Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The progress of 21st-century skills throughout instructional design projects: a quasi-experimental comparison of rapid prototyping and dick and carey models

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study investigates the association between instructional design projects and 21st-Century skills. A causal-comparative design was utilised. The participants were 85 computer education and instructional technology department students who registered for a core instructional design course. The participants are divided into two groups: Rapid prototyping model – RPM (n = 47) and Dick and Carey model – DCM (n = 38). The RPM group were assigned to character education topics and developed e-books; the DCM group were assigned to several college-level topics included and developed digital materials. The DCM group significantly improved their life and career skills compared to the RPM group. The results show that the participants demonstrated an increase in time management skills and a decrease in cooperation process skills in both groups.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akkoyunlu, B., & Kurbanoğlu, S. (2004). Öğretmenlerin bilgi okuryazarlığı öz-yeterlik inancı üzerine bir çalışma. [A STUDY ON TEACHERS’ INFORMATION LITERACY SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(27).

  • Alay, S., & Koçak, S. (2002). Validity and Reliability of Time Management Questionnaire. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M.  (2009).  21st-Century skills and competencies for new millennium learners in OECD countries, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/218525261154

  • Ashbaugh, M. L., & Piña, A. A. (2014). Improving instructional design processes through leadership-thinking and modeling. In Design in Educational Technology (pp. 223–247). Cham: Springer.

  • Battelle for Kids (2019). P21 Partnership for 21st-Century Learning: A Network of Batelle for Kids – Frameworks & Resources. Retrieved on July 25, 2021 from https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21/frameworks-resources.

  • Bay, E., & Çetin, B. (2012). İşbirliği süreci ölçeği (İSÖ) geliştirilmesi [Development of cooperative learning process scale (CLPS)]. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 1064–1075.

  • Bellanca, J. A. (Ed.). (2010). 21st-Century skills: Rethinking how students learn. Solution Tree Press.

  • Boling, E., Easterling, W. V., Hardre, P. L., Howard, C. D., & Roman, T. A. (2011). ADDIE: Perspectives in Transition. Educational Technology, 51(5), 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2018). Beyond teaching instructional design models: Exploring the design process to advance professional development and expertise. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 176–186.

  • Busk, P.L. (2014). Causal-comparative study. In N. Balakrishnan, T. Colton, B. Everitt, W. Piegorsch, F. Ruggeri and J.L. Teugels (Eds.). Wiley stats ref: Statistics reference online. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat06191.pub2

  • Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carliner, S. (2015). Flipping an Introductory, Graduate-Level Instructional Design Course: A Teaching Case. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (Vol. 2015, No. 1, pp. 1142–1147).

  • Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are They Really Ready to Work? Employers' Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New Entrants to the 21st-Century US Workforce. Partnership for 21st-Century Skills. 1 Massachusetts Avenue NW Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001.

  • Cennamo, K. & Holmes, G. (1999). The Instructional Technology Clinical Experience: Expectations and Realities. In Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 21st, Houston, TX. pp. 29–37.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, G., & Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: The Design/Creativity Loops model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Holum, A. (1991, Winter). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 6–46.

  • Crawford, E. O., Higgins, H. J., & Hilburn, J. (2020). Using a global competence model in an instructional design course before social studies methods: A developmental approach to global teacher education. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 44(4), 367–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2013). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the uninitiated: Sage.

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of instruction. Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). New York: Longmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, S. (2001). The design space for solving instructional-design problems. Instructional Science, 29(4), 275–290.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Russell, J. D. (1995). Using case studies to enhance instructional design education. Educational Technology, 35(4), 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, X., Thompson, B., & Wang, L. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 56–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39–50.

  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4rth ed.). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galarneau, L., & Zibit, M. (2007). Online games for 21st-Century skills. In Games and simulations in online learning: Research and development frameworks (pp. 59–88). IGI Global.

  • 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 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Eight views of instructional design and what they should mean to instructional designers. In Design in educational technology (pp. 15–36). Springer, Cham.

  • Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st-Century skills (p. 36). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Articles, 2.

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing Constructivist Learning Environments, Ch. 10 in Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, vol. II. CM Reigeluth (ed.) Mahwah.

  • Jones, T. S., & Richey, R. C. (2000). Rapid prototyping methodology in action: A developmental study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 63–80.

    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 

  • Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The Expertise Reversal Effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ke, W. & Ke, W. (2020, December). Analysis of Instructional Design Based on Deep Learning Perspective. In 2020 International Conference on Information Science and Education (ICISE-IE) (pp. 155–158). IEEE.

  • Kenny, R., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 31(1).

  • Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1998). Designing Effective Instruction. Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinzie, M. B., Hrabe, M. E., & Larsen, V. A. (1998). An instructional design case event: Exploring issues in professional practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(1), 53–71.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, M. P., & Suh, S. (2005). Performance systems analysis: Learning by doing. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 33(4), 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koszalka, T. A., RussEft, D. F., & Reiser, R. (2013). Instructional designer competencies: The standards. IAP.

  • Korkut, F. (1996). İletişim becerilerini değerlendirme ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışmaları [The studies of validity and reliability of The Communication Skills Scale]. Türk Psikolojik Danışma Ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 2(7), 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurbanoğlu, S., Akkoyunlu, B., & Umay, A. (2006). Developing the Information Literacy Self-efficacy Scale. Journal of Documentation, 62(6), 730–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Maistre, C. (1998). What is an expert instructional designer? Evidence of expert performance during formative evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leever, A. M., Hulst, M. V. D., Berendsen, A. J., Boendemaker, P. M., Roodenburg, J. L. N., & Pols, J. (2010). Conflicts and conflict management in the collaboration between nurses and physicians–A qualitative study. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24(6), 612–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2012). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowell, V. L., & Ashby, I. V. (2018). Supporting the development of collaboration and feedback skills in instructional designers. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 72–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancilla, R., & Frey, B. (2020). A Model for Developing Instructional Design Professionals for Higher Education Through Apprenticeship. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 9(2).

  • Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2007). A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 869–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moylan, W. A. (2008). Learning by project: Developing essential 21st-Century skills using student team projects. International Journal of Learning, 15(9).

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00896877

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

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ravitz, J., Hixson, N., English, M., & Mergendoller, J. (2012, April). Using project based learning to teach 21st-Century skills: Findings from a statewide initiative. In American Educational Research Association Conference, Vancouver, Canada (Vol. 16).

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Routledge.

  • Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed., pp. 94–131). Upper Saddle River New Jersey: Pearson.

  • Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University, 621 Skytop Rd., Suite 160, Syracuse, NY 13244–5290.

  • Robin, B. R. (2008). Digital storytelling: A powerful technology tool for the 21st-Century classroom. Theory into Practice, 47(3), 220–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). “21st Century” skills: Not new, but a worthy challenge. American Educator, 34(1), 17–20.

    Google 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

  • Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-Century skills requires 21st-Century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salpeter, J. (2003). 21st-Century skills: Will our students be prepared? TECHNOLOGY AND LEARNING-DAYTON-, 24(3), 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sardone, N. B., & Devlin-Scherer, R. (2010). Teacher candidate responses to digital games: 21st-Century skills development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 409–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenker, J. D., & Rumrill, P. D., Jr. (2004). Causal-comparative research designs. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 21(3), 117–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrier, K. (2006). Using augmented reality games to teach 21st-Century skills. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Educators program (p. 15). ACM.

  • Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1973). Goal-free evaluation (pp. 319–328). School evaluation: The politics and process.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shambaugh, N., & Magliaro, S. (2001). A reflexive model for teaching instructional design. Educational technology research anddevelopment, 49(2), 69–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-Century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 630–634.

    Google 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 

  • Sorenson, R. L. (1999). Conflict management strategies used by successful family businesses. Family Business Review, 12(4), 325–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefaniak, J. E. (2017). The role of coaching within the context of instructional design. TechTrends, 61(1), 26–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., Hoard, B., & Stapleton, L. (2018). The influence of perceived constraints during needs assessment on design conjecture. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 55–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W. (2014). Development and formative evaluation of multimedia case studies for instructional design and technology students. TechTrends, 58(5), 36–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. (1995). Context-sensitive instructional design models: A response to design research, studies, and criticism. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 38–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 13(3), 265–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toker, S., & Baturay, M. H. (2021). Developing disposition to critical thinking and problem-solving perception in instructional design projects for producing digital materials. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 1–26.

  • Tracey, M. W., & Boling, E. (2014). Preparing instructional designers and educational technologists: Traditional and emerging perspectives. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th ed., pp. 653–660). Springer.

  • Tracey, M. W., Chatervert, C., Lake, K., & Wilson, R. (2008). Real world projects in an advanced instructional design course. TechTrends, 52(4), 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., Hutchinson, A., & Grzebyk, T. Q. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: Developing professional identity through reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 315–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trespalacios, J., & Uribe-Flórez, L. J. (2020). Case studies in instructional design education: Students’ communication preferences during online discussions. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(1), 21–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Tryon, P. J. S., McDonald, J., & Hirumi, A. (2018). Preparing the next generation of instructional designers: A cross-institution faculty collaboration. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 125–153.

    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., & Plomp, T. (1999). Educational design and development: An overview of paradigms. In Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 15–28). Springer Netherlands.

  • 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 

  • West, R. E., Thomas, R. A., Bodily, R., Wright, C., & Borup, J. (2018). An analysis of instructional design and technology departments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 869–888.

  • Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D., & F., & Summers, G. (1977). Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology, 8(1), 84–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. A. (2010). Self-regulated learning and the 21st-Century competencies. Universidad de Houston: Department of Educational Psychology. Retrieved on March 28, 2017 from http://www.hewlett org/uploads/Self_Regulated_Learning__21st_Century_Competencies. pdf.

  • York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Examining Instructional Design Principles Applied by Experienced Designers in Practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(2), 169–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zierer, K., & Seel, N. M. (2012). General Didactics and Instructional Design: eyes like twins A transatlantic dialogue about similarities and differences, about the past and the future of two sciences of learning and teaching. SpringerPlus, 1(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Atilim University, Ankara, Turkey

    Sacip Toker

Authors
  1. Sacip Toker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sacip Toker.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Toker, S. The progress of 21st-century skills throughout instructional design projects: a quasi-experimental comparison of rapid prototyping and dick and carey models. Educ Inf Technol 27, 1959–1992 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10673-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10673-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation