Like Sarah Lohnes Watulak I’m still trying to figure out how much of a role generative AI could play in my work as an instructional designer. While AI is built into some of our processes, (auto-generating video captions, for example), I seldom use it intentionally. Yet I wonder if I’m missing an opportunity to streamline my work. A recent post in the Instructional Design subreddit asking “What AI Tools Can Help Instructional Designers and Educators?” yielded plenty of tool recommendations as well as warnings such “If you aren’t currently working in partnership with some version of AI, you are falling behind” and “It’s time for IDs to embrace AI and not get left behind.” Numerous articles describe how AI is transforming instructional design processes and detail the ways AI can improve nearly every aspect of course development.
My limited use of AI isn’t strictly an aversion to these tools, but rather a reflection of what I value. Whether I’m designing a course for Middlebury Institute Online or helping an instructor develop a digital storytelling assignment, I highly value close collaboration with faculty. Many of the best learning experiences I’ve designed have come through days, weeks, and even months of conversations and revisions. Creating courses and assignments isn’t just about output for me; the most rewarding aspects often occur during the process. There might be times to use AI as a brainstorming tool,for example, if I’m stuck on a challenging design problem and need to generate ideas, yet I often find myself turning to colleagues in these scenarios. I work as part of a distributed team, with much of my work being virtual, and these conversations are part of what helps me feel connected to my team.
I also chafe at some of the underlying assumptions about how generative AI will enhance my work. Promises of workflow optimization, efficiency, and streamlining imply faster work is better work. Timeliness is important–courses run during certain semesters, assignments are submitted by specific dates. But speed and efficiency don’t often align with the relationship-building I find necessary for instructional design. Though we have deadlines, developing quality online courses takes time. Helping an instructor feel comfortable introducing a new technology into their classroom takes time. Granted, time is often a luxury for instructors, and as Eric Jensen points out, “Working time is limited, so every decision about where to invest effort is a trade-off between competing needs and priorities.” Writing of those who adopt a moral purity based on avoiding AI, Jensen asks if it’s “ethically justifiable to waste time doing that same work much more slowly when that may mean giving less attention to more important matters?” Again, the use of AI seems largely a question of values.
Speaking of time, AI does promise to free up my time so I can focus on what really matters –for example, spending less time on administrative tasks in order to prioritize creative ones. In this way, AI delivers–the aforementioned video captioning is a great example. Yet as Cal Newport cautions, “Other technologies have previously sped up the execution of administrative tasks (think: every major breakthrough of the personal computer revolution), but speeding up these tasks has a way of inducing even more to fall into their slipstream. The result is less a new productivity utopia than an even more intense level of freneticism.” I can appreciate the ways AI does make my job easier, but I remain skeptical of its loftier promises.
In terms of instructional design, there are things AI can do well and things it can’t. I’m sure this will change as the tools develop, and I remain open to seeing where and how AI might play a role in my work. I value AI’s application for purely administrative tasks, but prefer a more limited use in moments that prioritize collaboration and relationships.
Dr. Sarah Payne