Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using critical incidents of instructional design and multimedia production activities to investigate instructional designers’ current practices and roles

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

Abstract

Through consideration of critical incidents, this study analyzed 106 effective, ineffective and extraordinary instructional design and multimedia production (MP) activities discussed by 36 instructional design professionals. This evaluation provided insights into these professionals’ best and not so best practices during the past 6 months. Prevalent themes emerged from the data analysis with regards to these activities. Six themes emerged from the effective incidents, namely: (a) creating instructional products, (b) providing examples, (c) differentiating instruction, (d) establishing social presence, (e) providing resources, and (f) collaborating with stakeholders. Four themes emerged from the extraordinary incidents, namely: (a) matching methods and media to content and learners, (b) providing organized content, (c) managing a complex instructional design (ID) project, and (d) using theory to inform practice. Six themes emerged from the ineffective incidents, namely: (a) not matching methods and media to content and learners, (b) not supporting student interaction (c) selecting inadequate instructional strategies, (d) not using ID processes, (e) not collaborating with stakeholders, and (f) coping with inadequate technical infrastructure. Results from this study offer an understanding of the interrelationship between instructional design and MP activities and positive (both effective and extraordinary) outcomes in instructional design activities. Existing instructional design success factors and best practices studies are compared to the results of this study. Future research directions may involve analyzing little known phenomena in instructional design-related activities and further explore negative or ineffective instructional design practices.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bennett, S. (2010). Investigating strategies for using related cases to support design problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 459–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brill, J., Kim, B., & Galloway, C. (2001). Cognitive apprenticeship. In Orey M. (Ed.). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved August 10, 2015 from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/index.php?title=Cognitive_Apprenticeship.

  • Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Maglio, A. T., & Amundson, N. E. (2009). Using the enhanced critical incident technique in counselling psychology research. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 43(4), 265–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Moore, J. L., & Vo, N. (2012). Formative evaluation with novice designers: Two case studies within an online multimedia development course. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(2), 95–111.

    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 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicks, D., & Ives, C. (2008). Instructional designers at work: A study of how designers design. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2), 91–108.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Hardré, P. L. (2010). Self-processes and learning environment as influences in the development of expertise in instructional design. Learning Environments Research, 13(1), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hokanson, B., & Miller, C. (2010). The engineer and craftsperson: Scientific realization and experienced evolution through role-based design. Educational Technology, 50(1), 48–55.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. D., & Jun, S. (2014). Skills for instructional design professionals. Performance Improvement, 53(2), 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimczak, A. K., & Wedman, J. F. (1997). Instructional design project success factors: An empirical basis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luterbach, K. J. (2013). Elegant instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 41(2), 183–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medina, J. (2009). Brain rules. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popadiuk, N. E., & Marshall, S. (2011). East Asian international student experiences as learners of English as an additional language: Implications for school counsellors. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 45(3), 220–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Martin, F. (2014). Development and validation of the educational technologist multimedia competency survey. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 13–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roytek, M. A. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slagter van Tryon, P. J., & Bishop, M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education, 30(3), 291–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., Russell, J. D., & Mims, C. D. (2015). Instructional technology and media for learning (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W. (2014a). Studies of ID practices: A review and synthesis of research on ID current practices. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W. (2014b). Development and formative evaluation of multimedia case studies for Instructional Design and Technology students. TechTrends, 58(5), 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W., Hoard, B., Brown, A., & Daniels, L. (2012). Identifying multimedia production competencies and skills of instructional design and technology professionals: An analysis of recent job postings. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(3), 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visscher-Voerman, J. I. A. (1999). Review of design in theory and practice. Doctoral dissertation. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global database. (UMI No. C803014).

  • Williams, D. D., South, J. B., Yanchar, S. C., Wilson, B. G., & Allen, S. (2011). How do instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 885–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S., & Hawkley, M. (2014). ‘There’s got to be a better way to do this’: A qualitative investigation of informal learning among instructional designers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 271–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2011). Towards an understanding of instructional design heuristics: An exploratory Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 841–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemke, R. (1985). The systems approach: A nice theory but. Training, 22(10), 103–108.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mathematics, Science and Instructional Technology Education, East Carolina University, 307 Flanagan MailStop 566, Greenville, NC, USA

    William A. Sugar

  2. Mathematics, Science and Instructional Technology Education, East Carolina University, 369A Flanagan MailStop 566, Greenville, NC, USA

    Kenneth J. Luterbach

Authors
  1. William A. Sugar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth J. Luterbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William A. Sugar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sugar, W.A., Luterbach, K.J. Using critical incidents of instructional design and multimedia production activities to investigate instructional designers’ current practices and roles. Education Tech Research Dev 64, 285–312 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9414-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9414-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation