When asked to write this blog on our experience with instructional design (ID) tools and to create a graphic that represents our experience with them, I was lost in words, literally.  I have limited instructional design experience because I have mostly facilitated other instructors’ training programs.  However, Lachheb and Boling (2018) clarified my understanding of the different design tools (digital, theoretical, and analog) and the fluidity in which they can be applied.

Hence, I created my visual to represent an activation process to energize a group of learners who may be disengaged for various reasons such as unrelatable content (e.g., different industries, departments, or roles) or timing and/or length of the content delivery (e.g., after lunch, lengthy topic).

Generally, the courses I have facilitated were developed for large groups of learners across an organization.  Even though, I have some flexibility to adjust some of the course sections, I regularly must respect the training flow to ensure the learning outcomes are consistent across learners in one organization.

Lachheb and Boling’s (2018) study clarified instructional design practice and tools, especially when they asserted that design tools and other tools are broadly and situationally applied, without a need for sequencing them like an ADDIE model.  The authors further stated that “designers are placing these tools at their service rather than tools guide their design processes” (p. 47).

With this renewed inference, I can better share my design experience within my facilitation practice.  I have used various design tools, mainly techniques (e.g., facilitation, negotiation) and approaches (e.g., constructivist-based activities) to activate the learners’ interest and motivation to gain knowledge.  I recognize that as a facilitator, I am not always an expert on the topic I teach; however, I can certainly guide and interact with a group to build that knowledge (Ruey, 2010).  I have used group work, discussions, and interactions to construct knowledge from the various learners’ perspectives.  I have also used hands-on activities such as teach back, that is when learners become facilitators to revisit the knowledge acquired from a previous session.  And finally, I have applied similar Veletsianos’ (2011) proposed transformative learning activities to engage learners through participatory and creative social-constructivist activities (e.g., group problem solving, simulations, though-provoking question), either in an online or blended training format.  All the above design approaches to stimulate learning were often constructed in a few minutes while during my facilitation process.

In that sense, I was enlightened by Lachheb and Boling’s (2018) description of “design judgment” (p. 47) when the instructor is responding to the demands of a given situation.  As a facilitator, I understand better my role as a potential conduit to engage learners through my new appreciation for instructional design tools, methods, and approaches.

References:

Lachheb, A., & Boling, E. (2018). Design tools in practice: instructional designers report which tools they use and why. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 34-54. https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/article/10.1007/s12528-017-9165-x

Ruey, S. (2010). A case study of constructivist instructional strategies for adult online learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(5), 703-720. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00965.x

Veletsianos, G. (2011). Designing opportunities for transformation with emerging technologies. Published in Educational Technology, 51(2), 41-46. https://viurrspace.ca/bitstream/handle/10613/5056/designing-opportunities-transformation-emerging-technologies.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y