Advertisement

Eight Views of Instructional Design and What They Should Mean to Instructional Designers

  • Andrew S. GibbonsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations book series (ECTII)

Abstract

Eight different views of the design process are described with the purpose of broadening the practitioner’s concept of instructional design. Views both internal and external to instructional design are considered, so that instructional designers can see the traditions of their field in the context of design activity in other professional fields. Examples are drawn from architecture, digital design, team dynamics, organizational behavior, and design studies. Traditional instructional design theories and practices are placed within the context of this expanded panorama of design so that their value is enhanced but also so that the designer understands the source and limits of their value within the context of professional practice. Designers are encouraged to incorporate new terms into their professional language of designing. They are also asked to consider design as an act pursued at different levels of detail. Design at each level is influenced by principles that pertain to that level but which must be folded harmoniously into a completed design.

Keywords

Design process Design methods Design studies Architecture Professional 

References

  1. Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazerman, C. (1999). The languages of Edison’s light. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bichelmeyer, B. (2003). Instructional theory and instructional design theory: What’s the difference and why should we care? IDT Record. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://bit.ly/9HkisA.
  5. Blaauw, G., & Brooks, F. (1997). Computer architecture: Concepts and evolution. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  7. Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., King, F.J., & Hannum, W. J. (1975, August). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development (5 vols.) (TRADOC Pam 350–30). Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (NTIS Nos. AD-A019 4860-AD-A019 490).Google Scholar
  8. Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, R. E. (2009). Translating research into new instructional technologies for higher education: The active ingredient process. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 45–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drucker, P. (1989). The new realities. London, UK: Mandarin.Google Scholar
  13. Ericsson, A., & Erixon, G. (1999). Controlling design variants: Modular product platforms. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.Google Scholar
  14. Fowler, M. (2003). Patterns of enterprise application software. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Gagné, R. M. (Ed.). (1965). Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Gibbons, A. S., Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2013). Instructional design models. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons, A., & Rogers, P. C. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 3. Building a common knowledge base. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gibbons, A. S., & Yanchar, S. (2010). An alternative view of the instructional design process: A response to Smith and Boling. Educational Technology, 50(4), 16–26.Google Scholar
  20. Hokanson, B., & Miller, C. (2009). Role-based design: A contemporary framework for innovation and creativity in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(2), 21–28.Google Scholar
  21. Jonassen, D. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.Google Scholar
  22. Kahin, B., & Foray, D. (2006). Advancing knowledge and the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Parrish, P. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16–25.Google Scholar
  24. Parrish, P. (2006). Design as storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  26. Ramo, S., & St. Claire, R. K. (1998). The systems approach, anaheim, CA: KNI Incorporated. Retrieved from http://www.incase.org/productspubs/doc/systemsapproach.
  27. Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reigeluth, C. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  29. Reigeluth, C., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 3. Building a common knowledge base. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rowland. (2008, March 27). Design and research: Partners in educational innovation. Keynote address to the Design and Technology SIG, American Educational Research Association, New York City.Google Scholar
  32. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, K., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.Google Scholar
  34. Uyemura, J. (1999). A first course in digital systems design: An integrated approach. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  35. Vincenti, W. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wilson, B. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10–15.Google Scholar
  37. Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations