Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Many Facets of Design and Research in Instructional Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Design in Educational Technology

Abstract

This chapter examines instructional design and research within the field of instructional technology, noting differences in conceptualization of design and research held by other design fields. With this broader perspective, an examination of the ways that research is used in instructional design is presented. Research during design, research about design, and research through design are described. This analysis suggests ways that research and practice can be better integrated and extends the notion of instructional design research beyond the classic definitions of scholarly research. Finally, the implications of this framework for instructional design curriculum and future research directions are discussed.

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

Access this chapter

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0013189X11428813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design, 1(2), 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baek, E.-O., Cagiltay, K., Boling, E., & Frick, T. (2008). User-centered design and development. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 659–670). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24. Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0013189X032001021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive Studies, Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(3), 321–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2005). “The ADDIE Model”—A metaphor for the lack of clarity in the field of IDT. IDT Record. Retrieved August 2, 2012, from http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/IDTf_Bic.pdf

  • Boess, S. (2009). Designing in research: Characteristics and criteria. Rigor and Relevance in Design. International Association of Societies of Design Research. Retrieved from http://www.iasdr2009.org/ap/Papers/Special Session/Assessing knowledge generated by research through design/Designing in research—characteristics and criteria—Research method, questions and programme.pdf

  • Boling, E. (2005). Teaching a design model vs. developing instructional designers. IDT Record. Retrieved September 2, 2012, from http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/IDTf_Boling.pdf

  • Brandt, C. B., Cennamo, K., Douglas, S., Vernon, M., McGrath, M., & Reimer, Y. (2011). A theoretical framework for the studio as a learning environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10798-011-9181-5

  • Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruseberg, A., & Mcdonagh-Philp, D. (2000). User-centred design research methods: The designer’s perspective. In P. R. N. Childs & E. Brodhurst (Eds.), Integrating design education beyond 2000 conference (pp. 179–184). Sussex: University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17(4), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdick, A. (2003). Design [as] research. In B. Laurel (Ed.), Design research: Methods and perspectives (p. 82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 645–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, P. (2010). From memorable to transformative e-learning experiences: Theory and practice of experience design. In H. Yang & S. Yuen (Eds.), Handbook of research on practices and outcomes in e-learning: Issues and trends. Hershey, NY: Information Science Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, L. (2007). Translations between design research and scholarship. The Journal of Architectural Education, 61(1), 7–10. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1531-314X.2007.00120.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilesiz, S. (2010). A phenomenological approach to experiences with technology: Current state, promise, and future directions for research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 487–510. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11423-010-9173-2.

    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. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11423-010-9165-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0013189X032001009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conole, G. (2010). Learning design—Making practice explicit. ConnectEd 2010: 2nd International Conference on Design Education. Sydney, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0013189X032001005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doering, A., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). What lies beyond effectiveness and efficiency? Adventure learning design. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 137–144. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S109675160800047X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2004). The problem of design problems. The Journal of Design Research, 4(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2006). What we learn when we engage in design: Implications for assessing design research. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E. (1998). The enlightened eye :Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evenson, S., & Dubberly, H. (2011). Design as learning—or “knowledge creation”—the SECI model. Interactions Magazine, 18(2), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallman, D. (2008). The interaction design research triangle of design practice, design studies, and design exploration. Design Issues, 24(3), 4–18. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/desi.2008.24.3.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forlizzi, J., Stolterman, E., & Zimmerman, J. (2009). From design research to theory: Evidence of a maturing field. Rigor and Relevance in Design (pp. 2889–2898). Korean Society of Design Science. Retrieved from http://www.iasdr2009.org/ap/index.html

  • Foshay, W. R., & Quinn, D. W. (2005). Innovations in instructional technology design science as a frame for evaluation of technology in education and training. In J. Michael Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaak, & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 151–169). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, L., & Racine, M. (2010). The complex field of research: For design, through design, and about design. In E. S. David Durling, Rabah Bousbaci, Lin-Lin Chen, Philippe Gauthier, Tiiu Poldma, Seymour Roworth-Stokes (Ed.), Design & complexity: International conference of the Design Research Society. Design Research Society. Retrieved from http://www.designresearchsociety.org/docs-procs/DRS2010/

  • Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: Criteria, approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24(6), 507–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frizell, S. S., & Hübscher, R. (2002). Aligning theory and web-based instructional design practice with design patterns. In M. Driscoll & T. Reeves (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 298–304). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, J. J. (2003). The elements of user experience. Indianapolis: New Riders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2003). What and how do designers design ? A theory of design structure. TechTrends, 47(5), 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Rogers, P. C. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In Charles M. Reigeluth & Alison A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 3: Building a common knowledge base (pp. 305–326). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glanville, R. (1999). Researching design and designing research. Design Issues, 15(2), 80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 45–85). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gresalfi, M., Barab, S., Siyahhan, S., & Christensen, T. (2009). Virtual worlds, conceptual understanding, and me: Designing for consequential engagement. On the Horizon, 17(1), 21–34. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/10748120910936126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. (2002). Survey of instructional development models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearing house on Information & Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjelm, S. I. (2005). If everything is design, what then is a designer? Nordes Conference. Retrieved from http://www.nordes.org/opj/index.php/n13/article/view/234.

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Design as problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, D. (2004). The practice of design-based research: Uncovering the interplay between design, research, and the real-world context. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 235–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. (2006). Quality criteria for design research: Evidence and commitments. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 166–184). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., & Murpby, D. (1995). Research and the nature of design on ID fundamentals. In B. B. Seels (Ed.), Instructional design fundamentals: A reconsideration (Vol. 1, pp. 99–111). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and students. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(Pt 4), 645–660. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16318683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, M. (2008). The influence of disciplinary backgrounds on design practices in web-based systems development. Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems. Retrieved from http://www.ceciis.foi.hr/app/index.php/ceciis/2008/paper/view/131

  • Lang, M., & Fitzgerald, B. (2007). Web-based systems design: A study of contemporary practices and an explanatory framework based on “method-in-action”. Requirements Engineering, 12(4), 203–220. doi:10.1007/s00766-007-0052-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laurel, B. (Ed.). (2003). Design research: Methods and perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, A., & Sharag-Eldin, A. (2000). Reconstructing models of studio pedagogy in response to models of emerging professional practice. In L. V. Wells-Bowie (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACSA 88th Annual meeting. Washington, DC: Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 25(5), 443–457. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0142694X04000328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Amsterdam: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, T. (2002). Constructing a coherent cross-disciplinary body of theory about designing and designs: Some philosophical issues. Design Studies, 23(3), 345–361. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0142694X01000436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, A. (2011). Complete beginner’s guide to design research. UX Booth Blog. Retrieved from http://www.uxbooth.com/blog/complete-beginners-guide-to-design-research/

  • McDonald, J. K. (2011). The creative spirit of design. TechTrends, 55(5), 53–58. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s11528-011-0528-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mor, Y., & Winters, N. (2007). Design approaches in technology-enhanced learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 61–75. doi:10.1080/10494820601044236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, D. (1992). Is instructional design truly a design activity? Educational and Training Technology International, 29(4), 279–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2012). Definitions of research and development: An annotated compilation of official sources. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/randdef/fedgov.cfm

  • Nelson, B., Ketelhut, D. J., Clarke, J., Bowman, C., & Dede, C. (2005). Design-based research strategies for developing a scientific inquiry curriculum in a multi-user virtual environment. Educational Technology, 45(1), 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, W. A., Magliaro, S., & Sherman, T. M. (1988). The intellectual content of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 11(1), 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, W. A. (2003). Problem solving through design. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2003(95), 39–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieveen, N., McKenney, S., & van den Akker, J. (2006). Educational design research: The value of variety. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 229–240). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (2010). The research-practice gap: The need for translational developers. interactions magazine, 17(4), 9–12. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1806491.1806494

  • Owen, C. L. (1998). Design research: building the knowledge base. Design Studies, 19, 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, C. L. (2004). What is design? Some questions and answers. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://www.herron.iupui.edu/sites/all/files/documents/whatisdes.pdf

  • Owen, C. L. (2007). Design thinking: Notes on its nature and use. Design Research Quarterly, 2(1), 16–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. Y. (2008). iLED: Interactive learning experience design. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 357–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. (2008). Plotting a learning experience. In L. Botturi & T. Stubbs (Eds.), Handbook of visual languages in instructional design (pp. 91–111). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. (1998). Drawings and the design process: A review of protocol studies in design and other disciplines and related research in cognitive psychology. Design Studies, 19(4), 389–430. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X98000155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. (2000). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. New Orleans, LA: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 86–109). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., Bunderson, C. V., & Merrill, M. D. (1994). Is there a design science of instruction? In D. Merrill & D. G. Twitchell (Eds.), Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R., & Klein, J. D. (2011). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Design.. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R., Klein, J. D., & Nelson, W. A. (2004). Developmental research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1099–1130). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R., & Nelson, W. A. (1995). Developmental research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research on educational communications and technology. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohrer, C. (2008). When to use which user experience research methods. Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox. Retrieved from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/user-research-methods.html

  • Roschuni, C. (2009). Design research methods. Retrieved from http://roschuni.com/wiki/index.php/Design_Research_Methods

  • Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (2007). Educational inquiry in transition: Research and design. Educational Technology, 47(2), 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (2008). Design and research: Partners for educational innovation. Educational Technology, 48(6), 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, L. (2008). An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions Magazine, 15(6), 13. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1409040.1409043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1207/s15326985ep3904_3&magic=crossref||D404A21C5BB053405B1A640AFFD44AE3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (2007). Design as practice, science, and research. In M. Ralph (Ed.), Design research now: Essays and selected projects (1st ed., pp. 207–218). Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2005). Studio mathematics: The epistemology and practice of design pedagogy as a model for mathematics learning. Madison, WI: Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shambaugh, N. (2000). Using student-developed scenarios to couple design and reflection. TechTrends, 48(3), 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28. Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0013189X032001025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shedroff, N. (2003). Research methods for designing effective experiences. In B. Laurel (Ed.), Design research: Methods and perspectives (pp. 155–163). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloane, F. (2006). Normal and design sciences in education: Why both are necessary. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 19–44). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloane, F., & Gorard, S. (2003). Exploring modeling aspects of design experiments. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 29–31. Retrieved from http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.3102/0013189X032001029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapleton, A. J. (2005). Research as design-design as research. Proceedings of the DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views—Worlds in Play.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stappers, P. J. (2007). Doing design as a part of doing research. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now: Essays and selected projects (pp. 81–97). Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55–65. Retrieved from http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/240/148.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. Van Den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. B., & Seymour, M. W. (2008). Utilizing the design charrette for teaching sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(2), 157–169. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/14676370810856305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, S. H., & Gibbons, A. S. (2004). Design languages, notation systems, and instructional technology: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 57–68. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/BF02504839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1992). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G., Parrish, P. E., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Raising the bar for instructional outcomes: Toward transformative learning experiences. Educational Technology, 48(3), 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yusop, F. D., & Correia, A.-P. (2011). The civic-minded instructional designers’ framework: An alternative approach to contemporary instructional designers’ education in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 180–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. Human-Computer Interaction. Retrieved from http://repository.cmu.edu/hcii/41

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL, USA

    Wayne A. Nelson Ed.D.

Authors
  1. Wayne A. Nelson Ed.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wayne A. Nelson Ed.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Design, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

    Brad Hokanson

  2. Provo, Utah, USA

    Andrew Gibbons

About the Author

About the Author

Wayne Nelson is currently Faculty Fellow for Online Learning and Assessment at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, after more than 25 years of teaching educational psychology and instructional technology, as well as serving as a department chairman. His research interests have included investigations of the characteristics of learning with various interactive media and the processes utilized to design learning activities and environments. In addition to teaching and research, he has maintained extensive involvement in efforts to integrate technology into the classrooms and curricula of schools and as a consultant to a variety of companies about learning, training, and design processes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nelson, W.A. (2014). The Many Facets of Design and Research in Instructional Design. In: Hokanson, B., Gibbons, A. (eds) Design in Educational Technology. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation