Content uploaded by So Mi Kim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by So Mi Kim on Dec 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
1
How Do We Train Instructional Designers?
Instructional Design as Negotiation
So Mi Kim a
University of Missouri
a School of Information Science and Learning Technologies, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 706 614 5316; email: kimsomi@missouri.edu; cotton93@gmail.com
Author Information:
So Mi Kim is post-doctoral fellow at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri. Her research
interests include scaffolding design and evaluation, supporting information-based problem solving in new
media environments (e.g., game, social media, and open educational resources), and helping teachers,
students, and lay people to learn to solve unfamiliar problems independently
Citation Information:
Kim, S. (2015). How do we train instructional designers?: Instructional design as negotiation. Educational
Technology., 55(4), 26-30.
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
2
Abstract
There have been efforts to re-define instructional design (ID) competencies,
model, curricula to reflect complex and dynamic real-world contexts. As part of such
efforts, this paper conceptualizes instructional design practice as negotiation between an
instructional designer and under-stated constraints that multiple stakeholders bring in. A
conceptual framework that connects ID and negotiation process is offered along with
implications for ID training programs.
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
3
The Challenges
Paul’s primary responsibility is to collaborate with college instructors in their endeavors
to (re) design, develop, and implement technologies in classrooms. He describes his
working with instructors as living on two separate planets. Instructors tend to have their
own priority in course design, which Paul often does not agree with. Mutual
understanding is far beyond reach. Paul especially has difficulties dealing with their
request for design change on the fly. Ashley is a first-year elementary school teacher. She
works hard to design good classroom activities as she learned from her instructional
design course at college. She is often embarrassed and dissatisfied, however, to find out
her students do not value, or properly respond to, those activities as she has planned.
What goes wrong with Paul and Ashley?
More than two decades ago, Lucy Suchman challenged the common assumption
behind human-computer interaction design that human action follows pre-designed or
planned procedures (e.g., how Xerox machines should be utilized) (Suchman, 1987).
Human action is rather situated in the context (e.g., the context tells users how to operate
the machines). Greeno (1994) asserted again that human action is not simply reactive, but
proactive to the context. Accordingly, humans selectively and intentionally interpret and
response to the context according to their own interest and experience (e.g., the goal of
machine users guides the users’ interpretation of the context). The situated action
perspective implies dynamics between an actor and his/her context of performance.
The situated action perspective applies to the instructional design profession,
particularly in a sense that instructional design practice, as well as its deliverables, cannot
be encapsulated within a context-free, linear model of instructional design (e.g., analysis,
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
4
design, development, implementation, and evaluation) (Jonassen, 2008). Rather, the
vignette shows instructional design involves continual communication and re-planning so
as to reconcile designer perspectives and contextual factors. Normative theories and
models may serve as guiding resources, but not as controlling mechanisms in design
cycle (Streibel, 1989). Accordingly, ID community has sought to re-define ID
competencies, models, and curricula to accommodate the ambiguities of real world
problems (Bannan-Ritland, 2001; Spector, Klein, Reiser, Sims, Grabowski, & de la Teja,
2006). To name a few, the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance
and Instruction, for example, included real world problem solving skills such as
communication, management, and collaboration as ID competencies (Richey, Fields, &
Foxon, 2001). Jonassen (2008) proposed an iterative ID model based on continual
decision-making. Bishop, Schuch, Spector, & Tracey (2005) emphasized teamwork,
proposal development, and project-management experiences as part of ID curricula.
This paper specifically highlights aspects of multi-party decision-making, or
working with under-stated constraints that multiple stakeholders bring in (e.g., clients,
subject matter experts, team members, and potential users) (Liu, Gibby, Quiros, &
Demps, 2002; Jonassen, 2008; Kenny, Zhang, Schwier, & Campbell, 2005). This
situated action is conceptualized as negotiation to detail important aspects of ID practice
in the real world contexts. The paper first provides overviews of ID nature and practice in
the real-world context. Then a conceptual framework is offered to map ID onto
negotiation process. The paper also illustrates how an expert designer approaches ID
through the lens of negotiation. Finally, implications are discussed for training
instructional designers.
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
5
The nature of instructional design: Underdetermined problems
Instructional design is context dependent, dynamic across time, and thus ill-
defined problems (Dorst, 2004; Goel & Pirolli, 1992; Meijers, 2000; Jonassen, 2010).
