Professional Identity

Initial Statement

Instructional design is a discipline that encompasses a variety of technical, educational, and communication-related skills and abilities. The multifaceted, diverse, and evolving nature of the field first attracted me, and the more that I learn, the more enthusiastic I have become. The emphasis on creative problem solving as the foundation of learning design resonates with me because it implies that there is an appreciation for unique ideas and diverse perspectives at the heart of the field. Furthermore, the query-driven nature of learning design excites me because it means that I will be among a community of people who are lifelong learners and out-of-the-box thinkers. In addition, it resonates with me that the field is based upon following current trends in education and technology, because I want to work in an environment that prioritizes change and evolution over the status-quo.

In a more practical context, viewing job postings for instructional design roles validated the positive ideas I had about the field. I was most drawn to the job descriptions that emphasized the design aspects of the career, such as the instructional designer role at Instructure Canvas, which required graphic design software skills. Instructure’s job posting also highlighted the importance of producing high-quality content and collaborating with stakeholders and subject matter experts. This job appealed to my creative side because I felt that the hiring managers were looking for someone who could create unique and visually appealing content, but was not afraid to lean on peers and stakeholders for support. Another job posting that appealed to me was for an instructional designer at Booz Allen Hamilton. This role emphasized the use of many different learning styles to communicate new information, such as gamification and blended learning. They also wanted someone with classroom teaching experience. I was happy to see that teaching experience was a valuable skill in their eyes, and that they wanted someone who could create content that would appeal to different kinds of learners. I also was glad to see that different learning styles and trends were not only reserved for K-12 and higher education, but for corporate and adult learning as well.

When I decided to move into the field of learning design, I knew my goal was to make an impact on a broad range of learners with high-quality content and instruction. My values, motives, and experiences help to shape this goal because they’ve created a pathway for me. The strongest values that guide me are creativity, empathy, and authenticity. I can lean into these values when determining my first steps as a learning designer; they will guide me to the companies and networks that share an appreciation for creative solutions that respect all learners. The motives that propel me are open-mindedness, thirst for knowledge, and high expectations for myself and others. My experiences in loving education, but wanting more autonomy and creative freedom than my current career offers, will help to further define my self-concept by ensuring that I seek out job descriptions that are focused on content creation, design, and development.

The [ID competencies] self-assessment activity helped me to envision my professional identity as a learning designer because it highlighted the crossover that already exists between my previous career and my prospective one. However, I also realized that I need additional clarity about the extent to which adult learning and K-12 learning are similar and different, and exactly which skills are transferrable from classroom teaching to learning design. Finally, the self-assessment activity revealed that I need to acknowledge the degree to which impostor syndrome affects my self-concept. Coming from a career where I have, at times, felt that my professional abilities were not respected, I found myself doubting my perception of my own skills and abilities during the self-assessment. I want to make a conscious effort to believe in my knowledge, skills, and abilities, and to engage in positive self-talk as I navigate this new journey into a career that leaves me feeling more professionally fulfilled.

Additional Comments

Eighteen months working in the instructional design field have solidified my professional identity and validated my desire to impact a variety of learners with high quality content and instruction.

My values of creativity, empathy, and authenticity are assets because they allow me to explore learning experiences and solutions that benefit all learners. In my recent work for the graduate program, I have expressed my creativity by exploring the use of variables and conditions in Articulate Storyline in order to design a more interactive learning experience. I have used my empathy to ensure that the experiences I design are relevant and use a personalized tone for learners. I’ve used my authenticity to design experiences that use scenario-based learning to envelop learners in the situations they’ll encounter in their jobs.

My motives of open-mindedness and thirst for knowledge are best realized in instructional design because they help when working with subject matter experts. I’ve realized that instructional designers are often tasked with creating instruction on subjects that are totally foreign. Open-mindedness helps when interviewing SMEs and asking questions to understand new topics.

My experiences in classroom teaching have ended up shaping my journey in instructional design more than I could have imagined. In my initial statement, I mentioned feeling impostor syndrome and needing clarity about the skill transfer that exists between the fields. Since writing that initial statement, I have been hired to a corporate instructional design job in a field that I never would have imagined working in six months ago, and my classroom teaching experience was instrumental in getting hired. Several of my colleagues also have a background in elementary education, so it is evident that many instructional designers rely on their prior experiences to shape their current learning design projects. I still feel impostor syndrome at times, but having a legitimate validation that my skills and experience are of value to the field has really helped me to solidify my professional identity. I now realize that classroom teaching for children actually has significant skill transfer to adult elearning. While adults may have different motivations and expectations for their learning experiences, designing goal-oriented and engaging content is universal. I maintain steadfast in my commitment to designing high-quality, meaningful, and interactive learning experiences for all learners.

The Importance of Learning Theories in Instructional Design

Instructional designers are tasked with creating learning experiences of all kinds, from in-person workshops to digital self-paced elearning courses. In doing so, they must create opportunities for meaningful learning for a diverse array of individuals with varied learning styles, motivations, and experiences. This may seem daunting, especially as the digitized world allows people across the globe to communicate and share knowledge at a rapid pace. A return to the fundamental theories of learning, however, can help instructional designers create learning experiences that meet the needs of the ever-evolving population of twenty-first century learners. 

The most common theories of learning, including behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, are each quite distinctive, but an examination of these different perspectives can help instructional designers approach their work with an appreciation for the complexity of the learning process. Let’s take a look at three reasons why it is important for instructional designers to understand different perspectives on how people learn.

1. Theories help us make informed decisions about the elements of learning experiences. 

Theories provide us with a base of scientific research conducted on what learning actually is, how people learn, the role of memory, and where knowledge comes from. From this base, we are provided with blueprints for designing learning experiences. While each theory differs, and not all theories will work for every learner or situation, learning designers can use the commonalities to ensure that they are including key elements in all learning experiences they design. Behaviorism tells us that learners should master early steps before complex ones, that reinforcement positively impacts performance, and that practice is key. Cognitivism tells us that explanations and analogies are important to make sense of new ideas, that reasoning and problem solving are important, and that learners should be actively involved in the learning process. Constructivism tells us that learners incorporate their own experiences into their learning, that learning should occur in settings relevant to learners’ lives, and that learners should be able to transfer knowledge to new experiences flexibly (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). A learning designer who is starting to build a course can draw from all of these theories to make sure they are including important elements of the learning process. Imagine a designer creating a course on basic video editing. They can draw from behaviorism by teaching about the timeline feature before they teach about clipping. They can draw from cognitivism by giving students opportunities to try out video editing software in increments. They can draw from constructivism by allowing students to create their own video project at the end of the course. Theories provide us with a “bank” of important elements of learning design that can be selected and matched to the needs of the learners and the situation. 

2. We can design experiences that meet the needs of all kinds of learners.

Learning is a distinct experience for everyone, and not all learners find success the same way. An instructional designer who is versed in different learning theories can use them to make sure they are meeting the needs of all kinds of learners. Some people learn best by getting their hands dirty, trying out new tools as they go. These learners may be drawing from their existing experiences and connecting to previously learned material, or they might be building their knowledge from the ground up. Others may prefer to take it slower, learning the basics first and practicing in small steps before attempting a new task. An understanding of the different perspectives on how people learn can make instructional designers more sensitive to different learning styles and better able to meet the needs of all learners. If one method is not producing the desired results, experimenting with new ways of delivering instruction or allowing learners to apply their knowledge may work instead. 

3. We can make the most of current trends in learning.

Recognizing the different perspectives on how people learn can keep instructional designers from designing stagnant, dated learning experiences. There is a current push for open-minded learners who are able to collaborate to solve complex real-world problems. This necessitates that instructional designers create learning experiences allowing learners to practice these very skills. Learning environments are much different than they were even five years ago, with a greater emphasis on elearning, asynchronous learning, and social networking. Scholars argue that constructivist teaching methods are the norm today, with problem-based learning and team environments driving trends (Ertmer & Newby, 2013). Instructional designers must be able to understand constructivist theories and use them to design learning experiences, while also keeping in mind the tried and true older theories that will inevitably be necessary for certain situations and learners. 

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Article Update: Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Connecting “Yesterday’s” Theories to Today’s Contexts. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 65–70.