Participate and share: Interactive session 
Educational or Infrastructure Challenge/Situation:
In our role as online learning instructional support specialists, like those outlined by Ritzhaupt and Kumar (2015) for instructional designers in higher education, we are responsible for continuously refining our methodologies and keeping pace with emerging technologies and instructional strategies. This requirement aligns with Ritzhaupt and Kumar’s (2015) research findings that emphasize the need for instructional designers in higher education to remain current with emergent technologies and instructional strategies to solve educational problems. While our titles may differ, the fundamental responsibilities share significant overlap. Adapting to these changes can be difficult due to academia's traditional nature, especially considering how quickly online education changes. However, adapting our instructional processes is crucial for guiding faculty to higher-quality courses (Ritzhaupt & Kumar, 2015).
For instance, our university's business school operates on a three-year online course development cycle, which means faculty must redevelop their courses every three years. Although we aim for full faculty compliance, we discovered that our previous approach needed to be less formal and could be perceived as grading rather than a collaborative process between faculty and instructional support specialists. The previous approach may have caused reluctance among faculty to collaborate, resulting in delayed compliance with university policies. Our online support office has adjusted its processes over the past year to improve faculty engagement and meet online learning standards effectively.
Therefore, it was time to return to the basics and see the faculty as learners, not just teachers, which fostered a more positive, collaborative environment. This shift in perspective came as we considered constructivism, a recognized “pillar of online pedagogy” (Archambault et al., 2022, p. 178). It helped us consider the faculty's thought processes as they adapted to new teaching technologies and instructional strategies. This realization enabled us to become more than instructional support; we became their learning facilitators. As a result, our interventions were no longer just about meeting standards but about fostering a culture of continual growth and collaboration.
Models Employed:
Our team shifted our focus from relying on the Online Learning Consortium's (OLC) OSQCR standards (Online Learning Consortium, 2023; State University of New York, 2013) to incorporating ISTE Standards (International Society for Technology in Education, 2023), Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (CAST, 2023), and Mayer's Multimedia Principles (Mayer, 2020) in our course reviews. This decision stemmed from a desire for a framework that grows with the business school's online learning trends and is customizable to meet the unique needs of our increasingly diverse student body. Additionally, we needed to assess the relevance and suitability of online standards for serving our faculty's learning needs. To effectively bridge the gap between the reasons behind our changes and their implementation in the presentation, we must recognize that the frameworks we have embraced are practical instruments for bringing about change rather than just theoretical perspectives. This understanding will enable us to apply our strategies effectively during the presentation and underscore the significance of our approach. Therefore, we will also employ these models in the presentation.
Lesson Plans/Instructional Activities/Strategies Employed:
During the presentation, attendees receive an overview of the course evaluation rubric and relevant definitions. We will briefly review the ISTE standards (International Society for Technology in Education, 2023), the UDL framework (CAST, 2023), and Mayer's Multimedia Principles (Mayer, 2020), modeled in the course review rubric to activate any prior knowledge. After an interactive discussion of the chosen topic, attendees will use any new and prior knowledge in a Think, Pair, Share exercise and a mock instructional design meeting incorporating a course review rubric activity. Participants will engage in interactive scenarios, applying the rubric to complex course evaluations that require a deep understanding of pedagogical strategies and tech integration. Periodically, we will gauge participants' learning knowledge with word cloud feedback, polling, and activity engagement level in addition to a general sight audience analysis. The session will end with a wrap-up, including a Q&A session with identified and requested resources shared through the technology tools.
Lesson Plan Accommodations:
We will accommodate attendees with different skill levels by providing a multi-layered approach. This session equips attendees with actionable strategies to enhance beginner and intermediate skill sets and offers advanced insights for those looking deeper into instructional support. If participants appear to need help with the concepts at any time, we will clarify the content with chunking techniques. Attendees with advanced prior knowledge can receive challenging case scenario activities if desired.
Technology Tools:
During the session, we will utilize FigJam to foster collaboration in combination with Mentimeter. Both interactive platforms will encourage participation in word clouds, polling, and Q&A during the presentation. We will also share relevant presentation materials and resources with Google Suite tools. We will create QR codes to address personal device variety among attendees and use QR.io as our code generator during and for interactives and after the session for takeaways.
Evidence of Success:
We will connect evidence of success to our defined learner outcomes, thus measuring our presentation's success based on these indicators:
*Active Participation: The attendees' engagement level in interactive elements is immediate evidence of the session's relevance and effectiveness.
*Meaningful Learning Experiences: Attendees will collaborate to develop instructional strategies based on the case studies provided. Their discussions will serve as tangible evidence of higher-level understanding and application.
*Feedback: The thoughtful questions asked during Q&A that align with our topic will offer insights into the attendees' understanding and, thus, a successful presentation delivery.
*Takeaways:
-Handouts with course review basics and best practices
-QR Code that links to our contact information and a shared Google Drive folder with PDF downloads of all the articles in our reference list, ISTE Standards, UDL guidelines, Mayer’s principles, and recommended case studies to read for more information
-QR Code for post-session survey
Content and Activities:
*Introduction and Context (5 minutes)
*Transition cue to move to hands-on learning: Attendees move around the room to find new people to engage with based on their favorite color, serving as an ice breaker and adding more randomization to groups.
*Interactive Think, Pair, Share (TPS) (20 minutes): Learn how to review the rubric and how to adapt course rubrics to the Subject Matter Expert (SME) content and instructor teaching traits in a case study. (We provide the rubric template designed with ISTE standards, UDL framework, and Mayer’s Multimedia Principles.
*Interactive Mentimeter poll for immediate feedback. (5 minutes)
*Transition cue for attendees to move to their seats to prepare for mock instructional design meeting:
*Interactive mock instructional design meeting after the sample rubric practice (or show an actual ID meeting) using real samples from our courses (20 minutes): Attendees will vote on which option they want, and we will prepare for both possibilities.
*Summary and Q&A (10 minutes)
-Recap of the session and the takeaways.
-Open floor for questions and further discussion.
Process:
*Frequent peer-to-peer interaction during TPS, poll, and a mock ID meeting.
*Device-Based Activities: Use a shared document for collaborative notes and Q&A.
*Polls: Quick polls to gauge the audience's understanding and interest.
*Engagement: Practice evaluating actual samples from our online courses
(We specified the times based on a 60-minute in-person presentation but would adjust the times for a virtual meeting if needed.)
This interactive session uses a multi-faceted approach upheld by highly relevant research and best practices. We incorporate the ISTE Standards into our work processes to ensure consistency with modern teaching principles. Adding ISTE standards also provides the attendees with a framework that is familiar to many. The session also includes Mayer's Multimedia Principles, which provide guidelines for effectively using multimedia in educational environments. Mayer (2020) indicates that multimedia can significantly improve the learning experience by incorporating multiple sensory channels. This research directly informs the multimedia components of our session, ensuring that we utilize media to improve learning, as Mayer recommends. Additionally, we use Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles developed by CAST (2023) to create adaptable learning environments that accommodate individual differences. We commit to an inclusive, learner-centered methodology by employing UDL in our presentation.
Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of UDL in enhancing engagement and outcomes in business schools, including one by Schlachter et al. (2022). The researchers highlight the benefits of multimedia in education, particularly in the form of videos created by students. Although they do not directly refer to Mayer's framework, their work complements ours by highlighting how multimedia, when combined with constructivist and UDL principles, can offer an enriching and learner-centered experience. Therefore, their research supports our proposal, emphasizing multimedia integration as a teaching aid for students and faculty. It also supports our application of UDL principles through their example and validates our planned multimedia in the presentation.
Our presentation approach is also guided by Knowles' (1984) andragogical model, which utilizes instructional techniques that facilitate problem-centered and experiential learning. This creates a multi-faceted learning environment focused on complex issues in realistic contexts. Overall, this session incorporates impactful research with strategies that can be immediately implemented to ensure a highly effective learning experience.
References
Archambault, L., Leary, H., & Rice, K. (2022). Pillars of online pedagogy: A framework for teaching in online learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 178–191. Taylor & Francis Online. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2051513
CAST. (2023). UDL: the UDL Guidelines. Udlguidelines.cast.org. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/?utm_source=castsite&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=none&utm_content=footer&_gl=1
International Society for Technology in Education. (2023). ISTE Standards. ISTE. https://www.iste.org/iste-standards
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Online Learning Consortium. (2023). OLC Quality Scorecard Suite. Online Learning Consortium. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/olc-quality-scorecard-suite/
Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51–69. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21196
Schlachter, S., Casey, K., & Lyons, L. (2022). Student-created videos in business education: Towards a constructivist framework of best practices. Global Journal of Business Pedagogy, 6(1), 59-74. https://www.igbr.org/wp-content/uploads/articles/GJBP_Vol_6_No_1_2022%20pp%2059-74.pdf
State University of New York. (2013). OSCQR. Online Learning Consortium; State University
Return
Trips and Tours