Advertisement

Development of Design Judgment in Instructional Design: Perspectives from Instructors, Students, and Instructional Designers

  • Nilufer KorkmazEmail author
  • Elizabeth Boling
Chapter
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)

Abstract

This chapter covers the findings of an exploratory qualitative study that investigates understanding of design judgment as part of design character in the instructional design (ID) field and how ID instructors address and value development of design judgment in their students. This study represents an empirical exploration of ideas that are beginning to be acknowledged as critical, both in the field of ID and in multiple design fields where design-based research is practiced and design theory is therefore growing in relevance. The study data were collected through semi-structured interviews with ID instructors, students, and professionals. The findings suggest that even though it is not a commonly used construct in ID, design judgment is a critical ID competency that should be developed early on in novice designers. The five major ways in which instructors address development of design judgment are also discussed in this chapter.

Keywords

Design judgment Design character Education of designers Design competencies Design pedagogy Modeling Reflection Projects Feedback Justification Vicarious learning Qualitative exploratory study 

References

  1. Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1991). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology, past, present, and future (pp. 133–155). Eaglewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Reprinted from the Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, K. (2007). Wicked ID: Conceptual framework for considering instructional design as a wicked problem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 33(1), 85–108.Google Scholar
  4. Benson, A. D. (2003). Assessing participant learning in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 69–78.Google Scholar
  5. Bichelmeyer, B. (2004). Instructional theory and Instructional design theory: What’s the difference and why should we care? IDT Record. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/articles/documents/ID_theory.Bichelmeyer.html
  6. Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research, practice and teaching in IDT. In M. Orey, J. McLendon, & R. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2006. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  7. Boling, E. (2004). Teaching a design model vs. developing instructional designers. IDT Record. Retrieved January 10, 2009 from http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/IDTf_Boling.pdf
  8. Boling, E. (2008). The designer as human instrument. Presented as part of a panel organized by Dr. Jonassen, Alternative perspectives on design. Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  9. Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 1–8. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/index
  10. Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2008). Artifacts as tools in design. In D. Merrill & M. Specter (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  11. Cennamo, K., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., et al. (2011). Managing the complexity of design problems through studio-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(2), 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cennamo, K. S., & Holmes, G. (2001). Developing awareness of client relations through immersion in practice. Educational Technology, 41(6), 44–49.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Ertmer, P. A., & Cennamo, K. S. (1995). Teaching instructional design: An apprenticeship model. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuller, T. (1989). The voice of liberal learning. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gagne, R. M. (1962). The acquisition of knowledge. Psychological Review, 69, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ge, X., & Hardre, P. L. (2010). Self-processes and learning environment as influences in the development of expertise in instructional design. Learning Environments Research, 13(1), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibbons, A., Boling, E., & Smith, K. (in press). Design models. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, M. J. Bishop, & J. Elen (Eds.), Handbook for research in educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert, T. F., & Gilbert, M. B. (1988). The art of winning. Training, 25(8), 33–39.Google Scholar
  22. Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 43–53.Google Scholar
  25. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC.Google Scholar
  26. Holt, J. E. (1997). The designer’s judgement. Design Studies, 18(1), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Julian, M. F. (2001). Learning in action: The professional preparation of instructional designers. University of Virginia, VA: Unpublished dissertation thesis.Google Scholar
  28. Kapp, K. M., & Phillips, T. L. (2003). Teaching the business of instructional technology: A collaborative corporate/academic partnership. TechTrends, 47(1), 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenny, R. F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 9–16.Google Scholar
  30. Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, C., & Hokanson, B. (2009). The artist and the architect: Creativity and innovation through role-based design. Educational Technology, 44(4), 27.Google Scholar
  33. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2001). Designing effective instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Murphy, D. (1992). Is instructional design truly a design activity? Education and Training Technology International, 29(4), 279–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nelson, H. G. (1994). The necessity of being “un-disciplined” and “out of control”: Design action and systems thinking. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  37. Parnell, R., Sara, R., Doidge, C., & Parsons, M. (2007). The crit: An architecture student’s handbook (2nd ed.). England: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  38. Quinn, J. (1994). Connecting education and practice in an instructional design graduate program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quinn, J. (1995). The education of instructional designers: Reflections on the Tripp paper. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rossett, A. (1981). Instructional technology as link between university and community. NSPI Journal, 20(1), 26–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rowe, P. G. (1991). Procedural aspects of design thinking (Design thinking, pp. 39–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rowland, G. (1991). Problem-solving in ID. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  43. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and ID. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rowland, G. (1996). “Lighting the fire” of design conversation. Educational Technology, 36(1), 42–45.Google Scholar
  46. Rowland, G. (2004). Shall we dance? A design epistemology for organizational learning and performance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rowland, G., & DiVasto, T. (2001). Instructional design and powerful learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rowland, G., Fixl, A., & Yung, K. (1992). Educating the reflective designer. Educational Technology, 32(12), 36–44.Google Scholar
  49. Rowland, G., & Wilson, G. (1994). Liminal states in designing. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. USA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  51. Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2004). Instructional designers’ observations about identity, communities of practice, and change agency. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(4), 69–100.Google Scholar
  52. Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2006). Instructional designers’ perceptions of their interpersonal, professional, institutional, and societal agency: Tales of change and community. In M. J. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional design: Case studies in communities of practice (pp. 1–18). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.Google Scholar
  53. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Silber, K. H. (2007). A principle-based model of instructional design: A new way of thinking about and teaching ID. Educational Technology, 47(5), 34–37.Google Scholar
  55. Sless, D. (2007). Designing philosophy. Visible Language, 41(2), 101–126.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, K. M. (2008). Meanings of “design” in instructional technology: A conceptual analysis based on the field’s foundational literature. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  57. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tracey, M., & Boling, E. (in press). Preparing instructional designers. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, M.J. Bishop, & J. Elen (Eds.), Handbook for research in educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Tripp, S. D. (1994). How should instructional designers be educated? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Winn, W. (1995). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership? In B. Seels (Ed.), Instructional design fundamentals: A reconsideration (pp. 159–169). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  62. Zemke, R., & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Training, 39(2), 26–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations