Instructional design masters program

I am writing this blog post, as I have just finished my masters degree from Ohio State in instructional design (well, they call it learning technologies but you know what I mean). It seems like when I look around various ID blogs, the question of whether to get a masters degree in instructional design comes up a lot. If I had to give an answer on this, I would probably come down on “yes” — easy for me to say, I just finished, right? But I’m only saying yes for the reasons that I’m listing below.

First, you meet a lot of people that you wouldn’t otherwise. Whether it be in an in-person, online, or hybrid format, you will make plenty of connections. The most valuable of these are your classmates, who will soon be in the same job market as you. Think of how beneficial this is, especially in a time where more and more work is online - you could “know” someone from a time zone away, and that does not necessarily keep you from working with that person in the future.

Second, you do learn plenty that you probably wouldn’t in another environment. Obviously, it’s an academic setting, so you will be learning the theory. People seem to frame theory as if it cannot be applied to a job. I have utilized the theory that I’ve learned in my classes over and over, so I don’t really get where that’s coming from. In addition to the theory, I took a few courses where I was able to play around with some tech tools. We were able to do this since the school had the licenses to these tools. These experiences were extremely beneficial to me. Now, yes, you can probably get much of this from looking around on the Internet, but personally, I learn better when it’s in a formal curriculum and I’m being taught by experts in the field.

Finally, for better or worse, employers like seeing it. This is especially true in academic settings. The impression I’ve gotten is that in the private sector, academics can be more than made up for with experience. Universities do like seeing the degree, though. A masters certainly doesn’t mean that you’re a pro at it, but it does demonstrate a willingness to learn both the application and theory.

I’ll be honest: There are many instructional design jobs that you can do without a masters degree (probably the vast majority). For me, though, the decision to pursue the degree made a lot of sense for the time in my life, and my career goals. As someone who continues to apply what he has learned in the program, I am very grateful for my decision.

Getting experience as an instructional designer

As with many careers, there comes the point where you’ve got your degree and the knowledge you’ve acquired from coursework, you’re looking for a job, and you’re told “must have 2-3 years of experience in instructional design.” You think, “that’s why I’m applying to this job, to get the experience. Where else am I supposed to get it?” Thus, the unavoidable conundrum: You’re applying to the job because you want experience, but you can’t get experience because the job wants you to already have it.

This is not unique to instructional design. One thing that’s great for instructional designers, though, is the fact that instructional design is in high demand just about everywhere you look. So, if you’re willing to do something unpaid (to get that experience), you have plenty of avenues.

This has definitely been true in my own experience. Three years ago, I reached out to a university and said that if they had anything they needed done in terms of ID, then I’d like to help. What was the result? I spent the summer converting courses from in-person format onto Rise. I also took a project off their plate that they had been hoping to do for a long time: I used Articulate Storyline to create a module discussing the importance of avoiding plagiarism. Keep in mind that this was the first time I had ever used Rise or Storyline, so this was great experience.

I continue to use this strategy. Three months ago, I contacted a local homelessness organization asking if they needed any work done where an instructional designer could help. Nonprofits are a great place to look, as they may be wanting in terms of funding or staff. I received a reply within a couple of hours. The next day, I was discussing with the director of the organization how to develop both a webinar and an online module raising the public’s awareness on homelessness. I am still in the process of working on this project, but I’ve already made new contacts and have used some software that I wouldn’t have otherwise.

The point is, if you’re willing to do some work for experience alone, there are a ton of options available to you. You’ll meet new people, and the skills that you pick up along the way are likely to become part of your repertoire as an instructional designer.

Inauguration Day technology

Inauguration 1/20/21

I love Inauguration Day. I love the colors, the pageantry, the traditions. Depending on whether my candidate of choice is the one giving the address, I love the speeches. It always feels like a holiday to me, and I normally spend a good half of the day glued to the TV. As I watched Joe Biden and Kamala Harris be sworn in, I thought about how, despite the heightened security and social distancing, technology still allowed this to feel somewhat like a typical Inauguration. Indeed, when closely-cropped camera angles were used, you didn’t get the sense that this Inauguration was any different until the camera panned out.

This got me thinking of an article that I read a few years ago regarding technology on Inauguration Day. It describes the evolution of the technology used on this momentous day. For example, it wasn’t until Thomas Jefferson’s inauguration that the inaugural address was even known by the public. He sent his address in advance to The National Intelligencer, so that it could be published after the ceremony. And, in 1857, at James Buchanan’s inauguration, the general public finally got to see the Inauguration. A photo was taken of his swearing in. In 1925, Calvin Coolidge’s address was broadcasted over the radio, and in 1949 Truman’s inauguration was broadcasted on TV with audio.

Thinking about myself watching the Inauguration this year; as I switched from my computer, to my phone, to my laptop; it is hard not to be humbled and thankful for the technology we have, which allows us to feel closer to the action (especially at a time when very, very few of us are actually close to the action).

What do at-home workspaces look like these days?

I read an article recently about how instructional designers should be setting up their workspaces as many of us continue to be fairly home-bound. It gave a number of nice tips about setting goals, tidying up, structuring, etc. As I read it, I couldn’t help but look around at my station. It’s January, 2021, now, so this working from home thing is nearing ten months for me. My wife and I share the workspace (our dining room table), and at first, things were looking pretty good. However, months in, it seems that we’ve both built up our own piles of stuff, and every once and a while one’s will cascade into the other’s space. I’m sure mine is far from the worst out there, but I couldn’t help but chuckle as I looked at the example workspace from the article and then took a look at my own (see below).

Well done!

Well done?

How will K12 teachers use eLearning technologies after COVID?

In writing this post, I drew from the article “Understanding the Factors that Influence Secondary School Teachers’ Intention to Use e-Learning Technologies for Teaching After the COVID-19 Pandemic” by Babic, Sucic, and Sinkovic. I am sure there are plenty, and will be plenty more, of articles that are focusing on teachers’ use of technology as a result of COVID.

The study focused on 138 secondary teachers in Croatia. The researchers used a questionnaire to understand participants’ use of technology before the pandemic and their intention to use it after the pandemic. According to responses to the questionnaire, 52% of participants used eLearning technologies in their teaching before the pandemic. Overall, the researchers found that 60% intend to make frequent use of eLearning technologies post-COVID. Delving into more detail, this intention is predicated on the following: how easy to use the eLearning technology in question is, participants’ attitude toward using eLearning technologies in their teaching, the educational value of the eLearning technology, participants’ computer anxiety, and participants’ view of their own self efficacy. For example, participants who have a high computer anxiety are much less likely to continue frequent use of technology in the classroom post pandemic.

There are a few interesting takeaways here. First, it is a little concerning that so many teachers have been thrust into a situation where the majority of their teaching is done online, and yet, they haven’t used eLearning technologies in the past. More work needs to be done on the part of schools in terms of professional development to mitigate against this. Secondly, while more teachers intend to use eLearning technologies in the post-COVID world (which in itself is noteworthy), the fact that it still hovers around 60% is a bit deflating; one would hope it would be higher than that. An issue that I had with this article, however, is the tone that is used regarding using technology. Often, researchers in the field of eLearning and instructional design seem to indicate that this is a black and white issue: using more technology is good, and using less is bad. Anyone who has been a teacher knows that this just isn’t the case. In the questionnaire one of the responses indicating the level of technology the participant intends to use in the future is “educational value of application of e-learning”. Why should anyone who replies that they don’t intend to use technology when there isn’t an educational value to it be docked as someone who is hesitant to use technology? As a former teacher, I can think of plenty of times where I wanted to use some form of technology, but it just didn’t make sense to do so. I think this bias on the researchers’ part is best exemplified by the fact that only 40% of participants had a strong preference to continue to create online tests after the pandemic. The researchers interpreted this as “secondary school teachers believe online tests are not easy to create and/or use in teaching.” Perhaps, but I would also offer the interpretation that maybe an online format for some/many tests is just not the best way to do it.

Overall, I think this article offers a lot of noteworthy clues for what a post-COVID educational environment may look like. Also, it is helpful if we look at teachers’ preparation and conceptions that might contribute to how much technology they intend to use in the future. But, and I say this as someone who is very much an advocate for copious amounts of eLearning in the classroom, it’s also helpful that we continue to examine the biases we have regarding technology’s place in the classroom.

Preparing faculty for online classes

I sometimes read academic journal articles in my free time. My wife makes fun of me for this, but I find them interesting and I can at least tell myself I’m being productive. Last week I came across the article “Orientation, Mentoring, and Ongoing Support: A Three-tiered Approach to Online Faculty Development.” The title sounded right up my alley, so naturally I gave it a look.

It described one college’s efforts to prepare faculty who have never taught an online class before. As the name suggests, the college used a three tiered model: orientation, mentoring, and ongoing support. Orientation refers to giving faculty a background in online learning. This phase includes information on learning theory, specifically in an online environment. It also covers information on the college’s learning management system. Faculty are also given an opportunity to develop their syllabus. The second phase is mentoring. At the very beginning of the training, faculty are assigned an instructional designer. The instructional designer assists the faculty member in crafting their syllabus and serves as a resource in answering questions about online learning and technologies. The final phase is ongoing support. Here, the faculty continues to interact with his/her instructional designer as well as other knowledgeable staff members as the course progresses. The faculty member is able to receive advice about activities, technologies, etc. that might work well in the course.

According to the article, the college decided to implement such a program as they discovered that while faculty members may be experts in their fields, it cannot be assumed that they will immediately know how to teach an online course. Since the implementation of the training program, the college has continued to offer more online courses, thus creating the need to have more faculty trained in teaching online classes. Overall, faculty have found the course to provide them with preparation and growth as a professional.

As I read this article, I kept thinking to myself “there really is a lot that goes into an online class.” The resources that are provided to faculty—background in online learning theory, knowledge of an LMS, syllabus development, tech support, advice on technologies, advice on activities, ongoing conversations with an instructional designer, and more—are all critical to success in teaching an online class. Someone could have taught a college class for thirty years, but upon being thrust into teaching an online class, might have absolutely no idea of how to go about it. The article emphasizes the point that we cannot just assume that faculty innately know how to teach an online class. In reading this article, that fact is solidified for me. Not only was it solidified, but I became convinced that we must do far more than simply prepare faculty for success; we need to prepare them, provide them with countless resources, and then remain in open dialogue with them as they continue on their journey in teaching their first online class.

Vaill, A.L., & Testori, P.A. (2012). “Orientation, Mentoring, and Ongoing Support: A Three-tiered Approach to Online Faculty Development.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 111-119.

Should instructional designers be considered faculty?

I came across this opinion piece recently on Inside Higher Education. In my Google search, the link for the article was “Why instructional designers should be counted as educators rather than staff.” I clicked on it, because this is something I’ve thought about often as well. Anyone who has spent much time doing instructional design work (at least at the college level) probably has at some point considered themselves an educator. How could you not? Depending on your role, you may be designing a course before it goes live, moving a course from in-person to online format, integrating technology into a live course, consulting with faculty about new techniques, etc. As a former teacher, I’ve often thought of my work as an instructional designer as the lesson planning aspect of classroom teaching. And, as someone who always enjoyed lesson planning quite a bit, instructional design turns out to be a pretty good fit for me.

As I read the article, I did begin to wonder ‘why does it matter how instructional designers are classified?’ The author of the article notes that faculty are often seen by universities as resources to cultivate while staff are typically viewed as “costs to minimize.” He does give a nod to the countless adjunct faculty who probably feel that they are being anything but cultivated. Regardless, one must ask, if an instructional designer were seen as a member of the faculty, would that really make their jobs any different. My hunch is that the answer would be “no.” After all, who’s to say that an instructional designer designated as faculty wouldn’t be of the sort that gets neglected, a la adjunct faculty? The author does state later in the article that he could see a new type of distinction, one in which, rather than faculty, the term for those working directly with the education of students could be educator. Now, there’s all kinds of issues with this as well, but I could at least get behind the idea of acknowledging that an instructional designer is an educator and should be thought of as one.

It seems to me that this is more a question of perception. As instructional designers, we don’t want to be thought of as staff. This is not to take away from the great work that staff members at universities do, but, because instructional designers’ work is so close to the classroom (sometimes it’s even in the classroom), it is hard for us not to conceive of ourselves as impacting students’ learning. I mean, let’s be honest, to do this job well you need to have a decent understanding of learning sciences. There aren’t many staff positions that would require that.

In my instructional design work, I think of myself as an educator. Really, I haven’t stopped considering myself an educator since leaving the classroom. Now, there’s a difference between thinking of myself as an educator and being formally titled an educator, but I’m not sure having that official designation would change my role and duties all that much. The article I’ve been referring to was written in 2017, and like with many things, COVID will greatly impact the role of instructional designers going forward. While it’s far too soon to know how the pandemic will affect instructional designers as educators, I’d presume that we are only going to be valued more and more as a result. If that also means we get termed educators, well, I’m fine with that!

Cosmopolitanism, Education, and Technology

Whenever the term “cosmopolitanism” is used, it’s important to define what it means. I think many believe the word cosmopolitan to be synonymous with sophisticated. Mental imagery evoked is of a well-traveled, good-looking, knowledgeable person. Here, however, I’m referring to cosmopolitanism the ideology. A cosmopolitan ideology refers to the thinking that all human beings are part of a single community. Cosmopolitanism does not mean open acceptance of all things global while banishing the local, though. As Hansen (2011) states “cosmopolitanism constitutes an orientation in which people learn to balance reflective openness to the new with reflective loyalty to the known. The orientation positions people to learn from rather than merely tolerate others, even while retaining the integrity and continuity of their distinctive ways of being” (p. 1). Cosmopolitanism encourages us to see the unknown in all its potential while still holding onto what we know and keeping these two things in a productive tension.

Cosmopolitan thinking requires work, and it requires teachers to encourage us on this journey. It requires one to be open to new ideas while not blindly accepting everything that is novel. It requires one to hold onto who one is with integrity while also allowing one’s beliefs to be reconfigured upon additional evidence. A teacher is instrumental in such a journey. Someone who embraces such a mindset can serve as a guide for another who is just beginning their journey. A teacher creates a safe space, lends a listening ear, offers words to invigorate.

Technology is also a helpful tool to be utilized on this journey. When using technology with a cosmopolitan mindset, it is once again easy to immediately conjure up what it is not. For example, using the internet to learn more about different cultures is valuable, but this isn’t necessarily cosmopolitanism in action. Using the internet to better understand another culture and critically examining one’s views as a result (or vice-versa) is potentially more productive. At the same time, it is important not to reduce the experiences of others to well-known large-scale events, stereotypes, etc. This is hardly useful. Rather, by seeing the day-to-day work, celebration, joy, and tragedy, we will see that while our values may differ (perhaps greatly) we are united by a humanity. This may be a humanity that is still in need of critical examination, but cosmopolitanism encourages us onward in this examination.

Hansen, D.T. (2011). The Teacher and the World: A Study of Cosmopolitanism as Education. Routledge: New York.

How being a former teacher influences me as an instructional designer

First, you don’t need to be or have been a teacher to be a good instructional designer. Let’s clear that up right away. There are so many other skills that go into the role (tech know-how, interpersonal skills, perhaps training facilitation, etc.) that pedagogical experience isn’t necessarily an overriding factor contributing to success. That being said, I think consciously drawing from your experiences as a teacher is of a definite benefit.

When I was a teacher (both in middle school and at the college level), I wanted to get students’ attention right from the start of the lesson. This was particularly crucial in teaching middle school. The lessons had a flow and energy that they didn’t seem to have otherwise. To do this, I’d start with a provocative question or some engaging media or something of that sort. I do this same thing in my ID work. If I’m creating a learning module I try to start it off with what I call “a shot of learning”, embedded in my larger learning. Think of this as an espresso to go with your cup of coffee. A lot of times this will be a short animated video that will play before the larger learning begins.

Something else that I do is switch things up. Nobody likes it when learning gets stale, and that’s especially noticeable in the classroom. When you see yourself losing the students’ attention then you know you’ve got your work cut out for you to get it back. In ID work you have a range of tools at your disposal. Avoid relying too heavily on one. One tool may work great for something but not so much for something else. It’s very important that you have a reason for the medium you’re using apart from “this is how I’ve always done it.”

As I said, there’s no requirement for having been a teacher to be an effective instructional designer. But just as anyone should be leveraging their prior experience in their current work, pedagogical expertise can prove quite helpful in making instructional design decisions.

The one thing to take from a learning technologies masters program

As I near the end of my masters of learning technologies program, I’ve wondered ‘if there is one concept/theory/strategy/etc. to take from this program, what would it be?’ Any instructional design/learning technologies program is going to focus on instructional design frameworks (e.g. ADDIE, rapid prototyping), learning theories (e.g. behaviorism, cognitivism), evaluation methods of learning technologies. But, I think I’d have to say that Mayer’s 12 Principles of Multimedia Learning is what I’ve found most useful.

In my current work, I refer to Mayer’s principles on an almost daily basis. You can find more information about each of the twelve principles here. Any instructional designer should at least be familiar with these, and once you are, you’ll see them used (or violated) in nearly any learning material you come across.

There are a number of useful concepts that I’ve gathered from my program, but I’d argue that if nothing else an instructional designer should at least know Mayer’s principles.

NIH wonders: ‘should we keep meeting this way?’

This year has marked the first time in the NIH Center for Scientific Review’s 75 years in which review committee meetings have not been held in person. Instead, like many things in our current COVID world, their lives are online. As a result, the Center wondered what should they keep doing after the pandemic, and what should be scrapped. To address this, they surveyed over 3,000 NIH reviewers and an additional 230 scientific review officers. You can find a detailed description of the study here. What did they find?

In response to the prompts “Contributed to Discussion”, “Confident Voicing Opinions”, “Others Responsive to My Feedback”, “Clearly Communicated Opinions”, and “Comfort Voting Outside Range”, respondents overwhelmingly responded that they feel the same in online settings as they do in in-person. To the prompt “Attention Span Lasted”, respondents who voted that they felt the same were still in the majority, but those who felt their attention span was slightly less were close behind. Overall, however, both reviewers and scientific review officers preferred in-person meetings to those online (43% to 31%, reviewers; 44% to 36%, scientific review officers).

So, what does this tell us? In many ways, I wasn’t too surprised by this. I myself am working from home now, and at the time of writing this have been working from home for roughly nine months. At this point, I think we’ve gotten down a lot of the basics of Zoom (or Skype or Teams…). I, too, feel confident expressing my opinions in online meetings. I, too, feel others are responsive to my feedback. I, too, find my attention span to be diminished. And, I also would like to go back into an office at some point. I think what this is showing is the demand for ‘social presence’. In eLearning literature, social presence is thought of as “the degree to which a learner feels personally connected with other students and the instructor in an online learning community” (Sung & Mayer, 2012, p. 1738). Many in the eLearning community work to find ways in which social presence can be enhanced in online settings. What is often found is, despite improvements, there seems to be no substitute for actually being there. This isn’t true in all cases. For example, as the NIH’s study found, we can feel equally as if we can contribute to the conversation. But, maybe in the end we still are left to feel a bit unsatisfied. I know that that’s where I’m at these days, and it’s why I’m hoping for a day in the near future where I can make the trip back into the office (with a few work from home days worked in, of course :)

Sung, E., & Mayer, R.E. (2012). Five facets of social presence in online distance education. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1738-1747.

Thinking of technology as a primary good

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve seen certain communities affected more severely than others. This is true in the realm of education as well. With the continuous movement from online education, to in-person, and then back again, we’ve seen that access to technology is crucial for succeeding at this tumultuous time.

It’s 2020, we know that tech literacy is crucial for thriving in today’s world. Yet, when we discuss what types of education are most important for students to blossom, technology does not often come up. Instead, we hear about the heavily tested subjects: math and literacy. This is not discounting those two, but in order to truly participate in today’s world, one needs more than math and literacy.

The pandemic is driving some of this home. I think it’s time that we start thinking of technology as something essential—a primary good. Gutmann (1980) describes a primary good as a good that we would want provided for ourselves as children. She lists the most obvious of these: nutrition, health care, housing, familial affection, and a quality education. We need these to move from surviving to thriving. I would argue that technology is moving into this sphere. We need technology to thrive. Certainly, now, not only do we need to be technology literate, but students need technology just to go to school. You cannot do online schooling without the online part.

A profound achievement gap already exists in this country. Imagine how wide it becomes the longer the pandemic lasts. Viewing technology as a primary good alone will not shrink the gap, but at least it works to level the playing field so that all students have access to one primary good that is not in doubt…a quality education.

Gutmann, A. (2020). Children, Paternalism, and Education: A Liberal Argument. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9(4), 338-358.

I looked at a bunch of instructional design job listings

For one month, I noted the instructional design job listings that appeared on indeed.com in order to gain a better understanding of what the industry wants regarding tech tools. This was really eye opening. In comparing university job postings to those in the private sector, universities prize applicants who have deep knowledge of LMSs (Moodle, Blackboard, Canvas, etc.). Private sector jobs appear to prioritize design software (Adobe Creative Cloud, Articulate Storyline).

In general, the most sought after tech tools appear to be (in descending order): Adobe Creative Cloud, Microsoft Office, Articulate Storyline, LMSs, Adobe Captivate, Camtasia, HTML/CSS. Many more pop up with high frequency, but these appear the most.

Why did I spend all of this time doing this? Well, I guess I just wanted a better understanding of what’s on the market in instructional design. I can say that I got that, and I found some pretty interesting looking jobs at the same time!

Collaboration

As an instructional designer, it can be easy to get your task and just run with it. However, maintaining an open communication channel with your client and/or content expert remains vital. It’s important to remember that the relationship between instructional designer and client is not transactional in nature; it is interactive. Collaboration, then, is key.

All instructional designers should follow at least one instructional design model when developing projects. The most well known of these models is ADDIE (analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate). In terms of collaboration, it can be helpful to remember that at each one of these stages, a new opportunity occurs for collaboration between the instructional designer and the client.