Can Academic Librarians Really Learn IDT Through PD?

Recently, I have noticed a number of professional development (PD) opportunities geared toward academic librarians that are related to instructional design and technology (IDT), often focusing on the “essentials.” Most focus on the ADDIE process or related models of instructional design. Often, a bit of learning theory is included along the way.

While I agree that academic librarians need to develop IDT skills, this post today will explore the usefulness and limitations of learning IDT skills through professional development.

However, before I get into that, it is important to understand what the knowledge competencies of instructional design and technology are. The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), which is the central arm of the field (sort of like ALA is for librarianship) lays out IDT knowledge competencies in the figure below:

Source: http://www.aect.org/standards/knowledgebase.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, you’ll notice that the IDT field encompasses quite a few competencies. Secondly, you might notice that most of the PD offered to academic librarians is focused in one domain — design. The third, and most important thing that I hope you notice is that central to ALL the domains of the IDT field is both theory and practice (really, putting theory into practice).

Now back to PD for academic librarians. As I mentioned previously, much (if not all) of the PD currently offered to them is related to the design domain, especially in the area of instructional systems design (aka ADDIE). In teaching the ADDIE process, message design, learner characteristics, and instructional strategies have to be addressed, but often in a secondary role.

I must ask though, is it really beneficial for librarians to learn a single domain of IDT? Does a focus on the design domain of IDT really capture the essence of the field? And how useful is it to be introduced to (almost) an entire domain in the course of a single webinar or 6 week online course? What about the other domains?

What do I think?

I think the benefit of learning IDT skills through PD depends a lot on how much information is included in a session or course. To be realistic, PD that tries to cover a topic like ADDIE in a short period of time won’t go beyond the “what” of the process. To put ADDIE into practice requires knowing “how” and “when” and “why” (to put it in perspective, learning the ADDIE process took me two long semesters, plus a couple of semesters of learning theory to really feel like I had a handle on it).

On the other hand, focusing on a single aspect of the ADDIE process (e.g., task analysis) is much more beneficial because it allows for practice and feedback (especially when taught in a longer format course).

To answer the second question, no, a focus on the design domain absolutely does not capture the essence of the IDT field. Does that really matter? I don’t know. Research is needed on the current practices of blended librarians to identify the IDT competencies that will define this emerging specialist practice.

There are several challenges to developing effective IDT professional development for academic librarians, including determining what information is important, how much to cover to avoid cognitive overload, and what format works best for the topic. Blended librarianship is still very much in its infancy, and only time and research will tell what IDT skills librarians really need to succeed.

If you are an academic librarian seeking out PD for IDT skill development, keep in mind that PD generally covers topics at the macro-level, but IDT skills need to be developed at the micro-level. If you are paying for PD, you’ll get a bigger bang for your buck in PD opportunities that focus on particular aspects of instructional design and technology (rather than entire domains).

 

Recommended Reading: Telling Ain’t Training

The most effective teachers understand the fundamental principles of human learning and how to apply those principles to learner-centered instruction. Now that librarians have taken on a greater role in teaching, it is more important than ever to hone up on good, solid research-based teaching and instructional design practices.

This is not easy to do without formal training. But a good place to start is a book titled Telling Ain’t Training by Harold D. Stolovitch and Erica J. Keeps. Telling Ain’t Training was created to serve as a how-to manual for developing effective training (or teaching) and instruction based on solid cognitive research. It includes strategies and models for structuring effective training, as well as examples of effective learning activities. It is one of the first books I was exposed to on my journey through the world of instructional design. I highly recommend it for any librarian who teaches, whether information literacy or professional development.

Here are just a few pearls of wisdom from the book (with my two cents added):

• Teaching should begin with an explanation of why it is needed and what the learners will be able to do with it (i.e. rationale, objectives). When learners are made aware of what they are expected to know and why, they are better able to prepare themselves for the learning process.
• Learning requires attention. When learners have difficulty paying attention, learning cannot take place. When preparing for an instructional session, it is a good idea to evaluate instructional materials (e.g. handouts, presentations) beforehand to eliminate distracting, extraneous information. The learning environment is also important. Side conversations and things like mobile devices can drive some learners to distraction, not to mention the teacher. Set your behavioral expectations up front.
• Learners have limited memories. Too much information presented too quickly creates cognitive overload. After visual information is removed from sight, it is available in short term memory for .5 of a second, with learners capable of recalling an average of 5 items. Cognitive strategies such as clustering or chunking can facilitate recall of larger amounts of information.
• Learners need opportunities for practice. If the goal of teaching is to improve procedural skills (e.g. Boolean searching), then the structure of teaching should be performance-based. Learning “a bunch of stuff” without ample opportunity to practice applying that “stuff” results in teaching that fails to be relevant to the learner.
• Learners need feedback. Feedback allows learners to identify and correct their knowledge and performance. Effective instruction requires continuous feedback that extends beyond the instructional session.
• Instructional approaches should match content, goals and learner characteristics. For example, if the goal of teaching is merely awareness, traditional modes of instruction (i.e. “telling”) might be adequately successful, albeit with a dynamic speaker. On the other hand, teaching procedural skills would require a hands-on, direct approach that includes ample opportunities for practice. When the goal of teaching requires critical thinking, guided discovery or exploratory approaches are the best fit. Also, in terms of learner characteristics, the less motivated the learner, the more direct the approach should be. In other words, if you are entering a teaching situation with a bunch of unmotivated learners, don’t expect great things to happen with more constructivist approaches, such as discovery learning because those types of approaches demand quite a bit of self-motivation among learners. You may have to start with a more receptive, but entertaining approach as an attempt to get your learners motivated.
• Message design is more important than delivery mode (i.e. face-to-face vs. online). The message is the instruction itself, and message design is rooted in the principles of instructional design.