Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Instructional Design as Manipulation of, or Cooperation with, Learners?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a qualitative study of the tension between manipulative and cooperative approaches to instructional design. We found that our participants struggled to resist manipulative tendencies in their work contexts. More specifically, our findings suggest that our participants sought to design with their learners in mind to foster a more cooperative approach. In doing so, participants in our study reported asking themselves key questions in their design practice that had to do with (a) inviting learners to engage through relevant and meaningful instruction, (b) imagining what learners are thinking and feeling, and (c) putting themselves in their learners’ shoes to understand possible learner experience with the designed instruction. For designers in similarly constrained work contexts, we recommend self-questioning that leads toward cooperative (and less manipulative) instructional design practices.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baek, E. O., Cagiltay, K., Boling, E., & Frick, T. (2008). User-centered design and development. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 1, 660–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, S. (1963). Technology as a system of exploitation. In C. F. Stover (Ed.), The technological order: Proceedings of the Encyclopaedia Britannica conference (pp. 151–159). Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Button, G. (2000). The ethnographic tradition and design. Design Studies, 21(4), 319–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., Lim, Y., & Stolterman, E. (2008). Personas: From theory to practices. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction, Lund.

  • 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 

  • Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1998). Technology or craft: What are we doing? Educational Technology, 38(5), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. (1993). Enhanced ISD: A response to changing environments for learning and performance. Educational Technology, 33(2), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, V., Gaidys, U., & Robb, Y. (2003). Hermeneutic research in nursing: Developing a Gadamerian-based research method. Nursing Inquiry, 10(2), 113–120 Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12755860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, A. P., & Giorgi, B. M. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological method. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 243–273). Washington: American Psychological Association.

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komoski, P. K. (1987). Educational technology: The closing-in or the opening-out of curriculum and instruction. Syracuse: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1996). What new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36(4), 57–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Molenda, M., & Boling, E. (2008). Creating. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 81–139). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Parrish, P. E. (2014). Designing for the half-known world: Lessons for instructional designers from the craft of narrative fiction. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio (pp. 261–270). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pieters, J. M. (2004). Designing artefacts for inquiry and collaboration: When the learner takes the lead. European Educational Research Journal, 3(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2004.3.1.15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36(3), 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rooij, S. W. (2012). Research-based personas: Teaching empathy in professional education. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(3), 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Segelström, F., & Holmlid, S. (2015). Ethnography by design: On goals and mediating artefacts. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14(2), 134–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022214560159.

    Article  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.

  • Snodgrass, A., & Coyne, R. (1992). Models, metaphors and the hermeneutics of designing. Design Issues, 9(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 (pp. 653–660). New York: Springer.

  • 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 

  • Wilson, B. G. (2013). A practice-centered approach to instructional design. In J. M. Spector, B. Lockee, S. Barbara, E. Smaldino, & M. C. Herring (Eds.), Learning, problem solving, and mindtools: Essays in honor of David H. Jonassen (pp. 35–54). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Curriculum Development, 211B LAM, Brigham Young University – Idaho, 525 S. Center St, Rexburg, ID, 83460, USA

    Michael T. Matthews

  2. Instructional Psychology and Technology, 150-D MCKB, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Stephen C. Yanchar

Authors
  1. Michael T. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen C. Yanchar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael T. Matthews.

Appendix: Interview Protocol

Appendix: Interview Protocol

Interview 1

  • How did you become a designer?

  • What kinds of designs do you produce?

  • What constraints do you experience in your work?

  • What is your opinion about the design process you use?

Interview 2

  • Why do you think your learners are motivated to learn your content?

  • What do you think makes the biggest difference for whether or not people learn through your product? Why?

  • What is your responsibility, as the instructional designer, for ensuring that learning takes place? What is the learner’s responsibility?

  • In your opinion, is it possible to make someone learn something? Why/not? What makes a learner learn?

Interview 3

Review tentative findings, ask about negative cases, clarify and seek further understanding.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Matthews, M.T., Yanchar, S.C. Instructional Design as Manipulation of, or Cooperation with, Learners?. TechTrends 62, 152–157 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0245-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0245-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation