Online Course Design and Development among College and University Instructors: An Analysis Using
Grounded Theory
Dasha Bunks
Liberty University
PSYC 775 - Teaching of Psychology
Dr. Winn
2022
Instructional design focuses on improving the process of instruction by “prescribing optimal
methods of instruction to bring about desired changes in student knowledge and skills” (Reigeluth,
2013, p. 4). The instructional design of a course creates learning environments and experiences that
favorably impact conditions for learning (Merrill, Drake, Lacy, & Pratt, 1996). In online courses, there is a
strong link between the tasks of designing and teaching. A national survey of 10,700 college and
university faculty instructorsfound that “over 80 percent of faculty involved in online teaching and/or
development are involved in both the development and the teaching aspects” for a given course
(Seaman, 2009, p. 21). However, research shows that creating an online course involves a different set
of skills than delivering content in a traditional course setting (Miller, 2007). Research also confirms the
importance of instructional design for online instructors.
Baran, Correia, and Thompson (2011) performed an extensive literature review and used a
constant comparison analysis to determine online instructors’ key responsibilities. The researchers
found that aspects of instructional design (i.e., planning, organizing, and structuring the course) were
often considered the most important tasks for online instructors. Bawane and Spector (2009) conducted
a study to help identify instructor competencies for new online teaching programs. The ability to design
instructional strategies and develop appropriate learning resources, implement instructional strategies,
and facilitate participation and sustain motivation among students were found to be the most important
skillsfor online instructors (Bawane & Spector, 2009).
The “ability to design courses well is usually the most limiting factor” (Fink, 2003, p. 34) in
teaching effectively online. In a poorly designed course, students become disengaged, and learning
suffers (Koszalka & Ganesan, 2004). Student satisfaction and perceived learning have been linked to
clarity of design in online education (Swan, 2001). Educational researchers have focused on the attitudes
of instructors toward online instruction, typically using surveys (Allen & Seaman, 2016; Jaschik &
Lederman, 2014; Seaman, 2009; Worthen, 2013), and as a result there is limited insight into individual
experiences and knowhow involved in online course design. While survey data is valuable, no existing
survey studies address the online course design aspect. A review of the literature failed to provide
information on how instructors design online courses. This information is important in order to provide
instructors with a voice to explain their process of online course design.
Instructional Design Models
This study uses grounded theory to generate a theory that is grounded in instructors’ reports of
their online course design experiences. In the context of instructional design, research suggests explicit
models and processes (i.e., steps). ADDIE, an acronym naming the processes of analysis, design,
development, implementation, and evaluation (Huguet, 2008), is among the most important of these
design process models (Smith & Ragan, 2004). During the analysis phase, the instructor establishes the
direction of the course, reviews the learning environment, and identifies learners’ existing knowledge
and skills. In the design and development phase, the instructor takes systematic and specific actions to
write learning objectives, create content, plan lessons, choose assessment instruments, and select
media based on the results of the earlier analyses. The instructor conducts instruction during the
implementation phase, and in the final phase, evaluation, the instructor evaluates and revises the
course or lesson (Clark, 2015).
According to instructional design models, instructors must understand learners’ characteristics
and needs before they determine how to deliver content to meet these needs, while providing
formative and summative evaluations to confirm needs are met (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2014; Morrison,
Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2010; Smith & Ragan, 2004). ADDIE is a generalized instructional design process
model (Ippoliti & Gammons, 2016), but there are other closely related instructional design models.
These models use a formalized systems view of the process, as well as its components and outcomes
(e.g., the Dick and Carey systems approach), in which each component (i.e., instructor, learners,
materials, and learning environment) is deemed crucial to success.
Other instructional design models include, but are certainly not limited to, Keller’s ARCS model
of motivational design (Keller, 1987), Wiggins and McTighe’s backward design model (Wiggins &
McTighe, 1998), and the Kemp design model (Morrison et al., 2010). Instructional design, as formalized
in these and other models, is defined as “a system of procedures for developing education and training
curricula in a consistent and reliable fashion” (Branch & Merrill, 2012, p. 8). It involves a “systematic and
reflective process of translating principles … into plans for instructional materials, activities, information
resources, and evaluation” (Smith & Ragan, 2004, p. 4). As depicted in these models, instructional design
is “widely considered to be equivalent to process” (Boling & Smith, 2012, p. 358), and students of
instructional design are often encouraged to use these models to guide their instructional design
endeavors.
Instructional Design in Practice
While the theoretical approach to instructional design is popular in academia, this popularity
does not extend to practice (Zierer & Seel, 2012). Instructional designers, professionals whose primary
responsibility is to design courses, tend to use instructional design models broadly. Instructional
designers are aware of process-based instructional design models but do not follow these models in a
rigid fashion or spend a great deal of time using them (Kenny, Zhang, Schwier, & Campbell, 2005). York
and Ertmer (2011) found that instructional designers often use general guidelines and modified models
to design courses, based on the results of a series of surveys sent to 50 experienced instructional
designers. In another study, Ertmer et al. (2008) provided illstructured instructional design problems to
seven instructional designers and asked the practitioners to use a think-aloud procedure to investigate
their problem-solving processes. The researchers found that instructional designers use their previous
knowledge and personal experience to interpret the problem and then use a mental model of the
instructional design process to solve the problem. The researchers also discovered that it was important
for the instructional designers to be able to draw on past designing experiences. Other research
supports these findings, suggesting that instructional designers adapt instructional design models
(Christensen & Osguthorpe, 2004; Kirschner, Carr, van Merriënboer, & Sloep, 2002; Silber, 2007).
Wedman and Tessmer’s (1993) survey of instructional design activities practiced by 73 instructional
designers indicated that the practitioners alter activities and the sequence of activities included in
instructional design models. The practitioners cited lack of time, decisions already made, and activities
considered unnecessary as reasons for omitting design activities.
Instructors Designing Online Courses
Institutions often recruit instructors to design online courses (Baran et al., 2011; Seaman, 2009).
Instructors are content experts, familiar with the learners, and already a part of the institution.
However, there is a paucity of research about how instructors design online courses. Researchers have
examined the design and implementation of online learning activities, such as discussion forums (Clark,
2015; McDonald, 2009), wikis (West & West, 2009), and student assessment (Anderson, 2004).
Researchers have also investigated instructors’ assessment of the usefulness of various components in
specific courses (Kihato & Bednar, 2004).
Faculty from public and private institutions have been surveyed about their perception of online
learning (Straumsheim, Jaschik, & Lederman, 2015). The Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor
surveyed faculty from 107 institutions to understand online instructors’ professional concerns (Worthen,
2013). These concerns focused on control of work, job security, and ownership of copyrights, not the
process of course design. Barberà, Layne, and Gunawardena (2014) found prior experience and
institutional systems played a part in the quality of online course design in three academic disciplines,
but the study did not provide detailed information to explain the role of instructors involved in course
design.
Alvarez, Guasch, and Espasa (2009) identified the course design process as consisting of “[1]
defining the procedures of instructional design; [2] considering the resources and the assessment in a
virtual context; [3] presenting content/questions; [4] translation of traditional content in online contents
with interactive activities for students; [5] creation of online interactive content” (p. 332). However, the
instructors’ perspective on these tasks was not included. Kang (2000) performed a case study to
investigate the process of moving traditional courses to an online format at Northern Illinois University.
Kang identified instructional strategies based on interviews with instructors, instructional designers, and
administrators. Kang limited this study to one university, and it included instructional designers who
assisted with the process.
References
Allen, I. A., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card. Tracking online education in the United States.
Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
Alvarez, I., Guasch, T., & Espasa, A. (2009). University teacher roles and competencies in online learning
environments: A theoretical analysis of teaching and learning practices. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 32(3), 321–336.
Baran, E., Correia, A.-P., & Thompson, A. (2011). Transforming online teaching practice: Critical analysis
of the literature on the roles and competencies of online teachers. Distance Education, 32(3),
421–439. doi:10.1080/01587919.2011.610293
Barberà, E., Layne, L., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2014). Designing online interaction to address disciplinary
competencies: A cross-country comparison of faculty perspectives. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1418/2840
Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications for competency-
based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383–397.
doi:10.1080/01587910903236536
Becker, K. (2007). Wicked ID: Conceptual framework for considering instructional design as a wicked
problem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology /La revue Canadienne de L’
apprentissage et de la Technologie, 33(1). Retrieved from
https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26459/19641
Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. S. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their
impact on research and teaching in instructional design and technology. In M. Orey, V. J.
McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 31, pp. 33–
73). Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2012). The changing nature of design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.),
Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 358–366). Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Branch, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2012). Characteristics of instructional design models. In R. A. Reiser & J.
V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 8–16).
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Brown, S. C., Stevenson, R. A., Troiano, P. F., & Schneider, M. K.
(2002). Exploring complex phenomena: Grounded theory in student affairs research. Journal of
College Student Development, 43(2), 173–183.
Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make
instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.