Dorst (2004) nicely explains the nature of ID through the notion of design as being
under-determined, which is again supported by Goel & Pirolli(1992)’s notion of design
as being negotiable. Three premises are as follows:
First, design problems are partly determined as stated in the design brief. The
design brief usually consists of non-negotiable needs, requirements, and intentions.
Designers spend the initial project time on collecting such non-negotiable information
Second, design problems are not completely determined; a major part of the
problems are rather emerging and shaped throughout the design process. The emerging
needs and requirements include economic, social, cultural, or legal constraints, which are
more or less negotiable rather than necessary.
Third, design problems are also underdetermined because designers put their own
taste and style on the design process. Experienced designers tend to rely on personal
experience and beliefs because a major part of the constraints are negotiable, and there
are no right or wrong answers.
As such, ID projects (e.g., teaching assistants training program design) typically
start with front-end analyses of needs, learners, tasks, and context. This activity aims to
define the problems at the outset (e.g., TAs lack teaching experience). Some problems are
determined, but designers may not be able to reach the complete understanding of the
entirety of problems. New design constraints emerge over time (e.g., lack of funds); thus,
the design goal may change (e.g., it is more economic to develop a TA manual than to
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
6
deliver a training program). Designers, however, often try to reverse the direction of the
project (Goel & Pirolli, 1992), proposing and executing their own beliefs (e.g., why don’t
we develop an interactive online course?)
Instructional Design Practice under Emerging Constraints
Under-determined problem solving involves dual process of (a) given information
manipulation and (b) negotiation between designers and emerging design constraints
(Goel & Pirolli, 1992). Rationalistic ID approaches, which have dominated the current ID
curricula, largely focus on given, or initially collected, information manipulation. Their
assumption is that problems are definable before the solutions search, and the solution is
predictable from the problem definition (Dorst, 2004; Rowland, 1993).
Instructional design practice in the real world, however, is largely about
negotiation—that is, addressing emerging design constraints. The process is likely to be
externalized via dialogues between instructional designers and stakeholders.
For example, instructional designers spend over half of their practice time on working
with stakeholders to communicate emerging design constraints (Cox & Osguthorpe,
2003). Many constraints are less articulated and re-stated over time. Therefore,
instructional designers report difficulties in accommodating multiple stakeholders and
reconciling their needs, theories, and technologies (Liu, Gibby, Quiros, & Demps, 2002).
Kroes and Meijers (2006) even added final users to the list of stakeholders, which
emphasizing the importance of considering the intention and context of final design
artifacts use. Their suggestion is especially legitimate to the ID field since individual
student needs are often ignored but largely determine the real impact of ID deliverables.
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
7
Instructional designers, therefore, should not only keep up with technological and
theoretical trends, but also be prepared for negotiation. Negotiation is valuable not only
to accommodate emerging constraints, but also to transform the constraints through the
process of dialogue (c.f., Campbell, Schwier & Kenny, 2006). Then what is negotiation?
What strategies are involved in negotiation? Unfortunately, the ID field has not draw
much attention to negotiation. The following section owes much to the studies of
negotiation and naturalistic decision-making.
Mapping instructional design onto negotiation
Negotiation is an interpersonal or inter-group dialogue aimed to reach an
agreement on courses of action (Fisher, 1991). It usually involves initial conflicts and an
agreement at the end (Lewicki, Saunders, & Minton, 1999). Negotiation is therefore a
kind of problem solving and decision making, but it is typically distributed, multi-party,
and interactive (Davis & Smith, 1983; Kelman, 1996). There exist two kinds of
negotiation: competitive (win-or-lose) negotiation and cooperative (win-win) negotiation
(Deutsch, 2000). Instructional design practice is cooperative negotiation in a sense that
participants are interdependent on one another while trying to attain shared goals.
As Table 1 delineates, cooperative negotiation consists of four components: (a)
information exchange, (b) information evaluation, (c) mutual adjustment, and (d)
agreement (Davis, & Smith, 1983; Lewicki et al., 1999; Saunders, 1991).
Information Exchange
The exchange of information allows participants to frame problems and issues at
hand. Skilled negotiators try to understand the interests of others. They usually develop
the capacity to listen as well as pose good questions (Fisher, 1991). First, listening helps
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
8
to detail problems. Empathetic listening especially sets the tone of relationship and
establishes a sense of trust and the atmosphere to freely exchange ideas. On the other
hand, critical questioning is an important skill required to clarify issues, facilitate further
investigation, and promote the other party’s reflection on their issues.
Table 1
Negotiation Framework
Components
Description
Knowledge and Skills
Information
Exchange
Participants frame problems and issues at
hand by sharing information.
• Questioning
• Listening
Information
Evaluation
Each participant evaluates the
information from his or her own views.
• Case Knowledge
• Mental Simulation
Mutual
Adjustment
Participants adjust their position and
priority.
• Mental Simulation
• Case Knowledge and
Use of Analogy
• Argumentation
Agreement
Participants share several rounds of give-
and-take to work out a solution.
• Mutual Trust Building
• Commitment
• Norms and Beliefs
Let’s think about an example scenario. The lead instructional designer, Mary, has
a conversation with a biology instructor, Bill, about his large-enrollment class that is not
working as well as what he likes it to be. Mary usually does not talk much at the
beginning; instead, her best strategy is to let him talk freely. Mary is soon informed that
Bill has been funded to create an e-science textbook using open educational resources. He
believes free textbooks will contribute to college accessibility. It seems Bill has come
with preconceived notions of problems and predetermined solutions. Mary, however,
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
9
wonders if the idea has anything to do with his classroom problems. Through a series of
questions, Mary iteratively questions his classroom problems to redirect their focus from
technology to pedagogy.
Information Evaluation
During the exchange of information, each participant evaluates the information
from his or her own norms, beliefs, and experience. Klein (1998) describes proficient
decision makers assess whether situations under consideration match their previous
experiences in terms of goals, external cues, expectancies, and typical action; then they
evaluate the possible courses of action (i.e. mentally simulate the possible outcomes).
Information evaluation accordingly allows each participant to prioritize issues and ponder
over possible trade-offs, or alternatives.
For example, Mary asks Bill to go over the goals of the course and needs of the
students. While listening, Mary revisits her experience (case knowledge) trying to find
out similar cases, from which Mary identifies and order possible issues and solutions. She
notes college students’ low reading completion rates. Disorientation on the Web is
another possible issue considering the textbook structure collaged from open educational
resources. Mary tries to work about possible trade-offs to address issues in Bill’s e-
science textbook project.
Mutual Adjustment
Mutual adjustment is key to reaching agreement. Each participant has his or her
own beliefs, goals, and priorities in issues, based on which participants develop their own
arguments to persuade one another (Lewicki et al., 1999). Mental simulation is then used
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
10
to let the other party see the possible course of action. Particularly, stories about similar
cases can serve as a strong tool of persuasion (c.f., Klein, 1998).
Instead of proposing her ideas right away, for example, Mary helps Bill to
re-simulate his own ideas to see what Mary considers to be pitfalls. Then Mary
invites Bill to consider other success stories—for example, how other projects
promoted reading engagement and regulation. Mental simulation and case
narratives helps Bill to naturally focus on pedagogical issues that he initially did
not consider, serving as a springboard for collaborative solution-search.
Reaching Agreement
Agreement requires several rounds of give-and-take. In other words, the
agreement is usually shaped through repetitive information exchange, evaluation, and
mutual adjustment and readjustment. Therefore, once Mary and Bill reach mutual
understanding of problems at hand, Mary tentatively proposes several tools and
instructional techniques, which are assessed again to see if those solutions meet the
logistics. The logistics may include if tools are easy to master, affordable, scalable to the
class size, and if the infrastructure is available to accommodate the solution.
In this process, mutual trust and commitment is a necessary foundation to support
a long journey to reach agreement (Fisher, 1991). Also, it should be noted norms and
beliefs serve as a protocol guiding the entire negotiation process (Campbell et al., 2006).
The foremost belief guiding Mary, for example, is pedagogy before technology.
Therefore, Mary tries to identify course goals, learner needs, and the nature of the content
and to redirect the focus of the talk to pedagogy.
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
11
Final Thoughts and Implications
This paper conceptualized instructional design practice as negotiation process to
highlight and communicate more clearly aspects of ID practice in the real world context.
The example scenario was drawn from a college ID consulting case; but the implications
go beyond this single case. Negotiation between instructional designers and subject
matter experts or between instructors and students are all important and interesting
aspects of everyday ID problems (e.g., how do instructors communicate the value of
certain learning activities and negotiate the meaning with students?) Unfortunately,
studies have not drawn enough attention to reveal the tricks of the trade behind the ID
practice as negotiation, which proves to be a fruitful line of research.
There are also implications for preparing instructional designers. First of all, as
Jonassen (2008) points out, it is not possible to adequately train instructional designers
“in the absence of context” (p.26)—in other words, in the absence of multiple
stakeholders and evolving constraints. The ideal curriculum can address this concern by
incorporating external clients and users so that instructional designers are given the
opportunity to listen to, empathize with, and interact with stakeholders while dealing with
evolving constraints. In this matter, design studio (e.g., Clinton & Rieber, 2010) and
service learning provide possible curricular options (e.g., Stefaniak, 2015). Second,
instructional designers should be trained to be aware of their own experience and beliefs
they bring to the negotiation process. Since instructional design is heavily determined by
designers’ own beliefs and assumptions, it is important the curriculum clearly address
such tacit component of instructional design. Third, expert instructional designers not
only adapt to emerging constraints, but also persuade and adapt others and their
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
12
environments to their beliefs. In this sense, instructional designers are change agents (c.f.,
Campbell et al., 2006). Similarly, the ID curriculum needs to address the identity and
value of being change agents.
References
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2001). Teaching instructional design: An action learning approach.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 37-52.
Bishop, M. J., Schuch, D., Michael Spector, J., & Tracey, M. W. (2005). Providing
novice instructional designers real-world experiences: The PacifiCorp Design and
Development Competition. TechTrends, 49(2), 20-21. doi:10.1007/BF02773966
Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., & Kenny, R. (2006). Conversation as inquiry: A
conversation with instructional designers. Journal of Learning Design, 1(3), 1-18.
Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. P. (2010). The studio experience at the University of Georgia:
An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 58(6), 755-780.
Cox, S. & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend
their time?TechTrends, 47(3), 45-47, 29.
Davis, R. & Smith, R. (1983). Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving.
Artif. Intell. 20, 63-109.
Deutsch, M. (2000). Cooperation and Competition. In M. Deutsch & P. Coleman (Eds.),
The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 23-40). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Dorst, K. (2004). On the problem of design problems: Problem solving and design
expertise. Journal of Design Research, 4(2).
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
13
Fisher, R.(1991). Negotiating power: Getting and using Influence. In J. W. Breslin and
J.Z. Rubin (Eds.), Negotiation theory and practice (pp. 127-140). Cambridge, MA:
Program on Negotiation Books.
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science,
16(3), 395-429.
Greeno, J.G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 336-342.
Jonassen, D. H. (2008) Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative
process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21-26.
Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: A handbook. New York: Routledge
Kelman, H. C. (1996). Negotiation as interactive problem aolving. International
Negotiation, 1, 99-123. doi:10.1163/157180696X00089
Kenny, R.F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R.A, & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what
instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked.
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1).
Klein, G. A. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press.
Kroes, P., & Meijers, A. (2006). The dual nature of technical artefacts. Studies in History
and Philosophy of Science Part A, 37(1), 1-4. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.12.001
Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D.M., & Minton, J.W. (1999). Negotiation (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Liu, M., Gibby, S., Quiros, O., & Demps, E. (2002). Challenges of being an instructional
designer for new media development: A view from the practitioners. Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 195-219.
Running head: Instructional Design as Negotiation
14
Meijers, A.W.M. (2000). The relational ontology of technical artifacts, In Kroes, P.K.
and Meijers, A.W.M. (Ed.). The empirical turn in the philosophy of Technology
(pp.81-96). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. (Eds.). (2001). Instructional design
competencies: The standards (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Information and Technology.
Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 41(1), 79-91.
Saunders, H.S. (1991). We need a larger theory of negotiation: The importance of pre-
negotiating phases. In J. W. Breslin and J.Z. Rubin(Eds.), Negotiation theory and
practice (pp. 57-70). Cambridge, MA: Program on Negotiation Books.
Spector, M, Klein, J.D., Reiser, R.A., Sims, R.C., Grabowski, B.L., de la Teja, I. (2006).
Competencies and standards for instructional design and educational technology.
Discussion Paper for ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/
paper89/ITForumpaper89.pdf
Stefaniak, J. E. (2015). The implementation of service-learning in graduate instructional
design coursework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27 (1), 1-8.
Streibel, M. J. (1989). Instructional plans and situated learning: The challenge of
Suchman's theory of situated action for instructional designers and instructional
systems. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/
servlet/ ERICServlet?accno=ED308844
Suchman, L.A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human/machine
communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
