Instructional Design and Innovation Adoption During A Crisis Period: A Case Study

A dissertation presented to

the faculty of

The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Kyle L. Rosenberger

April 2021

© 2021 Kyle L. Rosenberger. All Rights Reserved.

 2

This dissertation titled

Instructional Designers and Innovation Adoption During A Crisis Period: A Case Study

by

KYLE L. ROSENBERGER

has been approved for

the Department of Educational Studies

and The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education by

Gregory Kessler

Professor of Instructional Technology

Renée A. Middleton

Dean, The Gladys W. and David H. Patton College of Education

 3

Abstract

KYLE L. ROSENBERGER, Ph.D., April 2021, Instructional Technology

Instructional Designers and Innovation Adoption During A Crisis Period: A Case Study

Director of Dissertation: Gregory Kessler

This study explored how instructional designers work with faculty during a crisis

by exploring topics such as technology adoption, quality teaching continuity, and

communication. Using a case study methodology, this study relied on the account of

instructional designers at Ohio University, while during the COVID-19 pandemic,

worked with faculty to transition their in-person courses to an online modality. Findings

from the data analysis uncovered that a number of the instructional designers undertook a

“minimalist” approach to instructional design, while also relying largely on the use of

professional judgement in their method of recommending best practices in instruction.

Findings further supported the practice of building relationships and using empathy as

means by which a number of the instructional designers used communication during the

COVID-19 pandemic. These results helped to spark new ideas around future research

about the professional identity of instructional designers, the intersection of instructional

design and innovation, and the future of the profession.

Keywords: instructional design, innovation diffusion theory, professional identity,

crisis period, higher education
 4

Dedication

For my parents
 5

Acknowledgments

The completion of this dissertation not only represents the culmination of an

educational experience, but a milestone on my journey as a lifelong learner. Throughout

the way, I have experienced highs and lows, but have been carried through and inspired

by a multitude of individuals; each of which I would like to like to extend my gratitude to

as I write this acknowledgement.

I would like to first extend my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Gregory

Kessler, and the subsequent members of my dissertation committee: Dr. David Moore,

Dr. Peter Mather, and Dr. Krisanna Machtmes. Each of you have taken the time and

commitment to not only be part of my dissertation committee, but to also inspired me to

pursue a crazy idea I had nearly a decade ago of obtaining a Ph.D. I would like to thank

you each for your wisdom and guidance as I traversed this arduous journey.

To Dr. Daniel Skinner, for years, you have been someone who has shown me

support, been a mentor, and most importantly, a friend. You have inspired me to ask big

questions, to challenge the norms of my profession, and raise a little bit of havoc. I know

the completion of my doctoral program would not have been possible without your help

and I could not be more thankful for your support throughout the years.

I would also like to give a specific acknowledgment to several other individuals at

Ohio University’s Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine. To Dr. William Burke,

Brian Thompson, Pam Dixson and Dr. Jody Gerome, thank you for giving me a chance.

Each of you have provided opportunity, inspiration, friendship, and motivation, not only
 6

on a professional level, but personal as well. I would not be where I am today if it were

not for each of you and I will always be grateful for that.

My gratitude also extends to several individuals in the Ohio University’s Office of

Instructional Innovation. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Bradley Cohen and Candi

Morris for their leadership and influence in my trajectory as an instructional designer. I

would also like to give a specific acknowledgement to Jody Monk, Larry Hess, and

Sylvia Mickunas for being my most relied on colleagues and pivotal figures in my

development as an instructional designer.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the following individuals for their

unwavering support and friendship through the years: Tyler, Bree, Grace, Jake, JT,

Fulone, and Eddie. Each of you have been a source of inspiration, not only through the

process of obtaining a Ph.D., but through my navigation of this thing called life. You all

continue to inspire me to be a better student, professional, and most importantly, a better

person.
 7

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ...........................................................................................................................3
Dedication .......................................................................................................................4
Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................5
List of Tables................................................................................................................. 11
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................. 13
Background of the Study.......................................................................................... 13
COVID-19 and Higher Education ............................................................................ 14
A Major Adjustment for University Faculty ............................................................. 16
Instructional Design and Online Learning ................................................................ 18
Unprecedented Crisis for Instructional Designers ..................................................... 20
Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 20
Purpose of Research................................................................................................. 21
Research Questions .................................................................................................. 21
Significance of Study ............................................................................................... 22
Theoretical Focus .................................................................................................... 22
Limitations .............................................................................................................. 25
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................. 26
Organization of Study .............................................................................................. 27
Chapter 2: Literature Review ......................................................................................... 28
The Role of the Instructional Designer in Higher Education ..................................... 28
Course Design .................................................................................................... 30
Technology Use and Support ............................................................................. 30
As Administrators, Researchers, and Creatives ................................................... 31
Faculty as Subject Matter Experts in Higher Education ............................................ 34
Faculty Autonomy and Academic Freedom ........................................................ 34
Institutional Constrains ...................................................................................... 35
Cultures within the Academy ............................................................................. 37
The Relationship between Instructional Designer and Faculty .................................. 41
Relationship Issues ............................................................................................. 43
 8

Overview of Faculty Adoption ................................................................................. 44

Faculty Adoption of New Technology and Instructional Methods ...................... 44
Innovation Diffusion Theory .................................................................................... 47
Overview of Innovation Diffusion Theory .......................................................... 47
Innovation-Decision Process .............................................................................. 48
Perceived Attributes of Innovations.................................................................... 50
Communication Channels .................................................................................. 51
Applicability of the IDT Framework .................................................................. 52
Summary ................................................................................................................. 53
Chapter 3: Methodology ................................................................................................ 56
Rationale for the Selected Case ................................................................................ 57
Research Design ...................................................................................................... 59
Research Setting ................................................................................................ 59
Participants ........................................................................................................ 60
Timeframe ......................................................................................................... 61
The Researcher and Their Suppositions .............................................................. 62
IRB Procedures .................................................................................................. 65
Data Collection ........................................................................................................ 65
Interviews .......................................................................................................... 65
Interview Memos ............................................................................................... 67
Documentation ................................................................................................... 67
Data Collection Procedures ...................................................................................... 68
Interviews .......................................................................................................... 68
Sampling............................................................................................................ 69
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 70
Validity and Reliability ...................................................................................... 72
Construct, Internal, and External Validity........................................................... 72
Reliability .......................................................................................................... 74
Summary ................................................................................................................. 75
Chapter 4: Results.......................................................................................................... 77
Research Questions .................................................................................................. 77
Question 1: Working with Faculty during a Time of Crisis....................................... 77
A Minimalist Approach...................................................................................... 78
 9

Time Crunch ...................................................................................................... 81

Operating in Support Mode ................................................................................ 81
Professional Identity .......................................................................................... 83
The Future ......................................................................................................... 85
Conclusion of Question 1 ................................................................................... 86
Question 2: Balancing Best Practices during a Time of Crisis .................................. 87
Time Constraints and Suggesting Best Practices ................................................. 87
Nudging Faculty ................................................................................................ 89
Using Professional Judgement ............................................................................ 91
Conclusion of Question 2 ................................................................................... 92
Question 3: Innovation and Communication during a Time of Crisis ........................ 93
Appetite for Innovation ...................................................................................... 94
Innovation and University Administration .......................................................... 96
Communication Methods and Approaches ......................................................... 98
Building Relationships and Rapport ................................................................... 98
Taking Initiative............................................................................................... 100
Conclusion of Question 3 ................................................................................. 102
Summary ............................................................................................................... 104
Chapter 5: Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion ......................................... 106
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 106
Summary of Study ................................................................................................. 106
Research Questions ................................................................................................ 110
Discussion of Findings........................................................................................... 110
Finding 1: Working with Faculty During a Time of Crisis ...................................... 110
A “Minimalist” Approach to Instructional Design ............................................ 111
Instructional Design is Not Technology Support .............................................. 114
Solidifying Identity .......................................................................................... 116
The Future ....................................................................................................... 119
Summary of Finding 1 ........................................................................................... 120
Finding 2: Balancing Best Practices During a Time of Crisis ................................. 121
Working with the Constraint of Time ............................................................... 122
Faculty Autonomy and Academic Freedom ...................................................... 124
Leading by Example ........................................................................................ 125
 10

Using Professional Judgement .......................................................................... 127

Summary of Finding 2 ........................................................................................... 131
Finding 3: Innovation and Communication During A Crisis ................................... 132
The Opportunity for Innovation........................................................................ 133
Innovation, Administration, and the Future ...................................................... 135
Communication Methods and Approaches ....................................................... 138
Using Agency .................................................................................................. 139
Comparison to Innovation Diffusion Theory .................................................... 142
Communication Channels ................................................................................ 147
Innovation Diffusion Theory During a Crisis ................................................... 148
Summary of Finding 3 ........................................................................................... 150
Implications of the Study ....................................................................................... 152
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 158
References ................................................................................................................... 162
Appendix A: March 13th Message from Ohio University on COVID-19 Measures ....... 174
Appendix B: March 23rd Message from Ohio University on COVID-19 Measures ....... 177
Appendix C: Interview Guide ...................................................................................... 181
Appendix D: Questions and their Relationship to the Innovation-Decision Process ...... 182
Appendix E: Coding Category Mapping ...................................................................... 184
Appendix F: Case Study Protocol ................................................................................ 186
 11

List of Tables

Page

Table 1 Stages of the Innovation Diffusion Process ................................................ 23-24

Table 2 Stages of the Innovation Decision Process.................................................. 48-49
Table 3 Five Attributes that Define the Rate of Innovation Adoption ............................ 50
Table 4 Participants and their Primary Supported College ............................................. 61
 12

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1. Timeline of the Ohio University Response to COVID-19 in Spring 2020. ....... 62
 13

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background of the Study

The turn of the decade has been defined by a singular event: the spread of the

COVID-19 virus. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) (2020a) COVID-

19 is a novel coronavirus that has not been previously seen in humans and has had a

significant impact on human life. As of January 2021, there have been nearly 23 million

cases in the United States alone that have resulted in over 387,000 deaths (CDC, 2021).

Worldwide, the virus has infected over 93 million individuals, resulting in over 2 million

deaths as of January 2021 (WorldOMeter, 2021). Because of its impact on human life,

the COVID-19 virus was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization

(WHO) in March of 2020 (WHO, 2020).

Because this strain of virus was classified as “novel,” no vaccine existed prior to

the end of 2020. As such, various global efforts have been undertaken to reduce the

prevalence of the virus. In the United States, one of these largest efforts has been the

practice of “social distancing” (WHO), which according to the CDC (2020b), includes

the practices of (1) maintaining a space of six feet from others, (2) not gathering in large

groups, and (3) avoiding mass gatherings or large groups of people. The practice of social

distancing has undoubtedly influenced individuals and social institutions across the

globe. More specifically, in the United States, the practice of social distancing has had a

significant impact on the economy, including entities such as small businesses,

commodities, and the stock market (Oliver, 2020; Kinery et al., 2020).
 14

COVID-19 and Higher Education

Higher education is another entity that has been significantly affected by COVID-

19. In the wake of the pandemic declaration, many colleges and institutions made a

significant pivot to transition their courses online instead of having students on campus.

The effect of this transition has been unprecedented, causing tremendous financial

constraints, which has led the U.S. government to allocate nearly 6.2 billion dollars to the

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (Inside Higher Education

Staff, 2020). The CARES Act provides continuity funding for colleges and universities as

they navigate the differentiated landscape produced by the COVID-19 outbreak. In a

statement by U.S. Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, CARES Act funds are meant to

ensure “learning continues when unexpected circumstances arise” and that funds are to

“expand remote learning programs, build IT capacity, and train faculty and staff to

operate in a remote learning environment” (U.S. Department of Education, 2020, para. 2).

DeVos’s statements and the move by the Department of Education to allocate the

funding indicates the importance of maintaining and improving a remote learning

environment for students in higher education. At the present time, it is unclear what the

next move will be for many institutions regarding resuming courses in a physical

location; and some schools have already taken hard positions on the subject. For

example, Boston University has contemplated postponing re-opening until January 2021

(Adams, 2020).

Regardless of when colleges and universities reopen in-person classes, the

landscape of higher education is predicted to change significantly. According to Kim

 15

(2020), blended learning is set to increase as is the strategic priority of online education.

The emphasis and prioritization of online or remote education has been a major shift not

only for students, but for many faculty members in higher education. Those who have

never used these technological tools or have never operated in a digital environment have

had to learn new techniques and tools (Luthra & Mackenzie, 2020).

However, the occurrence of learning new technologies and teaching methods is

not new for faculty in higher education. Yet, with the onset of COVID-19, these faculty

have not necessarily been given a choice on whether to adopt new technologies and

pedagogical practices. This occurrence can be compared to the work of Rogers (2003),

Godin (2009), and Moore (2014), who reference the “Adopter Categorization on the

Basis of Innovation” or the “Technology Adoption Lifecycle.” In these models, Rogers

(2003) and Moore (2014), in particular, denote how people typically fall into a number of

categories when looking to adopt a new technology or innovation. These categories

consist of: 1) innovators, 2) early adopters, 3) early majority, 4) late majority, and 5)

laggards (Rogers, 2003; Moore, 2014). While this model is typically applicable to

“normal” situations, it may not necessarily reflect a situation when people do not have a

choice on whether or not to adopt a new technology or innovation; for example, during

the COVID-19 crisis. Thus, it is understandable that some of these models might not be

completely applicable during crisis situations. Therefore, it can be assumed that for each

of the categories of these models may need to make significant adjustments to

accommodate for a new technology or innovation. In the case of higher education and

COVID-19, this may require a significant intervention of administration to help with

 16

those who may be in the “late adopter” or “laggard” category mainly due to the

constraints of time or the unwillingness to adopt a new practice or technology.

A Major Adjustment for University Faculty

According to a recent survey of 826 faculty and administrators, nearly 65% of

faculty who have had to transition to online education have had no prior experience in

online teaching (Lederman, 2020). What this statistic represents is a significant need for

faculty to adopt new or innovative teaching technologies. In the past, higher education

has had a reputation for being slow to change, especially when it comes to the adoption

of new technologies or teaching methods (Gurmak & Hardaker, 2014). Therefore, the

pandemic has given rise to the need for support and facilitation of new teaching methods

and technologies. To meet this need, many colleges and universities have been using

administrative support units to develop resources and live support to aid the in the

transition (Baker, 2020). Administrative support units, within the context of Baker

(2020), can refer to those who aid faculty, such as those in faculty development and

instructional technologists.

While the name and personnel of such administrative support units vary per

academic institution, one position that has been elevated during this time has been that of

the instructional designer. Traditionally, an instructional designer is one who uses

“systematic instructional planning” to develop instructional programs and courses

(Koszalka et al., 2013, p. 147; Gibbons, 2014). Instructional design is rooted in the audio-

visual educational movement of the 1950s and the unified field of human psychology and
 17

systems development. In short, instructional design focuses on the use of validated

instructional procedures (Gibbons, 2014).

The use of instructional designers to address a crisis is not unprecedented and

aligns to the historical context of the use of instructional designers. According to Reiser

(1987), the interest in programmed instruction and the emphasis on a systematic approach

to it began to be of peak interest with the onset of World War II. According to Reiser

(1987), “During the war, a large number of psychologists and educators who had training

and experience in conducting experimental research were called upon to conduct research

and develop training materials for the military services” (p. 22). As a result of this, Reiser

(1987) notes that many of the concepts associated with the systems-based approach to

instruction arose because of this era. As such, the field of instructional design could be

considered a by-product of a crisis period and could potentially evolve with the advent of

future crises, such as COVID-19.

The use of instructional designers in higher education has been on the rise in the

past few years. In 2016, it was estimated that around 13,000 positions related to

instructional design existed in higher education (Intentional Futures, 2016). According to

the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018), these positions have a faster than

average projected growth trend through 2026. Similarly, the bureau projects around

16,900 job openings for instructional designers from 2016‒2026 (U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics).

According to Richardson et al., (2018), instructional designers can play a crucial

role in shaping the instructional process and practice of faculty members through
 18

professional collaboration. Within this relationship lies an opportunity for collaboration

between designers and faculty to create opportunities that can result in positive student

outcomes and the adoption of new instructional technologies and pedagogical practices

(Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2017; Richardson et al., 2018). With this in mind, it becomes clear

why many institutions employ instructional designers to help with the central tenets of

their mission statements.

Instructional Design and Online Learning

Instructional designers work in a variety of capacities. For example, they are

employed not only in higher education, but also in the corporate sector and military

organizations. Furthermore, instructional designers operate within a capacity that is

related to training and human performance improvement, as well as other teaching-

orientated positions, such as faculty development. However, within the higher education

environment, instructional designers have largely been tasked with the design and

development of online courses (Drysdale, 2019).

Online learning rose to prominence with the advent of the Internet and other

computer-to-computer networking platforms (Finkle & Masters, 2014). Since that time,

there has been an exponential growth of students and online programs within higher

education. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (2019, Table

311.15), there were nearly 6.9 million students enrolled in a distance education courses at

a degree granting institution in the fall of 2018. The increase in the popularity of online

education has also spawned a number of innovative changes within the higher education

landscape, such as the rise of massive open online courses (MOOCs), technologically
 19

enhanced learning management systems, and use of data-driven analytics (Finkle &

Masters, 2014; Muljana & Luo, 2020). Furthermore, the rise of online education has

increased a number of institutional changes in higher education, such as the rise of fully

online for-profit schools and alternative credentialing systems. As such, the impact

distance education has had on higher education has been unprecedented and as new

technology develops, the impact of these will continue to shift and shape the landscape of

the higher education environment.

To navigate the changes of the new landscape and shifting technological changes,

many colleges and universities are turning to instructional designers who are equipped

with a versatile skill set that can greatly improve the quality and design of online courses.

This skill set and expertise generally comes from the crossover of knowledge between

pedagogy, learning science, and technology, which makes instructional designers an asset

for institutions who are looking to move their courses and curriculum online. This is

exceptionally relevant given the position many institutions find themselves in because of

the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, at the same time, instructional designers are finding themselves in a

unique position. With employment numbers for instructional designers on the rise, it

could be estimated that these numbers will see another significant uptick. With this in

mind, and with the uncertainty of the future of higher education, instructional designers

will need to explore how to operate within a crisis period, and more specifically, how this

new environment shifts the way designers work to ensure quality education. Furthermore,
 20

this work environment could potentially shift how instructional designers communicate

with subject matter experts and how that relationship functions as a whole.

Unprecedented Crisis for Instructional Designers

Since the rise of COVID-19 is new and unprecedented, the literature is currently

sparce in many areas, in particular, within higher education. However, this is not to

suggest that the crisis response literature is lacking as that body of work encompasses a

wide array of sectors, including business, healthcare, and the economy. Though, within

the context of this study, the literature is thin regarding how instructional designers work

with faculty during a crisis period to adopt new innovative practices and technologies.

Therefore, it is central to this research to explore this area through the lens of an

instructional design unit at a mid-size midwestern university. Through such an inquiry,

instructional design units and individuals will be able to see the methods and tactics that

were employed during a crisis implementation and will be better prepared to face such

circumstances in the future.

Problem Statement

The COVID-19 pandemic has propelled higher education into uncharted territory.

The massive mobilization of in-person instruction to an online environment has been a

test for institutions in general, but also for those in faculty and administrative positions.

Instructional designers, for example, are one group that has been significantly affected.

They are uniquely positioned to work with faculty on the adoption of new technologies,

but also to work with them to maintain the quality of their instructional practice during

the COVID-19 crisis era.

 21

This study aims to explore how instructional designers work with faculty during a

crisis by exploring topics such as technology adoption, quality teaching continuity, and

communication. Findings from this study will help illuminate some practical practices of

instructional designers regarding how to work during a crisis and what techniques or

practices are the most successful for learning outcomes.

Purpose of Research

The purpose of this study is to explore how instructional designers work with

faculty to adopt new instructional technologies and practices during a crisis period. At

this stage in the research, “crisis period” can be defined as a period of time that has

altered the normal state of things due to adverse circumstances.

Research Questions

This study is guided by the following research questions pertaining to how

instructional designers work with faculty to adopt new technologies and practices during

a crisis period:

1. How do instructional designers work with faculty in a crisis to implement new

technologies?

2. How do instructional designers balance best practices in instruction during a time

of crisis?

3. How do instructional designers communicate with faculty about innovating their

instructional practices during a time of crisis?

 22

Significance of Study

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on higher education, and many colleges

and universities had to pivot their traditional in-person course offerings to the online

environment. As a result of this process, many faculty have had to adapt by learning new

technologies while maintaining a rigorous and fruitful educational experience for their

students. To assist in this process, instructional designers have helped facilitate the

transition by working with faculty to modify their instruction and adopt new

technologies.

Instructional designers are uniquely positioned within higher education to be a

conduit of change. However, the literature is scarce on how instructional designers

effectively work with faculty during a crisis. Research into this area can illuminate

deficiencies in the practice of instructional designers with the specific aim of identifying

how they work with faculty, how they balance best practices in instruction, and how they

communicate with faculty about innovating their instructional practice. Findings from a

study of this nature can be used in future situations where instructional designers are

called upon to help with a rapid transition of courses to an online environment.

Theoretical Focus

The adoption of innovative instructional practices can be likened to the

acceptance or widespread use of any new process, technology, or methodology.

Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) is a theoretical perspective that intends “to provide an

account of the manner in which any technological innovation moves from the stage of

invention to widespread use (or not)” (Samaradiwakara & Gunawardena, 2014, p. 24).
 23

Widely popularized by Rogers (2003), IDT is centralized on the way innovations are

either accepted and diffused into or discarded by a population. An “innovation,” as

described by Rogers (2003), is “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an

individual or other unit of adoption” (p. 12). Central to this theory is what Rogers

describes as “the innovation-decision process,” which is:

the process through which an individual (or other decision-making unit) passes

from gaining initial knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward the

innovation, to making a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new

idea, and to confirmation of this decision. (p. 168)

The innovation-diffusion process is the amalgamation of research in the field of

diffusion that contends that an individual’s decision regarding whether or not to accept an

innovation is a process that occurs over time (Rogers, 2003). The process itself is

delineated into five distinct stages, as described by Rogers (2003, p. 169) in the following

table:

Table 1

Stages of the Innovation-Diffusion Process

Stage Description

Knowledge Occurs when an individual (or other decision-

making unit) is exposed to an innovation’s existence

and gains an understanding of how it functions.

 24

Table 1 Continued

Persuasion Occurs when an individual (or other decision-

making unit) forms a favorable or an unfavorable

attitude towards the innovation.

Decision Takes place when an individual (or other decision-

making unit) engages in activities that lead to a

choice to adopt or reject the innovation.

Implementation Occurs when an individual (or other decision-

making unit) puts a new idea into use.

Confirmation Takes place when an individual seeks reinforcement

of an innovation-decision if exposed to conflicting

messages about the innovation.

Note. Adapted from Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003).

The use of Innovation Diffusion Theory (and more specifically, the innovation-

decision process) is the theoretical framework by which this study seeks to establish a

baseline for the practice of instructional designers’ ability to diffuse innovative

instructional practices to faculty members during a time of crisis. Furthermore,

comparing the approach instructional designers take with faculty members, particularly

within the realm of communication, with that of the Innovation-Decision Process may

help to illuminate why “lack of faculty buy-in” ranks among the top issues for
 25

instructional designers. More importantly, identifying any incongruences can help

designers modify their practices, which can not only alleviate some of their professional

woes but have positive implications for institutions looking at encouraging faculty

innovation.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, the central focus of this study is how

instructional designers work with faculty to adopt new instructional technologies and

practices during a crisis period. However, instructional designers are not the only

personnel who may or may not have influence on the instructional practices of faculty.

Other personnel, such as department chairs, colleagues, and administrative units, also

interact with individual faculty on a frequent basis. Other factors, such as institutional

culture, faculty autonomy, and academic freedom, could all influence the findings of this

study. These factors should all be considered when reviewing the findings.

Second, this study does not intend to identify a comprehensive framework for

how instructional designers should work with faculty to adopt new instructional

technologies and practices. However, it acts as a means to establish insight into what

happens during the faculty and instructional designer conversation around the topic.

Findings are then compared to that of IDT. This framework was selected by the

researcher because of its seeming relevance to the topic at hand, but is not the only

theoretical framework that could have been used. Therefore, viewing this specific topic

through the lens of a different theoretical framework could lead to a separate

interpretation of the results. However, results from this study have identified a potential
 26

need for a new framework as to how instructional designers operate within a crisis

period, specifically, around the subject of technology and pedagogical practice adoption.

It is outside the scope of this study to have identified such a framework; however, the

results from this study demonstrate a potential value in having one developed for the field

of instructional design, should another crisis period arise.

Definition of Terms

• Crisis Period: A period of time that has altered the normal state of things due to

adverse circumstances.

• Instructional Designer: An individual who uses “systematic instructional planning

including needs assessment, development, evaluation, implementation, and

maintenance of materials and programs” (Koszalka et al., 2014, p.147).

• COVID-19: A novel coronavirus that originated in 2019 that has caused a global

pandemic (CDC, 2020a).

• Innovation Diffusion Theory: A technological acceptance theoretical framework

that is an “account of the manner in which any technological innovation moves

from the stage of invention to widespread use (or not)” (Samaradiwakara &

Gunawardena, 2014, p. 25).

• Innovation Decision Process: “The process through which an individual (or other

decision-making unit) passes from first knowledge of an innovation to forming an

attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation

and use of the new idea, and to confirmation of this decision” (Rogers, 2003, p.

457)
 27

Organization of Study

The remainder of this study is structured into five distinct chapters and concludes

with a bibliography and appendices. The second chapter provides a review of the

literature relevant to the central themes, including instructional design, online learning,

and technology adoption. The third chapter expounds on the research design used for this

study. This delineation includes an overview of the instrument to collect the data, the

research procedures, and the criteria for sample selection. Results of the data collection

are presented and accompanied by a discussion in the fourth chapter. The fifth chapter

summarizes the major outcomes of the study and points toward recommendations for

future research. Following this final chapter is a bibliography and appendices.

 28

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Chapter 1 addressed the changing landscape of higher education due to the rise of

COVID-19. More specifically, it focused on how instructional designers work with

higher education faculty to adopt new instructional technologies and techniques during

this crisis period. This topic includes issues related to the instructional designer and

faculty relationship, such as communication, role determination and delineation, faculty

adoption of technology, and innovation.

The focus of this chapter is to position my dissertation within the context of the

existing literature focusing on 1) the role of the instructional designer in higher education,

2) the role of the faculty member in higher education, 3) research regarding instructional

designer and faculty relationships, 4) research on “faculty adoption” of innovations, and

5) innovation diffusion theory. This comprehensive review identifies current gaps while

providing a contextual framework for the remainder of this study.

The Role of the Instructional Designer in Higher Education

Since its conception, the role of an instructional designer has been convoluted as a

result its integration in multiple disciplines, including technology, systems theory,

learning science, and design thinking. However, the foundation of the position of an

instructional designer ties directly to the rise of systems-based thinking in the design of

instruction (Reiser, 1987). While the idea of a systematic approach to instruction was not

a new revelation or insight in the modern era, but the basis of the ideology gained

popularity during the mid-20th century with the rise of audio-visual learning materials

and the popularity of the behaviorist approach to instruction (Reiser, 1987). Underlying
 29

behaviorism and this systems approach was the ideology that an empirical approach to

the design and improvement of education was possible. Championed by those such as

B.F. Skinner (1962), it is this very foundational idea that continues to perpetuate and

underpin recent movements in the field, such as learning engineering (Long, 2019).

However, since the creation of the profession nearly five decades ago, the position

continues to tread the line between several disciplines. For example, a study by

Intentional Futures (2016) indicated the four significant categories of instructional

designers to be:

1. To design instructional materials and courses, particularly for digital delivery;

2. To manage the efforts of faculty, administration, IT, other instructional designers,

and others to achieve better student learning outcomes;

3. To train faculty to leverage technology and implement pedagogy effectively; and

4. To support faculty when they encounter technical or instructional challenges (p.

3).

The study by Intentional Futures (2016) included instructional designers from

different industries and institutions, including higher education, corporations, and the

military. While the conclusions of their survey outlined broad functions of instructional

designers, it did not precisely delineate what they do within specific contexts. For this

study, a clear understanding of what instructional designers do in higher education is in

order. Furthermore, the survey by Intentional Futures only highlights data from their

study but does not extensively capture the role of instructional designers, and more

specifically, instructional designers in the context of higher education, which is one that
 30

has been documented, not extensively. What the research to date indicates is that the

instructional designer performs several high-level functions within the realms of course

design, technology support, administration, and creative projects. These four main

groupings tend to provide a comprehensive look at the modern-day instructional designer

within the higher education landscape.

Course Design

Of the reported roles assumed by an instructional designer within higher

education, the ability to assist in the design and development of courses is among the

most profound. Studies conducted by Kumar and Ritzhaupt (2017), Villachia et al.,

(2010), Kenny et al., (2005), and Cox and Osguthrpe (2003) all place course design as the

primary function an instructional designer plays in the higher education setting. The term

“course design” in these studies focuses on specific components, such as determining

goals and objectives and creating course documentation and materials; however, it does

not distinguish a significant difference between face-to-face and online courses. Also, the

design and development of course materials included the design and construction of

interactive multimedia learning objects using e-authoring software and even the use of

learning management systems (Klien & Kelly, 2018; Kang & Ritzhaupt, 2015).

Technology Use and Support

Another significant role that instructional designers play within the setting of

higher education is one that uses technology to support the facilitation of learning. For

example, several studies have indicated that instructional designers need to possess a

functional knowledge of how technology can be a tool to reach specific pedagogical

 31

goals (Fyle et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2002). Technological expertise can include many

actions, from the selection of technology to perform a particular pedagogical strategy to

demonstrating to a faculty how a specific technology may work in the classroom setting.

Furthermore, instructional designers need to be well-versed in such technological

processes as developing online courses or transitioning a face-to-face course to an online

environment. Aside from technology use with regards to pedagogy, the literature has

identified instances where instructional designers provide technical support to subject

matter experts and other professionals in higher education. For example, Kumar and

Ritzhaupt (2017) suggested that instructional designers spend a significant amount of

time troubleshooting learning management system issues, as well as those with e-mail

and even proctoring systems.

As Administrators, Researchers, and Creatives

A secondary role in which the modern-day instructional designers find themselves

is that of the administrative professional. In this capacity, instructional designers serve on

academic or administrative committees and help make institutional decisions (Kumar &

Ritzhaupt, 2017). Instructional designers are uniquely positioned within this space as they

can be a source of institutional knowledge, depending on their scope of work and position

within such an institution (Boyle, 2011; Fyle et al., 2012). As such, instructional

designers can also be viewed within the context as a “change agent,” being that they can

help make informed decisions concerning pedagogy and institutional strategy (Campbell

et al., 2007).
 32

Another area where instructional designers find themselves in today's

environment is research and creative activity. While the current literature base for this

aspect of an instructional designer’s role is small, it is nonetheless growing and is

essential to the field. For example, Linder and Dello Stritto (2017) indicate that 71.1% of

instructional designers who participated in their study had engaged in research. This

ability and function for instructional designers and research can link efforts to promote

creativity and innovation within the field as well. As noted earlier, many colleges and

universities are creating and resourcing departments that aim to bring about creativity and

innovation. Instructional designers in these departments are tasked with bringing this type

of ingenuity to their educational institutions (Hokanson et al., 2008; Ashbaugh, 2013). As

such, these institutions are in a unique position to explore the use of new technologies

and innovations in ways that support pedagogical purposes. As the focus of instructional

designers tends to be the achievement of specified goals and objectives, they can focus on

such efforts.

In all, the role of an instructional designer in the higher education environment is

diverse and contextual. Concerning specific duties, the design and development of

instructional programming (often designated at the course level) remains their top

function. However, within this area, there are a multitude of sub-categories, such as the

development of course materials, documentation, and interactive learning objects.

Instructional designers may also have the task of helping to develop course activities and

assignments in conjunction with the subject matter at hand as a means of course design

and development. Below that exists the development, use, and support of technology to
 33

help facilitate the learning process. Furthermore, technical support is often provided by

instructional designers as a means of troubleshooting errors, as opposed to identifying the

best use of technology for pedagogical purposes.

Finally, instructional designers have assumed peripheral roles within institutions

that can be non-traditional. For example, serving in an administrative capacity to make

pedagogical decisions for institutions and serving in a primary role as a researcher are

two that are becoming more common in the field. Finally, the role of “innovator” is

something that has recently been assumed by instructional designers. Within this context,

instructional designers are tasked with helping individuals explore new pedagogical

methods, technologies, and processes. With this, institutions are counting on instructional

designers to encourage faculty to provide engaging and learner-centered experiences to

improve student learning outcomes. The literature in this area is sparce, but it is

nonetheless apparent when looking at how much higher education units have been

investing in instructional design.

Although the primary function of an instructional designer at a specific institution

or organization, central to the role is the act of working with a subject matter expert. In an

ideal setting, the instructional designer acts as a conduit by which the subject matter

expert can translate their expertise into a medium that is most efficient and produces the

most significant learning outcomes. However, the role of a faculty member exceeds that

of just being a subject matter expert and includes a blend of roles that also encompass

research and service-related duties.

 34

Faculty as Subject Matter Experts in Higher Education

As noted earlier, faculty members assume the role of the subject matter expert

(SME) in higher education. Though each faculty position is unique within the setting of

its contractual requirements, most positions allot time for instruction, research, and

service. For the instructional designer, the most essential of these three is the faculty

member’s requirement of instruction. As such, faculty must assume a role that requires

them to interface with students in a pedagogical manner, imparting their content

knowledge and expertise. It is this role, and some of the following benefits of assuming

it, that is the primary distinction between the roles of instructional design and faculty. As

noted earlier, instructional designers can participate as administrators in various

capacities and have also been documented participating in research. These two

components can be compared to a faculty member’s responsibilities for research and

service. Though comparing the duties of the roles can be vast and differentiated, they are

nonetheless related. What does stand out when comparing instructional designers and

faculty is that faculty directly interface with students and are the primary decision makers

when it comes to how and what they will teach.

Faculty Autonomy and Academic Freedom

One of the distinguishing features faculty members have at their disposal as

leaders of their classroom is academic freedom. Though it has been a widely debated

topic, academic freedom gives agency and power to faculty to determine how they

discuss their subject within the educational context. As noted by Jumonville (2014),

academic freedom provides faculty a “great extent of control and self-determination

 35

concerning their teaching, their research, and their other activities as college and

university professors” (p. 536). Therefore, academic freedom is a mechanism faculty to

have control of their learning environment and to facilitate the most effective way to

convey their content and expertise.

Institutional Constrains

Faculty autonomy is, however, seemingly infringed upon because of specific

institutional structures. For example, many colleges, universities, and particular programs

must meet accreditation standards and state authorization standards (Fain, 2019;

Greenberg, 2014). In the broadest sense, the need for accreditation is to ensure the

“quality” of education programs by aligning what is taught to standards determined by

outside entities of external stakeholders and governmental agencies (American Council

on Education, 2002; Hegji, 2017). The implication of meeting accreditation standards has

a massive impact on higher education institutions, ranging from their ranking amongst

peers to the types of degrees that can be offered and whether they can receive Title IV

federal funding (Hegji, 2017).

Another institution constraint that could potentially impede academic freedom is

of institutional infrastructure. While this is a rather broad category, infrastructure and all

its resources, both physical and digital, can be all that a college or university possesses.

Often, significant decisions made from a logistical standpoint can have a direct impact on

the ways and means an instructor can choose to deliver content. For example, a university

may decide to move a course or entire program online because it would reach a much
 36

larger audience, thus, generating more revenue. A faculty member did not want to teach

in an online environment could be a point of contention.

Similarly, if an instructor teaches in an active learning classroom (ALC), they

might have a greater chance of creating an engaging learning environment for students.

These decisions, while sometimes driven by faculty, often come down to what an

institution can support from a logical and resource perspective. Therefore, even possessed

with academic freedom, faculty are still unable to have full “freedom” to teach what they

want and how they want.

Examples of accreditation and institutional infrastructure are but two examples of

several constraints. Though “constraint” tends to have a negative connotation, many of

these exist to promote positive ventures, such as delivering quality instruction and

providing responsible financing to students. Then again, constraint does have a negative

slant when compared to academic freedom and a faculty member’s ability to express their

content, views, and ideologies in a way that best supports their content. However, these

constraints also affect the entire faculty and instructional designer relationship. Moreover,

the instructional designer is often constrained more than a typical faculty member. The

very nature of instructional designers in higher education puts them within a contextual

role as a “service provider,” thus, making them subject to providing whatever support is

requested of them. However, this is not always the case when working with a faculty

member and an instructional designer. Because of the variability of instructional design

roles and those of faculty, no baseline standard for a mutual working relationship exists.
 37

In reviewing both the roles of the instructional designer and individual faculty

member, it is apparent where the delineation of duties exists. However, the relationship

between instructional designers and faculty members is complex as a result of a

convoluted process of decision making, communication, and interpersonal relationships.

The following section of this literature review examines the integration of these two

roles, what issues tend to exist, and the importance of communication within the

relationship.

Cultures within the Academy

Another important aspect to consider about the faculty member’s role as a subject

matter expert in the academy is the role culture plays. Rather, more specifically, how

culture can impact or change how a faculty member operates within the academy. One of

the best accounts of how culture influences the academy is presented in Bergquist &

Pawlak’s (2008) Engaging the Six Cultures of the Academy. Within their work, Bergquist

and Pawlak provide an in-depth analysis as to how six specific cultures play a diverse

role within the academy. According to Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), these six cultures

include: 1) the collegial culture, 2) the managerial culture, 3) the developmental culture,

4) the advocacy culture, 5) the virtual culture, and 6) the tangible culture. Each of these

are distinct in their conception, but also in how they address specific issues,

circumstances, and opportunities for faculty within the academy.

Within the context of this study, the virtual culture described by Bergquist and

Pawlak is the most applicable. According to Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), the virtual

culture “connects with the postmodern world. It creates meaning by first having
 38

interactions with information that is generated throughout this world. It connects this

informational socially and creates knowledge in meaningful ways” (p. 150). One of the

main arguments Bergquist and Pawlak make in regard to the virtual culture is that the

academy cannot be exempt from engaging in it. As noted by Bergquist and Pawlak

(2008):

The global virtual culture affects the academy in two ways. First the academy

must interface with information-based technology (most notably computers) and

the way this technology can be networked (for example, the Internet). Second, the

virtual culture incorporates new ways of organizing managing and indeed

envision the purposes and activities of the academy. (p. 151)

As indicated by Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), the virtual culture of the academy is one

that must interface with technological changes as a means of both looking towards the

future of how the academy operates, but also how information is generated and

discovered. This point is particularly important for the study at hand as this study aims to

provide an account of just what that looks like from an institutional perspective. For

example, the transition of in-person courses to an online modality because of COVID-19

is an example of how the academy is not exempt from embracing the virtual culture.

The embracing of this culture; however, is easier said than done. According to

Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), “Like faculty members aligned with the other cultures,

those aligned with the virtual culture believe (and feel) that their sense of self-worth and

competency, as well as, their traditional ways of being in and perceiving the world, are

being challenged” (p. 163). This sense of challenge as to the identity of the faculty
 39

member may be a result of such instances, such as the onset of COVID-19 and the

migration of classes to an online or remote format. Yet, this requires those individuals to

go through changes in the way they perceive their role as faculty and subject matter

experts, and quite possibly, their view of technology. According to Bergquist and Pawlak

(2008), “the greatest challenge of the digital revolution is that the professor must undergo

some major changes. As lecturers, professors have control of the information transmitted;

as coaches in a virtual culture, they must respond to queries that may not be within the

realm of their expertise” (p. 168-169). This sentiment is followed up with another

account by Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), who suggest that “faculty members are no

longer automatically situated at the top of the knowledge (and power) pyramid” (p. 169).

The accounts provided by Bergquist and Pawlak on the “virtual culture” of the

academy compliments the framework of this study, in particular, with the account of

faculty needing to adopt new or innovative teaching practices and technologies as a result

of COVID-19. More specifically, as pointed out by Bergquist and Pawlak, faculty must

possess some form of openness to technology and the shifting mechanisms brought on by

its integration into the academy. For the context of this study, the COVID-19 pandemic

has brought about a prioritization for remote and online education, regardless of how a

faculty member feels about the modality. Thus, for an institution to remain forward

thinking and successful, a certain opinion of innovation and openness to adopt new

technologies must exist in some form. As technological advancements take place, as well

as, instances that may accelerate the need for technological acceptance (for example,

COVID-19), the academy must be ready to embrace the results of such change.
 40

Within the context of this study, Bergquist and Pawlak’s account of the virtual

culture is applicable to remote and online education brought on by the onset of the

COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is interesting to assume what this looks like beyond

just online and remote education. While still hypothetical in conception, one could

speculate how the COVID-19 pandemic may end up changing education just beyond our

current notion of online and remote learning. More specifically, the surge in this type of

learning modality may propel many colleges and universities to continue to operate in

this space, instead of returning to the amount of in-person, on-campus instruction they

once provided. Furthermore, it can be speculated that the onset of the COVID-19

pandemic has accelerated the development of new and innovative tools that could shift

how online and remote education is conducted. Both of these scenarios, while still

hypothetical at this point, may be a real future in which faculty need to operate and exist

in. As noted by Bergquist and Pawlak (2008), “certain conditions must exist in order to

change the structure and processes of institutions so that they can more fully align with

the virtual culture. Initially, there may be some sort of impetus to being this change” (p.

171). Within the context of this study, this impetus may be the COVID-19 pandemic and

could be the catalyst by which faculty must take a much more forward-looking approach

to technology. While the identification of COVID-19 as the pure catalyst of making this

transition happen is outside the scope of this study, it is nonetheless complimentary to

many of the themes that are explored within it. More specifically, the idea of technology

adoption, faculty willingness to change and modify their practice, and a general sense of

what innovation looks like in a time of crisis all compliment Bergquist and Pawlak’s
 41

account of how this can affect the virtual culture of the academy at large. On a more

granular level, it can certainly also influence how instructional designers interact and

approach faculty with the goal of modifying their instructional practices. This approach is

largely influenced by a number of factors, but mainly centers around the effective use of

communication.

The Relationship between Instructional Designer and Faculty

Central to the role of instructional design is the relationship a designer has with

the subject matter expert (SME) (Lowell & Ashby, 2018; Klein & Kelly, 2018). Within

the context of higher education, the SME can typically be considered the faculty member

a designer is tasked to work with on a project. The range of tasks performed by the

instructional designer varies greatly but includes actions such as full-on collaborative

course design, the development of instructional materials, providing technical support for

instructional tools, and faculty development (Drysdale, 2019; Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2017).

Reports also suggest that designers engage in less evident activities such as academic

research, project management, and administrative functions (Linder & Dello Stritto,

2017; Bawa & Watson, 2017). However, aside from the many roles a designer could

assume, the primary generally consists of providing consultation to a faculty member on

the strategic design and development of an instructional course. This consultative

function often results in a collaborative working relationship between the designer and

the faculty member.

Despite the function of an instructional designer in a specific context, it is widely

accepted that collaboration and communication are central to the practice of instructional
 42

design. According to Kosalka et al., (2013), the ability to communicate is an essential

skill for a designer regardless of their role within a project. This frame of communication

not only stems from gathering information from the faculty or SME, but also includes

negotiation, resolving conflict, building consensus, and collaboration (Kosalka et al.,

2013). In a study by Kumar and Ritzhaupt (2017), designers reported that the ability to

communicate effectively was paramount in their daily role as an instructional designer.

Furthermore, the study indicated that designers must have the ability to communicate to

help ascertain faculty “buy-into” their suggestions (Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2017). However,

the ability to verify this buy-in also depends on developing trust between the designer and

faculty member. A means of accomplishing this stems from a designer’s ability to align

their perceptions with those of the faculty they are working with (Richardson et al.,

2019).

Therefore, for an SME and an instructional designer to effectively delineate their

roles, effective communication must be a central focus. A designer must be able to

communicate their skillset and positionality within a particular project productively. For

faculty, the ability to communicate their role as the SME who has the utmost authority to

dictate the final delivery of the course should be made clear. This authority, garnered by

academic freedom, should be made clear and explicitly understood by the designer and

their unit as a whole. Furthermore, an initial agreement between the instructional designer

and faculty member should be clear from the outset of a project to help mitigate any

potential constraints that might jeopardize a project.

 43

Relationship Issues

The collaborative relationship between the faculty member and the instructional

designer does not come without complications, which can stem from internal and external

factors, but which are primarily the faculty members’ lack of awareness about

instructional design. For example, Halupa (2019) contends that many faculty members

have not been exposed to or worked with an instructional designer. This lack of

awareness leads to unintended consequences, such as faculty not responding well to the

expertise instructional designers possess (Miller & Stein, 2016). Furthermore, the role of

the instructional designer has been misunderstood as primarily one of technological

support, instead of relying on their expertise in the fields of learning or design (Akella,

2015).

The relationship is also complicated from the perspective of the designer. For

example, Halupa (2019) warns that instructional designers should be careful when

working with faculty not to cross boundaries such as “acting like or superseding the

faculty member, who is a subject matter expert” (p. 9). Halupa (2019) has referred to a

designer assuming this role as an instructional “dictator,” which has a detrimental effect

on the faculty-designer relationship (p. 59). This point is particularly important

considering that the designer-faculty relationship is one of “mediating differences of

option and value” while “working towards consensus from two different perspectives”

(Drysdale, 2019, p. 61). Central to this is the role of power dynamics and how that can

infiltrate the relationship between the designer and faculty member. As addressed earlier,

the primary function of the SME is to teach their course, an action that is guided by the
 44

executive decision-making abilities given by academic freedom. Thus, an instructional

designer in a service role for the SME will often be coming into an effort from a place of

less decision-making authority. Therefore, a power dynamic exists between the designer

and the SME, who will have the final decision authority for the course (or other academic

initiatives) and that of the recommendations and consultation of the instructional

designer.

Overview of Faculty Adoption

The idea of studying the process of faculty adoption is widespread throughout the

literature. Aside from instructional designers, other agents in higher education have been

interested in the concept. These individuals range from administrative units at colleges

and universities, department chairs, fellow faculty, and corporate stakeholders. Within the

context of this study, this literature is valuable as part of the current study’s direct focus

on the way instructional designers achieve faculty adoption and buy-in.

Faculty Adoption of New Technology and Instructional Methods

A central idea in this study is the process of faculty members adoption of new

instructional practices, technologies, or methods. The current literature base for this

subject is diverse in both the different professions attempting to gain faculty buy-in, as

well as, for what purposes faculty buy-in is desired. Furthermore, the literature is varied

regarding approaches to take with faculty, factors that influence a faculty member’s

acceptance of innovations, and the positive results of this adoption. Together, the

amalgamation of this research paints a picture of the current landscape of attempts to

diffuse innovative teaching techniques into the higher education landscape.

 45

A significant area in the literature points to the attempt to gain faculty buy-in for

differentiated teaching methods. For example, Blumberg (2016), explored factors that

influence faculty adoption of learner-centered approaches. Similarly, Van Horne and

Murniati (2016), Aragon et al., (2017), Porter and Graham (2016), and Hou and Wilder

(2015) have explored the adoption of diverse and differentiated teaching methods with

faculty members in the realms of blended learning, inclusive pedagogy, active-learning

classrooms, and service learning. While each of these articles has differentiated findings,

they nonetheless demonstrate a growing interest in studying how new and innovative

teaching approaches are adopted. Another critical area of research that exists when

exploring faculty buy-in is the use of specific instructional technologies. For example,

Braddlee and VanScoy (2019) and Jung et al., (2017) explored the perception and

adoption practices of faculty regarding the use of open education resources. Other

instances of studies regarding the adoption of instructional technologies include

Cavanaugh et al.’s (2013) study of faculty adoption of iPads for mobile learning, Pereira

and Wahi’s (2017) study on the adoption of course management system adoption for

faculty, and Swan’s (2009) study of the adoption of e-portfolio systems.

While the studies mentioned earlier are just a snapshot of the current literature

surrounding faculty adoption of new technologies and methodologies of teaching, they

nonetheless represent a recurring interest in faculty adoption. Many institutions across the

higher education landscape have prioritized the consistent push for faculty and

institutions to promote and push the integration for new technologies to support student

learning outcomes. Moreover, as mentioned in Chapter 1, many colleges and universities

 46

are investing significant amounts of money, time, and resources into establishing

campus-wide units aimed at supporting the adoption of innovative practices and

technologies. Thus, the alignment between the literature and the actions of many colleges

and universities support the idea that the adoption and integration of new and innovative

instructional technologies into the higher education landscape is something that has been

prioritized.

However, the onset of COVID-19 and the mass migration of institutions to online

instruction has opened a new area of inquiry when studying faculty adoption of new

technology and instructional methods. Because of the relatively recent development of

this phenomena, the research is currently scarce. However, instructional designers are

uniquely positioned within higher education to assist faculty in the adoption of new

instructional innovations and practices. This position can be described as a “change

agent,” which Rogers (2003) defines as “an individual who influences clients’

innovation-decisions in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency” (p. 27).

However, at this point, there is no baseline as to how to determine how instructional

designers communicate with faculty about innovations and attempt to gain their buy-in

during a crisis. Thus, one of the central purposes of this study is to explore how

instructional designers are using their position to aid in the facilitation of technology

adoption. Furthermore, a sub-position of this research is to see whether instructional

designers see themselves change agents.

 47

Innovation Diffusion Theory

Alongside researching why one specific group of people adopt or do not adopt

certain technologies also comes the composite adoption of technologies by large groups

of individuals. These studies have ultimately culminated in theoretical frameworks such

as TAM, TAM 2, and UTAUT (Samaradiwakara & Gunawardena, 2014). Innovation

Diffusion Theory (IDT) emerged from these frameworks. Pioneered by Everett Rogers,

IDT attempts to “provide an account of how any technological innovation moves from

the stage of the invention to widespread use (or not) (Samaradiwakara & Gunawardena,

2014, p. 24). This section will outline IDT and establish why it is an acceptable

framework to use for the current study.

Overview of Innovation Diffusion Theory

IDT is a framework that explains how an innovative idea becomes adopted by a

societal group. Primarily spearheaded by Everett Rogers (2003), IDT was based around

identifying a framework by which to speed up the rate of diffusion of a specific

innovation or idea. As noted by Rogers, the adoption of an innovation could take a very

long time to uptake. A central component of IDT is to identify what this process looks

like with the ultimate goal of identifying strategies for speeding up the adoption of

innovations. Rogers begins his framework by identifying four main components of

diffusing innovations: 1) the innovation itself, 2) communication channels, 3) time, and

4) social systems. In short, Rogers (p. 11) summarized this by stating that diffusion “is

the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time
 48

among the members of a social system.” The idea of diffusion, and the process outlined

by Rogers, forms a foundational basis for the theoretical framework.

Innovation-Decision Process

A more in-depth look into the theoretical framework of IDT reveals several useful

sub-frameworks related to the adoption of innovations. One of these sub-frameworks is

the innovation-decision process (IDP). According to Rogers (2003), the IDP is:

the process through which an individual (or other decision-making unit) passes

from gaining initial knowledge of an innovation, to forming an attitude toward the

innovation to making a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new

idea, and to confirmation of this decision. (p. 168)

According to Rogers, the idea of a process is central to the idea because adoption

of innovation is not instantaneous, but can best be described as a process. Thus, the

primary component of IDP is to create an evidence-based outline. As a whole, the process

is generally outlined with the following five stages:

Table 2

Stages of the Innovation Decision Process

Stage Description

Knowledge Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making

unit) is exposed to an innovation’s existence and gains
an understanding of how it functions.
 49

Table 2 Continued

Persuasion Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making

unit) forms a favorable or an unfavorable attitude
towards the innovation.

Decision Takes place when an individual (or other decision-

making unit) engages in activities that lead to a choice
to adopt or reject the innovation.

Implementation Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making

unit) puts a new idea into use.

Confirmation Takes place when an individual seeks reinforcement of

an innovation-decision if exposed to conflicting
messages about the innovation.

Note. Adapted from Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003).

Central to the IDP, and IDT as a whole, is that of the interpersonal relationship.

More specifically, IDP and IDT place a strong emphasis on the role of interpersonal

relationships as they exist within the same social group and how well communication

channels exist among the members (Rogers, 2003). For example, Rogers notes that mass

media can be a popular method for introducing knowledge of a new innovation to a group

of individuals, but it is the interpersonal communication that is key within the context of

persuading people to adopt a change. Thus, while different communication strategies

have benefits at various stages of the IDP, interpersonal communication channels are the

ones that have the most impact during the persuasion and decision phase.
 50

Perceived Attributes of Innovations

Rogers (2003) also dedicates much of his theoretical framework to how people

perceive innovations. According to Rogers, the perception of an innovation is one of the

most important aspects of its rate of adoption. More specifically, Rogers suggests five

specific attributes that play into the rate of adoption of an innovation including 1) relative

advantage, 2) compatibility, 3) complexity, 4) trialability, and 5) observability (p. 221). A

description of these five attributes can be seen in Table 2.

Table 3

Five Attributes that Define the Rate of Innovation Adoption

Attribute Description

Relative Advantage The degree to which an innovation is perceived as being

better than the idea it supersedes (p. 229).

Compatibility The degree to which an innovation is perceived as

consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and
needs of potential adopters (p. 240).

Complexity The degree to which an innovation is perceived as

relatively difficult to understand and use (p. 257).

Trialability The degree to which an innovation may be experimented

with on a limited basis (p. 258).

Observability The degree to which the results of an innovation are

visible to others (p. 258).

Note. Adapted from Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003).

 51

Each of these attributes plays a role in the perception of an innovation to a

societal group of individuals. The perception of an innovation is therefore linked to its

rate of adoption, which is determined by how favorable this perception is. While these

five categories are stagnated, Rogers contends that a standard framework using them

should be avoided and that scales be developed for individual innovations. For that

reason, this sub-framework, while important and relevant, will not form a basis for this

study. Rather the proprietary sub-framework focused on exploring the communication

processes of instructional designers will focus on the innovation-decision process.

Further studies exploring the adoption of individual innovations would benefit greatly

from a framework based on the attributes of innovations outlined by Rogers.

Communication Channels

Central to the research questions at hand is the concept of communication

channels as outlined by Rogers. According to Rogers, a communication channel “is the

means by which messages get from one individual to another” (p. 18). Communication

channels can refer to several different mediums including mass media or individualized

communication (Rogers, 2003). Communication channels are essential not only for

influencing the IDP, but also the perceived attributes of an innovation. Together, the IDP

and perceived attributes of an innovation directly influence the rate of adoption.

For the purpose of this study, the role and work of an instructional designer can be

viewed as an interpersonal communication channel to faculty members. Instructional

designers who work with faculty are in direct contact with them regarding differentiated

and innovative approaches to their instruction. However, it has yet to be documented just
 52

how instructional designers do this and if they are successful in their approach.

Therefore, it is a central focus of this study to gather data to help illuminate this area of

study.

Applicability of the IDT Framework

The IDT framework and the study of how ideas, technology, and items are

diffused into social systems transcends a number of industries and sectors including

government, the environment, and healthcare and business (Wonglimpiyarat & Yuberk,

2005; Zheng & Jia, 2017; Lee & Shih, 2009). Another industry that has seen the

application of the IDT framework is that of higher education. In particular, the literature

demonstrates an interest in applying the IDT framework to understand the adoption of

technological and instructional innovations within the higher education realm. For

example, Carey and Stefaniak (2018) used the IDT framework in their multi-case study

exploring factors that impede or facilitate the adoption of digital badging systems.

Another example can be seen by Gillies’ (2016) qualitative inquiry into student adoption

of mobile device use in the classroom setting. Other examples of the use of IDT in higher

education stem from quality improvement of instructional programs to the adoption of

active learning classrooms (Szabo & Sobon, 2003; Van Horne & Murniati, 2016).

Therefore, the applicability and transferability of this framework makes it ideal

for the study at hand. As instructional designers operate in a variety of venues, including

the business, governmental, and education sectors, IDT and the communication strategies

it promotes can be highly applicable. Furthermore, the demonstrated use of this

framework in the context of higher education also lends itself to showing its utility for
 53

further studies within the sector. While the literature base using IDT is not as substantive

in higher education as it is in some other fields, it nonetheless presents an opportunity for

further research. The study at hand aims to help fill this gap by viewing the

communication methods of instructional designers through the lens of IDT. Not only will

this help to identify several ideas about the work and methods instructional designers

employ to help faculty innovate their instructional practices, but it also further

demonstrates the utility that IDT has within the higher education landscape.

Summary

To build the case for the primary research questions at hand, this chapter provided

illumination regarding the current literature based on several of the core tenets of this

project. First, this chapter delineated the roles of both the instructional designer and

faculty member. As noted in the literature, instructional designers within the context of

higher education are primarily tasked with course creation, multimedia development, and

technology support. However, instructional designers also assume supporting roles such

as researchers and administrative leaders. Regarding faculty, they have maintained their

traditional role as the subject matter experts who exercise academic freedom to deliver

instruction to students. However, the role of the faculty member also extends to research

and service-based positions, which are often part of the tenure and promotion process. As

such, it is apparent that instructional designers and faculty have two very distinct roles

within the context of higher education.

However, the rising employment rates of instructional designers in higher

education has perpetuated the collaboration of faculty members and instructional

 54

designers. As noted in the literature, the working relationship between these two

professions is one of collaboration, but may still lack some understanding of the

delineation of roles and responsibilities. Also, the intersection of expertise and ownership

over content development has led to differences in the power dynamics of the

relationship. However, this can be mitigated through the use of effective communication

on the part of the instructional designer.

The use of effective communication can also be a mechanism to ascertain faculty

buy-in for new technologies and innovative instructional practices. The concept of faculty

adoption of these innovations is well documented in the literature ranging from the

adoption of new instructional techniques to new instructional technologies. Much of the

research surrounding faculty adoption has examined both the processes by which

adoption was attempted and why faculty decided not to adopt a particular technology or

innovation.

However, one such area that was lacking was research on how instructional

designers can help to ascertain faculty buy-in for such innovations during a crisis period.

Because of their collaborative relationship with faculty, instructional designers are

uniquely able to assist in the effort to get faculty to adopt innovative instructional

practices. Yet, research on how instructional designers do this in the midst of a crisis, like

the COVID-19 pandemic, is virtually nonexistent. This research project aims to establish

a baseline by which instructional designers work with faculty to ascertain buy-in to new

technologies and teaching methods.

 55

To aid in the possible development of such a baseline, it is essential to compare

the current approach instructional designers take when attempting to gain faculty buy-in

with that of an already established structure. For this study, the approach of instructional

designers will be compared to that of Rogers (2003) Innovation Diffusion Theory.

Rogers’ theoretical framework outlines several components that are unique to the

adoption process, such as time, communication, and social systems. Furthermore, Rogers

also describes the Innovation Decision Process, which outlines a five-step process by

which innovations are either accepted or rejected by particular social groups. By

structuring the research around this theoretical framework, we may also be able to see

which “lack of faculty buy-in” has been identified as one of the barriers instructional

designers face. As such, in the beginning, to identify processes that are prohibitive to the

adoption of innovative instructional practices, instructional designers can modify their

relationship and communication channels with faculty to help mitigate such issues.
 56

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter outlines the research methodology used for this dissertation study,

the purpose of which, is to explore how instructional designers work with faculty to adopt

new instructional technology and practices during a crisis period. The research study is

driven by the following research questions:

• How do instructional designers work with faculty in a crisis to implement new

technology?

• How do instructional designers balance best practices in instruction during a

time of crisis?

• How do instructional designers communicate with faculty about innovating

their instructional practice during a time of crisis?

The following sections outline the processes and methodologies used by the

researcher in carrying out this project. First, a rationale for the selected case is provided.

Second, the overall research design used for this research is explained, including the

setting, context for study, and a description of the participants. Third, the researcher’s

role in this study and identification of his suppositions in relation to the central research

topic is explained. Fourth, the IRB processes and data collection procedures are explored.

Finally, the components of trustworthiness, validity, and credibility are addressed. The

final section of this chapter concludes with a summary of the research methods and

procedures.
 57

Rationale for the Selected Case

According to Creswell and Creswell (2013), a defining feature of case study

research is to identify a case that can be bounded by factors such as place and time. The

case for this study was selected for a variety of reasons, including relevance to this

study’s central research questions, proximity to the researcher, and access to the

participants.

The current outbreak of the COVID-19 virus caused a major shift in the way

colleges and universities offer instruction (Mintz, 2020). One of the major changes was

the shift from in-person classes to the online environment because students were not

allowed to return to campus. This shift in the way instruction is delivered was a dramatic

change to many faculty members who have never taught online, as well as to students

who may have never taken an online course (Gewin, 2020). For many institutions, this

shift caused a massive mobilization of administrative support units to assist faculty and

students and ensure continuity of instruction (Dever & Justice, 2020).

One such administrative support unit has been that of instructional designers

(Lederman, 2020) who are equipped with a unique skillset to help in the transition of

course formats. Moreover, a major task of instructional designers has been the act of

introducing and supporting new technologies and instructional methods to faculty

members. These individuals were well poised to assist universities as they responded to

the COVID-19 crisis and withstand the impact it had on the way colleges and universities

offer instruction.
 58

Ohio University is an example of one institution that relied heavily on their

instructional designers during the COVID-19 crisis period. These instructional designers

were responsible for providing support for faculty, the implementation of new

technology, and working with cross-institutional departments to operationalize the

university’s curriculum (Ohio University, 2020c).

The group of instructional designers at Ohio University was selected as the case

for this research because of several reasons. First, study of this specific group of

instructional designers and their situation lends themselves to answering the research

questions that are central to this study. Second, the researcher is one of the instructional

designers of this unit, which allowed for a wide range of access to information about the

unit’s functions and status. Finally, since the researcher is part of this instructional design

unit, he had close access to the participants.

Studying this group of instructional designers during this moment of crisis will

help further the understanding of how instructional designers work with faculty in times

of crisis. More specifically, this study aims to identify how instructional designers work

with faculty to implement new technology, as well as best instructional design practices.

A deeper understanding of how instructional designers work with faculty at a time of

crisis can help fill a major gap in the research literature. Furthermore, identifying the

methods and tactics instructional designers use could potentially be beneficial for

developing new instructional design models that focus on the rapid development and

deployment of online courses, while still attempting to integrate best practices in course

design and development.

 59

Research Design

The research design identified for this project was that of a qualitative case study.

According to Creswell (2013), case study research “involves the study of a case within a

real-life, contemporary context, or setting” (p. 97). Similar to this definition is a

description by Yin (2018), who suggests that a case study “investigates a contemporary

phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the

boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident” (p. 15). Case

studies can be highly variable regarding the context of the study; however, specific

research questions tend to favor this methodology over others. For example, Yin notes

that research questions with an emphasis on “how” and “why” are more suited for a case

study. As suggested by Yin (2018), “how” and “why” questions allow “the tracing of

operational processes over time, rather than mere frequencies or incidence” (p. 10). This

insistence and focus on process are also echoed by Merriam (1988) who suggests case

studies be used as methods for “exploring why things happen” (p. 19). Another rationale

for a case study as the primary methodology is that it lends itself well to instances of

contemporary events of which the researcher has little to no control (Yin, 2018, p. 12).

As suggested by Yin (2018), “case studies are preferred when the relevant behaviors still

cannot be manipulated and when the desire is to study some contemporary event or set of

events” (p. 12).

Research Setting

The research setting for this case study was Ohio University, a mid-size

midwestern university. Located in the foothills of Appalachia, Ohio University was

 60

founded in 1804 and supports upwards of 250 academic programs (Ohio University,

2020a). More specifically, the setting for this research involved a group of instructional

designers who work for the university’s Office of Instructional Innovation. The main

purpose of the department is to serve as a “catalyst to spark bold experimentation and

sustainable discovery of innovative instructional models that fulfill the University’s

promise of a transformational educational experience” (Ohio University, 2019, para. 1).

According to Ohio University (2020b), this includes services supported by instructional

designers, such as course and programmatic design, multimedia development, and

“helping faculty deliver the highest quality instruction within well-constructed learning

environments” (para. 1).

Participants

The participants were instructional designers who work in Ohio University’s

Office of Instructional Innovation, which at the time of this study, employed eight

instructional designers. However, as the researcher was one of these eight employees, he

was removed from the study. This group of instructional designers was selected because

the researcher had direct access to these individuals and a significant understanding of the

office in which they work. Thus, the researcher had the opportunity to engage all

participants, while being able to provide in-depth and contextual information about their

direct work environment. According to Yin (2018), strong level of access is a perfectly

acceptable criteria for selecting cases for a study if it also aligns with the central research

questions.
 61

The office used a distributive model where each of the instructional designers was

dispersed to a specific college on campus. Table 3 provides an overview of this

distribution.

Table 3

Participants and their Primary Supported College

Participant Number Primary Supported College

1 College of Communication

2 Engineering

3 Business

4 Fine Arts and Education

5 Health Science and Professions

6 Arts and Sciences

7 Regional Higher Education

Note. Pseudonyms have been assigned for the participants in this study.

Timeframe

According to Yin (2018), an important aspect of case study design is to define a

temporal period that helps bound the case. The intent of this case study was to collect

data from the participants within one month of students resuming classes at Ohio

University. Students ended their Spring Break and resumed classes on March 23, 2020.

Thus, the intent for this study was to capture the reflections of the identified participants
 62

between March 23, 2020 and April 20, 2020. This bounded timeframe of four weeks was

selected as a means by which to capture the data in a timely fashion as data can be lost if

a study is delayed. The following Figure demonstrates this timeframe:

Figure 1

Timeline of the Ohio University Response to COVID-19 in Spring 2020

March 13, 2020:

University announces April 20, 2020: A month
their transition to online after students have
instruction for the resumed their classes.
remainder of the Window for data
semester. (Appendix A) collection ends.

March 23, 2020:

Students end their
Spring Break and resume
classes in an online or
remote format. Window
for data collection.
(Appendix B)

The Researcher and Their Suppositions

As noted by Creswell and Creswell (2018), it is vital for a researcher to outline

his/her own role and relativity to research topics at hand. More specifically, this practice

is aimed at identifying past experiences and how they may shape the interpretations of the

research results and findings (Creswell & Creswell). To identify any potential biases, the
 63

following section outlines the position of the researcher within the current study, why the

topic was chosen, and what the general presuppositions of the researcher.

The researcher of this study is a graduate student in instructional technology and a

full-time instructional designer. As such, he spends most of his day interacting with

faculty, with the aim of helping them with the design and development of their courses.

Therefore, the researcher has many and first-hand experiences with the how instructional

designers work with faculty members to innovate their instructional practices. Moreover,

the researcher has had extensive experience working with faculty to transition their in-

person courses to an online environment. Therefore, he possesses a deep knowledge of

how this process generally works, what resources are needed, and how to work with

faculty with the introduction of new technologies and teaching methods. Along with

these past experiences, the current experience of the researcher as an instructional

designer during the COVID-19 crisis provides another interesting and beneficial context

to this study. As such, the lived experience of the researcher is directly related to the

central phenomena of this study. This lived experience provides unique insight into how

instructional designers are working with faculty during the crisis and how instructional

designers may be able to effectively and efficiently work with faculty in such times. This

lived experience also brings a unique perspective into the more global issue at hand

regarding how COVID-19 is affecting the higher education landscape.

It is a supposition of the researcher that the expansion and prevalence of the

COVID-19 virus and the impact it has had on colleges and universities is unprecedented.

While the effects of the virus are widespread and varied, one of the most salient is that
 64

the university’s learning environment has seen a mass migration to online courses.

According to Lederman (2020), most institutions are not fully prepared to make this

transition for a variety of reasons that range from the physical infrastructure that a

university may be lacking to support such an effort to the lack of training faculty may

have had when it comes to teaching a course online. Because of this, many colleges and

universities are currently in a triage state where they are generally embracing low levels

of technology and using practices that may not qualify under the “high-quality online

education” banner (Lederman, 2020). It is understandable, from the perspective of the

researcher, that many colleges and universities are in a reactive state when it comes to

moving their courses online. The sheer volume and resources required for such an

undertaking, not to mention the short timeframe, requires that significant decisions, such

as quality, need to be considered. Furthermore, many colleges and universities who lack

such resources have been some of the hardest hit by the crisis.

The move by institutions to move the courses online has had a significant effect

on all school administrators, including instructional designers. As an instructional

designer for a university undergoing this transition, the researcher has seen firsthand how

instructional designers have been affected. Increased workloads, a shift of traditional

duties, and work with a broader group of faculty are just a few changes in the

researcher’s instructional design unit.

However, as instructional designers work is in a service role, they need to be

prepared to work in times of crisis. While working with barriers, such as faculty buy-in to

new technologies and methods, instructional designers need to be vigilant to ensure the
 65

continuity of instruction. The current literature base surrounding the work methods of

instructional designers in times of crisis is almost non-existent. Therefore, the researcher

has seen this tumultuous period as an ideal time to collect and analyze data for the

betterment of the profession.

IRB Procedures

In accordance with Ohio University’s research ethics and regulatory guidelines,

an application for approval of this research was sent to the university’s Institutional

Review Board (IBR). In particular, because this research study involves human subjects,

the proper IRB procedures were submitted for review and approved by the board. The

study at hand commenced when the researcher obtained approval from Ohio University

IRB.

Data Collection

To answer the research questions, specific data collection procedures were

followed. More specifically, these procedures were followed in line with the overarching

qualitative case study framework and are outlined below, as is in the IRB form. As noted

by Yin (2018), case study methods rely on collecting numerous amounts of information

and from a variety of sources, including interviews, memos, and documentation.

Interviews

The primary method for collecting data for this project was personal interviews.

According to Privitera and Ahlgrim-Delzell (2019), interviews are used to “collect

information about the attitudes and perceptions of individuals, one-on-one or in groups”

(p. 128). They can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. For the purpose of this
 66

research study, semi-structured interviews were used. According to Rubin and Rubin

(2012), semi-structured interviews are conducted when “the researcher has a specific

topic to learn about, prepares a limited number of questions in advance, and plans to ask

follow-up questions” (p. 31). The selection of semi-structured interviews, as opposed to

unstructured or structured, was because the researcher determined that the ability to ask

follow-up questions to responses was essential for gathering complete data about the

research questions.

The researcher developed a list of 10 questions prior to the interviews and

compiled them into an interview guide (Appendix C). The original questions for the

guide were developed with the intent on having a one-on-one relationship with the stages

in the Innovation Decision-Process by Rogers (2003). However, as the study progressed,

the questions were slightly altered, resulting in some of the questions not aligning as

clearly (Appendix D). The interview guide was not distributed to the participants

beforehand; but rather, was presented to them in question form from the researcher.

Interviews were audio and video recorded using videoconferencing technology and lasted

30-45 minutes. Contained within the interview guide were several questions related to

knowledge, feelings, and background. These three types of questions, as noted by Patton

(2002), aim to collect information on differentiated information, such as facts, opinions,

and demographic information. These types of questions were used to collect data that was

central to answering the primary research questions. Once the interviews were conducted,

the recordings were transcribed and processed using specific coding methods. The results

are reported in Chapter 4.

 67

Interview Memos

Another form of data that was collected and used as part of this research project

was the interview memo, which are additional notes the researcher writes during the

interviewing process. These notes are general observations that take place outside the

respondent’s answer to the questions. Interview memos can take note of things such as

the disposition of the interviewee, their overall tonality during the question answering

process, and any other observations the interviewer wishes to note. These memos can

then be analyzed and interfaced together with the responses of the interviewee. Notes

taken by the researcher for the purpose of this study were not shared with the participants.

Documentation

The final source of data in this study was documentation. According to Yin

(2018), documentation can take a variety of forms, including e-mails, letters,

administrative documents, and evaluations. For the purpose of this research, the

researcher was open to collecting any documentation the participants wished to submit.

An example of this could have been a process document used by the instructional design

department regarding the processes they use in collaborating with faculty.

Though documentation was hoped to be collected, none of the participants

submitted documentation directly to the researcher. Rather, the research was able to use

publicly available documentation, such as the instructional design unit’s website, to help

gain a further contextual understanding of the participants, their respective roles as

instructional designers, and the information obtained from their in-person interviews.
 68

Overall, data collection for this research project was centered firmly around the

information gathered from semi-structured interviews. Though case studies generally rely

on a multitude of data sources, it is the opinion of the researcher that the information

collected from the semi-structured interviews yielded the most useful information.

Together, these sources of data were interfaced and used to help answer the research

questions of this study.

Data Collection Procedures

As part of any research project, specific data collection procedures should be

outlined. For the purpose of this section, the researcher will outline the specific

procedures that were taken. It is the goal of the researcher to outline the information in a

manner that is specific enough to be replicated. Furthermore, the disclosure of specific

data collection procedures will be in accordance with human-subject research protocols

and those outlined by specific IRB policies.

Interviews

Because semi-structured interviews were the primary method in collecting data

for this research project, the steps are outlined here. Interviews took place using video

conference technology. The interviews began with a quick introduction by the researcher

then proceeded to the questioning. During the interview, the interviewees were able to

ask clarifying questions about the study, interview questions, or research methods if

needed. At any time, if the interviewee wished, they were be able to exit the interview.

This information was outlined in the consent form that was sent to the interviewees prior

to the interview. As some of the participants were located some distance away, signatures
 69

were not collected for practical reasons. As such, if the interviewee agreed to be

interviewed, they were, by default, consenting to the study at hand.

As noted earlier, participants were not able to see the interview questions prior to

the interview. The researcher determined that there is no benefit in doing so; however, the

interviewer would have provided the interviewee the questions prior to the interview if

there was interest. Interviews were conducted and recorded using video recording

technology. Once the interviews were conducted, they were transcribed and prepared to

analysis.

Sampling

Purposeful sampling was used because, according to Creswell (2013), it is an

appropriate sampling method for case studies. Though there are various thoughts around

purposeful sampling, its definition, and purpose, it can further be delineated to provide

more specificity (Palinkas et al., 2015; Patton, 2003; Coyne, 1997). Therefore, for the

sake of providing further clarity around this research project, criterion-based sampling

was the specific method used, which according to Creswell (2013), is when “all cases that

meet some criterion.” This methodology was chosen because this project looked

specifically for instructional designers who work in Ohio University’s Office of

Instructional Innovation. Thus, the participants had to meet the following criterion: be an

instructional designer currently working at Ohio University’s Office of Instructional

Innovation and be over the age of 18.

To recruit participants, email notifications were sent to each of the seven

instructional designers. This notification outlined the overall aims of the study, the
 70

requirements for participation, and the contact information of the researcher should any

of the participants have concerns.

Data Analysis

Once the interviews were transcribed, appropriate coding methods were employed

to analyze the data. In a broad sense, a code can be defined as “a word or short phrase

that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing and/or evocative

attitude for a portion of language-based or visual data” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 4). In essence,

coding is used as a method for analyzing mainly qualitative data, such as texts,

documentation, and interview transcripts, but can also be used for visual data such as

video, observation, and images. Coding is a method of qualitative analysis that allows for

the meaning-making of qualitative data and allows the researcher to draw conclusions

from the data. There are many different types of coding, each with their applicability

toward specific research questions and projects. Within the context of coding, the

researcher should focus on the research questions and research methodology to determine

which coding method is appropriate (Saldaña). Coding can be completed by hand but is

generally done using qualitative analysis software.

For the purpose of this case study, first-cycle coding was used to code the

collected data. First-cycle codes are those that are generally applied during the initial

analysis of the data (Saldaña). For the purpose of this study, in vivo coding was used

because it “refers to a word or short phrase from the actual language found in the

qualitative data record” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 105). According to Saldaña, in vivo coding is

an appropriate method for case study research and is also a good selection when
 71

researching practitioners in a particular field. While there is no required number of codes

considered appropriate for in vivo methods, Saldaña recommends that second cycle

coding can help if there is an abundance of coding.

Once the first-cycle coding was conducted, a second-cycle approach was taken as

it helped make connections between the codes of the first cycle and was a mechanism for

combining codes into the major themes (Saldaña). As such, second-cycle coding helped

identify significant themes that arose from the in vivo analysis of the data. The second-

cycle coding method was pattern coding, which is “a way of grouping those summaries

into a smaller number of categories, themes, or concepts” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 236). The

application of pattern coding helped reduce the number of codes, but it also helped form

themes and concepts from the codes. Additionally, pattern coding can assist in the

development of “examining social networks and patterns of human relationships”

(Saldaña, 2016, p. 236). Therefore, because the central research question examines

instructional designer and faculty relationships, pattern coding was a tool to illuminate

what the data means.

Once the first- and second-cycle coding methods were concluded, the findings

were presented in Chapter 4 of the dissertation and discusses the results of the data

analysis by pointing out the significant findings, themes, and concepts that emerged. It

should be noted that the researcher did not have a co-rater for interrater reliability. This

was done because the researcher did not have a co-investigator and did not see a need for

it. Additionally, a logic explanation of how the codes and themes were developed can be

found in Appendix E. Following up on Chapter 4 is Chapter 5 that discusses the results of

 72

the analysis and how it compares to the overall body of literature. Furthermore, Chapter 5

illuminates overall conclusions that can be drawn from the data and postulate areas for

future research within the area.

Validity and Reliability

As with any research study, the concepts of validity and reliability were

addressed. Case study research has a unique relationship with these two concepts because

they are addressed in ways that may be exclusive to case study research and not other

research methods (Yin, 2018). Those processes are outlined here and are included within

the research project at large. Overall, the idea of ensuring validity and reliability helped

build trustworthiness and credibility for the results of the study.

Construct, Internal, and External Validity

Construct validity refers to “identifying correct operational measures for the

concepts being studied” (Yin, 2018, p. 42). Within a case study, construct validity can be

achieved using multiple sources of evidence and by having key informants review drafts

of the case study report prior to its publication (Yin). This can be done accurately by

identifying multiple sources of evidence that support the conclusions. Additionally,

construct validity can be achieved through clearly defining the case and appropriately

defining operational measures that are conducted through the case study (Yin).

Conversely, internal validity is mainly a concern for explanatory case studies,

mainly “when an investigator is trying to explain how and why event x led to event y”

(Yin, 2018, p. 45). Internal validity within case studies typically resides in the data

analysis phase. During this phase, components such as pattern matching, explanation
 73

building, explaining rival explanations, and the use of logical models are all mechanisms

that can help to address internal validity in case study research (Yin).

Finally, external validity can be addressed as a means of “knowing whether a

study’s findings are generalizable beyond the immediate study” (Yin, 2018, p. 45).

Addressing external validity can be drawn back to the research design phase of the

project. More succinctly, the use of theory in single-case studies and replication logic in

multiple case studies help address external validity. Doing this within the context of a

single case study will refer the researcher to review their research questions and their

position within a “how” or “why” context. As Yin notes, positioning a case study outside

of “how” or “why” research questions can make it extremely difficult to come to

generalizable conclusions.

This chapter addresses how these tests of validity were addressed. First, construct

validity was addressed by outlining the case and several key definitions that reside within

it. For example, defining concepts like “instructional design,” and “crisis period” are just

a few examples of definitions that fit within the context of this study. Furthermore, in

addressing construct validity, the researcher allowed trusted individuals to review a draft

of the case study report prior to its publication. This review took take place with fellow

instructional designers who were participants of the study.

Regarding internal validity, Yin (2018) suggest that internal validity for case

studies “is mainly a concern for explanatory case studies, when an investigator is trying

to explain how and why events x led to event y” (p. 45). Yin (2018) further suggests that

the type of logic building passed on internal validity processes, such as pattern matching,
 74

“is inapplicable to descriptive or exploratory studies (whether the studies are case studies,

surveys, or experiments), which are not concerned with this kind of causal situation” (p.

45). Since this is not an exploratory study, this study omitted the suggested methods of

case study internal validity, such as pattern matching, explanation building, addressing

rival explanations, and using logic models.

Third, external validity was checked by reviewing the central research questions

at hand to ensure they are aligned with Yin’s recommendation of the use of “how” and

“why” questions.

Reliability

Reliability in case study research is similar to that of most other studies, as it is

the intent to replicate the study at a later time. However, as noted by Yin (2018),

“opportunities for repeating a case study rarely occur” (p. 46). Yet, this does not mean

that reliability should be looked over within the context of case studies. This can be done

by methods such as using a case study protocol, developing a case study database, and

maintaining a chain of evidence (Yin). In general, the emphasis for determining

reliability resides in one's ability to document their procedures in carrying out the

research study appropriately. As noted by Yin (2018), “the general way of approaching

the reliability problem is to make as many procedures as explicit as possible and to

conduct research as if someone were looking over your shoulder” (p. 46).

For this research project, the idea was to outline each of the data collection and

analysis procedures in enough detail that they can be replicated. For the case study at

hand, this was done by producing a protocol that outlines each of the specific procedures
 75

that were followed (Appendix F). Furthermore, the use of multiple sources of evidence

will be a method used to help ensure the reliability of the project. Case studies rarely

benefit from having just one source of data, but rather, benefit from a multitude of data

that can be cross-referenced. This process of cross-referencing within the context of this

research project will result in the cross-comparison of interview transcriptions, interview

memos, and documentation. Furthermore, the findings and conclusions for this report

were cross-referenced with results from similar studies that are empirical in nature.

Summary

This chapter outlined a case study research design that aims to answer the central

research questions and described the rationale for using a case study methodology, the

binding of the case, the data collection procedures, sampling, and data analysis

techniques. The primary emphasis was to present an overview of the research procedure

that could be carried out by another researcher with a similar interest in the topic. Though

case study research is generally not replicated, it was nonetheless a goal of the researcher

to be thorough and precise in regard to their specific processes. Furthermore, and perhaps

most importantly, was the review of validity and reliability. Appropriately addressing

these areas helps provide a solid foundation on which to base this study and its findings.

Finally, this chapter positioned the researcher, his biases, and general interest in the

research topic in context. The importance of this will help those interested in the findings,

as well as the researcher, navigate and outline the procedures and processes needed to

carry out the data analysis and discussion of the results. The next chapter will focus on
 76

the results of the data analysis, with a subsequent chapter discussing the findings and the

broader implications they may have on the field of instructional design.

 77

Chapter 4: Results

This study explored how instructional designers work with faculty to adopt new

instructional methods and technologies during a crisis period. Data was collected for this

exploratory case study from instructional designers at a mid-size midwestern university

(Ohio University) in the US. An analysis of the data from the interviews, interview

memos, and provided documentation are reported in this chapter. To protect the

anonymity of the participants, pseudonyms have been assigned. The reporting of the data

has been divided into three themes that correspond to the three research questions and

provide a comprehensive look at the data followed by a concise summary of the results.

A further discussion of the results and the implications on the broader instructional

design community can be found in Chapter 5.

Research Questions

1. How do instructional designers work with faculty in a crisis to implement new

technologies?

2. How do instructional designers balance best practices in instruction during a time

of crisis?

3. How do instructional designers communicate with faculty about innovating their

instructional practices during a time of crisis?

Question 1: Working with Faculty during a Time of Crisis

One theme that emerged from the data in relation to the research questions was

how instructional designers work with faculty during a crisis period. Upon analysis of the

data, several sub-themes emerged that encompass various facets, such as how designers
 78

approach their work with faculty during a crisis period, how the crisis period affects their

day-to-day duties, constraints on their profession, and ultimately questioned their

professional identity. Through the analysis of this data, each of these sub-themes

contributes to the broader question at hand about how instructional designers work with

faculty in a crisis to implement new technologies during a crisis period.

A Minimalist Approach

The first sub-theme that emerged was the general approach of instructional

designers when working with faculty during a crisis period. In the interviews, the

designers mentioned how their overall approach had shifted during the COVID-19 crisis

to a more minimalist approach. As Logan explains, “I saw some room for innovation, and

I even talked to the [department] chairs about what that might look like, and I even got a

little bit of pushback from the chairs saying they just want minimal level of work.” This

“minimal level of work” was perpetuated by the mass mobilization of in-person courses

to an online environment in a rapid timeframe. Charles noted that some faculty were

anxious “to do many things within a very short period of time.” In response to this,

Charles indicated that he “prioritize[d] what was very important and [what could be

done] without.” He said, “So, I have a goal, I have an objective that I need to achieve.

Trying to see what is achievable and what is a bare minimum versus the best practice; it

is a very delicate balance in my view.” A similar approach was described by Erik, who

stated that “with the faculty members that I have had to help do this [introducing new

technologies], it’s really just been a minimalist approach, given how they are stressed.”

Erik continued to describe his approach by mentioning that “during this time, again we
 79

are crunched for so many things. People have anxieties and we know from experience,

given that I know you’re a designer yourself, that normally technology, faculty is a little

apprehensive [regarding] new technology.” Erik’s approach was further perpetuated by

what he described as being in “reactionary design mode” where he is “quickly trying to

figure out what is needed at the barest minimum.” According to Erik, “Before the

pandemic, we had time, we actively thought through what we wanted the experience to

be. In the pandemic we are acting to put the best products we can out there, that is what

the biggest change pre- and post-pandemic has been; it’s reactionary design.” Erik

continued his explanation of reactionary design by saying, “I’m quickly trying to figure

out what is needed at the barest minimum.”

Marie, another instructional designer interviewed, indicated that her minimalist

approach to working with faculty came about because of a shift in her role as an

instructional designer. Marie indicated that she had been asked “to do a lot more

professional development” and “just one-offs as opposed to large, full course designs.”

The shift in duties, and the means by which they are conducted, was also mentioned by

Scott:

I think the most notable change has been that we [his instructional design unit]

have shifted from a one-on-one approach; before this [the COVID-19 pandemic]

we were really working with one faculty [member] at a time, building out courses,

having consultations, things like that. . . .[This approach consisted of] producing

content that is mass distributed through a website, through email, through any
 80

other sorts of mediums besides just that one-to-one interaction that we typically

do.

Elizabeth also noted a shift in her practice with instructional design to move away

from a traditional approach to course design to one that is focused on a quick solution.

According to Elizabeth, “we’re not talking about full-blown course design at this point,

so I definitely am not saying let’s start at the beginning; it’s more like, how can I meet

you where you are and help you cope?” This approach, according to Elizabeth, has been

perpetuated by the fast-paced nature of transitioning traditional courses to the online

environment. According to Elizabeth, “I think that this crisis period has been, at least for

me, both from top-down and bottom-up. There has been a very much ‘hurry up and wait’

kind of game, so you need to hurry up and do something.” Similar to this was an account

by Marie who indicated that “there’s been a lot of training, a lot of demoing, some things

I’ve just done for faculty for the sake of time. So, [it’s been a] ‘I have to give an exam in

two days, can you help me?’ kind of thing.”

Elizabeth’s comments about needing to “hurry and do something” and Marie’s

account of rapidly training and demoing for faculty coincides with Erik’s

conceptualization of “reactionary design,” where the precedent of time has shifted the

normal duties of an instructional designer at their institution. This concept of reactionary

design and taking a minimalist approach to instructional design has been further

perpetuated by the massive amount of work that was distributed to the instructional

design team during the pandemic. The majority of participants noted that their workload

had definitely increased as did their mode of working with faculty because of the
 81

pandemic and the university’s decision to transition the majority of their courses to an

online format within a very short time frame.

Time Crunch

The minimalist approach to working with faculty was also largely influenced by a

time crunch to migrate existing in-person courses to an online environment for safety

reasons. During the time of data collection, the instructional designers interviewed were

in the midst of assisting faculty with their course transitions. Because of the newly

increased workload, many of the instructional designers moved to protect their time,

mainly to continue their work on existing projects. As Logan noted, “I think now more

than ever to protect my time and to protect what we are as instructional designers; it’s

good to remind people what we do for a living, and not just, ‘The answer to your problem

is at this link, let me know if you need anything else.’” This time crunch also forced some

instructional designers to reallocate and prioritize their time based on the immediate

needs of the faculty. According to Elizabeth, “[I] had to postpone a series of courses for

Quality Matters reviews to free up my calendar.” Erik also mentioned the shifting of his

priorities as a designer; he said, “For me personally, I have had to compromise on a lot of

things,” but he also mentioned that he had no issue with it “because time is of the

essence.”

Operating in Support Mode

When asked about their work with faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic, a

number of instructional designers regarded their work as “support.” As noted by

Elizabeth, “Our instructional design positions are really faculty support positions. I mean,
 82

we’re very high-level support, but ultimately, that’s what we are.” Elizabeth’s assertion

can be compared with Erik’s: “Now we have to be in active support mode, active

troubleshooting mode.” Similarly, Logan said, “It’s almost like I’ve taken on a help desk

kind of support” as opposed to his traditional way of working with faculty. Other

designers agreed; Marie described her role as “most of the time it’s, at least for me, it’s

‘Here’s what we can do right now.’ But then I always say, ‘Let’s meet after this semester

is over and we have some more time to think through how else we could do this [course

design].’” Maire continued by suggesting her approach was “a valuable step in them

reaching out and engaging later.”

This approach of being in “active support mode” and “active troubleshooting

mode” also fundamentally changed many of the duties of the instructional designers

interviewed. More specifically, the designers saw a surge in the amount of technology

support they offered during the COVID-19 pandemic and the mass transition that Ohio

University faced. According to Marie, “I’m supporting a lot more of the OIT [Office of

Information Technology] support side. . . .[My current role is] less me introducing new

technologies and more of them [faculty] just needing the support on new technologies

because they’re forced to use them.” This sentiment was shared by Jean who said, “I feel

like, at times, and I think we’re all doing this right now, is I feel more like I’m a technical

service desk.” Jean continued, noting that she felt like she is dealing with more “technical

problems than what it used to be” because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the shifting

priorities of the university. The dealing with more technical issues than course design and

other instructional design related activities led Logan to “reflect on that [his role as a
 83

designer] over the last week, and I think more than anything, it’s been a huge addition of

extra work around instructional technology, and not necessarily design.” The

conversation around differentiating “instructional technology” and “instructional design”

has largely been discussed and debated in the literature. The sentiment explained by this

group of designers suggest that the debate and conversation of the topic is very much

alive and may have been exaggerated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Furthermore, the prevalence of this conversation within the data suggests that the

pandemic may have had an effect on the professional identity of instructional designers

and ultimately, how instructional design is done.

Professional Identity

A by-product of working with faculty noted by some of the instructional designers

was the fact that it helped provide some clarity around their professional identity.

According to Scott, “In this time of crisis, our job has shifted into what I think is a more

accurate reflection of what we should be doing [as instructional designers].” However,

there seemed to be a continual perception by many faculty members who still did not

understand the function of the instructional design unit. Scott said, “At least for me, the

faculty who know me have been relying on me, but unfortunately, I think. . .there’s a lot

of folks out there who don’t know what we do or who we are. . . .There’s a lot of folks

out there who still think we’re part of our Office of Information Technology.” Scott’s

comments can be connected with an account by Charles who suggested the pandemic and

the rapid shift to classes online have brought new awareness to the profession:
 84

This goes to those faculty members who never knew anything about instructional

design. Or they never knew what instructional designers do and, all of a sudden,

they realize, “I need to put these things online and I can’t do it. So, who else is

here to help?” Many people have realized the importance of having a designer and

how the designers can help them improve their courses and design their courses

and do everything in consideration to best practices in the field [of teaching and

learning].

In addition to helping provide some clarity around the professional identity of

instructional designers, some of the participants mentioned how the pandemic has also

had an effect on the practice of instructional design itself. According to Erik, “I see that

one of the effects that the crisis will have on the profession of instructional design, is how

design is done. It’s no longer just about designing for particular stakeholders in your

course now. It’s about looking at a holistic view of instruction.” Scott had a similar

comment: “And I think a lot of times with instructional designers, we’re in a situation

where we’re so focused on the micro that we’re not really thinking about the macro, and

this is the first time I think in a long time we’ve sort of collectively lifted our heads.” Erik

and Scott’s comments appear to suggest that the pandemic has introduced new factors to

consider when conducting instructional design. More specifically, the two participants

suggested a more “holistic” and “macro” approach to instructional design, as opposed to

a more narrowed focus on goals and objectives. To further demonstrate this point, Erik

suggested that “designing for wellness for the students in your class and for the teachers

[and also] designing for social community building.” To Erik’s point, factoring in new
 85

elements of course design focused on concepts such as “wellness” and “social community

building” may have been perpetuated as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. Erik and Scott’s

comments on how the pandemic may have altered the way instructional design is done

can also give rise to the question of what things might look like in the future for

instructional designers as a profession, but also at their respective institutions.

The Future

According to the participants, the pandemic has brought many changes to their

university, the way they work with faculty, their professional identity, and the way their

jobs are conducted. While there have been some setbacks, the pandemic and the sifting of

university priorities has also presented some opportunities for the future of these

designers. For example, operating during the pandemic has allowed the opportunity to

develop new relationships with faculty who have not worked with instructional designers

in the past; furthermore, it has allowed the designers to build new relationships with

interdepartmental units on campus. For example, Scott said, “We should have closer

collaboration with our technology office, which is what we’re doing now.” Marie also

suggested that the pandemic has been a catalyst for giving the instructional designers “the

opportunity to meet new faculty and build relationships.”

As a result of the pandemic, the massive shift of courses to an online modality,

and the building of relationships across the university have foreshadowed how

instructional design may look at Ohio University in the future. According to Erik, “I think

that post-crisis faculty will rely more on designers. I feel like there’ll be a shift from

modality-dependent instruction design to modality-independent instruction design, post

 86

crisis.” Scott perpetuates this idea by suggesting that many faculty members have been

propelled into new and uncharted territory with their teaching. According to Scott, “I

think the moment a lot of the education infrastructure started to kind of break at the end

of the semester, a lot of learning sprouted up. Kind of thinking about it like a forest fire.

It ripped through the cleared-out growth and now some new stuff is sprouting.” Similarly,

Charles noted that faculty have generally had a good response towards using more

technology with their teaching and learning, despite not having an option due to the

pandemic. He said:

You just have to embrace the new idea or the new mode of doing things and put

[it] into practice. . .and they [faculty] are changing; there is a change in attitude

and there’s a change in approach. . . It’s a very good opportunity that has really

propelled us to do a lot of things that are related to technology in a very short time

and in a very positive, receptive environment that we might not have gotten if we

were to do these things under normal circumstances. So, it’s a blessing in

disguise.

Related to Charles’s comments, Logan said, “I guess I can see how this [faculty

adoption of new technologies] is beneficial for Ohio University. . . .But, it’s beneficial for

a lot of other universities that are our competition.”

Conclusion of Question 1

The first theme of this data analysis revealed a number of salient points of

discussion related to the research questions. As noted by the instructional designers, the

COVID-19 pandemic has had an array of effects on how they work with faculty—from
 87

taking a minimalist approach to operating in a support-type mode that encompasses

duties outside those of a traditional instructional designer. The participants noted that

significant changes have occurred with regard to how they work with faculty; however,

there is room to dive even deeper into the subject of how these designers work with

faculty during the pandemic. More specifically, this study looked at how these

instructional designers balanced best practices in teaching and instruction during the

pandemic. It is this area of inquiry that has led to the development of the second theme.

Question 2: Balancing Best Practices during a Time of Crisis

This theme, how instructional designers balance in instruction during a time of

crisis, connects with the second research question: How do instructional designers

balance best practices in instruction during a time of crisis? Again, a number of sub-

themes were uncovered during the analysis of the data. Overall, the accounts of the

instructional designers paint a broad picture of how best practices in instruction were

balanced with faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Time Constraints and Suggesting Best Practices

One of the first sub-themes that emerged was that it was difficult to suggest best

practices in instruction to faculty during the pandemic. Marie said, “I suggest best

practices, but most of the time there’s just not time because faculty are working day by

day to be ready for the next day.” Marie remained optimistic about the future by

suggesting, “I’m kind of hoping they [Ohio University] make the call to go online for fall

if that’s what we’re going to do as soon as possible so that we can really dig in and help

shift as many courses as possible towards those best practices that we love to promote.”
 88

Scott also commented on how time influenced how he approached best practices with

faculty: “The month of March was just triage. So, it was getting things up, not worrying

necessarily about the best tool, but simply a tool to get things done.” Erik also mentioned

his struggles managing best practices due to time:

As designers, normally we think across the entire framework of the course, we

think about what the best experience given all the stakeholders should be. We

think about ensuring course integrity, ensuring course alignment and ensuring

content structure or content to mapping or content delivery formats, integrity,

stuff like that. You are deciding with accurate reasoning or backing evidence for

everything you are doing. . . .Now my role as a designer is “Okay, I have x

amount of time which isn’t enough time, how best can I put this [a course] in a

different modality that at least I can deliver some form of learning till the end of

the semester?” Because we are rushing to do things rather than actually designing,

taking deliberate decisions to accomplish things.

Jean also mentioned her frustrations with time and working with faculty: “At that

time [during the pandemic] they [faculty] were just trying to figure out how [to teach

online], we didn’t really have time to talk about pedagogically what you should be

doing.” Elizabeth noted, “I try to really focus on what they [faculty] need from me in the

moment. . . .I never use phrases like ‘best practices’ and things like that.”

However, this is not to suggest that the instructional designers were completely

unable to talk about best practices during the pandemic period. According to Scott, the

pandemic, and the shifting of courses at Ohio University to an online format provided an
 89

opportunity for dialogue around best practices. He said, “I’m finding myself now, talking

more and more about best practices because they’re [faculty] now more receptive. . .

.Now, it’s ‘ok I’ve done the online. Now it’s just I want to teach better, I want to teach

more effectively online. How do I do that?’ Now is the time for conversations on best

practices. I think the audience [faculty] is more receptive to it.” Scott’s comments align

with Elizabeth, who said, “I haven’t had any resistance from anyone.” Jean also noted

that she believes the response to using new technologies and best practices has been

positive; she said, “I think they [faculty] want to try some new things.” From these

comments, we can see that even though time constraints played a large role in the

discussion of best practices, there was an appetite for them and for faculty to innovate

their teaching practices during this time. Whether this is the cause of faculty being

“forced” to alter their teaching from in-person classes to online is up for debate.

However, the account from the designers in this study demonstrates that some form of

desire arose from the faculty to integrate best practices or to innovate their prior teaching

methods.

Nudging Faculty

Another sub-theme that emerged was that during the pandemic, instructional

designers tended toward nudging faculty to adopt best practices in instruction and

technology. This strategy, as noted by several designers, was successful. As Scott said, “I

think the faculty got more comfortable with doing things online, that now is the time I’m

just starting to introduce those new tools just a little bit, of like, ‘here’s how to amplify

your game just a little bit.’” This plays into Scott’s overall strategy of working toward
 90

faculty literacy in online teaching. He added, “I think that as instructional designers, what

we need to be focusing on is that now is the time to get our faculty literate in online

teaching.” Erik also mentioned a similar approach of starting small when it comes to

technology introduction; he said, “When faculty have to move rapidly to do what they

know, you don’t have time to introduce them to tools they do not know. So, as the

designer, your best bet is to help them utilize the tools that they know best, or the tools

that they have some skills on.” Jean also encourages the practice of keeping faculty

aligned with what they are familiar with; she tells them, “We can do what you did

normally, it’s just going to be done in a different way. So you’re still going to meet your

goals. It may just not look the same.” Similar to Jean’s comments is the approach taken

by Elizabeth: “I would say that my support efforts would fall somewhere in-between

maintaining and innovating, so I’m trying to maintain the level, maintain the integrity of

their course and maintain the integrity of their teaching style while introducing more

efficient ways to do it.” The approach taken by these designers to nudge faculty into

trying new teaching methods and technologies is one that includes empathizing with

where they are in their competence and ultimately, encouraging them to try new things.

According to Scott, the pandemic has presented a good opportunity for faculty to dive

into these new practices, simply by doing them. According to Scott, “So we [instructional

designers] can start to show all that functionality and really just learn by doing. I think

that’s been really the most critical part of all this is—the faculty have been learning by

doing.”
 91

Using Professional Judgement

Another sub-theme related to suggesting best practices is how instructional

designers exercise professional judgement. More specifically, this sub-theme illuminates

how instructional designers use experience and intuition to determine the approach they

take with faculty. For example, Elizabeth said, “I like to talk with them and maybe size

up who I think they are, what their values are, what’s important to them, how receptive

they are to different kinds of feedback, and then either introduce or not introduce new

technology.” Scott mentioned a similar approach regarding technology and best practices:

“I’ve always been a little reluctant to discuss best practices. Like the first time I work

with a faculty member, I try not to be too preachy, but just sort of let that come out

organically during the design process. . . .I think [it’s best to] let the faculty that you’re

working with have the agency that they’re used to.” This “agency” alludes to faculty

autonomy and academic freedom, two practices that are widely practiced and valued in

the higher education landscape.

Regarding the use of professional judgement, instructional designers also

mentioned how they operate from a goal-oriented perspective. Charles, for example, said

this about introducing new technology:

This is what I do most of the time; I don’t really say that I’m going to introduce a

new technology. I go with, ‘What do you want to achieve? What are you trying to

do? What is the outcome or what is the end result of what you’re trying to

achieve?’ And then from there, we start looking at different solutions that may
 92

solve that problem. It does not really necessarily mean that problem is going to be

solved by technology.

Elizabeth also mentioned how her goal-focused approach determines how she

suggests or recommends technology to faculty; she said, “Well, the answer to that

[technology usage] really depends on what you need to do and what you’re trying to do. .

. .The response [from faculty] has been overall very positive. I haven’t had any resistance

from anyone, but again, I’m never really too prescriptive anyways, and I haven’t changed

that.” Logan also mentioned that his approach is less prescriptive; he said, “I think my

design kind of philosophy or whatever, my design practice, design and practice, has

worked well for a crisis like this, because I typically don’t overburden [them] with

research and links, and I don’t have to back up my knowledge of educational design,

because I’m an instructional designer.” Charles, Elizabeth, and Logan’s accounts

demonstrate how, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining a goal-focused

approach was a means by which these instructional designers used professional

judgement while recommending best practices in instruction. Furthermore, they described

how their less prescriptive approach and trying not to overburden faculty during this time

has been successful.

Conclusion of Question 2

The second theme of this analysis uncovered a number of interesting insights into

how instructional designers balance best practices in technology and instruction during a

crisis period. In short, they noted how time constraints placed on them during this time

made it difficult to prescribe some of the best practices that they would normally
 93

recommend; it required them to shift their regular working regime and adapt to meet the

immediate needs of the faculty and institution at large. However, the designers did

mention that the pandemic provided some opportunities to explore new technologies and

teaching methods since change was occurring across the institution.

Because of this change and a deep need for faculty to alter their teaching, the

instructional designers resorted to nudging faculty to try new things. According to the

designers, this period of change presented a good opportunity to show faculty the

affordances of new technology and instructional methods, while encouraging their use

through support. However, the designers did not suggest completely moving faculty away

from the technology they are used to, but to use that as a starting point, and eventually,

move them into a position to use differentiated technology and teaching practices that

reflect best practices.

Finally, these instructional designers noted their use of professional judgement as

a factor in balancing best practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted by several

designers, intuition and professional practice determined many factors related to working

with faculty, such as approach, design philosophy, and prioritization. Moreover, the basic

premise and practice of these instructional designers was to remain goal focused and

solution oriented.

Question 3: Innovation and Communication during a Time of Crisis

The third major theme derived from the data was insight into how the

instructional designers communicated with faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic,

specifically, around the idea of innovation. As noted previously, the instructional

 94

designers found that this time was one where faculty had to embrace a plethora of

changes in a very short period of time. As instructional designers operate in a supportive

role for faculty, their work during this time often resulted in them communicating with

faculty directly. Because decisions and processes were now handed down by the

administration, designers needed to interact directly with faculty to adopt new teaching

and learning practices, new technologies, and other innovations. Therefore, this third

major theme encompasses the faculty’s general appetite for innovation and the

communication strategies the designers employed to navigate that landscape.

Appetite for Innovation

The first sub-theme that emerged was the instructional designers’ general account

of how innovation was viewed. According to Marie, “People are at least evolving [their

instructional practice], if not innovating, in ways that hopefully will persist past the

pandemic.” Elizabeth also agreed with Marie, saying, “I think at this point today when

you’re asking me, yes, they [the faculty] are starting to [innovate], and I hope to see that

increase over the next month or so.” According to Scott, during this time, many faculty

have “taken the time to shake up their class a little bit. . . .I think it [the pandemic] is

really kind of shaken up their routine and gotten them to think differently about how

content can be delivered. So, that’s been really exciting.” Maire provided an example of

this:

People actually have to think about course design and how to deliver things online

like they may have never thought before. I met with one faculty who was like,

‘Do you think this’ll be the way forever?’ And I took it as like, ‘No, we’re not
 95

going to teach online forever.’ But he meant like, ‘Do you think people will adopt

some of these things and keep using them?’ I don’t know if this is innovative, but

at least its enhanced course design practices.

Marie’s comments not only allude to the idea that innovation was occurring during this

time, but also lends itself to a much broader discussion of what innovation is.

Another aspect geared towards innovation was that some designers needing to

“reel back” some of the appetite for innovation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Marie

said, “So a lot of the faculty I work with in the [specific university college] are super

innovative by nature. So, some of them actually have had to reel back, which is different,

I would assume than a lot of places.” Marie seemed to attribute this reeling back based on

her professional judgment as an instructional designer. She said, “It’s almost pulling them

back from some new technologies because it’s not a great time to start something that

could be more detrimental to students.” This idea of reeling back innovation for the sake

of the students was also echoed by Jean who suggested, “I don’t want to throw a lot of

technologies at them [faculty] and the students, that they [faculty and students] have to

troubleshoot and figure out how to work. So, I go through, and I never bring up tools,

they always want to bring up technology first, I think that’s just the way it is.” Scott also

mentioned students during the conversation around innovation: “They [faculty] are trying

to reach out to students with immediacy. And so, they're willing to try new things and

fail. I’ve seen faculty try things and it didn’t go well, but they tried it again, which has

been super awesome.” The idea of reeling back faculty innovation can be seen as a

professional judgement call by some of the instructional designers; however, it was not a
 96

practice that was noted by all of the designers. One, if not the biggest, factor noted by the

participants in making this decision was simply based on time and immediacy.

Innovation and University Administration

A second sub-theme that emerged illustrated how innovation was approached

within a more global context, from looking at where the administration at Ohio

University was projecting to go to where and or what instructional design may look like

in the future, post COVID-19. The account of these instructional designers during the

time frame in which this case study took place can help account for how departments

may want to proceed in the future, under similar circumstances.

As noted earlier, the onset of the COVID-19 crisis and the quick shift to an online

format was a significant event for the instructional designers interviewed. The

instructional design team was propelled into new territory as leaders at their institution.

For example, Marie stated that because of the crisis, “our team has been asked to create a

strategy to lead the entire institution to the switch online. . . .There’s definitely more

[work] to do, and. . . all of our leadership is focused. So, we’re required to lead from

place and innovate in this time of opportunity.” As a result, some of the instructional

designers saw this as an opportunity to innovate the current teaching and learning

practices at the university. Scott, for example, noted:

The optimist in me says that we may be able to leverage this [the response to the

pandemic] to make some much-needed changes in thought processes at our

university. . . .I think we’re just getting that chance to strike out, try a few things,

collaborate in ways that we didn’t have time to do before and show finished
 97

products that people can get behind and get on board with that I think is really

kind of interesting. So, we’re able to innovate in a lot more flexible way now that

we just couldn’t do previously.

In the conversation around innovation during the time of the pandemic, one the

instructional designers interviewed also gave insight into how the administration may use

instructional designers in the future. When asked if instructional designers will be relied

on more in the future, Elizabeth predicts designers will play an essential role in new

technology-based mandates:

I think there is going to be an implied mandate moving forward that faculty

members must use university-provided or enterprise solution technologies in

specific ways, and I think we’ve already heard administration hint at things like

that. . . .What we know about technology use in mandatory settings compared to

voluntary settings is that the motivation is very different, and I do think that

instructional designers will play an important role in helping navigate those new

expectations.

Elizabeth’s comments correlate with some of the statements made earlier in this

chapter by Erik, Scott, Logan, and Charles about what the future looks like for

instructional designers.

While the majority of the instructional designers predict the their role will

increase in the future, it is interesting to think about why this is the case. Two scenarios

tend to present themselves. First, the use of instructional designers may see an uptick in

use as faculty relate more to the profession and recognize and appreciate the services that
 98

instructional designers can provide. On the other hand, Elizabeth’s comments specifically

address a potential scenario where working with an instructional designer, and university

supported technology, may be a mandate from the administration. Each of these scenarios

presents an interesting opportunity for the role of instructional designers in the future.

Regardless, as universities continue to wade through the complicated landscape that the

COVID-19 pandemic has created, the role of instructional designers will continue to

evolve.

Communication Methods and Approaches

The final sub-theme derived from the interviews relates to how instructional

designers communicate with faculty during a crisis period. More specifically, the theme

relates to the practice of innovating a faculty members’ teaching and learning experience

during the crisis. As already indicated, the instructional designers saw an uptick in

innovation during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as a rise in the use of instructional

designer services. This sub-theme dives deeper into addressing how, specifically, this

group of instructional designers communicate with faculty to innovate their teaching and

learning practices.

Building Relationships and Rapport

During the interviews, a few of the instructional designers commented on the

importance of building relationships and rapport with faculty. Marie said:

I’ve also found that faculty I’ve worked with in other colleges who I don’t support

anymore, who liked working with me in the past, I’ve become their go-to more so

than the designer maybe in their school who might be, I don’t know, just have a
 99

different type of relationship or they’ve never worked with [a designer] before. . .

.It’s relationship building, [and] I’m working with a bunch of faculty and graduate

assistants I’ve never met before. So even just them knowing that I’m a resource is

a valuable step in them reaching out and engaging later.

Instructional designers also relied on the use of empathy and being sympathetic as

communication strategies to help build rapport with faculty. When working with faculty

during the pandemic, Elizabeth said, “I try to be really, really sympathetic and I try to

empathize with the faculty member who has responsibilities far beyond what they come

to me about.” Similarly, Charles noted, “But now, because it’s a crisis we are supposed to

really understand and be very understanding.” As an example of using empathy, Jean

mentioned that she tries to relate with how faculty have approached teaching and learning

in the past. For example, Jean noted, “You meet with the faculty member, you talk about,

‘what did you do,’ if they have taught the course before, ‘what did you do in the

classroom?’ Asking them questions about what types of assignments they were doing,

just getting them to talk about their teaching styles.”

The building of rapport and relationships seemed to benefit the instructional

designers during the COVID-19 crisis. More specifically, using empathy and

understanding with faculty members helped the instructional designers not only to do

their jobs, but also to innovate the way that faculty approach instruction and use

technology. However, this was not the only approach taken by the instructional designers

during this time to encourage the further use of new instructional methods and

technologies from a communication perspective. As such, a number of the designers

 100

resorted to encouraging the use of new instructional methods and technologies through

active demonstration.

Taking Initiative

Related to the “learning by doing” strategy, many of the instructional designers

took the initiative and exercised professional judgement as part of their communication

strategy during the pandemic. For example, Jean focused on using her minimalist

approach to work with faculty; she said, “And my, I don’t know about yours and anybody

else’s, but I’m always like, ‘Keep it simple stupid,’ right? I don’t say stupid obviously. I

say, ‘Keep it simple because you’re new to this [online teaching].’” Other designers, such

as Scott, took a more proactive approach with faculty by implementing best practices in a

faculty’s course and discussing it after the fact. According to Scott, “They’ll put their

material into the course and then I might just implement some of those best practices of

my own accord. And then we’ll discuss it after the fact.” This agency and Scott’s

approach to integrating and communicating best practices with faculty also coincides

with Logan’s approach where faculty allow him to research best practices and bring that

information forward for a more productive working session; he said, “So they [faculty]

allow me room to research, they allow me room to investigate best practices around what

they’re trying to do, and then we start to move into solutions or creative discussions back

and forth.” Charles also noted instructional designers and faculty can work in a back and

forth manner: “It’s a matter of negotiating with the faculty, negotiating with yourself, and

having a very realistic goal in mind.”

 101

Another strategy used by these instructional designers during the COVID-19

pandemic was to encourage faculty to learn new and innovative teaching methods and

technologies by hands-on testing. Erik described his process of introducing new

technologies and teaching methods: “So I have just been, ‘I show it to you, I have you

practice and if it works, then [you] go with it.’” Jean followed a similar approach with an

underlying philosophy that if they practice with technology, they will consistently use it

in the future. Jean said, “I want them to use technology throughout [the instructional

design process]. Not just introduce it, use it once and then they don’t use it again. So, I

try and tell them as well in the nicest way I can that it needs to be consistent.”

The use of professional judgement and the ability for instructional designers to

have agency with faculty during this crisis period was noted as successful by the

instructional designers. As indicated earlier, the use of professional judgement played a

significant role in the decision-making process of the instructional designers. Moreover,

the ability to use professional judgment and take initiative seemed to be a viable strategy

for helping and empowering faculty adopt best practices in teaching and instruction

during this time. This empowerment goes a long way when combining it with these

instructional designers’ communication approach of using empathy and understanding

with faculty members. In all, the strategies provided by these designers demonstrated a

viable way to work with faculty during a crisis period and highlighted some of the

communicative methods by which instructional designers (or those in related fields) can

use in the adoption of new teaching methods and technologies.

 102

Conclusion of Question 3

The third theme of this analysis looked specifically at how innovation was

approached by the instructional designers during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition,

and perhaps more specifically, this theme looked at how instructional designers used

communication to encourage faculty to innovate their instructional design practices in the

new teaching environment. As mentioned earlier, the COVID-19 pandemic presented a

very complex and convoluted landscape to be navigated by faculty looking to move their

instruction online and by instructional designers to make the transition as smooth as

possible. As part of this transition, faculty was required to make changes and adopt

innovations, both technological and pedagogical, to their instruction, and the instructional

designers were in a prime position to help usher in this change.

The data within this theme resulted in several interesting sub-themes that align

with the research questions. First, a number of the instructional designers noted how there

was an increase in the appetite for innovation during this period. Though the pandemic

presented obstacles and seemingly disrupted the routines of many faculty members, some

of the instructional designers seemed to perceive that as an opportunity for innovation. In

some cases, the instructional designers had to reel back some faculty from innovating

their teaching due to constraints, mainly time and immediacy. In all, instead of the

pandemic producing an overall sense of fear and conservatism when it comes to a faculty

member’s approach to technology and instruction, the participants of this study noted that

it was a time for change and opportunity.

 103

Another interesting aspect related to faculty innovating their instructional

practices during this time was the role the administration played in the transition. A

number of the designers noted how the administration allotted the group agency to help

determine the strategies necessary in moving forward. Others noted that the move to

position instructional designers as a necessity during this period could lead to an increase

in their use in the future. While this has yet to be determined, it is an interesting to predict

if, and to what extent, instructional designers will be utilized in the future. The

implications of this could help a number of institutions make decisions around the

prioritization of instructional design units in general.

This theme also highlighted the way in which the instructional designers moved

forward with developing and preserving relationships with the faculty. As indicated by

the designers, these relationships were essential in getting faculty members to innovate

their teaching practices. One of the major communication strategies exercised by these

instructional designers was to use empathy to build rapport, which the designers said was

paramount in gaining buy-in and support for what they were trying to do. Moreover, the

use of empathy and understanding presented the opportunity for instructional designers to

not only complete their baseline objectives with faculty, but also presented an interesting

moment to innovate with the faculty.

Finally, this theme also highlighted how instructional designers used their

professional judgement and initiative as a form of communication with faculty. As noted

by several designers, their approach to working with faculty determined the way that they

communicated and demonstrated technology with them. Moreover, the designers noted
 104

how faculty allowed the instructional designers agency to research and present best

practices and information to the faculty. This approach, and the way instructional

designers communicated those practices back to faculty were also highlighted. More

specifically, and perhaps a means by which to encapsulate the overall sentiment of these

designers, it was suggested that the relationship was about negotiation, which played a

pivotal role in the innovation and adoption of new technologies and teaching methods

during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Summary

In summary, this chapter presented the results of the data analysis for the study at

hand. More specifically, it painted a narrative picture of how instructional designers work

with faculty to adopt new instructional methods and technologies during a crisis period.

Several major themes and sub-themes emerged from the data that provides insight into

answering the relative research questions and provides an in-depth look at the experience

of the instructional designs at Ohio University and their experience working with faculty

during the COVID-19 crisis.

The findings of this study illuminated a wide array of topics related to the central

research questions, including the instructional designers’ minimalist approach to working

with faculty during a pandemic, how time became a significant constraint, and how the

pandemic also affected the professional identity of instructional designers. Moreover, the

results from this analysis also touch on how instructional designers worked with and

encouraged faculty to innovate their teaching practices during the time of the pandemic.

Through the use of empathy and professional judgement, these instructional designers
 105

were able to navigate the constraints and unprecedented territory brought on by the

pandemic. These approaches and accounts by the instructional designers provide insight

and clarity around the research questions that deal with communication and innovation

during a crisis period.

The next chapter will provide a comprehensive discussion of the findings from

this study, including a review of the main research questions, as well as a dissemination

of each of the major themes that were uncovered in this chapter. Furthermore, the

limitations of the study will be addressed, and implications and conclusions that can be

drawn from the collected data will be discussed. Finally, the next chapter will identify

recommendations from the researcher for further research topics and areas of study

related to the research questions.

 106

Chapter 5: Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion

Introduction

This chapter aims to provide a conclusion to the study at hand by providing an

overall summary of the study, a review of the central research questions, a discussion of

the findings, and what the ultimate implications and conclusions for the study are.

Furthermore, this chapter provides a section on recommendations for future research.

Following this chapter are a list of references and appendices related to the study.

Summary of Study

This study sought to explore how instructional designers work with faculty to

adopt new instructional technologies and practices during a crisis period. More

specifically, this study aimed to capture the ways an instructional design unit navigated

the onslaught of constraints brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the spring of

2020, many colleges and universities were forced to move in-person instruction to an

online environment. As a result, those who are traditionally involved with course design,

technology integration, and other academic services were tasked in the migration from in-

person courses to an online or remote modality.

Instructional designers, who are employed at a large number of institutions across

the country, were one of these support units that were tasked in the assistance of course

migration during the COVID-19 pandemic. As course design and creation are a primary

function of instructional designers, this group was well positioned to be the subject of

inquiry for the study at hand. More specifically, this study, and the researcher at hand,
 107

opted to study one specific instructional design unit to gain an understanding into the

inner workings of an instructional design department during a crisis period.

The instructional design unit selected for this study was that of Ohio University.

Ohio University’s instructional designers are part of the Office of Instructional

Innovation and aim to assist faculty with the design and development of instruction,

among other academic endeavors. This instructional design unit consists of eight

instructional designers, one of which, is the primary researcher for this study. Each of

these instructional designers participated in the research at hand and helped to provide an

in-depth look at how they worked during a crisis period, specifically, regarding the

adoption of new technologies and instructional practices.

Using a case study methodology, this study mainly relied on semi-structured

interviews with the instructional design unit at Ohio University from March 23, 2020 to

April 20, 2020. This specific timeframe was selected as faculty at Ohio University were

busy just before the March 23rd date transitioning their courses to an online format. As of

the 23rd, students were to return from Spring Break and resume their courses. However,

as mandated by the university, and because of the COVID-19 pandemic, courses were to

be resumed and finished in an online format. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, this

timeframe for which the case study was bounded was an excellent choice. Because data

was able to be collected directly from the instructional designers at Ohio University

during this time, the researcher has been able to capture an incredible insight into how

this instructional design unit operated during the COVID-19 pandemic with regard to

helping faculty adopt new technologies and teaching methodologies.

 108

The results of the data analysis revealed a number of interesting findings in regard

to the research questions of this study. First, this study provided an insight into how this

group of instructional designers have worked with faculty during a time of crisis. This

includes a minimalist approach to instructional design, working within specific time

constraints, and operating within a ‘support mode’ capacity to provide faculty with the

assistance they needed during the pandemic. Moreover, it was also revealed to what

effect the pandemic, and the massive migration of courses to an online format had on the

professional identity of instructional designers at their specific institution. Finally, the

first theme that was uncovered also gave insight into what the future may look like for

this group of instructional designers as it relates to working with faculty. More

specifically, the insight provided by the instructional designers also included predictions

of what instructional design may look like in a more global capacity post-pandemic.

The second major theme that was uncovered by the data looked at how

instructional designers balanced best practices during a crisis period. Within this theme,

instructional designers commented on how they best approached working with faculty

with regard to time constraints and what best practices they chose to focus on during this

time period. The instructional designers in this study also commented on their approach

to ‘nudging faculty’ to implement new technologies and teaching methods. Finally, the

instructional designers also commented on how the use of professional judgement played

a major role in how they worked with faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The final theme that was looked at within the context of this study was that of

innovation and how instructional designers communicated with faculty during this time
 109

to encourage faculty to innovate their instructional practice during the COVID-19

pandemic. This theme took a major look at the appetite for innovation during the time

period which bounded this case study and how the university administration approached

the thought of innovation during this crisis period. Furthermore, this theme looked at

what specific types of communication strategies this group of instructional designers

employed to help faculty innovate during such a disruptive time. These communication

strategies included building rapport and relationships with faculty, to having the

instructional designers leading by example with the demonstration of best practices in

technology and instruction.

This chapter aims to bring these points into a much broader discussion than was

previously addressed. More specifically, this chapter will extrapolate on each of the

themes and subthemes that were derived from the data. After an explanation of each of

the themes, there will be a discussion as to the relevance to the primary research

questions of this study. Finally, each of the themes will be discussed as to their

implications to the broader instructional design community and what the findings of this

study could have in a more global aspect. The chapter will then be followed by a quick

synopsis of the implications of the study on the field of instructional design and learning.

Finally, the chapter will conclude with a final recommendation on future research and

areas of inquiry related to this study. This chapter will be followed by a comprehensive

reference list, as well as, several appendices providing supporting documentation for the

study at hand.
 110

Research Questions

1. How do instructional designers work with faculty in a crisis to implement new

technologies?

2. How do instructional designers balance best practices in instruction during a time

of crisis?

3. How do instructional designers communicate with faculty about innovating their

instructional practices during a time of crisis?

Discussion of Findings

This section will contain an in-depth discussion of each of the major themes and

sub-themes from this study. Each will include a brief overview of the finding and then

discuss the broader implications of that finding to the primary research questions of this

study and then conclude with what that finding may have in a more global sense. It

should be noted that with this research, the researcher aimed to tell the story of the

instructional designers in this study, through a narrative form, from what they

experienced during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the discussions

based on these findings are reliant on the interpretation of the findings by the researcher.

Finding 1: Working with Faculty During a Time of Crisis

The first major theme that derived from the data was that of how instructional

designers worked with faculty during a time of crisis. More specifically, the theme

looked at how instructional designers worked with faculty on the implementation of new

technologies and teaching methods during the COVID-19 crisis. For the instructional

designers interviewed in this study, this included a large migration of in-person courses to
 111

a remote and online format. For that to happen, the instructional designers in this study

needed to alter their approach to instructional design to meet the immediate needs of the

faculty and the institution at large. As a result of this, the instructional designers in this

study have provided an insightful look at what this approach looked like, as well as,

provided information on what constraints they faced. Furthermore, the designers provided

an account of how this crisis may have positively influenced how they work with faculty

moving forward. Finally, the designers provided an account of how the COVID-19

pandemic may (or may not) influence the use of instructional designers, both at their

parent institution, but of that in a more global sense as well.

A “Minimalist” Approach to Instructional Design

The major sub-theme from this part of the data analysis was that of working as a

minimalist. By “minimalist” a number of the instructional designers in study noted how

their approach to instructional design during the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly

influenced by time and what the administration wanted from them at the time. Moreover,

some of the instructional designers outlined their approach as being “reactionary”, as in

doing what was needed immediately at the time in working with faculty members. Within

another context, the approach of being “reactionary” can be viewed as that of having

these instructional designers inserted into the middle of a course design, whereas opposed

to starting a brand-new course design with faculty from the beginning.

Another insight that came in from this sub-theme was that of what instructional

designers were doing from a job aspect. For example, some of the instructional designers

noted that their duties shifted from a full-on course design approach, to helping out in
 112

one-off consultations, creating mass distributed content, and doing more professional

development. Other instructional designers noted that they became more of a “help-desk”

for technology related questions, as opposed to questions surrounding pedagogy.

While it was not confirmed by the instructional designers directly, the approach of

being reactionary combined with a major influx of work seemingly shifted what this

group of instructional designers performed from a job aspect. Because of the COVID-19

pandemic and the shift of in-person courses to an online setting, altered the primary

function of these instructional designers. As noted by studies such as Kumar & Ritzhaupt

(2017), Villachia et al., (2010), Kenny et al., (2005), and Cox and Osguthrpe (2003), the

main function of an instructional designer is that focusing on course design. While the

instructional designers in this study noted that they did still assist in course design during

the COVID-19 pandemic, they noted that it was different in that they were used in an

immediate capacity and in more of a one-off nature. Also, it was noted that because of

time and the full capacity of the instructional designers, prioritization needed to be given

to what the instructional designers and faculty could achieve during this time.

What may be most beneficial to learn, or question, about this sub-theme is what

exactly does “minimalist” instructional design look like from an operational perspective.

The idea of a “minimalist” approach to instructional design should not be confused with

the work of Hans van der Meij and John Carroll, who have proposed theoretical ideas and

conducted research to support a way of “designing minimalist instruction” (van der Meij

& Carroll, 1995). Traditionally, instructional design models and theories involve

multiple steps in order to construct a curriculum, course, or training. However, if pinched

 113

for time, how might instructional designers functionally achieve this level of instructional

design integrity in faculty courses? It may very well be that it is impossible during a crisis

period to take a faculty member through an entire course design using traditional

instructional design methods and theories. Then, of course, enters the question of if an

instructional designer cannot complete an entire course design using method and theory,

what then becomes the essential steps or components that instructional designer needs to

complete? While I do not believe the study at hand supports a definite answer to this

question, it nonetheless brings it into light for a much broader conversation.

If anything, the COVID-19 pandemic has (or should) bring into the conversation

what ‘minimalist instructional design’ looks like from a functional perspective. An

answer to this question would not only benefit the larger research community on

instructional design, but be a lifeline to many instructional design units. While not

directly stated by the instructional designers in the study, they did note that their services

did range during the COVID-19 pandemic. While instructional designers do have a

variety of functions that they perform, providing a clear picture of what services are

available and provided during a pandemic, and to what level these services are provided,

could prove to be beneficial for faculty looking for assistance. Looking past the

pandemic, the concept of ‘minimalist instructional design’ could also have an effect on

how instructional design units operate moving forward. With many colleges and

universities making budget cuts and reduction in workforce, a more lean operation may

benefit units that offer instructional design services. Knowing what the bare or minimal

essentials are for course design and development could help these units to save time and
 114

resources. Moreover, this may allow instructional design units to uniquely position

themselves as essential resources at colleges and universities, by clearly defining their

services and promoting the trade as an essential service that can contribute to the

construction of quality educational programming.

Moreover, the concept of looking at the evolving structure of a systems-based

approach to instruction plays into the historical lineage of instructional design. As noted

in Chapter 1, a large portion of the systems-based approach to instruction was based out

of a result of the World War II conflict. This ability to evolve a field from a crisis period

adds into the conversation at hand about the evolution of instructional design in general.

Perhaps the COVID-19 pandemic could act as a catalyst to re-think how the systems-

based approach to instruction is done. More specifically within the context of this study,

it could be an opportunity to develop or revise models that specifically support

differentiated contexts, such as those brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Instructional Design is Not Technology Support

The importance of clearly stating the purpose and services of an instructional

design unit cannot be understated, especially during a crisis period. As noted by a number

of the instructional designers in this study, the designers were operating in a ‘support

mode’ that often consisted of troubleshooting technology issues faculty were having. As

specifically noted by one instructional designer, “I feel like, at times, And I think we’re

all doing this right now, is I feel more like I’m a technical service desk.” The sentiment

of this statement, and those who provided similar accounts bring into light the
 115

relationship that may need to exist between instructional designers and those who provide

technical support for instructional technologies.

While there is undoubtedly some overlap in the duties and knowledge of those

who use instructional technologies for the design and development of instruction and

those who provide technical support for such technologies, a clear delineation should

likely be established during a time of a crisis. The miscalculation of these two roles is

likely not at fault of the faculty, especially if said faculty have not worked with an

instructional designer in the past. As noted by Fyle et al., (2012) and Liu et al., (2002),

instructional designers need to possess a working knowledge of how to use instructional

technologies in order to reach specific pedagogical goals. However, as noted by Kumar

and Ritzhaupt (2017), this working knowledge gets convoluted with providing

technological support for such tools.

From the research at hand, it is clear that the faculty who worked with the

instructional designers in this study needed both assistance with tools to reach

pedagogical goals and also help from a technical aspect. As reported by several

instructional designers in this study, they had taken on both roles of being consultative in

nature about how to use the technology to aid in instructional and also troubleshooting

from a technical standpoint. This dilemma brings in a number of questions that should be

addressed from a functional standpoint, particularly when a unit is working during a crisis

period. First and foremost, university leadership (or those in leadership positions of

instructional design units) should try to make explicitly clear what are the core services

provided by instructional designers. While not directly confirmed by the research at hand,
 116

it is easy to speculate that the reason by which faculty approached these instructional

designers with a plethora of technology support questions was that they misunderstood

their role. If this is the case, a clear and thorough messaging to faculty should be provided

to help maintain the integrity of instructional design services, and those provided by units

on campus that do assist with technological support problems.

A suggestion to help mitigate such confusion in the future would be to have a

closer collaboration between instructional design units and those who provide technical

support for instructional technologies. A further suggestion would be to give the

instructional designers working directly with faculty the agency to re-route faculty to

support units if they so choose. While not explored within this study directly, an

interesting question can be derived of why these instructional designers were operating in

a ‘support mode’ and fielding a large number of technology support questions, and if the

same problem was had at other institutions. While that finding is outside the scope of this

study, it would be an interesting field of research as the findings of that study could point

(or confirm) that a greater delineation of duties needs to be had between such support

units for faculty during a crisis period.

Solidifying Identity

The two aforementioned sub-themes of working in a “minimalist mode” and “in a

support mode” bring in the much larger question about instructional design as a

profession. More specifically, how instructional design has (or has not) established a

solidified professional identity. As noted by a few of the instructional designers in this

study, the COVID-19 pandemic helped with this in some regards. Most noticeably, one
 117

participant commented, “Many people have realized the importance of having a designer

and how the designers can help them improve their courses and design their courses and

do everything in consideration to best practice in the field [of teaching and learning].”

However, this statement, and those provided by the other instructional designers, do not

explicitly state which services they provided to faculty to make them realize the

importance of working with an instructional designer. If, as noted in this study,

instructional designers were providing services outside of the traditional role (such as

technology-based support) it is worth questioning what other types of services these

instructional designers were providing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, it is not at the fault of the instructional designers if they were providing

non-traditional services within their role. As noted by researchers such as Kumar &

Ritzhaupt (2017), Boyle (2011), and Fyle et al. (2012), instructional designers take on a

plethora of different roles within the administration of an institution. As such, the

individual working capacity of an instructional designer may change from others that

exist within the unit. While not fully explored within this study, it is well within

questioning if the job duties and roles of these instructional designers varied between the

different designers. If so, the variance in job duties could lead to a multitude of confusion

for faculty in regard to what services an instructional designer provides and what they do

not. This idea would help to support the notion that there was an uptick in the amount of

support these instructional designers provided for a technology support aspect. If this is

the case, this further supports the idea of having a firm communication plan delineating

the services provided by instructional designers and those in technology support units.
 118

However, this plan of communication may be more difficult as the profession of

instructional design continues to evolve. As noted earlier in Chapter 2, instructional

designers take on a large number of peripheral roles within academic institutions

including being researchers, supporting innovative programs or initiatives by the

university, and serving on administrative committees. Therefore, if instructional

designers are expected to provide such an array of services, it would make sense that

confusion would surround the profession by those who do not have a firm understanding

of the role. As indicated by the study at hand, this became problematic of the interviewed

instructional designers as they became entrenched in duties that were seemingly outside

of the scope of their traditional duties. This finding leads to the idea that instructional

design units should be able to provide a very clear description of what their function is,

most importantly, to faculty and those units that utilize their services. However, it also

brings up a much broader question about what the core function of instructional designers

should be.

Within the scope of this study, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the instructional

designers in this study to focus on a very minimal approach to instructional design, but

that is not to assume that the designers ceased to perform their duties outside of course

design. The larger question at hand, mainly for the profession at large, is what minimal

functions of an instructional designer should be. Furthermore, the question of

professional identity should be questioned as instructional designers are seemingly taking

on more unique roles within colleges and universities. While the findings of this research
 119

do not aim to directly answer these questions, the findings nonetheless support this area

of future research and inquiry.

The Future

The final sub-theme addressed by the instructional designers in this study

surrounds how instructional designers operate in the future. According to a number of the

instructional designers in this study, the COVID-19 pandemic has been beneficial in

some ways, such as allowing them to work with and develop relationships with a large

number of faculty at Ohio University. As a by-product of the development of these

relationships a number of instructional designers noted that faculty will begin to rely

more on instructional designers in the future.

However, the idea that faculty will rely on instructional designers more in the

future brings up a number of considerations, mainly about how faculty will use

instructional designers moving forward. As previously discussed in this chapter, and by

the accounts given by the instructional designers in this study, there was a somewhat

convoluted interpretation of the services the instructional designers provided. Mainly, the

instructional designers in this study noted that the largest misinterpretation was that they

acted in a “technical support” capacity to help troubleshoot technology-based issues.

Therefore, it becomes clear that a question should be asked about in what capacity

instructional designers will be used in the future. If faculty are mainly concerned with

troubleshooting technology issues, as opposed to, using instructional design from a

pedagogical standpoint, does that change the function of the instructional designer?

While the study at hand did not directly measure to what degree technical support was
 120

requested from these instructional designers, the participants made it clear that it had a

somewhat significant impact on their work. Moreover, it could be inferred that the effect

also had a significant effect on their professional identity as instructional designers.

While this study did not investigate the larger population of instructional

designers in the field to see if they had a similar experience, it nonetheless brings into

more global questions that can be applicable to this population. For example, if

instructional designers are going to be relied on more in the future by faculty, and if there

is a seemingly misunderstood conception of their job, this needs to be remedied to

maintain the integrity of the profession. As a means of combating this, a strong

communication plan and stance on what instructional designers actually do could go a far

way. In some ways, the pandemic may have aided in this pursuit as instructional

designers were forced to work in a minimalist capacity. This minimalist capacity could

help to illuminate what the essential functions of an instructional designer are, which

would be helpful for those looking to employ their services. Furthermore, the

identification of such services would help to solidify the professional identity of

instructional designers, that is seemingly getting stretched with a growing number of job

variations and duties that may not remain consistent between everyone in the field.

Summary of Finding 1

In summary, the first finding of this study in regard to how instructional designers

work with faculty during a crisis period illuminated a number of interesting points. First,

the instructional designers in this study noted that their work shifted into a minimalist

approach to help faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic. This minimalist approach was
 121

perpetuated by a large influx of work for the instructional designers, of which, a

significant amount was related to technology troubleshooting. Combined together, the

influx of work, the minimalist approach to instructional design, and the assisting of

technology troubleshooting also raised a number of questions surrounding the

professional identity of these instructional designers. This combination also led to a

number of the instructional designers predicting that their use and work with faculty in

the future was set to increase in volume. If the prediction of these designers comes to

fruition, it would be an interesting area of study to see what the long-term effects the

COVID-19 pandemic has had on the profession of instructional design.

Finding 2: Balancing Best Practices During a Time of Crisis

The second major theme addressed in this study was how instructional designers

balanced best practices in pedagogy and technology during a crisis period. As noted

earlier, the instructional designers in this study navigated the crisis by approaching their

work from a minimalist perspective. However, the second theme of this study dives

deeper into what this approach looks like, more specifically, from a perspective of

balancing best practices. As noted earlier, instructional designers aim to assist faculty in

the creation of courses and instructional programming that uses best practices in teaching

and instruction. However, the COVID-19 pandemic poised to position a number of

constraints on just how instructional designers went about recommending these best

practices to faculty. This theme, and its subsequent sub-themes, aimed at addressing this

question directly.
 122

Working with the Constraint of Time

The first sub-theme related to this topic was how the aspect of time influenced

how instructional designers in this study suggested best practices with faculty. As noted

by a number of the instructional designers in this study, the increased influx of work,

compounded with time constraints strongly influenced how they approach best practices

with faculty. One of the largest reasons for this time constraint was caused by the mass

migration of in-person courses to an online format because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

As a result of this, a number of instructional designers noted how this immediacy and

“reactionary design” influenced how they approached suggesting best pedagogical

practices with faculty. As noted by one of the instructional designers in the study, “I

suggest best practices, but most of the time there’s just not time because faculty are

working day by day to be ready for the next one.”

This account brings up a variety of interesting questions that can be poised about

the practice of instructional design. If instructional design relies on methods and theories

that aim to optimize instruction for students, is that actually possible to achieve during a

crisis period? As noted earlier, the instructional designers relied on a minimalist approach

to their role during the COVID-19 pandemic. This approach, according to a number of

the designers, caused them to operate in an abbreviated capacity compared to their

traditional role as instructional designers. This sentiment, therefore, aims to question if

traditional instructional design theories and models are still operable during a crisis

period. Furthermore, if traditional instructional design theories and models are not able to

be implemented, then to what extent are instructional designers useful during a crisis
 123

period? As noted by one of the instructional designers in this study, “Now my role as a

designer is ok, ‘I have x amount of time which isn’t enough amount of time, how best can

I put this [a course] in a different modality that at least I can deliver some form of

learning till the end of the semester?’ Because we are rushing to do things rather than

actually designing, taking deliberate decisions to accomplish things.” This sentiment,

combined with earlier accounts of these instructional designers being significantly relied

on for technology troubleshooting brings into question to what extent instructional design

is actually needed during a crisis period.

However, this question was partially answered by the instructional designers in

this study who reported that faculty were more receptive to trying new things related to

best practices in teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to one

of the instructional designers in the study, “I’m finding myself now, talking more and

more about best practice because they’re [faculty] now more receptive.” This account,

and others provided by the instructional designers in this study, bring up larger questions

as to why faculty were more willing to adopt best practices compared to a non-crisis time

period. While this study did not directly address this question, it is certainly worth further

investigation. A possible explanation for this openness for adoption may have been

perpetuated by the opportunity for faculty to innovate or modify their instructional

practices as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the case of these instructional

designers, and of Ohio University, the COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity and

platform for faculty to innovate their instructional practice. However, this opportunity
 124

lends itself to a much larger conversation around how concepts such as faculty autonomy

and academic freedom were approached during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Faculty Autonomy and Academic Freedom

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a large number of institutions to move their

in-person courses to an online format. During the time the instructional designers for this

study were interviewed, their university was in the middle of this transition. This

transition was not only an interesting undertaking from a logistics perspective, but also

from a perspective with relation to how faculty work. In particular, the forced

mobilization of in-person courses to an online environment seemingly by-passed many

institution structures, such as faculty autonomy and academic freedom. While this study

does not go into detail in regard to how these structures were mitigated during the crisis,

the instructional designers in this study had to take them into consideration when working

with faculty during the crisis period.

However, the instructional designers in this study mainly noted that faculty were

more open to trying new things in regard to their instructional methods. As noted by one

of the instructional designers, “The response [from faculty on using new technology], I

haven’t had any resistance from anyone.” Other accounts provided by the instructional

designers noted a similar mindset from the faculty they were working with. This

openness to innovation is an interesting concept considering the COVID-19 pandemic

forced many faculty to adapt their teaching, without regard to faculty autonomy and

academic freedom. As noted earlier in Chapter 2, faculty are not always exempt from

particular constraints when it comes to their teaching. For example, external

 125

accreditation, state authorization, and federal mandates all have taken their toll, to some

degree, on faculty autonomy and academic freedom. The COVID-19 pandemic presents

another area of constraint on these structures; however, the response by the faculty as

noted in this study, seemed to take this constraint as an opportunity to innovate their

teaching practices.

Leading by Example

The instructional designers in this study used this openness to innovation to their

benefit, and also encouraged the practice by nudging faculty. By ‘nudging’, the

instructional designers seemed to encourage and work with faculty to try new things

during the COVID-19 pandemic, in relation to their teaching. This tactic seemingly

aimed to capitalize on the faculty’s willingness to shift their instructional teaching

methods and use of technology. As noted by one of the instructional designers in this

study, “I think faculty got more comfortable with doing things online, that now is the

time I’m just starting to introduce those new tools just a little bit.” This sentiment was

shared by other instructional designers involved in this study where faculty were open to

shifting their traditional approaches to instruction for new methods or modalities. The

instructional designers in this study noted that their approach in nudging faculty to

innovate involved a soft approach, often comparing these new methods with what faculty

have done previously, as to not overwhelm them with too many new things at once.

The approach to nudging faculty is not necessarily a new concept, but one that

should be carefully looked at from the perspective of instructional design. As noted

earlier in this study, the profession of instructional design is often confusing to

 126

understand, due to the seemingly differentiated services provided by instructional

designers. Furthermore, the identity of instructional designers can, in the case of these

instructional designers, become convoluted in regard to assisting with the use of

instructional technologies. However, as noted by some of the literature, many faculty

have not worked with instructional designers before, which could seemingly lead to

apprehension to their suggestions as experts in the field of teaching and instruction

(Halupa, 2019). As noted by Miller & Stein (2016), this misunderstanding can often lead

to an unwelcome reception from the suggestions of instructional designers with relation

to working with faculty.

However, the instructional designers in this study noted that faculty were

generally receptive to new suggestions amidst the changes brought on the COVID-19

pandemic. While the cause of this could be due to a multitude of factors, the instructional

designers in this study seemed to capitalize on it by taking a soft touch approach to

working with faculty in regard to suggesting best practices for teaching and learning.

While it was not identified in this study if this is the general approach used by this

specific instructional design unit, it does nonetheless bring into a much larger question

about how instructional designers take about theory and methods when working with

faculty. As noted earlier, the field of instructional design comprises a number of

complicated theories and methods that could be viewed as foreign to someone outside of

the field. A strong handed approach to integrate these methods and theories could be seen

as dictatorial; acting in a means to usurp the faculty member (Halupa, 2019).

 127

As instructional design is primarily a service-based role, a service-based approach

should be a common practice as to how designers work with faculty. More specifically,

the role of the instructional designer is there to support a faculty members capacity to be

an instructor. A strong handed approach to instructional design with faculty members

(and other subject matter experts) could be detrimental to the mutual goal of both parties

aiming to enhance the student learning experience. From the account of the instructional

designers in this study, a gentle nudging approach seemed to work well for them in

balancing best practices in instructional and technology, even during a crisis period.

While the concept of instructional design approaches should be an area of further inquiry,

the account of these instructional designers compliment that approach that resembles a

soft touch; one that respects faculty autonomy and academic freedom, without also

bearing down faculty with extensive theory.

Using Professional Judgement

The approach by the instructional designers in this study with faculty during the

COVID-19 pandemic was strongly influenced by their ability to exercise professional

judgement. Furthermore, this ability to use professional judgement was a keen ability that

aided in helping balance best practices in instruction during the transition of many in-

person courses to an online modality. The study at hand provided an in-depth and

interesting look at how these instructional designers decided to exercise their use of

professional judgement in the way they provided services to faculty during the COVID-

19 pandemic.
 128

The instructional designers in this study provided a number of means by which

they exercised professional judgement with faculty in regards to implementing best

practices in teaching and instruction. For example, one designer noted, “I like to talk with

them and may size up who I think they are, what their values are, what’s important to

them, how receptive they are to different kinds of feedback, and then either introduce or

not introduce new technology.” This type of approach seemingly embodies a soft touch

approach, while also respecting the faculty’s right to autonomy. Other instructional

designers noted a similar type of approach, for example, another designer noted, “I’ve

always been reluctant to discuss best practices. Like the first time I work with a faculty

member, I try not to be too preachy, but just sort of let that come out organically during

the design process.” Again, this type of approach aims to not inundate faculty with

stringent instructional design theory, but to allow for both the instructional designer and

the faculty member to naturally come to a middle ground on their approach to teaching

and instruction.

As stated earlier in this chapter, and supported by the findings in this sub-theme,

instructional designers seem to benefit from the position of being able to use professional

judgement in the approach they take for their profession. With regard to the topic at hand,

this strategy seemingly worked for the instructional designers in this study with regard to

suggesting best practices with faculty during a crisis period. What this finding also

suggests is that there might not be a ‘one size fits all’ approach for instructional designers

and their work with faculty. This idea brings into some serious questions with regard to
 129

the methods and theories of instructional design that have perpetuated the field for so

long.

If instructional design is to be viewed as a service that can be employed, within

the case of this study, in higher education, then instructional designers need to be very

clear and adherent to the concepts of faculty autonomy and academic freedom. Without a

clear understanding of this, instructional designers may be perceived by faculty as

somewhat authoritative in such a structured approach to the profession (Halupa, 2019).

Furthermore, as noted by Kumar and Ritzhaupt (2017), instructional designers need to be

able to ascertain faculty “buy-in”, which strongly relies on communication skills. An

inability to do this, would likely result in a failed approach to assist a faculty member in

improving their instructional practice. This scenario therefore brings into questions the

argument of if “instructional design” as defined as the use of “systematic instructional

planning including needs assessment, development, evaluation, implementation, and

maintenance of material and programs” (Koszalka et al., 2014, p. 147), is even possible if

faculty buy-in is not attained. Alternatively, the basis of “systematic instructional

planning” becomes problematic if faculty do not agree to completely follow the

processes. As such, we arrive back to a question that was posed earlier in this chapter

about what a minimalist approach to instructional design looks like. Furthermore, it could

be speculated that if faculty decide not to follow the systematic approach to instruction

poised by instructional designers, is instructional design even possible? These more

global questions, while not answered by this study, can be seen as somewhat existential
 130

questions to the field of instructional design. Yet, they remain essential to answer as

instructional designers become more integrated into the fabric of higher education.

Furthermore, instructional designers need to be cognizant of the training, or lack

thereof, faculty have in regard to teaching and pedagogy. According to Alsop (2018),

“teaching remains undervalued in the context of doctoral training and the profession at

large.” Therefore, it is important while taking initiative with faculty for a designer to

remember that they may have more pedagogical training than the faculty they are

working with. This value-added expertise can be of extreme value in improving the

pedagogical practices of the faculty member the designer is working with. Furthermore, it

can allow for an opportunity for the instructional designer to demonstrate their value and

the value of instructional design to the faculty member they are working with.

However, what this study does illuminate is the benefit of allowing agency to

instructional designers to approach their craft as they see fit. This approach was

beneficial for the instructional designers in this study, in particular with their approach to

working with faculty to adopt best practice in teaching and learning during a crisis

period. The COVID-19 pandemic and the quick transition of in-person courses presented

a scenario where people needed to quickly adapt their practice to meet the needs of the

learners they are looking to support. Instructional designers should be no different in that

an abbreviated approach to their craft should not only be viewed as appropriate by the

profession at large, but identified as an area for future inquiry. A look at how

instructional designers can be used in a rapid, fast-moving capacity could have a

significant benefit for colleges and universities that are looking at responding to facets
 131

such as market demand for new programs. Colleges and universities that can rapidly

respond to such a volatile market, particularly within higher education, could be in a very

fruitful position to expand and outpace their competition. While the COVID-19 crisis did

not help to fully determine what this looks like from a functional standpoint, it

nonetheless highlighted the importance of knowing how to rapidly use instructional

designers, not only for the continuity of curricular offerings, but how they can be used in

a rapid capacity to further the educational agenda of an institution.

Summary of Finding 2

In summary the second finding of this study illuminated the question on how

instructional designers balanced best practices with faculty during a crisis period. The

instructional designers in this study further illuminated their approach during the

COVID-19 pandemic by describing their approach as “reactionary”, mainly due to time

constraints. This brought into question a much larger discussion on if instructional design

is even possible during a crisis period, when compared with traditional models and

theories.

The instructional designers in this study also illuminated the fact that faculty were

willing and receptive to trying new instructional methods and technologies during the

pandemic. While the question of why this is was not aimed at being answered by the

study and hand, it nonetheless brings up an interesting area of inquiry. However, the

instructional designers saw this as an opportunity to approach faculty with new

instructional methods and technologies with respect to faculty autonomy and academic

freedom. In doing so, the instructional designers moved towards an approach of

 132

‘nudging’ faculty, instead of a heavy-handed approach to the adoption of new teaching

methods and technologies. This approach was seemingly beneficial for the instructional

designers in this study, and also the faculty they worked with during the COVID-19

pandemic.

Finally, the instructional designers relied on the use of professional judgement in

their approach to working with faculty during this crisis period. This approach, as

opposed to one requiring a systematic and stepwise process, seemed to benefit the

instructional designers in this study. This approach, while somewhat juxtaposed to

traditional approaches to instructional design, may present an opportunity to revisit some

of the core components of instructional design. While that is a much larger task and

outside the scope of this study, it nonetheless presents an opportunity to raise big

questions about the profession and what it looks like within a shifting higher education

environment.

Finding 3: Innovation and Communication During A Crisis

The final theme illuminated by the study at hand addressed how instructional

designers used communication to assist faculty with innovating their instructional

practice during a crisis period. As addressed in this chapter, the instructional designers

noted that during the COVID-19 pandemic the faculty they worked with were generally

open to the idea of innovating their instructional practices. While the cause of this was

not specifically identified in this study, one potential cause of this may have been with

the communicative approach taken by the instructional designers at Ohio University. This
 133

final theme aims to take a look at this approach and compare it with the theoretical

framework underlying this study: Innovation Diffusion Theory.

The Opportunity for Innovation

As noted earlier in this chapter, the faculty who worked with instructional

designers at Ohio University during the COVID-19 generally showed an interest and

appetite for innovation. As specifically noted by one of the instructional designers in this

study, “I think it’s [the pandemic] really kind of shaken up their [faculty] routine and

gotten them to think differently about how content can be delivered. So, that’s been really

exciting.” This sentiment was shared by a number of other instructional designers who

noted a positive outlook and approach to innovation during a crisis period. Most

interestingly, an area that was illuminated by this research was that the instructional

designers in this study actually had to reel back some faculty from trying to be too

innovative or disruptive during the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted by another

instructional designer, they accounted, “It’s almost pulling them back from some new

technologies because it’s not a great time to start something that could be more

detrimental to students.” The idea of pulling faculty back can also be attested to these

instructional designers' ability to exercise professional judgement during the COVID-19

pandemic.

While not directly investigated by the study at hand, it is an interesting area of

inquiry as to why innovation seemingly peaked for these instructional designers. It could

be speculated that since faculty were forced to change their teaching modality, that they

were open to other changes as well. Furthermore, it could be speculated that faculty were
 134

introduced to teaching methods and practices not known to them prior to the COVID-19

pandemic While these are all speculations at this point, it does bring about a conversation

about how instructional designers can respond positively to faculty that are wanting and

willing to adapt their instructional practices. As noted earlier, instructional designers are

entering more diverse spaces within the higher education landscape. One of which is to

assist or be a catalyst for innovation at colleges and universities. For example, the

instructional designers in this study work for Ohio University’s Office of Instructional

Innovation. Thus, as the name implies, that those working in the office should have some

capacity for introducing and facilitating the adoption of innovative approaches to

instruction.

This idea brings some larger questions into play, such as how units like Ohio

University’s Office of Instructional Innovation defines “innovation”. Moreover, it would

be interesting to investigate how the field of instructional design defines innovation and

plans for it during their systematic approaches to instructional planning. One could also

take a deeper dive and question if there is room for innovation within a systematic

approach to instruction. If faculty are not given the room to explore, test, experiment, and

revise their instructional methods, then does a construct like instructional design stagnate

a faculty’s ability to be innovative? While these questions are speculative and outside the

scope of the study at hand, they nonetheless are important questions to answer. As

instructional designers work on the front lines with faculty who are in innovative spaces,

they should possess an ability to help nurture and guide such ideas.
 135

What is at stake if instructional designers cannot help to successfully facilitate

faculty innovation is progress within the field of teaching and learning. Moreover,

without the ability to help sprout new and innovative ideas, colleges and universities

could potentially fall victim to operating with old and dated instructional methods and

technologies. Therefore, departments like Ohio University’s Instructional Innovation,

should have a firm grasp on how they define and approach innovation, within the context

of working with faculty. Units that take a strong approach to this will be well off to help

faculty who are looking to be on the forefront of their instructional practice.

Innovation, Administration, and the Future

However, a strong approach to innovation not only needs to be had by

instructional design units that aim to support such ventures, other administrative units

need to have the same as well. In the case of the instructional designers in this study, the

administration was heavily reliant on their ability to foster the uptick in innovation

brought on by the faculty of Ohio University during the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted

by one of the instructional designers, “Our team has been asked to create a strategy to

lead the entire institution to the switch online.” The participant further clarified their

statement by explaining, “There’s definitely more to do [work for instructional

designers]. And there’s less..all of our leadership is focused. So, we’re required to lead

from place and innovative in this time of opportunity.” Another instructional designer

noted a similar account by saying, “I think we’re just getting that change to strike out, try

a few things, collaborate in ways that we didn’t have time to do before and show finished

products that people can get behind and get on board with that I think is really kind of
 136

interesting. So, we’re able to innovate in a lot more flexible way not that we just couldn't’

do previously.”

The comments by these two instructional designers bring up a number of

interesting points that should be addressed. First, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the

administration of Ohio University clearly relied on instructional designers to help in the

transition face-to-face instruction. However, there was also a significant reliance on this

group to help foster and relate the innovative ideas faculty were proposing during a crisis

period. This point reinforces an idea proposed earlier about instructional designers (and

instructional design units as a whole) having a firm grasp on how to approach, facilitate,

and nurture innovative ideas proposed by faculty. However, this approach needs to be

firmly resourced and supported by top-level administration to ensure its ability to

succeed.

However, one of the instructional designers brought up a comment regarding

“mandating” in relation to the use of specific instructional technologies moving into the

future. As accounted by the instructional designer, “I think there is going to be an implied

mandate moving forward that faculty members must use university-provided, or

enterprise solution technologies in specific ways, and I think we’ve already heard

administration hint at things like that.” The instructional designer future clarified that,

“What we know about technology use in mandatory settings compared to voluntary

settings is that the motivation is very different and I do think that instructional designers

will play an important role in helping navigate those new expectations.”

 137

The account by this instructional design brings up a number of important

considerations with regard to how administration approaches mandating the use of

technology and instructional methods, as opposed to, allowing faculty to chart their own

path forward. This is ultimately a complicated question as it toes the line between what is

within the respective realm of university decision making and faculty autonomy.

However, somewhere within these lines resides the instructional designer, who is a

service provider to faculty, and should not necessarily be seen as someone who is

enforcing decisions. As suggested by Halupa (2019), superseding faculty can have a

detrimental effect between an instructional designer and faculty member. Thus, pinning

the instructional designer as a “middle man” between institutional mandates and the

faculty could be detrimental to the instructional designer’s work and could potentially

stifle a faculty member's willingness to innovate and improve their instructional practice.

We therefore revisit the idea suggested earlier in this chapter about providing very

clear communication around what instructional design is and what instructional designers

do with a college or university. Without such a clear ability to communicate, the

profession (and those in such roles) could potentially see themselves operating within a

convoluted space. Moreover, if there is confusion amongst the instructional designers as

to their primary purpose and role, it will subsequently be difficult for faculty to

understand it as well. For example, in this case study, the faculty saw many of these

instructional designers as technical support for instructional technologies, as opposed to,

what their primary function should be. What is apparent through the COVID-19

pandemic is that communication channels surrounding instructional services at a college

 138

or university need to be prioritized. Not only does this prioritization service the people

that occupy such positions, they also serve those who are patrons of that service, who are

ultimately the faculty.

Communication Methods and Approaches

While a large amount of this discussion has surrounded the idea of clear

communication, the definition of services, and the purpose of instructional design, this

study also illuminated how specifically instructional designers at Ohio University used

communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. By far the most apparent approach

taken by these instructional designers was that of developing a strong rapport and

relationship with the faculty members they were working with. As noted earlier in

Chapter 2, the instructional designer and faculty relationship is one that can be easily

complicated, due to a misunderstanding of roles and power dynamics. However, as noted

by the instructional designers in this study, the ability to build rapport and develop a solid

working relationship with faculty supports the agenda of both parties. This type of

support and trust-building can be viewed as somewhat essential when working with a

crisis period.

The means by which these instructional designers built rapport and relationships

with faculty was somewhat varied, but strongly relied on communication. In particular,

the instructional designers within this study relied on using empathy as a mechanism for

building relationships with faculty. As noted by one of the instructional designers, “I try

to be really, really sympathetic and I try to empathize with the faculty member who has

the responsibilities far beyond what they come to me asking about.” This was echoed by
 139

another designer who mentioned that, “But now, because it’s a crisis we are supposed to

really understand and be very understanding.” The ability to empathize and understand

the position of a faculty member not only takes a working knowledge of how institutions

work, but also the role of a faculty member specifically. Therefore, it could be suggested

that it is inherently important for instructional designers at large to have a firm

understanding of what it means to be a faculty member at a college of institution. A deep

understanding of the role that instructional designers aim to support not only benefits the

instructional designer, but the faculty member. This type of understanding could also go a

long way of preserving the relationship between the two roles, which may culminate in a

more productive working relationship. Conversely, the understanding of the faculty

member as to the roles and responsibilities of an instructional designer can help to

mitigate misunderstood misconceptions such as relying on instructional designers for

technology support, which was expressed by the instructional designers in this study.

Using Agency

Another means by which instructional designers operated with faculty during the

COVID-19 pandemic was that by taking initiative. As addressed earlier in this chapter,

professional judgement was exercised regularly by the instructional designers in this

study. However, the ability to take initiative and exercise a ‘learning by doing’ approach,

can be seen through a communication lens. More specifically, the instructional designers

in this study seemed to use the agency and ability to take initiative as a means of breaking

through with faculty, to help and support their ideas and means by which to innovate

during the COVID-19 pandemic. As noted by one of the instructional designers in this
 140

study, “So they [faculty] allow me room to research, they allow me room to investigate

best practice around what they're trying to do, and then we start to move into solutions or

creative discussions back and forth.” This agency also provided an opportunity for these

instructional designers to negotiate with faculty in regards to the use of best practices in

teaching and technology. For example, another instructional designer noted that “It’s a

matter of negotiating with the faculty, negotiating with yourself, and having a very

realistic goal in mind.”

The accounts of these instructional designers and their ability to take initiative in

their work with faculty brings up an interesting conversation around trust and

communication. For faculty to relinquish some of their control over their teaching to an

instructional designer shows that trust can be built between the two. It is within this type

of trust that instructional designers gain agency to exercise their expertise within the

realm of teaching and learning. As noted in Chapter Two, power dynamics do play a part

within the instructional design and faculty working relationship (Drysdale, 2019).

However, being able to communicate and build trust despite issues that may arise is a

specific skills instructional designers may be able to learn.

This idea brings up a much larger question about how instructional designer’s are

trained, mainly, in the way of interpersonal communication. If, as suggested by the

instructional designers in this study, communication should be prioritized throughout an

instructional designers course of study. The benefits are clear that those who are able to

communicate their respective role as an instructional designer may be suited to work in

the higher education environment than those who are not. This case study shows an
 141

example of this as many faculty initially mistook working with instructional designers as

working with someone who provides support for instructional technologies. However,

being able to overcome this barrier led these instructional designers to exercise

professional judgement and foster innovative approaches to teaching and learning with

the faculty they were working with. This ability presumably positioned these instructional

designers to be successful in their work with faculty, even during a crisis period.

Along with the idea of interpersonal communication training for instructional

designers comes the idea of rapport and relationship building. As noted earlier in this

chapter, building rapport and relationships with faculty using strategies such as empathy

building seemed to strongly benefit these instructional designers. Thus, as part of an

increased move to train instructional designers on communication methods, there should

also be training on tactics for relationship building. As noted by Halupa (2019), the

instructional designer and faculty relationship needs to be carefully managed by both

sides, but strongly relies on the ability of the instructional designer. From a functional

standpoint, if an instructional designer is unable to gain faculty buy-in to what they are

suggesting, the goal of using instructional design may be severely compromised. Other

situations that may occur is that if faculty are mandated to work with an instructional

designer. While not covered within the scope of this study, it can be presumed that this

approach could have significant problems, such as a determinant to faculty autonomy.

Therefore, the importance of communication training for instructional designers should

not be understated and should be a much broader area of future research. In doing so,

instructional designers will be well equipped to navigate the interpersonal relationship

 142

that exists between them and faculty. Moreover, instructional design as a profession will

continue to solidify itself within the field of higher education, setting itself apart from

those who are in roles that provide technological support.

Comparison to Innovation Diffusion Theory

Aside from just identifying the types of communication methods and strategies

the instructional designers in this case study used, a goal of this research was to compare

it to the strategies outlined within Innovation Diffusion Theory. As noted in earlier

chapters, Innovation Diffusion Theory was the underlying theoretical framework for this

study. Pioneered by the work of Everett Rogers, Innovation Diffusion Theory takes a

strong position of how new ideas are adopted by societal groups. More specifically,

Rogers framework draws largely the importance of the diffusion of innovations, which

refers to how innovations are adopted by groups of individuals. This process, as outlined

by Rogers, relies on four main components such as: 1) the innovation itself, 2)

communication channels, 3) time, and 4) social systems. For the scope of this study, the

component of communication channels was to be a primary focus. Mainly, how

instructional designers used the communicative components of Innovation Diffusion

Theory to support the adoption of innovative instructional methods and technologies

during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The first component of comparing the account of the instructional designers in

this study to Innovation Diffusion Theory is to look at how their work compared to the

framework. More specifically, the aim for this research was to see how the work of the

instructional designers during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the five stages of the
 143

Innovation Decision Process. The Innovation Decision Process is a sub-framework of

Innovation Diffusion Theory that aims to account for the process by which someone (or a

group of individuals) goes from obtaining knowledge of an innovation to a confirmation

that such innovation is beneficial and successfully adopted. The Innovation Decision

Process is mainly composed of five different stages including, 1) knowledge, 2)

persuasion, 3) decision, 4) implementation, and 5) confirmation.

From the account of the instructional designers in this study, a number of them

accounted for the stages of the Innovation Decision Process. For example, the

instructional designers within this study were positioned during the COVID-19 pandemic

to help shift a large number of in-person, faculty-led courses to the online environment.

This included both faculty who have taught online before, as well as, faculty who have

never taught online before. In this respect, the instructional designers were tasked with

introducing this concept, and the subsequent supporting technologies, to those faculty

members who have never used them before. As accounted by the instructional designers

in this study, their approach involved a minimalist approach to their instructional design

approach. This minimalist approach can be interpreted with the frame of the Innovation

Decision Process as providing minimal exposure to innovations, within the context of

teaching and technology. This approach taken by the instructional designers was

accounted for by suggesting that time was mainly the greatest constraint they were facing

during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, other constraints also played into their

decision making process such as faculty autonomy and administrative mandates. Another

interesting aspect to the scenario for these instructional designers was that faculty did not
 144

necessarily have a choice of whether or not to adopt online teaching as a methodology

during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, the instructional designers in this study were

responsible for being knowledgeable experts on online learning, as well as, the teaching

methodologies and technologies to help facilitate successful learning during the

pandemic.

As the instructional designers passed through the various stages of the Innovation

Decision Process, it should be noted that the means by which they communicated with

faculty provided a means by which to account their process. For example, in regards to

persuading faculty to adopt or form a favorable opinion of innovation, the instructional

designers were accompanied by a number of scenarios. First, the instructional designers

relied on a number of communication-based techniques to help faculty in the process of

innovating their instructional practices during a time of crisis. For example, the

instructional designers in this study relied on a number of methods and techniques for

building rapport and relationships with the faculty they were working with. This

approach seemingly helped to facilitate the persuasion aspect of the Innovation Decision

Process. According to Rogers (2003) the persuasion stage of the Innovation Decision

Process involves having individuals (or societal groups) form a favorable (or

unfavorable) opinion towards an innovation. To assist in the facilitation of this process,

the instructional designers strongly relied on their ability to form relationships and a

rapport with the faculty they were working with.

The process of building these relationships also benefited from these instructional

designers being able to exercise their professional judgement and decision making. This
 145

correlates with the “decision” stage of the Innovation Decision Process, where

individuals take part in actions that lead to the acceptance (or rejection) of an innovation.

The instructional designers in this study accomplished this by a number of means, in

particular, by their approach to nudge faculty towards the adoption of new technologies

and methods during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, using professional

judgement to obtain agency gave instructional designers a level playing field when it

came to the instructional designer-faculty relationship. This level playing field seemingly

allowed for mutual decision making between the instructional designer and faculty in

regard to the adoption of new and/or innovative teaching methods and technologies.

Along with playing a role in the first three stages of the Innovation Decision

Process, the instructional designers in this study also acted within a capacity to help

faculty implement best practices in instructional and technology during the COVID-19

pandemic. The implementation stage of the Innovation Decision Process revolves around

an individual (or group) decides to put a new idea into use. The instructional designers in

this study noted that they were involved with helping the faculty to this with regard to

implementing new teaching methods and technologies. However, this does not suggest

that each and every innovation was acted upon and implemented by the faculty. As noted

earlier, the instructional designers used their professional judgement to mitigate the risks

and benefits of the implementation of such innovations. Furthermore, the instructional

designers in this study were significantly compromised by time, as they had little time to

work with faculty to implement large-scale innovations.

 146

The account of the instructional designers helping faculty through the

implementation state of the Innovation Diffusion Process brings up a number of

interesting points. First, this application of instructional designers can be a testament to

their utility and use within higher education. Furthermore, it moves to show that

instructional designers can occupy a unique space to help nurture and promote

innovation. A combination of knowledge around instructional methods, design, and

learning science makes an instructional designer a unique service provider for faculty.

Within this capacity, an instructional designer can be a helpful “change agent” who can

assist faculty in helping them reach their pedagogical goals. Furthermore, instructional

designers can be well poised to help administration make decisions, particularly around

curriculum and program development.

The final stage of the Innovation Decision Process revolves around

“confirmation”, that is, when an individual or group seeks reinforcement around their

decision to adopt an innovation. Because this study was bounded within a very specific

timeframe, the data did not necessarily capture how the instructional designers navigated

the final stage of the Innovation Decision Process. However, it should be noted that

future studies of a similar nature can be broader in scope to help capture what this final

stage of the Innovation Decision Process looks like. More specifically, the idea brings up

more interesting questions around the entirety of the Innovation Decision Process and

what that looks like during a crisis period. As noted by the instructional designers in this

study, the appetite for innovation was strong for many of the faculty they were working

with. Future studies can attempt to account for why this rise in innovation occurred.
 147

Furthermore, future studies could also take a more longitudinal measurement of how

these innovations, if adopted during a crisis period, persisted after the crisis period had

subsided.

Communication Channels

Another component of Innovation Diffusion Theory that was applicable to this

study was that of Communication Channels. As noted by Rogers (2003), communication

channels are “the means by which messages get from one individual to another” (p. 18).

Within the scope of this study, the instructional designers acted as a communication

channel between the faculty and administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. More

specifically, these instructional designers were operating on a front-line capacity with

faculty as they looked to adapt their instructional process because of the crisis period. As

noted earlier in this study, instructional designers are uniquely positioned with faculty to

develop interpersonal relationships. These relationships can be a key factor in helping

faculty reach their pedagogical goals, as well as, working as a conduit by which to usher

in administrative decisions.

Within the scope of this study, the instructional designers mainly used rapport

building and empathy as their main mode of developing communication channels with

faculty. While not captured by the data in this study, it would be interesting to discuss if

that approach is standard by the instructional designers, or if that approach was chosen

because of the crisis period. While the literature is thin on just how exactly instructional

designs go about establishing a rapport or empathy-based communication channel with

faculty, it is surely an interesting topic for future research. As stated earlier in this
 148

chapter, there are a multitude of opportunities to study how instructional designers

communicate with faculty. More specifically, there are opportunities that reside

specifically within how instructional designers approach the concept of innovation,

define it, and encourage it with faculty.

Innovation Diffusion Theory During a Crisis

Another interesting question to ask as a result of this study is to what extent

Innovation Diffusion Theory is applicable to crisis situations. Rogers (2003) does note

that an innovation generally takes some time before its eventual adoption by individuals

and larger societal groups. This therefore gave rise to sub-concepts within his theory and

more specifically, his identification of what defines the rate of innovation adoption.

According to Rodgers (2003) there are five attributes that play into the speed at which an

innovation is adopted. These attributes are: 1) relative advantage, 2) compatibility, 3)

complexity, 4) trialability and 5) observability. Each of these attributes have been

covered in detail in Chapter Two of this study.

An interesting question to ask; however, is just how viable these attributes are

during a crisis period. As noted by the instructional designers in this study, the pandemic

seemingly caused an uptick in the faculty at Ohio University in regard to innovating their

instructional practice. However, as noted by Rogers (2003) and his attributes of the rate

of innovation adoption, time plays a significant role. The instructional designers in this

study noted that time was a primary constraint on their work and the way they approach

the faculty they were working with during the pandemic. As such, we are presented with

another interesting situation with regard to the conversation around innovation.

 149

One major idea that comes to mind in regard to innovation during a crisis period

is if an idea or approach is to be considered “innovative” if there is no option but to adopt

a new idea. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the faculty of Ohio University

(and many other universities) to transition their courses from an in-person modality to

that of an online format. Many of the faculty involved with this did not have a choice on

whether or not they wanted to transition their courses, which leads to the question if

something is innovative if the concept, idea, or process is forced upon someone. This

reverts us back to the question posed earlier about what and/or how innovation is actually

defined. More specifically, within the scope of this study, it would be interesting to

investigate just how instructional designers view innovation through their lens as a

professional. The significance of this area of study could help illuminate how

instructional designers not only define innovation, but approach it, especially as being

conduits in their work with faculty.

Though the instructional designers in this study noted an uptick in the appetite for

innovation by the faculty they were working with, it does call into question as to how

much of the innovative ideas were eventually adopted and persisted post pandemic. As

addressed earlier, this study was bounded within a timeframe that did not allow for the

measurement of such a statistic; however, it would be an interesting question to

investigate. As proposed by Rogers (2003) and his five attributes for innovation adoption,

it is well within the possibility that during a crisis period, there is not enough time for

individuals to transgress these stages. As such, it is worth further investigation as to how

 150

innovations persist post-crisis period, or within a period where an individual or group is

forced

While there is certainly a number of avenues for future research within this

theoretical framework and the work of instructional designers, the framework was

applicable to this study for a number of reasons. In particular, the focus and intersection

between Rogers’ concept of Communication Channels and this study’s attempt to capture

how instructional designers used communication to encourage the use and adoption of

best practices in instruction during was an essential component of this study.

Furthermore, comparing the approach of instructional designers to that of Rogers’

Innovation Decision Process, in particular, during a crisis period was also illuminating

and necessary to answer the primary research questions of this study. Finally, the use of

Innovation Diffusion Theory as a theoretical framework for this study helps to prompt a

number of questions and considerations for future research within the field of

instructional design. In particular, if instructional designers are to be considered “change

agents” moving forward in many colleges and universities, then a number of questions in

regard to instructional design and innovation need to be answered. While not necessarily

within the scope of this research, it has nonetheless opened up a number of avenues by

which to start this line of inquiry and conversation.

Summary of Finding 3

In summary, the third findings of this summary in regard to how instructional

designers communicate with faculty about innovating their instructional practice during a

time of crisis raised a number of interesting points. The instructional designers in this
 151

study noted a rise in the appetite for innovation during this crisis period, but were

significantly constrained by the shortness of time they had to implement such

innovations. While this instance brought up a number of questions around innovation, in

particular, during a crisis period, it also helped to illuminate how these instructional

designers used communication as a mechanism by which to not only foster innovation,

but to implement it during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The main communicative approaches used by these instructional designers

included building relationships with faculty using rapport and empathy. The process by

which to build these relationships stemmed from these instructional designers’ ability to

exercise their professional judgement in their approach to faculty during the COVID-19

pandemic. As such, these instructional designers were able to navigate some of the

complicated situations that arise during the faculty and instructional designer

relationship.

Digging deeper into the communicative methods of instructional designers, the

approach was applicable to be compared to the theoretical framework used with this

study: Innovation Diffusion Theory. As addressed earlier in this chapter, Innovation

Diffusion Theory encompasses a number of frameworks, each dedicated to the study of

how innovations are adopted by an individual or a societal group. Within the context of

this study, the use of the sub-framework of the Innovation Decision Process was used to

illuminate how the instructional designers in this study went about navigating the uptick

of innovation proposed by the faculty at Ohio University.

 152

Furthermore, other sub-frameworks within the larger scope of Innovation

Diffusion Theory, such as Rogers’ (2003) description of Communication Channels and

attributes that define the rate of adoption of innovations, further assisted in helping to

answer the research questions at hand. Moreover, the use of these frameworks helped to

bring about a number of questions for future research around how instructional designers

approach innovation, define it, and more importantly act as a change agent for faculty

looking to push the boundaries of their instructional practice.

Implications of the Study

As addressed throughout this chapter, this study has brought about a number of

implications and conclusions that are helpful to consider for future research. Primarily,

these considerations are related to the three main research questions that drove this study

forward. As such, these implications and conclusions should be viewed within the

specific scope of this study. Also, in consideration should be the fact that this study only

followed one instructional design team through their process of working though the

COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the results of this study are not necessarily relatable to

all instructional designers currently working in the field. However, the conclusions from

this study help to illuminate a number of areas worth further investigation and raise some

big questions about the profession of instructional design.

The first implication that can be drawn from this study is an idea of how some

instructional designers operate within a crisis period. More specifically, the study

illuminated how much of a factor time is with the instructional design process. As noted

by some of the instructional designers in this study, the lack of time to work with faculty
 153

caused them to take a minimalist approach to the profession of instructional design. A

further area of inquiry would be to discuss what exactly composes a minimalist approach,

that is, to consider what are the most essential parts of any instructional design process.

The instructional designers in this study did provide an account of what a minimalist

approach looked like from their perspective; however, a further inquiry into how other

instructional designers work within a minimalist capacity would be well worth studying.

This minimalist approach compared with other instructional design methods and theories

that contain a multitude of steps, could help to provide a larger conversation around what

instructional design is and how it is done.

A second implication that can be drawn is that surrounding the professional

identity of instructional designers. Throughout this study, the instructional designers

noted an increase of faculty coming to them for support in troubleshooting academic

technologies. While there is likely some crossover in the role between an instructional

designer and an IT specialist, there should also be very clear distinctions between the

two. This study helped to show that this misunderstanding still occurs in the higher

education setting, but instructional design units should make it clear what their essential

functions are. Not only will this play a role in solidifying the professional identity of

instructional designers, but be of assistance to faculty, who are the primary client

instructional designers aim to serve. Within the scope of this study, having a firm identity

and defined services can help to prioritize how instructional designers work within a

crisis period, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the solidification of services
 154

can help units outside times of crisis to be more functional and productive in their work

with faculty within the higher education landscape.

A third implication from this study revolves around how instructional designers

balance best practice in instruction during a time of crisis. The instructional designers in

this study made it clear that, while approaches may have been slightly different, a large

amount of that relied on the use of professional judgement. More specifically, the

instructional designers in this study noted that the way they best worked with faculty

during this time of crisis was determined by their ability to make decisions. This concept

can go a long way in regard to how instructional design units allow their instructional

designers to operate in their work with faculty. Allowing instructional designers to have

agency in decision making proved to be beneficial for this group of instructional

designers during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is, therefore, a recommendation that

instructional design units gauge how much, or to what extent, instructional designers

have decision making abilities as to how they conduct their job. This concept ties into an

earlier idea around professional identity and establishing oneself as a distinct unit, with

specific services to offer faculty.

This implication is of particular importance because of how it ultimately

influences students. The ability for instructional designers to assist faculty with the

adoption of best practices in instruction not only can increase the effectiveness of the

faculty member, but also help to create a significant learning experience for students.

Though not extensively addressed in this study, the impact instructional design work has

on students should not be overlooked. While it is outside the scope of this study to
 155

directly measure what that impact looks like, it can be inferred that the work instructional

designers do has an impact on the student learning experience. Whether that is the

implementation of new technologies or the suggestion of a new teaching methodology,

the work conducted by instructional designers and faculty can have a direct impact on the

type of learning experience a student has. Ultimately, what is of importance here, is the

“trickle down” effect instructional designers can have when working with faculty. In

particular, this effect takes place when designers are working with faculty to implement

new and innovative teaching technologies and practices. At the center of this practice is

always the idea students will benefit, whether that is through an experiential means or

benefit from having a more structured and coherent learning experience.

A final implication from this study centers on how the instructional designers

worked with faculty to innovate their instructional practice during a time of crisis. As

addressed earlier, this study was not set to assume that this occurrence happened

throughout the general population of instructional designers; however, the instructional

designers at Ohio University had an interesting experience during the COVID-19

pandemic. As noted by a number of the instructional designers, there was a significant

uptick in the appetite for innovation within the realm of teaching and technology use

during the pandemic. The occurrence of a rise in innovation, whether or not during a

pandemic or not, should be something that opens up a much broader conversation about

the interplay between innovation and instructional design.

As more instructional designers are being housed within departments that aim to

support innovation, it is important that instructional designers not only know how to
 156

respond to innovation, but how to define it. The instructional designers in this study,

while noting there was an uptick with faculty, had to also mitigate how the administration

wanted to approach innovation during a crisis period. This is an interesting scenario

where an instructional designer can easily find themselves playing a middle man between

faculty and administration. It would likely serve the instructional design community if

instructional designers aimed to look at a unified approach to innovation, being one that

is clear and aligns with the foundations of the field. More specifically, instructional

designers should look to define and encourage innovation that is supported by the

evidence of learning and design science.

However, with this recommendation comes a caveat that there should also be

room for experimentation within the field of instructional design. While many

instructional design theories and models are rigid and based on a “systematic approach”

to instruction, instructional designers should aim to push the bounds and break these

systems. Within this approach, instructional designers can work within a capacity that

helps to propel their field, with the idea of asking more existential questions about it. For

example, does instructional design itself have a goal and identity or is it amorphous to

that of a unit of which aims to employ its services? The answers to these questions are far

outside the scope of this research, but nonetheless bring big questions that should be

asked about the profession. In doing so, instructional designers will not only be able to

find their solidified place within higher education, but begin to propel the profession

forward and encourage a new cohort of forward-thinking and innovative professionals.

 157

Finally, this study aimed to capture just how instructional designers used

communication with faculty about innovating their instructional practice during a time of

crisis. While again, not suggesting the findings of this study apply to all instructional

designers, those in this study used a variety of techniques to help facilitate and encourage

the innovation of instructional practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. The most

prevalent communication method used by these instructional designers was that of

building rapport and empathy with the faculty they were working with during the

pandemic. While this approach may have been different for other instructional design

units, it seemed to be essential for the group at Ohio University during the course of this

study.

The idea of relationship building and use of empathy within instructional design

should be something that takes a significant position on how the profession moves

forward. The ability for an instructional designer to navigate such constraints as faculty

autonomy, academic freedom, and institutional priorities, is something that likely comes

with time and experience. However, future instructional designers should be aware of

such mechanisms as they will certainly have some type of impact on their role. This

brings into the question as to if more communication-based courses need to be integrated

into instructional design programs. While it is not a new idea that instructional designers

need to have communication skills, it does beg to determine how essential these skills are

compared to others. For the instructional designers in this study, their communicative

skills, and those of their professional identity truly aided them in navigating a diverse

landscape of change during the COVID-19 pandemic. While this example cannot be
 158

extrapolated to everyone in the instructional design community, it does help to reinforce

the idea that instructional designers need to be prepared for their role, which can be

strongly classified as service. This idea of service is one that needs to be clearly defined;

yet needs to also provide agency and experimentation, to not only preserve the integrity

of the profession, but mainly to help faculty achieve their instructional goals.

Conclusion

This study aimed to capture the experience of a group of instructional designers as

they navigated the tumultuous era of the COVID-19 pandemic. More specifically, the

study was performed in order to understand how instructional designers work and

communicate with faculty during a crisis period. Throughout the course of this

dissertation a number of themes, ideas, and revelations were uncovered through the

analysis of these instructional designers' experience.

First and foremost, this study illuminated how instructional designers approach

their work during a crisis period. Assuming a more minimalist approach to instructional

design, these professionals aimed to perform at the top of their skill while navigating

constraints brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Of these constraints, time played the

biggest role in influencing how these instructional designers approached their work.

Interestingly, a second major constraint was that of a limited knowledge of an

instructional designers’ professional identity. As a result of this, instructional designers

saw an uptick in the amount of technology troubleshooting they were doing with faculty.

These constraints, and the account of the instructional designers in this study, brought

about a fruitful discussion around what are the essential components to the instructional
 159

design process and also what needs to happen to help further solidify the professional

identity of instructional designers.

Second, this study aimed at looking how instructional designers worked to

balance best practice in teaching and instruction with faculty during the COVID-19

pandemic. The findings for this theme also illuminated how instructional designers work

within a crisis period, yet also highlighted some of the more interpersonal workings of

the instructional designers at Ohio University. This particular group of instructional

designers relied on their sense of professional agency and decision in their work with

faculty. Also, the instructional designers in this study accounted for a respect for other

professional ethos that exist within higher education, such as faculty autonomy and

academic freedom. The findings of this study encouraged a further discussion around the

importance of institutional knowledge that should be possessed by instructional designers

as they work with faculty. In addition, these findings also opened a discussion around the

process of instructional design and to what extent instructional designers have agency in

navigating it.

Finally, this study looked at how instructional designers used communication in

their approach to innovation and working with faculty during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the timeframe of this study, the instructional designers noted a rise in the interest

of faculty to innovate their instructional practice. The account provided by these

instructional designers brought up significant conversations around the interplay of

innovation and instructional design. More specifically, the findings of this study helped to

facilitate a conversation around how traditional approaches to instructional design, that

 160

are heavily reliant on systematic approaches adhere to the changes brought about by the

desire to innovate.

Part of this final theme also revolved around how instructional designers used

communication in their work with faculty during a crisis period. As noted by the majority

of instructional designers in this study, the idea of building relationships with faculty and

using empathy to build trust between themselves and the faculty proved to be beneficial.

Related to this was the idea of instructional designers, ‘leading by doing’ where they

were allowed to take initiative in their work with faculty. This idea, again, plays into one

of the major themes of this study where instructional designers benefit from the use of

professional judgement and agency to provide the best service as possible.

Finally, the communication methods and general approach of these instructional

designers were compared to the Innovation Diffusion Theoretical Framework pioneer by

Rogers (2003). This comparison shows how instructional designers can be key agents in

supporting many of the factors that play into how innovation is not only generated, but

eventually adopted by individuals or groups. This idea gives credence to the recent move

by many colleges and universities that are aiming to support new and innovative

approaches to instruction, to invest and incorporate instructional design into their

institutional framework.

The implications of this study are not only timely, but can act as a catalyst for

future studies and conversations around the profession of instructional design. While a

relatively new profession by comparison, instructional design is still looking at a means

by which to solidify its professional identity in the highly competitive higher education
 161

landscape. As such, many questions around the profession can and should be asked by

researchers as to what it actually means to be an instructional designer and what

instructional design looks like in the future. With the changing landscape of higher

education, advances in learning and design science, and technological innovation, the

field of instructional design has a number of important existential questions to ask. In

doing so, it is my position that instructional design will not only find its identity, but learn

to highlight what it does best and what it’s ultimate goal is. Until that point arrives;

however, instructional designers need to remain tenacious in their push to enhance

instructional experiences, build relationships, nurture innovative ideas, and stake their

claim as leaders in higher education.

 162

References

Adams, S. (2020, April 13). Boston University is the first to announce it may postpone

opening its campus until January 2021. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/

susanadams/2020/04/13/ boston-university-is-first-to-announce-it-may-postpone-

its-fall-term-until-january-2021/#67c17d614bd5

Akella, N. (2015). Sifting through muddy waters: A critical look at contemporary

instructional design. Instructional Technology, 12(6), 39‒56.

Alsop, E. (2018, February 11). Who’s teaching the teachers? Chronical of Higher

Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/whos-teaching-the-teachers/

American Council on Education. (2012). Assuring academic quality in the 21st century:

Self-regulation in a new era. https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Accred itation-

TaskForce-revised-070512.pdf

Aragón, O. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Graham, M. J. (2017). Colorblind and multicultural

ideologies are associated with faculty adoption of inclusive teaching practices.

Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(3), 201–215. http://dx.doi.org.

proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1037/dhe0000026

Ashbaugh, M. (2013). Personal leadership in practice: A critical approach to instructional

design innovation work. TechTrends, 57(5), 74–82. https://doi-org.proxy.libr

ary.ohio.edu/10.1007/s11528-013-0694-5

Baker, V. (2020, March 25). How colleges can better help faculty during the pandemic.

Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/03/25/

recommendations-how-colleges-can-better-support-their-faculty-during-covid-19
 163

Bawa, P., & Watson, S. (2017). The chameleon characteristics: A phenomenological

study of instructional design, faculty, and administrator perceptions of

collaborative instructional design environments. The Qualitative Report, 22(9),

2334-2355.

Bergquist, W., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy. Jossey-

Bass.

Blumberg, P. (2016). Factors that influence faculty adoption of learning-centered

approaches. Innovative Higher Education, 41(4), 303–315. https://doi-

org.proxy.library.ohio.edu /10.1007/s10755-015-9346-3

Boyle, K. (2011). Instructional designers as potential leaders in community colleges.

Community College Enterprise, 17(2), 7–18.

Braddlee, D., & VanScoy, A. (2019). Bridging the chasm: Faculty support roles for

academic librarians in the adoption of open educational resources. College &

Research Libraries, 80(4), 426–449. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu

/10.5860/crl.80.4.426

Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., Kenny, R. F. (2009). The critical, relational practice of

instructional design in higher education: An emerging model of change agency.

Educational Technology Research Development, 57(5), 645‒663. https://doi-

org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s11423-007-9061-6

Carey, K. L., & Stefaniak, J. E. (2018). An exploration of the utility of digital badging in

higher education settings. Educational Technology Research and Development,

 164

66(5), 1211–1229. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s11423-018-

9602-1

Cavanaugh C., Hargis J., Kamali T., & Soto M. (2013). Substitution to augmentation:

Faculty adoption of iPad mobile learning in higher education. Interactive

Technology and Smart Education, 10(4), 270–284. https://doi-org.proxy.library.

ohio.edu/10.1108/ITSE-01-2013-0001

Center for Disease Control. (2021). United States Covid-19 cases and deaths by state.

CDC COVID data tracker. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/?CDC_AA

_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-

ncov%2Fcases-updates%2Fcases-in-us.html#cases_casesper100klast7days

Center for Disease Control. (2020a). Frequently asked questions. Coronavirus Disease

2019 (COVID-19). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus /2019-ncov/faq.html#

Coronavirus-Disease-2019-Basics

Center for Disease Control. (2020b). Social distancing. Coronavirus Disease 2019

(COVID-19). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-

sick/social-distancing.html

Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend

their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 45–47. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.

1007/bf02763476

Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research: Purposeful and theoretical

sampling; merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, (3) 623‒

630.
 165

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five

approaches. SAGE.

Creswell, J., & Creswell, D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and

mixed methods approaches. SAGE.

Dever, C., & Justice, G. (2020, March 27). Coming together in crisis times. Inside Higher

Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/03/27/during-pandemic-crisis-

faculty-and-administrators-must-move-beyond-their

Drysdale, J. T. (2019). The collaborative mapping model: Relationship-centered design

for higher education. Online Learning, 23(3), 56‒71. https://doi-org.proxy.

library.ohio.edu/10.24059/olj.v23i3.2058

Fain, P. (2019, November 1). New rules on accreditation and state authorization. Inside

Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news /2019/11/01/education-

department-issues-new-regulations-accreditation-and-state-authorization

Fyle, C., Moseley, A., & Hayes, N. (2012). Troubled times: The role of instructional

design in a modern dual-mode university? Open Learning, 27(1), 53–64.

https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1080/02680513.2012.640784

Gewin, V. (2020, March 24). Five tips for moving teaching online as COVID-19 takes

hold. Nature. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00896-

Gibbons, A. (2014). An architectural approach to instructional design. Routledge.

Godin, S. (2009). Purple cow: Transform your business by being remarkable. Penguin

Group.
 166

Greenberg, M. (2014, January 27). It’s time for a new definition of accreditation. The

Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Its-Time-for-a-

New-Definition/144207

Halupa, C. (2019). Differentiation of roles: Instructional designers and faculty in the

creation of online courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(1), 55–

68.

Hegji, A. (2017). An overview of accreditation of higher education in the United States.

Congressional Research Service Report 7-5700. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/

R43826.pdf

Hokanson, B., Miller, C., & Hooper, S. (2008). Role-based design: A contemporary

perspective for innovation in instructional design. TechTrends. 52(6). https://doi-

org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s11528-008-0215-0

Hou, S., & Wilder, S. (2015). How ready is higher education faculty for engaged student

learning? Applying transtheoretical model to measure service-learning beliefs and

adoption. SAGE Open, 5(12), https://doaj.org/article/8a177349a3664d98ac4d6645

98c2ecf2

Inside Higher Education Staff. (2020, May 29). Live updates: Latest news on coronavirus

and higher education. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com

/news/2020/04/21/live-updates-latest-news-coronavirus-and-higher-education

Intentional Futures. (2016). Instructional design in higher education: A report on the

role, workflow, and experience of instructional designers. https://intentional

 167

futures.com/static/instructional-design-in-higher-education-report-

5129d9d1e6c988c254567f91f3ab0d2c.pdf

Jumonville, A. (2014). The role of faculty autonomy in a course-integrated information

literacy program. Reference Services Review, 42(4), 536‒551. https://doi-org.

proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1108/RSR-07-2014-0020

Jung, E., Bauer, C., & Heaps, A. (2017). Higher education faculty perceptions of open

textbook adoption. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed

Learning, 18(4), 123–141.

Kang, Y., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2015). A job announcement analysis of educational

technology professional positions: Knowledge, skills, and abilities. Journal of

Educational Technology Systems, 43(3), 231–256. https://doi-org.proxy.library.

ohio.edu/ 10.1177/0047239515570572

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 Technology. 31(1). https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.21432/

T2JW2P

Kim, J. (2020, April 1). Teaching and learning after COVID. Inside Higher Ed.

https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/learning-innovation/

teaching-and-learning-after-covid-19

Kinery, E., Ludlow, E., & Kishan, S. (2020, April 18). A month of lockdowns on main

street and aid already ran out. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/

 168

articles/2020-04-18/covid-19-small-businesses-face-a-dim-outlook-as-virus-airan-

out

Klein, J., & Kelly, W. (2018). Competencies for instructional designers: A view from

employers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 31(3), 225–247. https://doi-

org.proxy.library .ohio.edu/10.1002/piq.2125

Koszalka, T. A., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Reiser, R. (2014). Instructional designer

competencies: The standards (4th ed.). Information Age Publishing.

Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2017). What do instructional designers in higher education

really do? International Journal on E-Learning, 16(4), 371‒393.

Lederman, D. (2020, March 24). The state of online education, before coronavirus. Inside

Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/03/25/survey-gauges-

state-online-education-landscape-pre-coronavirus

Lederman, D. (2020, April 22). How teaching changed in the (forced) shift to remote

learning. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning

/article/2020/04/22/how-professors-changed-their-teaching-springs-shift-remote

Lee, T., & Shih, Y. (2009). Using innovation diffusion theory to improve implementation

of nursing information systems. Journal of Nursing, 56(3), 18–22.

Linder, K., & Dello Stritto, M. (2017). Research preparation and engagement of

instructional designers in U.S. higher education. https://ecampus.oregonstate.

edu/research/study/research-instructional-designers/research-instructional-

designers-study.pdf
 169

Liu, M., Gibby, S., Quiros, O., & Demps, E. (2002). The challenge of being an

instructional designer for new media development: A View from the practitioners

[Paper presentation]. ED-MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational

Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications, Denver, Colorado.

https://files.eric.ed.gov /fulltext/ED477056.pdf

Long, P. (2019). The role of the learning engineer. In C. Dede, J. Richards, & B. Saxberg

(Eds.), Learning engineering for online education: Theoretical contexts and

design-based examples (pp. 17‒35). Routledge.

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. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/

s12528-018-9170-8

Luthra, P., & Mackenzie, S. (2020, March 30). 4 ways COVID-19 could change how we

educate future generations. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/

agenda/2020/03/4 -ways-covid-19-education-future-generations/

Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education. Jossey-Bass.

Miller, S., & Stein, G. (2016, February 8). Finding our voice: Instructional designers in

higher education. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles

/2016/2/finding-our-voice-instructional-designers-in-higher-education

Mintz, S. (2020, March, 24). What lies ahead. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.

insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/what-lies-ahead
 170

Moore, G. (2014). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling disruptive products to

mainstream customers. Harper Collins.

Muljana, P. S., & Luo, T. (2020). Utilizing learning analytics in course design: Voices

from instructional designers in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher

Education. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s12528-020-09262-y

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Distance learning. https://nces.ed.gov/

fastfacts/display.asp?id=80

Ohio University. (2020a). Fast facts. https://www.ohio.edu/ohio-facts#all-facts

Ohio University. (2020b). Instructional innovation services. https://www.ohio.edu/instru

ctional-innovation/services/course-design.html

Ohio University. (2020c). Teaching continuity contacts. Ohio University. https://www.

ohio.edu/keep-teaching/resources-and-support/contacts

Ohio University. (2019). Office of instructional innovation. Ohio University. https://www

.ohio.edu/instructional-innovation/

Oliver, L. (2020, March 30). It could take three years for the US economy to recover

from COVID-19. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/

2020/03/economic-impact-covid-19/

Palinkas, L., Horwitz, S., Green, C., Wisdom, J., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015).

Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method

implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental

Health Services. 42(5), 533‒544. https://doi org.proxy.library.ohio.edu

/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
 171

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE.

Privitera, G., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2019). Research methods for education. SAGE.

Pereira, A., & Wahi, M. (2017). Strategic approaches to increase course management

system adoption by higher education faculty. Journal of Higher Education Theory

& Practice, 17(2), 61‒69.

Porter, W., & Graham, C. (2016). Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of

blended learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology,

47(4), 748–762.

Reiser, R. (1987). Instructional technology: A history. In R. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional

technology: Foundations (pp. 11-48). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Richardson, J., Ashby, I., Alshammari, A., Cheng, Z., Johnson, B., Krause, T., Lee, D.,

Randolph, A. & Wang H. (2019). Faculty and instructional designers on building

successful collaborative relationships. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 67(4), 855–880. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s

11423-018-9636-4

Rogers, E. (2003). The diffusion of innovations. Free Press.

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. SAGE.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.

Samaradiwakara, G. & Gunawardena, C. (2014) Comparison of existing technology

acceptance theories and models to suggest a well improved theory/model.

International Technical Sciences Journal, 1(1).

 172

Singh, G., & Hardaker, G. (2014). Barriers and enablers to adoption and diffusion of

eLearning A systematic review of the literature – a need for an integrative

approach. Education + Training, 56(2), 105. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.

edu/10.1108/ET-11-2012-0123

Skinner, B. (1968). The technology of teaching. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Swan, G. (2009). Examining barriers in faculty adoption of an e-portfolio system.

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 627–644.

Szabo, M., & Sobon, S. (2003). A case study of institutional reform based on innovation

diffusion theory through instructional technology. Canadian Journal of Learning

and Technology, 29(2). https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.21432/T2MK6Q

Van der Meij, H., & Carroll, J. (1995). Principles and heuristics for designing minimalist

instruction. Technical Communication. 42(2), 243-261.

Van Horne, S., & Murniati, C. (2016). Faculty adoption of active learning classrooms.

Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 72–93. http://dx.doi.org.

proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1007/s12528-016-9107-z

Villachica, S., Marker, A., & Taylor, K. (2010). But what do they really expect?

Employer perceptions of the skills of entry-level instructional designers.

Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(4), 33–51.

Wonglimpiyarat, J., & Yuberk, N. (2005). In support of innovation management and

Roger’s innovation diffusion theory. Government Information Quarterly, 22(3),

411–422. https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/10.1016/j.giq.2005.05.005
 173

World Health Organization. (2020, July 15). Rolling updates on coronavirus disease

(COVID-19). https://www.who.int/emergencies/ diseases/novel-coronavirus-

2019/events-as-they-happen

WorldOMeter. (2021, January 16). COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. https://www.

worldometers. info/coronavirus/

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Occupational Employment Statistics. https://

www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes259031.htm

U.S. Department of Education (2020, April 21). Secretary DeVos delivers 6 billion in

additional grant funding to support continued education at America’s colleges,

universities. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-delivers-6-

billion-additional-grant-funding-support-continued-education-americas-colleges-

universities

Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. SAGE.

Zheng, K., & Jia, S. (2017). Promoting the opportunity identification of industrial

symbiosis: Agent-based modeling inspired by innovation diffusion theory.

Sustainability, 9(5). https://doi-org.proxy.library.ohio.edu/http://dx.doi.

org/10.3390/su9050765
 174

Appendix A: March 13th Message from Ohio University on COVID-19 Measures

175
176
 177

Appendix B: March 23rd Message from Ohio University on COVID-19 Measures

178
179
180
 181

Appendix C: Interview Guide

1. How has your role as an instructional designer changed since the COVID-19
crisis hit the university?

2. What duties are you performing now that are typical for an instructional designer?
What duties are not?

3. How have you been introducing new technologies or teaching methods to faculty
since the crisis began?

4. What has the emphasis on innovating a faculty’s teaching practices been during
this time?

5. How do you balance best instructional design practices with faculty during this
time of crisis?

6. What has been the response of faculty to using new technologies and instructional
methods during this time?

7. What effect has the crisis had on your workload? Do you think faculty are relying
more on instructional designers now than they did before?

8. What communication strategies have you been using to get faculty to adopt new
technologies and teaching methods during this crisis period?

9. What has been the most difficult challenge in working with faculty during this
crisis period?

10. Is there anything else you would like to add regarding the topic at hand?
 182

Appendix D: Questions and their Relationship to the Innovation-Decision Process

Question Related Stage in the Innovation-

Decision Process

1. How has your role as an N/A

instructional designer changed
since the COVID-19 crisis hit the
university?
2. What duties are you performing N/A
now that are typical for an
instructional designer? What
duties are not?
3. How have you been introducing Persuasion Stage
new technologies or teaching
methods to faculty since the crisis
began?
4. What has the emphasis on Persuasion Stage
innovating a faculty’s teaching
practices been during this time?
5. How do you balance best Persuasion Stage
instructional design practices with
faculty during this time of crisis?
6. What has been the response of Confirmation Stage
faculty to using new technologies
and instructional methods during
this time?
7. What effect has the crisis had on Confirmation Stage
your workload? Do you think
faculty are relying more on
instructional designers now than
they did before?
8. What communication strategies Persuasion / Decision Stage
have you been using to get faculty
to adopt new technologies and
teaching methods during this crisis
period?
9. What has been the most difficult Implementation Stage
challenge in working with faculty
during this crisis period?
 183

10. Is there anything else you would N/A

like to add regarding the topic at
hand?

Note. As the study progressed, some of the original questions were revised. The original

intent of the study was to have all questions with a direct relationship to one of the stages

in the Innovation-Decisions Process.

 184

Appendix E: Coding Category Mapping

The following is an example of how the progression of the coding took place.

More specifically, this structure looks at how the coding process took on a taxonomical

progression. According to Saldaña (2016, p. 278-279), a taxonomical structure is where

“categories and their subcategories are grouped but without any inferred hierarchy; each

category seems to have equal weight.” An example of this can be seen below:

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Category 1A Category 2A Category 3A

Category 1B Category 2B Category 3B

Category 1C Category 1C

Note. Adopted from Saldaña (2016, p. 279)

Within the context of this study, the researcher completed first-cycle coding using

In-Vivo coding. Then, the researcher proceeded to use Pattern Coding for a second-cycle

method. This second-cycle method led to the development of a taxonomical coding

category. An example can be seen below:

(1) Working with Faculty (2) Balancing Best (3) Innovation and

during a Time of Crisis Practices Communication during a

Time of Crisis

(1A) A Minimalist (2A) Time Constraints and (3A) Appetite for

Approach Suggesting Best Practices Innovation

(1B) Time Crunch (2B) Nudging Faculty

 185

(1C) Operating in Support (3B) Using Professional (3B) Innovation and

Mode Judgement University Administration

(1D) Professional Identity (3C) Communication

Methods and Approaches

(1E) The Future (4C) Building

Relationships and Rapport

(5C) Taking Initiative

 186

Appendix F: Case Study Protocol

Section A: Overview of the Case Study

The goal of this case study is to explore how instructional designers work with

faculty to adopt new instructional technology and practices during this crisis period. The

case study is driven by the following research questions:

1. How do instructional designers work with faculty in a crisis to implement new

technology?

2. How do instructional designers balance best practices in instruction during a

time of crisis?

3. How do instructional designers communicate with faculty about innovating

their instructional practice during a time of crisis?

The theoretical framework underlying this case study is that of Innovation

Diffusion Theory, which aims to outline the adoption process of innovations into certain

societal groups. Innovation Diffusion Theory was selected because it aligns with the

central theme of this research inquiry regarding faculty adoption of technologies and the

innovating of one’s own instructional practice. The case study protocol outlined here

serves as the agenda for the researcher’s line of inquiry.

Section B: Data Collection Procedures

The researcher conducting the study is Kyle Rosenberger. He can be reached by

phone at 419-206-7414 or by email at [email protected].

Data will be collected through the use of semi-structured interviews, interview

memos, and documentation. The roles of those who are set to be interviewed are
 187

instructional designers who work at Ohio University’s Office of Instructional Innovation.

No direct events are to be observed other than the planned individual interviews.

Documentation will primarily consist of what the participants want to submit. In

anticipation of the field work, a literature review was conducted around the topics and

themes highlighted in the research questions. This review influenced the protocol

questions.

Once the data has been collected, coding will take place using first- and second-

cycle coding methods. For the first-cycle coding, in vivo coding has been selected as the

primary method. For the second cycle, pattern coding has been selected. Once these two

cycles have taken place, the results will be presented in Chapter 4 of the dissertation.

Section C: Protocol Questions

1. How has your role as an instructional designer changed since the crisis hit the

university?

2. What duties are you performing now that are typical for an instructional designer?

What duties are not?

3. How have you been introducing new technologies or teaching methods with

faculty?

4. What has the emphasis on innovating a faculty’s teaching practices been during

this time?

5. How do you balance best instructional design practices with faculty during this

time of crisis?
 188

6. What has been the response of faculty to using new technologies and instructional

methods during this time?

7. What effect has the crisis had on your workload? Do you think faculty are relying

more on instructional designers now than they did before?

8. What communication strategies have you been using to encourage faculty to

adopt new technologies and teaching methods during this crisis period?

9. What has been the most difficult thing in working with faculty during this crisis

period?

10. Is there anything else you would like to add about the topic at hand?

Section D: Tentative Outline for the Case Study Report

1. Adaptation of instructional design duties since the crisis hit the university.

2. The introduction and adoption of new technologies with faculty during the time of

crisis.

3. Working with best practices with faculty during the crisis period.

4. How communication has changed (or not changed) when working with faculty

during a crisis period.

 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
Thesis and Dissertation Services