In this session, the authors will give an overview of recent research and discourse/s about occupational trends in the instructional design field, share perspectives from positions of both mid-career and early-career instructional designers, and detail results of exploratory, mixed-methods research designed to address the issue in new, creative ways.
Description
In this session, the authors– coming from the positions of being mid-career and early-career instructional designers, will identify some contemporary research and discourses into the instructional design field– seen as both an occupation and a practice, and suggest creative ways to engage with that information.
The definition and role of the instructional designer has been fluid–and even contested–both within and outside the field, while at the same time the role has increased in popularity for many years (Beirne & Romanoski, 2018). Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has coincided with changes in the workplace and in higher education that have created new developments that are still playing out and only gradually coming into focus. The presenters have been reflecting about their own place within the field and have started to explore new qualitative and mixed-methods research from a practitioner perspective that may lead to a better understanding of how to make career choices in the future while thinking individually and holistically about our practice in instructional design.
In the course of our presentation, we will cover the issue from various angles and perspectives. For example, there has been some dedicated research conducted from a lens of how to best prepare graduate students for the field (see Ritzhaupt & Kumar, 2015, for example), and popular literature about situating oneself as an instructional designer when coming from varied or disparate backgrounds (see Bean, 2023, for example). In the presentation, the authors will shift the framing slightly from looking at the requisite skills needed in an instructional design job or career to finding meaning in the practice while anticipating opportunities and challenges that are taking hold. Of note, Linder and Dello Stritto (2017) looked into the role of instructional designers as researchers, and Bayne et al. (2020) made a great case for challenging the “techno-instrumentalism” present in much online learning practice today.
The presenters will engage the audience with an interactive display that encourages interaction and participation.
Our hope is to add to and inspire an ongoing discussion of what it means to be an instructional designer and explore ways to put that knowledge into positive action.
Who Will Benefit
The session should appeal to a broad audience with either or direct or indirect connection to the instructional design field. It may be of particular interest to instructional designers, educational technologists, administrators, students interested in the instructional design field, or faculty who are preparing students to enter the field.
References
Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O'Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P., Sinclair, C. (2020). The manifesto for teaching online. MIT Press. The manifesto for teaching online. MIT Press.
Bean, C. (2023). The accidental instructional designer: Learning design for the digital age. ATD Press.
Beirne, E. & Romanoski, M.P. (2018). Instructional Design in Higher Education: Defining an Evolving Field. OLC Research Center for Digital Learning & Leadership. https://olc-wordpress-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2018/07/ Instructional-Design-in-Higher-Education-Defining-an-Evolving-Field.pdf
Linder, K. & Dello Stritto, M.E. (2017). Research Preparation and Engagement of Instructional Designers in U.S. Higher Education. Oregon State University Ecampus Research Unit. https://ecampus.oregonstate.edu/research/study/research-instructional-de...
Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and Skills Needed by Instructional Designers in Higher Education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21196