Design tools in practice: instructional designers report which tools they use and why
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.
KeywordsInstructional design Instructional design tools Designerly tools Instructional designers
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.
Compliance with ethical standards
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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.
- 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.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.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 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.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
- 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.Google Scholar
- Tripp, S. D. (1991). Two theories of design and instructional design. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of AECT, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar