Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 131–153 | Cite as

Philosophical and methodological beliefs of instructional design faculty and professionals

Development Article

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to probe the philosophical beliefs of instructional designers using sound philosophical constructs and quantitative data collection and analysis. We investigated the philosophical and methodological beliefs of instructional designers, including 152 instructional design faculty members and 118 non-faculty professionals. We used the Philosophy of Social Science Inventory, a 52-item questionnaire, to measure 20 beliefs within four categories. We probed four ontological beliefs (ontological realism, ontological relativism, physicalism, and idealism); five epistemological beliefs (epistemological relativism, fallibilism, epistemological objectivity, rationalism, and empiricism); three axiological beliefs (ethical realism, ethical relativism, and valueneutrality in research); and eight methodological beliefs (nomothetic, idiographic and critical methods, scientific naturalism, humanism, and quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods). Our research questions included (a) What are the predominant philosophical and methodological beliefs of instructional designers? (b) Do instructional design faculty and non-faculty instructional designers, identifying with different research methodologies, hold different sets of philosophical beliefs? and (c) What relationships exist between philosophical beliefs and age, gender, ethnicity, level of education, and/or years of service? Overall, the philosophical profile of instructional designers can reasonably be described as pragmatic. Belief characterizations of methodological subgroups (e.g., those identifying with qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods research) generally supported our hypotheses. Although demographic variables (except gender) were not singularly important, our analyses suggest that a combination of ethnicity, gender, research preference, and level of education can be used to predict philosophical and methodological beliefs.

Keywords

Instructional design Philosophical beliefs Epistemological beliefs Methodological beliefs 

References

  1. Alexander, H. A. (2006). A view from somewhere: Explaining the paradigms of educational research. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 40, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arredondo, D. E., & Rucinski, T. T. (1996, November). Epistemological beliefs of Chilean educators and school reform efforts. Paper presented at the Tercer Encuentro National de Enfoques Cognitivos Actuales en Educacion, Santiago, Chile.Google Scholar
  3. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2005). Retrieved January 18, 2008, from http://aect.org/curricula.
  4. Baert, P. (2003). Pragmatism, realism, and hermeneutics. Foundations of Science, 8, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bridges, D. (2003). Fiction written under oath? Essays in philosophy and educational research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bryman, A. (2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 385–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clinchy, B. (2002). Revisiting women’s ways of knowing. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 63–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coyne, R. (1995). Designing information technology in the postmodern age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cristensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional design practitioners make instructional strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dills, C. R., & Romiszowski, A. J. (1997). The instructional development paradigm: An introduction. In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 5–30). Englewood, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Duell, O. K., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2001). Measures of people’s beliefs about knowledge and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 419–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elias, J. L. (1982). The theory-practice split. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 1982, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greene, J. C. (2006). Toward a methodology of mixed methods social inquiry. Research in the Schools, 13, 93–99.Google Scholar
  17. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2011). Educational research methods: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, R. B., & Gray, R. (2010). A history of philosophical and theoretical issues for mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), The Sage handbook of mixed methods in social, behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, B., Meeker, K. M., Loomis, E. J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004, April). Development of the philosophical and methodological beliefs inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  27. Magolda, M. B. (2002). Epistemological reflection: The evolution of epistemological assumptions from age 18 to 30. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 89–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. McCarthy, C. L. (2005). Knowing truth: Peirce’s epistemology in an educational context. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37, 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore, R. (2000). For knowledge: Tradition, progressivism, and progress in education-reconstructing the curriculum debate. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30, 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 48–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2002). Positivists, post-positivists, post-structuralists, and post-modernists: Why can’t we all get along? Towards a framework for unifying research paradigms. Education, 122, 518–530.Google Scholar
  32. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). Taking the “Q” out of research: Teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Quality & Quantity, 39, 267–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perry, W. G., Jr. (1999). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  34. Popkewitz, T. S. (1997). The production of reason and power: Curriculum history and intellectual traditions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29, 131–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sasso, G. M. (2001). The retreat from inquiry and knowledge in special education. Journal of Special Education, 34, 178–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28, 498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 293–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 103–117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist, 39, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schraw, G. (2001). Current themes and future directions in epistemological research: A commentary. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 451–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shank, G. (1993, January). Qualitative research? Quantitative research? What’s the problem? Resolving the dilemma via a postconstructivist approach. Paper presented at the convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, LAGoogle Scholar
  42. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), The Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of South AlabamaMobileUSA

Personalised recommendations