Abstract
The process of defining a research agenda appropriate for the varied interests of the instructional design and technology profession is difficult. Though unified by a mutual interest in the role of technology in instruction, the backgrounds, orientations, and priorities among members are vastly different. As a consequence, research is often too sporadic and diffuse to impact the field in a systematic manner. In many cases, interest in research seems to have declined. In this paper, many of the problems and issues in developing a meaningful research agenda will be presented. In addition, an attempt is made to set the stage for future research, where the varied interests and expertise in the instructional design and technology profession are supported.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bachrach, A. J. (1965).Psychological research: An introduction. New York: Random House.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–460.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75–92.
Gay, L. R. (1976).Educational research. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 32, 67–87.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1973).Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc.
Simonson, M. R., & Treimer, M., Eds. (1985).Proceedings of selected research paper presentations. Published by the Research and Theory Division of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Ames, IA.
Tuckman, B. W. (1978).Conducting educational research (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hannafin, M.J. The status and future of research in instructional design and technology. Journal of Instructional Development 8, 24–29 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02906266
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02906266