I have been able to work as an
editor, assistant instructional designer, and instructional designer in an
office that develops curriculum for online courses. I have learned much; however,
the readings from this course put the concepts of planning and leadership in
prospective for me. Seeing the process from many angles allowed me to see how a
process must be executed in an orderly manner. First, courses must be
(re)developed based on needs. Courses are evaluated for redevelopment based on
the withdrawal/failure rates while new course developments are prioritized
according to the release of the degree completion plan and the demand for the
area of study. If courses were not scheduled in such a way, it would waste a lot
of time, energy, and expense at the hand of the Subject Matter Expert,
Instructional Designer, administrator, as well as technologist and editor.
Secondly, collaboration is
essential. If one knows all there is to know about instructional design but has
no knowledge of content, it is of no value. Each role present during the
development of a course is vital and must be rooted in unity to ensure success.
As Picciano stated, “Educators must not abandon evaluation in their planning
but instead should attempt to develop evaluation criteria on which participants
can agree” (2011, p. 22). There must be a common goal as well as commitment and
flexibility. Compromise and continuity are essential as expectations and
standards are constantly shifting due to demands of the accreditation agencies,
market, and technological advances.
While I have seen successful results
based on the equation above, I have seen poor timing unravel progress. The Hall
text depicts a modern leadership fable with Max. Essentially, a wireless
network rushed to complete a project without proper planning. I have been in
situations where the quality of a course was compromised because of high
demands and short time frames. At times, the dance with the stakeholders leaves
the designer with the role of the follower—reacting to demands instead of
envisioning and executing successfully. Halls quote regarding technology
leaders can hold true for designers as well: Individuals are often tapped for
technology leadership roles because of their expertise in technology or instructions;
however, they are seldom trained in how to be leaders and agents of change at the
organizational level” (2008, p. 9).
I do not think any one of the three
types of leaders in the Leadership Continuum Model perfectly describes what is
needed to fulfill the role of an instructional designer. Rather, a combination
is needed to address the plethora of situations that can arise. At times, one
must assume the Sage and get things done. At other times, one must facilitate and
commit to customer service to leave the stakeholder empowered and supported. An
effective planner and leader is one that can adjust, take responsibility for
the situation at hand, and bring resolution—whether it be through negotiation,
stating the standards, or influencing the other party to come to the same
conclusion on his/her own.
References
Picciano, A. G. (2011).Educational
leadership and planning for technology (5th ed.). Hunter College, NY: Allyn
& Bacon.
Hall, D. (2008). The technology director’s guide to leadership.
Washington, DC: ISTE.
