Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Design in Educational Technology

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.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1999). The languages of Edison’s light. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Blaauw, G., & Brooks, F. (1997). Computer architecture: Concepts and evolution. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 45–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (1989). The new realities. London, UK: Mandarin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, A., & Erixon, G. (1999). Controlling design variants: Modular product platforms. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, M. (2003). Patterns of enterprise application software. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (Ed.). (1965). Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Jonassen, D. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahin, B., & Foray, D. (2006). Advancing knowledge and the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. (2006). Design as storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramo, S., & St. Claire, R. K. (1998). The systems approach, anaheim, CA: KNI Incorporated. Retrieved from http://www.incase.org/productspubs/doc/systemsapproach.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 3. Building a common knowledge base. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Uyemura, J. (1999). A first course in digital systems design: An integrated approach. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincenti, W. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 84604, USA

    Andrew S. Gibbons

Authors
  1. Andrew S. Gibbons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew S. Gibbons .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Design, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

    Brad Hokanson

  2. Provo, Utah, USA

    Andrew Gibbons

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gibbons, A.S. (2014). Eight Views of Instructional Design and What They Should Mean to Instructional Designers. In: Hokanson, B., Gibbons, A. (eds) Design in Educational Technology. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation