Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of Design Judgment in Instructional Design: Perspectives from Instructors, Students, and Instructional Designers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Design in Educational Technology

Abstract

This chapter covers the findings of an exploratory qualitative study that investigates understanding of design judgment as part of design character in the instructional design (ID) field and how ID instructors address and value development of design judgment in their students. This study represents an empirical exploration of ideas that are beginning to be acknowledged as critical, both in the field of ID and in multiple design fields where design-based research is practiced and design theory is therefore growing in relevance. The study data were collected through semi-structured interviews with ID instructors, students, and professionals. The findings suggest that even though it is not a commonly used construct in ID, design judgment is a critical ID competency that should be developed early on in novice designers. The five major ways in which instructors address development of design judgment are also discussed in this chapter.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1991). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology, past, present, and future (pp. 133–155). Eaglewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Reprinted from the Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anthony, K. H. (1991). Design juries on trial: The renaissance of the design studio. New York, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, K. (2007). Wicked ID: Conceptual framework for considering instructional design as a wicked problem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 33(1), 85–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, A. D. (2003). Assessing participant learning in online environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 100, 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichelmeyer, B. (2004). Instructional theory and Instructional design theory: What’s the difference and why should we care? IDT Record. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/articles/documents/ID_theory.Bichelmeyer.html

  • Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research, practice and teaching in IDT. In M. Orey, J. McLendon, & R. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2006. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E. (2004). Teaching a design model vs. developing instructional designers. IDT Record. Retrieved January 10, 2009 from http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/IDTf_Boling.pdf

  • Boling, E. (2008). The designer as human instrument. Presented as part of a panel organized by Dr. Jonassen, Alternative perspectives on design. Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1), 1–8. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/ijdl/index

  • Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2008). Artifacts as tools in design. In D. Merrill & M. Specter (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K., Brandt, C., Scott, B., Douglas, S., McGrath, M., Reimer, Y., et al. (2011). Managing the complexity of design problems through studio-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 5(2), 11–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K. S., & Holmes, G. (2001). Developing awareness of client relations through immersion in practice. Educational Technology, 41(6), 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.) Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Cennamo, K. S. (1995). Teaching instructional design: An apprenticeship model. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, T. (1989). The voice of liberal learning. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M. (1962). The acquisition of knowledge. Psychological Review, 69, 355–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Hardre, P. L. (2010). Self-processes and learning environment as influences in the development of expertise in instructional design. Learning Environments Research, 13(1), 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A., Boling, E., & Smith, K. (in press). Design models. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, M. J. Bishop, & J. Elen (Eds.), Handbook for research in educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, T. F., & Gilbert, M. B. (1988). The art of winning. Training, 25(8), 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, J. E. (1997). The designer’s judgement. Design Studies, 18(1), 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julian, M. F. (2001). Learning in action: The professional preparation of instructional designers. University of Virginia, VA: Unpublished dissertation thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapp, K. M., & Phillips, T. L. (2003). Teaching the business of instructional technology: A collaborative corporate/academic partnership. TechTrends, 47(1), 46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C., & Hokanson, B. (2009). The artist and the architect: Creativity and innovation through role-based design. Educational Technology, 44(4), 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2001). Designing effective instruction (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, D. (1992). Is instructional design truly a design activity? Education and Training Technology International, 29(4), 279–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G. (1994). The necessity of being “un-disciplined” and “out of control”: Design action and systems thinking. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 22–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world: Foundations and fundamentals of design competence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parnell, R., Sara, R., Doidge, C., & Parsons, M. (2007). The crit: An architecture student’s handbook (2nd ed.). England: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. (1994). Connecting education and practice in an instructional design graduate program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. (1995). The education of instructional designers: Reflections on the Tripp paper. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 111–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossett, A. (1981). Instructional technology as link between university and community. NSPI Journal, 20(1), 26–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, P. G. (1991). Procedural aspects of design thinking (Design thinking, pp. 39–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1991). Problem-solving in ID. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

    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 

  • Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and ID. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1996). “Lighting the fire” of design conversation. Educational Technology, 36(1), 42–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (2004). Shall we dance? A design epistemology for organizational learning and performance. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G., & DiVasto, T. (2001). Instructional design and powerful learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 7–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G., Fixl, A., & Yung, K. (1992). Educating the reflective designer. Educational Technology, 32(12), 36–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G., & Wilson, G. (1994). Liminal states in designing. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 30–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. USA: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2004). Instructional designers’ observations about identity, communities of practice, and change agency. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 20(4), 69–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2006). Instructional designers’ perceptions of their interpersonal, professional, institutional, and societal agency: Tales of change and community. In M. J. Keppell (Ed.), Instructional design: Case studies in communities of practice (pp. 1–18). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silber, K. H. (2007). A principle-based model of instructional design: A new way of thinking about and teaching ID. Educational Technology, 47(5), 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sless, D. (2007). Designing philosophy. Visible Language, 41(2), 101–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. M. (2008). Meanings of “design” in instructional technology: A conceptual analysis based on the field’s foundational literature. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M., & Boling, E. (in press). Preparing instructional designers. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, M.J. Bishop, & J. Elen (Eds.), Handbook for research in educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, S. D. (1994). How should instructional designers be educated? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 116–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, W. (1995). Instructional design and situated learning: Paradox or partnership? In B. Seels (Ed.), Instructional design fundamentals: A reconsideration (pp. 159–169). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zemke, R., & Rossett, A. (2002). A hard look at ISD. Training, 39(2), 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA

    Nilufer Korkmaz & Elizabeth Boling

Authors
  1. Nilufer Korkmaz
    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 Nilufer Korkmaz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Design, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

    Brad Hokanson

  2. Provo, Utah, USA

    Andrew Gibbons

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Korkmaz, N., Boling, E. (2014). Development of Design Judgment in Instructional Design: Perspectives from Instructors, Students, and Instructional Designers. In: Hokanson, B., Gibbons, A. (eds) Design in Educational Technology. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation