Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To design or to integrate? Instructional design versus technology integration in developing learning interventions

Educational Technology Research and Development volume 68, pages 2473–2504 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

Instructional Design Knowledge (IDK) can inform technology integration decisions and Technology Pedagogy and Content Knowledge (TPACK) can help instructional design processes. As a means to understand how teachers may draw from their TPACK and IDK as they design instructions and develop technology-enhanced learning activities, we examined the final projects of two groups of teachers enrolled in graduate-level instructional design and technology courses. By using both content and social network analysis methods, we identified the IDK and TPACK components exemplified in teachers’ projects. While the content analysis revealed differences between the two groups, some findings were common across the courses such as teachers minimally connecting technology to their content areas, exhibiting limited knowledge on learning needs, and having difficulties in engaging in design thinking processes. Furthermore, the social network analysis identified various communities of the knowledge components, highlighting when teachers tended to use their IDK and TPACK as they planned technology-enhanced learning activities and were engaged in instructional design respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Reproduced from Instructional Design: A Systematic Approach for Reflective Practice, by Shambaugh & Magliaro, 2006, Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc., Copyright 2006

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  • Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on preservice teachers’ technology competency. Computers & Education, 45(4), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 131–151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. M. (2014). Understanding decision making in teachers’ curriculum design approaches. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 393–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2007). Evaluation of the persistent issues in history laboratory for virtual field experience (PIH-LVFE). Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

  • Cennamo, K., & Kalk, D. (2019). Real world instructional design: An iterative approach to designing learning experiences (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai, C., Koh, J., Tsai, C., & Tan, L. (2011). Modeling primary school pre-service teachers technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Computers & Education, 57, 1184–1193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, W. (2014). Extrafont: Tools for using fonts. Retrieved September 13, 2019, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=extrafont.

  • Chen, S. Y., Feng, Z., & Yi, X. (2017). A general introduction to adjustment for multiple comparisons. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 9(6), 1725–1729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csardi, G., & Nepusz, T. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695.

  • Davis, E. A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C. T., & Stevens, S. (2011). Understanding pedagogical design capacity through teachers’ narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 797–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration reframed. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41, 393–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegedus, S. J., Dalton, S., & Tapper, J. R. (2015). The impact of technology-enhanced curriculum on learning advanced algebra in US high school classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9371-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D., & Richardson, C. (2017). Teachers are designers: Addressing problems of practice in education. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(2), 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717734192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herring, S. C. (2004). Content analysis for new media: Rethinking the paradigm. In: New Research for New Media: Innovative Research Methodologies Symposium Working Papers and Readings (pp. 47–66). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

  • Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(3), 223–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00900.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1998). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2005). Training higher education teachers for instructional design of competency-based education: Product-oriented versus process-oriented worked examples. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulon, S. I. (2015). Does training in instructional design practices increase a preservice teacher’s ability to integrate technology? (Publication No. 1748053884). Doctoral dissertation, University of South Alabama. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.

  • Hur, J. W., Shen, Y. W., Kale, U., & Cullen, T. (2015). An exploration of pre-service teachers’ intention to use mobile devices for teaching. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 7(3), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. M., Jacovina, M. E., Russell, D. E., & Soto, C. M. (2016). Challenges and solutions when using technologies in the classroom. In S. A. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.), Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction (pp. 13–29). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, M. E. (2016). Teaching as designing: Preparing pre-service teachers for adaptive teaching. Theory Into Practice, 55(3), 197–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale, U. (2013). Can they plan to teach with Web 2.0? Future teachers’ potential use of the emerging web. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(4), 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2013.813408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale, U. (2017). Technology valued? Observation and review activities to enhance future teachers' utility value toward technology integration. Computers & Education, 117, 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale, U., & Akcaoglu, M. (2017). The role of relevance in future teachers’ utility value and interest toward technology. Educational Technology Research and Development., 66(2), 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9547-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale, U., Akcaoglu, M., Cullen, T., & Goh, D. (2018). Contextual factors influencing access to teaching computational thinking. Computers in the Schools. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2018.1462630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale, U., & Whitehouse, P. (2012). Structuring video cases to support future teachers’ problem-solving. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 175–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale, U., Wu, C. H., & Clausell, C. (2014). WebPACK: Future teachers’ plans and practices with emerging tools. Journal for Computing Teachers, 1, 43–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale, U., Wu, C., & Convey, E. (2013). Scaffolding pre-service teachers’ reflection on technology integration. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA.

  • Kali, Y., McKenney, S., & Sagy, O. (2015). Teachers as designers of technology enhanced learning. Instructional Science, 43(2), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9343-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Computers & Education, 49(3), 740–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koh, J. H. L., & Chai, C. S. (2016). Seven design frames that teachers use when considering technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 102, 244–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Hong, H. Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). A survey to examine teachers’ perceptions of design dispositions, lesson design practices, and their relationships with technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 378–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschützki, D., Lehmann, K. A., Peeters, L., Richter, S., Tenfelde-Podehl, D., & Zlotowski, O. (2005). Centrality indices. In U. Brandes & T. Erlebach (Eds.), Network analysis: Methodological foundations (pp. 16–61). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, S., & Vigil, K. (2011). The Net generation as preservice teachers: Transferring familiarity with new technologies to educational environments. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27, 144–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. J., & Kim, C. (2014). An implementation study of a TPACK-based instructional design model in a technology integration course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 437–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., Kali, Y., Markauskaite, L., & Voogt, J. (2015). Teacher design knowledge for technology enhanced learning: An ecological framework for investigating assets and needs. Instructional Science, 43(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9337-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too cool for school? No way! Using the TPACK framework: You can have your hot tools and teach with them, too. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36, 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2006). Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. Physical Review E, 74(3), 036104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niess, M. L., van Zee, E. H., & Gillow-Wiles, H. (2011). Knowledge growth in teaching mathematics/science with spreadsheets: Moving PCK to TPACK through online professional development. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27, 42–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, P., & Hathaway, D. (2015). In search of a teacher education curriculum: Appropriating a design lens to solve problems of practice. Educational Technology, 55(6), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owusu, K. A., Conner, L., & Astall, C. (2015). Contextual influences on science teachers' TPACK levels. In M. L. Niess & H. Gillow-Wiles (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education in the digital age (pp. 307–333). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, T. L. (2018). ggraph: An implementation of grammar of graphics for graphs and networks. Retrieved July 27, 2019, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggraph.

  • Pedersen, T. L. (2019). tidygraph: A tidy API for graph manipulation. Retrieved July 27, 2019, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidygraph.

  • R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing. Retrieved June 2, 2019, from https://www.R-project.org.

  • Schoch, D. (2019). graphlayouts: Additional layout algorithms for network visualizations. Retrieved July 27, 2019, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=graphlayouts.

  • Shambaugh, R. N., & Magliaro, S. (1997). Mastering the possibilities: A process approach to instructional design. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shambaugh, R. N., & Magliaro, S. (2006). Instructional design: A systematic approach for reflective practice. Boston: Pearson College Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G., & Van Es, E. A. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 13(3), 475–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. A. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 20–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summerville, J., & Reid-Griffin, A. (2008). Technology integration and instructional design. TechTrends, 52(5), 45–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, J.-J., Cheng, Y.-S., & Yeh, H.-N. (2019). How pre-service English teachers enact TPACK in the context of web-conferencing teaching: A design thinking approach. Computers & Education, 128, 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf.

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickham, H. (2017). tidyverse: Easily install and load the 'Tidyverse'. Retrieved June 2, 2019, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Sciences and Human Development Department, West Virginia University, 504-N Allen Hall, PO Box 6122, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA

    Ugur Kale

  2. Learning Sciences and Human Development Department, West Virginia University, 504-O Allen Hall, PO Box 6122, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA

    Abhik Roy

  3. Learning Sciences and Human Development Department, West Virginia University, 507-B Allen Hall, PO Box 6122, Morgantown, WV, 26505, USA

    Jiangmei Yuan

Authors
  1. Ugur Kale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abhik Roy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiangmei Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ugur Kale.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (WVU IRB, protocol number: 1909720885) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Not applicable due to the retrospective nature of the study conducted on already available/existing data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kale, U., Roy, A. & Yuan, J. To design or to integrate? Instructional design versus technology integration in developing learning interventions. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 2473–2504 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09771-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09771-8

Keywords

search

Navigation