Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design

  • Stephen C. Yanchar
  • Joseph B. South
  • David D. Williams
  • Stephanie Allen
  • Brent G. Wilson
Research Article

Abstract

This study employed a qualitative research design to investigate instructional designers’ views and uses of conceptual tools in design work (e.g., learning theories and design theories). While past research has examined how instructional designers spend their time, how they generally make decisions, and expert-novice differences, little attention has been paid to the value and perceptions of conceptual tools, from the perspective of practicing designers. Based on intensive interviews of practitioners, our findings included ten themes organized according to three meta-themes: (a) using theory, (b) struggling with theory, and (c) connections between theory and intuition in craftwork. While these results substantiate (to some degree) the claim that practitioners often find theory too abstract or difficult to apply, they also suggest that practitioners use theory in several important ways and tend to view theory with ambivalence rather than indifference or dislike. Other conclusions regarding the role of theory in design are provided and future directions for theorizing and research are discussed.

Keywords

Theory Practice Applications Qualitative inquiry 

References

  1. Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 17–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  2. 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. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.Google Scholar
  4. Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 29, 45–47. doi:10.1007/BF02763476.
  5. Design-based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. doi:10.3102/0013189X032001005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  7. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  8. Fleming, V., Gaidys, U., & Robb, Y. (2003). Hermeneutic research in nursing: Developing a Gadamerian-based research method. Nursing Inquiry, 10, 113–120. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1800.2003.00163.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibbons, A. S., & Rogers, P. C. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 3). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Giorgi, A. P., & Giorgi, B. M. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological psychological 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, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101–117. doi:10.1007/BF02299733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  13. Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (Eds.). (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Kenny, R. F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 9–26.Google Scholar
  15. Kerr, S. T. (1983). Inside the black box: Making design decisions for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14, 45–58. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1983.tb00448.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–94.Google Scholar
  20. Pieters, J. M., & Bergman, R. (1995). The empirical basis of designing instruction. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 118.Google Scholar
  21. Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  22. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1983). Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Reigeluth, C. M. (1997). Instructional theory, practitioner needs, and new directions: Some reflections. Educational Technology, 37(1), 42–47.Google Scholar
  24. Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.). (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Richey, R. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  26. Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999). Sparks of genius: The thirteen thinking tools of the world’s most creative people. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  27. Rowland, G. (1992). What do designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.Google Scholar
  28. Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91. doi:10.1007/BF02297094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seels, B. D. (1997). Special issue: Examining the role of theory development in the field of educational technology. Educational Technology, 37(1).Google Scholar
  30. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  31. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  32. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophy and the human sciences: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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), 69–91. doi:10.1007/BF02504840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.Google Scholar
  36. Westerman, M. A. (2004). Theory and research on practices, theory and research as practices: Hermeneutics and psychological inquiry. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24, 123–156. doi:10.1037/h0091238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yanchar, S. C., & South, J. B. (2009). Beyond the theory-practice split in instructional design: The current situation and future directions. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2009 (pp. 81–100). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen C. Yanchar
    • 1
  • Joseph B. South
    • 1
  • David D. Williams
    • 1
  • Stephanie Allen
    • 1
  • Brent G. Wilson
    • 2
  1. 1.Instructional Psychology and TechnologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.University of ColoradoDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations