Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a view of originary theory in instructional design

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

Abstract

In this paper we offer a call for the development and utilization of originary theory in instructional design. Originary theory, which is generated by scholars within the field of its intended application, can be contrasted with imported theory, which is formulated in one field and later moved or “imported” into another for new purposes. In making our argument we first review the use of theories imported into instructional design and address limitations that might arise if these theories are overly relied upon, such as if they are treated as the primary source of insight for supporting the work of practitioners. Next, we define originary theory and argue that it should be emphasized within the field of instructional design because of the central role it can play in facilitating the field’s work of designing and developing excellent learning experiences. We further explore how originary theories can support instructional design practice by considering two examples of recent theoretical work that speak to the values, and challenge the assumptions, of instructional designers, disclosing aspects of the field that can help them better accomplish their work. First, we consider originary theory that conceptualizes instructional design as a design discipline; and second, we review originary theorizing that provides alternatives to common views about learners and learning. We conclude by considering what it might mean for the field to more intentionally develop and apply originary instructional design theory.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank one of our anonymous reviewers for suggesting this example.

References

  • Adnan, N. H., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2018). Software engineering design principles applied to instructional design: What can we learn from our sister discipline? TechTrends,62(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0238-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anglin, G. J. (Ed.). (1995). Instructional technology: Past, present, and future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, P. T. (1990). Editorial. Journal of Teacher Education,41(3), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, P. (2004). Understanding as the transformation of what is already known. Teaching in Higher Education,9(2), 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. C., & Wilson, H. A. (1969). Computer-assisted instruction. In R. C. Atkinson & H. A. Wilson (Eds.), Computer-assisted instruction: A book of readings (pp. 3–13). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardone, E., & Bauters, M. (2017). A phronetic approach to educational design-based research: Issues and aspirations. Educational Design Research,1(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.15460/eder.1.1.1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, A. K., Cunningham, D. J., 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 

  • Bichelmeyer, B. (2004). Instructional theory and instructional design theory: What’s the difference and why should we care? Retrieved May 23, 2019, from IDT Record website: https://www.indiana.edu/~idt/articles/documents/ID_theory.Bichelmeyer.html.

  • Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. S. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research and teaching in instructional design and technology. In M. A. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 31, pp. 33–73). Littleton Co: Libraries Unlimited Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2014). Design: The topic that should not be closed. TechTrends,58(6), 17–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2012). The changing nature of design. In R. A. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 358–366). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., Gray, C. M., & Smith, K. M. (2015). Studio teaching in the low-precedent context of instructional design. 3rd International Conference for Design Education Research. Chicago, IL.

  • Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2018). Beyond teaching instructional design models: Exploring the design process to advance professional development and expertise. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,30(1), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9164-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R., Cross, N., Durling, D., Nelson, H. G., Owen, C., Valtonen, A., & Visscher-Voerman, I. (2013). Design. Educational Technology,53(5), 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, W. (2005). The role of theory in the professional development of an educational theorist. Pedagogy, Culture and Society,13(3), 333–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). e-Learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (2005). Theorsing special education: Time to move on? In C. Clark, A. Dyson, & A. Millward (Eds.), Theorising special education (pp. 154–171). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher,45(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, H. (2008). Vygotsky and research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1899). The school and society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1964). The relation of theory to practice in education. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on education (pp. 313–338). New York: The Modern Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolly, J. P., & Bell, M. E. (1979). Instructional psychology vs. instructional technology: Is there a difference? Educational Technology,19(5), 23–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L. (1992). What computers still can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L. (2014). Skillful coping: Essays on the phenomenology of everyday perception and action (M. A. Wrathall, Ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  • Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Allyn Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, J. (1997). Back to the rough ground: Practical judgment and the lure of technique. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. E. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences,11(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (2000). The mind doesn’t work that way. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. Marshall, Trans.). New York: Continuum.

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2003). What and how do designers design? A theory of design structure. TechTrends,47(5), 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2016). Some big questions about design in educational technology. Educational Technology,56(4), 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Bunderson, C. V. (2005). Explore, explain, design. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (Vol. 1, pp. 927–938). Boston: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, T. F. (1971). Mathetics: The technology of education. In M. D. Merrill (Ed.), Instructional design: Readings (pp. 214–263). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, A. P. (1992). Toward the articulation of psychology as a coherent discipline. A century of psychology as science (pp. 46–59). America Psychological Association: Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, A. P. (2000). Psychology as a human science revisited. Journal of Humanistic Psychology,40(3), 56–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. (1971). The design of instruction. In M. D. Merrill (Ed.), Instructional design: Readings (pp. 18–37). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M., & Boling, E. (2016). Inscribing ethics and values in designs for learning: A problematic. Educational Technology Research and Development,64(5), 969–1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9478-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gur, B. S., & Wiley, D. A. (2009). Psychologism and American instructional technology. Educational Philosophy and Theory,41(3), 307–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. (2007). Vygotsky goes online: Learning design from a socio-cultural perspective. Learning and Socio-Cultural Theory: Exploring Modern Vygotskian Perspectives International Workshop,1(1), 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell

  • Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C. K. (2019). Where is the “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British Journal of Educational Technology,50(3), 956–971. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, S. (2015). Martin Heidegger: Challenge to education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokanson, B., & Gibbons, A. S. (Eds.). (2014). Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokanson, B., Miller, C., & Hooper, S. (2008). Role-based design: A contemporary perspective for innovation in instructional design. TechTrends,52(6), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-008-0215-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, C. D., Boling, E., Rowland, G., & Smith, K. M. (2012). Instructional design cases and why we need them. Educational Technology,52(3), 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. C., Osguthorpe, R. D., & Williams, D. D. (2010). The phenomenon of character development in a distance education course. Journal of College and Character,11(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Technology as cognitive tools: Learners as designers. Retrieved December 10, 2019, from IT Forum website: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Technology-as-Cognitive-Tools%3A-Learners-as-Jonassen/5f997d6341eb3ce0140d80c30c6b036861aa4562.

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development,48(4), 63–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. (Eds.). (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R. F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology,31(1), 9–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. T. (1999). Toward a sociology of educational technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 113–142). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. T. (2016). Learner agency and responsibility in educational technology. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

  • Matthews, M. T., & Yanchar, S. C. (2018a). Instructional design as manipulation of, or cooperation with, learners? TechTrends,62(2), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0245-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. T., & Yanchar, S. C. (2018b). Instructional designers’ perspectives on learners’ responsibility for learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,30(1), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9175-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2003). Learning environments: The case for evidence-based practice and issue-driven research. Educational Psychology Review,15(4), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026179332694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, F. J. (1964). The influence of learning theories on education (1900–1950). In E. R. Hilgard (Ed.), Theories of learning and instruction: The sixty-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 1–26). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J. K., & Gibbons, A. S. (2009). Technology I, II, and III: Criteria for understanding and improving the practice of instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 377–392.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). New York: Routledge.

  • Merrill, M. D. (1994a). The descriptive component display theory. In D. G. Twitchell (Ed.), Instructional design theory (pp. 111–157). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1994b). The prescriptive component display theory. In M. D. Merrill & D. G. Twitchell (Eds.), Instructional design theory (pp. 159–176). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2004). The science of instruction and the technology of instructional design. Educational Technology,44(3), 45–46.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,74, 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, J. (2017). Hans-Georg Gadamer: The hermeneutical imagination. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nkambou, R., Bourdeau, J., & Mizoguchi, R. (Eds.). (2010). Advances in intelligent tutoring systems. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osguthorpe, R. T. (2006). Learning that grows. In A. Méndez-Vilas, A. S. Martin, J. A. M. González, & J. M. González (Eds.), Fourth International Conference on Multimedia and Information and Communication Technologies in Education (Vol. 3, pp. 1888–1892). Badajoz, Spain: FORMATEX.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz, M., & Shaw, E. J. (2005). Psychology, instructional design, and the use of technology: Behavioral, cognitive, and affordances perspectives. Educational Technology,45(3), 49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C. (2011). Can educational research be both rigorous and relevant? Educational Designer,1(4), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (2015). Reorienting educational technology research from things to problems. Learning Research and Practice,1(1), 91–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). Elaborating the elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research and Development,40(3), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.3109/15622975.2011.615861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1997). Instructional theory, practitioner needs, and new directions: Some reflections. Educational Technology,37(1), 42–47.

    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 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. 3, pp. 3–26). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Stein, F. S. (1983). The elaboration theory of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 335–381). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. New York: Kogan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C. (1998). The pursuit of useable knowledge in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development,46(4), 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly,5(2), 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rychlak, J. F. (1991). Artificial intelligence and human reason: A teleological critique. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (2002). Technology and pedagogy: Why don’t we see the promised revolution? Educational Technology,42(2), 71–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B. (1997). Taxonomic issues and the development of theory in instructional technology. Educational Technology,37(1), 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentz, J., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Eckhoff, A. (2019). How do instructional designers manage learners’ cognitive load? An examination of awareness and application of strategies. Educational Technology Research and Development,67(1), 199–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-09640-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,15(2), 4–14.

    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 Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snelbecker, G. E. (1974). Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snelbecker, G. E. (1999). Some thoughts about theories, perfection, and instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm for instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 31–47). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1985). Human agency and language: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridege: Cambridege University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, E. W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,119, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, G. (2007). Education and theory: Strangers in paradigms. New York: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorndike, E. (1910). The contribution of psychology to education. Journal of Educational Psychology,1(1), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., Hutchinson, A., & Grzebyk, T. Q. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: Developing professional identify through reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development,62(3), 315–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. Akker, N. Nieveen, R. M. Branch, K. L. Gustafson, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design methodology and developmental research in education and training (pp. 1–14). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., Veal, W. R., & Janssen, F. J. J. M. (2001). Pedagogical content knowledge: An integrative component within the knowledge base for teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,17(8), 979–986. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00044-0.

    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), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly,6(2), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertz, F. J. (1995). The scientific status of psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist,24, 285–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, M. (2005). Reconstructing the cognitive world: The next step. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. N. (1987). Can cognitive psychology offer a meaningful account of meaningful human behavior? The Journal of Mind and Behavior,8(2), 209–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (1997). Reflections on constructivism and instructional design. In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 63–80). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology,45(2), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G., Teslow, J. L., & Taylor, L. (1993). Instructional design perspectives on mathematics education with reference to Vygotsky’s theory of social cognition. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics,15(2&3), 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G., Parrish, P., & Veletsianos, G. (2008). Raising the bar for instructional outcomes: Toward transformative learning experiences. Educational Technology,48(3), 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C. (2011). Participational agency. Review of General Psychology,15(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C. (2018). Agency, world, and the ontological ground of possibility. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology,38(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & Faulconer, J. E. (2011). Toward a concept of facilitative theorizing: An alternative to prescriptive and descriptive theory in educational technology. Educational Technology,51(3), 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development,59(3), 383–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & South, J. B. (2008). Beyond the theory-practice split in instructional design: The current situation and future directions. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 34, pp. 81–100). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9129-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & Spackman, J. S. (2012). Agency and learning: Some implications for educational technology theory and research. Educational Technology,52(5), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., Spackman, J. S., & Faulconer, J. E. (2013). Learning as embodied familiarization. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology,33(4), 216–232.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brigham Young University, 150-E MCKB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Jason K. McDonald

  2. Brigham Young University, 150-D MCKB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Stephen C. Yanchar

Authors
  1. Jason K. McDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen C. Yanchar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jason K. McDonald or Stephen C. Yanchar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McDonald, J.K., Yanchar, S.C. Towards a view of originary theory in instructional design. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 633–651 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09734-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09734-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation