MENTORING INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A NEEDS ASSESSMENT

Instructional Designers in Higher Education

The field of instructional design (ID) was first introduced during World War II as an effort to develop military training programs (Reiser, 2001). It has since expanded due to advancements in information and communication technology and online learning (Allen & Seaman, 2014; Ritzhaupt & Kumar, 2015). The definition now encompasses the systematic design and planning of pedagogical activities, including needs assessment, course development, delivery, and evaluation (Koszalka et al., 2013).

Within higher education, the role of IDs is multifaceted, poorly understood, and varies depending on their placement within schools, departments, or centers for teaching and learning (Mancilla & Frey, 2023). They are a highly educated and diverse group of professionals with masters’ or doctoral degrees in fields other than instructional design, such as education, instructional technology, library science, graphic design, technical writing, or faculty development (Intentional Futures, 2016; Pollard & Kumar, 2022). Generally, ID responsibilities fall within the four categories of designing, managing, training, and providing faculty support (Beirne & Romanoski, 2018). ID literature notes that IDs dedicate most of their time to course and faculty development while also managing projects, facilitating technology training, providing pedagogical consultations, and designing teaching and learning materials (i.e., job aids) (Mancilla & Frey, 2023). In addition, IDs support technology troubleshooting and serve on university committees, often leading initiatives that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (i.e., digital accessibility) at their institutions (Dykstra, 2020; Mancilla & Frey, 2023).

Literature suggests that IDs face a host of challenges within the higher education workplace that may impact their job satisfaction. Most commonly, they are undervalued by academic partners due to the ambiguity of their roles (Chen & Carliner, 2021). Despite their pedagogical and technological expertise, IDs are often underutilized by university decision-makers (Ren, 2019). When working with faculty in course development, IDs identified status and power dynamics, time and resource limitations, communication barriers, workload pressures, and lack of faculty buy-in as hindrances to successful collaboration (Chen & Carliner, 2021; Dykstra, 2020; Richardson et al., 2019). In sum, IDs “must be their own advocates and constantly defend their credibility, contributions, and value to the stakeholders with whom they are expected to collaborate and serve” (Pollard & Kumar, 2022, p. 14).

Institutions of higher education hire IDs under the precept that they have the prerequisite knowledge and skills to perform a vast array of design functions (Rabel & Stefaniak, 2018). Nonetheless, due to nonlinear career paths, IDs experience gaps between what they have been trained to do and what they are expected to do, creating the need for on-the-job training (Mancilla & Frey, 2020; Pollard & Kumar, 2022; Kumar & Ritzhaupt, 2017). Research suggests that knowledge and skill discrepancies may even persist among IDs who were prepared in formal ID programs (Bond & Dirkin, 2020) as well as experienced IDs (Cheong et al., 2006).

Onboarding, or the process of orienting new employees to an organizational culture and performance expectations (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011), has been the primary mechanism for acclimating newly hired IDs to the higher education workplace (Rabel & Stefaniak, 2018). Models for onboarding novice IDs have focused on cognitive apprenticeship to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and performance (Ertmer et al., 2008; Mancilla & Frey, 2020; Rabel & Stefaniak, 2018). ID scholars have noted that novice IDs benefit from being partnered with an expert ID mentor during the onboarding process (Ertmer et al., 2008). In fact, mentoring was reported as the most prevalent strategy deployed during onboarding for novice IDs (Rabel & Stefaniak, 2018). However, mentoring has not been studied as a professional development approach beyond the orientation phase. Similarly, there is a paucity of research on the mentoring needs of mid-career design professionals as they continue to perfect their craft.

Mentoring

Since its inception in Greek mythology, mentoring has evolved as a multi-disciplinary strategy for learning and professional development (Kram, 1988). At its core, mentoring is “a professional development relationship in which a more experienced participant assists a less experienced one in developing a career” (Dennen, 2013, p. 817). Generally, mentoring is a one-to-one reciprocal relationship between a knowledgeable mentor and a novice mentee or protégé. Importantly, mentoring relationships are characterized by regular and consistent interaction over time to promote the growth and development of the mentee (Nick et al., 2012). Mentoring interactions range from formal to informal, planned to spontaneous, and short- term to long-term (Tominaga & Kogo, 2018). These relationships are negotiated over time according to the needs and desires of the mentor and mentee (de Janasz & Godshalk, 2013), but typically following a trajectory of negotiation, growth enablement, and closure (Weinberg & Locander, 2014).

In higher education, mentoring has primarily focused on early-career faculty members who are mentored by mid or late-career counterparts (Lunsford et al., 2018). For faculty mentees, mentoring initiatives facilitate a smooth transition into academia, greater career satisfaction, and increased departmental morale (Nick et al., 2012). Additional benefits for mentored faculty include an enhanced sense of self-confidence, self-efficacy, and professional identity (Feldman et al., 2010; Nick et al., 2012). Faculty with mentors generally express greater satisfaction with the distribution of their work, contributing to improved retention rates and increased productivity in the institution (Feldman et al., 2010). Importantly, faculty mentoring has been shown to help underrepresented academics gain experience in grant writing and scholarly publishing (Mayer et al., 2009).

Electronic or e-mentoring “provides new learning as well as career and emotional support, primarily through e-mail and other electronic means” (Haggard et al., 2011, p. 297). Thompson et al. (2010) explored e-mentoring for novice and experienced online course developers and concluded by recommending a needs analysis of the mentoring needs of e-learning personnel. Their work underscores needs assessment as a valid methodology for examining this specialized field.

Research Questions

The research study aimed to address the following two questions:

1. What are the perceived mentoring needs of instructional design professionals?

2. What factors impact the mentoring needs of design professionals?

Participants

Study participants included IDs working within institutions of higher education. Participants were identified through a combination of voluntary response and snowball sampling techniques (Johnson, 2014). Volunteers self-selected from recruitment announcements posted on professional networks and listservs such as Quality Matters, LinkedIn, Educause, and Facebook. Respondents also shared the needs assessment survey with ID colleagues who met the criteria for participation. In total, there were 103 respondents which yielded 65 complete surveys.

Procedure

The study spanned a duration of approximately 5 months. After development of the needs assessment survey it was distributed to ten pilot participants for feedback and iteration. Finally, the survey was shared via the social media postings and listservs of professional ID organizations.

Instrumentation

Instrumentation for the study consisted of an original needs assessment survey that was influenced by mentoring needs analyses in nursing and clinical education (von der Borch et al., 2011).

Needs Assessment Survey

The survey was comprised of 30 quantitative and qualitative questions organized by employee and institutional demographics, and mentoring needs. The mentoring needs subscale consisted of 25 items. To ensure survey reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was computed from pilot participant data (α = .94), demonstrating high internal consistency (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Sample survey questions from each section are noted in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Sample Needs Assessment Survey

View Fullscreen

Data Analysis

Survey data were exported from Qualtrics into SPSS statistical analysis software (version 29.0.2.0). Data were cleaned to remove incomplete surveys from the data set. While 103 surveys were initiated, survey respondents who completed 48% or less of the survey were excluded. Further, respondents who did not meet the screening criteria of working as ID professionals were also removed from the data (n = 9). Post cleaning, the data set consisted of 65 surveys.

Questions with multiple select options were recoded using dummy codes (UCLA Institute for Digital Research and Education: Statistical Consulting, 2020). Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions were computed for all quantitative questions and visualizations were generated. Non-parametric tests were used to analyze potential differences in mentoring needs across subgroups such as years of design experience and work setting. Analyses entailed a series of Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (Kruskal & Wallis, 1952) for examining post-hoc pairwise comparisons, applying a Bonferroni correction (Armstrong, 2014).

Demographics

Participant demographics play a key role in understanding the mentoring needs of design professionals.

Participant

Most participants in this study (n = 65) identified as IDs (53.8%), followed by administrators (21.5%), senior IDs (20%) and other roles (4.6%). Administrators were managers and directors, some of whom had ID backgrounds. Educational technologists and faculty comprised the category of “other” (Figure 1).

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Professionals who responded to the survey included a mix of novice, mid-career, and experienced IDs. Most IDs had over 7 years of experience (53.8%), followed by practitioners with 3-7 years of experience (29.2%), and novices with less than 3 years (16.9%) in the field (Figure 2). These IDs engaged in course design across multiple delivery formats, including online (93.8%), hybrid (67.7%), and face-to-face (44.6%).

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

The majority of respondents possessed an educational degree or certificate in ID or a related discipline (78.5%), leaving 21.5% with no formal preparation for a design career. For this subset of underprepared design professionals, mentoring is critical.

Research Question 1: What Are the Perceived Mentoring Needs of Instructional Design Professionals?

Mentoring needs ranged from great to little importance. The mentoring needs identified by participants as being of high importance (Table 2) tended to align with the core functions of ID professionals (Pollard & Kumar, 2022). Unsurprisingly, communicating effectively with colleagues was the top mentoring need for IDs, coinciding with communication skills as a required competency for higher education professionals (McCormack, 2024; Surrency et al., 2019). In fact, communication skills permeated several of the top mentoring needs, including providing constructive feedback, setting clear expectations with stakeholders, building trust with colleagues, and modeling professional behavior. Qualitative survey responses also supported the importance of modeling soft skills, such as empathy and patience with stakeholders. In addition, respondents expressed the need for development of advanced communication skills, such as resistance, conflict resolution, plus diversity, equity, and inclusion.

TABLE 2 Instructional Design Mentoring Needs of Great Importance

View Fullscreen

Top mentoring needs also included guiding the course development process, managing projects, developing pedagogical strategies, and developing technology skills. These practical skills encompass common ID responsibilities that professionals hone over time yet are requisite for even novice designers. Several participants expressed the need for IDs to be familiar with a variety of ID service models for course development (see Mancilla & Frey, 2023) and accreditation requirements for online programs. Finally, IDs highlighted the need for support regarding work-life balance, a theme which also emerged from the survey’s qualitative data. One participant stated, “I believe providing mental support is important too, especially since a lot of IDs were burned out unconsciously during the early and middle stages of COVID.” This trend aligns with a recent Educause report the noted the ongoing risk for excessive workload and burnout among design professionals in higher education (Muscanell, 2024).

Participants categorized the majority of mentoring needs under the heading of average importance (Table 3). The first need, solving design or technical problems, bordered on a ranking of high importance because it interfaces with many ID job functions. Open-ended survey questions also indicated the need for IDs to develop visual design skills to support content flow and structure. Several average mentoring needs centered on developing a professional identity as a designer, consistent with the evidence-based benefits of mentoring relationships (Allen et al., 2004). These needs included acclimating to the team, department, or university culture and enhancing a sense of belonging. Similarly, the needs of growing a professional network or participating in a professional organization demonstrate the broadening of IDs’ professional identity toward an external locus. The themes of identity development and networking were also evident in qualitative responses. An example from one participant highlighted that “networking and connecting with organizations that support IDs is invaluable to cultivating a sense of identity as an ID. This helps the mentee to see themselves as an instructional designer and a valuable contributor to their team.”

TABLE 3 Instructional Design Mentoring Needs of Average Importance

View Fullscreen

Another subset of needs ranked as average importance concentrate on the career advancement of IDs. These needs entail establishing long or short-term goals, understanding the promotion process, planning a career progression, and developing a design portfolio or CV. As IDs progress in their careers, they transition from being consumers of knowledge to expert contributors to the design field as authors, teachers, consultants, and creators of professional presentations or posters.

The final set of needs were those classified as being of little importance (Table 4). Interestingly, all three of these mentoring needs were related to scholarly research and publication. They included developing a research project and navigating the IRB process. Publishing a manuscript was ranked as the lowest of all mentoring needs for design professionals. The low importance given to developing research skills may be due to the staff or administrator classification of many IDs, rather than faculty roles that prioritize or reward research. Furthermore, IDs may find it challenging to conduct research due to time and resource limitations (Linder & Dello Stritto, 2017).

TABLE 4 Instructional Design Mentoring Needs of Little Importance

View Fullscreen

Research Question 2: What Factors Impact the Mentoring Needs of Design Professionals?

Despite the broad array of demographic variables gathered from survey participants, the mentoring needs of design professionals did not differ based on full-time/part-time employment status, institution type (two-year, four-year, or technical; public or private), online unit type (decentralized or decentralized), or level of education. Overall, the mentoring needs of IDs across higher education institutions were more similar than different. The three variables that yielded a statistically significant impact on mentoring needs were: 1) ID years of experience, 2) team format (on-site, fully virtual, or hybrid), and 3) team size (small, medium, large).

Impact of ID Years of Experience

Like mid-career higher education faculty (Mendez et al., 2020), mentoring needs differed by ID experience (junior, mid-level, and senior). Statistically significant differences emerged for developing a research project, navigating the IRB process, setting long-term and short-term goals, identifying teaching/consultation opportunities, publishing a scholarly manuscript, building trust with colleagues, guiding the course development process, developing pedagogical skills, preparing a presentation/poster, settings clear expectations with stakeholders, and maintaining work-life balance were. See Table 5 for a summary of results.

TABLE 5 Impact of Years of ID Experience on Mentoring Needs

View Fullscreen

For the significant findings, post-hoc comparison tests were performed to compare differences among the three ID subgroups, which yielded four profiles of mentoring needs.

Differences between mid-level and junior IDs

The mid-level IDs respondents identified setting expectations among stakeholders (z = −2.451, p = .043) and supporting work-life balance (z = −2.491, p = .038) as more important mentoring needs than junior IDs. This could be due to mid-level IDs taking on more complex course developments and special projects.

Differences between mid-level and senior IDs

The mid-level IDs respondents ranked navigating the IRB process (z = 3.076, p = .006), setting long-term and short-term goals (z = 3.014, p = .008), identifying teaching and consulting opportunities (z = 2.982, p = .009), publishing a manuscript (z = 2.945, p = .010), guiding the course development process (z = 2.692, p = .021), and preparing a professional presentation or poster (z = 2.673, p = .023) more important mentoring needs than senior IDs. Many of these mentoring needs point to mid-level IDs’ transitioning from fulfilling basic job requirements to making advanced contributions to the field as instructors, consultants, and researchers.

Differences between mid-level and all other IDs

Mid-level IDs differed from both junior and senior colleagues in the high importance they attributed to developing pedagogical strategies (z = −2.445, p = .043; z = 2.460, p = .042, respectively) and developing a research project (z = −2.501, p = .037; z = 3.621, p = .001, respectively).

Differences between mid-level, seniors, and junior IDs

Both mid-level and senior IDs ranked trust as a more important mentoring need than their junior colleagues (z = −2.451, p = .043; z = −2.838, p = .014, respectively). Predictably, mid-level and senior IDs underscored trust since it contributes to developing and sustaining professional relationships as their career advances.

Impact of Team Type

Mentoring needs also differed by ID team types (virtual, hybrid, on-site). Of all possible mentoring needs, there was only one significant finding, which was solving design or technology problems (Table 6). A post-hoc comparison test indicated that hybrid team members ranked the need for solving design or technology problems as more important than their on-site colleagues (z = 2.447, p = .043). This finding on the need for advanced problem-solving in hybrid team environments is consistent with the documented challenges of technology-mediated communication (Henke et al., 2022).

TABLE 6 Impact of Team Format on Mentoring Needs

View Fullscreen

Impact of Team Size

Finally, mentoring needs differed by team size (small 0–2 IDs, medium 3–6 IDs, large >7 IDs). Statistically significant differences were found for three mentoring needs, including managing projects, communicating effectively with colleagues, and understanding the promotion process (Table 7).

TABLE 7 Impact of Team Size on Mentoring Needs

View Fullscreen

Post-hoc comparisons generated two profiles of mentoring needs.

Differences between medium and large teams

IDs working on medium-sized teams identified communicating effectively with colleagues (z = 2.733, p = .019) as more important than counterparts on large teams. They also prioritized understanding the promotion process (z = 2.565, p = .031) more so than their counterparts working on large teams.

Differences between medium and small teams

IDs working on medium-sized teams reported managing projects (z = −3.044, p = .007) as more important than their counterparts working on small teams. The need for project management skills may be attributed to medium-sized teams having sufficient staffing for a concierge, full-service model of course development. This model requires ID oversight of complex courses, timelines, and assets. On the other hand, small teams might deploy a consultation model, in which faculty members manage the course development process with input from IDs (Quinn, 2023).