Advertisement

Educational Technologists in Latin America and the Caribbean: Perceived Importance of Competencies for Practice

  • Enilda Romero-HallEmail author
  • Leonor Adams
  • Erika Petersen
  • Adriana Vianna
Living reference work entry

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to determine which educational technology competencies practitioners in Latin America and the Caribbean perceive as critical or essential. Participants (n = 100) were educational technology professionals who are 18 years or older and currently residing in Latin America or the Caribbean. An electronic survey was used to collect responses related to the importance of knowledge and ability competencies as an educational technologist. The results indicate that the highest rated knowledge competencies were: online teaching and learning, adult learning theory, e-learning development, formative and summative evaluation, blended learning techniques, and copyright laws.

Additionally, the highest rated ability competencies were: create effective instructional products, work well with others, develop course materials, write learning objectives, and prioritize tasks. Based on the participants in this investigation, the region of residence, gender, age, education level, economic sector of employment, and current classification are not factors that affect the level of importance of knowledge and abilities competencies. Last, the results illustrate that there is a range of professional development opportunities that are attended by educational technologists in Latin America and the Caribbean. Several of the professional development opportunities mentioned were international conferences that are often hosted in the United States. However, other professional development opportunities included regional or national conferences hosted in different countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Keywords

Educational technologist Instructional design Competencies Latin America The Caribbean 

References

  1. AECT. (2018). History of LIDT. In R. E. West, Foundations of learning and instructional design technology: The past, present, and future of learning and instructional design technology. EdTech Books. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/history
  2. Alvarado, L. E., Aragón, R. R., & Bretones, F. (2020). Teachers’ attitudes towards the introduction of ICT in Ecuadorian public schools. TechTrends.Google Scholar
  3. Arrington, T. L., & Darabi, A. (2018). Indicators of exemplary programs in instructional design and technology: Faculty and student perspectives. Educational Technology Research & Development, 66(1), 173–189.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9561-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2007). Definition. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary. Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Castellanos, G., & Salaverría, M. (2018). Diseño instruccional fundamentado en juegos didácticos para mejorar la lectura y escritura. Saber UCV Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Central de Venezuela.Google Scholar
  6. Chadwick, C. B. (1986). Instructional technology research in Latin America. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 34(4), 247–254.Google Scholar
  7. Chauncey, D. (2002). Instructional design for the corporate trainer. Lincoln, NE: Writers Club Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, H., Dong, L., Tomita, K., & Eunkyung, M. (2016). Educational technology and instructional design in East Asia: Program curricula and career opportunities. TechTrends, 60(6), 525–527.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0112-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobo, C., Hawkins, R., & Rovner, H. (2020, March). How countries across Latin America use technology during COVID19-driven school closures. World Bank Group. https://blogs.worldbank.org/education/how-countries-across-latin-america-use-technology-during-covid19-driven-school-closures
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, L. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Driscoll, M. (2012). Psychological foundations of instructional design. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  13. Fainholc, B. (2016). Presente y future latinoamericano de la enseñanza y el aprendizaje en entornos virtuales referidos a educacion universitaria. Revista de Educatión a Distancia, 48, 2.Google Scholar
  14. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychology Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iqdami, M., & Branch, R. (2016). Examining multimedia competencies for educational technologists in higher education. TechTrends, 60(4), 365–373.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0064-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jara, I., Claro, M., & West, M. (2012). Mobile learning for teachers in Latin America: Exploring the potential of mobile technologies to support teachers and improve practice (white paper). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Retrieved from UNESCO Digital Library. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216081.locale=en
  17. King, J., & Stevahn, L. (2013). Interactive evaluation practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Kirschner, P., & Gerjets, P. (2005). Instructional design for effective and enjoyable computer-supported learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lachheb, A., & Boling, E. (2018). Design tools in practice: Instructional designers report which tools they use and why. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 34–54.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9165-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lim, C., Ryu, J., Martindale, T., Kim, N., & Park, S. (2019). Learning, design, and technology in South Korea: A report on the AECT-Korean society for educational technology (KSET) Panel Discussion. TechTrends, 63(5), 503–505.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00418-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Litchfield, B. (2012). Managing on-site and virtual design teams. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  22. Llorénz, L., Espinoza, Y., & Castro, M. (2013). Criterios de un modelo de diseño instruccional y competencia docente para la educación superior escolarizada a distancia apoyada en TICC. Sinéctica Revista Electrónica de Educación, 41, 2–21.Google Scholar
  23. Lugo, M.T. & Schurmann, S. (2012). Turning on mobile learning in Latin America: Illustrative initiatives and policy implications (white paper). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Retrieved from UNESCO Digital Library: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216080
  24. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Nash, S. S. (2012). Learning objects. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  26. Pallit, N., Carr, T., Pedersen, J., Gunness, S., & Dooga, J. (2018). Perspectives on learning design in African higher education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning (ICEL). Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
  27. Paton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Reiser, R. (2012). What field did you say you were in? In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  29. Richey, R. (2013). Encyclopedia of terminology for educational communications and technology. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ritzhaupt, A., & Martin, F. (2014). Development and validation of the educational technologist multimedia competency survey. Educational Technology Research & Development, 62(1), 13–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9325-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ritzhaupt, A. D., Martin, 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-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Romero-Hall, E. J., Adams, L., & Osgood, M. (2019). Examining the effectiveness, efficiency, and usability of a web-based experiential role-playing aging simulation using formative assessment. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 3(2), 123–132.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-019-00033-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romero-Hall, E. J., & Vicentini, C. (2017). Examining distance learners in hybrid synchronous instruction: Successes and challenges. Online Learning, 21(4), 141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sadeghi, S. H. (2017). E-learning instructional design practice in American and Australian institutions. In International Conference on E-Learning (pp. 13–24). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.esearch.ut.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=127022846&site=ehost-live
  35. Sharif, A., & Gisbert, M. (2015). The impact of culture on instructional design and quality. International Journal of Instruction, 8(1), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sugar, W. (2014). Development and formative evaluation of multimedia case studies for instructional design and technology students. TechTrends.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0785-z
  37. Sugar, W., Hoard, B., Brown, A., & Daniels, L. (2011). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sugar, W., & Luterbach, K. (2016). Using critical incidents of instructional design and multimedia production activities to investigate instructional designers’ current practices and roles. Educational Technology Research & Development, 64(2), 285–312.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9414-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and conducting formative evaluations: Improving the quality of education and training. London, England: Kogan Page Limited.Google Scholar
  40. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2020, April). UNESCO COVID-19 education response. Global Education Coalition. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse/nationalresponses
  41. Wilson, B. (2012). Trends and issues facing distance education. In L. Visser, Y. Visser, R. Amirault, & M. Simonson (Eds.), Trends and issues in distance education (pp. 39–54). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enilda Romero-Hall
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leonor Adams
    • 2
  • Erika Petersen
    • 1
  • Adriana Vianna
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TampaTampaUSA
  2. 2.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Patricia A. Young
    • 1
  • Tutaleni I. Asino
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of Maryland at Baltimore CountyBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.College of Education, Health and AviationOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations