31.6: A Story of Facilitated Instruction

EDER 673—Introduction to Instructional Design—was designed in response to my experiences as an instructor teaching an audio version of the same course. The course participants were all part of a M.Ed. program and came from a wide range of backgrounds including postsecondary, K–12 and corporate education with an average age of 40. As teachers/trainers, many already thought of themselves as instructional designers and had a difficult time relating to the language and practices of the instructional design field. However, as they progressed through the course, all found that. in practice, they were using the same techniques and approaches as those featured in the course, just under another title.

Upon reflection, and influenced by Donald Schon's book The Reflective Practitioner (1983), I realized one of the problems with the structure of the audio course was lack of acknowledgment of teachers' experience as designers. I was trying to present a different view of instructional design, not their first view. For this reason, the online course of EDER 673 focused on the exploration of curriculum ideologies, the development of their own personal views of teaching and learning, an analysis of different texts and the incorporation of some of these ideas into each student’s personal instructional design model. Given this approach, it was my hope that the students would not dismiss instructional design theory, just as the instructor was not dismissing their experience as teachers and designers of their own instruction.

The online version of EDER 673 was designed around the following assumptions:

• The “meat” of the course lies in the online discussions and related activities. As a result, there were very few content pages to scroll through, but rather pointers to articles and activities to do for each week’s discussion forum. This design approach was based on my experience that it is through reading, reflecting and conversing with others that one gains a better sense of the complexities of instructional design (ID). From there, participants really need a space and place to share ideas with others and to contemplate how the course concepts might work in their unique setting.
• An ID course has to be application-focused. There is a certain amount of how-to that comes with learning the language and process of ID, but at some point folks need to get their hands dirty and use the tools of ID in their own unique settings.
• Learning ID should be fun. I have been working and teaching online for eight years and, if there is one thing that technology has reinforced, it is the need to have patience and a sense of humour!

Based on these assumptions and the constraints of the online environment, LMS structure and organizational requirements, I then began to structure the course and in essence the learning space for the participants—prede-termined. I knew that when dealing with messy and complicated concepts it is necessary to be able to see how they relate to the larger picture, as well as to real-life situations in a variety of settings. For this reason, I chose to use an adventure metaphor to represent the introductory travels through the field of ID and its associated methods and techniques. As with all adventures, there is no linear path to success. In instructional design there is no systematic method for applying one technique at one time and then moving forward. The reality is that we use all of the techniques and models in a complex, ever-changing environment.

Online Course Structure

The online version of EDER 673 was designed around units to be completed each week in order to give people time off on the weekends for reading, contemplating and reflecting. In order to be able to participate in the online activities and discussion required for each, the participants had to complete the readings prior to beginning of the week’s unit.

In the course documents section of the LMS, the unit for each week built on:

• a preamble introducing the topic and its relevance
• a back-grounder explaining the rationale behind the readings selections
• a variety of activities to be completed as part of participating in the discussion forum for the week

In order to keep the discussion forums manageable, they were set up so that there was one discussion forum per week of the course. Participants were responsible for participating in 10 of the 13 discussion groups. Forums for each assignment were also set up so that questions relating to the assignments could be dealt with in their respective forum, where all participants could learn from the dialogue.

The course also included scheduled, synchronous online discussions using Elluminate technology at three times during the course. These discussions provided an opportunity to touch base and see how all are doing, clarify assignment requirements and host guest speakers in various topic areas relevant to the course content. These sessions were all recorded and archived for review in case participants were unable to join in at the scheduled day and time.

My role, after the course had been designed and posted to the LMS, was that of facilitator. I was actively involved in the discussions while at the same time creating space for participants to discuss and sort through their developing understandings of ID—a tricky balance. I tended to be more heavily involved in leading the discussions during the first few weeks of the course and then gradually moved into a participatory role as I attempted to build and foster a discussion space and culture that valued all contributions as we developed our shared understandings of the content and topics. My turnaround time for assignments was one week. For discussion postings or emails, it was 48 hours at the latest, but more often was within the same day. Virtual office hours were twice a week—although rarely used—and the synchronous sessions were well attended, as I tried to get guest speakers that were in keeping with both the topic area as well as the undercurrent of discussion at that time.

The course centred around two assignments prepared in three phases each:

1. the creation of an instructional blueprint for a piece of instruction, and
2. the development of an original instructional design model based on the characteristics and constraints of participants’ work environments.

Course feedback has been consistently positive over the past eight offerings. A common comment is that students really appreciate the overall structure of the course and the flow of the weeks. The final assignment, developing their own model of instructional design, gets rave reviews each time. One participant in particular used her final assignment to outline her approach to instructional design in an interview within her school district, and she was the successful candidate for the position of Assistant Principal—Online Learning. For me, the take away from this experience was that in this case, with this audience and the content being covered, a facilitated instruction approach was effective.