Research Article

A Case Study of the Design Practices and Judgments of Novice Instructional Designers

Meina Zhu 1 * , Merve Basdogan 2, Curtis J. Bonk 2
More Detail
1 Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA2 Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), October 2020, ep267, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/7829
OPEN ACCESS   4794 Views   2060 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Instructional design and training skills have become a key competency that is expected of public health professionals. However, the research on educating public health students as instructional designers (ID) is lacking. The purpose of this study is to better understand how novice IDs design trainings using their design judgment in an authentic instructional design project in order to provide them with effective educational supports. The data sources of this case study include 11 training lesson plans generated by 37 students through a semester and six semi-structured interviews. The findings reveal that: (1) online games, (2) instructional videos, (3) handouts, (4) PowerPoint presentation slides, and (5) infographics were designed and used by novice IDs. In the midst of the various challenges that were encountered, framing judgment, core judgment, instrumental judgment, navigational judgment, and appearance judgment were manifested in the design process of novice IDs. Based on the findings, practical implementations are recommended to develop effective instructional design curricula for novice public health student designers.
Keywords: design judgment, instructional design, instructional design challenges, instructional design practices, novice instructional designers, public health

CITATION (APA)

Zhu, M., Basdogan, M., & Bonk, C. J. (2020). A Case Study of the Design Practices and Judgments of Novice Instructional Designers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 12(2), ep267. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/7829

REFERENCES

  1. Bernhardt, J. M. (2004). Communication at the core of effective public health. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 2051-2053. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.12.2051
  2. Berrett, D. (2016, February 29). Instructional design: Demand grows for a new breed of academic. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Instructional-Design/235425
  3. Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2014). Design: The topic that should not be closed. TechTrends,38 (6), 17-19. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Colin_Gray3/publication/267451246_Design_The_topic_that_should_not_be_closed/links/544fcf380cf24e8f7374a821.pdf
  4. Boling, E., Alangari, H., Hajdu, I. M., Guo, M., Gyabak, K., Khlaif, Z., ... & Bae, H. (2017). Core judgments of instructional designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(3), 199-219. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21250
  5. Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6
  6. Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Rance, N. (2014) How to use thematic analysis with interview data (process research). In Vossler, A. and Moller, N. P. (Eds.), The counselling and psychotherapy research handbook. London: Sage.
  7. Calhoun, J. G., McElligott, J. E., Weist, E. M., & Raczynski, J. M. (2012). Core competencies for doctoral education in public health. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300469
  8. Community Health Network. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ecommunity.com/careers/jobs/community-health-advocate-1903850
  9. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002
  10. Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2004). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
  11. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2008). The systematic design of instruction. Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Higher Ed.
  12. Dijkstra, S. (2005). Cognition and instructional design for problem-based learning. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. V. Schaack, & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology (pp. 187-206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  13. Dufresne, R. T., Gerace, W. J., Hardiman, P. T., & Mestre, J. P. (1992). Constraining novices to perform expert-like problem analyses: Effects on schema acquisition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 307-331. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0203_3
  14. 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. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44429251?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
  15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20013
  16. Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral-Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A., & Boling, E. (2015). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 25-49. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21198
  17. Greeno, J. G., Korpi, M., Jackson, D., & Michalchik, V. (1990). Ill-structured problem solving in instructional design. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 939-946). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  18. Honebein, P. C. (2019). Exploring the galaxy question: The influence of situation and first principles on designers’ judgments about useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09660-9
  19. Intentional Futures (2016, April). Instructional design in higher education. Gates Foundation and Intentional Futures. Retrieved from https://intentionalfutures.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Instructional-Design-in-Higher-Education-Report.pdf
  20. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  21. Jonassen, D. H., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem-solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(2), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504994
  22. Keller, J. M. (1984). Use of the ARCS model of motivation in teacher training. In K. E. Shaw (Ed.), Aspects of educational technology: Volume XVII. Staff development and career updating. London: Kogan Page.
  23. Kim, J. (2018, March 8). Career opportunities at the intersection of learning and technology: A talent shortage? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/career-opportunities-intersection-learning-and-technology
  24. Kim, J., & Ryu, H. (2014). A design thinking rationality framework: Framing and solving design problems in early concept generation. Human-Computer Interaction, 29(5-6), 516-553. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.896706
  25. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
  26. Lachheb, A., & Boling, E. (2018). Design tools in practice: Instructional designers report which tools they use and why. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 34-54. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12528-017-9165-x
  27. Leigh, D. (2010). SWOT analysis. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace, vol. 2: Selecting and implementing performance interventions (pp. 115-140). Silver Spring, MD: ISPI. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470587102.ch5
  28. Merrill, D. (2002). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 41-46. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140410709
  29. Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M.J., Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7. Retrieved from http://mdavidmerrill.com/Papers/Reclaiming.PDF
  30. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. (2010). Designing effective instruction. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
  31. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA; London, UK: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9188.001.0001
  32. Paulus, T., Lester, J., & Dempster, P. (2013). Digital tools for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957671
  33. 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
  34. Reigeluth, C. M., Beatty, B., & Myers, R. (2016). Instructional-design theories and models, Vol. IV: The learner-centered paradigm of education. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315795478
  35. Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. II): A new paradigm of instructional theory. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  36. Reiser, R. A. (2002). A history of instructional design and technology. In R. A. Reiser, and J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 26-53). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
  37. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.) (2018). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
  38. Richey, R., Fields, D. C., & Foxon, M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.
  39. Riter, P. (2016, June 7). The quest for great instructional designers. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2016/06/07/troublesome-shortage-instructional-designers-essay
  40. 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
  41. Saroyan, A. (1992). Differences in expert practice: A case from formative evaluation. Instructional Science, 21(6), 451-472. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00118558
  42. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Routledge.
  43. Silber, K. H. (2007). A principle-based model of instructional design: A new way of thinking about and teaching ID. Educational Technology, 47(5) 5-19. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/44429438?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
  44. 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. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ865542
  45. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
  46. Thomas, G (2011). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. London: Sage.
  47. Verstegen, D., Barnard, Y., & Pilot, A. (2008). Instructional design by novice designers: Two empirical studies. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 351-383. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/22961/
  48. Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 383-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9180-3
  49. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.