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.
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.
Chi, M. T., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (2014). The nature of expertise. London: Psychology Press.
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.
Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly,17(3), 45–65.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development. Educational Researcher,23(7), 13–20.
Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends,47(3), 45–47.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Farquhar, J. D., & Surry, D. W. (1994). Adoption analysis: An additional tool for instructional developers. Educational & Training Technology International,31(1), 19–25.
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.
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.
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.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,8(1), 17–27.
Kearsley, G. (1984). Instructional design and authoring software. Journal of Instructional Development,7(3), 11–16.
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.
Kim, S. M. (2015). How do we train instructional designers? Instructional design as negotiation. Educational Technology,55(4), 26–30.
Kirschner, P., Carr, C., Merriënboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly,15(4), 86–104.
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.
Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology,31(5), 45–53.
Mintzberg, H., & Westley, F. (2001). It’s not what you think. MIT Sloan Management Review,42(3), 89–93.
Reiser, R. A., & Gagné, R. M. (1983). Selecting media for instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Ritzhaupt, A., & Martin, F. (2014). Development and validation of the educational technologist multimedia competency survey. Educational Technology Research and Development,62(1), 13–33.
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.
Rogoff, R. L. (1984). The training wheel. A simple model for instructional design. Training,21(4), 63–64.
Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly,5(2), 65–86.
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.
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.
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.
Sugar, W. (2014). Studies of ID Practices: A review and synthesis of research on ID current practices. London: Springer.
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.
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.
Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development,38(1), 55–64.
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.
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.
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.
Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly,6, 43.
Wright, G., & Ayton, P. (1987). Eliciting and modeling expert knowledge. Decision Support Systems,3(1), 13–26.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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)
The workers will need to know where to retrieve the Coca-Cola products.
- (2)
The workers will know where to store the Coca-Cola products.
- (3)
The workers will use the pneumatic dolly to move the product into cold storage.
- (4)
The workers will store the products using a first-in, first-out strategy.
- (5)
The workers will monitor the temperature of the cold-storage area every 15-min.
- 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
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09687-y