, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp 14–20 | Cite as

The future of our field

  • Tutaleni I. Asino


Educational Technology Instructional Design Learn Management System Instructional Support Educational Technology Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aslan, S. (2012). Investigating “the coolest school in America”: A study of a learner centered school and educational technology in the information age. (Ph.D.), Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  2. Aslan, S., Huh, Y., Lee, D., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2011). The role of personalized integrated educational systems in the information age paradigm of education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(2), 95-117.Google Scholar
  3. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  4. Reigeluth, C. M. (2011). An instructional theory for the post-industrial age. Educational Technology, 51(5), 25-29.Google Scholar
  5. Reigeluth, C. M. (2012a). Instructional theory and technology for a post-industrial world. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 75-83). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  6. Reigeluth, C. M. (2012b). Instructional theory and technology for the new paradigm of education. RED, Revista de Educación a Distancia, 32. Retrieved from RED, Revista de Educacion a Distancia website:
  7. Reigeluth, C. M., & Karnopp, J. R. (2013). Reinventing schools: It’s time to break the mold. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Reigeluth, C. M., Watson, S. L., Watson, W. R., Dutta, P., Chen, Z., & Powell, N. (2008). Roles for technology in the informationage paradigm of education: Learning management systems. Educational Technology, 48(6), 32-39.Google Scholar
  9. Reigeluth, C. M., Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2011). Personalized integrated educational systems: Technology for the information-age paradigm of education in higher education. In S. P. Ferris (Ed.), Teaching and learning with the net generation. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  10. Watson, W. R., Watson, S. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2012). A systemic integration of technology for new-paradigm education. Educational Technology, 52(5), 25-29.Google Scholar
  11. Watson, W. R., Watson, S. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Education 3.0: Breaking the mold with technology. Interactive Learning Environments. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2013.764322
  12. Yildirim, Z., Reigeluth, C. M., Kwon, S., Kageto, Y., & Shao, Z. (2013). A comparison of learning management systems in a school district: Searching for the ideal personalized integrated educational system (PIES). Interactive Learning Environments. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2012.745423 Google Scholar
  13. Bichelmeyer, B. A., & Horvitz, B. S. (2006). Comprehensive performance evaluation: Using logic models to develop a theory based approach for evaluation of human performance technology interventions. In J. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (pp. 1165-1189). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  14. Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 1-8.Google Scholar
  15. Boling, E., Easterling, W. V., Hardre, P. L., Howard, C. D., & Roman, T. A. (2011). ADDIE: Perspectives in transition. Educational Technology, 51(5), 34-38.Google Scholar
  16. Buchanan, R., Cross, N., Durling, D., Nelson, H., Owen, C., Valtonen, A., Visscher-Voerman, I. (2013). Design. Educational Technology, 53(5), 25-42.Google Scholar
  17. 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. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9061-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbons, A. S., Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2014). Instructional design models. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 607-615). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_48.
  20. Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Howard, C. D. (2011). Writing and rewriting the instructional design case: A view from two sides. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 2(1), 40-55.Google Scholar
  22. Howard, C. D., Boling, E., Rowland, G., & Smith, K. M. (2012). Instructional designs cases and why we need them. Educational Technology, 34-39.Google Scholar
  23. Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: Some factors in design expertise. Design Studies 25(5), 443-458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lawson, B. & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  25. Merrill, M. David. (2013). First principles of instruction identifying and designing effective, efficient, and engaging instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  26. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2000). The case for design: Creating a culture of intention. Educational Technology, 40(6), 29-35.Google Scholar
  28. Parrish, P. (2014). Designing for the halfknown world: Lessons for instructional designers from the craft of narrative fiction. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology (pp. 261-270). Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pershing, J.A. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles, Practices, and Potential. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  30. Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith, K. M. (2008). Meanings of “design” in instructional technology: A conceptual analysis based on the field’s foundational literature. Unpublished dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3-17Google Scholar
  34. Stolterman, E., McAtee, J., Royer, D., & Thandapani, S. (2008). Designerly tools. In Undisciplined! Design research society conference 2008 (pp. 116:1-14). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Hallam University. Retrieved from
  35. Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 383-398. doi: 10.1007/s11423-010-9180-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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(1), 39-60. doi: 10.1007/s11423-009-9129-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Penn State UniversityState CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations