INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNERS' STRATEGIES FOR ONLINE ACTIVITIES ENHANCING SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING: A BASIC QUALITATIVE STUDY

INTRODUCTION

Instructional designers should use strategies in their design to create learning activities that facilitate learners' self-direction (Rana, Ardichvilli, & Polesello, 2016). Instructional design aims at creating interactive, self-directed learning (SDL) activities (Chin, Tsui, & Lee, 2016) because SDL is an important factor explaining achievement in online learning (Joo, Oh, & Kim, 2015). SDL is a process where learners manage their own learning (Knowles, 1975) by controlling the task of learning and taking responsibility for learning the material (Tekkol & Demirel, 2018).

Wang, Peng, Huang, Hou, and Wang (2008) and Yamagata-Lynch et al. (2015) mentioned that SDL could have a vital role in the success of online learning. Self-directed learners proceed through online learning without delays and are motivated, whereas learners who are not self-directed may take longer to get through the material and may be discouraged and not complete the learning (Taminiau et al., 2015). If learners in a business environment do not complete the learning and do not know or understand the material, then the learners might not have the required ability to do the job (Lemmetty & Collin, 2020; Tekkol & Demirel, 2018).

The practice of instructional design and the daily activities of instructional designers in the workplace need to be continually examined and improved (Fortney & Yamagata-Lynch, 2013; Sugar & Luterbach, 2016). Instructional designers can design and develop more relevant and potentially powerful online learning when they understand which instructional strategies benefit self-directed online learners (Bonk, Lee, Kou, Xu, & Shen, 2015). SDL in the workplace is critical to the development of an organization (Rana et al., 2016). The research literature on instructional designers has indicated that they use different instructional strategies to create online learning (Hardre, 2013; Rana et al., 2016; Sugar & Luterbach, 2016). Research on the practice of instructional design in the business environment is limited (Fortney & Yamagata-Lynch, 2013).

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Yamagata-Lynch et al. (2015) conducted a study on SDL from the students' perspectives, and Yang (2017) conducted a study on instructional strategies for an online statistics course from the students' perspectives. Tohidi, Jamshidi, Ahmadinia, Shahdoust, and Moonaghi (2019) conducted a study on the retainership between SDL and motive of progress and learning strategies in medical students. Tekkol and Demirel (2018) conducted a study on university students' SDL skills to determine whether those skills varied based on certain criteria (age, gender, field of study). Few studies have taken a person-centered approach to motivate self-directed strategies used by learners (Broadbent & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, 2018), and even fewer studies have explored instructional strategies used for enhancing SDL from the instructional designer perspective.

Schwinger, Steinmayr, and Spinath (2012) conducted a study on motivational regulation profiles with German high school and college students and discovered that a higher overall level of motivational strategy use was associated with a higher level of effort and achievement. In the appropriate databases, studies done in a corporate or business environment were lacking. Although the literature provides information on academic and business environments, the study was on instructional design strategies for SDL in a business environment because the studies conducted in a business environment were lacking.

Another study used cognitive load theory and constructivist theories. Cognitive load theory is an appropriate learning theory because instructional designers should not overload the learners with too much information at once (Schnotz & Kürschner, 2007). Applying constructivist theory in designing instruction allows the learners to create their own meaning from the learning (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Prior research findings and the findings of these studies validate the need for further research to add to the existing body of knowledge for instructional designers.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study took the form of a basic qualitative methodology in which nine instructional designers in the business field were interviewed to determine what instructional strategies they use to create online learning that enhances SDL. This study identified what instructional strategies instructional designers use to create online learning that enhances SDL by searching for recurring patterns or themes that can be identified to serve as helpful examples for training and professional development for instructional designers in the business environment. Data were gathered from instructional design participants' interviews, which were semistructured and completed via Zoom, an online communication tool.

If participants were willing to be in the study, they signed the consent form, sent it back to me, and filled out the demographic information (see Supplemental Material A) via SurveyMonkey, an online survey tool. If participants from LinkedIn were willing to be in the study, they filled out the consent form, sent it back to me, and filled out the demographic information via SurveyMonkey. During the interviews, the participants were asked to provide artifacts for me to view. Two participants showed the artifacts during the interview, two participants sent examples to me after the interview, and five participants did not show or send any artifacts.

Prior to this study, ethical standards were taken into consideration. To ensure that a study is trustworthy, an evaluation of the ethical dimensions is key. Ethical dimensions protect the participants and the findings of the study. Ways to ensure that a study is ethical are (a) mention bias; (b) avoid conflicts of interest; (c) treat human subjects with respect (Patton, 2015); (d) ensure the study does what it said it would do; and (e) provide an audit trail that details how data were collected, how categories were derived, how decisions were made, and how the process of conducting research was undertaken using journal writing (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study had a minimal risk to the participants. I consulted with Capella's Institutional Review Board (IRB) and obtained approval. The IRB serves as a protector of participants in a study. I was aware that the questions asked during the interview could make the participants uncomfortable. The intent was not to make the participants uncomfortable, but if it did happen, I did everything I could to help the participant through the question. Some ways of helping the participants through discomfort was to give them time to get themselves together, give them time to think about and answer the question, or ask a different question and come back to the uncomfortable question at a later time. Questions that made the participants uncomfortable were used only a few times during the interviews.

I endeavored to minimize the possibility of intrusion into the autonomy of study participants through several means. Participants were not identifiable in any transcripts or in any publications, and all participants were told that they had the right to withdraw from the research at any time. Confidentiality and anonymity of data were strictly maintained.

To identify the sample, the participants were given a number that corresponded to their personal information The number was then used instead of the participant's name to keep identities confidential. The personal information was kept in a locked folder and only viewed by the researcher. The numbers were used when collecting the data so the identities of the participants were protected.

During the interviews, participant responses were audio-recorded verbatim to ensure the integrity of the response. Backup copies of the original data were kept, and the work was done from the copies. The audio recordings of the interviews were kept in a locked folder that only I could access. The audio recordings were available to me when the information was being transcribed. The data will be stored in locked folders for 7 years and then destroyed.

PRESENTATION OF DATA AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

Research moves from research questions to limited data collection to data analysis (Nelson, 2017). Data analysis follows an inductive approach where the data can be recognized as belonging to categories and themes (Cleveland, 2017). Instructional designers were interviewed to determine the process they used to choose instructional strategies when creating online learning that enhanced SDL. A qualitative analysis was conducted on the transcribed interviews and audio recordings. The following was the central research question: What processes do instructional designers use to choose instructional strategies when creating online learning that enhances SDL? Details related to the research question were taken alongside the transcripts for a deeper understanding and meaning of the interviews.

Each participant had the opportunity to review his or her transcribed information. The participants reported no discrepancies in the transcribed information. Interviews were coded and organized using key words or phrases that appeared across several interviews. Microsoft Word aided the appropriate coding to initiate the data analysis. With each subsequent interview, data were used to aid in reexamining and recoding the data as needed.

The interview questions are provided in Supplemental Material B. Table 1 shows the findings from each interview question and their relation to the process themes discussed with regard to the research question.

TABLE 1 Relating the Interview Questions, the Findings, and the Process Themes

View Fullscreen

The findings from each question were narrowed down to six processes because some of the findings were similar and could be explained together. The first process that emerged from analyzing the data and answering the research question was conducting a needs assessment and tying the learning to that assessment. To understand the learning problem, instructional designers need to identify learning needs and performance goals (Fortney & Yamagata-Lynch, 2013). Suitable learning tasks should meet the individual learner's needs (Taminiau et al., 2015).

The second process is having subject matter experts (SMEs) available to help plan learning. Instructional designers are knowledge workers who collaborate with SMEs (Razak, 2013). Participants mentioned that projects that should have taken weeks were not to be finished for months because of the unavailability of the SME. Having access to SMEs would make the instructional designer's job easier because work would not stop because of a lack of understanding of objectives or learner needs.

A factor is having enough time with the SMEs to design and build a learning plan. The participants discussed that organizations want the learning out right away and do not always give the instructional designer enough time to create effective learning. One participant reported that, “The learning sometimes just meets a regulatory requirement, so the organization just wants the learning done so the employees can go back to their jobs.”

The next process is providing immediate and detailed feedback in the learning. Feedback is beneficial to the learning experience (Hatziapostolou & Parakakis, 2010). The participants discussed that immediate feedback was essential to the learning process so learners could recognize their understanding of the material. The participants said that the feedback should include the reasoning behind the answer so that the learner understands why an answer is correct or incorrect.

The fourth process is providing resources for further learning. Instructional designers want to get the required learning to the employees in the shortest and best way possible. The participants mentioned that they create short learning with job aids or additional resources that employees can access when needed.

The next process is having metrics in place and reviewing the metrics to improve the learning. Metrics was an important theme with this question. Of the participants, 56% had access to view metrics detailing how many minutes the learner was in the course, what questions the learners were getting incorrect, the grade the learner received, and any comments the learners made about the learning module itself. All of the participants discussed the process of having and using metrics. Not all of the participants were using the same metrics, but the participants were using metrics that made sense to their respective organizations. Participant 05 mentioned that the fact that the “management did not complain about the learning or did not want more training on the topic” was a way to know that the instructional strategies improved the employees' work performance. Participant 05 explained that after training, the participant found that “when looking at the weekly reports, the weekly reports are for certain past months of training measurements.” Participant 01 said, “The surveys and stuff that go out and that's done through . . . like a dashboard that we look at that pulls all data from our learning portals.” Participant 04 explained, “Show the numbers on the dashboard . . . and that you have seen an improvement and quality go up or defects go down or something like that.” All of the participants said that their organizations used metrics in some way to show that learning affected employees' work performance. Three participants mentioned that their organizations used behavior and results, but the participants were not a part of that process. Four of the participants were involved in the first two levels of Kirkpatrick's model. The human resources department in the organization was usually involved with Levels 3 and 4 of Kirkpatrick's model when analytics were used.

The metrics help the organization and the instructional designers know that the learning increased the employees' job performance. The participants mentioned that they were directly involved with metrics about the actual learning, and the organization was responsible for the metrics that tied the learning to job performance.

The last process is relating the learning to the employees' job performance and lives. The participants mentioned creating scenario-based learning to help employees assimilate the learning into their job duties. Some organizations had managers ask employees questions to help the employees see how the learning could affect their job performance.

DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study emerged from the need to better understand what processes instructional designers use to choose instructional strategies when creating online learning that enhances SDL in a business environment. Helping designers to design learning more effectively and efficiently and to adopt and adapt to successful practice (Chin et al., 2016) will enhance SDL. Instructional designers must consider strategies for promoting learners' active participation and engagement (Joo et al., 2015).

The participants recruited for this study were instructional designers who self-reported that they currently worked as instructional designers who created online learning for employees in a company, had an instructional design or equivalent degree, had created at least one online learning module, and had at least 5 years of experience in education with an emphasis on creating online learning. The purposeful recruitment was carried out via email and a LinkedIn online request.

The sample size for this study was nine instructional designers in the business field who were interviewed to determine what processes instructional designers use to choose instructional strategies when creating online learning that enhances SDL in a business environment. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) mentioned that the sample size should be an adequate number of participants to answer the question posed at the beginning of the study. Mason (2010) mentioned that a qualitative sample must be large enough to ensure that most of the perceptions that are important are uncovered. Nelson (2017) wrote that a researcher might stop gathering data when the theoretical categories are sufficiently robust. In this study, the data were saturated after nine instructional designers were interviewed.

The sampling type was purposeful because the participants were chosen due to having similar attributes to be studied. The participants were chosen from businesses that employ instructional designers in the United States. One business was contacted directly and asked for a referral list of experienced instructional designers, from which four participants were recruited. The contacted business did not produce enough participants; therefore, a request was placed on LinkedIn to gather the remaining number of participants. Table 2 identifies the demographic characteristics of the participants in this study.

TABLE 2 Summary of Demographic Characteristics of Participants

View Fullscreen

Four participants were from the insurance industry and had created at least six online learning projects. The other five participants were from different industries and had created at least five online learning projects. All of the participants had graduate degrees. Three participants had degrees in instructional design, whereas six participants had degrees equivalent to instructional design. The equivalent degrees were in education and instruction technology. One participant had an education doctorate degree, whereas the other eight participants had master's degrees.

Data of the semistructured interviews were collected and analyzed. Manual analysis of the transcripts ensured that words were coded in context. The main themes that emerged from analyzing the data were (a) the necessity of conducting a needs assessment and tying the learning to that assessment, (b) having SMEs available to help plan learning and having enough time to design and build learning, (c) providing immediate and detailed feedback in the learning, (d) providing resources for further learning, (e) having metrics in place and reviewing the metrics to improve the learning, and (f) relating the learning to the employees' job performance and lives.

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

The findings of this study indicate that instructional designers do have similar processes when choosing instructional strategies while creating online learning that enhances SDL in a business environment. Each theme that emerged from this study helped provide an answer to the research question, which asked what processes instructional designers use to choose instructional strategies when creating online learning that enhances SDL. Each theme correlates to the gap in the instructional designer literature regarding what instructional strategies instructional designers use when creating online learning that enhances SDL in a business environment. The participants were asked 14 questions during the interview, but the first question asked the participants to describe an SDL module they created. The first interview question was to get the participants to start thinking about the online learning they created and did not produce any themes.

The first theme to emerge during data analysis was that a needs assessment must be conducted to determine the learners' needs. The participants mentioned that when the needs assessment was not conducted correctly, the learning did not meet the learners' needs and was ineffective. An example would be that the learners' needs were not identified correctly.

The learning might have been engaging and interactive, but it did not fill the need the learning was created to accomplish because it was not tied to the learners' needs. The needs assessment is the most important phase of the process when creating online learning (Alodwan & Almosa, 2018). Instructional designers have the responsibility to ensure that learning is directly tied to the learners' needs and performance (Linder-VanBerschot & Summers, 2015). Instructional designers must use the needs assessment phase in the instructional design process to determine the difference between the current state of the learners' ability and the desired state of the learners' ability (Stefaniak, Baaki, Hoard, & Stapleton, 2018).

The second theme to emerge during data analysis was the instructional designer's need to have the SME available so the learning could be designed and built. The SMEs are the content experts and need to aid the instructional designer with the context for the online learning. If the SME is not available, the learning will not be able to be created within the given time frame. SMEs' time availability needs to be considered when online learning projects are being constructed.

One subtheme to emerge dealt with the time to build courses. Participant 04 mentioned that management did not always want to give the instructional designer time to build an online course and was not interested in the instructional designers using instructional strategies. Management wanted employees trained quickly so the organization could say they were compliant with regulatory requirements.

Another subtheme to emerge during data analysis was the necessity of creating engaging, interactive learning. Learning in the business environment has a different focus than learning in an academic environment. The focus of learning in a business environment should be on aligning with the organization's goals (Ben-Hur, Jaworski, & Gray, 2015), whereas the focus of learning in an academic setting should be the coursework, including supportive instruction, curriculum, teacher expectations, and student evaluations (Wang & Degol, 2016). Capturing and maintaining learners' attention is an instructional design principle for educators who want to develop engaging learning (Sinclair et al., 2017). When an analysis is conducted in a business to solve a performance problem, training and nontraining ideas are generated (Honebein, 2018). Instructional designers are only able to offer the training solutions to the performance problem. Organizations need to offer online learning that keeps the learners motivated and engaged to complete the training (Jones, 2013). Online learning is an additional duty for employees in an organization and is frequently a requirement. When the learning is engaging and interactive, the employees are more apt to complete the training in a timely manner (Parsons, Malloy, Parsons, & Burrowbridge, 2015) and improve their job performance (Ben-Hur et al., 2015).

The third theme to emerge during data analysis was the ability to provide immediate and detailed feedback. Providing high-quality feedback that is timely facilitates and promotes learning (Hatziapostolou & Parakakis, 2010). Learners want to know how they are doing and are provided with immediate and detailed feedback that gives them that information. The participants understood that learners want and need this information and agree that the information is important to the learning environment. The participants said that providing the reasoning behind the feedback would provide the learners with the best learning environment.

The fourth theme to emerge during data analysis was providing resources for further learning. The participants understood that the learners do not have a lot of time for learning in a business environment. Most employees need the information the learning provides in a short amount of time; therefore, the participants are creating learning that has the important information in the instruction itself while providing additional resources for further study.

The fifth theme to emerge during data analysis was having metrics in place and reviewing the metrics to improve the learning. Metrics is a set of measurement guidelines that yields a numeric evaluation of something (Byrd, Simonsen, & Simonsen, 2015). Examples of metrics are (a) how many minutes the learner was in the course, (b) what questions the learner got incorrect, (c) the grade the learner received, and (d) any comments the learner made about the learning module itself. Having metrics in place ties the learning to the need assessment. Analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE) and the Kirkpatrick's levels of evaluation were the most used evaluation tools for the participants because six of nine participants mentioned either ADDIE or the Kirkpatrick levels of evaluation. The participants understood that having metrics at the beginning of the project helped them provide better learning. Workplace learning should align learners' needs and the learning objectives (Wang et al., 2010) to solve performance problems in an organization (Arora, 2016).

The sixth theme to emerge during data analysis was to relate the learning to the employees' job performance and lives. Ben-Hur et al. (2015, p. 59) mentioned that the key strategic question for corporate learning is “Are we doing enough of the right things to develop the capabilities our people need to deliver the outcomes that matter most to the business?” The participants understood that learning in a business environment needed to relate to the employees' job performance and lives. Participant 07 said,

We give employees a device where they can search the device to answer customers' questions or look at information about their job or the organization. The device captures every single action they take on the device and then pairs that with the organization's goals. We were able to meet a sales goal through behavior change with the devices.

Participant 06 said,

This is actually something we talk about a lot because right now we are about to launch a whole bunch of training and it's difficult so we talk about how much is too much and what is our sequence and we've actually talked a lot about how do we get them just enough training as opposed to everything… and managing your SME relationship because your SME loves this thing and they want to have eight hours of training on it.

Instructional designers need to understand the difference between information that is necessary and that which is helpful. Necessary information is what a reasonable person needs to know to do his or her job (Kaylor, 2014). Helpful information is information that is important but that employees can review, read, or look up when needed (Kaylor, 2014). The participants commented that communication between the instructional designer and the SME can help determine the “need to know” information from the “nice to know” information. Brief is better for learning activities to capture and maintain the learners' attention (Sinclair et al., 2017). Table 3 shows the theme findings and rationale during the data analysis.

TABLE 3 Theme Findings and Rationales

View Fullscreen

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS

The themes uncovered in this study were (a) conducting a needs assessment and tying the learning to that assessment, (b) having SMEs available to help create the learning and having enough time to design and build the learning, (c) providing immediate feedback with the reasoning behind the feedback, (d) providing resources for further learning, (e) having metrics to show the effectiveness of the learning, and (f) relating the learning to the employees' job performance and lives. The emphasis for instructional designers is on the use of a systematic design process to improve learning (Klein & Kelly, 2018).

LIMITATIONS

Three limitations potentially affected the results of this study. First, the study was limited to those instructional designers who responded to an email or a request on LinkedIn. The request on LinkedIn had a potential to reach a variety of instructional designers, but only those who responded and met the requirements to participate in the study were part of the study. Many instructional designers responded that they did not have time to be part of the study even though the study sounded interesting to them. The participants were from five different industries (insurance, technology, professional training and coaching, medical devices, and education). Having participants from more industries or more participants from the included industries might have given different perspectives to the study.

This study had a minimal risk to the participants. There were no physical, psychological or social/economic risks to the participants. The participants freely volunteered to be in the study and were asked general questions about their work processes. Answering these questions and participating in the study did not harm the participants in any way. Questions that made the participants uncomfortable were used only a few times during the interviews.

This qualitative study used a purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling is used for identifying and selecting participants related to the phenomenon of interest (Palinkas et al., 2015). Participants were sought because of their education and knowledge of instructional design practices. Using a different type of sampling could have produced different results. For example, using a case study could have provided different results if the participants were all from the same company or same state.

Second, the study was limited to participants who held an instructional design title, had an instructional designer or equivalent degree, had at least 5 years of experience, and had created or been on a team that created at least one educational module for the employees in their organization. A total of 19 participants were interested in being a part of the study, but 7 did not participate because of scheduling conflicts or because they did not have the basic requirements to be part of the study. Having different criteria such as more than one online course and more experience as an instructional designer for the participants could have provided different results.

Third, the study was limited to the participants' industry experience. Some of the participants had worked in their industries for a long time, whereas others moved to different industries. Those who worked in their industries for a long time understood their learners' needs more clearly because they had worked with them longer. The participants who moved industries did not understand current learners' needs as well because they were still getting to know them. Knowing the learners can aid the instructional designer in creating learning that is geared toward that particular audience.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study contributed to the importance of understanding and using the cognitive and constructivist theories. Cognitive load theory has helped those in the instructional design field understand the impact on learning that results from the limitations of human cognitive processes with regard to working memory and long-term memory (Sentz, Stefaniak, Baaki, & Eckhoff, 2019). The learning does not overload the learner's ability to learn when instructional designers consider the limitations of the human cognitive structure (Schnotz & Kürschner, 2007). If the cognitive load of the material is too high, learning cannot happen (Van Merriënboer & Sluijsmans, 2009). Constructivism helps those in the instructional design field understand that the material presented in an online environment needs to allow for the learners to actively construct their own meaning of the material presented (Clark, 2018). The findings of this study support the claims of the cognitive load theory regarding cognitive overload and constructivist theories regarding having learners construct their own meaning of the learning. Instructional designers need to be aware of the impact these theories can have on the ability of the employees to learn material if they are applied appropriately in the design.

Previously, this study identified the potential to improve instructional design practice and the effectiveness of instruction in instructional design by helping instructional designers in choosing appropriate instructional strategies for the instructional context. Studies of instructional design practices advance the knowledge base of the field by revealing how instructional designers address and resolve actual instructional design problems and identify instructional design best practices and success factors (Sugar & Luterbach, 2016).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The first recommendation for further research would be to conduct a study that identifies best practices in a business environment to align learners' needs and learners' performance with SDL. Many studies on SDL are conducted with students in higher education. Yamagata-Lynch et al. (2015) conducted a study about self-directed online learning in an academic environment and found that engaging students in self-directed activities provided the learners with authentic experiences. Few studies have been conducted that emphasize aligning learners' needs and learners' performance with SDL in a business environment.

The second recommendation for further research would be to address creating feedback in synchronous or asynchronous online learning regarding SDL. This study had participants who created both synchronous and asynchronous online learning that was collected and analyzed together. Separating the mode of synchronous from an asynchronous environment by which the learning is conducted could produce different results with regard to how instructional designers provide feedback to learners.

The third recommendation for further research would be to gather data from the actual employees taking the learning to determine if the instructional strategies encouraged the employees to practice SDL. Gathering data from the learners and comparing them with the data from the instructional designers would determine if the learning was really self-directed. The results of the data could be used to ensure that the learning is self-directed and encourages the employees to be active in the learning process.