Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using Soft Systems Thinking to Craft Instructional Design and Technology Interventions

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

Abstract

Underutilized in higher education, soft systems thinking can mitigate common challenges in implementing instructional design and technology initiatives. A valuable approach is soft systems methodology (SSM), which captures multiple stakeholder perspectives in rich pictures and activity models to support structured conversations about how to improve a problematical situation. To demonstrate SSM’s utility for instructional design and technology professionals, this article provides an overview of macrolevel processes that often influence interactions with stakeholders. It explains how to capture stakeholders’ perspectives in rich pictures and models spanning multiple system layers through collaboration. From a wide range of interventions that can then be discussed, the article explores two interventions focused on redesigning employment processes and elaborates their importance for common instructional design and technology initiatives. By relating key SSM concepts and techniques to these initiatives, this article demonstrates the practical value of systems thinking for those leading and transforming university learning.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguinis, H. (2009). An expanded view of performance management. In J. W. Smither & M. London (Eds.), Performance management: Putting research into action (pp. 1–43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Avoiding a “me” versus “we” dilemma: Using performance management to turn teams into a source of competitive advantage. Business Horizons, 56(4), 503–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: Implications for competency-based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383–397.

  • Belt, E., & Lowenthal, P. (2020). Developing faculty to teach with technology: Themes from the literature. TechTrends, 64(2), 248–259.

  • Brannick, M. T., Levine, E. L., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Job and work analysis: Methods, research, and applications for human resource management (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, D., & Cabrera, L. (2019). What is systems thinking? In M. Spector, B. Lockee, & M. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology. Cham: Springer. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_100-1

  • Chapman, J. (2004). System failure: Why governments must learn to think differently. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (2000). Soft systems methodology: A thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17, S11–S58.

  • Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2010). Soft systems methodology. In M. Reynolds & S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 191–242). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Board of Trustees of the California State University and the California Faculty Association, 2014–2017, Extended to 2020 (2014). https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-system/faculty-staff/labor-and-employee-relations/Pages/unit3-cfa.aspx

  • Darabi, A. A., Sikorski, E. G., & Harvey, R. B. (2006). Validated competencies for distance teaching. Distance Education, 27(1), 105–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. P., Dent, E. B., & Wharff, D. M. (2015). A conceptual model of systems thinking leadership in community colleges. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28(4), 333–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epshteyn, E. (2019). From policy to compliance: US higher education faculty concerns over institutional digital content accessibility policies [Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University]. Retrieved from https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:m044pp05j. Accessed 28 Oct 2019.

  • Foshay, W. R., Villachica, S. W., & Stepich, D. A. (2014). Cousins but not twins: Instructional design and human performance technology in the workplace. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 39–49). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gatewood, R. D., Field, H. S., & Barrick, M. R. (2016). Human resource selection (8th ed.). Boston: Cengage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodyear, P., Salmon, G., Spector, J. M., Steeples, C., & Tickner, S. (2001). Competencies for online teaching: A special report. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 65–72.

  • Hale, J. (2007). The performance consultant’s fieldbook: Tools and techniques for improving organizations and people (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauptman, P. H. (2015). Mobile technology in college instruction: Faculty perceptions and barriers to adoption [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln]. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1705540547/abstract/9F95C05F397949E1PQ/1. Accessed 16 Oct 2019.

  • Jauhar, A.-T. A., & Subramaniam, G. (2015). Application of soft systems methodology in defining professional communication skills for Malaysian graduates. International Journal of Research in Education Methodology, 6(3), 960–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. D., & Fox, E. J. (2004). Performance improvement competencies for instructional technologists. TechTrends, 48(2), 22–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kondrasuk, J. N. (2012). The ideal performance appraisal is a format, not a form. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 11(1), 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowch, E. G. (2019). Introduction to systems thinking and change. In M. Spector, B. Lockee & M. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology. Cham: Springer. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_133-1

  • Lohman, L. (2020). Strategic hiring: Using job analysis to effectively select online faculty. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 23(2). https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall233/lohman233.htm

  • Magruder, O., & Kumar, S. (2018). E-learning instruction: Identifying and developing the competencies of online instructors. In A. Piña, V. Lowell, & B. Harris (Eds.), Leading and managing e-learning (pp. 221–233). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, F., Budhrani, K., Kumar, S., & Ritzhaupt, A. (2019). Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: Roles and competencies. Online Learning, 23(1), 184–205.

