R/D10

The theme that has stood out to me the most in all three contexts is that you have to be a good team player if you are going to be an instructional designer. In the business world, an instructional designer may work as the sole designer on a project, but even in that situation, at the very least there has to be good communication between the designer and the client. Even when the instructional designer is working independently on a project, many times he or she needs to work with a media specialist (e.g. photographer, video editor) during the process of completing the project. On a larger scale project, an instructional designer would definitely have to demonstrate good teamwork skills, especially in effectively communicating design theory in the production of training materials.

In education, teamwork is even more important. On the higher education level, two job duties that seemed to consistently show up in job descriptions were online course design and faculty training/assistance. In online course design, the instructional design specialist has to be able to clearly communicate the theoretical rationale behind many of the design elements. Even with a sound explanation of why a course should be designed a certain way, instructional designers will often work with faculty that are set in their ideas of how course material should be presented. In this situation, an instructional designer must be willing to compromise on some design features. The second duty mentioned, faculty training/assistance, is what I would find most rewarding in a higher education position. Introducing faculty to new technologies and brainstorming ideas for effectively implementing them is an excellent opportunity to use creativity skills. Seeing the person you are assisting have that “a-ha!” moment is exciting.

On the K-12 education level, I think you see even more focus on assisting faculty with generating ideas and helping them develop technology literacy. In my district, I would say about 80% of the daily duties of the technology specialist in my school district involve developing training materials, leading professional development classes, and providing examples of best practices with technology. That is what makes this position the most appealing to me. From my experience, most K-12 teachers are pretty receptive to experimenting with new technologies provided that I make myself available for ongoing support and assist them in developing plans for incorporating them into lessons.

One difference that I see between the three contexts is whether cost of training or quality of training is the priority. In my opinion, in the business world there is more emphasis on finding the most cost effective solution. Instructional technologists often have to sacrifice quality in order to meet deadlines. Corporate leaders look at cost before looking at effectiveness of training materials, partly because it is more difficult to quantify the results of the training. K-12 education leaders focus more on the results of instructional technology than on the cost of it. If a technology is identified as effectively raising test scores, the school district will most likely find some kind of way to find funding for it whether it be through grant writing, private donations, fundraisers, or budget cuts in other areas. The results of instructional technology in a K-12 are more quantifiable simply because state testing is the focus. There is a more direct relationship between school training (i.e. the instructional technology implemented) and state testing than between business training and profits. Finally, I believe that higher education falls somewhere in between these two contexts. Like in the business context, evaluating the relation between instructional technology/training and the end result analyzed, improvement in teachers’ quality of instruction, is more difficult in the K-12 context. However, I view higher education as falling somewhere in between because there is less of a emphasis on cost efficiency than in businesses.