Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Industry Liaison for Graduate Learning in Instructional Design

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The authors present insights from the creation of an Industry Liaison (IL) role in a graduate program in Instructional Technology. An analysis of learner questions posed to practicing designers showed masters candidates’ concerns fell into four areas: rejections and acceptance in the workplace, career logistics, technological skills, and application materials. Using these questions, the IL solicited practicing designers’, design managers’, and instructional design consultants’ answers. Findings expose areas where instructional design learning can be improved, and areas where academic preparation can be better connected to the practice of instructional design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anthony, K. H. (1987). Private reactions to public criticism; students, faculty, and practicing architects state their views on design juries in architectural education. Journal of Architectural Education, 3(40), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1987.10758454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E. (2017). Response to Kathleen Fortney’s developing design expertise. In A. A. Carr-Chellman & G. Rowland (Eds.), (2017). Issues in technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and contemporary dialogues (pp. 60–61). Taylor & Francis.

  • Boling, E., Gray, C. M., & Smith, K. M. (April, 2015). Who are these “novices”? Challenging the deficit view of design students. In Paper session at AERA annual meeting 2015. Chicago: IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., Schwier, R. A., Gray, C. M., Smith, K. M., & Campbell, K. (Eds.). (2016). Studio teaching in higher education: Selected design cases. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K. S., & Holmes, G. (2001). Developing awareness of client relations through immersion in practice. Educational Technology, 41(6), 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.

  • Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X., Zurek, S., & Goktas, Y. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortney, K. (2017). Developing design expertise. In A. A. Carr-Chellman & G. Rowland (Eds.), (2017). Issues in technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and contemporary dialogues. 57–59. Taylor & Francis.

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. Routledge.

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, 101, 101–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, C. D. (2012). An instructional paradigm for the teaching of computer-mediated communication. Instructional Science, 40(3), 493–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, C. D., Staples, C., Dubreil, S., & Yamagata-Lynch, L. C. (2016). The app farm: Engaging design process as a means for French learning. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(3), 42–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, M. B. (2005). Instructional design career environments: Survey of the alignment of preparation and practice. Tech Trends, 49(22). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763727.

  • Michlewski, K. (2016). Design attitude. Routledge.

  • Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2017). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed.). New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shell, E. R. (2018). The job: Work and its future in a time of radical change. Currency Books.

  • Tracey, M. W. (2017). Preparing instructional designers. In A. A. Carr-Chellman & G. Rowland (Eds.), (2017). Issues in technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and contemporary dialogues. 95–97. Taylor & Francis.

  • Yamagata-Lynch, L. C., & Paulus, T. (2015). Enacting collective design intentions in an online graduate level introductory instructional technology course. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 6(1), 26–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was unfunded. Neither author was compensated and there is no agency acting as a source of funding, nor have any honorariums been paid.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Tennessee Knoxville, 517 Bailey Education Complex, 1122 Volunteer Blvd., Knoxville, TN, 37996, USA

    Craig D. Howard

  2. Leo Learning, 52 Old Steine Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 1NH, UK

    Rose Benedicks

Authors
  1. Craig D. Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rose Benedicks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Craig Howard. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Craig Howard and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. The authors are indebted to the anonymous group of IDs who contributed to the IL responses used in this study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig D. Howard.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (The University of Tennessee Knoxville UTK IRB-19-05211-XM/ Reference Number: 726393) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 26 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Howard, C.D., Benedicks, R. An Industry Liaison for Graduate Learning in Instructional Design. TechTrends 64, 451–459 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00465-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00465-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation