Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 1
DESIGN-THINKING FOR ENGINEERING QUALITY INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
PROCESSES THROUGH LEADERSHIP THINKING AND MODELING
Draft Paper for Discussion Purposes at the AECT Research Symposium
July 2012, Louisville, KY
by
Marcia L. Ashbaugh, PhD
MLA Instructional Designers
Anthony A. Piña, PhD
Sullivan University
Abstract
Recent research (Ashbaugh, 2012) drew attention to the criticality of leadership competencies,
specified for instructional design, to meet a growing demand for high-quality online learning
designs. The results highlighted future-thinking, a mindset that resonates with design-thinking—
a way of approaching the design process to strategize for learning through informed pedagogical
selections which result in higher quality academic courses. The study conclusions inferred that
leadership is needed in order to engineer a complex framework of modern education. To
formulate implications for instructional design, the researcher drew from themes in the literature
on organizational and educational leadership to develop seven domain-relevant characteristics of
an instructional designer with leadership characteristics: practicing with prescience (vision),
engaging in preventive or proactive thinking (strategy), making provision for the unexpected and
unknown, communicating with a collaborative personality, approaching a project with skills of
productivity, possessing psychological and emotional toughness for making difficult decisions,
and consistently acting on personal convictions including moral purposes. Consequently, a
model—7Ps of Leadership for ID—is posited in this paper as a potential candidate for studiobased learning in post-graduate educational technology programs as a means of enhancing the
competencies of instructional designers with leadership characteristics.
Introduction
Calls by instructional design leaders for more leadership competency from its
practitioners (Beaudoin, 2007; Naidu, 2007; Sims & Koszalka, 2008; Reeves, Herrington, &
Oliver, 2004; Spector, 2009) prompted a study (Ashbaugh, 2012) of expert designers’
perceptions on leadership in the real-world of practice and instruction in online education.
Underscoring the urgent nature of this study, a 2009 survey of over 10,000 faculty reported that
80% considered web-based education inferior; more recently, doubts of its efficacy persist (Allen
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 2
& Seaman, 2012). Therefore, if an overwhelming majority of instructors don’t trust the learning
value of online courses, a question may be raised about the completeness of their designers’
competency training and skillsets. While there are numerous instructor/designers creating online
courses, instructional design is a profession that assumes particular responsibility for producing
quality pedagogic materials. Those aligned with the occupation are usually expected to be
trained in leading the way for others to follow best design practices, especially for innovative
technologies and deliveries; consequently, the question of adequate training extends to leadership
competencies.
Over a span of two years Beaudoin (2007), Naidu (2007), and Sims and Koszalka (2008)
offered diverse perspectives on the competencies necessary to lead the way in making the
conversion from human-led instructional strategies to computer-based pedagogies. The
observations and arguments were important because studies were beginning to show that people
actually learn differently interacting with a computer than with a human interface. This line of
research disrupted traditional learning psychology that underpinned most pedagogical
prescriptions. In this regard, Beaudoin (2007) suggested computer-mediated learning to actually
be a new mode of learning. Likewise, Dede, headed up a study (Dede, Dieterle, Clarke, JassKetelhut, & Nelson, 2007) that found positive learning outcomes from students connecting and
learning in new ways with computers, specifically through online communities of learning such
as Second Life™ and others. Further explorations led Dede to mobile learning and the potential
of learning in new ways with cell phones (Dede, 2010). Most could not have predicted the
explosion that industry enjoyed just one year later, which held out promise for promulgating
education in revolutionary ways. In spite of similar historical promises of improved learning
through computer technologies with arguable, at times contentious, results (Clark, 1994;
Jonassen & Reeves, 2000; Kozma, 1994), research is continuing to show that course structures
and materials written for one type of learning situation need to be different than when learning in
another (Artino, 2008; Bernard, Abrami, Borokhovski, Wade, Tamin, Surkes, & Bethel, 2009;
Sims, 2006). Consequently, since most instructional designers in practice today were trained for
traditional requirements, they may need to be re-tooled for creating relevant and quality online
products.
Ostensibly, the burden for instructional designers is to ensure quality of learning, to
provide leadership and design-thinking to learning events however they may be delivered. A
recent Delphi-style study (Ashbaugh, 2012) of expert instructional designers from AECT’s
Design and Development Division revealed how choices, informed by a leadership mindset (and
competencies), impact the quality of online learning designs. However, the themes emerging
from the study informed the practices of designers in a more general sense by distinguishing
decisions made for any course design. For example, in a subsequent report to the study,
Ashbaugh (in press) underscored the difference between performing tasks typically assigned to
project management and promoting quality design processes through leadership thinking.
Further, similarities have been observed in the thinking processes ascribed to leadership and how
design professionals in other industries think. From conception of an idea to collaboration with a
team to the ill-structured process of forging a logical learning design out of chaos and
complexity, the underlying theories of design were found to result in innovation and quality
when guided by leadership. Development of academic course designs may be dispersed over
various roles—faculty, academic departmental staff, contractors, and administrators—and serve
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 3
multiple environments such as traditional classroom, online, hybrid, and mobile deliveries.
Therefore, leadership training for designing in any capacity should be considered a critical
foundational topic.
Design-Thinking for Instructional Design
From a practical perspective, how does one guide a chaotic mass of needs, ideas, and
technologies into an organized, engaging course of learning? One answer can be found in design
theory and its underlying principles. A Google search returned a variety of applications for
design engineering and design theory such as the following: industrial products, medical devices,
space travel innovations, computer systems, construction applications, traffic engineering,
mechanical designs, soil engineering, neuroscience, business/organizational architectures, and
spatial designs. However, it is from mathematics and geometric dimensioning (Castillo & Melin,
2002) that a comparison is drawn to instructional design and its multifarious facets.
Fractal Theory
For example, from fractal theory—a graphical representation of chaos theory (Cushing,
1998)—it may be understood how the patterns of a learning theory, when juxtaposed with the
patterns found in design models and their components, may be interconnected. While chaos
theory strives to find equilibrium in a disorganized system from which to form patterns, fractal
theory is based on fracturing, or examining the minute segments of a pattern. Formation of a
snowflake out of thousands of ice crystals coming together to form a complex, organized pattern
is an example of chaos theory; while examination under a powerful microscope to reveal the
myriad of smaller patterns that overlay and connect to produce the visible larger pattern
represents fractal theory. In Figure 1 an example of a fractal design is given for displaying the
complexities of Bloom’s Taxonomy and its theoretical underlying meanings.
Before demonstrating how the learning theory may connect with a proposed design
feature, a sample instructional affordance (an essential component of any learning design) is
modeled in Figure 2. The figure contains specific instructional strategy elements specified in the
Ashbaugh (2012) study results that would be evident in related quality learning designs. The
participants named (a) authentic tasks, (b) interaction, (c) collaboration, (d) learner-control tasks,
(e) problem-solving, and (f) theory-based techniques, which would each result in a level of
learner engagement. The model additionally includes corresponding approaches and activities.
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 4
Figure 1. Bloom’s Taxonomy in expanded mode for fractal theory adaptation.
Downloaded from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blooms_rose.svg
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 5
Figure 2. Instructional strategy elements of a non-specific (sample) affordance in fractal view.
Although the model is not fully dimensionalized to display the numerous elements
evaluated in the process of determining an appropriate strategy, it is a general depiction of what
is being described; that is, the use of fractal theory to more comprehensively view the elements
and their deeper meanings.1 In Figure 3, an example is given of linking a sample instructional
affordance and related strategic elements for teaching and learning (Ashbaugh, 2012) to
matching theoretical elements, in this case, from Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning. In this way a
designer may visualize what activity or task will accommodate the learning event goal.
Clearly, this author’s graphic design skills do not come close to those displayed in the “Bloom’s Rose”
image graciously shared by John M. Kennedy T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blooms_rose.svg).
1
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 6
Figure 3. Onset of juxtaposition of instructional affordance elements and teaching and
learning strategies with corresponding learning theory elements.
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 7
The type of fracturing and layering demonstrated may be done for a number of design
and learning theory models to more fully immerse a practitioner or a student of educational
technology in the complex design engineering thinking required of design practitioners. Clearly,
a two-dimensional constraint in this paper does not justify the potential power of this tool when
loaded into a multi-dimensioning computer software program that would allow a true overlay of
the models. The point is, this technique for linking theory to practice is valuable for both
application to personal practice and teaching others how to structure more effective (theorybased) strategies for instructional design courses (perhaps a topic for future research?).
Chaos Theory
It is inevitable that in a deterministic system, in which the learning design is intended to
produce specific outcomes, unpredictable learner behavior will necessitate later changes to align
with the non-linear reality of learning. Thus, from a second design perspective, chaos theory
(see Dresden, 1992 in Cushing, 1998) suggests that small changes can lead to big differences in
design (You, 1993). The theory is consistent with systems theory (Banathy, 1968; Bertalanffy,
1968), in which instructional design has its roots. Systems theory recognizes that a change in
one part of a system affects other parts of the system. For example an instructor may manipulate
scaffolding in a slightly different ratio than first specified. The minor change may allow for
more (or less) learner control in, for instance, the student’s task of selecting from a dizzying
quantity of website links to allow for more (or less) knowledge gathering (Shapiro, 2008). This
would be done to control the speed of adding complexity to the individual learning process.
Clicking into too many external sites may create information overload and too few may not
provide sufficient information or challenge.
Another example involves the designer who makes decisions for seamless integration of
instructional strategies and digital tools. In a study of hypermedia and scaffolding Shapiro
(2008) supported the notion of this kind of personalization and stated,
[E]mbedding scaffolding into basic system design provides the opportunity to adapt
scaffolding tools to the needs of individual learners. Moreover, embedding the
scaffolding in the hypermedia structure has the potential to make fading (i.e., the removal
of scaffolding) less obvious. (p. 30-31)
These examples suggest that design-based decisions impact the amount of support a learner is
offered at a given point in the course, therefore, the degree to which personal knowledge
construction may occur for a more effective and satisfying outcome.
Consistent with dynamic chaos theory, the designer’s goal is to bring order or balance to a
chaotic and disorderly situation inherent in each learning design project. Again, drawing from
the hard sciences, application may be made to instructional design from an expression by Stewart
(2011),
The discovery of chaotic dynamics implies that deterministic systems may not be
predictable in any meaningful sense. The best-known source of unpredictability is
sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly known as the butterfly effect), in which small
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 8
errors or disturbances grow exponentially. However, there are many other sources of
uncertainty in nonlinear dynamics. (p. 4705)
Although the author (Stewart, 2011) goes on to give examples unrelated to academic designing,
in effect, he is describing how a small perturbation in either direction can make a potentially
large difference. In the examples given in this section, apt design decisions bring potential
equilibrium—balance of instructor and learner control—to the process. To the point of this
discussion, Stewart (2011) described how prediction of outcomes may be possible as a state of
equilibrium is neared. From this understanding it is suggested that the design of a particular
affordance may be more predictable for successful learning outcomes through the design
engineering thinking demanded of the process.
Testing the Design
Successful designs will include the rigor of testing for design flaws. Product design
engineering predicts future scenarios and potential failures, provides multiple perspectives, and
tests for unusual conditions (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1986). Before instructional designers
implement their designs (ideally, during and after as well), they run tests known as formative
evaluations for improving the course model, prototype, or pilot. Williams, South, Yanchar,
Wilson, and Allen (2011) found that most instructional designers include evaluation in their daily
practices, formally or informally, resulting in improved learning products.
In each of the analogies presented a design engineering type cognitive process guides the
academic materials designer for the best possible outcomes. Design-thinking, therefore,
transcends technical performance of tasks and positions the practitioner in a professional role.
Ashbaugh (in press) delineated and underscored the difference between performing managerial
tasks and producing quality design processes through leadership-thinking. The implication is
that, not unlike design-thinking, an added dimension of thought is necessary to design for
successful outcomes. Consequently, this author posits that the utilization of the underlying
theories of design results in innovation and quality when guided by leadership.
Leadership-Thinking
In the past, Kepner and Tregoe (1997) stressed the need for leaders to engage in
systematic analysis through rational thinking; while Spitzer and Evans (1997) promoted strategic
and critical thinking for leaders. Later Kotter (1996/2008) updated his earlier leadership model
by distinguishing project management skills from leadership thinking and actions. From more
recent observations, it was found that leadership interpolates strategic and visionary decisions
with moral purpose into the workplace (Campbell et al., 2009; Gelo et al., 2008), including the
design process. During the creation and implementation of courses, Dooley, Lindner, Telg,
Irani, Moore, and Lundy (2007) concluded that critical decisions underpin high quality, effective,
and relevant designs. These ideas support the position that a practicing instructional designer
demonstrates personal leadership through the decisions, thoughts, and values—the thinking—
incorporated into his or her design creations. As a result, academic courses have reflected
affordances based on environment-relevant and theory-based design decisions and have
culminated in quality pedagogies and educational products (Ashbaugh, 2012).
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 9
With similarity, industry has shown that leadership impacts products, it impacts quality.
For example, when Lee Iacocca assumed leadership of Chrysler in 1978, through strategic
changes in the design processes, the products improved. Iacocca, author of Where Have all the
Leaders Gone? (2007), assumed oversight of the near-bankrupt Chrysler Corporation and
changed the direction of the giant auto manufacturer when he introduced the Mustang, compact
cars, and the mini-van. A more globally recognized figure, Steve Jobs, returned to Apple in
1997 (Isaacson, 2011) and the products improved to the extent of providing learning tools with
unharnessed potential, including the I-Pad. Through visionary leadership and extraordinary
design-thinking, Jobs inspired others in future-oriented thinking and innovation for the digital
future. However, evidence also has shown that leadership is not being passed on to subordinates
(Howard & Wellins, 2008), creating a crisis of global proportions in terms of leadership
knowledge and behavior which has effected production and quality on a world-wide scale.
From United States history parallels may be drawn between the instructional design
process without leadership to what was eventually determined to be underlying causes of the
1986 Challenger space shuttle disaster: design flaws and a lack of leadership demonstrated in
non-managerial positions (Boisjoly, Curtis, & Mellican, 2004). In the Challenger shuttle case
one engineer chose not to assert leadership by ignoring design-standards that would have led to
an additional scenario-based test of the spaceship components. Giving in to administrative
pressure, the engineer failed to intervene at a crucial moment in the project and allowed a launch
to proceed with known flawed components that resulted in a total loss (Boisjoly, Curtis, &
Mellican, 2004). Is allowing students to enter a course room with potential pedagogical flaws
any less disastrous? Perhaps, perhaps not, unless taking into consideration the potential loss of
future opportunities, future wages, and future resolutions to complex world problems which may
have life and death consequences.
The Ashbaugh (2012) study showed that leadership is really about the individual
adopting a futures mindset, making informed choices for future outcomes, and purposing to press
for pedagogical change where change is needed. A Sonnenfeld and Ward (2007) study revealed
that leaders plan strategically for the unexpected. Likewise, Scott, Coates, and Anderson (2008)
reported that leaders collaborate for best possible solutions to not only current but unforeseen
problems and challenges. Scott et al. (2008) regarded this characteristic as a capacity to see the
big picture and to “read and respond to a continuously and rapidly changing external
environment” (p. 11). Clearly, undulating global changes are creating a critical need for global
competency and cultural knowledge and awareness (Reimers, 2009). Therefore, when designers
create for indigenous conditions—for that course, for that program, for that delivery system—
design potential is limited and leadership is left in question.
In contrast, design-thinking predicts future scenarios and potential failures, provides
multiple perspectives, and tests for unusual conditions (Collins, 1993). Design-thinking is
synonymous with visionary thinking (Power, 2012). In other words, leaders peer long and hard
in order to spot the roadblocks (Sonnenfeld & Ward, 2007); as a result, they make decisions that
will steer the project and colleagues around and away from such obstacles (Moore & Kearsley,
2005). Moreover, leaders do not get caught up with fads (Rothwell & Kazanas, 2008), but
examine the evidence for viability in specific situations. For example, will the learning design
engineers consider the potential pitfalls of the social media learning strategies offered by Web
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 10
2.0 technologies inculcated into the academic course structure —security, privacy, resistance by
students, instructor unease with the technology (Ashbaugh, in press)—and make the necessary
corrections before implementation?
It is a position of this paper that the perspectives presented, albeit a bit narrow at this
point, orient this discussion toward design-thinking and leadership-thinking for design processes
as compatible frameworks for re-examining instructional design practice. Consequently, goals
of this paper include the (a) development of a more complete view of the instructional design
purview to embrace a leadership-driven practice and (b) validation and adoption of a Leadership
for ID model (explicated later in the paper) for enhancing designer thinking. Moreover, a
suggestion is made for increasing integration of leadership training into the academic
instructional design programs, shown later in this paper to be absent from their majority.
Leadership in Design for Quality
How does leadership play a role in the quality of online academic products? In the past,
instructional designers have been viewed as course developers, rather than as leaders, with a
special understanding of how to put together various units of specific content for the introduction
of concepts and facts to students. Subsequently, it is up to the student to read, memorize, and
rehearse the knowledge presented and hopefully pass a fact-based test, perhaps write a cogent
essay or produce a subject-relevant project. Arguably, that format does not take leadership in
design; it takes technical competency. In protest of the perceived limitations placed on a
professional instructional designer, the Ashbaugh (2012) study’s underlying assumption was that
improvement of educational products is possible in part through leadership-thinking in the design
process with exemplary pedagogical results. Not unexpected, one conclusion from the study
(Ashbaugh, 2012) was indeed that leadership is a critical component in the design of quality
products, beginning with the inception and running through the entire development, design,
implementation, and evaluation process. Participants expressed that, whether leading a team or
an individual design project, the same characteristics are required—the ability to strategize in the
now with an eye on the future. It begs the question, why design for something as crucial as the
next generation’s capability to resolve complex world problems from yesterday or even today’s
toolbox?
Instructional designers typically rely on models in some form—ADDIE-based models
such as Dick, Carey, and Carey’s (2009); Sims’ proactive PD4L model (2011); and, van
Merriënboer’s 4C/ID model(2002), for guiding the process steps of creating and populating a
structure with relevant affordances consistent with the prescribed environment and goals for
learning. As a guide for competency in practice, instructional designers align with the standards
of practice assembled by the International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and
Instruction (IBSTPI, 2000) and abide by the companion set of codes and guidelines for ethical
behavior (IBSTPI, 2010). In the IBSTPI rubric’s (IBSTPI, 2000) allocation of tasks, strategies,
and attributes, managerial skills are given due recognition and yet leadership as a delineated
competency is absent. In light of wide-spread reliance on the industry standards, as well as the
increasing complexities of affordance technologies, a gap in the standards for a complete skillset
must be addressed in order to ensure quality practice. In addition to models that inform actions
and behavior, a leadership model is proposed as critical for guiding course developers in
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 11
exemplary design engineering. This paper suggests that leadership mentoring, standards, and
models will augment those skills.
