Advanced Readings in Instructional Technology
+ 90 (312) 210 36 83
Res. As. Kadir Yücel KAYA
+ 90 (312) 210 75 19
Advanced Readings in Instructional Technology
Res. As. Kadir Yücel KAYA
+ 90 (312) 210 75 19
Week 1. Definitions of IT
Question of Week1: Different authors seem to have different definitions in mind when they use the term "instructional technology"; or "educational technology"; What field do you consider yourself part of? What is its name? How is it defined?
Ask 3 questions/issues that you want to discuss in the next class (deep intellectual level is desired)
1. Gentry, C.G. (1995). “Educational Technology: A question of Meaning. Part 1 in Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future, G. J. Anglin (Ed.), (2nd ed.), Englewood, CO, Libraries Unlimited.
2. Reiser, R.A. (2002). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. Ch 1 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Merrill/Prentice Hall.
3. Seels, B. & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: the definition and domains of the field, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Washington DC.
4. Molenda, M. The Definition of Educational Technology, coauthor with Rhonda Robinson. Unpublished draft prepared for the AECT Definition and Terminology Committee, 2004. Approved by AECT board of directors as text for opening chapter of new definition book, forthcoming, 2006.
1. AECT (1977).The definition of Educational Technology, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Washington DC.
2. Heinch, R. M. (1973). Is there a field of educational communications and technology?, Audio visual instruction, 18(5), 44-46.
Week 2 History of IT I (Pre-Modern History - Modern History)
Questions of the week :
1-You could think of the history of IT in terms of a number of historical periods. Prepare a table for the historical timeline of IT. (Possible headings are "Contributors, period, issues, contributions, socio/political issues of the period")
2- Compare and Contrast Bichelmeyer's, Molenda's, Gibbons' and Reigeluth's views. What are the similarities and differences among them? Whose ideas are close to yours? (Videos are on the OCW- just focus on the time period between 6.57-14.20 minutes in Reigeluth's video)
3- Ask 3 questions that you want to discuss in the next class.
1. Dale, Edgar (1946). The “Cone of Experience”, Audio Visual Method in Teaching, NY: Dryden Press.
2. Heinch, R., Molenda M., Russell J., &Smaldino S. (1999). Visual Principles Incom. Morivan. Instructional media and Technologies for Learning (6th ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall. 70-71.
3. Reiser, R.A. (2002). A History of Instructional Design and Technology. Ch 3 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
4. Saetler Paul (1990). Early forerunners: Before 1900. Ch 2 in In the evolution of American Educational Technology (23-52). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
5. Saetler Paul (1990). Beginnings of a science and technology of instruction: 1900-1950. Ch 3 in In the evolution of American Educational Technology Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, (53-86). (two chapters in the same link)
6. Göktas, Y., Temur, N., Kocaman, A. ve Çagiltay, K. (in press).Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda Öğretim Teknolojileri. In Press.
Week 3 History of IT II (Contemporary Period)
Questions of week 3:
1- In most of the articles the authors say that technology could not revolutionize education as expected. Even Cuban, Kirkpatrick and Peck (2001) argue that it will not be much different even in 2050. What are the reasons behind this slow change? How can this situation be improved (or can it be improved?)?
2- Make a prediction about the close future of the field. (2-3 paragraphs)
3- As stated by Turkoglu (2004) the main idea behind the Village Institutions was "is icinde ogrenme", do you think this was a threat to intellectual development of students? Have you observed any Instructional Technology related issue in this reading?
4- Write 3 questions/issues that you want to discuss in the next class.
1. Cuban.L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. Teachers Collage Press. (Sayfa 51-71 arası hariç).
2. Chadwick, C (2002). Why Computers are Failing in the Education of our Children. Educational Technology. 35-40.
3. Industry Report( 2011). Training.
5. Türkoğlu, P.(----). Tonguç ve Köy Enstitüleri. İş Bankası yayınları.
6. Tahir, K. (2006). Bozkırdaki Çekirdek. İthaki Yayınları.
7. Alkan, C. & Kurt, M. (2007).Ozel Ogretim Yontemleri Disiplinlerin Ogretim Teknolojisi (Bolum1-Bir Disiplin olarak Egitim Teknolojisi, Bolum2-Kuramsal Boyut). Ani Yayincilik. (Bu dokümana erişim gelen istek üzerine kaldırılmıştır.)
8. Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H. & Peck, G. (2001). High Access and Low Use of Technologies in High School: explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal. 38(4), 813-834.
9. AECT Standards, 2012 version Adopted by the AECT Board of Directors, July 16, 2012
10. Tevfik, A. (1919). Mekteplerde Projeksiyon. Edebiyat Mecmuası, 5. Retrieved From: http://etarih.com/index.php/erol-koemuer-basyazi/381-mekteplerde-projeksiyon
11. Fatih Projesi Presentations by Yüksel Göktaş
1. Göktas, Y.,Temur, N., Kocaman-Karoglu, A., & Çagiltay, K. (2009). Cumhuriyet Dönemi Öğretim Teknolojilerinin Tarihi Gelişimi, Gazi Üniversitesi Endüstriyel Sanatlar Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24, 81-92.
2. Rosenberg M. J., Coscarelli, W. C. and Hutchinson C. S. (1999). The Origins And Evolution Of The Field. Handbook Of Human Performance Technology (2nd Ed.) San Francisco: Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer.
3. The Chronicle of Higher Education (June 24, 2004). Educational Technology Fails to Deliver on Its Promises (You may access full report from http://www.irhe.upenn.edu/WeatherStation.html "Only Chapter 6 and Conclusion section"
4. Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The Flickering Mind: False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved. Random House. (Read Ch1. 1-63 and Conclusion chapter 391-412 (Missing pages are at the end of he PDF file). In addition to this also read reviews about this book from Amazon’s web site:
5. Postman, N. ( ). The End of Education. Read Ch3. 37-57.
6. Karaomerlioglu, M. A. (1998). The village institutes experience in Turkey. British Journal of middle Eastern studies, 25(1), 47-73.
Week 4 Current Controversies
Questions of week 4:
1. How would you answer someone who charged that “your field has really failed to make a positive impact on education (or training)?”. In responding, you might want to refer to the status of the field and perhaps some issues and trends.
2. Based on the Clark-Kozma debate, what is your position on the question of whether (or how) media affect learning? Justify.
3. If media themselves do not improve instruction, what is so great about Instructional Technology? As the question is asked in business,”what is your value proposition?” That is, in what way does IT claim to “add value” to the enterprise of training or education?
4. Don’t forget to write 3 questions/issues that you want to discuss in the next class.
1. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media, Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.
2. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media and Method, Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(3), 7-10.
3. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning, Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 21-29.
4. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with Media, Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
5. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate, Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 7-19.
6. Clark, R. E. (2002). What is Next in the Media and Methods Debate, Ch.18, 327-337.
7. No significant Difference Web site (skim over the site) http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/
8. Dillon, A. & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as Educational Technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control and style. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 322-349.
1. Dynarski, M. et al . (2007). Effectiveness Of Reading And Mathematics Software Products: Findings From The First Student Cohort, U.S. Department of Education.
Week 5 Theories of Learning and Instruction
Questions of week 5:
1- What claims did the Behaviorists make about the superiority of their perspective? How did they differ from their predecessors? (Short answer. ~ Half page)
2- Does Behaviorism have any continuing value to instructional technologists? Make a claim in favor of or opposed to the employment of behaviorist principles?
HINT: Your answer should make it clear that you have a good grasp of what the principles of operant conditioning are and how they have been and could be applied to instruction. Think of programmed instruction, Personalized System of Instruction, etc.
3- In his GreenBook-III chapter, Reigeluth (2009) explains what ID theory is and is not. Where does Behaviorism fit in these groups and what is Behaviorism's relationship with each one (e.g. Behaviorism and curriculum theory, behaviorism and ID theory, etc.?
4- Write 3 questions/issues related to this week's topic.
1. Reigeluth, C. M. & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume-3, New York: Taylor and Francis, pp: 1-39.
2. Driscoll, M.P. (2002). Psychological Foundations of Instructional Design. Ch 4 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River , New Jersey: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
4. Driscoll, M.P (2005). Radical Behaviorism. Ch 2 in Psychology of Learning for Instruction, 3nd ed, Boston: Allyn&Bacon, 29-69.
5. Foshay, R. (2001). Is Behaviorism Dead? News & Notes, International Society for Performance Technology.
1. Saettler, P. (1990). Behaviorism and Educational Technology. Ch 10 in The Evolution of American Educational Technology, Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 286-317.
2. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is Instructional Design Theory and how is It Chancing? Ch 1 in Instructional Design Theories and Models, London, 5-29.
Week 6 Theories of Learning and Instruction II
Questions of Week 6:
1. Would you recommend that an instructional designer adhere to one of these theoretical perspectives consistently or work out their own eclectic philosophy? Why? (Do not forget to add pros and cons of your position)
2. Watch the video and answer: Which learning theory is applied in this classroom? Why? Is it really possible to implement such a classroom, what are the requirements and challenges?
Take a position and answer this question.
3. As an Instructional Technologist, present your own "philosophy of instruction". How do you realize this philosophy to real life settings? Specify what audience you have in mind (e.g. children in school, college students, adults in nonformal education, corporate training...).
Hint: You might then think about the factors that you have to consider when planning a lesson, such as motivation, presenting new information, allowing practice, providing feedback, evaluating, etc. For example, Gagne's "events of instruction" framework provides a neat guide for thinking about and remembering many of these factors. Of course, your own philosophy may reject Gagne's framework, but it might still help you organize your thoughts.
4- Write three questions related with this week issues.
1. Watch the Video- Learning Centers
2. Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Constructivism Ch 11 in Psychology of Learning for Instruction, 3nd ed, Boston: Allyn&Bacon, 372-396.
3. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-72.
4. Winn, W. (2003). Cognitive Perspectives in Psychology. Ch 4 in Jonassen Handbook of Research, 2nd ed, 79-112. (More Focus on section 4.5 COGNITIVE THEORY AND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY)
5. Airasian, P. W. & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist Cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 444-449.
6. Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). Reflections on the implications of constructivism for educational technology. Ch 13 in Constructivism and The Technology of Instruction: a conversation. Duffy, T. M. & Jonassen D. H. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 149-151.
7. Bonner, J. (1998). implication of cognitive theory forInstructional Design: Revisited. Educational Technology and communication journal. 36(1). 4-14.
8.Renkl, A. (2009). Why constructivists should not talk about constructivist learning environments: A commentary on Loyens and Gijbels (2008). Instructional Science. 37, 495–498.
9. Gur,B.S. & Wiley, D. A. (2009). Psychologism and Instructional Technology. Educatinal Philosophy and Theory, 41 (3), 307-331.
1. Molenda, M. Reigeluth C. M. & Nelson L. M. (2003). Instructional Design.Enyclopedia of cognitivce science. In L. Nadel (Ed.) vol 2. London: Nature Publishing Group. 574-578.
2. Merril, D. M. (-). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development. (in press)
3. Royer, J. M. (2005). The cognitive revolution in educational psychology. Ch1 in The cognitive revolution in educational psychology. James M. Royer. pp.1-12.
Week 7 Instructional Design
Questions of Week7:
1.Is it possible to create an instructional system without following an Instructional Design Model? Always, sometimes, or never?
2.How would you answer someone who charged that "ID Models are just boxes and arrows, they have no practical value in real life instructional design/development projects"?
3. Write 3 Questions /Comments
1. Gustafson, K. L. Branch R. M. & Maribe R.(2002). Survey of Instructional Development Models. 3rd ed. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Technology mode, Syracuse, NY. (Skim over taxonomy and models)
2. Gustafson, K. L. & Branch R. M. (2002). What is instructional design. Ch 2 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J. A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River , New Jersey: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
4. Schiffman, S. S. (1995). Instructional System Design: Five Views of the field. Ch 11 in G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future (2nd ed.), Englewood, CO, Libraries Unlimited.
5. Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1997). Using Models and Paradigms. Ch. 7 in Making Instructional Design Decisions. 165-194
6. Zemke, R. & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD, Training, 39(2). Data base: EBSCO Host.
7. Reigeluth, C. M. & Alison,C-C. (---). A Common Language and Knowledge Base for ID?
1. Clark, R. C. (2002). Applying Cognitive Strategies to Instructional Design, Performance Improvement Journal, 41 (7), 8-13.
2. Sink, D. L., (2002). ISD: Faster Better Easier, Performance Improvement Journal, 41(7), 16-21.
3. McCombs, B. (1986). The Instructional Systems Development (ISD) Model: A Review of those Factors Critical to its Successful Implementation, ECTJ, 34(2), 67-81.
4. Wallace, G. W., Hybert, P. R., Smith, K. R., and Blecke, B., D. (2002). Designing for the ISD Life Cycle, Performance Improvement Journal, 41(7), 23-27.
Read for Entertainment:
Isman, A. (2005). The implementation results of new instructional design model: isman model. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. ISSN: 1303-6521 volume 4 Issue 4 Article 7.
Week 8 Performance Technology
Questions of Week 8:
1 - All institutions and individuals need to improve themselves. As this is a natural human activity, do we really need a science like HPT? Can't we just take it granted that this is happening due to natural causes?
2 - Imagine you are a consultant in an organization (pick any one you want). You are reported that there is a performance problem...
1. Defining the potential problems, and their reasons
2. Why we need HPT to solve our problem?
3. How can HPT can solve this problem?
4. What might be the potential results after HPT?
As an example, think about what advice you might give to K-12 school / university people about HPT. Is there any possible relevance of HPT to schools? (or colleges?) Who would be the "performers?" What would be the potential performance deficiencies? What interventions could be used other than instruction?
HINT-2: Look around your own environment and count how many interventions your university has set up to enable you to achieve more.
3 - What are key constructs associated with performance technology (e.g. definition of PT itself, job aid, EPSS, non-training interventions, motivational systems, expert systems, organizational development)?
4 - Write 3 questions/issues
5-Decide on your term project topic, Write the title and 1-2 paragraph of explanation of your paper.
1. Doughty, P. L. & Romiszowski, A. J. (1997). Organizational and performance engineering paradigms and their relationship to instructional system development.
2. Rosenberg, M. J., Coscarelli, W. C. and Hutchinson C. S (1999). Ch 2 in The Origins And Evolution Of The Field. Handbook Of Human Performance Technology, 2nd Ed., San Francisco: Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer.
3. Stolovitch, H. D. & Keeps, E. J. (1999). What is HPT? Ch1 in The Origins And Evolution Of The Field. Handbook Of Human Performance Technology, 2nd Ed., San Francisco: Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer.
5. Wile, D. (1996). "Why Doers Do", P&I, pp. 30-32.
Week 9 Implementation and Change
Questions of Week9:
1- Because of your renown as an expert in educational technology you have been invited to serve as a consultant to the Ministry of Education for the new technology integration process. There is potential for a long-term consulting role as this plan is developed and implemented, but at the moment they are interested only in help on developing a general change-management strategy. Essentially, what she wants from you is a general description of what needs to be done, by whom, in what stages.
What are Constraints “anticipated barriers", brief suggestions on how to cope with them. Write a brief report to the Ministry of Education and convince them that you can help them in the long run too.
2- The five perceived attributes of an innovation are relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Think of an innovation that you, your organization, or someone you know has recently adopted (For example: Starting to make shopping on the Web) . Which of the perceptions do you think were most important in the adoption decision? Which perceptions were not important? Do you believe that it is possible to measure people's perceptions and design a product that is "perception friendly" ? Why or why not?
3- Watch the video and answer: The video mentiones about several different paradigm change cases, is it possible to create a similar paradigm change in education? Under which conditions?
4- 3 questions/issues to discuss.
1. Video- Paradigm Change
2. Brethower, D. M.(1999). Ch 4 in The Origins And Evolution Of The Field. Handbook Of Human Performance Technology, 2nd Ed., San Francisco: Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer.
4. Burkman, E. (1987). Factors effecting utilization. Ch 16 in Instructional technology foundations. Gagne R. M. (ed.) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hillsdale, NewJersey. 429-455.
5. Churchman, C. W. (1968). What is a system?. Ch 1 in The System Approach. New York. Delta, 3-15.
6. Garland, K. P. (1995). Diffusion and adaptation of instructional technology. In G. J. Anglin (ed). Instructional technology: past, present and future. 2nd ed. englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, 282-287.
7. Reigeluth, C. M., (2012). Instructional Theory and Technology for the New Paradigm of Education. Revista de Educacion a Distancia (32).
8. Surry, D.W., & Ely, D.P. (2001). Adoption, diffusion, implementation, and institutionalization of educational innovations. In R. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends & Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Week 10 Distance and Distributed Education
Questions of Week 10:
1- What special challenges does distance education pose?
a) pedagogical challenges
i. selecting and implementing appropriate instructional strategies
(e.g. moving from teacher-centered to learner-centered strategies)
ii. maintaining quality as numbers of students increase
iii.new teacher's role and duties
iv. new student's role
b) institutional / organizational challenges?
2- Write 3 Questions and issues.
1. Cagiltay, K. (2001). Elektrik Muhendisleri Odasi Dergisi, 409. Uzaktan Egitim: Basariya Giden Yol Teknolojide mi Yoksa Pedagojide mi?
2. Gunawardena, C. N. & McIsaac, M. S. (2003) .Distance Education. in Jonassen Handbook of Research (2nd ed.).
3. Zemsky, R. & Massy, W. F. (2004). Thwarted Innovation What Happened to e-learning and Why. A Final Report for The Weather station Project of The Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania in cooperation with the Thomson Corporation. (Read the summary section and skim through the rest).
4. Lathchem,C. Ozkul, A. E. (2006). The Open Education System, Anadolu University, Turkey: e-transformation in a mega-university
5. Cagiltay, K. Graham, C. R., Lim, B. Craner, J. & Duffy, T. ( ----). Hacettepe University Journal of Education, Ankara, Turkey. The Seven Principles Of Good Practice: A Practical Approach To Evaluating Online Courses. 20(2), 40-50.
6. Staying The Course, Online Education in the United States, 2008
7. Daniel, J. (2010). Distance Education under Threat: an Opportunity?, IDOL & ICEM 2010 Joint Conference and Media Days, Eskisehir, Turkey, 6-8 October 2010
8. Parry, M. (2011, November 9). Online-Course Enrollments Grow, but at a Slower Pace. Is a Plateau Approaching? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/online-course-enrollments-grow-but-at-a-slower-pace-is-a-plateau-approaching/34150
1. Alkan, C. (1981). Acik Universite. Uzaktan Egitim Sistemlerinin Karsilastirmali olarak Incelenmesi. (Bu dokumana erisebilmek icin siteye giris yapmaniz gerekmektedir)
2. Baran, B., Kılıç, E., Bakar, A. & Çağıltay, K. (2004). Sanal Kampüs Projesi.
3. Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online Education in the United States, 2005.
4. Harting, K; Erthal, MJ (2005). History of Distance Learning. Information Technology Learning and Performance Journal. 23(1), 35-44.
6. Hawkridge, D. (2002). Distance learning and instructional design in international settings. Ch 20 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J. A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Merrill/Prentice Hall.
7. Wagner, E. D. (1999). Beyond distance education. Ch1 in The Origins And Evolution Of The Field. Handbook Of Human Performance Technology, 2nd Ed., San Francisco: Jossey- Bass/Pfeiffer.
Week 11 Knowledge Management
Questions of the Week 11:
1- How do you differentiate Knowledge from Data and Information? What are the main characteristics of KM?
2- How do you propose Knowledge Management's use in the educational setting?
3- Is an EPSS (Electronic performance support system) a subset of KM sysem or vice versa? Why? (One paragraph answer)
4- 3 questions and issues.
1. Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
3. Barab, S. A. & Duffy, T. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.) Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 25-56.
4. Towards knowledge societies, Unesco, 2005. (skim over)
1. OECD (2000). Knowledge Management in the Learning Society: (Complete Edition - ISBN 9264171827). Centre for Educational Research and Innovation Education & Skills.
Week 12 BOTE
1. Complexity of Integrating Computer Technologies into Education in Turkey. Educational Technology & Society, 9 (1), 176-187.
2. BT Entegrasyonu Temel Araştirmasi (2007). Milli Eğitim Bakanliği Projeler
Koordinasyon Merkezi Başkanliği Temel Eğitim Projesi II. Fazı. (Just focus on Results and Suggestions sections, p.117-129)
3. Daly, S. (n.d) The Role of a School Technology Coordinator: Changing Teachers’
Attitudes and Their Use of Technology in the Classroom. (Retrieved from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/vol2no1/pdf-litrev/dalys_lr.pdf)
4. Deryakulu, D., & Olkun, S. (2007). Analysis of Computer Teachers’ Online Discussion
Forum Messages about their Occupational Problems. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (4), 131-142.
5. Seferoglu, S. S. (2007). İlköğretim Bilgisayar Dersi Öğretim Programı:Eleştirel Bir Bakış
ve Uygulamada Yaşanan Sorunlar. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 29 (99-111)
6. Karal, H. & Timucin, E. (n.d). BÖTE (Bu Öğretmenliğin Tanımı Eksik) BÖTE Bölümleri
ve Mezunlarının Sorunları ile Bu Sorunlar İçin Çözüm Önerileri
Week13 Future of the Field
1. Gustafson K. L. (2002). The Future of intructional design. Ch 25 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J. A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle
River , New Jersey : Merrill/Prentice Hall
2. Rasmussen, K. L. (2002). Competence at a glance: Professional Knowledge, skills and abilities in the field of instructional design and technology. Ch 29 in Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J. A. (Eds.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey : Merrill/Prentice Hall
3. Ritchie, D. & Earnest, J. (1999). The future of instructional design: results of a delphi
study. Educational technology. 35-42.
4. Tennyson, R.D. (2001). Defining core competencies of an instructional technologist. Computers in human behavior. (7). 355-361.
5. Myers, K. L. (1999). Is There a Place for Instructional Design in the Information Age? Educational Technology.
6. Culp, K. M, Honey, M. & Mandinach, E. (2005). A retrospective on twenty years of education technology polıcy, Journal of Educatıonal Computıng research, 32(3), 279-307.