 institution with a centralized Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) of ten years directed by Dr. Deshane Stephens. A team of eight IDs and technologists supports faculty in the design, development, and delivery of online and hybrid courses. Services include consulting on curriculum design, faculty development on pedagogy, technology integration, multimedia production, and quality assurance.
With levels of experience in higher education and online learning varying from two-10 years, the team is well-positioned to implement mentorship programs like DIDA, as several team members are senior-level IDs and can fulfill the role of expert ID in the model.
CSU adheres to a six-month provisional period for evaluating new employees. Each employee’s performance is also reviewed annually. At the CTE, new employees are onboarded with the DIDA model. The model is adapted according to the new hire’s level of experience. The Center recently hired two new IDs, Graduate Greg and Corporate Carmen.
Graduate Greg completed his Master’s in Instructional Design at CSU and was employed as a student worker at the CTE for one year prior to accepting his new role. He is familiar with the Center’s practices and processes but was hired as an entry-level designer because he lacks real-world design experience.
Carmen comes to the CTE with eight years of corporate banking instructional design expertise. She specialized in developing training materials for online delivery. Her most recent projects include sexual harassment, diversity in the workplace, and communication. She lacks experience in collaborating with subject matter experts, learning management systems, and the culture of higher education.
Given their differing backgrounds, Dr. Deshane has proposed that Graduate Greg begin the model at Stage 1: Observation and Modeling, while Corporate Carmen begins at Stage 2: Tasks with Coaching.
Understanding that full completion of the DIDA model may extend from months to years for an individual employee, Dr. Deshane has proposed the following timeline to align some DIDA developmental tasks with the six-month provisional period. The following tables depict the same task scaffolded at multiple stages to illustrate the progression of the model (see Tables 1 and 2).
Observe expert ID create a course map that aligns learning objectives, activities, and assessments for a lesson.
Review an existing lesson for the alignment of learning objectives, activities, and assessments; Discuss observations and recommendations with expert ID.
Create a course map that aligns learning objectives, activities, and assessments for a lesson; Receive feedback from expert ID.
Observe how expert ID facilitates a course development meeting with SME or faculty member.
Develop an agenda and supporting materials for a course development meeting with SME or faculty member; Discuss plans with expert ID.
Co-facilitate a course development meeting with expert ID and SME or faculty member.
Collaborate with expert ID to create course development timelines on a variety of courses.
Draft course development timelines for simple to complex courses; Compare proposed timelines to actual timelines produced by expert ID.
Reflect on similarities, differences, and best practices in the production of course development timelines; Consult with expert ID.
Complete a workshop or MOOC on developing accessible digital materials; Meet with disability services specialist and expert ID to discuss barriers faced by online students with disabilities.
Create documents (e.g., Word, PowerPoint, and PDF) using accessibility checkers and applying ADA web accessibility compliance; Discuss with expert ID.
Create a matrix reflecting on the best practices in accessible course design and noting the impact/effort of each practice; Discuss matrix with expert ID; Identify areas for additional training.
The goal of varying Graduate Greg and Corporate Carmen’s development timelines applies the concept of personalized learning for professional development.
The DIDA model was developed in response to the need for a detailed professional development pathway for novice IDs in higher education (Tracey & Boling, 2014). Unlike other academic roles, such as faculty and administrators, career growth for IDs is poorly defined. Coming from diverse backgrounds, many novice IDs are unaware of the competencies, opportunities, and tools of the trade needed to progress within their organization or the broader field of design. Each stage of DIDA helps to address this gap by providing novices with concrete ways to acquire the abstract knowledge and skills of an expert practitioner. Novice IDs benefit from the natural progression of the cognitive apprenticeship and increasing complexity of tasks beginning with observation and modeling, followed by tasks with coaching, contextualized practice, and ending with reflection and exploration.
One critically important feature of the DIDA model is its flexibility to be transferred across institutions and customized according to departmental structure and needs. The four stages of DIDA outline an iterative, rather than linear, process with multiple entry points for novice and semi-experienced IDs from non-academic contexts as illustrated in the cases of Graduate Greg and Corporate Carmen. Based on expert ID monitoring of progress, novice IDs can revisit entire stages or tasks within stages as needed. The task list, however, is not exhaustive or prescriptive and can easily accommodate advancements in educational research and technology (e.g., neuroeducation, changes to LMS). While the model was developed for IDs, it provides a foundation that can be modified for related fields such as instructional technology and faculty development.
The effective execution of the DIDA model relies upon several key factors, most importantly the availability of an expert ID, who can curate resources (Appendix B) and oversee the apprenticeship. DIDA would be best implemented in a mature design team setting with multiple experts to serve as coaches and mentors. As the expert and novice IDs maintain a close and ongoing relationship throughout the DIDA stages, administrative support is necessary for human resource allocation. The significant time commitment required of the expert ID may range from months to years. Therefore, administrators may consider adding apprenticeship responsibilities to the expert ID’s job description. They may also distribute the expertise of senior team members across the stages, pairing the novice ID with multiple expert IDs. In addition to distributing the workload of instructional design development, expert IDs likely have different design specializations (e.g., copyright, accessibility, assessment) to share with the novice ID.
The DIDA model offers opportunities for future research on the training and development of IDs in higher education. Next steps might include piloting the DIDA continuum of tasks in partnership with several institutions of varying size and complexity. Collaborative feedback from partners could help to refine the most effective practices for instructional design development and confirm timelines for task completion. Ideally, new tasks would be identified and added to the model. Expert IDs’ tracking of novices’ progress across the four DIDA stages would provide documented examples of instructional design growth and the unique professional development pathways to expertise in the field. Case studies would be useful in exploring the application of DIDA. They might focus on comparing novice IDs of differing entry levels, team structures (e.g., centralized or decentralized), or delivery modes (e.g., face-to-face, online, hybrid). Further research could also involve developing tools to evaluate novice ID progress at varying stages (e.g., surveys, rubrics, self-assessments, interview protocols).
In conclusion, as higher education continues to experience an influx of novice IDs, greater attention is needed for organizing their professional development. The DIDA model provides a working framework for developing the knowledge and skills of the novice ID by utilizing internal resources.
Ashbaugh, M. L., & Piña, A. A. (2014). Improving instructional design processes through leadership-thinking and modeling. In Design in Educational Technology (pp. 223–247). New York, NY: Springer.
Bauer, T.N. (2012). Onboarding new employees: Maximizing success. SHRM Foundation’s Effective Practice Guidelines Series.
Beirne, E., & Romanoski, M. P. (2018). Instructional design in higher education: Defining an evolving field. OLC Research Center for Digital Learning & Leadership, 1–9.
Denner, V.P., & Burner, K.J. (2008). The cognitive apprenticeship model in educational practice. J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3rd ed.) pp. 425–439. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dickey, M. (2008). Integrating cognitive apprenticeship methods in a Web-based educational technology course for P-12 teacher education. Computers and Education, 51(2), 506–518.
Ge, X., & Hardré, P. L. (2010). Self-processes and learning environment as influences in the development of expertise in instructional design. Learning Environments Research, 13(1), 23–41.
Kirschner, P., Carr, C., Van Merriënboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.
Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and boundary crossing. Studies in Continuing education, 29(2), 207–221.
Pousa, C., & Mathieu, A. (2010). Sales managers’ motivation to coach salespeople: An exploration using expectancy theory. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 8(1), 34–50.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How practitioners think in action. London, England: Temple Smith.
Sugar, W. (2014). Development and formative evaluation of multimedia case studies for instructional design and technology students