for novice educators (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Polly et al., 2010; Van
Laarhoven et al., 2012). Based on the analysis of empirical studies from 1995 to 2006, the lack
of knowledge and skills in specific technology, pedagogy, and classroom management related to
technology integration is one of the factors impeding teachers’ use of technology (Hew & Brush,
2007). Educator professional development should focus on consistency between these
knowledge and skills and participants’ needs (Hew & Brush, 2007). Polly et al. (2010) advocate
for existing studies that, for individualized professional development experience, that mentoring
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 41

teacher educators is suggested for promoting technology integration with independent practice
during their courses related to TPACK (Mishra, Koehler & Kereluik, 2009). Also, the addition of
reliance on the technology support professionals for novice educators is suggested in order to
support their technology proficiency development and improvement (Van Laarhoven et al.,
2012).
Creating flexible and learner-centered learning environment for tailored and personalized
learning calls for administrators’ supports in overall support, equipment (hardware and software)
availability, technical support, and time (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan &
Lowther, 2010; Pan & Franklin, 2011; Polly et al., 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
These supports show positive effects on educators’ beliefs, readiness, and proficiency in
technology integration (Inan & Lowther, 2010). However, research has shown that there is an
overall lack of support funding and maintaining technology integration when aligning it with
other priorities and goals (Polly et al., 2010). In order to provide adequate and sufficient access
by teachers and learners to technologies, sufficient number of latest hardware and software with
strong bandwidth and storage and reliable servers need to be provided (Bauer & Kenton, 2005;
Hew & Brush, 2007). In addition, according to nationwide survey results, the integration of Web
2.0 tools in teaching and learning may be increased by administrators’ supporting and
understanding the technology’s benefits (Pan & Franklin, 2011).
Both the NETP 2010 (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) and Pan and Franklin (2010)
emphasized ensuring security protocols and privacy policies through the use of technology tools
and access to multiple resources. Besides overall support, technical support is another positive
factor influencing educators’ proficiency of integrating technology in instructional setting. There
are few efficient recommendations for the support: training students to handle simple problems;
employing technicians only when issues are beyond stakeholders’ abilities; and employing tech-
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 42

coordinators for curriculum design (Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010; U.S.
Department of Education, 2010).
Furthermore, in order for technology to be effectively integrated in teaching and learning,
educational administrators’ understanding is required in various dimensions: learners’
engagement in specific content areas and the interrelationship among them with critical thinking;
pedagogy of technology integration; and educators’ attitudes and beliefs in technology use
(Berry & Marx, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007; Pan & Franklin, 2011; U.S. Department of Education,
2010). In addition, “to meet the demands of standards-based accountability” (Hew & Brush,
2007, p. 240) administrators need to support teacher candidates and teachers with a vision of
aligning priorities between K-12 school and teacher education programs (Hew & Brush, 2007;
Polly et al., 2010).
Teacher Candidates and Teachers
Key factors that cause teachers’ inconsistent integration of technology in classroom are
the lack of time needed to invest in curriculum development (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Also, there
is no clear definition of effective pedagogy with regard to technology integration as the
definition goes through consistent changes (Okojie, Olinzock, & Okojie-Boulder, 2006).
One of the major barriers influencing teachers’ technology integration is lack of time for
technology education and continuing professional development (Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Parkay
et al., 2010). To design and develop lesson plans with the integration of technology, teachers
need extra time built into the curriculum as well as back-up plans alternatives in the case of
technology failure (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Thirty percent of teachers indicated that lack of time
to access computers, especially time management during class time due to the ratio of students
per computer (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). Eleven percent of teachers used educational technologies
in teaching and learning (Parkay et al., 2010), and they utilized computers about 50% of their
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 43

course hours (Bauer & Kenton, 2005). The implications of these factors are low level of learning
engagement in technology instruction and less vibrant classroom environment (Bauer & Kenton,
2005; Parkay et al., 2010).
Teachers’ readiness is another highest influential dimension of technology integration
(Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Parkay et al., 2010). Inan
and Lowther (2010) defined teachers’ readiness as “teacher perception of their capabilities and
skills required to integrate technology into their classroom instruction” (p. 141). Teachers’ low
proficiency in specific technology knowledge and skills prevents their use of technology (Hew &
Brush, 2007). In order to expand teachers’ roles and enhance learners’ higher-order of critical
thinking and problem solving, careful and purposive uses of technology are required by teachers
(Parkay et al., 2010).
Teacher integration of technology is also highly affected by their beliefs and perception in
the interrelationship between pedagogy and technology (Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther,
2010; Okojie et al., 2006; Parkay et al., 2010). To enhance teachers’ critical thinking with their
technology integration practice, they need to perceive and emphasize educational technology
with understanding of pedagogical principles for teaching and learning (Okojie et al., 2006).
Hence, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs, along with their beliefs in technology integration determine
their attitudes toward technology integration in their classrooms (Hew & Brush, 2007). Ertmer
(2005) concluded that teachers’ beliefs in technology related to teaching and learning can be
changed by combination of personal and vicarious experiences as well as social-cultural
influences. These include: professional development opportunities begin with simple and explicit
processes; observing models enacting specific teaching and learning performance strategies; and
professional community participation discussing values and opinions in transforming practice.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 44

An additional barrier to K-12 teachers and teacher candidates in technology integration,
which was found from various projects, is the misalignment of environment and the uses of
technology between K-12 institutions and teacher education programs (Polly et al., 2010). While
technology-rich student teaching experiences have positive effects on teacher candidates’
attitudes toward technology integration relevant to TPACK, lack of technology-rich environment
in K-12 institutions limits their professional development opportunity (Polly, et al., 2010).
Teacher Candidate Effective Integration of Technology in Classroom Instruction
Successful goal achievement of individuals, groups, and organizations requires
identifying and closing performance gaps in deficit of knowledge and skills, motivation factors,
and organizational and cultural context (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Likewise, effective
technology integration of teachers and teacher candidates is affected by various factors in
knowledge and skills, motivation and organization context (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010;
Inan & Lowther, 2010; Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011).
Teacher Candidate Knowledge and Skills Issues
Researchers (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011) emphasize the importance of different types
of knowledge in understanding performance: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge. Knowledge dimensions also can be defined as equity and challenges, knowing what
to access, and being clear about goals (Rueda, 2011). Issues and recommendations related to
preparing procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge of teacher candidates and
teachers in technology integration is captured from many studies (Banister & Reinhart, 2013;
Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Koc & Bakir, 2010; Motteram, 2006).
Computer proficiency and digital literacy are recognized as the most influential
procedural knowledge dimension toward effective integration of technology of teacher
candidates and teachers in education (Abbitt, 2011; Banister & Reinhart, 2013; Ertmer &
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 45

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Kereluik et al., 2013;
Koc & Bakir, 2010; Kumar & Vigil, 2011; Motteram, 2006; Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2014). Digital
and information literacy means not only foundational knowledge of technology but also changes
in instruction methods, ways of learning, and redesigning knowledge in most dimensions of
disciplines (Kereluik et al., 2013). Research about teacher candidates’ proficiency level
assessment in NETS T confirmed their competency level, and its alignment between their
perceived and actual proficiency level (Banister & Reinhart, 2013). In addition, according to
Inan and Lowther (2010), most teachers (n=1,382) in Tennessee K-12 institutions with average
15-year teaching experience rated their computer proficiency as moderate or good. However,
their year of teaching and age was found to be negative factors in technology integration (Inan &
Lowther, 2010). Besides computer proficiency and digital literacy, soft skills, and teaching
methodologies and theories were shown as key multimedia competencies from most job
announcement for educational technologist (Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2014). In addition,
recommendations have been made to better prepare teacher candidates for technology integration:
teacher education programs providing various activities with applications of advanced and
emerging technology tools (Koc & Bakir, 2010); teacher educators to modeling the uses of
technology, as well as teacher candidates creating online content (Kumar & Vigil, 2011). Also,
continued professional development of teachers in their pedagogical practices during the process
of instructional design, implementation, and evaluation was recommended (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010).
For conceptual knowledge in teachers’ integration of technology, the importance of
understanding the uses and selecting of adequate technology, pedagogical aspect, and learner-
centered instruction was emphasized by researchers (Abbitt, 2011; Banister & Reinhard, 2013;
Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007; Koc & Bakir, 2010; Motteram, 2006;
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 46

Sharp, 2014). To promote meaningful learning, pedagogical understanding of educators with
technology is essential to facilitate learning experiences, inspire student creativity, and assess the
experiences (Sharp, 2014). The results of assessment can lead the differentiating instruction in
order for learner-centered instruction (Banister & Reinhart, 2013). In addition, educators need to
know the parameter of the ICT resources, and which ICT to use for specific pedagogical practice
for supporting meaningful learning achievement (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Koc and
Bakir (2010) presented a constructivist model related to uses of technology in teaching and
learning, and highlighted meaningful learning with engagement in higher order critical thinking.
In metacognition, knowledge issue related to instructional technology integration, self-
regulation, self-directed learning, and self-reflection were addressed in a number of studies
(Banister & Reinhart, 2013; Brears et al, 2011, Kereluik et al., 2013; Denton, 2014; Kumar &
Vigil, 2011; Brears et al., 2011; Spired, Morris, & Zhang, 2012; Motteram, 2006; Teacher
Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011). Brears et al. (2011) claimed that metacognitive skill
development of teacher candidates through problem-based learning (PBL) is necessary, and that
it can be transferred to their future practice. Twenty first century teacher candidates are required
to gain self-regulation skills to be successful (Kereluik et al., 2013). In order to provide a
metacognitive learning opportunity, teachers in the United States and China indicated that
computer utility can enable learner-centered learning and self-discovery experiences (Spires et
al., 2012). Also, assessment results of teacher candidates’ proficiencies outlined by NETS T
provided them an opportunity to critically reflect their knowledge and skills in instructional
technology (Banister & Reinhart, 2013). Although teacher candidates are highly skilled in using
technology tools, their informal technical skills need to be transferred to formal settings for
educational purposes (Kumar & Vigil 2011).

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 47

Teacher Candidate Motivation Issues
In order to identify and minimize performance gaps in schools and business, other
motivational principles and processes should be considered besides knowledge dimension (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Motivation factors of teacher candidates and teachers in
instructional technology integration that were found by researchers were
1. self-efficacy (Aypay et al., 2012; Bauer & Kenton, 2005; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich,
2010; Guo et al., 2012; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Pan & Franklin, 2011),
2. beliefs (Guo et al., 2012; Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan
& Lowther, 2010),
3. value (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Kereluik et al., 2013; Kumar & Vigil, 2011;
Spires et al., 2012),
4. goal orientations (Yeung et al., 2014), and
5. collaboration (Kereluik et al., 2013; Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2014; Teacher Leadership
Exploratory Consortium, 2011; Yeung et al., 2014).
Teachers’ readiness to integrate technology was addressed as the most significant aspect
toward their implementation of it in teaching (Inan & Lowther, 2010). Based on the analysis of
nationwide study related to Web 2.0 tool use, teachers’ lack of confidence negatively affected the
frequency of their use of Web 2.0 tools in teaching and learning (Pan & Franklin, 2011). It shows
the interrelationship between teachers’ procedural knowledge and skills and their self-efficacy.
Bauer and Kenton (2005) advocated that self-efficacy, confidence and procedural knowledge and
skills highly affect teachers’ self-efficacy in utilizing technology tools in the schools. Hence,
educators’ knowledge of technology is sufficient when they are confident to facilitate learning
environment with their knowledge (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Pan & Franklin, 2011).
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 48

Educators’ belief in their capability of making learner’s improved achievement is an
indicator of educators’ self-efficacy (Guo et al., 2012). Not only educators’ readiness to integrate
technology but also their beliefs in impact of technology integration has direct effects on
integrating technology in their practice. Educators’ beliefs in using technology and relevant
pedagogies are shown as important factors to their technology integration practice in the
classroom (Inan & Lowther, 2010). Further meaningful learning experiences with educational
technology uses can be promoted by educators’ pedagogical beliefs (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-
Leftwich, 2010). International literature review in K-12 technology integration agreed that
changing educators’ beliefs and attitudes is effective in integration of instructional technology
(Hew & Brush, 2007).
What educators value in teaching and learning is influential to the transformation of their
instruction through emerging technologies. American and Chinese middle grades teachers
addressed their higher values in problem solving based on critical thinking, communication and
collaboration skills, and initiating self-directed teaching (Spires et al., 2012). One of the mutual
knowledge domains in international research was humanistic knowledge referring integral value
in different individuals and impact of technology (Kereluik et al., 2013). Teacher educators in
teacher education programs need to equip teacher candidates so they are aware of the additional
value emerging technology integration has for reaching desirable learning goals (Kumar & Vigil,
2011). Educators’ value in using technology increases when they believe in the goal achievement
with TEL (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Teachers’ mastery goal orientations with
technology are highly related to their personal use and application in class while their
performance goal orientation in digital technology practice is merely relevant to their technology
application in teaching and learning (Yeung et al., 2014).
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 49

Lastly, technology enhanced collaboration among teacher educators, teacher candidates,
administrators, and teachers increases the advancement of their profession (Kereluik et al., 2013;
Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2014; Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium, 2011; Yeung et al.,
2014). Understanding cultural countenance of motivation means understanding of interaction in
social contexts that affecting individual’s motivation (Rueda, 2011). Teacher education programs
should enhance motivation in using digital technology tools from interactive and collaborative
work between teacher educators and teacher candidates (Yeung et al., 2014). Meaningful
interactions through communication and collaboration between stakeholders in educational
settings positively interpret their metacognitive and humanistic knowledge (Kereluik et al., 2013).
Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al. (2012) asserted that partnership between K-12 schools and teacher
education programs is necessary when considering the alignment of effective teaching
methodologies through using relevant technologies.
Teacher Candidate Organization and Resources Issues
Performance gaps can be analyzed based on cultural models and settings that include
culture in the environment, groups, and individuals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Promoting effective emerging technology integration in teaching and learning requires all
stakeholders in their organization to work together to reach their goals (ISTE, 2012; Sharp, 2014).
Within an organization that consist of highly educated, skilled, and motivated individuals,
organizational performance gaps often can be caused by their organizational resources, work
process, and value chains (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Most common organizational issues found in organizations are highly interrelated with
both their work process and resources (Clark & Estes, 2008; Hew & Brush, 2007; Inan &
Lowther, 2010; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012; Pan & Franklin, 2011; Spires et al., 2012).
Schools’ lack of adequate resources related to technology integration include: lack of available
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 50

curricular resources, digital tools, hardware, software, overall support, technical support, and
access to adequate informative materials (Hestness, McDonald, Breslyn, McGinnis, & Mouza,
2014; Inan & Lowther, 2010; Spires et al., 2010). For the effective work process of each
individual, educational institutions and programs need to accommodate them with shared vision,
adequate technology plan, policies, and protocols as well as continuing professional development
opportunity (Inan & Lowther, 2010; Spires et al., 2010).
Cultural factors of educational organizations found from research related to technology
integration are school characteristics, subject culture, leader’s vision, and values (Ertmer &
Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010; Hew & Brush, 2007; Kereluik et al., 2013; Koc & Bakir, 2010).
According to Inan and Lowther (2010), institution characteristics can define teachers’ readiness
to integrate technology in class. Educators’ technology related professional opportunity through
communications and feedback with administrators and their support can also lead teachers to
remain in their profession (Spires et al., 2012; Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium,
2011). Furthermore, existing organization culture is interrelated with educators’ knowledge and
beliefs in impact of technology (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Educators are less likely
to adopt technology integration in teaching and learning when organization and programs that do
not have effective definition of teaching and learning with technology to achieve intended
learning goals (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2010). Recommendation to teacher education
programs relative to culture and technology integration is to facilitate environments that are
authentic, learner-centered, inquiry-based, and collaborative (Koc & Bakir, 2010).
Conclusion
Educational and instructional technology, an applied science, has been constantly changing
along with rapid continuing development of numerous new instructional media. Especially, one
of instructional media, computer with Internet access has brought a number of benefits and major
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 51

impact on teaching and learning that include flexible access to resources and materials
worldwide, interactive communication and collaboration, and instructional approaches for
effective learning. As new web-based instructional media evolves, the revolution has enabled
worldwide knowledge exchange. Also, it brought attention of global demands conveying
meaningful teaching and learning experiences with technology integration to prepare learners
with personalized learning environment which can be applied to real life problem solving.
Therefore, teacher educators, teacher candidates, and teachers in K-12 teacher education and K-
12 schools now have to equip their roles with 21st century media literacy as well as TPACK
(Mishra et al., 2009). They are required to integrate technology through acquiring knowledge and
skills in not only using technology itself but also how, when, and what technology to use to reach
their intended goals. For effective emerging technology integration in schools, challenges of
integrating technology in teaching and learning urge changes in government infrastructure,
administrators, and K-12 teacher candidates and teachers. To prepare K-12 teacher candidates
and teachers integrating technology in teaching and learning, teacher education programs and K-
12 schools provide adequate and sufficient resources including overall support, technical support,
hardware, software, and continuing professional development opportunity. Research related to
technology integration of teachers and teacher candidates identifies growing needs in
examination and improvement of their digital proficiency, understanding in its pedagogical
aspect, self-regulation, and self-directed learning. To improve these factors of teacher candidates
and teachers, their readiness, beliefs, pedagogical beliefs, value beliefs to make a change in
learners’ achievement are essential. Furthermore, in order for K-12 teachers to provide
meaningful learning experiences with critical and complex thinking, collaboration and
communication, all stakeholders in education system are necessary to know where they are in
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 52

terms of competencies and motivation, and prepare educators to embrace their teaching
performance in technology integration.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 53

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to analyze the gaps to examine the student competencies
related to the new curriculum efficacy in the Fall 2015 cohort groups of the NAU’s educational
leadership in instructional systems technology master’s program. The analysis focused on the
causes, needs, and assets of this problem due to gaps in the areas of knowledge and skill,
motivation, and organizational issues. The questions that guide this study were following:
1. By December 2015, what is the current status of 100% of the students’ knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources with regard to their goal of demonstrating at the
foundational competencies, based on courses completed to date, needed for their specific
professional setting outlined by the Association for Educational Communications and
Technology (AECT) 2012 standards?
2. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational resources?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) indicated that improving organizations requires
analyzing and closing gaps in three aspects of performance: knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps. Clark and Estes’s (2008) empirical study revealed the framework of the
process to complete analysis and improve organizations. They also asserted that a customized
approach is necessary for organizations due to different environments, characteristics, and
individuals of each organization. Every organization in education, business, and government
needs to set performance goals first. After goal setting, analyzing differences between the current
performance level and the performance goals is needed to minimize the gaps and maximize the
performance achievement. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps are key elements
that need to be improved for organizational performance achievement. The first element that
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 54

needs to be identified and analyzed is the deficits of knowledge and skills of each individual of
the organization. Rueda (2011) advocated the four knowledge dimensions from Bloom’s
Taxonomy to guide the analytical process: factual knowledge refers to facts and basic
information that learners must know, conceptual knowledge means interrelationships among the
basic in specific criteria, procedural knowledge refers how to do a certain task, and
metacognitive knowledge is an individual’s cognition in the cognitive process.
The second element in the gap analysis process is motivation and finding demotivating
factors in the organization. When there is no performance gap recognized, promoting support to
replace demotivating factors into positive ones is necessary in three aspects: active choice
pursuing a goal, persistence investing in the goal accomplishment, and mental effort investing
along with the choice and persistence (Clark & Estes, 2008). Rueda (2011) indicated five
motivational principles: self-efficacy and competence beliefs meaning one’s belief about oneself
capability; attributions and control beliefs referring one’s belief about success and failure; value
referring one’s importance to a given task including attainment, intrinsic, utility, and cost value;
goals; goal orientations referring one’s pattern of beliefs such as a mastery and performance goal
orientation.
The last area that needs to be addressed is organizational performance such as
infrastructure, including providing adequate resources, materials, and support in the work
process to the people of the organization. Both Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) also
asserted that organizational culture is an important aspect to be considered for successful
improvement of organization performance. Clark and Estes (2008) saw culture in the
environment, groups, and individuals as key elements in improving performance in an
organization.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 55

Likewise, diagnosing and closing performance gaps of knowledge, motivation, and
organization with different approaches to each organization can be solutions according to the
evidence based research and case studies (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Assumed Performance Issues
Clark and Estes (2008) saw the gap analysis as an essential means to close the gaps
between current performance level and preferable performance level of the individuals and their
organization. Rueda (2011) advocated a new approach of Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
suitable for business, organizational, and educational setting. Rueda (2011) indicated that
although “comprehensive or multidimensional approach is needed (p. 11),” misalignment
between problems and solutions draw unexpected or unintended consequences. Inadequate gap
analysis such as assumed solutions without aligning with the problem and analyzing causes of
the problem often contribute to organizational problems. As such, a thorough investigation into
the causes of performance gaps should include three components: (a) scanning (informal)
interviews with stakeholders; (b) a review of related literature; and developing a (c) learning,
motivation, and organization/culture theory. Causes from related literature were discussed in
Chapter Two but also are included in the tables in Chapter Three. What follows is a discussion of
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational assumed issues for graduate students’
competencies in technology integration related to new curriculum efficacy at the NAU IST
program.
Preliminary Scanning Data
Transformation of education with technology is emphasized at the national level (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). Along with the emphasis on technology in education,
technology integration appears to be a key factor in teaching and learning (Kasworm, 2011;
OECD, 2001; Rajasingham, 2011). At the NAU IST master’s program, the 2015 Fall cohort
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 56

would master foundational competencies in technology integration under the new curriculum.
The new curriculum with foundational competencies was aligned to AECT 2012 standards:
content knowledge; content pedagogy; learning environments; professional knowledge and skills;
and research. Their knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization factors were discussed
based on the informal interviews and observations.
Knowledge and skills. Although educational technology in teaching and learning in K-
16 is significant (Inan & Lowther, 2010; Jenkins et al., 2011; Spires et al., 2012) current
literature revealed the low levels of competencies and proficiencies of teachers in technology
integration (Guzman & Nussbaum, 2009; Okojie et al., 2006; Petraglia, 1998). Required
competencies and proficiencies for teachers in technology integration include their computer
proficiency and readiness to integrate technology (Inan & Lowther, 2010), and the depth of their
understanding of how to apply pedagogical principles to practices in teaching and learning
(Okojie et al., 2006; Sharp, 2014).
At the IST program, the students may not be aware of their level of competencies and
proficiencies in technology integration in their specific professional setting. The students may
not know how to utilize educational media and technology, or what media or technology need to
be integrated for effective teaching and learning. Also, they may not know the principle of
technology integration for developing curriculum in order to provide personalized learning
environment. When developing curriculum, although adequate technology integration procedure
is necessary, the students may skip few steps in the curriculum development process. The
students may just follow the curriculum that their organization or senior teachers provided
without considering the instructional development steps such as the ADDIE model – Analysis,
Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. ADDIE is one of the instructional
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 57

development models. Adequate technology integration in teaching and learning is critical role to
instructional specialists and it is important especially for curriculum design in class.
Motivation. Motivation factors that hinder teachers’ readiness in technology integration
are teachers’ narrow perceptions of implementing technology in the classroom (Okojie et al.,
2006) and their ritual mindset of viewing professional preparation in technology integration as
adding workloads, and not as investment in continuing professional development (Galloway,
2007). Additionally, the self-efficacy of teachers in using computers is an influential element for
infusing confidence and skill in technology integration (Bauer & Kenton, 2005).
At the NAU IST program, the students in the Fall 2015 cohort groups may have low
levels of self-efficacy or group efficacy in technology integration for individual projects and
group projects. Hence, they may have deficits in self-efficacy for improving knowledge and
skills in instructional systems technology and applying them in their course study. The students
may be unsure of how to design contents for personalized learning at field experiences. Although
they may learn new instructional design strategies from the IST program, there may be
discrepancies in teaching methodologies of teaching or instructional design between K-12
schools and teacher education programs. It may cause the students to be less motivated to use
new instructional strategies that they acquired in their future practice.
Organization. There are two organizational factors that impede teachers’ competencies
and proficiencies in technology integration: teacher preparation programs in higher education
and infrastructure in education. Current literature shows that lack of training programs in
technology integration (Kleiner et al., 2007) and preparation support for the workforce (Cai,
2013) from teacher training programs in higher education institutions. Teacher preparation
programs rarely utilize technology integration strategies and teacher candidates’ learning
outcomes rarely involve assistive technology (Van Laarhoven et al., 2012). Lastly, educational
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 58

infrastructure typically includes a lack of hardware, compatible software (Bauer & Kenton,
2005), and access to necessary resources is also organizational gap in technology integration in
teaching and learning (Spires et al., 2012). Also, inadequate performance goals can be
problematic for organizational performance improvement.
The NAU IST program recruits new students with professional development
concentrations in the areas of school specialist, training and development, and online learning
and teaching in K-16 education, corporate, government, and military. When the IST program
instructors limit the course design concentrating on K-16 education, the students who are not in
K-16 education can be demotivated due to dysfunctional selection of performance goals.
Additionally, the IST program is a 100% online program and all students use an LMS for their
study. When they face technical difficulties utilizing the LMS, not getting technical support from
the NAU can frustrate the candidates pursuing completing course work. Also, if their instructors
are not reachable when needed for feedback and academic support, it may also cause low
performance.
Learning and Motivation Theory
Knowledge and skills. Krathwohl (2002) saw that the knowledge dimension is
categorized into four aspects: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge.
There are a number of issues that may affect to the organizational performance problem at the
NAU educational leadership in instructional systems technology master’s program. For the
factual knowledge aspect (Krathwohl, 2002), the Fall 2015 students of the IST program may not
be aware of their low competencies and proficiencies outlined by the AECT 2012 standards. It
would be difficult for the students to develop competencies and proficiencies in technology
integration in their specific professional setting if they are not aware of the AECT 2012
standards that they need to acquire. For the conceptual knowledge aspect (Krathwohl, 2002), the
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 59

students may not know the interrelationship and various forms of designing curriculum for
personalized learning with technology in their professional setting. For the procedural knowledge
aspect (Krathwohl, 2002), the students may not know the necessary steps to design and develop
the curriculum or courses based on the instructional design models such as ADDIE model
(Schlegel, 1995) and Dick and Carey model (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2014). The students cannot
develop systematic courses for learners if they do not know the principles and procedures for
creating personalized learning environment. For the metacognitive aspect (Krathwohl, 2002), an
important skill for facilitating learning outcomes, the students may not be aware of how to
transfer their informal technology skills into professional and educational setting with integrating
technology in order to apply the demands into course design. Furthermore, the students may not
know how to evaluate their own strengths and challenges with customizing technology for
powerful learning gains.
Motivation. Clark and Estes (2008) defined motivation into three indices: active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. When individuals confront challenges, they can make a choice to
solve the issues, and work on them persistently until progress is made, then put effort until the
problems are solved successfully. Rueda (2011) also indicated five variables in motivation
principles: self-efficacy and competence, attributions and control, value, goals, and goal
orientations. Organizational performance gaps are often caused by a lack of these motivational
factors (Clark & Estes, 2008). At the IST program, the students’ self-efficacy, belief, and value
may be perceived as motivational issues. The lack of self-efficacy of the candidates may cause
them to lack confidence in their ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills in instructional
systems technology in their current capacity. For the belief issue, the students may not have a
belief in using technology and its impact to achieve learning goals. For the value problem, the
candidates may not invest their time in continuing profession development related to emerging
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 60

TEL. According to Galloway (2007), the teacher candidates’ mindset of seeing professional
development as more workloads not as continuing professional development is the problem of
the teachers’ technology integration in educational setting. Lastly, for the goal orientation issue,
the students may not want to attempt integration technologies that are not familiar with in their
current capacity as teachers. Also, they may give up on facilitating personalized learning
environment with integrating technologies during their field experiences. As new technology
tools developed for education, it may be hard for students in this program, who are all K-12
teachers, to keep up new strategies to design courses. However, teacher’s role in facilitating
learner-centered environment for effective learning outcome is critical, and it requires their
persistence and continuing effort.
Organization. Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) recommended identifying
organizational gaps by analyzing organization cultural models and settings. The organization’s
cultural models and setting consist of culture, structure, and policies and practices of the
organization (Rueda, 2011). The students in the Fall 2015 cohort group of the IST program may
experience a lack of adequate resources to integrate technology in their teaching and learning.
Also, according to Kleiner et al. (2007) and Dashtestani (2014), lack of teacher training program
in technology integration is the national issue of the teacher candidates’ readiness in integrating
technology in class.
Although the faculty designed their curriculum and syllabus based on AECT 2012
standards, candidates may experience discrepancy in technology integration between what they
gained from the IST courses and their work setting. For instance, instructional methodologies
using technology in the IST program may be different from what is available in students’
specific professional setting (Kumar & Vigil, 2011; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). Also,
although a lot of teacher training programs emphasize how to use technology, teachers may
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 61

value the use of technology to enhance higher order thinking (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012).
For the cultural setting issue, the students may not receive adequate technical support needed
utilizing LMS for their IST course study. They also may experience lack of adequate academic
support from the instructor such as adequate feedback on course work in a timely manner. Lack
of technical and academic support from the organization may impede the students’ performance
goal accomplishment.
Summary. A summary of the sources of assumed issues categorized as Knowledge,
Motivation, and Organization is found in Table 6.
Participating Stakeholders
The study was a qualitative examination utilizing complete sampling. The purpose of the
study was to assess professional development concentrations and competencies in their specific
professional setting of the students enrolled in the IST program at the NAU. The population for
this study was all students enrolling in the IST program at the NAU in Fall 2015. This was a
complete sample constituting the entire population for the study. There were about 50 students
enrolled in Fall 2015; the participation rate for the survey was 32% and 12% of the students were
interviewed. In spring 2015, the IST program had two concentrations on developing
professionals in school specialist and training and development, and confronted low level of new
student enrollment rate. To rectify the low enrollment issue, as of Fall 2015, the IST program
made a decision to add a third professional development concentration in online learning and
teaching, and to design a new curriculum aligned with competencies outlined by the AECT 2012
standards. Students enrolled in Fall 2015 were the first cohort groups for whom the IST program
offered three program concentrations.
There were two major reasons the students enrolled in Fall 2015 were the suitable sample
for this study. First, the students were the first students to have the new curriculum and
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 62

concentration made them suitable. Also, the students were the best sample with which to
evaluate efficacy of the new curriculum in improving foundational knowledge and skills. This
study evaluated whether the new curriculum design prepared students to be competent
professionals as the IST program intended. Therefore, the students enrolled in the IST program at
the NAU were the most suitable sampling for this qualitative study.
Data Collection
Permission from University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board for
collecting quantitative and qualitative data was obtained prior to data collection. Data collection
tools included a survey, interviews, and document analysis. The population for the surveys and
interviews was the enrolled students of the NAU Educational Leadership in Instructional
Systems Technology master’s program who enrolled in Fall 2015.
Surveys
This qualitative study utilized Qualtrics to provide easy access for participants. The
students enrolled in Fall 2015 were about 50 students and the survey was sent to the whole
population. The survey protocol included demographic questions related to the students’
academic background and professional background. The survey also assessed professional
competencies in technology integration that are outlined by the AECT 2012 standards. Under the
new curriculum that was aligned with the AECT 2012 standards, specific knowledge, motivation,
and organizational factors of the participants were gathered to analyze both the positive and
negative effect of the new curriculum for effective professional development. The data was
collected and stored in a cloud-based server with a secure account and accessible only to the case
study researcher. The survey instrument can be found in Appendix A.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 63

Interviews
This study also utilized interviews to gain a deeper understanding of students’
competencies. Participants for the interviews were the individuals indicating their willingness to
participation through a question of the survey. All participants were anticipated to be interviewed.
The interviews were video record. Identifiable information was collected and these identifiers
were stored separately from the data itself. The interviews followed a semi-structured interview
protocol consisting of open-ended interview questions. The transcriptions and recordings of the
interviews were stored in a secure cloud-based setting and the researcher was the only person
with access to ensure confidentiality. The interviews began with specific knowledge, motivation,
and organizational elements of proficiency and competency in technology integration in teaching
and learning gained by completion of the Fall 2015 IST program courses. Further interview
assessing effectiveness of the new curriculum in the IST program was asked: knowledge and
skills in instructional setting; media selection; research and evaluation; contemporary issues and
trends in instructional systems technology for personalized learning in K-16 education. The
interview protocol is included in Appendix B.
Document Analysis
To triangulate the quantitative and qualitative data from surveys and interview of this
research, the researcher analyzed the Fall 2015 course syllabus of the IST program that were
relevant to proficiency and competency that are outlined by AECT 2012 standards.
Validation of the Performance Issues
The remaining sections of Chapter Three demonstrate how the assumed issues were
validated in order to conclude which might require solutions and which turn out not to be issues
and therefore require no solutions.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 64

There were several issues that must be validated in order to analyze the performance of
the students in Fall 2015 competencies related to the IST program new curriculum efficacy. Each
of the critical aspect of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational issues were
validated using both qualitative and quantitative data. The data was gathered from surveys
including a Likert scale and open-ended surveys and interview. In order to assess factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge and skills, the students’ knowledge and
skills about instructional design and development, application of instructional design principles
in their current work setting, instructional design and development process, and their strength in
informal knowledge transfer into formal educational setting were asked. Students’ levels of self-
efficacy and belief in acquiring and applying knowledge and skills in instructional systems
technology, attainment values in continuing professional development investment, and
motivation from interactive and collaborative activity in their current capacity were also assessed.
For assessing organization and culture aspect, the students were asked about the IST program’s
proper support in well designed and implemented instruction, technical support, academic
support and resources. The following (Table 6) is a summary of sources and validation for
assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 65

Table 6
Summary of Validation for Assumed Issues, for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Issues
Sources Assumed issues
Validation
Survey Interview Document
Knowledge
The IST students do not know instructional
methodologies in enhancing meaningful learning
achievement (L)
x x
The IST students do not know instructional
methodologies in learner-centered environment
analysis (P)
x x x
The IST students do not know instructional
strategies with technologies based on
contemporary content and pedagogy (L)
x x x
The IST students do not know links between the
uses and selecting of adequate technology,
pedagogical aspects, and learner-centered
instruction (L)
x x
The IST students do not have the multimedia
competencies related to their work setting (L)
x x
The IST students do not know the processes in
needs analysis for personalized learning (L)
x
The IST students do not know how to select
processes and resources for learning
improvement (L)
x x x
The IST students do not apply their technology
integration knowledge and skills into
educational/work setting (L)
x x
Motivation
The IST students do not have confidence in
facilitating learner-centered environment (L)
x x
The IST students do not have confidence to
implement technology integration in their
education or professional work setting (L)
x x
The IST students do not believe in impact of
using technology and relevant pedagogy on
meaningful learning experiences (L)
x
The IST students do not value continuing
professional development in technology
integration for instruction and learning (L)
x

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 66

Table 6, continued
Sources Assumed issues Validation
Organization
The IST program curriculum (courses) do not
include competencies outlined by the AECT
2012 Standards (L) (P)
x
The IST program goals are not aligned with the
IST students’ professional concentration (L) (P)
(T)
x x
The IST students do not feel that the program is
providing them well designed and implemented
instruction (L) (P) (T)
x
The IST students received adequate academic
support from the NAU (L) (T)
x
Note. P = Personal Knowledge; L = Literature; T = Learning and Motivation Theories
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed based on preliminary statistical analysis and coding into common
themes. For analyzing whether there were knowledge and skill gaps, it was categorized as factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge variables. For analyzing whether there
was lack of motivation, the variables were self-efficacy, belief, and values. For examining
whether there were organizational and cultural gaps, organizational cultural models and settings
including infrastructure, material resources, human resources and work process were analyzed.
Trustworthiness of Data
The trustworthiness of data for this study was demonstrated by triangulation of
quantitative and qualitative data from surveys, interviews, and document analysis. Survey items
were developed based on existing ‘gap analysis’ instruments from valid and reliable empirical
studies (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl (2002); Rueda (2011). The surveys and interviews were
voluntary and the identification of the responses would not appear in this study and elsewhere.
Participant criteria of this study was all students of the NAU IST master’s program in Fall 2015
that had an “A” or “G” level teaching license from the North Carolina or from another state.
After coding surveys and interviews into themes, member checks were completed by asking the
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 67

candidates whether the interpretation of the preliminary coding analysis of this study was
accurate (Merriam, 2009).
Role of Investigator
I am an alumna of the NAU IST master’s program. In this project, my role was principal
investigator to conduct a gap analysis of the new curriculum efficacy to help the NAU IST
program develop competent professionals in IST as intended. The IST program taught critical
competencies to students enrolled in Fall 2015 and it was important to assess whether and how
the new curriculum design was meeting its intended goals. To do gap analysis early on would
contribute the IST program for any necessary course correction or assurance that the new
curriculum was effective.
For this study, the IST program students enrolled in Fall 2015 were informed of my role
as a principal investigator and steps were in place to ensure the anonymity of all survey and
interview participants. Under the interview and survey protocols, the students were made aware
of participation was voluntary and their information and data of this study would not find their
identities to ensure the complete level of confidentiality. The students were also informed that
the primary purpose of this study was to collect information and data for the program
performance improvement and that any information and responses obtained during the study was
taken in anonymity and used only for that purpose. The students of the IST program were also
acknowledged that I was conducting this study as a doctoral candidate and that findings would
be presented to the IST program director. The students were made aware that finding of this
study would be presented to the IST program director and she had the authority to make a
decision what to do with the findings.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 68

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The focus of this study was to understand the fundamental issues preventing students
enrolled in the instructional systems technology master’s program of the NAU from developing
the student professional competencies in educational technology integration. The framework
used for this study was Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis. The assumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational issues that may affect the IST program’s ability to develop
student competencies with their new curriculum were delineated in Chapter Three.
The results and findings from the collected data in the area of knowledge, motivation, and
organization showed that there were no performance gaps in the IST program in Fall 2015.
Although the data suggest that the IST students were fully proficient in all standards, the nature
of the data, which is self-reported, may increase the possibility that the students were proficient
only on their emerging knowledge gained from Fall 2015. During survey and interviews,
participants knew and specifically described answers for all given questions. However, the
primary investigator of this study admits that the study protocols and results may not represent
all subject matters and contents of the IST program.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Based on the knowledge, motivation, and organization framework (Clark & Estes, 2008),
findings and results of the study were associated into four knowledge dimensions: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.
The IST students who participated in the study indicated the number of semesters
registered and course name took in Fall 2015. Students in the first year enrolled in one or two
semesters and students in the second year studied more than three semesters.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 69

Table 7
Knowledge Gaps Validated and Not Validated
Category Assumed Cause Validated
Not
Validated
New
Dimension
Factual The IST students do not know
instructional methodologies in enhancing
meaningful learning achievement
X
The IST students do not know
instructional methodologies in learner-
centered environment analysis
X
The IST students do not know
instructional strategies with technologies
based on contemporary content and
pedagogy
X
Category Assumed Cause Validated
Not
Validated
New
Dimension
Conceptual The IST students do not know links
between the uses and selecting of adequate
technology, pedagogical aspect, and
learner-centered instruction
X
Procedural The IST students do not have the
multimedia competencies related to their
work setting
X
The IST students do not know the
processes in needs analysis for
personalized learning
X
The IST students do not know how to
select processes and resources for learning
improvement
X
Metacognitive The IST students do not apply their
technology integration knowledge and
skills into educational/work setting
X

There were eight assumed causes in the knowledge area. The study found that one cause
with a new dimension, and seven causes were not validated. One assumed cause in
metacognitive knowledge was not validated through a new dimension found. Eight causes not
validated revealed that the IST students fulfilled in their factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive (self-reflection) knowledge.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 70

In addition, although none of the causes were validated and there were no knowledge
gaps in the IST students’ learning outcomes, the study did find different knowledge levels and
experiences between the students in the first year and the second year.
Differences in knowledge level and learning experiences between the students in the first
year and the second year were clarified through surveys, interviews, and document analysis. In
surveys, while students in the second year who studied showed positive learning outcomes some
of students in the first year indicated a lack of knowledge in four survey items. From the
interview, students in the second year described knowledge and skills gained from the IST
courses with specific examples. Whereas some students in the first year that took introductory or
theory-based course(s) explained that the course(s) did not include the content in depth. In
addition, different knowledge level of students in the first year and the second year was found
even when they took same courses that students in the second year gained comprehensive
knowledge through interconnecting prior knowledge while students in the first year begun
exploring the IST program.
Sufficient Factual Knowledge About the Instructional Design with Technology
The study found that none of the assumed factual knowledge causes were validated (Tables
7 and 8).
Enhancing meaningful learning achievement. The first factual knowledge assumption,
that the IST students did not know instructional methodologies in enhancing meaningful learning
achievement, was not validated through the survey question, “I learned how to analyze
instructional technologies using a variety of learning theories.” Of the 15 participants, thirteen
indicated that they gained instructional methodologies for learning achievement, while two
students in the first year specified that they did not learn them from the IST course works (Figure
2). During interviews, participants indicated the importance of differentiation in learning
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 71

principles and instructional design with technologies depending on class objectives and learners.
For example, two participants stated that “analysis is the most important thing to know -- where
to go and how not to waste learners’ time and money” and “to link learners’ knowledge to the
objectives of course to make sure that objectives meet the level of teaching.” Another participant
said that course design with using assistive technology for learners with disabilities requires
instructors’ flexibility and awareness to consider learners’ physical circumstances. Among
interview participants, about 33% of the IST students verified that courses they took did not
include instructional strategies that enhanced meaningful learning achievement. However, one of
them stated that, in adult learning, “making connections to their prior experiences,” “reinforcing
the idea of empowering them to take control of their learning,” and “helping them to establish
their own learning objectives” were important.

Figure 2. Survey Item: In my course I learned how to analyze instructional technologies using a
variety of learning theories

Instructional methodologies: Learning environment analysis. The second assumed
cause was that the IST students did not know instructional methodologies in learner-centered
environment analysis. This assumption was clearly not validated through survey, interview, and
document analysis. On the survey, one hundred percent (n=15) of participants indicated that they
learned how to analyze an effective learning environment while 14% (n=15) specified that they
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 72

did not gain knowledge in evaluating technology-rich learning environment. All interview
participants described the specific learning analysis steps for differentiated adult learning and
interactive activities in e-Learning environment and building a curriculum for learners with (or
without) disability in traditional class environment. Two stated “e-Learning environment having
learners to navigate in their own pace knowing what their technology capabilities are without
frustration.” Two other participants emphasized “creating learning climate for learners both
physically and psychologically comfortable and confident to participate and contribute.”
Different knowledge level between students: theory vs analysis. However, the
assumption and findings were clarified from the interview that those who took foundational
courses gained mainly theory-based knowledge but not the analytical skills. Students from both
in the first and the second year indicated in the surveys which courses they registered in Fall
2015 (Figure 3). Document analysis on the IST course descriptions and three course syllabi
confirmed that learner-centered environment analysis in teaching and learning was taught
throughout the courses.

Figure 3. Survey Item Findings: The Courses of the IST Students Registered in Fall 2015
Instructional strategies with technology. The third assumed cause—that the IST
students did not know instructional strategies with technologies based on contemporary content
and pedagogy—was validated through survey, interview and document analysis. While 12
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 73

students agreed that they knew methodologies in educational technology integration based on
relevant content and pedagogy, three participants (20%) said that they did not learn about the
methodologies. During interviews, 50% of participants (n=6) mentioned that they did not learn
or not in depth in the IST courses related to technology integration based on content and
pedagogy. Likewise, the assumption was validated through the interviews but not the surveys.
Hence, the findings may be contradictory. Through the document analysis and interviews,
however, the fact that the foundational courses did not include the content regarding to the
instructional strategies in educational technology implementation was confirmed.
Sufficient Conceptual Knowledge About Instructional Technology Strategies
The conceptual knowledge assumption, that the IST students did not know links between
the uses and selecting of adequate technology, pedagogical aspect, and learner-centered
instruction, was not validated. This issue was assessed though a survey item: “By using
technology in my own teaching and training, I am modeling the use of technology to my
learners.” All participants (N=15) used technology in their work and were good role models in
this respect.
Although the survey result showed that the assumption in conceptual knowledge is not
validated, the result might be objective since it is a self-report. As shown in Figure 4, participants
can choose multiple items from given four aspects that they applied for their course design. Of
15, 12 participants (80%) showed that they applied all four aspects during their instructional
course design. To be specific, all students in the second year indicated that they applied all four
aspects in their practice while three students in the first year chose few specific aspects to design
a course (Figure 4).
However, in fact, interview participants said that they did model using technologies at
work. One technology teacher stated that she led instructors on how to utilize technologies for
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 74

teaching and learning. Another data analyst at the university mentioned that he trained faculty
how to use technologies for learners with disabilities.
Therefore, the assumed cause in conceptual knowledge was not validated.

Figure 4. Survey Results: What do you consider and implement during your instructional design?

Sufficient Procedural Knowledge About Instructional Technology Integration
There were three assumed causes for the procedural knowledge gap that were not
validated.
Sufficient multimedia competencies in education context. The first assumed
procedural cause, the IST students’ knowledge and skills of multimedia competencies gained
from the IST course work, was assessed through two instruments was assessed through one
question on the survey and through the interview. On the survey items, the IST students were
asked, “I am proficient in computing related to teaching and learning.” The survey results
showed that 93% of the participants (n=15) indicated their computing proficiency as affirmative
(Figure 5). Fourteen IST students who participated in the surveys were professionals working in
K-12, higher education, or instructional design firms while some of their jobs were not related to
teaching and learning. Hence, there is a possibility that some participants were not required to
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 75

equip computing proficiency related to teaching and learning. Also, self-report in the survey may
not be objective.

Figure 5. Survey Results: I am proficient in computing related to teaching and learning
Six participants said in their interviews that they were required to utilize various computer
software and educational technologies in their specific professional settings. Participants were
asked to describe how they were using technology at work. For instance, among two technology
teachers in K-12, one stated “I teach 5th and 6th graders basic technology and basic tools and
instruct them to use technology to learn and produce items in our district,” and the other talked
about her work in leading school teachers to engage learners through experiencing the impact of
interactive technology. One university instructor used a LMS, Moodle, to teach hybrid classes
including technology evaluation, creating quizzes, and online materials. Two participants in
instructional design and assistant technology utilized two other LMS systems, Captivate and
Blackboard, to build learning models, training content, and learning portal and computer
programs designing courses for faculty in training and education.
Sufficient instructional competencies in needs analysis and selecting adequate
resources. The second assumed cause was that the IST students did not know the processes in
needs analysis for personalized learning, and this was not validated. The cause was clarified
through interview questions. One interview question was about learning environment analysis
and personalized learning development, and the other is about the process of needs analysis and
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 76

curriculum design. Through interviews, the investigator found that, while all participants did
know about the former (learning environment analysis, personalized learning development), 23%
did not learn the latter content (needs analysis process, curriculum design) during the IST
courses. Regarding personalized learning, the interview participants specified four different
needs analysis processes: evaluating human performance technology, linking required
proficiencies of instructors and learners with learning objectives, analyzing learners’ needs in all
education levels, and facilitating learning to deliver message.
The third assumed cause was that the IST students did not know how to select processes
and resources for learning improvement. This cause was examined through the survey, interview,
and document analysis. In surveys, the IST students indicated that they considered the learning
principles and effective practice models the most important for learning achievement in
educational setting (Figure 6). Fifty percent of participants did not learn about selecting adequate
instructional strategy processes. To clarify the assumption, IST course descriptions and syllabi
were reviewed to determine whether the courses in Fall 2015 included selecting adequate
instructional methodologies and materials for improved learning achievement. All courses
provided the relevant instructional strategies except few theory-based foundational courses.
Therefore, the assumed cause was not validated.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 77

Figure 6. Survey Results: How do you choose which processes and resources to provide students
to improve learning?

New Dimension in Metacognitive Knowledge About Technology Integration
The assumed metacognitive knowledge (self-reflection) gap, that the IST students did not
apply their technology integration knowledge and skills into educational or work settings, had
contradictory findings in the survey and interviews. The survey participants were asked to
indicate which computer programs they used daily among 10 given items. The participants
indicated that they utilized five of the 10 computing programs in educational setting. Although
the survey result indicated that the participants applied their informal technology knowledge into
the formal setting, the 10 computing programs provided on the survey cannot represent the
whole existing computing programs. Hence, the assumption may or may not be validated.
On the other hand, all of the IST students interviewed (n=6) described how they applied
knowledge and skills of technology integration into their educational or working environment.
One participants stated, “my last year of teaching I really got into students using technology
having learners collaboratively in groups using technology and the program to create things and
presentations,” and another said, “I do utilize a lot of data and technology systems to coordinate
internships and actual student work authorization.” They also used Content Management System
for modeling to the instructors how to utilize interactive technologies, and applied accessible
technology to learners with disability.
Likewise, the findings add a new dimension to the previously identified assumed cause.
Although the IST students may not transfer their informal technology knowledge and skills into a
formal setting, they did apply their technology integration proficiency to an education or
professional setting.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 78

Synthesis of Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The results and findings gained through data collected through multiple instruments
confirmed that there is no a knowledge gap for the IST students. Triangulation of survey,
interview, and document analysis demonstrated that none of the eight assumed causes were
validated as illustrated in Table 8. The students knew how to integrate technologies with using
instructional strategies and relevant pedagogy for learning environment analysis. Also, they were
proficient in multimedia competencies required in education context in order for conveying
personalized learning. In addition, the students applied their technology integration skills gained
from the IST courses and their self-study into the work/professional setting.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 79

Table 8
Summary of Assumed Knowledge Causes and Validation Findings
Assumed Cause Result Explanation
Factual
The IST students do not
know instructional
methodologies in
enhancing meaningful
learning achievement
Not validated
The students
knew
instructional
strategies with
technologies and
relevant pedagogy
that convey
meaningful
learning
achievement.
Survey: 87% of the students gained instructional
methodologies for learning achievement while
13% of the students in the first year did not learn
them from the IST course(s).

Interviews: 100%. Interviewees indicated “the
importance of analysis for efficient learning,”
“the link between learner’s knowledge and the
course objectives,” and “flexible course design
with assistive technology for learners with
disabilities.”
Factual
The IST students do not
know instructional
methodologies in learner-
centered environment
analysis
Survey: 100%% of the students learned how to
analyze effective learning environment.

Interviews: 100%. Interviewees indicated the
specific learning analysis steps to “differentiate
adult learning and interactive activities in e-
Learning environment,” “build a curriculum for
learners in traditional class environment,” “have
learners to navigate in their own pace,” and
“created learning climate for learners both
physically and psychologically comfortable and
confident to participate and contribute.”

Document analysis: Learner-centered
environment analysis in teaching and learning
was taught throughout the course(s).

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 80

Table 8, continued
Assumed Cause Result Explanation
Factual
The IST students do not
know instructional
strategies with
technologies based on
contemporary content and
pedagogy
Not validated
The students
knew
instructional
strategies with
technologies and
relevant pedagogy
that convey
meaningful
learning
achievement.
Survey: 80% of the students knew
methodologies in educational technology
integration based on relevant content and
pedagogy while 20% of the students did not
learn about the methodologies.

Interview: 50% of the interviewees mentioned
that they did not learn in the IST courses about
technology integration based content and
pedagogy.

Document analysis: Instructional strategies in
educational technology implementation were not
included in the foundational courses.
Conceptual
The IST students do not
know link between the
uses and selecting of
adequate technology,
pedagogical aspects, and
learner-centered
instruction
Not validated
The students
facilitated
adequate
technology uses
for instructors and
learners.
Survey: 100%. All students modeled how to
utilize technology to their learners. Among
them, 80% of the students applied four aspects:
adequacy of technology related to content;
learners’ different characteristics; flexible
learning environment; and pedagogical aspects
in integrating technology

Interview: 100%. Interviewees led instructors to
utilize technologies in teaching and learning, and
trained faculty to use technologies for learners
with disabilities.
Procedural
The IST students do not
have multimedia
competencies related to
their work setting
Not Validated
The students were
proficient in
multimedia
competencies as
well as in
analyzing needs
for learners and
their
improvement.
Survey: 93% of the students were proficient in
computing proficiency related to teaching and
learning

Interview: 100%. Interviewees were required to
have computing proficiency at work to: “teach
students basic technology to learn and produce
items,” teach hybrid classes including
technology evaluation, and design instruction
and training content.
Procedural
The IST students do not
know the processes in
needs analysis for
personalized learning
Interview: While all interviewees knew about
learning environment analysis and personalized
learning development, 23% of them did not learn
the process of needs analysis and curriculum
design.
deliver message.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 81

Table 8, continued
Assumed Cause Result Explanation
Procedural
The IST students do not
know how to select
processes and resources
for learning improvement
Not Validated
The students were
proficient in
multimedia
competencies as
well as in
analyzing needs
for learners and
their
improvement.
Survey: 100%. The students considered the
learning principles and effective practice models
the most important in order for learning
achievement.

Interview: 50% of interviewees did not learn
how to select adequate instructional strategy
processes.

Document analysis: Except theory-based
foundational courses, all IST courses provided
the relevant instructional strategies.
Metacognitive
The IST students do not
apply their technology
integration knowledge and
skills into
educational/work setting
Not Validated
The students
applied their
technology
integration
knowledge and
skills into
professional
setting.
Survey: The students utilized five of ten given
computing programs in educational setting.

Interview: 100%. All interviewees applied
knowledge and skills of technology integration
into educational/working environment.

Results and Findings for Motivational Causes
Successful learning occurs when learners are motivated to complete given tasks, or
persist in making progress to achieve goals even when they do not feel like doing any work
(Dembo & Seli, 2013). Hence, motivation dimension analysis is important in order to understand
the reasons why learning outcomes are (or are not) meeting intended goals.
Surveys and interviews were used to validate or not validate the assumed motivational
causes for the professional development outcome gaps. Assumed motivational issues addressed
in the surveys and interviews were the IST students’ lack of self-efficacy, belief, and task value
placed on the learner-centered technology integration in education/work setting and their
willingness for continuing professional development. All assumed causes in this study assessing
the IST students’ motivation were not validated.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 82

Table 9
Motivational Gaps Validated and Not Validated
Category Assumed Cause Validated
Not
Validated
New
Dimension
Self-efficacy The IST students do not have confidence
in facilitating learner-centered
environment
X
The IST students do not have confidence
to implement technology integration in
their education or professional work
setting
X
Belief The IST students do not believe in impact
of using technology and relevant
pedagogy on meaningful learning
experiences
X
Extrinsic
Value
The IST students do not value continuing
professional development in technology
integration for instruction and learning
X

Students Choose to Integrate Technology for Learning in a Formal Setting
One of the problems related to the motivation dimension was that the IST students chose
not to implement technology integration in their education or professional work setting. Related
to this issue, there were two assumed motivational causes. The first assumed cause was that the
students lacked confidence in learner-centered environment facilitation. The second assumption
was that they had low confidence in technology integration in instruction and learning. Low
levels of self-efficacy were leading them to avoid implementing technology integration in
education or professional setting.
Unlike the assumption, about 90% of survey participants were positive in their
confidence in facilitating learner-centered environment. On the survey questionnaires, students
were asked to indicate their confidence level: “I am able to use instructional design based on
learning principles and research-based practices,” “I am able to select appropriate processes and
materials to create a learner-centered environment for my students,” and “I am able to implement
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 83

collaborative activities considering diverse learners’ characteristics and abilities.” One the survey,
93% of participants for the first question (using instructional design) and second question
(selecting appropriate instructional processes and materials) and 86% of students for third
question (implementing collaborative activities) agreed that they are confident in learner-
centered instruction practice. During interviews, one stated, “I have been able to use knowledge
and practice I gained [from the IST course works] directly what I have been doing now when I
was doing the designing and consulting for industrial company.” Other interview participants,
also, specified that they are able to implement differentiated course design, personalized content
development, specific learning environment assessment, and purposeful and interactive class
activities.
The second assumed cause, the IST students’ lack of confidence in technology
integration in their education or professional work setting, was measured through the survey item,
“I am able to interpret data and reflect on the effectiveness of the design, development and
implementation of technology-supported instruction and learning.” Eighty-six percent of the
students indicated that they are able to integrate technology in their instruction and learning.
Data from the interviews confirmed that the cause was not validated, and participants noted that
they are not only required, but also actively implement technology integration at work every day.
One worked in schools as a teacher and also worked in another field as an instructional designer.
She mentioned that she used interactive and presentation related technologies during K-12
teaching practice and utilizes software programs creating e-Learning contents and Blackboard
LMS as an instructional designer. During the interview, two technology teachers in K-12
“integrate technology with matching appropriate resources with learners’ needs through
evaluation” and “have learners participated in the effective and self-reflective projects with
technology.” Also, two professionals, working in non-teaching related occupations, stated, “now
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 84

I look for the software and application in different point of view delivering the message for
accessible universal design and technology” and for helping college graduates to find internships
or jobs through software program development.
Likewise, the surveys and the interviews probed clarified that the IST students were
confident and active in technology integration implementation in formal settings. Therefore, two
assumptions in self-efficacy above were not validated.
Students in the First Year vs the Second Year: Different Levels of Self-Efficacy
In general, the IST students seemed confident in instruction and learning practice with
technology integration. However, there were one or two survey participants who indicated a lack
of confidence on all survey items related to technology-supported instruction and learning. Four
individuals with low confidence were the students in the first year (Figure 7). In Fall 2015,
students admitted to the IST program registered for one or two prerequisite courses: Foundation
of Instructional Systems Technology; Learning Principles in Instructional Systems Technology;
and Human Performance Technology. Two interview participants, the students in the first year,
stated, “I am a brand new to this program started this fall so I just took the introductory course.
So, I am not sure I can provide much information on that,” and “I don’t think I have got into that
far into the program since I have just got into main foundation for andragogy and pedagogies.”
Hence, the self-efficacy level of the students differs depending on the number of semesters they
have completed in the program and the type of courses completed (e.g., foundational, theory-
based, or advanced practice courses).
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 85

Figure 7. Survey Responses Regarding Self-Efficacy
Students Find Extrinsic Value in Continuing Professional Development
Belief and value are factors that motivate or demotivate individuals to invest time on
certain things. The first assumed cause, that the IST students did not believe that using
technology and relevant pedagogy has an impact on meaningful learning experience, was not
validated. Also, the second assumed cause, that the IST students did not value continuing
professional development in technology integration for instruction and learning, was not
validated. These two assumptions, the lack of choice to invest time to improve technology
integration skills, were presumed due to the fact that the impact of technology integration was
not convincing to the students. However, the interview data clarified that the students have a
strong belief in the impact of technology integration on meaningful learning achievement, and
they value continuing professional development in technology integration.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 86

During the interviews, participants were asked, “Transformation of education emphasizes
using technology and relevant pedagogy. How much impact do you think using technology and
relevant pedagogy have on meaningful learning experiences?” The students described the
following: appreciation in technology integration meeting the learning objectives, efficient tools
for great feedback from learners and instructors, access to materials with flexibility of location
and time, rich and meaningful learning experiences, and virtual conference with interaction in a
structured academic program. One respondent stated,
A scale 1 to 10. It’s 10. It’s so much engagement with the students. I mean truly
meaningful learning. We have a project with a fourth graders doing research and then
design a digital learning project. And they are so proud of it. Years later, they come back
and remember that. It gets them so involved but there’s no other word but meaningful
learning.
Based on the interview data on extrinsic value, 100% of the participants spent time on
self-directed professional development activities or participated in the professional development
events in technology integration. For instance, they participated in a national organization
conference in instructional design, a state wide technology conference, a national level
conference in teaching in foreign languages, and district level workshops in technology
integration in different institutions. One respondent stated,
Two weeks ago I had to learn Camtasia (screen recording software program) since not all
faculty can come to my workshop. And I use many other tools not only just focusing on
one application but also subscribing many webinars and online source.
Thus, he can connect with other universities providing accessibility for their learners with
disabilities.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 87

In summary, the findings from interviews verified that the IST students not only have
strong beliefs in the in the impact of implementing technology integration on meaningful
learning, but also highly value investing time in continuing professional development in
technology integration.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Motivational Causes
The results and findings from the surveys and the interviews confirm that there was no
motivation gap for the IST students in this study (Table 10). The students had a high level of
confidence in learner-centered environment facilitation with technology integration at work and
in education setting. Also, due to positive experiences that showed the impact of implementing
technology integration for meaningful learning, they actively invested time on continuing
professional development activities.
Table 10
Summary of the Assumed Motivation Causes and Validation Findings
Assumed Cause Result Explanation
Self-efficacy
The IST students do not
have confidence in
facilitating learner-
centered environment
Not validated
The students had
confidence in
technology
integration for
learner-centered
environment in a
formal setting.
Survey: 90% of the students indicated that they
are able to design courses selecting adequate
instructional strategies and materials, creating
learner-centered environment, and implementing
collaborative activities considering learners’
diversity.

Interviews: 100%. Interviewees conducted
instructional design and consulting, interactive
personalized course design and content
development, and purposeful class activities.
Self-efficacy
The IST students do not
have confidence to
implement technology
integration in their
education or professional
work setting
Survey: 86% of the students interpreted data and
reflected on the effectiveness of the design,
development and implementation of technology-
supported instruction and learning.

Interviews: 100%. Interviewees integrated
technology at work by using software programs
for interactive classes and learner-controlled
contents, matching adequate resources with
learners’ needs, and delivering accessible
materials.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 88

Table 10, continued,
Belief
The IST students do not
believe in impact of using
technology and relevant
pedagogy on meaningful
learning experiences
Not validated
The students had
high expectancies
toward the impact
of technology
integration on
meaningful
learning, leading
to investing time
in continuing
professional
development.
Interviews: 100%. All interviewees experienced
the impact of technology integration on
meaningful learning achievement: meeting
learning goals, getting active feedback in class,
providing flexible accessibility course materials,
and having students experiencing reflective
learning.
Extrinsic Value
The IST students do not
value continuing
professional development
in technology integration
for instruction and
learning
Interviews: 100%. All interviewees actively
participated in professional development by
attending technology integration related
conferences in a national, state, and district
level, and acquiring knowledge and skills in
webinar content development.

Results and Findings for Organizational Causes
Organizational problems often influence their stakeholders’ performance when adequate
processes or materials are missing (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). The assumed causes of
organizational performance gaps included the IST program (courses) goals, the effective
program (courses) design and the organization academic support from the NAU. The major focus
of this study on organizational performance gaps was whether the IST program’s newly designed
and implemented curriculum developed the necessary professional competencies, which are
outlined by the AECT 2012 standards. In this study, triangulation of findings was conducted by
data analysis from surveys, interviews, and documents collected.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 89

Table 11
Organizational Gaps Validated and Not Validated
Category Assumed Cause Validated
Not
Validated
New
Dimension
Program
Goals
The IST program curriculum (courses) do
not include competencies outlined by the
AECT 2012 standards
X
The IST program goals are not aligned
with the IST students’ professional
concentration
X
Effective
Program
Design
The IST students do not feel that the
program is providing them well designed
and implemented instruction
X
Academic
Support
The IST students received adequate
academic support from the NAU
X

The IST Program Goals Meet National Standards in Technology Integration
One of the four organizational assumed causes was that the IST program
curriculum/course(s) did not include competencies outlined by the AECT 2012 standards. The
interview participants were asked to specify how helpful the program curriculum was acquiring
the knowledge and skills related to each of the five standards. All interviewees (n=6) described
their knowledge and skills gained for three standards, while one respondent explained that the
course he enrolled did not include the relevant contents of two other standards. Specific
responses from the interviewees are described in Table 12.
Document analysis conducted on syllabi of three courses revealed that each IST faculty
designed their course(s) with professional competencies outlined by the AECT 2012 standards
(Table 12). Each course included two to four standards. For instance, EIST6100, Reading in
Instructional Systems Technology, was structured with an extensive literature review, building a
conceptual foundation in the IST field and designing an interactive tutorial based on theoretical
foundations. EIST 6130, Instructional Development I, required that students demonstrate four
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 90

standards after taking several prerequisite courses. The course had students analyze, design,
develop, implement, and evaluate multimedia instruction that emphasis on instructional design
principles through conducting individual and team projects. Also, EIST 6170, Human
Performance Technology, asked students examining basic concepts and principles as well as the
systematic approach to their own organization via intervention in order for organizational
performance improvement.
Table 12
The IST Program Goals and Validation Findings via Interviews
Factor AECT Standard Result Explanation
Program
Goals
Standard 1
Content Knowledge
Not Validated
Students gained
professional
competencies
outlined by the
AECT 2012
standards.
100%. Interviewees demonstrated on
needs analysis and evaluation and
learning principles.
Standard 2
Content Pedagogy
100%. Interviewees demonstrated
understanding content and relevant
pedagogy, knowing proficiency level of
instructor and learner, and developing
modules.
Standard 3
Learning
Environments
100%. Interviewees specified physical
and psychological learning environment
analysis, educational technology
evaluation, and assistant technology
integration.
Standard 4
Professional
Knowledge & Skills
5 of 6 interviewees specified
instructional design focusing on
technology integration with relevant
pedagogy, applying instructional values
on content development, and
personalized learning.
Standard 5
Research
5 of 6 interviewees addressed adequate
learning principles and technologies,
social technology, and understanding
different field practices.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 91

Figure 8. The IST Course Goals and Validation Findings via Document Analysis
The IST Professional Development Concentrations Fulfill the Students Needs
There were three professional development concentrations in the IST program: online
teaching and learning, school specialist, and training and development. The second assumed
organizational cause, that the IST program goals were not aligned with the IST students’
professional concentrations, was assessed through surveys, interviews, and document analysis.
Findings indicated that the IST program courses focused on adult learning the most, and other
fields the least (Figure 8). Also, the students’ current occupations were concentrated largely in
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 92

adult and K-12 learning. On the survey, students were asked whether, “The teaching
methodologies with technology that I learned from the IST courses are aligned to the
teaching/training strategies in my own professional work.” All of the participants agreed with the
statement. During the interviews, participants said, “this program is so different because exactly
what we learned is exactly what I am doing now,” “my focus is how to design courses and
transmit them with social technology, and the social design course in the next semester that will
be provided meets my need,” and “the design of the courses are purposeful and definitely I have
become more purposeful in my classroom setting.” Two interview participants in other fields
(e.g., data and technology, assistive technology) also mentioned that the program curriculum is
highly relevant to their next professional development concentrations.

Figure 9. Survey Responses Regarding the Professional Goal Alignment
Document analysis on course syllabi also verified that each course provided assignments
activities such as an individual professional performance research paper (EIST6100 course),
cooperative multimedia instruction development applicable to specific professional setting
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 93

(EIST6130 course), and collaborative multimedia development project for students’ own
organizations (EIST6170 course). Therefore, the assumption was not validated.
The IST Provides Effective Program Design and Instruction to the Students
The third organizational assumed cause was that the IST students did not feel the
program provided them well designed and well-implemented instruction. On the surveys, the
students were asked whether their instructor(s) provided clear learning outcome expectations and
adequate feedback for course work. All survey participants indicated that course learning
outcome expectations were clear, while 93% of the participants were satisfied with the
instructor(s)’ feedback provided. Although interview participants were not asked about their
satisfaction level on the course design, three of them appraised their instructor(s) implementing
the instructional strategies taught through the semester. On the survey questionnaires, the
participants were asked to specify an example of an assignment or an activity on “effective
implementation of educational technologies and processes based on contemporary content and
pedagogy” and “facilitating learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective
learning environments.” To the former item, the students specified some activities such as
collaborative and interactive learning content development, research paper on effective
professional development methods, online discussion board, and web-based learning material
evaluation. To the latter one, the participants demonstrated that their course activities included
learning content development with multimedia, tutorial content development and instructional
content development in schools and adult learning. Therefore, the assumption was not validated
since relevant organizational performance gap was not found.
Organization Supports Students Online and Physical Learning Environment
Lack of organizational resources can be negative elements affecting on the stakeholders’
performance outcome. To assess whether the IST program at the NAU prepared the students for
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 94

online study, the students were asked how many online courses took before the IST course work
and if there was lack of institutional academic support. Among the 18 survey participants, 50%
of the students in the second year (n=8) and 90% of the students in the first year (n=10) enrolled
in more than one course; 50% of the students in the second year and 10% of the students in the
first year never had enrolled in an online course before. Organizationally, it was assumed that the
IST students were not provided adequate academic support from the NAU. As illustrated in
Figure 10, the survey participants were asked to indicate how they satisfied with the NAU’s
academic resource support in five items. About 90% of the participants (n=15) were content with
the academic support, while 6% of the participants indicated their dissatisfaction with technical
support or software program on campus.
In summary, overall, the NAU well prepared the distance learning students both in online
learning environment and in traditional learning environment. However, the institution needs to
strengthen their academic resources in technical support online and software programs on
campus for new students. Therefore, the assumption was not validated.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 95

Figure 10. Responses to Survey Questions Regarding Institutional Academic Support for
Distance Learning Students

Synthesis of Results and Findings for Organizational Causes
The results and findings from the survey, interviews, and document analysis verified that
there was almost no organizational performance gap (Table 13). None of the assumed
organizational causes in program goals, effective program design, and institutional academic
support were validated. The IST instructors designed and implemented courses aligned with the
AECT 2012 standards, and each course design satisfied professional concentration of their
students. Also, the instructors not only well designed their course(s) but also implemented
integration of effective instructional strategies taught. In addition, organizational sufficient
academic resources confirmed that the NAU had distant learning students prepared for online
learning environment.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 96

Table 13
Summary of Results and Findings for Assumed Organizational Causes
Assumed Cause Result Explanation
Program Goals
The IST program curriculum
(courses) do not include
competencies outlined by the
AECT 2012 standards
Not Validated
The IST course
design contained
the competencies
of the AECT
standards, and
meets students’
professional
concentration.
Interviews:
5 of 8 interview questionnaires contained
each of the all five AECT 2012 standards.
100% of interviewees (n=6) provided
specific knowledge and skills about three
standards while 5 of 6 students specified
knowledge gained in two other standards.
Lack of knowledge was caused from the
course(s) that did not contain the two of
five standards.
Program Goals
The IST program goals are not
aligned with the IST students’
professional concentration
Survey: 100%. All participants satisfied
with the program curriculum design in:
Adult Learning > K-12 Learning > Other.

Interviews: Although there was no relevant
interview questionnaires 3 of 6 interviewees
appraised the instructors’ course design and
implementation.
Effective Program Design
The IST students do not feel
that the program is providing
them well designed and
implemented instruction
Not validated
The IST
instructors
provided adequate
course design and
instruction.
Survey: 100% of participants perceived the
clear course outcome expectations while
one student indicated instructor(s)’s
insufficient feedback on course work
Academic Support
The IST students received
adequate academic support
from the NAU
Not Validated
Overall, the
institute well
supported students
studying online
and on campus.
Survey: 94% of survey participants were
satisfied with the institutional academic
resources while two students of new cohort
were not content in software programs on
campus and technical support online.

Deficiencies in the IST Program
“More information regarding next steps in career path” and “professional shadowing or
lectures for us to get to see how professionals apply what we learn in class” is needed. “I would
like to see concrete examples of apps and other programs that can be used with learners.”
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 97

Recommendations for organization improvement often are made by their internal
stakeholders. To increase the IST program’s student professional development, some students
raised their voice through survey and interviews in this study. In addition, although the data
showed no performance gaps few deficiencies were identified in the IST program.
Request for Career Advising
A student in the second year in the IST program talked about her needs for career
advising via survey. Also, another student in the second year participated in the interview was
unsure about her next career path.
The IST program’s students are working professionals in teaching and learning,
instructional design, and educational context. Some of the students may be in a transition of
changing their career. For instance, some students in K-12 teaching changed their careers into
instructional design in other industry fields. Therefore, having a clear guidelines and visions
about real practice in other organizations in educational context is important to the IST students.
Disparity Between the Academic and the Real-World Practice
The IST students learn “contemporary content and pedagogy but implementing them are
not mandatory in their professional work setting.” Also, “the project that students developed
during the IST course works cannot be applied in their work since there’s no access or server and
network to upload it (project).”
Some of IST students indicated difficulties in applying what they gained from the IST
coursework into their specific professional setting. As this study discussed in Chapter Two (pp.
29-33), professionals in education context experience a disparity between professional
competencies required in higher education programs and in the real world.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 98

Changes in Student Professional Concentrations
In Fall 2015, the change in the students’ professional concentrations was identified along
with the academic year transition. The IST students’ professional concentrations are mainly in
two different sectors: K-12 instruction, and higher education/Adult Learning. The data showed
that in K-12 group, 63% of them was the students in the second year. While, in higher
education/Adult Learning group, 87% of them was the students in the first year.
However, the IST program’s course design for the students’ professional development
was still more focused on competencies required in K-12 sector. Regarding to alignment in
instructional technology methodologies between the IST course works and their professional
work, majority of students working in K-12 (67%) strongly agreed with the statement while only
one student working in higher education/adult learning strongly agreed with that
Needs in Instructors’ Syllabus Assessment
Collaboration between stakeholders yields an effective organization performance
improvement. No validated performance gaps were found in this study data. However, there was
no assessment within the IST program whether each syllabus was aligned to the program goals
before Fall 2015. Misalignment between the program curriculum and each course design may
cause not achieving intended student learning outcomes. Hence, the IST program’s assessment
on each syllabus is necessary.
Administrators’ Lack of Support
Adequate and consistent support in an administration’s level is necessary in order for the
professional development achievement. Lack of organizational support in resources and work
processes often impedes stakeholders’ performance. However, the IST program curriculum was
designed without their organization’s educational leadership department. The department did not
have a professional expert specialized in the IST field.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 99

Summary
In this study, student professional competency development in educational technology
integration was assessed through assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues. The
collected data from surveys, interviews and document analysis showed that no performance gaps
were present. Although different levels of knowledge and motivation were found between
students in the first and second year, lack of student and the IST program performance was not
found. However, from the participants’ additional comments via survey and interviews,
deficiencies of the program in a few areas were identified: career advising; alignment between
the academic and the real-world practice; course design depending on student professional
concentration; instructors’ syllabus assessment; and administrative support in curricular
development.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 100

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVALUATION
Transformation of education with technology advances calls for 21st century

skills. One
of the American national professional development standards in technology integration, the
AECT 2012 standards, presents professional competencies to integrate technology in
professional and educational settings. The NAU IST program aims to meet the standards, and has
demonstrated many effective practices in its new curriculum and program, which was launched
fall of 2015.
To review, the data from interviews and surveys showed that none of the assumed gaps
are present. So, in fact, this is a very strong case of a program that aligns its curriculum with
professional competencies outlined in the standards (Table 14). However, the data showed
different levels of knowledge and motivation between the transition from students in the first and
the second year. To bolster the IST program’s continuing success in professional development,
recommendations need be presented to rectify deficiencies discussed in chapter 4.
This chapter discusses effective practices used in the IST program, different performance
levels of their students by academic year transition, and recommendations for the IST program’s
continuing success.
Effective Practices in the IST Program
In Fall 2015, the IST program’s newly designed curriculum was applied to all students
not only in the first year, but also in the second year (Table 15). The purpose of this study was to
determine whether the IST new curriculum successfully developed their students’ foundational
professional competencies in educational technology integration.
Alignment with the National Professional Competency Standards
The IST program’s successful alignment was reinforced through data collected in the
interviews and survey of enrolled students (Table 14). The IST faculty’s performance goal, that,
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 101

by August 2015, 100% of IST faculty will implement the new curriculum aligned with AECT
2012 standards, was met (Figure 11). Also, the IST students’ performance goal, that by
December 2015, 100% of IST students will demonstrate the instructional technology
competencies needed for their specific professional setting, was achieved.
Previous Curriculum New Curriculum
Standards AECT 1997 Standards AECT 2012 Standards
Professional
Development
Concentrations
 School specialist
 Training and development
 School specialist
 Training and development
 Online learning and teaching
Required
Credit Hours
39 credits 36 credits
New Student
Enrollment
12-15 students About 30 students

Figure 11. The IST Curriculum Reform in Fall 2015
Table 14
The IST Program Alignment with the AECT 2012 Professional Competencies
AECT 2012 Standards Assumed Cause
Performance
Gaps
Standard 1 Content Knowledge
Demonstration to create, use, assess,
and manage applications of educational
technologies and processes
Factual Knowledge
Lack of knowledge in instructional
strategies with technologies based on
contemporary content and pedagogy
No Gaps
Were Found
Standard 2 Content Pedagogy
Effective implementation of
educational technology integration
based on contemporary content and
pedagogy
Procedural Knowledge
Lack of knowledge and skills in
selecting processes and resources for
learning improvement
Standard 3 Learning Environment
Facilitate learning by creating, using,
evaluating, and managing effective
learning environments
Factual Knowledge
Lack of knowledge in instructional
methodologies in learner-centered
environment analysis
Procedural Knowledge
Lack of knowledge and skills in the
processes in needs analysis for
personalized learning

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 102

Table 14, continued
AECT 2012 Standards Assumed Cause
Performance
Gaps
Standard 4
Professional Knowledge & Skills
Design, develop, implement, and
evaluate technology-rich learning
environments within a supportive
community of practice
Conceptual Knowledge
Lack of understanding in linking
between the uses and selecting of
adequate technology, pedagogical
aspect, and learner-centered instruction
No Gaps
Were Found
Procedural Knowledge
Lack of multimedia competencies
related to their work setting
Metacognitive Knowledge (self-
reflection)
Lack of application in technology
integration knowledge and skills into
educational/work setting
Standard 5 Research
Explore, evaluate, synthesize, and
apply methods of inquiry to enhance
learning and improve performance
Factual Knowledge
Lack of knowledge in instructional
methodologies in enhancing
meaningful learning achievement

Professional Development Support
Successful professional development means alignment between the professional
development program and the professional competencies required in the professional world.
There are four factors that highlight the IST program’s promising practice in student professional
development (Table 15).
Table 15
The IST Program’s Promising Performance
Academic Support Summary
Program Goals The IST program curriculum (courses) is aligned with the
competencies outlined by the AECT 2012 standards
The IST program goals are aligned with the IST students’
professional concentrations
Effective Program
Design
The IST students feel that the program is providing them well
designed and implemented instruction
Academic Support The IST students received adequate academic support from the
IST faculty and the institution

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 103

The IST program goals’ alignment with the national competencies. The IST program
goal met the professional competencies outlined by the AECT 2012 standards. The interview
participants for this study, the IST students, were asked to describe knowledge gained from the
IST courses especially related to the standards, and their responses showed no lack of knowledge.
IST program goals aligned with the students. The IST program goals were aligned
with the students’ professional development concentrations. The survey data showed that the
participants’ occupations were in K-12 (44%), higher education/adult learning (44%), and other
(11%). Also, the participants felt that the program provided well designed and implemented
instruction in adult learning primarily, and less so in other fields. In addition, the instructional
methodologies in technology integration that the IST provided were aligned to the instructional
strategies in the students’ own professional work.
The IST program’s sound instructions and course design. In coursework, the IST
faculty conveyed clear outcome expectations and adequate feedback to the students. Through the
course activities, the students learned effective implementation of educational technologies and
processes based on contemporary content and pedagogy; and facilitation of learning by creating,
using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environment.
Adequate academic support from the institution. The IST program is a 100% online
program. For the students to be successful in their courses, adequate support and resources are
essential. The NAU provided the students reading materials from the library online and on
campus, hardware and software programs on campus, and technical support for utilizing the
LMS.
Different Performance Level by Academic Year Transition
In academic program, the transition for students in the first and the second year may cause
differences in performance level. Also, students who are working professionals may have
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 104

different perspectives than those not working yet, depending on their professions and
professional concentrations.
In the IST program, the students in the first year and the second year showed different
knowledge and motivation levels. Two potential reasons for these differences could be the
transition from first to second year and the new curriculum that was offered. Students in the
second year were enrolled in more than three semesters, gained more knowledge and skills and
had higher self-efficacy than students in the first year, who enrolled in only one or two semesters.
The new curriculum implemented in Fall 2015 was applied to students in the first and the second
year. Second-year students studied under the previous curriculum until Spring 2015.
Knowledge Level Difference
Different knowledge levels between the IST students in the first and the second year were
recognized from the assumptions in factual knowledge. No knowledge gaps were present among
the students in the second year. However, some students in the first year specified that they did
not yet learn instructional strategies that enhanced meaningful learning achievement; technology-
rich learning environment analysis; and educational technology implementation. This content
was not included in the foundational theoretical courses based on the analysis in the IST course
description and the syllabi for year 1. Thus, the knowledge level difference between students
appeared to depend on academic year and the course(s) in which students enrolled.
Motivational Level Difference
Three motivational factors were measured in this study: self-efficacy, belief and extrinsic
(task) value. Two participants in this study indicated they were not confident in facilitating
learner-centered environment and technology integration in their education or professional work
setting. These IST students were in the first year and took only foundation or theoretical
course(s). In addition, although they did utilize technologies at work, their jobs were not related
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 105

to teaching and learning. Hence, the self-efficacy level difference between the IST students may
have been affected by different academic year and the course(s) they enrolled in as well as their
professions.
Recommendations for the IST Program’s Continuing Success
The IST program’s performance goal is that by May 2018, the IST program graduates will
demonstrate 100% of the proficiencies outlined by the AECT 2012 standards; this study finds
that meeting that goal can be achieved by addressing a few areas of need identified through the
data collection process. In response to specific areas of need identified by participants, and for
the IST program’s continued success, the following are actions recommended.
Recommendation 1: Bolster Career Advising Through Collaboration
Technology integration has become a driving force for the knowledge-based global
economic growth, and enhancing competent workforce through lifelong learning in higher
education system has been emphasized (Jhurree, 2005; Kasworm). In response to study
participants’ request for more specific career advising and to disparities in professional tasks
required by their courses and the real world, the IST faculty and program administrators could
help students by developing partnerships and collaboration within the program as well as
between different professional organization. Laws and Hajer (2006) indicated that mutual
reliance across institutional boundaries with networking resolve certain issues with maximizing
respective needs. This may be achieved by building online support community and partnership
with other organizations.
Online support community development. To bridge gaps in required tasks between
what the program instructors teach and what students are required to implement at work, web-
based communication tools can afford flexible and collaborative learning opportunities for
students’ professional growth (Moran et al., 2013; Pan et al., 2010; Strycker, 2012). Through
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 106

online communities comprised of existing students and alumni of the IST program, students can
share their ideas and experiences to better understand other professions in the education sector as
well as in other professions (Pan et al., 2010).
There are some examples of strong practices in similar academic programs which utilize
online ICT support students’ authentic learning experiences. To provide students a chance to
apply knowledge gained to real life problems, a teacher education program in Hong Kong
created the e-Learning platform through a joint effort with the engineering program. Through the
e-Learning platform, students not only shared teaching practicum experiences with practitioners
in the education sector that resulted in authentic learning outside the classrooms (Pan et al.,
2010). In another example, seven teacher education programs from three different Australian
universities implemented an inter-university project in which four cohort groups of students
developed professional digital portfolios (ePortfolio) utilizing ICT in a collaborative manner
(Moran et al., 2013). The project activities consisted of inter-university video conferences, online
tutorial sites, phone calls, and video calls (Skype), and students participated in these activities as
small groups, pairs, and one-to-one support sharing their practicum and ePortfolio development
experiences throughout a year.
Although aligning academic calendars between institutions was challenging, small
learning communities using simple and accessible ICT tools enabled students to acknowledge
and demonstrate their knowledge and capability as professionals (Moran et al., 2013). Lastly, an
online community for proper support and flexible accessibility was developed by the East
Carolina University teacher education program in 2012 (Strycker, 2012). The project participants
(students) preferred a discussion forum that includes integrating the community, a chat enabled
with member(s), and easy navigation within a site. Sharing experiences of success and failure
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 107

helped the students, especially when feedback or support from the program instructors was not
available (Strycker, 2012).
Likewise, to enhance and enable adequate support and networking between existing
students and alumni, online support community development is recommended. When
considering the IST program is 100% purely online and supported by two full-time faculty,
sharing professional experiences through online support community can engage students and
alumni even after graduation. Online support communities also provide opportunities to students
and alumni to continually contribute to their program when the IST faculty support may not be
available. In addition, the IST students and alumni can learn professional experiences from
different professions or different sectors that support career advising or mentoring.
Partnership with organizations in other sectors. Collaborative work within or between
organizations in the same or different sectors have been helpful in developing career support for
students. Collaborative learning opportunities are recommended by researchers (Ottenbreit-
Leftwich et al., 2012; Tondeur et al., 2012; Yilmazel-Sahin & Oxford, 2010). The IST program
students and graduates work in areas such as K-12 education, higher education, adult learning,
and instructional design related to educational technology integration. Some of them change their
careers to different sectors. Practical career advising through partnership with the IST program
and other organizations can be a cost effective way of providing extensive hands-on experiences
and opportunities to students.
Researchers presented some examples of cooperation and partnership within and between
organizations that provided extensive professional development opportunities. One study in the
United States looked for ways to resolve disparities in perspectives between teacher educators
and teachers. The study concluded that sustainable partnerships between higher education
programs and relevant institutions can allow for open debate or discussion of best teaching
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 108

practices as well as continue professional development (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). To
establish partnership, for examples, teacher educators and teachers utilized Web 2.0 tools for
project-based learning, and an academic class incorporated with a local museum for an annual
collaboration project (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). Also, to provide vicarious experiences
for education program students, the study recommended a group based community development
to exchange communications and have them interview working practitioners to learn real-world
practice experiences including successes and failures (Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2012). In
another study, university-relevant organization collaboration model, also, is created by
researchers for education program faculty to better prepare graduates’ professional growth
(Yilmazel-Sahin & Oxford. 2010). According to their research analysis (Yilmazel-Sahin &
Oxford. 2010), students and practitioners developed products together through problem-based
projects that resulted in performance improvement as well as systematic changes across
organizations. Their collaborative activities between organizations included co-curricular
development, informational and mentoring sessions and creativity, flexible hands-on practices
applying what they learned, and financial support for trainer hires and resource purchase
(Yilmazel-Sahin & Oxford. 2010).
The IST requires students take two internship courses. Through partnership, the IST can
provide students hands-on practice during their internship, and partnered organizations can have
opportunity to educate and train their prospective workers. For example, some students in K-12
can do internship at the instructional design firms and some students in other work setting can do
internship at the K-12 institutions. Therefore, partnership between the IST program and other
organizations can benefit their students to have career advising through professional experiences
in other sectors.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 109

Recommendation 2: Hire Professional Expert for Curricular Development
Leaders’ administrative support that aligns with initiatives prioritized by internal
stakeholders brings positive influences to organizational achievement (Polly et al., 2010). Having
a shared vision between leaders and stakeholders is a must in an organization in order for their
successful performance outcomes (Hew & Brush, 2007). The change in the IST students’
professional concentrations between their academic year transitions was found from the collected
data whereas the focus of the IST program courses in professional development was not
incorporated to the change. Also, administrative support for curricular development from the
educational leadership department was absent. In Polly et al. (2010)’s study, barriers for an
education program performance, also, were lack of administrative support and misalignment in
initiative priorities. To bolster administrative support, engagement of faculty and students for
their professional practice improvement needs to be enabled by professional expert’s support
through mentorship and coaching (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
There are recommended examples addressed by studies for administrative support. To
fulfill all stakeholders’ needs, researchers analyzed project reports made by various educational
organizations that included evaluation reports and performance outcome reports (Polly et al.,
2010). According to their analysis result, the role of administrative support such as matching
resource allocation is essential to education programs for their project implementation in a
priority (Polly et al., 2010). An empirical study, focusing on challenges of stakeholders working
for organizations in an education context, concluded that the major barrier in their performance
to the changes and reform was time allocation (Parkay et al., 2010). The study found that
administrators’ efforts in followings are necessary: observation to identify barriers that internal
stakeholders face; and new hire specializes and devotes to changes and reforms (Parkay et al.,
2010). In another study, a need in “an ongoing reliance on the ‘experts’ to provide
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 110

demonstrations and hands-on activities” for higher education programs was identified (Van
Laarhoven et al., 2012). Education program faculty may not be proficient in all diverse tasks that
are required to their students in specific professional settings. In this 10-year period study, the
college of education, provided grants implementation to continuing faculty professional
development and supports for innovative instructions, came to a conclusion that producing
students and faculty’s changes in actual practice calls for supports by the experts (Van
Laarhoven et al., 2012)
To minimize a lack of administrative support, the IST program can hire an external
professional expert that conducts curriculum analysis and consultation to the faculty and students.
Also, in accordance with the misalignment of professional concentrations between the IST
program and students, the expert can provide guidance to them related to professional
competencies required in the real world and career path.
Recommendation 3: Benchmark Other Institutions’ Practices
The IST program offers effective professional development supports with aligning their
performance outcomes with the national standards. For their better practices, benchmarking top-
tier program’s performance can be helpful. Online master’s programs in instructional design
from three different higher education institutions were selected to compare to the IST program’s
practice. These online programs were ranked top five in graduate level instructional design
degrees: Indiana University Instructional Systems Technology, Florida State University
Instructional Systems and Learning Technology, and Michigan State University Educational
Technology.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 111

Table 16
Academic Supports and Services by Four Different Instructional Design Programs
Category Indiana University
Florida State
University
Michigan State
University
The NAU
Required
credit hour
completion
36 credit hours 36 credit hours 30 credit hours 33 credit hours
Program
overview
o o o o
Information
for new
students
o
(website)
o
(Google slides)
o
(e-book slides)
o
(YouTube video)
Expected
professional
competencies
- o - o
Courses
o
(course
description,
schedule)
o
(course map,
description,
schedule)
o
(course
description)
o
(course map,
description,
schedule)
News letter o o o
Projects - - -
o
(student projects)
Alumni
networking
o o
(LinkedIn)
o
(LinkedIn,
Facebook)
* unique course
offerings to alumni
-
Career path
o
(job postings)
- - -

