Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design tools in practice: instructional designers report which tools they use and why

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Minimal attention has been paid by scholars to practitioners’ views of and experiences with instructional design tools. Instructional design practitioners working in diverse setting were surveyed regarding the tools they use in their practice, and interviewed regarding how they explain their choices to use the tools that they do. A survey completed by 100 instructional designers shows that they use a wide array of both digital and analog tools, many of them not specifically focused on, or limited to, the design and development of instruction. Analysis of interview narratives with 10 instructional designers surfaced themes in two categories, rationalist and situational explanations for the use of certain tools, with appropriateness (a rational explanation) and individual preference (a situational explanation) offered most frequently. These findings, and the statements of the designers, highlight the role of instrumental judgment in instructional design practice and points to implications for the education of instructional designers.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boling, E., Alangari, H., Hajdu, I. M., Guo, M., Gyabak, K., Khlaif, Z., et al. (2017). Core judgments of instructional designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2015). Designerly tools, sketching, and instructional designers and the guarantors of design. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. W. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learning experience (pp. 109–126). Cham: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2_8.

  • Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2008). Artifacts as tools in the design process. In J. Spector, D. M. Merrill, J. van Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 685–690). New York: Taylor and Francis.

  • Carr-Chellman, A. A., & Rowland, G. (Eds.). (2016). Issues in technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and contemporary dialogues. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, B. L. (1995). Accelerating the design process: A tool for instructional designers. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 8(2), 8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y., Jo, S. J., Park, S., Kang, I., & Chen, Z. (2011). The current state of human performance technology: A citation network analysis of Performance Improvement Quarterly, 1988–2010. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y., & Park, S. (2012). Content analysis of the 20 most influential articles in PIQ. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(3), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21126.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2004.tb00313.x.

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

  • Crouch, C., & Pearce, J. (2012). Doing research in design. Oxford: Berg.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Croock, M. B., Paas, F., Schlandbusch, H., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2002). ADAPTIT: Tools for training design and evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dicks, D., & Ives, C. (2008). Instructional designers at work: A study of how designers design. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 34(2). Retrieved from https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26421/19603.

  • Gibbons, A. S., Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2014). Instructional design models. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 607–615). New York: 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, P. (2010). Social desirability bias. In W. Kamakura (Ed.), Part 2 marketing research, Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing (pp. 258–259). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Gustafson, K. (2002). Instructional design tools: A critique and projections for the future. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearsley, G. P. (1977). Instructional design considerations of CAI for the deaf. Alberta, Canada: University of Alberta (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 160 084). Retrived from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED152046.pdf.

  • 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). Retrieved from https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26504/19686.

  • McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & Van den Akker, J. (2002). Computer support for curriculum developers: CASCADE. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2001). Components of instruction toward a theoretical tool for instructional design. Instructional Science, 29(4–5), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011943808888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooij, T. (2002). Designing a digital instructional management system to optimize early education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1995.tb00688.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. M., & Morrison, J. R. (2014). Measuring meaningful outcomes in consequential contexts: Searching for a happy medium in educational technology research (Phase II). Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9074-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1992.tb00546.x.

    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 

  • Sözcü, Ö. F., & İpek, İ. (2014). Rapid E-learning development strategies and a multimedia project design model. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 7(1), 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2002). Knowledge management tools for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolterman, E., McAtee, J., Royer, D., & Thandapani, S. (2009). Designerly tools. Retrieved from http://shura.shu.ac.uk/491/.

  • Stolterman, E., & Pierce, J. (2012). Design tools in practice: studying the designer-tool relationship in interaction design. In Proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference (pp. 25–28). ACM.

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W., Brown, A., Daniels, L., & Hoard, B. (2011). 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. (2012). 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 

  • Svihla, V., Reeve, R., Sagy, O., & Kali, Y. (2015). A fingerprint pattern of supports for teachers’ designing of technology-enhanced learning. Instructional Science, 43(2), 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9342-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Boling, E. (2014). Preparing instructional designers: Traditional and emerging perspectives. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 653–660). New York: Springer.

  • Tripp, S. D. (1991). Two theories of design and instructional design. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of AECT, Orlando, FL.

  • Uduma, L., & Morrison, G. R. (2007). How do instructional designers use automated instructional design tool? Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 536–553. http://dx.doi.org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.040.

  • Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Martens, R. (2002). Computer-based tools for instructional design: An introduction to the special issue. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 5–9. https://doi-org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/10.1007/BF02504980.

  • 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(2), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00583.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winer, L. R., & Vázquez-Abad, J. (1995). The present and future of ID practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1995.tb00686.x.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Yonjoo Cho, Professor of Instructional Systems Technology at Indiana University School of Education, for her support and help with this study, as she encouraged the first author to turn a literature review study into an extended research study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IST Department, School of Education, Indiana University Bloomington, 201 N Rose Ave, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Ahmed Lachheb

  2. School of Education, Indiana University Bloomington, 201 North Rose Ave #2124, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Elizabeth Boling

Authors
  1. Ahmed Lachheb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth Boling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Lachheb.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

The study has been approved by the Indiana University Office of Research Compliance, Institutional Review Board (Protocol #1703628139) and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Survey: tools in instructional design practice

Thank you for your interest in this study which aims to investigate instructional design (ID) practitioners’ views on the tools they use.

Q1: My job title is:

  1. 1.

    Instructional Designer

  2. 2.

    Instructional Developer

  3. 3.

    Instructional Systems Designer and/or Developer

  4. 4.

    Instructional Consultant

  5. 5.

    Other: _______________

Q2: Check all that apply. I hold a:

  1. 1.

    Master’s degree in instructional design and/or technology

  2. 2.

    Bachelor’s degree in instructional design and/or technology

  3. 3.

    Master’s degree in educational technology

  4. 4.

    Bachelor’s degree in educational technology

  5. 5.

    No formal degree in instructional design and/or technology but have certificate in the field

  6. 6.

    No degree or certificate in the field

  7. 7.

    Other degree(s)/certificate(s)—please specify: _______________

  8. 8.

    No degree

Q3: In this survey, we use the following definition of ID tools: methods, tools, techniques, and approaches, as well as design models, design and learning theories, and principles

E.g., ADDIE model, sketching, collaboration, and Learning Management Systems, are all examples of ID tools. Please select the tools you use in your ID practice (check all that apply):

Learning theories

File sharing (e.g., Dropbox or similar)

Interviews

Adobe Creative Suite

Instant Messaging

Prototyping

ID Model(s) (e.g., ADDIE, ASSURE)

Surveys

Microsoft/Mac Office tools

Sketching

Usability Testing

Google Docs

Learning Management System(s)

Audacity

Personal experience

Whiteboard

Google Apps

Books

Flash

Jing

Audio recorder

Videos

Video recorder

Pair of scissors

Paper and pencil

Magazines

Usability guidelines

Brain Storming

Captivate

Markers

Emails

Negotiating

Eraser

Adobe Connect

Searching

Big pad of paper

Storyboard

Analysis

Color marker

Photoshop

Web

Modeling

Scenarios

Social Media sites

Animators

Focus Groups

Articulate

Video conference

Meetings

Mind mapping

Outsourcing

Camtasia

Questionnaires

Coaching

Ethnography

HTML

 

Project Server

Post it notes

 

Q4: If you use ID tools that are not mentioned above, please list them here.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q5: Would you be interested to taking part in a follow-up interview? The interview will last for 30–40 min and will be scheduled at a time and in the format of your preference. In appreciation of your time, you will receive a $10 Amazon or Starbucks gift card. If yes, please enter your name, your email, a phone number where you can be reached, and your choice of gift card. If not, please enter “not interested”.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

End of Survey Message: Thank you for your time and for taking the survey. If you have opted for the follow-up interview, you will be contacted shortly.

Appendix 2: Interview protocol

Question 1: Intro/demographic questions: Can you tell me about yourself?

Question 2: My first question is, based on your survey entry, you have mentioned that you use the following ID tools (hand a list of tools drawn from the participant’s survey entry—Q3 and Q4); are there other tools you would like to add, delete, or elaborate on?

Question 3: Can you please elaborate on one or two tools you have selected by giving specific examples on how you use them in your ID practice?

Question 4: Given the list of ID tools you have now; can you please categorize them based on the reasons you used them?

Question 5: By looking at one of your ID projects (your preferred one to showcase), (1) what ID tools did you use and why? (2) Which tools support you best? (3) Which tools facilitate what you find that you really need to do in your job?

Question 6: Is there any other comment or something you would like to say or stress in regards of ID tools and the way you use them or you think about them?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lachheb, A., Boling, E. Design tools in practice: instructional designers report which tools they use and why. J Comput High Educ 30, 34–54 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9165-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9165-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation