At the Emerging Learning Design conference I attended last week, one session on “Digital Pedagogies” that attempted to grasp what exactly defines “instructional designer” in this day and age. The room was filled with all sorts, academic/instructional technologists, faculty members, those calling themselves instructional designers, and administrators.
Through discussion, the group came up with quite a bit, and it is more varied than you might think. First and foremost, an instructional designer (ID) is a guide and facilitator/collaborator with faculty. Depending on expertise, this person could also be a course designer, project manager, coach/trainer, researcher, and all-in-all innovator. Other descriptors used included explorers, participants, creators, and community builders (ethics, netiquette). Historically, instructional designers often employed design models and theory in their projects with faculty, often developing new courses, degree programs, or redesigning existing courses. Today’s ID is often titled as an instructional technologist, as instructional designers commonly employ technology in their solutions and designs. The key to being an excellent ID is having enough information from the instructor (subject matter expert) to determine whether technology is beneficial or necessary.
The conference session focused on several case studies, including the design of a course on social entrepreneurship (basic concepts of web identity, pros/cons/best practices for social media and security, etc.) and the fascinating concept of being a templated self (forcing ourselves into online templates like LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.). The outcome of the case study was one of the importance of communication between instructor and ID, as the work put into the project by the ID was not what the instructor had intended.
In another case study, the interest in implementing “Domains of One’s Own” concept where all students get their own domain name and create their own web identity was the focus (Seton Hall). Our in-state colleagues at Mary Washington pioneered the idea, and it has attracted a lot of attention across the country. Getting buy-in from SGA, faculty/administration, and figuring out curriculum integration in general education was challenging. Time was the primary obstacle (students/faculty needed to learn WordPress, what domain names were and how they are managed, etc.).
One interesting conversation emerged on the topic of “digital fluency” encroaching on “information literacy” that librarians focus on. The discussion seemed to point to the increasing use of technology in librarian’s instruction and programming of information literacy, but most felt that digital fluency that is often a focus of instructional technologists does not encroach on the good work and information provided by librarians. In many cases, it seems a collaboration between librarians and IDs has proven beneficial in ensuring students and faculty develop solid foundations in both info literacy and digital fluency.
Near the end of the session, a question was posed to the group as part of a design thinking activity: should faculty reach out to an ID or should IDs reach out to faculty. While one participant indicated faculty don’t appreciate being chased down, many faculty in the audience voiced up and felt that the ID should kick off the conversation and reach out to faculty. Further, departments need to make the IDs know that they are planning to retool curriculum, or other pedagogical efforts where an ID or instructional technologist would be beneficial.
