Professionally Identified

The opening points of chapter 9 Visscher-Voerman layout a structure for a learning program for an ID that are grounded in the idea of a T shaped professional. A cursory review of the concept of a T developed professional says that this model was developed by a design consultancy company in relation to recruiting practices and how to seek out a professional. I thought it was interesting in the Wikipedia article that there are a number of other letters and symbols that have been developed in relation to professional identities, and in being made aware of this it caused me to feel very appreciative of the way Tracey's rejoinder pointed out that before we whisk ourselves into a predetermined assumption of what directions to develop identity, it would be valuable and important to contextualize the process before sending us into the world to try and match ourselves to it. 

I find myself more invested in a situation in which I am not only being given the tools, but also the intended purpose,  potential trajectory, and reassurance and proof that all of the above are meant to be access points and handrails if needed, not end all be alls. To me these seem like crucial points of identity development. I felt reassured by Tracey's assertion that having students "take responsibility for their own learning process" (p. 77) requires students have a foundational understanding of who they currently are as designers in order for them to design their "own learning route." While I understand from my own experience in different fields that it can be a tall order trying to help students orient in a "clear understanding of their starting point in their designer professional identity" (p. 78) I do believe that it is where instructor knowledge and experience and the responsibility an instructor takes on to cohesively share that knowledge and experience within the context of the field at large, is very important to an educational experience.

I think that a good educator, if they cannot show up for the order of being an individuated mentor and guide to each of their students (as suggested in both Visscher-Voerman's and Tracey's use of the swimming analogy - which to be clear, no shame or even strong expectation for that tall order for a single person, and especially for instructors who have not been tenured, or who are tenured and have not been able or willing to keep up with the field as it changes, but still want to provide the service of trying to pass along their experience and history in boundaried self-awareness, and acknowledgment in action of both weaknesses, and strengths) has the responsibility of vetting well who the student works with in a project-based atmosphere when that atmosphere is defined by a crossover into the professional world (corporate, nonprofit, independent, governmental, etc.).

I also think it is advantageous pairing students with an array of professionals in the field, across the spectrum of Educational Design. Applying the supervisions and 'formal scheduling of curriculum moments'  advocated for in the readings could then be a way for students to have a consistent vetted mentor, and the opportunity to discuss and reflect with their peers and their teacher as discussion leader and guide, on their various experiences and how those experiences fit into the greater whole of their professional identity development and how this knowledge can be utilized as they continue through the program and eventually become professionals themselves. This also serves as a boon to those students already working in the field while going to school (like myself) at the same time who get the benefit of what previous chapters have advocated for in allowing new thought into the field, valuing the experiences and knowledge of those just learning, and perhaps also encouraging space for guerrilla and creative design opportunity to flourish because new student enthusiasm can be generative in circumstances where all are supported. 

However, this does mean that I come into disagreement with Tracey and their idea that students themselves need to be the schedulers of their formal curriculum moments. I think this actually puts undue stress on the student, who is trying to develop so many skills all at once. It seems more advantageous that there are regular opportunities built into the education program for the student to reflect, at which point the more knowledgeable instructor (in content and context of the field) and experienced (again, specifically in regards to content and context in the field) is able to recognize the stages of a student in the learning and development process and reach out to be the director of when it is most advantageous to the students' stages to gather the class for reflection and perhaps ideally a very explicit and stated out transparency from the instructor on what they observed in their student(s) that indicated an awareness of their developmental stage. 

The caution that comes up for me in this would be that an instructor would need to be very mindful to help students deconstruct their perception of stages of development in the design field as not achievement based. Stages would need to be established as simply outside a framework of merit and not related to hard work as a reliable way in which stages are moved through. They would encourage stage movement to be understood as a holistic process that is expected to be unique to each person moving through them. Proven by pointing out how students move between stages back and forth, and sometimes exist in multiple stages at once. This would ideally be a collaboration, still requiring a very mindful and attentive approach, between the instructor, professional mentors, and students. But I think the outcomes would be cohorts and professionals in the field, and instructors at the education level who were accomplishing a system close to many of the asserted ideals in our textbook.

I think a lot of this is touched on in Visscher-Voerman's final rejoinder, except that I think she still misses the point that I felt Tracey was trying to make - and/or she backtracks and tries to claim that she just missed her opportunity to highlight it - the point being that the role of mentors and what she terms 'supervisors' in the process are crucial to cohesion within the student development process. Reflection alone will not spontaneously allow students to make the connections necessary for them to progress and learn at the pace advantageous to the pace of our world. They would still get there without the guidance with rich opportunity for research, authentic experimentation, and the backing of support systems built into their exploration; but instructors and authentic experience opportunity guides are there because they can help this process go quicker and help a student notice and cohese their experiences with folds in the time it may take, and help students avoid the barriers they are more likely to come up against without those supervising resources.

Prompt: Chapters 9 & 10 continue an exploration into the preparation of instructional designers. These chapters present several ideas for strategies for preparing IDs. Which of these ideas resonate with you and why? Or which don't and why not? I encourage you, as always, to find whatever you find interesting in either or both of these chapters and reflect on that.