Transcending performance metrics, leadership embodies copious philosophies,
characteristics, attributes, positions, roles, attitudes, and essentials which are applied to a
multitude of professions (Zenger & Folkman, 2009). In this way, leadership may be considered
more of an approach, a mindset, activated for the purpose of conducting business in a given
domain for particular situations. In the large-scale study of leaders Zenger and Folkman (2009)
observed, “We have not given much attention to the competencies that will be required in the
future. Thus, much of the leadership analysis and development has been ‘looking in the rearview
mirror’ and not looking out over the horizon” (p. 5). Fullan and Scott (2009) sounded a similar
charge, “There is often little attention paid to the capabilities and experience necessary to lead
change in higher education” (p. 39). In the same vein, Sims and Koszalka (2008) expressed
concern for a lack of awareness of the leadership competencies required for developing quality
for modern learning needs. Responding to these and other calls for elevating design practice
competencies (Beaudoin, 2007; Dooley et al., 2007; Kowch, 2009; Naidu, 2007; Reeves, et al.,
2004), the Ashbaugh (2012) study identified certain characteristics of leaders in design practice
who produce quality courses (from personal documents evaluated by the researcher and
students). From these main themes, the author later developed the 7 Ps of Leadership for ID
model (listed in Figure 4 and defined in more detail later in this paper):
L
E
A
D
E
R
S
H
I
P
Prescience (Vision)
Preventive or Proactive Thinking (Strategy)
Provision for Unexpected and Unknown
Personality (Collaborative Communicator)
Productivity (Prodigious Planner and Producer)
Psychological/Emotional Toughness (for Difficult Decisions)
Personal Convictions (Consistent Moral Behavior)
Figure 4. The 7Ps of Leadership for ID Model.
Design and Leadership Thinking Through Training and Modeling
Instructional designers must keep pace with technologies and lead in quality designs for
modern learning needs to fulfill their professional duties and obligations to society. One way to
address the issues of designing for modern, complex educational needs is through improved
instructional design leadership competency training in all educational technology academic
programs. Williams van Rooij (2011) found that less than 23% of such programs offer any
project management courses, which called into question the number of related leadership courses
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 12
available. Hence, from a survey of 21 of the top institutions offering graduate programs in
instructional technology it was identified that one out of three offered a leadership course and of
those less than 1/2 specified true leadership (not management) instruction (see Appendix A).
The results showed a net percentage of 15% of instructional design programs that train in
leadership as a comprehensive topic.
However, an attempt to interweave two separate, complex phenomena (design and
leadership theories) involves more than layering or juxtaposing one on the other as one may do
to align a design affordance with a learning theory. In contrast, adding one domain to another
without changing the properties of either is tantamount to a mutualistic symbiosis: two distinct
components in a common relationship. It is like putting on and removing a coat depending on
environmental conditions. In other words, there are elements of design that are simply technical
in nature and do not demand a leadership perspective, while other tasks do. This is why
leadership for instructional design will be more effective if integrated into the fiber of practice
rather than exclusively viewed as a role. While there is legitimate argument for training in
positional leadership competencies (Gressick & Derry, 2010), this author stresses training in
personal leadership, a way of thinking, for a more complete and applicable preparation for daily
practice. In this way, the designer is calling on a mindset for vision and strategy regardless of
the role being played in specific situations.
Moreover, the rapidly changing world does not have time for the mere teaching of facts
and concepts, leaving students to learn leadership on the job. Reigeluth (1999) clarified the
damage done from decades of pressing students into molds from a production mindset in order to
spew out a task-driven workforce. Leaders were generally not trained in the academic halls;
rather, students were regarded as automatons awaiting data feeds. We need to find ways to
infuse leadership into each academic learning event, especially those that train future designers
of educational materials. If education hopes to produce learners that can think and operate in the
abstractions of today’s world we need to present learning from a design-thinking mindset.
Academic instruction is given on critical thinking, process thinking, risk management thinking,
ethical thinking—all abstract in some way, and all require higher-level cognitive adaptations, so,
why not add leadership-thinking to the arsenal of analytical skills? The challenge before us,
then, is how to provide for design and leadership thinking activities in each academic program.
Studio-Based Learning for Instructional Designers
One method of promoting leadership in practice is to begin training students in the
dynamics and realities of the modern workplace. Learning in a design studio environment
accomplishes this through practical and functional training but may also be used to teach
leadership characteristics for instructional designers. From a review of the history of the studiobased learning model (Lackney, 1999), the premise of studio-based learning affords
collaborative, peer-reviewed exploration into concepts and phenomena for a more complete
exploration through multiple perspectives and dynamic interaction. Further, the design studio
produces “a way of thinking” (Boyer & Mitgang, 1996, p. 85-86) and provides a relevant venue
for teaching the notion of leadership-thinking. As the focus of this paper is to present, discuss,
and refine a model that will enhance design/leadership-thinking in the design process, and not to
extol the virtues of studio-based learning (others will do that in this symposium), a suggestion is
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 13
to consider the platform of learning as one option of several for applying the leadership model
presented in the next section.
With this in mind, a brief review of the literature inspired the notion of experimenting
with the pedagogy for the purposes described in this paper. The design studio is a learning
environment in which learning, attitudes and self-efficacy has increased and better outcomes
have been observed (Hendrix, Myneni, Narayanan, & Ross, 2010; Hundhausen, Agrawal,
Fairbrother, & Trevisan, 2010). Conducting a third study in the computer science field, Estey,
Long, Gooch, & Gooch (2010) observed attitudinal changes in learners toward the community,
class performance and activities, and the value of peer feedback. The study results were
additionally positive for engagement, teamwork, presentations, competition, (ergo, motivation to
perform better for their peers), and most significantly, an increase in interest to pursue their
major, a computer science degree. The studies presented, while few in number and limited to
one discipline, lend credibility to training future instructional designers in the topic of leadership
through the method of studio-based learning.
The diagram in Figure 5 displays the proposed effect of utilizing studio-based learning
for applying the 7Ps model of leadership to the planning, design, and development process for a
quality finished product.
Figure 4. Process of learning and applying leadership for design-thinking toward quality
academic design engineering.
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 14
7 Ps of Leadership Model
This paper has introduced how a robust leadership model might be taught (in the designstudio pedagogy) and how that model may impact the quality of future instructional designs.
Below the 7 Ps of Leadership for ID model is unveiled and submitted for the members to
evaluate and make comments for validation purposes. A future research study will pilot the
model and provide study results in a subsequent article. The model contains seven characteristic
for personal leadership from which to guide an effective practice of modern educational design.
Prescience
Leaders conceptualize the world through a prescient mindset; they discern the future and
formulate a vision for what needs to be done (Scott et al., 2008). Subsequently, leaders convey
the vision to others, live the vision through decisions, promote the vision, and encourage others
to share in the vision as well as enliven others to their vital role in the vision (Kouzes & Posner,
2007). They look for patterns and trends and predict future possibilities. They look for
connections between the past and the future, test plans in the present while keeping the “big
picture” (Scott et al., 2008) in view; leaders do not allow themselves to be bogged down or
distracted by minutiae.
Application for instructional design. Instructional design leaders will, without
exception, infuse theory- and evidence-based strategies into the design structure. Design leaders
will communicate with and encourage either a design team or designer/instructors to contrive
new approaches for satisfying learners’ needs and goals. They will never be satisfied with the
answer, “Because that is the way we have always done it.” They will specify methods and
techniques which are framed by a vision of future global changes with unanticipated societal and
work duty skill demands (Durdu, Yalabik, & Cagiltay, 2009; Reimers, 2009). Instructional
design visionary leaders will participate in and inspire field-relevant research and dissemination
on the future challenges and potential for education, particularly as technology advances and
changes the landscape of academia. For example, how will social media support, enhance, or
perhaps dominate online education? What are researchers predicting? Will online education
grow as expected? What will the new standards be for distributed pedagogies? How can we as
instructional design leaders set the standards?
Preventive (Proactive) Thinking
Leaders reflect on strategies to prevent problems rather than waiting for them to happen;
moreover, they engage others in the process, collaborating for best possible solutions (Campbell
et al., 2009) to not only current but unforeseen problems and challenges (Scott et al., 2008). They
know where to go for answers—knowledge sources from which to create the answers. In other
words, they make the right connections through diverse technologies (Siemens, 2004), drawing
from a network of colleagues for collective and innovative thinking (Piña, Sadowski,
Scheidenhelm & Heydenburg, 2008).
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 15
Application for instructional design. It may be conceptualized that preventive thinking
is a way of planning for the future and avoiding the pitfalls that have caused degradation of
education in the past (Reeves et al., 2004). An instructional design leader will take full
advantage of opportunities to interact with and learn from other visionary professionals by
becoming active in professional associations, attending conferences and professional meetings
and reading scholarly and trade publications. The proactive leader make (a) strategic decisions
for the organization in preparation for rapid growth in learning technologies, (b) strategic
decisions for the design team to research best options for providing strict alignment of
measurable objectives to assessments, content, and activities (Sims, 2011), and (c) strategic
decisions for the design structure to afford engagement with context-relevant learning, flexibility
for personalized learning, and rapid adaptivity to personal and societal fluidity. Examples are:
creating new interface designs to accommodate Web 2.0 technologies, more learner disabilities,
and emergent delivery modes. Would social media help or hinder learning for a given topic?
What is the latest research on connections between cognitive processes and tactile information?
Who has done the most research in the area of mobile devices as pedagogical agents and what
have they found?
Provision (for the Unexpected) Thinking
Leaders strategically plan for the unexpected, know how to endure and to not give up
after a failure (Sonnenfeld & Ward, 2007), and they bounce back and stand the test of time.
Leaders encourage others to finish the task with excellence in spite of obstacles (Moore &
Kearsley, 2005). Leaders have backup plans and resources in reserve, alternatives and options.
Application for instructional design. In terms of education, leaders will provide for
unexpected learning challenges. An instructional design leader will strategize for context-related
roadblocks for learners as well as for the design team. Leaders of design teams will rally
colleagues in times of intense challenges. Examples include (a) providing alternate realistic and
reliable means of completing and forwarding assignments in case students experience technology
interruptions, (b) ensuring multiple recovery plans are in place in the event of institutional
upheavals from technology failures, and (c) complete projects on time in lieu of heavy
scheduling demands or budget shortages, and (d) a method drafted and taught for handling
ethical complaints. Leaders may ask questions: What is in the institutional pipeline for support
of mobile deliveries and social media integration? Is it time to demand system-wide upgrades?
Will operating with one less team member require unpaid overtime? Was adequate protection
provided during interactive video meetings that may have prevented harm to students? Are the
online courses warning students of the risks of media-use by referring them to studies on
cognitive overload through media learning?
Personality
Leaders convey personality, professionalism, and presence through confidence, strength,
and maturity in diverse manners and ways (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Kouzes & Posner, 2007).
Leaders articulate and mediate with diplomacy and never waffle or sidestep the tough questions;
they communicate with inherent and exceptional interpersonal skills (Larson & Lockee, 2009)
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 16
and with a sense of purpose (Fullan, 2001; Sergiovanni, 2003). In the Ashbaugh (2012) study it
was found that leaders are sincere and show compassion with self-control; they are humble yet
self-aware.
Application for instructional design. Designers will exhibit confidence and expertise
by offering academic and relevant arguments for their design, strategic, and team decisions.
Leaders will listen carefully to impassioned arguments by the team or clients and will articulate
decisions from a practical, firm position; yet will take care to be considerate of others. One
example of this characteristic is: A disagreement on how much an SME (subject matter expert)
will be allowed to modify a completed design will require leadership to find a balance between
instructor flexibility and maintaining the integrity of the design; a designer will lead by
reconciling design perspectives and decisions with all the stakeholders. Whenever possible, the
effective instructional design leader will seek “win-win” solutions to lessen adversarial feelings
among members of the design team (Covey, 2004).
Productivity
Leaders show up on time every time. Leaders work as hard as what they expect from
others; and, they get the job done with expertise and extraordinary skill. They produce and are
preferred by others over visionaries (Chen, Wu, Yang, & Tsou, 2008). Leaders can be counted
on to meet schedule and budget constraints and are not afraid to go beyond the minimum
expectations. Findings from the Ashbaugh (2012) study showed that leaders rally the team to
better practices; they strive for and apply innovative, creative, and effective measures
(Ashbaugh, 2012).
Application for instructional design. Moving the process along toward completion, the
instructional design leader will encourage the team to think and act efficaciously with openness
to new ideas and theories that enhance learning designs. A successful leader is constantly
reflecting and asking, “Is this way the best, most efficient and effective way, or is there a better
way to do this?” He or she will allocate the most appropriate resources and personnel to ensure
production of efficacious and high quality learning events. For example, if a web design is
required, and the design leader is the most skilled member of the team in that area, he or she will
perform the task even though a different task may be more interesting or desirable. Likewise, if
another team member has more expertise or ability in an area of interest to the leader, he or she
will assign the more skilled member to the task.
Psychological (Emotional) Toughness
Leaders think rationally, make good choices, and avoid knee-jerk reactions (Kepner &
Tregoe, 1997; Scott et al., 2008; Sergiovanni, 2003). They will do the right thing, even when it
is uncomfortable to do so. They operate on the offensive, not defensive, with openness to other
ideas, opinions, and criticisms (Maxwell, 2007). From these sources it was evident that leaders
apply logic tempered with practicality and common sense; they can weigh evidence and
distinguish truth from fiction; and they rely on fairness not dogma. Moreover, Ashbaugh (2012)
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 17
found that leaders exhibit patience with and respect for clients and co-workers and are highly
self-disciplined.
Application for instructional design. Instructional designers acting from personal
leadership attributes communicate capability through personal self-regulation and discipline.
They exhibit strength and pragmatism in being patient with the design process. They will behave
with respect toward other stakeholders when sorting out conflicting ideas on theories of learning
needs to adopt best relevant practices for targeted learners and environments. Example: Halfway through a design project funding is pulled, yet administration demands a completed course
anyway. The instructional designer finds a way to gracefully accept new budget restrictions and
complete the project without burning out her colleagues in the process.
Personal Convictions
Good leaders are considered to be honest (Wolumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, &
Peterson, 2008); they don’t cheat personally or in business and they never lie. In other words,
they possess integrity in all areas of their lives (Covey, 1992). Leaders align their actions with
beliefs (Argyris & Schön, 1992) and live by conscience not rules (Sergiovanni, 2003). Leaders
act with moral purpose (Campbell et al., 2009); they will consider the higher good of a matter at
the risk of bending an inflexible rule. Consequently, leaders will work to bring change where
needed in an ethical manner. Leaders are also trustworthy, faithful, and consistent in their beliefs
(Ashbaugh, 2012).
Application for instructional design. An instructional design leader will demonstrate a
willingness to confront old paradigms and regimes to do what is believed to be efficacious for
the learner. He or she will offer truthful support for decisions, including those that cause errors
and delays; and will take care to act on personal moral principles when confronted with a
conflicting mandate. As a matter of lifestyle, a design leader will exemplify high moral conduct,
mindful of their responsibility to a vulnerable population of learners (Covey, 1992). For
example, while honoring the budget, copyright laws will be followed meticulously at any cost.
Furthermore, ethical considerations will be afforded in each academic design, giving preference
only to the success of the learning process and not personal or political gain.
Validating the 7Ps Model
Ultimately, the hope is to provide a validated leadership model specified for instructional
design and the design process. A suggestion for accomplishing this is to rely on design and
development research (Richey & Klein 2007) which provides a rigorous method for infusing
research and theory into the development of models. In the Ashbaugh (2012) study theory was
applied to practice and resulted in confirmation of an existing theory while creating new theory
from new understanding of what it is to be a leader in the field. The method used exemplified
one definition of design and development research (Richey & Klein, 2007). In keeping with
advancing the field, Richey and Klein (2007) predicted an incomplete professional foundation,
both theoretically and practically, without this emerging design and development cornerstone.
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 18
They have called for increasing the knowledge base of instructional design through a more
disciplined and design-based empirical research methodology. Specifically, the study approach
provides a new avenue for exploring a novel leadership model as called for by Kowch (2009),
New leaders need new ways to address these issues beyond the instructional leadership
literature, which was found lacking due to a classical focus on the supervision of
instructors/teachers more than with the leading of the instructional process (design and
development, as we know it). (p. 45)
Conclusion
What destroyed the Challenger space shuttle? Some would say it was a lack of
leadership on the part of the engineer who was the victim of a system that led “individuals to
defer to the anonymity of the process and not focus clearly enough on their individual
responsibilities in the decision chain” (N.R.C. Report, in Boisjoly, Curtis, & Mellican, 2004, p.
133). In addition, science would prove that the now infamous O-ring worked in most scenarios,
but under rare conditions would prove to be fatally flawed. From this tragedy it was confirmed
that the utility of design must be proven in its most complete perspective for a successful
outcome. Sharing responsibility for the fatal decision to continue the flight were those in
positions of leadership who would not entertain the warnings of the design engineer and the
engineer who did not press harder for an audience. Likewise for instructional design, knowledge
is needed from multiple voices, leaders in practice, to build design-thinking and to ensure a more
perfect design process.
One implication from this study is that leadership, when activated in the design process,
acts as a predictor of quality products, in specific, of academic courses. Hence, leadership
training in the educational technology programs, particularly in the studio-based learning venue,
will effectively influence the overall quality of the compendium of learning events. In order to
avert the same failures in education as those the world has witnessed in government, space
exploration, finance, and business, great opportunity affords itself to impress leadership
competencies on future instructional design engineers for creating high quality and effective
academic training courses.
In summary, leadership exhibits a mindset that will guide the design-process and
underpin innovative course creations through a more skilled instructional design function. It is
important that the field of instructional design pays attention to the critical leadership skills
needed to drive the changing ethos of education. It is with sincere hope that the members of the
AECT 2012 Research Symposium will add expertise and insight to what has been presented and
will promote research for developing a leadership model for elevating the instructional design
function, the design process, and academic course design quality.
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 19
References
Allen, A.I., & Seaman, J. (2012). Going the distance: Online education in the United States,
2011. Sloan-C. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1992). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Artino, A. (2008). Motivational beliefs and perceptions of instructional quality: predicting
satisfaction with online training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 260-270.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00258.x
Ashbaugh, M. L. (in press). I-Design 2.0 strategies for Web 2.0 adoption: Appropriate use of
emerging technologies in online courses. In P. Blessinger & C. Wenkel (Eds.), Increasing
Student Engagement and Retention in e-Learning Environments: Web 2.0 and Blended
Learning Technologies (Vol. 7). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group.
Ashbaugh, M. L. (2012). Online pedagogical quality questioned: Probing instructional designers’
perceptions of leadership competencies critical to practice. [Dissertation Study].
Available from http://gradworks.umi.com/3460621.pdf
Ashbaugh, M. L. (2011). Use of a modified QM rubric to validate qualitative research. A
presentation at the Quality Matters 2011 Conference November 8, 2011 in Baltimore,
MD. Available at www.DrMLAshbaugh.com.
Banathy, B. H. (1968). Instructional systems. Belmont, CA: Fearon Publications
Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Essays on its foundation and development. New
York, NY: George Braziller.
Beaudoin, M. F. (2007). Distance education leadership: An appraisal of research and practice. In
M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 391-402). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamin, R. M., Surkes, M. A., &
Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance
education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289. doi:
10.3102/0034654309333844
Boisjoly, R.P., Curtis, E.F., & Mellican, E. (2004). Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger disaster:
The ethical dimensions. In T. E. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and
business (7th ed., pp. 123-135). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Boyer, E.L., & Mitgang, L.D. (1996). Building community: A new future for architecture
education and practice. A special report. Ewing, NJ: California Princeton Fulfillment
Services. Available at http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED396659
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 20
Campbell, K., Schwier, R., & Kenny, R. (2009). The critical, relational practice of instructional
design in higher education: an emerging model of change agency. Educational
Technology, Research & Development, 57(5), 645-663. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9061-6
Castillo, O., & Melin, P. (2002). Hybrid intelligent systems for time series prediction using
neural networks, fuzzy logic, and fractal theory. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks,
13(6), 1395-1408. doi: 10.1109/TNN.2002.804316
Chen, C. J., Wu, J., Yang, S. C., & Tsou, H-Y. (2008). Importance of diversified leadership roles
in improving team effectiveness in a virtual collaboration learning environment.
Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 304-321. Retrieved from
http://www.ifets.info/journalsRetrieved from http://www.educause.edu/eq
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media and method. Educational Technology Research & Development,
42(3), 7-10.
Collins, J. A. (1993). Failure of materials in mechanical design: analysis, prediction, prevention,
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Cooper, R.G. & Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1986). An investigation into the new product process: Steps,
deficiencies, and impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3, 71-85.
Retrieved from http://www1.unihamburg.de/ami/lehre/Veranstaltungen/WS_0607/Innomarketing/Rueckschau/Cooper_Kl
einschmidt_1986_JPIM.pdf
Covey, S. R. (1992). Principle-centered leadership: Strategies for personal and professional
effectiveness. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Covey, S. R. (2004). The seven habits of highly effective people (15th anniversary edition). New
York, NY: Free Press.
Cushing, J.T. (1998). Philosophical concepts in physics: The historical relation between
philosophy and scientific theories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dede, C., Dieterle, E., Clarke, J., Jass-Ketelhut, D., & Nelson, B. (2007). Media-based learning
styles. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (2nd ed., pp. 339-352).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dede, C., & Bjerede, M. (2010). Mobile wireless devices that empower engagement, learning,
and assessment. Presented at the ISTE Annual Conference & Exposition , June 27–30,
2010, Denver, CO.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J.O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 21
Dooley, K., Lindner, J., Telg, R., Irani, T., Moore, L., & Lundy, L. (2007). Roadmap to
measuring distance education instructional design competency. Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, 8(2), 151-159. Retrieved from
http://www.infoagepub.com/index.php?id=89&i=4
Estey, A., Long, J., Gooch, B., & Gooch, A. (2010). Investigating studio-based learning in a
course on game design. In FDG ’10 Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
the Foundations of Digital Games, 64-71. New York, NY: ACM. doi:
10.1145/1822348.1822357
Fullan, M., & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research: Beyond
the debate. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 42(3), 266-290. doi:
10.1007/s12124-008-9078-3
Gressick, J., & Derry, S. J. (2010). Distributed leadership in online groups. Computer-Supported
Collaborative Learning, 5(2), 211-236. doi: 10.1007/s11412-010-9086-4
Hendrix, D., Myneni, L., Narayanan, H., & Ross, M. (2010). Implementing studio-based
learning in CS2. In SIGCSE ’10 Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on
Computer Science Education, 505-509. New York, NY: ACM.
doi:10.1145/1734263.1734433
Howard, A., & Wellins, R. S. (2008). Global leadership forecast 2008|2009: Overcoming the
shortfalls in developing leaders. Retrieved from
http://www.ddiworld.com/pdf/globalleadershipforecast2008-2009_globalreport_ddi.pdf
Hundhausen, C., Agrawal, A., Fairbrother, D. & Trevisan, M. (2010). Does studio-based
instruction work in CS1? An empirical comparison with a traditional approach. In
SIGCSE ’10 Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science
Education, 500-504. New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1734263.1734432
Iacocca, L. (2007). Where have all the leaders gone? New York, NY: Scribners.
International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction. (2010). Code of
ethical standards. ibstpi. Retrieved from
http://www.ibstpi.org/Competencies/codesofethicalstandards.htm
International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction. (2000). Instructional
design competencies report. International Board of Standards for Training, Performance
and Instruction. http://www.ibstpi.org/downloads/InstructionalDesignCompetencies.pdf
Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 22
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (2000). Learning with technology: Using computers as
cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for
educational communications and technology. (1st ed., pp. 693-719). Retrieved the
Association of Education and Technology website:
http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/pdf/24.pdf
Kepner, C. H., & Tregoe, B. B. (1997). The new rational manager: An updated edition for a new
world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Research Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P. (2008). What leaders really do. In J. V. Gallos (Ed.), Business leadership: A
Jossey-Bass reader (2nd ed., pp. 5–15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kowch, E. (2009). New capabilities for cyber charter school leadership: An emerging imperative
for integrating educational technology and educational leadership knowledge.
TechTrends, 53(4), 41-48.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). The influence of media on learning: The debate continues. School Library
Media Research, 22(4).
Lackney, J. A. (1999). A history of the studio-based learning model. Retrieved from
http://www.edi.msstate.edu/work/pdf/history_studio_based_learning.pdf
Maxwell, J. C. (2007). The irrefutable of laws of leadership: Follow them and people will follow
you (Rev., 10th anniversary ed.). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Naidu, S. (2007). Instructional designs for optimal learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of
distance education (2nd ed., pp. 247-258). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Piña, A. A., Sadowski, K. P, Scheidenhelm, C. L. & Heydenburg, P.R. (2008). SLATE: A
Community of Practice for Supporting Learning and Technology in Education.
International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 5(7).
Power, D. (2012). Why innovation needs design thinkers. Harvard Division of Continuing
Education. Retrieved from http://www.dce.harvard.edu/professional/blog/whyinnovation-needs-design-thinking-5-29-12.jsp;jsessionid=HPOHOGNECCCL
Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2004). A development research agenda for online
collaborative learning. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 52(4), 53-65.
Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1999). Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. II): A new
paradigm of instructional theory, (pp. 5-30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 23
Reimers, F. M. (2009). Leading for global competency. Educational Leadership: Teaching for
the 21st Century, 67(1). Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/sept09/vol67/num01/Leading_f
or_Global_Competency.aspx
Richey, R.C. & Klein, J.D. (2007). Design and development research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rothwell, W.J., & Kazanas, H.C. (2008). Mastering the instructional design process: A
systematic approach. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Scott, G., Coates, H., & Anderson, M. (2008). Learning leaders in times of change: Academic
leadership capabilities for Australian higher education. [Report]. University of Western
Sydney and Australian Council for Educational Research.
Sergiovanni, T. (2003). A cognitive approach to leadership. In B. Davies & J. West-Burham
(Eds.), Handbook of educational leadership and management. (pp. 12–16). New York,
NY: Pearson/Longman.
Shapiro, A. (2008). Hypermedia design as learner scaffolding. ETR&D, 56, 29-44. doi:
10.1007/s11423-007-9063-4
Sims, R. (2011). Reappraising design practice. In D. Holt, S. Segrave, & J. Cybulski (Eds.),
Professional education using e-simulations: Benefits of blended learning design. IGI
Global.
Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: Making learning design a reality. Journal of
Learning Design, 1(2), 1-7. Retrieved from http://www.jld.qut.edu.au
Sims, R. C., & Koszalka, T. A. (2008) Competencies for the new-age instructional designer. In J.
M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.) Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Earlbaum.
Sonnenfeld, J., & Ward, A. (2007). Firing back: How great leaders rebound after career
disasters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Spector, J. M. (2009). Reflections: Reconsidering the notion of distance in distance education.
Distance Education, 30 (1), 157-161. doi: 10.1080/01587910902846004
Spitzer, Q., & Evans, R. (1997). Heads, you win!: How the best companies think—and how you
can use their examples to develop critical thinking within your own organization. New
York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 24
Stewart, I. (2011). Sources of uncertainty in deterministic dynamics: An informal overview.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369(1956), 4705-4729. doi:
10.1098/rsta.2011.0113
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & de Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex
learning: The 4C/ID-Model. Educational Technology, Research & Development, 50(2),
39-64. doi:10.1007/BF02504993
Williams van Rooij, S. (2011). Instructional design and project management: Complementary or
divergent? Education Tech Research Dev, 59, pp. 139-158. doi: 10.1007/s11423-0109176-z
Williams, D. D., South, J.B., Yanchar, S.C., Wilson, B. G., & Allen, S. (2011). How do
instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice. ETR&D,
59(6), 885-907. doi: 10.1007/s11423-011-9211-8
Wolumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34(1), 89-126. doi: 10.1177/0149206370308913
You, Y. (1983). What can we learn from chaos theory? An alternative approach to instructional
systems design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 17-32. doi:
10.1007/BF02297355
Zenger, J.H., & Folkman, J. (2009). The extraordinary leader: Turning good managers into
great leaders. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 25
Appendix A
Institutions with Degree Programs in Instructional Technology and Leadership Courses
Institution
Arizona State University
Leadership
Course Offered?
No
Type
Yes
Change Mgmt
Florida State University
Degree
Master’s in Educational Technology
PhD in Educational Technology
Master's in Instructional and Performance
Technology
Master of Instructional Psychology and
Technology
PhD of Instructional Psychology and
Technology
PhD, Education: Instructional Design for Online
Learning
Master of Science in Instructional Systems
Indiana University
Master's in Instructional Systems Technology
No
Jones International
University
Kaplan University
Master of Education: e-Learning Technology &
Design
Master of Science in Education in Instructional
Technology
Master's in Instructional Technology & Distance
Education
PhD in Instructional Design & Technology
Master of Education in Instructional SystemsEducational Technology
Master of Educational Technology
Master of Science, Instructional Design,
Development, & Evaluation
Master of Instructional Technology
PhD, Instructional Design, Development, &
Evaluation
Master of Science in Educational Technology
No
Master of Science in Instructional Design &
Technology
Master’s of Instructional Technology
Ed.S in Media, Emphasis in Instructional
Technology
Instructional Design Online Graduate Certificate
Yes
Curriculum
No
Yes
Administration
No
Walden University
Master of Science in Instructional Technology
PhD, Instructional Technology & Learning
Sciences
Master's in Instructional Design and Technology
Western Illinois University
Master's in Instructional Design and Technology
No
Quantitative Data Summary
7 of 21 include
leadership
courses
3 of 7 courses
specify
leadership
1/3 institutions
15% of all
programs
Boise State University
Brigham Young University
Capella University
Nova Southeastern
University
Old Dominion University
Penn State World Campus
San Diego State University
Syracuse University
University of Arizona South
University of Memphis
University of Northern Iowa
University of West Georgia
University of WisconsinStout
Utah State University
Ratios/Percentages
No
Yes
Leadership
No
No
Yes
Leadership
No
No
No
Yes
Curriculum,
Instructional,
Change
No
No
Yes
Organizational
Design-Thinking, Design Process, and Leadership Modeling – Ashbaugh/Pina 26