Teaching With Intention
Christy G. Keeler


This chapter introduces instructional design principles for the purposes of providing online teachers with justifications for course designs and offering guidance to prospective course developers. It begins with a generalized perspective of instructional design and differentiates between traditional and online instructional design issues. It also outlines elements necessary when designing online courses from both macro- and micro-levels and argues the importance of developing a new perspective of instructional design as it relates to the unique and growing field of K-12 online education.

Discussion Questions

1. What communication and instructional design strategies does the author say are needed more in K-12 online courses than in higher education courses?

2. As district-led programs grow, teacher-designed courses are likely to remain common. What are some ways that a school district on a budget can use design practices discussed in the chapter to ensure a basic level of design quality in courses developed primarily by teachers?

3. What are four ways the author says designers can improve the accessibility of their course content?

4. The author notes the importance of learning standards and assessments in course design. Backwards design, which moves from standards to assessment before addressing learning content, is a popular design model these days. Read the views of Kelting-Gibson (2005) and Cho and Trent (2005) about backwards design. What are its advantages and disadvantages as a design approach?

5. The author notes emerging roles for embedded assessment in games and simulations. What challenges did Dede (2013) and his colleagues encounter in embedding assessments of learner understanding into online middle school science simulations? What are some design strategies they used to obtain diagnostic feedback?

Additional Resources

Barbour, M. K., Morrison, J., & Adelstein, D. (2014). The forgotten teachers in K-12 online learning: Examining the perceptions of teachers who develop K-12 online courses. International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 4(3), 18-33. Retrieved from

Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2005, Fall-Winter). "Backward" curriculum design and assessment: What goes around comes around, or haven't we seen this before? Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, Fall-Winter, 105-122. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795704.pdf

Dede, C. (2013). Opportunities and challenges in embedding diagnostic assessments into immersive interfaces. Educational Designer. 2(6). Retrieved from

Hillen, S. A., & Landis, M. (2014). Two perspectives on e-learning design: A synopsis of a U.S. and a European analysis. IRRODL, 15(4).
Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1783/3055

Israel, M., Marino, M., Delisio, L., & Serianni, B. (2014). Supporting content learning through technology for K-12 students with disabilities. CEEDAR, University of Florida. Retrieved from http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IC-10_FINAL_09-10-14.pdf

Kelting-Gibson, L. M. (2005). Comparison of curriculum development practices. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(1) 26-36. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ718116.pdf

McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012, June). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7-22.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ982678.pdf

Meylani, R., Bitter, G., & Legacy, J. (2015, January). Desirable characteristics of an ideal online learning environment. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(1), 203-216. Retrieved from http://mcser.org/journal/index.php/jesr/article/download/5613/5416

Vick, M. (2012). Analyzing breadth and depth of a virtual charter school’s science curriculum. US-China Education Review A 2, 149-163.
(ERIC ED No. ED532171)
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532171.pdf


Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. (2001). Web-based intranet and Internet information and applications. Washington, DC: United States Access Board. Retrieved from http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/1194.22.htm

Baker, E., Dickieson, J., Wulfeck, W., & O’Neil, H. (Eds.). (2008). Assessment of problem solving using simulations. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bohman, P. (2004). Cognitive disabilities part 1: We still know too little, and we do even less. Logan, UT: Web Accessibility in Mind. Retrieved from http://www.webaim.org/techniques/articles/cognitive_too_little

Bracey, G. W. (2004). Knowledge universe and virtual schools: Educational breakthrough or digital raid on the public treasury? Tempe: Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531185.pdf

Burgstahler, S. (2004). Real connections: Making distance learning accessible to everyone. Seattle: University of Washington. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Technology/distance.learn.html

Clarke, J. (2009, April 13–16). Studying the potential of virtual performance assessments for measuring student achievement in science. A paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L. (2002). Oversold and underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4–36.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed). New York: Harper Collins.

Dieterle, E., & Clarke, J. (2009). Multi-user virtual environments for teaching and learning. In M. Pagani (Ed.), Encyclopedia of multimedia technology and network (2nd ed.) (pp. 1033–1041). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Distance Learning Resource Network. (2000). Challenges and solutions for online instructors. Phoenix, AZ: Author. Retrieved from http://www.dlrn.org/library/dl/challenges.html

Edmonds, C. (2004). Providing access to students with disabilities in online distance education: Legal and technical concerns for higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 51–62.

Fitzgerald, P., and J. Lester. (1997). Knowledge-based learning environments: A vision for the twenty-first century. In P. Martorella (Ed.), Interactive technologies and the social studies (pp. 111–127). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Gagné, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Gee, J. P. (2007). Reflections on assessment from a sociocultural-situated perspective. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 362–375.

Gee, J. P., & Levine, M. H. (2009). Welcome to our virtual worlds. Educational Leadership, 66(6), 48–52.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: W. W. Norton.

Jones, G. R. (1997). Cyberschools: An education renaissance (2nd ed). Englewood, CA: Jones Digital Century.

Keeler, C. (2003). Developing and using an instrument to describe instructional design elements of high school online courses. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Keeler, C., & Horney, M. (2007). Online course designs: Are special needs being met? American Journal of Distance Education, 21(2), 65–75.

Keeler, C. G., Richter, J., Horney, M., Anderson, L., & Ditson, M. (2007). Exceptional learners: Differentiated instruction online. In C. Cavanaugh & R. Blomeyer (Eds.), What works in K–12 online learning. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Ketelhut, D. J., Dede, C., Clarke, J., Nelson, B., & Bowman, C. (2008). Studying situated learning in a multi-user environment. In E. Baker, J. Dickieson, W. Wulfeck, & H. O’Neil (Eds.), Assessment of problem solving using simulations (pp. 37–58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Layton, T. (2002). Personal communication, October 30.

Metcalf, S. J., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009, April 24–26). Virtual worlds for education: River city and ecomuve. A paper presented at the Media in Transition International Conference, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Morrison, G., Ross, S., & Kemp, J. (2007). Designing effective instruction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Ohanian, S. (2004). The K12 virtual primary school history curriculum: A participant’s-eye view. Tempe: Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/EPSL-0404-117-EPRU.pdf

Plough, C., & Barbour, M. (2012). Odyssey of the mind: Social networking in cyberschool. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1154/2148

Rowland, C. (2004). Cognitive disabilities part 2: Conceptualizing design considerations. Logan, UT: Web Accessibility in Mind. Retrieved from http://www.webaim.org/techniques/articles/conceptualize

Russo, A. (2001). E-learning everywhere. School Administrator, 10. Retrieved from http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2001_10/russo.htm

Shaffer, D. W., Squire, K. D., Halverson, R., & Gee, J. P. (2005). Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(2), 104–111.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Squire, K. (2005, April 12). Game, play, and culture: When video games enter the classroom. A paper presented at the American Educational Researcher Association Annual Meeting, Montreal.

Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direction (pp. 13–45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.

Twigg, C. A. (2000). Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond no significant difference. Troy, NY: Center for Academic Transformation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/Monographs/Mono4.pdf

World Wide Web Consortium. (1999). Web content accessibility guidelines 1.0: W3c recommendation 5-may-1999. London: Author. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10

World Wide Web Consortium. (2004). Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0: W3c working draft 19 November 2004. London: Author. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20