I would describe my experience in the Instructional Technology doctoral program as both transformative and clarifying for my long-term academic and professional goals. I entered as a technology enthusiast with a background in educational technology, holding a broad interest in using technology for teaching and learning but lacking a clear, research-oriented focus. The structure, content, and expectations of the program at the University of Alabama helped me refine that interest into a well-defined trajectory: growing from someone who mainly integrates technology into instruction into someone who systematically researches, designs, evaluates, and improves technology-enhanced learning environments.
One of the most important ways the program supported my degree goals was by grounding me in both the theory and practice of the field. AIL 601 (Principles of Instructional Technology) introduced me to its philosophical and theoretical underpinnings. Developing my own philosophy of instructional technology forced me to think critically about what technology should mean in different learning contexts, how it should be used responsibly, and what role it should play in solving instructional problems. Exposure to frameworks such as TPACK, UDL, diffusion of innovations, and related models gave me a vocabulary and a set of conceptual tools to analyze learning situations, choose appropriate technologies, and justify those choices in both practice and research (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). This directly supports my degree goal of becoming a scholar who can articulate, defend, and apply theoretical perspectives.
The program’s strong emphasis on systematic instructional design advanced my goals further. In AIL 602, I deepened my understanding of needs analysis, task analysis, and learner analysis, and working with models such as ADDIE, Dick and Carey, and Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction gave me a structured, evidence-based approach to planning instruction. These experiences moved me beyond intuitive design toward a more rigorous, analytic way of thinking, so that I can now explain and defend my design decisions using established models, an essential skill for dissertation work and for future roles as a designer, researcher, or faculty member.
The program also deepened my expertise in online and distance learning. AIL 604 broadened my understanding of how to design, implement, and evaluate online environments. Although I had prior experience as an instructional designer for a business school, this course moved me from simply uploading materials to a learning management system to critically evaluating course quality, accessibility, and learner engagement. I gained practical skills with platforms such as Canvas and Blackboard and learned to check for accessibility, apply best practices in module design, and use evaluation strategies to improve courses, skills that serve my professional aspiration to support higher-education institutions. The hands-on focus of AIL 605 (Interactive Multimedia) played a similar role: by designing multimedia guided by learning theory, I strengthened my ability to select media that align with objectives and audiences, seeing multimedia not as an attractive add-on but as a tool that must be carefully designed to support cognition, reduce extraneous load, and enhance motivation (Mayer, 2009).
Beyond design and development, the program shaped me into a researcher. AIL 608 (Ethical and Responsible Use of Instructional Technology) and AIL 690 (Seminar in Instructional Technology), together with research and higher-education courses outside the department, trained me to investigate real problems of practice. I learned to identify issues such as accessibility, diversity, and inclusion; to review and synthesize literature; to formulate problem statements and research questions; and to analyze contemporary research traditions such as computer-supported collaborative learning. This training directly supports my degree goal of completing a dissertation and my professional goal of contributing to the field through publications, conference presentations, and collaborative projects. My membership in the Association for Educational Communication and Technology and my presentation at the AECT 2024 convention are early evidence of that scholarly trajectory.
The program also expanded my professional network and sense of scholarly community. Working with classmates from diverse backgrounds, some with long careers in education and others transitioning from industry, exposed me to multiple perspectives on instructional problems. Discussion boards, group projects, and peer reviews created opportunities to exchange ideas, receive feedback, and learn from others’ experiences, connections that are already shaping potential research collaborations and increasing my confidence in academic and professional communities.
Equally important, the program reshaped how I view technology itself. Early on, I tended to see technology in terms of tools and devices; the program helped me understand it as both product and process. Studying behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, social learning, and experiential learning showed me that effective integration is less about novel tools and more about what those tools help learners achieve. I now evaluate technologies in terms of how they support clear objectives, meaningful engagement, and long-term competence rather than novelty or convenience. Overall, the program has provided a coherent, rigorous pathway connecting my prior background with my future aspirations as an instructional technology scholar and practitioner, and I am committed to continuing to apply the theories, models, tools, and research skills I have gained to design effective instruction, conduct meaningful research, and advance the field in both educational and corporate settings.
References
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
