Prospects for Instructional Design and Teacher Education

  • Ellen S. Hoffman


With most academic instructional design and technology (IDT) degree programs located within education units in higher education, teacher education is a focal point for research on the classroom teacher as instructional designer and implementer of technology in K-12. Further, teacher education serves as a locus for modelling and testing theory-based teaching practice arising from the discipline. This review examines the historical foundations and recent scholarship in teacher education from an instructional design and technology perspective in US and international contexts, providing a lens to the issues of theory versus practice and evolving research paradigms. Research areas reviewed include teacher thinking and planning, novice versus expert teacher differences, the use of systematic instructional design in classroom practices, and the teacher as designer of instructional materials. Changing research approaches and constructivist philosophies have widened the understanding of teacher instructional planning and action from earlier process–product causation to a more complex, situated view of practice. From an examination of the uneasy relationship between the two disciplines, prospects for future cooperation and research are explored in terms of theory building, impacts on training, debates on the nature of design practice, and potential for shaping educational reform efforts.


Teacher education Preservice teachers Lesson planning Instructional systems design 


  1. Alger, C. L. (2009). Secondary teachers’ conceptual metaphors of teaching and learning: Changes over the career span. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 743–751. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.004.Google Scholar
  2. Altun, S., & Büyükduman, F. (2007). Teacher and student beliefs on constructivist instructional design: A case study. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 7(1), 30–39.Google Scholar
  3. Alzand, W. (2010). Instruction design and educational quality. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4074–4081. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.643.Google Scholar
  4. Angeli, C. (2005). Transforming a teacher education method course through technology: Effects on preservice teachers’ technology competency. Computers in Education, 45(4), 383–398. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.06.002.Google Scholar
  5. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: An instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00135.x.Google Scholar
  6. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers in Education, 52(1), 154–168. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.07.006.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2007). 2007 Wallace Foundation distinguished lecture–What makes education research “educational”? Educational Researcher, 36(9), 529–540. doi: 10.3102/0013189x07312896.Google Scholar
  8. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511. doi: 10.1177/0022487109348479.Google Scholar
  9. Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T. A., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practice of development in teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 458–474. doi: 10.1086/596996.Google Scholar
  10. Baylor, A. (2002). Expanding preservice teachers’ metacognitive awareness of instructional planning through pedagogical agents. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 5–22. doi: 10.1007/bf02504991.Google Scholar
  11. Baylor, A., & Kitsantas, A. (2001). Promoting instructional planning: An experiment. In J. Price, D. A. Willis, N. Davis, & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2001 (pp. 1044–1049). Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
  12. Baylor, A., & Kitsantas, A. (2003). Preservice teacher instructional planning support for well- and ill-defined instructional problems. In C. Crawford, N. Davis, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2003 (pp. 1636–1638). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from
  13. Baylor, A., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Comparative analysis and validation of instructivist and constructivist self-reflective tools (IPSRT and CPSRT) for novice instructional planners. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 433–457.Google Scholar
  14. Ben-Peretz, M. (2011). Teacher knowledge: What is it? How do we uncover it? What are its implications for schooling? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 3–9. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.015.Google Scholar
  15. Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. S. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research and teaching in instructional design and technology. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2006 (Vol. 31, pp. 33–49). Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  16. Blömeke, S., Paine, L., Houang, R., Hsieh, F.-J., Schmidt, W., Tatto, M., et al. (2008). Future teachers’ competence to plan a lesson: First results of a six-country study on the efficiency of teacher education. ZDM: Mathematics Education, 40(5), 749–762. doi: 10.1007/s11858-008-0123-y.Google Scholar
  17. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Patrick, H., Krajick, J., & Soloway, E. (1997). Teaching for understanding. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Godson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 819–878). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Acacemic.Google Scholar
  18. Borko, H., Liston, D., & Whitcomb, J. A. (2007). Genres of empirical research in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 3–11. doi: 10.1177/0022487106296220.Google Scholar
