Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Overview

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Studies of ID Practices

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

  • 601 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provided an overview of research studies on ID practices and a rationale for conducting an extensive review of this type of studies. It also offered a historical perspective of ID practices mainly in North America starting with Individualized Instructional Plans to the formation and establishment of systematic ID models and ending with a description of current ID practices and models, as well as critiques of standard ID processes. A description of the literature search processes in identifying specific studies of ID practices, a brief description of these identified studies and corresponding analyses are found in Chap. 2.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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

  • AECT. (1977). The definition of educational technology. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2001). Teaching instructional design: An action learning approach. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. S. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research and teaching in instructional design and technology. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 31, pp. 33–73). Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2011). The changing nature of design. In R. V. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 358–366). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 for educational communications and technology (4th ed. pp. 77–87). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L, Furman, J. P., King, F. J., & Hannum, W. H. (1975). Inservice procedures for instructional systems development (five volumes). Fort Benning, GA: U.S. Army Combat Arms Training Board (NTIS Nos. ADA 019 486, ADA 019 487, ADA 019 488, ADA 019 489, ADA 019 490).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. A., Lohr, L. L., Gall, J. E., & Ursyn, A. (2013). Where is the design in instructional design? The role of visual aesthetics in the field. In M. Orey, S. A. Jones, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 37, pp. 7–25). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brunton, M. A., & Jeffrey, L. M. (2010). Using the critical incident technique for triangulation and elaboration of communication management competencies. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 62(3), 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R., Cross, N., Studies, D., Durling, D., Nelson, H., Owen, C., et al. (2013). Design. Educational Technology, 53(5), 25–42.

    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 

  • Cennamo, K., & Brandt, C. (2012). The “right kind of telling”: Knowledge building in the academic design studio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(5), 839–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cennamo, K., & Kalk, D. (2005). Real world instructional design. Belmont, CA: Thompson-Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y., & Park, S. (2012). Content analysis of the 20 most influential articles in PIQ. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(3), 7–22.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. P. (2010). The studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for adults. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(6), 755–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronjé, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 387–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. New York: Berg Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delsignore, A. M., Petrova, E., Harper, A., Stowe, A. M., Mu’Min, A. S., & Middleton, R. A. (2010). Critical incidents and assistance-seeking behaviors of White mental health practitioners: A transtheoretical framework for understanding multicultural counseling competency. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(3), 352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. (1987). A history of instructional design and its impact on educational psychology. In J. Glover & R. Roning (Eds.), Historical foundations of educational psychology. New York: Plenum.

    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 

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. M. (1978). The systematic design of instruction (1st ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2013). What was your best learning experience? Our story about using stories to solve instructional problems. International Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 25(2), 269–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely, D. P. (Ed.) (1963). The changing role of the audiovisual process in education: A definition and a glossary of related terms. Audiovisual Communication Review, 11(1), entire issue.

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn, J. D. (1953). Professionalizing the audio-visual field. Audiovisual Communication Review, 1(1), 6–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foshay, W. R., Villachica, S. W., & Stepich, D. A. (2014). Cousins but not twins: Instructional design and human performance technology in the workplace. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (4th ed. pp. 39–49). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of instructional design (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2003). The practice of instructional technology: Science and technology. Educational Technology, 43(5), 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Eight views of instructional design and what they should mean to instructional designers. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology (pp. 15–36). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Yanchar, S. C. (2010). An alternative view of the instructional design process: A response to Smith and Boling. Educational Technology, 50(4), 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2014). Instructional design models. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (4th ed. pp. 607–615). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannum, W. (2005). Instructional systems development: A 30 year retrospective. Educational Technology, 45(4), 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannum, W. H. (2012). Flexible instructional design: The opposite of doing everything isn’t doing nothing. Educational Technology, 52(3), 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardré, P. L. (2013). What is “Real-World” ID anyway? TechTrends, 57(1), 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Goldsworthy, R. C. (2009). Is your design story limiting you? Purposefully perturbing our practices through instructional design ‘‘Mashups’’. Educational Technology, 49(4), 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honebein, P. C., & Sink, D. L. (2012). The practice of eclectic instructional design. Performance Improvement, 51(10), 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y. C., & Choi, I. (2011). Three dimensions of reflective thinking in solving design problems: a conceptual model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 687–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 31(1), 9–26.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Koszalka, T. A., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Reiser, R. (2013). Instructional designer competencies: The standards (4th ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, H. N., & Tracey, M. W. (2010). A review and new framework for instructional design practice variation research. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(2), 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing objectives for programmed instruction. Belmont, CA: Fearon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2007). The proper study of instructional design. In R. R. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Person Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (2012). First principles of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(5), 34–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molenda, M. (2010). Origins and evolution of instructional systems design. In K. H. Sibler & W. R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace (Vol. 1, pp. 53–92). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenda, M., & Boling, E. (2008). Creating. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 81–140). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osguthorpe, R. T., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2007). Instructional design as a living practice: Toward a conscience of craft. Educational Technology, 47(4), 13–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511–528.

    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 

  • Persichitte, K. (2008). Implications for academic programs. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 327–340). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (Eds.). (2009). Instructional-design theories and models, Volume III: Building a common knowledge base. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology. Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (2011). A history of instructional design and technology. In R. V. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 17–34). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2010). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, E. (2008). Why reflection matters for instructional designers. Educational Technology, 48(4), 12–18.

    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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G., Parra, M. L., & Basnet, K. (1994). Educating instructional designers: Different methods for different outcomes. Educational Technology, 34(6), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, L. L., Kinuthia, W., Lokey-Vega, A., Tsang-Kosma, W., & Madathany, R. (2013). Identifying complex cultural interactions in the instructional design process: A case study of a cross-border, cross-sector training for innovation program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 707–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K., & Kenny, R. (2006, April). Transforming higher education: Agency and the instructional designer. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (American Educational Research Association Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silber, K. H. (1998). The cognitive approach to training development: A practitioner’s assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 58–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R. (2006). Beyond instructional design: making learning design a reality. Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 1–7.  

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, R., & Koszalka, T. (2008). Competencies for the new-age instructional designer. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 401–423). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24(2), 86–97.

    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 

  • Spector, J. M. (2012). Foundations of educational technology: Integrative approaches and interdisciplinary perspectives. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M., & Ren, Y. (in press). History of educational technology. In J. M. Spector (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational technology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Baaki, J. (2014). Design thinking, design process and the design studio design, designers, and reflection-in-action. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology (pp. 1–14). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, M. W., & Boling, E. (2014). Preparing instructional designers: Traditional and emerging perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (4th ed. pp. 653–660). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Merriënboer, J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Three worlds of instructional design: State of the art and future directions. Instructional Science, 29(4/5), 429–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Merriënboer, J. G., & Sluijsmans, D. A. (2009). Toward a synthesis of cognitive load theory, four-component instructional design, and self-directed learning. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *van Merriënboer, J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2012). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    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 

  • Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory. Educational Technology, 35(6), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J. (2000). The maturing of constructivist instructional design: some basic principles that can guide practice. Educational Technology, 40(1), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  •  Willis, J. (2009). Pedagogical ID versus Process ID: Two perspectives in contemporary instructional design theory. International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning, 5(2), 93–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J. (2011). The cultures of contemporary instructional design scholarship. Part II: Developments based on constructivist and critical theory foundations. Educational Technology, 51(3), 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J., & Wright, K. (2000). A general set of procedures for constructivist instructional design: The new R2D2 model. Educational Technology, 40(2), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B. G. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10–16.

    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 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 383–398.

    Article  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). Overview. In: Studies of ID Practices. SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03605-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation