How do instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice

This study employed a qualitative research design to investigate how instructional designers use evaluation in everyday design practice. While past research has examined how designers spend their time, how they generally make decisions, and expert-novice differences, little attention has been paid to use of context, input, process, or product evaluation, from the perspective of practicing designers. Based on interviews of practitioners, our findings included ten themes regarding how designers use evaluation to improve their products. While these results substantiate to some degree the claim that practitioners believe clients will not pay for formal evaluations, they also suggest that practitioners use evaluation in important but less formal ways. Other conclusions regarding the role of evaluation in design are provided and future directions for training and research are discussed.     

Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design

This paper presents the concept of critical flexibility as an alternative to eclecticism in instructional design. Eclecticism is often viewed as a persuasive alternative to theoretical orthodoxy (i.e., rigid use of a single perspective or process) due to the openness and flexibility it purports to offer. In contrast, the authors argue that eclecticism ignores or discourages critical reflection regarding background understanding (e.g., implicit assumptions and values) and perpetuates the lack of openness and flexibility commonly associated with orthodoxy. Critical flexibility, as an alternative to eclecticism, emphasizes an awareness of background understanding, but construes it as capable of being explicated, critically examined, adjusted in specific contexts, and refined or developed over time to facilitate increasingly flexible and effective design practices. The authors clarify the nature of critical flexibility as a general way of being involved in the design process, suggest how it helps overcome the traditional theory–practice split, and discuss several of its implications for scholarship and training.     

Empathy in Distance Learning Design Practice

The notion of designer empathy has become a cornerstone of design philosophy in fields such as product design, human-computer interaction, and service design. But the literature on instructional designer empathy and learner analysis suggests that distance learning designers are generally quite removed from the learners with whom they could be empathizing. We describe a qualitative study conducted with practicing distance learning designers across the United States. We selected designers in varying sectors within the workforce, and interviewed our participants via videoconferencing. Our inquiry uncovered important tensions designers live with regarding empathy in practice. Designers struggle to know how much learner analysis is sufficient, which of many stakeholders to empathize with, and navigating constraints. Future work in this area could help designers practice more empathically and, in doing so, improve the learning environments they create for learners.     

“There’s got to be a better way to do this”: a qualitative investigation of informal learning among instructional designers

This study employed a qualitative research design to investigate informal learning among practicing instructional designers. Prior research has examined how instructional designers spend their time, make decisions, use theory, solve problems, and so on, but no published research has explored the nature and role of informal learning in instructional design work. Based on intensive interviews of practitioners in the field, this study produced eight themes organized according to two metathemes: (a) the nature of informal learning in instructional design practice and (b) instructional design as informal learning. Specific themes concerned what instructional designers learn through informal practical experience, how they learn it, and the meaning of this kind of learning for various aspects of their work. Overall, these results suggest that informal learning is a vital part of instructional design practice and that design itself can be thought of as a specialized type of informal learning. Other conclusions regarding informal learning in design are discussed and future directions for research are offered.     

Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design

This study employed a qualitative research design to investigate instructional designers’ views and uses of conceptual tools in design work (e.g., learning theories and design theories). While past research has examined how instructional designers spend their time, how they generally make decisions, and expert-novice differences, little attention has been paid to the value and perceptions of conceptual tools, from the perspective of practicing designers. Based on intensive interviews of practitioners, our findings included ten themes organized according to three meta-themes: (a) using theory, (b) struggling with theory, and (c) connections between theory and intuition in craftwork. While these results substantiate (to some degree) the claim that practitioners often find theory too abstract or difficult to apply, they also suggest that practitioners use theory in several important ways and tend to view theory with ambivalence rather than indifference or dislike. Other conclusions regarding the role of theory in design are provided and future directions for theorizing and research are discussed.     

Towards a view of originary theory in instructional design

Educational technology research and development - In this paper we offer a call for the development and utilization of originary theory in instructional design. Originary theory, which is generated...     

Learning from programmed instruction: Examining implications for modern instructional technology

This article reports a theoretical examination of several parallels between contemporary instructional technology (as manifest in one of its most current manifestations, online learning) and one of its direct predecessors, programmed instruction. We place particular focus on the unterlying assumptions of the two movements. Our analysis suggests that four assumptions that contributed to the historical demise of programmed instruction—(a) ontological determinisms, (b) materialism (c) social efficiency, and (d) technological determinism—also underlie contemporary instructional technology theory and practice and threaten its long-term viability as an educational resource. Based on this examination, we offer several recommendations for practicing instructional technologists and make a call for innovative assumptions and make a call for innovative assumptions and theories not widely visible in the field of instructional technology.