Skip to main content
Log in

Turning electronic learning environments into useful and influential ‘instructional design Anchor points'

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

Abstract

Instructional design may help make educational research more useful and influential. In this discussion, I argue that instructional design anchor points (IDAPs) are the basis for this kind of research. In short, IDAPs are educational tools or approaches that can be studied to generate design guidelines. The study of IDAPs may become more useful and more influential when it meets at least the following four conditions: (a) a clear description of the IDAP under study; (b) presence of a clear conceptual framework; (c) a deliberate consideration of complexity; and (d) a realistic perspective on improvement and implementation. This two-part special issue of Educational Technology Research and Development, on electronic learning environments, illustrates the possibilities and pitfalls of studying IDAPs.

In this contribution, the four conditions are illustrated by referring to the main articles of the special issue. Indeed, it is argued that electronic environments are the most recent version of an IDAP. The discussion highlights the need for a clear description of the IDAP electronic learning environment, the elaboration of a layered conceptual framework, a more systematic consideration of limitations, and a good balance between realism and voluntarism.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Birenbaum, M. (2003). New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.),Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of quality and standards (pp. 13–36). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better funded enterprise.Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1998). Technology or craft: What are we doing?Educational Technology, 38(5), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.).Collaborative learning. Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elen, J. (1995). Blocks on the road to instructional design prescriptions. Leuven: Leuven University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.),Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulikers, Bastiaens, & Kirschner. (2004) [Special issue, part I].Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1982).The technology of text. Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner. (2004). Introduction to the special issue: [Special issue, part I].Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 39–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, & Beers. (2004). [Special issue, part I].Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledford, B. R., & Sleeman, P. J. (2000).Instructional design: A primer. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. (2001).Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design.Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Psotka, J., Massey, L. D., & Mutter, S. A., (1988) (Eds.).Intelligent tutoring systems: Lessons learned. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.).Instructional design theories and models: Vol. 1 (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.).Instructional design theories and models: Vol. II, A new paradigm of instruction theory (pp. 5–30). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1968).The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instructions for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains.Educational Technology, 31(5), 24–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983).Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (2003), Beyond constructivism: A return to science-based research and practice in educational technology.Educational Technology, 43(6), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Elen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elen, J. Turning electronic learning environments into useful and influential ‘instructional design Anchor points'. ETR&D 52, 67–73 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504719

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504719

Keywords

Navigation