The Added Value of Conducting Learning Design Meeting to the Online Course Development Process

Abstract

Do you find it challenging to have discussions with instructors about designing online courses and best practices in teaching? This article will highlight key components to conducting effective Learning Design Meetings. It outlines techniques used by our institution in engaging faculty in a discussion regarding better use of Learning Management Systems (LMS), storyboard layout, learning outcomes, student engagement, learning activities, formal assessments, and content delivery. Learning Design meetings have proven to be a compelling manner of decreasing faculty resistance while exposing instructors to best practices in pedagogy, andragogy, and online learning. Instructional Designers (IDs), Instructional Facilitators (IFs), and Course Authors who work in higher educational online settings should find this information useful. Novices in the field may find these practical techniques particularly beneficial.

A Special SME : An Integrative Literature Review of the Relationship between Instructional Designers and Faculty in the Design of Online Courses for Higher Education

“…The fourth factor is commitment, which refers to a willingness to invest the time needed to complete the course‐design and development effort (Curtis et al, 2017; Kang, 2001; Outlaw & Rice, 2015) and ensure the quality of the course (Shaver, 2017; Stevens, 2013). Specifically, while designing courses, each team member is responsible for certain parts of the course, and everyone needs to respect the timeline of the course development and to be accountable for completing their tasks on time (Campbell et al, 2006; Curtis et al, 2017; Knowles & Kalata, 2008).…”

“…Specifically, while designing courses, each team member is responsible for certain parts of the course, and everyone needs to respect the timeline of the course development and to be accountable for completing their tasks on time (Campbell et al, 2006; Curtis et al, 2017; Knowles & Kalata, 2008). Furthermore, the quality of the course is a shared responsibility for every team member who is involved in the design process (Pan & Thompson, 2009; Shaver, 2017; Stevens, 2013).…”

From the Standpoint of Instructional Designers: Critically Investigating the Coordination of ID Contributions to Collaborative Online Course Development

“…IDs are widely recognized as experts in resolving instructional challenges and conducting quality assessments (Ren, 2019). IDs accomplish resolutions through models of collaborative online course development, which steps primarily include (a) Academic Division Kick-off Meeting, (b) Scope of Work Agreement, (c) Consultative Content Development Meetings, (d) ID collects materials, (e) Course constructed in LMS, (f) Quality assurance checks, (g) Dyadic review and Correction, and (h) Faculty Sign-off (Shaver, 2017; Singleton et al, 2019). The diversity of ID responsibilities across HEIs can create confusion that risks obscuring their narrative, as those narratives are lumped into the alternative hats they have been known to wear.…”

Reimagining Curriculum Design: Using Focus Groups to Enhance Leadership Educator Practice

“…To anticipate and ensure learner satisfaction, instructional design teams facilitated pilot studies where focus groups solicited feedback on the learning experience (Tainish, 2007). The structure of our focus group feedback meetings resembled the common strategy of learning design meetings, in which instructional designers, course facilitators, faculty, and other stakeholders discuss course content, learning outcomes, and potential content revisions (Shaver, 2017). As the instructional design team, curriculum developers and collaborators sought to facilitate clear communication regarding development processes, timelines, and expectations to support the collaborative curriculum development process (Crowley et al, 2018).…”