You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.

This conversation is with the authors of the chapter “Converting Teaching From Solo Sport to Team-Based Activity: Lessons Learned From a Systemwide Instructional Design Support Initiative” in our new co-edited book, Recentering Learning: Complexity, Resilience, and Adaptability in Higher Education (JHU Press, 2024). The book (in paper and ebook form) is available for order from JHU Press and on Amazon.

MJ Bishop is vice president of integrative learning design at the University of Maryland Global Campus. Nancy O’Neill is executive director of the William E. Kirwan Center for Academic Innovation at the University System of Maryland. Briana Johnson is vice president of LX design at iDesign. Whitney Kilgore is the co-founder and chief academic officer of iDesign.

Q: What key themes from your chapter would you like readers to take back and apply to their institutions and organizations?

A: Our chapter explores a forward-thinking approach to teaching and learning, offering actionable strategies for creating more effective and inclusive educational environments. Three key themes stand out to us as something readers might take away and apply in their contexts:

  1. Teaching as a team sport. Teaching is most effective when it shifts from an isolated activity to a collaborative effort. Drawing from Herbert Simon’s idea of evolving teaching “from a solo sport to a community-based research activity,” the chapter emphasizes the value of interdisciplinary teams. When faculty, instructional designers, assessment experts and technologists work together, institutions can build innovative, learner-centered environments that improve student engagement and success.
  1. The power of empathy and connection. We believe that strong relationships form the foundation of effective instructional design. Faculty are often navigating stress and uncertainty, and trauma-informed instructional design provides a framework for offering empathy and active listening. By building trust and serving as thought partners, instructional designers support faculty in their creation of inclusive and engaging courses.
  2. Clarifying the instructional design role. Another key theme that we hope readers take away from the chapter is the importance of clarifying the role of instructional designers. Many faculty are unsure of how instructional designers can support them. Institutions can address this by leading with solutions, offering targeted workshops and sharing practical examples. Highlighting instructional designers as problem-solvers and innovators provides a strong basis to develop partnerships and encourage collaboration.

Q: How can instructional designers effectively address faculty misconceptions about their role and the value they bring to teaching and learning?

A: Addressing misconceptions about instructional designers begins with fostering understanding and trust. We suggest several strategies in the chapter to clarify the unique value instructional designers bring to teaching and learning that align with the chapter’s three key themes: collaboration, empathy and engagement.

First, instructional designers must proactively communicate their role. Faculty often view course development as their sole responsibility and may not realize how instructional designers can enhance their work. By leading with solutions to common challenges—like balancing synchronous and asynchronous content or integrating technology—designers can demonstrate their expertise in solving challenging problems.

Collaboration is enhanced when conversations allow faculty to openly talk about the challenges they are facing in the courses or with their students. Additionally, we suggest instructional designers engage in relationship-building conversations, such as taking the time to build rapport and learning about faculty outside of their teaching role, which can lead to professional friendship and increased trust.

As previously mentioned, relationship-building through empathy is essential. Misconceptions often stem from fear or uncertainty about new approaches. By practicing trauma-informed instructional design, designers can meet faculty where they are, listen actively and tailor their support to individual needs. Faculty testimonials that we highlighted in the chapter reveal how empathetic and patient instructional designers can build trust and encourage deeper collaboration.

Finally, instructional designers must showcase their value through action. Offering targeted workshops, providing just-in-time resources and creating concrete examples of how instructional design improves teaching are all ways to shift faculty perceptions. Highlighting successes—like improving engagement through gamification or addressing content fatigue with innovative asynchronous strategies—can inspire faculty to see instructional designers as essential thought partners.

Q: What lessons can institutions learn from the chapter about fostering faculty engagement with instructional design support?

A: Fostering faculty engagement requires intentional strategies that emphasize collaboration, trust-building and scalability. As discussed earlier, teaching and instructional design thrive when approached as a team effort, not a solo sport. Institutions must prioritize creating interdisciplinary teams of faculty, instructional designers and other professionals to support innovative, learner-centered design.

To begin, institutions should lead with solutions and incentives to support and prioritize innovative teaching practices and collaboration with designers. Furthermore, institutions should consider methods to expand instructional design capacity through external partnerships.

As highlighted in the chapter, the University System of Maryland’s collaboration with iDesign provided scalable, on-demand instructional design services for institutions across the system. Partnering with external vendors allows institutions to supplement internal resources while ensuring faculty have access to rapid support while navigating teaching demands.

Finally, relationship-building through empathy is essential. Faculty may resist instructional design support due to misconceptions or fear of change. Trauma-informed instructional design, which emphasizes understanding and reassurance, can help to foster trust and confidence. Faculty testimonials that we included in the chapter underscore how this empathetic approach transforms instructional designers into valued thought partners.

Next Story

More from Learning Innovation