Eight Views of Instructional Design and What They Should Mean to Instructional Designers

Eight different views of the design process are described with the purpose of broadening the practitioner’s concept of instructional design. Views both internal and external to instructional design are considered, so that instructional designers can see the traditions of their field in the context of design activity in other professional fields. Examples are drawn from architecture, digital design, team dynamics, organizational behavior, and design studies. Traditional instructional design theories and practices are placed within the context of this expanded panorama of design so that their value is enhanced but also so that the designer understands the source and limits of their value within the context of professional practice. Designers are encouraged to incorporate new terms into their professional language of designing. They are also asked to consider design as an act pursued at different levels of detail. Design at each level is influenced by principles that pertain to that level but which must be folded harmoniously into a completed design.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 85.59 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 105.49 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 147.69 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

Instructional Design Models

Design tools in practice: instructional designers report which tools they use and why

An Examination of the Systemic Reach of Instructional Design Models: a Systematic Review

References

• Baldwin, C., & Clark, K. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bazerman, C. (1999). The languages of Edison’s light. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Bichelmeyer, B. (2003). Instructional theory and instructional design theory: What’s the difference and why should we care? IDT Record. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://bit.ly/9HkisA.
• Blaauw, G., & Brooks, F. (1997). Computer architecture: Concepts and evolution. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman. Google Scholar
• Brand, S. (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. New York: Penguin Books. Google Scholar
• Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., King, F.J., & Hannum, W. J. (1975, August). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development (5 vols.) (TRADOC Pam 350–30). Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (NTIS Nos. AD-A019 4860-AD-A019 490). Google Scholar
• Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Clark, R. E. (2009). Translating research into new instructional technologies for higher education: The active ingredient process. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(1), 4–18. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cox, S., & Osguthorpe, R. (2003). How do instructional design professionals spend their time? TechTrends, 47(3), 45–47. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Drucker, P. (1989). The new realities. London, UK: Mandarin. Google Scholar
• Ericsson, A., & Erixon, G. (1999). Controlling design variants: Modular product platforms. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Google Scholar
• Fowler, M. (2003). Patterns of enterprise application software. Boston: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
• Gagné, R. M. (Ed.). (1965). Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston. Google Scholar
• Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Gibbons, A. S., Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2013). Instructional design models. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed.). New York: Springer. Google Scholar
• Gibbons, A., & Rogers, P. C. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 3. Building a common knowledge base. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Gibbons, A. S., & Yanchar, S. (2010). An alternative view of the instructional design process: A response to Smith and Boling. Educational Technology, 50(4), 16–26. Google Scholar
• Hokanson, B., & Miller, C. (2009). Role-based design: A contemporary framework for innovation and creativity in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(2), 21–28. Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26. Google Scholar
• Kahin, B., & Foray, D. (2006). Advancing knowledge and the knowledge economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Parrish, P. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16–25. Google Scholar
• Parrish, P. (2006). Design as storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72–82. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Google Scholar
• Ramo, S., & St. Claire, R. K. (1998). The systems approach, anaheim, CA: KNI Incorporated. Retrieved from http://www.incase.org/productspubs/doc/systemsapproach.
• Reeves, T., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: A socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Reigeluth, C. (1999). Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
• Reigeluth, C., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 3. Building a common knowledge base. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Rowland. (2008, March 27). Design and research: Partners in educational innovation. Keynote address to the Design and Technology SIG, American Educational Research Association, New York City. Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
• Smith, K., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17. Google Scholar
• Uyemura, J. (1999). A first course in digital systems design: An integrated approach. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Google Scholar
• Vincenti, W. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Google Scholar
• Wilson, B. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2), 10–15. Google Scholar
• Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58, 39–60. ArticleGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 84604, USA Andrew S. Gibbons

1. Andrew S. Gibbons