Instructional designers can leverage their position to influence change at all levels. This session will explore the unique and significant influence they have in higher education settings. Attendees will receive strategies for using systems thinking approaches and their role to influence stakeholders, senior leaders, deans, heads, faculty, and students.

Introduction Systems thinking is a way of understanding and analyzing relationships and interdependencies within a system (Cabrera et al., 2015). This approach is essential for developing effective change strategies (Bond et al., 2021). Instructional designers (IDs) are uniquely positioned as change agents within higher education due to their ability to apply systems thinking to the design and development of online learning experiences that facilitate behavior change and improve performance (Kowch, 2005; Tracey & Boling, 2014). The rapid transition to remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the critical need for well-designed online learning environments (Hodges et al., 2020). This period has increased reliance on the expertise of instructional designers in higher education institutions (Moore et al., 2021). Instructional Designers as Change Agents in Online Learning Instructional designers can be positioned as change agents in numerous ways within higher education organizations, particularly in the context of online learning. They work collaboratively with stakeholders to identify areas where changes to learning and development initiatives could have a significant positive impact. This involves conducting needs assessments, gathering data, and analyzing results to identify opportunities for improvement in online education. IDs also help implement and sustain these changes, ensuring that new online learning materials and approaches are used effectively by faculty and students. By designing and implementing online learning interventions, instructional designers play a key role in shifting behaviors, improving learning outcomes, and driving positive change within higher education. Here are several ways IDs can employ systems thinking to influence change though their work in online learning: Identify Key Components of the System: IDs can use systems thinking to identify the key components involved in online learning, including technology, content delivery methods, and learner support mechanisms (Tessmer & Harris, 1990). Understanding how these components interact helps in designing more effective online learning experiences. Analyze Relationships Between Components: Once key components are identified, IDs can analyze their interrelationships to understand how changes in one part of the online learning system might affect others. This analysis informs strategies for implementing effective changes (Lockee et al., 2022). Consider the Larger Context: Systems thinking involves considering external factors such as technological advancements, societal trends, and internal factors like institutional culture and goals (Campbell & Schwier, 2014). This broader perspective helps IDs address challenges and leverage opportunities in online education. Drive Change Using Feedback: Implementing feedback loops is crucial for continuous improvement in online learning. IDs can gather and analyze data on the performance of online learning systems, making adjustments to improve outcomes (Meadows, 2008). Consider Long-Term Implications: A long-term perspective is valuable when planning changes in online learning environments. IDs can anticipate the potential impacts of changes and plan for sustainable improvements in instructional quality (Gustafson, 1993). Engage Stakeholders: Engaging a wide range of stakeholders, including learners, faculty, and administrators, is essential for successful online learning initiatives. IDs can facilitate this engagement to ensure broad support and effective implementation of changes (Lockee et al., 2022). Communicating and Elevating the Role of Instructional Design Making the critical role of instructional designers transparent within higher education organizations is essential. IDs should regularly communicate the value of their work in driving impactful change through online learning. This might involve sharing research and data on the effectiveness of online learning tools and strategies, as well as examples of successful initiatives within and outside the institution. Instructional designers can demonstrate their value by showcasing their expertise and aligning their efforts with institutional goals. They can present on topics related to online learning and change, provide guidance to stakeholders, and support the design and delivery of effective online learning experiences. Building trust through collaboration with stakeholders is also crucial Tessmer & Harris, 1990). By working closely with leaders and stakeholders, IDs can design online learning solutions that meet their needs, fostering trust and credibility. Open dialogue and transparent interactions can help to build trust and credibility, and can help stakeholders understand the value that instructional designers bring to the organization (Sentz, 2019). Using data to inform decisions and report progress further demonstrates the impact of instructional design on student performance and institutional success. Instructional designers can help leaders and stakeholders understand the impact of learning by measuring and reporting on the results of learning initiatives (Sentz, 2019). Conclusion Instructional designers hold a unique position within higher education, balancing theory and practice to enhance online learning. Using systems thinking approaches, IDs can significantly influence instructional quality and effectiveness in online education. Leaders should leverage the distinctive expertise of instructional designers to lead change efforts and improve online learning experiences in higher education. This interactive presentation will balance theory and practice to show the unique position that instructional designers hold within higher education. Presenters represent a diverse group of professionals in different higher education contexts and roles and will provide an overview of how instructional designers can use systems thinking approaches to play key roles in bringing change to their own higher education context. Additionally, presenters will provide concrete examples and cases that demonstrate how instructional designers can use their positions to influence and change a given system. Attendees will leave with tangible strategies to practice the facilitation of change at their respective institutions. References Bond, M. A., & Blevins, S. J. (2020). Using faculty professional development to foster organizational change: A social learning framework. TechTrends, 64(2), 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00459-2 Bond, M. A., Tamim, S. R., Blevins, S. J., & Sockman, B. R. (2021). Integrating systems: A practical guide. In M. A. Bond, S. R. Tamim, S. J. Blevins, & B. R. Sockman (Eds.),Systems Thinking for Instructional Designers (pp. 1-7). Routledge. Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., & Kenny, R. F. (2009). The critical relational practice of instructional design in higher education: An emerging model of change agency. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 645-663. Campbell, K., & Schwier, R. A. (2014). Major movements in instructional design. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds.), Athabasca University Press (pp. 345-380). Cabrera, D., Cabrera, L., & Powers, E. (2015). A unifying theory of systems thinking with psychosocial applications. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 32(5), 534-545. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2351 Gustafson, K. L. (1993). Instructional design fundamentals: Clouds on the horizon. Educational Technology, 33(2), 27-32. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, M. A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 3. https://er.educause.edu/ Kowch, E. G. (2005). Do we plan the journey or read the compass? An argument for preparing educational technologists to lead organisational change. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 1067–1070. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678535.2005.00577.x Lockee, B., Bond, M., McGowin, B., & Blevins, S. (2022). Beyond design: The systemic nature of distance delivery mode selection. Distance Education, 43(2), 204-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2064825 Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green Publishing. Moore, S., Trust, T., Lockee, B. B., Bond, M. A., & Hodges, C. (2021). One year later… and counting: Reflections on emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2021/11/one-year-later-and-counting-reflections-on-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Crown Business. Sentz, J. A. (2019). The balancing act: Interpersonal aspects of instructional designers as change agents in higher education. In J. Stefaniak (Ed.), Cases on learning design and human performance technology (pp. 58-79). IGI Global. Tessmer, M., & Harris, D. (1990). Beyond instructional effectiveness: Key environmental decisions for instructional designers as change agents. Educational Technology, 30(7), 16-20. Tracey, M. W., & Boling, E. (2014). Preparing instructional designers: Traditional and emerging perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 653-660). Springer.