A "tsk tsk" Xplana article by Susan Smith Nash details the often less than cordial relations between faculty SMEs and instructional designers. Since the author saw fit not to present the SME side of the story, I thought I might take a stab at it.
In my opinion, a large part of the problem is that little three-letter acronym: SME.
The SME is the "subject matter expert" who, in instructional designer eyes, is supposed to provide the actual instructional "content" while the IDs decide how that content is to be presented - in the words of one of the IDs of the article, "we're creating all the materials that will turn their content or their syllabus into a learning experience".
Turning an instructor's content into a "learning experience" would be well and good if the SME were merely an expert in his or her subject - if a master blidgit-maker was interested in showing others how to make blidgits without ever having taught anyone the art before, for instance. But unlike non-academic SMEs, most university faculty, particularly those who have amassed the coherent body of content in their fields necessary for a course, have also taught that material for many years, even decades. From years of experience, the faculty SME knows what the students are like, how they react, what parts of the content the students find difficult, what they are capable of and what not, what sorts of learning activities the students respond to, how to get them to do the homework, how to assess particular topics effectively, and so on. Contrary to popular educational myth, the faculty SME is not merely a "sage on the stage" with no idea of how to teach.
In many instances, the faculty SME is the one best able to decide how the content of his or her speciality should be delivered, and quite justifiably resents being restricted to the role of content provider, particularly by an ID who's just "finishing up my dissertation research on internet-facilitated instructional design" and may not ever have actually taught an academic course outside grad school. Unfortunately, many faculty SMEs are not able to articulate their reservations well - as I remember the experience, it felt like "after all, these guys are supposed to be the experts on teaching and learning, so even though they appear to know little about my area of expertise and even though what they say doesn't make sense for my course, how do I argue with them without spending inordinate amounts of my time learning all about the latest educational theories?" Result: frustration.
Despite their best intentions, instructional designers can easily alienate or intimidate their faculty SMEs by restricting their role in the development of the course to that of content provision. The problem is further exacerbated if they also blindly assume that the generic ID methods learned in ed school will necessarily work without careful attention to subject matter specifics. Nevertheless, we have articles such as this one, with its irritation at the need to explain the reasons for ID decisions to SMEs and its nine points for maintaining strict separation of course development "turf". (Anyone see the contradiction in the recommendation "Set up clear territory boundaries, and make sure that turf protection doesn't get in the way." ?)
As for this faculty member, the most useful instructional design information I've ever come across is William Horton's experience-based book Designing Web-Based Training, whence this gem:
50,000 years of instructional design in a nutshell
1. Show them.If this does not work - or if you want to be part of the latest educational fad - change the order of the steps until you find a combination that works.
2. Tell them.
3. Let them try.
4. Repeat.
I posted my two cents' worth on Susan's article at http://radio.weblogs.com/0110222/elearning/
However, the short version is: Susan's article is more about poor project management and uncommunicated expectations than it is about Instructional Design and Subject Matter Experts. What she describes was surely a disaster all the way around, but don't blame ID or even the Education Department. This was an argument over who gets to drive the bus, and it was totally avoidable.
How did it happen that the project manager never discussed the model and the requirement for behavioral objectives with the SME until after the SME turned in her deliverables? That was a truly cosmic dumb new-project-manager-suddenly-in-deep-doo-doo mistake.
How did it happen that the SME didn't catch on immediately to the fact that what was being written was not "her course" but a work-for-hire, meaning that there were specifications to be met? A writer on contract cannot afford to have any ego tied up in the deliverables. If that's unacceptable, don't do work-for-hire.
I've been designing, delivering, and managing training and education since 1968, and I've been both a hired gun and an employer as well as being tapped to be an SME in my own areas of expertise. Never once has the ID model been a problem, whether the design was to be behaviorist in nature, collaborative, or constructivist. ID, intelligently applied, will support any educational outcome. All that ID does is to provide a framework for the project and a basis for accountability. It does not create knowledge and it does not dictate objectives, methods, or means. Problems in development nearly always come as a result of poor communication, incompetent project management, or unclear expectations/specs.
Posted by: Bill Brandon | November 05, 2003 at 04:51 PM