  • Packham, R. G., Ison, R. L., & Roberts, R. J. (1988). Soft-systems methodology for action research: The role of a college farm in an agricultural education institution. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 30(2), 109–126.

  • Patrick, P. K. S., & Yick, A. G. (2005). Standardizing the interview process and developing a faculty interview rubric: An effective method to recruit and retain online instructors. Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 199–212.

  • Portugal, L. M. (2015). Hiring, training, and supporting online faculty for higher student retention efforts. Journal of Instructional Research, 4, 94–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prien, E. P., Goodstein, L. D., Goodstein, J., & Gamble Jr., L. G. (2009). A practical guide to job analysis. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prusko, P. T. (2020). The emerging story of burnout in educational design. EdSurge. Retrieved February 2, 2020 from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-01-27-the-emerging-story-of-burnout-in-educational-design

  • Reynolds, M., & Holwell, S. (2010). Introducing systems approaches. In M. Reynolds & S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 1–23). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, W. (2005). Beyond training and development: The groundbreaking classic on human performance enhancement (2nd ed.). New York: AMACOM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabagh, Z., & Saroyan, A. (2014). Professors’ perceived barriers and incentives for teaching improvement. International Education Research, 2(3), 18–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S. W., Tschida, C. M., & Hodge, E. M. (2016). How faculty learn to teach online: What administrators need to know. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 19(1) Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring191/schmidt_tschida_hodge191.html.

  • Schnitzer, M., & Crosby, L. S. (2003). Recruitment and development of online adjunct instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6(2) Retrieved from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer62/crosby_schnitzer62.html.

  • Shen, X., & Feng, J. (2017). Approaching complex problematic situations in management of learning, teaching and assessment with soft systems thinking – An instantiation of the FMA model for research. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 26(3), 20–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shukla, D. (2018). Modeling systems thinking in action among higher education leaders with fuzzy multi-criteria decision making. Management & Marketing: Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 13(2), 946–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, M. L., & Osborn, S. R. F. (2014). Faculty perceptions to imposed pedagogical change: A case study. The Nebraska Educator: A Student-Led Journal, Paper 20. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebeducator/20/

  • Stefaniak, J. (2018). Performance technology. In R. E. West (ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology: The past, present, and future of learning and instructional design technology. EdTechBooks.org. Retrieved from http://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/performance_technology

  • Stefaniak, J. (2020). The utility of design thinking to promote systemic instructional design practices in the workplace. TechTrends, 64(2), 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, E. (2017). Quashing tension, boosting cooperation. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2017/05/10/roundup-instructional-designers-and-faculty-ideas-working

  • Thach, E. C., & Murphy, K. L. (1995). Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 57–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tiem, D., Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2012). Fundamentals of performance improvement: Optimizing results through people, process, and organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warwick, J. (2008). A case study using soft systems methodology in the evolution of a mathematics module. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 5(2) Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umt.edu/tme/vol5/iss2/10.

  • Wilson, B., & Van Haperen, K. (2015). Soft systems thinking, methodology and the management of change. London: Palgrave.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queens University of Charlotte, 1900 Selwyn Ave, MSC 1383, Charlotte, NC, 28274, USA

    Laura Lohman

Authors
  1. Laura Lohman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Lohman.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This study did not involve human participants or animals.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lohman, L. Using Soft Systems Thinking to Craft Instructional Design and Technology Interventions. TechTrends 64, 720–729 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00536-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00536-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation