Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Graduate Students’ Perceptions and Expectations of Instructional Design and Technology

  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

References

  • AECT Task Force on Definition and Terminology. (1977). Educational technology: Definition and glossary of terms (Vol. 1). Washington, D.C.: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S. (2003). Practices and academic preparation of instructional designers. Unpublished masters thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.

  • De Vaney, A., & Butler, R. P. (1996). Voices of the founders: Early discourses in educational technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 3–45). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Cennamo, K. S. (1995). Teaching instructional design: An apprenticeship model. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 43–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K.L. (2001). Undergraduate degrees programs in instructional design and technology: Do they make sense? Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(2), 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Hannafin, K. M. (1995). The status and future of research in instructional design & technology revisited. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed., pp. 314–321). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, R. (1995). The proper study of instructional technology. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 61–83). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. R., Bichelmeyer, B. A., Boling, E., Gibbons, A. S., Grabowski, B. L., Osguthorpe, R. T., et al. (2004). Perspectives on significant issues facing instructional design and technology. In M. Orey, M. A. Fitzgerald & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (pp. 23–43). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Januszewski, A. (2005). Stasis and change in the definition of educational technology: The rationale and decision making process. TechTrends, 49(1), 45–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, D. F. (1998). Selling academe to the technology industry. Thought & Action: The NEA Higher Education Journal, 14(1), 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheimer, T. (1997). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly. 280(1), 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pershing, J. A., & Lee, S. H. (1999). Employment profiles and compensation for educational technologists. TechTrends, 43(6), 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (2001a). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(1), 53–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (2001b). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(2), 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (2002). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 5–15). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G., Parra, M. L., & Basnet, K. (1994). Educating instructional designers: Different methods for different outcomes. Educational Technology, 34(6), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: Definition and domain of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickton, S. G. (1970). To improve learning: An evaluation of instructional technology (Vol. 1). New York: R. R. Bowker Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, S. D. (1994). How should instructional designers be educated? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 116–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winer, L. R., & Vazquez-Abad, J. (199?). The present and future of ID practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1986). Trends and future directions in educational technology research from a North American perspective. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 23(4), 345–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1989). Toward a rationale and theoretical basis for educational technology. Educational Technology & Research Development, 37(1), 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (2002). Current trends in educational technology research: The study of learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 14(3), 331–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Systems Technology (IST), Indiana University, Indiana

    Kennon M. Smith (Doctoral Candidate)

  2. Albertsons Inc., USA

    Jason Hessing (Business Analyst)

  3. Department of Instructional Systems Technology, Indiana University, Indiana

    Barbara A. Bichelmeyer (Associate Professor)

Authors
  1. Kennon M. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason Hessing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barbara A. Bichelmeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Kennon M. Smith is a doctoral candidate in instructional systems technology (IST) at Indiana University. Her research interests include the history and definitions of the instructional design and technology field, as well as the ways instructional illustrations can be used to facilitate learning and teaching.

Jason Hessing graduated from Indiana University’s IST Master’s program in the spring of 2004. He is currently a business analyst with Albertsons Inc., where he actively pursues career interests in human performance technology, corporate software training and human computer interaction.

Barbara A. Bichelmeyer is associate professor in the Department of Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana University, where she has been on faculty for 10 years. She received her Ph.D. in educational communications and technology from the University of Kansas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, K.M., Hessing, J. & Bichelmeyer, B.A. Graduate Students’ Perceptions and Expectations of Instructional Design and Technology. TECHTRENDS TECH TRENDS 50, 17–27 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-006-0017-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-006-0017-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation