Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology pp 653–660Cite as

Preparing Instructional Designers: Traditional and Emerging Perspectives

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

While official definitions and textbooks in the field reflect a conception of design in which little has changed in decades, there has been a growing awareness since the early 1990s that broader conceptions of design could benefit practice in instructional design. Preparations of instructional designers in college programs traditionally include the use of instructional design models and processes incorporating project work. Approaches based on studio design are recently emerging in some programs. Research on design practice and the effectiveness of design pedagogies in the field are called for.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anthony, K. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. S. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research and teaching in instructional design and technology. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (pp. 33–49). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E. (2008, October). Design is not systematic: Alternative perspectives on design—designer as human instrument. Panel session presented at the Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Orlando, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 2–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., Easterling, W., Hardre, P., Howard, C., & Roman, T. (2011). ADDIE: Perspectives in transition. Educational Technology, 51(5), 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2009, April). Design tensions: Adapting a signature pedagogy into instructional design education. Paper presented at the Meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., & Smith, K. (2010). Intensive studio experience in a non-studio masters program: Student activities and thinking across levels of design. Design and Complexity: Design Research Society Conference 2010, School of Industrial Design, Montreal (Quebec), Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boot, E. W., Botturi, L., Gibbons, A. S., & Stubbs, T. (2008). Supporting decision making in using design languages for learning designs and learning objects. In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinho, & B. Harper (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning design and learning objects (Chap. 42, pp. 851–868). Hershey, PA: Informing Science Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, C., Cennamo, K., McGrath, M., Vernon, M., Douglas, S., & Reimer, Y. (2010). The DIY ethic of the design studio: Past, present & future [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.idsa.org/diy-ethic-design-studio-past-present-future

  • Campbell, K., Kanuka, H., & Schwier, R. A. (2010). Investigating sociocultural issues in instructional design practice and research: The Singapore symposium. In E. Blanchard & D. Allard (Eds.), Handbook of research on culturally-aware information technology: Perspectives and models (pp. 49–73). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., et al. (2011). Managing the complexity of design problems through studio-based learning. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 12–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K. S., & Holmes, G. (2001). Developing awareness of client relations through immersion in practice. Educational Technology, 41(6), 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. P. (2010). The studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 755–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, G. & Hokanson, B. (2011). Educational Technology Research and Development, 60: 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991, Winter). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N., Christaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.). (1997). Analyzing design activity. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darke, J. (1978). The primary generator and the design process. In W. E. Rogers & W. H. Ittleson (Eds.), New directions in environmental design research: Proceedings of EDRA 9 (pp. 325–337). Washington, DC: EDRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, T. (1987). Design and studio pedagogy. Journal of Architectural Education, 41(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Quinn, J. (2003). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Yanchar, S. C. (2010). An alternative view of the instructional design process. Educational Technology, 50(4), 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habraken, N. J. (2007). To tend a garden: Thoughts on the strengths and limits of studio pedagogy. In A. Salama & N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future (pp. 11–20). Gateshead: The Urban International Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardre, P. L., Ge, X., & Thomas, M. K. (2006). An investigation of development toward instructional design expertise. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(4), 63–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, R., Kinshuk, Koper, R., Okamoto, T., & Spector, J. M. (2010). The education and training of learning technologists: A competences approach. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 13(2), 201–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcomb, C., Wedman, J. F., & Tessmer, M. (1996). ID activities and project success: Perceptions of practitioners. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(1), 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, J. E. (1997). The designer’s judgement. Design Studies, 18(1), 113–123.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. T. (1983). Inside the black box: Making design decisions for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1(14), 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., Carr, C., van Merrienboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How experts designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, M. P., & Suh, S. (2005). Performance systems analysis: Learning by doing. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 33(4), 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, M. B. (2005). Instructional design career environments: Survey of the alignment of preparation and practice. TechTrends, 49(6), 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2004). Instructional design practice: Career environments, job roles, and a climate of change. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(1), 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2009). Preparing instructional designers for different career environments: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2004a). Schemata, gambits and “precedent”: Some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 25(5), 443–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2004b). What designers know. Princeton, NJ: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Maistre, C. (1998). What is an expert instructional designer? Evidence of expert performance during formative evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, H., & Tracey, M. W. (2010). A review and new framework for instructional design practice variation research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(2), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newstetter, W., & McCracken, W. M. (2001a). Novice conceptions of design: Implications for the design of learning environments. In C. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. New York, NY: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newstetter, W., & McCracken, W. M. (Eds.). (2001b). Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education. New York, NY: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxman, R. (1994). Precedents in design: A computational model for the organization of precedent knowledge. Design Studies, 15(2), 141–157.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. (1995). The education of instructional designers: Reflections on the Tripp paper. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 111–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G., Parra, M. L., & Basnet, K. (1994). Educating instructional designers: Different methods for different outcomes. Educational Technology (July/August), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Schon, D. A. (1985). The design studio: an exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2004). Instructional designers’ observations about identity, communities of practice and change agency. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(1), 69–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, M., & Stolterman, E. (2008). Metamorphosis: Transforming non-designers into designers. In D. Durling, C. Rust, P. Ashton, & K. Friedman (Eds.), Undisciplined! Proceedings of the Design Research Society Conference 2008. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. C., & Koszalka, T. (2008). Competencies for the new-age instructional designer. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 569–575). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. M. (2008). Meanings of “design” in instructional technology: A conceptual analysis based on the field’s foundational literature (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69–08, 3122A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2008). Theoretical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 21–28). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatar, D. (2007). The design tensions framework. Human Computer Interaction, 22(4), 413–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. (1992). What designers do, don’t do, and why they don’t do it. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. (1995). Context-sensitive instructional design models: A response to design research, studies, and criticism. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 38–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., Chatervert, C., Lake, K., & Wilson, R. (2008). Real world projects in an advanced instructional design course. TechTrends, 52(4), 24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Morrison, G. R. (2012). Instructional design in business and industry. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 178–186). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Kester, L. (2008). Whole-task models in education. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 441–456). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    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 

  • Villachica, S., Marker, A., & Taylor, K. (2010). But what do they really expect? Employer perceptions of the skills of entry-level instructional designers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(4), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–89.

    Article  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 

  • Winer, L. R., & Vazquez-Abad, J. (1995). The present and future of ID practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, Wayne State University, 383 Education Building, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA

    Monica W. Tracey Ph.D.

  2. Indiana University, 201 N. Rose Avenue, Bloomington, Indiana, 47405, USA

    Elizabeth Boling

Authors
  1. Monica W. Tracey Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth Boling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica W. Tracey Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

    M. David Merrill

  3. , Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Jan Elen

  4. Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

    M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tracey, M.W., Boling, E. (2014). Preparing Instructional Designers: Traditional and Emerging Perspectives. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_52

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation