Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design and development research: a model validation case

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is a report of one case of a design and development research study that aimed to validate an overlay instructional design model incorporating the theory of multiple intelligences into instructional systems design. After design and expert review model validation, The Multiple Intelligence (MI) Design Model, used with an Instructional Systems Design (ISD) Model, was tested for use by four practicing instructional designers. Instruction developed for learners using this model was then evaluated measuring post-test and attitudinal scores with 102 participants. This report also provides a reflection on the lessons learned in conducting design and development research on model validation. The procedures and findings have implications for the processes involved in instructional design model validation through designer use and program implementation.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armstrong, T. (1999). 7 kinds of smart: Identifying and developing your multiple intelligences. New York: New American Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J. W. (1974). The mainsprings of achievement-oriented activity. In J. W. Atkinson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and achievement (pp. 193–218). Washington DC: Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, G. S., Branch, R. C., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing ID models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, J. E. (1998). The construction and validation of a model for the design of community-based train-the-trainer instruction. (Doctoral dissertations, Wayne State University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International-A, 58(11), 4242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Goals, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school: Educational implications of the theory of MI. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 665–692). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeMaistre, C. (1998). What is an expert instructional designer? Evidence of expert performance during formative evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindvall, R. (1995). Addressing multiple intelligences and learning styles: Creating active learners. Doctoral dissertation, Saint Xavier University, Illinois.

  • McAleese, R. (1988). Design and authoring: a model of cognitive processes. In H. Mathias, N. Rushby, & R. Budgett (Eds.), Designing new systems for learning (pp. 118–26). New York: Nichols.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 745–783). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C. (1998). The pursuit of useable knowledge in instructional technology. Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C. (2005). Validating instructional design and development models. In J. M. Spector & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. 171–185). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey R., & Klein, J. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies and issues. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Nelson W. A. (2004). Developmental research: Studies of instructional design and development. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1099–1130). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B. (1994). An advisor’s view: Lessons learned from developmental research dissertations. Paper presented at the 1994 Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

  • Seels, B., & Glascow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M. (1995). Planning and conducting formative evaluations. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Richey, R. C. (2007). ID model construction and validation: A multiple intelligences case. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(4), 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, S. D. (1991). Two theories of design and instructional design. In Proceedings of Selected Research Presentations at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

  • Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, G. (2004) Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (2004). Cognitive perspectives in psychology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 79–112). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wayne State University, 383 Education, Detroit, MI, 48202, USA

    Monica W. Tracey

Authors
  1. Monica W. Tracey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica W. Tracey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tracey, M.W. Design and development research: a model validation case. Education Tech Research Dev 57, 553–571 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9075-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9075-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation