What are the Practical Implications of Instructional Design at a Wesleyan University?

I've been doing a bit of thinking over the past several days about my job here at Southern Nazarene University. I work as an instructional designer. Honestly, I had no idea what that job should look like when I first started working. I was a practitioner, not really a theorist. Now that I have been working for a while, I have come to understand that as a designer, I fall somewhere in the middle. According to Wikipedia, instructional design is the "practice of creating instructional experiences which make the acquisition of knowledge and skill more efficient, effective, and appealing." This definition originates with Merrill et. al (1996). I probably should have spent some time looking at that before taking this job. I need to be familiar with all of the learning theorists. That group includes the "old" ones: Bloom, Gagné, Papert, Piaget, Skinner, and Vygotsky. I also need to be current in new ideas in learning theory, including the later models from Clark, Marzano, and Sweller. Some of the current models include technology and some do not.

Today at lunch I was visiting with some colleagues and my dean. We were discussing academics at our university. We usually use this opportunity to talk about ways we can innovate but today the conversation took an interesting turn: "What are the practical implications of being an instructional designer (somewhat of a predeterministic mindset) in a Wesleyan-tradition educational setting.

SNU is a private, Christian, liberal arts university-a service of the Church of the Nazarene. If you do not know anything about Nazarenes, we are a Christian (followers of Christ) denomination that rose out of a branch of the Methodists and Pentecostals. We are not quite as liturgical as the Methodists and not quite as "radical" as the Pentecostals (we don't believe you have to have the gift of tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit). We follow the Wesleyan tradition in that we believe in a life of holiness: an in-filling of the Holy Spirit, also called sanctification.

Contrast Nazarenes with those of the Calvinist tradition. The major difference between Nazarenes and Baptists is that we are Wesleyans and they are Calvinists. We believe that you have "free will" - your fate is in your hands. However, Calvinists believe in the idea of predestination or predeterminism - the idea that events of your life are already determined.

So what's the point? As an instructional designer, one who uses a rubric to evaluate courses, am I giving my faculty free-will in what their course should look like? Or is the outcome of their course predestined to "look a particular way"? Rather, does it even matter? Maybe we are more like the Catholic Church in that we hold the traditions and scriptures in the highest esteem? "My course has always been this way, so there's no way I could change it to put it online! That's educational blasphemy!" As the instructional designer, is there a sense of determinism? Is the course going to turn out such that the free-will of the course designer is lost?

I wonder if my very being here contributes to this problem, raised by Nicholas C. Burbles at the University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign:

"The search for one best way of teaching has preoccupied philosophers in the West since Socrates. Today this search is more typically couched in the language of scientific efficacy and efficiency. In the process, teaching in many schools is becoming less and less creative, personal, and rewarding. The scope of options for teachers is becoming more constrained; their subject matter and purposes more determined by the decisions of others; their outcomes measured more mechanically and impersonally."

Maybe. Probably. Yes. I feel like I do. However, how do we ensure top quality programs and courses without some kind of oversight and evaluation?

So where do I go from here? How does this question guide my practice? I'm not sure. I would really like to re-design our course evaluation rubric so that it is scored and there would be a minimum score a course would need to "pass" and we would recognize courses with an exemplary score. Would that create a situation in which course designers would not be able to have their "fingerprint" on the course?

Here's a better question: how can I as a teacher (sometimes) not act in a manner that fits with the Wesleyan doctrine? Doctrine states that we are to focus on personal faith and holiness. As a teacher, should I not strive to be my best in my teaching practice (personal faith) and work toward perfection for my in that practice for my students (holiness)? As a christian, I recognize that I am forgiven, not perfect. However, Christlikeness is my goal. I strive to better tomorrow than I was today. I fall short, but that does not mean I should quit striving for the goal.

I would posit that if I am not working to be my best in everything I do, not working to be better tomorrow than I was today, including the areas of teaching and instructional design, I come dangerously close to sin (in my opinion). Maybe my metaphor breaks down at this point. I'd gladly hear some criticism on it; but please be gentle. I'm no theologian. I'm "just a teacher."

SIGOL Forum: Connect, Collaborate, and Create with a MOOC

This is a panel format, where several people share their learned lessons. 

Tom Woodward - Ds106.com has already been mentioned. @mishelleyb and I have talked about that. It's a place that aggregates using RSS feeds. Students create assignments or choose a Pre-made assignment. Use tags to aggregate and see what others have done. A student created a radio show. It also contains a remix machine which will take two assignments and mix them. Also students have created a "best of" where students showed other students' work. 

Unknown presenter name - university gave grants for game-based learning. Looking at the meta-idea of what online communities look like, what discussions look like, and how this learning can "morph into a guild of educators." Lurkers use social network knowledge construction as a way of learning. Just lurking is a way to get the basics and begin to understand. Badges are a way for people who are over achievers to get what they need when they complete EVERY assignment. 

Unknown presenter - international MOOCs being used in emerging markets (limited) but heavily in higher Ed and some are for credit. Emerging markets do not put as much credibility into online degrees as established markets. Business world thinks this is new. But it's constructivist style learning. MOOCs are not as valued now for what they are doing, but more for how they are CHANGING education. 

Unknown presenter - many in education think that the MOOC is a "sky is falling" kind of mentality. 

However, his main point is the constructivist vs Stanford model (connectivist). There is defined content, but the connections made are more important. Khan Academy has delivered >300 million lessons. How do we build a MOOC that attracts students?

Chunk the information 10 minute videos with inline quiz (engages, not grading) requires students to check understanding. Also offers feedback. Cannot proceed w/o "getting it". Informal presence of the instructor. Think about the "lesson" module in Moodle. There must be deadlines. 

Shifted into breakout sessions - I followed Tom Woodard. How does this thing work? Must be open to change because this will evolve over time. The fact remains that we have a group of people who are engaged in something about which they are passionate. What if our OIT were a MOOC which was done as a cohort? The current group is creating content for future groups. That OIT is a free course anyway. We are using people who may or may not be right for online teaching. If they finish, great. If not, they don't teach. This needs to be something done in conjunction with other CCCU schools. 

One interesting idea of this is that these things can snowball and become much larger than the original intent. Sometimes there is a "creative-spiraling" where assignments get remixed. Students work hard when they see other's work and make it until they get it to the point at which THEY are satisfied. Not the point at which the minimum standard of mastery is met. Tom is self-described as "kind of fringy."

At this point I was supposed to switch tables, but I stayed. I'm interested in what this looks like from both the student and the admin side. Tom keeps referring to the "hippy Montessori" style of learning. The big idea here is to write on your own blog/place and tag it and its aggregated to the course through the RSS feed. The other big idea is to have students pitch assignment ideas. They become the course designers. These ideas then trigger ideas in others. This can lead to the "spiral of creativity" alluded to earlier. 

Linear learning is the fastest path, but is it the best? The less structured learning is slower, but maybe it's better? Are each useful in different situations? It seems the less structured way is good for specialization, while structure is more content driven, i.e. mat leave with "these basic skills."  

Big ideas: the things that yield the greatest results require the greatest risks. AND you must be prepared to fail. You must be willing to risk. How does this play out in a K-12 environment? What one person can achieve might not be possible in EVERY place. Work within your boundaries but push those boundaries to advance students' learning. 

Great thoughts. Interesting session. A whole lot to chew on.