Advertisement

Design and Development Research

  • Rita C. Richey
  • James D. Klein
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on design and development research, a type of inquiry unique to the instructional design and technology field dedicated to the creation of new knowledge and the validation of existing practice. We first define this kind of research and provide an overview of its two main categories—research on products and tools and research on design and development models. Then, we concentrate on recent design and development research (DDR) by describing 11 studies published in the literature. The five product and tool studies reviewed include research on comprehensive development projects, studies of particular design and development phases, and research on tool development and use. The six model studies reviewed include research leading to new or enhanced ID models, model validation and model use research. Finally, we summarize this new work in terms of the problems it addresses, the settings and participants examined, the research methodologies employed used, and the role evaluation plays in these studies.

Keywords

Design and development research Instructional and non-instructional products Design and development tools Instructional design models 

References

  1. *Cifuentes, L., Sharp, A., Bulu, S., Benz, M., & Stough, L. M. (2010). Developing a Web 2.0-based system with user-authored content for community use and teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 377–398.Google Scholar
  2. Coetzee, J. S., & Smart, A. (2012). Rapid implementation of e-learning using a technology design model. In N. A. Alias & S. Hashim (Eds.), Instructional technology research, design, and development: Lessons from the field (pp. 219–237). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  3. Cowell, D. (2001). Needs assessment activities and techniques of instructional designers: A qualitative study (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International A, 61(910), 3873.Google Scholar
  4. *Crossman, D. C. (2010). Gilbert’s Behavioral Engineering Model: Contemporary support for an established theory. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(1), 31–52.Google Scholar
  5. Definition and Terminology Committee of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology. (2007). Definition. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  7. Driscoll, M. P. (1984). Paradigms for research in instructional systems. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(4), 2–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, K. M., Savenye, W. C., & Sullivan, H. J. (2002). Formative evaluation of computer-based training for a university financial system. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Francom, G., Bybee, D., Wolfersberger, M., & Merrill, M. D. (2009). Biology 100: A task-centered, peer-interactive redesign. TechTrends, 53(4), 35–42.Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert, T. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Hart, S. M. (2008). The design decisions of teachers during technology integration. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
  12. Hillsman, T. L., & Kuptritz, V. W. (2010). Another look at the relative impact of workplace design on training transfer for supervisory communication skills. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(3), 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. *Hung, W-C., Smith, T. J., Harris, M. S., & Lockard, J. (2010). Development research of a teachers’ educational performance support system: The practices of design, development, and evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 61–80.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, T. S., & Richey, R. C. (2000). Rapid prototyping in action: A developmental study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klein, J. D. (1997). ETR&D—Development: An analysis of content and survey of future direction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein, J. D., Martin, F., Tutty, J., & Su, Y. (2005). Teaching research to instructional design & technology students. Educational Technology, 45(4), 29–33.Google Scholar
  17. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.Google Scholar
  18. Mooij, T. (2002). Designing a digital instructional management system to optimize early education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (1999). Exploring the potential of a computer tool for instructional developers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Plass, J. L., & Salisbusry, M. W. (2002). A living-systems design model for web-based knowledge management systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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, volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 633–651). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Reiser, R. A. (2012). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 1–7). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
  23. Richey, R. C. (1997). Research on instructional development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. *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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2005). Developmental research methods: Creating knowledge from instructional design and development practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. *Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies and issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Research on design and development. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 748–757). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. *Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Nelson, W. (2004). Developmental research: Studies of instructional design and development. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1099–1130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Richey, R. C., & Nelson, W. (1996). Developmental research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 1213–1245). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  31. Roszkowski, M. J., & Soven, M. (2010). Did you learning something useful today? An analysis of how perceived utility relates to perceived learning and their predictiveness of satisfaction with training. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(2), 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roytek, M. A. (2000). Contextual factors affecting the use of rapid ­prototyping within the design and development of instruction (Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International A, 61(01), 76.Google Scholar
  33. Sahrir, M. (2012). Formative evaluation of an Arabic online vocabulary learning game prototype: Lessons from a Malaysian institute of higher learning experience. In N. Alias & S. Hashim (Eds.), Instructional technology research, design and development: Lessons from the field (pp. 357–368). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  34. Sullivan, H., Ice, K., & Niedermeyer, F. (2000). Long-term instructional development: A 20-year ID and implementation project. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and conducting formative evaluation: Improving the quality of education and training. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  36. Tracey, M. S. (2009). Design and development research: A model validation case. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 553–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vallachia, S. W., Marker, A., & Taylor, K. (2010). But what do they really expect? Employer perceptions of the skills of entry-level instructional designers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(4), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. *van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1–14). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Visser, L., Plomp, T., Armiault, R. J., & Kuiper, W. (2002). Motivating students at a distance: The case of an international audience. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. *Voss, D. R. (2008). The development of a model for non-verbal factors impacting the design of visual information. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
  42. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang, Q., Nieveen, N., & van den Akker, J. (2007). Designing a computer support system for multimedia curriculum development in Shanghai. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(3), 275–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  2. 2.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations