Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Findings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Studies of ID Practices

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

  • 572 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter summarizes results and findings from the 102 studies of ID practices. It is organized by the three main categories of studies: (a) ID professionals, (b) ID students, and (c) ID expert-novice differences. Each of these main sections is organized by the relevant guiding questions. When possible, consolidation of findings from more than one study is exemplified to offer further insights into these studies of ID practices.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Kerr (1981) did complete an earlier study on how teachers make ID decisions.

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 

  • *Bennett, S. (2010). Investigating strategies for using related cases to support design problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 459–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernthal, P. R., Colteryahn, K., Davis, P., Naughton, J., Rothwell, W. J., & Wellins, R. (2004). Mapping the future: New workplace learning and performance competencies. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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 

  • *Brown, A. (2004). Building blocks for information architects: Teaching digital media production within an instructional design program. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(3), 265–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Calandra, B., Barron, A. E., & Thompson-Sellers, I. (2008). Audio use in e-learning: What, why, when, and how? International Journal on E-Learning, 7(4), 589–601.

    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 

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert decision making teams. In N. J. Castellan Jr. (Ed.), Current issues in individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    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 

  • 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 

  • Csikszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.

    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., & Denisar, K. (2005). Assessing team-based instructional design problem solutions of hierarchical versus heterarchical web-based hypermedia cases. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 5–22.

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2014). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

    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 

  • Ely, D. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 298–305.

    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 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2005). Instructional design expertise: How will we know it when we see it? Educational Technology, 45(6), 38–43.

    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 

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

    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 

  • *Francis, D. E., & Murphy, E. (2008). Instructional designers’ conceptualisations of learning objects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5), 475–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    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 

  • *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 

  • *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 

  • *Hardré, P. L., Ge, X., & Thomas, M. K. (2006). An investigation of development toward instructional design expertise. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(4), 63–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himanen, P. (2001). The Hacker ethic: A radical approach to the philosophy of business. New York: Random House.

    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 

  • *Jo, I.-H. (2012). Shared mental models on the performance of e-learning content development teams. Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 289–297.

    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 

  • *Johnson, T. E., & Lee, Y. (2008). The relationship between shared mental models and task performance in an online team‐based learning environment. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(3), 97–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B., Meeker, K. M., Loomis, E. J., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004, April). Development of the philosophical and methodological beliefs inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T. E., Lee, Y., Lee, M., O’Connor, D. L., Khalil, M. K., & Huang, X. (2007). Measuring sharedness of team-related knowledge: Design and validation of a shared mental model instrument. Human Resource Development International, 10(4), 437–454.

    Article  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 

  • *Kanuka, H., Smith, E. E., & Kelland, J. H. (2013). An inquiry into educational technologists’ conceptions of their philosophies of teaching and technology. Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology, 39(2).

    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 

  • *Kennedy, P. E., Chyung, S. Y., Winiecki, D. J., & Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2014). Training professionals’ usage and understanding of Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 and Level 4 evaluations. International Journal of Training and Development, 18(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Keppell, M. (2001). Optimizing instructional designer–subject matter expert communication in the design and development of multimedia projects. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 12(2), 209–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. T. (1981). How teachers design their materials: Implications for instructional design. Instructional Science, 10(4), 363–378.

    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 

  • Kirkpatrick, J. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    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., & Jun, S. (2014). Skills for instructional design professionals. Performance Improvement, 53(2), 41–46.

    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 

  • Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: Some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 25(5), 443–457.

    Article  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.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Le Maistre, K., & Weston, C. (1996). The priorities established among data sources when instructional designers revise written materials. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(1), 61–70.

    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 

  • *Liu, M., Gibby, S., Quiros, O., & Demps, E. (2002). Challenges of being an instructional designer for new media development: A view from the practitioners. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 195–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Loughner, P., & Moller, L. (1998). The use of task analysis procedures by instructional designers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 11(3), 79–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Macpherson, C., & Smith, A. (1998). Academic authors’ perceptions of the instructional design and development process for distance education: A case study. Distance Education, 19(1), 124–141.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1994). The descriptive component display theory. In M. D. Merrill & D. G. Twitchell (Eds.), Instructional design theory (pp. 111–235). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Moller, L., & Mallin, P. (1996). Evaluation practices of instructional designers and organizational supports and barriers. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(4), 82–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Pan, C., & Thompson, K. (2009). Exploring dynamics between instructional designers and higher education faculty: An ethnographic case study. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 2(1), 33–52.

    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 

  • *Pieters, J. M., & Bergman, R. (1995). The empirical basis of designing instruction. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 118–129.

    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 

  • *Rapanta, C., Maina, M., Lotz, N., & Bacchelli, A. (2013). Team design communication patterns in e-learning design and development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 581–605.

    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 

  • Richey, R. C., Fields, D. C., Foxon, M., 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G., & DiVasto, T. (2013). Instructional design and powerful learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 9–42.

    Article  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 

  • *Saroyan, A. (1993). Differences in expert practice: A case from formative evaluation. Instructional Science, 21(6), 451–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Schaffer, S. P., & Kim, H. (2012). Responsive evaluation as a guide to design and implementation: Case study of an e-health learning system. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 25(2), 9–25.

    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 

  • *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 

  • *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 

  • *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 

  • Stepich, D. A., & Ertmer, P. A. (2009). "Teaching" Instructional Design Expertise: Strategies to Support Students' Problem-Finding Skills. Technology, Instruction, Cognition & Learning, 7(2), 147–170.

    Google Scholar 

  •  *Stewart, B., & Waight, C. (2008). E-learning teams and their adult learning efforts in corporate settings: A cross analysis of four case studies. International Journal on E-learning, 7(2), 293–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sugar, W. A. (2001). What is so good about user-centered design? Documenting the effect of usability sessions on novice software designers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 235–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sugar, W. (in press). Development and formative evaluation of multimedia case studies for Instructional Design and Technology students. TechTrends.

    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 

  • Tennyson, R. D. (1995). Instructional system development: The fourth generation. In R. D. Tennyson and A. E. Barron (Eds.), Automating instructional design: Computer-based development and delivery tools (pp. 33–78). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

    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. & 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 

  • *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. M. L., Barnard, Y. F., & Pilot, A. (2006). Which events can cause iteration in instructional design? An empirical study of the design process. Instructional Science, 34(6), 481–517.

    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, J. I. A. (1999). Design Approaches in Training and Education: A reconstructive study. Doctoral dissertation. University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

    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. (2009). What is shared? A framework for understanding shared innovation within communities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(3), 315–332.

    Article  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 

  • *Weston, C., Le Maistre, C., Mcalpine, L., & Bordonaro, T. (1997). The influence of participants in formative evaluation on the improvement of learning from written instructional materials. Instructional Science, 25(5), 369–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Williams van Rooij, S. W. (2011). Instructional design and project management: Complementary or divergent? Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 139–158.

    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 

  • *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 

  • 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 

  • *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. & 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 & Education, 58(1), 652–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yusop, F. D., & Correia, A. P. (2012). The civic-minded instructional designers framework: An alternative approach to contemporary instructional designers’ education in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 180–190.

    Article  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 

  • *Ziegenfuss, D. H., & Lawler, P. A. (2008). Collaborative course design: Changing the process, acknowledging the context, and implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development, 13(3), 151–160.

    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). Findings. In: Studies of ID Practices. SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03605-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation