Brigham Young University Brigham Young University

BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive

Faculty Publications

2018-01-20

Preparing the Next Generation of Instructional Designers: A Preparing the Next Generation of Instructional Designers: A

Cross-Institution Faculty Collaboration Cross-Institution Faculty Collaboration

Patricia J. Slagter van Tryon

East Carolina University

Jason K. McDonald

Slagter van Tryon, P.J., McDonald, J. & Hirumi, A. (2018). Preparing the next generation of

instructional designers: a cross-institution faculty collaboration. Journal of Computing in Higher

Education. Volume 30, Issue 1, 125-153

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation BYU ScholarsArchive Citation

Slagter van Tryon, Patricia J.; McDonald, Jason K.; and Hirumi, Atsusi, "Preparing the Next Generation of

Instructional Designers: A Cross-Institution Faculty Collaboration" (2018).

Faculty Publications

. 2067.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/2067

This Peer-Reviewed Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been

accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more

information, please contact [email protected].

Abstract

The ability of novice instructional designers to become skilled problem-solvers, who select and

apply appropriate instructional design (ID) models in their work environments, are key

competencies generally sought after in introductory ID courses. Yet, the proliferation of ID

models, coupled with varied philosophies and practices about how ID is taught may pose

challenges for ID educators seeking to prepare the next generation of leaders in the field. With

little empirical research or documented best practices, ID educators are left to their own

and products of instructional design with each other as a means to understand and improve our

own teaching practices. We also developed a model for cross-institutional faculty collaboration

that is immersive, cyclical, and theory-based, and provides a guide for other ID educators to

collectively engage in the work of supporting each other in the common goal of preparing the

next generation of instructional design leaders.

Keywords: instructional design; collaboration; model; teaching practices; action research.

An instructional design (ID) model, in its most rudimentary form, is a tool for designers

to logically engage in producing solutions to instructional problems. So it is no surprise that a

large number of ID models have been developed, many focused on the needs of unique types of

instructional situations. The plethora of models, in turn, has led to a number of schemas that

categorize the approaches in many different ways to highlight their similarities, differences, or

for the novice designer to determine the appropriate model to use in any given situation. The

simplicity of many ID models often hides the reality that in practice instructional designers are

very flexible in their use of process (Yanchar, South, Williams, Allen, & Wilson, 2010). So the

design demands of particular contexts can place difficult cognitive burdens on novices to

evaluate and apply various models to the specifics of the environments in which they work. In

other words, the proliferation of available models may cloud, rather than facilitate, designer

decision making.

designers use models suggests that a holistic approach should be adopted in the teaching of ID

process, and not focus too strictly on any single model (Botturi, 2006; Shambaugh & Magliaro,

2001). Yet this introduces challenges for faculty teaching ID courses, who must still make

practical decisions about what model or models to cover, in what order, and in what manner. For

example, rigorously assessing the characteristics of target learners and other stakeholders is a key

facet of most ID processes (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2015). However, in K-12 settings, teachers do

not systematically analyze learner characteristics (Young, Reiser, & Dick, 1998), let alone

Additionally, literature points to expectations held by those who employ instructional

designers, suggesting that graduates of ID programs should have independent problem solving

skills and be able to adapt to new situations (Sugar, 2015; Winn, 1997). They may also be

expected to perform functions beyond traditional ID activities, such as project management (Cox

& Osguthorpe, 2003; van Rooij, 2010). Consequently, Larson and Lockee (2009) suggested that

ID programs must be flexible, and address the needs of novice designers in the varied contexts in

which they will become employed, moving away from the more generalist approach found in

we ask how can we better empower new IDs to be independent thinkers and highly skilled

decision makers? The next generation of designers are currently novices in their design practice,

yet must be poised to work in a competitive work environment with high expectations for

measureable results in areas for which they have been hired. They may serve in business and

industry settings, government agencies, the military, medical and allied health professions, K-12,

or higher education. But regardless of where, they will need to quickly analyze needs, defend

their own methods, models, and recommendations, all as they apply sound ID principles to

instructional design or the relative effectiveness of ID models including how to help novices

navigate the landscape created by the large number of existing models. ID educators are left to

their own judgment and wisdom in answering the questions we pose above, as well as the

numerous other issues that arise in the day-to-day preparation of new designers. But we believe

that many educators are making strong judgments and developing valuable insights. So to help

address the challenge, we also propose that the knowledge gained by ID educators, if shared

beyond the bounds of the courses in which they teach, could be used as a source of “practical

collaboration can help professors of ID develop new insights so they are better prepared to

educate the next generation of instructional designers.

To facilitate the sharing and synthesis of data across institutions, we employed a form of

action research, where we as educator-researchers engaged in collaboration both to “make

meaning of interpreting a particular phenomenon,” as well as “to solve a practical problem”

(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 49). The phenomenon under study was how cross-institutional

common outline:

● Context, which consisted of descriptive information about the course (instructor

background, delivery mode, number of students, etc.), the program in which the

course is taught, and the teaching philosophy of the course instructor. This basic

information was provided to help the collaborators better situate the details about

each course’s outcomes, strategies, assessments, and activities.

● Each course’s learning outcomes and key assessments.

● Challenges faced by the course’s instructor or students, based on data gathered by

each instructor while completing their teaching assignments.

The three cases we wrote to the common outline facilitated our cross-institution

collaboration, which occurred during the act phase. By collaboration we mean multiple

discussions that consisted of asking each other questions about our individual approaches to ID

education, describing how our teaching apparently differed from each other and from the other

cases we read, offering suggestions about how we reconcile the challenges we face with our

be useful to other ID teachers. The observe phase consisted of analyzing the record of our

discussions (emails, and notes from video conferences) for patterns or insights about what we

learned about cross-institution collaboration in the context of preparing new instructional

designers (and by extension, the next generation of leaders in the field). Finally, the reflect phase

consisted of summarizing our insights in this article and into a model for how others can conduct

similar collaborations across institutions, as they seek to better prepare the next generation of

students at their own institutions.

Finally, we present the observations and reflections that led to the creation of our model of cross-

institution collaboration in the context of teaching ID.

● Course: EDTC 6020 Principles of Instructional Design.

● Instructor: Masked, Associate Professor, Instructional Technology, Department of

Mathematics, Science and Instructional Technology Education, “University Case 1.”

● Experience: 9 years as an instructional designer, 3 years teaching introductory ID.

resources.

● Students: 25-50 each semester, graduate students in the MAEd and MS in IT programs

with students representing, nursing and allied health professions, business, theater,

hospitality, economics, and various majors in education.

The Instructional Technology (IT) program at University Case 1 (University Case 1) is

located in a rural area with an over-all enrollment of 28,000. The university offers two degree

programs, a MAEd and a MS in IT. The IT program also offers three certificate programs;

● Experience: 17 years as a practicing instructional designer and administrator/executive

and 2 years as a teacher of introductory ID.

● Delivery: Totally Face-to-Face, 15 weeks each Fall Semester (September – December).

● Primary Text: Dirkson (2016) and Gibbons (2013), with supplemental readings on

client/SME interactions, assessing instructional situations, generating instructional

strategies, prototyping and the testing/evaluation of prototypes, and pitching

ideas/strategies to clients.

given time. University Case 2 is a research university in an urban setting, enrolling about 30,000

undergraduate and 3,000 graduate students. IP&T offers two degrees—an MS and a PhD. Both

programs are on-campus and fully face-to-face; currently the university administration has not

approved any graduate programs to be taught online. Students admitted to the program can

specialize in one of four areas: instructional design/development; evaluation;

assessment/measurement; and research. All specialties are highly project-focused; in each,

students are required to complete at least one culminating project demonstrating their skills in the

who are oriented towards situated learning approaches and helping students join professional

communities of practice (Wenger, 1998).

Most IP&T students complete the instructional design/development specialty. The

backgrounds of students who complete this specialty are very diverse. About one third come to

the program immediately following their undergraduate work, often from a field like psychology.

Others are existing professionals either pursuing a career change, or seeking a credential for an

ID position they came to by assignment. Some students begin the program with prior experience

division or teaching/learning center. In contrast to other cases discussed in this paper, few

University Case 2 graduates pursue careers in the military or healthcare.

IP&T’s introductory ID course is labeled IP&T 564. It meets in a single, three-hour block

once a week, and is meant for students to take during their first semester in the program. Most

students are enrolled in the IP&T department; however, each semester the course also enrolls 2-3

students from other majors. Students in the ID specialty are taking the course to prepare for work

as a professional instructional designer. Students from other specialties may not be interested in

The primary outcome of IP&T’s instructional design/development specialty is to prepare

students for professional work in the ID industry. This influences the content, instructional

strategies, and assignments in all courses, especially IP&T 564, which has the primary outcome

of students individually completing an online instructional module for a client of their choosing.

The specific learning outcomes that support this primary outcome are:

● Identify the scope of the ID industry;

allow your ideas to be evaluated;

● Demonstrate an emerging design character.

These outcomes are assessed through rubrics focused on identifying key attributes of an

effective project. Rubrics follow a consistent format, with criteria to be evaluated grouped under

the heading, “To what extent does the project exemplify the following characteristics?” Each

criterion can be marked as Exemplary; Somewhat; or Not at All. Points are awarded at each level

depending on the contribution a criterion makes towards the overall project success. A sample

IP&T 564 is integrated into the department’s design studio curriculum (Gibbons, 2016;

Rich, West, & Warr, 2015). The design studio is a form of project-based learning in which

students work for extended periods of time on authentic design problems, under the direction of

instructors who typically do not lecture but who model design skills and offer intense feedback

on students’ work. For detailed reviews of the design studio approach, including how it can be

used in ID, see Cennamo (2016), Clinton and Rieber (2010), and Schön (1985).

week semester). The instructor, sometimes assisted by students from the Advanced ID course,

offers feedback to students either individually or in small groups, providing individualized

instruction on how to address the next phase(s) of their design process, or providing

encouragement to cope with challenging situations they face. At the end of the semester students

present their work (a prototype of their product) to the rest of the class for final feedback, and

then deliver their prototype to their client.

Additionally, IP&T 564 is integrated with the introductory course in instructional media

instructional artifacts, which they develop into working products in IP&T 560. The instructors

also support each other in teaching various topics and skills at whatever point and in whatever

course makes the most sense, and not within the confines of the course to which they are

formally assigned.

The experiential outcomes of IP&T 564 and the design studio strategy have been

developed to support students who are growing into the next generation of ID leaders. Surveys

with those who employ IP&T students indicate that the advantage offered by their graduate

The textbooks currently used in IP&T 564 are Dirksen (2016) and Gibbons (2013).

Dirksen is a practitioner-oriented text on developing eLearning, and provides students with clear

and engaging examples of how ID skills realistically apply in concrete situations. Gibbons’ text

examines architectural ID theory. Using the textbooks together helps students integrate both the

academic and practical aspects of ID, and avoids the shortcomings of focusing exclusively on

either pragmatic processes or the philosophical and theoretical foundations of the field. The

textbooks are supplemented by readings that address individual skills more completely or from

culminating project. For example, in-class experiential challenges are used to introduce the

knowledge base of ID while avoiding as much as possible lecture as an instructional activity.

One activity students typically enjoy is the introduction to learner analysis. During the first five

minutes of class, students are divided into groups of three, and sent across campus with

instructions to engage with the campus population in various locations. At least one group is

assigned to observe a large lecture class; other groups observe in the library; other groups

interview a few students in the cafeteria about their university experiences. After students return

the syllabus and course schedule, to access supplementary course readings, to download copies

of handouts and assignment rubrics, submit assignments, and review their grades. Occasional

announcements are also posted in the LMS. Lists of supplementary readings, along with

handouts, templates, and rubrics to support assignments, can be found at

(http://jkmcdonald.com/teaching/introduction-to-instructional-design/).

