BOUTBOUTTHETHE ESEARCHER - WOU Homepage - …clarkdan/DC/DOCS/Clark_Defense.pdf · ·...

2/23/2015

1

Desired Characteristics for Instructional DesignersPresentation of Doctoral Research D. Clark ‐ 02.10.15

[email protected]

AABOUTBOUTTHETHERRESEARCHERESEARCHER

Dan ClarkDirector, Center for Teaching and Learning and Extended ProgramsWestern Oregon University ‐Monmouth, Oregon

Senior Director, Distance EducationUtah Valley University ‐Orem, Utah

Director of Instructional DesignValley City State University ‐Valley City, North Dakota

Academic Technology ManagerSaint Joseph College ‐West Hartford, Connecticut

Online CoordinatorSyracuse University – Syracuse, New York

PhD, Adult Education, North Dakota State (2015)

[email protected]

MS, IDD&ESyracuse University

Operationalizing Creativity: Desired Characteristics for Instructional Designers

2/23/2015

2

MMOTIVATINGOTIVATING EEXPERIENCEXPERIENCE

Why are we unable to find (and hire) the Instructional Designers that we need?

[email protected] Creativity: Desired Characteristics for Instructional Designers

BBACKGROUNDACKGROUND

Instructional Design: Is the practice of creating efficient and

Definitions

g p geffective instructional experiences (Merrill et al., 1966).

Instructional Designer (ID): An instructional designer invents, conceptualizes, or creates educational products or materials and is responsible for the pedagogical aspects of those creations (Visscher‐Voerman, 1999).


2/23/2015

3

BBACKGROUNDACKGROUND ((CONTCONT.).)

As available technologies and emerging pedagogies continue to redefine the learning environment in Higher Education, the role of the instructional designer has evolved to meet the escalating need for flexible, innovative curricula.

The rote, step‐by‐step adherence to systematic models such as ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate) is being replaced by more creative, heuristic approaches that provide the designer a wide range of latitude in solving the

[email protected]

provide the designer a wide range of latitude in solving the complex and ill‐structured problems inherent to the field (Clinton & Hokanson, 2012).


BBACKGROUNDACKGROUND ((CONTCONT.).)

Although a recent body of literature has unmistakably acknowledged the role of the creative process and the importance of creativity to the instructional design endeavor in the abstract, a clear connection between creativity in theory and instructional design in practice has yet to be established.


2/23/2015

4

RRESEARCHESEARCHQQUESTIONSUESTIONS

1. What literature‐based creativity related constructs are manifest in the context of practice of higher education manifest in the context of practice of higher education instructional designers?

2. What specific competencies exemplify desired creativity‐related knowledge, skills, and abilities for instructional designers in higher education?


CCONCEPTUALONCEPTUALFFRAMEWORKRAMEWORK


2/23/2015

5

LLITERATUREITERATURERREVIEWEVIEWPPERSPECTIVESERSPECTIVES

1. The Evolution of the Instructional Designer

2. Emerging Pedagogies

3. Creativity

4. Other Creativity‐related Constructs

[email protected]

5. Situated Creativity (creativity in the workplace).


TTHEMESHEMESEEMERGINGMERGINGFROMFROMLLITITRREVIEWEVIEW

1. Problem Solving

Deconstructed Creativity

2. Problem Finding

3. Boundary Awareness

4. The Creative Act (Ideation through Innovation)

5. Disposition(s)

[email protected]

6. The Ambiguity Tolerance Continuum

7. Motivations/ Intrinsic Rewards


2/23/2015

6

RRESEARCHESEARCHDDESIGNESIGN

(Modified) Delphi Process• Flexibility and Adaptability• Present and Future State of a Specific Contextf p f• Useful when there is an Incomplete State of Knowledge

Purposeful/ Snowball Sample• Validity is Established via Expertise• Takes Advantage of Personal Networks

[email protected]

• Useful for Collecting Expert Opinion that would be Otherwise be Difficult to Obtain



1. Nominees are senior instructional designers, instructional design directors, distance education directors, or directors

Nominee Criteria

design directors, distance education directors, or directors of centers for teaching and learning (or equivalents) who are directly responsible for managing, recruiting, and hiring instructional designers.

2. Nominees will have demonstrated experience (at least five years) and expertise in the field (as evidenced by

[email protected]

membership/ participation in national professional organizations/ conferences, publications, academic research, etc.)


2/23/2015

7


1. What literature‐based creativity related constructs are manifest in the context of practice of higher education

3‐Round Delphi Process to Explore Research Question #1

manifest in the context of practice of higher education instructional designers?

2. What specific competencies exemplify desired creativity‐

Additional Desirability/ Validity Assessment of Suggested Creativity‐related Competencies to Explore Research Question #2

[email protected]

related knowledge, skills, and abilities for instructional designers in higher education?


IINSTRUMENTNSTRUMENTDDESIGNESIGN

1. Problem Solving1. systems approach (Gordon & Zemke, 2000)

Literature‐Based Constructs by Creativity Theme

1. systems approach (Gordon & Zemke, 2000)2. heuristics (York & Ertmer, 2011)3. wicked problems (Valentine & Ivey, 2008)

2. Problem Finding1. problem finding/ identification (Torrance, 1993)2. escaping assumptions (Mitchell, Inouye, & Blumenthal,

[email protected]

2003)3. problem finding/ navigation (Ericsson, Roaring, &

Nandagopal, 2007)


2/23/2015

8


3. Boundary Awareness

l / b d i (C ik ih l i i


1. contextual awareness/ boundaries (Csikszentmihalyi, in Sternberg, 1999)

2. contextual awareness/ role (Amabile et al.,2004)3. navigate the [timing] risk/ reward dynamic (Schön,

1987)4. navigate the [volume] risk/ reward dynamic (Udwadia,

1990)

[email protected]

1990)



4. The Creative Act (Ideation through Innovation)

id i (Aki b i O k )


1. ideation (Akinboye in Ogoemeka , 2011)2. Invention (Dasgupta, 1996)3. remixing (York & Ertmer,2011)4. connections (Valentine & Ivey, 2008)5. innovation (Weisberg, 2006)


2/23/2015

9


5. Disposition(s)

fl ibili (B d N bill )


1. flexibility (Baum and Newbill, 2010)2. overcoming fear (Fields, 2012)3. iconoclasm (Hokanson, Miller, & Hooper, 2008)4. post‐modernism (Visscher‐Voerman & Gustafson, 2004)5. cooperative (Amabile, 1988)6. pragmatism (James, 1907)7 diversity/ democracy of thought (Manke 1999)

[email protected]

7. diversity/ democracy of thought (Manke, 1999)



6. The Ambiguity Tolerance Continuum

bi i i l (M Cl )


1. ambiguity intolerance (McClary, 2009)2. ambiguity tolerance/ problems (MacDonald, 1970)3. ambiguity tolerance/ tasks (Furnham& Ribchester, 1995)4. creative uncertainty (Langer, 1990)


2/23/2015

10


7. Motivations/ Intrinsic Rewards

i i i i i (J k d Ki i li 6)


1. intrinsic motivation (Jaskyte and Kisieliene, 2006)2. autonomy/ challenge (Zhou, 1998)3. passion (Vallerand & Houlfort, 2003)4. play (Hokanson, Miller, & Hooper, 2008)5. flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996)6. self‐efficacy (Bandura, 1977)


RRESEARCHESEARCH IIMPLEMENTATIONMPLEMENTATION

Expert Panel Established• 28 Respondents

Round 1 Survey Instrument• Likert Response to 33 Topic Statements of literature‐

based constructs [Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, No Judgment]

• 33 open‐ended rationale comments• Eight open‐ended suggest additional topic sentences

[email protected]

• Eight open‐ended examples of instructional design tasks or duties [to be used to address R. Q. #2]

• 82Total response prompts


2/23/2015

11


Consensus Metrics 5‐Point Likert scale: Strongly Agree = 4, Agree = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1, and No Judgment = null.g y g , g

• Statistical Consensus to Agree• Mean (M) response of 3.00 or greater, AND Standard

Deviation (SD) of less than 1.00

• Statistical Consensus to Disagree

[email protected]

• Response M of 2.00 or less, AND SD of less than 1.00



Consensus Metrics (continued)

• Percentage of Opinion to Agree/Disagree g p g / g• 80% of all respondents must agree OR 80%must

disagree• No Judgment responses included in this calculation.

•BOTH Statistical Consensus and Percentage of Opinion criteria

[email protected]

must be met to establish consensus


2/23/2015

12


Round One Results

• 27 (96%) Respondents• Panel Reached Consensus on 25 (76%) ItemsPanel Reached Consensus on 25 (76%) Items• Consensus on five Items Considered ‘Weak’

• 20 Rd1 consensus items removed• Nine non‐consensus Rd1 items revised • Four additional clarifying questions added• Nine new items added per RD1 suggestions

Round Two Survey

[email protected]

• Four non‐consensus RD1 items presented again following Delphi protocol

• 58Total Response Prompts



Round Two Results

• 28 (100%) Respondents• Panel reached consensus on 17 (68%) ItemsPanel reached consensus on 17 (68%) Items

• Eight non‐consensus RD2 Items presented again following Delphi protocol

• 27 creativity‐related competencies developed from RD1 responses rated in terms of:

Round Three

Round Three, Part Two

[email protected]

• Desirability• Face Validity (as creativity‐related)

• 73Total Response Prompts


2/23/2015

13


Round Three, Part One Results

• 24 (86%) Respondents• Panel reached consensus on one (12%) ItemPanel reached consensus on one (12%) Item

• 24 (86%) Respondents• 27Creativity‐related Competencies Rated in Terms of:

• Desirability• Face Validity (as Creativity‐related)

Round Three, Part Two Results


RRESEARCHESEARCHFFINDINGSINDINGS

ll f dIn all, over 3000 points of quantitative data and nearly 1000 open‐ended responses were collected, organized, and analyzed.


2/23/2015

14

RRESEARCHESEARCHFFINDINGSINDINGS ((DELPHIDELPHI/ / QUANTITATIVEQUANTITATIVE))

Quantitative Delphi Data Analysis

• Analyzed as one data set• Consensus reached on 44 of 66 (67%) topic statement • Consensus reached on 44 of 66 (67%) topic statement

iterations• Consensus reached on 35 of 41 (85%) discrete constructs• Non‐consensus Items by Theme:

• [0] Problem Solving, Problem Finding• [0*] Ambiguity Tolerance• [1] Boundary Awareness, Creative Act,

[email protected]

[ ] y , ,and Dispositions

• [3] Intrinsic Motivations and Rewards



Problem Solving

Consensus Items (Unique Concepts) by Creativity Theme

To be successful, Higher Education Instructional Designers must…

[1A] work ONLY within the bounds of a prescribed, systematic, design process (consensus to disagree).

[2] generate multiple possible solutions to a problem.

[3] successfully navigate complex, ill‐defined problems.

[email protected]

y g p p


2/23/2015

15


Problem Finding



[4] identify problems, deficiencies, gaps in knowledge, and omissions in a given situation.

[5] be able to distinguish between actual constraints and perceived constraints of a problem.

[email protected]

[6] project potential outcomes of a course of action and intervene appropriately.



Boundary Awareness



[7A] recognize their operational boundaries (e.g. context, constraints, and accountabilities).

[8] recognize their role within the organization.

[8A] establish a personal “culture of creativity” through

[email protected]

p y grelationships, communication, and comportment (e.g. honesty, patience, resilience).


2/23/2015

16


Boundary Awareness (continued)



[9A] Within the context of a project, Higher Education Instructional Designers must recognize when creative activities are appropriate (i.e. warranted, practicable) and when they are not.

[ C] d t t l t f ti it i th i

[email protected]

[9C] demonstrate elements of creativity in their communication and collaboration with stakeholders.

[10A] balance creative activities with the constraints of a given project.



The Creative Act



[12B] be capable of creating original (novel) models, strategies, or approaches to solve instructional problems.

[13] effectively remix/ repurpose old materials into new t i l

[email protected]

materials.

[14] identify connections between elements previously considered disparate.


2/23/2015

17


The Creative Act (continued)



[14A] establish “Dynamic Expertise” by continuously integrating emerging trends with a strong historical perspective (i.e. be fully conversant in a variety of educational theories, practices, and approaches, both old and new)

[email protected]

old and new).

[15] engage in creative acts specifically to solve problems.



Creative Dispositions


Successful Higher Education Instructional Designers are…

[16] comfortable engaging with a variety of tasks and interactions.

[17] confident in their abilities.

[18] willing to risk exposure embarrassment or censure to

[email protected]

g ppropose new ideas.

[19] willing to continuously question underlying assumptions of established practice.


2/23/2015

18


Creative Dispositions (continued)


Successful Higher Education Instructional Designers are…

[20] devotees to current industry best practices only (consensus to disagree).

[21] comfortable surrendering ownership of creative works.

[22] willing to suppress their ego for the good of the

[email protected]

g pp g gendeavor.

[23] empathetic to multiple perspectives.



Creative Dispositions (continued)



[23A] actively seek multiple viewpoints (when appropriate relative to the constraints of a project).

[23B] integrate suggestions and feedback from others.


2/23/2015

19


The Ambiguity Tolerance Continuum


Successful Higher Education Instructional Designers…

[24] completely avoid ill‐defined problems (consensus to disagree).

[25] tolerate ill‐defined problems.

[26] can operate effectively despite unspecific or

[email protected]

p y p pincomplete direction.

[27] embrace ambiguity as an empowering opportunity.



Intrinsic Motivations and Rewards


Successful Higher Education Instructional Designers…

[28] believe that their creative efforts are making a difference.

[30] are passionate about their work .

[33A] view engaging with difficult tasks as something to be

[email protected]

g g g gembraced rather than something to be avoided.

[34] are life‐long learners.


2/23/2015

20

RRESEARCHESEARCHFFINDINGSINDINGS ((PERFPERF‐‐IMPIMPANALYSISANALYSIS))

Performance‐Importance Analysis on Creativity Competencies


RRESEARCHESEARCHFFINDINGSINDINGS ((PERFPERF‐‐IMPIMPANALYSISANALYSIS))

Performance‐Importance Analysis on Creativity Competencies


2/23/2015

21

RRESEARCHESEARCHFFINDINGSINDINGS ((QUALITATIVEQUALITATIVE))

• Open, Focused, and Axial Coding techniques applied to id tif t t th d l ti hi

Qualitative Data Analysis

identify constructs, themes, and relationships

• Responses analyzed both in situ and as a single generic data set

• Noteworthy/ Illustrative Comments structure used to indicate both centrist and outlier positions.

• Conclusions to follow

[email protected]

• Conclusions to follow…


CCONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONS ((SUGGESTEDSUGGESTEDBYBYQUANTITATIVEQUANTITATIVE/ / DELPHIDELPHIDATADATA))

Evidence of correlation between creativity and ID.• Consensus reached on over 85% of the 41 discrete Consensus reached on over 85% of the 41 discrete

constructs• Consensus Reached on two‐thirds of Topic

Statement iterations

Evidence of Preference for ‘Applied’ Creativity• Commonality of the six non‐consensus concepts

[email protected]

(9B, 11, 19A, 29, 31, 32)


2/23/2015

22

CCONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONS ((SUGGESTEDSUGGESTEDBYBYQUALITATIVEQUALITATIVEDATADATA))

Higher Education Instructional Design is a Field in Evolution• Systems/ Best Practices/ Tradition Systems/ Best Practices/ Tradition

Organizational Context is Important• Reporting Lines/ Funding/ Ownership

Strong Desire for Applied Creativity • Obligation to remain accountable

Creative Interaction/ Collaboration

[email protected]

• With Client/ With Peers


CCONCLUSIONSONCLUSIONS (S(SUGGESTEDUGGESTEDBYBYPP‐‐I AI ANALYSISNALYSIS))

Desirable Creativity‐related ID Competencies

Higher Education Instructional Designers…

d f f (1. Identify opportunities for creativity (i.e. existing constraints and empowering ambiguity) within the overall scope of a project or problem assigned to them.

2. Tailor their planned creative activities to the scope and constraints of a project.

3. Engage in continuous reflection and assessment and exploit

[email protected]

3 g g pnew creative opportunities that arise as the project evolves.

4. Maximize efficiency through creative use/ reuse of available resources.


2/23/2015

23


Desirable Creativity‐related ID Competencies (continued)

A i li di i i d i i d

Desirable Creativity‐related ID Competencies


5. Ascertain client disposition toward creativity and communication/ interaction preferences, and adjust one’s collaboration strategies accordingly.

6. Effectively communicate/ articulate creative/atypical idea

7. Demonstrate a demeanor supportive of collaborative creativity (e g flexibility, honesty, patience, resilience,

[email protected]

creativity (e.g. flexibility, honesty, patience, resilience, modesty, diplomacy, tact).

8. Engage in active listening: find value in other’s ideas.



Desirable Creativity‐related ID Competencies (continued)


R i h ’ k ff t th ( b l 9. Recognize how one’s work affects others. (e. g. balance proactive autonomy and the collaborative team dynamic).

10. Seek to continuously integrate new knowledge and new approaches with personal practices.

11. Recognize/ leverage “affordances” related to new technologies; seek opportunities to align instructional

[email protected]

technologies; seek opportunities to align instructional theories/ practices with new technologies


2/23/2015

24

SSOOWWHATHAT? ? Meaningful Additions to the Body of Literature

• Study tied Higher Education Instructional Design • Study tied Higher Education Instructional Design competencies directly to broad‐based creativity literature

• Study identified a set of specific creativity‐related Instructional Design competencies that could be useful to managers and leaders for hiring, recruitment,

[email protected]

to managers and leaders for hiring, recruitment, performance review assessment, and professional development purposes.


NNOWOWWWHATHAT? ? Recommendations for Additional Study

• Context specific Longitudinal Research• Context‐specific Longitudinal Research• More In‐depth examination of various Higher

Education contexts as identified in this study• Examination of generalizability outside of Higher

Education• Study correlating responses to education/

experience of ID leader

[email protected]

experience of ID leader

• Exploration of specific recruitment and Hiring Practices Related to Creativity‐related Competencies.


2/23/2015

25

QQUESTIONSUESTIONS??

Dan ClarkDirector, Center for Teaching and Learning and Extended Programs

Thank You.

Director, Center for Teaching and Learning and Extended ProgramsWestern Oregon University

503.838.8361 (w) | 701.840.7131 (c)[email protected]

http://www.wou.edu/provost/extprogram/


…innovation swims upstream in the river of status quo ‐Mary Cullinane

RREFERENCESEFERENCESAmabile. T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw &

L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior, vol. 10 (pp. 123‐167).

Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and fthe work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership Quarterly,

15(1), 5‐32.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self‐efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), pp. 191‐215.

Baum, L. M. & Newbill, P. L. (2010). Instructional design as critical and creative thinking: A journey through a Jamestown‐era Native American village. TechTrends, 54(5), 27‐37.

Clinton G & Hokanson B (2012) Creativity in the training and practice of instructional


Clinton, G., & Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: the Design/Creativity Loops model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 111‐130.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.New York: Harper Perennial.

2/23/2015

26

RREFERENCESEFERENCESDasgupta, S. (1996). Technology and creativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ericsson, K. A., Roaring, R. W., & Nandagopal, K. (2007). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert performance fframework. High Ability Studies,18(1), 3–56.

Fields, J. (2012). Uncertainty: Turning fear and doubt into fuel for brilliance. USA: Penguin Group.

Furnham, A. & Ribchester, T. (1995). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications. Current Psychology, 14(3) 179‐199.

Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training Magazine, 37(4), 42‐53.

Hokanson B Miller C & Hooper S (2008) Role based design: A contemporary perspective for


Hokanson, B., Miller, C., & Hooper, S. (2008). Role based design: A contemporary perspective for innovation in instructional design. Tech Trends, 52(6) 36‐43.

James, W. (1907). In F. H. Burkhardt, F. Bowers, & I. K. Skrupskelis, (Eds.) Pragmatism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

RREFERENCESEFERENCESJaskyte, K., & Kisieliene, A. (2006). Determinants of employee creativity: A survey of Lithuanian

nonprofit organizations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(2) (2006), 133‐141.

fLanger, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley.

MacDonald, A. P. (1970). Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance. Psychological Reports, 26, 791‐798.

Manke, M. P. (1999). Liberatory education: Myles Horton’s “American model.” Montreal, CN: Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, April, 1999.

McClary, R. B. (2009). An investigation into the relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and creativity among military officers (doctoral dissertation). Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas


Kansas.

Merrill, D. M., Leston, D., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J. (1966). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5‐7.

Mitchell, W. J., Inouye, A. S., & Blumenthal, M. S. (2003). Beyond productivity: Information technology, innovation, and creativity. The National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

2/23/2015

27

RREFERENCESEFERENCESOgoemeka, O. H. (2011). Emotional intelligence and creativity in teacher education. International

Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 1(4), 591‐604.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner, San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. New York; Cambridge University Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1993). Understanding creativity: Where to start? Psychological Inquiry, 4, 232‐234.

Udwadia, F. E. (1990). Creativity and innovation in organizations: Two models and managerial implications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 38, 65‐80.

Valentine, L., and Ivey, M. (2008). Sustaining ambiguity and fostering openness in the (design) learning environment Art Design & Communication in Higher Education 7(3) 155‐167


learning environment, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 7(3), 155‐167.

Vallerand, R. J., & Houlfort, N. (2003). Passion at work: Toward a new conceptualization. In D. Skarlicki, S. Gilliland, & D. Steiner (Eds.), Social issues in management: Vol. 3. Emerging perspectives of values in organizations. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

RREFERENCESEFERENCESVisscher‐Voerman J. I. A. (1999). Design approaches in training and education: A reconstructive

study (doctoral dissertation). University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

Visscher‐Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–89.

Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2011). Towards an understanding of instructional design heuristics: an exploratory Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 841–863.

Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance Journal of Applied Psychology 83 261‐276


Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 261‐276.

Date post:	12-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangdung
View:	217 times
Download:	5 times

BOUTBOUTTHETHE ESEARCHER - WOU Homepage - …clarkdan/DC/DOCS/Clark_Defense.pdf · ·...

Documents