Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Technology and Theory on Instructional Design Since 2000

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology

Abstract

The impact of shifting epistemologies in the field of instructional design during the last century has had a major impact on how we design instruction. The goal of this chapter is to provide an overview of important shifts in ideas about what knowledge is, how it can be produced or constructed, and what it has meant for instructional design in the last decade. We discuss how technology has influenced instructor, learner, and designer beliefs about knowledge, instruction, and learning. Furthermore, we look at the changing landscape of theory and research that supports and questions these perspectives, and the implications it has on instructional practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aldrich, C. (2003). Simulations and the future of learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P., Zimand, E., Schmertz, S., & Ferrer, M. (2007). Usability and utility of a computerized cognitive-behavioral self-help program for public speaking anxiety. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 14(2), 198–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Review of Educational Research, 48, 251–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacherman, D. M. (2007). The use of students’ first language in second-language learning in a computer-based environment. Mineapolis, MN: Walden University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. (2008). Trying to design a truly entertaining game can defeat even a certified genius. Wired, 16(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • *Barab, S., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S., et al. (2009). Transformational play as a curricular scaffold: Using videogames to support science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 305–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (in press). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Scott, B., Siyahhan, S., Goldstone, R., Ingram-Goble, A., Zuiker, S. J., & Warren, S. (2009). Conceptual Play as a Curricular Scaffold: Using Videogames to Support Science Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 305–320. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9171-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., Zuiker, S., Warren, S. J., Hickey, D., Ingram-Goble, A., Kwon, E.-J., et al. (2007). Situationally embodied curriculum: Relating formalisms and contexts. Science Education, 91(5), 750–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bares, W., Zettlemoyer, L., & Lester, J. (1998). Habitable 3D learning environments for situated learning. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS-98), San Antonio, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Baylor, A. (1999). Intelligent agents as cognitive tools. Educational Technology, 39(2), 36–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. (2002). Agent-based learning environments as a research tool. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(3), 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A. (2005). The impact of pedagogical agent image on affective outcomes. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, San Diego, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, A., & Kim, Y. (2005). Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 15(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. (1984). The 2 sigma problems: the search for methods of group instructions as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Research, 13(6), 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., & Soo, K.-S. (1999). CALL issues: Designing CALL software. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 442–456). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordnick, P., Copp, H., Brooks, J., Ferrer, M., & Logue, B. (2004). Utilizing virtual reality to standardize nicotine crazing research: A pilot study. Journal of Addictive Behaviors, 29, 1889–1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordnick, P., Copp, H., Traylor, A., Walton, A., & Ferrer, M. (2009). Reactivity to cabbabis cues in virtual reality environments. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 41(2), 105–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordnick, P., Traylor, A., Copp, H., Graap, K., Carter, B., Ferrer, M., et al. (2008). Assessing reactivity to virtual reality alcohol based cues. Addictive Behaviors, 33, 743–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, C. A. (2000). Let them eat data: How computers affect education, cultural diversity, and the prospects of ecological sustainability. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, E., Hobbs, M., & Gordon, M. (2008). A Virtual World Environment for Group Work. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 3(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser, 393–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2003). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based historical inquiry on student engagement, empathy, and historical reasoning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K., & Kalk, D. (2005). Real world instructional design. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, R. (2002). Effects of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and students. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(4), 412–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, 33(3), 52–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1994). The relationship between situated cognition and anchored instruciton: A response to Tripp. Educational Technology, 34(8), 28–32. Retrieved from http://www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu~biswas/Research/ile/home.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on aptitude-treatment interactions. New York: Irvington.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (1988). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and low use of technologies in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Freitas, S. (2006). Learning in immersive worlds. London: Joint Information Systems Committee.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Freitas, S., & Oliver, M. (2006). How can exploratory learning with games and simulations within the curriculum be most effectively evaluated?. Computers & Education, 46(3), 249–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong-Derrington, M., & and Homewood, B. (2008). Get real - this isn’t real, it’s second life teaching ESL in a virtual world. Paper presented at the Learning in Virtual Environments International Conference, Open University, Milton Keynes. 106–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, S. (2005). Cognition and Instructional Design for Problem-Based Learning. In Spector, M., Ohrazda, C., Van Schaack, A., Wiley, D (Eds), Innovations in Instructional Technology, 187–206. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dondlinger, M. (2007). Educational video game design: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Educational Technology, 4(1), 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.eduquery.com/jaet/index.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Dondlinger, M., & Warren, S. J. (2009). Alternate reality games as simulations to support capstone learning experiences. In D. Gibson & Y. K. Baek (Eds.), Digital simulations for improving education: Learning through artificial teaching environments. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edasaw, Y., & Kabata, K. (2007). An ethnographic study of a key-pal project: Learning a foreign language through bilingual communication. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(3), 189–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Egbert, J., & Hanson-Smith, E. (Eds.). (1999). CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Englert, C. S., Manalo, M., & Zhao, Y. (2004). I can do it better on the computer: The effects of technology-enabled scaffolding on young writers’ composition. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(1), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entertainment Software Association. (2011). 2010 sales, demographic, and usage data: Essential facts about the computer and video game industry. Washington, DC: Entertainment Software Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Foster, A. (2008). Games and motivation to learn science: Personal identity, applicability, relevance and meaningfulness. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 597–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2004). Video games: Embodied empathy for complex systems. Paper presented at the E3, Los Angeles, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research. American Psychologist, 45(1), 29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorder, L. (2008). A study of teacher perceptions of instructional technology integration in the classroom. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50(2), 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Group, S. R. D. (2004). Creating a socially-responsive play space for learning: Something for boys and girls. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzman, A., & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies for technology integration in the classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 453–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., & Hannafin, K. (1995). The status and future of research in instructional design and technology revisited. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 314–321). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., Hooper, S., Rieber, L., & Kini, A. (1996). Research on and research with emerging technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardre, P., Ge, X., & Thomas, M. (2006). An investigation of development toward instructional design expertise. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(4), 63–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced, student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hays, R. T. (2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion (Technical Report No. 2005-004). Orlando, FL: Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herring, S. C. (2004). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, J. (2004). An exploration of community in a knowledge forum classroom. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 210–238). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation, 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (Ed., 1996). Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Macmillan.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth, (Ed.). Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional technology, Vol. 2 (pp. 215–240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y., Quintero, M., & Feldon, D. (2010). Investigating the “Why” in Whypox: Casual and systematic explorations of a virtual epidemic. Games and Culture, 5(1), 116–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keefe, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (2000). Personalized instruction: Changing classroom practice. Eye On Education, Inc.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kirkley, J. (2004). Using theory-based approahces to architext online collaborative problem-based learning: Lessons learned from Monterrey Tech-Virtual University. In T. Duffy & J. Kirkley (Eds.), Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education (pp. 321–339). Mahwah, NH: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kolodner, J. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Land, S., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanation in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of progress portfolio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 65–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M. (2003). Enhancing learners’ cognitive skills through multimedia design. Interactive Learning Environments, 11(1), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. (2009, March). Fads and Facts in Technology-Based Learning Environments. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (Vol. 2009, No. 1, pp. 1957–1964).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in the development of effective instruction (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makki, B., & Makki, B. (2012). The impact of integration of instructional systems technology into reearch and educational technology. Creative Education, 3(2), 275–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikropoulos, T. A., & Natsis, A. (2011). Educational virtual environments: A ten-year review of empirical research (1999–2009). Computers & Education, 56(3), 769–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieborg, D. B. (2005). Changing the rules of engagement: Tapping into the popular culture of America’s Army, the official US Army computer game. Unpublished Study, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Bryan, A., & Hegelheimer, V. (2007). Integrating CALL into the classroom: The role of podcasting in an ESL listening strategies course. ReCALL, 19(2), 162–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, E. (1996). Integrating computers into the classroom (2001st ed.). Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. R. (1988). On the origins of beliefs and other intentional states in children. In J. Astington, P. Harris, & D. Olson (Eds.), Developing theories of mind (pp. 414–426.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, R. H. J., & Teale, W. (2002). Where do you want to go today? Inquiry-based learning and technology integration. The Reading Teacher, 55(7), 616–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, C., Caverly, D., & MacDonald, L. (2003). Techtalk: Developing academic literacy through WebQuests. Journal of Developmental Education, 26(3), 38–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pink, D. H. (2006). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. New York: Riverhead Books.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Garfinkle, R. J. (1994). Systemic change in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saettler, P. (1990). The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M., Carley, K., & Moon, I.-C. (2005). Detailed comparison of America’s Army game and Unit of Action experiments. USA: United States Army.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slagle, M. (2004). Educational group to label video games that teach. RedNova. Retrieved May 10, 2004, from http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=56983

  • Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2010). An overview of progress and problems in educational technology. Digital Education Review, 3, 27–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Squire, K. (2006). From content to context: Videogames as designed experience. Educational Researcher, 35(8), 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Squire, K. (2008). Video game-based learning: An emerging paradigm for instruction. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(2), 7–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, K., & Steinkuehler, C. (2005). Generating cyberculture/s: The case of star wars galaxies. In Cyberlines: Languages and cultures of the internet. Albert Park, Australia: James Nicholas Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinkuehler, C. (2004). The literacy practices of massively multiplayer online gaming. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinkuehler, C. (2007). Massively multiplayer online gaming as a ­constellation of literacy practices. eLearning, 4(3), 297–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinkuehler, C. (2008). Cognition and literacy in massively multiplayer online games. In J. Coiro, K. C. C. Lanskear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 611–634). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tuzun, H. (2004). Motivating learners in educational computer games. Unpublished dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaney, A., & Butler, R. (2008). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Voices of the founders: Early discourse in educational technology (pp. 3–45). New York, NY: McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vilmi, R. (1999). CALL issues: Language learning over distance. In J. Egbert & E. Hanson-Smith (Eds.), CALL environments: Research, practice, and critical issues (pp. 427–441). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interactions, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, A., & Shelton, B. (2008). Problem-based educational games: Connections, prescriptions, and assessment. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(4), 663–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Warren, S. J., Barab, S., & Dondlinger, M. (2008). A MUVE towards PBL writing: Effects of a digital learning environment designed to improve elementary student writing. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 113–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, S. J., & Dondlinger, M. J. (2008). Designing games for learning. In R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Effective Electronic Gaming in Education (Vol. 12, pp. 1183–1185). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Reference: IGI Global. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753637

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, S. J., Dondlinger, M., Stein, R., & Barab, S. (2009). Educational game as supplemental learning tool: Benefits, challenges, and tensions arising from use in an elementary school classroom. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 20(4), 487–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, S. J., & Jones, J. (2008). Yokoi’s Theory of Lateral Innovation: Applications for learning game design (Special Issue on Educational Games). i-manager’s. Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2), 32–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, S. J., & Lin, L. (2012). Ethical considerations for learning game, simulation, and virtual world design and development. In S. C. Yang, H. H., & Yuen (Eds.), Practices and Outcomes in Virtual Worlds and Environments (pp. 1–18). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-762-3.ch001

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, S. J., Stein, R., Dondlinger, M., & Barab, S. (2009). A look inside a design process: Blending instructional design and game principles to target writing skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(3), 295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice : A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wimberly, A. T. (2007). Analyzing computer applications in English as a second language acquisition tool. Unpublished dissertation, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Winn, W. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S., & Gabbitas, B. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 59, 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S., & Byers, J. (2002). Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 482–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information, University of North Texas, 3940 N. Elm, Suite G150, Denton, TX, 76207, USA

    Scott Joseph Warren

  2. University of North Texas, 3940 N. Elm, Suite G150, Denton, TX, 76207, USA

    Jennifer Lee & Anjum Najmi

Authors
  1. Scott Joseph Warren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anjum Najmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Lee .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

    M. David Merrill

  3. , Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Jan Elen

  4. Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

    M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Warren, S.J., Lee, J., Najmi, A. (2014). The Impact of Technology and Theory on Instructional Design Since 2000. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation