Using Soft Systems Thinking to Craft Instructional Design and Technology Interventions
- PDF / 996,199 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 72 Downloads / 175 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
Using Soft Systems Thinking to Craft Instructional Design and Technology Interventions Laura Lohman 1 Published online: 6 August 2020 # Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2020
Abstract Underutilized in higher education, soft systems thinking can mitigate common challenges in implementing instructional design and technology initiatives. A valuable approach is soft systems methodology (SSM), which captures multiple stakeholder perspectives in rich pictures and activity models to support structured conversations about how to improve a problematical situation. To demonstrate SSM’s utility for instructional design and technology professionals, this article provides an overview of macrolevel processes that often influence interactions with stakeholders. It explains how to capture stakeholders’ perspectives in rich pictures and models spanning multiple system layers through collaboration. From a wide range of interventions that can then be discussed, the article explores two interventions focused on redesigning employment processes and elaborates their importance for common instructional design and technology initiatives. By relating key SSM concepts and techniques to these initiatives, this article demonstrates the practical value of systems thinking for those leading and transforming university learning. Keywords Collaboration . Instructional design . Instructional technology . Soft systems methodology . Stakeholder engagement . Systems thinking
Gathered in a conference room, five university employees discuss how to improve teaching and learning in an important and growing academic program. The chief learning innovation officer stresses the need to incorporate more interactive technology and ensure that instructional materials meet accessibility standards. An instructional designer adds the need to ensure that those materials and assessments of learning are explicitly mapped to learning outcomes. Three faculty members who teach in the program chime in with a range of responses: A tenured associate professor says simply, “There isn’t enough time in the day.” A contract faculty member notes that the faculty have mapped and reported on learning outcomes for three different offices at the university and are well aware of them. The third faculty member questions why materials must be made accessible before students needing accommodations register through the disability services office. The chief learning innovation officer stresses that these legal obligations are not new. The instructional designer
* Laura Lohman [email protected] 1
Queens University of Charlotte, 1900 Selwyn Ave, MSC 1383, Charlotte, NC 28274, USA
points out the checklists available to help faculty make their materials more accessible. The faculty reiterate the impact of these obligations on their time and the duplicative nature of their work. The exchange continues with mutual frustration and puzzlement, but no resolution. Drawn from interactions during fifteen years of work in faculty and administrative roles at s
Data Loading...
