Instructional design positions in higher education require greater depth and breadth of knowledge, skill, and general competencies than the qualifications found in typical job descriptions and published industry competency sets (e.g., ibstpi). The eDesign Collaborative Research Team, a part of the University Professional Continuing Education Association (UPCEA), wished to explore the discrepancies that exist between commonly identified competencies and those deemed necessary by instructional designers (IDs) actively working in higher education, as results could be informative for administrators, managers, and designers alike as the design field expands. The major competencies found in the literature and coded by the researchers after collecting survey responses included collaboration, communication, theoretical knowledge, problem-solving, course design and development, management (i.e., project management), research and analysis, technological expertise, ongoing learning, leadership, relationship management, evaluation, marketing, ethical and legal considerations of design, faculty development, and editing/proofreading. The participants rated these competencies and explored the relationship of the highly rated competencies with the actual work performed by the participants. Likewise, the study sought to explore the participants' career plans, goals, and access to professional development. The results showed that a majority (56%) described the ID role as a mix of both faculty and content development. When asked what they would rather be doing with their time, an even mix between working more with faculty and working more on content development was observed. Many individuals also mentioned an interest in working more with technology and innovative projects. Collaboration with subject matter experts (SMEs), content experts, faculty, and instructors was by far the most valuable competency, both in importance and time spent. Research and marketing seemed to be least important and garnered the least amount of employee time.
Class frequency and duration are fundamental parameters within engineering education across nearly all pedagogical methods. Optimizing these factors enables programs to achieve a higher level of learning in the classroom while providing for more efficient time management.The objective of this paper is to document the perceived effect on students and instructors when transitioning from a traditional 40 lesson course with 55 minutes duration, to one comprised of 30 lessons at 75 minutes in length. This analysis limits research to a mechanical engineering curriculum at the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY. Major assessment performance under the new structure was compared with historical results to provide objective qualitative comparison. Anonymous student feedback was also collected at the midpoint and end of each course. Survey questions centered on perceived information absorption and synthesis, impact on problem solving opportunities, and the effect of variation in classroom contact time. Changes in course syllabi to accommodate the 75 minute structure generally resulted in no net gain or loss of new material to the original curriculum, though outliers did occur and are discussed in more detail. Class size averaged 18 students over four different courses, ranging from Helicopter Aeronautics to Vehicle Dynamics. Course size averaged 34 students with a total of 135 students enrolled across all courses.The change in course structure demonstrates potential opportunity for both greater depth and application of learning in the classroom as well as increased schedule flexibility. Conversely, the heightened implications of students missing class and the administrative feasibility of such a shift can be problematic. Instructor assessment of student learning and student feedback through end-of-course evaluations will be presented in this paper, as well as recommendations for future instructors wishing to apply similar changes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.