When comparing the IST program to these three programs, all these four programs
provide similar required courses, but the number and diversity of elective courses are vary
depending on the number and specialty of their faculty. For instance, Florida State University
offers electives in mobile learning, Web 2.0 based learning and performance and more research
programs connected to their doctoral program.
Three different academic supports identified from other instructional design program on
their websites were: online newsletter; alumni networking; and job postings (Table 16). To begin
with, online newsletter or a blog were created and published by these programs. Online
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 112

newsletter may imply being connected between faculty, students, and alumni. These program
stakeholders’ outstanding research and works were contained in their newsletter. Also,
program’s national rankings and latest events were also included in their newsletter or a blog.
Next, alumni’s networking through Social Networking Service programs (LinkedIn, Facebook)
has been provided. When considering the learning environment is completely online, online
communities in terms of continuing human networking can be helpful for academic and career
path of students and alumni. Academic programs, also, can track their graduates’ professional
growth. Lastly, job postings are provided by one instructional design program at the Indiana
University. On the program’s webpage, the program posted their internship offerings, and other
organizations in the IST field posted academic, corporate, and non-profit jobs.
Evaluation Plan: Assessing Graduates’ Professional Practice
Measuring an organization’s performance is to determine the success of meeting their
goals. As a specific performance measurement of training programs, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2006) emphasized the effectiveness and methods of the four-level evaluations: Reaction (Level
1), Learning (Level 2), Transfer (Level 3), and Impact (Level 4). Third and fourth levels may
require long-term evaluation plan due to internal or external environment factors (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006).
The IST program in this study showed that their program curriculum application in Fall
2015 was successful. However, one-time success does not guarantee their further success. To
continue the program’s success, strategic evaluation plan needs to be developed to measure and
track professional growth and performance of their students, graduates, and alumni. A strategic
evaluation plan should include assessing effectiveness of curriculum and instructions for
graduates. Due to time-consuming characteristics of third and fourth level evaluations
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006), the strategic plan needs to be implemented periodically: every
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 113

one, three, five, and ten-year basis. E-learning evaluation plan framework was also provided in
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s publication (2006).
Level 1: Reaction
The first level of continuing professional development program evaluation determines
how the program can be improved based on the participants’ reactions and satisfaction
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Measuring reaction can provide valuable feedback and
quantitative data in order to establish improved program performance (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2006). Periodic surveys and changes can help participants feel that their voice is heard by the
program. To assess Reaction (first level) of e-learning programs, researchers suggested six
different strategies (Table 17).
Table 17
Evaluating E-Learning Programs: Level 1 (Reaction)
Evaluation Strategy Example
Let learners vote on course
design
 Use the built in online polling feature on the course
page (learning management system) to get immediate
feedback
Set up a course discussion
thread
 Use an online discussion forum board or a blog to
provide ongoing conversation
 Questions should provoke meaningful discussion
Use chat or instant messaging
for a focus group
 Create an online chat session or an online meeting
session to record, share, and analyze brainstorming
data
Gather feedback continually  Provide frequent online mini-evaluations with one or
two questions as well as the end-of-course evaluation
Gather feedback continuously  Enable feedback at any time throughout the learning
experience for the participants’ immediate report
Record meaningful statistics
automatically
 Monitor and examine logs on learning management
system to look for trends and anomalies
Note. Adapted from an e-learning evaluation framework by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2006.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 114

Level 2: Learning
The second level of continuing professional development program evaluation measures
how the program affected the participants’ acquisition of new knowledge, skills and attitudes
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). To ensure participants are meeting the intended objectives,
the next step is to check their acquisition of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Hence, instructors’
effectiveness can be determined by measuring students’ learning outcomes and attitudes aligned
with targeted objectives (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Since learning occurs during the IST
program, assessing alumni’s learning may not be applicable. To measure the IST students’
learning, evaluations must be beyond testing and exams. Their LMS is beneficial since “tests can
be automatically administered, scored, recorded, and reported (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006,
p. 102).” To ensure the targeted competency development more efficient, the IST program may
need to provide a customizing feature that allows students a custom learning experience
identifying their own competency gap. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2006, pp. 104-107) provided
specific examples as follow:
1. The learner clicks on the customize button;
2. The learner engages in a test to identify gaps in knowledge and skills;
3. The result of the test is a custom course consisting of just the modules the learner needs.
The modules are fewer in number than the whole courses and are more specific.
Level 3: Transfer
The third level of continuing professional development program evaluation assesses how
the participants apply what they learned during the program into their professional setting
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Measuring participants’ change in behavior is feasible when
they meet opportunities to apply what they learned. There are common and different
measurements in behavioral changes that can be applied to the IST program. Via surveys, the
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 115

IST program can ask both of registered students and alumni that whether and how their learning
from the program can be applicable in their specific professional setting. The survey data may
indicate disparities between what the IST program teaches and what their students are required to
do at work. Thus, the data can provide an opportunity to refine the IST program curriculum and
course design in order for current and future student performance improvement.
Level 4: Impact
The fourth level of continuing professional development program evaluation measures
the final outcomes occur as the results of attendance and participation in the program
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). The outcome to be measured at the level-four evaluation is
whether the professional development program performance gap has closed or not. Although
evaluating e-learning results can be difficult than traditional learning, asking a right question is
the first step of the level-four evaluation: “for the top management of my university or program,
what is the single most important measure of success (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006, p. 110)?”
To estimate the IST program learning value, all stakeholders in the program including faculty,
students, and alumni can evaluate results through surveys and testimonials. All responses from
the participants can be an answer to the question “was it worth it?”
Limitations
This study has some limitations. First, due to the limited time and resources, the focus of
this study was limited to the one key stakeholder group’s experience that may or may not be
representative of other stakeholder groups. This study demonstrated performance gap analysis on
only students registered in of Fall 2015 at the NAU IST master’s program. Although findings
were triangulated from data collection with multiple iterations, additional perspectives from the
IST faculty interviews would strengthen the validation and reliability of this study. However,
other organizations and future study may strengthen the validity and reliability of this study
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 116

using Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis with comprehensive perspectives and process for
organizational performance improvement.
Second, the self-reporting aspect of survey instrumentations may limit the reliability of
the collected data. It was assumed that the participants of the surveys would understand and
interpret the given questions as the researcher intended. Also, the surveys were administered
online and participants might not complete the survey but have someone else to do so. The
utmost limitation of this study was that the study was determined based on correlational
relationship analysis not a causal one.
Finally, one-time data collection might hinder consistency of the workforce preparation
program students in instructional systems technology to survey and interview questions. In
addition, generalizability was delimited to this study due to small sample size. Although the
surveys and interviews were designed based on existing instruments including gap analysis in
knowledge, motivation, and organization aspect (Clark & Estes, 2008) and the AECT 2012
standards, additional qualitative artifacts would reduce the limitations and increase validity of
this study.
Lessons Learned and Future Research
This section describes lessons the primary investigator of this study learned during the
research process, and what she might have done differently. To begin with, the study results and
findings were based on one-semester performance of the IST program in Fall 2015. Hence, the
program’s effective practices in this study may not reflect performance outcomes in the future. It
is possible that longitudinal research would show different results. Data collection for two or
more semesters would help determine whether there are performance gaps in the IST program.
Second, the sole stakeholder in this study was the IST students enrolled in Fall 2015. Collecting
data from multiple stakeholders or cohorts may have brought different perspectives and different
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 117

findings. Triangulation of the data collection could be done through focusing on all relevant
stakeholders such as the IST faculty and the educational leadership department. Third, data from
larger population could have increased reliability of this study. In Fall 2015, the number of
students enrolled in the IST program were about 50, and the participation rate was 32% of
students for survey and 12% for interviews. Although the participation rate was not low, larger
population may have increased credibility of this study. Another issue related to the data is the
limitations of self-reported information from the participants via survey and interviews.
According to Merriam (2009), self-reported data is subject to the participants’ perspectives, and
responses could be inaccurate. Lastly, observation of stakeholders’ engagement on the LMS may
have offered an opportunity to see how the IST students and instructors actually interacted
during the semester(s) in class and during video conferences.
In sum, for future research, longitudinal research, data collection from multiple
stakeholders, sources, and larger population, and extensive observations are highly
recommended.
Conclusion
The primary goal of this study was to determine whether the IST program curriculum
launched in fall of 2015 prepared the students for their professional competency development in
educational technology integration. As learning outcomes of professional development program
indicate the program’s performance outcome (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006), the IST students
were selected as a focus group of the study. The students’ performance, assessed by Clark and
Estes gap analysis framework (2008), resulted in no performance gaps were present. Thus, the
IST program’s effective practices can be useful to organizations in similar contexts for their
learners’ professional development in educational technology integration. Nonetheless, none of
organizations are perfect and so is the IST program. Few deficiencies identified from the IST
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 118

program, and specific recommendations made for the particular subjects may help other
organizations for their problem investigation and performance improvement.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 119

References
Abbitt, J. T. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs about
technology integration and technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)
among preservice teachers. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4),
134-143.
Admiraal, W., Janssen, T., Huizenga, J., Kranenburg, F., Taconis, R., & Corda, A. (2014). E-
assessment of student-teachers' competence as new teachers. TOJET: The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 13(4), 21-29.
Akiba, M., & LeTendre, G. (2009). Improving teacher quality: The US teaching force in global
context. New York, New York: Teachers College Press.
Al-Khatib, H. (2011). Technology enhanced learning: Virtual realities; concrete results--case
study on the impact of TEL on learning. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-
Learning, 1, 12.
Al-Zahrani, A. (2015). The place of technology integration in saudi pre-service teacher education:
Matching policy with practice. TOJET : The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 14(1), 151-162.
Amelink, C. T., & Scales, G. (2011). Work in progress—A framework for assessing the impact
of instructional technology on the nature of teaching and learning. In 2011 Frontiers in
Education Conference (FIE) (pp. T2E-1). IEEE. doi:10.1109/FIE.2011.6142835.
Archambault, L., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Williams, M. K. (2010). Professional
development 2.0: Transforming teacher education pedagogy with 21st century tools.
Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(1), 4-11.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 120

Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2012). AECT Standards.
Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/aect.site-
ym.com/resource/resmgr/AECT_Documents/AECT_Standards_adopted7_16_2.pdf
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2013). AECT Strategic plan
summary. Retrieved May 27, 2015, from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/aect.site-
ym.com/resource/resmgr/AECT_Documents/StrategicPlanSummary.pdf
Aypay, A., Celik, H. C., Aypay, A., & Sever, M. (2012). Technology acceptance in education: A
study of pre-service teachers in Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology - TOJET, 11(4), 264-272.
Banister, S., & Reinhart, V. R. (2013). Assessing NETS.T performance in teacher candidates:
Exploring the Wayfind teacher assessment. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 29(2), 59-65.
Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., & Kalaydjian, K. (2003). Large-scale research study on
technology in K–12 schools: Technology integration as it relates to the National
Technology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(4), 489-507.
Bauer, J., & Kenton, J. (2005). Toward technology integration in the schools: Why it isn't
happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519-546.
Belland, B. R. (2009). Using the theory of habitus to move beyond the study of barriers to
technology integration, Computers & Education, 52(2), 353-364.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the
evidence. British journal of educational technology, 39(5), 775-786.
Berry, J. E., & Marx, G. (2010). Adapting to the pedagogy of technology in educational
administration. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 4(3), 245-255.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 121

Brears, L., MacIntyre, B., & O'Sullivan, G. (2011). Preparing teachers for the 21st century using
PBL as an integrating strategy in science and technology education. Design and
Technology Education, 16(1), 36-46.
Cai, Y. (2013). Graduate employability: A conceptual framework for understanding employers'
perceptions. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and
Educational Planning, 65(4), 457-469.
Chittleborough, G. (2014). Learning how to teach chemistry with technology: Pre-service
teachers' experiences with integrating technology into their learning and teaching.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(4), 373-393.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9387-y
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Copeland, L. J., & Gray, R. C. (2002). Developing Maryland's Technology Education Leaders
for the 21st Century: Technology Education Leadership Project (TELP). Journal of
Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 104-121.
Dashtestani, R. (2014). Computer literacy of Iranian teachers of English as a foreign language:
Challenges and obstacles. International Journal of Pedagogies & Learning, 9(1), 87-100.
De Castell, S., Bryson, M., & Jenson, J. (2002). Object lessons: Towards an educational theory
of technology. First Monday, 7(1).
Dembo, M. H., & Seli, H. (2013). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A self-
management approach.
Denton, D. W. (2014). Using screen capture feedback to improve academic performance.
TechTrends, 58(6), 51-56. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0803-0
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 122

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2014). The systematic design of instruction (8
th
ed). Boston:
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Donovan, L., & Green, T. (2010). One-to-one computing in teacher education: Faculty concerns
and implications for teacher educators. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education,
26(4), 140-148.
Donovan, L., Green, T., & Hansen, L. E. (2012). One-to-one laptop teacher education: Does
involvement affect candidate technology skills and dispositions? Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 44(2), 121-139.
Earle, R. S., & Persichitte, K. A. (Eds.). (2005). Standards for the accreditation of school media
specialist and educational technology specialist programs (4th ed.). Bloomington, IN:
Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge,
confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42(3), 255-284.
Esterhuizen, H. D., Blignaut, S., & Ellis, S. (2013). Looking out and looking in: Exploring a case
of faculty perceptions during E-learning staff development. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 59-80.
Galbraith, J. K. (1967). The new industrial state. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Galloway, J. P. (2007). Classroom integration of technology: Are teachers understanding? I-
Manager's Journal on School Educational Technology, 2(4), 26.
Gentry, C. G. (1994). Introduction to instructional development: Process and technique.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 123

Goktas, Y., Yildirim, S., & Yildirim, Z. (2009). Main barriers and possible enablers of ICTs
integration into pre-service teacher education programs. Educational Technology &
Society, 12 (1), 193–204.
Guo, Y., Connor, C. M., Yang, Y., Roehrig, A. D., & Morrison, F. J. (2012). The effects of
teacher qualification, teacher self-efficacy, and classroom practices on fifth graders'
literacy outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 3-24.
Guzman, A., & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies for technology integration in the
classroom: Technology integration in the classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 25(5), 453-469. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00322.x
Hestness, E., McDonald, R. C., Breslyn, W., McGinnis, J. R., & Mouza, C. (2014). Science
teacher professional development in climate change education informed by the Next
Generation Science Standards. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3), 319-329.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 55(3), 223-252.
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12
classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development.
doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support
Consortium (InTASC) Model Core Teaching Standards: A Resource for State
Dialogue. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Stand
ards_A_Resource_for_State_Dialogue_%28April_2011%29.html
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 124

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). ISTE and the ISTE Standards.
Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/ISTE-standards/standards-for-students
International Society for Technology in Education. (2008). ISTE Standards for Teachers.
Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/ISTE-standards/standards-for-teachers
International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). ISTE Standards for Coaches.
Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards/standards-for-coaches
International Society for Technology in Education. (2012). ISTE and the ISTE Standards.
Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards
Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2010). Educational technology: The influence of theory. Journal of
Interactive Media in Education, 2002(2), Art-6.
Jang, S. J. (2008). The effects of integrating technology, observation and writing into a teacher
education method course. Computers & Education, 50(3), 853-865.
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational Technology: A Definition with
Commentary. New York: Routledge.
Jenkins, M., Browne, T., Walker, R., & Hewitt, R. (2011). The development of technology
enhanced learning: Findings from a 2008 survey of UK higher education. Interactive
Learning Environments, 19(5), 447-465.
Jhurree, V. (2005). Technology integration in education in developing countries: Guidelines to
policy makers. International Education Journal, 6(4), 467-483
Kasworm, C. (2011). The influence of the knowledge society: Trends in adult higher education.
Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(2), 104-107.
Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth:
Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 29(4), 127-140.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 125

Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3
rd

Edition). San Francisco, CA: Brett Koehler Publishers, Inc., pp. 1-114.
Kleiner, B., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2007). Educational technology in teacher education
programs for initial licensure (NNES 2008-040). Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Koc, M., & Bakir, N. (2010). A needs assessment survey to investigate pre-service teachers'
knowledge, experiences and perceptions about preparation to using educational
technologies. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 9(1), 13-22.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge?
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kumar, S., & Vigil, K. (2011). The Net generation as preservice teachers: Transferring
familiarity with new technologies to educational environments. Journal of Digital
Learning in Teacher Education, 27(4), 144-153.
Larson, M. B. (2005). Instructional design career environments: Survey of the alignment of
preparation and practice. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning,
49(6), 22-33.
Latham, G., & Carr, N. (2012). Authentic learning for pre-service teachers in a technology-rich
environment. Journal of Learning Design, 5(1), 32-42.
Laws, D., & Hajer, M. (2006). Policy in practice. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 409-424). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 126

Litowitz, L. S. (2014). A curricular analysis of undergraduate technology & engineering teacher
preparation programs in the United States. Journal of Technology Education, 25(2), 73-
84.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Kereluik, K. (2009). Looking back to the future of educational
technology. TechTrends, 53(5), 49.
Moran, W., Vozzo, L., Reid, J., Pietsch, M., & Hatton, C. (2013). How can technology make this
work? Preservice teachers, off-campus learning and digital portfolios. Australian Journal
of Teacher Education, 38(5), 16.
Motteram, G. (2006). "Blended" education and the transformation of teachers: A long-term case
study in postgraduate UK higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology,
37(1), 17-30.
Ng'ambi, D. (2013). Effective and ineffective uses of emerging technologies: Towards a
transformative pedagogical model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4),
652-661.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2014). Instructional technology facilitator
standards. Raleigh, NC: NCDPI. Retrieved from
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/dtl/standards/professional/rubric-slmc.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2001). Learning to change: ICT in
schools, schooling for tomorrow, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.usc.edu/10.1787/9789264195714-en
Okojie, M. C. P. O., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. (2006). The pedagogy of technology
integration. Journal of Technology Studies, 32(2), 66-71.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 127

Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Brush, T. A., Strycker, J., Gronseth, S., Roman, T., Abaci, S.,
VanLeusen, P., Shin, S., Easterling, W., & Plucker, J. (2012). Preparation versus practice:
How do teacher education programs and practicing teachers align in their use of
technology to support teaching and learning? Computers & Education, 59(2), 399-411.
Pan, N., Lau, H., & Lai, W. (2010). Sharing e-learning innovation across disciplines: An
encounter between engineering and teacher education. Electronic Journal of e-Learning,
8(1), 31-40.
Pan, S. C., & Franklin, T. (2011). In-service teachers' self-efficacy, professional development,
and Web 2.0 tools for integration. New Horizons in Education, 59(3), 28-40.
Parkay, F. W., Stanford, B. H., & Gougeon, T. D. (2010). Becoming a teacher. Pearson/Merrill.
Parker, J., Maor, D., & Herrington, J. (2013). Authentic online learning: Aligning learner needs,
pedagogy and technology. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 227-241.
Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis) application of constructivism to
the design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and
Development. doi:10.1007/BF02299761
Pickering, L. E., & Walsh, E. J. (2011). Using videoconferencing technology to enhance
classroom observation methodology for the instruction of preservice early childhood
professionals. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27(3), 99-108.
Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: Transforming
teacher education with preparing tomorrow's teachers to teach with technology (PT3)
grants. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863-870.
Rajasingham, L. (2011). New challenges facing universities in the Internet-driven global
environment. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, (1), pages.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 128

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of
instructional media. Educational technology research and development, 49(1), 53-64.
Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Martin, F. (2014). Development and validation of the educational
technologist multimedia competency survey. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 62(1), 13-33.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York: Teachers College Press.
Schlegel, J. M. (1995). A handbook of instructional and training program design.
Saettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology. IAP.
Sharp, L. A. (2014). Literacy in the digital age. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 24, 74-85.
Smaldino, S. E.; Lowther, D. L. y Russell, J. D. (2008). Instructional technology and media for
learning, 9 ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merril.
Spires, H. A., Morris, G., & Zhang, J. (2012). New literacies and emerging technologies:
Perspectives from U.S. and Chinese middle level teachers. RMLE Online: Research in
Middle Level Education, 35(10), 1-11.
Strycker, J. (2012). Developing an online support community for pre-service teachers at East
Carolina University. TechTrends, 56(6), 22-26. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-
012-0609-x
Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium. (2011). Model standards advance the profession.
Journal of Staff Development, 32(3), 16.
Tondeur, J., van Braak, V. J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2012).
Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of
qualitative evidence. Computers & Education, 59(1), 134-144.
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 129

Tur, G., & Marí n, V. I. (2015). Enhancing learning with the social media: Student teachers'
perceptions on twitter in a debate activity. Journal of New Approaches in Educational
Research, 4(1), 46-59A.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National Education Technology Plan 2010 (NETP).
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology.
Van Laarhoven, T., Munk, D. D., Chandler, L. K., Zurita, L., & Lynch, K. (2012). Integrating
assistive technology into teacher education programs: Trials, tribulations, and lessons
learned. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 8(1), 32-47.
Yepes-Baraya, M. (2002). Technology integration. In Johnstone, J & Barker, L. (Eds.), Assessing
the impact of technology in teaching and learning: A sourcebook for evaluators (pp. 139-
160). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Yeung, A. S., Tay, E. G., Hui, C., Lin, J. H., & Low, E. (2014). Pre-service teachers' motivation
in using digital technology. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 20.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1651831974?accountid=14749ba
Yilmazel-Sahin, Y., & Oxford, R. L. (2010). A comparative analysis of teacher education faculty
development models for technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher
Education, 18(4), 693-720.
Young, J. S. (2012). Linking learning: Connecting traditional and media literacies in 21st century
learning. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 4(1), 70-81.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology
innovations. The Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482-515.
Zeichner, K., & Wray, S. (2001). The teaching portfolio in US teacher education programs: What
we know and what we need to know. Teaching and teacher education, 17(5), 613-621.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 130

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 131

Appendix A
Survey
Demographic Questions
* Please answer the demographic questions below:
1. What is your gender?

 Male
 Female
 Other

2. What is your current occupation?

3. What is your professional concentrations at work?

 K-12
 Higher education
 Other (corporate, government, military, etc.) ________________________________

5. Excluding courses in the IST program, how many college level online or blended
courses have you taken for credit?

 None
 One
 Two
 Three or more

6. How many years have you been a credentialed teacher?

 Continuous dropdown menu of 1-50

7. How many semesters have you been enrolled in the IST program?

 One
 Two
 Three or more

8. Which IST courses did you take in Fall 2015? (Click all that apply)

 EIST 5100 Technology Integration In Education
 EIST 6100 Foundations of Instructional Systems Technology
 EIST 6101 Learning Principles in Instructional Systems Technology
 Other(s) _____________________________________________
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 132

Survey Questions
Please answer the following questions in the context of your experience during your study at the
NAU in the IST program in Fall 2015. Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with
the following statements.

1. I learned how to analyze instructional technologies using a variety of learning theories.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

2. I learned effective implementation of educational technologies based on contemporary
content and pedagogy.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

3. I learned how to analyze an effective learning environment.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

4. I learned how to evaluate technology-rich learning environments.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

5. I am proficient in computing related to teaching and learning.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

6. By using technology in my own teaching and training, I am modeling the use of
technology to my learners.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 133

7. What do you consider and implement during your instructional (course/lesson) design?
(Click all that apply)

 Adequacy of technology related to content
 Learners’ different characteristics
 Flexible learning environment
 Pedagogical aspects in integrating technology
 All above
 None above

8. How do you choose which processes and resources to provide students to improve
learning? (Click all that apply)

 Learning principles
 Learning theories
 Effective practice models
 Other _________________________

9. Please indicate how you use technology in your daily life.

Yes for a class
Yes but
not for a class
No
Do not know
what this is
a. Online videos
b. Photo sharing
c. Online forums
d. Blogs
e. Wikis
f. Podcasts
g. Google Docs
h. Social
bookmarking

i. Electronic
portfolio

j. Website

10. Please answer the questions below in terms of your perspective.
10-1. I am able to use instructional design (course work/lessons) based on learning
principles and research-based best practices.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

10-2. I am able to select appropriate processes and materials to create a learner-centered
environment for my students.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 134

10-3. I am able to implement collaborative activities considering diverse learners’
characteristics and abilities.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

11. I am able to interpret data and reflect on the effectiveness of the design, development
and implementation of technology-supported instruction and learning.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

12. The IST course work(s) included collaborative activity (eg. online forum) in Fall 2015.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

13. The teaching with technology methodologies that I learned from the IST courses is
aligned to the teaching/training strategies in my own professional work.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

14. In Fall 2015, the IST program provided well designed and implemented instruction in:
(Click all that apply)

 Adult learning
 K-12 learning
 Other _________________________

15. Specify an example of an assignment or an activity for each item below based on the
IST course(s) you took in Fall 2015.
15-1. Effective implementation of educational technologies and processes based on
contemporary content and pedagogy

15-2. Facilitating learning by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning
environments

16. I am satisfied with the academic support from the NAU in the following areas:
16-1. Reading materials from the library online

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 135

16-2. Reading materials from the library on campus

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

16-3. Hardware on campus

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

16-4. Software programs on campus

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

17. I often needed technical support for the LMS (Moodle).

1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

18. I received adequate feedback on assignments.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

19. I was clear on the outcome expectations for course work (eg. rubric, sample work).
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree

20. Please specify anything else you think should be added the IST program curriculum
that would increase development professional competencies and proficiencies.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 136

Appendix B
Interview Protocols for The IST Fall 2015 Cohort
Respondent (Last name): ____________________________

Location of Interview: _____________________________

Time In / Time Out: _________________________________________________

1. Would you please describe your teaching/training background and how you use
technology in your professional work?

2. Meaningful learning achievement relies on extensive research in enhancing learning and
improving performance. How has the ISTs program curriculum helped you learn how to
research and then implement instructional methodologies enhancing meaningful
learning achievement accordingly?
Probing questions if it doesn’t come out on its own
a. What are the key words that you use frequently for the research? Please specify
three key words.

b. What are the research topics that you search frequently at your work? What are
the research topics that you search frequently during the IST coursework?

c. Modeling adequate uses of technology enhances learners’ improved achievement.
Please specify an example of the process of modeling the technology use during
your teaching or training.

3. Instructional design relies on accurate analysis of the learners needs. How has the IST
program curriculum helped you learn how to assess needs and then design curriculum
accordingly?
Probing questions if it doesn’t come out on its own
a. How deviant is that the methodology of student-centered learning development
acquired from the IST program from your work setting?

4. Facilitating personalized and student-centered learning relies on accurate analysis of the
learning environments. How has the IST program curriculum helped you learn how to
examine learning environments and then implement personalized and student-centered
learning development accordingly?
Probing questions if it doesn’t come out on its own
a. What are the key aspects that you consider the most important for learners’ needs
analysis? Please specify.

b. Enhancing and empowering meaningful learning is affected by the adequate
instructional design analysis and development (course/lesson design, etc.).
Please describe your instructional design process related to learner analysis.

FOSTERING COMPETENT PROFESSIOINALS 137

5. Implementing instructional technology integration relies on extensive knowledge in
contemporary content and pedagogy. How has the IST program curriculum helped you
learn how to implement educational technologies and processes based on contemporary
content and pedagogy?
Probing questions if it doesn’t come out on its own
a. Does your workplace require contemporary content and pedagogy in learning
process? If so, please specify an example.

6. Technology enhanced learning setting relies on extensive professional knowledge and
skills in needs analysis of learning environments. How has the IST program curriculum
helped you learn how to design and implement technology-rich learning environments?
Probing questions if it doesn’t come out on its own
a. What are the key elements that you consider often in needs analysis of learning
environment? Please specify the elements.

7. Transformation of education emphasizes using technology and relevant pedagogy. How
much impact do you think using technology and relevant pedagogy have on meaningful
learning experiences? Please specify an example.

8. When was your latest professional development activity in technology integration for
instruction and learning except the IST coursework? Please describe one instructional
design strategy with technology that you learned from the IST coursework.
Probing questions if it doesn’t come out on its own
a. Specify an example if you applied the strategy in your teaching/training at work.
b. If you haven’t applied the strategy in your teaching/training at work, please
specify the reason.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Technology is emphasized as essential means in education transformation to engage and empower learners’ achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Properly designed curriculum and classes with educational technology can help personalize teacher candidates’ learning experiences. However, according to a National Center for Education Statistics report (Kleiner, Thomas, & Lewis, 2007), a major barrier of teachers’ ability to integrate technology was the lack of relevant training in their professional development program. ❧ The primary goal of this study was to determine whether the Northern American University (NAU, pseudonym) IST program curriculum launched in fall of 2015 prepared the students for their professional competency development in educational technology integration. As learning outcomes of professional development program indicate the program’s performance outcome (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006), the Instructional Systems Technology (IST) students were selected as a focus group of the study. The students’ performance, assessed by Clark and Estes gap analysis framework (2008), resulted in no performance gaps were present. Therefore, unlike the negative results of national education statistics in professional development, the IST program’s effective practices can be useful to organizations in similar contexts for their learners’ professional development in educational technology integration. Nonetheless, none of organizations are perfect and so is the IST program. Few deficiencies identified from the IST program, and specific recommendations made for the particular subjects may help other organizations for their problem investigation and performance improvement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Assessing the needs of teachers when creating educational technology professional development for an urban charter school district: an innovation study

PDF

Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment

PDF

Creating a comprehensive professional development program for MBA students: a needs analysis

PDF

Creating "excellent" learning experiences: a gap analysis of a university extension program

PDF

An evaluation study of effectiveness of continuous professional development in Ethiopia

PDF

Digital portfolios for learning and professional development: a faculty development curriculum

PDF

An examination of teachers' proficiency in incorporating soft skills into instructions to culinary students at Kai Ping Culinary School: a gap analysis

PDF

Building national capacity in student affairs at a local university in Qatar: A gap analysis

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of an effective teacher evaluation system and its key components in China

PDF

Teacher self-efficacy and instructional coaching in California public K-12 schools: effective instructional coaching programs across elementary, middle, and high schools and the impact on teacher...

PDF

Success in the sticky: exploring the professional learning and instructional practices that are sticky for distinguished secondary STEM educators of students historically…

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

The increasing need for global education competencies in K-12 education

PDF

In-service teacher training in Pakistan’s elite private primary schools – lessons for Pakistan’s public schools

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Transformational technology practices in K-12 schools: a case study

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

PDF

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

PDF

Understanding teacher burnout through a lens of hope in high-poverty schools

PDF

Enhancing the international student experience through graduate employment preparedness

Asset Metadata

Creator Lee, Hannah (author)

Core Title Fostering competent professionals: instructional systems specialists at the instructional systems technology program

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Publication Date 08/16/2016

Defense Date 08/08/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag competency based education,continuing education,continuing professional development,education,Educational Technology,evaluation,Graduate School,Higher education,instructional systems technology,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,project based education,teacher preparation,teacher training education,technology integration

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tambascia, Tracy P. (committee chair), Filback, Robert (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email lee683@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-302254

Unique identifier UC11281202

Identifier etd-LeeHannah-4776.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-302254 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeeHannah-4776.pdf

Dmrecord 302254

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lee, Hannah

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA