Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 55–71 | Cite as

The influence of perceived constraints during needs assessment on design conjecture

  • Jill Stefaniak
  • John Baaki
  • Brent Hoard
  • Laura Stapleton
Article
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

Needs assessment is a fundamental step in the instructional design process where instructional designers must determine the difference between the current state of affairs and a desired state. Throughout the needs assessment process, the instructional designer must feel comfortable making decisions and assumptions based on the information that has been provided for a project. We refer to the ability to make these decisions with limited information as design conjecture. This research aims to explore the relationship between needs assessment and design conjecture by examining the influence of perceived constraints on instructional designers’ ability to make decisions. A total of 47 instructional designers participated in a design session where they were asked to design an intervention for a given scenario while using a think-aloud protocol. We dissected the design sessions to explore how the instructional designers conjectured over needs assessment topics. The results point to recommendations for how we can align and strengthen the relationship between analysis and conjecture in an instructional design context.

Keywords

Design conjecture Needs assessment Think-aloud protocols 

References

  1. Altschuld, J. W., & Watkins, R. (2014). A primer on needs assessment. More than 40 years of research and practice. In J. W. Altschuld & R. Watkins (Eds.), Needs assessment: Trends and a view toward the future. New directions for Evaluation 144 (pp. 5–18). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Altschuld, J. W., & Witkin, B. R. (2000). From needs assessment to action: Transforming needs into solution strategies. San Francisco: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Baaki, J., Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2016). Give us something to react to and make it rich: Designers reflecting-in-action with external representations. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 667–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2001). Teaching instructional design: An action learning approach. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 77–87). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brethower, D. M. (2006). Systemic issues. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 111–137). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  8. Burner, K. J. (2010). From performance analysis to training needs assessment. In K. H. Silber & W. R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace: Instructional design and training delivery (Vol. 1, pp. 144–183). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dalziel, J., Conole, G., Wills, S., Walker, S., Bennett, S., Dobozy, E., et al. (2016). The Larnaca declaration on learning design. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(7), 1–24.Google Scholar
  12. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3), 178–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ertmer, P. A., & Cennamo, K. S. (1993). Teaching instructional design: An apprenticeship model. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoard, B., & Stefaniak, J. E. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaufman, R. (1983). A holistic planning model. A system approach for improving organizational effectiveness and impact. Performance and Instruction Journal, 22(8), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaufman, R. (1999). Mega planning: Practical tools for organizational success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Kaufman, R., & Guerra-Lopez, I. (2013). Needs assessment for organizational success. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.Google Scholar
  19. Kaufman, R., Oakley-Brown, H., Watkins, R., & Leigh, D. (2003). Strategic planning for success: Aligning people, performance, and payoffs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. 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 April 12, 2017 from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/147/140.
  21. Koszalka, T. A., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Reiser, R. (2013). Instructional designer competencies: The Standards (4th ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Lee, Y. F., Altschuld, J. W., & White, J. L. (2007). Effects of multiple stakeholders in identifying and interpreting perceived needs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leigh, D., Watkins, R., Platt, W. A., & Kaufman, R. (2000). Alternate models of needs assessment: Selecting the right one for your organization. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(1), 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1997). Analyzing performance problems (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: The Center for Effective Performance, Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S., Kalman, H., & Kemp, J. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Pershing, J. A. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 5–26). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  27. Peterson, T. O. (2004). From felt need to actual need: A multi-method multi-sample approach to needs assessment. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  29. Rossett, A. (1982). A typology for generating needs assessments. Journal of Instructional Development, 6(1), 28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rossett, A. (1987). Training needs assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  31. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (2013). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart (3rd ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the learning sciences, 23(1), 18–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sleezer, C. M. (1992). Needs assessment: Perspectives from the literature. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 34–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sugar, W. (2014). Studies of ID practices: A review and synthesis of research on ID current practices. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Tiem, D. M., Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2012). Fundamentals of performance improvement (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  37. Watkins, R., Leigh, D., Platt, W., & Kaufman, R. (1998). Needs assessment—A digest, review, and comparison of needs assessment literature. Performance Improvement, 37(7), 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wedman, J. (2014). Needs assessments in the private sector. New Directions for Evaluation, 2014(144), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Williams, D. D., South, J. B., Yanchar, S. C., Wilson, B. G., & Allen, S. (2011). How do instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 885–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilmoth, F. S., Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (2010). HPT models: An overview of the major models in the field. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace: Selecting and implementing performance interventions (Vol. 2, pp. 5–26). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jill Stefaniak
    • 1
  • John Baaki
    • 1
  • Brent Hoard
    • 1
  • Laura Stapleton
    • 1
  1. 1.Old Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations