Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design

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

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

This paper presents the concept of critical flexibility as an alternative to eclecticism in instructional design. Eclecticism is often viewed as a persuasive alternative to theoretical orthodoxy (i.e., rigid use of a single perspective or process) due to the openness and flexibility it purports to offer. In contrast, the authors argue that eclecticism ignores or discourages critical reflection regarding background understanding (e.g., implicit assumptions and values) and perpetuates the lack of openness and flexibility commonly associated with orthodoxy. Critical flexibility, as an alternative to eclecticism, emphasizes an awareness of background understanding, but construes it as capable of being explicated, critically examined, adjusted in specific contexts, and refined or developed over time to facilitate increasingly flexible and effective design practices. The authors clarify the nature of critical flexibility as a general way of being involved in the design process, suggest how it helps overcome the traditional theory–practice split, and discuss several of its implications for scholarship and training.

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

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Joeey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, M. C. (1994). Peripheral visions: Learning along the way. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beail, N. (Ed.). (1985). Repertory grid techniques and personal constructs: Applications in clinical and educational settings. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T. M., & Perry, J. D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 17–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, J. (1991). New philosophy of social science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braden, R. A. (1996). The case for linear instructional design and development: A commentary on models, challenges, and myths. Educational Technology, 36(2), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1989). Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • Der-Thanq, C., Hung, D., & Wang, Y. M. (2007). Educational design as a quest for congruence: The need for alternative learning design tools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 876–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Tine Division 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely, D. P. (1999). Toward a philosophy of instructional technology: Thirty years on. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 305–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y., Hakkarainen, P., & Hedegaard, M. (1984). On the methodological basis of research in teaching and learning. In M. Hedegaard, P. Hakkarainen, & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Learning and teaching on a scientific basis (pp. 119–183). Aarhus Universitat: Psykologisk Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X., Zurek, S., et al. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabbitas, B. W. (2009). Critical thinking and analyzing assumptions in instructional technology. Unpublished master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

  • Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (pp. 243–258). Forth Worth, Holt: Rinehart & Winston, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2007). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional technology (2nd ed., pp. 53–61). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Goldsworthy, R. C. (2009). Is your design story limiting you? Purposefully perturbing our practices through instructional design “Mashups”. Educational Technology, 49(4), 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hostetler, K. (1994). Community and neutrality in critical thought: A nonobjectivist view on the conduct and teaching of critical thinking. In K. S. Walters (Ed.), Re-thinking reason: New perspectives in critical thinking (pp. 135–154). Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, D. E. (1987). How to be your own best theorist. Theory into Practice, 26, 512–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irving, J. A., & Williams, D. I. (1995). Critical thinking and reflective practice in counseling. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 23(1), 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., Carr, C., van Merrienboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). New York: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. New York: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. K., Yanchar, S. C., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2005). Learning from programmed instruction: Examining implications for modern instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 84–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, D. M., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & The ID2 Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C., & Hokanson, B. (2009). The artist and architect: Creativity and innovation through role-based design. Educational Technology, 49(4), 18–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osguthorpe, R. T., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2007). Instructional design as living practice: Toward a conscience of craft. Educational Technology, 47(4), 13–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osmo, R. (2001). A conceptual tool: making social workers’ assumptions explicit. Social Work Education, 20, 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 511–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polkinghorne, D. E. (2004). Practice and the human sciences: The case for a judgment-based practice of care. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randi, J., & Corno, L. (1997). Teachers and innovators. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 1163–1221). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. J. (2009). Theory building. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. 3, pp. 365–386). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1991). Inquiry as recontextualization. In R. Rorty (Ed.), Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1, pp. 93–110). New York: Cambridge University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 161–181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot/Hampshire: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1995). What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. M., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2001). Philosophical implications for the design of instruction. Instructional Science, 29, 381–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophy and the human sciences: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennyson, R. D. (2010). Historical reflection on learning theories and instructional design. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weideman, A. (2001). The old and the new: Reconsidering eclecticism in language teaching. Per Linguam, 17(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerman, M. A. (2006). Quantitative research as an interpretive enterprise: The mostly unacknowledged role of interpretation in research efforts and suggestions for explicitly interpretive quantitative investigations. New Ideas in Psychology, 24, 189–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wild, M., & Quinn, C. (1998). Implications of educational theory for the design of instructional multimedia. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (1997). Thoughts on theory in educational technology. Educational Technology, 37(1), 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a theory-building curriculum in instructional technology. Educational Technology, 38(1), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., Slife, B. D., & Warne, R. T. (2008). Critical thinking as disciplinary practice. Review of General Psychology, 12, 265–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & South, J. B. (2009). Beyond the theory-practice split in instructional design: The current situation and future directions. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2009 (pp. 81–100). New York: Springer.

  • 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 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & Williams, D. D. (2006). Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University, 150D MCKB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Stephen C. Yanchar

  2. Learning, Design, and Technology, University of Georgia, 630 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    Bruce W. Gabbitas

Authors
  1. Stephen C. Yanchar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bruce W. Gabbitas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen C. Yanchar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yanchar, S.C., Gabbitas, B.W. Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Education Tech Research Dev 59, 383–398 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9180-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9180-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation