Jim: Thanks Fred. I actually don’t consider myself an instructional designer. I’m an instructional technologist. What that distinction means, at least for me, is that rather than trying to fit online or hybrid courses into some pre-defined rubric like Quality Matters, I experiment with various technologies and partner with faculty to integrate them into their course. I’m not necessarily concerned with the online/hybrid distinction, and I stay as far away from course objectives and rubrics as humanly possible. I try to focus on thinking deeply about how a variety of new technologies can help transform the way we teach and learn. There is no blueprint for this, so I tend to think of it as research and development as much as it is a service-driven function of the university.

Fred: That paragraph has a lot packed into it, and your views here highlight a lot of the issues the field is facing right now. Many people in and around the field have started to think of Instructional Design as having more of a Bcheck-the-box,^ tech-support type role in organizations. Unfortunately, this moves us away from the art and science of designing effective learning practices, and the result is an image of button pushers and evangelists for giant corporate solutions. If the field is to overcome this challenge, I think we need to start thinking differently about the nature of course design, much like you and others have done with DS106, for example. The focus has to shift back to design, I think. How long have you been practicing?