  19. Borko, H., Roberts, S. A., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Teachers’ decision making: From Alan J. Bishop to today. In P. Clarkson & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Critical issues in mathematics education: Major contributions of Alan Bishop (pp. 37–68). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. *Borko, H., & Shavelson, R. J. (1990). Teacher decision making. In B. F. Jones, & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 311–341). Florence, KY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Boshuizen, H. P. A., Bromme, R., & Gruber, H. (Eds.). (2004). Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert. New York, NY: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  23. Brown, C. P. (2010). Children of reform: The impact of high-stakes education reform on preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 477–491. doi: 10.1177/0022487109352905.Google Scholar
  24. *Burkman, E. (1987). Prospects for instructional systems design in the public schools. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 27–32.Google Scholar
  25. Calderhead, J. (1981a). A psychological approach to research on teachers’ classroom decision-making. British Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 51–57.Google Scholar
  26. Calderhead, J. (1981b). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211–217.Google Scholar
  27. Carr-Chelman, A. A. (2011). Instructional design for teachers: Improving classroom practice. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Churchill, D. (2006). Teachers’ private theories and their design of technology-based learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 559–576. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00554.x.Google Scholar
  29. *Clark, F. E., & Angert, J. F. (1981). Teacher commitment to instructional design: The problem of media selection and use. Educational Technology, 21(5), 9–15.Google Scholar
  30. *Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1977). Research on teacher thinking. Curriculum Inquiry, 7(4), 279–304.Google Scholar
  31. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 2–11.Google Scholar
  32. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.Google Scholar
  33. Cook-Sather, A., & Youens, B. (2007). Repositioning students in initial teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 62–75. doi: 10.1177/0022487106296216.Google Scholar
  34. Cross, D. (2009). Alignment, cohesion, and change: Examining mathematics teachers’ belief structures and their influence on instructional practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(5), 325–346. doi: 10.1007/s10857-009-9120-5.Google Scholar
  35. Davis, E. A., Beyer, C., Forbes, C. T., & Stevens, S. (2011). Understanding pedagogical design capacity through teachers’ narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 797–810. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.005.Google Scholar
  36. *Dick, W. (1986). Instructional design and the curriculum development process. Educational Leadership, 44(4), 54–56.Google Scholar
  37. Earle, R. S. (1996). Instructional design fundamentals as elements of teacher planning routines: Perspectives and practices from two studies. Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 183–192). Indianapolis, IN: AECT. Retrieved from
  38. *Earle, R. S. (1998). Instructional design and teacher planning: Reflections and perspectives. In R. Branch & M. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook (Vol. 23, pp. 36–45). Englewood, NJ: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.Google Scholar
  39. Earle, R. S., & Sheffield, C. J. (1995). Changes in ID fundamentals: Implications for teacher education. In B. Seels (Ed.), Instructional design fundamentals: A reconsideration (Vol. 1, pp. 209–221). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  40. Elliott, J. G., Stemler, S. E., Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Hoffman, N. (2011). The socially skilled teacher and the development of tacit knowledge. British Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 83–103. doi: 10.1080/01411920903420016.Google Scholar
  41. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284.Google Scholar
  42. Fadde, P. (2009). Instructional design for advanced learners: Training recognition skills to hasten expertise. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 359–376. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9046-5.Google Scholar
  43. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47.Google Scholar
  44. Flouris, G. (1988). An instructional design model: Classroom applications. European Journal of Teacher Education, 11(1), 59–72.Google Scholar
  45. Friesen, N. (2010). Anglo-American approaches to lesson planning. Bildung und Erziehung (Formation and Education), 63(4), 417–430. Retrieved from
  46. Gill, M. G., & Hoffman, B. (2009). Shared planning time: A novel context for studying teachers’ discourse and beliefs about learning and instruction. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1242–1273. Retrieved from
  47. Graham, C. R., Burgoyne, N., & Borup, J. (2010). The decision-making processes of preservice teachers as they integrate technology. In D. Gibson, & B. Dodge (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 3826–3832). San Diego: AACE. Retrieved from
  48. Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055–2100. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  49. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.Google Scholar
  50. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014–2026. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2008.05.002.Google Scholar
  51. *Hannafin, R. (1999). Introduction to special issue on instructional technology and teacher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 27–28. doi:  10.1007/bf02299595
  52. Ho, L.-A., Kuo, T.-H., Tsai, S.-H., & Kuo, Y.-K. (2006). An investigation of the actual practice of instructional design at elementary schools in Taipei-- From teachers’ perspective. In C. M. Crawford, R. Carlsen, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2006 (pp. 1218–1224). Orlando, Florida, USA: AACE. Retrieved from
  53. Hunter, M. (1967). Teach more - faster. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  54. Hunter, M. (1985). What’s wrong with Madeline hunter? Educational Leadership, 42(5), 57.Google Scholar
  55. Hunter, R., & Hunter, M. (2004). Mastery teaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  56. John, P. D. (1991). Course, curricular, and classroom influences on the development of student teachers’ lesson planning perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(4), 359–372. doi: 10.1016/0742-051x(91)90005-a.Google Scholar
  57. John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re-thinking the dominant model. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483–498.Google Scholar
  58. Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 38(3), 21–26.Google Scholar
  59. Jonassen, D. H., Cernusca, D., & Ionas, I. G. (2007). Constructivism and instructional design: The emergence of the learning sciences and design research. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed., pp. 45–52). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  60. Karaca, F., Yildirim, S., & Kiraz, E. (2008). Elementary school teachers’ instructional design process: An insight into teachers’ daily practices. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen, & D. A. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 3364–3371). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: AACE. Retrieved from
  61. Kerr, S. T. (1981). How teachers design their materials: Implications for instructional design. Instructional Science, 10(4), 363–378. doi: 10.1007/bf00162734.Google Scholar
  62. Kitsantas, A., & Baylor, A. (2001). The impact of the instructional planning self-reflective tool on preservice teacher performance, disposition, and self-efficacy beliefs regarding systematic instructional planning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(4), 97–106. doi: 10.1007/bf02504949.Google Scholar
  63. Knobloch, N. A., & Hoop, S. E. (2005). Preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors regarding instructional planning. Proceedings of the 2005 American Association for Agricultural Education (AAAE) North Central Agricultural Education Research Conference. Columbus, OH: AAAE. Retrieved from
  64. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2010). An approach to participatory instructional design in secondary education: An exploratory study. Educational Research, 52(1), 45–59. doi: 10.1080/00131881003588204.Google Scholar
  65. Krull, E., Oras, K., & Pikksaar, E. (2010). Promoting student teachers’ lesson analysis and observation skills by using Gagne’s model of an instructional unit. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36(2), 197–210. doi: 10.1080/02607471003651789.Google Scholar
  66. Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Lever-Duffy, J., & McDonald, J. B. (2011). Teaching and learning with technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  68. Lin, E., Wang, J., Klecka, C. L., Odell, S. J., & Spalding, E. (2010). Judging research in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(4), 295–301. doi: 10.1177/0022487110374013.Google Scholar
  69. Liston, D., Whitcomb, J., & Borko, H. (2006). Too little or too much: Teacher preparation and the first years of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(4), 351–358. doi: 10.1177/0022487106291976.Google Scholar
  70. Lloyd, G. M. (2007). Strategic compromise a student teacher’s design of kindergarten mathematics instruction in a high-stakes testing climate. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 328–347. doi: 10.1177/0022487107305260.Google Scholar
  71. Loughran, J. (2007). Researching teacher education practices: Responding to the challenges, demands, and expectations of self-study. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 12–20. doi: 10.1177/0022487106296217.Google Scholar
  72. Luehmann, A. L. (2008). Using blogging in support of teacher professional identity development: A case study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 287–337. doi: 10.1080/10508400802192706.Google Scholar
  73. Marcos, J. J. M., & Tillema, H. (2006). Studying studies on teacher reflection and action: An appraisal of research contributions. Educational Research Review, 1(2), 112–132. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2006.08.003.Google Scholar
  74. Martin, B. L. (1990). Teachers’ planning processes: Does ISD make a difference? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 3(4), 53–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1990.tb00477.x.Google Scholar
  75. *Martin, B. L., & Clemente, R. (1990). Instructional systems design and public schools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 61–75. doi:  10.1007/bf02298270
  76. Martin, W., Strother, S., Beglau, M., Bates, L., Reitzes, T., & Culp, K. M. (2010). Connecting instructional technology professional development to teacher and student outcomes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 53–74.Google Scholar
  77. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  78. McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and influences on it. The Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 4–23.Google Scholar
  79. Mitchem, K., Wells, D. L., & Wells, J. G. (2003). Effective integration of instructional technologies (IT): Evaluating professional development and instructional change. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 11(3), 397–414.Google Scholar
  80. Moallem, M. (1998). An expert teacher’s thinking and teaching and instructional design models and principles: An ethnographic study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 37–64. doi: 10.1007/BF02299788.Google Scholar
  81. Moallem, M., & Applefield, J. (1997). Instructional systems design and preservice teachers’ processes of thinking, teaching and planning: What do they learn and how do they change? Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) (pp. 217–232). Albuquerque, NM: AECT. Retrieved from
  82. *Moallem, M., & Earle, R. S. (1998). Instructional design models and teacher thinking: Toward a new conceptual model for research and development. Educational Technology, 38(2), 5–22.Google Scholar
  83. Molenda, M. (2009). Origins and evolution of instructional systems design. In K. H. Silber & W. R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace: Instructional design and training delivery (pp. 53–92). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  84. Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Integrating computer technology into the classroom: Skills for the 21st century. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  85. Newby, T. J., Stepich, D., Lehman, J. D., Russell, J. D., & Ottenbreit-Todd, A. (2011). Educational technology for teaching and learning (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.Google Scholar
  86. Norton, P., Rooij, S. W., Jerome, M. K., Clark, K., Behrmann, M., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2009). Linking theory and practice through design: An instructional technology program. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 34, pp. 47–59). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  87. Oser, F. K., & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 1031–1065). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  88. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2007). Instructional design as living practice: Toward a conscience of craft. Educational Technology, 47(4), 13–23.Google Scholar
  89. Ozdilek, Z., & Robeck, E. (2009). Operational priorities of instructional designers analyzed within the steps of the ADDIE instructional design model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2046–2050. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.359.Google Scholar
  90. Palak, D., & Walls, R. T. (2009). Teachers’ beliefs and technology practices: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(4), 417–441.Google Scholar
  91. Peterson, P. L., & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teachers’ reports of their cognitive processes during teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 15(4), 555–565.Google Scholar
  92. Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W., & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 417–432.Google Scholar
  93. Power, M. (2009). A designer’s log: Case studies in instructional design. Edmonton, Canada: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Raths, J. D., & McAninch, A. R. (Eds.). (2003). Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher education. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  95. Reiser, R. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67.Google Scholar
  96. *Reiser, R., & Dick, W. (1996). Instructional planning: A guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  97. Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. D. Raths & A. R. McAninch (Eds.), Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher education (pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar
  98. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Hamre, B. K. (2010). The role of psychological and developmental science in efforts to improve teacher quality. Teachers College Record, 112(12), 2988–3023. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  99. Roblyer, M. D., & Doering, A. H. (2010). Integrating educational technology into teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  100. Rogers, P. L. (2002). Designing instruction for technology-enhanced learning. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  101. Ropo, E. (2004). Teaching expertise. In H. P. A. Boshuizen, R. Bromme, & H. Gruber (Eds.), Professional learning: Gaps and transitions on the way from novice to expert. New York, NY: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  102. Rose, E., & Tingley, K. (2008). Science and math teachers as instructional designers: Linking ID to the ethic of caring. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(1), Article 1. Retrieved from
  103. Rosiek, J., & Atkinson, B. (2005). Bridging the divides: The need for a pragmatic semiotics of teacher knowledge research. Educational Theory, 55(4), 421–442. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-5446.2005.00004.x.Google Scholar
  104. Salisbury, D. F. (1987). Introduction to special issue. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 2.Google Scholar
  105. Sang, G., Valcke, M., Braak, J. V., & Tondeur, J. (2010). Student teachers’ thinking processes and ICT integration: Predictors of prospective teaching behaviors with educational technology. Computers in Education, 54(1), 103–112. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.010.Google Scholar
  106. Sardo-Brown, D. (1990). Experienced teachers’ planning practices: A US survey. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(1), 57.Google Scholar
  107. Sardo-Brown, D. (1993). Descriptions of two novice secondary teachers’ planning. Curriculum Inquiry, 23(1), 63–84.Google Scholar
  108. Sato, M., Akita, K., & Iwakawa, N. (1993). Practical thinking styles of teachers: A comparative study of expert and novice thought processes and its implications for rethinking teacher education in Japan. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(4), 100–110.Google Scholar
  109. Savenye, W., Davidson, G., & Smith, P. (1991). Teaching instructional design in a computer literacy course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 49–58. doi: 10.1007/bf02296438.Google Scholar
  110. Schneider, S. B. (2010). Signature pedagogies for social foundations: Negotiating social foundations teaching practices in the field of education. Educational Studies, 46(4), 416–428. doi: 10.1080/00131946.2010.496349.Google Scholar
  111. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  112. Schrock, S. A., & Byrd, D. M. (1987). An instructional development look at staff development in the public schools. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 45–53.Google Scholar
  113. Seel, N. M., & Dijkstra, S. (1997). General introduction. In S. Dijkstra, N. M. Seel, F. Schott, & R. D. Tennyson (Eds.), Instructional design: International perspectives (Solving instructional design problems, Vol. 2, pp. 1–13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  114. Shambaugh, R. N., & Magliaro, S. (2006). Instructional design: A systematic approach for reflective practice. Boston, MA: Pearson/A and B.Google Scholar
  115. *Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455–498.Google Scholar
  116. Shoham, E., Penso, S., & Shiloah, N. (2003). Novice teachers’ reasoning when analysing educational cases. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 31(3), 195–211.Google Scholar
  117. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  118. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  119. Singer-Gabella, M. (2012). Toward scholarship in practice. Teachers College Record, 114(8). Retrieved from
  120. Slavin, R. E. (1989). PET and the pendulum: Faddism in education and how to stop it. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(10), 752–758.Google Scholar
  121. Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Russell, J. D. (2011). Instructional technology and media for learning (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  122. Snelbecker, G. (1987). Instructional design skills for classroom teachers. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 33–40. doi: 10.1007/bf02905309.Google Scholar
  123. So, W. W. M., & Watkins, D. A. (2005). From beginning teacher education to professional teaching: A study of the thinking of Hong Kong primary science teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(5), 525–541. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.03.003.Google Scholar
  124. Sternberg, R. (2008). Applying psychological theories to educational practice. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 150–165. doi: 10.3102/0002831207312910.Google Scholar
  125. Stillman, J. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133–180. Retrieved from
  126. Summerville, J., & Reid-Griffin, A. (2008). Technology integration and instructional design. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 52(5), 45–51. doi: 10.1007/s11528-008-0196-z.Google Scholar
  127. Taylor, P. H. (1970). How teachers plan their courses: Studies in curriculum planning. New York, NY: National Foundation for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  128. van Gog, T., Ericsson, K., Rikers, R., & Paas, F. (2005). Instructional design for advanced learners: Establishing connections between the theoretical frameworks of cognitive load and deliberate practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3), 73–81. doi: 10.1007/bf02504799.Google Scholar
  129. Wang, J., Odell, S. J., Klecka, C. L., Spalding, E., & Lin, E. (2010). Understanding teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 395–402. doi: 10.1177/0022487110384219.Google Scholar
  130. Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and novice teacher decision ­making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 292–305. doi: 10.1177/002248719104200407.Google Scholar
  131. Wiburg, K. M. (1995). An historical perspective on instructional design: Is it time to exchange Skinner’s teaching machine for Dewey’s toolbox? In S. Goldman, J. Greeno, J. L. Schnase, & E. L. Cunius (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL 95: The first International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (pp. 385–391). Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from
  132. Willis, J. W. (2008). Qualitative research methods in education and educational technology. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  133. Willis, J. W., Thompson, A., & Sadera, W. (1999). Research on technology and teacher education: Current status and future directions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 29–45. doi: 10.1007/bf02299596.Google Scholar
  134. Yinger, R. J. (1979). Routines in teacher planning. Theory Into Practice, 18(3), 163–169.Google Scholar
  135. Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning. The Elementary School Journal, 80(3), 107–127.Google Scholar
  136. *Young, A., Reiser, R., & Dick, W. (1998). Do superior teachers employ systematic instructional planning procedures? A descriptive study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 65–78. doi:  10.1007/bf02299789
  137. Zahorik, J. A. (1970). The effect of planning on teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 71(3), 143–151.Google Scholar
  138. Zahorik, J. A. (1975). Teachers’ planning models. Educational Leadership, 33(2), 134.Google Scholar
  139. Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 4–15. doi: 10.3102/0013189x028009004.Google Scholar
  140. Zeichner, K. (2007). Accumulating knowledge across self-studies in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 36–46. doi: 10.1177/0022487106296219.Google Scholar
  141. Zhang, Y. (2000). Technology assists to create a structured learning environment for discovery learning. In D. A. Willis, J. Price, & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2000 (pp. 849–851). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational TechnologyUniversity of Hawaii ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations