Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recommendations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Studies of ID Practices

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology ((BRIEFSECT))

  • 525 Accesses

Abstract

The intent of this chapter is to summarize major findings from the 102 studies of ID practices and to offer recommendations for future studies and emphases. A majority of current research is inconclusive, yet still evolving. Overall, the purpose of this monograph is to provide an overview of ID and its impact on the educational technology discipline (Chap. 1), an analysis of studies of ID practices (Chap. 2) and a summary of these studies (Chap. 3). With the macro perspective and “bird’s-eye view” of these studies, the goal of this chapter is to discuss and consider next steps for this line of research.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

References Marked with an Asterisk Indicate Studies Included in this Review

  • *Allen, M. (1996). A profile of instructional designers in Australia. Distance Education, 17(1), 7–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atchison, B. J. (1996). Roles and competencies of instructional design as identified by expert instructional designers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, K., Schwartz, D. L., Biswas, G., & Leelawong, K. (2007). Pedagogical agents for learning by teaching: Teachable agents. Educational Technology, 47(1), 56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Boot, E. W., van Merrienboer, J. G., & Veerman, A. L. (2007). Novice and experienced instructional software developers: Effects on materials created with instructional software templates. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 647–666.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Brill, J. M., Bishop, M. J., & Walker, A. E. (2006). The competencies and characteristics required of an effective project manager: A web-based Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(2), 115–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., & Kenny, R. (2006). Conversation as inquiry: A conversation with instructional designers. Journal of Learning Design, 1(3), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., & Kenny, R. F. (2009). The critical, relational practice of instructional design in higher education: An emerging model of change agency. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 645–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Cates, W. M. (1994). Estimating the time required to produce computer-based instructional lessons: Descriptive analyses of the production data of novice instructional developers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 10(1), 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chen, W., Moore, J. L., & Vo, N. (2012). Formative evaluation with novice designers: Two case studies within an online multimedia development course. International Journal of Instructional Media, 39(2), 95–111.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dabbagh, N. & Blijd, C. W., (2010). Students’ perceptions of their learning experiences in an authentic instructional design context. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 4(1), 6–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dabbagh, N. H., Jonassen, D. H., Yueh, H. P., & Samouilova, M. (2000). Assessing a problem-based learning approach to an introductory instructional design course: A case study. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13(3), 60–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deken, F., Kleinsmann, M., Aurisicchio, M., Lauche, K., & Bracewell, R. (2012). Tapping into past design experiences: Knowledge sharing and creation during novice–expert design consultations. Research in Engineering Design, 23(3), 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. (1996). The dick and carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Dicks, D., & Ives, C. (2008). Instructional designers at work: A study of how designers design. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 34(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X. L., Zurek, S., & Goktas, Y. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill‐structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., Flanagan, S., Kocaman‐Karoglu, A., Reiner, C., Reyes, L., et al. (2009a). Impact of guidance on the problem‐solving efforts of instructional design novices. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(4), 117–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ertmer, P. A., York, C. S., & Gedik, N. (2009b). Learning from the pros: How experienced designers translate instructional design models into practice. Educational Technology, 49(1), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Fortney, K. S., & Yamagata‐Lynch, L. C. (2013). How instructional designers solve workplace problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(4), 91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ge, X., Chen, C. H., & Davis, K. A. (2005). Scaffolding novice instructional designers’ problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(2), 219–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ge, X., & Hardré, 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hardré, P. L., & Kollmann, S. (2013). Dynamics of instructional and perceptual factors in instructional design competence development. Journal of Learning Design, 6(1), 34–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokanson, B., & Miller, C. (2009). Role-based design: A contemporary framework for innovation and creativity in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(2), 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Holcomb, C., Wedman, J. F., & Tessmer, M. (1996). ID activities and project success: Perceptions of practitioners. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(1), 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Honebein, P. C., & Honebein, C. H. (2014). The influence of cognitive domain content levels and gender on designer judgments regarding useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Jin, S. H., & Boling, E. (2010). Instructional designer’s intentions and learners’ perceptions of the instructional functions of visuals in an e-learning context. Journal of Visual Literacy, 29(2), 143–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Johari, A., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2008). Project-based learning in an internship program: A qualitative study of related roles and their motivational attributes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(3), 329–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Julian, M. F., Kinzie, M. B., & Larsen, V. A. (2000). Compelling case experiences; performance, practice, and application for emerging instructional designers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 13(3), 164–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kerr, S. T. (1983). Inside the black box: Making design decisions for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kirschner, P., Carr, C., Merriënboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. D., Grabowski, B., Spector, J. M., & de la Teja, I. (2008). Competencies for instructors: A validation study. In M. Orey, V. J. McLendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2008. Greenwood: Portsmouth, NH.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Klimczak, A. K., & Wedman, J. F. (1996). Instructional design project success indicators: An empirical basis. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(4), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Klimczak, A. K., & Wedman, J. F. (1997). Instructional design project success factors: An empirical basis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kollmann, S., & Hardré, P. L. (2013) Tools of the trade: The role of perceptions and context in designing and developing instructional learning aids. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 3(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Larson, M. B. (2005). Instructional design career environments: Survey of the alignment of preparation and practice. TechTrends, 49(6), 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Lin, H. (2007). The ethics of instructional technology: Issues and coping strategies experienced by professional technologists in design and training situations in higher education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 411–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Magliaro, S. G., & Shambaugh, N. (2006). Student models of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(1), 83–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, J. (2009). Collaborative negotiation in design: A study of design conversations between architect and building users. CoDesign, 5(1), 35–50.

    Article  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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Perez, R. S., Johnson, J. F., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Instructional design expertise: A cognitive model of design. Instructional Science, 23(5–6), 321–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Perkins, R. A. (2009). Context‐oriented instructional design for course transformation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2009(118), 85–94.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • *Razak, R. A. (2013). Bridging the gap between experts in designing multimedia-based instructional media for learning. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology, 1(3), 44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, P., Sugar, W., Luterbach, K., Mayer, A., & McPhillen, A. (2013, November). Examining multimedia production course offerings in Educational Technology programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., Foxon, M. (with Roberts, R. C., Spannaus, T., & Spector, J. M.) (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards. (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Martin, F. (2014). Development and validation of the educational technologist multimedia competency survey. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 13–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Rowley, K. (2005). Inquiry into the practices of expert courseware designers: A pragmatic method for the design of effective instructional systems. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(4), 419–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Roytek, M. A. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170–180.

    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(1), 69–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Schwier, R. A., & Wilson, J. R. (2010). Unconventional roles and activities identified by instructional designers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(2), 134–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (2013). Social network analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2004). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sheehan, M. D., & Johnson, R. B. (2012). Philosophical and methodological beliefs of instructional design faculty and professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 131–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, J. (1998). An examination of the instructional design competencies written by the International Board of Standards for Training Performance and Instruction. Unpublished masters thesis. St. Cloud, MN: St. Cloud State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Stepich, D. A., Ertmer, P. A., & Lane, M. M. (2001). Problem-solving in a case-based course: Strategies for facilitating coached expertise. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 53–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W., & Betrus, A. (2002). The many hats of an instructional designer: The development of an instructional card game. Educational Technology, 42(1), 45–51.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Thach, E. C., & Murphy, K. L. (1995). Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 57–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Thompson‐Sellers, I., & Calandra, B. (2012). Ask the instructional designers: A cursory glance at practice in the workplace. Performance Improvement, 51(7), 21–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tracey, M. W., & Unger, K. L. (2012). A design-based research case study documenting a constructivist ID process and instructional solution for a cross-cultural workforce. Instructional Science, 40(3), 461–476.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Verstegen, D., Barnard, Y., & Pilot, A. (2008). Instructional design by novice designers: Two empirical studies. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 351–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Villachica, S. W., Marker, A., & Taylor, K. (2010). But what do they really expect? Employer perceptions of the skills of entry‐level instructional designers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 22(4), 33–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *West, R. E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Learning to design collaboratively: Participation of student designers in a Community of Innovation. Instructional Science, 39(6), 821–841.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Williams van Rooij, S. (2013). The career path to instructional design project management: An expert perspective from the US professional services sector. International Journal of Training and Development, 17(1), 33–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. R., & Schwier, R. A. (2009). Authenticity in the process of learning about instructional design. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 35(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • *Winer, L. R., & Vázquez‐Abad, J. (1995). The present and future of ID practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Woolf, N. H., & Quinn, J. (2001). Evaluating peer review in an introductory instructional design course. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(3), 20–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Woolf, N., & Quinn, J. (2009). Learners’ perceptions of instructional design practice in a situated learning activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(1), 25–43.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *York, C. S. and Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Design heuristics in academic, corporate, and military instruction: More similar than different. Educational Technology, 53(4), 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Yusoff, N. A. M., & Salim, S. S. (2012). Investigating cognitive task difficulties and expert skills in e-Learning storyboards using a cognitive task analysis technique. Computers and Education, 58(1), 652–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Yusop, F. D., & Correia, A. P. (in press). On becoming a civic-minded instructional designer: An ethnographic study of an instructional design experience. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Zemke, R. (1985). The systems approach: A nice theory but. Training, 22(10), 103–108.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

    William Sugar

Authors
  1. William Sugar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Sugar .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sugar, W. (2014). Recommendations. In: Studies of ID Practices. SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03605-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation