Instructional Designers Experiences - Lecture Notes | EDUC 919, Study notes of History of Education

Download Instructional Designers Experiences - Lecture Notes | EDUC 919 and more Study notes History of Education in PDF only on Docsity!

A Phenomenology of Instructional Designers’ Experiences in Designing Learner-Centered Curriculum Student Dr. Milacci August 25, 2017

Abstract This research prospectus describes a transcendental phenomenological study examining the lived experiences of instructional designers working with subject matter experts to design learner- centered courses for an online learning environment at a faith-based institution of higher education. A review of the research shows that learner-centered curriculum increases student motivation and achievement, but there are some barriers to course implementation. Instructional designers can play a significant role in overcoming some of those barriers in working with subject matter experts to design learner-centered courses for an online delivery. While there is prolific research regarding the decision-making processes of instructional designers, the research does not address the experiences of the instructional designers when working with subject matter experts, and not interacting with students. Therefore, the problem this study seeks to address is the gap in capturing the experiences of the instructional designer in designing learner-centered courses. This study will rely on focus groups, interviews, observations, and document analysis collected from the university. Keywords : learner-centered, instructional design, online learning, subject matter experts

often play a minor role in the decision making stage of designing of instruction, with the focus primarily on meeting outlined outcomes and objectives (Gray et al., 2015; Rapanta & Cantoni, 2014). Moate and Cox (2015) discussed the idea of implementing learner-centeredness with course content that was often considered more didactic, for example, skills and competency based. Problem Statement The problem is that there is a gap in the literature regarding how instructional designers, who frequently do not have direct contact with students, consider and implement principles of effective learner-centered curriculum and design in their instructional design practice for online classes. Purpose Statement The purpose of this phenomenological study is to describe instructional designers’ experience designing learner-centered online curriculum in the context of private, faith-based institutions of higher learning. At this stage of the research, learner-centered curriculum is understood as a format that combines a focus on the individual learner with a focus on best practices in learning, emphasizing the uniqueness of each learner and providing an environment that capitalizes on those differences to increase learner motivation and achievement (McCombs & Whistler, 1997; Reigeluth et al., 2016). “Design” refers to the decision-making processes of the instructional designers as they select course resources and consider how student knowledge and learning will be evaluated, without being content experts (Altay, 2014; Reigeluth, 1983; Reigeluth et al., 2016). Research Plan

This will be a qualitative study, exploring the lived experiences of instructional designers as they work with SMEs to design curriculum in faith-based, online programs. This study will be phenomenological as it explores the lived experiences, or phenomena, of being an instructional designer, working with SMEs, and designing learner-centered curriculum, often with limited or no access to the learners themselves. A qualitative study is appropriate in this case because in qualitative research, the purpose is to examine data in a natural setting, capture stories or phenomena, and explore the experiences of the participants, all of which cannot be discerned in quantitative research (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994). Qualitative phenomenological research provides an opportunity for the unique perspective of the individual to be heard (Creswell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, I am seeking to better understand the experiences of instructional designers as they work with SMEs to create learner-centered curriculum in online programs though they may not have direct access to the learners or be implementing the curriculum themselves. Further, the approach taken aligns most closely with transcendental phenomenological research, as described by Moustakas (1994) involves being conscious of the phenomena, in this case, there is the expectation that the instructional designer is deliberate in employing design thinking and implementing characteristics of learner-centered curriculum in their design of instruction. Research Questions Given that the research problem proposed deals with a gap in the literature regarding how instructional designers describe experience of designing learner-centered curriculum, and the purpose of this study is to understand how instructional designers

This section seeks to provide frameworks, definitions, and current research surrounding instructional design, theories of learner-centered curriculum, design thinking, and the role of the SME in designing curriculum that is learner centered. Philosophical Assumptions There are several philosophical assumptions which influence my approach in this study. First, I approach this research from a post-positivist perspective (Creswell, 2013), considering the existence of an external reality that cannot be known, but a determination to continue to seek it. I will employ transformative frameworks, specifically in my belief that undertaking a study such as this can transform or change the instructional designer's knowledge base and application of learning principles (Creswell, 2013). An additional assumption that influenced my choice of design is axiology, which considers the values at play in the research (Creswell, 2013). In the case of this study, instructional design, specifically the choice of instructional methodology, relies heavily on the values of the instructional designer, as well as the instructor (Honebein, 2017; Weimer, 2013). Within an axiological approach, the researcher’s values and biases play a significant role (Creswell, 2013), as an educator and instructional designer, my values and worldview strongly influence the methodologies I select when designing instruction. A final philosophical assumption that guides how I approach this content and study is my worldview, which is a Christian, or Biblical, Worldview. It influences how I see students, and how I perceive student learning. Specifically, students are individual, unique, and created in the image of God with different gifts and talents (Jeremiah 1:5; Romans 12:4-8). The instructional design of a course should, on some level, allow students to embrace that individuality. Learner-Centered Instruction

As defined, learner-centered instruction focuses on the individual learner in the learning process (Blumberg, 2009; Reigeluth et al., 2016; Weimer, 2013). Prominent theorists in the field of learner-centered curriculum include Weimer (2002, 2013), whose initial work on learner- centered teaching has become foundational in the field, Blumberg (2009), who built upon the work of Weimer (2002, 2013) to establish criteria for assessing learner-centered instruction, and Reigeluth et al. (2016), whose most recent volume on instructional design practices focuses on learner-centered design. According to Weimer (2013), there are five main characteristics of learner-centered instruction. These are the role of the teacher, the balance of power in the classroom, the purpose and function of content, the responsibility for learning, and the purpose and process of evaluating learning. For the sake of the proposed research study, the role of the teacher is considered in the context of their function as SME, but it is important to note that the instructor plays a significant role in the implementation learner-centered teaching (Blumberg, 2016a; Weimer, 2013). Instructional design primarily intersects leaner-centered instrcution in two main ways: the purpose and function of content and the purpose and process of evaluating learner. Theoretically, learner-centered instruction draws heavily upon a constructivist perspective, maintaining that the instructor cannot be the source of knowledge, but that the student must construct it based on his or her own experiences, as well as transformative learning theory, as the potential of learner- centered education to transform the students' perceptions of education as well as their own self- efficacy (Weimer, 2013). Implementation of learner-centered methodologies. Although learner-centered curriculum has strong theoretical foundations, the practical implementation can be challenging. Hains and Smith (2012) conducted a study of faculty and students who worked collaboratively to

and Wu (2016) found that the implementation of learner-centered characteristics in online classes improved student engagement in those settings. Instructional Design and Learner-Centered Curriculum Weimer (2013) noted that one of the keystones for learner-centered instruction is the design of the content. Increasingly, schools and universities are finding the need to implement versions of instructional design teams to work with SMEs to design curriculum (Campbell et al., 2009; Huizinga et al., 2014; Keppell, 2001; Razak, 2013; Ritzhaupt & Kumar, 2015; Scoppio & Luyt, 2017). The study conducted by Campbell et al. (2009) found that the function of instructional designers went beyond instruction to be change agents in the university. Instructional Designers and Subject Matter Experts. In the context of working in the university, the instructional designer will work with the faculty member who functions as an SME to implement learner-centered curriculum. Several studies have been conducted which show favorable results when instructional designers work with SMEs to implement learner- centered curriculum. Kebaetse and Sims (2016) used the rubrics and framework provided by Blumberg (2009) and found that instructional design support was a “viable way of enabling faculty to implement learner-centered teaching by providing targeted, customized support” (p.38). The effectiveness of design teams has been documented in several studies as a way of improving instructional methods, including Razak (2013) which established a knowledge sharing framework between instructional designers, SMEs, and media designers, and Scoppio and Luyt (2017) which considered at the relationships between instructional designers and SMEs/faculty in designing online courses, specifically the lack of skills that faculty have in designing online courses.

Instructional Design Decision-Making. In the context of designing instruction provided by the SME, instructional designers face unique challenges in determining to design learner-centered curriculum. Various models have been established to inform and guide the instructional design process (Branch, 2009; Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2015; Merrill, 2015) and yet the literature is inconclusive as to the extent that those models are actually applied in the instructional design process. In some cases, the framework provides a helpful guide (Gray et al., 2015; Honebein, 2017), while in others, the instructional design models provide too much structure for the design process (Christensen & Osguthorpe, 2004; Demiral‐Uzan, 2015), and thus the instructional designer will seek alternative perspectives or influences. Emerging more currently in the literature is a movement toward design thinking, which synthesizes principles from the design field with principles of instructional design (Altay, 2014; Clinton & Hokanson, 2012; Hokanson, 2007; Rapanta & Cantoni, 2014; Redström, 2006). Altay (2014) conducted a study demonstrating that the application of user-centered principles in instructional design align closely with principles of learner-centered curriculum, while Rapanta and Cantoni (2014) studied the use or design principles related to user-experience to design online courses. In both studies by Altay (2014) and Rapanta and Cantoni (2014), strong parallels were drawn between the ideas of user experience and learner-centeredness. Gaps One of the gaps that emerged in this literature review was a lack of information capturing the lived experiences of the instructional designers in creating learner-centered curriculum. It has been addressed in various studies from a faculty perspective (Blumberg, 2016a; Blumberg & Pontiggia, 2011; Hains & Smith, 2012; Kebaetse & Sims, 2016; Scoppio & Luyt, 2017; Weimer, 2013), as well as in light of the elements of learner-centered design, both in-seat or face to face,

design course curriculum, utilizing a master course model if possible. For the purpose of this study, the master course model is understood as one that is developed with a faculty member/SME and instructional designer or instructional design team. Exact copies of this course are then pushed out to various faculty who teach from this master course (Hill, 2012). Several sites may be required to achieve saturation for the appropriate number of participants. Participants For a phenomenological study, an appropriate number of participants falls between 8 and 25 participants (Creswell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A purposive sampling technique will be employed where universities that fit into the established criteria for the site will be determined, and an exploratory email will be sent to various directors eliciting participation of their instructional design teams to participate in focus groups and individual interviews. To be considered for involvement in this study, participants must be instructional designers who work with SMEs to design master courses for online students at the university level. At a minimum, they should have worked in the industry at least one year, and have some academic training, whether certificates or academic credentials, in instructional design or curriculum and instruction. Role of Researcher I am currently the Director of Curriculum Development at a small, liberal arts Christian University near Denver, Colorado, where I was once an instructional designer and now oversee a team of instructional designers utilizing a master course development. I received a master’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction, and am working toward a doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction as well. In my experience, I have found that although there are systematic approaches to curriculum, my philosophy of education is heavily reliant on personal experience teaching

adult learners, being an adult, online student, as well as the theory of andragogy. The process of instructional design, especially with master courses, often includes various steps and “boxes to check.” Because learner-centeredness is not always a concrete construct, I have found it has the potential to be overlooked in the curriculum development process. I recognize in this proposed study my own experience both as a student as well as an instructional designer may impact how I perceive the instructional design practices and decision-making frameworks articulated by the participants in the study. Data Collection Data collection will take place in various formats, first through initial focus groups and interviews. This will be triangulated with evaluations of examples of learner-centered curriculum provided by the instructional designer, as well as observations of the instructional designer and the SME interaction in designing learner-centered curriculum. All data collection will begin once approval has been received from the appropriate Institutional Review Boards (IRB) (Creswell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Yin, 2016). Focus Groups. Initial data will be collected using two to three focus groups of five participants. Focus groups provide benefits that individual interviews may not; for example, the collaborative nature that exists in some instructional design models (Gray et al., 2015). Exploratory emails which include an explanation of the purpose of the study and a request to reach out to their teams to participate in the study will be sent to various directors who oversee teams of instructional designers. They will include the purpose of the study, and a request to reach out to their teams to participate in the study. Focus groups can also provide information “uncovering factors that influence opinions, behavior, or motivation” (Krueger & Casey, 2015, p. 21) as well as providing a collective vision from multiple perspectives regarding learner-

design. Creswell (2013) notes that observations can provide unique challenges, but are one of the key tools in for collecting data in qualitative research. In this situation, I would engage with instructional designers as a “nonparticipant” (Creswell, 2013, p. 167). In part this would be because there may be potential conflict of interest with my past role as an instructional designer if I participate on any level. Rather, I would remain removed. Data Analysis Although data collection and data analysis can occasionally be viewed as two separate processes, in qualitative design, data analysis should run concurrently with the collection process, with the researcher refining central themes and ideas as the data collection progresses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Nonetheless, once all data collection is completed, a more rigorous analysis phase should begin. Data Organization. Creswell (2013) notes that one of the initial steps in data analysis is organizing the data either electronically or by hand. Data will be organized electronically using a qualitative data analysis software. The tool is still under evaluation. Based on keywords that emerge frequently in the interviews, significant statements, document/artifact analysis, and instructional design observation. These keywords will be collected throughout the data collection phase, according to recommendations made by Creswell (2013) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016). Reading and Memoing. Following each interview, I will familiarize myself with e data through a preliminary evaluation of transcripts following. As I read and memo, I will engage in horizontalization, which includes identifying every significant statement in the interviews, and assigning equal value to all of them. I will include notes, observations, and memos in this process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), creating “clusters of meaning” (Creswell, 2013, p. 81).

Open coding and Classification. Key terms, quotes, and ideas will be organized according to codes, and data that is deemed not useful will be discarded to develop main themes. As recommended by Creswell (2013), no more than six themes will be identified. Following preliminary coding by hand, data codes will be checked using qualitative analysis software. As the software is still under review, this is a preliminary note. The codes and themes should be informed by the theoretical framework of the study as well as themes and significant statements identified. From the themes, I will build the textural and structural descriptions (Creswell,

2013. and begin to construct the narrative of the story, also considering the data in terms of metaphors as recommended by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). Trustworthiness A qualitative study must also have elements built into the data collection and analysis phases to establish validity and trustworthiness (Creswell, 2013). The following methods will be used to establish trustworthiness in this study. Member checks. Member checks are one of the most common methods for validating a study and include eliciting feedback from the participants of the study on the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this study, at various points along the way feedback from the participants in the study will be obtained to ensure clarity, consistency, and accurate representation of the data and perspectives of the participants. Peer Review. A second method of establishing trustworthiness that will be used in this study is the use of peer review. Peer review involves asking a knowledgeable colleague to review and evaluate the data for plausibility and accuracy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Creswell (2013) drew some parallels of peer-reviews with interrater reliability in quantitative research, allowing the peer to "play the devil's advocate and provide an opportunity for honest feedback on data

References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from http://info2.onlinelearningconsortium.org/rs/897-CSM-305/images/gradelevel.pdf Altay, B. (2014). User-centered design through learner-centered instruction. Teaching in Higher Education, 19 (2), 138-155. doi:10.1080/13562517.2013. Blumberg, P. (2009). Developing learner-centered teaching: A practical guide for faculty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons. Blumberg, P. (2016a). Assessing implementation of learner-centered teaching while providing faculty development. College Teaching, 64 (4), 194. Blumberg, P. (2016b). Factors that influence faculty adoption of learning-centered approaches. Innovative Higher Education, 41 (4), 303-315. doi:10.1007/s10755-015-9346- Blumberg, P., & Pontiggia, L. (2011). Benchmarking the degree of implementation of learner- centered approaches. Innovative Higher Education, 36 (3), 189-202. doi:10.1007/s10755- 010-9168- Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York, NY: Springer. Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., & Kenny, R. F. (2009). The critical, relational practice of instructional design in higher education: an emerging model of change agency. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57 (5), 645-663. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9061- Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17 (3), 45-65. doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.2004.tb00313.x

Clinton, G., & Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: the Design/Creativity Loops model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60 (1), 111-130. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9216- Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing. Demiral‐Uzan, M. (2015). Instructional design students’ design judgment in action. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28 (3), 7-23. doi:10.1002/piq. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral‐Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A.,... Boling, E. (2015). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28 (3), 25-49. doi:10.1002/piq. Hains, B. J., & Smith, B. (2012). Student-centered course design: Empowering students to become self-directed learners. Journal of Experiential Education, 35 (2), 357-374. doi:10.1177/ Hill, P. (2012). Online educational delivery models: A descriptive view. EDUCAUSE Review, 84-97. Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/ Hokanson, B. (2007). By Measure: Creativity in Design. Industry and Higher Education, 21 (5), 353-359. doi:10.5367/ Honebein, P. C. (2017). The influence of values and rich conditions on designers’ judgments about useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65 (2), 341-357. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9485-y