Journal of instructional development

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 9–16 | Cite as

A framework for investigating consultation in instructional development

  • David P. Rutt


Instructional developers often work in conjunction with subject matter experts. The consulting relationship that is established has gone largely unexplored. A framework for examining this relationship includes four consultation models. Two dimensions of the instructional developers task environment that may influence the use of these models of consultation are identified and discussed. The results and implications of a study using this framework are reported.


Instructional Design Instructional Development Task Environment Innovation Type Instructional Developer 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Notes

  1. Silber, K.H.Organizational and personnel management structures needed for the successful implementation of instructional development in educational institutions. Unpublished manuscript, 1973.Google Scholar
  2. Rutt, D.P.An investigation of the consultation styles of instructional developers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. Coscarelli, W. C., Stonewater, J. K., & Shrock, S.Psychological typologies in the dynamics of the consuiting relationship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association fcv Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, March, 1979.Google Scholar


  1. Alexander, D.T., & Yelon, S.L. (Eds).Instructional development agencies in higher education. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Educational Development Program, May 1972 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 091-997).Google Scholar
  2. Arbes, B.H. Intervention style preference of student personnel administrators, counselors, faculty members and students in state universities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1972).Dissertation Abstracts International 1972,32, 6803A. (University Microfilms No. 72-17533).Google Scholar
  3. Arnn, J., & Strickland, B. Human consideration in the effectiveness of systems approaches.Educational Technology, August 1975.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris, C.Intervention theory and method: A behavioral science view. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, E.L. The technology of instructional development. In R.M.W. Travers (Ed.),Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973.Google Scholar
  6. Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S.The managerial grid. Houston, Tex.: Gulf, 1964.Google Scholar
  7. Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S.The new managerial grid. Houston, Tex.: Gulf, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. Brokes, A. A process model of consultation. In C.A. Parker (Ed.),Psychological consultation: Helping teachers meet special needs. Minneapolis: Leadership Training Institute, 1975.Google Scholar
  9. Briggs, L.J. (Ed.)Instructional design: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. Caplan, G.The theory and practice of mental health consultation. New York: Basic Books, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, P. Organizational design—A review of key problems.Administration and Society, 1975,7, 213–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, P., & Ford, J. Methodological and theoretical problems in the investigation of planned organizational change.Sociological Review, 1970,18, 29–52.Google Scholar
  13. Davies, I. Some aspects of a theory of advice: The management of an instructional developer—Client relationship.Instructional Science, 1975,3, 351–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, R.B., Abedor, A.J., & Witt, P.W.F.Commitment to excellence— A case study of educational innovation. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Educational Development Program, 1976.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, R.M., Alexander, L.T., & Yelon, S.L.Learning system design—An approach to the improvement of instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.Google Scholar
  16. Dunn, W.N., & Swierczek, F.W. Planned organizational change: Toward grounded theory.The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1977,3, 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engel, D. A study to determine the status of instructional development programs within institutions of higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1969).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1969,30, 4699A. (University Microfilms No. 69-6642).Google Scholar
  18. Faris, G. Would you believe an instructional developer?Audiovisual Instruction, 1968,13, 971–973.Google Scholar
  19. Gallessich, J. Training the school psychologist for consultation.Journal of School Psychology, 1974,12, 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gagné, R.M., & Briggs, L.J. Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974.Google Scholar
  21. Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P.Teaching and media; a systematic approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971.Google Scholar
  22. Haney, J., Lange, P., & Barson, J. The heuristic dimensions of instructional development.AV Communication Review, 1968,16, 385–370.Google Scholar
  23. Havelock, R.The change agent’s guide to innovation in education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology, 1973.Google Scholar
  24. Hoban, J. A study to determine the characteristics of instructional developers (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1973).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973,34, 4699. (University Microfilms No. 74-02669).Google Scholar
  25. Kemp, J.E.Instructional design. Belmont, Calif.: Fearon, 1971.Google Scholar
  26. Klein, H.Other people’s business—A primer on management consultation. New York: Mason-Charter, 1977.Google Scholar
  27. Kurpius, DJ., & Brubaker, J.C.Psychoeducational consultation: Definitions-functions-preparation. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University, 1976.Google Scholar
  28. Price, R.D. A description of the verbal behavior of selected instructional developers in their initial conference with new clients: An exploratorystudy (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976).Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976,37, 5776A. (University Microfilms No. 77-5870).Google Scholar
  29. Rutt, D.P.The consultation styles of instructional developers: A first look. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1980.Google Scholar
  30. Schein, E.H.Process Consultation. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.Google Scholar
  31. Schein, E.H. The role of the consultant: Content expert or process facilitator.The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1978,56, 339–343.Google Scholar
  32. Steele, F.Consulting for organizational change. Cambridge, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  33. Tilles, S. Understanding the consultant’s role.Harvard Business Review, 1961,39, 87–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© David P. Rutt 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • David P. Rutt
    • 1
  1. 1.Arthur Andersen & Co.Elgin

Personalised recommendations