Why Am I Here? My Goals as a Learning Designer

By the end of this course, LDT 502: Design and Development of Instruction, my goal is to have connected the theoretical foundations we will be learning with the methodologies of the instructional design “eLearning” team for whom I currently work. If I am to uphold the design standards with which our courses are created while engaging in the core activities of “implementation, evaluation, and management” associated with the learning design field, then I need to develop a firm grasp on the foundations of the field to help guide my way (Reiser, 2001a, p. 54). Wagner (2011) proclaims that “theoretical foundations guiding the study of the evolution of a field can be awkwardly out of alignment with the evolution of a professional practice” (p. 35). I have known for some time that I lack a theoretical basis for understanding what I do, so I plan to use this initial course to begin aligning myself with the field of learning design.

Focusing on the techniques covered in this course – such as needs assessment and the development of instructional learning objectives and outcomes – will help me make meaningful progress towards this initial short-term goal. So far, my only experience with instructional design has been through higher-ed online and hybrid business courses. There is so much more about this field that I don’t know, so I am hoping that by the end of this course I will be better equipped to recognize myself and my work within the learning design community.

By the mid-point of this degree program, my goal is to have developed a grasp of at least several of the instructional technologies with which I have no prior experience. A looming concern I have had for some time now is my lack of technical expertise in specific learning technologies beyond our institution’s learning management system, Desire2Learn (D2L). Wagner’s description of the seemingly infinite number of “software tools du jour” reminds me that I need to hone my marketability and technical expertise as I continue to grow in my career (2011, p. 35).

This medium-term goal will be valuable to me as I strive to become a well-rounded instructional design practitioner. Wagner’s warning that “instructional designers need to understand that leveraging technology in our work is a requirement, not an option,” indicates to me that embracing new technologies is a critical and relevant step in the process of aligning myself with the field of modern learning design (2011, p. 36). To make progress towards this goal, I intend to learn more about the types and usage of technologies in the learning design field and recognize how they relate to each other in purpose and intention.

In pursuit of this goal, our team’s multimedia manager and graphic designer will be important connections for me. They coordinate with our instructors on most media-related projects – from the conversion of PowerPoint presentations into Storyline 360, to filming and editing Learning Glass sessions. Our graphic designer has already helped me develop a precursory understanding of programs such as Adobe Illustrator, and I often assist our multimedia manager in the creation of captioning files. I would appreciate their perspective on the application of instructional technologies, and I am hoping their direct experiences will provide me with valuable insight as I learn the basics of these technologies.

By the end of this program, my long-term goal is to be able to design courses independently and in alignment with the standards of my team as well as with the professional practices, theories, and models of the field today. Staying current with modern instructional technology while remaining theoretically grounded in the field appears to be an ever-evolving balancing act – a pertinent pedagogical concern for ID practitioners like Wagner. While Wagner points out that “[w]e used to look more like psychologists than artists, scripters or programmers,” I am determined to make progress towards leveraging both theory and technology – as complements rather than as competing priorities – in the materials that I create (2011, p. 36).

For this final goal, the director of my team will be a fantastic resource for me. She is a seasoned instructional designer with a high standard for consistency and professionalism, and has designed hundreds of courses for our institution alone. I am fortunate she has shared with me so much of her expertise, but I still have a great deal to learn. I am optimistic that she will be an invaluable resource for me throughout this program as I work to connect theory with practice.

As a final note, by completing this program I hope to set myself apart from the ID practitioners who were given the title of instructional designer because they were “put in charge of [their company’s] LMS,” or because it was convenient for their HR’s classification structure (Wagner, 2011, p. 35). I am not criticizing these practitioners – I myself would not have discovered the field had I not blindly stumbled across the eLearning team after completing my Master’s in Sociology, at the time possessing no more vocational direction than I had when I began the degree. If I am to remain embedded in the learning design field, it is essential that I uphold the tenets of the field rather than simply leveraging the related job title for my own purposes.

References

Reiser, R. A. (2001a). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53–64. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30220299

Wagner, E. (2011). Essay: In search of the secret handshakes of ID. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 1(1), 33–37.