Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Instructional designers in the new learning paradigm: COVID-19’s impact on roles and responsibilities of instructional designers
(USC Thesis Other)
Instructional designers in the new learning paradigm: COVID-19’s impact on roles and responsibilities of instructional designers
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Instructional Designers in The New Learning Paradigm: COVID-19’s Impact on Roles and
Responsibilities of Instructional Designers
by
Saeyoung Chang-Gagnon
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2022
© Copyright by Saeyoung Chang-Gagnon 2022
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Saeyoung Chang-Gagnon certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Rebecca Lundeen
Kathy Stowe
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
The virtual work environment, normalized by COVID-19, has changed the paradigm of
employee education, driving most forms of employee training online. This disruption in
employee learning and development has triggered many changes in instructional designers’
surrounding environment. Instructional designers in human capital development are tasked with
improving employees’ performance through the effectiveness of their learning design. The
literature presented the impacts of instructional design and designers in improving employee
training quality and establishing organizations’ virtual learning environments. The study aimed
to uncover the COVID-19 pandemic’s impacts on instructional designers’ roles, responsibilities,
and work environment, their perceptions regarding their level of preparation for the changes in
the industry, and the challenges and opportunities they experienced from the learning
environment change caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The study’s theoretical framework
relied on the ecological systems theory developed by Bronfenbrenner (1979). The study utilized
qualitative research methods interviewing eight instructional designers engaged in creating
employee-related online training programs in U.S.-based organizations. The study’s findings
indicated the pandemic reshaped instructional designers’ primary roles and responsibilities for
establishing virtual learning environments for their organizations while displaying high self-
efficacy in adapting to many changes in the industry. The study also revealed that instructional
designers faced challenges and opportunities amid the ongoing pandemic. Based on the findings,
the study included three main recommendations.
v
Acknowledgments
First and most, I want to thank GOD, who made everything possible by giving me a
purpose and will beyond my knowledge and ability. I also want to thank GOD for giving me my
husband, Mark Chang-Gagnon. Your unconditional love fills and energizes me each day. Being
in school at the same time and encouraging each other for the last few years have been a
meaningful and valuable experience. You are my biggest and loudest cheerleader. I love you
more every day and can’t wait to spend the rest of our lives surfing, learning, and achieving
together.
My daughter, Stella Saeyoung Vu, you are an amazing artist who masters every medium
you choose. I am so excited about your bright future. I am so lucky to be your mom. Thank you
for believing in me and loving me. I hope I made you proud by going after my dream and never
giving up. I want to thank my sisters, Grace and Julie Chang. Your generosity over the years
helped me to get to where I am today. Thank you for being there when I need the most. Sisters
are like sunshine.
I want to dedicate my degree to my great-grandmother, who was forced and sent off to
get married at 13. She taught herself how to read, raised three daughters on her own, and never
gave up. I come from a strong line of women and hope I made her proud.
I want to thank the instructional designers who participated in this study. Your insight
and experiences shaped this study. Instructional designers balance design and knowledge to
make learning an experience. Without that, everything is just information.
I want to thank my late father for bringing me to this country and giving me a solid
footing. I inherited your lifelong learning traits.
vi
I thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Malloy, Dr. Lundeen, and Dr. Stowe. for their
patience and guidance through the dissertation process. Especially to Dr. Malloy, thank you for
your support and care.
Lastly, my OCL Cohort 16 Saturday Breakfast Club friends, your friendship is as
valuable as this program’s degree. I cherish every Saturday we spent for the past 3 years. I
learned so much from every one of you. You are the most accomplished, intelligent, loving, and
generous group of people. You guys inspired me and pushed me throughout the journey. I simply
could not have done it without your support. I am excited about our future and can’t wait for
many get-togethers with you all. We are family for life.
vii
Table of Content
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction to The Study ..........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem ..........................................................................2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ................................................................5
Importance of the Study ....................................................................................................6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ...................................................7
Definitions .........................................................................................................................8
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................10
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................11
Background and Evolution of Instructional Design ........................................................11
Definition of an Instructional Designer ...........................................................................15
Instructional Design for Human Capital Development and Employee Performance ......21
Instructional Design Models, Processes, and Strategies .................................................22
Benefits of Employee Online Training ............................................................................25
Learning Management Systems ......................................................................................26
Virtual Learning Environments .......................................................................................27
General Challenges in the Instructional Design Industry ................................................28
The Lack of Organizational Resources and Support .......................................................33
Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................................34
Summary of Review ........................................................................................................37
Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................39
viii
Research Questions .........................................................................................................39
Overview of Design .........................................................................................................39
Research Setting ..............................................................................................................40
The Researcher ................................................................................................................40
Data Sources ....................................................................................................................41
Interview ..........................................................................................................................41
Data Collection Procedures .............................................................................................43
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................44
Credibility and Trustworthiness ......................................................................................44
Ethics ...............................................................................................................................45
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................46
Participants ......................................................................................................................46
Findings ...........................................................................................................................50
Stresses of working under ongoing pandemic and its many uncertainties. .....................50
RQ 1: In What Ways Has The COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced the Roles and
Responsibilities and The Work Environment of Instructional Designers? .....................51
RQ 2: What Are Instructional Designers’ Perceptions Regarding Their Level of
Preparation for The Changes in The Industry? ................................................................60
RQ 3: What Challenges and Opportunities Did Instructional Designers Experience
from the Learning Environment Changes Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic? ..........68
Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................74
Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................76
Discussion of Findings ....................................................................................................76
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................84
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................92
Limitations .......................................................................................................................93
ix
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................94
References ......................................................................................................................................95
Appendix A: Qualtrics Qualification Questionnaire ....................................................................120
Appendix B: Interview Questions ................................................................................................121
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Instructional Design Competencies: The Standard 18
Table 2: Participants’ Essential Characteristics 48
Table 3: Participants’ Educational Background, Industry, Paths to Instructional Design, and
the Main Types of Course Design 49
Table 4: Research Questions and Synthesized Findings 50
Table 5: Primary Responsibilities Before and After the Onset of the Pandemic 54
Table 6: Types of New Software, Technical Skills and Tools the Participants Have Learned
Since the Onset of the Pandemic 59
Table 7: Participants’ Job Titles, Instructional Design Responsibilities, and Industries 65
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Evolution and Changes in Instructional Designers’ Roles and Responsibilities
Impacted by the Organizational Learning Environment Shift Impacted by COVID-19 36
1
Chapter One: Introduction to The Study
COVID-19 has impacted every aspect of our lives. Many safety mandates, including
social distancing, face covering, personal hygiene practices, travel protocols, and stay-home
lockdown measures, have been enforced by every country around the globe (Narayanamurthy &
Tortorella, 2021). In March 2020, the United States federal government recommended that
organizations and schools move their daily operations and teaching to strictly virtual spaces
(Chanana & Sangeeta, 2020), resulting in over three-quarters of U.S. organizations operating via
video conferencing and electronic communication tools (Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2018). The
virtual work environment, normalized by COVID-19, has changed the paradigm of employee
education, driving most, if not all, forms of employee training online (Chanana & Sangeeta,
2020).
Moving quickly to a virtual learning environment resulted in a sudden increase in
workload and job opportunities for instructional designers (Kshirsagar et al., 2020). In the
organizational learning and development space, traditionally delivered in-person training
programs were canceled or delivered via other eLearning formats: webinars and video
conferencing or recording (Kshirsagar et al., 2020). This disruption in employee learning and
development has triggered many changes in instructional designers’ surrounding environment.
These changes were brought about by the rapid development and adaptation of learning
technology in the move to virtual operations, which increased demands and workloads, and led
to an expansion of responsibilities for instructional designers (Johnson, 2021; North et al., 2021;
Nworie, 2022). Thus, the need for broadening the definitions and competencies of instructional
designers became eminent (Yalçın & Klein, 2021). Normalization of the virtual work
environment raised the profile of instructional designers. This increased remote work
2
opportunities allowed instructional designers to pursue positions beyond geographic barriers,
influenced salary requirements, and raised work/life balance considerations (Babapour Chafi et
al., 2021; Ingusci et al., 2021; Nworie, 2022). The purpose of this study was to learn about how
COVID-19 has impacted the work of instructional designers who create online training programs
for human capital development in the United States.
Context and Background of the Problem
National responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have led to changes in federal and state
policies, social interaction, and education (Venkatachary et al., 2020). Due to globally mandated
lockdown measures, many educational institutions and organizations have shifted their
operations online (Chanana & Sangeeta, 2020). Since March 2020, efforts to prevent and combat
a further spread of the virus forced 70 % of the United States workforce to work remotely and
thrust most employee education and training programs into the virtual space (Krishnamoorthy &
Keating, 2021). This disruption in employee learning has driven organizations to increase their
investments in learning technology and establish corporate university structures (Kshirsagar et
al., 2020). In justifying their investment, organizations evaluated and measured the quality of the
virtual learning content and instructional design strategies in all aspects of the employee
experience: onboarding, training, and performance (Kshirsagar et al., 2020). They are also hiring
increased numbers of instructional designers to meet the growing demands (Alqahtani &
Rajkhan, 2020).
In 2016, Instructional Design in Higher Education (Intentional Futures, 2016), a report
generated for the Gates Foundation, conservatively estimated there were 13,000 instructional
designers in the United States. The report indicated that 55% of those instructional designers had
no experience designing corporate eLearning programs. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
3
predicts a 10% growth in demand for instructional coordinator positions from 2020 to 2030 and a
13% growth for digital designers, faster than the average growth of all other occupations (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). In 2021, Zippia, an online job board, reported that there are
now nearly 95,000 instructional designers, primarily working for public organizations, and 74%
of them work in public and private companies combined. According to their report, there were
over 190,000 instructional designer jobs in the United States in 2020. As for educational
backgrounds, 63% have bachelor’s degrees, 25% have master’s degrees, and only 2% have
doctoral degrees (Zippia, 2021). A typical entry-level instructional design position requires a
master’s degree and 4 or more years of related work experience (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2021).
The sudden growth in demand for online content since the COVID-19 pandemic has led
to variations in the title of traditional instructional designers and created diverse definitions and
expectations of their roles and responsibilities (Guerra-López & Joshi, 2021). The instructional
designer’s responsibilities and performance expectations differ based on their industries and
organizations (Stefaniak, 2021; Williams van Rooij, 2012). The role of an instructional designer
has evolved from assisting subject matter experts in creating printable instructions to requiring
research and theoretical knowledge, analytical skills, the ability to diagnose learner behaviors
and environment, and expertise in learning technology tools (Ritzhaupt & Kumar, 2015). Unlike
the instructional designers who support faculty and teachers in K–12 and higher, instructional
designers who design learning programs for human capital development are tasked with
improving employee engagement and performance to ultimately influence the productivity of
their organizations (Hilgart et al., 2012). Instructional designers, including those in the human
4
capital development space, hold various titles based on the industry and types of organizations
(Bozarth, 2019; North et al., 2021; Wagner, 2021).
The rapid evolution of technology, theory, research, and practice in the instructional
design industry has spawned a variety of titles for instructional designers and descriptions of
their responsibilities, including curriculum development, managing learning management
systems, training management, and performance improvement (Guerra-López & Joshi, 2021;
Klein & Kelly, 2018). Wang (2021) claimed instructional designer roles require a strong
background in instructional design models and substantial expertise in instructional design to
utilize their knowledge in their work. The newest title, learning experience designer, refers to
being responsible for creating learning experiences using the latest technology (Kilgore, 2016;
Wagner, 2021). Kilgore (2016) predicted the continued expansion and complexity of learning
experience designers’ roles and responsibilities. In this study, the term instructional designer is
used to describe the individual who creates online learning programs for human capital
development in public and private organizations in the United States. In this study will use the
more classically identified term instructional designers: professionals who create learning.
The self-isolation measures enforced since the pandemic created an influx of remote jobs
(George et al., 2021). Remote jobs in the United States increased 173% from 2005 to 2018 and
are forecast to increase further (Marinova, 2020). As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, 74% of
the United States companies will maintain many remote positions and make 25% of their
workforce permanently remote. Over half of the businesses worldwide offered permanently
remote work in 2021, and most employees working remotely during the pandemic prefer to
continue (Marinova, 2020).
5
Kshirsagar and his colleagues (2020) at McKinsey and Company, a global management
consulting firm, reported that the remote work setting established during COVID-19 requires
redefinition, a best practice process, and enhancement of the quality of eLearning. Wolor et al.’s
(2020) study suggested online offerings, including training and leadership programs, positively
impacted employees’ motivation and performance during the beginning of the COVID-19
pandemic. Their study findings supported Kuznia et al.’s (2016) previous claim that the quality
of online training programs plays a significant role in employees’ performance. Chang et al.
(2015) also stressed that the quality of online courses influences the learners’ motivation. Even
before the COVID-19 pandemic, after spending 64% of their training hours online (Zha et al.,
2017), 43% of the employees in the United States found their training ineffective and
unengaging (Carney, 2018).
In 2019, organizations in the United States spent over $17 billion on training and
assigned more than 35% of their employee training programs online (Freifeld, 2019). COVID-19
has further increased the number of hours, learner populations, and expenditures for online
employee training (Krishnamoorthy & Keating, 2021). According to Krishnamoorthy and
Keating (2021), U.S. organizations have increased their investment in educational technology
and predicted $1 trillion in employee education by 2029, representing a 30% increase in
spending from 2019.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
This study aimed to reveal how the work of instructional designers in the areas of human
capital development has changed since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, this
study sought to learn more about instructional designers’ perceptions regarding the influence of
COVID-19 on their roles and responsibilities, the virtual learning environment, the instructional
6
design industry, and other changes they experienced. The following research questions guided
the study.
1. In what ways has the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the roles and responsibilities
and work environment of instructional designers?
2. What are instructional designers’ perceptions regarding their level of preparation for
the changes in the industry?
3. What challenges and opportunities did the designers experience from the learning
environment changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Importance of the Study
COVID-19 has intensified the significance of instructional designers and their
contribution to the effectiveness of online employee training programs (Prastomo, 2021). The
virtual learning space of the pandemic presented opportunities for further improvement and
enhancement of learning design solutions, increasing positive learner experiences (Lockee,
2020). Instructional designers play a critical role in developing learners’ skills, maintaining
engagement, and adapting to the latest technology (Johnson, 2021). Instructional designers
within the human capital development space are essential for ensuring the high quality of the
training content that enhances employee development experience and impacts performance.
Thus, they are critical for maintaining the organization’s competitive edge (Dachner et al., 2021).
As the learning environment evolves, so do instructional designers’ skills, knowledge, and
attitudes in the 21st century (Sharif & Cho, 2015).
Understanding the roles and responsibilities and the working environment of the
instructional designers who create online learning programs for human capital development can
help organizations stay competitive and reach their goals (Pagano & Marengo, 2021). By
7
understanding the experiences of instructional designers and learning about the changes they
faced since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the research aimed to uncover additional
competencies, professional development recommendations, industry standards for job titles,
responsibilities, and performance expectations. By collecting and analyzing the research
participants’ interviews, the study aimed to identify ways to upskill and prepare instructional
designers for the ‘new normal,’ which may persist even after the COVID-19 pandemic and other
future disruptions. Although there is a collection of literature about instructional designers
supporting faculty and students in the K–12 and higher education sectors, none represents the
point of view of instructional designers in the human capital development setting. By reviewing
participating instructional designers’ experiences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic,
the study aimed to shed light on unique challenges, struggles, and opportunities in their complex
working environments.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The study relies, for its theoretical framework, on the ecological systems theory
developed by Bronfenbrenner (1979). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory depicts
pertinent changes between the different ecological layers: centering on the instructional
designers (individual) and moving outward to the immediate surroundings (microsystem), direct
and indirect surroundings (exosystem), changes in social and governmental systems for
preventing the virus spread (macrosystem), and the historical event (chronosystem)—the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model helps articulate the influence of the COVID-
19 pandemic on the role of instructional designers. The chronosystem, COVID-19, led to the
implementation of policies in the Macrosystem’s legal, social, governmental, and educational
8
structures. These drastic systemic changes triggered elements in the exosystem: high demand for
instructional design jobs, increased demand for eLearning programs, and a booming business in
learning technology. The mesosystem represents the symbiotic relationship between the
exosystem: the instructional design industry, and the microsystem, including changes in job
titles, competencies, and instructional design trends. The microsystem is the designers’
immediate surrounding environment, including employees, managers, employers, and
organizations. Finally, instructional designers are the ecological system’s individuals, including
their instructional design experiences, educational backgrounds, and design styles.
This study utilized qualitative research methods and interviewed eight instructional
designers engaged in creating employee-related online training programs in U.S.-based
organizations. The instructional designers had more than 2 years of experience creating
eLearning modules for employee training. The researcher recruited participants through social
media and professional designers’ networks.
Definitions
COVID-19 pandemic: In 2019, the Covid-19 virus outbreak brought the entire world to a
halt, forcing the world health organization to declare a global pandemic announcement
(Narayanamurthy & Tortorella, 2021).
Instructional designer: During World War II, educators developed training programs
utilizing instructional principles, theories, and research-based learning behaviors for military
services. Instructional designers use instructional design processes and systems and create
engaging instructions with multimedia to achieve the learning goals (Reiser, 2001).
Instructional design process: Instructional designers follow a process of identifying
essential learning needs, synthesizing, and validating content by subject matter experts,
9
analyzing existing learning products and determining lessons utilizing instructional design
strategies, linking to previous knowledge, and applying the techniques necessary to various
content sources (Rothwell et al., 2015)
Human capital development: Developing employee skills through education and training,
including ongoing professional training, assessing training needs, and economic rewards, all
contributing to organizational success and employee job satisfaction and performance (Iatagan,
2016).
eLearning: eLearning is creating, disseminating, data management, and information
storage activities via communication technologies by educational organizations (Mohammed et
al., 2018). eLearning also describes self-directed or asynchronous learning programs that do not
require live and in-person facilitation (Stojan et al., 2022).
Learning experience design: Learning experience design (LXD) is the application of
learning design strategies considering usability and learning, interface design, and user
experience; creating and designing interactions that increase learning transfer and target
technology adaptation, cognitive processing, and usability (Tawfik et al., 2022).
Online employee training program: Training programs that do not require personal
contact between the trainer and participating employee (Zha et al., 2017).
Virtual learning environment: Virtual learning environment describes a learning platform
that delivers learning materials through the web (Kurbakova et al., 2020). The term is also used
to describe a virtual employee’s working and training conditions, including teleworking, virtual
working, flexible, and remote working jobs due to the development of information and
communication technology forms of working that use advanced information and communication
technology (Jackson, 1999).
10
Organization of the Dissertation
This study includes five chapters. Chapter One provides the problem of practice, its
background, and an overview of the research. Chapter Two presents reviews of the literature
related to the many changes in instructional designers’ ecological layers before and at the height
of the COVID-19 pandemic. Chapter Three includes the methodology, research questions,
setting, the researcher, and data sources of the study. Chapter Four presents the collected data,
findings, and answers to the research questions. Chapter Five concludes with discussions and
recommendations based on findings from the research.
11
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review supports the purpose of this study which is to learn about how the
work of instructional designers in the human capital development space has changed since the
onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This chapter begins with literature on the history and
development of instructional design and the definition of instructional designers over the years.
This chapter also presents an overview of competencies and responsibilities instructional
designers are expected to have in the adult learning industry. Moreover, this chapter reviews the
literature on organizational learning environments, virtual learning environments, and employee
eLearning, the elements in the surrounding layers of the instructional designer’s ecological
system. Lastly, this chapter presents a synthesis of the literature on general changes in the
instructional design industry.
Background and Evolution of Instructional Design
The instructional design process involves the educational practice of utilizing media and
technological tools to enhance learning (Reiser, 2001). The first form of instructional design
involved film projectors housed in school libraries and used by educators in the mid-19th century
to present their instructions. Due to the development of media technology, film, radio, television,
and now computers, the term technology was added, and today, the field is known as
instructional design technology (Reiser, 2001). The early definition of instructional design
technology focused on developing systematic instructional design processes by purposefully
using instructional media. Instructional design scholars predicted that the invention of media
tools, video, the world wide web, social media, and a learning and information systems network
would cause ongoing changes in learning behaviors. However, a limiting belief that media was
just for presenting instructions rather than promoting learning—an ongoing skepticism about the
12
dependency and effectiveness of systems and media—stalled the development of instructional
design theories and models during much of the 19th century (Reiser, 2001).
The first efforts to develop effective instructional design strategies began during World
War II when the U.S. military hired a group of scholars to develop training programs to prepare
soldiers for the war (North et al., 2021; Tennyson, 2010). A team of scholars, comprised of
psychologists, educators, and experienced trainers, conducted research experiments to enhance
the military training materials (Dick, 1987) and developed theories on learning, instructions, and
learner behaviors (Reiser, 2012). During the early days of instructional design research and
experimentation, scholars and practitioners focused on developing instructional system
methodologies for analyzing content and procedures and testing learners for learning transfer
(Tennyson, 2010). Since then, instructional design theories, models, and strategies—taking
systematic approaches to use media and learning methodologies to improve performance—have
been introduced in educational institutions and organizations (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012;
Rothwell et al., 2015).
In the 1960s and early 1970s, instructional design models were based on behavioral
psychology influenced by Skinner’s (1954) “technology of instruction” framework (Tennyson,
2010, p. 2). Glaser (1963) developed the term “instructional system,” describing the application
of psychology-based instructional strategies and instructional technology to improve learner
engagement, a criterion-referenced measure assessing the levels of learning behavior and
predicting instructional design methodologies (North et al., 2021, p. 2). Mager (1962) introduced
the practice of measuring learning and behavioral objectives in his book, Preparing Objectives
for Programmed Instruction (Reiser, 2001). Heinich’s (1970) systematic analysis of learning
13
objectives and procedures highlighted the importance of technical instructions for learning in his
book, Programmed Instruction (Reiser, 2001).
Throughout the 80s, behavioral psychology-based instructional design theories shifted to
instructional design theories derived from cognitive theories focusing on attention, perception,
and the learner-controlled environment utilizing multimedia computer programs (Alessi &
Trollop, 2001). Gagné, one of the most influential instructional design theorists, developed a
condition of learning theory that identified five domains that promote learning: verbal,
intellectual, psychomotor, attitudes, and cognitive strategies (Reiser, 2001; Tennyson, 2010).
These cognitive learning principles increased the emergence of instructional design models
focused on active learning and learner-centric environments enhanced by interactive multimedia
(Alessi & Trollop, 2001).
In the 1990s, constructivists shaped instructional theories based on the belief that learning
occurs through the individual learner’s internal knowledge processing and learning by obtaining
new information and relating it to pre-existing experiences and knowledge (Reiser, 2001).
Constructivist instructional designers believed in immersive settings—exploratory, experimental,
situational, and collaborative—to enforce learning transfer and rejected traditional direct
teaching methods (Alessi & Trollop, 2001). Merrill, an instructional design scholar guided by his
mentor Gagné, rejected Skinner’s behavioral psychology learning theory (Merrill, 2002). He
stated, “psychology is just an oar and a rubber boot” (Merrill, 1994, p. ix). Merrill believed
multiple psychological systems influence learning, and a single view of learners’ behaviors or
cognitive processing was insufficient. Instead, he focused on creating one logical instructional
system for instructional designers to create effective learning programs (p. ix). Merrill suggested
numerous instructional design theories and principles, including the elaboration theory of
14
instruction—a descriptive component display theory—and the first principles of instructional
design—the relevant principles for designing effective, efficient, and engaging learning
programs (Reigeluth et al., 2016). With the availability and widespread use of individual
computers, Merrill et al. (1990) insisted on developing new instructional design models
emphasizing the interactive features of computers (Sharif & Cho, 2015).
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the use of the world wide web convinced instructional
designers to develop fully online courses for the remote learning environment (Sharif & Cho,
2015). Learner interaction facilitated by the use of media, the experience of real-time learning in
an on-demand learning environment, and the carrying out of constructivist principles became the
industry’s focus (Chen, 2020). During this time, instructional designers concentrated on
accommodating learners; Merrill (1996) introduced “the new paradigm of instructional theories”
focusing on the learner, while Şahin and Ünalmış (2009) introduced a post-modern instructional
design principal highlighting “plurality, flexibility and humanity” (Sharif & Cho, 2015).
Harasim (2017), in agreement with Merrill’s constructivist approach to instructional
design, asserted that instructional design strategies are influenced by systematic approaches that
utilize technological tools and media design development. Harasim (2017) suggested that the
effectiveness of instructional design relies on the instructional designers’ knowledge and
experience in theories, principles, and practices. Sharif and Cho (2015) emphasized the need for
diversifying and fostering holistic learning skills due to the global paradigm shift in the
technological, social, economic, and cultural context of the 21st century. Sharif and Cho (2015)
urged instructional designers to stay vigilant, flexible, and creative to accommodate changing
industry demands. One of the notable changes in the industry was the increasing variance of job
15
titles and responsibilities for the person performing instructional design duties, sparking the need
for further clarification and redefinition.
Definition of an Instructional Designer
The roles and responsibilities of instructional designers and their job titles vary based on
their organizations and industries. The ever-evolving nature of the industry may be the cause,
and roles are expected to expand as the industry grows (Sharif & Cho, 2015; Virtaneva et al.,
2021). The roles and responsibilities of instructional designers working in the human capital
development field are closely tied to improving employees’ performance and delivering a return
on investment for their organizations (North et al., 2021). Roles and Responsibilities
The instructional design profession has been defined in many ways: learning, learning
systems, performance, and media content creation (Koszalka et al., 2013). These varying
definitions are reflected in the multiple job titles of instructional designers collected in Rothwell
et al. ‘s (2016) study, where more than 30% of their research participants indicated
incongruencies in the job titles and responsibilities. North et al. (2021) suggested that
instructional designers’ responsibilities differ based on different industries and employers.
Magruder et al. (2019) created a survey focusing on the instructional designer’s roles and
competencies. The results showed that the instructional designer’s role varied and was defined
based on their organization’s unique culture and structure. The titles describing instructional
designers also varied per each organization’s needs and structure.
Instructional Design Job Titles
Rothwell et al. (2015) reported a variety of titles, including: “talent developers,
performance technologists, performance consultants, training and development specialist,
workplace learning and performance professionals, learning and performance professionals,
16
instructional developers, staff development specialists, performance consultants, or instructional
designers,” all describing a person who performs instructional design responsibilities (Rothwell
et al., 2016, p. xiv). Guerra-López and Joshi (2021) added that the titles, “instructional design
technologist, curriculum developers, training managers, learning and development specialists,
and performance improvement consultant” are all used to describe an instructional design job
position (p. 2). Bozarth (2019) claimed that the instructional designer title contains a “soup-to-
nuts array of tasks” and is “a catchall for anything related to creating, launching, delivering.” He
also noted that the title, instructional designer, included facilitating instruction in any capacity
and at any level of complexity (Bozarth, 2019, para 1). Wagner (2021) stated that organizations
use instructional designer and instructional developer titles interchangeably, underscoring the
need to clarify the skills and qualifications required by each title. In this study, the more
classically identified term, instructional designer, is used to describe the professionals who create
learning programs.
The newest title for instructional designers—learning experience designers—was recently
introduced, describing the designer who combines user experience design principles with
learning and instructional design principles (Wagner, 2021). Wagner (2021) defined the main
focus of learning experience designers as creating multimedia experiences and achieving
learning outcomes and performance improvement. Wagner (2021) added that learning
experience designers are responsible for creating learning experience programs, including
building and testing prototypes, utilizing visual and digital media technology for interactive
experiences, and applying instructional design principles (Wagner, 2021). Wagner (2021)
postulated that the learning designers’ competencies, listed by the eLearning Guild, would
continue to expand, and the role of learning designers would evolve with emerging technologies
17
and methodologies (Bozarth, 2019; Wagner, 2021). Kilgore (2016) added that experienced
designers apply instructional design strategies—a researched-based instructional design
framework—to enhance content targeting learners’ behavior.
Guerra-López and Joshi (2021) suggested that the ever-changing nature of the
instructional design field is the reason for different job titles and responsibilities. Kilgore (2016)
concluded that instructional designers and learning experience designers fuse design thinking
principles, fast-developing technologies, and multimedia visual tools regardless of the titles used
to identify them by the industry or organizations. Nworie (2022) suggested instructional
designers in the corporate setting are also tasked with influencing the learners’ behavior to
deliver tangible performance results, thus benefiting their organization. As such, instructional
designers in human capital development are burdened with driving performance and differ from
those in educational settings where the learning mainly benefits the learners’ knowledge and
personal development.
Instructional Design Competencies
Since the formation of instructional design strategies in the 1950’s and development of
effective models in the 1960’s, there have been many opinions on the required competencies for
instructional designers. The Association for Educational Communications and Technology
(AECT) and the National Society for Performance Improvement (NSPI), now the International
Society for Performance Improvements (ISPI), established the first set of instructional design
competencies in 1977. ISPI believed high-quality instructional design methodologies applied by
qualified designers could enhance performance and listed 22 competencies and 105 performance
statements in the latest edition of Instructional Design Competencies: The Standards (Koszalka
et al., 2013). The 22 competencies are separated into five domains: communication, planning and
18
analysis, design and development, evaluation and implementation, and management (Koszalka et
al., 2013), and underline the importance of updating knowledge and skills about new developing
technologies as well as the ongoing emergence and expansion of new competencies in the design
and development domain. Table 1 shows the list of competencies.
Table 1
Instructional Design Competencies: The Standards
Category Competencies
Professional foundations Communicate effectively in visual, oral, and written form
(essential).
Apply research and theory to the discipline of instructional
design. (advanced).
Update and improve knowledge, skills, and attitudes
pertaining to the instructional design process and related
fields (essential).
Apply data collection and analysis skills in instructional
design projects (advanced).
Identify and respond to ethical, legal, and political
implications of design in the workplace (essential).
Planning and analysis Conduct a needs assessment in order to recommend
appropriate design solutions and strategies (advanced).
Identify and describe the target population and
environmental characteristics (essential).
Select and use analysis techniques for determining
instructional content (essential).
Analyze the characteristics of existing and emerging
technologies and their potential use (essential).
Design and development Use an instructional design and development process
appropriate for a given project (essential).
Organize instructional programs and/or products to be
designed, developed, and evaluated (essential).
Design instructional interventions (essential).
Plan non-instructional interventions (advanced).
Select or modify existing instructional materials (essential).
Develop specifications that serve as the basis for media
production (essential).
Design learning assessment (advanced).
19
Category Competencies
Evaluation and implementation Evaluate instructional and non-instructional interventions.
(advanced).
Revise instructional and non-instructional solutions based
on data. (essential).
Implement, disseminate, and diffuse instructional and non-
instructional interventions (advanced).
Management Apply business skills to managing the instructional design
function (managerial).
Manage partnerships and collaborative relationships
(managerial).
Plan and manage instructional design projects (advanced).
Note. From Instructional design competencies: The standards (4th ed) by T. Koszalka, D. Russ-
Eft, & R. Reiser, 2013. Information Age Publishing.
Despite the publication of these standards, there continued to be an examination of the
role of the instructional designer, the competencies expected of them, and the skills and
knowledge instructional designers were actually using. Williams et al. (2012) described the
increasing global demand for instructional designers and recommended structuring cultural
practices, policies, and support for the growth of instructional design professionals, and
constructing a career path in management. They identified effective communication, continuous
improvement in instructional design-related knowledge, research-based instructional design
approaches, research, and ethical and legal problem-solving skills as vital competencies for
instructional designers (Williams et al., 2012).
Magruder et al.’s (2019) research discovered a correlation between instructional
designers’ competencies and actual roles. They identified five common competencies:
communication, collaboration, theoretical knowledge, problem-solving, and course design based
on surveying 104 instructional designers working in higher education. Their study results
20
suggested that instructional designers’ top two essential competencies are program evaluation
and learning theory application. Their study also revealed many designers’ desires to advance to
leadership roles within their organizations and recommended professional development
educational offerings, including leadership, management, and foundational instructional design
skills. Ashbaugh (2012) argued the competencies established by AECT and other instructional
design practitioners left out competency in leadership and emphasized its close relationship to
improving the quality of online learning products.
As information communication technologies became ubiquitous in the workplace,
eLearning became the primary method for assigning employee training (Kim, 2016). Kim (2016)
recommended that instructional designers develop technical competencies required for creating
eLearning, emphasizing the effectiveness of practice-focused instructional design competencies.
Kim (2016) identified nine aspects of eLearning design that require competency: needs analysis,
analyzing the system’s environment, planning a project, designing content, developing
manuscripts, developing storyboards, developing content, testing and evaluation of content, and
completion of the content. Wang et al.’s study in 2021 identified three competency domains:
knowledge, skill, and ability, and ranked the list of the top competencies within each domain.
Their study revealed that over 50% of employers desired their instructional designers to have
knowledge in eLearning technology, technical skills in digital and media tools, and multi-tasking
ability, as the top competencies (Wang et al., 2021). In addition to continuously updating their
design competencies, instructional designers in human capital development are responsible for
creating learning and training programs that improve employee performance.
21
Instructional Design for Human Capital Development and Employee Performance
Instructional designers in human capital development focus on elevating the quality of
employee training and development programs to influence employee performance. In the early
days of the instructional design industry, instructional designers worked with faculty to enhance
lesson materials to help engage students (Kozalka et al., 2013). Today, instructional designers
focus learning design on human capital development, including the learners’ knowledge, skills,
and behavior (Lowell & Ashby, 2018; Williams van Rooij, 2012). Instructional designers work
in various industries, including technology, finance, education, government, military, nonprofit,
and healthcare/medical, and the list is growing (Klein & Kelly, 2018). Regardless of the industry,
instructional designers strive to create learning designs that impact the learners’ behavior and
ability to deliver tangible performance results, benefiting their organization (Nworie, 2022).
The quality of employee training and development plans impact employee performance.
Hassan et al. (2013) asserted that employee training plays a vital role in employee motivation
and influences their performance. Latif et al. (2013) reported the linkage between employee
training, business improvement, and employee attitudes. Their research findings suggested
effective employee training incentivizes employees to learn, which affects their motivation and
performance.
Sung and Choi’s (2014) research explored the correlation between organizational
learning practices and innovative performance. Their study examined investments in learning
categories that influence employees’ productivity including individual, interpersonal, and
organizational learning, and recommended providing training resources, internal training for
related job skills, and financial support for external educational activities on an ongoing basis.
Sung and Choi (2014) recommended establishing structured learning systems that ensure
22
“effective transfer, integration, and utilization” of training and promote innovation in employee
performance (p. 397).
Highlighting the additional benefits of employee training, Hassan et al. (2013) pointed
out that employee training development is vital to organizational success and remaining
competitive and profitable. Hassan and his colleagues explored the purpose and impact of
employee training and presented two key factors: corporate prominence and performance.
Iatagan’s (2016) study reiterated the need for continuous professional development programs for
employee skills and human capital development including ongoing professional training,
assessment of training needs, and economic rewards, all of which contribute to employee
performance. Esteban-Lloret et al. (2018) concluded that employee training is vital to
organizational success including remaining competitive and profitable. Their study emphasized
the close relationship between the purpose of training and establishing the legitimacy and
performance of organizations (Esteban-Lloret et al., 2018).
Instructional Design Models, Processes, and Strategies
Since the phrase “instructional design model” was first introduced by Brigg et al. (1981)
in the Handbook of Procedures for the Design of Instruction (Gibbons et al., 2013) instructional
designers have been utilizing models, processes, and strategies to strengthen and ensure the
effectiveness of their learning designs.
Instructional Design Models and Processes
Instructional designers apply instructional design models to carefully design and develop
effective online learning programs (Branch & Dousay, 2015). Although no one person or
research study single-handedly established the analysis, design, development, implementation,
and evaluation (ADDIE) model (Molenda, 2015), it is widely used by instructional designers
23
within organizations when creating employee training programs (Allen, 2006). The ADDIE
model is used to create focused training instructions in the instructional design process. It
removes unnecessary information and only presents essential skills or tasks (Allen, 2006) to
increase the learners’ performance. Initially developed by the military, this instructional design
process involves six stages: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation
(ADDIE; Allen, 2006; Molenda, 2015). Dick et al. (2013) suggested that using the ADDIE
model has enhanced quality, efficiency, and cost.
Building on the ADDIE model, Hilgart et al. (2012) described the instructional design
process as focusing on the learner’s prior knowledge and needs, establishing learning or
performance objectives, designing activities grounded in learning theories, evaluating retention
results, and assessing the stakeholders’ overall goal. They described the instructional design
process as “science, a field of practice, and process” (p. 4). The term “science” highlights the
scientific instructional design strategies for learning transfer. “A field of practice” describes the
phase when instructional designers work with the subject matter experts to develop, design,
implement, evaluate, and maintain learning programs. Finally, “process” refers to using
instructional design models for developing systematic instructions based on various learning
theories.
Instructional Design for eLearning
Instructional designers also apply recommended instructional design models and
processes in their eLearning design strategies when developing eLearning programs for human
capital development. eLearning is the learning process that uses information systems technology.
Thus, instructional design strategies for eLearning require consideration of the online modality
and its impact on learning goals and learners. Karthik et al. (2019) explained the origins of
24
instructional design strategies as deriving from behavioral and educational psychology and
neuroscience. In their qualitative study, from interviewing 18 instructional designers, they
presented six themes related to effective instructional design strategies for eLearning: technical
assistance, social support, storytelling, problem-based learning, gaming, and visual aesthetics.
Karthik et al. (2019) concluded learning activities highlighting these six themes fill the void
between the direct in-person learning experience and eLearning and create immersive learning
experiences.
Aparicio et al. (2016) proposed the multi-dimensional aspects of eLearning design theory
and practices, referring to Dabbagh’s (2005) eLearning theory as combining three elements:
“learning technologies, instructional strategies, and pedagogical models” (p. 209). Aparicio et al.
(2016) described the instructional design strategies for eLearning as a process in which learners’
preferences in learning modalities and cognitive processing are aided by technology, allowing
multiple collaborative, exploratory and problem-solving activities.
Mayer (2014) highlighted the significance of technology in eLearning design supported
by his multimedia theory, the way human beings learn better with words and pictures rather than
the words alone. Mayer (2014) recommended utilizing multimedia engagement interventions,
such as animation, videos, and other types of visual communication, to promote generative
cognitive processing, a process of igniting the learner’s motivation for engagement (Mayer,
2014; Mayer & Fiorella, 2021).
Kilpatrick et al. (2021) proposed applying the Universal Design for Learning principles—
instructional design strategies for maximizing learning experiences and minimizing learning
barriers for all. They recommended three instructional design strategies for the Universal Design
for Learning principles application: multiple means of engagement, representation, action, and
25
expression. For multiple means of engagement, they recommended implementing self-reflection
opportunities allowing learners to apply, evaluate and synthesize learning content and relate it to
their personal experiences. For the multiple means of representation, they recommended using
multiple modalities to present content—audio, video, text—and providing closed captions and
transcriptions. Finally, they recommended frequent feedback, cumulative assignments, and
assessments throughout each course as multiple opportunities for action and expression.
Benefits of Employee Online Training
Engaging employees in eLearning has many benefits. Virtually led training sessions, live
webinars, and self-directed learning modules assigned via corporate learning management
systems (LMSs) are all part of eLearning (Kuznia, 2016). Compared to traditional in-person
programs, eLearning is relatively low cost, provides flexibility and convenience, meets the needs
of many learners, and overcomes location, space, and scheduling limitations (Lin et al., 2018).
Lolic et al.’s (2020) research revealed significant benefits of eLearning as compared with the
traditional in-person training modality: shortening training time, removing physical distance
barriers, encouraging speedy learning transfer, breaking down complex content by chunking to
allow various learners to progress, arranging easier facilitation for trainers, implementing
evaluation, feedback, and recognition, and tracking measurable results. Kuznia (2016) suggested
that employees’ job productivity and performance were positively related to the utilization of
online training programs and that online training programs play a significant role in preparing
employees with the latest skills, impacting their performance. Malureanu et al. (2021) disclosed a
positive relationship between self-confidence and self-efficacy among those who demonstrated
ease of using eLearning and learning in virtual learning environment during the COVID-19
pandemic.
26
Learning Management Systems
Many organizations have implemented an LMS to automate the training process and
delivery of course assignments, activities, and knowledge checks that track employees’
performance. Since its invention, the LMS has also removed logistical barriers with the ability to
offer asynchronous and synchronous courses (Kuznia, 2016). LMSs have features that enable
employees to collaborate and learn from their peers. Many organizations utilize LMSs and web
2.0-based communication tools for acquiring and sharing information and transitioning to a
virtual learning environment (Cavus et al., 2021). Cavus et al. (2021) highlighted the two
benefits of the LMS: speed and flexibility. Most LMSs can host, facilitate, and track all the
online learning activities of their users, respond to their learning behaviors, and help instructors
curate and gauge their learners’ knowledge retention and learning behavior changes.
Careful vetting and selecting the right LMS provider can lay the foundation for building a
stable virtual learning environment that meets the organization and employee training needs.
Before the pandemic, organizations increased their investment in LMSs based on cost, time-
saving, and economic and operational efficiencies. Krishnamoorthy and Keating (2021)
examined the role of the LMS and its increased dominance in education catapulted by the virtual
learning environment of COVID-19. While the benefits of LMSs are still forming, awareness of
some of the risks, such as data security breaches, widespread misinformation, and online
bullying, is necessary. The study urged organizations to establish governing practices to avoid a
potential imbalance in equity and equality for learners. Their study advocated for holistic
strategies to promote learning that would change learners’ behaviors, including strengthening
communication and program planning. They also recommended carefully considering benefits
and downfalls before investing in LMS and other learning technology (Keating, 2021).
27
Virtual Learning Environments
Virtual learning environments, including utilization of the LMS, have become the central
place for organizational learning. Mueller and Strohmeier (2011) articulated that virtual learning
environments utilize information systems and other electronic communication modalities to
facilitate and assign educational and training programs. With the onset of COVID-19, the
implementation of safety measures such as social and physical confinement propelled the
adaptation of the virtual operations model, utilizing instant messaging applications, video
conferencing tools, webinars, eLearning, online games, and digital classrooms (Chanana &
Sangeeta, 2020). All aspects of employee engagement, including employee learning and
development, have been solely assigned via eLearning (electronic learning) since the beginning
of the COVID-19 pandemic, establishing the virtual learning environment norm (Torres Martín
et al., 2021).
There are many benefits to virtual learning environments, such as cost-effectiveness, the
use of the latest technology, speed of information, and convenience of delivery (Kuznia, 2016).
However, Haq et al. (2018) indicated many downfalls of the virtual learning environment
including learner attrition rate, a minimal connection between pedagogical strategies, and
constant updates due to evolving technologies and the lack of a “meaningful learning experience
(p. 31).”
Gurajena et al. (2021) also presented the social, technological, and pedagogical
challenges of relying on technology, including poor socio-economic conditions creating barriers
to accessing eLearning services, limited access to telecommunication services and networks, the
lack of digital knowledge, electric power infrastructures, and support services, and the lack of
instructional knowledge of instructors and SMEs for adapting to eLearning in the virtual learning
28
environment. Chou and Chen (2016) expressed concerns about the lack of instructional design
strategies for protecting online learners’ privacy and data in the virtual learning environment. Xie
et al. (2021a) reflected on the challenges of getting faculty and students to adopt digital tools and
systems. Harasim (2017) pointed out that many educators use eLearning to present their teaching
materials while still applying direct teaching methods instead of utilizing the latest information
communication technology to improve engagement.
Adedoyin and Soykan (2020) also presented the obstacles designers faced when
migrating rapidly to the virtual learning environment during COVID-19, including the lack of an
instructional design planning process for transitioning to fully online sessions and little
consideration for varying digital competency levels of learners and instructors. The rapid move
to a virtual learning environment for employee learning was a paradigm shift that required an
overhaul and modality change for all learning programs and created many challenges in the
instructional design industry.
General Challenges in the Instructional Design Industry
Employee training and learning were among the first activities to be disrupted by the
COVID-19 pandemic, canceling most, if not all, in-person training around the world and forcing
training to operate primarily through electronic systems. Shifting to entirely virtual learning
environments propelled organizations to acquiesce and adapt to modality changes for all human
capital development programs (Gaur et al., 2020). This adjustment had a ripple effect on other
aspects of the instructional designers’ ecosystem, including the digital readiness of their
organizations (Cahapay, 2021; Volberda et al., 2021), constant changes in skill requirements
impacted by fast-changing technology (Lund et al., 2021), and the additional challenges
presented by living under pandemic conditions (Makhbul & Rawshdeh, 2021).
29
Digital Readiness of Organizations
COVID-19 accelerated the digital transformation of organizations and the need to quickly
adapt to digital tools that would prevent disruptions in business operations (Volberda et al.,
2021). Digitalization of organizational learning requires cooperation from multiple
organizational stakeholders, leaders, managers, and employees (Hai et al., 2021). Hai et al.
(2021) listed many factors contributing to organizations’ digital transformation, including social
technology, cloud computing, the internet of things, the culture of an organization, and
organizational business systems. They elaborated that the current workforce’s low level of
competencies related to functioning in a digital work setting contributed to one of the main
challenges facing digital transformation. They urged redefining the roles and responsibilities of
leaders in the digital transformation process and developing digital competencies for employees
to adapt to virtual work settings. They also called for organizations to implement digital
infrastructures that withstand unforeseen external security threats (Hai et al., 2021).
Kruszyńska-Fischbach et al. (2021) highlighted assessing the “e-readiness” (p. 2) of
organizations for mapping out comprehensive organizational digital transformation plans. Their
study determined the critical factors for assessing the digital readiness of organizations by
collecting questionnaire data examining 32 items that could impact the digital transformation of
organizations. Their study pointed to many influential factors in measuring the digital
transformation readiness of organizations, including available technology, human resources,
information systems, and external technology providers. Their study identified two main factors
that can indicate the digital readiness of an organization: operational and technological
capabilities. The two capabilities measured in their study are required resources and the usage of
technologies for digital operation (Kruszyńska-Fischbach et al., 2021). Thus, it is reasonable to
30
say professional development for instructional designers who are leading efforts in digitizing
organizational learning can positively impact the readiness for the digital transformation of
organizations.
Evolving Instructional Design Industry
One of the critical elements of human capital development is to provide effective
educational and developmental programs for employees (Obiekwe, 2018). Thus, providing
effective education and development programs to train aspiring instructional designers and those
already working as instructional design professionals is vital to establishing a thriving
organization-wide virtual learning environment (Xie et al., 2021a). However, there are many
different opinions about the direction of educational and training paths for instructional designers
due to the fluid nature of the industry (Sharif & Cho, 2015; Tracey & Boling, 2014; Virtaneva et
al., 2021). The literature tells us there are many different points of view on preferred training
methodologies—traditional versus practical—and how the instructional designers’ maturity in
the field weighs in on utilizing theoretical and technical knowledge (Tracey & Boling, 2014).
Instructional Designer Training and Education Programs
There have been many opinions on the quality of instructional designer training and
education programs. Tracey and Boling’s (2014) study reviewed the traditional approach to
educating instructional designers, including using formal competencies, theories, and models in
the classical instructional design textbooks used in many higher education institutions. Their
study advocated for continuous research on the effectiveness and quality of instructional
education programs through examination of instructional designers’ problem-solving skill
development as they mature in their professional practice (Tracey & Boling, 2014).
31
York and Ertmer (2016) questioned the efficacy of instructional designer education
programs, citing the gap in the relativity of instructional design models taught in schools and
their application in the professional world. Their study showed that expert instructional designers
interpreted and analyzed design problems differently from novice designers. The experts
primarily relied on their past experiences rather than utilizing the ADDIE model’s instructional
design phases. Their study included survey results from Wedman and Tessmer (1993), which
showed that 72 out of 73 instructional designers admitted to using only some parts of
instructional design models in their work. There have been many debates about whether to
continue teaching foundations of instructional design principles. Some found it too lengthy of a
process and impractical in real-life situations (Wedman & Tessmer, 2016). There are also
differences in solving design problems between novice and experienced instructional designers.
Novice Versus Seasoned Instructional Designers
There are those who insist that foundational knowledge of instructional design is
necessary until novice instructional designers gain more experience. Fortney and Yamagata-
Lynch’s (2013) study highlighted the different ways expert and novice designers solve problems
in their practices. Design is a creative process that requires consideration of multiple viewpoints
to solve complex problems that do not have right or wrong solutions. They suggested there is
less documentation on the process of how instructional designers develop expertise. The study
argued that both seasoned and entry-level instructional designers found differences in the
instructional design process taught in their educational training and work settings. Their study
recommended instructional designers rely on their past academic training when solving problems
in the workplace and develop client relationship skills to further strengthen their visibility within
their organizations (Fortney & Yamagata-Lynch, 2013). Hoard et al. (2019) pointed out that
32
instructional designers are responsible for delivering instructional design solutions and selecting
and utilizing different delivery methods. Their study elaborated on the differences in design
processes and media utilization between expert and novice instructional designers in their design
approaches, highlighting that new instructional designers are more likely to solve design
problems using media (Hoard et al., 2019).
The Lack of Instructional Models and Strategies in Professional Settings
Some researchers in the industry petitioned for having a specific instructional design
model for each industry or one that can be universally adapted. Giacumo and Breman (2021)
noted the lack of differentiated instructional design models for instructional design practitioners
working in different organizations: military, government, non-governmental, nonprofit, for-
profit, and global organizations. Giacumo and Breman suggested the need for “more widely
recognized and adopted models” (p. 148) for instructional design professionals. Kim (2015)
added that seasoned instructional designers address ever-changing design constraints by
negotiating with subject matter experts and applying nonlinear design approaches developed
from their experiences. The study explained three elements of solving design problems:
predetermined design briefs, shifting design process, and instructional designers’ design
aesthetics. Kim’s study described the instructional design as a negotiated practice between these
three elements. Thus, instructional designers are encouraged to accept constant changes in the
instructional design education and professional development industry and to keep up with
changing competency requirements to succeed, and especially to survive during the ongoing
pandemic.
33
Evolving Competency Changes in COVID-19
As stated earlier in the literature review, instructional designers played a vital role in
creating a consistent user experience and helping transition learning to a virtual format in many
educational and professional settings during COVID-19 (Morales, 2020; Xie et al., 2021a). The
emergence and increased acceptance of virtual learning environments during COVID-19
triggered an influx of job opportunities for instructional designers (North et al., 2021). North et
al. (2021) emphasized the skills needed for “Technology Application” (p. 7), technical
knowledge of designing with the authoring and media design software, and proficiency in
eLearning design tools in the digitally operated COVID-19 learning space. Their study added it
is essential for modern-day instructional designers—working in the pandemic and beyond—to
use the latest technologies evolved from simple instructional design tools in the past (North et
al., 2021).
Nworie (2022) added that as the instructional design field continues to change,
employers’ expectations for instructional designers to have technical skills will also expand. His
study recommended that instructional designers continue improving their skills and
competencies to keep up with industry changes, including new learning theory development,
emerging instructional design strategies and models, fast-changing technologies, and advanced
communication tools in the post-COVID world.
The Lack of Organizational Resources and Support
The competency changes triggered by COVID-19 could help instructional designers
survive any future disruptions and endure the possible shortcomings of their organizations, such
as lack of resources and support. Xie et al. (2021a) presented that many instructional designers
feel limited by their current organizations’ lack of resources and support to help them succeed
34
and develop within and outside their organizations. Furthermore, many obstacles, including a
lack of time, low trust, poor communication, and unnecessary training, hindered instructional
designers from pursuing professional development opportunities (Xie et al., 2021a).
DeVoughn and Stefaniak (2021) added that instructional designers also face challenges
from a lack of formal instructional design processes within their organizations. Rabel and
Stefaniak (2018) stated that very little had been studied about instructional designers’ strategies
in their workplace. Their study suggested that instructional designers tend to ignore instructional
design models and rely on their work experiences to solve instructional design problems.
Abramenka-Lachheb et al. (2021) added that there is limited evidence of collaboration in the
instructional design process in instructional designers’ workplaces. They proposed instructional
designers collaborate with clients during all instructional design phases: diagnosing learning
needs, desired learning behaviors, outcomes, and utilizing technology (Abramenka-Lachheb et
al., 2021). Lowell and Ashby (2018) recommended instructional designers invest in building
collaborative skills to work with clients, enhancing their problem-solving expertise, and helping
them create user-centric learning experiences.
Collectively, a review of the literature suggested examining the many general and
COVID-19-triggered changes in multiple layers of the instructional designers’ ecosystems to
help instructional designers to combat future disruptions, select appropriate technical training
and educational paths, and improve competencies to mitigate future disruptions in the workplace.
Conceptual Framework
Bronfenbrenner’s (1974) ecological systems provide a framework for examining the
changes in roles, responsibilities, and work environment of instructional designers who were
impacted by a paradigm shift in how organizations, triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic,
35
provided training for human capital development. Bronfenbrenner’s (1974) ecological systems
include five interconnected layers: individual, microsystem, exosystem, and macrosystem, and
the time element or historical event, chronosystem, which shapes the individual’s development.
This ecological system is shown in Figure 1.
36
Figure 1
The Evolution and Changes in Instructional Designers’ Roles and Responsibilities Impacted by
the Organizational Learning Environment Shift Impacted by COVID-19
For framing this study, the chronosystem is COVID-19, a pandemic that had catastrophic
effects on the other four layers of the ecological system. Emergency policies implemented in
37
legal, social, governmental, and educational structures in macrosystem slowed the spread of the
virus. These preventative and combative measures triggered many organizations in the United
States to transition to a virtual learning environment for organizational training spaces:
exosystem. Mesosystem represents changes in the instructional design industry and the symbiotic
relationship between exosystem (virtual learning environment) and instructional designers
(individual) impacted by high demand in instructional design jobs, eLearning trends, a booming
business in learning technology, and instructional design trends. Microsystems include
employees, managers, organizations, and instructional designers’ workplaces. At the center are
instructional designers—the individual layer of the ecological system—including their
experiences, educational background, and design styles.
Summary of Review
The purpose of this study was to present the evolution and changes in instructional
designers’ roles, responsibilities, and work environment impacted by COVID-19. The literature
review included studies on the history and evolution of the instructional design industry and
instructional designers. The literature review included additional studies on the organizational
learning space, an element of human capital development, the transition to virtual learning
environments, and other factors required for the transition. The literature review also included
studies on general challenges for instructional designers in the industry and how many additional
changes in the human capital development environment after the outbreak of COVID-19 were
handled. The topics of the studies that emerged from the review are (a) the evolution of the field
of instructional design and the role of instructional designers, (b) employee performance and
instructional design, (c) the organizational learning environment, and (d) general challenges in
the field of instructional design and the designers.
38
A group of educators and scientists initially developed the instructional design profession
to systematically design instruction that would improve the learners’ performance (Reiser, 2001;
Tennyson, 2010; Rothwell, 2016; Reiser, 2012; North et al., 2021). Since then, the instructional
design industry has grown exponentially, transpiring variance in roles and responsibilities
reflected in the industry’s ever-growing list of job titles and qualification requirements (Guerra-
López & Joshi, 2021; Magruder et al., 2019; Wagner, 2021). Instructional designers developing
learning and training programs for human capital development in organizations are tasked with
many considerations. These considerations include utilizing theoretical and practical
instructional design knowledge coupled with the latest technology in their design process to
improve the effectiveness of learning programs and ultimately improve employees’ performance
(Bozarth, 2019; Wagner, 2021). Therefore, studying the changes in ecological layers
(Bronfenbrenner, 1974) around instructional designers can help provide insight into successful
human capital development program that can withstand the test of time.
39
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study aims to reveal how the work of instructional designers has been disrupted by
the COVID-19 pandemic. This chapter provides an overview of the methodology, including the
data collection procedures and data analysis process used for this study. The chapter also
examines the study’s credibility, trustworthiness, and ethics.
Research Questions
The study aims to answer the following questions:
1. In what ways has the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the roles, responsibilities, and
work environment of instructional designers?
2. What are instructional designers’ perceptions regarding their level of preparation for
the increased workload and changing learning environment?
3. What challenges and opportunities did instructional designers experience from the
learning environment changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic?
Overview of Design
The study utilized a qualitative research approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) involving
interviews with eight to 10 instructional designers working in private and public organizations.
The purpose of the interviews was to collect information about the lived experiences of these
instructional designers during COVID-19 and discover changes that occurred in their roles and
responsibilities. The researcher chose the qualitative approach, including the inductive method,
to uncover the meaning, context, and processes shared among instructional designers during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The study utilized a purposeful sampling to “discover, understand, gain
insight and learn” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 96) from instructional designers, and gather data
to answer the research questions posed.
40
Research Setting
I interviewed instructional designers creating learning and training programs in human
capital development. The quality of human capital development helps achieve organizational
success (Gruzina et al., 2021; Obiekwe, 2018). Over the years, human capital development
approaches have shifted from focusing on “organized and time-base activities” for employees to
holistically fostering their overall development (Mikołajczyk, 2021). Instructional designers in
this space design and develop learning and training programs for the organization’s workforce
(Goldin, 2016). Zippia estimated that among 30 million profiles in their database, there are
currently 95,000 instructional designers in the United States, estimating over 70,000 instructional
designers working in human capital development in non-educational organizations. Their reports
show the average age of instructional designers is 44 years old. The total population is made up
of approximately 55.4% who identified themselves as female and 40.3% who identified
themselves as male. The population’s ethnicity is reported to be 66% White, 14.4% Hispanic,
10.3% Black, and less than 4.4 % Asian. Of these instructional designers, 64% have bachelor’s
degrees, 25% have master’s degrees, and only 2% have doctorate degrees.
The Researcher
I am an instructional designer working in a higher education organization creating
learning programs for human resources and have over 10 years of experience in adult learning
design. As the researcher is the data collection instrument in a qualitative study, the researcher’s
positionality may influence the interview questions and affect the participants’ responses
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Thus, I am mindful of my preconceptions of instructional
professionals and other interrelated ecological system elements, including job descriptions,
industry trends, job market, challenges, and learning environment. I am aware of the similarities
41
of my experience to some of the participants’ experiences with increases in workload,
communication issues in virtual learning and working environments, and additional stress related
to the COVID-19 pandemic. I am also aware of my educational and cultural background as an
immigrant minority woman instructional designer with her own opinions about determining the
required competencies and experiences of instructional designers.
To mitigate any issues influencing the study, I implemented constant comparative and
reflective methods to increase self-awareness throughout the research data collection and
analysis phases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Although I have insights into instructional design, I
strived to capture the participants’ unique experiences and life journeys while maintaining
neutrality. I implemented a self-reflection journaling practice and sought feedback from the
dissertation committee and my cohorts to remove any bias that could affect the study. Finally, I
recruited participants outside my immediate network to prevent affecting the validity and
reliability of the data collection process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Sources
Interviews with instructional designers were used as the primary data source to uncover
the impacts of COVID-19 on the ecosystem layers surrounding the participants, based on
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological system model. This section includes participants,
instrumentation, and data collection and analysis procedures.
Interview
I conducted semi-structured interviews using Zoom, a video conferencing tool, to follow
COVID-19 contactless protocols and to have the ability to interview participants in different
states in the United States. The participants had the option to turn on and off their cameras and
were advised to use any video background setting of their choice to prevent any distraction and
42
preserve their privacy. I conducted the interviews in the researcher’s private office in
consideration of any possible disruptions due to noise. I used a personal laptop camera and a
built-in microphone to conduct the interviews. Each participant was advised to locate a quiet,
private space to be interviewed to prevent unplanned disruptions.
Participants
The study utilized purposeful sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and interviewed eight
instructional designers working in the United States with more than 2 years of experience
creating training eLearning modules for human capital development topics. A qualifying
questionnaire survey (Appendix A) link was posted in the recruiting message on online job
boards and social media channels. The survey included a question asking for the total years of
professional instructional design experience to filter out those with less than 2 years of
experience. The survey asked about the type of industry and the location of their organizations to
ensure the recruitment of instructional designers who are creating human capital development
learning content in the United States. The survey requested their LinkedIn profile links to verify
the legitimacy of the participants and prevent any online phishing. I recruited participants from
reputable universities’ instructional design networks, Instructional Design Forum on
LinkedIn.com, and Professional Development for Instructional Designers Facebook Groups.
I took the following steps to recruit the participants online:
1. Within a week after receiving approval from the institutional review board (IRB), I
posted the recruiting message with the Qualtrics qualifying survey on online job
boards and social media channels (Appendix A).
2. I then selected eight to 10 respondents from the survey participants and set up the
interviews through email communications.
43
3. In case of a decrease in participation from the selected respondents, I relied on the
participants’ referrals and continued with the recruiting process until eight to 10
participants with the required qualifications were recruited.
Instrumentation
A mixture of structured and less structured questions was asked (Patton, 2003) based on
the degree of each respondent’s participation. The interview contained nine demographic
questions that collected information about age ranges, educational background, the individual
path to becoming an instructional designer, types of employee training they create, and current
job titles. I then asked questions related to their current roles and responsibilities, daily work,
workload, and organizations they worked for since the onset of COVID-19. I asked additional
questions related to challenges and discoveries they experienced in their working environment
during the pandemic. The final sets of questions asked were related to the participants’
perceptions about the industry and the level of their preparedness for dealing with changes in the
industry. I asked additional probing questions based on the interview dynamics between the
researcher and participants.
Data Collection Procedures
I conducted the interviews via Zoom, a video conferencing tool following the COVID-19
contactless protocols starting in January 2022. Each interview session lasted 45 to 60 minutes to
allow enough time for the participant. The audio and video of the interview sessions were
recorded based on the participants’ privacy preferences and transcribed via Zoom recording
features. I opened each interview by stating the purpose of the study, ensuring confidentiality,
and acknowledging that participants could end the interview at any given time. Before recording
the interview, I asked each participant’s preferred method(s) of recording, either audio or video,
44
to put each participant at ease. I then asked the first set of questions to set the stage before
moving on to the heart of the interview with questions related to the study’s research questions. I
added probing questions for additional follow-up that felt necessary (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Finally, I asked an open-ended question (Patton, 2003) to allow participants to share any
additional information they felt was absent from their responses to the main interview questions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I allowed ample time for each participant to complete any additional
input and ended the interview session by expressing gratitude, assuring confidentiality, and
following up with any additional questions.
Data Analysis
I recorded and transcribed the interviews using the Zoom video conferencing software. I
then categorized the data using open coding (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) using online software,
Atlast.ti, for data preparation, identification, and analysis. I engaged in a reflective process
during the process of coding. The codes were analyzed and examined to produce inductive
themes (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The credibility and trustworthiness of the study refer to the researcher’s ability to present
the validity of the information (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For this study, I utilized adequate
engagement in the data collection recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) and interviewed
eight instructional designers in the human capital development space. I also used rich
descriptions to present the findings that correspond to the proposed research questions (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018).
45
Ethics
In a qualitative study, ethical issues may occur between data collection and publication of
the findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To preserve the ethics of the study, the participants had
the right to end or cancel any part of the interview process. I ensured that participants had clear
explanations about the study by providing an overview of the research topic and the interview
protocols in the initial inquiry email sent to them. The data collected from participants were
confidential, and the interview video recordings were stored on my personal computer which
required secure login credentials to protect the data. The files will be erased from the computer 5
years after the interview collection date. I complied with the University of Southern California’s
commitment to others with fairness, honesty, and respecting the rights and dignity of all persons
(USC Research, n.d.). I obtained informed consent and ensured the confidentiality of the
participants’ information and interviews. I did not offer any compensation or incentives; I
explained my positionality and followed the required IRB process, including attending
workshops, consulting my dissertation chair, and reviewing IRB guidelines.
46
Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of the study was to reveal how the work of instructional designers has been
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. By understanding how the roles and responsibilities of
instructional designers, who create human capital development training programs, were changed
and impacted by the onset of COVID-19, the research aimed to discover any additional
competencies, professional development recommendations, and industry standards for job titles,
responsibilities, and performance expectations.
By collecting and analyzing the research participants’ lived experiences, the study aimed
to identify recommended instructional design strategies and best practices to prepare
instructional designers for the remote work settings normalized by the COVID-19 pandemic and
other future disruptions. The following research questions guided the study to learn more about
instructional designers’ perceptions regarding the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on their
roles and responsibilities, the virtual learning environment, the instructional design industry, and
other changes they experienced:
1. In what ways has the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the roles and responsibilities
and work environment of instructional designers?
2. What are instructional designers’ perceptions regarding their level of preparation for
the increased workload and changes in the industry?
3. What changes and opportunities did the designers experience from the learning
environment changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic?
Participants
Eight instructional designers working in private and public organizations creating
training and learning programs for human capital development were interviewed for the study.
47
The eight participants are represented under pseudonyms to ensure their anonymity and
confidentiality. The study included six women and two men. All eight participants identified
themselves as instructional designers. Six of the eight participants have master’s degrees. Three
of the eight participants are currently pursuing doctorate degrees while one participant had two
doctoral degrees. All the participants had experiences working in the educational sector—K–12,
higher education, and adult learning settings—throughout their careers. All participants had more
than 2 years of experience working as an instructional designer or, in some capacity designing
adult learning and training content. The industry sectors of the participants included medical
device sales, banking, technology, insurance, and human resources. Seven out of the eight
participants currently hold a full-time position, while only one participant is a self-employed
instructional design consultant. One other participant identified as having both a full-time job
and ongoing contract work. The participants’ essential characteristics, including job title, years
of instructional design experiences, and current employment status are depicted in Table 2.
48
Table 2
Participants’ Essential Characteristics
Participants Job titles Years in the
industry
Employment status
Adam Instructional designer 9 Fulltime
Alex Instructional designer 20 Fulltime and contract
Ashley Sr. manager of education and
learning technology
6 Fulltime
Candace Learning designer 6 Fulltime
Dana Sr. instructional design
specialist
16 Fulltime
Emily Instructional designer 12 Contract
Holly Customer education manager 4.5 Fulltime
Julie Online learning instructional
design manager
6 Fulltime
Table 3 showcases the participants’ educational background, industry, paths to
instructional design, and the main types of course design.
49
Table 3
Participants’ Educational Background, Industry, Paths to Instructional Design, and the Main
Types of Course Design
Characteristics
of participants
Under-
graduate
major
Highest
level of
education
Current
education
status
Graduate
degree major
Path to ID Industry
Adam English
education
Master
Instructional
design and
technology
Learning
facilitator
to ID
Medical
device
sales
Alex Radio and TV Master
Instructional
design and
technology
Trainer to
ID
High tech
Ashley Secondary
education
Master Pursuing a
doctorate
leadership,
with an
emphasis on
instructional
design
Teacher to
ID
Medical
training
Candace
Master Pursuing a
doctorate
Instructional
design
Trainer to
ID
Insurance
Dana Education
counseling
Master
College
personnel
High school
counselor
Insurance
Emily English
second
language
education
Master
Applied
linguistics
teaching
ESL
High school
counselor
ID
Human
resources
Holly English PhD 2 PhDs 2 masters:
curriculum
and
instruction
and English
ESL teacher
to ID
Medical
technolog
y
Julie Psychology
and
computer
information
technology
Master Incomplete
PhD
program
Educational
psychology,
focusing on
learning
science
PhD student
to ID
Finance
50
Findings
Each research question and associated findings are organized in this section. Table 4
presents the research questions and synthesized findings related to each question.
Table 4
Research Questions and Synthesized Findings
Research questions Findings
RQ 1: In what ways has the COVID-19
pandemic influenced the roles and
responsibilities and work environment
of instructional designers?
COVID-19 reshaped instructional designers’ roles
and responsibilities to solely focus on content
digitization for virtual learning environments.
COVID-19 increased workloads, responsibilities,
and visibility for instructional designers
COVID-19 expanded digital knowledge and
technical skills requirements for instructional
designers
RQ 2: What are instructional designers’
perceptions regarding their level of
preparation for the changes in the
industry?
Instructional designers displayed a high level of
self-efficacy in dealing with many changes in
the industry:
An influx of jobs
Hiring practices
An emergence of instructional design education
and certification programs.
RQ 3: What challenges and opportunities
did the designers experience from the
learning environment changes caused
by the COVID-19 pandemic?
Instructional designers faced challenges from
The modality changes of learning and training
content,
The lack of organizational support in technology
and staff resources, and
Stresses of working under ongoing pandemic and
its many uncertainties.
Instructional designers experienced opportunities
from faster and easier job landing process.
Having extra hours for taking additional work
Avoiding geographic and industry-specific
expertise barriers.
51
RQ 1: In What Ways Has The COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced the Roles and
Responsibilities and The Work Environment of Instructional Designers?
RQ 1 aimed to uncover the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the instructional
designers’ roles and responsibilities and their work environments. The interview questions
related to answering RQ 1 included questions for comparing their daily work before and since
the onset of the pandemic and noticing any changes in their working environment since the onset
of COVID-19, leading to the following findings: the pandemic (a) reshaped instructional
designers’ roles and responsibilities for focusing on content digitation, and digital transformation
of their organizations, (b) increased workload, responsibilities, and visibility of instructional
designers, and (c) expanded instructional designer’s competencies in digital knowledge and
technical skills domains.
Finding 1 for RQ 1: The COVID-19 Pandemic Reshaped Instructional Designers’ Roles
and Responsibilities to Solely Focus on Digitization of Content for Learning and Training
Content
The COVID-19 pandemic shifted instructional designers’ roles and responsibilities to
mainly focus on digitizing content ready for the eLearning modality. Six of eight participants
revealed that they spent most of their time digitizing and transforming existing training into
virtual environments. Participants were forgoing most of their other instructional design
responsibilities from before the pandemic, including designing and coordinating training
materials for in-person activities, hosting workshops, conferences, and onboarding events, and
creating presentations and job aids. For example, Ashley remembered spending 30–40% of her
time developing in-person training curricula and 50–60% planning logistics for the annual in-
person conference for the trainers in her organization before the pandemic. However, she had to
52
reluctantly shift all in-person conference planning duties to facilitating live video-conferencing
events. Though the decline in COVID hospitalizations and the availability of vaccines helped to
return some of her in-person event coordination duties, she believed that virtual events would
continue to be favored due to their low cost compared to in-person event production. She
predicted her organization would transition to a more hybrid approach for instructor-led training.
As the pandemic continued, Ashely predicted that she would not return to some of her formal
responsibilities, facilitating and coordinating in-person events.
Instructional designers also shifted their design strategies to only focusing on designing
for eLearning modality, increasing engagement, and simulating live in-person events for online
learning. For example, when transferring all employment cycle events—from onboarding to
offboarding—making them adaptable for virtual experience, instructional designers added
multimedia learning interventions, animation, videos, and interaction activities, to create an
immersive learning experience. Ashley described moving in-person group activities to the virtual
version required her to change curriculum designs, including class sizes, and add live
interactions using Zoom polling tools to simulate the peer interactions that generally happen at
in-person events. Candace remembered adjusting her course design strategies, designing through
the “lens of fully virtual” experiences, and preserving the live experiences of in-person
onboarding events.
Adding to these efforts, instructional designers experimented with digital media and tools
to foster experiential and fully embodied learning experiences. Holly, who designed infographics
and training decks for the sales representatives at a car tire company, hired 3D artists to render
and animate “car parts” and added narration, designing visual simulations for the sales
representatives. Holly explained the purpose of her design strategy was to subsidize the tactile
53
in-person training experiences in eLearning. She then made the training adaptable to the mobile
learning format, adding additional flexibilities for her learners. Adam remembered developing
multiple ways to deliver tactile learning experiences for the medical device user training via
Zoom and self-directed eLearning courses. Adam pointed out that the pandemic helped to
highlight the “weakness of online training” and emphasized the importance of course design for
eLearning.
In addition to modifying their usual design strategies to adapt to the eLearning modality,
instructional designers provided additional services, beyond their design services to overhaul
their organizations’ digital transformation, by providing support for others in their organizations.
The participants recollected providing digital content design consulting and coaching services for
SMEs and others. Dana spent many hours assisting and consulting the corporate trainers to
convert their content online. She extended her services to the piloting and testing phases,
describing her efforts as “a huge lift.” Similarly, Adam collaborated with the IT department to
test out eLearning courses in the LMS to prevent any troubleshooting.
Based on the participants’ shared experiences, Finding 1 for RQ 1 confirmed that
COVID-19 changed the roles and responsibilities of instructional designers and their working
environment to solely focusing on the digital transformation of their organizations and adapting
to virtual learning environments. Their digitization efforts included converting all in-person
training conference events to virtual events and applying instructional design strategies to
subsidize in-person learning experiences in eLearning and helping others in content conversion
and digitization. Table 5 compares the primary responsibilities of the participants before and
after the onset of the pandemic.
54
Table 5
Primary Responsibilities Before and After the Onset of the Pandemic
Participant Original responsibilities before the
pandemic
Shifted responsibilities since the
start of the pandemic
Adam In-person training facilitation and
presentation design
eLearning content creating
VILT facilitation
Alex In-person training presentations
and job-aids design. Videos, and
other media production
eLearning learning modules
Ashley In-person conference and webinar
coordination, job-aids design
Webinar, VILT, self-directed
eLearning
Candace In-person training presentation
design
Self-directed eLearning
Dana In-person training presentation
design
Self-directed eLearning
Emily Video interviews, training video
production
Zoom interviews, training videos
Holly In-person training presentation,
infographics, and job-aids
design
Videos and other media content,
self-directed eLearning
Julie VILT and self-directed eLearning LMS troubleshoot ticket support
Finding 2 for RQ 1: COVID-19 Increased Workloads, Responsibilities, and Visibility for
Instructional Designers
The urgent need to move all learning and training online since the onset of the pandemic
increased the workloads, responsibilities, and visibility of instructional designers. The
participants expressed experiencing a substantial increase in their daily workload and took on
additional responsibilities to help their organizations. The participants also shared receiving more
attention to their work from others. Instructional designers found themselves more recognized
and valued for their work while juggling additional workloads and responsibilities.
55
Increases in Workload and Responsibilities
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March of 2020, instructional designers
juggled heavy workloads and additional responsibilities as the demand for virtual learning
increased. Julie, who works at one of the large credit unions, launched 40 training programs in 1
year during the pandemic compared to 25–30 courses per year, pre-pandemic. Adam worked an
average of over 60 hours a week, including weekends. Ashley predicted the increase in workload
caused by the pandemic would continue to exist, and she will not go back to some of her former
responsibilities such as planning in-person events for her organization. The most common
reasons shared by the participants for the increase in their workload included demands for digital
content for additional course topics, multiple content modalities, and learning systems support,
all resulting from adapting to the virtual working environment of COVID-19.
Instructional designers experienced a significant increase in their workload as their
organizations began moving all aspects of their operations online. Candace shared that when her
company realized they could move all aspects of employees’ life cycle-related training online,
her workload vastly increased even more than before the pandemic. Julie shared a similar
experience describing her department receiving requests for additional courses related to social
justice topics, such as the Black Lives Matter movement and diversity, equity, and inclusion. She
explained that these course topics were not typically included in her organization’s course
offering but have become a high priority.
The participants noticed their workload increased as more people acquiesced to multi-
learning modalities. Ashley credited the workload increase to “different modalities we are having
to present content.” She remembered conducting every aspect of their daily work via online
tools, including multiple Zoom meetings. Adam shared his experience of trying to manage his
56
design work and attend multiple meetings in a day: “cram 8 hours’ worth of work into 4 hours.”
Adam blamed the blurred lines of work and off hours and always being online in remote work
settings.
On top of providing their design services, instructional designers also experienced
increased demands for non-design-related services, such as helping employees with the learning
systems troubleshoots. Julie, who managed a team of instructional designers, shared that with all
the employees accessing online content, her team received a notably increased amount of
systems error service tickets and had to troubleshoot complaints, adding to her existing design
workload.
The virtual learning and training environments that were implemented during COVID-19
also expanded instructional designers’ responsibilities. Adam tested course launches and did
troubleshooting, typically the responsibilities of learning management system administrators.
Dana, who had already worked remotely before the pandemic, described managing and servicing
various projects’ needs during the pandemic, expanding her responsibilities compared to before
the pandemic. Instructional designers were responsible for swiftly training the learners to adopt
to live video-conferencing software and other technological tools. The rising demands for their
services spotlight the importance of their work.
Visibility of Instructional Designers
According to participants, the increase in workload, responsibilities, and demands for
their services also increased the recognition for their work. Before the pandemic, Candace
remembered often having to explain or “put in a layman’s term” what she did for those who did
not understand her job. Candace credited the remote working environment of COVID-19 and the
57
increased demand for eLearning content contributing to the increased awareness of instructional
designers.
Instructional designers were more recognized for their work as the world was settling into
living and working virtually as a norm. Holly, who has worked for NASA as a contract
instructional designer, remembered having to constantly explain what she did for a living to her
mother, who told others that her daughter designed “astronaut training manuals:”
I think it is becoming a more widespread role and more well-known field from 4 years
ago when I started [4 years ago]. … I feel like nowadays, if you say, “Oh, instructional
designer,” people have a better idea.
Jenny felt instructional designers were “receiving more attention” and it elevated the
importance of her department within her organization. COVID-19 also elevated the requirement
for the digital skills needed to create engaging learning activities.
Finding 3 for RQ 1: COVID 19 Expanded Digital Knowledge and Technical Skill
Requirements for Instructional Designers
The third finding for RQ 1 revealed that in order to operate in the virtual environment,
instructional designers had to quickly expand their technical knowledge and skills including
learning media production and eLearning authoring software. Another new skill requirement was
knowing the basics of operating their organizations’ LMS. The participants shared how they
learned eLearning authoring software such as Adobe Captivate and Storyline and Rise, part of
Articulate 360 Suite since the pandemic began. Dana shared that having technical knowledge and
skills in using eLearning authoring software is a “huge part of our [instructional designers’]
success,” as she described that the majority of her work has shifted from designing in-person
58
training to eLearning programs using Storyline. Ashley who primarily designed and coordinated
in-person training materials and conferences before the pandemic, also had to learn Storyline.
Instructional designers also learned to use video editing tools such as Camtasia and
Adobe Premier to record and edit, creating video content. Emily, who mostly created in-person
training before the pandemic, found herself “suddenly needing to learn all these new skills” for
video production, such as Adobe Premier, for conducting synchronous and asynchronous
learning. Dana credited learning the video and audio editing software Camtasia as a “life saver”
for helping her create video content. Ashley shared using Camtasia to convert all existing
instructor-led training (ILT) content to asynchronous, self-directed programs and record and edit
videos.
Instructional designers also learned to manage the LMS. Adam, who spent most of his
time helping trainers create presentations and facilitating in-person training sessions before the
pandemic, remembered needing to learn the eLearning authoring and communication software
for creating online content at the beginning of the pandemic. He had to conduct countless hours
of testing the LMS to help establish the virtual learning infrastructure for his organization. Table
6 lists the types of new software, technical skills, and tools the participants have learned since the
onset of the pandemic.
59
Table 6
Types of New Software, Technical Skills and Tools the Participants Have Learned Since the
Onset of the Pandemic
New software and
technical skills
obtained since the
pandemic
Media software type eLearning authoring
software
Systems
Adam Camtasia Articulate 360:
Storyline & Rise
LMS management
and testing
features, Webinar
using Zoom,
Ashely Camtasia Articulate 360:
Storyline & Rise,
Adobe Captivate
Webinar using Zoom
Candace
Articulate 360:
Storyline & Rise
Dana Camtasia eLearning Authoring
and Video editing
Emily Adobe Premiere
Video recording and
editing, Webinar
using Zoom
Holly Camtasia
Vyond Animation
Adobe Captivate Video recording and
editing
Summary of Findings for RQ 1
The findings of Research Question 1 revealed the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the
roles and responsibilities in many ways; regardless of various instructional design functions
performed before the pandemic, their primary roles and responsibilities shifted to releasing and
creating training content for delivery in a virtual modality. In this way, the virtual working
environments that became the norm during the COVID-19 pandemic increased the demands for
digital content, thus increasing workloads for instructional designers. Rapid adaptation to virtual
working environments also increased the daily responsibilities of instructional designers, who
60
became responsible for testing, maintaining, and responding to troubleshooting inquiries for
LMS. Instructional designers also found themselves providing technology consulting services to
other departments.
The expansion of their responsibilities helped raise the profile of instructional designers
and increased awareness of what they do in their work while demands for instructional design
services increased public understanding of the importance of their roles and responsibilities.
Lastly, the sudden disruption in workflow that stemmed from moving organizational
learning and training operations from primarily in-person delivery to virtual spaces, pushed
instructional designers to learn new software and systems and expanded the knowledge and skills
required by their roles and responsibilities.
RQ 2: What Are Instructional Designers’ Perceptions Regarding Their Level of
Preparation for The Changes in The Industry?
RQ 2 aimed to reveal instructional designers’ perceptions regarding their level of
preparation for many industry changes. The findings for RQ 2 underline that the participants
displayed a high level of self-efficacy in their preparedness to handle changes in the industry,
including (a) an influx of jobs, (b) changes in hiring practices, and (c) emergence of instructional
design education and certification programs. The participants agreed that these changes resulted
from increased demands for their services. The below findings affirm the participants ‘perception
of their preparedness in the face of many changes.’
Finding 1 for RQ 2: Instructional Designers Displayed High Self-Efficacy in Their
Preparedness for Changes in the Industry
Adapting to the new virtual learning and training environment created high demands for
instructional designers including a fast turnaround time for course designs. Ashly reflected on the
61
sense of urgency and abrupt transition at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic but felt ready to
adapt to those changes.
It’s just kind of one of those things where you have to learn and adapt, kind of figure out
how to make it. I feel like instructional designers as a whole are pretty good at that, and
the training that we get thrown at us as different modalities, different budgets, different
topics, and you just got to figure out [how] to make it work.
Adam, who used to design ILT facilitation guides and presentations for sales
representatives for his company, was confident in shifting his focus to converting in-person
training programs to go online. Julie, who was already working remotely, appreciated that her
company had set up a system and hired contractors to scale up, so that they could handle the
workload overflow and she felt prepared for the changes. Dana, also worked predominantly
remotely before the pandemic. She described her current work as “business as usual” and
anticipated the rest of the world would shift to the virtual environment. She remembered
reflecting on different learning needs brought on by COVID-19 and reiterated, “I think as
instructional designers, we got to shift quickly.” Holly emphasized, “I welcome the change. …
Being able to build a team from scratch.” She confidently expressed her preparedness for the
changes brought on by the pandemic and recommended that instructional designers keep up with
the latest technology, instructional trends, and skills, avoiding being like “the old version of
Captivate and trying to build an Adobe Flash program,” referring to outdated software and
technology. The collected data reflected that the participating instructional designers
demonstrated a high level of self-efficacy in adapting to the new situation and accepted the
constant changes the industry. Instructional designers were self-efficacious, especially when
62
experiencing the changes in the job market, including (a) an influx of jobs, (b) changes in hiring
practices, and (c) emergence of professional training programs.
An Influx of Instructional Design Jobs
Instructional designers demonstrated a high level of self-efficacy in dealing with the
increased number of open positions in the job market. Instructional designers experienced
increased opportunities from the frequent and higher numbers of messages and inquiries from
online job boards, social media, and email marketing campaigns. Emily experienced the increase
as she was being “hit up a lot on LinkedIn” by the recruiters. Ashley experienced the increase in
jobs by noticing many online resources for instructional design training program advertisements
and the presence of “instructional design influencers” on LinkedIn and other social media
channels.
Many job listings in the market allowed instructional designers more options for choosing
the roles and even taking on multiple jobs. Alex shared juggling two jobs, seizing the
opportunities in the current job market. Adam, who also recently changed jobs, was more
selective about the types of jobs and industries during his search process.
In interviews, all participants predicted the continued growth of the job market for
instructional designers and expressed their readiness. However, they also shared that the growth
in the job market also changed the hiring practices for instructional designers, including the
variance in job titles and correlated performance, portfolio and digital skills requirements, and
advocated for standardization and redefinition.
63
Changes in Hiring Practices
New hiring processes included varying job titles and performance expectations, extensive
knowledge in software for developing eLearning, and basic knowledge in operating more than
one LMS as well as other learning technology systems.
A Variance in Job Titles and Performance Expectations. According to the
interviewees, the job titles and performance expectations experienced by instructional designers
varied from organization to organization in the current job market. Holly, who was in the job
market during the pandemic seeking a leadership role, found that some companies had additional
performance expectations beyond the listed job title:
Some companies want to hire an instructional designer, … but they want that person to
do everything. … They want that person to do LMS administration, facilitate, and do the
design work, you know, like all of the things. … They are calling instructional designers
who have additional responsibilities as learning and development managers; even though
they don’t have any direct reports. … The term instructional designer is becoming muddy
and broader.
Ashley, who switched jobs during the pandemic, also found inconsistencies in the job
titles and listed performance expectations in the job advertisements. She explained, “It is all over
the place. … There are no standards for what it takes to be an instructional designer.” When
comparing each participant’s job title and responsibilities, most of the participants were
identified as an instructional designer; even though the modality of their course design and
responsibilities are different from one another.
64
Based on the participants’ testimonials, instructional designer titles and responsibilities
varied from one another; the job titles of participants also varied considerably. Table 7 displays
the participants’ job titles, instructional design responsibilities, and industries.
65
Table 7
Participants’ Job Titles, Instructional Design Responsibilities, and Industries
Participants Job Title eLearning
course
design
In-person
course
design
Training
facilitation
Industry
Adam Instructional
designer
X
Medical
device sales
Alex Instructional
designer
X X
Technology
Ashley Senior manager
of educational
and learning
technology
X X X Medical
Candace Learning
designer
X X
Insurance
Dana Senior learning
specialist
X
Insurance
Emily Instructional
designer
X
Self-
employed
Holly Customer
education
manager
X
Technology
Julie Online learning
instructional
design
manager
X Finance
66
Portfolio and Specific Software Skills Requirements. Portfolio submission and
presentation became an essential hiring practice during the interview process. Dana, who has had
the same job for the past 10 years, witnessed other designers, who were entering the industry,
prepping for online portfolios during their job search. She added she would have to create a
portfolio from the “ground up,” as she never had to have one when she was in the job market.
Holly, who is currently hiring a junior instructional designer, stated that she is making a portfolio
presentation a part of the application and interview process. She expressed strongly the
importance of seeing the applicants’ work to determine their match-ability with the job. Ashley
also remembered many teacher friends seeking her advice when creating their online portfolios
to land an instructional design job.
In addition to having a digital portfolio, one of the must-have technical skill requirements
for instructional designer positions is knowing eLearning authoring tools: Articulate 360’s
Storyline and Rise, and Adobe Captivate. During his recent job search, after making it to the
final rounds of an interview, Alex found out he did not land the job because he did not have the
skills for using specific authoring software. Both Ashley and Candace learned Articulate
Storyline to make themselves more marketable during their recent job search, which helped them
land their current jobs.
Efforts to transfer all learning content and make it virtually available reinforced the
importance of digital skills for instructional designers. As stated in the third finding of RQ 1,
having instructional designers take on responsibilities for operating LMSs and applying video
and other media production skills was desirable in the job market. Seven out of the eight
participants recommended that instructional designers “keep up” with the latest technology and
67
believed that technology is a “fundamental component” of instructional designers’ roles and
responsibilities.
Emily pointed out that instructional designers are leveraging technology in their
workplace to create “modern” content, getting more attention from learners:
So, an instructional designer really needs to be pretty savvy with all the modern
technology. And I think, maybe, years ago, it would have been really hard to imagine an
instructional designer shooting their own video content like training content, making their
own or editing their own audio or whatever, but that’s pretty baseline at this point.
Along with the influx of job postings and changing hiring practices, the participants
observed the emergence of education and certification programs, targeting aspiring instructional
designers and practicing professionals, and questioned their credibility.
An Emergence of Education and Certification Programs for Training Instructional Designers
Instructional designers noticed the boom in professional development programs, higher
education, online degrees, and certifications programs for instructional designers. The sudden
increase in job opportunities drove a rise in independent job training programs for aspiring
instructional designers. However, participants questioned the quality of the industry regulations
and standards, anticipating confusion among the people seeking a new career as instructional
designers. Ashely remembered encountering many training and educational offerings and
questioning their competency standards. She insisted that the professional competencies taught in
these educational programs are not used in practice. Dana, who has many teacher friends wanting
to transition to being instructional designers, found herself wondering about the credibility and
legitimacy of many certifications and higher education programs. Instructional designers were
unaware of any existing standards to regulate and measure the quality of these training programs
68
and felt the need for standardization and a system to gauge their credentials. Instructional
designers shared the same sentiment about industry hiring practices and qualifications required
by the industry.
Summary of Findings for RQ 2
The findings for RQ 2 disclosed that instructional designers displayed high self-efficacy
and demonstrated willingness to adapt to many changes brought on by the pandemic including:
influx of jobs; increased variances for describing their titles and responsibilities; changes in
hiring practices and required qualifications; and booming instructional design educational
businesses. The participants advocated for standardization and a clear definition for job titles and
responsibilities. Instructional designers wished for standardization in hiring practices and clarity
about the requirements for job qualification. Finally, instructional designers also asked for
quality control systems to evaluate the credentials of emerging industry education and training
programs. The participants experienced challenges, but also found opportunities that stemmed
from these rapid changes in the industry.
RQ 3: What Challenges and Opportunities Did Instructional Designers Experience from
the Learning Environment Changes Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic?
Instructional designers faced both challenges and opportunities in the midst of the
ongoing pandemic. The purpose of RQ 3 is to uncover the shared challenges and opportunities
that instructional designers experienced under the ongoing and still evolving pandemic working
conditions. The interview questions that addressed RQ 3 related to discovering various obstacles
and benefits instructional designers experienced while working, learning, and training in virtual
environments. The collected data revealed that the participants experienced the following
challenges at the onset of the pandemic: (a) adapting to modality changes in learning and training
69
content, (b) the lack of organizational support in technology and staff resources, and (c) stresses
of working under ongoing pandemic conditions and its many uncertainties. Even with these
challenges, instructional designers found opportunities including (a) faster and easier process for
landing a job, (b) having extra hours for taking on additional work, and (c) avoiding geographic
and industry-specific expertise barriers.
Finding 1 RQ 3: Instructional Designers Faced Challenges From Learning Modality
Change, Lack of Technology and Staff Support, and The Stresses of Working Under the
Pandemic Conditions
Instructional designers faced design challenges from the learning modality shift, the lack
of technology and staff resources, and the stresses of working in COVID-19 pandemic
conditions.
Challenges From the Learning Modality Shift
Instructional designers faced many design challenges caused by the learning modality
shift. As illustrated in previous findings, instructional designers’ main responsibilities involved
transferring all forms of instruction to online delivery which made and established the virtual
learning environment. Ashley found the online modality had limitations for learner engagement
as she believed networking and group exercises and the interaction with the in-person trainer add
to the effectiveness of training. Emily, who learned to create video content, remembered having
to use multiple video angles to capture content that used to be delivered through one session of
in-person demonstration. Instructional designers had to provide extra attention to their learners’
understanding of the digitization process. Julie shared her frustrations, describing working with
others in her company as “trying to work with people who have zero experience in this field.”
She explained that her SMEs did not understand the process of digitization as her process
70
involved “The whole list of things” before delivering a learning product. The learners’ low
digital competency level also challenged instructional designers in their design process. Adam
described his design process as “overwhelmingly difficult,” referring to the medical device sales
representatives in his organization as “illiterate in terms of [using] technology.” In addition to
dealing with poor digital competencies of the people in their companies, instructional designers
experienced a lack of technology resources and staffing support.
The Lack of Technology Resources and Staffing Shortages
Instructional designers endured challenges from a lack of technology resources and
staffing shortages. Three participants expressed that they received little support from their
organizations with regard to providing technology resources. Ashley did not recall her
organization investing in any “new” technology other than adding video conferencing platform
subscriptions to keep it “cost-neutral.” Holly, who works at a clinical software company, also
remembered her organization being “not willing to spend finances on an LMS.” Adam expressed
that, in his organization, there was a budget constraint around investing in technology, though he
added, “they did their best.”
The participants shared not having enough staff to support the work they were doing. Six
out of the eight participants experienced staffing shortages and felt their current departments
were understaffed to meet the increasing demands and workload. Dana’s company downsized
from 25 to 15 instructional designers at the start of the pandemic in 2020 and does not have
enough instructional designers to take on the current workload. Julie shared that her department
had been turning down requests for instructional design services to focus on high-priority
projects, due to not having “another pair of hands” to meet the increasing demands. Instructional
designers had trouble staffing their departments. Holly shared that she is currently performing
71
both manager and individual contributor responsibilities. She conveyed that “There is really high
turnover in a lot of places right now,” and she is having trouble filling the vacant position due to
the current job market making it complicated. In addition to dealing with a lack of technology
resources and staffing shortages, instructional designers struggled with many stresses caused by
working under ongoing pandemic conditions.
Stresses From Working Under the Pandemic
Instructional designers grappled with managing stress caused by the uncertainties of
living and working under ongoing pandemic conditions, especially balancing their work and
personal life. Dana, who already worked remotely before the pandemic, dealt with constant
disruptions of everyone working from home and her kids learning from home, “I don’t know
how I kept it together. … I am hearing all the distractions. … Very challenging for me.” A single
parent of three kids, Alex struggled to balance three kids attending school virtually from home
and doing his job, “I have younger kids. I have two or three other kids I take from the school. …
Balancing that and work is probably the hardest thing.” Feeling symptoms of isolation and
burnout was mentioned most among the participants. Instructional designers expressed feeling
burnt out from the heavy workload. Adam shared that working 60 plus hours per week affected
his mental and physical health, and eventually, he switched jobs. Julie also shared feeling burnt
out, by the end of first year of the pandemic, from handling increasing demands and workload.
Instructional designers were also stressed from dealing with many uncertainties of the
pandemic. Candace remembered being anxious about many unknowns including not knowing the
length of her remote working status. Instructional designers shared feelings of isolation. Dana,
who describes herself as an extrovert, had difficulty not being able to connect in-person with her
co-worker, as she did periodically pre-pandemic. Alex described feeling isolated from his team
72
and missed not being able to connect spontaneously to collaborate in person. He commented, “It
is really hard to reproduce the digital water cooler conversations.” Holly sought support from her
professional chat groups on social media sites to feel connected. “I think I took advantage of it.
… Just communities of other people in L&D [learning and development]. When you are remote,
it can be difficult.” Despite these challenges, instructional designers also saw opportunities in the
shift to the new learning and working paradigm.
Finding 2 for RQ 3: Instructional Designers Found Opportunities From Working
Remotely: Faster and Easier Job Landing Process, Extra Hours for Additional Work, and
Avoiding Many Previous Job Barriers.
As previously shared, instructional designers found opportunities in the many benefits
brought on by COVID-19’s virtual working environment and the booming job market: (a) faster
and easier job landing process, and (b) having extra hours for taking additional work, and (c)
avoiding geographic and industry-specific expertise barriers.
Easier and Faster Process for Landing Jobs
Instructional designers experienced a faster and easier time landing jobs. Adam shared
that he experienced a 50% call-back rate on his job applications when he was in the job market,
which he feels is a substantial change from before the pandemic. Holly shared switching jobs
three times since the start of the pandemic. Ashley landed her first instructional design job in less
than a week, after finishing up her instructional design master’s degree:
When I got my first job, it was only one of two jobs I applied for and I wasn’t even
planning or looking outside of teaching. … I got a request for an interview, I took the
interview, I got the job offer on Monday, and I graduated from college on Saturday.
73
An influx of job numbers and instructional design staffing shortages made job-seeking
and landing easier for instructional designers. Instructional designers also benefited from the
increased remote positions, which gave them more time to take on additional jobs.
Extra Hours for More Work
Instructional designers gained extra working hours from not commuting, which gave
them the capacity to take on additional work. Alex, a single father, who used to spend 6 hours
commuting to and from the office, was able to take on two jobs, increasing his income and still
had enough time to take care of his young children. Emily too can take on more clients with her
extra time as she can conduct all her virtual ILT sessions without traveling to each client’s
locations.
Avoiding Geographic and Industry Expertise Requirement Barriers
Instructional designers were able to switch jobs without facing location and industry-
specific knowledge barriers. Emily, who used to work in a government agency located on the
East Coast moved across the country to Portland and was able to keep her job. When she was
ready to move on, she found a management position in the medical industry on the East Coast.
She explained how her remote working status allowed her to switch industries and take on an
advanced-level job on the East Coast while living on the opposite coast. Holly switched jobs in
three different industries, education, high-tech, and medical industry since the beginning of the
pandemic and before landing her current job. Instructional designers found opportunities
presented by the many changes brought on by the pandemic working environment; they were
able to change jobs quickly and easily, take on more work and switch industries without facing
major barriers.
74
Summary of Findings for RQ 3
The findings for RQ 3 demonstrated that instructional designers experienced both
challenges and opportunities in their working environments brought on by the pandemic. The
participants shared experiences supporting the findings that answered RQ 3: instructional
designers faced design challenges from a learning program modality shift, a lack of technology
and staff resources, and mental stress from the uncertainties of living and working in a pandemic.
However, the study findings also suggested that instructional designers benefited from many
opportunities: an easier and faster job search process, extra hours derived from working from
home and the ability to switch jobs with fewer barriers. These challenges and opportunities
added to the list of ways in which instructional designers’ roles and responsibilities were
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Summary of Findings
The purpose of this study was to reveal how the work of instructional designers was
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The study utilized a qualitative research method and
interviewed eight instructional designers working in the human capital development space. By
collecting and analyzing their lived experiences, the study aimed to answers the proposed
research questions.
The first research question aimed to uncover the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
the roles, responsibilities and working environment of instructional designers. The study found
pandemic working conditions reshaped instructional designers’ principal roles and
responsibilities to solely focus on content digitization for virtual learning environments,
increased workloads, responsibilities, and visibility for instructional designers, and expanded
digital knowledge and technical skills requirements for instructional designers. The second
75
research question aimed to surface how instructional designers perceived their level of
preparation for changes in the industry brought on by the pandemic. The study found that
instructional designers displayed a high level of self-efficacy in their preparedness to manage
many changes in the industry, including an influx of jobs, variance in job titles and
responsibilities, the emergence of education and certification programs targeting aspiring
instructional designers.
The third research question aimed to discover both challenges and opportunities
instructional designers experienced from the onset of the pandemic. Three challenges emerged:
instructional designers faced challenges in shifting the modality of learning and training
programs to online; instructional designers were hindered by a lack of organizational support for
technology and were negatively impacted beyond their professional lives, mental well-being, and
juggling work-life balance. Three findings of opportunities also emerged: instructional designers
experienced a faster and easier process for landing a job; instructional designers gained extra
hours for taking additional work and avoided geographic and industry-specific expertise barriers.
76
Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of the study was to reveal how the work of instructional designers has been
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic through the conceptual framework of Bronfenbrenner’s
(1974) ecological systems theory. The following research questions guided the study:
1. In what ways has the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the roles and responsibilities
and work environment of instructional designers?
2. What are instructional designers’ perceptions regarding their level of preparation for
the increased workload and changes in the industry?
3. What challenges and opportunities did the designers experience from the learning
environment changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic?
This chapter includes a discussion of findings in Chapter Four, related to the theoretical
framework and existing literature. This discussion leads to recommendations. This chapter also
includes limitations and delimitations of the study and suggestions for future research.
Discussion of Findings
The first section of this chapter displays the findings for each research question and their
relationship to the theoretical framework and existing literature. The application of
Bronfenbrenner’s (1974) ecological systems framework (Gardiner et al., 2005; Soyer, 2019) was
utilized in generating themes and findings to answer the proposed research questions. Additional
literature was also utilized to support the discussions of findings.
Instructional designers (individual) were influenced by the many changes in the industry
(mesosystem) including, influx of jobs, hiring practices, learning modality change, technology
and staffing resources, job search process, increase workload, responsibilities, and emergence of
education and certification programs, which are all part of the new learning paradigm, virtual
77
learning, and training environments (exosystem). All these changes were triggered by the onset
of the COVID-19 pandemic (chronosystem) and have continued to the present day. The
following section discusses the study findings. The second part of this chapter identifies
recommendations for practice and future research.
Research Question 1: In What Ways Has The COVID-19 Pandemic Influenced the Roles
and Responsibilities and The Work Environment of Instructional Designers?
The participants’ collective experiences uncovered many changes in their roles and
responsibilities and the working environment impacted by COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic
(chronosystem) has (a) shifted instructional designers’ roles and responsibilities (individual) to
focus on digital content creation mainly, and migration online to establish virtual learning and
training environments (exosystem), (b) increased their workloads, responsibilities, and visibility
(mesosystem), and (c) expanded required skills for instructional designers (individual).
The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the primary duties of instructional designers to focus on
digitizing and migrating content online helping in establishing their organizations’ virtual
learning environments. The participants who usually assisted trainers and SMEs by creating
presentation materials for in-person activities before the pandemic shared their experiences of
spending most of their time in digital migration and content creation of asynchronous programs
since the onset of the pandemic. The existing literature supports these findings by suggesting that
the implementation of emergency remote learning during COVID-19 transposed the roles and
responsibilities of instructional designers to focus on overhauling education programs and
preparing all learners to function in virtual learning environments (Xie et al., 2021b).
Instructional designers also modified their design strategies to adapt to the online learning
modality. The participants shared their experiences of adding interactions, activities, videos, and
78
other engagement interventions to their learning products to maintain the same level of
engagement from the learners as at in-person training events. Existing literature indicates that
adding engagement interventions using multimedia can simulate the tactile experience,
increasing the learning motivation of the learners, hence adding to the effectiveness of eLearning
(Mayer & Fiorella, 2021).
Instructional designers predicted the online learning modality would continue to be the
preferred format for delivering training, though participants are noticing some training coming
back to in-person format as the pandemic health restrictions are loosened. The participants
believe their employers will continue to increase the focus on building virtual organizational
learning environments or offer the same training in both modalities, in “a hybrid mode.” The
literature also supports that more companies will maintain the virtual employee learning
environment and continue to create more remote jobs, requiring online learning for the
employee’s entire employment cycle (Kshirsagarr et al., 2020). Additionally, existing studies
noted the need for easily accessible and adaptable instructional design models for instructional
design practitioners working in different industries and organizations (Giacumo & Breman,
2020).
The COVID-19 pandemic increased instructional designers’ daily workload and added
additional responsibilities while raising their visibility. The participants received an increasing
amount of digital content and learning technology system troubleshoot service requests. Bal et
al.’s (2020) study also found that instructional designers were inundated with calls and requests
from instructors asking for digitization and help with moving their courses online. Morales
(2020) described the frantic process of the instructional designers urgently moving all learning
online at the beginning of the pandemic as “building the airplane while flying in mid-air” (p. 2).
79
Other literature implicated the increasing amount of workload as being caused by the high
demand for eLearning programs and the implementation of learning technology systems
(Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020; Bal et al., 2020; Nworie, 2022).
In addition to the increased workload, instructional designers experienced their roles
expanding to include additional responsibilities, caused by the high demand for eLearning
content design services due to the pandemic. The participants shared their experiences of
witnessing changes in job titles and responsibilities, which included a wide range of performance
expectations and duties. Other research has indicated that the ever-changing nature of the
instructional design industry results in constantly expanding the responsibilities of instructional
designers (Guerra-López & Joshi, 2021; Wagner, 2021)
The remote work setting normalized by the pandemic was perceived by interviewees to
have increased awareness of the work of instructional designers. The participants shared that
their clients and others seem to recognize what instructional designers do and how instrumental
they are in creating quality eLearning, compared to before the pandemic. The participants
collectively felt appreciation of their work, by others within their organizations, had been
elevated in the COVID-19 work setting. The existing literature supported that the need for more
online learning during the pandemic also raised awareness regarding the role of instructional
designers (Cahapay, 2021; Volberda et al., 2021; Xie et al., 2021b).
Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic further expanded the digital knowledge and skills
required of instructional designers. Since the beginning of the pandemic, instructional designers
had to learn additional software and digital tools to adapt to the virtual modality of learning
programs. Many of the participants learned new software, other digital tools, and learning
systems. The participants also shared having to apply new instructional strategies to avoid losing
80
learners’ engagement, a known downfall of online modalities. Holly experimented with 3D and
animation tools to improve the learning experience of sales training for her company. Raynis’
(2018) study findings indicated that instructional designers are required to continuously improve
their skills and abilities to create dynamic and engaging online training (Raynis, 2018).
RQ 2: What Are Instructional Designers’ Perceptions Regarding Their Level of
Preparation for The Increased Workload and Changes in The Industry?
Instructional designers demonstrated a high level of self-efficacy in their preparedness to
adapt to many changes in the industry. The participants displayed high levels of self-efficacy in
handling the influx of jobs, variance in job titles and responsibilities, the emergence of
professional programs, and changes in hiring practices and job qualifications. Bandura (1977)
identified self-efficacy as the main driver for motivating the person within the triadic reciprocal
relationship.
Instructional designers experienced an increase in opportunities in the job market. The
participants shared being frequently approached by recruiters and seeing higher numbers of
advertisements on the online job boards. Instructional designers also adapted to the industry’s
changing hiring practices and qualification requirements. The participants experienced the
industry’s hiring practice changes while in the job market, which increased the variance in job
titles and digital competencies. Participants all agreed on having to prepare a digital portfolio for
recent interview processes.
Instructional designers also experienced an emergence of instructional design education
and certification programs in the industry. Existing research supports the continuation of
instructional design job growth due to the continuation of the work-from-home setting that
81
emerged from COVID-19 (Pandey & Pal 2020) and the increasing demand for eLearning (Lund
et al., 2021).
RQ 3: What Challenges and Opportunities Did the Designers Experience From the
Learning Environment Changes Caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic?
Based on Bronfenbrenner’s (1974) ecological system theory, the individual is the center
of the ecological system and mesosystem describes the results of two or more layers interacting
together, describing many changes instructional designers experienced in the pandemic work
setting. The other elements in mesosystem created challenges and opportunities for instructional
designers (individual), including challenges from (a) learning modality shifts (b) the lack of
technology and staffing resources, and (c) mental stresses from living and working under the
ongoing pandemic. Instructional designers (individual) also found opportunities from working
remotely: (a) easier and faster process of landing jobs, (b) having extra hours to add more work,
and (c) avoiding geographic and industry expertise barriers.
Instructional designers faced many challenges from the change in learning modality. The
participants had difficulty helping people to get acclimated to using online conferencing tools
and accessing eLearning content in their LMS systems. The participants also struggled with
convincing SMEs to understand the instructional design process, especially, allowing for
adequate design, development, and implementation timelines. Hai et al.’s (2021) study findings
elaborated that the current workforce’s low competencies in a digital work setting contributed to
one of the main challenges to digital transformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Though
more people were aware of the instructional designers’ job, as participants shared previously,
knowledge gaps are still encountered when conveying the systematic approach of instructional
design processes to others.
82
Instructional designers experienced a lack of technology and staffing resources in support
of their efforts to help their organizations establish virtual learning environments. The
participants struggled with not having the right system setups and staffing resources to meet the
increasing demands for digital learning content. The participants agreed that their companies
generally avoided investing in learning technology beyond the bare minimum, providing
eLearning software and digital applications for instructional designers. Kruszyńska-Fischbach et
al. (2021)’s study confirmed that the low capability of organizations stemmed from the lack of
investment in technology, human resources, information systems, and external technology.
Further supporting this study’s findings, Volberda et al. (2021) pointed out that a lack of the
“right mindset” from organizations for establishing adequate structures to properly function in
virtual learning environments, including investing in technology, hindered their digital
transformation.
The impact of staffing shortages in technology-related jobs, including instructional
designers, were felt throughout many industries, according to the study’s participants. The
participants expressed establishing a virtual learning environment for an entire organization
requires additional “hands on deck.” The participants experienced not having enough staff to
meet the requests for learning and training products from their clients. Existing literature
supported this study’s finding by highlighting the shortage of qualified technical staff to support
digital transformation at the onset of COVID-19 (Gaur et al., 2020). Other supportive studies
also pointed out that the shortages of instructional design staffing will continue as the demand
for technology-related or STEM jobs increases (Lund et al., 2021).
Like many others, instructional designers dealt with additional stressors during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The participants expressed having difficulties managing work-life balance
83
and mental stresses, anxiety, isolation, and burnout. The uncertainty of the virtual remote work
environment and its ever-changing policies also negatively impacted their professional and
personal lives. The participants experienced isolation, anxiety, and depression, dealing with
many changes in their day-to-day work and juggling work-life balance, blurring lines created by
an extended period of the work-from-home setting of the pandemic.
The existing literature suggested that the ambiguities and disruptions brought by COVID-
19 created psychological distress for employees, including instructional designers (Teng-Calleja
et al., 2020), which supports the finding of this study.
Instructional designers (individual) also found opportunities from working remotely
(mesosystem) including (a) easier and faster process of landing jobs, (b) having extra hours to
add more work, and (c) avoiding geographic and industry expertise barriers. Instructional
designers experienced the relatively easier and faster process of finding and landing jobs
compared to their efforts before the pandemic. The participants found themselves being able to
easily switch jobs multiple times for better pay and positions. Instructional designers had extra
time in their daily workday as they were saving time not commuting to their offices, which
allowed them to take on additional contract work. Instructional designers also found
opportunities, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, to take on jobs across the country and in
new industries, which expanded their expertise. Supporting the findings, Krishnamoorthy and
Keating (2021) emphasized that the pandemic normalized remote work, which removed
geographic barriers to employment.
84
Recommendations for Practice
This section presents recommendations for both organizations and instructional designers
to create a supportive working environment and develop instructional designers in the human
capital development field:
1. Establish systems and processes to maintain and improve the organization’s virtual
learning environment beyond the COVID-19 pandemic
2. Establish and follow human resources practices specifically for hiring, retaining, and
developing instructional designers within each organization
3. Continue professional development efforts for instructional professionals
Recommendation 1: Establish Systems to Maintain and Improve the Organization’s
Virtual Learning and Training Environment Beyond COVID-19
Carrying out the first recommendation for maintaining and improving the virtual
environment of organizations requires (a) investing in adequate learning technology, LMS and
learning experience platforms (LXPs), (b) establishing corporate university settings for
improving digital competencies, and (c) educating subject matter experts (SMEs).
Adequate Learning Technology
The participants witnessed their organizations investing the “bare minimum” in learning
technology while expecting to easily transition to digitizing all learning content and conducting
training online. The LMS and LXP are commonly used learning technology. However, they have
different functions. An LMS houses learning programs, and tracks and reports on the learners’
activities with automated course assignment functionality. Within an LMS, organizations can
upload and launch their own custom content packaged as Shareable Content Object Reference
Model (SCORM) files or host learning content from third-party vendors, sometimes requiring
85
additional costs. Organizations must invest in and select learning technology systems,
prioritizing their learners’ needs over organizational digitization of business functions.
The high demand for online content and the necessity for establishing virtual learning
environments triggered a boom in the LMS industry and now, organizations can choose from a
variety of LMS vendors that cater to specific industries. Large providers such as Cornerstone
OnDemand or Docebo are known to have the largest client lists and LMS functions, reporting,
content hosting, user tracking, and automatic course assignments necessary for supporting a large
learner population. However, these LMSs do not have the real-time learning features that a LXP
can provide.
Establishing a Corporate University Setting
An LXP allows for a cohort-based learning path with the ability to add multimedia design
elements and chat interactions within each lesson. However, not all LXPs have the content
depository features that an LMS has. Since it is a cohort-based platform, the learner can lose
access once they complete a particular course while the access to the course is constant in the
LMS. Each year, there have been many LXPs on the market each designed with similar features
and competitive pricing structures. LXP companies such as Tovuti and NovoEd dominate the
marketplace, while many new ones are entering the market. When choosing an LXP,
organizations must understand the differences between an LXP and an LMS, taking into
consideration the benefits for learner engagement. Though both LXP and LMS can facilitate and
assigned online learning, an LMS is more suitable for establishing a corporate university
infrastructure.
Organizations must establish an active corporate university setting by using an LMS. It
can offer learning paths including technical and professional development topics for employees
86
that could promote its utilization. In the corporate university learning plans, the technical
curriculum should include microlearning modules and a series of short video tutorials for LMS
navigation that introduces the types of eLearning content offerings, familiarizing the learners
with accessing the LMS. This learning path for LMS utilization should be included in new
employee onboarding training packages. Another learning path should include curricula on
eLearning content for compliance, software training, leadership, and other professional
development courses either created by each organization or purchased from third-party vendors.
Hosting courses in the LMS that do not require frequent updates, such as professional and
leadership development competencies and annual compliance training, is recommended as these
courses are developed using the ADDIE model and will require a longer process for production.
Regardless of the course creator or the length of the course development time, the LMS landing
page should feature courses related to each learner’s unique interests. Most LMSs are equipped
with algorithm functions for unique user content curation. Promoting content related to each
user’s unique learning needs can help increase LMS user activities while encouraging learning.
Educate SMEs
Improving the digital competencies of an organization also involves educating SMEs and
stakeholders which addresses the participants struggles to educate them on needing proper tools
and time to develop effective online learning programs. The participants endured a heavy
workload caused by the high demands for assisting SMEs and stakeholders who wanted to
convert existing training to online versions. The instructional design department can create
eLearning course templates for Articulate 360 and Adobe Captivate and automate a part of the
online course design. Organizations can also host periodic workshops to reduce the demands,
87
streamline the online course launch process, and increase SMEs’ instructional design skills and
knowledge.
Organizations need to educate SMEs to create ad-hoc video training content using mobile
camera recordings or other simple tools such as screen-capture tutorials to create short videos
that directly approach their learners. Many procedural training programs require constant updates
and speedy assignments. Fast-developing modern personal digital communication tools such as
mobile phones with high-definition video recording capabilities and live video-sharing social
media platforms—TikTok, Instagram, Meta, and LinkedIn—provide SMEs and instructional
designers with the freedom to create engaging real-time microlearning content. These methods
are also both cost-effective and effective for learner retention.
Many existing studies indicate the importance of learning technology in establishing
effective virtual learning environments (Kuznia, 2016; Lolic et al., 2020; Owolabi, 2020).
Existing literature recommends organizations carefully examine the benefits and drawbacks of
learning technologies, LMS and LXP, before investing and making a costly mistake
(Krishnamoorthy & Keating, 2021; Cavus et al., 2021). Existing studies also suggest assessing
and improving employees’ digital capabilities are vital to an organization’s digital transformation
process. They urged establishing effective virtual learning and training environments, a corporate
university setting (Kozanoglu & Abedin, 2020; Kruszyńska-Fischbach et al., 2021), starting with
training employees (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020; Volberda et al., 2021).
Recommendation 2: Establish Hiring Practices Specifically for Instructional Designers
Organizations’ talent acquisition departments or leaders can establish hiring practices that
are unique to instructional design professionals, including (a) assigning correct job titles and
accurate job descriptions, and (b) specifying interview requirements.
88
The study finding revealed instructional designers experienced an expansion of their
titles, descriptions, and performance expectations. Though most of the participants’ titles
included “instructional design,” some of their daily duties did not align with their titles, creating
confusion when they were in the job market. Organizations should identify the responsibilities of
the instructional design roles based on the latest industry guidelines, published by ACET and
Association for Talent Development (ATD), and list accurate responsibilities and titles for the
instructional designer role. For example, if the role requires training facilitation, assigning the
trainer title is accurate. However, some small organizations seek one person who can perform
both facilitation and content design; in this case, creating a new title that reflects both roles, such
as training facilitator and content designer, is recommended.
Organizations need to explicitly describe the interview requirements, including portfolio
submission and the specific desired software skills. Listing the specific software skills helps in
filtering out and setting clear expectations for applicants. However, organizations must be open
and apply equitable practices, perhaps by taking an alternative approach such as requesting a
quick design project from someone without a portfolio or requiring a portfolio in later interview
rounds, allowing more preparation time for applicants. Organizations must also be open to
interviewing applicants who have technical skills and experience with software applications that
have a similar function to the ones listed in a job description. If the applicant understands the
purpose of the software and is experienced in the theoretical knowledge of instructional design,
the type of software can be a minimum deterrent for hiring. By being flexible and assigning a
small project as part of the interview process, employers can still gauge the technical skill level
of an applicant without sticking to a rigid hiring practice.
89
Existing studies suggest linking specific knowledge to job assignments can help
instructional designers plan their career and training paths (Ritzhaupt et al., 2018). The past
studies recommended using IBSTPI’s five performance domains when writing job listings for
instructional designers (Ritzhaupt et al., 2018; Yalçın et al., 2021). The existing studies
recommend distinguishing between instructional designers and learning experience designers can
also help differentiate their performance expectations (Bozarth, 2019; Kilgore, 2016; Wagner,
2021).
Recommendation 3: Professional Development Programs for Instructional Designers
Both organizations and instructional designers are urged to establish professional
development programs to keep up with the latest knowledge and skills and retain instructional
design talents once they are hired, maintaining the importance of instructional design in the
current human capital development space,
Organizational Efforts for Instructional Designer Development
Organizations are recommended to carry out better workforce planning by providing (a)
professional development opportunities and (b) support systems for the mental well-being of
instructional designers.
Organizations can solve the staffing shortage by providing educational and professional
online development programs for current instructional designers and upskilling others within the
organizations who want to enter the field. Organizations such as DevLearn, ATD, and
eLearninindustry.com offer certificate programs and annual conferences that provide
opportunities for instructional design professionals to learn new trends and tools. Sponsoring
instructional designers to attend industry conferences and events can help develop instructional
90
designers, benefiting their organizations. Continuous development and career succession
planning for instructional designers can help mitigate future staffing shortages.
Creating a support system and policies for instructional designers, most of whom are
remote working employees, can alleviate some of the pressures instructional designers endured
and illustrated in the study’s findings. Organizations are encouraged to implement unlimited
personal time-off policies, providing options for employees to take as-needed time off to work
on their self-care and mental health. Organizations should also provide additional support
services including ombudsmen, work and family life counseling, and professional coaching
services in their benefits.
The existing literature recommends encouraging employers to act in preparation for
better workforce planning to avoid the staffing shortages reported in recent years (Tessema et al.,
2022). Other research findings suggest that setting up professional development programs
enabling instructional designers to connect and share innovative ideas and tools also helps to
develop a multi-dimensional aspect of their talent (Sharif & Cho, 2015). Evaluating staffing
supply and achieving balance through promotion, transfers, and training is one of the critical
components and key steps in workforce planning (Mayo, 2015). The research also recommended
that organizations upskill and transform the existing workforce to mitigate the tech talent
shortage that evolved during COVID-19 and offer instant positive reinforcement and sincere and
recurring communication to provide transparency for employees working in remote settings
(Dirani et al., 2020; Lund et al., 2021).
Instructional Designers’ Self-Development Efforts
Instructional designers are recommended to stay proactive in self-development by (a)
updating their technical skills and building additional knowledge in learning technology systems
91
and (b) seeking out professional interest groups or form new ones to share their experiences and
receive advice from like-minded people in the industry.
Instructional designers are also recommended to stay on top of the constant updates for
eLearning software, Articulate 360 and Adobe Captivate, and digital media design
software Adobe Premiere, Photoshop, Auditions, Camtasia, and Vyond, and learn their new
features. Advanced technical knowledge and skills in using eLearning authoring software and
other digital design tools enable instructional designers to make their learning designs more
engaging and effective. Learning from other instructional designers can also improve designers’
skill levels.
The industry is constantly introducing new learning technology companies and updating
features in existing eLearning authoring software. Instructional designers are encouraged to keep
up with the latest and most widely used learning technology systems listed in industry expert
websites such as eLearningindustry.com and joshbersin.com and compare their functions and
pricing information. Monitoring user activities and collecting related data obtained from learning
technology systems can help instructional designers to take more scientific and systematic
approaches to the content curation and creation process, which is the mission of instructional
design. Understanding the functions of the LMS can also help instructional designers to gauge
and measure the learners’ learning retention rate, helping them to apply the appropriate
instructional design models and strategies to increase employees’ LMS utilization and overall
improvement of their knowledge and skills.
By seeking out professional groups such as The Learning Guild, Learning, Education,
and Training Professionals Group, International Society for Training and Development (ISTD),
and the national and local chapter of ATD are some of the large groups where members actively
92
engage and share their expertise postings on LinkedIn or Facebook. Instructional designers are
recommended to search within eLearning community chat groups or website discussion sections
for peer advice to learn each software’s advanced features and solutions for glitches and to seek
other design ideas. Instructional designers are encouraged to host workshops, meet-ups, or social
events (virtually and in-person) within their network of instructional designers to share and
brainstorm on design-solving issues, digital tool functions, and features. Learning and sharing
with peers can provide a safe space for designers to learn from more experienced designers’
knowledge and wisdom for handling design and performance design problems.
Many studies revealed the critical role instructional designers played in establishing
virtual learning environments for each of their organizations (Adedoyin & Soykan, 2020;
Cahapay, 2021; Volberda et al., 2021) and advocated for improving digital technology skills and
knowledge for instructional designers to accommodate the fast development of technology’s
influence in the instructional design industry (North et al., 2021; Nworie, 2022). Past studies
indicated the importance of creating an environment that fosters the desired learners’ behaviors
by using multimedia learning engagement interventions in eLearning design (Clark & Mayer,
2016; Mayer, 2015; Mayer & Fiorella, 2021; Torres Martín et al., 2020). Additional studies
highlighted that the competencies of instructional designers will continue expanding to include
skills such as managing and administrating LMSs and other systems (Bozarth, 2019; Rothwell,
2016; Wagner, 2021).
Recommendations for Future Research
The recommendations for future study include assessing the credibility and quality of
instructional design training and education businesses and programs for providing required
competencies. This research can provide helpful insight and advice to professionals in the
93
organizational training space who are seeking new career paths in the instructional design field
after witnessing the surge in demand for instructional designers. Though the study’s findings
addressed changes in the industry, additional future research that assesses the need for any
additional competencies unearthed during the pandemic could be beneficial to aspiring and
current instructional design professionals. Furthermore, research on instructional strategies for
designing the virtual learning domain beyond the COVID-19 pandemic is recommended in order
to be better prepared for future global disruptions and to preserve business continuity and
organizational performance. Lastly, future research is recommended to examine the impact of an
increasing number of remote instructional design jobs on the living wage salary standards for
instructional designers living in different geographic locations.
Limitations
Limitations of the study are factors outside of the researcher’s control (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). One limitation of this study was the small sample size. In addition, while this
study was being conducted, the COVID-19 pandemic remains prevalent and may continue to be
present for many years. The ongoing uncertainty of the pandemic could introduce additional
changes that were overlooked and unanticipated when the study was being designed. Thus, data
relating to many changes for the instructional designers impacted by COVID-19, including their
roles and responsibilities, and virtual working environment, will continue to emerge and shift.
Additionally, the long-term effects of the pandemic on our society and living situations are yet to
be determined. Therefore, the study’s findings might not have entirely captured the widespread
impacts of COVID-19 on the work of instructional designers and their surrounding ecosystem.
Another limitation of the study stems from the interview questions. I am an experienced
instructional designer raised by Korean immigrant parents in an upper-middle economic class
94
environment, who wrote the interview questions. The construction of interview questions and
data analysis were influenced by my background, biases, and assumptions. Lastly, the ongoing
negative impacts of COVID-19 have influenced the well-being and job satisfaction of each
participant. These adverse effects, compounded with many changes within the ecological system
of instructional designers, may have impacted the participants’ responses.
Conclusion
The purpose of the study was to reveal how the work of instructional designers has been
impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The study’s findings illustrated that the COVID -19
pandemic reshaped the roles and responsibilities of instructional designers, increased workloads,
responsibilities, and visibility, and created additional technical skill requirements for
instructional designers to adapt to the new work setting. The study also found that instructional
designers perceived high self-efficacy in their preparedness for handling changes in the industry
as they are already adjusted to the ever-evolving nature of their industry, including expanding
job titles, responsibilities, job training programs, and hiring practices. Finally, instructional
designers experienced both challenges and opportunities amid many changes. Some of the
challenges include many issues created by the training modality shift, the lack of support from
their employers, and mental stresses from living in ongoing pandemic settings. Despite of many
challenges presented by the remote work setting of COVID-19, it also created opportunities for
instructional designers including the ability to take on additional job opportunities, remove
geographic barriers, and advance their careers.
95
References
Abramenka-Lachheb, V., Lachheb, A., Leung, J., Sankaranarayanan, R., & Seo, G. Z. (2021).
Instructional designers’ use of informal learning: How can we all support each other in
times of crisis? The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 10(3).
https://edtechbooks.org/jaid_10_3/instructional_design
Adedoyin, O. B., & Soykan, E. (2020). Covid-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges
and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–
13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180.
Agrawal, S., De Smet, A., Lacroix, S., & Reich, A. (2020). Organization Practice and McKinsey
Accelerate Adapting employees’ skills and roles to the post-pandemic ways of working
will be crucial to building operating-model resilience. McKinsey & Company.
Alessi, S. M., & Trollip, S. R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: methods and development. Allyn
& Bacon.
Allen, W. C. (2006). Overview and evolution of the ADDIE training system. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 8(4), 430–441.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306292942
Almelhi, A. M. (2021). Effectiveness of the ADDIE Model within an E-Learning Environment
in Developing Creative Writing in EFL Students. English Language Teaching, 14(2), 20.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v14n2p20
Alqahtani, A. Y., & Rajkhan, A. A. (2020). E-learning critical success factors during the covid-
19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives.
Education sciences, 10(9), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090216
96
Aparicio, M., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2016). An e-learning theoretical framework. Journal of
Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 292–307.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.1.292
Arghode, V., Brieger, E., & Wang, J. (2018). Engaging instructional design and instructor role in
online learning environment. European Journal of Training and Development, 42(7/8),
366–380.
Ashbaugh, M. L. (2012). Expert instructional designer voices: Leadership competencies critical
to global practice and quality online learning designs. The 35th Annual Proceedings-
AECT, 3-19.
Bal, I. A., Arslan, O., Budhrani, K., Mao, Z., Novak, K., & Muljana, P. S. (2020). The balance of
roles: Graduate student perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic. TechTrends, 64(6),
796-798.
Babapour Chafi, M., Hultberg, A., & Bozic Yams, N. (2021). Post-pandemic office work:
Perceived challenges and opportunities for a sustainable work environment.
Sustainability, 14(1), 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010294
Bandura. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall
Bandura, A. (2005). Evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online courses: Exploring issues and solutions—A literature
review. SAGE Open, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621777
97
Bozarth, J. (2019). Nuts and bolts: The ID (job description) bucket overfloweth. Learning
Solutions. https://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/nuts-and-bolts-the-id-job-
description-bucket-overfloweth
Branch, R. M., & Dousay, T. A. (2014, November 4–8). Welcome to Jacksonville and the 2014
AECT International Convention [Presentation]. 2014 AECT International Convention,
Jacksonville, Florida, United States.
Briggs, Leslie J., & Wager, W. W. (1981). Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction.
Educational Technology.
Bronfenbrenner. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of
childhood. Child Development, 45(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127743
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Cahapay, M. B. (2021). How to plan lessons in the new normal education: A reintroduction to
selected instructional design processes. Aquademia, 5(1), ep21006.
Caringal-Go, J. F., Teng-Calleja, M., Bertulfo, D. J., & Manaois, J. O. (2022). Work-life balance
crafting during COVID-19: Exploring strategies of telecommuting employees in the
Philippines. Community, Work & Family, 25(1), 112–131.
Carney, J. (2018, September). Why employee training should go beyond classroom. Training and
Development Excellence Essentials https://www.hrtechnologist.com/articles/learning-
development/4-reasons-employee-training-should-go-beyond-the-classroom/
Carter, R. A., Jr., Rice, M., Yang, S., & Jackson, H. A. (2020). Self-regulated learning in online
learning environments: strategies for remote learning. Information and Learning Science,
121(5/6), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2020-0114
98
Cavus, N., Sani, A. S., Haruna, Y., & Lawan, A. A. (2021). Efficacy of social networking sites
for sustainable education in the era of COVID-19: A systematic review. Sustainability,
13(2), 808–826. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020808
Chanana, N., & Sangeeta. (2020). Employee engagement practices during COVID‐19 lockdown.
Journal of Public Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2508.
Chang, C. (2011). Usability testing for e-learning material for new employee training: A design-
based research approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), E125–E130.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01216.x
Chang, R. I., Hung, Y. H., & Lin, C. F. (2015). Survey of learning experiences and influence of
learning style preferences on user intentions regarding MOOCs. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 46(3), 528–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12275
Chen, E. T. (2008). Successful e-learning in corporations. Communications of the IIMA, 8(2), 5.
Chen, L. (2020). Identifying job categories and required competencies for instructional
technologist: A text mining and content analysis [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Chou, H. L., & Chen, C. H. (2016). Beyond identifying privacy issues in e-learning settings:
Implications for instructional designers. Computers & Education, 103, 124–133.
Clark, & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: a guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. Center for Creative
Leadership.
99
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Dabbagh, N. (2005). Pedagogical models for e-learning: A Theory-based design framework.
International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 25–44.
Dachner, A. M., Ellingson, J. E., Noe, R. A., & Saxton, B. M. (2021). The future of employee
development. Human Resource Management Review, 31(2), 100732.
DeVaughn, P., & Stefaniak, J. (2021). An exploration of the challenges instructional designers
encounter while conducting evaluations. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 33(4),
443–470.
Dick, W. (1987). A history of instructional design and its impact on educational psychology.
In J. A. Glover & R. R. Ronning (Eds.), Historical foundations of educational
psychology (pp. 183–202). Springer.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2013). A model for the systematic design of instruction. In
R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Djikstra (Eds.), Instructional Design:
International Perspectives (Vol 1, pp. 361–370). Routledge.
Diep, A., Zhu, C., Cocquyt, C., De, M., Minh, G., Vo, H., & Vanwing, T. (2019). Adult learners’
needs in online and blended learning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 59(2), 223–
253. https://doi.org/10.3316/ielapa.592385127057281.
Dirani, K. M., Abadi, M., Alizadeh, A., Barhate, B., Garza, R. C., Gunasekara, N., Ibrahim, G.,
& Majzun, Z. (2020). Leadership competencies and the essential role of human resource
development in times of crisis: a response to Covid-19 pandemic. Human Resource
Development International, 23(4), 380–394.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2020.1780078
100
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2018). Handbook of competence and motivation.
Guilford Press.
Esteban-Lloret, N. N., Aragón-Sánchez, A., & Carrasco-Hernández, A. (2018). Determinants of
employee training: impact on organizational legitimacy and organizational performance.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(6), 1208-1229.
Fortney, K. S., & Yamagata‐Lynch, L. C. (2013). How instructional designers solve workplace
problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(4), 91–109.
https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21130
Freifeld, L. (2019). 2019 training industry report. Training Magazine.
https://trainingmag.com/trgmag-article/2019-training-industry-report/
Gabr, H. M., Soliman, S. S., Allam, H. K., & Raouf, S. Y. A. (2021). Effects of remote virtual
work environment during COVID-19 pandemic on technostress among Menoufia
University Staff, Egypt: a cross-sectional study. Environmental Science and Pollution
Research, 28(38), 53746–53753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14588-w
Gagne, R. M. (1965). The analysis of instructional objectives for the design of instruction. In R.
Glaser (Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed learning II: Data and directions (pp.
21–65). National Education Association.
Gardiner, H. W., Kosmitzki, C., & Mutter, J. D. (2005). Lives across cultures: Cross-cultural
human development. Allyn and Bacon.
Gaur, U., Majumder, M. A. A., Sa, B., Sarkar, S., Williams, A., & Singh, K. (2020). Challenges
and opportunities of preclinical medical education: COVID-19 crisis and beyond. SN
Comprehensive Clinical Medicine, 2(11), 1992–1997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-
020-00528-1
101
Geng, S., Law, K. M., & Niu, B. (2019). Investigating self-directed learning and technology
readiness in blending learning environment. International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0147-
0
George, T. J., Atwater, L. E., Maneethai, D., & Madera, J. M. (2021). Supporting the
productivity and wellbeing of remote workers: Lessons from COVID-19. Organizational
Dynamics, 51(2), Article 100869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2021.100869
Giacumo, L. A., & Breman, J. (2021). Trends and implications of models, frameworks, and
approaches used by instructional designers in workplace learning and performance
improvement. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 34(2), 131–170.
https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21349
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
Gibbons, A. S., Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2013). Instructional design models. In J. M. Spector,
M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 607–615). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-
3185-5_48
Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some
questions. American psychologist, 18(8), 519.
Goldin, C. D. (2016). Human capital. In C. Diebolt & M. Haupert (Eds.), Handbook of
Cliometrics, (pp. 55–86). Springer Verlag.
Gruzina, Y., Firsova, I., & Strielkowski, W. (2021). Dynamics of human capital development in
economic development cycles. Economies, 9(2), 67.
https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9020067
102
Gurajena, C., Mbunge, E., & Fashoto, S. G. (2021). Teaching and learning in the new normal:
Opportunities and challenges of distance learning amid COVID-19 pandemic. SSRN
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3765509
Guerra-López, I., & Joshi, R. (2021). A study of instructional design master’s programs and their
responsiveness to evolving professional expectations and employer demand. The Journal
of Applied Instructional Design, 10(2), 1 – 11.
Hai, T. N., Van, Q. N., & Thi Tuyet, M. N. (2021). Digital transformation: Opportunities and
challenges for leaders in the emerging countries in response to COVID-19 pandemic.
Emerging Science Journal, 5, 21–36. https://doi.org/10.28991/esj-2021-SPER-03
Haq, Magoulas, G., Jamal, A., Majeed, A., & Sloan, D. (2018). Users’ perceptions of e-learning
environments and services effectiveness: The emergence of the concept functionality
model. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(1), 89–111.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-03-2016-0074
Harasim, L. (2017). Learning theory and online technologies (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Hassan, W., Razi, A., Qamar, R., Jaffir, R., & Suhail, S. (2013). The effect of training on
employee retention. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 13(6), 17–
20. https://globaljournals.org/GJMBR_Volume13/3-The-Effect-of-Training-on-
Employee.pdf
Heinich, R. (1970). Technology and the management of instruction (Association for Educational
Communications and Technology Monograph No. 4). Association for Educational
Communications and Technology.
103
Hilgart, M. M., Ritterband, L. M., Thorndike, F. P., & Kinzie, M. B. (2012). Using instructional
design process to improve design and development of Internet interventions. Journal of
Medical Internet Research, 14(3), E89–115. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1890
Hoard, B., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Draper, D. (2019). The influence of multimedia
development knowledge and workplace pressures on the design decisions of the
instructional designer. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1479–
1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09687-y
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference
between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause.
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-
teaching-and-online-learning
Iatagan, M. (2016). Best practices in continuous training of human resources. Calitatea, 17(S3),
214–224.
Ingusci, E., Signore, F., Giancaspro, M. L., Manuti, A., Molino, M., Russo, V., Zito, M., &
Cortese, C. G. (2021). Workload, techno overload, and behavioral stress during COVID-
19 emergency: the role of job crafting in remote workers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12,
Article 655148. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.655148
Intentional Futures. (n.d.). The state of instructional design. Retrieved June 29, 2021, from
https://intentionalfutures.com/work/instructional-design
Intentional Futures. (2016). Instructional design in higher education: A report on the role,
workflow, and experience of instructional designers.
https://intentionalfutures.com/work/instructional-design
104
Jackson, P. (1999). Virtual working: Social and organisational dynamic. (1st ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203064368
Jakubiec, M. (2020). Importance of employee training in the process of human resource
management-selected aspects (Organization and Management Series No. 148). Silesian
University of Technology. https://managementpapers.polsl.pl/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/148_Jakubiec.pdf
Johnson, P. (2021). Instructional design is the catalyst. Studies in Technology Enhanced
Learning, 1(2). https://stel.pubpub.org/pub/01-02-johnson-2021/release/1
Karthik, Chandrasekhar, B. B., David, R., & Kranthi Kumar, A. (2019). Identification of
instructional design strategies for an effective E-learning experience. Qualitative
Report, 24(7), 1537–1555. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3870
Kilgore, W. (2016, June 20). UX to LX: The rise of learner experience design. EdSurge News.
EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-06-20-ux-to-lx-the-rise-of-learner-
experience-design
Kilpatrick, J. R., Ehrlich, S., & Bartlett, M. (2021). Learning from COVID-19: Universal design
for learning implementation prior to and during a pandemic. The Journal of Applied
Instructional Design, 1010(1). https://doi.org/10.51869/101jkmbse
Kim, S. M. (2015). How do we train instructional designers? Instructional design as negotiation.
Educational Technology, 26–30.
Kim, Y. (2016). Development of e-competency framework for e-learning instructional designer.
Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(26), 1–6.
ttps://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i26/97318
105
Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2018). Public internet data mining methods in instructional
design, educational technology, and online learning research. TechTrends, 62(5), 492–
500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0307-4
Klein, J. D., & Kelly, W. Q. (2018). Competencies for Instructional Designers: A View from
Employers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 31(3), 225–247.
https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21257
Koszalka, T., Russ-Eft, D., & Reiser, R. (2013) Instructional design competencies: The
standards (4th ed). Information Age Publishing.
Kozanoglu, D. C., & Abedin, B. (2020). Understanding the role of employees in digital
transformation: Conceptualization of digital literacy of employees as a multi-dimensional
organizational affordance. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 34(6).
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JEIM-01-2020-0010/full/html
Krishnamoorthy, R., & Keating, K. (2021). Education crisis, workforce preparedness, and
COVID‐19: Reflections and recommendations. American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, 80(1), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12376
Kruszyńska-Fischbach, A., Sysko-Romańczuk, S., Rafalik, M., Walczak, R., & Kludacz-
Alessandri, M. (2021). Organizational e-readiness for the digital transformation of
primary healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Poland. Journal of
Clinical Medicine, 11(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11010133
Kshirsagar, A., Mansour, T., McNally, L., & Metakis, M. (2020, March). Adapting workplace
learning in the time of coronavirus. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/McKinsey%20A
106
ccelerate/Our%20Insights/Adapting%20workplace%20learning%20in%20the%20time%
20of%20coronavirus/Adapting-workplace-learning-in-the-time-of-coronavirus-vF.pdf
Kurbakova, S., Volkova, Z., & Kurbakov, A. (2020, July 19–22). Virtual learning and
educational environment: New opportunities and challenges under the COVID-19
pandemic [Paper presentation]. The 4th International Conference on Education and
Multimedia Technology, Kyoto, Japan.
Kuznia, K. D., & Prince F. E. (2014). Corporate eLearning impact on employees. Global Journal
of Business Research, 8(4), 1–16. http://www.theibfr2.com/RePEc/ibf/gjbres/gjbr-v8n4-
2014/GJBR-V8N4-2014.pdf#page=3
Latif, K. F., Jan, S., & Shaheen, N. (2013). Association of training satisfaction with employee
development aspect of job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 7(1)
Lau, K. W. (2015). Organizational learning goes virtual? A study of employees’ learning
achievement in stereoscopic 3D virtual reality. The Learning Organization.
Lin, C.-Y., Huang, C.-K., & Zhang, H. (2018). Enhancing employee job satisfaction via E-
learning: The mediating role of an organizational learning culture. International Journal
of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(7), 584–595.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1480694
Lockee, B. (2020). Designing forward. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 9(3).
https://edtechbooks.org/jaid_9_3/design_considerationa
Lolic, T., Dionisio, R., Ciric, D., Ristic, S., Stefanovic, D. (2020). Factors influencing students
usage of an e-learning system: Evidence from IT students. In Anisic, Z., Lalic, B.,
Gracanin, D. (Eds) Proceedings on 25th International Joint Conference on Industrial
107
Engineering and Operations Management. Lecture Notes on Multidisciplinary Industrial
Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43616-2_22
Lowell, V. L., & Ashby, I. V. (2018). Supporting the development of collaboration and feedback
skills in instructional designers. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 72–
92.
Lund, S., Madgavkar, A., Manyika, J., Smit, S., Ellingrud, K., Meaney, M., & Robinson, O.
(2021). The future of work after COVID-19. McKinsey Global Institute.
Mager, R. F. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in the development of
effective instruction. Center for Effective Performance
Magruder, O., Arnold, D., Edwards, M., & Moore, S. (2019). What is an ID? Online Learning,
23(3). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i3.1546
Makhbul, Z. K. M., & Rawshdeh, Z. A. (2021). Mental stress post-COVID-19. International
Journal of Public Health Science, 10(1), 194–201.
Malureanu, A., Panisoara, G., & Lazar, I. (2021). The relationship between self-confidence, self-
efficacy, grit, usefulness, and ease of use of elearning platforms in corporate training
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 13(12), 6633.
Marinova, I. (2020). 2021’s remote work statistics (productivity, income, trends). Review42.
https://review42.com/resources/remote-work-statistics/
Martin, F. (2011). Instructional design and the importance of instructional alignment. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 35(12), 955–972.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920802466483
108
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge
handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1–24). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.002
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design
of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760–769.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning to multimedia instruction. In J. P. Mestre
& B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education
(pp. 77–108). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-
1.00003-X
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learning and
instruction, 29, 171-173.
Mayer, R., & Fiorella, L. (Eds.). (2021). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd
ed., Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology). Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/9781108894333
Mayo, A. (2015). Strategic workforce planning – a vital business activity. Strategic HR Review,
14(5), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-08-2015-0063
Meadows, D. (2014). So you want to be an instructional designer... Training & Development,
41(5), 6–7.
Merriam, & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed). Wiley.
Merrill, M. D. (1996). What new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36(4), 57-58.
109
Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. K. (1990). Second Generation Instructional Design (ID₂).
Educational Technology, 30(2), 7–14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44425826
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505024
Mikołajczyk, K. (2021). Changes in the approach to employee development in organisations as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Training and Development,
46(5/6), 544–562. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejtd-12-2020-0171
Mohammed, H.J.; Kasim, MM; Shaharanee, I.N. (2018) Evaluation of E-learning approaches
using AHP-TOPSIS technique. Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer
Engineering, 10, 7–10.
Mohmmed, A. O., Khidhir, B. A., Nazeer, A., & Vijayan, V. J. (2020). Emergency remote
teaching during Coronavirus pandemic: the current trend and future directive at Middle
East College Oman. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 5(3).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-00326-7
Molenda, M. (2015). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 54(2),
40-42.
Mollenkopf, D., & Gaskill, M. (2020). Technological transience in a time of unprecedented
change: Student support strategies in college courses for those “suddenly online.” Journal
of Literacy and Technology, 21(2), 130–139.
Montgomerie, K., Edwards, M., & Thorn, K. (2016). Factors influencing online learning in an
organisational context. Journal of Management Development, 35(10), 1313–1322.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-05-2016-0067
110
Morales, C. R. (2020, December 3–5). Leading the educational response during the COVID-19
pandemic: The perspective from an online campus [Paper presentation] 2020 X
International Conference on Virtual Campus, Tetouan, Morocco.
Mueller, D., & Strohmeier, S. (2011). Design characteristics of virtual learning environments:
state of research. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2505–2516.
Muljana, P. S., Luo, T., Watson, S., Euefueno, W. D., & Jutzi, K. N. W. (2020). Promoting
instructional designers’ participation in free, asynchronous professional development: A
formative evaluation. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 4(2), 74–87.
Muller, A. E., Hafstad, E. V., Himmels, J. P. W., Smedslund, G., Flottorp, S., Stensland, S. Ø., ...
& Vist, G. E. (2020). The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare
workers, and interventions to help them: A rapid systematic review. Psychiatry Research,
293, Article 113441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113441
Narayanamurthy, G., & Tortorella, G. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on employee
performance – Moderating role of industry 4.0 base technologies. International Journal
of Production Economics, 234(108075), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108075
Ng, L., Seow, K. C., MacDonald, L., Correia, C., Reubenson, A., Gardner, P., Spence, A.,
Bunzli, S., & De Oliveira, B. I. R. (2021). eLearning in physical therapy: Lessons learned
from transitioning a professional education program to full elearning during the COVID-
19 pandemic. Physical Therapy, 101(4), Article pzab082.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab082
North, C., Shortt, M., Bowman, M. A., & Akinkuolie, B. (2021). How instructional design is
operationalized in various industries for job-seeking learning designers: Engaging the
111
talent development capability model. TechTrends, 65, 713–730.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00636-2
Nworie, J. (2022). The increasing quest for instructional designers and technologists in higher
education and corporate settings. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1), Article
ep345.
Obiekwe, O. (2018). Human capital development and organizational survival: A theoretical
review. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 7(4), 194–203.
Okano, K., Kaczmarzyk, J. R., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2018). Enhancing workplace digital learning
by use of the science of learning. PloS One, 13(10), Article e0206250.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0206250.
Owolabi, J. O. (2020). Virtualising the school during COVID-19 and beyond in Africa:
infrastructure, pedagogy, resources, assessment, quality assurance, student support
system, technology, culture and best practices. Advances in Medical Education and
Practice, 11, 755.
Pagano, A., & Marengo, A. (2021, September 29–30). Training time optimization through
adaptive learning strategy [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Innovation
and Intelligence for Informatics, Computing, and Technologies, Bahrain.
Pandey, N., & Pal, A. (2020). Impact of digital surge during Covid-19 pandemic: A viewpoint on
research and practice. International Journal of Information Management, 55, Article
102171.
Patton, & Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed.). Sage
Publications.
112
Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research
framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS
Quarterly, 25(4), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250989
Prastomo, A. D. (2021). The role of instructional design for COVID-19 quarantine patients in
Semarang. KnE Social Sciences, 156–162.
Protopsaltis, S., & Baum, S. (2019). Does online education live up to its promise? A look at the
evidence and implications for federal policy. Center for Educational Policy Evaluation.
Rabel, & Stefaniak, J. (2018). The onboarding of instructional designers in the workplace.
Performance Improvement, 57(9), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21824
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2019). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
and methodological. Sage.
Raynis, M. (2018) Analysis of instructional design job announcements (2016). Current Issues in
Emerging eLearning, 4(1), 9. https://scholarworks.umb.edu/ciee/vol4/iss1/9
Reigeluth, C. M., Beatty, B. J., & Myers, R. D. (Eds.). (2016). Instructional-design theories and
models, Volume IV: The learner-centered paradigm of education. Routledge.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of
instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02504928
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.). (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology. Pearson.
Restauri, N., & Sheridan, A. D. (2020). Burnout and posttraumatic stress disorder in the
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: intersection, impact, and interventions.
Journal of the American College of Radiology, 17(7), 921–926.
113
Ritzhaupt, A., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in
higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51–69.
https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21196
Ritzhaupt, M., F., Pastore, R., & Kang, Y. (2018). Development and validation of the
educational technologist competencies survey (ETCS): knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-
017-9163-z
Ro, G. Y., Shin, Y. J., Mah, S., Min, Y., Park, H., & Jeong, S. (2021). Socioecological factors’
effect on the subjective experience of COVID-19 quarantine policy in Korea: Consensual
qualitative research (preprint). https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-400738/v1
Rothwell, W., Benscoter, B., King, M., & King, S. (2015). Mastering the instructional design
process: A systematic approach. Center for Creative Leadership.
Rudnicka, A., Newbold, J., Cook, D., Cecchinato, M., Gould, S., & Cox, A. (2020). Eworklife:
developing effective strategies for remote working during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Şahin, R., Öztürk, Ş, & Ünalmış, M. (2009). Professional ethics and moral values in akhi
institution. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 800–804.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.143
Salas‐Vallina, A., Alegre, J., & López‐Cabrales, Á. (2021). The challenge of increasing
employees’ well‐being and performance: How human resource management practices
and engaging leadership work together toward reaching this goal. Human Resource
Management, 60(3), 333–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22021
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2021). Self-efficacy and human motivation. In Advances
in motivation science (Vol. 8, pp. 153-179). Elsevier.
114
Schwier, R. A., & Wilson, J. R. (2010). Unconventional roles and activities identified by
instructional designers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(2), 134–147.
https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/5970
Seli, H. (2020). Week 6 cognitive theories of learning, Part 2: Metacognition, self-regulation,
and transfer [Video Lecture], 6.4 Metacognition and Self-Regulation.
https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu/ap/courses/2149/sections/d74c5ef8-bdd5-4016-9e96-
f33200be384f/coursework/module/5879ba96-9bfd-4071-a48f-
d98a0fe51bff/segment/3e39c717-bfc6-4df9-9a09-c15876f299d2
Sentz, J., Stefaniak, J. Instructional heuristics for the use of worked examples to manage
instructional designers’ cognitive load while problem-solving. TechTrends, 63, 209–225
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0348-8
Sharif, A., & Cho, S. (2015). 21st-century instructional designers: Bridging the perceptual gaps
between identity, practice, impact and professional development. International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12(3), 72–85.
ttps://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i3.2176
Shelton, L. G. (2018). The Bronfenbrenner primer: A guide to develecology. Routledge.
Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational
Review, 24, 86–97.
Slagter van Tryon, P. J., McDonald, J., & Hirumi, A. (2018). Preparing the next generation of
instructional designers: A cross-institution faculty collaboration. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 30(1), 125–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9167-3
Soyer, G.F. (2019). Book review: The ecology of human development by Urie Bronfenbrenner,
Journal of Culture and Values in Education, 2(2), 77–80.
115
Stefaniak, J. E. (2021). Documenting instructional design decisions. Design for Learning.
https://edtechbooks.org/id/documenting_decisions?book_nav=true
Stojan, Haas, M., Thammasitboon, S., Lander, L., Evans, S., Pawlik, C., Pawilkowska, T., Lew,
M., Khamees, D., Peterson, W., Hider, A., Grafton-Clarke, C., Uraiby, H., Gordon, M., &
Daniel, M. (2022). Online learning developments in undergraduate medical education in
response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No.
69. Medical Teacher, 44(2), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2021.1992373
Sugar, W., Hoard, B., Brown, A., & Daniels, L. (2012). Identifying multimedia production
competencies and skills of instructional design and technology professionals: An analysis
of recent job postings. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(3), 227–249.
https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.40.3.b
Sung, S. Y., & Choi, J. N. (2014). Do organizations spend wisely on employees? Effects of
training and development investments on learning and innovation in organizations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1897
Tawfik, A. A., Gatewood, J., Gish-Lieberman, J. J., & Hampton, A. J. (2022). Toward a
definition of learning experience design. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(1),
309–334. Tawfik, Gatewood, J., Gish-Lieberman, J. J., & Hampton, A. J. (2021). Toward
a Definition of Learning Experience Design. Technology, Knowledge and Learning,
27(1), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09482-2
Teng-Calleja, M., Caringal-Go, J. F., Manaois, J. O., Isidro, M., Queenie, Y., & Zantua, R. M. S.
(2020). Examining organizational response and employee coping behaviors amid the
COVID-19 pandemic. The Journal of Behavioral Science, 15(3). https://so06.tci-
thaijo.org/index.php/IJBS/article/view/242518
116
Tennyson, R. D. (2010). Historical reflection on learning theories and instructional design.
Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/5958
Tessema, M. T., Tesfom, G., Faircloth, M. A., Tesfagiorgis, M., & Teckle, P. (2022). The “Great
Resignation”: Causes, consequences, and creative HR management strategies. Journal of
Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 10(1), 161–178.
Torres Martín, C., Acal, C., El Homrani, M., & Mingorance Estrada, Á. C. (2021). Impact on the
virtual learning environment due to COVID-19. Sustainability, 13(2), 582.
Tracey, M.W., Boling, E. (2014). Preparing Instructional Designers: Traditional and Emerging
Perspectives. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (pp. 653–660). Springer
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_52
Truitt, D. L. (2011). The effect of training and development on employee attitude as it relates to
training and work proficiency. SAGE Open, 1(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244011433338
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019). Instructional coordinators: Occupational outlook
handbook. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/instructional-
coordinators.htm
USC Research. (n.d.). Ethics & compliance. Retrieved May 8, 2021, from
https://research.usc.edu/policies/ethics-
compliance/#:~:text=At%20the%20University%20of%20Southern
Venkatachary, S. K., Prasad, J., Samikannu, R., Baptist, L. J., Alagappan, A., & Ravi, R. (2020).
COVID-19 -An insight into various impacts on health, society and economy.
117
International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 10(4), 39–46.
https://doi.org/10.32479/ijefi.9925
Virtaneva, M., Feshchenko, P., Hossain, A., Kariluoto, A., Himmanen, J., Kaitila, P., ... &
Abrahamsson, P. (2021, August 9–11). COVID-19 remote work: Body stress, self-
efficacy, teamwork, and perceived productivity of knowledge workers [Paper
presentation] Scandinavian Conference on Information Systems, Orkanger, Norway.
Volberda, H. W., Khanagha, S., Baden-Fuller, C., Mihalache, O. R., & Birkinshaw, J. (2021).
Strategizing in a digital world: Overcoming cognitive barriers, reconfiguring routines and
introducing new organizational forms. Long Range Planning, 54(5), Article 102110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2021.102110
Wagner, E. D. (2021). Becoming a Learning Designer. In J. K. McDonald & R. E. West (Eds.),
Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and Praxis. EdTech Books.
https://edtechbooks.org/id/learning_designer
Wang, C. X. (2021). CAFE: An instructional design model to assist K–12 teachers to teach
remotely during and beyond the Covid-19 Pandemic. TechTrends, 65, 8–16.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00555-8
Wang, X., Chen, Y., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Martin, F. (2021). Examining competencies for the
instructional design professional: An exploratory job announcement analysis.
International Journal of Training and Development, 25(2), 95–123.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12209
Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers decisions and priorities: A survey of
design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.
118
Williams, D. D., South, J.B., Yanchar, S.C., Wilson, B.G., & Allen, S. (2011). How do
instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 885–907.
Williams, D. D., South, J. B., Yanchar, S. C., Wilson, B. G., & Allen, S. (2011). How do
instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 885–907.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9211-8
Williams van Rooij, S. (2012). The career path to instructional design project management: An
expert perspective from the US professional services sector. International Journal of
Training and Development, 17(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2419.2012.00414.x
Wolor, C. W., Solikhah, S., Fidhyallah, N. F., & Lestari, D. P. (2020). Effectiveness of e-
training, e-leadership, and work-life balance on employee performance during COVID-
19. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(10), 443–450.
Xie, J., A, G., & Rice, M. F. (2021a). Instructional designers’ roles in emergency remote
teaching during COVID-19. Distance Education, 42(1), 70–87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1869526
Xie, J., Rice, M. F., & Griswold, D. E. (2021b). Instructional designers’ shifting thinking about
supporting teaching during and post-COVID-19. Distance Education, 42(3), 331–351.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1956305
Yalçın, Ursavaş, Ö. F., & Klein, J. D. (2021). Measuring instructional design competencies of
future professionals: construct validity of the IBSTPI® standards. Educational
119
Technology Research and Development, 69(3), 1701–1727.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10006-7
York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Examining instructional design principles applied by
experienced designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(2), 169–192.
https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21220
Zha, S., Adams, A. H., Calcagno-Roach, J. M., & Stringham, D. A. (2017). An examination on
the effect of prior knowledge, personal goals, and incentive in an online employee
training program. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development,
29(4), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20198
Zhu, M., Basdogan, M., & Bonk, C. J. (2020). A case study of the design practices and
judgments of novice instructional designers. Contemporary Educational Technology,
12(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/7829
Zippia. (2021). Instructional designer demographics and statistics [2021]: Number of
Instructional Designers in the US. https://www.zippia.com/instructional-designer-
jobs/demographics/
ZipRecruiter. (n.d.). Instructional designer jobs. Retrieved June 29, 2021, from
https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Jobs/Instructional-Designer
120
Appendix A: Qualtrics Qualification Questionnaire
1. You are invited to voluntarily participate in a research study centered on the impacts
of the virtual work/learning environment of COVID-19 on instructional designers. To
determine your eligibility for this study, please complete a 10-question questionnaire
which should take no longer than 3 minutes.
2. Your first and last name.
3. State/s you are currently residing in
4. State/s of the company or client/s you are currently you are working for.
5. Your preferred pronouns
6. Please provide your email contact information.
7. Are you 18+ years or older?
8. Do you consent to the completion of this background questionnaire as a preliminary
tool to determine your eligibility to participate in this research study?
9. Do you have 2 + years of working experience as an instructional designer or in a role
that involves instructional design responsibilities?
10. Do you currently work in/work for public or private organizations creating learning
programs for adult learners (non-higher-ed students)?
11. Your LinkedIn profile link
121
Appendix B: Interview Questions
Questions for setting the stage:
1. How many years have you worked in the instructional design field?
2. What is your current job title?
3. Can you tell me your educational background?
4. Can you tell me about your journey to become an instructional designer?
5. Can you walk me through your path to landing your current position, including your
educational, professional, and technical training?
6. What was your main interest in becoming an instructional designer?
7. What kind of learning or training program do you currently design?
(Example in-person, webinars, videos, self-directed eLearning, etc.)
8. What kind of learning or training program do you prefer to design the most?
(Example: Modality and Training topics)
9. Which learning format do you enjoy designing?
Heart of interview:
1. How would you describe your roles and responsibilities as an instructional designer
before COVID-19?
2. How has daily work as an instructional designer changed, if at all, during the COVID-
19 pandemic?
3. To what extent has the pandemic affected your workload?
4. What about now? How would you describe your workload now?
5. How has your organization’s investments or support changed, if it has, compared to
pre-pandemic?
122
6. How has the role of the instructional design department changed, if at all since the
pandemic?
7. How confident were you in your ability to meet the increased (different) demands of
remote learning opportunities?
8. How prepared did you feel to meet the increase in the demands?
9. What challenges, if any, were caused by the increase in demands or changes did you
face?
10. What additional resources or training would have been helpful during the pandemic to
help you with your job?
11. What are your perceptions of the job market for instructional designers?
12. What changes, if any, have you experienced in the job market caused by the pandemic?
13. What is your observation of instructional designers’ required qualification(s)? (What
are some of the required qualifications and ID should have?)
14. What influence your design decisions?
(What influenced your design decisions during the course design process?)
15. How is your design decision process different (strategies), if it is, from before and
during the pandemic?
16. How does technology influence ID?
17. How important is it for ID to know the technology software?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The virtual work environment, normalized by COVID-19, has changed the paradigm of employee education, driving most forms of employee training online. This disruption in employee learning and development has triggered many changes in instructional designers’ surrounding environment. Instructional designers in human capital development are tasked with improving employees’ performance through the effectiveness of their learning design. The literature presented the impacts of instructional design and designers in improving employee training quality and establishing organizations’ virtual learning environments. The study aimed to uncover the COVID-19 pandemic’s impacts on instructional designers’ roles, responsibilities, and work environment, their perceptions regarding their level of preparation for the changes in the industry, and the challenges and opportunities they experienced from the learning environment change caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The study’s theoretical framework relied on the ecological systems theory developed by Bronfenbrenner (1979). The study utilized qualitative research methods interviewing eight instructional designers engaged in creating employee-related online training programs in U.S.-based organizations. The study’s findings indicated the pandemic reshaped instructional designers’ primary roles and responsibilities for establishing virtual learning environments for their organizations while displaying high self-efficacy in adapting to many changes in the industry. The study also revealed that instructional designers faced challenges and opportunities amid the ongoing pandemic. Based on the findings, the study included three main recommendations.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility
PDF
The impact of virtual clinical education during the COVID-19 pandemic on nursing graduates in the hospital setting
PDF
The impact of COVID-19 on instructional practices
PDF
COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers
PDF
Grading in crisis: examining the impact of COVID-19 on secondary public school teachers’ grading and reporting in south Florida
PDF
The great balancing act: women seeking work-life balance during COVID-19
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of COVID-19 on the wellbeing of veterinarians
PDF
Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches
PDF
COVID-19's impact on Christian cross-cultural workers
PDF
Educational technology integration: a search for best practices
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of COVID-19 and how teachers can intervene to improve student learning
PDF
Training qualified rural area teachers in Malawi using synchronous virtual learning (SVL) information and communication technologies (ICTs) platforms
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…
Asset Metadata
Creator
Chang-Gagnon, Saeyoung
(author)
Core Title
Instructional designers in the new learning paradigm: COVID-19’s impact on roles and responsibilities of instructional designers
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2022-12
Publication Date
09/17/2022
Defense Date
07/14/2022
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
adult learning,corporate university,COVID-19,elearning,emergency online learning,employee education,employee online learning,human capital development,instructional design,instructional design and technology,instructional designers,learning design,learning experience design,learning management systems,OAI-PMH Harvest,online learning,virtual learning environment
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Malloy, Courtney (
committee chair
), Lundeen, Rebecca (
committee member
), Stowe, Kathy (
committee member
)
Creator Email
changgagnon@gmail.com,saeyoung@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112002285
Unique identifier
UC112002285
Legacy Identifier
etd-ChangGagno-11225
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Chang-Gagnon, Saeyoung
Type
texts
Source
20220919-usctheses-batch-982
(batch),
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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.
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
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
adult learning
corporate university
COVID-19
elearning
emergency online learning
employee education
employee online learning
human capital development
instructional design
instructional design and technology
instructional designers
learning design
learning experience design
learning management systems
online learning
virtual learning environment