Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology

  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two perspectives on the status of current research are offered: (1) In the past 15 years, the field has made extraordinary advances in the technical excellence of research studies, and yet (2) our analytical investment at the front end of research planning has not kept pace. An analysis of present problems is accompanied by two suggestions for future developments in instructional technology research: (1) we need to go beyond descriptive research methods and adoptprescriptive research methodology; and (2) researchers should seek broader and deeper knowledge of previous research in both instructional design and development before they conduct studies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bruner, J. S. (1964). Some theorems on instruction illustrated with reference to mathematics.The sixty-third yearbook of the national society for the study of education, Part I, 63, 306–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, R. (1978). A developmentally based theory and technology of instruction.Review of Educational Research, 48, 439–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Case, R., & Bereiter, C. (1984). From behaviorism to cognitive behaviorism to cognitive development: Steps in the evolution of instructional design.Instructional Science, 13, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1988). The future of technology in educational psychology. In M. C. Wittrock & F. Farley, (Eds.),The future of educational psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., & Salomon, G. (1986). Media in teaching. In M. C. Witttrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., & Snow, R. E. (1975). Alternative designs for instructional technology research.AV Communication Review, 23, 373–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., & Voogel, A. (1985). Transfer of training for instructional design.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33, 113–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979).Quasi-experimentation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1976).Evaluation research in education. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. & Snow, R. E. (1977).Aptitudes and instructional methods. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, S. F. (1986). Ten principles of learning revised in accordance with cognitive psychology: With implications for teaching.Educational Psychologist, 21, 235–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a psychology of instruction: Toward a science of design.Review of Educational Research, 46, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32, 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. N. (1977, September). The influence of research on education practice.Educational Researcher, 5–12.

  • Kulik, J., Bangert, R., and Williams, G. (1983). Effects of computer-based teaching on secondary school students.Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landa, L. N. (1983). Descriptive and prescriptive theories of learning and instruction: An analysis of their relationships and interactions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theory and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983).Instructional design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & Norman, D. A. (1981). Analogical processes in learning. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.),Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1979).Interaction of media, cognition and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1981).The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, R. E. (1977, November). Individual differences and instructional theory.Educational Researcher, 11–15.

  • Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1984). Toward a cognitive theory of learning from instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 347–376.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern California, 90089-0031, Los Angeles, CA

    Richard E. Clark (Professor of Educational Psychology and Technology)

Authors
  1. Richard E. Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clark, R.E. Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology. ETR&D 37, 57–66 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299046

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299046

Keywords

Search

Navigation