Skip to main content
Log in

The influence of multimedia development knowledge and workplace pressures on the design decisions of the instructional designer

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

Abstract

This study explored the interaction of multimedia production competencies of expert and novice instructional designers on the design decisions made during the instructional design process/workflow. This multiple measures study used qualitative survey instruments to access and measure the production competencies of participants, then a design aloud protocol to capture and measure the instructional design decision-making process for those same participants. A follow-on interview after the initial design aloud session was conducted in order to triangulate and confirm any trends or findings uncovered during the earlier design aloud session. Ultimately, the objective of this study was to provide some evidence that suggests whether certain production skills are influencing instructional design decision-making. Employer influence on the instructional designer’s decision-making was also explored. Results indicated that a substantial number of instructional designers (n = 30) who participated in this study were selecting media as a preliminary step in their workflow process, and were often then using analysis as a measure to confirm the early media selection. Expert instructional designers appeared to be less susceptible to the early media selection behavior, though not immune. Results indicate that one reason the expert instructional designers were less likely to adopt media as a preliminary instructional design step was that the experts conducted a more diverse set of analysis activities. Additionally, results indicated that instructional designers were often experiencing pressure to adopt media based on employer demands, and project constraints such as budget and time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Burton, A., Shadbolt, N., Rugg, G., & Hedgecock, A. (1990). The efficacy of knowledge elicitation techniques: A comparison across domains and levels of expertise. Knowledge Acquisition,2(2), 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (2014). The nature of expertise. London: Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J. I., & Hannafin, M. (1997). The effects of instructional context and reasoning complexity on mathematics problem-solving. Educational Technology Research and Development,45(3), 43–55.

    Article  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 

  • Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher,23(7), 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends,47(3), 45–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, L., Sugar, W., Abbie, B., & Hoard, B. (2012). Educational technology professionals in higher education: Multimedia production competencies identified from a delphi study. Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.

  • Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review,100(3), 363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, 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., Flanagan, S., Kocaman-Karoglu, A., Reiner, C., Reyes, L., et al. (2009). Impact of guidance on the problem-solving efforts of instructional design novices. Performance Improvement Quarterly,21(4), 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X. L., 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 

  • Farquhar, J. D., & Surry, D. W. (1994). Adoption analysis: An additional tool for instructional developers. Educational & Training Technology International,31(1), 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Eight views of instructional design and what they should mean to instructional designers. In B. Hokanson & A. S. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio (pp. 15–36). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral-Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A., et al. (2015). Judgment and instructional design: How id practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly,28(3), 25–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoard, B., & Stefaniak, J. (2016). Knowledge of the human performance technology practitioner relative to ISPI human performance technology standards and the degree of standard acceptance by the field. Performance Improvement Quarterly,29(1), 9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,8(1), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearsley, G. (1984). Instructional design and authoring software. Journal of Instructional Development,7(3), 11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La Revue Canadienne de L’apprentissage et de la Technologie,31(1), 9–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. M. (2015). How do we train instructional designers? Instructional design as negotiation. Educational Technology,55(4), 26–30.

    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 

  • Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2009). Preparing instructional designers for different career environments: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development,57(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology,31(5), 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. (2001). It’s not what you think. MIT Sloan Management Review,42(3), 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A., & Gagné, R. M. (1983). Selecting media for instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A., & 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 

  • Ritzhaupt, A., Martin, F., & Daniels, K. (2010). Multimedia competencies for an educational technologist: A survey of professionals and job announcement analysis. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,19(4), 421–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, R. L. (1984). The training wheel. A simple model for instructional design. Training,21(4), 63–64.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00902.x.

    Article  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 

  • Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., Hoard, B., & Stapleton, L. (2018). The influence of perceived constraints during needs assessment on design conjecture. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,30(1), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W., Brown, A., Hoard, B., & Daniels, L. (2011a). Instructional design and technology professionals in higher education: Multimedia production knowledge and skills identified from a delphi study. Journal of Applied Instructional Design,1(2), 30–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W., Hoard, B., Brown, A., & Daniels, L. (2011b). 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 

  • Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development,38(1), 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. F. (1990). A layers-of-necessity instructional development model. Educational Technology Research and Development,38(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02298271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The think aloud method: A practical guide to modeling cognitive processes (Vol. 2). London: Academic Press.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G., & Ayton, P. (1987). Eliciting and modeling expert knowledge. Decision Support Systems,3(1), 13–26.

    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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill Stefaniak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board prior to data collection to ensure the protection of human subjects.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Appendices

Appendix 1

Design scenario

You are an instructional designer for Coca-Cola, and you are working with the personnel in the receiving and supply-chain office. This office is responsible for receiving and storing the daily production of Coca-Cola soda before it is shipped out to market. The product must be stored in a first-in, first-out fashion in that the product that is delivered first during the shift is stored first in a refrigerated storage area. The administration of Coca-Cola has asked that you develop training to assist fresh hires in the receiving office to initially learn their job duties quickly.

Job description

The employees of the receiving office receive six pallets of 2-l bottles Coca-Cola at regular 15-min intervals during the workday. The pallets are delivered by forklift and placed on a receiving dock. The workers transfer the pallets of 2-l bottles from the receiving dock to cold storage, using a pneumatic dolly. The product must be arranged in cold storage such that the product received first in the shift is toward the front of the storage area and later receipts are to the back. This arrangement allows for the products to be removed by other workers in the same sequence in which they were stored. Each worker must be able to read and monitor the temperate of the cold storage area (every 15 min) and adjust a thermostat to maintain 45° Fahrenheit inside of the cold storage area.

Employees work a standard 8:30 am to 5:00 pm shift, and work on a team of three. Workers receive a 30-min lunch break. Each worker will move 2 pallets of Coca-Cola product into cold storage per 15-min delivery cycle.

Needs assessment

Management has asked that you produce training for new hires in the receiving office so that the job can be done consistently among the new hires. Management reports that turn-over in this role can be somewhat high—on average once every 6-months—due to employees being promoted to other roles within the company, and asks that the training be re-usable as new employees are hired.

Learner analysis

All workers are able to read English at a 7th-grade level, possess basic computer technical proficiency, are able-bodied and have high school diplomas. Workers are fresh hires and have not worked for Coca-Cola before, nor have they any similar work experience. Workers are required to be over the age of 18, though the majority of hires are between the ages of 19 and 34. They have a normal range of hearing and are generally well-motivated to learn and perform the duties of their job. (Receiving office employees understand that performing well in their current role generally leads to promotion to other areas of Coca-Cola within 6-months of hire).

Environmental analysis

You have access to Coca-Cola’s training lab, which includes a classroom set of Windows computer systems and the corporate Intranet. An outside Internet connection is not available in this training facility. The facility is well-lit, quiet and contains enough seating and computer terminals for all the trainees. There is an instructor station equipped with an overhead projector and computer terminal. A traditional “overhead transparency” project is also available in the room, along with a whiteboard and markers. There are also standard tables and chairs with enough seating for all trainees and enough open floor space for demonstrations.

Additionally, the workers will all be given the first hour of every workday (Monday through Friday) to interact with any training interventions that you create.

Learning objectives

Upon completion of training:

  1. (1)

    The workers will need to know where to retrieve the Coca-Cola products.

  2. (2)

    The workers will know where to store the Coca-Cola products.

  3. (3)

    The workers will use the pneumatic dolly to move the product into cold storage.

  4. (4)

    The workers will store the products using a first-in, first-out strategy.

  5. (5)

    The workers will monitor the temperature of the cold-storage area every 15-min.

  6. 6)

    The workers will adjust a thermostat to adjust the cold-storage temperature to 45 degrees Fahrenheit.

Cognitive task analysis

Novice

The inflow of product is daunting, and I feel like I am falling behind pace

Since I feel rushed, I feel like I might be storing products in the wrong order

By the end of my shift, I’m tired so I forget what row I’m on when I’m storing product

Sometimes I forget to check temps

Expert

Common to be distracted by the flow of deliveries and miss temperature monitoring

Sometimes the dolly needs a shove to get moving

The rows in the refrigerated storage area are numbered, so keeping things in the right order is a matter of remembering which row you are on

Only 1 person needs to check the temps, but we all check in case someone forgets

For the next 30-min, please outline and explain your approach to this instructional design scenario. Describe and broadcast your thought process and reasoning to the researcher who will be observing this session. The researcher is most interested in your process, and why you are determining to work in the pattern that you ultimately adopt.

Appendix 2

Instructional design production and development skills worksheet

Using the checkboxes to the left, first identify and indicate which of the following production and development skills you possess. Then, for each item you identify, use the provided scale to the degree of proficiency you feel you have with the item, and also how influential you feel the skill is on your daily practice (i.e., how having that skill affects your project planning and workflow).

Proficiency scale

Influence scale

1 Novice

2 Low proficiency

3 Average

4 High proficiency

5 Expert

1 Not influential at all

2 Minimally influential

3 Moderately influential

4 Strong influence

5 Primary influence

 

Skill/competency

Proficiency

Influence

[_]

Image editing (e.g., Adobe Photoshop)

  

[_]

Word processing software (e.g., Microsoft Word)

  

[_]

Vector image software (e.g., Adobe Illustrator)

  

[_]

Video editing (e.g., Adobe Premiere)

  

[_]

Screen recording software (e.g., Camtasia or Captivate)

  

[_]

Web authoring tools (e.g., Adobe Dreamweaver)

  

[_]

Course management systems (e.g., Blackboard or Moodle)

  

[_]

Spreadsheet software (e.g., Microsoft Excel)

  

[_]

Database software (e.g., Microsoft Access)

  

[_]

Audio software (e.g., Audacity)

  

[_]

Desktop publishing software (e.g., FrameMaker)

  

[_]

Web content management systems (e.g., Drupal)

  

[_]

Web blogging software (e.g., WordPress)

  

[_]

3-D modeling tools (e.g., Maya)

  

[_]

Game development frameworks (e.g., Unity)

  

[_]

Scripting languages (e.g., VBScript or JavaScript)

  

[_]

Programming languages (e.g., VB, Python or C)

  

[_]

Integrated development environments (E.g., Visual Studio)

  

[_]

Web markup languages (e.g., HTML)

  

[_]

Accessibility software (e.g., JAWS)

  

[_]

Server environments (e.g., Microsoft Windows Server)

  

[_]

Project management software (e.g., Microsoft Project)

  

[_]

Computer hardware

  

[_]

Integrated systems development (e.g., Raspberry Pi)

  

[_]

3-D Printing

  

[_]

Online survey tools (e.g., Surveymonkey)

  

[_]

Online quiz/assessment tools

  

[_]

Photography

  

[_]

Videography

  

[_]

Animation (e.g., with Flash, HTML5 or Silverlight)

  

In the space provided below, please add any remaining production and development skills that were not covered below, but you feel are important to your instructional design process. Please use the original scales to rate your proficiency on these items and the degree to which you feel they influence your decision-making. Please add new rows, if you need the space.

 

Skill/competency

Proficiency

Influence

[_]

   

[_]

   

[_]

   

[_]

   

[_]

   

[_]

   

[_]

   

[_]

   

[_]

   

[_]

   

[_]

   

[_]

   

For the following items, please use the associated scale to rate how well the phrase applies to your practice as an instructional designer.

Applicability scale

 

1 Strongly agree

2 Somewhat agree

3 Neutral

4 Somewhat disagree

5 Strongly disagree

 

Phrase

Rating

I am confident in my practice as an instructional designer

 

I am able to perceive patterns in the problems I solve as an instructional designer

 

I work quicker than novices to the field of instructional design

 

I have a low rate of error with my instructional designs

 

I am able to easily retain details of an instructional problem

 

I am able to perceive instructional problems at a deep level

 

I spend a great deal of time analyzing a problem qualitatively

 

I have strong self-monitoring skills

 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hoard, B., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J. et al. The influence of multimedia development knowledge and workplace pressures on the design decisions of the instructional designer. Education Tech Research Dev 67, 1479–1505 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09687-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09687-y

Keywords

Navigation