A Snapshot of Instructional Design: Talking Points for a Field in Transition

Although instructional design has been a part of higher education for over 75 years, it is still an emerging field that is influencing and is influenced by the driving forces of the institutional landscape. A 2016 report on the role, workflow, and experience of instructional designers indicates that the number of instructional designers working in US colleges and universities continues to grow, a phenomenon that is related to the continued expansion of online education programs and course offerings in instructional design.¹ As Kyle Bowen, director of innovation at Penn State, observed, "World-class instructional designers can help one institution differentiate itself from others in the online learning market. I think that realization is driving the conversation on instructional design in many institutions."²

The third annual Changing Landscape of Higher Education (CHLOE 3) report suggests that many university chief online officers are more confident in the quality of online programming when instructional design input is mandated as compared to when it is absent or optional.³ As recognition of the potential of instructional design to influence student experience and success grows, so do expectations placed on instructional designers themselves. "Today, we need instructional designers who are equally fluent in learning design, faculty professional development, research methods, and technology," Bowen elaborated. "They must be able to partner with faculty to create, experiment, and publish innovative approaches to teaching and learning. Unfortunately, this looks a lot different than what we have in many instructional design units right now."

The Impact of Learning Engineering

The external pressure for instructional designers to innovate, investigate, and publish on digital learning and technologies provides a backdrop for what is also an internal struggle for a field still trying to find its voice. Conversations about appropriate instructional design job titles, roles, and institutional positioning have trended on and off for years, but the recent debate about learning engineering—as a concept and as a professional role—feels less like an existential crisis and more like an opportunity for growth.

Despite a lengthy history⁴ and numerous associated publications, the particulars of learning engineering are still being explored, including whether the term reflects a person, a team, or a process. Nevertheless, many instructional designers and others adjacent to the field have responded swiftly with critiques that range from outright rejection of the term, to general skepticism about the concept, to distrust for its advocates and their support of learning analytics and outcomes-based learning.

While all sides of the learning engineering debate have made valid points, the ways in which advocates have captured the attention of the field should be examined. Their arguments for why the learning engineering concept has reemerged and warrants consideration speak to pivotal issues that the instructional design field must address as it continues to mature.

#1. The Nature of Professionalism

Ellen Wagner, chair of the ICICLE special interest group on learning engineering among the professions, identified enhanced professionalism for educational fields as a priority for learning engineers.⁵ Advocates for professionalism argue that performance standards, certification opportunities, and increased clarity on professional roles and career paths signal expertise to external stakeholders and aid in the internal regulation and advancement of the field.

Historically, instructional designers have resisted professionalization processes because of concerns that such activities may diminish inclusivity, diversity, and design thinking within the field. Sundi Richard, assistant director for digital learning at Davidson College, argued, "I think we would be doing a disservice to the field if an instructional design degree were required. Instructional designers with diverse educational backgrounds such as sociology or chemistry really add to the field, and I would hate to see us lose that."⁶

However, the current lack of clarity related to titles, roles, and responsibilities has very real consequences for instructional designers, particularly in the United States. According to Angela Gunder, director of instructional design and curriculum development at the University of Arizona, "People in higher education tend to respect certain titles. Job titles can also impact salaries more than actual job roles and responsibilities. We need to position instructional designers so they are receiving equitable pay for the expertise and efforts that they bring to the table. Finally, we need more transparent job descriptions so that potential employers and employees can assess whether it will be a good fit before the instructional designer is hired. Right now, I'm seeing a lot of people falling out of positions quickly just because the skill sets, job responsibilities, and expectations just didn't line up."⁷

Like other fields, instructional design needs to address the evolving need for professional development. Donna Kidwell, chief technology officer of EdPlus at Arizona State University, elaborated. "There is a lot of discussion now about just-in-time learning, lifelong learning, and the general changing nature of work," she says. "That's completely true for my own teams! As an emerging field, instructional design needs more graduate-level programs with interdisciplinary input from the fields of education, educational psychology, information science, and design methodologies."⁸

Bottom line: Use this opportunity to discuss multiple paths to career development and training, including but not limited to career preparation and formal professional development opportunities.

#2. Research Agendas

An EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative report about learning engineering suggests that learning engineers will leverage their understanding of learning, data, and computer science to develop and test complex models for learning experiences and environments that may lead to better outcomes for more students.⁹

While the value of evidence-based practice is not in question, many instructional designers object to the suggestion that learning can be predicted, measured, and manipulated in its entirety through learning analytics and machine learning. Historically, the field has prioritized humanities-driven, contextual, qualitative research methodologies. Kristen Eshleman, director of digital innovation and learning at Davidson College, argued, "Learning is complex and deeply human. As such, it cannot be engineered. To imply that it can would mean endorsing a reductionist and linear view in the work. That won't result in good learning designs. Worse, it works against a necessary inefficiency in the 'business' model of higher ed."

However, the current higher education landscape, particularly in the United States, requires at least some attention to quantification and outcomes-driven learning. Kidwell explained it like this: "I need to make a valid business case if I want to accomplish what we need to do and wrangle the technologies we need in order to do it. We need to tackle some pretty hairy beasts, including developing a learner data model that spans marketing technologies, student information systems, and learning management systems while also being respectful of the individual learner experience inside and beyond the classroom. My first thought always goes to who is going to do that work, and I know that people with all sorts of research-focused skill sets are useful."

Bottom line: Use this opportunity to discuss an inclusive, cohesive, and rigorous research agenda around teaching and learning that will embrace a nuanced picture of learner experience, environments, and outcomes.

#3: The Complexity of Instructional Design

Some learning engineering publications¹⁰ fail to address the relationship between learning engineering and instructional design, thereby suggesting that learning engineers may intend to replace or appropriate instructional design roles or responsibilities. However, Wagner describes learning engineering and design as complementary practices, and Richard said, "the learning engineering role may be a useful addition to our current vocabulary and understanding when we consider the digital learning ecosystem."¹¹

That ecosystem is becoming more complex in ways that Bowen likens to the early days of the internet. "There was a time when a webmaster ran all aspects of a website. Imagine having one person run a website today. It's not even possible. There are teams of people, each of whom specializes in a different aspect of the job. That's essentially what we are experiencing in instructional design now. We need teams of people with skill sets in different aspects of production, technology, research, and design."

Kidwell agrees. "Our expectations for instructional design are shifting. We are asking for more skill sets than we were 10 years ago. The new instructional design department looks more like a studio model from the filming or gaming industries than anything we have seen in higher education before."

Bottom line: Use this opportunity to discuss how institutions can better facilitate flexible, cross-functional, interdisciplinary teams for improved leadership, research, and course development.

It is too early to predict the impact of learning engineering on the instructional design field. However, its addition to the conversation provides us with an opportunity to do the real work of crafting a dynamic, vital, and responsive contribution to the higher education landscape.

Notes

1. Intentional Futures, Instructional Design in Higher Education, April 2016. ↩
2. Kyle Bowen, interviewed by Whitney Kilgore, October 30, 2018, Denver, CO. ↩
3. Richard Garrett, Ron Legon, and Eric Fredericksen, CHLOE 3, Behind the Numbers: The Changing Landscape of Online Education, 2019 (Annapolis, MD: Quality Matters, March 2019). ↩
4. The term "learning engineer" was first described by Herbert A. Simon in "The Job of a College President," Educational Record 48, no. 284 (Winter 1967): 68–78. ↩
5. Mary Grush, "Learning Engineering: Making Education More 'Professional,'" Campus Technology, January 14, 2019. ↩
6. Sundi Richard, email interview with Patrice Torcivia, January 4, 2019. ↩
7. Angela Gunder, interviewed by Patrice Torcivia, November 1, 2018 Denver, CO. ↩
8. Donna Kidwell, video interview with Whitney Kilgore, November 21, 2018. ↩
9. Ellen Wagner, Avron Barr, Shelly Blake-Plock, and Robby Robson, "7 Things You Should Know About Learning Engineering" (EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, May 12, 2018). ↩
10. Karen E. Wilcox, Sanjay Sarma, and Philip H. Lippel, "Online Education: A Catalyst for Higher Education Reforms," Massachusetts Institute of Technology Online Education Policy Initiative, April 2016. ↩
11. Ellen Wagner, "Learning Engineering: A Primer," The eLearning Guild, May 23, 2019; Richard, interview. ↩

---

Whitney Kilgore is the Co-Founder and Chief Academic Officer at iDesign.

Patrice Prusko is the Assistant Director of Learning Design in the Teaching and Learning Lab at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education.

Laura Gogia is a Senior Design Strategist at iDesign.