Although this approach to teaching IP&T 564 works well for students in the instructional

the design studio sequence, and so some adjustments need to be made so they can be successful

without completing assignments in the complementary courses.

But other challenges are more fundamental to the course strategy. The studio-based and

project-based design of IP&T 564 assumes that students are interested in actual careers as

instructional designers. This is a safe assumption to make for students in the ID specialty. Even if

they do not enter careers exactly aligned with projects they completed in IP&T 564, they usually

find their experiences transferable enough that the course still helps them to be successful in their

designer in-training while they are in the class. Instructors also try to help students with other

purposes shape their culminating course project to align with their interests. While some students

without career interests in ID struggle with the nature of the course, most eventually understand

how to work in the manner asked of them and usually exceed their own expectations by the time

the reach the end of the course.

● Course: EME 6613 Instructional Systems Design

● Delivery: Totally online W(eb) and M(ixed) mode, 15 weeks fall and spring terms

● Primary Text: Dick, Carey, and Carey (2015)

● Students: 30-40 Fall, 20-25 Spring. Graduate students primarily in ID&T, but also in

Modeling and Simulation, Nursing, and Digital Media.

The Instructional Design & Technology (ID&T) program at the University of Central

Florida (UCF) consists of four full-time tenure track faculty and a team of three-five adjuncts.

Our mission is to optimize human performance through research and the development of

prepares both educators as well as instructional designers to design and deliver online and hybrid

coursework. Graduates of the doctoral programs seek opportunities across higher education,

B&I, and government agencies as educators, researchers, training managers, and center directors.

A significant percentage of our students are K-12 and postsecondary educators who are

looking to enhance their technology skills and knowledge, or move into careers as instructional

designers. Others come from varied disciplines with common interests in training and ID. A

smaller, each significant number are practicing instructional designers returning to school to

Two integrated core courses provide students with a basic introduction to the overall

systematic design process: EME 6613 focuses on analysis and design, and EME 6226 focuses on

development, and formative and summative evaluation. A third core course, EME 6507

Multimedia for Training and Education, also covers basic multimedia production skills but is not

purposefully integrated with either EME 6613 or EME 6226.

EME 6613 Instructional Systems Design is the fundamental design course depicted in

this case that is taken by all graduate students in the ID&T master’s degree program, and is

graduate programs across UCF (such as the Modeling and Simulation, and Nursing) register for

EME 6613 during the fall, and approximately twenty to twenty-five with a similar ratio of

program students take the course during the spring term.

Personally, I believe in experiential learning. After 15+ years of compiling, analyzing,

and developing a framework for applying alternative instructional strategies (Hirumi, 2014a,

2014b, 2013, 2002a, 2002b), I’ve come to believe that children, adolescents, and adults often

learn best when they are presented with authentic challenges, and skill development and the

further delineated by describing targeted outcomes, assessments, instructional strategy, and

resources.

The goal for EME 6613 is to give students experience in working in teams with assigned

subject matter experts (SMEs) to systematically design a unit of hybrid instruction. Teamwork

and collaboration with SMEs are specified as essential interpersonal skills for instructional

designers. Hybrid instruction is prescribed to give students experience in flowcharting and

the approval of a client. Although the specific teaching approach is named and applied in

somewhat different manner across the three ID courses, as discussed later under key differences,

it is apparent that they all still focus on the application of skills, rather than only the acquisition

of knowledge, and real-time interactions with clients and SMEs are thought to be essential

components of students’ preparation and experience. Because our course activities were designed

in support of skills development in authentic context, discussion of our approaches to learning

stimulated our interest in adopting some of the resources developed by our collaborators.

have to define their own learning and performance outcomes. Some students may see little

relevance in learning skills that are most applicable when designing interactive, technology-

based instruction, such as creating flowcharts or storyboards, when they may solely be working

in face-to-face learning environments. The value of discussing competing student demands was

twofold: first, we received moral support as well as useful validation that the struggles we face

are not unique to us as teachers or to our institutions. Second, we shared ideas about how we

could better situate learning activities in authentic challenges that would help students develop

Our discussion also revealed a number of differences across cases, specifically in (a)

course delivery, (b) the design of course activities, and (c) instructional resources including

textbooks. Discussing these differences provided a different type of value to our collaboration

than did discussing similarities, namely, understanding each other’s approaches and points of

view provided us opportunities to reflect on the rationale that undergirded own practices, and, in

some cases, inspired us with ideas to experiment with in our own courses.

significant number of students continue to express preferences from some face-to-face meetings,

and to enable foreign students, who are limited in their ability to take online courses due to

federal law, to take the course and earn their degree. As we discussed these differences, it

became apparent that comparing the different mode of course delivery was not a matter of

curiosity, but it meaningfully affected our individual course strategies. For example, the studio

model in Case 2 is greatly facilitated by having all students on-campus, where they can not only

meet together frequently, but also can serendipitously find themselves “bumping into each other”

telecommunication technologies, such as but not limited to webconferencing, online discussion

forums, and wikis, to facilitate teamwork and the interchange of ideas.

Differences in course design. Although in all three cases students engage in authentic

design projects, there is difference across institutions in the specific assignments and activities

with which students are tasked, and the instructors follow somewhat different learner-centered

approaches based on their educational philosophy and experiences.

In the first case, students are allowed to select and apply the ID model that they believe

a studio approach that promotes students working on their own. Once students choose a client

and a project, most of class time from that point forward is dedicated to project work, including

generating multiple possibilities of instructional approaches and creating prototypes of ID

solutions, with the culminating assessment being a prototype of an online instructional unit. Few

lectures are offered by the instructor. Rather, the instructor and students from an advanced ID

course provide feedback, but ultimately provide little prescription on either the process students

should follow or form their product should take.

assigned SMEs throughout the entire term to complete goal, subordinate skills, learner and

context analyses; define objectives, assessments, and instructional strategy, generate flowcharts

and storyboards, and develop instructor guides based on guided learning experiences. During the

first two weeks, students form and norm teams, and select a service-learning project. Students

are then given direct instruction and practice specific design tasks as they work through authentic

design challenges offered by each service-learning project.

While recognizing that course strategies cannot easily be lifted from one situation and

Differences in course resources. All three basic design courses utilize different

textbooks and resources, reflecting variations in the courses’ designs and instructional

approaches. In the first case, the instructor uses, The Essentials of Instructional Design

Connecting Fundamental Principles with Process and Practice by Brown and Green (2016),

along with screencasts, diagrams, sample (model) assignments, and various software for

generating visual aids. In the second case, the instructor uses both Design for How People Learn

(Dirksen, 2016), and An Architectural Approach to Instructional Design (Gibbons, 2013) to

The Systematic Design of Instruction, and supplemental units on goal analysis, instructional

strategies, flowcharting and storyboarding, and the development of instructor guides with

animations, journal articles, and handouts generated or gathered over time. Discussing why and

how we used these different resources led to additional reflection on the part of each author

about our rationales for the instructional choices we make; this in turn led to reflection about

how we might be able to improve our own approaches through the insights we learned from our

collaborators.

explained, and sometimes defended, our individual approaches to each other, we also found

ourselves reflecting on our own practices and what we value as professors of ID. This led us to

be more thoughtful about why we engage in the activities we do, and how to justify them using

our knowledge of ID, learning and instructional theory.

We believe what we learned from our experiences will be valuable to readers who also

teach ID, and who are interested in improving their own practice through similar cycles of dialog

and reflection with their colleagues. So based on our experience we propose a model for how

learning from each other. We organize our model using Lindsey and Berger’s (2009) three

universal principles of experiential learning. Their work became a useful framework to describe

our collaboration as we came to recognize that our efforts were in actuality an instance of our

own experiential learning, since the discussion, cooperation and reflection in which we engaged

for this project is central to authentic forms of the course design experience. The principles

articulated by Lindsey and Berger are:

● Framing the Experience – Experiential learning begins as one communicates the

to challenge learners, but not so difficult that they do not have a reasonable expectation

for success.

● Reflecting on Experience – Experiences must be analyzed for one to learn from them.

Reflection should involve learners answering the questions, “What happened?” “Why did

it happen?” “What did I learn?” and “How would I apply this knowledge to future

experiences?”

Using these principles, we derived an iterative model consisting of three cyclical phases,

FIGURE 1 GOES ABOUT HERE

● Phase 1: Engage in initial collaboration to understand each other’s teaching context,

philosophy, strategy, and key resources.

○ Step 1: Agree upon purpose(s) and objectives for collaborating, a set of expected

behaviors of acceptable collaboration, and the social space in which collaboration

will take place.

○ Step 2: Each participant shares course descriptions, resources, and key trends that

○ Step 1: Collectively recommit to the shared purposes and objectives of

collaborating (or update desired purposes/objectives if needed).

○ Step 2: Based on earlier discussions, identify, compare, and contrast similarities

and differences between each other’s approaches. Discuss challenges and

experiences, compare/contrast materials and approaches, trends to which

individuals or programs are responding, etc.

○ Step 3: Collectively and individually, reflect on similarities, differences, trends,

● Phase 3: Integrate lessons learned into our individual teaching.

○ Step 1: As individuals, determine objectives for course improvement activities.

What should be improved in your course and why?

○ Step 2: As individuals, update and improve your course outcomes, key

assessments, activities, or materials. Base changes on previous discussions, with

continual help from collaborators.

○ Step 3: As individuals, reflect and gather evidence on your new course design.

for collaborating as we recognized that all three of us were facing similar challenges in preparing

IDs to work in more complex environments, and wanted to learn from each other about

addressing these challenges. Second, we shared course descriptions and resources as presented

in our cases above. Third, we reflected with each other through multiple, technology-mediated

conversations over a period of weeks, all of which led into cycles of comparing/contrasting our

individual approaches, as described above. Finally, we are each integrating changes into our

course practices using the ideas and even materials we shared with each other.

viewed emerging trends in the areas of learning and instruction. We present three of the issues

we identified, that may be facing other institutions as well, as suggestions for how readers might

identify initial purposes by which they can begin cross-institutional collaboration efforts of their

own.

Our understanding of learning is evolving. Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience

point to the need for IDs to view and gain knowledge of learning in ways they have not done

previously (Critchfield & Twyman, 2014). Advances in neuroimaging technology and brain

Our understanding of design as a field is evolving. Insights from traditional design

disciplines such as architecture are providing instructional designers a greater understanding of

how to address challenges using design as a mode of inquiry and not only as a process for

product development (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012). And as instructional designers solve

problems they will be expected to be more creative, more innovative, and more willing to

question the status quo (McDonald, 2016). One example of a design approach that facilitates this

type of questioning is the approach known as presumptive design, which encourages designers to

how to learn more about what they do not know, and how to compensate for constraints in their

environment (Frishberg & Lambdin, 2016).

Environments in which IDs work are evolving. Already people work for more

organizations than those in previous generations, and will often work in multiple industries over

the course of a career. Organizational structures continue to flatten (Meisenback & Jensen,

2017). Modern development processes, such as agile development (Dingsøyr & Moe, 2014),

continue to accelerate the pace of product creation. More decisions are being made through big

help them develop insights that improve their work as educators of the next generation of

designers. Through reflection and discussion guided by the principles of action research and

experiential learning, we studied our own instance of collaboration, and developed a model for

how other ID educators can engage in similar collaboration themselves. This cyclical model of

engaging, comparing/contrasting, and integrating lessons learned offers a systematic approach

for collaborators to ask each other questions helpful for understanding the issues new

instructional designers are likely to face. Our model also provides educators tools for discovering

van Rooij, S. W. (2010). Project management in instructional design: ADDIE is not enough,

British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 852-864.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a theory-based curriculum in instructional technology.

Educational Technology, 37(1), 34-41.

Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with

Woo, K., Gosper, M., McNeill, M., Preston, G., Green, D., & Phillips, R. (2008). Web-based

lecture technologies: blurring the boundaries between face-to-face and distance learning.

Research in Learning Technology, 16(2). doi:https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v16i2.10887