As I proceed with reading our text book assignments, I continue to find that much of the content affirms what I have been doing in my Instructional Design practice over the past six years.

Since 2013, I have developed online learning for healthcare organizations.  The content for these courses has come directly from the SMEs, so I rarely have had to locate resources for these courses. The majority of my work has involved my restructuring content so it would flow in a sequence that learners will understand. After restructuring and rewording the content, I then break it down into sections or smaller courses, i.e. chunks, that are more easily digestible for our learners.  After my ID team reviews it, we return it to the SMEs to approve.

This process coincides with the chunking and sequencing content in chapter 4 of Real World Instructional Design.  I plan to share this chapter with my ID team to validate my process.  Before I joined the department, no thought was given to the Instructional Designer acting as an advocate for the learner. I have long promoted bite-site learning and am glad to have supporting evidence that it is not only accepted, it is encouraged.

With healthcare typically falling in the non-profit category, rarely do hospitals have the resources to develop education in the detail that is covered in our text books.  This is especially true in Evaluation processes.  To complete the tasks at each phase of course development (Katherine Cename, 2019) as described on page 146 would require far more time than a non-profit healthcare provider can afford.  This is most likely the reason why hospitals purchase course content that already meet compliance courses required by federal agencies.  The companies that produce these courses have already conducted Formative and Summative Evaluations, providing assurance to the healthcare providers that their courses meet required standards.

I am glad to see that chapter 4 in Why Training Matters is devoted to ADDIE.  When I joined my current team, they followed a customized Instructional Design framework that was rarely followed.  I was successful in convincing the team to switch to the ADDIE model using justification from the Association of Training and Development, but our text book provides a much deeper justification for its use, strengthening my argument for making the switch.

My favorite chapter in Why Training Matters is About Work Processes and Tools: Technologies (Saul Carliner, 2019). Before directing my focus to becoming an Instructional Designer, I was a Technology Training Specialist.  In this role, I became an authority in applications that are critical to being a successful Instructional Designer.  The organizations I worked for required me to be an expert in Microsoft Office (Personal Technology) WebEx (virtual class delivery), classroom hardware, and Learning Management Systems.  I currently have a team member who has a post-graduate Instructional Design certificate and even though she is well versed in learning theory and is terrific at course development using Articulate Storyline, she struggles with using basic applications such as Excel and Outlook.

In conclusion, our text books corroborate the processes I use to perform my daily responsibilities as Instructional Designer and then some.  Though I find the content helpful, I would suggest to the authors to consider making their content more user-friendly.  Instructional Design has evolved dramatically over the last 20 years and these text books should evolve to include content that is more engaging and easier to digest.

References

Katherine Cename, D. K. (2019). Real World Instructional Design: An Interactive Approach to Designing Learning Experiences. New York: Routledge.

Saul Carliner, M. D. (2019). An Overview of Training and Development: Why Training Matters. Shorewood: Lakewood Media Group.