Instructional designers’ perspectives on learners’ responsibility for learning
This study employed a hermeneutic investigative approach to determine instructional designers’ underlying views of learner responsibility for their own learning, and how those views informed design practice. Prior research has examined how instructional designers spend their time, make decisions, use theory, and solve problems, but have not explored how views of learner responsibility might inform design work. Based on intensive interviews of practitioners in the field, this study produced themes concerning how instructional designers balance their own and their learners’ responsibility for learning. Overall, these results suggest that designers feel largely responsible for learning to take place, but are seeking ways of sharing that responsibility with their learners. Other conclusions are discussed and future directions for research are offered.
KeywordsAssumptions Engagement Instructional design practice Learning Responsibility
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- Abdelmalak, M., & Trespalacios, J. (2013). Using a learner-centered approach to develop an educational technology course. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(3), 324–332.Google Scholar
- Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2015). Designerly tools, sketching, and instructional designers as the guarantors of design. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. W. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learning experience: Creating the future of educational technology (pp. 109–126). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Manor, C., Bloch-Schulman, S., Flannery, K., & Felten, P. (2010). Foundations of student-faculty partnerships in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Theoretical and developmental considerations. In C. Werder & M. Otis (Eds.), Engaging student voices in the study of teaching and learning (pp. 3–15). Sterling: Stylus.Google Scholar
- Matthews, M. T. (2016). Learner agency and responsibility in educational technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University.Google Scholar
- Nelson, D., & Bianco, C. (2013). Increasing student responsibility and active learning in an undergraduate capstone finance course. American Journal of Business Education, 6(2), 267–277.Google Scholar
- Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Post, D. (1972). Up the programmer: How to stop PI from boring learners and strangling results. Educational Technology, 12(8), 14–17.Google Scholar
- Wilson, B. G. (2013). A practice-centered approach to instructional design. In J. M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, S. E. Smaldino, & M. C. Herring (Eds.), Learning, problem solving, and mindtools: Essays in honor of David H. Jonassen (pp. 35–54). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar