Leading an Instructional Design Team for Online Programs: A Panel Discussion

Streamed Session Leadership

Session Materials

Brief Abstract

As online courses evolve in quality and demand, instructional design teams are growing to support faculty needs in course development. This panel of leaders discusses course development models, team composition, designer workload, staffing, and opportunities for collaboration to build and sustain strong and dynamic ID teams.

Presenters

Lead Presenter: Megan Kappel, University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus

Megan Kappel is an Instructional Designer with Pitt Online, a unit of the University Center for Teaching and Learning in which she collaborates with faculty to develop effective and engaging online graduate, professional, and continuing education courses. Prior to joining the Teaching Center, Megan served as assistant dean of Undergraduate Studies for the Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences and College of General Studies, director of Pitt Composition’s Public & Professional Writing Program, and instructional design consultant with the National Library of Medicine’s Training and Education Center. Megan has developed and taught more than a dozen special topics courses for Pitt’s Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, and she spent nine years teaching undergraduate writing courses for Pitt’s Department of English and Film & Media Studies. Megan holds an MFA in screenwriting from Hollins University, a BA in English with a creative writing concentration from Allegheny College, and a graduate certificate in instructional design from the University of Wisconsin-Stout.

Co-presenter: Stephen Butler, University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus

Co-presenter: Reginald Jackson, Northwestern University

Reginald Jackson is currently at Northwestern University as Director of Teaching Excellence for the Medill School of Journalism Integrated Marketing Communications and Lead Learning Engineer in Teaching & Learning Technologies. He is also a lecturer in the School of Professional Studies IDS Program teaching courses in Instructional Design, Introduction to Learning Theory, Educational Technology and Learning Environment Design. While completing his Masters degree in Instructional Design from Roosevelt University, he became a corporate trainer then instructional designer in the banking industry. He then transitioned to higher education as an Academic Technology Analyst at University of Chicago after completing his doctorate in Adult Education. He also teaches part-time in Roosevelt University's Training & Development Program.

Co-presenter: Stevie Rocco, Pennsylvania State University - Main Campus

Extended Abstract

Abstract

As online courses evolve in quality and demand, instructional design (ID) teams are growing to support faculty needs in course development. This panel of leaders discusses course development models, team composition, designer workload, staffing, and opportunities for collaboration to build and sustain strong and dynamic ID teams.

Topic and Relevance

Quality online learning has a long tradition in U.S. higher education. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the surge in online learning, the NCES estimated 13,000 instructional designers worked in 4,716 institutions of higher education (Instructional Design in Higher Education by Intention Futures, 2016). However, the pandemic has made clear to many colleges and universities that online programs are valuable, flexible, and greatly desired by many constituencies. According to CHLOE 7: Tracking Online Learning From Mainstream Acceptance to Universal Adoption (2022), only 3% of online leaders judged ID capacity to be sufficient to meet the future growth in online courses and programs. Given COOs' projection of significant further growth in online enrollment, insufficient instructional design staffing may be one of online learning's most serious long-term vulnerabilities.

An ID shortage has the potential to impact hundreds of institutions and millions of students. A collaborative panel discussion showcasing diverse leaders, institutions, and approaches will benefit many colleges and universities as they plan for the future. We envision this panel as a touchpoint in which leadership and those they lead can explore the challenges and opportunities for robust online programming and the infrastructure to sustain it. This panel invites discussion about the meaningful intention and logistics of development models, team composition, designer workload, staffing, and opportunities for collaboration through the lens of three diverse institutions: a centralized office at a public university, a decentralized office within a public university system, and a centralized officed in a private medium-sized university.

Plan for Interactivity

To accompany the panel discussion, the moderator will share slides with the audience. The slides will first provide biographies of the panelists (including a short description of the ID team in their units including number of IDs, job descriptions, and qualifications) and then project the following relevant questions as the panelists provide their responses:

  • What course development approach is used in your unit (1-to-1, 1-to-many, cohort)? 
  • What responsibilities do IDs on the team have besides online course development?
  • Besides IDs, what other roles are included on the course development teams? How does this inform the composition and work of the team?
  • How do you recruit for diversity among the team members?
  • How do you and the team navigate growth and designer workload?
  • What other instructional design staffing challenges do you see emerging now or in the future?

Displaying the questions will make explicit the topic at hand and the broader narrative thread of discussion. We view this format as a welcomed addition to allow attendees to more easily navigate between the panel discussion itself and any lively chat discussions it generates.

Moreover, the moderator will invite attendees to add their questions to blank template slides at the end of the slideshow that will become the questions during Q&A. This format allows A) the attendees to efficiently formulate their questions and then return to the current conversation, B) the attendees to see what other questions are being asked to avoid redundancies, C) the moderator to more easily transition to and through the Q&A segment, and D) the panelists to stay on topic, which may allow for more questions to be answered in the time allotted for Q&A.

Takeaways

Takeaways will emerge through the panel’s discussion, but we anticipate the following:

  • Treating instructional design professionals as valued educators will be increasingly crucial for quality online programs. We expect the panel to explore what that treatment entails and strategies for implementing it.
  • Institutions with different course development approaches (such as a 1:1 white glove service, cohort-model of 1: many, consulting only, and coaching/training) require different leadership approaches illuminated during the panel discussion.
  • Specific observations or conclusions from the panelists regarding team composition including range of levels for IDs from junior to senior roles, faculty status, ID assistants, and the presence of other types of ID/IT specialists.
  • How institutions may prepare for the ID shortage by developing a pipeline of talent with special on how lack IDS includes a serious lack of diversity.