Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design

Abstract

Over the years, many authors have tried to describe, conceptualize, and visualize the instructional design or development processes via a variety of process models. Most descriptions imply a rather homogeneous view of design, depicting it as an overall problem-solving process following general phases such as analysis, design and development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE). However, researchers who have investigated how instructional designers actually work suggest that the process is much more heterogeneous and diverse than these ADDIE models suggest. This study collected case study data from 24 instructional designers in six different settings; they were identified as experts by their peers. The design processes they used for a specific project were compared to four different paradigms created from the literature. The four paradigms and their underlying theoretical foundations are described and illustrated. Detailed results are reported, and reasons that designers did or did not use a particular paradigm are considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Andrews, D.H., & Goodson, L.A. (1991). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present and future (pp. 133–155). Englewood Cliffs, CO: Libraries unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bobbitt, F. (1924).How to make a curriculum. Boston, MA: Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Braden, R.A. (1996). The case for linear instructional design and development: A commentary on models, challenges, and myths.Educational Technology, 36(2), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Connell, J., & Shafer, L. (1989). Structured rapid prototyping: An evolutionary approach to software development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Yourdan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Coyne, R. (1995).Designing information technology in the postmodern age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Derrida, J., & Attridge, D. (1992).Acts of literature. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Descartes, R. (1930).Discours de la methode (2nd ed.). Paris, France: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dewey, J. (1938).Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996).The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dills, C.R., & Romiszowksi, A.J. (1997). The instructional development paradigms: An introduction. In C.R. Dills & A.J. Romiszowski (Eds.),Instructional development paradigms (pp. 5–30). Englewood cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Eisner, E.W. (1979).The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eisner, E.W. (1996).The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Feteris, A. (1992). Ideeën voor het genereren van alternatieven [Ideas for the generation of alternative solutions]. In Tj. Plomp, A. Feteris, J.M. Pieters, & W. Tomic (eds.),Ontwerpen van onderwijs en trainingen (pp. 171–193). Utrecht, Netherlands: Lemma.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gagné, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992).Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1980).Teaching and media: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gray, D.E., & Black, T.R. (1994). Prototyping of computer-based training materials.Computers in Education, 22(3), 251–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gustafson, K. (1993). Instructional design fundamentals: Clouds on the horizon.Educational Technology, 33(2), 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. (2002).Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Habermas, J. (1981).Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns [Theory of communicative action]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hedberg, J., Harper, B., Brown, C., & Corderoy, R. (1994). Exploring user interfaces to improve outcomes. In K. Beatie, C. McNaught, & S. Wills (Eds.),Interactive Multimedia in University Education: Designing for Change in Teaching and Learning (pp.15–29). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Henderson, J.V. (1998). Comprehensive, technology-based clinical education: The virtual practicum.International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 28(1), 41–79.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hix, D., & Hartson, H. (1993).Developing user interfaces: Ensuring usability through product and process. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  23. James, W. (1907).Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking: Popular lectures on philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson, J.C. (1990).Selecting ethnographic informants. Qualitative research methods series, 22. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kessels, J.W.M. (1993).Towards design standards for curriculum consistency in corporate education. Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kessels, J.W.M., & Plomp, Tj. (1997). The importance of relational aspects in the systems approach. In A.J. Romiszowski & C.R. Dills (Eds.),Instructional development paradigms (pp. 93–126). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Keursten, P. (1994).Courseware-ontwikkeling met het oog op implementatie: de doœnt centraal [Courseware development from an implementation perspective: Focus on the teacher]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kunneman, H., & Munnichs, G.M. (1988). Jürgen Habermas. In H.J. Achterhuis, J.S. Weiland, S.E. Teppema, & J. de Visscher (Eds.),Kritisch denkerslexicon, 25 (pp. 1–17) Samson: Alphen aan de Rijn.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lantz, K.E. (1985).The prototyping methodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Marsh, C., & Willis, G. (1995).Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mauldin, M. (1995). Developing multimedia: A method to the madness.THE Journal, 22(7), 88–90.

    Google Scholar 

  32. McCutcheon, G. (1995).Developing the curriculum: Solo and group deliberation. White Plains, NY: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Merriam, S.B. (1988).Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994).Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Moonen, J.C.M.M. (1996). Prototyping as a design method. In Tj. Plomp & D.P. Ely (Eds.)International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology (2nd ed., pp. 186–190). Cambridge: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Morrison, S., Ross, G., & Kemp, J. (2001).Designing effective instruction. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Nieveen, N.M. (1997).Computer support for curriculum developers: A study on the potential of computer support in the domain of formative curriculum evaluation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Plomp, Tj. (1982).Onderwijskundige technologie: Enige verkenningen. [Educational technology: Several explorations]. Enschede, the Netherlands, University of Twente, Faculty of Educational Sciences and technology.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Porras, L.H., & Giodano, D. (1995). Developing hypermedia with a rapid prototyping approach: A case study.British Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 59–61.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Posner, G.J., & Rudnitsky, A.N. (2000).Course design: A guide to curriculum development for teachers (6th ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Putnam, H. (1988).Representation and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Procee, H. (1997).De nieuwe ingenieur: Over techniekfilosofie en professioneel handelen [The new engineer: About philosophy of technology and professional action]. Amsterdam: Boom.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Reiser, R., & Dick, W. (1996).Instructional planning: A guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Richey, R.C. (1993). Instructional design in a changing field.Educational Technology, 33(2), 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Richey, R.C., Klein, J.D., & Nelson, W.A. (2003). Developmental research: Studies of instructional design and development. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology: A Project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 1099–1130). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rieber, L.P. (1994).Computers, graphics, and learning. Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Romiszowksi, A.J. (1981).Designing instructional systems: Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rorty, R. (1979).Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rorty, R. (1991).Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 30–45.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  52. Schön, D.A. (1987).Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Schubert, W.H. (1986).Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Schwab, J.J. (1970).The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington DC: National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Self, J.A. (1997). From constructionism to deconstructionism: Anticipating trends in educational styles.European Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 295–307.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1999).Instructional design. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tessmer, M. (1994). Formative evaluation alternatives.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(1), 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tripp, S.D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy.Educational Technology and Development, 38(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Tyler, R.W. (1949).Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, R.M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & Tj. Plomp (Eds.),Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Van de Wolde, J. (1992). Het algemeen model voor systematische probleemoplossing [The generic model for systematic problem solving]. In Tj. Plomp, A. Feteris, J.M. Pieters, & W. Tomic (Eds.),Ontwerpen van onderwijs en trainingen (pp. 65–87). Utrecht: Lemma.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Visscher, K., & Rip, A. (1999). Organisatie-adviseurs en de illusie van “agency” [Management consultants and the illusion of agency].Management en Organisatie, 53(1), 24–35.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Visscher-Voerman, J.I.A. (1999).Design Approaches in Training and Education: A reconstructive study. Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Visscher, I., & Schulten, E. (1997).Design approaches in training and education: Insights from practice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, Chicago.

  65. Vos, H.J. (1992). Het kiezen van een oplossing [Choosing a solution]. In Tj. Plomp, A. Feteris, J.M. Pieters, & W. Tomic (Eds.),Ontwerpen van onderwijs en trainingen (pp. 195–220). Utrecht, Netherlands: Lemma.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Walker, D. (1990).Fundamentals of curriculum. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers' decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Willis, J. (1998). Alternative instructional paradigms: What's worth discussing and what isn't?Educational Technology, 38(3), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Visscher-Voerman, I., Gustafson, K.L. Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. ETR&D 52, 69–89 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504840

Download citation

Keywords

  • Design Process
  • Educational Technology
  • Instructional Design
  • Design Activity
  • Communicative Rationality