Beneath the Tip of the Iceberg: ID-Faculty Communication Challenges

Audience Level: 
All
Institutional Level: 
Higher Ed
Abstract: 

The instructional designer-faculty relationship is constantly negotiated in the ever-changing landscape of online learning. A review of relevant literature and facilitation of two roundtable discussions with instructional designers and faculty from various institutions was completed. This session will explore themes and discuss findings to improve ID-faculty collaboration.

Extended Abstract: 

The instructional designer-faculty relationship is constantly negotiated in the current growth and ever-changing landscape of online learning. Several reports suggested that while more IDs are present in higher education and more faculty work with IDs for course design, issues arise in terms of unclear role expectations and uneasy working relationships (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2016). Since 2018, we conducted two conference roundtable discussions, including OLC Innovate, with more than 45 ID participants and several faculty members from institutions across the nation. The goal for this session is to report our findings and suggest topics for further exploration, as well as to seek research collaborators across institutions.

Based on our previous roundtable discussions, we found three important themes. First, roles and responsibilities of instructional designers vary across institutions in both big and small ways. For some IDs, the main responsibilities are to consult and to develop and implement professional development sessions. Some IDs engage in more hands-on activities of course development such as the production of lesson videos, course builds and management processes within the LMS, and the re-design of authored resources for faculty. Other IDs interface more often with technologies. These IDs find themselves taking on role of LMS support and being testers or researchers of online learning tools. Some IDs disclosed that their roles were a mixture of many of these responsibilities and they often find themselves without a clear focus.

The second theme is that the key to positive ID-faculty relationship is building trust and rapport. Most IDs understand that relationship-building, especially in the first interaction, is a critical step to long-term positive working relationship. However, participants rarely describe in details how they foster communication, build these relationships, or specific strategies they use to do so. The final theme is that tensions often exist between ID and faculty, especially related to power imbalance. At times, IDs feel they do not receive equal respect for their expertise and faculty feel that their academic freedom is being constrained. This leads to building frustrations and sets the stage for problems to emerge during work together.

Our findings, in fact, align with other research studies concerning the role of instructional designers in higher education (Intentional Futures, 2016; The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2016). Yet, we believe these discussions are still at the tip of the iceberg. Regarding relationship-building, for example, it is unclear what specifically the IDs do to secure positive relationships. What are specific strategies being employed successfully and under what types of situations? Moreover, communication strategies may be varied based on roles. The consulting-oriented ID may employ different communication tactics from the development-oriented ID.  How do the inconsistencies across ID roles impact collaboration? We also observe that the types of institution (public/private, unionized/non-unionized, 4-year/community college, large/small), the governance of ID unit, and the size of ID teams may contribute into varied expectations of role.

We believe a deeper understanding of these three topics will better prepare IDs to improve collaboration with faculty. Furthermore, an understanding of the themes may foster cultural shifts within institutions by initiating conversation regarding the impact on the ID-faculty relationship.

 
Conference Track: 
Leadership and Institutional Strategies
Session Type: 
Education Session
Intended Audience: 
Administrators
Faculty
Instructional Support
Training Professionals
Technologists
Researchers