Advertisement

TechTrends

pp 1–9 | Cite as

An Industry Liaison for Graduate Learning in Instructional Design

  • Craig D. HowardEmail author
  • Rose Benedicks
Original Paper
  • 6 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Design learning Design programs Graduate learning Industry liaison Instructional designers Theory to practice 

Notes

Author’s Contribution

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.

Funding Information

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.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

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.

Supplementary material

11528_2019_465_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 26 kb)

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  3. Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Cennamo, K. S., & Holmes, G. (2001). Developing awareness of client relations through immersion in practice. Educational Technology, 41(6), 44–49.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6–11.Google Scholar
  9. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Howard, C. D. (2012). An instructional paradigm for the teaching of computer-mediated communication. Instructional Science, 40(3), 493–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. Michlewski, K. (2016). Design attitude. Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2017). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
  21. Shell, E. R. (2018). The job: Work and its future in a time of radical change. Currency Books.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Tennessee KnoxvilleKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.Leo LearningEast SussexUK

Personalised recommendations