Week 2: what is the role of a learning designer?
What a great discussion over the last week – I had already planned some ideas for this week’s discussion but have changed direction in response to so many stimulating ideas from week 1!
Week 1’s question was ‘how do we know we are making a difference?” This led to me to a related question: “what difference are we trying to make?’ In other words, ‘what is the scope of learning design in NZ at this time? What is the role of the learning designer?’
Learning design is usually seen as a new but generally synonymous term for instructional design – indeed, wikipedia just redirects one to the other. But while instructional design has focused on using systematic processes to designing learning content and activities, learning designers in NZ seem to have a much wider brief. Two major roles they often appear to also have responsibility for include:
- project management - once the responsibility of a separate project manager
- professional development - helping teaching staff understand and apply new approaches to teaching and learning and the tools that support these approaches
In my experience, learning designers in institutions are much more likely to take on these add-on roles than learning designers in the private sector. They surely add to the responsibilities of the learning designer as well as to the skill-set required. Perhaps these roles and skill-sets are mutually compatible and desirable, perhaps not.
My question then is this: ideally, what is the role of the learning designer?
- If you're member of this group, log-in to post a reply
No, I didn't mean it
No, I didn't mean it perjoratively either :-), or 'Learning Advisor' either for that matter.
Paul said "......what I saw as a complex role within the education field was seriously devalued and ‘de-professionalised". Absolutely. So it comes back to how do we raise the profile, (credibility ? status ?) of whatever it is we are doing!? I guess 'by doing it well' is a good start. By 'making a difference'? !! It would be interesting to hear from some more people who actually have "Learning Advisor", "Learning Designer", "Educational Designer" or even "Instructional Designer" job titles.
Re: defending the profession
John, I certainly didn’t mean ‘coaching’ to be a pejorative term!
Your post reminds of a time many years ago when I was working in an institution and involved part of the time doing ‘learning design’ for several projects, mostly pre-web. I didn’t know anyone in NZ called an ‘instructional designer’, although I think there may have been one or two working in fully distance institutions.
I was excited to see an instructional design course promoted by a large and reputable university. But on investigation, it turned out to be within a communications department and seemed to be mostly focused on how to make interactive software using tools like Director! I felt very put out that what I saw as a complex role within the education field was seriously devalued and ‘de-professionalised’.
In regard to defending the
In regard to defending the profession then ... I sense a danger here.
If I'm not really doing learning design, just coaching it, then pehaps I'm not really a learning designer! Which is why I turned down a "learning advisor" (management speak for 'learning design' when job status is the issue in question) position in a large tertiary provider where the job was not seen as an academic position, and the salary offered was at least 30% lower than the 'academics" I would be asked to "coach".
re.random thoughts
Paul said: professional LDers are not doing LD in the traditional sense so much as coaching it,
agreed - and still necessitates that there is common understandings of best practice , and good shared resources so we can support each other in this
L
Re: random thoughts
Lyn said: Another quick side-thought - isn't 'designing for learning' what trained teachers have been doing forever anyway??
Yes - another sign that professional LDers are not doing LD in the traditional sense so much as coaching it, in response to a perceived need that trained teachers need this support to incorporate 'new stuff' such as technology and approaches to teaching and learning.
- random thoughts on the discu...
Great discussion team ...
At CPIT I understand that there is a deliberate decision to devolve expertise to faculty (ie away from having several specialist e-learning 'advisors' ) having skilled educators who understand elearning (learning design) in each faculty - who have the the associated faculty content knowledge and teaching experience. ie the doers. These at present are informal pockets of expertise rather than titled roles, and while this model is not perfect it brings us back to 'why would we need expert 'learning designers''....when it is an expected part of everyones job & implicit in job descriptions if you take a close look! (The insitutional support is an elearning team with one e-learning educator and one tekkie who do amazing work)
The model Derek suggests is an educational development role (my terminology I guess) - where there is guidance and expertise leading and working WITH tutorial staff, and gradully supporting them to become independent in their tutor roles. The challenge I find is NOT feeling like i need to be an expert in everything: learning design, assessment practice, teaching & elarning, class management, observation, reflective practice etc... so to manage this we are deliberately building our ed. development team to ensure we collectively cover off the wide rang3 of skill sets needed. eg we are about to apoint an Adult Ed/ literacy/numeracy specialist;
So back to "role" - is it the educational developer role (or in fact the institutional 'team') that is critical for an institution - the staff who have regular contact with tutors, have influence and are in a position to advise, support, coach etc... - they need learning design expertise, they need deep teaching and learning knowledge, experience and understanding and all the characteristics Oriel lists plus the ability to be individually reponsive to whatever comes through the door every day!
Another quick side-thought - isn't 'designing for learning' what trained teachers have been doing forever anyway??
PS ahve just come back from high school awards night where eldest daughter recieved 3 awards (quite unexpected) I think I better take more notice of her stuious ("nerdy" - her word!) ways. Feeling appropriately proud and with wine!
Cheers
L
re: role perceptions
John said: I suspect a CEO would respond differently to an explanation of the role of 'learning designer' than say a course writer. But isn't how anyone perceives any role in any education institution is inextricably tied up with credibility /status etc
I guess... but wouldn't every LD have a job description which clearly listed what they are responsible for? Or do some people just have a generic job description?
role perceptions
I suspect a CEO would respond differently to an explanation of the role of 'learning designer' than say a course writer. But isn't how anyone perceives any role in any education institution is inextricably tied up with credibility /status etc - usually measurable in terms of salary scale, academic vs non-academic position, requisite qualifications, career pathway in the institution etc?
What's the difference?????
"we have to wonder" - yes we do, and a Good Question Paul.
Nearly seduced me away from planning for 2.00 Moodle Meeting.
Maybe later.
Re: better LD than ID
I agree – although some (not me) see the idea that learning design has an outcome as a comparative disadvantage to instructional design: eg http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Learning_design#Learning_Design
If we take on Derek’s idea that all teachers are involved in learning design, we have to wonder how is the professional ‘Learning Designer’ different? And I guess the professional development role is a big part of the answer. Another is the organisational development role – ie involvement in and possibly even driving the organisation’s development of learning technologies, say.
Better LD than ID
At least learning designer suggests some outcome on the part of the student - rather than instructional designer which might not!
As in "I instructed him but he didn't learn" ;-)
Re: Might be where we came fro...?
Oriel, I agree – and I love the metaphor of coming in and switching on the lights!
And given that the aim is generally to change learning and teaching, not just design learning materials, the strengths in staff development are very valuable. Maybe it’s just that the title ‘learning designer’ doesn’t quite capture this?
On a related note – I recently saw a post from someone who had gained a masters in instructional design from a US university and now was looking for somewhere to learn how to use all the software tools he’d need to work effectively in the field, as the masters course was purely theoretical. How ironic :-)
Might be where we came from?
Reasonable or not, Paul, maybe we brought it on ourselves - most of us were from a staff development background, and were learning designers anyway, and just added the digital component to our own repertoire, rather than the other way around?
But having said that how can you separate the two roles? If you create a wonderful teaching package and then just give it to an unsuspecting teacher to deliver, all they can do is maybe open the windows and turn on the lights in their "online classroom" rather than change the furniture, or the purpose of the room.
O.
Re: defending the profession?
John said: It occurs to me that the way we explain/ justify/ argue for depends very much on the audience.
Hmmm... can you give an example of what you mean here?
Perhaps there are also situations where LDs need to argue against taking on certain roles and reponsibilities. eg imagine an instructional designer from the US coming to work in NZ. S/he might not have the project management or professional development skills expected here despite being highly qualified and experienced. Maybe the expectation here to have these skills is not really reasonable, and LDs should make that known?
defending the profession?
Perhaps, if indeed we clearly have one! I wonder if it's more about explaining (and justifying /arguing for) what it is we do and why it is actually important to use learning designers - the very question you are asking here Paul, "What is our role?"
It occurs to me that the way we explain/ justify/ argue for depends very much on the audience.
Re: ed design "professionals"
I’m still getting some gruesome error messages going into the forum, but I’m hoping that the problem with posting comments is now fixed.
Lyn, thanks for the link to some interesting research! When I started this thread I was thinking mostly of points 1 and 2:
But the other points are clearly important to consider here. I’m taken with the use of the terms ‘defending’ and ‘occupying’ – these suggest learning design is a site of contention in some places, with disagreement about its scope. Perhaps it’s less so here in NZ, where we haven’t such a long history of instructional / learning design as in the US (say).
Or do NZ learning designers also need to strenuously defend the scope of their profession?
ed design "professionals"
Hi Paul
(unlinke others I have a reply button!!)
A great spin-off topic thanks Paul.
I agree with Oriel with the wide varity of roles we take on, and with Derek who suggests that lecturers are being asked to be learning designers too nowadays.When I visited Southern Cross Uni, one of the staff had done this research on the role of staff developers/learning designers etc.
http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/bird.html
Among other thinngs she lists the roles, the titles and the variety fo tasks of those like us. I like her very last quote...
"Is it time once again to issue the clarion call for professionalisation? Locke (2001:33-34) suggests:
Perhaps it is timely to reopen the professionalisation debate and consider Locke's 'markers' in relation to designers and developers working in the field of flexible learning."
What is our knowledge base? our 'standard'???
Regards
Lyn
Re: what is LD?
Derek said: There is a balance between maintainence and innovation. (+ lots of other interesting stuff!)
Yes, it's both a balance and tension I think! On the one hand we have compliance with formalised systems, on the other hand experimentation with new tools and approaches. I mentioned this in a blog post last year, including a quote from Futurelab:
ie it's not just a matter of being innovative, but also of best meeting 'localised' needs of learners. If this is the case (and I think it is), then LD can't really afford to just stick with generic institution-wide systems 100% of the time.
Thanks, Derek - some fascinating issues here!
What is LD?
Paul, an interesting insight. Some ramblings.
Whatever design model is used (eg ADDIE, rapid prototyping etc), this arrangement suggest the LD is not really doing learning design but coaching teachers in learning design. Presumably when everyone is ‘up to speed’, the LD goes on to something else? Maybe the latest new tools and systems?
Yes. The trouble is everyone moves on, there are new roles etc. :-) But I don't see it as a progression. I allocate a certain amount of time to the latest stuff.
‘advising teachers on learning design matters within the constraints and affordances of the currently approved and implemented tools’
Hmm. OK, I take your point. But I see the work continuing over tyhe FULL spectrum. Basic stuff. Like simple DTP protocols for a lecturer involved in print, through to some new moblie phone texting stuff that is only in the pilot proof of concept stage. Not just within the constraints and affordances
I want to work on the fringes as well as the core. Else I'd get bored personally - and I think it is good for my institution.
For instance: I'm quite proud of the ICT department here. There are actually patches of responsiveness and quality. I asked about wiki last year in response to a lot of requests. In a very short time they had checked out DekiWiki, installed it and it was there to use as a pilot. A small development I know. And the pilot was a failure. But at ACODE last year I discovered so many place where ICT was reactionary, conservative, slow and not customer focused. Innovation and pilots then become harder.
To your final point Paul: we tend to select features to use from this existing generic system
Personally (and this is not the way others work at UoC) I go from aims > functionality required > methodology/implementation. So at times I do have to move outside the existing 'generic' system. So sometimes I end up being an advocate for new stuff. But in a sense you are right. Support the core stuff first.
There is a balance between maintainence and innovation. Both are needed. I just dislike the behavourist overtones of ADDIE, Gange and other ISD systems, which are sometimes difficult to get innovation into. OK, Muddled I know. Your post sparked off quite a lot of interesting comments eh??
Re: Ed Design
Whatever design model is used (eg ADDIE, rapid prototyping etc), this arrangement suggest the LD is not really doing learning design but coaching teachers in learning design. Presumably when everyone is ‘up to speed’, the LD goes on to something else? Maybe the latest new tools and systems?
Perhaps this role of the LD could be described as ‘advising teachers on learning design matters within the constraints and affordances of the currently approved and implemented tools’. Which links to my original idea for discussion this week – that LDs traditionally chose systems / platforms once the initial analysis stage had been completed, now the system is often a given (eg institutional LMS) and we tend to select features to use from this existing generic system. It sounds like a small point but it actually has major implications for the design process.
- from Paul, re my
- from Paul, re my descritption of Edcuational Design Life at the old CCE:
Or are they required to come back you for the same support each time they develop a new course?
No.
Academic Freedom fighters required to do something is an Oxymoron. Althought I hear Massey has developed an approval, standards based system (1) which I am curious about. Yes this is a different model. Certainly different from both the RAPID PROTOTYPING (2) or ADDIE models.
Ref:
(1) Tea room conversation, 10 November 2009.
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design#Rapid_prototyping
Re: another role
Derek said: …At the College where I worded recently my motto was 'every lecturer with Educational design skills'.
A great aim for a professional developer, Derek! From your list of the steps in the structured process, it would appear that lecturers are undertaking a learning design process with your support as a sort of LD advisor / mentor the first time around, then they don’t need you again. Or are they required to come back you for the same support each time they develop a new course?
Either way, that seems a bit different from the ‘traditional’ ID/LD model where a qualified ID/LD specialist did that work of designing ‘instructional’ materials in print or software. But I suspect yours is the accepted model now in NZ, at least outside of the specialised ‘distance’ institutions.
Another role:
Circus ringmaster and Juggler.
And I agree Paul with your second role: professional development.
In many respects, the role of lecturer here (in NZ) often includes Educational design. At the College where I worded recently my motto was 'every lecturer with Educational design skills'. This is the difference I tried to make.
Where print was concerned, we had a structured approach:
That's the theory.
The Hydra role of the the lear...
Personal experience? A wearer of many hats. When working for and with staff, you go far beyond the traditional ID, designing the content and the delivery. Yes, you do that, but the relationship is more complicated. Your role is:
Should we be all of these?
Well do we have a choice?
Oriel
Wrap up
I won't try to summarise all the points made this week: it was a pretty wide-reaching discussion. But some key points for me have included:
I hope I haven’t missed anything here! Feel free to add any thoughts to this list.
I’ve really enjoyed the discussion – thanks to everyone who contributed. I hope the shared ideas have been useful to all, both readers and writers.
Paul