See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343399281

Understanding the Diverse Field of “Educational Technology” as Revealed in

Twitter Job Postings: Encoding / Decoding Approach

Article in Qualitative Report · August 2020

DOI: 10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4457

CITATIONS READS

3 166

3 authors:

Merve Basdogan Zulfukar Ozdogan

Indiana University Bloomington Indiana University Bloomington
17 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Curt Bonk
Indiana University Bloomington
218 PUBLICATIONS 10,114 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Future of Blended Learning in Corporate and Other Training Settings View project

Practicing Designers' Experiences of Building and Using Precedent Knowledge View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Merve Basdogan on 03 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Qualitative Report

Volume 25 Number 8 Article 3

8-3-2020

Understanding the Diverse Field of “Educational Technology” as

Revealed in Twitter Job Postings: Encoding / Decoding Approach
Merve Basdogan
Indiana University Bloomington, [email protected]

Zulfukar Ozdogan
Indiana University, Bloomington, [email protected]

Curtis J. Bonk
Indiana University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr

Part of the Educational Technology Commons, Instructional Media Design Commons, Quantitative,
Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, and the Social Statistics Commons

Recommended APA Citation

Basdogan, M., Ozdogan, Z., & Bonk, C. J. (2020). Understanding the Diverse Field of “Educational
Technology” as Revealed in Twitter Job Postings: Encoding / Decoding Approach. The Qualitative Report,
25(8), 2044-2066. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol25/iss8/3

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The Qualitative Report at NSUWorks. It has been
accepted for inclusion in The Qualitative Report by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
Understanding the Diverse Field of “Educational Technology” as Revealed in
Twitter Job Postings: Encoding / Decoding Approach

Abstract
In this study, we attempt to understand discursive interrelationships among five professional job
advertisements which are often used interchangeably, including educational technology, educational
design, instructional design, learning design, and instructional systems design. The purpose is to better
understand the distinctions, interactions, and overlaps of these disciplines using Encoding/Decoding
Model over the discourses of the jobs’ announcements. We collected data using a social network analysis
tool, NCapture, and imported to qualitative analysis software (i.e., NVivo) to conduct thematic analyses.
For this study, 171 job postings in Twitter were captured by using NCapture as a Web-browser extension.
Findings indicated that the relations between the targeted disciplines can be explained by Stuart Hall’s
Communication Model (1980). Results can serve as a guide for scholars and students studying at the
intersection of technology and education fields.

Keywords
Stuart Hall, Encoding and Decoding, NVivo, Discourse, Educational Technology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License.

This article is available in The Qualitative Report: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol25/iss8/3

The Qualitative Report 2020 Volume 25, Number 8, Article 2, 2044-2066

Understanding the Diverse Field of “Educational Technology” as

Revealed in Twitter Job Postings: Encoding / Decoding Approach
Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, and Curtis J. Bonk
Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA

In this study, we attempt to understand discursive interrelationships among five

professional job advertisements which are often used interchangeably,
including educational technology, educational design, instructional design,
learning design, and instructional systems design. The purpose is to better
understand the distinctions, interactions, and overlaps of these disciplines using
Encoding/Decoding Model over the discourses of the jobs’ announcements. We
collected data using a social network analysis tool, NCapture, and imported to
qualitative analysis software (i.e., NVivo) to conduct thematic analyses. For this
study, 171 job postings in Twitter were captured by using NCapture as a Web-
browser extension. Findings indicated that the relations between the targeted
disciplines can be explained by Stuart Hall’s Communication Model (1980).
Results can serve as a guide for scholars and students studying at the
intersection of technology and education fields. Keywords: Stuart Hall,
Encoding and Decoding, NVivo, Discourse, Educational Technology

Introduction

There is little doubt that learning environments have experienced dramatic changes
during the past two decades (Brown & Adler, 2008; Peppler 2013; Scanlon et al., 2013;
Sharples et al., 2014). In fact, there are dozens of ways that human learning is changing. For
instance, learning is now more open, online, blended, mobile, collaborative, social, video-
based, hands-on, ubiquitous, global, game-like, and massive (Bonk, 2009, 2016). Such rapidly
increasing and expanding capabilities of learning technology have had a profound impact on
the teaching-learning situation (Hlynka & Jacobsen, 2009). Over the past decade, there have
been ceaseless attempts to incorporate emerging technologies across all educational sectors
from K-12 schools (Adams Becker, Freeman, Giesinger Hall, Cummins, & Yuhnke, 2016;
Hardman, 2016) to higher education institutions (Johnson et al., 2016) to corporate, military,
and government training organizations (Ravipati, 2016; Robbins, 2016), often with goals
related to increasing access to education, adjusting the learning environment to student shifting
expectations and experiences, fostering learner engagement and interactivity, and addressing
the accelerating costs of education. As in-roads in any of these areas are made, no matter how
seemingly modest, it increases the current significance and potential impact of the disciplines
at the intersection of learning and technology (e.g., Berrett, 2016; Chang, 2016; Fischer, Hilton,
Robinson, & Wiley, 2015; Riter, 2016).
For example, as the delivery of online courses has matured and the technologies to
reach and engage students have become increasingly sophisticated, the set of skills required
have evolved; in fact, the psychological and design considerations are particularly complex in
blended learning environments (Owston, 2017). The vast amount of job openings advertised at
the intersection of learning and technology (Kim, 2018) elevates the need to gain a better
understanding of the responsibilities for each type of job as well as the associated qualifications
expected for each. Current details related to the requisite competencies and job duties is vital
Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, & Curtis J. Bonk 2045

for both those engaged in the recruitment of educational and instructional technologists as well
as those searching for such positions. Naturally, it should also be of high value for those in the
midst of training or retraining within the field. The skill-related needs and prerequisites that
are explicitly stated in the discourses of the advertised positions help to not just frame the
current discourses related to specific job openings, but also the current and near future needs
as seen in the expectations from such positions.
The present study compares five disciplines including: (1) Educational Technology, (2)
Educational Design, (3) Instructional Design, (4) Learning Experience Design, and (5)
Instructional Systems Design. Since these terms are often used interchangeably, much
confusion and overlap exist in terms of describing the career possibilities to those pondering
entering or thinking about entering the field. The purpose of the present study is to explore the
interconnectedness and interrelationships of the targeted fields to describe their scope in the
job market. By describing the responsibilities and becoming better informed about the
qualifications needed in these jobs, the researchers hope that the resulting findings can be useful
for both graduate and undergraduate students who plan to pursue a career in one of these five
fields as well as to those already employed in these or related areas who are in need of such
information for their career enhancement and retooling.

Literature Review

According to Januszewski and Molenda (2008), educational technology is the “study

and practice of facilitating learning and enhancing performance by generating, selecting, and
controlling appropriate technological processes and resources.” However, as various learning
technology continues to emerge and evolve, the disciplinary boundaries between the
professional fields become blurry (Gibbons, 1997; Hlynka & Jacobsen, 2009). Contrary to the
traditional, institutionalized knowledge structures, knowledge is now commonly generated
through collaboration and cooperation among those in various disciplines (Klein, 1990). For
example, the tasks of the educational technologist are increasingly complex, evolving, and
multifaceted (Intentional Futures, 2016). Much of this complexity and multifacetedness has
coincided with the rise of online and blended forms of learning (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Bonk
& Graham, 2006; Owston, 2017). Add to that the high profile nature of online and blended
forms of learning, especially at the time of this writing during COVID-19 pandemic, and it is
small wonder why educational technologists are growing in importance in society across all
sectors of education (Berrett, 2016; Intentional Futures, 2016; Riter, 2016).
In a similar vein, the field of the instructional design is also considered to have an
interdisciplinary nature that is influenced by psychology, communication, and management
fields (Ely, 2008). Instructional design refers to "the systematic process of translating principles
of learning and instruction into plans for instructional materials and activities" (Smith & Ragan,
1993, p. 2). According to Riter (2016, para. 6), “Great instructional designers must become
experts in a near-limitless set of overlapping solutions to produce tractable, informed
decisions.” However, rapid changes in learning technologies and associated pedagogical
opportunities and constraints present marked challenges for instructional designers and others
in this field to keep track of; let alone attempt to design and implement the necessary guidelines
and training programs to take advantage of them.
With the rapid increase in online and blended learning courses and programs (Allen &
Seaman, 2016; Stansbury, 2017), individuals with instructional design and related skills are
increasingly sought after; especially in higher education settings (Berrett, 2016). Riter (2016)
mentioned that LinkedIn tripled its postings of open instructional designer positions from 2013
to 2016 to somewhere around 15,000; notably, such data does not include related occupations
such as learning center directors, technology training personnel, or online learning
2046 The Qualitative Report 2020

technologists. He further noted that CNN Money (2012) anticipates that the field will grow by
over 28 percent in just ten years from 217,700 total jobs in 2012 to nearly 280,000 by 2022.
Given such trends, there will be a wide array of instructional designer jobs to fill in the coming
years. This trend will likely also result in pressing needs for quality assurance personnel,
program managers, technology testing and evaluation staff, online and blended learning
directors and managers, learning technology consultants, and so on.
There have been recent inroads in this area. For instance, as detailed in the widely cited
Intentional Futures (2016) report, funded by the Gates Foundation, instructional designers are
diversely trained and qualified. As this report highlights, the requisite skills and duties as well
as training requirements for instructional design-related personnel are far from one-size-fits-
all. Those employed in this field are called on to help with e-learning, blended learning, self-
paced courses, and residential courses, including those that are highly informal, flipped, media
rich, mobile-based, and, at times, highly massive as well as various combinations and
derivatives of such delivery formats (Bonk, Lee, Reeves, & Reynolds, 2015; Bonk, 2016).
According to the International Futures report, the responsibilities of instructional designers
include to: (1) design, (2) manage, (3) train, and (4) support. This report argues that
instructional designers have become pivotal players in bridging the gaps between traditional
instruction and emerging online learning. They also can find balance between instructor-
centered forms of instruction and that which is more learner-centered. Equally important, they
can grasp the pedagogical needs for interactive and engaging forms of learning and the tools
and applications that have emerged during the past decade to address those needs. Nevertheless,
the Intentional Futures report notes that many questions remain about what instructional
designers do and where they actually fit or are housed in higher education as well as other
educational sectors.
A related area to educational technology and instructional design is educational design
which is defined as planned and unplanned activities and resources that support learning
regardless of whether the learning is intentional or unintentional (AECT, 2004). Nichols and
Meuleman (2017) accept “educational designer” as a synonym of “instructional designer” and
“learning designer.” They also note that situational judgement, problem-solving, and
knowledge of instructional design models and technology are the required competencies for an
educational designer. Goodyear (2005, p. 82), on the other hand, describes educational design
“to be the set of practices involved in constructing representations of how to support learning
in particular cases.” He prescribes that a detailed educational design act should include design
of the learning task, design of the learning environment, and design of the social relationships
in the learning setting.
Another recently emerging area, learning experience design (LX Design) is a process
of designing the experiences of learners in a learner-centered way to achieve the targeted
learning outcomes (Floor, 2018). Hassenzahl (2010) defines “experience” as subjective,
holistic, and situated actions, perceptions, motivations, and emotions. It is subjective since the
interrelationships among objects, people, and situations produces the experiences. It is holistic
since it consists of environmental and individualist factors. Finally, it is situated since all
experiences emerge at a place and time. Thus, learning experience designers should consider
how a design might influence learners physically, emotionally, intellectually, and culturally
(Press & Cooper, 2017). For instance, Schwarzenberg, Navon, Nussbaum, Pérez-Sanagustín,
and Caballero (2018) offered a learning experience assessment model in flipped courses. In
their proposed model, enjoyment, choice, feedback, challenge, and peer instruction were
identified as dimensions of a meaningful learning experience.
Finally, instructional systems design is a science and art of creating detailed
specifications for the development, evaluation, and maintenance of situations in which learning
and performance are facilitated (Richey, Klein, & Tracey, 2011). Hoadley (2004) has stated
Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, & Curtis J. Bonk 2047

that instructional systems design focuses on “the best ways to create systems that yield
learning” (p. 8). He also added that although in the past, this field was concerned with the
development of instructional materials, recently it has focused on systems-level factors that
impact student learning.
The comprehensive definitions of instructional design have been still reviewed and
academically studied. For example, regarding a survey of over 850 people working in higher
education institutions in instructional design, course design, or related fields, the Intentional
Futures report offers an insightful and quite candid look at the experiences, ages, educational
backgrounds, skills, tools, and even the personas needed to be successful as instructional
designers (Intentional Futures, 2016). The skills that were reported as useful in that survey
varied from project management to strategic planning to research to data analysis to
instructional design models to learning new and emerging technologies to graphic design to
multimedia production to coding to publishing to teaching and much more. The list is
seemingly inexhaustible. The report even offered a glimpse into the barriers to success, possible
career paths, professional development opportunities, and typical days of an instructional
designer. However, it did not specifically explore the other fields including educational
technology, educational design, learning experience design, and instructional systems design.
In addition, this report was more practice-focused than research-based. Another problem was
that the reliance on survey data has various limitations including validity and reliability issues
related to self-report data (Gonyea, 2005).
Considering the above literature related to the fields of educational technology,
educational design, instructional design, learning experience design, and instructional systems
design; these professions require individuals to analyze, design, and develop learning materials,
learning activities, and courses as well as implement, evaluate, improve, and redesign learning
experiences. In other words, such people are needed to both encode a message (e.g., course,
training, workshop, seminar, etc.) and to decode the message (e.g., implementation, evaluation,
refinement or revision, etc.) through a communication channel (e.g., online, blended, face-to-
face, videoconferencing, correspondence and other modes of delivery).

Stuart Hall’s “Encoding and Decoding” Model as a Lens

As we began to examine the job postings in Twitter for the aforementioned five job
fields, we were reminded of Stuart Hall’s (1980) meaningful discourse model. As Hall
explains, this model deals with “meanings and messages in the form of sign vehicles of a
specific kind organized, like any form of communication or language, through the operation of
codes with the syntagmatic chain of a discourse” (p. 128). Hall’s (1980) encoding and decoding
model was an attempt to describe how communication is structured in television messages. For
nearly four decades now, it has been highly cited, discussed, and debated by media and culture
scholars to understand mediated communication and meaning (Yousman, 2013). According to
Hall (1980), encoding refers to constructing messages that may involve encoders’ inner
thoughts, ideas, feelings, and knowledge. Decoding, on the other hand, refers to turning
patterned codes into interpretations. At the core of this communication process, there is
communication channel (technical infrastructure) that is used to carry the message. Within the
loop of communication, although the producer encodes meaning in a certain way, the audience
(decoder) might decode it differently based on the individual knowledge frames and contextual
frames
Hall’s model consists of the cycling flow of the frames of knowledge in which there
are two-sides by which the meaningful discourse is reached with the relations of productions
and consumptions of the discourse. In order to theorize the communicative structure, Hall
(1980) lists three possible positions of audience to decode any given message. The first is
2048 The Qualitative Report 2020

dominant readings in which the decoded message has the same meaning as it was intended by
the encoder. Second is negotiated reading in which the decoder reads the message correctly but
not necessarily as intended. Third is the oppositional reading in which the decoder reads the
message in a opposite way.
Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model (see Figure 1) illustrates this by showing the
discourses of the meaning of the text between its producer (encoder) and the reader (encoder)
(Hall, 1980).

Figure 1: Meaningful Discourse (Hall, 1980)

In this paper, we aim to empirically and analytically discuss the location of the five professions
which are often used interchangeably, including: (1) educational technology, (2) educational
design, (3) instructional design, (4) learning experience design, and (5) instructional systems
design, in the Encoding/Decoding Model. Our purpose is to better understand in which section
(e.g., encoding–decoding–channel) of the model these professionals are more widely needed
based on the data collected from job advertisements posted in Twitter. This attempt can shed
light on the distinctions and overlaps between each discipline.
The following research questions guided current study:

1. What are the interrelationships (e.g., similarities and differences) among the
targeted professions based on job descriptions (i.e., educational technology,
educational design, instructional design, learning experience design, and
instructional systems design)?
2. In which section of the Encoding/Decoding Model are the targeted
professions needed based on the job announcements posted in Twitter?

Significance of current study for the authors

Understanding the similarities and differences between these five fields is important for
the authors of this study for various reasons. For example, Merve Basdogan is a Ph.D. candidate
in the Instructional Systems Technology Department of Indiana University (IU). She has
worked in various jobs with different titles such as instructional consultant at IU School of
Education, education coordinator at the Continuing Education Center of Middle East Technical
University, instructional designer at IU Public Health School, and graduate assistant at the
Learning Technologies division of IU. In each position, she had diverse responsibilities and
experiences. From her subjective experience, she believes that the major difference among
these jobs is the expectations regarding curriculum/program development, technology
integration, and assessment. To make her claims stronger, valid, and scientific, she strives to
Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, & Curtis J. Bonk 2049

gleam the big picture by analyzing existing job postings with the hope of capturing the relevant
and appropriate patterns and structures.
In a similar vein, Zulfukar Ozdogan is a PhD candidate in the Department of Counseling
and Educational Psychology. Zulfukar has been studying in the Inquiry Methodology program
with various research interests in foundational philosophy and psychology. Like Merve, he
(Zulfukar) got his undergraduate degree from Middle East Technical University, Ankara,
Turkey. Courses in political science as well as sociology roused his interests in critical theory
and cultural studies. As a result, these interests drove him to study social science methodology,
possible constructions of knowledge, the perplexities of subjects’ interactions in the field of
education, and the needed trust and validations of communicative action in the socialization of
individuals. In this study, Zulfukar recreated and revisited his various interests from multiple
directions and corners. He defines the text as a medium to carry the information with certain
norms and system beliefs. The data of this study pertains to job advertisements in the field of
educational and instructional technology. Searching through these job postings let him think
about the qualitative methodology that could be used to better understand and represent this
data. He began to reflect on how theories from cultural studies and educational and instructional
perspectives could be utilized to better understand what it is presented, what it is said, and what
it is actually circulated.
Finally, Curt Bonk is Professor of Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana
University (IU) with 35 years of experience in the fields of educational technology and
educational psychology. As a prominent researcher with hundreds of publications, experienced
trainer in online and blended learning at institutions and organizations spanning the globe, and
sought after conference speaker in the fields of open, online, and distance learning, he has
witnessed firsthand the dramatic unfolding of job opportunities over the past few decades
related to online, blended, mobile, virtual, collaborative, and adaptive learning as well as the
constantly shifting skill and competency requirements. Professor Bonk is also known for his
mentoring of hundreds of graduate students into the field; as a result, it is necessary for him to
keep abreast of job openings in the field. In fact, he has designed a master portal of educational
technology jobs portals as a means to help young scholars better understand the types of job
openings in the field and what they require in terms of a skill-set. The present study will help
him promote the field in his international and national presentations as well as help guide
students in his own department.

Method

Data sources and data analysis

We started collecting data in February 2018 by using a Web-extension tool called

Ncapture. We used job announcements posted in Twitter because Twitter data are circulated
daily, freely, and accessibly. First, Twitter data was collected by using the following keywords:
“educational technology jobs,” “educational design jobs,” “instructional design jobs,”
“learning experience design jobs,” and “instructional systems jobs.” Job postings containing
the keywords mentioned above were derived from both professional organization Twitter
accounts and individual Twitter accounts. Next, these data were imported into NVivo (2016)
for qualitative content analyses (Rapley, 2008) to answer the primary research question of the
study. This analysis was conducted by two researchers in order to ensure the trustworthiness
and triangulation of the data (Merriam, 2009.
The dataset (N=431) obtained from Twitter at the end of the four weeks included the
following: n=95 tweets for educational technology/technologist jobs; n=36 tweets educational
design jobs; n=149 tweets for instructional design jobs; n=109 tweets for learning/experience
2050 The Qualitative Report 2020

design jobs; and n=42 tweets for instructional systems jobs. Among these 431 tweets, 171 of
them had a working job announcement link. Therefore, only these 171 job announcements were
included in this study.
Second, the connections and interactions among the five targeted professions (i.e., (1)
educational technology, (2) educational design, (3) instructional design, (4) learning
experience design, and (5) instructional systems design) were examined using thematic
analysis. The key goals of this analysis included the development of a coding list, the denoting
of categories among the job announcements, and the schematization of the interconnections
among the codes. Job announcements, as linked to in Twitter postings, were the communication
instrument to mediate this strategy.
The next analytical step was to make sense of the categories of codes by comparing
them within the job categories. Codes are the labels that are attached to phrases, expressions,
words, and references from the data. Categorizing is, on the other hand, a logical act to organize
the coded segments according to their correlations and differences. The aim of this step is to
reduce the number of different codes into a list of meaningful groups or themes. A theme is an
inquiry act to determine the major and higher categories that emerged from the codes.
To reach an agreement about the labeling of the structural codes that emerged from the
analysis of job announcements, two of the researchers regularly discussed the codes and shared
their coding system with each other by using NVivo. During the initial analyses and researcher
discussions, distinct coding categories were also articulated in terms of the two key research
questions. To enhance the credibility of this study, this research attempted to triangulate the
sources and methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 2009) and engage in prolonged
engagement (Yin, 2011).

Findings

Descriptive Content Analysis

The descriptive analysis of the 171 job postings revealed that the number of nodes
(codes) in each profession are as follows: (1) educational technology = 38; (2) educational
design = 16; (3) instructional design =24; (4) instructional system design = 26; and (5) learning
experience design = 27. Among these nodes, Responsibilities, Qualifications, Requirements,
Experiences, Ability and Skills, and Preferences are the six nodes having the highest number
of references as noted in Table 1.

Table 1. Qualitatively coded nodes and the number of references

Node The number of references

Responsibilities 37
Qualifications 21
Requirements 18
Experience 13
Ability and Skills 11
Preferences 10

Figure 2 displays the number of node references by the field. The comparison in the chart is
based on the number of the words that are used in the coded segments. The matrix information
shown in Figure 1 is based on the number of the words and phrases in each job posting
documents. Thus, Figure 1 indicates that "General Responsibilities" were repeated more in
Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, & Curtis J. Bonk 2051

Learning Experience Design posts compared to the other fields. Similarly, "Qualifications"
were highlighted more in the Instructional Systems Design jobs.

Figure 2. The number of the words in each node references by discipline.

RQ1. In order to answer the first research question: “What are the interrelationships
(i.e., similarities and differences) among the targeted professions based on job descriptions…,”
we identified mutual and negotiated discourse in the job postings for each profession. Drawing
from Hall's (1980) Communication Model, mutual discourse refers to the consensus between
the fields in terms of the categories of: (1) Ability and Skills; (2) Experience; (3) Preferences,
(4) Qualifications; (5) Requirements; and (6) Responsibilities. These six categories were not
created by the researchers; instead, these categories directly come from the job announcements.
As a result, we do not have operational definitions for each category. Our purpose was to
explore their practical and conceptual meanings by coding the relations and frequencies inside
of them. Finally, negotiated discourse relates to the unique elements that only one field
indicated in the job postings.

Ability and Skills

Given the coding relations with job categories in Figure 3, Educational Technology
jobs have a dominant discourse over the ability and skills concept. In other words, from Hall’s
(1980) topology of encoding position, Educational Technology in that position is powerful to
produce the discourses on the definitions of needed skills and abilities used in the job ads.
Educational technology was mainly defined by five different skills and abilities; namely
learning skills, reasoning skills, organizational skills, business skills, and language ability (see
Figure 3). On the other hand, Educational Technology and Instructional Systems Technology
positions had a mutual acceptance on the definition of learning skills. In terms of negotiated
acceptance, Learning Experience Design emphasized management skills whereas Educational
Design sought certain desired skills. Figure 3 shows the relationship graphs of the coded
categories for the skills and abilities of the five job categories, whereas Figure 4 provides a
2052 The Qualitative Report 2020

word cloud that depicts the most repeated words for the associated element, with size signaling
greater frequency of use.

Figure 3. Coding relations of the skills and abilities of the five job categories in Twitter job
postings

Figure 4. Word cloud of ability and skills themes of the five job categories in Twitter job
postings

Experience

In the experience category, Learning Experience Design dominated the discourse on

the work experience such as experience with client-facing, in responsive design for multiple
platforms, and direct experience with vendors. In addition, learning experience in designing
and developing learning materials and innovative curriculum and certification programming
are the other concentration points. In a similar manner, the discourse on Instructional Design
Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, & Curtis J. Bonk 2053

centered on three points: (1) the familiarity with specific software such as Captivate, Storyline,
and Adobe Creative Suite as well as Internet and e-mail applications and Learning Management
Systems Quality Matters rubrics; (2) required experiences related to design and development
of curriculum; and (3) demonstrated experience of adult learning theories and instructional
design principles. The findings for Instructional Designer positions, on the other hand, more
often had a negotiated acceptance on the number of years in the experience category. Figure 5
details an interrelationship graph on the discourse of fields of the types of experience required
for the five job categories, whereas Figure 6 details a word cloud of the word frequency for the
experience theme.

Figure 5. Coding relations of the job categories for the types of experience required for the five
job categories in Twitter job postings

Figure 6. Word cloud of experience theme in Twitter job postings

2054 The Qualitative Report 2020

Preferences

In the preferences category, Educational Technology positions were dominated by the

discourse on the preferred experiences with Microsoft products, Storyline, and the Agile
framework as well as familiarity with flipped learning, visual design, and classroom
management. The rest of the jobs had negotiated discourse on the preferred experiences. One
of the significant findings in these negotiated categories concerned the “What you will do”
section of the Educational Design. Although the others dealt with past experiences of the
applicant, educational design positions often provided in-depth descriptions for future activities
such as designing online learning, developing multimedia learning modules, and serving as an
instructional designer. Such a discourse can be interpreted as the unpredictability of the tasks
and the continuously changing demands of the market. Figure 7 shows an interrelationship
graph regarding the discourse of fields in the preferences category, whereas Figure 8 details a
word cloud of the word frequency for the preferences theme.

Figure 7. Coding relations of the job categories for the types of preferences required for the
five job categories in Twitter job postings

Figure 8. Word cloud of preferences theme in Twitter job postings

Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, & Curtis J. Bonk 2055

Qualifications

Educational Design, Learning Experience Design, Instructional Systems Design, and

Instructional Design positions had a mutual understanding on the qualifications. Degree,
certification, higher communication skills, and specific years of experience were some of the
examples in this category. Instructional Systems Designer, on the other hand, had a negotiated
acceptance concerning the minimum number of years’ experience expected or required. Figure
9 shows an interrelationship graph on the discourse of fields for job qualifications, whereas
Figure 10 details a word cloud of the word frequency for the qualifications theme.

Figure 9. Coding relations of the job categories for the types of qualifications required for the
five job categories in Twitter job postings

Figure 10. Word cloud of qualifications theme in Twitter job postings

2056 The Qualitative Report 2020

Requirements

Job postings for Educational Technology, Learning Experience Design, Instructional

Systems Design, and Instructional Design had a mutual understanding on the general
requirements. Examples include having a degree/certification, knowledge of learning theories
and instructional design models, strong communication skills, strong organizational skills, a
specific number of years’ experience in the field, and experience with specific software.
Instructional Design also had a negotiated requirement regarding physical abilities such as
constantly performing desk-based computer tasks, and mostly writing digital. Figure 11
presents interrelationship graph on the discourse of fields for general requirements, whereas
Figure 12 details a word cloud of the word requirements for the general requirements theme.

Figure 11. Coding relations of the job categories for the types of requirements required for the
five job categories in Twitter job postings

Figure 12. Word cloud of requirements theme in Twitter job postings

Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, & Curtis J. Bonk 2057

Responsibilities

Learning Experience Design, Instructional Systems Design, and Instructional Design

related job announcements had a mutual understanding related to the general responsibilities
of the position. Examples include the development of training and instruction, conducting
evaluation and needs analysis, being familiar with specific software, and supporting learning.
Furthermore, Educational Technology positions had a negotiated discourse in stating that
“other duties may be assigned.” Figure 13 presents an interrelationship graph on the discourse
of fields for general job responsibilities, whereas Figure 14 details word cloud of the word
requirements for the responsibilities theme.

Figure 13. Coding relations of the job categories for the types of responsibilities required for
the five job categories in Twitter job postings

Figure 14. Word cloud of responsibilities theme in Twitter job postings

Table 2 summarizes above frequency graphs and shows the mutual codes and discourses of the
professions over the categories of ability and skills: experience, preferences, qualifications,
requirements, and responsibilities. Check mark (✔) refers to existence of mutual codes in the
professions.
2058 The Qualitative Report 2020

Table 2. Mutual codes of the professions over the categories of ability and skills, experience,
preferences, qualifications, requirements, and responsibilities
.
Educational Educational Instructional Instructional Learning
Technology Design Design Systems Design Experience
(ET) (ED) (ID) (ISD) Design
(LXD)
Ability and Skills ✔ ✔
Experience ✔ ✔
Preferences ✔ ✔
Qualifications ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Requirements ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

Responsibilities ✔ ✔ ✔

Learning experience design (LXD) has the most mutual codes with other professions. For
example, LXD has a consensus on “Responsibilities” with the instructional design (ID) and
instructional systems design (ISD).These three professions, LXD, ID, and ISD, also have two
other areas of consensus which are “Qualifications” and “Requirements” Next, Educational
Technology (ET) has the least consensus with other fields. It has the most consensus with ID,
ISD, and LXD on the “Requirements” category.

RQ2. To answer the second research question “In which section of the
Encoding/Decoding Model are the targeted professions needed based on the job
announcements posted in Twitter?,” we have critically examined the content of the each six
categories, discussed earlier, for each profession to capture potential patterns and divergencies
between the job fields. This analysis indicated to three highly emphasized conceptual themes
in the job postings: (1) Knowledge of technology, (2) Knowledge of content development, (3)
Knowledge of implementation and evaluation. In Figure15, we located five disciplines based
on these three conceptual themes drawing from Hall’s Communication Model.

Figure 15. Hall’s Communication Model (Adapted and modified for the current study)
Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, & Curtis J. Bonk 2059

First, educational technology, instructional design, and instructional systems design

professions are located in the “Communication channel” due to the emphasis on technology
knowledge. Educational designer, on the other hand, is located in the “Encoder” section of the
model due to the higher focus on the content development knowledge. Finally, we located
learner experience designers to the “Decoder” section based on the mutual relations with most
of the fields, as found in the RQ1, and prominence of job responsibilities including
implementation and evaluation of learning.

Communication channel

According to Hall (1980), communication channel refers to technical infrastructure that

carries the message. Delivering the message to its intended audience effectively and efficiently
is the main concern of this channel. When we reread the responsibilities, abilities, skills,
experiences, and requirements for the educational technology, instructional design, and
instructional systems design professions, we found that practical knowledge of technology
including software and hardware is highly emphasized in these three job fields as presented in
the following excerpts from the job postings with the post number:

“… maintains a current knowledge of new and emerging technologies and user

trends.” (Educational Technology, Responsibilities, # 12)

“… experience with configuration/reconfiguration of hardware, including

Windows, Mac and mobile devices” (Educational Technology, Ability, and
Skills, # 17)

“experience with Learning Management and eLearning systems and with

production for distance education purposes in an academic setting.”
(Instructional Design, Experience, #3)

“Experience with a variety of software tools including, but not limited to Adobe
Captivate, Articulate Storyline, MadCap Flare, and WebEx.” (Instructional
Design, Experience, #9)

“Experience with Articulate Storyline, TechSmith Camtasia, Adobe Captivate,

Audacity, or similar multimedia software.” (Instructional Systems Design,
Requirement, #25)

“… must be proficient in Microsoft Office Suite (e.g., Word, Excel, and

PowerPoint), Microsoft Project, MS Visio, and Adobe products.” (Instructional
Systems Design, Qualifications, #10)

Encoding

According to Hall (1980), encoding refers to constructing messages that may involve
encoders’ inner thoughts, ideas, feelings, and knowledge. The educational designer discipline
was located in the encoding section of the model based on the “Responsibilities” provided in
the job announcements. The main reason for this decision is the fact that educational designers
are predominantly needed for content development. In other words, they encode a message in
the form of educational resources, classroom activities, and curriculum materials. The
following excerpts show examples from the educational designers’ responsibilities:
2060 The Qualitative Report 2020

“Work with a team of educational designers to develop and revise/update STEM

education resources for K-12 students, teachers, and the general public.”
(Educational Designer, Responsibilities, #4)

“Develop and write classroom activities/curriculum and supporting resources

that are aligned with national standards and, if needed, are customized to meet
local needs.” (Educational Designer, Responsibilities, #27)

“.. assist with program design and conceptualization.” (Educational Designer,

Responsibilities, #30)

Decoding

The learning experience designer discipline was located in the decoding section of the
model based on the “Responsibilities” provided in the job announcements. Thematic analysis
of the data showed that learning experience designers are predominantly expected to assess the
learning and provide learning solutions based on the predefined learning goals. To put it
differently, learning experience designers decode the existing instruction and look for possible
ways to enhance it. These ways can include the selection of a learning theory or utilization of
an effective technology. Therefore, it is not surprising that the learning experience designer
discipline has mutual categories with educational technology, instructional design, and
instructional systems design professions as presented earlier in the Table 2. The following
excerpts show examples from the learning experience designers’ responsibilities:

“Collaborates internally to continuously improve associated content and

training modules. Serves as LMS administrator to ensure the content is tested
and uploaded correctly.” (Learning Experience Design, Responsibilities, #3)

“Designs and develops learning evaluation tools.” (Learning Experience

Design, Responsibilities, #19)

“Develops methods and processes to fine tune training content so it is current,

impactful, scalable, and cutting edge.” (Learning Experience Design,
Responsibilities, #34)

“Provides product feedback (at key phases) on functional design, feasibility, and
usability along with necessary testing pre-launch.” (Learning Experience
Design, Responsibilities, #56)

Discussion

Based on the thematic analysis, we have found six key interrelationships within the
Twitter job posting of the five targeted fields including the following: (1) Ability and Skills;
(2) Experience; (3) Preferences, (4) Qualifications; (5) Requirements; and (6) Responsibilities.
The mutual and dominant categories among these six categories suggest that
educational technology, instructional design, and instructional systems design professions are
mostly needed for recommending, selecting, and utilizing technological tools and processes.
They entail the application of strategies and techniques coming from behavioral, cognitive, and
constructivist theories to solve instructional problems and to facilitate and evaluate learning
through technology under conditions that are purposive and controlled. In other words, they
Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, & Curtis J. Bonk 2061

focus on increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the tools (i.e., the channel) to carry the
message accurately to the learner.
Thus, these three disciplines can be located in the message channels (see Figure 15).
According to Hall (1980), a message channel is a medium through which a message is sent or
received between people. Hall (1980) argued that when selecting a channel, the availability,
suitability, and cost of the channel, type of message that is sent or received, and the
communication skills of the sender and receiver(s) are considered. Considering the definitions
of these fields in the literature, it not surprising that they fit into the channel section of the
Encoding/Decoding Model. For example, as indicated in a 2004 AECT definition, educational
technology is a “study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance
by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources.”
Likewise, instructional systems design focuses on “the best ways to create systems that yield
learning” (Hoadley, 2004, p. 8) and instructional design is “a technology for the development
of learning experiences and environments which promote the acquisition of specific knowledge
and skill by students” (Merrill, Drake, Lacy, Pratt, & ID2 Research Group, 1996).
Secondly, as presented in Figure 9, the Educational Design discipline was located at
the encoding (sender) section of the Encoding/Decoding model. Educational designers are
expected to investigate research methods and apply appropriate learning theory to the design
of learning materials and learning events in order to ensure that the desired goals are fulfilled
(AECT, 2004). In effect, they plan specific educational events or experiences to transmit
certain values, rules, and beliefs (i.e., the messages). Hall (1980) calls these messages as
ideology that refers to “images, concepts, and premises which provide the frameworks through
which we represent, interpret, understand, and 'make sense' of some aspect of social existence”
(Dines & Humez, 2003, p. 89). The thematic analysis of the data supports this claim. It indicates
that educational designers are predominantly needed for content development such as
classroom activities, training materials, and other educational resources.
The third component of the model is the decoder (receiver) who is an individual or a
group of people intended to receive, interpret, or decode the message. For this reason, the
learning experience design discipline was located in the receiver section of the model. The
definition of the discipline indicates that learning experience design is the practical side of
education. In other words, learning experience designers craft the instruction specifically based
for the needs of the learners (Walsh, 2017). They accomplish these goals by considering the
existing standards as defined by educational designers. Learning experience designers also take
into account the tools studied as well as the methods that are proven effective by instructional
designers, educational technologists, and instructional system designers.

Conclusion

Study Significance and Future Research

The design of the Encoding/Decoding Model was visionary in dealing with how
communication is structured and flows. As the five disciplines of this study continue to grow
and evolve, the boundaries between them become blurred and open to misinterpretation and
deep confusion (Gibbons, 1997). Consequently, a better understanding of the interrelations
among these five disciplines using the Encoding/Decoding Model can serve as a guide for both
scholars and students studying somewhere within the intersection of technology and education
fields.
The current study is an initial attempt to quantify and correlate existing interactions in
five technology-related disciplines by job descriptions posted in Twitter. Such analyses provide
one glimpse into the complex responsibilities of those employed in the field of instructional
2062 The Qualitative Report 2020

design and technology (Intentional Futures, 2016) as well as associated fields. Future research
might extend this approach to other social media tools (e.g., Facebook, WordPress, and
LinkedIn) as well as to those disciplines which also suffer from a high growth-related identity
crisis (e.g., computer science, data science and learning analytics, cyber security, etc.).
Next steps might also include ethnographic studies of those employed in this field,
including the documentation of the changing skill demands of educational technologists over
several years or over a decade or more. Researchers might also more specifically explore the
varying skills and competencies that different types of institutions, organizations, and
companies might be demanding. In particular, a better grasp of where learning experience
designers, instructional designers, educational designers, instructional technologists,
instructional systems designers, and others in related fields might find employment—
especially in high growth industries or educational sectors—should prove highly valuable to
both employers and those currently being trained in the field as well as recent graduates. In
effect, such a research report should have enormous societal and personal benefits.
With the opening up of the Web as a platform for formal as well as informal education,
the avenues for human learning and instruction continue to proliferate (Bonk, 2009, 2016). As
new delivery mechanisms for learning unfold across all sectors of education and training, those
designing, delivering, and evaluating or assessing such learning are increasingly in demand.
Without a doubt, the job roles and responsibilities will continue to expand and offer
employment possibilities during the coming decade for those who today are not even vaguely
aware that such fields exist as well as for those already making significant contributions to one
or more them.
Over time, fresh models and frameworks will be needed to better understand the job
requirements and expectations of those in the field of educational technology and related
disciplines. At the same time, innovations in curriculum and credentialing programs in these
fields will emerge to assist the tens of thousands of people who will need continued formal and
informal preparedness and training to acquire, maintain, and update the skills needed for
success as learning experience designers, instructional designers, educational designers,
instructional technologists, instructional systems designers, and beyond. For those of us
currently in this field, it will certainly be a delight to watch this all unfold in social media job
postings as well as in our own courses and programs. Each of us can play a part in this important
evolution. Given the extensive societal implications, it is certainly an exciting time to be a
participant in any of these five fields as well as related disciplines that are emerging and
evolving to fill in the gaps in human knowledge and performance.

References

Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016).
NMC/CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media
Consortium. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-cosn-horizon-report-
k12-EN.pdf
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States,
2013. The Sloan Consortium, 2013 Survey of Online Learning Report. Retrieved from
http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. with Poulin, R., & Straut, T. (2016, February). Online report card:
Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group. Full
Report: Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). (2004). The definition
of educational technology. Washington, DC: Author.
Berrett, D. (2016, February 29). Instructional design: Demand grows for a new breed of
Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, & Curtis J. Bonk 2063

academic, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/article/Instructional-Design/235425
Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of blended learning: Global
perspectives, local designs. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Bonk, C. J. (July 2009). The world is open: How Web technology is revolutionizing education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bonk, C. J. (2016). What is the state of e-learning?: Reflections on 30 ways learning is
changing. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 20(2), 6-20.
http://jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/article/viewFile/300/205
Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.). (2015). MOOCs and open
education around the world. NY: Routledge.
Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008, January/February). Minds on fire: Open education, the long
tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16-32.
https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0811.pdf
Chang, R. (2016, July 28). Learning management system market expected to grow $10.5 billion
in next 5 years. Campus Technology. Retrieved from
https://campustechnology.com/articles/2016/07/28/learning-management-system-
market-expected-to-grow-10.5-billion-in-next-5-years.aspx
CNN Money (2012). Best jobs in America: 38. Instructional designer. CNN Money. Retrieved
from http://money.cnn.com/pf/best-jobs/2012/snapshots/38.html
Dines, G., & Humez, J. M. (2003). Gender, race, and class in media: A text-reader. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ely, D. (2008). Frameworks of educational technology. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 39(2), 244-250.
Fischer, L., Hilton, J., Robinson, J., & Wiley, D. (2015, December). A multi-institutional study
of the impact of open textbook adoption on the learning outcomes of post-secondary
students, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(3), 159-172.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12528-015-9101-x/fulltext.html
Floor, N., (2018). What is learning experience design? Retrieved from
http://www.learningexperiencedesign.com/learn-1.html#top
Gibbons, M. (1997). What kind of university? City Campus, Australia: ACU.
Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages
and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82-101.
Retrieved from https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/1344
Gonyea, R. M. (2005). Self‐reported data in institutional research: Review and
recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2005(127), 73-89.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. Culture, Media, Language, 128-138.
http://www.hu.mtu.edu/~jdslack/readings/CSReadings/Hall_Encoding-n-
Decoding.pdf
Hardman, S. (2016, December 26). Glimpse into the future of learning. New Learning Times.
Retrieved from https://newlearningtimes.com/cms/article/4007/apps-of-the-future
Hassenzahl, M. (2010). Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. Synthesis
Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics, 3(1), 1-95.
Hlynka, D., & Jacobsen, M. (2009). What is educational technology, anyway? A commentary
on the new AECT definition of the field. Canadian Journal of Learning and
Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 35(2).
https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26395/19577
Hoadley, C. (2004). Learning and design: Why the learning sciences and instructional systems
need each other. Educational Technology, 44(3), 6–12.
Intentional Futures (2016, April). Instructional design in higher education: A report on the
2064 The Qualitative Report 2020

role, workflow, and experience of instructional designers. Seattle, WA: Gates

Foundation. Retrieved from
http://intentionalfutures.com/reports/instructional_design/files/Instructional%20Desig
n%20in%20Higher%20Education%20Report.pdf
Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with
commentary. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016).
NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media
Consortium. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2016-nmc-horizon-report-he-
EN.pdf
Kim, J. (2018, March 8). Career opportunities at the intersection of learning and technology.
[Blog Post]. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/career-opportunities-
intersection-learning-and-technology
Klein, J. T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & ID2 Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming
instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7.
Nichols, M., & Meuleman, N. (2017). Reflections of a new educational designer. Journal of
Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 21(2), 31-43.
NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software (2016). Available from
https://qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products/
Owston, R. (2017). Empowering learners through blended learning. International Journal on
E-Learning, 17(1), 65-83. http://www.yorku.ca/rowston/IJEL2017.pdf
Peppler, K. (2013). New opportunities for interest-driven arts learning in a digital age
(Deliverable to the Wallace Foundation). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University.
Retrieved from http://kpeppler.com/Docs/2013_Peppler_New-Opportunities-for-
Interest-Driven-Art.pdf
Press, M., & Cooper, R. (2017). The design experience: the role of design and designers in the
twenty-first century. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rapley, T. (2008). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. Sage.
Ravipati, S. (2016, September 21). Udacity unveils nanodegree program for self-driving car
engineers. Campus Technology. Retrieved from
https://campustechnology.com/articles/2016/09/21/udacity-unveils-nanodegree-
program-for-selfdriving-car-engineers.aspx
Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base:
Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Riter, P. (2016, June 7). The quest for great instructional designers, Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2016/06/07/troublesome-shortage-
instructional-designers-essay
Robbins, G. (2016; December 15). How robots will change the American workforce. The San
Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved from
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/sd-me-robots-jobs-20161213-
story.html
Scanlon, E., Sharples, M., Fenton-O'Creevy, M., Fleck, J., Cooban, C., Ferguson, R., …
Waterhouse, P. (2013). Beyond prototypes: Enabling innovation in technology-
enhanced learning. University of London, Technology-Enhanced Learning Research
Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, & Curtis J. Bonk 2065

Programme, London, UK. Retrieved from http://tel.ioe.ac.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2013/11/BeyondPrototypes.pdf
Schwarzenberg, P., Navon, J., Nussbaum, M., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Caballero, D. (2018).
Learning experience assessment of flipped courses. Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 30(2), 237-258.
Sharples, M., Adams, A., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., … Whitelock,
D. (2014). Innovating pedagogy 2016: Open University innovation report 5. Milton
Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved from
http://proxima.iet.open.ac.uk/public/innovating_pedagogy_2016.pdf
Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Stansbury, M. (2017, June 26). Stunning market data predicts the future of online learning.
eCampus News. Retrieved from https://www.ecampusnews.com/featured/featured-on-
ecampus-news/market-future-online-learning/
Walsh, K. (2017, January 17). 8 resources exploring learning experience design (LX Design).
EmergingEdTech. Retrieved from http://www.emergingedtech.com/2017/01/8-
resources-exploring-learning-experience-lx-design/
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Yousman, B. (2013). Revisiting hall's encoding/decoding model: Ex-prisoners respond to
television representations of incarceration. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and
Cultural Studies, 35(3), 197-216.

Author Note
Merve Basdogan is a doctoral candidate at Indiana University (IU), Instructional
Systems Technology (IST) Department. She is currently working for IU’s Mosaic Active
Learning Initiative (https://mosaic.iu.edu/) to support innovative classroom design and
research on active learning in all IU classrooms. Merve is also minoring in Educational
Psychology and her research interest is online learning environment design. Correspondence
regarding this article can be addressed directly to: [email protected].
Zulfukar Ozdogan is currently a PhD candidate at Indiana University, Department of
Counseling and Educational Psychology. He is currently an associate instructor of a critical
qualitative inquiry course at IU and teaching how to use Computer Assisted Qualitative
Analysis Software (CAQDAS). Zulfukar is minoring in Germanic Studies and his research
interest is “Recognition in Qualitative Research.” Correspondence regarding this article can
also be addressed directly to: [email protected].
Curtis J. Bonk is Professor at Indiana University teaching psychology and technology
courses. Curt is affiliated with the cognitive sciences program and is adjunct in the School of
Informatics at IU. He is currently conducting research in the field of self-directed online
learning environments (SOLEs), the personalization of open education (including massive
open online courses—MOOCs), online motivation, and informal learning. Correspondence
regarding this article can also be addressed directly to: [email protected].

Copyright 2020: Merve Basdogan, Zulfukar Ozdogan, Curits J. Bonk, and Nova
Southeastern University.
 2066 The Qualitative Report 2020

Article Citation

Basdogan, M., Ozdogan, Z., & Bonk, C. J. (2020). Understanding the diverse field of
“educational technology” as revealed in Twitter job postings: Encoding/Decoding
approach. The Qualitative Report, 25(8), 2044-2066.
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol25/iss8/3

View publication stats