Week 10 reflection

There are several similarities and differences in the three instructional design/technology contexts—business, grades p – 12, and higher education. One common theme among these three contexts is the role of the Instructional designer. As you will recall, the role of the ID is very important. Although it may take on different aspects, the ID has the same objective in business, k – 12, and higher education. That role is to coordinate the different departments of people in order to successfully develop the product. The ID in higher education will communicate and coordinate with other staff in order to develop on-line courses, staff development, or other projects the institution deems necessary. In business, it is the same role, except the ID may be coordination internally or with multiple entities. Their job is to make sure everything runs smoothly and on time. In P – 12. ID is an important role to create and make change happen correctly. Another common theme is the multiple roles an ID must master in order to be successful in his/her ventures. As an ID in higher academia, a person must not only use their ID skills to help develop programs for the institution they work for, but they must also be a mentor, researcher, and lifelong learner of new technologies. This is the same for ID’s in business and P-12. If the ID cannot keep up with changes or is not able to communicate well with colleagues, then the ventures will fail. Finally, the theme that most jumps out at me is that ID uses a process to accomplish their goals. There is no textbook, one size fits all answer for the ID’s. Each ID must first analyze the situation, get input from “experts” or community members, use research to plot the best course of action, confer with colleagues, and implement their outcomes in a series of steps. In other words, design, develop and deliver with measurable outcomes (chapter 18, p. 180), or “understand effective processes for implementation of innovations” (chapter 21, pp. 215-216), or “using the basic components of systemic design” (Litchfield, chapter 22, p. 227). These themes are interrelated. An ID cannot be successful if s/he is lacking skills in any one of these areas.
A particular area a P-12 education working environment could learn is the process of change. Understanding the systemic change process and helping other staff and community member understand it could help a school system change for the better. Most school systems adopt a change without the proper procedure. They make change an “event” and not a “process”. This is frustrating for the teachers, the students, and the parents. The only people who know why the change has been made are the “higher-ups”, who don’t normally spend a day in the trenches. This is not only frustrating, but it is insulting. A lot of the time, these changes are counter productive because the reasons and training are given AFTER the change is ordered to take place. Using a system like Step Up T Excellence, could be the answer most schools, are looking for. It gives everyone involved some ownership and a drive to see the project through to completion. If you’ve got a stake in the action, you’re going to work for success. And there is no stronger force than an entire community (parents, administration, teachers, and students) working toward the same goal.