Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic review of how expertise is cultivated in instructional design coursework

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For decades, researchers in our field have explored what it means to possess instructional design expertise. This systematic review provides a current synthesis of research related to cultivating expertise in instructional design coursework. A search on instructional design pedagogy and the development of expertise yielded 34 peer-reviewed articles that met the inclusion criteria for this study. The findings suggest that more research is needed on instructional strategies to strengthen instructional design students’ procedural, conditional, and conceptual knowledge domains. This study resulted in three recommendations to support the cultivation of expertise in instructional design courses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akpınar, Y. (2007). Liberating learning object design from the learning style of student instructional designers. Performance Improvement, 46(10), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (2004). A model of domain learning: Reinterpreting expertise as a multidimensional, multistage process. In D. Y. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 273–298). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing, A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (abridged edition). Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baaki, J., & Luo, T. (2017). Stimulating students’ use of external representations for a distance education time machine design. Tech Trends, 61(4), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0155-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baaki, J., & Luo, T. (2019). Instructional designers guided by external representations in a design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 513–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-09493-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., Alangari, H., Hajdu, I. M., Guo, M., Gyabak, K., Khlaif, Z., Kizilboga, R., Tomita, K., Alsaif, M., Lachheb, A., Bae, H., Ergulec, F., Zhu, M., Basdogan, M., Buggs, C., Sari, A., & Techawitthayachinda, R. (2017). Core judgments of instructional designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J., Brown, A., Cocking, R., & Center, E. R. I. (2000). How people learning: Brain, mind, experience, and school (2nd ed.). National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brescia, W., Mullins, C., & Miller, M. T. (2009). Project-based service-learning in an instructional technology graduate program. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), n2.

  • Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating peer review as a systemic pedagogy for developing the design knowledge, skills, and dispositions of novice instructional design students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9421-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgin, M. S. (2017). Theory of knowledge: Structures and processes. World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cates, W. M. (1994). Estimating the time required to produce computer-based instructional lessons: Descriptive analyses of the production data of novice instructional developers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.2190/CX35-RP37-NB8P-D2RY

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Moore, J. L., & Vo, N. (2012). Formative evaluation with novice designers: Two case studies within an online multimedia development course. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(2), 95–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (2014). The nature of expertise. Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 45–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalziel, J., Conole, G., Wills, S., Walker, S., Bennett, S., Dobozy, E., et al. (2016). The Larnaca declaration on learning design. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(7), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demiral-Uzan, M. (2015). Instructional design students’ design judgment in action. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1980). A five-stage model of mental activities involved in direct skill acquisition. Supported by the U.S. Air Force, Office of Scientific Research (AFSC) under contract F49620-C-0063 with the University of California, Berkeley.

  • Dunphy, B. C., & Williamson, S. L. (2004). In pursuit of expertise. Toward an educational model for expertise development. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 9(2), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AHSE.0000027436.17220.9c

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elvira, Q., Imants, J., Dankbaar, B., & Segers, M. (2017). Designing education for professional expertise development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2015.1119729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A. (2018). The differential influence of experience, practice, and deliberate practice on the development of superior individual performance of experts. In K. A. Ericsson, R. R. Hoffman, A. Kozbelt, & A. M. Williams (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (2nd ed., pp. 745–769). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2005). Instructional design expertise: How will we know it when we see it? Educational Technology, 45(6), 38–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., Flanagan, S., Kocaman-Karoglu, A., Reiner, C., Reyes, L., Santone, A. L., & Ushigusa, S. (2009a). Impact of guidance on the problem-solving efforts of instructional design novices. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(4), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., York, C. S., & Gedik, N. (2009b). Learning from the pros: How experienced designers translate instructional design models into practice. Educational Technology, 49(1), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fadde, P. J. (2009). Instructional design for advanced learners: Training recognition skills to hasten expertise. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9046-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fadde, P. J., & Sullivan, P. (2020). Developing expertise and expert performance. In M. J. Bishop, E. Boling, J. Elen, & V. Svihla (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (5th ed., pp. 53–72). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar, J. D., & Surry, D. W. (1994). Adoption analysis: An additional tool for instructional developers. Educational and Training Technology International, 31(1), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954730940310103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., Chen, C. H., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers’ problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 219–248. https://doi.org/10.2190/5F6J-HHVF-q2U2B-8T3G

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral-Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A., Gyabak, K., Hilligoss, M., Kizilboga, R., Tomita, K., & Boling, E. (2015). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardré, P. L., & Kollmann, S. (2013). Dynamics of instructional and perceptual factors in instructional design competence development. Journal of Learning Design, 6(1), 46–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardré, P. L., Ge, X., & Thomas, M. K. (2005). Toward a model of development for instructional design expertise. Educational Technology, 45(1), 53–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartt, D. C., & Rossett, A. (2000). When instructional design students consult with the real world. Performance Improvement, 39(7), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140390712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatano, G., & Inagki, K. (1984). Two courses of expertise. Research and Clinical Center for Child Development Annual Report, 6, 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoard, B., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Draper, D. (2019). The influence of multimedia development knowledge and workplace pressures on the design decisions of the instructional designer. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1479–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09687-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C. (2017). The influence of values and rich conditions on designers’ judgments about useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9485-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, A., & Tracey, M. W. (2015). Design ideas, reflection, and professional identity: How graduate students explore the idea generation process. Instructional Science, 43(5), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9354-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huybrechts, L., Schoffelen, J., Schepers, S., & Braspenning, L. (2012). Design representations: Connecting, making, and reflecting in design research education. In D. Boutsen (Ed.), Good practices best practices: Highlighting the compound idea of education, creativity, research, and practice (pp. 35–42). Sint-Lucas School of Architecture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julian, M. F., Kinzie, M. B., & Larsen, V. A. (2000). Compelling case experiences; performance, practice, and application for emerging instructional designers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13(3), 164–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2000.tb00181.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2002). The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: A case study on novice and expert designers. Design Studies, 23(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00021-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. M. (1987). Inexact sciences: Professional education and the development of expertise. Review of Research in Education, 14(1), 133–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. T. (1983). Inside the black box: Making design decisions for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.1983.tb00448.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, N., & Boling, E. (2014). Development of design judgment in instructional design: Perspectives from instructors, students, and instructional designers. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio (pp. 161–184). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Koszalka, T., Russ-Eft, D., & Reiser, R. (2013). Instructional design competencies: The standards (4th ed.). Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberati, A. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), W-65-94.

  • Lowell, V. L., & Ashby, I. V. (2018). Supporting the development of collaboration and feedback skills in instructional designers. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9170-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, T., & Baaki, J. (2019). Graduate students using concept mapping to visualize instructional design processes. Tech Trends, 63(4), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0368-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. K., Rich, P. J., & Gubler, N. B. (2019). The perceived value of informal, peer critique in the instructional design studio. Tech Trends, 63(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0302-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster dictionary (2020) Retrieved May 8, 2020, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expert

  • Merrill, M. D., Tennyson, R. D., & Posey, L. O. (1992). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide (2nd ed.). Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, M., & Meuleman, N. (2017). Reflections of a new educational designer. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 21(2), 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, T. M., Horvitz, B., & Shi, M. (2006). ‘Isn’t it just like our situation?’ Engagement and learning in an online story-based environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9604-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez, R. S., Johnson, J. F., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Instructional design expertise: A cognitive model of design. Instructional Science, 23(5–6), 321–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1995.tb00688.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. (1994). Connecting education and practice in an instructional design graduate program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Martin, F. (2014). Development and validation of the educational technologist multimedia competency survey. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1992.tb00546.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidmaier, R., Eiber, S., Ebersbach, R., Schiller, M., Hege, I., Holzer, M., et al. (2013). Learning the facts in medical school is not enough: Which factors predict successful application of procedural knowledge in a laboratory setting? BMC Medical Education, 13(1), 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sentz, J., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Eckhoff, A. (2019). How do instructional designers manage learners’ cognitive load? An examination of awareness and application of strategies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(1), 199–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-09640-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, R., Kopp, V., & Fischer, M. R. (2011). Case-based learning with worked examples in complex domains: Two experimental studies in undergraduate medical education. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefaniak, J., & Xu, M. (2020). Leveraging dynamic decision-making and environmental analysis to support authentic learning experiences in digital environments. Revista De Educación a Distancia (RED). https://doi.org/10.6018/red.412171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., Hoard, B., & Stapleton, L. (2018). The influence of perceived constraints during needs assessment on design conjecture. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9173-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stepich, D. A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). “Teaching” instructional design expertise: Strategies to support students’ problem-finding skills. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 7(2).

  • Stepich, D. A., Ertmer, P. A., & Lane, M. M. (2001). Problem-solving in a case-based course: Strategies for facilitating coached expertise. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W., Hoard, B., Brown, A., & Daniels, L. (2012). Identifying multimedia production competencies and skills of instructional design and technology professionals: An analysis of recent job postings. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(3), 227–249. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.40.3.b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, R. H., Plummer, K. J., & West, R. E. (2020). Toward functional expertise through formal education: Identifying an opportunity for higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2551–2568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09778-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toker, S., & Moseley, J. L. (2013). The mental model comparison of expert and novice performance improvement practitioners. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(3), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2013). Developing designer identity through reflection. Educational Technology, 53(3), 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2018). Uncertainty, agency and motivation in graduate design students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 29, 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., Hutchinson, A., & Grzebyk, T. Q. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: Developing professional identity through reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9334-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ugur-Erdogmus, F., & Cagiltay, K. (2019). Making novice instructional designers expert: Design and development of an electronic performance support system. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(4), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1453853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verstegen, D., Barnard, Y., & Pilot, A. (2008). Instructional design by novice designers: Two empirical studies. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 351–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vu, P., & Fadde, P. J. (2013). When to talk, when to chat: Student interactions in live virtual classrooms. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(2), 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance improvement quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, T. K., & Cagiltay, K. (2016). Designing and developing game-like learning experience in virtual worlds: Challenges and design decisions of novice instructional designers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 7(3), 206–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2011). Towards an understanding of instructional design heuristics: An exploratory Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 841–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9209-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Examining instructional design principles applied by experienced designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • York, C. S., Ertmer, P. A., & Gedik, N. (2009). Extracting heuristics from expert instructional designers. Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 1, 496–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, M., Basdogan, M., & Bonk, C. J. (2020). A case study of the design practices and judgments of novice instructional designers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Georgia, 221 Rivers Crossing, 850 College Station Road, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Jill E. Stefaniak & Hyejin Hwang

Authors
  1. Jill E. Stefaniak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hyejin Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill E. Stefaniak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Overview of Studies Comparing Expert and Novice Instructional Design Performance.

Authors

Journal

Purpose of study

Participants (n)

Methodology

Data sources

Ertmer et al. (2009a)

Performance Improvement Quarterly

Interview, think-aloud protocol, Survey

32

Quantitative

Case analysis report

Hoard et al. (2019)

Educational Technology Research and Development

Comparison of instructional design experts’ and novices’ multimedia decision-making processes

33

Mixed methods

Survey, verbal content from the design aloud protocol, follow-up interview

Kavakli and Gero (2002)

Design Studies

Comparison of instructional design experts’ and novices’ use of current cognitive actions (i.e., external representations and sketches)

2

Qualitative

Content-oriented retrospective protocol analysis

Perez and Emery (1995)

Performance Improvement Quarterly

Comparison of instructional design experts’ and novices’ approaches to designing a computer simulation

9

Mixed methods

Interview, verbal protocol analysis, design tree

Perez et al. (1995)

Instructional Science

Comparison of instructional design experts' and novices' cognitive models in formulating a design solution

9

Mixed methods

Think-aloud verbal protocol analysis

Sentz et al. (2019)

Educational Technology Research and Development

Comparison of instructional design experts’ and novices' management of cognitive load in a standardized instructional scenario

30

Mixed methods

Interview, think-aloud protocol, Survey

Toker and Moseley (2013)

Performance Improvement Quarterly

Comparison of instructional design experts’ and novices’ use of mental models during instructional design activities

242

Quantitative

Survey, Delphi technique

Appendix B

Overview of Studies Included in Review Focused on Teaching Instructional Design.

Authors

Journal

Purpose of study

Foci

Course(s)

Level

Participants (n)

Methodology

Data sources

Akipinar (2007)

Performance Improvement

Explored the effects of reflection and learning style on instructional design students’ abilities to design learning objects in an LMS

Reflection

Distance learning

G

22

Mixed methods

Reflections

Survey

Baaki and Luo (2017)

TechTrends

Discuss how instructors can design a reflective and collaborative learning environment using external representations

External representations

Distance learning

G

8

Mixed methods

Concept maps

Class assignments

Interviews

Baaki and Luo (2019)

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Explore how students reacted to and reflected on their external representations in design projects

External representations

Distance learning and performance improvement

G

22

Mixed methods

Survey

Class assignments

Brescia et al. (2009)

International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

Focused on critical incidents that occurred while instructional design students were engaged in a service-learning project

Problem-based learning

Not specified

G

5

Mixed methods

Survey

Interviews (Delphi)

Brill (2016)

Educational Technology Research and Development

Explore the use of peer review in an instructional design course

Peer review strategies

Introduction to instructional design

G

30

Mixed methods

Survey

Artifact

Observations

Cates (1994)

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Estimating time allocation on design tasks by novice instructional designers

Time on task

Not specified

G

5

Qualitative

Journal logging hours and tasks

Chen et al. (2012)

International Journal of Instructional Media

Exploration of formative evaluation training of novice instructional designers

Formative evaluation

Multimedia design

G/U

35

Quantitative

Survey

Demiral-Uzan (2015)

Performance Improvement Quarterly

Examination of the extent that instructional design students exercise design judgment

Decision-making

Not specified

G

3

Qualitative

Interviews

Ge et al. (2005)

Journal of Educational Computing Research

Use of question prompts to support novice instructional designers’ problem-solving processes

Problem-solving

Not specified

G

8

Mixed methods

Think alouds

Class assignments

Hardré and Kollmann (2013)

Journal of Learning Design

Examine learners’ perceptions and background to understand how they contribute to students' competence development in the field of instructional design

Learner perceptions

Introduction to instructional design and advanced instructional design

G

17

Mixed methods

Observations

Surveys

Assignments

Interviews

Hartt and Rossett (2000)

Performance Improvement

Examine the extent that instructional design students actually help their clients in a project-based course

Problem-based learning

Advanced instructional design

G

15

Qualitative

Interviews

Hutchinson and Tracey (2015)

Instructional Science

Exploration of how students used reflection to reconstruct experiences relating to the emergence of design ideas

Reflection

Introduction to instructional design

G

69

Qualitative

Journals

Julian et al. (2000)

Performance Improvement Quarterly

The use of a web-based case competition to expand professional knowledge in instructional design

Problem-based learning

Not specified

G

17

Mixed methods

Interviews

Observations

Kerr (1983)

British Journal of Educational Technology

Exploration of how novice instructional designers approach their tasks

Problem-solving

Introduction to instructional design

G

26

Qualitative

Case study

Lowell and Ashby (2018)

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

The role of peer feedback on instructional designers’ professional growth

Peer review strategies

Distance learning

G

90

Mixed methods

Surveys

Interviews

Luo and Baaki (2019)

TechTrends

Explore the use of concept mapping to assist students with addressing complex issues in instructional design

External representations

Distance learning and Performance Improvement

G

24

Mixed methods

Class assignments

Interviews

McDonald et al. (2019)

TechTrends

Examine how instructional design students perceive the informal peer critique as an influence in their studio education

Peer review strategies

Introduction to instructional design and advanced instructional design

G/U

26

Quantitative

Survey

Paulus et al. (2006)

Educational Technology Research and Development

Examine a team scenario to teach teamwork to instructional design students

Team design

Introduction to instructional design

G

27

Qualitative

Case study

Tracey and Hutchinson (2013)

Educational Technology

Examining the use of how instructional design students use reflection to build their designer identity

Reflection

Introduction to instructional design

G

40

Qualitative

Student reflections

Tracey and Hutchinson (2018)

Thinking Skills and Creativity

Examine how instructional design students characterized their experiences with uncertainty

Reflection

Introduction to instructional design

G

50

Qualitative

Student reflections

Tracey et al. (2014)

Educational Technology Research and Development

Examination of the development of professional identity through the use of reflective activities

Reflection

Introduction to instructional design

G

17

Qualitative

Student reflections

Ugur-Erdogmus and Cagiltay (2019)

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

Exploration of the design and development of an electronic performance support system to support novice instructional designers

Classroom communication

Introduction to instructional design and Multimedia design

U

23

Qualitative

Interviews

Assignments

Verstegen et al. (2008)

Journal of Interactive Learning Research

Exploration of design methodologies used by novice instructional designers to solve complex problems

Problem-solving

Not specified

Not specified

18

Mixed methods

Observations

Assignments

Vu and Fadde (2013)

Journal of Interactive Online Learning

Exploration of students’ choices of verbal and text interactions in a synchronous online learning environment

Classroom communication

Multimedia design

G

29

Mixed methods

Class recordings

Interviews

Yilmaz and Cagiltay (2016)

Contemporary Educational Technology

Exploration of strategies employed by instructional design students to address multimedia issues during design work

Problem-solving

Multimedia design

U

23

Qualitative

Case study

Zhu et al. (2020)

Contemporary Educational Technology

Exploration of how public health students new to instructional design use design judgments in an authentic instructional project

Decision-making

Multimedia design

G

37

Qualitative

Case study

  1. G represents graduate-level courses; U represents undergraduate-level courses

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stefaniak, J.E., Hwang, H. A systematic review of how expertise is cultivated in instructional design coursework. Education Tech Research Dev 69, 3331–3366 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10064-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10064-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation