Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Will instructional methods and media ever live in unconfounded harmony? Generating useful media research via the instructional theory framework

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since 1983, the Instructional Theory Framework (ITF) (and its subsequent improvements) has guided instructional designers and researchers in designing and developing useful learner experiences (LX). For the past 40 years, the ITF was laser-focused on the selection of instructional methods, downplaying delivery methods (media) and management methods. The instructional design field continues to produce immature and confounded research-to-prove studies that do not provide guidance that is useful to practitioners. For more useful guidance, we suggest that researchers should embrace research-to-improve for studying immature methods and media, and research-to-prove for studying mature methods and media. In this paper, we discuss problems associated with proving versus improving, situational deficiencies, and confounding; we present a new version of the ITF that embraces media; and we then answer four key questions about (1) kinds of media knowledge, (2) forms of media knowledge, (3) research methods that deliver the knowledge, and (4) suggestions for editors and reviewers to embrace new media knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Finland)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Data availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. Molenda and Subramony (2021) offer a more technical definition of instructional method as “a generalized pattern of activities that affords learners the opportunity to exercise the cognitive and/or motor and emotional processes necessary to achieve some learning objective.” (p. 136).

  2. The Malinverni et al. paper met the inclusion criteria for the Honebein and Reigeluth (2021) research. We selected this study as an example for our article due to the fact that we had initially disagreed about its type-of-research classification. The Malinverni et al. paper contains both research-to-improve and research-to-prove qualities. We hope that the authors view our public commentary as minor constructive criticisms focused on research methods that illustrate our thesis, with our aim to move our field toward more useful research. The learner experience that the authors reported was really remarkable and warms our constructivist hearts.

  3. If you are relatively new to the instructional design field and/or have never heard of (or have forgotten about) the 1994 media vs. method debates, we suggest reading Honebein and Reigeluth’s (2023) free, open-source EdTech Books chapter called “How Do We Solve a Problem Like Media and Methods?” This will bring you up to speed on the current state of confounding as it relates to instructional design research.

  4. Culture 5 describes instructional design practices that reflect good design judgments. Cultures 1, 2, 3, and 4 were originally conceived by Briggs (1984). Kozma (2000) seeded ideas for creating Culture 5, which Honebein and Reigeluth (2021) elaborated.

References

  • Aslan, S., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2016). Investigating “the coolest school in America”: How technology is used in a learner-centered school. Educational Technology Research & Development, 64(6), 1107–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9450-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beese, E. B. (2020). Reclaiming the role of scholarly recommendations in ID: Recommendation development isn’t “theory-building.” Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Hybrid.

  • Bloom, B. (1968). Learning for mastery. UCLA CSEIP Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1–11

  • Bressler, D. M., Shane Tutwiler, M., & Bodzin, A. M. (2021). Promoting student flow and interest in a science learning game: a design-based research study of School Scene Investigators. Educational Technology Research & Development, 69, 2789–2811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10039-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, L. J. (1984). Trying to straddle four research cultures. Educational Technology, 24(8), 33–34. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44424176

  • Chen, Z., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2010). Communication in a leadership team for systemic change in a school district. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(3), 233–254. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, B. D. (2018). From needs assessment to needs analysis. Performance Improvement, 57(7), 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053004445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02768357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, D. J. (1986). Good guys and bad guys. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 34(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02768356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, E. (1969). Audio-visual methods in teaching. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, L., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2011). Towards a framework for educational affordances of blogs. Computer & Education, 56, 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., Carey, L., & Cary, J. O. (2004). the systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P., & Dick, W. (1999). New research paradigms in instructional technology: An inquiry. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299462

  • Dubberly, H. (2008). Learning curves for design. Interactions, XV.4, 1–5

  • English, R. E., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). Formative research on sequencing instruction with the elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research & Development, 44(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, M., & Levie, W. H. (1978). Instructional message design. Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2003). What and how do designers design? TechTrends, 47(5), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Rogers, P. C. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 305–326). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777

  • Hakkarainen, P. (2009). Designing and implementing a PBL course on educational digital video production: Lessons learned from a design-based research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57, 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9039-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, R., Molenda, M., & Russell, J. D. (1989). Instructional media. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoban, C. F., Sr., Hoban, C. F., Jr., & Zissman, S. B. (1937). Visualizing the curriculum. Dryden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2020). The instructional theory framework appears lost. Isn’t it time we find it again? Revista de Educación a Distancia, 64(20). https://revistas.um.es/red/article/view/405871/290451

  • Honebein, P. C. & Reigeluth, C. M. (2023). How do we solve a problem like media and methods? In R. E. West & H. Leary (Eds.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (2nd Ed.). EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/foundations_of_learn/also_32_media_method

  • Honebein, P. C. (2017). The influence of values and rich conditions on designers’ judgments about useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9485-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C. (2018). Specifying human performance solutions through well-formed business requirements. Performance Improvement, 57(7), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C. (2019). Exploring the galaxy question: The influence of situation and first principles on designers’ judgments about useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research & Development, 67, 665–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09660-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C. (2022). The influence of motivational values on instructional designers’ values about methods. Educational Technology Research & Development, 70, 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10087-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Honebein, C. H. (2015). Effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal: pick any two? The influence of learning domains and learning outcomes on designer judgments of useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research & Development, 63, 937–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9396-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2021). To prove or improve, that is the question: the resurgence of comparative, confounded research between 2010 and 2019. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 465–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09988-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Business Analysis. (2015). BABOK v3. International Institute for Business Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahnke, I., Schmidt, M., Earnshaw, Y., & Tawfik, A. A. (2022). Theoretical considerations of learning experience design. In H. Leary, S. P. Greenhalgh, K. B. Staudt Willet, & M. H. Cho (Eds.), Theories to Influence the Future of Learning Design and Technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/theory_comp_2021/toward_theory_of_LXD_jahnke_earnshaw_schmidt_tawfik

  • Jonassen, D. H., Campbell, J. P., & Davidson, M. E. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, R., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2005). Formative research on an early stage of the systemic change process in a small school district. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 937–956. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00566.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, E., Kim, M., Trevor, S., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2019). An Investigation into state-level paradigm change and politics in education: Ohio’s Transformational Dialogue for Public Education. In M. Spector, B. Lockee, & M. Childress (Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 2–32). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakos-Kraft, S., Honebein, P. C., Prince, M. J., & Marrero, D. G. (1997). The SOCRATES curriculum: an innovative integration of technology and theory in medical education. Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453059709063100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R. B. (2000). Reflections on the state of educational technology research and development. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02313481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2015). Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: A three-phase design-based research investigation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63, 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9369-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2003). Formative research on the heuristic task analysis process. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(4), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2009). Heuristic task analysis on e-learning course development: A formative research study. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 10(1), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-009-9016-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. R., & Thomas, J. M. (2011). Integrating physical activity data technologies into elementary school classrooms. Educational Technology Research & Development, 59, 865–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9210-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockee, B. B., Burton, J. K., & Cross, L. H. (1999). No comparison: Distance education finds a new use for ‘No significant difference.’ Educational Technology Research & Development, 47(3), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. F. (1984). Preparing instructional objectives. Lake.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malinverni, L., Schaper, M. M., & Pares, N. (2016). An evaluation-driven design approach to develop learning environments based on full-body interaction. Educational Technology Research & Development, 64, 1337–1360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9468-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattis, K. V. (2015). Flipped classroom versus traditional textbook instruction: Assessing accuracy and mental effort at different levels of mathematical complexity. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9238-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). An interview with Richard Mayer. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3952-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2020). Educational design research: Portraying, conducting, and enhancing productive scholarship. Medical Education, 55(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 279–333). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenda, M. H., & Subramony, D. P. (2021). The elements of instruction: A framework for the age of emerging technologies. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., & Oh, E. (2017). The goals and methods of educational technology research over a quarter century (1989–2014). Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9474-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 3–36). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructionaldesign theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, volume II (pp. 5–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. (2009). Theory building. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 365–386). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 3–26). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 633–651). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Keller, J. B. (2009). Understanding instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 27–35). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M., Tawfik, A. A., Jahnke, I., & Earnshaw, Y. (2020). Learner and User Experience Research: An Introduction for the Field of Learning Design & Technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/ux

  • Schmidt, M., & Glaser, N. (2021). Investigating the usability and learner experience of a virtual reality adaptive skills intervention for adults with autism spectrum disorder. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 1665–1699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10005-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Redefining the field: A collaborative effort. Tech Trends, 39(2), 36–38. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/164618/

  • Sickel, J. L. (2019). The great media debate and TPACK: A multidisciplinary examination of the role of technology in teaching and learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, (51)2, 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1564895

  • Vanderhoven, E., Schellens, T., Vanderlinde, R., et al. (2016). Developing educational materials about risks on social network sites: A design based research approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9415-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voice of America (2021). The verbs advise, suggest, and recommend. https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/the-verbs-advise-suggest-and-recommend/5727628.html

  • Wu, B., Peng, X., & Hu, Y. (2021). How to foster pre-service teachers’ STEM learning design expertise through virtual internship: A design-based research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 3307–3329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10063-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xue, S., & Churchill, D. (2019). A review of empirical studies of affordances and development of a framework for educational adoption of mobile social media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 1231–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09679-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

    Charles M. Reigeluth & Peter C. Honebein

  2. Customer Performance Group, 5450 Wintergreen Lane, Reno, NV, 89511, USA

    Peter C. Honebein

  3. Boise State University, Boise, USA

    Peter C. Honebein

Authors
  1. Charles M. Reigeluth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter C. Honebein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter C. Honebein.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reigeluth, C.M., Honebein, P.C. Will instructional methods and media ever live in unconfounded harmony? Generating useful media research via the instructional theory framework. Education Tech Research Dev 72, 2543–2563 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10253-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10253-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation