The Evolving Role of an Instructional Designer in PostSecondary Education A Roundtable Discussion at E-Learn Conference October 2011

Ining Tracy Chao Centre for Teaching and Educational Technologies Royal Roads University ining.chao@royalroads.ca Abstract This roundtable discussion focuses on the practice of instructional design in post-secondary education as online learning becomes main stream in many colleges and universities. We will begin by exploring the role of an instructional designer and the expertise he/she brings to producing quality online courses. We will further discuss the tension and conflict that may arise from a designers interaction with an academic subject expert. Last but not least, we will examine instructional design practice from an institutional perspective the change, the impact and the future. Introduction In most conventional higher education institutions, course design and development is accomplished by individual instructors. They draw up their course outlines based on their knowledge of a subject, without significant assistance by other university staff members. Thus, overall, the process of developing courses in higher education is a solitary one, a craftsmanship process, without much consultation with others. The emergence of distance and online learning, however, has contributed to a change in this process. A shared process of course development, referred to by Daniel (2009) as an industrial model of labour division for course development, has emerged in many higher education institutions. Instructional designers and technical personnel take part in the design and development of courses while instructors provide the subject matter expertise. ID Role Instructional design as a discipline came from skill-based training in the military during World War II (Reiser, 2001). Generally, instructional design practice did not have a significant presence on university or college campuses until the late 1980s and early 1990s when internet technology and the resulting advances in online learning models and practices became more prevalent. This enhanced presence does not necessarily equate to success. The common practice of systematic design such as the ADDIE model simply did not fit well with the academic culture (Moore & Kearsley, 2004; Magnussen, 2005). Over the past two decades, instructional designers in post

secondary education needed to redefine their role and practice. The role of a change agent emerged as instructional designers worked side by side with faculty to rethink their teaching in order to integrate technology into course design and delivery (Campbell, Schwier & Kenny, 2007). Not only do instructional designers play the role of advisers to faculty and department on issues of curriculum and course quality, they also play a vital role in faculty development and institutional change when it comes to researching and implementing new learning technologies. Undoubtedly, instructional designers need to modify their approach and design models to fulfill their widening role to make more meaningful contributions. As a result, for example, new design prototypes have evolved through field experience in higher education (Power, 2009) and rolebased design has been proposed to transform the field of instructional design (Hokanson, Miller & Hooper, 2009). Collaborative Course Development Another perspective on the instructional designers role in post secondary education is to examine the course development process. Generally speaking, the process is a collaborative one and instructional designers are often paired with instructors to help produce the course content using technology. Many practitioners in the field also advocate such a collaborative course development model for quality online learning (Oblinger & Hawkins, 2006; Kidney, Cummings & Boehm, 2007; Wang, Gould & King, 2009). The main argument for adapting a collaborative development model is that designing high-quality online course requires various sources of expertise not usually possessed by one person. Quite often, the development of an online course takes longer than its face-to-face equivalent and requires the rethinking of pedagogy (Knowles & Kalata, 2007; Caplan, 2008). Proponents of online education argue that the lone ranger model, where an instructor learns how to design and teach online by him or herself, is not scalable and does not lend itself to the diffusion of innovative practice in an organization (Bates, 2000, p.2). The days of the star faculty who can do it all are long gone. Instructional design expertise, technical assistance and subject matter knowledge must come together to work collaboratively to produce quality courses on a consistent basis (Oblinger & Hawkins, 2006). It is evident that quality is another strong argument for applying instruction design practice on many campuses. The Institute for Higher Education Policy identified seven categories of quality measures: institutional support, course development, teaching and learning, course structure, student support, faculty support, and evaluation and assessment. Under the course development category, an institution should establish minimum standards and continuous reviews to ensure quality (Merisotis & Phipps, 2000). Similar effort was made in Canada with the publication of the Canadian Recommended E-learning Guidelines. This guideline defined quality outcomes with a strong emphasis on learner-centred curriculum and customer-oriented services. It did not suggest a development model per se to achieve those outcomes, but it did imply the importance of routine review and evaluation of course content, design, teaching, student achievements, policies and management practices, and learner support (Barker, 2002). The Sloan Consortium also defined quality in the Sloan-C Framework, proposing five pillars of quality: learning effectiveness, cost effectiveness, access, faculty satisfaction and student satisfaction. Again, among the myriad of measures, the framework proposed a collaborative approach to curriculum design. It states: "...effective design involves resources inside and outside of the institution,

engaging the perspectives of many constituents....aiming to use the experience of learners, teachers, and designers...." (Moore, 2002, p.17). In 2010, Chao, Hamilton and Saj conducted a study to closely examine the collaborative course development process and the use of quality standards. The case study revealed that full collaboration is beneficial for new courses or courses that required major revision. Maintaining and updating online courses does not require a collaborative process (Chao, Hamilton & Saj, 2010). This study shed an interesting light on the role of instructional design practice and the question arises with regards to efficiency. As Liston (1999) pointed out that building an effective quality culture requires, in part, prudent management of key processes. Discussion Questions 1. Here are some labels often associated with an instructional designer. Do you think these labels apply to instructional designers in post secondary education system? a. Project manager b. consultant c. instructional/educational technologist d. technical support e. gopher 2. What other labels would more accurate describe an instructional designers role in post secondary education. ? 3. Have you experienced tension or conflict when working with instructors? Were you in the role of ID at the time? Please describe the situation and please share your strategies in dealing with the tension and conflict to do an effective instructional design job. 4. Have instructional design practices made a difference in the quality of post-secondary education? How do we know? 5. What do instructional designers need to do now and in the near future to make a difference in the quality of post-secondary education?

References Barker, K. (2002). Canadian recommended e-learning guidelines. Retrieved February 18, 2010 from http://www.futured.com/pdf/CanREGs%20Eng.pdf. Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies or college and university leaders. San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass Inc.

Campbell, K., Schwier, R. & Kenny, R. (2007). The critical, relational practice of instructional deisgner in higher education: An emerging model of change agency, Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(5), 645-663. Caplan, D. (2008). Chapter 7: The development of online courses. In Terry Andersen (Ed) Theory and Practice of Online Education. Athabasca University. Daniel, S.J. (2009). Is E-Learning true to the principles of technology?. Presented at World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2009. Retrieved February 16, 2010 from http://www.editlib.org/p/33043. Chao, I. T., Hamilton, D. and Saj, T. (2010) Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 106-126. Hokanson, B., Miller, C. & Hooper, S. R. (2008). Role-based design: A contemporary perspectives for innovation in instructional design, TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(6), 36-43. Kidney, Gary; Cummings, Leslie & Boehm, Azalea (2007) Towards a quality assurance approach to e-learning courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(1), 17-30. Knowles, Evelyn & Kalata, Kathleen (2007). A model for enhancing online course development. Innovate, 4(2). Retrieved February 16, 2010 from http://innovateonline.info/index.php? view=article&id=456 Liston, C. (1999) Managing quality and standards. Buckingham, UK: STHE/Open University Press. Merisotis, J. P. & Phipps, R. A. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in internetbased distance education. Retrieved February 2010, from http://www.ihep.org/Publications/publications-detail.cfm?id=69 Moore, J. C. (2002). Elements of quality: The Sloan-C framework. U.S.A: The Sloan Consortium. Oblinger, D. and Hawkins, B. (2006) The myth about online course development, Educause Review, January/February, 14-15. Reiser, R. (2001) A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design, Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57-67. Wang, Hong; Gould, Lawrence V & King, Dennis (2009) Positioning faculty support as a strategy in assuring quality online education. Innovate, 5(6). Retrieved February 16, 2010 from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=626&action=login.