Chapter 5

Issues and Trends in Instructional

Technology: Consistent Growth in Online
Learning, Digital Content, and the Use
of Mobile Technologies

Abbie Brown and Timothy Green

We continue the tradition of reporting the past year’s issues and trends that shape
attitudes and approaches to instructional technology. This chapter is comprised of
four sections: Overall Developments, Corporate Training and Development, Higher
Education, and K-12 Settings. The trends and issues described are based on major
annual reports sponsored and/or conducted by organizations, including the
Association for Talent Development (ATD), EDUCAUSE, Gartner Incorporated,
New Media Consortium, Online Learning Consortium (formerly the Sloan
Consortium), and Project Tomorrow. These reports require time in terms of data
collection, interpretation, and publication, the shortest of which take a year to com-
plete and, therefore, reflect the issues and trends of large groups over long periods
of time. For a more immediate review of trending topics in instructional technology,
please refer to the authors’ biweekly podcast, Trends & Issues in Instructional
Design, Educational Technology, & Learning Sciences (Brown & Green, 2017).

Overall Developments

Instructional technology integration remained a priority as evidenced in all three sec-

tors. Overall spending on instructional technology remained relatively stable despite
the uncertainty of available funding in some sectors for technology purchases and

A. Brown (*)
Department of Mathematics, Science, and Instructional Technology Education, Flanagan
Hall, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA
e-mail: brownab@ecu.edu
T. Green
Department of Elementary and Bilingual Education, California State University,
Fullerton, CA, USA

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 61

R. M. Branch (ed.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook, Educational
Media and Technology Yearbook 41, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67301-1_5
62 A. Brown and T. Green

training. Over the year under review, the use of instructional technology provided for
the implementation of unique instructional approaches and increased access to digi-
tal content and tools for more personalized teaching and learning.

Corporate Training and Development

As with previous issues and trends chapters of this yearbook (e.g., Brown & Green,
2016), we continue to track corporate application of instructional technologies pri-
marily by referring to State of the Industry report (Ho, Miller, Jones, & Bello, 2015)
published by the Association for Talent Development (ATD). The report is based on
data collected from organizations regularly submitting annual data, BEST award
winners (organizations recognized by ATD for their exceptional efforts in support of
learning within the enterprise), and a consolidated group of organizations that sub-
mitted their data via an online survey. This represents data collected in 2014 from
336 business organizations; the average number of employees is 18,926 with an
average payroll of $1,257,000,000.
Additional sources used in this section are the eLearning Guild’s report, 2016 US
eLearning Salary & Compensation Report (Vipond & Smolen, 2016), and the
Gartner Group’s annual predictions for information technology organizations and
users (Woods, 2015).

Learning Expenditures

Among businesses responding to ATD’s State of the Industry Report survey, the
average learning expenditure per employee in 2014 was $1229 (Ho et al., 2015).
This represents an increase over the previous year of more than 1.7% from the pre-
vious year’s reported spending and continues the upward trend from the previous
year. Organizations with less than 500 workers spent an average of $1716 per
employee; those with between 500 and 9999 workers spent $911 on average; and
organizations with at least 10,000 workers spent an average of $868. Smaller orga-
nizations spent significantly less than the previous years, while midsize and large
organizations spent significantly more than in the past year (Ho et al., 2015).
Employee engagement in formal instruction ranged from 28.7 to 35.5 h on average,
depending upon the size of the organization, with the larger organizations’ employ-
ees averaging the most amount of learning time (Ho et al., 2015).
Expenditures for producing and disseminating new or updated instruction also
depended on the industry in which the organization participated. Ho et al. (2015)
provided, as one example, that the software publishing industry spent considerably
more on instruction, while manufacturing spent considerably less; software
­publishing employees need to constantly update their skills, while the requisite
skills needed in manufacturing change much less frequently.
5 Issues and Trends in Instructional Technology: Consistent Growth in Online… 63

Instructional Content

As with the previous year, approximately one-third of corporate instructional con-

tent focused on management and supervision, mandatory and compliance training,
and professional or industry-specific training (Ho et al., 2015; Brown & Green,
2016). Carefully regulated industries (e.g., manufacturing) provide more mandatory
and compliance content, while management consulting firms and software publish-
ers provided a greater amount of sales content (Ho et al., 2015).
The Gartner Group predicts a change in the relationship between people and
machines (Woods, 2015), as more processes and tasks are carried out by robotic
devices and software that apply established algorithms, possibly also applying heu-
ristics (one of the goals of artificial intelligence development). The use of autono-
mous software agents, the expansion of the “Internet of Things,” and the use of
devices that monitor and record data (e.g., wearable health devices) will become
more prevalent in business and industry (Woods, 2015). If this is indeed the case,
there will be an increased need for instructional content that addresses human/robot
and human/artificial intelligence interactions.

Methods of Instructional Delivery

Although instructor-led, face-to-face classroom instruction continues to be the

delivery method for 51% of the instruction documented in ATD’s State of the
Industry report (Ho et al., 2015), it is important to note this represents a drop from
previous years. Slowly but steadily, online delivery of instruction is increasing, as is
delivery using mobile devices, though mobile device delivery currently represents
only slightly more than 2% of the hours used (Ho et al. 2015).

Instructional Designers’ Professional Prospects

In last year’s chapter, the authors reported that instructional designer ranked 76th on
the list of CNN’s Best Jobs in America ranking (Brown & Green, 2016). However,
instructional designer is not listed in the 2015 report (CNN Money, 2015). The US
Department of Labor’s Occupational Outlook Handbook does not list instructional
designer per se, but it does have listings for training and development specialists,
with a positive growth outlook and a median annual salary of $59,020, and training
and development managers, with a similar positive growth outlook and median
annual salary of $105,830 (United States Department of Labor, 2015). The 2016 US
eLearning Salary & Compensation Report (Vipond & Smolen, 2016) notes the
average US base salary for eLearning practitioners is $80,359, down slightly from
the previous year.
64 A. Brown and T. Green

Though perhaps a bit less optimistic of a report than the previous year, job oppor-
tunities for instructional designers continue to be positive. With a projected growth
rate of 7% (United States Department of Labor, 2015), reasonably competitive
annual salaries (United States Department of Labor, 2015; Vipond & Smolen,
2016), and the continued investment in instruction by organizations, instructional
design should be considered a lucrative and reliable career choice.

Higher Education

We review higher education’s instructional technology application by referring pri-

marily to the NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition (Johnson et al.
2016); ECAR Study of Faculty Information Technology, 2015 (Brooks, 2015); ECAR
Study of Students and Information Technology, 2015 (Dahlstrom, Brooks, Grajek, &
Reeves, 2015); and Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education in the United
States (Allen, Seaman, Poulin, & Straut, 2016). The ECAR, EDUCAUSE, and
Babson Survey Research Group reports are based on large-scale surveys. The
Horizon Report, sponsored by the New Media Consortium, is a synthesis of
responses from an international panel of experts.
Other sources for this section include Allen and Seaman’s (2014) Opening the
Curriculum: Open Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education and Brown’s
(2015) 6 Trajectories for Digital Technologies in Higher Education.

 ampus Technology Support and Use of Technology

C
for Instruction

Faculty are satisfied generally with campus technologies, giving their IT organiza-
tions’ support teams as well as their privacy and security policies high marks
(Brooks, 2015). However, higher education institutions currently struggle with the
demand placed on their networks. Students bring more Internet-capable devices
with them than ever before (Brooks), and student survey respondents note disap-
pointment with on-campus Wi-Fi as compared to Wi-Fi off campus.
Similar to last year’s chapter (Brown & Green, 2016), mobile computing contin-
ues to be a campus technology concern (Brooks, 2015; Brown, 2015; Dahlstrom
et al., 2015, 2015; Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2016). As regu-
larly noted by the authors in their podcast series (Brown & Green, 2017), campus
information technology groups continually struggle with making their campus
­networks accessible to a wide variety of BYOD (bring your own device) options
while simultaneously maintaining a level of security for all users to ensure produc-
tivity as well as safety.
Institutional support for learning management systems (LMSs), such as
Blackboard, are nearly ubiquitous (Dahlstrom et al., 2015). Courses with regular
5 Issues and Trends in Instructional Technology: Consistent Growth in Online… 65

on-campus meetings generally use LMSs as a class resource repository as well as

for administrative purposes (e.g., an online gradebook). Online courses may use the
LMS as the basis for most, if not all, student-teacher, student-content, and student-­
student interactions. At the same time, there is a trend toward the use of apps, third-­
party websites, and tools over which the university itself has little or no control
(Brown, 2015).
Institutional IT organizations are also challenged by faculty demands for more
training and support to help them make best use of technologies for instruction
(Brooks, 2015; Johnson et al., 2016). Faculty are also asking for clear evidence of
the positive impact various technologies have on student learning (Brooks, 2015).
Generally, IT organizations are being tasked with maintaining an already good rela-
tionship with faculty and students by increasing campus network capabilities, sup-
porting a wide variety of devices, and providing both training on the use of
technologies and the evidence that these technologies are beneficial to instruction.

Learning Online

The Babson Research Group’s 13th (and final) annual report on the state of online
learning in US higher education (Allen et al., 2016) indicates online learning con-
tinues to be important to higher education generally. The report indicates the num-
ber of students taking courses at a distance continues to increase and the number of
students not taking any distance education courses as a part of their program of
study continues to decrease.
The number of academic leaders reporting that online learning is a critical long-­
term strategy for their institution dropped significantly, from 70.8% previously to
60.3% in the most recent survey (Allen et al., 2016). A small percentage of higher
education institutions continue to experiment with MOOCs (massive open online
courses). Approximately 11% of the higher education institutions surveyed offer at
least one MOOC (Allen et al., 2016).

Blended Learning

The combination of face-to-face instruction with online learning continues to

increase in popularity and is considered a trend with short-term impact as reported
in The Horizon Report: Higher Education Edition (Johnson et al., 2016). The major-
ity of students report they learn best in a blended learning environment (Dahlstrom
et al., 2015).
66 A. Brown and T. Green

Faculty Use of Technology for Instruction

As in recent years past, faculty generally embrace digital technologies and modern
classroom tools such as LMSs and look for ways to teach using technology in inno-
vative and creative ways (Brooks, 2015). The use of mobile devices in the classroom
continues to be a hot topic; many faculty feel mobile devices can enhance learning,
while some are concerned these same devices can become a classroom distraction
(Brooks, 2015; Brown, 2015). Faculty are incorporating more of their own, personal
devices into instruction as well as asking students to do the same; there is less reli-
ance on central applications supported by their institution and greater use of apps
and other tools to create customized instructional approaches (Brown, 2015). With
all the enthusiasm for using mobile devices, it is important to note that students
report their actual use in coursework is low (Dahlstrom et al., 2015).
Perhaps corollary to faculty interest in using devices and teaching tools that are
not offered through a central institutional agency is the increased discussion of open
educational resources (OERs). OERs are instructional assets that reside in the public
domain or are released to the public under an intellectual property license that per-
mits free use and repurposing (The Hewlett Foundation, as cited in Allen & Seaman,
2014). According to Allen and Seaman (2015), OERs are not yet popular in the
higher education mainstream. However, Allen and Seaman noted there seems to be a
growing interest, which is probably related to the following factors: (a) the high price
of textbook; (b) a text publishing process that may not provide the most up-to-date
materials; (c) an increased access to OERs through the Internet; (d) and an increased
ease of digital media production. We mention OERs both because they are the focus
of study by such respected organizations as the Babson Survey Research Group and
because they seem to the authors to hold promise as instructional tools developed by
both faculty and instructional design/technology support staff.

Student Use of Technology for Learning

Students generally regard modern information technologies and networked devices,

such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones, as a part of their everyday lives (Dahlstrom
et al., 2015). Students own more Internet-capable devices than ever, and they bring
these with them to campus, placing increased demand on the institution’s network
(Dahlstrom et al., 2015).
New models of education, such as MOOCs and competency-based credentials, are
a trending topic among higher education professionals (Johnson et al., 2016), but these
have not yet become a part of most undergraduate students’ thinking in terms of their
own education (Dahlstrom et al., 2015). Students express a preference for blended
learning situations that combine online learning and face-to-face instruction (Dahlstrom
et al., 2015). This makes a certain amount of sense as faculty do not have as long or as
many opportunities to practice and refine these alternative offerings as they have tradi-
tional, face-to-face instruction and increasingly common online instruction.
5 Issues and Trends in Instructional Technology: Consistent Growth in Online… 67

K-12 Education

As with previous issues and trends chapters (Brown & Green, 2014, 2015, 2016),
we have primarily consulted the annual reports of Education Week, the New Media
Consortium, and Project Tomorrow. The major reports we accessed were Technology
Counts 2016: Transforming the Classroom (Education Week, 2016), The NMC/
CoSN Horizon Report: 2016 K-12 Edition (Adams Becker, Freeman, Giesinger
Hall, Cummins, & Yuhnke, 2016), Trends in Digital Learning 2016 (Project
Tomorrow & Blackboard, 2016a), and Trends in Digital Communications Priorities
and Challenges (Project Tomorrow & Blackboard, 2016b).
Technology Counts 2016 is the 17th edition of the report published by Education
Week. The annual report focuses on the use of educational technology in K-12
schools. The report has shifted away from providing an overall state of educational
technology and funding of educational technology state-by-state. The Horizon
Report, produced by the New Media Consortium and the Consortium for School
Networking (CoSN), focuses on emerging technologies or practices that are likely
to gain use within K-12 over the next year to 5 years. The Project Tomorrow and
Blackboard reports are the most recent in a series of reports published by Project
Tomorrow that focus on students, parents, teachers, and administrators’ perceptions
about and use of educational technology. Project Tomorrow and Blackboard (2016a,
2016b) reports consist of data collected from 435,520 K-12 students, 38,512 teach-
ers and librarians, 29,670 parents, 4592 school/district administrators/tech leaders,
and 5846 community members. Data was gathered from over 7000 public schools
and 2400 districts in the United States and around the world.
In our last four reviews (Brown & Green, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016), specific areas
regarding the use of instructional technology remained consistent in K-12. With the
current review, the major remaining holdover was online learning. A trend that
emerged was the use of technology to personalize learning. This was brought about
by trends discussed in previous reviews such as the increase in digital tools and
content and the use of blended learning. In addition to online learning and the use
of technology to personalize learning, we have observed the emerging trends in
K-12 of augmented reality and virtual reality, coding and programming, maker-
spaces, and robotics. We observed these as we have reported on emerging trends in
our biweekly podcast on trends and issues in instructional design and educational
technology (Brown & Green, 2017).

Funding for Technology

As we have indicated in previous reviews, reporting the amount of funding in K-12

can be problematic because of various reporting procedures of States and Federal
agencies. The most recent data on funding comes from a 2015 report published by
EdNet Insight (as cited in Schaffhauser, 2016). The report indicated that half of the
districts surveyed indicated that they were keeping funding for educational
68 A. Brown and T. Green

technology consistent from the previous year (2014–2015). Between 27 and 46%
surveyed indicated an increase in spending on educational technology for the 2015
school year. Eight to twelve percent indicated having to work with a decreased bud-
get (as cited in Schaffhauser, 2016). The report indicated that the biggest areas of
expansion in spending would be hardware (46% of districts reported an increase),
teacher training (38%), software (28%), and tech support (27%).

Online Learning: Continues to Thrive

Online learning continues to be a trend in K-12. The most recent data on K-12 stu-
dent populations in online learning comes from the Keeping Pace with K-12 Digital
Learning Report Twelfth Edition (Gemin, Pape, Vashaw, & Watson, 2015). The
report data indicated that during the 2014–2015 academic year, state virtual schools
served over 462,000 students who engaged in a total of 815,000 semester-long
courses (p. 16). Although the number of students served through online learning is
growing, 60% of public school students live in states that do not have virtual schools.
Growth in online learning in K-12 has “moved from state-level organizations, such
as state virtual schools and online charter schools drawing students across entire
states, to individual districts and schools” (p. 8). K-12 students are engaging in
supplemental online courses. Of the students in districts surveyed for Keeping Pace
with K-12 Digital Learning Report Twelfth Edition, 84% in grades 9–12, 14% in
grades 6–8, and 2% in grades K-5 took some type of supplemental online course.
Language arts and math were the top subject areas for online courses for the K-12
students surveyed (p. 16).

Personalized Learning with Technology

Data gathered through Speak Up Surveys (Project Tomorrow and Blackboard

2016a, 2016b) indicated that one-third of district administrators surveyed endorsed
“individualized education plans for every student” as a key strategy that could help
improve students’ readiness for college and career readiness (p. 1.) The survey data
indicated that teachers were using digital tools and content more to personalize
learning for students (p. 1). Over half of the teachers surveyed indicated that using
technology allowed for the differentiation of instruction and the encouragement of
students to self-monitor their learning.
The move to personalize learning has been fueled by several technology-based or
technology-influenced trends—blended learning, digital content and curriculum,
and redesigning learning spaces. According to the Speak Up Surveys data, “46 per-
cent of K-12 schools have already implemented some variation of blended learning
and/or competency-based instruction for their students” (p. 1). The report states that
“An additional 15% [of principals surveyed] are considering these classroom mod-
5 Issues and Trends in Instructional Technology: Consistent Growth in Online… 69

els as strategic initiatives for the new school year” (p. 1). The report indicates that
“Two-thirds of school principals who have implemented blended learning models at
their school say the learning process for each student is more personalized because
of that implementation” (p. 3). The blended learning approach is having an impact
on how technology is being used; “Among schools that have implemented blended
learning as a school initiative, 42% of principals say that 50% or more of instruc-
tional materials that students are using are digital” (Project Tomorrow and
Blackboard 2016a, p. 6).
This data is supported by data collected by the Consortium for School Networking
(CoSN, 2016). The data collected by CoSN from over 500 K-12 IT leaders indicated
that almost “90% of respondents expect their instructional materials to be at least
50% digital within the next three years” (2016, p. 4). This includes open educational
resources, as 99% of the respondents indicated that they expect their schools or
districts to incorporate “digital open educational resources (OER) over the next
3 years, with 45% expecting their digital content to be at least 50% OER within that
timeframe” (2016, p. 3).

Emerging Trends to Watch in K-12

In addition to the trends that we outlined above, data from the various reports we
reviewed point to emerging trends. The reports indicate that these trends are having
an impact on K-12 teaching and learning or will have an impact in the near
(3–5 years) future. These trends are ones to watch—augmented and virtual reality,
coding and programming, makerspaces, and robotics.

Conclusion

The increased use of digital content and online learning opportunities during this
review period was evident among corporate training, higher education, and K-12
settings. Spending on instructional technology in all three sectors remained rela-
tively steady despite uncertainties brought on by the state of the US economy and
the presidential election. Various approaches to online learning opportunities con-
tinued to trend primarily in higher education and in K-12. Higher education and
K-12 settings continued to focus on using digital content and tools. In K-12, person-
alized learning emerged as a trend due to the affordances of networked
technologies.
All three sectors—corporate, higher education, and K-12—continue to devote sig-
nificant resources to instructional technology, and job prospects for instructional design-
ers, training and development specialists, and eLearning practitioners remain positive.
70 A. Brown and T. Green

References

Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/
CoSN horizon report: 2016 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Opening the curriculum: Open educational resources in U.S.
higher education. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group And Quahog Research
Group, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/openingthecur-
riculum2014.pdf
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United
States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group,
LLC. Retrieved from https://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradelevel.pdf
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online
education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog
Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereport-
card.pdf
Brooks, D. C. (2015). ECAR study of faculty and information technology, 2015. Louisville,
CO: ECAR. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2015/8/ers1510r.
pdf?la=en
Brown, A., & Green, T. (2013). Issue and trends in educational technology: Despite lean times,
continued interest and opportunity in K-12, business, and higher education. In M. Orey,
S. A. Jones, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 37).
New York: Springer.
Brown, A., & Green, T. (2014). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Maximizing bud-
gets and minimizing costs in order to provide personalized learning opportunities. In M. Orey,
S. A. Jones, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 38).
New York: Springer.
Brown, A., & Green, T. (2015). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Leveraging bud-
gets to provide increased access to digital content and learning opportunities. In M. Orey,
S. A. Jones, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 39).
New York: Springer.
Brown, A., & Green, T. (2016). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Increased use of
mobile technologies and digital content to provide untethered access to training and learning
opportunities. In M. Orey, S. A. Jones, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technol-
ogy yearbook (Vol. 40). New York: Springer.
Brown, A., & Green, T. (2017). Trends and issues in instructional design, educational technology,
and learning sciences. Podcast. Retrieved from http://trendsandissues.com/
Brown, M. (2015). 6 trajectories for digital technologies in higher education.
EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/6/
six-trajectories-for-digital-technology-in-higher-education
CNN Money. (2015). 100 best jobs in America: CNNMoney/PayScale.com’s top 100 careers with
big growth, great pay and satisfying work. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/pf/best-jobs/
CoSN. (2016). 2016 K-12 IT leadership survey report. Washington, DC: Consortium of School
Networks. Retrieved from http://www.cosn.org/sites/default/files/CoSN%20K-12%20IT%20
Leadership%20Survey%20Report%202016.pdf
Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C., Grajek, S., & Reeves, J. (2015). ECAR study of students and infor-
mation technology, 2015. Louisville, CO: ECAR. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/
library/pdf/ss15/ers1510ss.pdf
Education Week. (2016). Technology counts 2016: Transforming the classroom. Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2016/06/09/index.html
Gemin, B., Pape, L., Vashaw, L., & Watson, J. (2015). Keeping pace with K-12 digital learn-
ing: An annual review of policy and practice (12th ed.). Durango, CO: Evergreen Education
5 Issues and Trends in Instructional Technology: Consistent Growth in Online… 71

Group. Retrieved from https://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Keeping-Pace-

2015-Report-1.pdf
Ho, M., Miller, M., Jones, M., & Bello, B. (2015). 2015 State of the industry. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Talent Development (ATD).
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Hall, C. (2016). NMC
horizon report: 2016 higher education edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2016). NMC horizon report: 2016
K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Project Tomorrow & Blackboard. (2016a). Trends in digital learning: How K-12 leaders are
empowering personalized learning in America’s schools. Speak Up 2015 Survey. Retrieved
from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/2016-digital-learning-reports-from-blackboard-and-
speak-up.html
Project Tomorrow & Blackboard. (2016b). Trends in digital communications priorities and chal-
lenges: The front line views of district communications officers. Speak Up 2015 Survey.
Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/speakup_data_findings.html
Schaffhauser, D. (2016). Report: Education tech spending on the rise. THE Journal. Retrieved
from https://thejournal.com/articles/2016/01/19/report-education-tech-spending-on-the-rise.
aspx
United States Department of Labor. (2015). Occupational outlook handbook. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/
Vipond, S., & Smolen, T. (2016). 2016 US eLearning salary & compensation report. Santa
Rosa, CA: The eLearning Guild. Retrieved from https://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/
articles/1888/the-elearning-guild-releases-2016-us-elearning-salary--compensation-report
Woods, V. (2015). Gartner reveals top predictions for IT organizations and users for 2016 and
beyond. Stamford, CT: Gartner. Retrieved from: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3143718