EdTech Archives EdTech Archives The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 15(2)

Examining Instructional Designers’ and Faculty Members’ Relationship Building in Co-Design Higher Education Partnerships

Carrie A. Hansel

Abstract

The instructional designer – faculty collaborative co-design process requires relationship building to effectively create a quality online course. Although limited research, the focus is the instructional designer perspective, situating the faculty partner as a recipient rather than an equal contributor. This presentation outlines a multi-case study examining two instructional designer - faculty dyads based on the research question: How do instructional designers and faculty partners build a relationship during the co-design process? Using interviews, observations, and document analysis, this study sought to develop a richer understanding of both partners’ experiences and their relationship building strategies. Using thematic and document analysis, the study found four themes for fostering effective co-design partnerships: Regular communication, personal connection, shared work, and adapting to one’s partner.

Online education enrollment continues to grow while traditional higher education has fallen consistently for eight years (Berry, 2019), which promises to continue as there are potentially 15% fewer eligible college-aged students in 2029 (Copley & Douthett, 2020; Hansel, 2023). To meet this growing demand and ensure successful online education provision (Brigance, 2011; Hart, 2020), higher education institutions partner with instructional designers (IDs) and faculty members. The partnership’s outcome is quality courses (Outlaw & Rice, 2015) that provide students with increased “scheduling flexibility” (Chen & Carliner, 2021, p. 471) while increasing revenues and decreasing universities’ costs (Chen & Carliner, 2021; Hansel, 2023).

ID - faculty collaboration

“The process of creating high-quality online courses requires the complementary combination of the content expertise of the faculty with the instructional designer’s pedagogical and course design expertise…” (Hansel, 2023, p. 19). The ID- faculty dyad has the potential to enhance the quality of online courses (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Brown et al., 2013; Chao et al., 2010; Hansel, 2023; Hart, 2020; Richardson et al., 2019) and improve learning outcomes (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Hansel, 2023; Richardson et al., 2019) through tailored faculty support during the co-design process (Hansel, 2023; Nicholas, 2021).

Co-design is “’a highly facilitated, team-based process’ (Penuel et al., 2007, p. 53) occurring between a team of an ID and instructor(s) while collaboratively designing and/or creating instructional experiences” (Hansel, 2023, p. 8). In fact, online course quality and student success are linked to the ID-Faculty co-design process (Altena et al., 2019). Higher quality relationships lead to more effective collaborations (Akman et al., 2019). The more collaborative the ID-Faculty relationship, the better the course quality is (Hart, 2018).

ID-Faculty partnerships face three primary barriers. First, faculty may not know what an ID does and may be suspicious of their intentions (Chao et al., 2010; Chen & Carliner, 2021; Jaschik & Lederman, 2018; Olesova & Campbell, 2019; Xie, 2021). Second, the dyad may face interpersonal conflicts from limited communication, power struggles, unclear expectations, feeling devalued, and differing senses of urgency (Chao et al., 2010; Chen & Carliner, 2021; Cowie & Nichols, 2010; Croxford et al., 2019; Hansel, 2023; Morgan, 2019; Richardson et al., 2019; Schwier & Wilson, 2010). Finally, IDs may have limited relationship-building skills or a judgmental attitude of knowing best (Chen et al., 2018; Halupa, 2019; Hart, 2018; Stevens, 2013; Zundans-Fraser & Bain, 2016). All of which can hamper the effectiveness of the collaborative relationship, if not addressed (Chen & Carliner, 2021; Stevens, 2012, 2013; Uibelhoer, 2020).

The literature regarding the ID-faculty collaborative process identify the importance of building rapport or a quality relationship (Bawa & Watson, 2017; Chen & Carliner, 2021; Chen, 2018; Hart, 2018; Richardson et al., 2019; Sentz, 2020; Stevens, 2012), but limited research has been conducted regarding how instructional designers and faculty partners build rapport during their co-design process (Richardson et al., 2019; West et al., 2017).

Methods

A multi-case study design examined the relationship-building processes and perceptions of two ID-faculty dyads using the research question: How do instructional designers and faculty partners build a relationship during the co-design process (Hansel, 2023)? Data were collected through interviews, observations, and document analysis. As the primary research instrument for this study, I followed Yin’s (2016) citation of Liebow who discloses that the data “has been selected by me and filtered through me” (p. 287). Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and document analysis were used to identify patterns and themes related to relationship building during the co-design process. Validity was maintained through transparency, member checking, audit trails, thick, rich descriptions, researcher reflexivity, prolonged field engagement, disconfirming evidence, and triangulation.

Findings

The study found four themes for fostering effective co-design partnerships and improving the quality of online courses: Regular communication, personal connection, shared work, and adapting to one’s partner (Hansel, 2023). The dyads used both synchronous (i.e., videoconference meeting) and asynchronous forms of communication (i.e., running notes) to co-design the online courses. Personal connection included sharing personal information about themselves. The dyads shared the work so that both partners engaged in the co-design processes. Finally, the partners adjusted their work behaviors to complement their collaborators’.

Discussion

This study’s findings extend the research literature by providing rich descriptions of the co-design process and identifying strategies used by the ID-faculty dyad to build relationships during the co-design process. The present study offers insights into how instructional designers use interpersonal or soft skills in the co-design process with faculty. The findings provide equal footage of instructors’ perspectives on co-design relationship building while also offering insights through observing ID-faculty dyads in action. The current study provides an understanding of strategies that ID-faculty partners used for building relationships during the co-design process. These findings offer a richer understanding of the co-design relationship for future instructional designers and faculty partners.

References

  1. Akman, H., Plewa, C., & Conduit, J. (2019). Co-creating value in online innovation communities. European Journal of Marketing, 53(6), 1205-1233. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2016-0780
  2. Altena, S., Ng, R., Hinze, M., Poulsen, S., & Parrish, D. R. (2019). 'Many hats one heart': A scoping review on the professional identity of learning designers. In Y. W. Chew, K. M. Chan, & A. Alphonso (Eds.), Personalised Learning. Diverse Goals (pp. 359-364). One Heart: ASCILITE 2019 Singapore. https://2019conference.ascilite.org/assets/papers/Paper-160.pdf
  3. Bawa, P., & Watson, S. (2017). The chameleon characteristics: A phenomenological study of instructional designer, faculty, and administrator perceptions of collaborative instructional design environments. Qualitative Report, 22(9), 2334-2355. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss9/4?utm_source=nsuworks.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol22%2Fiss9%2F4&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
  4. Berry, S. (2019). Professional development for online faculty: Instructors' perspectives on cultivating technical, pedagogical and content knowledge in a distance program. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(1), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9194-0
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  6. Brigance, S. K. (2011). Leadership in online learning in higher education: Why instructional designers for online learning should lead the way. Performance Improvement, 50(10), 43-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.20262
  7. Brown, B., Eaton, S., Jacobsen, M., Roy, S., & Friesen, S. (2013). Instructional design collaboration: A professional learning and growth experience. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9(3), 439-452. https://doi.org/10.11575/PRISM/34910
  8. Chao, I. T., Saj, T., & Hamilton, D. (2010). Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(3), 106-126. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.912
  9. Chen, B., Bastedo, K., & Howard, W. (2018). Exploring design elements for online STEM courses: Active learning, engagement, & assessment design. Online Learning, 22(2), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i2.1369
  10. Chen, Y., & Carliner, S. (2021). A special SME: An integrative literature review of the relationship between instructional designers and faculty in the design of online courses for higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 33(4), 471-495. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21339
  11. Chen, Z. (2018). Design judgment of instructional designers in the practicalities of a higher education context (Publication Number 10842064) [Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. https://www-proquest-com.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/docview/2089442904
  12. Copley, P., & Douthett, E. (2020). The enrollment cliff, mega-universities, COVID-19, and the changing landscape of U.S. colleges. CPA Journal, 22-27.
  13. Cowie, P., & Nichols, M. (2010). The clash of cultures: Hybrid learning course development as management of tension. International Journal of E-learning and Distance Education, 24(1), 77-90. http://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/607
  14. Croxford, S., Thomas, C., Horvath, D., Buultjens, M., & Stirling, E. (2019). Successful team-based development of an online course with an external partner: An analysis of the perspectives of academics. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 16(1), 1-20. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol16/iss1/5
  15. Halupa, C. (2019). Differentiation of roles: Instructional designers and faculty in the creation of online courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 8, 55-68. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n1p55
  16. Hansel, C. A. (2023). Examining instructional designers’ and faculty members’ relationship building and perception of co-design higher education partnerships. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University].
  17. Hart, J. (2018). Instructional designers' experiences with faculty subject matter experts in online higher education course development projects (Publication Number 10975726) [Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  18. Hart, J. E. (2020). Importance of instructional designers in online higher education. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 9(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.51869/92jeh
  19. Jaschik, S., & Lederman, D. (2018). Inside Higher Ed’s 2018 survey of faculty attitudes on technology. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/booklet/2018-survey-faculty-attitudes-technology
  20. Morgan, T. (2019). Instructional designers and open education practices: Negotiating the gap between intentional and operational agency. Open Praxis, 11(4), 369-380.
  21. Nicholas, C. W. (2021). Beyond the program: A case study evaluating the learning transfer of a collaborative online course development program (Publication Number 28645052) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida]. https://www-proquest-com.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/docview/2572615905?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
  22. Olesova, L., & Campbell, S. (2019). The impact of the cooperative mentorship model on faculty preparedness to develop online courses. Online Learning, 23(4), 192-213. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i4.2089
  23. Outlaw, V., & Rice, M. (2015). Best practices: Implementing an online course development & delivery model. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18, 1-10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282354131_Best_practices_Implementing_an_online_course_development_delivery_model
  24. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research & Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51-74. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793206807000300
  25. Richardson, J. C., Ashby, I., Alshammari, A. N., Cheng, Z., Johnson, B. S., Krause, T. S., Lee, D., Randolph, A. E., & Wang, H. (2019). Faculty and instructional designers on building successful collaborative relationships. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(4), 855-880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9636-4
  26. Schwier, R. A., & Wilson, J. R. (2010). Unconventional roles and activities identified by instructional designers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(2), 134-147. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/5970
  27. Sentz, J. A. (2020). The balancing act: Interpersonal aspects of instructional designers as change agents in higher education. In J. Stefaniak (Ed), Cases on Learning Design and Human Performance Technology (pp. 58-79). IGI Global.
  28. Stevens, K. B. (2012). A case study of professors' and instructional designers' experiences in the development of online courses (Publication Number 1201) [Doctoral Dissertation, Utah State University]. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/1201?utm_source=digitalcommons.usu.edu%2Fetd%2F1201&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
  29. Stevens, K. B. (2013). Contributing factors to a successful online course development process. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 61(1), 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2013.758554
  30. Uibelhoer, D. (2020). Practicing what they preach: A case study exploring the experiences of instructional designers as educators of an online teaching certificate program (Publication Number 28258574) [Doctoral Dissertation, Seton Hall University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  31. West, K., Hoessler, C., Bennetch, R., Ewert-Bauer, T., Wilson, M., Beaudoin, J.-P., Ellis, D. E., Brown, V. M., Timmermans, J. A., Verwoord, R., & Kenny, N. A. (2017). Educational Development Guide Series: No. 2. Rapport-building for educational developers. Educational Developers Caucus. Retrieved from: https://www.stlhe.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/EDC-Guide-No-2-FINAL.pdf
  32. Xie, J., Gulinna, A., & Rice, M. F. (2021). Instructional designers' roles in emergency remote teaching during COVID-19. Distance Education, 42(1), 70-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1869526
  33. Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  34. Zundans-Fraser, L., & Bain, A. (2016). The role of collaboration in a comprehensive programme design process in inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(2), 136-148.