Academic freedom versus course requirements and regulations can be a challenging dialogue. Instructional design teams are employed by higher education institutions to ensure course content is developed with both in mind. Instructional Design in a Jar is a simple and effective way to communicate the complexities of this process.

The Instructional Design in a Jar Model, or Jar Model for short, refers to an article about a woman who divorced her husband because she believed that for five years he tightened jar lids too tight so she would have to rely on him to open the jars for her. He denies having done this and offered to go to counseling with her, but she refused. She did not believe him and thought his offer was further manipulation. She divorced him based on her perception of reality. The same is with student attrition. Once a student’s trust with the institution is broken, the likelihood of the student returning is low. The intention of the institution is inconsequential, what matters is how the student perceived the situation. Instructional Designers (IDs) and administrators understand the importance of consistency in the flow of a course. The more allowances that are made to change the flow of a course, the higher the risk of students getting confused and frustrated with the course. Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) often come into the ID process with a vision of how they want to design the course and a firm belief that it is their academic freedom to design it however they wish. In this example, the ID process is compared to a jar of food. The size of the jar and lid are the Department of Education and accreditation requirements. The shape of the jar is the institution’s course template and requirements for the course. The front label is the institutional branding, course name, course code, and description. The ingredients label is the course learning outcomes. The serving sizes and how much goes into the jar are determined by the duration of the course and the DOE’s expectation for the number of coursework hours per credit hour. The recipe is the content that is designed in the ID process with the SME, which is their academic freedom. Academic freedom for the instructors is what is done with the contents once the students open the jar.
Student attrition is reduced by getting everyone on the same page. People who attend this session will be able to conceptualize the instructional design process at a granular level. Program Directors (PDs) will be able to explain the process easily and in a way that resonates with their SMEs. PDs and SMEs will be able to see all the components of course design and the role of each stakeholder in the process. IDs will be able to explain the complexity of the process in a simple way. Once the jar is opened, or class begins, the instructor’s academic freedom is what they do with the contents of the jar. For example, adding extra garlic, Italian seasoning, or cutting up some vegetables to make a spaghetti sauce more robust. There is also the technique of heating the sauce; how long it cooks and at what temperature. This method of explaining the process develops trust between IDs and faculty. The purpose of this education session is to demonstrate how to increase student satisfaction and retention by eliminating confusing Learning Management System navigation and inconsistencies in the professional appearance of courses. The Jar Model clarifies expectations and academic freedom in a way that is easily digestible for anyone engaging in the ID process. The model also explores the tendency for course content to be overdeveloped when being designed for any instructor to facilitate. The more complex the contents of the jar, the fewer additions that can be made. Facilitation of content should allow an instructor to teach the content in their own way. The Jar Model includes ways to think about content design from the instructor’s perspective on academic freedom.