Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Preparing today’s educational software developers: voices from the field

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Educational software is a growing industry, creating demand for professionals with the skills and knowledge necessary to develop high-quality learning software. This paper explores the perceptions and experiences of professionals who have made a career of developing educational software and suggests educational paths useful for professionals in the field. In-depth interviews (n = 9) and surveys (n = 92) were incorporated in this mixed-methods study. Topics addressed include developers’ backgrounds, perceptions of working in this field, roles played, alignment between educational background and roles, and suggestions for an ideal undergraduate degree for a career in educational software development. Participants’ formal education paths included computing, instructional design, and other backgrounds. Roles played varied based on those backgrounds. When asked for recommendations for an ideal educational program, the most frequent response was a hybrid/dual major. However, those with degrees in computing or instructional design were most likely to recommend a similar degree, and use of on-the-job self-study for other topics. Those without a computing degree frequently indicated that formal education in programming and technology was important, but less so than the ability to think critically. Those with a computing background indicated that a background in education was not necessary, although ideally computing students should gain experience delving into at least one industry so that they would be prepared to interact with specialists and stakeholders in any specialty area in the future. Throughout, participants noted the importance of professional skills, critical thinking, and life-long learning. Implications for educators and researchers are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. (2013). Computer science curricula 2013. New York: ACM Press and IEEE Computer Society Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2534860.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Adnan, N. H., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2018). Software engineering design principles applied to instructional design: What can we learn from our sister discipline? TechTrends, 62(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0238-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen Interactions. (2018). Interactive eLearning development with SAM. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from http://www.alleninteractions.com/sam-process.

  • Andriole, S., & Roberts, E. (2008). Technology curriculum for the early 21st century. Communications of the ACM, 51(7), 27–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/1364782.1364792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ardis, M., Chenoweth, S., & Young, F. (2008). The “soft” topics in Software Engineering education. In 38th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in education conference. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720272.

  • Ashby, I., & Exter. M. (in press). Designing for interdisciplinarity in higher education: Considerations for instructional designers. TechTrends.

  • Berry, D. (1995). The importance of ignorance in requirements engineering. Journal of Systems and Software, 28(2), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0164-1212(94)00054-q.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Arteche, A., Bremner, A. J., Greven, C., & Furnham, A. (2010). Soft skills in higher education: Importance and improvement ratings as a function of individual differences and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 30(2), 221–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieste, O., Juristo, N., & Shull, F. (2008). Understanding the customer: What do we know about requirements elicitation? IEEE Software, 25(2), 11–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. (2000). Motivation and self-regulation in learning. In M. P. Dricoll (Ed.), Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P., York, C., & Gedic, N. (2009). Learning from the Pros: How experienced designers translate instructional design models into practice. Educational Technology, 41(1), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Exter, M. (2014). Comparing educational experiences and on-the-job needs of educational software designers. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE ’14 (pp. 355–360). https://doi.org/10.1145/2538862.2538970.

  • Exter, M. (2018). Developing multi-disciplinary skills through a course in educational software design. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 9(1), 49–79. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v9i1.23413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Exter, M., & Turnage, N. (2012). Exploring experienced professionals’ reflections on computing education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/2275597.2275601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlin, N. M., Exter, M., & Boling, E. (2009). Software designers’ use of precedent. Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technologies. Lousville, KY.

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Brewer, E. K. (2005). Elementary principles of design languages and design notation systems for instructional design. In Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 111–130). Mahwah, NJ: Taylor & Francis.

  • Gibbons, A. S., Nelson, J. & Richards, R. (2000). The nature and origin of instructional objects. In D. A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning objects: Online version. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from http://reusability.org/read/chapters/gibbons.doc.

  • Gorla, N., & Lin, S.-C. (2010). Determinants of software quality: A survey of information systems project managers. Information and Software Technology, 52(6), 602–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart Research Associates. (2013). It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. An online survey among employers conducted on behalf of the Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from http://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2013_EmployerSurvey.pdf.

  • Hart Research Associates. (2015). Falling short? College learning and career success. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015employerstudentsurvey.pdf.

  • Hofmann, H., & Lehner, F. (2001). Requirements engineering as a success factor in software projects. IEEE Software, 18(4), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/ms.2001.936219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holley, K. (2017). Interdisciplinary curriculum and learning in higher education. In Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from http://education.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264093-e-138.

  • Hooper, S., Rook, M., & Choi, K. (2015). Reconsidering the design of a learning design studio. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learning experience: Creating the future of educational technology. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaccheri, L., & Sindre, G. (2007). Software engineering meet interdisciplinary project work and art. In Conference proceedings from the 11th international conference information visualization (IV ‘07). https://doi.org/10.1109/iv.2007.102.

  • Kang, U., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2015). A job announcement analysis of educational technology professional positions: Knowledge, skills, and abilities. Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 231–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal Of Learning And Technology/La Revue Canadienne De L’Apprentissage Et De La Technologie. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from https://doi.org/10.21432/T2JW2P.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J., & Jun, S. (2014). Skills for instructional design professionals. Performance Improvement, 53(2), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox, A. (2000). The continuum of professional education and practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 86, 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koszalka, T., Russ-Eft, D., Reiser, R., Canela, F., Grabowski, B., & Wallington, C. (2013). Instructional designer competencies: The standards (4th ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, M. (2005). Suvey of the alignment of prepration and practice. Techtrends, 49(6), 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca, L. (2001). Creating interdisciplinarity: Interdisciplinary research and teaching among college and university faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1984). Processing the naturalistically obtained data. Naturalistic Inquiry (pp. 256–332). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mall, R. (2014). Fundamentals of software engineering (4th ed.). New Delhi: PHI Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnel, S. (1996). Lifecycle planning. Rapid development: Taming wild software schedules (pp. 133–181). Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, M. (2016). Investors see promise in Ed-Tech sector despite challenges. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from https://marketbrief.edweek.org/marketplace-k-12/investors-see-promise-ed-tech-sector-despite-challenges.

  • Neill, C., & LaPlante, P. (2003). Requirements engineering: The state of the practice. IEEE Software, 20(6), 40–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, D., Jaciw, A., & Larazarev, V. (2017). Guidelines for conducting and reporting EdTech impact research in U.S. K-12 schools. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from https://www.empiricaleducation.com/pdfs/guidelines.pdf.

  • Niknafs, A., & Berry, D. (2012). The impact of domain knowledge on the effectiveness of requirements engineering activities. In 20th IEEE international on requirements engineering conference (RE) (pp. 181–190). IEEE Press.

  • Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radermacher, A., & Walia, G. (2013). Gaps between industry expectations and the abilities of graduates. In SIGCSE’13. Denver, CO: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445351.

  • Richards, J. & Stebbins, L. (2015). 2014 U.S. Education Technology Market: PreK-12. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from http://www.siia.net/Portals/0/pdf/Education/SIIA2014Report_PreK12_FINAL%201%2031%202015_Exec%20Summ.pdf.

  • Ritzhaupt, A., Martin, F., & Daniels, K. (2010). Multimedia competencies for an educational technologist: A survey of professionals and job announcement analysis. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19(4), 421–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roytek, M. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahmi, M., Cuadros-Vargas, E., Roach, S., & Reed, D. (2012). Computer science curriculum 2013: Reviewing the strawman report from the ACM/IEEE Task Force. In SIGCSE’12. Raleigh, North Carolina.

  • Schach, S. R. (2011). Software life-cycle models. In M. Hill (Ed.), Object-oriented and classical software engineering (pp. 37–73). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwier, R., & Wilson, J. (2010). Unconventional roles and activities identified by Instructional Designers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(2), 134–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. (2006). Design and computational flexibility. Digital Creativity, 17(2), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626260600787589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Styron, R. (2013). Interdisciplinary education: A reflection of the real world. Systems, Cybernetics, and Informatics, 11(9), 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W. (2014). Studies of ID practices (pp. 47–100). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03605-2.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tafa, Z., Rakocevic, G., Mihailovic, D., & Milutinovic, V. (2011). Effects of interdisciplinary education on technology-driven application design. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(3), 462–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vliet, H. (2006). Reflections on software engineering education. IEEE Software, 23(2), 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohrabi, M. (2013). Mixed methods research: Instruments, validity, reliability and reporting findings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(2), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.2.254-262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Hidden for blind review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, 100 N. University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    Marisa E. Exter & Iryna Ashby

Authors
  1. Marisa E. Exter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Iryna Ashby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marisa E. Exter.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.” Data collected as part of this study was overseen by the Institutional Review Board of Indiana University, protocol # 0813604.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Exter, M.E., Ashby, I. Preparing today’s educational software developers: voices from the field. J Comput High Educ 31, 472–494 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9198-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9198-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation