DESIGN FOR

LEARNING -
PRINCIPLES,
PROCESSES, AND
PRAXIS

Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West

Brigham Young University
Design for Learning - Principles, Processes,
and Praxis (McDonald and West)
This text is disseminated via the Open Education Resource (OER) LibreTexts Project
([Link] and like the thousands of other texts available within this powerful platform, it is
freely available for reading, printing, and "consuming."
The LibreTexts mission is to bring together students, faculty, and scholars in a collaborative effort to
provide an accessible, and comprehensive platform that empowers our community to develop, curate,
adapt, and adopt openly licensed resources and technologies; through these efforts we can reduce the
financial burden born from traditional educational resource costs, ensuring education is more accessible
for students and communities worldwide.
Most, but not all, pages in the library have licenses that may allow individuals to make changes, save,
and print this book. Carefully consult the applicable license(s) before pursuing such effects. Instructors
can adopt existing LibreTexts texts or Remix them to quickly build course-specific resources to meet the
needs of their students. Unlike traditional textbooks, LibreTexts’ web based origins allow powerful
integration of advanced features and new technologies to support learning.

LibreTexts is the adaptable, user-friendly non-profit open education resource platform that educators
trust for creating, customizing, and sharing accessible, interactive textbooks, adaptive homework, and
ancillary materials. We collaborate with individuals and organizations to champion open education
initiatives, support institutional publishing programs, drive curriculum development projects, and more.
The LibreTexts libraries are Powered by NICE CXone Expert and was supported by the Department of
Education Open Textbook Pilot Project, the California Education Learning Lab, the UC Davis Office of
the Provost, the UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions
Program, and Merlot. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation
under Grant No. 1246120, 1525057, and 1413739.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation nor the US
Department of Education.
Have questions or comments? For information about adoptions or adaptions contact
info@[Link] or visit our main website at [Link]
This text was compiled on 04/14/2026
TABLE OF CONTENTS
About the Authors

Licensing

Introduction

1: Instructional Design Practice

1: Understanding
1.1: Becoming A Learning Designer
1.2: Designing for Diverse Learners
1.3: Conducting Research For Design
1.4: Determining Environmental and Contextual Needs
1.5: Conducting A Learner Analysis
2: Exploring
2.1: Problem Framing
2.2: Task And Content Analysis
2.3: Documenting Instructional Design Decisions
3: Creating
3.1: Generating Ideas
3.2: Instructional Strategies
3.3: Instructional Design Prototyping Strategies
4: Evaluating
4.1: Design Critique
4.2: The Role Of Design Judgment And Reflection In Instructional Design
4.3: Instructional Design Evaluation
4.4: Continuous Improvement Of Instructional Materials

2: Instructional Design Knowledge

5: Sources of Design Knowledge
5.1: Learning Theories
5.2: The Role Of Theory In Instructional Design
5.3: Making Good Design Judgments via The Instructional Theory Framework
5.4: The Nature And Use Of Precedent In Designing
5.5: Standards And Competencies For Instructional Design And Technology Professionals
6: Instructional Design Processes
6.1: Design Thinking
6.2: Robert Gagné And The Systematic Design Of Instruction
6.3: Designing Instruction For Complex Learning
6.4: Curriculum Design Processes
6.5: Agile Design Processes And Project Management
7: Designing Instructional Activities
7.1: Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Experiences
7.2: Designing Instructional Text

1 [Link]
 7.3: Audio And Video Production For Instructional Design Professionals
7.4: Using Visual And Graphic Elements While Designing Instructional Activities
7.5: Simulations And Games
7.6: Designing Informal Learning Environments
7.7: The Design Of Holistic Learning Environments
7.8: Measuring Student Learning
8: Design Relationships
8.1: Working With Stakeholders And Clients
8.2: Leading Project Teams
8.3: Implementation And Instructional Design

Index

Glossary

Detailed Licensing

2 [Link]
About the Authors
Jason K. McDonald

Dr. Jason K. McDonald is an Associate Professor of Instructional Psychology & Technology at Brigham Young University and the
program coordinator of the university’s Design Thinking minor. He brings twenty years of experience in industry and academia,
with a career spanning a wide-variety of roles connected to instructional design: face-to-face training; faculty development;
corporate eLearning; story development for instructional films; and museum/exhibit design. He gained this experience as a
university instructional designer; an executive for a large, international non-profit; a digital product director for a publishing
company; and as an independent consultant.
Dr. McDonald's research focuses around advancing design practice and design education. He studies design as an expression of
certain types of relationships with others and with the world, how designers experience rich and authentic ways of being human,
the contingent and changeable nature of design, and design as a human accomplishment (meaning how design is not a natural
process but is created by designers and so is open to continually being recreated by designers).
At BYU, Dr. McDonald has taught courses in instructional design, media and culture change, project management, learning
psychology, and design theory. His work can be found at his website: [Link]

Richard E. West

Dr. Richard E. West is an associate professor of Instructional Psychology and Technology at Brigham Young University. He teaches
courses in instructional design, academic writing, qualitative research methods, program/product evaluation, psychology, creativity
and innovation, technology integration skills for preservice teachers, and the foundations of the field of learning and instructional
design technology.
Dr. West’s research focuses on developing educational institutions that support 21st century learning. This includes teaching
interdisciplinary and collaborative creativity and design thinking skills, personalizing learning through open badges, increasing
access through open education, and developing social learning communities in online and blended environments. He has published
over 90 articles, co-authoring with over 80 different graduate and undergraduate students, and received scholarship awards from the
American Educational Research Association, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, and Brigham Young
University.
He tweets @richardewest, and his research can be found on [Link].

1 [Link]
Licensing
A detailed breakdown of this resource's licensing can be found in Back Matter/Detailed Licensing.

1 [Link]
Introduction
Our purpose in this book is twofold. First, we introduce the basic skill set and knowledge base used by practicing instructional
designers. We do this through chapters contributed by experts in the field who have either academic, research-based backgrounds,
or practical, on-the-job experience (or both). Our goal is that students in introductory instructional design courses will be able to
use this book as a guide for completing a basic instructional design project. We also hope the book is useful as a ready resource for
more advanced students or others seeking to develop their instructional design knowledge and skills.
Our second purpose complements the first: to introduce instructional designers to some of the most current views on how the
practices of design thinking contribute towards the development of effective and engaging learning environments. While some
previous books have incorporated elements of design thinking (for example, processes like prototyping), to date no instructional
design textbook focuses on design-oriented thinking as the dominant approach for creating innovative learning systems. Our aim is
to provide resources to faculty and students for learning instructional design in a manner consistent with a design-oriented
worldview. But because the classic approaches to instructional design are still important for many professionals, we also include
chapters that introduce some of the traditional, systematic processes for designing instructional environments. We hope this blend
of traditional and innovative views provides readers with a competitive advantage in their own work, providing them with a larger
set of conceptual tools to draw on as they address the professional challenges they face.
This book is divided into two major sections. The first, Instructional Design Practice, covers how instructional
designers understand, explore, create, and evaluate situations requiring educational interventions and the products or systems
used to support them. In this section, chapters address how we understand diverse learners and their needs; how to explore and
frame the educational problems one is solving; how to analyze the context and tasks associated with the problems; how to
iteratively generate decisions, prototypes, and solutions; and how to evaluate and understand the effectiveness of an instructional
design.
The second part, Instructional Design Knowledge, covers the sources of design knowledge, a variety of instructional design
processes, approaches for designing instructional activities, and the relationships important for instructional design practice.
This section includes chapters addressing learning/instructional theory, design precedent, both systematic and agile design
processes, and practical strategies for using technology wisely, managing projects, and creating instructional activities.
This book was developed as part of the [Link] library of open textbooks. Thus, this book is openly licensed (CC-BY-
NC) and free to use, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute, with proper citation. This platform provides many innovative features for
students and faculty, including the following:
Openly Licensed for Continuous Improvement—Because the book is openly licensed, it can be updated continuously as needed.
If you notice errors in the book or content that is out of date, please inform us or the author of the chapter.
Chapter Surveys—At the end of each chapter is a survey to provide feedback on the chapter’s content and writing. Please fill
out these surveys as they will help us to improve future versions of the book.
Available for Customization—Because of its open license, each department can customize the book to meet their needs,
including customization to support both graduate and undergraduate education. The following is potential wording you could
use in your remixed version of the book: “This textbook is a revision of Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and Praxis,
available at [Link] edited by Dr. Jason K. McDonald and Dr. Richard E. West of Brigham Young
University.”
Different Versions To Improve Accessibility—Each chapter can be read online or downloaded as a PDF for offline reading, in
addition to audio versions of some chapters. You can also share the book or any chapter through the QR codes available in the
top right of the window, or the social media icons.
Online/Social Annotation—Online and social annotation of the chapters is possible through [Link] integration (free
[Link] accounts available at [Link] through a menu available in the upper right of the window.
Analytics—Powerful chapter/book analytics provide authors with data about the significance of their work.
To cite a chapter from this book in APA, please use the suggested citation found at the chapter's end.
If you are an instructor who has adopted this book for a course, or modified/remixed the book for a course, please complete the
following survey so that we can know about your use of the book and update you when we push out new versions of any chapters.

1 [Link]
Survey to Receive Updates
If you are willing, we would appreciate your feedback on the quality of this textbook, along with a short review paragraph that we
can use in promoting this book. To contribute your review Go to this survey.
To contribute a resource to a chapter (e.g. multimedia element, quiz question, application exercise), fill out this survey.
One of the exciting things about the field of instructional design and learning technology is how quickly it evolves. As soon as new
technologies are introduced we see instructional designers experimenting with how they might be put to use for learning purposes.
The same is true regarding new scientific findings from psychology, sociology, communications, or other human sciences, with
professionals in our field scrutinizing them to understand what relevance they might have for improving the learning or teaching
process. We hope this book becomes a similar, cutting-edge resource that helps readers implement our growing understanding
regarding how to design effective and engaging learning environments.
Good luck!

2 [Link]
 SECTION OVERVIEW

1: Instructional Design Practice

1: Understanding
1.1: Becoming A Learning Designer
1.2: Designing for Diverse Learners
1.3: Conducting Research For Design
1.4: Determining Environmental and Contextual Needs
1.5: Conducting A Learner Analysis

2: Exploring
2.1: Problem Framing
2.2: Task And Content Analysis
2.3: Documenting Instructional Design Decisions

3: Creating
3.1: Generating Ideas
3.2: Instructional Strategies
3.3: Instructional Design Prototyping Strategies

4: Evaluating
4.1: Design Critique
4.2: The Role Of Design Judgment And Reflection In Instructional Design
4.3: Instructional Design Evaluation
4.4: Continuous Improvement Of Instructional Materials

This page titled 1: Instructional Design Practice is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

1: Understanding
1.1: Becoming A Learning Designer
1.2: Designing for Diverse Learners
1.3: Conducting Research For Design
1.4: Determining Environmental and Contextual Needs
1.5: Conducting A Learner Analysis

This page titled 1: Understanding is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald &
Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1
1.1: Becoming A Learning Designer
Becoming a Learning Designer
Ellen D. Wagner

Editor's Note
Because of the close connection between these skills and the discipline of instructional design, many of the chapters in this book
refer to the profession as instructional design, and professionals as instructional designers, even though many, like Dr. Wagner,
prefer the term learning designer. The actual name of the discipline is continually evolving, as Dr. Wagner addresses in this chapter.
Learning design is the name of the professional practice that, in the views of many education, training, learning, and development
professionals, is a next iteration in the evolution of the craft dedicated to creating, producing, evaluating, and improving resources
and experiences that help people and organizations learn more and perform better.
A learning design is a creative pathway, with steps along the way, that guides someone from a point of introduction to a permanent
change in knowing, doing, or being. By naming learning design as the focus of our collective activity, we make the declaration that
our focus is on learning enablement, regardless of where, when, or with whom our design efforts will be taking place. Designs may
revolve around the creation of a course, programming an application, or producing a webcast. Resources being designed as
catalysts to induce learning may be as small as an element in a presentation or as big as an immersive environment.
Learning design consists of an amalgamation of several contemporary design traditions actively used within current teaching,
learning, training, and development professions. As learning designers, we have profound opportunities to develop conditions,
strategies, resources, tools, and platforms that will keep learners engaged and inspired. We can help people make new connections
and meanings, spark new interests, and develop new abilities so that new learning will occur.
In order to understand what learning design is, it is helpful to understand its precedents and how they are related to each other. In
this chapter, I will first describe several of the most notable precedents. From there, we will consider some of the current
professional expectations for learning designers in the contemporary learning and development marketplace. I will then reflect
upon some of the big variables shaping “Learning Designer Identity.”

Instructional Design
Perhaps the most familiar of learning design’s earlier traditions is instructional design. Instructional design (ID) is a foundational
part of the profession dedicated to systematically improving the learning and performance outcomes of individuals completing a
deliberate course of study. Originally, instructional design described a practice of creating lessons and courses. In this context,
design is describing an activity or set of activities that result in a documented set of specifications for creating a lesson or a course.
Follwing are the steps designers take when designing lessons or courses:
1. Assessing Content for the Course: What needs to be covered?
2. Assessing the Learners: Who is taking this course? What will they need to know and do? How will you know if they have
accomplished those things?
3. Creating a Design Document: What needs to happen for this course to become real?
4. Asking What Needs to Be Developed: Who is going to produce it? How much will it cost?
5. Implementing the Design: What is needed for the lessons to be offered, for the students to respond, and for the course to be
completed?
6. Evaluating the Design: Did the lessons work? How do you know? How could it be better?
At the end of this process, the designer would end up with a design document. This serves as a specification to guide the
construction of a course. Design documents are a great way to review how you solved your design challenges—what worked and
what didn’t work. They are important instruments for formative review and essential for summative review. A design document
also forms the basis for a professional portfolio that will serve as evidence of your work over time. It is your record of how you
communicated your plans for what needed to get done, both to yourself and to your stakeholders.
Over time, the term instructional design has also come to be used as an overarching term for any formal activity undertaken when
designing and building learning resources or experiences, formal or informal. This causes some confusion when it comes to

1.1.1 [Link]
creating job titles for people working in the learning and development field in various capacities. Instructional design positions
continue to represent a good percentage of today’s jobs in the learning and development industry by virtue of the industry’s
emphasis upon the creation of digital courseware and digital virtual environments, especially after COVID-19 school and work
closures in the spring of 2020. This is the case even for positions which may not actually be engaged in designing or developing
formal learning programs, lessons, or courseware.

Additional Resources
For more information on the history of the instructional design approach, refer to the Foundations of Learning and Instructional
Design Technology textbook available on EdTech Books, particularly the chapters on programmed instruction by Molenda and
instructional design models by Dousay. Students might also appreciate perusing back issues of the Journal of Applied Instructional
Design.

Instructional Systems Design

Given that so many learning experiences transcend instruction and must address bigger contextual consideration, sometimes the
activities associated with this practice are described more broadly as Instructional Systems Design (ISD), where a significant nod is
given to the impact of the broad conditions under which course, content, and experience conceptualization, as well as prototyping
and production will be taking place. ISD is based on a process model for managing the establishment of a system within which
instruction is a component. ISD calls for the following:
Assess the needs and support requirements of target audiences and determine needs for the content presentation.
Design for interventions or create solutions to improve outcomes, including baselines and methods for instructional
measurement.
Create development specifications: How will this solution be constructed?
Create implementation plans: How will we get the new system to work? How will we engage learners?
Determine formative and summative evaluation plans: How will we know if it is working? How will we make our revisions?
How will we know if all our efforts have been worth it?
Depending upon the degree to which a program may feature multimedia or web technology systems as a part of their practice, one
may still find practitioners of instructional technology—even though many using the moniker “IT” in 2020 are more actively
engaged in the practices associated with information technology, the domain of enterprise computing, network management. In
education and training, instructional technology is the place where one finds learning management systems, learning content
management systems, knowledge management systems and, increasingly, platforms and programs that enable the tracking and
analysis of resource use and user performance data.

User Experience Design

Another major set of influences upon the learning design profession have come from the world of User Experience Design. Since
the mid-1990s, web browsers brought the World Wide Web to life and as web technologies and service platforms such as content
and learning management systems became a more active component in systems developed for sharing, delivering, and distributing
content, courses, and experiences. From this evolution, User Experience (UX) Design emerged as a field that has explored and
influenced design considerations for how a website, online product, or digital product user would experience a product.
Coined in the mid-1990s by Donald Norman during the time when he was vice president of advanced technology at Apple
Computer, UX describes the relationship between a product and a human. Back then, Norman argued that technology must evolve
to put user needs first—the opposite of how things were done at the time. It was not until 2005 that UX gained mainstream
relevance as 42 million iPods were sold that year and the mass market experienced great design at scale. Not long after, job
descriptions and expectations shifted from putting information online to tailoring the online experience to the needs of end users.
The field of User Experience Design had been born (Kilgore, 2016).

Additional Resources
For more information on UX design, see the chapter by Earnshaw, Tawfik, and Schmidt (2018), or their full open access book on
the topic at [Link]

1.1.2 [Link]
Design Thinking
The need for better user experience with technology hardware and software was undeniable in the 1990s and 2000s as tech
systems, platforms, and tools evolved from being tools for the technologically proficient to being tools that were intuitive enough
for “regular folks.” As the focus on considering user experiences shifted product design, a set of processes and design approaches
known as “Design Thinking” grew popular.
The Interaction Design Foundation noted that Design Thinking emphasizes developing an understanding of the people for whom
products or services are being designed (Dam & Siang, 2020). It helps develop a sense of empathy with the user. Design Thinking
helps by continually questioning the problem, assumptions, and implications. Design Thinking is useful for tackling ill-defined or
unknown problems, by reframing the problem in human-centric ways, developing many ideas in focus groups, and adopting a
hands-on approach in prototyping and testing. Design Thinking also involves ongoing experimentation through sketching,
prototyping, and testing new ideas.
All variants of Design Thinking embody similar principles which were first described by Nobel Prize laureate Herbert Simon in
The Sciences of the Artificial (1969). The Hasso-Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University, also known as the [Link], was
at the forefront of applying and teaching Design Thinking.
The five-phased model developed by the [Link] to explain Design Thinking included the following steps:
empathize with users
define users’ needs and problems, along with your insights about those needs and problems
ideate by challenging assumptions and creating ideas for innovative solutions
prototype to start creating solutions
test solutions
These five phases are not necessarily sequential. They do not have to follow any specific order and can occur in parallel and be
iteratively repeated. They are offered as an overarching conceptual framework.

Additional Resources
For more information on Design Thinking approaches, see the chapter by Svihla in this book, along with a similar chapter on agile
design approaches by Cullen.

1.1.3 [Link]
 Figure [Link]: The IDEO Design Thinking Model
While Design Thinking does not address the requirement of designing for learning products, services, or experiences, per se, the
recognition of the relationship between experiences that can engage and inspire, and conditions that must be present for learning
were recognized in the early days of World Wide Web development.

Learning Experience Design: Unifying Design Traditions

While many informal discussions around learning experience began happening in the mid-2000s[1], Niels Floor and his colleagues
in the Netherlands began actively exploring Learning Experience Design (LXD). They met in 2012 to unify the principles of UX
Design with learning principles and instructional design principles, even if some of those ID principles might not necessarily be
used to create direct instruction (N. Floor, personal communication, February 20, 2019). Where UX designers' responsibilities
would include designing prototypes and wireframes, graphic and visual design, constructing user journeys or flows, collaborating
with subject matter experts, and carrying out qualitative usability tests (Rosala & Krause, 2019), learning experience designers
would bring a focus on rich multimedia experiences, learning outcomes, and performance improvement metrics.
Kilgore (2016) noted that LX designers develop experiential, multi-layered, complex, and contextual courses and lessons that do
not necessarily end when a course closes. These experiences aim to provide learners with enhanced engagement, retention,
affordance, and overall a more memorable learning experience. This requires advanced skills in planning, production, development,
design, and a clearer understanding of modern learners and learning trends than what is required for more traditional instructional
design undertakings. LXD appears to be less dependent upon both supporting the infrastructure of technological systems and upon
formative and summative evaluation than more traditional ID and ISD practices have purported to be.

Learning Engineering
In recent years, learning engineering has emerged as a practice with the potential to serve as a strong complement to learning
design. Learning engineering focuses on using data analytics, computer-human interaction, modeling, measurement,
instrumentation, and continuous improvement to optimize learning and learning decision-making. It offers a renewed focus on
formative evaluation and on experimentation in the learning workflow.

1.1.4 [Link]
Learning engineering started to emerge as a new field of interest in the mid 2010s with the increased popularity of MOOCs, which
served student populations in the hundreds of thousands in a single course. Suddenly, there were opportunities for conducting “big-
data” research and analyses—the scope of which had only previously been available to commercial business analysis firms or to
customers of online services. Furthermore, now “big data” were available to educational researchers, meaning that educational
research was no longer confined to social science methods based on small sample sizes or random-controlled trial studies. Instead,
machine learning, deep learning, data mining, and artificial intelligence could be applied to research on course-related behaviors,
achievements, retention, persistence, and completion patterns. Initial contemporary interest in learning engineering began at
institutions hosting MOOCs such as Harvard, MIT (EdX), and Stanford (Udacity, Coursera). Carnegie Mellon University had
maintained an engineering-as-problem-solving tradition since the 1960s. Their Simon Institute openly licensed CMU’s Open
Learning Initiative products in 2019 for educators to bring continuous improvement to classroom instruction (Young, 2019). This
was a nod to encouraging continuous improvement and classroom experimentation as an open education practice (OEP) associated
with learning engineering and empirical education.
Learning engineering’s first appearance can be traced back to 1966, and, as with Design Thinking, is attributed to Herbert Simon.
At the time, Simon was a professor of Computer Science and Psychology in the Graduate School of Industrial Administration at
what was then the Carnegie Institute of Technology. He was asked to give a speech (later published as an article) at the Presidents
Institute at Princeton University. In this speech, “The Job of a College President,” he took higher education to task for its approach
to institutional management and operation: “Comparing colleges with other organizations, one sees that their most striking
peculiarity is not their product, but the extent to which they are operated by amateurs. They are institutions run by amateurs to train
professionals” (Simon, 1967). Among his suggested strategies for making colleges and universities more professional settings for
teaching and learning, Simon believed there might be value in providing college presidents with a learning engineer—an expert
professional in the design of learning environments.
As Simon envisioned this role, the learning engineer would be an institutional specialist with several responsibilities related to
optimizing university productivity. Specifically, they would be responsible for working collaboratively with faculty to design
learning experiences in particular disciplines. They would also be expected to work with administration to improve the design of
the broader campus environment to facilitate student learning and faculty improvements. They would also be expected to introduce
new disciplines such as cognitive psychology, along with learning machines and computer-assisted instruction (remember, this was
1966), to various disciplines on campus.
Simon and his colleagues instilled a tradition of linking research and measurement of results to the improvement of teaching and
learning on his campus. Continuing in his tradition, a center was named for him at Carnegie Mellon to harness his vision for a
cross-disciplinary learning engineering ecosystem.
With recent 2019 announcements from Carnegie Mellon University describing the Simon Institute’s plans to open-source their
huge collections of digital learning software, there has been much excitement that this will be a catalyst for encouraging interest in
continuous formative improvement in direct instruction, learning, and performance support. There is hope that these efforts will
have both direct impacts on learning engineering and indirect complementary impacts on learning design practices going forward.

Current Demand in Learning Design Still Calls for Instructional Designers

The term learning designer is still not being used broadly in the learning technology industry. For the most part, job postings
continue to seek instructional designers. Dr. Jane Bozarth, Director of Research for the Learning Guild, reported that “In what was
no surprise at all, I found the term Instructional Designer encompassed an ever-expanding, soup-to-nuts array of tasks. The title has
become a catch-all for anything related to creating, launching, delivering, or even facilitating instruction in any capacity, and at any
level of complexity” (Bozarth, 2019).
In a 2019 report from the eLearning Guild, Bozarth noted that in 2014 when applying for ID jobs, instructional designers were
expected to be able to do the following:
Conduct needs analyses
Conduct task assessments
Write learning objectives
Know the ADDIE process
Understand supplier management

1.1.5 [Link]
 Use desktop publishing
Create graphic designs
Use authoring tools
Create with PowerPoint
Produce and manage live & recorded webinars
Support the training database
Work with subject matter experts
Create instructor-led training
The eLearning Guild’s 2019 review shows even more skills lumped into the ID job skill category (Bozarth, 2019). In addition to
the list above, postings for jobs focused primarily on instructional design included a desire for expertise in
Video production and editing
Audio production and editing
Web design/HTML5
Game design/badges
Dashboard creation
Digital products
Mobile app design
Social and collaboration tools
Assorted learning platforms
Data analysis
Content curation
Augmented, virtual, and mixed realities
On top of this was the overlap between titles. Designer and developer were often used interchangeably. This is supported by
eLearning Guild membership data. Many of those employed as instructional designers say their work actually entails doing “a little
of everything,” while those with more task-specific job titles (like multimedia developer) say they spend a lot of their time engaged
in instructional design.
Some large technology company HR departments continue to vacillate on whether to classify instructional design positions along
with technical communication positions (a fine job classification if you want to be a technical communicator, less so if your design
and interactive technology skills are about to be relegated elsewhere). Some IDs are expressing interest in learning engineering job
titles, thinking that it may bring a stronger recognition of technical skills back to a job that has been held hostage by job
descriptions that, in their worst iterations, have become catch-all positions for “all tech duties as assigned.”
Apart from the job stress of trying to wear a dozen hats, Bozarth has noted that the role confusion about what it is that IDs should
do or ought to be doing makes it very difficult to pin down essential competencies (Hogle, 2019), educational and other
background requirements, and correlating salary. “Calling yourself a learning experience wizard on Twitter probably isn’t helping,”
Bozarth confides, “but calling yourself an instructional technologist, and being able to explain what that means, might” (2019).

Establishing a Learning Designer Identity

What we should remember from Bozarth’s breakdown of instructional design job skill expectations is that the position descriptions
advertised on job sites such as LinkedIn and Glass Door are generally defined by hiring managers. Hiring managers are always
interested in getting the most out of their hiring dollars. While we must certainly pay attention to what the job postings say a
company is looking for, the learning design profession also has a responsibility to articulate what we expect from our colleagues.
Let us consider learning design with our own professional identity in mind. If we establish our own vision of what we expect from
our fellow practitioners of learning design, this will help set expectations for what we want from one another in our work together.
The following is a suggested list of expectations for collections of knowledge that we would expect qualified learning designers to
obtain.
1. Understanding of Human Learning. We should expect each other to be familiar with the major schools of thought that explain
the phenomenon of human learning. Whether we gain our understanding through the study of learning sciences, or through
studies of human cognition, human behavior, or some combination thereof, we need to have an appreciation for the myriad

1.1.6 [Link]
 explanations for how people learn. Furthermore, we need to appreciate the degree to which learning is likely to manifest in the
wide varieties of conditions, both formal and informal, that can elicit learning responses. We will need to know about the steps,
stages, and processes that constitute the various phases of learning. We need to understand how learning outcomes may change
under different conditions, and how conditions change in different populations, at different ages, under different kinds of
support structures.
2. Understanding of Design. We should have a basic understanding about what design is. Because design is a creative process,
there are many different ways that a design process may manifest. However, there are currently two major schools of thought
related to how design processes are categorized.

Schools of Thought Models

One school of thought, called the Rational Model, tends to follow a sequence of stages or steps as a means of problem solving. The
Rational Model proposes that
1. Designers attempt to optimize a design candidate to account for known constraints and objectives.
2. The design process is plan-driven.
3. The design process is understood in terms of a discrete sequence of stages.
Instructional design process models, such as the Dick and Carey model, the ADDIE model, and the ASSURE model, are all
examples of rational process models. Much of instructional design and instructional systems design work over the years has been
led by the development of rational process models.
The other common school of design thought is called the Action-Centric Model. The Action-Centric Model suggests that
1. Designers use creativity and emotion to generate design candidates.
2. The design process is improvised.
3. No universal sequence of stages is apparent – analysis, design, and implementation are contemporaneous and inextricably
linked.
Both rational models and action-centric models see design as informed by research and knowledge. However, with the action-
centric model of design, research and knowledge are brought into the design process through the judgment and common sense of
designers—by designers "thinking on their feet"—more than through the predictable and controlled process stipulated by the
rational model, which is presented as a more formal approach toward hypothesis testing ("Design," n.d.).
While action-centric models have not generally been part of the instructional design and ISD tradition, they have been more
commonly found in settings where experience design, learner experience design and Design Thinking process models are used.
With their focus on serving the needs of learners first, the newly emergent fields of open pedagogy (e.g., Jhangiani & Biswas-
Diener, 2017) and open education practices (A. Gunder, personal communication, December 30, 2020) are likely to use action-
centric design process models as a central part of their orientation.
This shift away from rational process models, especially at a time when learning engineering is likely to provide “data science
cover” in post-COVID remote learning explorations, is likely to bring about interesting opportunities for dialogue.
With these key foundational pillars in place, learning designers will continue developing skills in analysis and evaluation,
communications and media arts, creative learning design and production, and research and measurement.

Analysis and Evaluation

Much of our work will consist of figuring out how to organize information so that it can be easily understood. Sometimes we may
need to determine if what we are dealing with is an information problem, or a performance problem. Sometimes we might need to
determine if it is a problem for some but not all. Will people be best served with training? Might they be better served with
performance support tools? Where and when will they need it?
Understanding techniques of needs assessment and content and task analysis will be essential. So will reviews of literature,
knowing how to build a survey, and conducting market analysis. Formative and summative evaluation can help us determine
whether or not the designs we provide will achieve the results we hope to achieve.

1.1.7 [Link]
Communications and Media Arts
Effective communication is central to the role and function of learning design. We are often the people working with subject
matters and learners, to help translate complex expertise into more easily understood, step-by-step procedural pathways. Creative
arts, including writing, graphic arts, photography, videography, and web design are among the means of expression we have at our
disposal for translating ideas and actions into words, images, recordings, and code strings.
Learning designers will find that the time spent developing good writing skills will serve them well. Regardless of the specific role,
or the sector in which one is working, writers will always find their skills needed for a wide variety of tasks. These tasks may
include, but not be limited by, writing scripts and screenplays; press releases and public relations documents; opinion/editorial
articles and columns; research reports; executive briefing documents; grants; professional presentations; and professional articles.
The more that one moves away from rational process models and depends on action-centric models that are produced in the
moment, the more likely we are to depend upon project documentation to guide progress.
Media professionals will also discover the same value for time spent developing skills in digital photography and videography
production and post-production skills. From still images to complex, multi-layered 3-D immersive environments, we can use visual
representations to help extend understanding in profound ways.

Creative Learning Design and Production

Learning how to work as members of a team is an important part of being a learning designer. Production teams bring together
groups of individuals who can bring a learning product from concept to product. For example, a relatively small learning product
team producing web products may need a product manager, a graphic artist, a programmer, a writer, a web designer and an
evaluator. These teams come together with a shared design document guiding the production of each stage of development.

Research and Measurement

One of the likely outcomes of the increasing number of enterprise technology systems (including web conferencing, LMS, SIS,
ERP and other similar platforms) is that it is more likely that student/user data is collected within these systems. As a result, the
expectations that these data are going to be used in future learning design scenarios is already on the rise. Learning designers may
find it beneficial to increase competence in statistical and machine learning skills. Test item development and creation of
measurement instruments will be a key skill.

Conclusion
The role of a learning designer has continued to evolve to make room for emergent technologies and frameworks. Always the goal
has been to design the most effective learning using all theories, processes, or technologies at our disposal. In the modern version
of the field, there are simply more of these theories, processes, and increasingly advanced technologies to assist us. Understanding
how various design disciplines can inform our work as learning designers is both intimidating, but also exciting. This is a discipline
where one never ceases to learn new skills and ideas. We can never be stagnant as a field and must increasingly improve our ability
to learn from and collaborate with designers from a wide variety of backgrounds.
This book focuses on using design to create learning by focusing on key principles and various helpful processes, but most
importantly, it focuses on the praxis or application of ideas in practice. Embracing the praxis inherent in action-centric design will
help you develop a design identity that will bring you success in your work—no matter what your official job title or design context
may be.

References
Bozarth, J. (2019). Nuts and bolts: The ID (job description) bucket overfloweth. Learning Solutions.
[Link]
Dam, R. F., & Siang, T.Y. (2020). What is design thinking and why is it so popular? Interaction Design Foundation.
[Link]
Design. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from [Link]
Hogle, P. (2019). What L&D professionals need to know to get hired or promoted. Learning Solutions.
[Link]

1.1.8 [Link]
Jhangiani, R. S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2017). Open: The philosophy and practices that are revolutionizing education and science.
London: Ubiquity Press. [Link]
Kilgore, W. (2016). UX to LX the rise of learner experience design. EdSurge. [Link]
design
Rosala, M., & Krause, R. (2019). User experience careers: What a career in UX looks like today. Nielsen Norman Group.
[Link]
Simon, H. (1967). The job of a college president. Educational Record, 48, 68–78.
[Link]
Young, J. R. (2019). Hoping to spur ‘learning engineering,’ Carnegie Mellon will open-source its digital-learning software.
EdSurge. [Link]

[1] For example, after Adobe System had acquired Macromedia (the company that had previously owned products including
Dreamweaver and Flash) in 2005, members of the former Macromedia Global Education team now at Adobe Worldwide Education
continued to promote the “web user experience” in learning, and they referred to the work of creating interactive eLearning tools
with their then market-leading products as “learner experience design.” Wagner and her colleagues were offering presentations at
the eLearning Guild Community Gathering conferences in 2005 and 2006, describing learning experience design features related to
interaction and engagement.

This page titled 1.1: Becoming A Learning Designer is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1.1.9 [Link]
1.2: Designing for Diverse Learners
Designing for Diverse Learners
Susie L. Gronseth, Esther Michela, & Lydia Oluchi Ugwu
Designing educational programs and curricula involves developing understandings of the learner and instructional environment
characteristics that could impact learning success. While there may be some commonalities among learners, it is important for
designers to recognize that there will likely be a great diversity of learning preferences, abilities, and experiences that learners will
bring to a course or other learning experience. Rose (2015) remarked that the notion of an “average” learner is a misnomer, and
learner diversity (rather than uniformity) is actually the norm. When learner variability is not addressed in a design, it is inevitable
that many learners will experience obstacles to their learning, limiting the effectiveness of the learning experience for them and
inducing additional costs in time and resources to make adjustments and accommodations (Brinck, 2005). Planning for learner
variability from the outset is therefore a valuable step in the design process that can lead to more robust, accessible, and impactful
designs. Being able to plan for diverse learners begins with developing empathetic understandings of the characteristics in which
learners will vary. This chapter first describes ways that instructional designers can become familiar with the diverse needs of target
learners and then offers recommendations for next steps in implementing inclusive design practices as part of curricular planning.

Recognizing Learner Needs

Learners vary along many different dimensions, with a learner’s profile as “individual as DNA or fingerprints” (Rose & Strangman,
2007, p. 388). In general, people have different preferences and habits for how they approach learning that are worth noting in the
design. Some learners may have specific disabilities that can impact how they absorb, process, and express information.
Disabilities can affect sensory areas such as vision, hearing, speech, and motor control. They can also be characterized by
neurodiversity in that there are distinct differences in an individual’s neural networks involved with cognitive processes that impact
how learners attend to, organize, and remember information. Learners may have varied needs in their social-emotional tendencies,
which can drive how they work in groups, initiate and sustain engagement through the learning process, and create meaningful
connections with content. It is also important for designers to recognize learner diversity in linguistic proficiency and cultural
backgrounds that can play into how learners bridge their prior knowledge with new learning and the kinds of scaffolds and tools
that could enable learning success.
Further, the use of technology as part of instruction and learning can pose challenges to ensuring equal access among learners.
Digital educational materials and tools can introduce accessibility and usability issues. For example, some learners may use screen
readers or closed captioning to review content; some learners may use voice-command, keyboard navigation, or gestural
movements to interact with digital applications. When instructional designs do not support these varied means of access and
interactivity, learners will experience barriers to being able to fully engage and benefit from the instruction.
Educational programs that require the use of specific technology equipment for access of computer-based instruction can be met
with barriers to obtaining the equipment in parts of the world that have limited financial resources or under-developed
infrastructures. For instance, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU, 2018) reports that just under half of households
worldwide have a computer in the home. Similarly, web-based instruction is often dependent on learners having sufficient
bandwidth through which to access the materials and activities, and this is not yet available in some areas. In the Americas, for
example, about 70% of broadband subscriptions in 2017 reported access 10 Mbit/s or faster (ITU, 2018), which is generally
sufficient speed for streaming video and making fast downloads. However, in least developed countries (LDCs, as designated by
the United Nations according to their low socioeconomic development and Human Development Index ratings), access to high-
speed Internet is not as prevalent. In 2017, 30% of broadband connections were at very slow speeds of less than 2 Mbit/s, which
would make content streaming and course material downloads quite difficult. Designers can simulate slow internet in a variety of
ways to understand how this impacts their learners.
Therefore, it is important in instructional design practice to recognize such elements and characteristics of the target learners and
learning environments that relate to how learners will access, participate in, and show what they have learned through the
instruction. Planning strategically to enable learners to navigate learning pathways that best meet their needs may involve greater
investment of designer attention, time, and resources at the front-end. However, accessibility is necessary, and workaround

1.2.1 [Link]
solutions and accommodations are often costly and can have social implications that make them less than equal access for all
learners.
Intentional effort in developing empathetic understandings of target learners during initial design phases can support more
sustainable implementation of the educational program. This approach is characterized as universal design (UD), or designing for
all people. UD “defines ways of thinking about and designing environments and products that work for the greatest number of
people possible” (Null, 2014, p. 12). Robert Mace coined the UD term, noting that UD is “a process, rather than an achievement”
(Story et al., 1998, p. 2). Applied to education, UD involves designing instruction that will be usable to the greatest extent possible
by the target learners. The design should facilitate equitable use, offering equivalent means of access and engagement for learners
with diverse abilities, and flexible use, providing options that accommodate varied learning preferences and abilities (Story et al.,
1998). Thus, designing for diverse learners yields great benefits. Harris (2018) provides an example from nursing education,
“Implementing UD concepts in nursing classrooms which support equity and inclusion of students with diverse learning needs is a
practical and sustainable alternative to granting reasonable adjustments to students on a case-by-case basis” (p. 180).

Developing Empathy in Design

Designers of all types, and especially novice designers, can be somewhat self-centered. This is not to say that they are selfish, but
they can be self-referential, reflecting their own needs, experiences, and preferences in their designs rather than those of the
learners. For example, Molenbroaek and de Bruin (2006) related the story of a hearing aid designer who fit the shape of his
designed hearing aid to the comfort of his own ears instead of those of older people who would actually wear them. This created
great frustration for those who purchased the hearing aids when they found that they could not find a comfortable fit in their ears.
(For more examples, search for “bad design style” or read The Design of Everyday Things by Don Norman.)
So, too, in designing for education, attempts at universally designed instruction can fail to meet the actual needs of the learners.
While self-referential design can certainly be used as a starting point, designers should not stop there but continue to develop
empathic understanding for the target learners who will be using their designed materials. Empathic understanding is not binary,
that is, it is not simply present or absent; rather, it is a skill that can be developed and deepened over time through experience and
effort. As Brinck (2005) related in the book Cost-Justifying Usability, the investment of time and attention will be well worth it.
There are many ways that instructional designers can build empathic understanding for target learners. Fila and Hess (2015)
described five techniques often used by instructional designers. First, designers can directly observe learners, both within the target
learning context and in related places beyond. By watching how learners interact with environments, tools, and problems, designers
can see barriers and points of confusion, as well as learner-initiated workarounds and strategies. Another technique is for designers
to directly interact with sample target learners. Face-to-face, phone, and email conversations can lead designers to ask pointed
questions that can help them learn more about the learner’s experiences. Having a conversation with someone close to a target
learner can also yield insights, such as discussing learning needs with parents of young target learners.
Designers may also project themselves into the viewpoint of a target learner in order to envision what his/her experience within the
planned instruction might be like. To do so, designers can imagine how learners with various characteristics and abilities would
experience the exercise, activity, or lesson and where they may encounter barriers, misalignments, or other frustrations. Finally,
designers can simulate participation by piloting drafted designs and materials to gain understanding for how learners may
experience interacting in the learning context.

Tools for Understanding Target Learners' Experiences

Dyslexia
Vision Disabilities
Hearing Loss
Slow Internet
For example, Dr. Temple Grandin uses a simulation technique when designing livestock facilities to build understandings for how
to improve the designs for the users (Raver, 1997). Her ability to empathize with the reactions of livestock have made her an
international expert on designing humane animal processing plants.

1.2.2 [Link]
Explanatory Videos With Dr. Temple Grandin

Animal Behavior

Temple Grandin on Visual Thinking a

New elds

Watch on

Applying Empathy in Design

Empathic understandings of target learners can then be applied to design parameters, such as how content will be communicated to
learners through the designed instructional experience, how learners will practice concepts and skills during a lesson, or how
learning will be assessed formatively and summatively. As designers generate ideas for these parameters, they can integrate their
empathic understandings of the target learners with expectations and requirements from stakeholders and the realistic constraints of
available resources and the target learning environment. See Table 1 for a sample of learner characteristics, potential instructional
barriers, and supports that can be built into a learning experience.
Table 1
Non-Exhaustive List of Potential Considerations, Barriers, and Supports

1.2.3 [Link]
Considerations Potential Instructional Barriers Supports

Video
Captions (complete and synchronized)
Podcasts
Hearing difficulties Interpreters
Screencasts
Audio transcripts
Lecture

Audio descriptions of visible motion on

a video
Presentation materials and
Zoom functionality
demonstrations
Vision difficulties (such as low vision and Screen reader accessibility
Printed texts
color blindness) Braille alternatives
Color use in presentations
Image alt-text
Tasks requiring color differentiation
Designations other than color for
conveying key information

Using a mouse Keyboard accessibility

Physical requirements Furniture rearrangement for increased
Physical mobility difficulties
Inaccessible spaces mobility
Stairs and platforms Varied seating options

Remove time limits

Chunk information
Assessment time limits Support strategy development (small
Extensive, complex tasks goals, organize tasks, more deadlines
Information processing difficulties
Language comprehension for smaller sections)
Technical jargon Flexible schedules
Use simple language and/or provide
vocabulary support

Spoken language Translation tools

Written language Vocabulary instruction
Language differences Collaborative activities Captioning
Writing tasks Transcripts
Idiomatic language Starter text for writing

Provide alternatives to video

Slow loading of large files (video,
Reduce image file size
audio, images)
Have options for asynchronous
Low Internet bandwidth Poor connections for real-time
participation
interactions
Mobile-friendly interface
Multimedia streaming limitations
Chunk content in smaller sections
Collaboration with knowledgeable
stakeholders
Gender roles or relationships between
Guided group collaboration structure
genders
and specified roles
Power differences between students and
Cultural differences Communicated expectations
instructors
Examples of expected contributions and
Concepts of authority and respect
activities
Behavior expectations
Connections between learner culture
and new content

Digital literacy Tasks requiring technical skills Specific instruction or tool tutorials
Navigation of online environments Emotional support and encouragement
Learning curve for digital tools Time and scheduling guidance

1.2.4 [Link]
 Frustration or discouragement Just-in-time help desk support

Learner voice can be a valuable contributor to applying empathy in design. Checking in with learners and giving them a chance to
respond to the design throughout the development process will likely result in meeting pertinent needs and avoiding
miscommunications and misinterpretations. This can be done through formal and informal presentations of a drafted design to
learners for feedback and further suggestions. Thus, instructional design is an iterative process of continual refinement through
such feedback loops and checks for congruency and alignment across components of a module or educational program.
To illustrate how empathy can be applied in the instructional design process, two cases will be described. First, a case mentioned in
Meeks, Jain, and Herzer (2016) related how medical students with color blindness experienced difficulty in histology courses when
they were asked to identify microscopic structures, as the slides used to depict these structures were often stained using red or green
colors that tended to obscure some key distinguishing features. The instructors addressed this barrier by converting the slides into
grayscale, which enabled all students to view the structures. Thus, a recommended practice in designing instructional materials is to
use shapes, labels, or other means to differentiate elements in illustrations, graphs, and other visuals, rather than color only. Doing
so will facilitate a more universally designed experience for target learners.

1.2.5 [Link]
 Figure [Link]: Using Stain to Help Students with Color Blindness Identify Microscopic Structures
CC-BY-SA Wikimedia commons
A second illustrative case is from the Industrial Design program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Students in this
program are coached to build empathy for users of their designed products and then use these empathetic understandings to refine
their designs. One strategy that they use is to explore what it feels like to intentionally impair each of their senses and attempt to
use their designs in representative home, school, and public spaces. This pushes them to develop insights regarding users who may
have specific sensory impairments and how they may experience use of the design in varied environments. The design students also
team up with non-design students who have both visible and invisible disabilities to review and pilot their drafted designs. Doing
so allows them to build empathy through the interactions and dialogues with their team members, then they incorporate their user
experience insights into future revisions (McDonogh, 2015).

1.2.6 [Link]
Design Approaches to Address Learner Variability

Differentiated Instruction (DI)

Since learner variability is the norm rather than the exception, it is important that designers incorporate instructional approaches
that will meet the needs of individual students and optimize their capacity to learn. One such approach is differentiated instruction
(DI). Stradling and Saunders (1993) defined differentiation as “the process of matching learning targets, tasks, activities, resources
and learning support to individual learners’ needs, styles and rates of learning” (p. 129). This means incorporating flexibility in the
modes of learning, types of provided resources, and assessments in order to respond to specific learner differences. Instructional
designs can be differentiated in content, process, and product (Tomlinson, 2017). Each of these dimensions will be discussed in
further detail.
Differentiation of content involves varying the concepts and skills students will learn. While engaging in instructional planning,
designers may work alongside subject matter experts or instructors to identify learning goals and outcomes for a course. Within the
goals and outcomes, there can be variance in the levels of knowledge, skills, and dispositions that learners could be expected to
gain from the course. For example, the content can be differentiated into concrete and abstract concepts, and students could be
provided with a range of options (additional links, supplementary material, multimedia) to access learning materials and to work at
their own pace. A pre-assessment could be used to gauge prior content mastery among learners and identify areas of additional
needed support. Pre-assessments may also be used to determine learner readiness levels, interests, and learning preferences
(Tomlinson & Allan, 2000). Gaining insights into learner interests and learning preferences (including preferences regarding
individual/group work, personality traits, and internal/external motivators) will enable appropriate matching of course design to
these learner characteristics. A pre-assessment can be in written form (such as a survey or test), or it can take the form of one-to-
one interviews, focus groups, or demonstrations.
Differentiation of process refers to the varied ways that students make sense of learning materials and take ownership of their own
learning. For a designer, it means factoring in activities that are engaging and intellectually challenging and that lead students to
practice and apply targeted concepts and skills. Some examples are problem solving, mind mapping, and reflective journaling.
What learners create through such activities, that is, the products of their learning, can also be varied. Products should demonstrate
knowledge and skills that learners have gained from a course, but they can be in various forms, such as written, physical
demonstration, spoken performance, or a video compilation. Designers can develop performance expectations to guide learners to
incorporate critical thinking and connections to real-world applications through their products.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) calls for a flexible approach to learning that supports all students. Similar to the tenets of
Universal Design mentioned earlier, UDL aims to minimize barriers for learners as part of the design of curricula and learning
environments so that they are accessible to as many people as possible. UDL involves building in flexibility into the curricula from
the outset instead of retrofitting and adapting inaccessible curricula after the fact (Meyer et al., 2014).
It is worth noting that UDL differs from DI because it provides learners with multiple options to pursue self-directed learning
whereas DI is often more instructor-directed.

1.2.7 [Link]
Differences Between UDL and DI With Katie Novak

What is UDL
Katie Novak

Watch on

The UDL framework contains three key principles:

Provide multiple means of engagement that stimulate interest and persistence in learning, thereby producing learners that are
purposeful and motivated;
Provide multiple means of representation so that content is delivered in varied formats, enabling learners to become resourceful
and knowledgeable; and
Provide multiple means of action and expression in which learners can show their developing knowledge in varied ways,
supporting them to become strategic and goal-directed (CAST, 2018).
Each principle has guidelines and checkpoints that detail implementation strategies.
To access the UDL framework, visit [Link]
Hall, Strangman and Meyer (2003) offer four steps for implementing UDL in the planning and delivery of curriculum: set goals,
analyze status, apply UDL, and teach the UDL lesson. When setting goals, it is important to establish the context for the
instruction. Designers may need to consider, for example, if target goals would need to align with state or organizational standards.
Designers can also consider if the methods that students use to accomplish the learning goals can be separated from the goals
themselves. For instance, a goal that requires students to “write a paragraph about how the circulatory system works” may be
reframed to prompt learners to “describe a complete cycle in the circulatory system,” which would facilitate flexibility in the means
that learners could achieve that goal.
Analyzing the status of instructional materials involves evaluating the methods, materials, and assessments that will be used,
considering their accessibility and flexibility in the ways that students engage and demonstrate their learning and identifying
potential barriers. UDL can then be applied to elements of the instruction wherein potential barriers and opportunities for flexibility
have been identified. Ultimately, the intentional flexibility in the UDL approach to design is aimed to position learners to be more
self-directed and self-regulated, as learners are provided options for their learning pathways that align with their individual needs.
So, how might that look in practice? To provide multiple means of engagement, students are provided with tools that enable them
to take ownership of their learning. Challenge levels should match their readiness, and there should be built-in opportunities for
mastery-oriented feedback. This could begin with a well-designed syllabus that clearly states learning goals and objectives, course
expectations and structure, information on how to navigate the learning environment, methods of assessment, and options for
participation. Learning environments should support varied navigation and control methods that are accessible to all learners.
Designers may also consider incorporating checkpoints that can help learners chart their progress in a course and provide
opportunities for feedback and self-reflection after completing a unit of study.
Providing multiple means of representation offers learners options to customize the display of information, make sense of language
and symbols, and enhance their levels of comprehension. Course materials can be presented in a variety of formats to provide
varied means for students to connect with the content. Materials may be customizable, enabling learners to adjust text size, color,
contrast, etc. and access content in varied forms, such as video, interactive simulations, audio, and text-to-speech.

1.2.8 [Link]
In providing multiple means of action and expression, designers can incorporate planned flexibility in learner response options,
navigation, access to tools and assistive technologies, forms of communications, and demonstration of learning. One strategy to
achieve this is to maintain uniformity in the design of the content, both across functionalities and through consistency of visual
appearance. Another strategy is to offer multiple options for learners to demonstrate their mastery of the content, such as through
text, mind maps, audio, and video.

Culturally Relevant Education

Culturally relevant education is built on the premise that culture is an essential component of students’ learning, as instructional
practices, curriculum, and modes of assessment that are couched in “mainstream ideology, language, norms, and examples often
place culturally diverse students at a distinct educational disadvantage” (Howard, 2012, p. 550). Culturally relevant education is
characterized by several frameworks, including culturally responsive pedagogy, culturally relevant teaching, and culturally
congruent teaching. It is empowering to students intellectually, socially, politically and emotionally by using culturally relevant
frameworks to convey knowledge, abilities, and attitudes (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Consequently, a culturally relevant education
recognizes the culture, attributes, and knowledge that ethnically diverse students bring to their learning experiences and uses those
resources to maximize their learning (Howard, 2012).

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy With Irvine, Gay, & Gutierrez

Introduction to Culturally Relevant Pe

Learning for Justice

Watch on

The question then becomes, how can instructional methods and materials be designed for cultural relevancy to learners, especially
those on the fringes of dominant culture? An initial step for designers is to develop cultural sensitivity through becoming familiar
with target learner interests, core values, traditions, modes of communication, and backgrounds. Knowledge about the learners can
then be strategically integrated into plans for instructional methods and materials (Gay, 2002). To help learners see the relevance of
instructional materials to themselves, instructional resources can be situated within the cultural and ethnic contexts of the target
learners. Designers can incorporate materials and activities that reflect multiple voices and perspectives rooted in the personal
experiences and cultures of the learners. Learner autonomy can be enhanced through the provision of varied options for expression.
For example, learners can be provided an array of materials and activities to choose those that are relevant to their backgrounds of
experience. Designers can also plan for ways that learners can share personal experiences as they are related to course topics,
creating meaning-making opportunities.

Conclusion
Universally designing instruction involves recognition and intentional planning for components and features that often do create
accessibility challenges for learners so that all learners can access and engage in learning experiences equitably. As learners vary in
their characteristics, preferences, and experiences, so do the approaches through which designers can develop empathetic
understandings and incorporate flexibility to meet diverse learner needs. This chapter offers an initial look into these strategies, and

1.2.9 [Link]
designers are encouraged to revisit these strategies in the instructional design process so that they can anticipate variability in their
target learners and address this variability strategically.

Activity/Exercise Ideas
1. Explore built-in accessibility features. There are built-in accessibility features in many of today’s tools that support varied
vision, hearing, mobility, and learning needs. Explore the built-in accessibility features of one of the following:
1. Mac OS: [Link]
2. Windows: [Link]
3. iOS: [Link]
4. Android: [Link]
5. Chrome OS: [Link]
6. Other Google tools: [Link]
2. Share in a discussion board post, blog, video post, Tweet, etc. about what you learned in your exploration of the built-in
accessibility features. Did you find any that you would like to use in the future?
3. Experience accessibility of digital resources. Choose a website, app, or program, and access it in a different way than you
usually do. For example, you can use some of the built-in accessibility tools from Activity #1, such as trying to do research
through an online library website using a screen reader and voice-input (such as VoiceOver and Dictation on MacOS). You
could also try navigating around a course site using keyboard-only (no mouse, touchscreen, or touchpad). Or, you could try
using a web application on a mobile device that you usually access via laptop/desktop computer. Spend about a half hour
accessing the digital resource in one or more different ways and then reflect on your experience. How accessible was the
resource for the means that you accessed it? What did this experience prompt you to think about in regards to your own design
of digital educational resources? Create and share a summary of your experience and related thoughts as an audio clip,
discussion board posting, graphic (could include screenshots or sound clips), etc.
4. Observe universal design. Spend 30-60 minutes observing people using universally designed features in different contexts, such
as the automatic door openers, ramps, buses, playgrounds, water fountains, food service centers, libraries, etc. What do you
notice about who is using them and how? Collect pictures of examples and non-examples of universally designed features
around campus. How might these impact people with different needs?
5. Using technology to implement UDL. Choose a guideline (see [Link] associated with one of the UDL
principles and find a technology tool that supports the implementation of the guideline. For example, you may find a tool that
supports the guideline "recruiting interest" under the principle of engagement. How would the tool optimize individual choice
and autonomy, optimize relevance, value and authenticity, and minimize threats and distractions?
6. Create accessible materials. Use the Accessibility Evaluation and Implementation Toolkit (AIET) to evaluate and improve
accessibility in one of your own Word documents, PowerPoint presentations, Excel spreadsheets, a WordPress website, or a
Canvas module. Use the links in the checklist to identify accessibility barriers and then resolve all errors.

Resources
Accessibility Resource List from Designers for Learning based on “POUR” - Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust
recommendations related to website accessibility.
Culturally Responsive Teaching & the Brain by Zaretta Hammond offers tools and recommendations for applying CRT into
instruction.
Dive Into UDL by Kendra Grant and Luis Pérez provides a UDL self-assessment and a variety of resources to explore UDL
more deeply.
Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD) is an annual event in May that focuses on the design, development, and usability
of technology for users around the world.
Inclusive Learning Network of ISTE (International Society for Technology in Education) provides professional learning
opportunities and resources on inclusive design and technology.
National Center on Accessibility Education Materials (AEM) provides resources and technical assistance on producing learning
materials that meet accessibility standards.
Techniques for Empathy Interviews in Design Thinking is a resource with ideas for how to set up and conduct exploratory
interviews with potential learners.

1.2.10 [Link]
 The UDL Toolkit is a collection of UDL resources for teachers, coaches, and instructional leaders.
UDL-IRN (The Universal Design for Learning Implementation and Research Network) provides resources and professional
learning opportunities to connect with other educators and designers regarding implementation of UDL.
UDL Progression Rubric by Katie Novak and Kristan Rodriguez provides specific examples of UDL practices across the three
principles of providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression.

References
Brinck, T. (2005). Return on goodwill: Return on investment for accessibility. In R.G. Bias & D.J. Mayhew (Eds.) Cost-justifying
usability: An update for an internet age (2nd ed.) (pp. 385-414). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. Retrieved from [Link]
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116. doi:
10.1177/0022487102053002003
Hall, T., Vue, G., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2003). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation.
Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from [Link]/-HPQ
Harris, C. (2018). Reasonable adjustments for everyone: Exploring a paradigm change for nurse educators. Nurse Education in
Practice, 33, 178-180.
Fila, N. D., & Hess, J. L. (2014). Exploring the role of empathy in a service-learning design project. Design Thinking Research
Symposium 10. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States. doi: 10.5703/1288284315952
Howard, T. C. (2012). Culturally responsive pedagogy. In J.A. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education (pp. 549-552).
SAGE Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781452218533.n174
International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2018). Measuring the information society report (Vol. 1). ITUPublications.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
McDonogh, D. (2015). Design students foreseeing the unforeseeable: Practice-based empathic research methods. International
Journal of Education through Art, 11(3), 421-431. doi: 10.1386/eta.11.3.421_1
Meeks, L., Jain, R., Herzer, K. (2016). Universal design: Supporting students with color vision deficiency (CVD) in medical
education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(3), 303-309.
Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.
Molenbroek, J., & de Bruin, R. (2006). Anthropometry of a friendly restroom. Assistive Technology, 18(2), 196-204.
doi:10.1080/10400435.2006.10131918
Null, R. L. (2014). Universal design: Principles and models. CRC Press.
Raver, A. (1997, August 5). Qualities of an animal scientist: Cow's eye view and autism. The New York Times, pp. 1C.
Rose, L. T. (2015). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness. HarperCollins Publishers.
Rose, D. H., & Strangman, N. (2007). Universal design for learning: Meeting the challenge of individual learning differences
through a neurocognitive perspective. Universal Access in the Information Society, 5(4), 381-391.
Stradling, B., & Saunders, L. (1993). Differentiation in practice: responding to the needs of all pupils, Educational Research, 35(2),
127-137, doi: 10.1080/0013188930350202
Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities (Revised
ed.). NC State University, The Center for Universal Design.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Allan, S. D. (2000). Leadership for differentiating schools & classrooms. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. (2017). How to differentiate instruction in academically diverse classrooms (3rd ed.). ASCD.

1.2.11 [Link]
This page titled 1.2: Designing for Diverse Learners is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1.2.12 [Link]
1.3: Conducting Research For Design
Conducting Research for Design
Daniel R. Winder
Every field of expertise has elements that need to be investigated, and regardless of the discipline, how you discover evidence for
learning is very similar. In this chapter I will present common issues I have encountered in the field of instructional design when
planning a research study. This is followed by discussion of when and how to use certain research methodologies. Finally, I will
discuss how to conduct research and report results.

When and How to Use Research Methodologies

Novice researchers will often limit themselves as only being a qualitative or quantitative researcher. In practice, the nature of the
question will dictate the most appropriate research method that should be used. In addition, using mixed methods often yields
stronger results. For example, survey teachers about what to cut or reduce in a curriculum, then follow up with focus groups to
yield stories and experiences that explain the survey numbers.

When to Use Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Qualitative methods generally seek to answer questions that center around experiences that involve understanding values, beliefs,
perceptions, emotions, culture, growth, paradigm shifts, processes, taboos, morality, reasoning, and acquiring learning. In short, the
more a question centers around “the human experience,” the more it lends itself to qualitative means which gather rich experiences,
stories, and examples. An example of qualitative research could be using grounded theory to develop a new theory of language
acquisition by analyzing data from journals, portfolios, and focus group interviews of persons learning a new language.
Quantitative methods generally seek to answer questions that center around how much of something has been acquired such as
knowledge, behaviors, or attitudes. Experiments, correlations, causes, and descriptions are often the reasons why how much of
something is being measured. An example of experimental research is when a pilot program is compared with an existing
instructional program to measure the effect of different instructional treatments on how much students learn. An example of
correlational research would be the effect of parental involvement on GPA. The hypothesis of such a study may be that higher
parental involvement will correlate with higher GPA. An example of a causal research study is the effect of dogmatic political
preferences on macro-moral reasoning abilities. Perhaps the assumption is that dogmatic political party views may inhibit one’s
ability to morally think through all aspects of social issues. An example of descriptive research is when a researcher describes how
many hours of homework 7th grade math teachers give per week.

General Steps to Qualitative Research

Identify Your Bias

The first step in qualitative research is to identify your biases via reflective means. Reflexivity activities help a person go through a
meta-cognitive process of identifying their preconceived notions, judgements, and values that may influence the research project.
This can be as simple as journaling your thoughts about a research topic. This video clip explains some qualitative research
methods with a few examples. There is a great description of reflexivity about eight minutes into the clip.

1.3.1 [Link]
 Qualitative Research Design: Phenom
Holiday575

Watch on

Plan the Research

The second step begins by writing a problem statement and research question. Once these and variables of interest are identified, an
important part of the research plan is to design interview or observation guides. This may involve designing interview or
observation guides. Guides take various forms such as a checklist, a standardized open-ended interview guide, or an informal
guide. A few tips in designing the guide are to a) have colleagues review questions or guide, b) pilot test your questions or guide, c)
check for leading questions or leading interviewers or observation bias, and d) be open to scrutiny.
During this phase, plan reliability and validity measures are
1. Credibility (internal validity). Credibility of the research can be established via triangulation, prolonged contact, member
checks of data or analysis, saturation, reflexivity, and peer review.
2. Transferability (external validity). The generalizability of the research can be enhanced by using thick descriptions and variation
in participant selection.
3. Dependability (reliability) is established by extensive audit trails and using triangulation. Subjectivity audits are used during the
data collection process to evaluate how a researcher’s presence, questions, or biases may be impacting the research.
4. Confirmability is established with reflexivity and intra- or inter-coder reliability.

Gain Entry
The third step is to gain entry with the group or individuals the researcher is studying. This involves gaining trust, understanding
the culture and environment, and helping the participants feel at ease. The amount of time and effort here depends on many factors
such as the sensitivity of the topic and whether the researcher is taking a cultural native approach or acting in an apparent authority
role. To further explore this concept of gaining entry, read this article.

Collect Data
The fourth step is to collect data. This can be done via observation, interviews, focus groups, open-ended surveys, and journals.
During this phase, be prepared to adjust your thinking and be aware of your bias. Gather existing data and artifacts also. Because
this is the step where the most mistakes are made, below are some additional practical tips and tools for qualitative data collection.

Observation
The most common ways to observe are live, virtual, recorded video or audio files, or a combination of the three. A rubric or
observation guide can be designed to focus observation on certain concepts or phenomena. The benefit to live observations is the
ability to view holistically all the nuances, expressions, non-verbal cues, and visual or auditory expressions that are not captured by
other methods.
The benefit of recording video or audio files of observations is the ability to review them multiple times during transcription and
analysis. One great tool for video observation is GOReact, where a pre-specified codebook can tag live or pre-recorded video files
when coded phenomena occur.

1.3.2 [Link]
Focus Groups
A focus group is one of the most common methods of qualitative research. Focus groups are group interviews with less than 10
persons. These persons are usually intentionally selected (e.g. students who meet certain demographic characteristics). Focus
groups work well when participants feel non-threatened and permissive. They are effective because the interplay between
participants can stimulate other’s thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, etc.
Because of the ease of gathering these small groups, some researchers mistakenly use focus groups when other methods would be
more appropriate. For example, novice researchers may gather a focus group and proceed to ask the group survey-like questions
rather than gather rich descriptive experiences, stories, and thoughts. Another common mistake is that researchers default to focus
groups for topics best answered by individual interviews; for example, asking an online cohort about their group cohesion in a
focus group setting presents a situation where participants may give socially desirable responses (individual, confidential
interviews may yield more truthful responses).

Common Mistakes in Focus Groups: Communication Errors

The most common mistake for focus groups (and individual interviews) are communication errors from the interviewer which
hinders responses such as:
Restating too often. In teaching situations and normal friendly discussion, restating is a great communication skill. However, in
interviewing, it’s not always a great method, especially with a novice researcher who can’t tell when they are putting words in
participants' mouths. For example, if you are interviewing a group to find out opinions on a particular LMS platform and they
say, “It feels so isolating,” a great follow-up to get more out that concept is to ask, “Can you tell me more about that?” or “Can
you think of a story or experience that illustrates that isolated feeling?” In a focus group, it is best to seek clarification from the
participants with additional questions, stories, experiences, or elaboration rather than assume you know what they mean.
Leading the witness. Some interviewers inadvertently revert to their bias and ask leading questions.
Overly emotional responses from the interviewer. Remember, you are an interviewer with a beating heart, but not a counselor or
therapist. You don’t have to validate or comment on everything or nervously giggle at comments when humor is not intended.
Not qualified to discuss. Interviewing about content for which you are not qualified (e.g. impacts of mental illness, causes of
anxiety, marriage counseling issues, or any other topics that most often involve a trained professional).

Common Mistakes in Focus Groups: Failure to Control for Groupthink

Groupthink is when one person in the group shares an opinion or thought and the group finds it hard to break away into any other
vein or divergent thinking. Sometimes, there is an actual group consensus. Other times, it’s groupthink. Discerning between the two
takes experience. Some common indicators of groupthink are that a few people are not talking or give trite agreements (“what she
said”). Discern if the persons not talking or tritely agreeing are just less articulate, or don’t want to share their contrasting views.
You may have to curb bold or strongly opinionated persons who may seek to bully or monopolize the group. For example, “Let’s
hear from someone who hasn’t shared yet” or “Hold your thought for a minute while we hear from…”.
To control for groupthink, first introduce the session with some ground rules for an open discussion (and repeat many of these
introductory rules throughout):
There are no right or wrong answers.
In this group, it’s okay to disagree and still be friends. If everyone is saying their experience was great, but for you it was
horrible, you need to speak up so all perspectives can be heard.
It’s safe to be positive or negative, better or worse. Explain to participants that saying something positive does not make them a
better teacher or student. Similarly, saying something negative does not make them a worse teacher or student.
It’s okay to remove the filter between the brain and tongue, just for 45-60 minutes in this focus group. “Don’t worry if you are
saying it right or wrong, just say what you experienced.”
Distance yourself as the researcher from the product. For example, “I didn’t create this company or this training so however you
feel about it won’t affect me.”
To control for groupthink during a focus group, use the following suggestions:
1. Have participants write out thoughts or stories before the interview begins. Refer back to these in the interview if groupthink
emerges. Did anyone write something different?

1.3.3 [Link]
 2. Invite contrast throughout the interview by asking, “Did anyone have a different experience that I need to hear?” or “Have you
or someone you know had a different experience?”
3. If the groupthink is very strong, use hypotheticals, such as “What type of person would have had a different experience?” or
“Could someone have a different experience? Why or why not?” Follow up by asking, “Did any of you experience that at all?”
4. Employ indirect questioning. Indirect questioning seeks to control for socially desirable response sets. For example, if you were
asking about a program designed to remove racial biases, there may be a strong socially desirable response set. To remove the
social context, you could ask, “If you were to describe how well this program runs using an analogy of a car, what kind of car
would it be? Why?” or “If this program were a TV show, what genre would it be? Why?” With indirect questioning, the goal is
to remove persons from a contextual response set by asking about the program indirectly. This can control the parroting
response set by making respondents think and respond in a new context about similar issues, impressions, or values, without
having time to prepare a socially desirable response. The result is insights with some contextual limitations.
5. In conclusion, ask, “What do you want to make sure I heard from you?” (I often have participants to write this down). Or ask,
“is there anything I should have asked but didn’t?”

Ethnography
Ethnography is a method of study that educational researchers adopted from anthropology. For example, a researcher may be a
participant or observer in an online class and may conduct several interviews and focus groups. They may write about the setting,
social implications, typical and best behavior, and seek a perspective from several groups (parents, teachers, students,
administrators, etc.). The researcher could also report about the tensions between groups, or even explore power struggles within
groups.

Analyze the Data

The fifth step is to analyze the data. After qualitative data is collected and cleaned (such as removing identifying names or using
codes for participants instead of names), it is important to go back to your original questions and study plan. Although you can
adapt and explore interesting concepts that emerge, it is also important to keep your focus on your original questions. Thoroughly
explore the data and be open to new concepts, but do not be sidetracked by all of them. Word maps may help initially to see what
phrases or concepts are prevalent.
In qualitative analysis, all artifacts are loaded into a software such as Delve ([Link] Quirkos
([Link] Dedoose ([Link] or MAXQDA ([Link] . The researcher
then creates a codebook. A codebook is a list of concepts, behaviors, actions, thoughts, etc. that summarize themes in a group of
qualitative data (such as responses to open-ended questions). My initial code book will also contain the original research questions.
If you are working with a group of researchers you should make sure you all agree on the codebook and use it consistently when
analyzing your data (often called “interrater reliability”—see this training for more information).

Common Mistakes in Analyzing Qualitative Data

Failure to focus the codebook on the research questions.
Failure to identify proximal relationships (e.g. math division, anxiety, and home support are all close together). For example, if
less anxiety and parental involvement are often near each other in participant comments there may be a connection there.
Myopic analysis—overly focusing on a powerful story that is not a generalizable trend.
Failure to make your findings defensible by employing validity and reliability measures discussed in the second step
(credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability).

Report Findings
The final step is to report the findings. A good report involves the research question or problem statement; background, theory, and
lit review; the study design; presentation of the data with rich descriptions; and an explanation of the data or findings. You can
present findings in chronological order, or by theme, frequency, or rich narratives such as in a case study. To learn more, see this
lecture: [Link]

Common Mistake in Reporting Qualitative Data: Extrapolation Error

A common mistake is a tendency to want to extrapolate an ancillary finding into a generalizable trend. For example, a researcher
may say, “I was talking to a student at lunch today and they mentioned… This is something I’ve heard many times.” When a

1.3.4 [Link]
researcher makes a generalizable error, they are often including a finding that was never asked for, planned to explore, or agreed
upon. The anecdotes are often not related to the initial research purposes.
The danger of making such anecdotes into general findings is, in reality, it was only a few powerful stories from a few isolated
interviews. These powerful stories should not be ignored, and can be explored further, but one should ask if the anecdotes alone are
sufficient to represent a generalizable trend. For example, in one study, an educational administrator in Africa asked for a budget to
buy a gun to scare the lions away from the school. Although this was an impressive story, it was not an administrative issue
mentioned in any other program. However, all programs mentioned power or internet outages and lack of technological resources.
In summary, researchers who have planned, collected, analyzed, coded, and reported data from qualitative research understand that
the benefits are rich descriptions and understanding concepts or phenomena in depth and context. However, a drawback is the
significant time and resources spent in transcribing, reading, organizing, coding, analyzing, and reporting. In addition, the amount
of information gathered is usually very focused and can be limited in scope. For this reason, many chose to use quantitative
methods.

General Steps to Quantitative Methods

Quantitative research begins by developing an understanding of an instructional problem and possible theories to solve the
problem. The key elements of this step involve knowing much of the background of a product or problem and identifying a client’s
needs.

Write a Problem Statement and Research Question

The result of a good review of literature is to be able to write a good problem statement. A well-written problem statement will
bring up past research or needs that lead to an instructional design question, then lead naturally into defining the scope of the
questions that will be answered in the study. Here is an example of a problem statement for teachers that are simultaneously
learning a foreign language and teaching skills:
Research shows that when second language learners seek to achieve multiple learning objectives within a second language, the
acquisition of those multiple learning objectives may be impeded due to increased cognitive load and learning anxiety.
The problem statement is general enough to be read by top administrators and specific enough to narrow down the project scope.
The research question builds on the problem statement to define the specific questions of the study plan. Here is a sample research
question from the previous example:
Does separating instruction of teaching skill training from language acquisition training affect student’s: a) teaching skills, b)
language acquisition, and c) foreign language learning anxiety when three pilot groups are compared with three control groups and
baseline historical data?

Writing a Research Question

"I didn't have time to write you a short letter so I wrote you a long one instead." Mark Twain
This is applicable when writing a problem statement and research question(s). It is more difficult to be concise than verbose.
Another approach to writing a research question is to operationalize one’s theories into a hypothesis. A hypothesis usually involves
an if–then statement and defines the variables of interest. For example, if I use metacognitive strategies in my reading curriculum,
then students will more efficiently learn to read at a 5th grade level. It is quite easy to turn a well-written hypothesis into a research
question. For example, if I use metacognitive strategies in my reading curriculum, will students more efficiently learn to read at a
5th grade level? In this phase, there will be some operationalization of terms here such as efficiently, 5th grade level, and
identifying some specific metacognitive strategies.

Develop a Study Plan

Once a research question is designed and variables are operationalized, it’s time to develop a research plan. A good research plan
builds on the problem to be solved and further operationalizes variables to be studied and controlled for.

1.3.5 [Link]
The Study Plan Matrix
At this point, the client and instructional designer can create a study plan matrix as shown in Table 1 (based on the prior example of
language acquisition):
Table 1
Sample Spreadsheet

Research Question(s): Does

separating instruction of
Method or When will data be collected and
teaching skill training from Analysis
Instrument by whom?
language acquisition training
affect learners'…

Teaching assessment Independent samples t-test or

administered at 6 practice Chi-Square to compare pilot
Teaching assessment (existing and control groups.
…teaching skills? teaching sessions, one per
internal instrument)
week, filled out by a trained
rater receiving the teaching. One sample t-test to compare
pilot with baseline data.
Opic language assessment
administered during the last ANCOVA to control for Self-
…language acquisition? Opic (existing instrument) week of the program by trained efficacy score.
test proctors. ACTFL categories
reported by testing company. Interviewer will undergo
reflective journaling to identify
Pilot & Control—FLAS Survey bias prior to interviews.
Monday of week 2. FLAS Interviews, observation notes,
Survey Wednesday of week 3. and focus group data will be
Two 60-minute focus groups for transcribed and analyzed via
Foreign Language Anxiety pilot only—1) end of English MAXQDA to identify main
Scale (FLAS) with Self- instruction, 2) last week of ideas and themes. Coded
…language learning anxiety? Efficacy Scale, prior language language instruction (focus comments will be rated by two
self-report items, and focus group will have the top 50% of raters and inter-rater reliability
groups. language scores in one focus statistics reported. Participants
group, bottom 50% in another). will check focus group findings.
Incoming and exit survey Cronbach’s alpha on each scale
questions—existing internal will be reported for internal
survey. validity.

The study plan matrix operationalizes the study in a clear way. Instruments from the literature review are specifically identified.
Analysis methods are clearly spelled out. In addition, the study plan will involve agreed-upon methods to control for extraneous
variables and employ accepted reliability and validity measures to control for threats to validity. A good study plan can also control
for scope-creep—when a research project is either ill-defined or a client attempts to pork barrel the project so as to make it much
larger than it should be or was originally agreed upon. The study plan can be the basis for a business requirement document—a
document that spells out timelines, cost, and deliverables for a client.

Data Collection

Sampling
Sampling is how one determines the selection of participants in a research study. Sampling methods result in a selection of a subset
of a population. Random sampling methods (everyone in a population has an equal chance of being selected) aid in the ability to
generalize one’s sample to be representative of an entire population. For example, all fourth graders in the district are put into a
random sample generator and 400 of them are randomly selected to be representative of all 4th graders in the district. Non-random

1.3.6 [Link]
sampling is when decisions such as researcher judgment or convenience determine one’s sample. For example, selecting all fourth
graders at the particular school at which one works. Differing methods have benefits and drawbacks but the ultimate goal in all
sampling methods is to seek a representative sample of a population. For a simple explanation of types of sampling and their
advantages and disadvantages see: [Link]

Experimental Research
The simplest type of experimental research is a single treatment and a single observation. Various designs seek to control for threats
to validity (to learn more about how each design controls for threats to validity see [Link] The following
chart shows various types of experimental designs.
Table 2
Experimental Designs (R = random selection, X = experimental treatment, O = observation)

1. One-shot case study 5. Posttest only, control group design

XO RXO

2. One-group, pretest–posttest design RO

OXO

3. Time-series design 6. Solomon four-group design

OOOOXOOOO ROXO

4. Pretest-posttest, control-group design ROO

ROXO RXO

ROO RO

Survey Research
Surveys are a very common method of data collection and a great tool to use when the question you are seeking to answer can be
easily responded to in categorical selections or written comments. For example, asking about the frequency of a known behavior,
how well students like a method of instruction, how well they agree or disagree with statements about an instructional treatment, or
conscious perceptions potential learners have about their learning environment or teacher. Essentially, questions about what or how
much of something are great candidates for survey research. For example, how much do you agree or disagree with the following
statement(s) about your instruction, or, how often did your teacher follow up on your homework? An open-ended item might be as
simple as: “Explain your rating.” Because surveys are so common, I will offer greater depth on this method of data collection.

General Survey Writing Tips

The following tips will help you design a better survey:
Pilot test. Test your survey out with 5-10 typical responders. Use a think-aloud protocol, where you ask people to say out loud what
they are thinking when completing the survey. Conducting a pilot test will identify a majority of any usability or misinterpretation
issues you will need to fix with your survey. In addition, asking 30 respondents to reply before sending it to all 1000 can give you a
good idea of how your categories are performing. You may find a ceiling or floor effect for several items (all participants are
selecting the highest or lowest category). This may be grounds for removing an item or revising it to be more discriminatory.
However, it may also serve as a confirmatory item.
Review sample survey output files. If you respond to a few surveys and then review the output file, it can save you hours in data
clean up later because you see how you can most effectively change the format for later analysis. For example, perhaps the output
file has data from the same respondent on different rows. Or perhaps you notice where survey logic accidently skipped over a
section that was not intended to be missed. Sometimes embedded data is not being properly gathered. Categorical responses could
be in text format rather than numeric. In addition, you can test the import of your selected output file into your statistical software
of choice. Part of that import may help to determine if the data is appropriate for your study plan. For example, linear regression

1.3.7 [Link]
may not be appropriate for nominal data. Nominal logistic regression may be a more appropriate analysis method (for a further
discussion of regression, see: [Link]/-nWXt). Sometimes seeing the data can help inform whether your method of
analysis is appropriate.
Do not gather what you do not need. Do not waste valuable survey response time in gathering already existing information. For
example, many organizations, conferences, or workshops have participant information already gathered. If the organization has the
appropriate data-sharing agreements in place, you can embed prior gathered demographic information and only verify its accuracy.
There are various types of items. Most survey software will offer multiple choice (a, b, c, d), Likert scales (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), semantic
differential items (agree–disagree), ranking and ordering (place the highest on top), dichotomous (true–false), and open-ended
items. For a discussion of when to use these differing items see [Link] For an item writing workshop or
lecture from the author, see: [Link]
Establish criteria to measure and align your items to each criteria. For example, if you are using a survey for an implementation
study, establish what teachers and students must do for a successful implementation. Then write items for each criteria identified. I
use a spreadsheet for this. Here’s a simple sample of criteria and items in an implementation survey design.
Table 3
Sample Survey Criteria

Definition of Effective Implementation of

Survey Question Type Question Stem
Canvas

Teachers ensure students have technical Agree– 1. I was adequately trained on how I should
abilities to use Canvas. disagree use Canvas.

Teachers introduce the course resources

2. After initial training, there was no need
and refer students to them throughout the Agree–
to ask a teacher for directions on how to use
unit. Teachers are not having to provide disagree
Canvas.
direction for locating assigned activities.

3-5. I knew I could go to Canvas to find

answers to my questions about:
Students know and feel Canvas will help Agree–
3. class scheduling
answer their questions. disagree
4. class preparation
5. assignment due dates

Avoid leading items. For example, “How easy was it to use the app?” is a leading item because this assumes it was easy to use. A
better way to word the item would be, “Rate your experience with the app” (then use categories like 1 = easy to use, 5 = difficult to
use, etc.).
Avoid double-barreled items. Double barreled items ask about multiple elements. For example: Rate your experience regarding
class preparation and knowledge of due dates. It is better to separate these into two distinct items.
Use a common stem to avoid repetition. When several items or options begin with the same words, use a single stem and put the
items or options beneath it or in a survey matrix. Here’s an example of a stem with a multiple choice item
What determines a person’s eye color? Their parent’s genetic…
a. centrioles
b. chromosomes
c. organelles
Use the right categories. There is a tendency to default to the categories your software provides, but the software may not always
give you the right options. For example, the default may be a 1-5 scale but a 1-10 scale may be more appropriate based on
participant responses. Or the software may give a numerical scale or a preset categorical scale, but a unique categorical scale
should be developed for the audience or topic. For example, in one survey I created for teenagers, I took several days interviewing

1.3.8 [Link]
teens and testing categories to get the right “teen-speak” categories that they could effectively use to differentiate their level of
belief in certain topics.
Timing. For volunteers, survey gathering should only be a few minutes. For employees that are required or strongly encouraged to
take the survey, you can create a survey somewhat longer (7-10 minutes), while still respecting people’s time. Test the time it takes
to respond to your survey as part of your pilot. In addition, consider the time your survey will launch. When persons are busy and
overloaded, they will not respond as well. For example, if you launch a survey at the same time HR requires a 60-minute online
module, fewer people will respond.
The survey invitation. The survey invitation is just as important as the survey itself. Often, people will receive survey invitations in
an email. Your email should include a brief description of the survey, the time it will take to respond, a deadline, who is asking for
the information, how the information will be used, as well as any guarantees of confidentiality or anonymity. If there are any
rewards for survey completion, how to collect the reward should be specified. The most obvious thing the invite should include is a
working survey link with an option to cut and paste the link. During the data collection period, several follow-up invitations should
be sent. Depending on the nature of the data collected and decisions to be made, it may be worth the effort to seek out non-
responders via phone interviews, additional invites, or paper surveys to compare their responses with prior responders. Generally,
your first responders are more positive than non-responders.
Sampling. Sampling methods should be employed to avoid oversampling or survey burnout. For example, if your population is
10,000 ready respondents, consider a random sample of 300-400 persons, especially if you are conducting several surveys
throughout the year for this population. Survey sampling websites can help you determine the appropriate sample size. If a ready
sample is not available, a researcher can pay persons to take the survey or use social media or snowball sampling methods to find
their target audience (see prior section on sampling).
As efficient as surveys are, they are not the best method for questions that require complex explanations or for studying multiple
overlapping concepts in developing fields. For example, a researcher may be seeking to design a user interface for an app or may
be forming a theory where grounded theory methods would be more appropriate.

Statistical Analysis
There are four main types of quantitative analysis: descriptive, causal, experimental, and correlational (predictive). Descriptive
analysis describes your data in a summary form. The mean score, a histogram, a standard deviation, frequencies, and skew are all
examples of descriptive statistical data. Most often, descriptive data is used to determine the appropriate type of further analysis.
For example, if your data is highly skewed, you would use a different correlation technique than simple correlation (r). This
introduces the concept of a statistical decision tree. A statistical decision tree helps a researcher make the right decisions about
using the appropriate methods for analysis. Click here to see an image of a statistical decision tree or here for a computerized
model.

Analyzing Group Differences (Causality and Experimental Analysis)

T-tests are used to compare differences in two groups, most often the mean (average) difference of two groups. Essentially, all
statistical tests are measuring whether differences are due to more than chance alone. The assumption behind comparing two
differing tests are that some experimental treatment caused the differences; in instructional design, usually the designed curriculum
or tool is assumed to be causal.
The most common t-test analysis is an independent samples t-test. This type of test compares two different samples on a common
measure. For example, online and live student’s final test scores in a course are compared. A paired samples t-test analysis is used
when you have two measurements on the same person (or thing). For example, a pre- or posttest where student one’s pretest score
is compared with student one’s posttest score. A third type of t-test is a one-sample t-test. This compares the mean of a single group
with a known group. For example, comparing a current cohort’s attitudes towards learning math with baseline historical data from
prior years.
But how do you analyze differences in samples when there are three or more groups? You could perform several different t-tests,
but this can become very complicated when there are several groups. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) analyzes mean differences
among several samples and yields similar statistics to t-tests to show differences are more than due to chance alone.

1.3.9 [Link]
Analysis of Covariance is similar to ANOVA but seeks to remove the effects of known variables. ANCOVA can also be used when
simultaneously analyzing categorical variables and continuous variables and how they affect a third variable. For example, suppose
you are testing three different curricula, but you cannot assign students at random. To control for this lack of random sampling, you
administer a pretest score. The pretest score is a very strong predictor of your posttest score. With ANCOVA, if the relationship
between a pretest and posttest score can be statistically quantified, the effects of the pretest level can be controlled to examine the
overall effect of the three curricula (essentially seeking to remove the impact of pre-existing knowledge).

Analyzing Relationships (Predictive Analysis)

Correlational research seeks to examine relationships between two variables, such as the relationship between the amount of books
read and five paragraph essay scores. Often, the goal is to find predictive relationships (e.g. those who read 5 books a month are
likely to have 3 times higher scores on 5 paragraph essay scores than those who read 1 book a month).
The simplest of relationships is a linear relationship, or a line. As one variable changes (increases or decreases) another variable
changes in a consistent manner (increases or decreases). Pearson’s r is used with simple continuous data (foreign language anxiety
scores relationship with language acquisition scores). Spearman’s rho is used with rank order data (rank in graduating class
relationship with rank on the SAT). Phi coefficient is used with dichotomous categorical variables (Instagram account or not and
retired or not).
Regression statistics measure the relationships between many variables. Linear, or simple regression produces a best fit line for
prediction between two variables (e.g. score on one test and score on a second test). Multiple regression is when a dependent
variable is predicted by many or multiple variables (amount of time studying, days in class, and pretest scores all predict final exam
score). There are many specialized types of regression models used in predictive modeling and to exhaust them all would be a
much larger paper, but linear and multiple regression are the most common types of regression models used in instructional design
research. To learn more about correlational, predictive, descriptive, and experimental research analysis, enroll in a quantitative
research methods course.

Common Mistakes in Quantitative Data Analysis

Following are the most common mistake in quantitative data analysis:
1. Inappropriate sampling. For example, too small of a sample, not using a random sample when the analysis method requires it,
and over generalizing about all persons in a group when only a sub-population of the group was sampled (a.k.a. extrapolation
error).
2. Inappropriate methods. For example, using Pearson’s r for correlation with rank order data. Or, using a simple t-test when the
data is highly skewed and a Wilcoxon method is more appropriate. A statistical decision tree can help you avoid this mistake.
3. Failure to report descriptive statistics. Novice researchers may jump right into their analysis or report of their findings without
explaining why a method was chosen or not chosen. A simple qualifier in your analysis such as, “A histogram showed the data
was not normal. Therefore assumptions of normality were not met and XYZ method was chosen for analysis,” would suffice.
4. Failure to review and clean data. Your data must be in the right format for the statistical package you choose to use. Therefore,
reviewing data, often in spreadsheet form, or reviewing the first few lines in your statistical package can help you see if the
variables are all aligned with the data, if they are consistently coded, and if you are analyzing all or just some of your data.
5. Miscoding variables. Most statistical packages allow for some transformations or computing of variables. For example, strongly
agree to strongly disagree could be recoded as 1 through 5. Or a total score can be computed with several or all of the variables.
When recoding, be consistent. If 1 = strongly disagree on one variable, it should be consistent throughout the dataset. It’s
always good to double check when transforming data or recoding data.
6. Failure to account for missing data. Novice researchers often forget to decide how to account or code missing data. Others
mistakenly treat missing data as a 0, and the results can be inaccurate.

Reporting Research to Stakeholders

In academic research, you report to a committee, usually with differing opinions, preferences, and specialties. In business, industry,
and government, reporting is not very different. Learning what your stakeholders are interested in and how they prefer reports is
important. For example, if they prefer visuals in the forms of graphs, charts, and process flowcharts, create those. If they prefer
quantitative data (such as means, standard deviations, correlations, regression lines) over qualitative data (stories, experiences, and

1.3.10 [Link]
personas), then it may be worth reporting such data. However, most stakeholder groups are diverse enough it is often best to
include several differing types of reporting, visuals, tables, flowcharts, diagrams, and rich experiences and stories.
Often, a persona of a typical person in a group or subgroup illustrates poignant areas of findings. For example, one client wanted
research to identify who applies to teach for them. After analyzing data from 1500 applications, we created the following persona:
This is Sophia. Sophia is a Latin American Studies Major, with a Spanish Minor. She currently does not have a job but is looking.
One of her friends suggested a job at [your organization]. She is bilingual and has just returned home from abroad in a Latin
American country. She loves [the organization’s] environment and mission and is always looking for opportunities to share what
she has learned, especially with new language learners. Statistically, Sophia’s persona is the most likely to apply to [your
organization].
After the reports are presented and, data is shared and reminded, do not take it personally if the findings are not immediately acted
upon or if every recommendation from the committee or research team is regarded. It often takes time for organizations to act upon
new findings, and organizations are often juggling many initiatives. Often, researchers are not involved in strategic planning, so if
your research findings are not immediately acted upon, there may be a strategic plan for acting on them at a later date or there may
be other more pressing needs to address for the organization.
In one office I worked for, we had a phrase we used to describe a concept of waiting to share findings: “Don’t share the wine,
before the time.” A common mistake of researchers is to share their findings before they have been fully gathered or analyzed. For
example, the first 100 of 300 replies are analyzed and the most common finding is that students are enjoying the new LMS.
However, there are still 200 responses left to code and analyze. Suppose the other findings differ but the findings have already been
shared or reported as positive. And no matter how many times you say “this is preliminary data,” all a stakeholder hears is a fact.

Conclusion
This chapter is an introduction to research that can be useful to inform design decisions. The tools of research in instructional
design are similar as the tools of research in most other disciplines. Once the basic principles of research are mastered in one
setting, it is easier to begin using them in others.
Even though there is a science filled with appropriate and inappropriate research decisions, there is also an art to research. With
experience, a researcher sharpens their research skills and knowledge of when to use which method to a point where they see the
art in the science, and the science in the art. As a researcher, I enjoy this process of aiding an organization or client in the art of
discovery. Among my colleagues, I often joke about researchers being a special type of breed. We are curious by nature, so curious,
that it leads us to almost crave discovery. And, in my opinion, that is why you will find the most curious minds are always engaged
in research.

This page titled 1.3: Conducting Research For Design is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1.3.11 [Link]
1.4: Determining Environmental and Contextual Needs
Determining Environmental and Contextual Needs
Jill Stefaniak
Because instructional design emphasizes facilitating learning and improving performance, instructional designers must begin by
acquiring necessary information about their learners’ educational journeys. Needs assessment can assist instructional designers to
make recommendations and design appropriate solutions (both instructional and non-instructional solutions) that will assist their
learners in translating what is taught to their successful implementation.
The purpose of a needs assessment is to identify the gap between the current state of performance and the desired state of
performance (Altschuld & Kumar, 2010). This gap in performance is what then becomes the need. While needs assessment can be
a powerful and informative tool, the instructional designer cannot get lost in analysis and delay their design work (Stefaniak, Baaki,
Hoard, & Stapleton, 2018). They need to be able to work within the scope of their design space, rely on the resources they have
available to them, and make decisions to the best of their knowledge.
This chapter will address how validating needs and contextual factors influencing learner performance can be accounted for in
instructional design to ensure the transfer of learning in real-world contexts. It will also demonstrate how information gathered
from needs assessment can be leveraged to identify and develop the necessary scaffolds to manage the learning experience.

Exploring the Intersection Between Needs Assessment, Needs Analysis, and Instructional Design
Richey, Klein, and Tracey (2011) defined instructional design as “the science and art of creating detailed specifications for the
development, evaluation, and maintenance of situations which facilitate learning and performance” (p. 3). If we were to dissect this
definition, I would point out that instructional designers are responsible for the following: (1) creating detailed specifications; (2)
conducting evaluations; and (3) maintaining of situations that facilitate learning and performance.
The information that a needs assessment yields provides the details and specifications needed for an instructional designer to create
an instructional product that is customized and accounts for the unique needs of the learning audience. It also provides benchmark
data regarding the current level of performance (or situation) that the instructional designer and their team can evaluate and
compare after instructional interventions have been designed and implemented. Instructional designers and the team members will
also be better positioned to monitor the instructional delivery and transfer of knowledge to the job or desired application if they
have been presented with sufficient data concerning these phases.
It is important to differentiate between needs assessment and needs analysis as they are not synonymous with one another but are
often used interchangeably. Needs assessment is the process of gathering information to determine whether there is a gap between
the current state and the desired state. This gap yields the need. Needs analysis is the process of further investigating the situation
to understand why this gap exists in the first place. The data that is gathered during the needs assessment is analyzed to determine
what is contributing to or causing the gap (Kaufman & Guerra-Lopez, 2013).
Needs assessment and needs analysis provide an opportunity for an instructional designer to develop instructional materials that
can have a meaningful impact on their learning audience. In more cases than not, when instructional designers are brought onto a
project, the solution (need) has already been decided:
We need to design an online degree program
We need to design a safety course for incoming employees
We need to design a team training course for the hospital staff
If you look closely, you will see that each of the above-mentioned statements contained the word need. Whether it is your client or
a supervisor, the need has already been decided. Another caveat is that there are a lot of times where the need has been decided
with no needs assessment ever having been conducted (Peterson & Peterson, 2004). Oftentimes when this occurs, the instructional
designer begins work on their tasks only to find that they have a lot of unanswered questions:
Why are the learners experiencing this problem?
How will they use the instruction after training takes place?
How will we know if they are implementing what they have learned in their actual jobs?

1.4.1 [Link]
 How do we know that the instruction we have designed is doing what it was meant to do?
Has the organization tried this type of instructional method in the past?
What is the rationale for proposing online instruction?
Are we sure that instruction is going to solve the problem?
Is there a subject matter expert that we can speak with to provide some more guidance on what the learners need?
All of these questions are very specific and unique to the learning audience of a project. Some of these questions may be related to
the instructional environment while others may be looking ahead to how learners will be expected to transfer this knowledge to a
real-world setting (i.e. the classroom, a job).
Regardless of what needs assessment model may be referenced, a typical assessment will consist of five-steps: problem
identification, identification of data sources, data collection, data analysis, and recommendations. Table 1 provides an overview of
each of these steps. While these steps are usually completed linearly, the individual who is conducting the needs assessment needs
to continue to modify the problem and identify additional data sources as more information is uncovered during the assessment.
With that in mind, the needs assessment process is very similar to the instructional design process in that both processes are
recursive.
Table 1
Overview of needs assessment process

Needs Assessment Step Description

This step is typically completed in consult with a client (or the

individual(s)) requesting instructional design services. During this
Identification of Problem phase, the purpose of the needs assessment (the problem) is
identified for the instructional designer to begin gathering data to
address the gap in performance.

Once the problem to be explored has been identified, instructional

designers must identify data sources that will help them better
understand the situation. Instructional designers must gather data
Identification of Data Sources that will help them explore the situation from multiple angles.
Examples of data sources include, but are not limited to, task
analyses, direct observations, focus groups, interviews, document
analysis, reviews of existing work products, and surveys.
This phase involves the instructional designer gathering data based
Data Collection
on the data sources that were identified in the previous step.
Once data collection is complete, the instructional designer begins
to analyze all data to identify patterns and factors contributing to
the problem identified at the beginning of the assessment.
Data Analysis
Depending on the findings from the data collection and analysis
phases, the problem may be modified to be more consistent with
the actual situation as depicted by the data.
Upon identifying patterns contributing to the problem, the
instructional designer makes a list of recommendations to present
Recommendations
to their client. These recommendations are typically prioritized
according to the severity of need and level of urgency.

Figure 1 provides an overview of how needs assessment and needs analysis can help leverage instructional design practices to
support the transfer of learning. Conducting a needs assessment provides the instructional designer with the opportunity to
contextualize their project. It provides them with an opportunity to gain insight into things they should include in their designs, as
well as things they should consider to avoid. Regardless of the situation, a needs assessment will help an instructional designer

1.4.2 [Link]
identify or verify the project needs. This is especially helpful when the needs have already been identified without the guidance of a
needs assessment.
Needs analysis also aids the instructional designer by providing some context as to why these needs exist in the first place. If
learners are facing recurring challenges completing a particular task, instructional designers should understand the causes so that
they can account for these issues in their designs. By developing a better understanding of factors that contribute to or inhibit the
transfer of learning, instructional designers will be able to develop a more realistic approach to the instructional solution. It will
also provide them with the opportunity to determine if certain non-instructional interventions are needed to support the transfer of
learning.

Figure [Link]: The relationship between needs assessment, needs analysis, and instructional design

The Role of Context in Needs Assessment

Needs assessment is recognized as being an important component of the instructional design process (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2009,
Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2013; Smith & Ragan, 2005; Cennamo & Kalk, 2019); however, it often tends to be minimized
to focus more on learner analysis. Contextual analysis is also a term that is used synonymously with needs assessment in a lot of
instructional design literature. A seminal piece written by Tessmer and Richey (1997) suggested that contextual analysis should
account for factors influencing performance in the orienting, instructional, and transfer contexts. Figure 2 provides an overview of
the more common factors that influence each of these contexts. Tips for how to address these three contexts will be discussed
further in this chapter. By addressing these factors in instructional design practices, designers put themselves in a better position to
design experiences that were relevant to the learning audience.

1.4.3 [Link]
 Figure [Link]: Common contextual factors influencing instructional design adapted from Tessmer & Richey (1997)
While contextual analysis aims at understanding the learner’s work practice, needs assessment further delves into identifying,
classifying, and validating the needs of users as they pertain to the context (environment). It is imperative that a designer fully
understand the intricacies and nuances of the context (environment) so that they can design a prototype that addresses particular
contextual factors that may support or inhibit the transfer of learning into the real-world environment (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
These factors, both good and bad, ultimately influence the instructional designer’s design.
While there are different types of analyses that an instructional designer may be required to employ during a project, it is important
to recognize that while they are all different, they are not mutually exclusive. While each has different foci, all of these foci fall
under the needs assessment umbrella.
Table 2

1.4.4 [Link]
 Overview of analyses an instructional designer may utilize to inform their design

Method of Analysis Description Resources and Studies for References

Brown (2002)
Analysis that occurs after a needs Crompton, Olszewski, and Bielefeldt
assessment has been conducted to (2016)
Needs Analysis
understand the root causes contributing to a Dick and Carey (1977)
problem. Stefaniak et al. (2018)
Stefaniak, Mi, and Afonso (2015)

Arias and Clark (2004)

The process of analyzing factors that may
Morrison, Ross, and Baldwin (1992)
Contextual Analysis contribute to or inhibit knowledge
Perkins (2009)
acquisition and transfer of learning.
Tessmer and Wedman (1995)

The process of focusing on the impact that

Lowyck, Elen, and Clarebout (2004)
the learner may have on the environment
Marker (2007)
Environmental Analysis outside of the organization such as
Rothwell (2005)
customers, competitors, industry, and
Tessmer (1990)
society.

The process of capturing an in-depth

Baaki et al. (2017)
understanding of an instructional
Dudek and Heiser (2017)
designer’s learning audience. Demographic
Learner Analysis Öztok (2016)
data, prerequisite skills, and attitudinal
Stefaniak and Baaki (2013)
information are typically gathered to
van Rooij, S. W. (2012)
inform the instructional designer.

The process of conducting direct

observations of individuals performing job-
related tasks and documenting in a step-by- Jonassen, Tessmer, and Hannum (1998)
Task Analysis step fashion. Task analyses are done to help Militello and Hutton (1998)
instructional designers design instruction Schraagen, Chipman, and Shalin (2000)
that is aligned with how the job will be
performed in a real-world setting.

Table 2 provides an overview of the various types of analyses that may be used. Examples of instructional design studies that have
explored these topics in more detail are also included for reference. A commonality among all of these analyses is that they
typically involve collecting data from multiple sources to gain a better understanding of the situation. Out of all of the analyses
listed in Table 2, needs assessment is most often the most time-consuming because it requires instructional designers to identify
appropriate data sources, collect data, conduct data analysis, and consult with their client on recommendations for moving forward.
Direct observations, document analysis, interviews, focus groups, and surveys are all examples of the types of data collection tools
an instructional designer may utilize when conducting an analysis.
The use of the above-mentioned data sources has been used to inform the development of learner personas in instructional design
(Anvari & Tran, 2013; Avgerinou & Andersson, 2007; Baaki, Maddrell, & Stauffer, 2017; van Rooij, 2012). With more emphasis
being placed on user experience design practices, more attention is being placed on who our learners are as opposed to generalizing
the learning audience. Learner analyses and contextual analyses are complementary in that both yield data that will inform the
other. Environmental analyses add an additional layer by focusing on the impact that the learner may have on the environment
outside of the organization such as customers, competitors, industry, and society (Rothwell, 2005).

The Reality of Instructional Design Work and Needs Assessment

While I would love to see every instructional designer be an advocate for needs assessment and push back when clients or
supervisors present need statements with no assessment validating that the identified needs warrant instruction, the reality is that

1.4.5 [Link]
most instructional designers will have a hard time arguing the need to pause a project and conduct a thorough needs assessment
(Hoard, Stefaniak, Baaki, & Draper, 2019; Stefaniak et al., 2018). Needs assessments are conducted; but often because the client
has recognized the importance of needs assessment before approaching an instructional designer to work on a project. It is also
important to note that a needs assessment is only as good as the data that is collected.
Table 3
Needs statements and further inquiries

Client Need Statements Instructional Designer Inquiries

How are courses currently being offered?

What is the market for online instruction?
We need to design an online degree program.
What is the rationale for moving towards the development of an
online degree?
How are training materials currently being stored?
What features are used in the existing LMS?
We need a new learning management system.
What features are needed?
How are the instructors and students currently using the LMS?
What do incoming employees need to know about safety upon
starting a new job?
What incident(s) occurred that suggests there is an immediate need
We need to design a safety course for incoming employees.
to create a safety course?
What other training courses are incoming employees expected to
complete?

What does this mean for the instructional designer? Recognizing that the absence of a thorough needs assessment is a common
issue in our field, there are strategies that instructional designers can employ to gather additional data and information relevant to
the project they have been assigned.
If a client has decided to conduct a needs assessment, it is important for the instructional designer to participate in framing the
needs by asking appropriate questions. Table 3 provides an overview of examples of needs statements and questions an
instructional designer can ask to gain further clarification of the situation. Like most projects, there are varying degrees of
complexity an instructional designer can delve into when addressing needs assessment (Rossett, 1999). The amount of time and
resources that an instructional designer can apply towards gathering additional data for a project will ultimately determine the
scalability of the level of analysis that is completed (Stefaniak, 2018; Tessmer, 1990).
Just because a client or a supervisor may not allocate the time or funding needed to support a needs assessment, that does not mean
that the instructional designer has to abandon the idea altogether. At the very least, there are key components that an instructional
designer should address during an initial intake meeting with the client or kick-off meeting with the instructional design team.
Table 4 provides examples of different steps instructional designers can take if they were to scale a needs assessment project.
Table 4

1.4.6 [Link]
 Scalability of instructional design needs assessments

Level of Scale Tasks

Review existing training materials.

Review documents explaining job processes.
Meet with a subject matter expert (in the organization) to
Low (1–2 weeks)
provide guidance on content that should be emphasized in the
instructional product.
Obtain an overview of the learning audience by the client.

Review existing training materials.

Conduct observations of employees performing job tasks.
Update existing task analyses.
Meet with individuals that represent multiple levels of
Medium (1 month)
authority within the organization related to the instructional
project.
Obtain an overview of the learning audience by the client.

Review existing training materials.

Review strategic planning documents.
Meet with individuals that represent multiple levels of
authority within the organization.
Conduct observations of employees performing job tasks.
High (several months) Update existing task analyses.
Conduct interviews and/or focus groups to understand factors
that are inhibiting the transfer of learning.
Triangulate information from multiple sources to understand
patterns contributing to or inhibiting employee/learner
performance on the job.

Table 5 provides an example of a form that instructional designers can use to gather the data they need to ensure their instructional
design work is contextually relevant to the learners’ needs. This form is not meant to be an exhaustive list of questions instructional
designers should ask at the beginning of a project; rather, it is intended to help instructional designers spark conversation with their
client about the contextual factors and needs of the project that should be addressed throughout the design. Depending on the
information provided in the intake form, instructional designers will decide whether a detailed task analysis is required to
understand specific tasks expected of the learning audience.
Table 5

1.4.7 [Link]
 An example of an instructional design intake form

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN PROJECT INTAKE FORM

Date: Client:

Instructional Designer: Project Name:

PROJECT OVERVIEW
1. What is the purpose of the project (instructional need)?
2. What is the scope of the project?
3. Learning platform (i.e., face-to-face, blended, online)
4. Overarching course goal
5. Learning objectives
6. What level of importance is the training? (i.e., severe, moderate, mild)

LEARNING AUDIENCE
1. Who is the intended learning audience?
2. What are the learners’ experiences with the project topic?
3. What challenges do learners typically experience with this topic?
4. What are the learners’ overall attitudes toward training?
5. What information will the instructional designer have access to regarding the learning audience? (i.e., job observations, meetings
with learners, work products, interviews, etc.)
INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
1. How will the instruction be delivered?
2. How will learners access the material?
3. What is the length of the course?
4. What are the learners’ roles during instruction?
5. What is the instructor’s role during instruction?
6. What types of assessment need to be included in the instruction?
TRANSFER (APPLICATION CONTEXT)
1. How soon after the training will learners apply their newly acquired skills?
2. What are the anticipated challenges with applying these new skills in a real-world environment?
3. What resources are available to support learners during this transfer phase (i.e., job aids)?
4. Who is responsible for monitoring learners with transference?
EVALUATION

1. How and when will the instructional training be evaluated for effectiveness?
2. Who will be responsible for conducting an evaluation?
3. What methods of evaluation will be used to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the instruction?
OTHER COMMENTS

Conclusion
To adhere to Richey et al.’s (2011) definition of instructional design encompassing the facilitation of learning, instructional
designers must task themselves with gathering as much information as they can to understand the contexts that their learners will
experience (i.e. the learning and transfer contexts). Not only is it necessary for the instructional designer to understand the
instructional environment, but they must also have insight into how their learners will apply the knowledge obtained from
instruction and apply it to a real-world setting. The purpose of this chapter is to provide instructional designers with an introduction
to the potential that needs assessment offers instructional designers and provide some strategies and tools that can be applied to an
instructional design project regardless of the context.

1.4.8 [Link]
References
Altschuld, J. W., & Kumar, D. D. (2010). Needs assessment: An overview. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Anvari, F., & Tran, H. M. T. (2013, May). Persona ontology for user centred design
professionals. In Proceedings of the ICIME 4th International Conference on Information Management and Evaluation (pp. 35–44).
Arias, S., & Clark, K. A. (2004). Instructional technologies in developing countries: A contextual analysis approach. TechTrends,
48(4), 52–55.
Avgerinou, M. D., & Andersson, C. (2007). E-moderating personas. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(4), 353–364.
Baaki, J., Maddrell, J., & Stauffer, E. (2017). Designing authentic and engaging personas for open education resources designers.
International Journal of Designs for Learning, 8(2).
Brown, J. (2002). Training needs assessment: A must for developing an effective training program. Public personnel management,
31(4), 569–578.
Cennamo, K., & Kalk, D., (2019). Real-world instructional design: An iterative approach to designing learning experiences (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Crompton, H., Olszewski, B., & Bielefeldt, T. (2016). The mobile learning training needs of educators in technology-enabled
environments. Professional Development in Education, 42(3), 482–501.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. M. (1977). Needs assessment and instructional design. Educational Technology, 17(11), 53–59.
Dick, W., Carey, L. M., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Dudek, J., & Heiser, R. (2017). Elements, principles, and critical inquiry for identity-centered design of online environments.
Journal of Distance Education (Online), 32(2), 1–18.
Hoard, B., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Draper, D. (2019). The influence of multimedia development knowledge and workplace
pressures on the design decisions of the instructional designer. Educational Technology Research and Development 67(6), 1479–
1505.
Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1998). Task analysis methods for instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kaufman, R. & Guerra-Lopez, I. (2013). Needs assessment for organizational success. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.
Lowyck, J., Elen, J., & Clarebout, G. (2004). Instructional conceptions: Analysis from an instructional design perspective.
International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 429–444.
Marker, A. (2007). Synchronized analysis model: Linking Gilbert’s behavior engineering model with environmental analysis
models. Performance Improvement, 46(1), 26–32.
Militello, L. G., & Hutton, R. J. (1998). Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA): A practitioner’s toolkit for understanding
cognitive task demands. Ergonomics, 41(11), 1618–1641.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Baldwin, W. (1992). Learner control of context and instructional support in learning elementary
school mathematics. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(1), 5–13.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H., & Kemp, J. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John
Wiley & Sons.
Öztok, M. (2016). Cultural ways of constructing knowledge: The role of identities in online group discussions. International
Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11(2), 157–186.
Perkins, R. A. (2009). Context-oriented instructional design for course transformation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
118, 85–94.
Peterson, T. O., & Peterson, C. M. (2004). From Felt Need to Actual Need: A multi-method multi-sample approach to needs
assessment. Performance Improvement Quarterly 17(1), 5–21.

1.4.9 [Link]
Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Rossett, A. (1999). First things fast: A handbook for performance analysis. San Francisco: CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Rothwell, W. (2005). Beyond training and development: The groundbreaking classic on human performance enhancement (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Amacom.
Schraagen, J. M., Chipman, S. F., & Shalin, V. L. (2000). Cognitive task analysis. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional Design (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Stefaniak, J. E. (2018). Performance Technology. In R. E. West, Foundations of learning and instructional design technology: The
past, present and future of learning and instructional design technology. EdTech Books. Retrieved from [Link]
TNr
Stefaniak, J. E., & Baaki, J. (2013). A layered approach to understanding your audience. Performance Improvement, 52(6), 5–10.
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.
Stefaniak, J. E., Mi, M., & Afonso, N. (2015). Triangulating perspectives: A needs assessment to develop an outreach program for
vulnerable and underserved populations. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(1), 49–68.
Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 38(1), 55–64.
Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 45(2), 85–115.
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.
van Rooij, S. W. (2012). Research-based personas: teaching empathy in professional education. Journal of Effective Teaching,
12(3), 77–86.

This page titled 1.4: Determining Environmental and Contextual Needs is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1.4.10 [Link]
1.5: Conducting A Learner Analysis

Conducting a Learner Analysis

José Fulgencio & Tutaleni I. Asino
As mentioned at the outset: designing a course that best fits the needs of learners requires both an understanding of who the
learners are, as well as actual efforts to evaluate and understand their needs. The chapter reviewed both conceptual issues that
concern learner analysis as well as practical approaches you can use to analyze actual learner needs.
Because of this, learner analysis is an important aspect of the instructional design process. It is important to remember that learners
are not empty containers in which knowledge can simply be poured. They have experiences through which they understand the
world and through which they will understand or evaluate the instruction. In this way, learning is a process that involves change in
knowledge; it is not something that is done to learners but instead something that learners do themselves (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Hence, “consideration of the learners’ prior knowledge, abilities, points of view, and perceived needs are an important part of a
learner analysis process” (Brown & Green, 2015, p.73).
Although various scholars may use different verbiage, broadly, a learner analysis can be understood as the process of identifying
critical aspects of the learner, including demographics, prior knowledge, and social needs (Adams Becker et al., 2014), and “is
characterized as an iterative process that informs vital instructional design decisions from front-end analysis to evaluation”
(Saxena, 2011, p. 94) by customizing the instruction to the previous knowledge of each individual learner so that the learner
controls their own learning and has a deeper understanding of the classroom material (Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009). For
example, an instructor teaching a biology master’s program can expect learners to have a solid foundational knowledge of biology.
At an undergraduate level however, the instructor may expect students to have a somewhat limited understanding of biology. The
instructor will also have to take into consideration the learner group characteristics such as first-generation students, international
students, adult learners, and learners with accessibility needs (e.g. requiring note-taking accommodations and extra time on exams),
all of which may influence teaching of content, distribution of content, and pace of content distribution in the classroom. Another
characteristic is the learning preferences within the group of learners, such as whether they prefer and respond better to small group
learning, hands-on experiences, or case studies.
Much has been written about learner analysis, in terms of definition and the process by which it can be accomplished. However,
regardless of the definition advanced, what is important to discern is that through a learner analysis, the learner contributes to the
instructional design of the course and miscommunications between the learner, instructor, and course goals are identified (Adams
Becker, 2014; Dick et al., 2009; Jonassen et al., 1999; Fink, 2013). A learner analysis ensures that the learner benefits from a
productive learning environment that can leave a lasting impact on their lifelong learning (Adams Becker et al., 2014; Dick et al.,
2009; Jonassen et al., 1999; Fink, 2013).
The focus of this chapter is on how to conduct a learner analysis. This process often includes identifying learners’ characteristics,
their prior knowledge, and their demographics, all of which are key factors to consider when designing a learning environment
(Adams Becker et al., 2014; Dick et al., 2009; Jonassen et al., 1999; Fink, 2013). Demographics include the environment in which
the learner lives and works, ethnicity, accessibility to technology, and educational background. Other factors—such as motivation,
personal learning style, and access to content—also play a role in how individuals learn (Adams Becker et al., 2014; Dick et al.,
2009; Jonassen et al., 1999; Fink, 2013).
The chapter begins with explaining the components of a learner analysis, describing reasons for a learner analysis, and providing a
learner analysis worksheet. The next section of the chapter explains an area that the authors believe is often not discussed when
writing about learner analysis: the ethics of working with learners, developing personas, and experience mapping. The last section
of the chapter includes a learner analysis design project to enable the reader to put into practice some of what is covered in the
chapter.

Components of a Learner Analysis

When designing learning environments, there needs to be a birds-eye view of the entire process from who the learner is, the
environment, background of the learner, and the goal of the learning environment. An educator cannot make assumptions about

1.5.1 [Link]
learners based on the educator’s experience. The following are key factors of the learner analysis to consider.

1. Learner Characteristics
Understanding the characteristics of learners can help shape the design of the course. For example, if your class is an executive-
level course for Fortune 500 high-level officers, you may expect learners with professional experience, and who have different
goals for learning and their careers, which is different from a class of undergraduate students who have little to no work experience.
In examining factors of learner characteristics, these are key questions to think about (Adams Becker et al., 2014; Dick et al., 2009;
Jonassen et al., 1999; Fink, 2013):
Who are the learners?
What personal characteristics do these learners possess?
What are the dimensions of the learner?
What contributes to the reason for learning about the topic?
What is the reason for enrolling in the course?
What are the student’s learning styles?
What is it about the topic that motivates the learner?

2. Prior Knowledge
Time is a finite resource for most people, so instructional time should not be wasted covering material that learners already know,
but instead building on their prior knowledge. Students’ prior knowledge influences how they interpret and filter new information
given in the classroom (Ambrose et al., 2010; Cordova et al., 2014; Dochy et al., 2002; Umanath & Marsh, 2014).
In examining factors of prior knowledge, there are key questions to think about:
What do learners already know?
How might this information contribute to the content and order of what you teach?

3. Demographics
Understanding who the learners are and their demographics can directly impact the instructional material. It is important, for
example, not to include instructional material that may be culturally insensitive or that has no connection to students. This is
particularly important when using media such as film that could be considered historic to one group and offensive to another.
Culture is integral to learning and plays a central role in “determining the learning preferences, styles, approaches and experiences
of learners” (Young 2014, p. 350). It is worth noting that culture can also relate to organisational cultures. For example, using
learning materials or illustrations that promote collaboration amongst employees in an organization that does not have or prioritize
such a practice, may run contrary to the typically established culture.
In examining factors of demographics, key questions to think about are:
Where are the learners coming from in terms of their education level, ethnicity, demographic, hobbies, area of study, grade
level?
Why are these demographics important for the material you will be teaching?

4. Access to Technology
In education, it is important to make sure that all learners have access to the educational material. As technology becomes a
necessity to participate in learning opportunities, it is also important to gauge whether or not students have access to technology.
Material should be flexible, but you can imagine if you are assigning work through an app that is only available for Apple devices,
how this can affect learners who own Android phones. Thus, make sure that throughout the course, educational material is
universally accessible.
Sometimes issues of access can be tricky or surprising. For example, if there is only one computer, or limited internet bandwidth,
but two parents and two children all need to access it for their job or homework, then there is not sufficient access. Similarly, the
computer or internet access may be too old to play the instructional multimedia in a module. Thus, it is important to look beyond
the statistics to truly understand the level of access.

1.5.2 [Link]
In examining factors of access, key questions to think about are:
How accessible is technology to every learner in my class?
Are learning materials universally accessible for individuals with disabilities?
If access is not universal, how can I adapt my course curriculum to include all learners?

Put Your Skills to Use: The Learner Analysis Worksheet

When conducting a learner analysis, a collection of learner information will help develop a positive learning environment. The
Learner Analysis Worksheet below is one way to collect and record key factors and general information about the learners, using
information available from student enrollment data. This worksheet can be adapted for designing instruction for various learning
environments. Student information is often provided when a student enrolls, and academic advisors or student enrollment
professionals may also be able to share this information with you. Another way to gather demographic information is to speak with
the colleagues in your department. Who are the students who usually register for this course?
For example, a community college will have higher enrollment of non-traditional and first-generation students who are older than
25 and who are full-time workers compared to the conventional student body of 18 to 22-year-olds at a traditional institution who
are part-time workers. The more information you can gather for the Learner Analysis Worksheet in Table 1, the more equipped you
will be in designing the best learning environment for your learners.
Table 1
Learner Analysis Worksheet

Demographic Characteristics Learner Details

Size of target audience

Are there any subgroups that may participate?

Age ranges

Educational/grade level, or academic program year. How long have they been out of an educational setting?

Gender breakdown

Cultural backgrounds

Primary language

Employment status

Socioeconomic status

Traditional/non-traditional/first generation learners?

Geographic location(s)

Internet connectivity?

Access to technology?

Note. Adapted from [Link]

Ethics of Working With Learners

There is now an ever-increasing amount of information on students available on the internet broadly, and specifically through
learning management systems and social media that institutions and designers can access. Data on learners includes but is not
limited to: personal information, enrollment information, academic information, and other data collected by educational
institutions. What was once kept private between the learner and institution on paper can no longer be assumed as safe. Records

1.5.3 [Link]
which are now held in digital format are vulnerable to hackers and are enticing to outside agencies that are seeking to monetize the
data. How, then, do institutions assure ethical use of learners' data that may be needed or used for learner analysis? How much data
is reasonable to share? If institutions are asking learners to be ethical in their academic assignments, shouldn't institutions do the
same when it comes to working with learners? This section covers professional expectations regarding ethical conduct towards
learners.

Professional Expectations
In the context of conducting a learner analysis, a professional is expected to be “committed to the needs and best interests of their
clients who are basically their learners” (Wainaina et al., 2015, p. 68). There are various code of conducts from which one can draw
guidance for ethical practice as most professional organizations have codes of conduct or ethics. An example is the Association of
Educational and Communication Technology (AECT), which is available at ([Link] and aims to aid all
members of AECT both individually and collectively in maintaining a high level of professional conduct. However, it is critical to
know that just because one adheres to a code of ethics, it does not mean there will never be conflict. What is unfortunately inherent
in all human relationships is a level of conflict, even when one has good intentions. So the question then is what happens when
conflicts or perceived ethical violation occurs especially when a designer is engaged in collecting data needed for learner analysis?
There are various approaches, but here we suggest the following ethical framework developed by Mathur and Corley (2014) which
suggests considerations and questions to ask:
Fact-finding – Most conflicts are related to communication or lack thereof. Hence one of the first steps is to engage in fact-
finding exercises. What are the facts? What is known and what is not known?
Who is involved – who are the people that care about this case or incident? What has been (mis)communicated? Who are the
individuals involved?
What is the conflict? – Is the conflict about the frameworks being used? If so, what are those frameworks and what is
conflicting? If the conflicts concern the values, morals, or policies, establish what those are and what needs to be adhered to.
Potential consequences to actions — What are some of the possible consequences for any actions taken to solve the dilemma?
How would the people involved like to be treated? What is the role of the designer in solving the conflict (whether or not the
designer is involved in causing this conflict)?
Reflection – Lastly, reflect on the actions taken. What are the repercussions, if any, to the actions taken from the difficulty?
Educators have a responsibility entrusted upon them when educating learners. The duties include but are not limited to, creating a
safe environment and being professional not just in virtual space but also in digital space. When educators neglect their
responsibility to be professional and ethical (an expectation that we often have for students), this can be detrimental to learners.

Developing Personas in Learner Analysis

It is often stated that if you want to know a person, you must walk in their shoes. This idiom captures the goal of a learner analysis
by helping us figuratively walk in someone’s shoes and come to understand them more deeply. One way to do this is through
personas. Personas are fictional characters that embrace the needs and goals of a real user or group of learners (Faily & Flechais,
2011). Personas help generate an understanding of learners and what their key attributes are that learning designers need to know
for their designs (Dam & Siang, 2019). Personas may be fictional characters, but they are built based on real learner analysis data
and thus embrace the needs and goals of real learners.
Effective personas do five things (from the following website: [Link]
1. Represent the majority of learners
2. Focus on the major needs of the learner
3. Provide clear understanding of the learners’ expectations
4. Provide an aid to uncovering universal features
5. Describe real individuals
To develop your own persona, the following chart in Table 2 can be helpful.
Table 2
Questions to Ask During Persona Development

1.5.4 [Link]
 Objective Questions

Define the purpose/vision of the What is the purpose of the course?

course What are the goals of the course?

Personal
What is the age of the learner?
What is the gender of the learner?
What is the highest level of education this learner has received?
Professional
How much work experience does your learner have?
Describe the user What is your learner’s professional background?
Why will the learner take the course?
Technical
What technological devices does the learner use on a regular basis?
What software and/or applications does the learner use on a regular basis?
Through what technological device does your user primarily access the web for
information?

What is the learner motivated by?

User motivation
What are the learner’s needs?

Note. From the U.S. Government usability website (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2020) “questions to ask during
persona development” chart.
When developing your persona, remember to organize the information in an easy-to-read logical format, and make it as visual as
possible to convey the greatest sense of the “humanness” of the learners. Key pieces of information to include are the persona
group (i.e. learner), fictional name, personal demographics, goals and tasks for the course, physical/social/technical environment,
and a casual picture representing their learning environment.
Following in Figures 1–4 are some examples that provide an illustration of worksheets and examples for creating personas.

1.5.5 [Link]
 Figure 1.5.1: Persona Worksheet 1
Note. Persona worksheet from Open Design Kit [Link]

1.5.6 [Link]
1.5.7 [Link]
 Figure 1.5.2: Persona Worksheet 2
Note. Persona example from [Link]

1.5.8 [Link]
Figure 1.5.3: Persona Example 1

1.5.9 [Link]
Note. Persona example from [Link]

1.5.10 [Link]
Figure 1.5.4: Persona Example 2

1.5.11 [Link]
Note. Persona example from [Link]
Personas are a helpful way for designers to create a more engaging, more productive, and more effective educational experience for
learners. Follow the guidelines provided in Table 2 when creating personas and be flexible and open to new information, as the
personas may not be the same from start to finish.

Understanding Learners Through Experience Mapping

The popular adage of "the customer is always right," is often used to emphasize the importance of providing excellent customer
service (Samson et al., 2017). While educational institutions are different from traditional service industries, they can still benefit
from paying attention to learners’ experiences. An experience map is a strategic tool that captures the journey of customers from
point A to point B and generalizes critical insights into learner interactions that occur across such experiences. The journey
captured in experience mapping, which is adapted from Schauer (2013), is split into four characteristics that generalize the
experience of a learner:
1. uncover the truth
2. chart the course
3. tell the story
4. use the map
The first step, uncover the truth, includes studying the learner's behavior and interactions across channels and touchpoints.
Channels are the interactions a person has with a product or service. Touchpoints are the interactions of a person with an agent or
artifact of an organization. In the first part of the experience mapping, a designer finds various data and insights relevant to the
experiences in the mapping process, including actually talking to the learners. Previous learner surveys and evaluations of the
course or program are a good data source to begin. In order for the map to be believable, it needs to tell an authentic story and
provide strong insights.
The second step, chart the course, collects the takeaways from learners to create actionable results. After you have collected data,
obtained key aspects of the learner’s journey, and obtained quotes from learners, it is time for the third characteristic: tell the story
visually in a way that creates empathy and understanding. The goal of this characteristic is for the experience map to stand on its
own, inspire new ideas, and foster strategy decisions.
The last step is to show the map to stakeholders that have insights and interactions with learners. Telling the story to stakeholders
provides insights into the learner's experiences. The experience must go beyond the physical location and create an experience of
usability such as identity, familiarization, memorability, and satisfaction (Ghani et al., 2016). Failure to meet the learner's needs can
result in loss of interest, bad reviews, and challenges to getting the learners to accomplish the task.
As with personas, there are a number of examples of what format an experience map might take. Most are considered copyrighted
and proprietary to the organizations developing them and so cannot be included here, but you can find examples of experience
maps at the following sites (each also provides some practical tips for developing your own experience maps):
What is a Customer Experience Map? How to Create an Effective Customer Experience Map?
The Ultimate Guide to Creating a Customer Experience Map

Conclusion
As we said at the outset: designing a course that best fits the needs of learners requires both an understanding of who the learners
are, as well as actual efforts to evaluate and understand their needs. We reviewed both conceptual issues that concern learner
analysis as well as practical approaches you can use to analyze actual learner needs.
At this point, the best the authors can offer is to wish you luck! Your learner analysis activities will lay a strong foundation for the
rest of your project, and it is worth the time it will take to set your project off right.

Practice: Learner Analysis Design Project

This learner analysis design exercise provides an opportunity to apply knowledge gained from this chapter. Imagine, you have been
hired by a company based in New York City to design a Security Awareness course that teaches newly hired and senior employees

1.5.12 [Link]
to identify and prevent security breaches. The course focuses on teaching the company’s staff the different types of security
awareness, email and phishing attacks, malware, ransomware, social media awareness, and password security.
For your project you must do the following:
1. Complete a full learner analysis worksheet.
2. Complete a learner-centered design process based on the description of the course.
3. Develop two learner personas for the course.
Upon completing the project, share and discuss with others how you completed the learner analysis worksheet, how you developed
the user-centered design and what resources were used to create the personas.
This exercise is meant to help you consider learner analysis from a practical perspective. However, realize that every company has
their own style of course design for their employees, and their own methods for conducting learner analysis. While the principles
discussed in this chapter should remain the same, the ways they are applied within any instructional design organization may vary.
Despite this variety of approaches, our goals remain the same: all instructional designers agree on the important need to understand
and empathize with learners in order to create instruction that best meets their needs.

References
Adams Becker, S., Caswell, T., Jensen, M., Ulrich, G., and Wray, E. (2014). Online Course Design Guide. (n.d.). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved [Link]
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based
principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Anitha, C., & Harsha, T. S. (2013). Ethical perspectives in open and distance education system. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 14(1), 193–201.
Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2015). The essentials of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and
practice. Routledge.
Cordova, J. R., Sinatra, G. M., Jones, S. H., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2014). Confidence in prior knowledge, self-
efficacy, interest and prior knowledge: Influences on conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 164–174
Dam, R., & Siang, T. (2020, June 5). Personas–A Simple Introduction. Interaction Design Foundation. [Link]
AZfN
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J.O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed). Columbus, Ohio. Pearson.
Faily, S., & Flechais, I. (2011, May). Persona cases: a technique for grounding personas. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2267–2270). ACM.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco,
CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Ghani, A. A. A., Hamid, M. Y., Haron, S. N., Ahmad, N. A., Bahari, M., & Wahab, S. N. A. (2016). Methods in Mapping Usability
of Malaysia’s Shopping Centre. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 66, p.117). EDP Sciences.
Glossary of Education Reform. (n.d.). Learner. [Link]
Jonassen, D.H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W.H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, New Jersey.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Mathur, S. R., & Corley, K. M. (2014). Bringing ethics into the classroom: Making a case for frameworks, multiple perspectives
and narrative sharing. International Education Studies, 7(9), 136–147.
Raj Urs, S. V. R., Harsha, T. S., & Vijay, R. A. J. U. (2013). Ethical issues in open and distance education with special reference to
expectations and reality. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(4), 46–53.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (Eds.). (2009). Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge
base (Vol. 3). New York, NY. Routledge.

1.5.13 [Link]
Samson, S., Granath, K., & Alger, A. (2017). Journey mapping the user experience. College & Research Libraries, 78(4), 459.
Saxena, M. (2011). Learner analysis framework for globalized e-learning: A case study. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distributed Learning, 12(5), 93–107. [Link]
Schauer, B. (2013). Adaptive path’s guide to experience mapping. Accessed October 8, 2019 [Link]
Umanath, S., & Marsh, E. J. (2014). Understanding how prior knowledge influences memory in older adults. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 9(4), 408.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2020). Questions to ask during persona development chart.
Wainaina, P. K., Mwisukha, A., & Rintaugu, E. G. (2015). Professional conduct of academic staff in public universities in Kenya:
Learners’ perception. International Journal of Education and Social Science, 2(6), 67–72. Retrieved from [Link]
bXV
Young, P. A. (2014). The presence of culture in learning. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
(pp. 349–361). New York, NY: Springer.

This page titled 1.5: Conducting A Learner Analysis is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1.5.14 [Link]
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

2: Exploring
2.1: Problem Framing
2.2: Task And Content Analysis
2.3: Documenting Instructional Design Decisions

This page titled 2: Exploring is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard
E. West (EdTech Books) .

1
2.1: Problem Framing

Problem Framing
Vanessa Svihla
Is design a problem solving process? To answer "No" suggests that designers do not produce solutions to design problems.
However, in order to produce such solutions, designers must first frame—and typically reframe—the problem. Understanding this
can help newcomers recognize the need for a different approach, rather than jumping straight to solutions. What does it mean to
frame a problem? In this chapter, detailed below, I define it as follows:
Problem framing: To take ownership of and iteratively define what the problem really is, decide what should be included and
excluded, and decide how to proceed in solving it.
To understand what problem framing looks like in practice, this chapter introduces and illustrates key terms that help us speak
consistently about design problems and how they differ from other problems. Vignettes highlight how designers direct their
problem framing process. The chapter concludes with tools for framing problems and diagnostics for common pitfalls.

The Problem of the Problem: What Makes Design Problems Different from Other Problems?

Most of us have had abundant opportunities to solve problems, beginning in elementary school. But these problems were
predominantly well-structured (Jonassen, 2000), meaning there was a single correct answer and the instructor knew what that
answer was. Repeated experiences with such problems can lead us to privilege accuracy and efficiency over spending time
dwelling with the problem. And surely getting to the right answer quickly is valuable in many situations. But design problems
differ—there is not a single right answer or even a best way to come to a solution.
As a result, when tackling these ill-structured problems we must first frame them (Jonassen, 2000). Framing a problem involves
defining the problem and bounding it, then deciding what to include and exclude and how to proceed (Dorst & Cross, 2001; Schön,
1983). This, in turn, relies on activities described in other chapters in this text, including the following: (a) gathering information
about the task, learners, and context; (b) generating tentative ideas about the problem and solution; (c) making and revising
decisions about the problem (often influenced by precedent); and (d) evaluating tentative ideas in light of design requirements and
learner needs. Some therefore treat problem framing as a higher-level category that includes all of these activities. Others treat
problem framing as an activity threaded through the design process. Regardless, problem framing is the process by which designers
take ownership of a problem. This means that two designers, given identical design briefs, would not only produce different
solutions, but would have solved different problems (see Figure 1.; cf., Dorst, 2003; Harfield, 2007).

Figure 2.1.1: An Example of How the Same Initial Problem may be Framed and Solved Differently
To see how this might play out, try finding multiple problems in the scenarios below (Table 1). Can you frame the problem as an
instructional design problem? Can you also frame the problem not as an instructional problem?
Once you have framed possible problems in the scenarios, consider the ill-structuredness, complexity, and domain specificity of
each problem (Jonassen, 2000). Each problem you framed may differ in these dimensions (Figure 2):
Structure refers to the degree to which a problem has a single solution and most-efficient solution path (well-structured) or
many possible solutions and solution paths (ill-structured). Problems are sometimes presented to instructional designers as well-
structured, but design problems are ill-structured by definition.
Complexity refers to the number of variables involved and how interrelated they are. Most—but not all—design problems are
complex. This characteristic can be tricky to assess simply because we use the term informally as a synonym for “difficult.”

2.1.1 [Link]
 Domain specificity refers to whether domain general strategies would suffice; Jonassen (2000) described domain specific
problems in terms of both “abstract” and “situated,” knowledge, generally placing such knowledge in formal domains. Almost
all ID problems are domain specific.
Table 1
Framing Both Instructional Design and Other Problems

Management at a chemical plant identifies that the most expensive chemical is not typically used efficiently, unless it
is used under specific conditions. They contract an instructional designer to create a job aid to ensure the chemical
Scenario
reactor is operated optimally. The reactor includes 15 stages, six chemicals, and gauges for setting pressure,
1
temperature, and rate at each stage. Data suggest workers tend to apply settings from a similar reactor, resulting in
waste.

Beth is hired by a dietician to create instructional materials—printed handouts—for parents/guardians of children

with special dietary needs based on a specific disability. The dietician provides published, effective dietary standards
Scenario
based on the specific disability and shares that some of the terms in the standards are hard for families to understand.
2
The production budget is small and timeline tight. The organization provides a set of images they previously created
and want used in the handouts.

A university’s instructional technologies committee selects and implements a learning management system (LMS),
heavily guided by their own expertise, along with issues related to copyright law, tight institutional budget concerns,
Scenario
and interfacing with systems for registration and grading. As a consequence, instructional designers are hired
3
primarily based on their capacity to provide technical support for the cumbersome, difficult to use LMS. To ensure
they can support the faculty, they create a highly structured course shell.

A district purchases science kits and curricula for teachers in Phoenix, AZ. While the resources seem useful, the
teachers realize there are issues. For instance, the curriculum teaches "Fall is when the leaves change colors," but the
Scenario
teachers know their students have never seen leaves change color. They meet during a cross-school professional
4
development session to address these issues, guided by curriculum leads who graduated from an instructional design
program.

An instructional designer is tasked with migrating courses from a decommissioned LMS to a newly adopted one.
Scenario
None of the content or sequencing is to be changed. The two LMSs differ greatly in many ways (e.g., how objects are
5
connected to courses, the order in which settings must be selected, and the number of features available).

2.1.2 [Link]
 Figure 2.1.2: Problem Structure, Complexity, and Domain Specificity Differentiate Between Problem Types
Note. Design problems are always ill-structured, and usually complex and domain specific. The letters refer to the problems above
related to scenario 1 in Table 1.

How Do Designers Frame Problems?

Problem framing can occur through both overt and covert activities. Some activities and deliverables make the problem visible, but
other problem framing work happens through talk or individual thinking. Covert framing activities involve abductive reasoning—
filling in gaps in knowledge (e.g., Kolko, 2010). This kind of thinking is heavily influenced by past precedent, and designers
contend with the salience and limitations of their own experience.
From their first contact with the problem, designers consider whether the problem seems like one encountered previously and how
the current problem seems to differ from past precedent.
How might you convey to a client why framing the problem is important?
Their framing of the problem is visible in the project objectives and learning goals they set. As they seek to understand and explore,
researching the task, context, learners, and possibly other precedents, they reframe the problem and consider whether the client will
accept their reframing, which is made visible in learning objectives and problem statements. Prototypes may likewise reveal their
problem framing. Evaluation of a prototype’s feasibility, desirability, and ability to meet identified learning needs may lead to
further reframing.
Clients often undervalue and underestimate the time and effort needed to frame the problem. Clients may request a specific
deliverable or solution, yet may not have a deep understanding of the actual needs. Making a value proposition can sometimes help.

2.1.3 [Link]
This means communicating clearly about what problem framing is and why it can benefit the organization by preventing ineffective
training.

What Does It Mean to Have Agency to Frame a Design Problem?

Experienced designers—regardless of discipline—know to direct their framing of the problem. They make consequential decisions
that lead them to new understandings and reframings of the problem. This “framing agency” is a hallmark of design in which
designers rely on information they gather and on their past precedent—as described in other chapters of this volume. What does
framing agency look like in practice?
In the case below (Figure 3) a team faces some challenges in part because not all members understand that they need to frame the
problem; this is visible in their expectations about their roles and in their talk. In the vignettes, words are highlighted to draw
attention to ways the team members are talking that help us notice whether they are framing the problem or not. Designers often
share framing agency with other designers, with envisioned stakeholders, and sometimes even with the materials in their designs.
In ID, this happens when they reference the learning and transfer contexts, and the modes of learning (e.g., face-to-face, online,
etc.) to justify decisions. Another indicator of framing agency is staying tentative, staying with the problem. Using verbs that show
possible actions (e.g., could, might, etc.) and hedge words (e.g., maybe, kind of, etc.) invites both the designer and others to revise
their thinking about the problem. In contrast, using verbs that show a lack of control (have to, need to, etc.) over the situation tends
to shut down problem framing, unless the verb refers to a design requirement (like Yen’s use on “need to” in vignette 2).
Read through the vignettes in figure 3 and answer the following questions:
Who treats the problem as not needing to be framed?
How does the instructional designer encourage them to frame the problem?
Who else shows framing agency?

2.1.4 [Link]
 Figure 2.1.3: Vignettes From a Design Team: Who Shows Framing Agency? Who Does Not?
If you are on a team that is resisting framing the problem, how will you communicate with your team? Using the key in Figure 3,
how can you use tentative language to invite them to frame the problem with you? How will you help them understand the
importance of framing the problem?

2.1.5 [Link]
Learning to notice how you talk with your team may help you diagnose whether or not you are framing the problem. When
someone sounds tentative, consider it an invitation to engage in framing with them. Try to avoid no-control talk that shuts down
problem framing.

What Tools Help Designers Frame Problems?

Mapping unknowns, assumptions, and conjectures can help clarify the work needed to frame problems. In addition to the tools that
other chapters in this text have offered, I have found the following tools help make problem frames explicit yet open to revision:
Problem statements
Storyboarding
KWL charting
Design conjecture maps
Root cause + sphere of influence analysis
It is important to remain tentative in using these tools. Just as we saw with design talk, staying open to revision is key. For this
reason, I typically use pencil and paper or whiteboards for these kinds of activities. Rather than polishing and perfecting them,
staying in draft mode can help you stay open.

Problem Statements
Problem statements are concise and provide clarity about the problem frame. Your problem statement should begin with one or two
sentences describing a vision of what is possible if the problem is solved. Next, describe—in one to two sentences—what the
specific issues are. This should include who, what, when, where and why. Finally, in one to two sentences, describe the primary
symptoms of and evidence for the problem. You should not include a solution! Expect to write your problem statement multiple
times to capture changes in your understanding of the problem.
Problem Statement Worksheet

Storyboarding
Vividly depict the problem—not the solution—as a sequence of events from a particular point of view. You may hand draw this,
use photos, use a graphics program, or try out one of the many free storyboard/comic strip creation websites (see Additional
readings and resources). When depicting the problem, consider other points of view, and represent these in another storyboard, with
thought bubbles, or as a branching storyline. Avoid depicting the solution!

KWL Charting
KWL charting is adapted from tools commonly used in project-based learning classrooms and supports learners to identify what
they do and do not know, as well as what they still need to know (Ogle, 1989). This tool is useful for designers as they manage the
ambiguity of the design problem. Using it frequently as a means to track progress can help teams direct their own progress in
bringing information into the problem.
Table 2
Example of KWL Charting

What do we know about the design problem, What precedent do we want to (or What do we want to learn about
Date learner needs, and other requirements or not want to) bring into the the problem and how will we
constraints? problem? learn it?

2.1.6 [Link]
Design Conjecture Maps
Design conjecture maps are based in tools like logic models and design-based research conjecture maps (Sandoval, 2014). They
help designers coherently link the task to learning objectives and to their design ideas. First, place the learning objectives on the
same page as the task analysis, then make links between them. Second, after generating tentative ideas, try connecting these to the
task analysis and learning objectives using yarn or string. Third, as you begin to develop more solid designs, try connecting these
back to the task analysis and learning objectives.
Design Conjecture Mapping

Root Cause Analysis

Root cause analysis techniques, like the five whys (Ohno, 1978; Serrat, 2017), can help designers identify underlying causes rather
than treating symptoms. While some use this approach to craft a linear set of causes and effects, creating a network of whys is more
effective for framing problems from multiple points of view. In this way, for each problem, you should ask “Why does this
happen?” and “Why else does this happen?” This results in a network of possible root causes. Pairing this analysis with sphere of
influence analysis—meaning, deliberately analyzing whether each cause is within your capacity to influence the problem through
instructional design—provides an opportunity to consider the feasibility and impact for any particular cause. To do this, for each
cause you should consider whether it is a problem you can influence and whether it is an instructional design problem (Figure 4).
Which of these causes suggest an instructional design problem?

2.1.7 [Link]
Figure 2.1.4: Example of the Five Whys as a Network

2.1.8 [Link]
Do-It-Yourself
Now that we have learned about several tools, here are some specific ways you can apply these. First, you can try out the tools in
the previous section using the scenarios above in Table 1. Second, if you are in a class that includes developing an instructional
design, you can use these tools for your class. When teaching instructional design, I always require students to work for clients on
real design projects because I have observed issues that come up without clients. Students spend as much or more time inventing
fake clients as they would learning how to assess needs. Without a real client and context, it can be hard to learn to frame problems
authentically, to really understand that even though you are designing something for others, by framing the problem, you are taking
ownership of it. That is challenging to do if it is a problem of your own invention. Likewise, without a client, the reasons for
reframing are likelier to stem from challenges you encounter than new understanding of the problem space. Of course, working
with real clients can be challenging in other ways. Make sure your client understands that you have course deadlines and are just
learning to design. Agree on the scope of work beforehand using a formal design brief.

Conclusion
While problem framing is typically treated as something that happens at the beginning of a design project, it is important to
remember that it is a process that continues until the design is finalized. You may revisit and revise along the way, especially for
short deliverables like problem statements and KWL charting. Prototypes, especially low fidelity prototypes, and evaluation often
reveal the need for reframing. And, as contexts and needs change by location or over time, a solution may no longer function, and
the problem can pop back open. In considering the iterative nature of problem framing, how will you use these tools to guide and
document reframings of the problem?
Finally, my advice to you as new designers is this: Dwell with the problem. Wallow in some uncertainty. Stay tentative!

Additional Readings and Resources

Problem Framing Resources

Gause, D. C., & Weinberg, G. M. (1990). Are your lights on? Dorset House.
ISIXSIGMA
Atlassian

Root Cause Tools

Google Drawings
[Link]
MindMeister
Mindomo
[Link]
Edrawsoft
MindMup
LucidChart

Storyboarding Tools
Storyboard That
Pixton
Witty Comics
Strip Generator
Make Beliefs Comix

Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. EEC 1751369. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation.

2.1.9 [Link]
References
Dorst, K. (2003). The problem of design problems. Design Thinking Research Symposium, Sydney, 17(19.11).
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437.
doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
Harfield, S. (2007). On design `problematization': Theorising differences in designed outcomes. Design Studies, 28(2), 159-173.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.11.005
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4),
63-85. doi:10.1007/BF02300500
Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15-28.
doi:10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15
Ogle, D. M. (1989). The know, want to know, learn strategy. Children’s comprehension of text: Research into practice, 205-223.
Ohno, T. (1978). Toyota production system: Beyond large-scale production. Vol. 1: Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 23(1), 18-36. doi:10.1080/10508406.2013.778204
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Serrat, O. (2017). The five whys technique. Knowledge solutions (pp. 307-310): Springer.

Vanessa Svihla
Vanessa Svihla profile picture

Figure 2.1.5: Dr. Vanessa Svihla is an assistant professor at the University of New Mexico with appointments in the learning
sciences and engineering, and she directs the Interaction and Disciplinary Design in Educational Activity (IDDEA) Lab. Her
research has been supported by the NSF and USDA, and she was selected as a 2014 National Academy of Education / Spencer
Postdoctoral Scholar. Dr. Svihla received her MS (Geology) and PhD (Science Education) from The University of Texas at Austin.
She served in the Peace Corps and was a post-doctoral scholar at UC Berkeley. She draws inspiration from her own practice in
fashion design and instructional design, as her research focuses on how people learn when they design. She is particularly
interested in how people find and frame problems, and how these activities relate to identity, agency and creativity.

This page titled 2.1: Problem Framing is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald &
Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

2.1.10 [Link]
2.2: Task And Content Analysis

Task and Content Analysis

Levi Posadas

Editor's Note
This is a condensed version of a larger chapter on Task Analysis that can be found at the Philosophies of Instructional
Design website. It is printed here by permission of the author.
Task and/or content analysis is a set of activities that help instructional designers understand the domain (knowledge, skills, etc.) to
be taught. It is a critical part of the instructional design process, solving at least three problems for the designer:
1. It defines the knowledge and skills required to solve the performance problem or alleviate a performance need. This step is
crucial because most designers are working with an unfamiliar domain.
2. Because the process forces subject-matter experts to work through each individual step of what is required to solve a problem,
subtle details of the knowledge and skills to be taught can be more easily identified.
3. During the process, the designer has the opportunity to view material from the learner’s perspective. Using this perspective, the
designer can often gain insight into appropriate instructional strategies for the materials they will ultimately create.
Task/content analysis does not begin in a vacuum. It begins with the needs or goals derived from the definition of the instructional
problem. Designers should also consider what they uncovered during their learner analysis. An understanding of the learner’s
knowledge and background related to the instructional domain helps designers determine the beginning point for the analysis as
well as the depth and breadth of analysis. The output of a task/content analysis is documentation of the content that could possibly
be included in the instructional materials. This output then serves as input for developing detailed instructional objectives.

Preparing to Conduct a Task or Content Analysis

A task/content analysis can take many different forms. Designers most often work with one or more subject-matter experts (SMEs),
individuals who are experts in the content area. The SME is our link to the instructional domain; we rely on this individual (or
individuals) to provide accurate, detailed information for use in developing the instructional unit. Our task as designers is to help
the SME elaborate on the content and tasks in a meaningful, logical manner.
In this chapter, we describe the different kinds of content structures designers might encounter in their work, and how each can
require different types of strategies to analyze (and later teach) effectively. We then describe three specific techniques for analyzing
these knowledge and skill structures: (a) a topic analysis well suited for defining cognitive knowledge; (b) a procedural analysis for
use with psychomotor tasks, job tasks, or cognitive sequences involving a series of steps; and (c) a critical incident method, which
is useful for analyzing interpersonal skills.

Content Structures
Six structures are often associated with a task/content analysis: facts, concepts, principles and rules, procedures, and interpersonal
skills.

Facts
A fact is an arbitrary association between two things. For example, ‘‘The chemical symbol for potassium is K’’ is a fact that
describes a relationship between potassium and K. Most topics include many facts because they are the building blocks or tools of
any subject—the ‘‘vocabulary’’ the learner must master for understanding. But unless facts are arranged in structured patterns, they
will be of limited use to a learner and are often quickly forgotten.

Concepts
Concepts are categories used for grouping similar or related ideas, events, or objects. For example, we might use the concept of soft
drinks to categorize the aisle in the grocery store that contains colas, orange drink, root beer, and so forth. The concept of fruit
would include apples, oranges, bananas, and dates, but not potatoes. We use concepts to simplify information by grouping similar
ideas or objects together and assigning the grouping a name (e.g., fruit, islands, or democracies). Some concepts, such as fruit, are

2.2.1 [Link]
considered concrete concepts because we can easily show an example. Concepts such as safety, liberty, peace, and justice are
abstract concepts because they are difficult to represent or illustrate.

Principles and Rules

Principles and rules describe a relationship between two concepts. In microeconomics, we can derive several principles from a
supply-and-demand curve. For example, ‘‘as price increases, the supply increases’’ is a principle that describes a direct relationship
between two concepts (i.e., price and supply) that increase and decrease together. ‘‘As price decreases, demand increases’’
describes a different relationship between price and demand that causes one to increase as the other decreases.

Procedures
A procedure is an ordered sequence of steps a learner must execute to complete a task. A recipe for making a cake or casserole is a
procedure. Similarly, a procedure could be a series of steps needed to plant a rosebush, or it could be a complex series of cognitive
processes required to debug a computer program or diagnose the flu.

Interpersonal Skills
This broad category includes behaviors and objectives related to interpersonal communication, for example the development of
interviewing skills, solving group conflict, leading a group, or how to sit (e.g., appropriate body language) when being interviewed
on television.

Topic Analysis
A topic analysis is used to define connections and relationships between the facts, concepts, principles, and rules that make up a
knowledge domain. Such an analysis is typically done in layers, much like what an archaeologist finds when excavating a site.
First, the top layer of soil is scraped away. Then layers of earth are removed, and each artifact’s identity and location are recorded.
Similarly, a designer working with the SME carefully reveals the first layer of information while looking for indicators of
knowledge structures (i.e., facts, concept, and principles). Once the structure is revealed, additional detail is gathered for each
structure, and new information appears as the designer digs deeper into the content.
A topic analysis thus provides two types of information. First, it identifies the content that will be the focus of the intended
instruction. Second, it identifies the structure of the components. We should note that during a topic analysis, the designer might
also identify one or more procedures that require analysis. While the topic analysis is not suited for analyzing procedures, our next
methodology, procedural analysis, would be appropriate. As you conduct a topic analysis, then, you should remain focused on
identifying the facts, concepts, and principles that make up the domain.

Analyzing a Topic
Let’s examine a topic analysis example. Imagine we are designing a beginning carpentry course. The course includes an
introductory module on different types of wood fasteners. To begin, we can ask an SME to describe the different fasteners. Our
question prompts the following outline:
1. Nails
2. Screws
3. Bolts
The SME considered these three major categories adequate to describe the various types of fasteners. So we might next ask the
SME to further define each category. He expanded our outline as we asked additional questions. To get started, we might ask from
what material fasteners are made, how they are sized, and how they are used.
1. Nails
1. Generally made from wire
2. Range in size from 2-penny to 60-penny
1. Length of nails 10-penny or less is determined by dividing size by 4 and adding 0.5 inch
1. Example: 7-penny nail is 2.25 inches long
3. Typically driven into one or more pieces of wood with a hammer or nail gun

2.2.2 [Link]
 2. Screws
1. Made from steel
2. Size determined by the gauge (thickness) and length
1. Length varies from 0.25 to 6 inches
3. Usually twisted into a hole with screwdriver
4. Provide a more secure joint than nails
3. Bolts
1. Made from steel
2. Measured by length and diameter
1. Available in fine or coarse threads
3. Placed through a hole and then a nut is tightened from opposite side
Let’s examine the content structure identified in the outline. Some of the facts identified in the outline are as follows:
1. Nails are generally made from wire
2. Bolts are made of steel
3. Bolts are measured by length and diameter
4. Screw length varies from .25 to 6 inches
The concepts identified in the topic analysis are:
1. Nail
2. Screw
3. Bolt
One procedure was identified in the task analysis:
Length of nails 10-penny or less is determined by dividing size by 4 and adding 0.5 inch.
Our SME helped us identify one principle in the content:
Screws provide a more secure joint than nails.
Next, we can ask the SME to provide detailed information on each fastener category, starting with nails. Once he finishes, we can
organize the content using the following steps:
1. Identify the different content structures (facts, concepts, and principles; we might have also identified procedures, and
interpersonal skills that we will also need to analyze using other procedures).
2. Group related facts, concepts, principles, and interpersonal skills. For example, in our full outline of wood fasteners, we would
group all the information about nails, then the information about screws, and so forth.
3. Arrange the various components into a logical, sequential order.
4. Prepare the final outline to represent your task analysis.
A completed topic analysis on nails, then, could look like this:
1. Nails
1. Generally made from wire
2. Range in size from 2-penny to 60-penny
1. Length of nails 10-penny or less is determined by dividing size by 4 and adding 0.5 inch
2. Example: 7-penny nail is 2.25 inches long
3. Size is written as 2d for ‘‘2-penny’’
4. Typically driven into one or more pieces of wood with a hammer
5. Types of nails
1. Common nails
1. Most commonly used nail

2.2.3 [Link]
 2. Available in sizes from 2d to 60d
1. 8d size is most common
3. Identified by flat head
4. Used for general purposes
2. Box nails
1. Smaller in diameter than common nails
2. Available in sizes ranging from 2d to 40d
3. Also identified by its flat head
4. Used in lumber that may split easily
5. Often used for nailing siding
3. Finishing nails
1. Have a very small head that will not show
1. Head can be sunk into wood and hole filled
2. Available in sizes 2d to 20d
3. Used primarily for finishing work and cabinetry
4. Common brads
1. Similar to finishing nails but much smaller
2. Available in various lengths
1. Length expressed in inches or parts of an inch
3. Used for finishing work
5. Roofing nails
1. Similar to common nails but with a larger head
2. Available in lengths from 0.75 inch to 2 inches
1. Available in various diameters
3. Used for roofing
How detailed should a topic analysis be? There is no strict guideline, but as a rule of thumb you can use your learner analysis as a
guide, since this should describe the learners’ prior knowledge of the content area. A course on home repair for apprentice
carpenters, for example, will require a different amount of detail than a course for homeowners.
Topic Analysis Template

Procedural Analysis
A procedural analysis is used to analyze tasks by identifying the steps required to complete them. This technique can be used for
both observable and unobservable procedures. You conduct a procedural analysis by asking an SME to walk through the steps of a
process, preferably with the same equipment and in the same environment in which the task is performed. For example, if you are
conducting a procedural analysis for repairing an electric meter, the SME should have an electric meter and the necessary tools to
refer to during your interview.
Each step of a procedure analysis includes three questions:
1. What does the learner do?
1. Identify the action in each step that the learner must perform.
2. These actions are either physical (e.g., loosening a bolt) or mental (e.g., adding two numbers).
2. What does the learner need to know to do this step?
1. What knowledge (e.g., temperature, pressure, orientation) is necessary?
2. What does the learner need to know about the location or orientation of the components that are a part of this step (e.g., how
to position a wrench to remove a hidden nut)?

2.2.4 [Link]
 3. What cues (tactile, smell, visual, etc.) inform the learner that there is a problem, the step is done correctly, or a different step is
needed (e.g., a blinking light indicates you can release the starter switch)?
In the following procedural analysis, a designer visited a cabinetmaker and asked him how to prepare a piece of woodwork for the
final finish. During the analysis, the designer asked him variations of the three questions described in the previous paragraphs to
identify the steps, knowledge, and cues. As part of the analysis, the cabinetmaker informed him that someone who finishes
furniture would already know the basics of sanding and using a paint sprayer. The designer’s analysis produced the following steps:
1. Inspect all surfaces for defects.
1. Tactile cue: Feel for dents, scratches, and other surface defects.
2. Visual cue: Splits or cracks are normally visible.
2. Repair defects in surface.
1. Use sand and glue to fill minor defects.
2. Reject pieces that you cannot repair for rework.
3. Spray two coats of lacquer sanding sealer on all surfaces.
1. Visual cue: Dry, misty appearance indicates too-light application.
2. Visual cue: Runs or sags indicate too-heavy application.
4. Prepare for final finish.
1. Allow a 20-minute minimum drying time for sealer coat.
2. After drying, rub out all parts with #400 grit silicon carbide abrasive paper.
3. Remove dust from all surfaces with air gun, then wipe with clean, lint-free cloth.
5. Complete the final finish.
1. Spray two coats of finishing lacquer on all parts.
2. Visual cue: Dry, misty finish indicates too-light application.
3. Visual cue: Runs or sags indicate too-heavy application.
4. Allow a minimum of four hours for second coat to dry.
6. Inspect final finish.
1. Tactile cue: Feel for grit or runs that may not be visible.
2. Rub out all surfaces with #000 steel wool.
3. Remove dust from all finished surfaces with air gun and lint-free cloth.
4. Apply a thin coat of wax to all finished surfaces.
5. Buff all surfaces to high gloss.
6. Visual cue: Wax becomes dull prior to buffing.
Procedure Analysis Template

The Critical Incident Method

The two methods we have described—topic and procedural analyses—work well with concrete content and highly structured tasks.
Analyzing other processes, however, such as how to conduct an interview, resolve an interpersonal conflict, or close a sales
opportunity, are more difficult because they vary from instance to instance. Although the instances share certain elements, typically
a breadth of skills and techniques actually accounts for one’s success. A procedural analysis works quite well for analyzing how to
apply the final finish to a wooden table, for instance, because the basic process is repeated time after time, with variations due to
size and type of wood. But closing a sale, however, depends on several conditions (e.g., personality of the buyer, financial status of
the buyer) that change with each sale. There are also complex tasks that an SME might consider an ‘‘art,’’ for example, determining
where to drill an oil well, predicting successful stocks or mutual funds to purchase, or determining which type of psychotherapy to
use with a patient.
To define content for these types of instruction we need an analysis method that provides different points of view on the
skills/processes involved. For example, we might interview a salesperson who uses a very calm approach and another who uses

2.2.5 [Link]
high-pressure tactics. This is what we call a critical incident analysis, or an interview technique where the designer interviews
several individuals to provide a rich source of data about possibilities.
There are two, key questions to ask as part of a critical incident analysis: First, ask an SME to identify three instances when he or
she was successful in achieving a goal. Second, ask the SME to identify three instances when he or she was not successful in
achieving the same goal.
Next, ask additional questions to gather three types of information:
1. What were the conditions before, during, and after the incident?
1. Where did the incident occur?
2. When did it occur?
3. Who was involved?
4. What equipment was used, and what was its condition?
2. What did you do?
1. What did you do physically?
2. What did you say and to whom?
3. What were you thinking?
3. How did this incident help you reach or prevent you from reaching your goal?
(Ideally, this process should then be repeated with other SMEs.)
An analysis of critical incident interviews will identify knowledge and techniques the SMEs use to accomplish their goals. But note
that although the critical incident analysis provides a list of topics and procedures that experts used, it does not include a list of the
steps or details for topics. But using the information from this analysis you can perform a topic and/or procedural analysis to further
define the content for the instruction.
Critical Incident Analysis Template

Conclusion
Task/content analysis is a critical step of the instructional design process. It can be easy to neglect, or to carry out superficially,
especially given the time it takes to capture the detail required to do it right. But skipping this analysis will likely cause problems in
future phases of the design process, particularly when it is time to design instructional activities. If designers only have superficial
understanding of the content, or only rely on their subject matter experts’ tacit understanding of the content, they are unlikely to
design instructional materials that support learners in actually mastering the desired learning outcomes. Instructional designers
should ensure they reserve enough time in their design process to carry out their task/content analysis in an adequate manner.

Application Exercises
Like any other skill, becoming proficient at task/content analysis requires practice. If you don’t have a current instructional design
project you can practice on your own by:
1. Identifying a topic area you personally wish you knew more about and interviewing an expert to create a diagram of the
knowledge structure.
1. You may consider interviewing more than one expert to see what kind of unique structures emerge from their different point
of views.
2. Identifying a simple skill and interviewing/observing an expert to create a diagram of how the skill is completed.
1. If you interview another expert about the same skill, is there more or less variability in the results than you found with your
topic analysis?
3. Identifying a complex interpersonal skill and conducting a critical incident analysis with an expert.
1. If you interview another expert about the same skill, is there more or less variability in the results than you found with your
topic or procedure analysis?

2.2.6 [Link]
This page titled 2.2: Task And Content Analysis is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

2.2.7 [Link]
2.3: Documenting Instructional Design Decisions

Documenting Instructional Design Decisions

Jill Stefaniak
Instructional designers are tasked with making countless decisions in every project they complete. Questions ranging from “Who is
my learning audience?” to “How will this project be evaluated for effectiveness upon implementation?” all require the instructional
designer to make a variety of decisions to ensure that their instructional design efforts are contributing to efficiency, effectiveness,
and ease of learning (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2013). As the utility of instructional design continues to be recognized
across industries, the complexities of design will continue to grow. With more options available in terms of how instructional
solutions are to be designed and disseminated to a range of different learning audiences, the complexities of design decisions facing
instructional designers are insurmountable.
There is a large body of literature in other design disciplines that outline strategies for engaging in decision-making and
documenting design decisions. Many of these strategies lend themselves to the ID field, particularly with working on complex, ill-
structured design problems. Marston and Mistree (1997) argue the importance of decision-making in design practices stating that
decisions serve as markers to identify the progress that is made on designing a solution.
The purpose of this chapter is to help instructional designers differentiate between the different types of decisions they may be
responsible for during a project. Various approaches for engaging in decision-making will be discussed and tools will be provided
to assist the instructional designer with documenting their design decisions.

Types of Decisions
Instructional design problems can be classified as well-structured (Jonassen, 2000). Well-structured problems typically have one
possible solution, whereas ill-structured problems may have multiple solutions. Instructional designers will often find themselves
tasked with designing instructional solutions for problems of an ill-structured nature. While some problems may require a quick
decision by the designer, other problems may be more complex; thus, requiring several interrelated decisions (Jonassen, 2011).
Decisions can be categorized according to types such as choices, acceptances/rejections, evaluation, and constructions (Yates &
Tschirhart, 2006). Choices consist of selecting an option from a large set of options. Acceptance/rejection decisions consist of a
binary decision where the option (or solution) is accepted or not. Evaluative decisions involve an individual assigning worth to a
possible option and determining their level of commitment if they were to proceed with that option (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, &
Worthen, 2011; Guerra-Lopez, 2008). Decisions of a more constructive nature involve trying to “identify ideal solutions given
available resources (Jonassen, 2012, p. 343).
Table 1 provides an overview of their typology along with the types of decisions an instructional designer may encounter during a
project.
Table 1
Decision Typologies as They Relate to Instructional Design

2.3.1 [Link]
 Type Example of Instructional Design Decisions

An instructional designer has been asked to help a local museum with developing learning materials
for their patrons. During their brainstorming meeting with the museum staff, they discuss the
Choices
possibility of using audio headsets, mobile learning, QR codes, online learning modules, and face-to-
face training programs as training options.

An instructional designer submits a proposal to present their project at a national instructional design
Acceptances/Rejections conference. Reviewers responsible for reading the proposal must decide to accept or reject the
conference proposal.

An instructional design firm in a metropolitan city meets with a not-for-profit organization to discuss
their training needs. During a few of the initial conversations, the firm realizes that their client would
Evaluation not be able to pay the typical fees they charge for their instructional design services. The CEO of the
instructional design firm sees the impact that the not-for-profit has made in the local community and
decides that they can offer a few of their services pro bono.

An instructional design program discusses the options for offering two special topics courses to their
students in the upcoming year. Program faculty discuss possible topics and discuss which ones might
Constructions
be of the most interest to their students. During their discussions, they identify potential instructors for
the courses and look to see how this might impact regular course offerings and instructor assignments.

Jonassen (2012) suggests that decisions fall under two models of decision-making: normative and naturalistic. Normative models
involve an individual evaluating the situation and considering several options before deciding on a solution that yields the optimal
solution given any constraints or resources related to the situation. He further categorizes normative models of decision-making as
falling into three categories (rational choice, cost-benefit, and risk assessment).
Rational choice models involve the instructional designer evaluating alternative options for addressing a problem and weighing the
option to determine what is the most viable of the solutions. Oftentimes, the instructional designer will evaluate the strengths and
weaknesses of each solution using decision-making tools such as SWOT or force field analyses. A cost-benefit analysis seeks to
select solutions based on the potential for their return-on-investment. There may be instances where it is worth foregoing training if
an organization cannot justify incurring the costs associated with training. A risk assessment model is when an instructional
designer will evaluate the risks associated with not proceeding with a particular solution.
Naturalistic models are suggested to assist in the decision-making process when decisions are more contextually-embedded. These
models “stress the role of identity and unconscious emotions in decision-making” (Jonassen, 2012, p. 348). Narrative-based models
place value on the explanations that accompany the various decision options. More emphasis is placed on the explanation rather
than the cost-benefit analysis associated with a particular solution. Identify-based decisions are centered around how any individual
relates to solutions on a personal level. Table 2 provides examples of instructional design decisions that may fall under normative
or naturalistic decision-making models.
Table 2
Examples of Normative and Naturalistic Instructional Design Decisions

2.3.2 [Link]
 Type of
Decision- Model Examples in Relation to Instructional Design
Making

A manufacturing company is looking to conduct Kaizen events as a means to create a lean

manufacturing environment. To date, there have been many issues reported and logged by
Rational employees related to inefficiencies related to production. The manufacturing supervisors and the
choice director of continuous improvement meet to rank the performance issues. They will begin by
developing training and Kaizen events around the top three issues that have been prioritized by
the team.
Normative
Decision- A call center is interested in investing in the development of new training modules to assist their
Cost-benefit
Making call attendants on strategies to troubleshoot common calls they have been receiving about new
analysis
products. Investing in training has the potential to reduce each customer call by five minutes.

A local hospital has sought input from its training department to explore whether training is
Risk needed regarding patient safety for their volunteers. The organization is looking at what the cost
assessment would be to host training sessions every month with incoming volunteers versus the risks of not
training them on patient safety practices.

A sociology department at a research-intensive university is meeting to discuss if there is a need

to modify and update their curriculum for their graduate programs. A faculty member has
Narrative- mentioned to the group that they do not believe the existing curriculum places enough emphasis
based on vulnerable populations. As they talk during the meeting, they keep referring to some existing
students and asking the program faculty to consider what they would do if they were these
Naturalistic students.
Decision-
Making The curriculum committee at a medical school is discussing options for offering graduate
certificates in Patient Safety and Quality or Global Health in addition to their medical degree
Identity- programs. Three of the members on the curriculum committee participated in global health trips
based during their medical training and recall it being a very engaging experience. They are more
inclined to support the certificate in global health because they identify with that program on a
personal level.

Normative Decision-Making Example: An Accident Occurs on the Plant Floor

Mike is an instructional designer who works in the Department of Employee Development for an automotive aftermarket
manufacturer. Over the weekend, an employee had a fatal accident operating a piece of machinery during the night shift. Mike and
his supervisor have been included in meetings to explore whether modifications are needed to the company’s existing health and
safety modules.
It is most likely that Mike and his supervisor will employ a normative approach to decision-making by conducting a risk
assessment to determine the need for updating existing modules or developing new courses. The following are examples of some
questions that Mike may ask during his meeting with the organizational leadership:
How many accidents have occurred on the plant floor in the past year?
How many of these accidents were related to the particular machine?
What training had the injured employee received before operating the machinery?
Are safety practices related to the machine covered in the existing health and safety training modules?

Application Exercises
Make a list of all of the potential options you might consider if you were to assist Mike with the project.

Naturalistic Decision-Making Example: Transitioning Human Resource Mandatory Training

Angela has recently been hired as an instructional designer and trainer in support of employee development initiatives for a local
hospital. In a recent meeting that was held with managers in human resources, there was a discussion about whether mandatory
training courses should be offered in an online format. At her previous organization, Angela remembers that there were a lot of

2.3.3 [Link]
issues with transferring courses to an online format and she wonders if the employee development team has the necessary
manpower and resources to support these modules.

Application Exercises
How might Angela’s previous employment experience influence her position during this discussion about offering online training
modules?

Fostering the Development of Instructional Design Decision-Making

Several studies have been conducted exploring the development of instructional designers' design judgment (Demiral-Uzan, 2015;
Gray et al., 2015; Honebein, 2017; Korkmaz & Boling, 2014). These studies have explored how instructional designers engage in
making decisions based on resources available in real-world settings. The results of these studies have supported the idea that
instructional design is not limited to a linear approach for designing and developing instructional solutions; it is complex, and
heavily influenced by contextual factors that are uniquely situated in relation to the project goals.
Other studies have sought to explore the role of experience and instructional designers’ abilities to make decisions. There are
several differences inherent in terms of how novice instructional designers engage in decision-making compared to experts (Ertmer
et al., 2008, 2009; Hoard, Stefaniak, Baaki, & Draper, 2019; Perez & Emery, 1995; Stefaniak, Baaki, Hoard, & Stapleton, 2018).
Novice instructional designers are more apt to rely on instructional design models to guide their design process in a linear fashion
whereas expert designers design in a more recursive manner. Several of the abovementioned studies also reported that novices tend
to revert back to instructional design solutions they have used in previous projects; experts are more prone to customize solutions
to meet the unique needs of their learning audience.
Several researchers in the instructional design field have suggested that an apprentice model can be beneficial to novice
instructional design students as they are acquiring and developing design skills. The use of a cognitive apprenticeship provides a
framework for instructors and expert instructional designers to model behavior and design practices in addition to providing the
necessary instructional scaffolding to support instructional designers as they engage in design decision-making (Bannan-Ritland,
2001; Ertmer & Cennamo, 1995, Moallem, 1998; Shambaugh & Magliaro, 2001; Stefaniak, 2017)

Tools to Facilitate and Log Decision-Making During the Design Phase of Instruction
Instructional design is an iterative and recursive process that requires the instructional designer to continuously monitor and revisit
their designs to ensure alignment between instructional components from conception to implementation. Table 3 provides an
overview of various tools that an instructional designer can utilize throughout their design process to log and reflect upon their
instructional design decisions. Also, examples of studies and resources that discuss the use of these tools in detail are included in
the table.
Table 3
Overview of Tools to Assist Instructional Designers with Logging Decisions

2.3.4 [Link]
 Examples of Studies
Tool Description
and Uses

Boot, Nelson, van

A document that serves as a blueprint for the entire instructional project. This Merrienboer, and
Design
document typically includes information related to course goals, learning objectives, Gibbons (2007)
documents
instructional strategies, assessments, project timelines, and budgets. Martin (2011)
Piskurich (2015)

Baaki and Luo

(2019)
Boling and Gray
(2015)
Fischer and Mandl
(2005)
Huybrechts,
The knowledge and structure in the environment, as physical symbols, objects, or
Schoffelen,
dimensions (e.g., written symbols, beads of abacuses, dimensions of a graph, etc.),
External Schepers, and
and as external rules, constraints, or relations embedded in physical configurations
representations Braspenning (2012)
(e.g., spatial relations of written digits, visual and spatial layouts of diagrams,
Luo and Baaki
physical constraints in abacuses, etc.)” (Zhang, 1997, p. 180).
(2019)
Verschaffel, de
Corte, de Jong, and
Elen (2010)
Yanchar, South,
Williams, Allen, and
Wilson (2010)

Gustafson (2002)
Spector (2002)
Group Space where an instructional design team can track the progress of a project and share Stefaniak, Maddrell,
repositories notes. This space is typically housed by an online platform. Earnshaw, and Hale
(2018)
Van Rooij (2010)

Roytek (2010)
An instructional design approach that is used to create a sample of an instructional
Tripp &
Rapid design product that is scalable according to the needs of the project. Rapid
Bichelmeyer (1990)
Prototyping prototyping allows instructional designs to combine multiple phases of the
York and Ertmer
instructional design process to facilitate discussions and decisions about results.
(2011)

Baaki, Tracey, and

Hutchinson (2017)
Bannan-Ritland
A journal where an instructional designer can log any ideas they might help, reactions
(2001)
to different phases of the instructional design process, or notes that might be
Reflection Gray et al. (2015)
beneficial for a future project. The use of a journal helps an instructional designer
journals Luppicini (2003)
keep track of their thoughts and ideas that might not be suitable to be documented in a
Moallem (1998)
design document while still promoting a reflection-in-action mindset (Schon, 1983).
Tracey and
Hutchinson (2013)
Young (2008)

2.3.5 [Link]
Conclusion
While decision-making is recognized as a common form of problem-solving in instructional design practices, Jonassen (2012)
contends that there is a need for empirical research to assess decision-making in our field. To date, there is a growing body of
literature exploring the decision-making practices of instructional designers; however, we, as a field, have just begun to skim the
surface. More studies are needed to explore the types and quality of decisions made by instructional designers of all levels in a
variety of contexts. We know that contextual factors contribute to or hinder the effectiveness of instructional designers’ final
designs (Morrison et al., 2013; Smith & Ragan, 2005). Researchers have criticized that the role of context continues to be an aspect
of design that still warrants further explanation and understanding (Tessmer, 1990; Tessmer & Wedman, 1995). This continues to be
an issue facing our field. Additional studies on factors influencing instructional designers’ abilities to engage in decision-making
will better equip our field to prepare the future of instructional design (Ertmer et al., 2009; Jonassen, 2008; Stefaniak et al., 2018;
Tracey & Boling, 2014).
In the meantime, instructional designers can continue to focus on cultivating their designer identity (Tracey & Hutchinson, 2016,
2018) by documenting their thoughts and making use of the tools mentioned in this chapter to track their design decisions during
projects. Over time, the aspiring instructional designer will begin to identify patterns in terms of how they approach various types
of design problems, identify and utilize design resources and space, and articulate their rationale to fellow designers and clients.
This continual practice of design documentation will serve the field well by informing both theory and practice.

References
Baaki, J., & Luo, T. (2019). Instructional designers guided by external representations in a design process. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 29(3), 513–541.
Baaki, J., Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2017). Give us something to react to and make it rich: Designers reflecting-in-action
with external representations. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 667–682.
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2001). Teaching instructional design: An action learning approach. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
14(2), 37–52.
Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2015). Designerly tools, sketching, and instructional designers and the guarantors of design. In B.
Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M.W. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learning experience (pp. 109–126). New York, NY: Springer.
Boot, E. W., Nelson, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Gibbons, A. S. (2007). Stratification, elaboration and formalisation of design
documents: Effects on the production of instructional materials. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 917–933.
Demiral-Uzan, M. (2015). Instructional design students’ design judgment in action. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 7–
23.
Ertmer, P. A., & Cennamo, K. S. (1995). Teaching instructional design: An apprenticeship model. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 8(4), 43–58.
Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X., 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.
Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., Flanagan, S., Kocaman-Karoglu, A., Reiner, C., Reyes, L., ... & Ushigusa, S. (2009). Impact of
guidance on the problem-solving efforts of instructional design novices. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(4), 117–132.
Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of external
representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 405–441.
Fitzpatrick, J.L. Sanders, J.P., & Worthen, B.R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral-zan, 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.
Guerra-Lopez, I. (2008). Performance evaluation: Proven approaches for improving program and organizational performance. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

2.3.6 [Link]
Gustafson, K. (2002). Instructional design tools: A critique and projections for the future. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(4), 59–66.
Hoard, B., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Draper, D. (2019). The influence of multimedia development knowledge and workplace
pressures on the design decisions of the instructional designer. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1479–
1505.
Honebein, P. C. (2017). The influence of values and rich conditions on designers’ judgments about useful instructional methods.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 341–357.
Huybrechts, L., Schoffelen, J., Schepers, S. & Braspenning, L. (2012). Design representations: Connecting, making, and reflecting
in design research education. In Boutsen, D. (ed.) Good practices best practices: Highlighting the compound idea of education,
creativity, research, and practice (pp. 35–42). Brussels: Sint-Lucas School of Architecture.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4),
63–85.
Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–
26.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 341–359.
Korkmaz, N., & Boling, E. (2014). Development of design judgment in instructional design: Perspectives from instructors,
students, and instructional designers. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking,
design processes, and the design studio (pp. 161–184). New York, NY: Springer.
Luppicini, R. (2003). Reflective action instructional design (RAID): A designer's aid. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 13(1), 75–82.
Luo, T., & Baaki, J. (2019). Graduate students using concept mapping to visualize instructional design processes. TechTrends,
63(4), 451–462.
Marston, M., & Mistree, F. (1997, October). A decision-based foundation for systems design: A conceptual exposition. In CIRP
1997, International Design Seminar Proceedings on Multimedia Technologies for Collaborative Design and Manufacturing,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (pp. 1–11).
Martin, F. (2011). Instructional design and the importance of instructional alignment. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 35(12), 955–972.
Moallem, M. (1998). An expert teacher's thinking and teaching and instructional design models and principles: An ethnographic
study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 37–64.
Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–95.
Piskurich, G. M. (2015). Rapid instructional design: Learning ID fast and right. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Roytek, M. A. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170–180.
Schon, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Shambaugh, N., & Magliaro, S. (2001). A reflexive model for teaching instructional design. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 49(2), 69–92.
Spector, J. M. (2002). Knowledge management tools for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development,
50(4), 37–46.
Stefaniak, J. E. (2017). The role of coaching within the context of instructional design. TechTrends, 61(1), 26–31.

2.3.7 [Link]
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.
Stefaniak, J., Maddrell, J., Earnshaw, Y., & Hale, P. (2018). The evolution of designing e-service learning projects: A look at the
development of instructional designers. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 9(1), 122–134.
Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 38(1), 55–64.
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.
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 on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 653–
660). New York, NY: Springer.
Tracey, M. W. & Hutchinson, A. (2013). Developing Designer Identity Through Reflection. Educational Technology, 53(3), 28–32.
Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2016). Uncertainty, reflection, and designer identity development. Design Studies, 42, 86–109.
Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2018). Reflection and professional identity development in design education. International
Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 263–285.
Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.
Van Rooij, S. W. (2010). Project management in instructional design: ADDIE is not enough. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 41(5), 852–864.
Verschaffel, L., de Corte, E., de Jong, T., & Elen, J. (Eds.). (2010). Use of representations in reasoning and problem solving:
Analysis and improvement. New York, NY: Routledge.
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(1), 39–60.
Yates, J. F. and Tschirhart, M. D., 2006. Decision-making expertise. In K.A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P.J. Feltovich, and R.R.
Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 421–438). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
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.
Young, P. A. (2008). Integrating culture in the design of ICTs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 6–17.
Zhang, J. (1997). The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 179–217.

Jill Stefaniak
Jill Stefaniak profile picture

Figure 2.3.1: Jill Stefaniak is an Assistant Professor in the Learning, Design, and Technology program in the Department of Career
and Information Studies at the University of Georgia. Her research interests focus on the professional development of instructional
designers and design conjecture, designer decision-making processes, and contextual factors influencing design in situated
environments.

This page titled 2.3: Documenting Instructional Design Decisions is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

2.3.8 [Link]
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

3: Creating
3.1: Generating Ideas
3.2: Instructional Strategies
3.3: Instructional Design Prototyping Strategies

This page titled 3: Creating is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E.
West (EdTech Books) .

1
3.1: Generating Ideas

Generating Ideas
Vanessa Svihla
Brainstorming, ideation, generating ideas. These terms and the kinds of practices they refer to are familiar to many, even outside of
design fields. As instructional designers, we use such techniques to come up with more ideas—and more creative ideas. But how do
these techniques help designers develop ideas? And when and why should we use them?
In this chapter, I first discuss the typical purposes and desired outcomes for ideation. I review some common as well as new
techniques and briefly discuss evidence of their effectiveness, in part to draw attention to the kinds of challenges designers face
when using such techniques. Finally, I re-center the purpose of generating ideas as reframing the problem.

What Is Ideation? When and Why Do We Typically Generate Ideas?

Designers commonly generate ideas about possible solutions after the problem is initially framed. Or at least, typical texts on
design suggest this is when designers should generate ideas. We will reconsider that later in this chapter.
Many ideation techniques focus on generating many ideas, going on the assumption that if you generate many ideas, some of them
will surely be creative. This probabilistic reasoning is not always accurate, however. This is because even if we generate many
ideas, they may still be similar to each other. Researchers who study ideation techniques argue that novelty comes from having
dissimilar ideas. This means that variety is more important than quantity. But coming up with dissimilar ideas can be challenging
because of fixation—the experience of getting stuck on previous ideas. Compared to designers who are not shown an existing
solution, designers who are given an example tend to reproduce features from the example (Jansson & Smith, 1991), even when the
example is known to be flawed (Purcell & Gero, 1996). Often, designers are unaware they have incorporated such features, and this
is why overcoming fixation can be so challenging—it is often a covert process.
Research suggests that designers who have less diverse precedent to consider may be more prone to fixation (Purcell & Gero,
1996). Who has a less diverse precedent? Some may think this would be novice designers because they have not been exposed to
the concepts and materials with which they are designing. But in some fields, like mechanical engineering and instructional design,
we commonly encounter designs, but many of us do not encounter much diversity in those designs (e.g., a lot of sedans look like
one another, and many school lessons look like one another). Repeated exposure to a limited set of ideas covertly shapes our vision
of what could be. And, without deliberate engagement with diverse precedent, we might not be very influenced by that precedent.
New designers also tend to commit to design ideas prematurely (Rowland, 1992; Shum, 1991), and once committed, can feel
invested and unwilling to change, a phenomenon referred to as sunk cost (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). In my own teaching of
design, I require messy, hand-drafted first versions of ideation and prototypes and impose a -10% penalty to any such assignment
that looks to have been tidied up. This appears to help, but it is still very easy to fall in love with a first idea. Consider the following
vignettes in Tables 1 and 2, in which a supervisor (Sunil) requests fire extinguisher training to comply with regulations and the
design team (newcomer Noel, experienced Eli, and subject matter expert Marley) considers their options.

Vignette 1. Meeting With Supervisor

Sunil
Of course, we want to make sure our employees are exposed to proper fire extinguisher use. We have to comply with these new
regulations ASAP.
Marley
Some units, like mine, have already been certifying employees because we really have to know how to use an extinguisher. But we
rely on an external provider.
Eli
It seems like that won’t scale to the entire organization, given the cost you shared with us earlier.
Noel

3.1.1 [Link]
We can just put together a short online training using the PASS model, with a quiz to certify them. I think the pass score should be
rather high, though, right? Like 100%. I know we sometimes go with 80%.
Sunil
What is the difference between a pass model and pass score?
Noel
Oh! Sorry. The PASS model—I googled it before the meeting—is a mnemonic to use the fire extinguisher. It means pull the pin,
um, aim, and sweep. I forget what the other S stands for, give me a sec—
Sunil
How long would it take you to put that together?
Eli
Before we get to that, I think we need to consider options.
In the vignette, who shows fixation? Premature commitment? What precedent might shape how the design team and supervisor
evaluate design ideas? How might they overcome fixation and premature commitment? To answer that, let’s look first at the origins
of idea generation.

What Are Some Tools for Ideation?

In 1939, Osborn began developing techniques for more creative advertising. He devised classic brainstorming and published
techniques based on years of practice (Osborn, 1957). He advocated for the following techniques as part of brainstorming:
suspending critique
considering wild ideas
coming up with as many ideas as possible
combining ideas, and
working in a large group of designers.
Several of these ideas were later empirically challenged, especially group size (Mongeau & Morr, 1999). Generally, support has
been found for more structured ideation methods (Crilly & Cardoso, 2017; Runco et al., 2011; Santanen, Briggs, & Vreede, 2004;
Sosa & Gero, 2013; Yilmaz, Seifert, & Gonzalez, 2010). For instance, an early, somewhat more-structured approach was lateral
thinking, meaning thinking in generative ways (as opposed to analytical “vertical thinking”) (De Bono & Zimbalist, 1970). De
Bono described general methods for lateral thinking, such as:
generating alternatives with a pre-set quota (number of ideas),
challenging assumptions by repeatedly asking why,
suspending or delaying judgement, and
restructuring or reorganizing elements.
In the vignette below, what techniques (from the bulleted lists above) do they use? Where do they stray from the guidelines for
brainstorming and lateral thinking?

Vignette 2. Design Team Meeting: Classic Brainstorming in a Group

Eli
I am a little worried that if we just deliver a compliance training, Sunil will consider that sufficient, even for units like Marley’s,
because the cost savings will be so appealing. So, I think we should generate some ideas before we commit. So, let’s come up with
at least 20 ideas. Let’s not evaluate them yet, just list any ideas that pop in.
Noel
Well, I think we should do the PASS model, followed by a quiz.
Marley

3.1.2 [Link]
That makes me think about job aids. Like we could have a sign, maybe next to or on fire extinguishers?
Noel
Nice. And we should make the job aid similar to the training, so the instructional and transfer contexts are similar.
Marley
That’s a good idea. We can use the same font and pictures even.
Eli
Sometimes asking “why” helps. Like, why do all employees need this training? Why don’t they know how to use a fire
extinguisher already?
Marley
In the certification course we take in my unit, people think they should aim at the top of the flames, but it’s the base. So, we could
focus on that aspect.
Noel
And that is also part of the PASS model. And they need it because of compliance though, right?
Eli
Let’s really try to get some other ideas on the table.
Noel
We could make our own model. SAPS? APSS?
Marley
Or it could be just like a handout they get.
In this vignette, you may have noticed that although Eli encouraged them not to evaluate ideas, Noel and Marley reacted in
evaluative ways to each other’s ideas. Although they did not critique ideas, even providing positive evaluation can shape how
others respond because it signals that poor ideas are unwelcome. This in turn can impinge on creative thinking.
Noel’s suggestion to make their own model by rearranging the steps is something those of us who teach design see often. Coming
up with flawed versions of existing ideas accomplishes two things well—it gets you toward whatever preset quota you need, and it
guarantees your favorite idea won’t be ruled out—but it does not lead to more creative ideas. Yet, this approach is common when
ideation feels forced or artificial, as can happen when one designer prompts ideation that others do not see a need for (or when
ideation is assigned, such as in an ID class!). Knowing when to deploy ideation techniques is critical, but this is learned through
experience. For practicing designers, ideation is not always a formal step; they often generate ideas ad hoc. Experienced designers
do not always find benefit from typical ideation techniques (Laakso & Liikkanen, 2012; Linsey et al., 2010; Sio, Kotovsky, &
Cagan, 2015; Tauber, 1972; Vasconcelos & Crilly, 2016), but research suggests these may hold benefit for newcomers.
Below, I have summarized some common structured ideation techniques. I have included a couple that are not common in
instructional design because methods developed in other design fields, like engineering and creativity, are transferrable outside of
product design fields (Moreno, Yang, Hernández, & Wood, 2014). This is important in part because our most prominent design
approach—ADDIE—has relatively little to say about ideation, and even newer models like SAM do not provide clarity about
where new ideas might come from (Allen, 2012).
Take the fire extinguisher training problem described in the vignettes, and try out two of the techniques in Table 1 below.
Table 1
Common Structured Ideation Techniques

Technique Outcomes Use in ID

3.1.3 [Link]
SCAMPER

An elaboration of traditional brainstorming, this SCAMPER has been commonly used

Studies suggest that
technique structures ideation by providing questions with elementary students. It is a
SCAMPER may result in
tied to actions that form the SCAMPER acronym: particularly promising technique for
more high-quality novel ideas
substitute, combine, adapt, making incremental changes to typical
compared to unguided
modify/magnify/minimize, put to other uses, instructional settings, where major
methods (Moreno, Yang, et
eliminate, and reverse/rearrange (Eberle, 1972). For changes may be viewed as threatening or
al., 2014).
instance, ask “What can I substitute?” problematic.

Design Heuristics

While many of the strategies are specific

to engineering or product design, many
Based on expert performance in product and
are salient to instructional design,
engineering design (Yilmaz, Daly, Seifert, &
especially if we change “user” to
Gonzalez, 2015, 2016) this is a well-studied set of Design heuristics can support
“learner.” For instance, several focus on
77 strategy cards—such as add levels, adjust newcomer designers to
user agency, which we could frame as
functions for specific users, repeat, develop more elaborated and
learner agency—allow the learner to
compartmentalize, contextualize, build user practical ideas (Daly, Seifert,
customize, reconfigure, reorient. What
community, change flexibility, scale up or down, Yilmaz, & Gonzalez, 2016).
other heuristics might we identify from
and incorporate environment—for designers to use
expert ID practice? The list of ID
as inspiration as they generate ideas.
heuristics could be a place to start (York
& Ertmer, 2011).

Design-by-Analogy

These methods include various forms—Synectics Design-by-analogy methods

(Gordon, 1961), biomimicry—and include can help designers produce
techniques like mapping related words in a network more novel ideas (Moreno, Although not commonly used in ID, this
like a concept map or exposure to near or far Hernandez, et al., 2014) is a promising technique to overcome
examples. The latter mirrors intuitive as well as especially if the designers use exposure to traditional precedent.
professional design practice in which designers rely far analogies (Chan et al., Developing clarity about tensions is also
on precedent. However it involves deliberately 2011) which can help them promising. Common contradictions
considering ideas that may be similar or wildly think more broadly about a salient in instructional design are breadth
different as sources of inspiration. problem (S. M. Smith & versus depth, efficiency versus
Common to engineering design, the TRIZ Linsey, 2011). understanding, and convenience versus
(Altshuller, 1996) approach involves first TRIZ has led to more varied learning.
identifying “contradictions” then looking at ways ideas (Belski, Hourani,
others have resolved the same kind of contradiction. Valentine, & Belski, 2014).

Nominal group

Nominal group techniques are beneficial

In a group, individuals silently generate ideas. Each Compared to an unstructured
when generating ideas with stakeholders
member shares ideas. After all have been shared, group, nominal groups
or in groups with power imbalances
members clarify and evaluate ideas collectively generate more ideas (Ven &
because it opens space for all members to
then vote individually. Delbecq, 1974).
participate.

3.1.4 [Link]
 Bodystorming

Although not commonly used (in ID or

Bodystorming has been
Rather than attempting to generate ideas removed other fields), bodystorming can be
helpful when designing with
from context, bodystorming involves acting out the particularly generative when considering
new or unfamiliar learning
problem and possible solutions in situ (Oulasvirta, the configuration of learning spaces,
technologies (B. K. Smith,
Kurvinen, & Kankainen, 2003). ways to arrange collaborating learners,
2014).
and mobile learning.

Contrast the two techniques you tried out:

Which did you prefer and why?
Which led you to produce more ideas?
Which do you think led you to generate more novel ideas?
Which do you think led you to generate higher quality ideas?
If you found answering the last two questions more difficult, you are not alone. Researchers have long debated the best ways to
measure novelty and quality of ideas. While counting the number of ideas generated is straightforward, as mentioned earlier, this
does not necessarily result in better ideas. Novelty is often characterized by the variety or breadth of ideas of a single designer as
well as the frequency of their ideas compared to other designers (Hernandez, Okudan, & Schmidt, 2012). Quality is sometimes
measured as feasibility, usability (Kudrowitz & Wallace, 2013) or the degree to which needs are met without violating constraints.
Others have also considered characteristics such as ethics and empathy. This means evaluating the just distribution of risks and
benefits for multiple and especially marginalized groups (Beever & Brightman, 2016). Although not commonly used, techniques
that sensitize the instructional designer to the experiences of marginalized groups and connect this to their own experiences prior to
generating ideas has potential for addressing persistent inequities and structural oppression (Kouprie & Visser, 2009; Visser &
Kouprie, 2008). Such approaches also tend to more clearly change the problem space.

How Can Ideation Reshape the Problem Space?

So far, we have mostly focused on the solution space, but due to the ill-structured nature of design problems, ideation also changes
the problem space (Cardoso, Badke-Schaub, & Eris, 2016) as designers reframe the problem during ideation (Daly, Yilmaz,
Christian, Seifert, & Gonzalez, 2012). Designers sometimes relax constraints and this can reshape the problem space (Chan, Dang,
Kremer, Guo, & Dow, 2014; Silk, Daly, Jablokow, Yilmaz, & Rosenberg, 2014). By temporarily ignoring a key constraint,
sometimes we can notice something new about the problem space.
Similarly, my own approach—the Wrong Theory Protocol (WTP, [Link] tends to reshape the
problem space. In this approach, we ask designers to first come up with ideas that would cause harm and humiliation prior to
generating beneficial ideas. I was inspired by a magazine article on artists and designers deliberately creating displeasing and
wrong works (Dadich, 2014). When we first incorporated it into an ideation session, we noticed that the most humiliating ideas led
to more empathetic insights and changed problem frames. Consider the vignette below to understand why this might be.

Vignette 3. Design Team Meeting: Wrong Theory Protocol

After individually generating harmful and humiliating ideas, the team discusses their insights:
Eli
I think my worst idea was locking the learner in a room with a small fire burning and a sort of Rube Goldberg fire extinguisher
with terribly complex instructions. They first can’t get it started, and once set in motion, the extinguisher has too many steps to get
through and the fire grows and grows.
Noel
Wow. That’s terrible. Mine was giving them a depleted extinguisher with no instructions and putting them on one of those weird
game shows, where if they can’t make the extinguisher go, they have to eat spiders.

3.1.5 [Link]
Marley
Ew! You both had much worse ideas than me. I think mine was just lazy. I said just give them no instructions and wait for a fire,
then put up a list in the hall of those who messed up. Eli, your wrong design makes me think of how—in some of our units, it could
go really wrong if someone who got basic training used the wrong kind of extinguisher. Some of our labs have two or three kinds
for different situations.
Noel
You know, at first, I thought, we just need to make sure everyone knows how to use a basic model, but now I wonder if that could
actually lead to accidents. If we tackle this just as a compliance problem, we could make it worse.
In this vignette, how did the problem change as a result of insight gained from generating wrong ideas? Why do you think it
changed?
In our work on WTP, designers’ beneficial ideas, though not numerous, tend to be both creative and empathetic. We have several
reasons for why WTP might work. Perhaps designers feel beholden to stakeholders after coming up with harmful and humiliating
ideas? Or perhaps they simply gain empathy? Maybe they notice something new about the problem situation? Or, perhaps in
absence of the pressure to be right, they are able to be more creative? Afterall, research on suspending judgment suggests that it is
difficult to accomplish.

Conclusion
Instead of treating ideation as the tipping point between being problem- and solution-focused, try generating ideas across the depth
and duration of your design process to help you frame the problem with empathy and design learning experiences that meet needs
without unintentionally widening gaps. By depth, I mean that it can help to drill down and ideate on a particular aspect.
While this chapter introduced a few techniques, there are many more available.
Finally, ideation can be an effective tool when employed at any sticking point. Low fidelity prototypes, use-cases and early
storyboards often reveal issues that can be dealt with through ideation. Even in pilot implementation, having ideation techniques
ready-to-hand can avert disaster when issues come up. This kind of generative thinking—How can it work? How else could it
work?—serves designers well throughout their design work.

Additional Readings and Resources

There are many texts that illustrate additional ideation/creativity techniques. I always recommend keeping an eye out for one that
appeals to you.
Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2006). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO's strategies for defeating the devil's advocate and driving
creativity throughout your organization: Crown Business.
Michalko, M. (2011). Cracking creativity: The secrets of creative genius: Ten Speed Press.
Michalko, M. (2010). Thinkertoys: A handbook of creative-thinking techniques: Ten Speed Press.
Sawyer, K. (2013). Zig Zag: the surprising path to greater creativity: John Wiley & Sons.

Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. EEC 1751369. Any opinions,
findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the National Science Foundation.

References
Allen, M. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model for developing the best learning experiences: American Society for
Training and Development.
Altshuller, G. (1996). And suddenly the inventor appeared: TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving (2nd ed.). Worchester,
MA: Technical Innovation Center, Inc.

3.1.6 [Link]
Beever, J., & Brightman, A. O. (2016). Reflexive principlism as an effective approach for developing ethical reasoning in
engineering. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 275-291.
Belski, I., Hourani, A., Valentine, A., & Belski, A. (2014). Can simple ideation techniques enhance idea generation? Paper
presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education: Engineering the Knowledge
Economy: Collaboration, Engagement & Employability.
Cardoso, C., Badke-Schaub, P., & Eris, O. (2016). Inflection moments in design discourse: How questions drive problem framing
during idea generation. Design Studies, 46, 59-78. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.07.002
Chan, J., Dang, S., Kremer, P., Guo, L., & Dow, S. (2014). Ideagens: A social ideation system for guided crowd brainstorming.
Paper presented at the Second AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing.
Chan, J., Fu, K., Schunn, C., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Kotovsky, K. (2011). On the benefits and pitfalls of analogies for innovative
design: Ideation performance based on analogical distance, commonness, and modality of examples. Journal of Mechanical Design,
133(8), 081004.
Crilly, N., & Cardoso, C. (2017). Where next for research on fixation, inspiration and creativity in design? Design Studies, 50, 1-
38. doi:10.1016/[Link].2017.02.001
Dadich, S. (2014, September 23). Why getting it wrong is the future of design. Wired, 126-133.
Daly, S. R., Seifert, C. M., Yilmaz, S., & Gonzalez, R. (2016). Comparing ideation techniques for beginning designers. Journal of
Mechanical Design, 138(10), 101108.
Daly, S. R., Yilmaz, S., Christian, J. L., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2012). Design heuristics in engineering concept generation.
Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 601-629.
De Bono, E., & Zimbalist, E. (1970). Lateral thinking. London, UK: Penguin.
Eberle, R. F. (1972). Developing imagination through scamper. Journal of Creative Behavior.
Gordon, W. J. (1961). Synectics: The development of creative capacity.
Hernandez, N. V., Okudan, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2012). Effectiveness metrics for ideation: Merging genealogy trees and
improving novelty metric. Paper presented at the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3-11.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 363-391.
Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user's life. Journal of
Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.
Kudrowitz, B. M., & Wallace, D. (2013). Assessing the quality of ideas from prolific, early-stage product ideation. Journal of
Engineering Design, 24(2), 120-139.
Laakso, M., & Liikkanen, L. A. (2012). Dubious role of formal creativity techniques in professional design. Paper presented at the
DS 73-1 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity Volume 1.
Linsey, J. S., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K. L., & Schunn, C. (2010). A study of design fixation, its mitigation and
perception in engineering design faculty. Journal of Mechanical Design, 132(4), 041003.
Mongeau, P. A., & Morr, M. C. (1999). Reconsidering brainstorming. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal,
1(1), 14-21.
Moreno, D. P., Hernandez, A. A., Yang, M. C., Otto, K. N., Hölttä-Otto, K., Linsey, J. S., . . . Linden, A. (2014). Fundamental
studies in Design-by-Analogy: A focus on domain-knowledge experts and applications to transactional design problems. Design
Studies, 35(3), 232-272.
Moreno, D. P., Yang, M. C., Hernández, A. A., & Wood, K. L. (2014). Creativity in Transactional Design Problems: Non-Intuitive
Findings of an Expert Study Using Scamper. Paper presented at the DS 77: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2014 13th International

3.1.7 [Link]
Design Conference.
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination. New York, NY: Scribner.
Oulasvirta, A., Kurvinen, E., & Kankainen, T. (2003). Understanding contexts by being there: case studies in bodystorming.
Personal and ubiquitous computing, 7(2), 125-134.
Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17(4), 363-383.
Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65-86.
Runco, M. A., Noble, E. P., Reiter-Palmon, R., Acar, S., Ritchie, T., & Yurkovich, J. M. (2011). The genetic basis of creativity and
ideational fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 376-380.
Santanen, E. L., Briggs, R. O., & Vreede, G.-J. D. (2004). Causal relationships in creative problem solving: Comparing facilitation
interventions for ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4), 167-198.
Shum, S. (1991). Cognitive dimensions of design rationale: Citeseer.
Silk, E. M., Daly, S. R., Jablokow, K. W., Yilmaz, S., & Rosenberg, M. (2014). Interventions for Ideation. AERA.
Sio, U. N., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2015). Fixation or inspiration? A meta-analytic review of the role of examples on design
processes. Design Studies, 39, 70-99.
Smith, B. K. (2014). Bodystorming mobile learning experiences. TechTrends, 58(1), 71-76.
Smith, S. M., & Linsey, J. (2011). A three-pronged approach for overcoming design fixation. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
45(2), 83-91.
Sosa, R., & Gero, J. S. (2013). The creative value of bad ideas. Paper presented at the Conference on Computer-Aided
Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA 2013).
Tauber, E. M. (1972). HIT: Heuristic ideation technique. A systematic procedure for new product search. The Journal of Marketing,
58-61.
Vasconcelos, L. A., & Crilly, N. (2016). Inspiration and fixation: Questions, methods, findings, and challenges. Design Studies, 42,
1-32. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2015.11.001
Ven, A. H. V. D., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes.
Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 605-621.
Visser, F. S., & Kouprie, M. (2008). Stimulating empathy in ideation workshops. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Tenth
Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008.
Yilmaz, S., Daly, S. R., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2015). How do designers generate new ideas? Design heuristics across two
disciplines. Design Science, 1, e4.
Yilmaz, S., Daly, S. R., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2016). Evidence-based design heuristics for idea generation. Design
Studies, 46, 95-124. doi:10.1016/[Link].2016.05.001
Yilmaz, S., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2010). Cognitive heuristics in design: Instructional strategies to increase creativity in
idea generation. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24(03), 335-355.
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.

This page titled 3.1: Generating Ideas is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald &
Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

3.1.8 [Link]
3.2: Instructional Strategies

Instructional Strategies
Joshua Hill & Linda Jordan

Editor's Note
This is a condensed version of a chapter on Instructional Strategies from the book Experiential Learning in Instructional Design
and Technology, by Joshua Hill and Linda Jordan. It is printed here under a similar license as the original.

Introduction
A well designed course, whether it be face-to-face, blended, or online, must be well structured with careful attention to instructional
strategies in the selection of instructional material, the planning of learning activities, and the selection of media. An instructional
strategy describes the instructional materials and procedures that enable students to achieve the learning outcomes. Learning
outcomes are what the student should know, or be able to accomplish at the end of the course or learning unit. Your instructional
strategy should describe the instructional materials’ components and procedures used with the materials that are needed for students
to achieve the learning outcomes. The strategy should be based on the learning outcomes and information from the other previous
instructional design steps. You can even base your strategy on how you or others have solved similar problems. You can save time
and money by not re-inventing the wheel. However, be careful; a lot of existing instructional material is designed poorly. Use the
instructional strategy as a framework for further developing the instructional materials or evaluating whether existing materials are
suitable or need revision. As a general rule, use the strategy to set up a framework for maximizing effective and efficient learning.
This often requires using strategies that go beyond basic teaching methods. For example, discovery-learning techniques can be
more powerful than simply presenting the facts.
This chapter reviews some basic information to help you choose appropriate instructional strategies for the learning outcomes you
hope your learners will be able to accomplish. Rather than reviewing specific details about any of the hundreds of instructional
strategies that have been developed, this chapter describes considerations that should go into the selection of any instructional
strategy.

Goal Analysis
Goal analysis includes classifying the instructional goal into the domain, or kind of learning that will occur. The domains can
be verbal information where learners state, list, describe, name, etc., intellectual skills such as learning how to discriminate,
identify, classify, demonstrate, generate, originate, create, etc., psychomotor skills where learners make, draw, adjust, assemble,
etc., and attitudes such as making choices or decisions. If you used a guide like Bloom's Taxonomy when generating your learning
outcomes, you likely have a good handle on the type of learning you hope will occur. Establishing the domain is important in
determining what instructional strategies to use in subsequent steps.

Learning Domain Strategies

Each learning domain classification (i.e., verbal information, intellectual skills and cognitive strategies, psychomotor skills, and
attitudes) is best taught with different instructional strategies.

Verbal Information
Verbal information is material, such as names of objects, that students simply have to memorize and recall.
When teaching verbal information:
Organize the material into small, easily retrievable chunks.
Link new information to knowledge the learner already possesses. For example, use statements such as
“Remember how”, or “This is like …”. Linking information helps the learner to store and recall the material.
Use mnemonics and other memory devices for new information. You may recall that the musical notes of the treble clef staff
lines can be remembered with the mnemonic Every Good Boy Deserves Fudge.

3.2.1 [Link]
 Use meaningful contexts and relevant cues. For example, relating a problem to a sports car can be relevant to some members of
your target audience.
Have the learners generate examples in their minds, such as create a song or game with the information or apply the knowledge
to the real world. If the student only memorizes facts then the learning will only have minimal value.
Avoid rote repetition as a memorization aid. Rote learning has minimal effectiveness over time.
Provide visuals to increase learning and recall.

Intellectual Skills
Intellectual skills are those that require learners to think (rather than simply memorizing and recalling information).
When teaching intellectual skills:
Base the instructional strategy and sequencing on an analysis such as a topic or a procedural analysis. Always teach subordinate
skills before higher-level skills.
Link new knowledge to previously learned knowledge. You can do this explicitly (e.g., the bones in your feet are comparable to
the bones you learned about in your hands) or implicitly (e.g., compare the bones in your feet to other bone structures you have
learned about).
Use memory devices like acronyms, rhymes, or imagery for information such as rules or principles. You can use the first letters
of words to help memorize information. For example, “KISS” means “Keep It Simple Stupid”. General rules can often be
remembered through rhymes such as “i before e except after c”. Remember that rules often have exceptions. Tell your learners
about the exceptions. Memory devices are best for limited amounts of information.
Use examples and non-examples that are familiar to the student. For instance, when classifying metals, iron and copper are
examples while glass and plastic are non-examples.
Use discovery-learning techniques. For example, let students manipulate variables and see the consequences.
Use analogies that the learners know. However, be careful that learners do not over-generalize or create misconceptions.
Provide for practice and immediate feedback.

Psychomotor Skills
Psychomotor skills are those that require learners to carry out muscular actions.
When teaching psychomotor skills:
Base the instructional strategy on an analysis such as a procedural analysis or a critical incident analysis.
Provide directions for completing all of the steps.
Provide repeated practice and feedback for individual steps, then groups of steps, and then the entire sequence.
Remember that, in general, practice should become less dependent on written or verbal directions.
Consider visuals to enhance learning.
Consider job aids, such as a list of steps, to reduce memory requirements. This is especially important if there are many
procedures or if the procedures are infrequently used.
After a certain point, allow learners to interact with real objects or do the real thing. How much can you learn about swimming
without getting wet?
Note that some skills involve other learning-domain classifications. For example, when learning how to operate a camcorder, many
of the skills are psychomotor. However, deciding how to light an image is an intellectual skill. Also, note that the required
proficiency level can affect the instructional strategy. There is a big difference between being able to imitate a skill and being able
to automatically do a skill.

Attitudes
Attitudes involve how a student feels about the instruction, whether they will value or care about the material presented to them.
When teaching attitudes:
Base the instructional strategy on the instructional design steps done earlier.
If you can, show a human model to which the students can easily relate. One consideration is that it may be better if the model
is of the same socioeconomic group.

3.2.2 [Link]
 Show realistic consequences to appropriate and inappropriate choices.
Consider using video.
Remember that attitudes taught through computer technology are not guaranteed to transfer to the real world. If appropriate and
possible, consider arranging for practice opportunities to make the choice in real life. Alternatively, use role-playing to reinforce
the attitudes taught.
Note that it can be difficult to test whether the attitudes taught have transferred to real situations. Will learners behave naturally if
they know that they are being observed? If learners have not voluntarily permitted observations, then you must consider whether it
is ethical to make the observations.

Strategies to Sequence Learning Outcomes

Another aspect of your instructional strategy will be to determine the sequence of how the learning outcomes will be taught. In
general, to best facilitate learning you should sequence the learning outcomes from:
easy to hard
You could teach adding fractions with common denominators and then with different denominators. Your lesson could first
deal with writing complete sentences and then writing paragraphs.
simple to complex
As an example, teach recognizing weather patterns and then predicting the weather.
Cover replacing a washer and then replacing a faucet.
specific to general
You could teach driving a specific car and then transfer the skills to driving any car. Similarly, you could cover adjusting the
brakes on a specific mountain bike and then generalize the procedure to other mountain bikes
Note that some students like to learn through an inductive approach (that is, from the general to the specific). For example,
students could be presented with a number of simple examples, and based on those, be asked to generalize a rule. That
general rule can then be applied to solving specific examples. Since some students will not enjoy an inductive approach, do
not use it all of the time. Rather consider an inductive approach as a way to provide some variation and occasionally address
other learning preferences.
concrete to abstract
As an example, teach measuring distances with a tape measure and then estimating distances without a tape measure. Cover
writing learning outcomes and then evaluating learning outcomes.
the known to the unknown
You could do this by starting with concepts learners already know and extending those concepts to new ideas. In other
words, build on what has been previously taught.
Each of these methods of sequencing learning outcomes enables students to acquire the needed knowledge base for learning higher-
level skills. Note that these guidelines are not black and white rules.

Strategies to Motivate Students - The ARCS Model

As described by Keller, motivation can be enhanced through addressing the four attributes of Attention, Relevance, Confidence,
and Satisfaction (ARCS). Try to include all of the attributes since each alone may not maintain student motivation. Your learner
analysis may have provided useful information for motivating students. You should build motivational strategies into the materials
throughout the instructional design process. This is challenging since each learner is an individual with unique interests,
experiences, and goals.

Attention
Gain attention and then sustain it. You can gain attention by using human-interest examples, arousing emotions such as by showing
a peer being wheeled into an ambulance, presenting personal information, challenging the learner, providing an interesting problem
to solve, arousing the learner’s curiosity, showing exciting video or animation sequences, stating conflicting information, using

3.2.3 [Link]
humor, asking questions, and presenting a stimulus change that can be as simple as an audio beep. One way to sustain attention is
by making the learning highly interactive.

Relevance
Relevance helps the student to want to learn the material by helping them understand how the material relates to their needs or how
it can relate to improving their future. For example, when teaching adult students how to solve percent problems, having them
calculate the gratuity on a restaurant bill may be more relevant than a problem that compares two person’s ages. You can provide
relevance through testimonials, illustrative stories, simulations, practical applications, personal experience, and relating the material
to present or future values or needs. Relevance is also useful in helping to sustain attention. For material to be perceived as being
relevant, you must strive to match the learner’s expectations to the material you provide.

Confidence
If students are confident that they can master the material, they will be much more willing to attempt the instruction. You will need
to convince students with low confidence that they can be successful. You can do this through presenting the material in small
incremental steps, or even by stating how other similar students have succeeded. Tasks should seem achievable rather than
insurmountable. You should also convince students who are overconfident that there is material that they need to learn. You can do
this by giving a challenging pre-test or presenting difficult questions.

Satisfaction
Satisfaction provides value for learning the material. Satisfaction can be intrinsic from the pleasure or value of the activity itself,
extrinsic from the value or importance of the activity’s result, for social reasons such as pleasing people who’s opinions are
important to them, for achievement goals such as the motive to be successful or avoid failure, or a combination of these. Examples
of intrinsic satisfaction include the joy or challenge of learning, increased confidence, positive outcomes, and increased feelings of
self-worth. Examples of extrinsic satisfaction include monetary rewards, praise, a certificate, avoidance of discomfort or
punishment for not doing it, and unexpected rewards. Some evidence suggests that extrinsic motivation, such as a certificate for
completing a course, does not last over time. Nonetheless, it is better to assume that some students need extrinsic motivation. To be
safe, try to provide your learners with both intrinsic, which should have more of the focus, and extrinsic rewards. If the intrinsic
motivation is high for all learners, you will not need to plan as much for extrinsic motivation. Note that satisfaction can be provided
by enabling learners to apply the skills they have gained in a meaningful way. Remember to let the students know that the material
to be learned is important. Consider increasing extrinsic motivation through quizzes and tests.

Strategies for Sequencing Instructional Events

As Robert Gagné described, that instructional events (gaining attention, informing the learner of the learning outcome, stimulating
recall of prerequisites, presenting the material, providing learning guidance, eliciting the performance, providing feedback,
assessing performance, and enhancing retention and transfer) represent what should be done to ensure that learning occurs. If you
address each instructional event, you will have a solid foundation for creating effective instructional materials. You will need to
determine what will be done for each instructional event for each learning outcome.
You can learn more about sequencing instructional events from another chapter in this textbook, Robert Gagné and the Systematic
Design of Instruction.

Conclusion
The emphasis in this review of instructional strategies was on getting the fundamentals right. Regardless of what revolutionary
tools or teaching approaches are being used, what we know of how people learn does not change a great deal over time, and we do
know that learning is a process, and you ignore the factors that influence that process at your peril.
For learning leading to successful outcomes, it is important to remember that most students need:
well-defined learning goals;
instructional strategies linked with the appropriate learning domains;
a proper sequencing of instructional events; providing a clear timetable of work, based on a well-structured organization of the
curriculum;

3.2.4 [Link]
 appropriate and engaging learning activities; with regular feedback
manageable study workloads appropriate for their conditions of learning;
a skilled instructor; regular instructor communication and presence;
a social environment that draws on, and contributes to, the knowledge and experience of other students;
other motivated learners to provide mutual support and encouragement.
There are many different ways these criteria can be met, with many different tools.
Remember these key takeaways when designing your instructional strategies:
Learning domain classification (i.e., verbal information, intellectual skills and cognitive strategies, psychomotor skills, and
attitudes) are best taught with different instructional strategies.
Teach learning outcomes in the order that best facilitates learning.
The four attributes of the Keller’s ARCS Motivational Model are; Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. Including
all of the attributes may increase student motivation.
The unique interests, experiences, and goals of each learner influence motivation.
Instructional events include; gaining attention, informing the learner of the learning outcome, stimulating recall of prerequisites,
presenting the material, providing learning guidance, eliciting the performance, providing feedback, assessing performance, and
enhancing retention and transfer. (as reviewed in the chapter Robert Gagné and the Systematic Design of Instruction).

Application Exercise
You have been tasked with designing a university orientation course for freshmen community college students. Everyone at the
institution is aware that students feel an orientation course is not necessary and that it is a waste of their time. Explain what portion
of the ARCS Motivational Model might be applied into the design of the course to help students understand why this course is
important for their success.

This page titled 3.2: Instructional Strategies is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

3.2.5 [Link]
3.3: Instructional Design Prototyping Strategies

Instructional Design Prototyping Strategies

Jacquelyn Claire Johnson & Richard E. West
One of the differences between design as practiced in our field and traditional art is that our designs must not only be interesting,
engaging, and even beautiful, but they must also be useful for someone—the end users or learners. Over 2,000 years ago, Marcus
Vitruvius—a Roman architect—articulated that good architecture should rise to three
ideals: firmitas (strength), utilitas (functionality), and venustas (beauty). In other words, a building should be strong and not fall
down, it should accomplish its purpose (e.g. as a home or an office), and it should be beautiful to enjoy.

Instructional designers seek the same three ideals in our products. For us, we desire the
learning environments we create to work well, teach well, and, well, be beautiful and
enjoyable to experience!
Prototyping is an essential skill and process for instructional designers to achieve these three goals. Despite careful and rigorous
front-end analysis, user research, and attention to detail during development, it is nearly impossible to produce instruction that
works perfectly the first time. However, through iterations of prototypes, we can evaluate how well our instructional designs are
working, teaching, and being enjoyed by a group of potential users. This will increase the likelihood that final designs will be
successful. In addition, digital technologies have reduced the cost of creating prototypes, which has led to a new focus on agile,
lean, and rapid prototyping design models where prototypes are not a single step in the process, but instead, each stage of design
development can be tested as a new prototype—and this continual refinement of the design through continuous evaluation may
never cease (see Wiley & Bodily’s chapter in this book).
How can we effectively prototype and test our designs? We can learn much about prototyping from other design fields. For
example, it is standard practice to use visual representations of ideas—such as pictures—during the creative process in many
design fields such as architecture (Bilda et al., 2006), film and cinematography (Teng et al., 2014), and engineering (Perry &
Sanderson, 1998). This skill is so meaningful, graphic design instructors insist that it is vital to “equip students with the ability to
make well-informed decisions about tool choice and tool use during design ideation” (Stones & Cassidy, 2010, p. 439).
Though graphic design is an inherently visual field, the use of prototypes has application in other design fields as well. For
instance, extensive research demonstrates the usefulness of visuals in product development as a means of exploring problems and
generating possible solutions. Prototypes help designers understand specific design challenges and make inferences about the
situation (Suwa & Tversky, 1997). They also contribute to many aspects of problem solving (Dorst & Cross, 2001; Do et al., 2000).
Research in cognitive psychology has established that the cognitive load of processing ideas is reduced for designers through the
use of visuals.
Furthermore, studies show it is easier for designers to process complex ideas with visual prototypes rather than relying on working
memory (Cash, StankoviÄ ‡ , & Štorga, 2014). Vicarious experiences can be provided through visuals, which allow designers to
glean and evaluate the pertinent information without investing as much time or effort into creating the experience (Menezes &
Lawson, 2006). Prototypes also can guide important design conversations “if they lead the team visually into a fruitful sequence of
conversation steps” (Eppler & Kernbach, 2016, p. 96).

Key Prototyping Principles

Dam and Siang (2018) argued that during prototyping you should pay attention to the following:
People—including those whom you are testing and the observers. Because we design for humans, we are particularly interested
in how humans interact with and perceive the usefulness of our designs.
Objects—including the prototype and other objects people interact with, because what people choose to do and the objects they
choose to interact with can provide clues into why they like or do not like our design.
Location—such as places and environments, because we can learn from where people choose to use designs, and why they use
them in those locations, and what affordances those locations provide for using the design.

3.3.1 [Link]
 Interactions—including digital or physical interactions between people, the objects, and the environment. This is particularly
essential because the interactions we observe provide clues into how the design could be used, and any unintended outcomes.
Similarly in our field, Andrew Gibbons (2013) has argued that every instructional design is comprised of various layers, such as the
following:
Content, or the actual material to be learned
Strategy, or the unifying framework about how the teaching/learning is theorized to happen, or how the tasks involved in
learning should take place
Control, or how students interact with and provide input back into the learning material
Message, or the intended meaning the instruction is meant to communicate to the learner
Representation, or how the layers of the design are presented to learners (visual, audio, touch, etc.)
Media-logic, or the background structures that activate each component of the instruction at the proper time and in the proper
way
Management, or how data about people’s use of the instruction is collected and managed to improve learning and communicate
about outcomes to stakeholders.
A design prototype, then, should serve to test one or all of these components from Dam and Siang and/or Gibbons. In other words,
a high fidelity prototype, created close before implementation, would likely try to test all of these components. An earlier prototype
may focus on one or two, perhaps testing primarily the validity of the content or messaging layers, the ability of the learner to
control the interface, or the reliability of the media.

Prototyping Stages and Goals for Each Stage

In our opinion, there are three key stages for prototyping, and there are different primary goals for each stage, as described in Table
1.
Table 1

3.3.2 [Link]
 Prototyping Stages and Goals

Prototyping Stage Prototyping Goals

The primary goal is to test the logic of the design with users, experts, and
Static/paper—These prototypes can be created clients. Do they think this is likely to succeed? Which aspects or attributes of
on paper or digitally, but typically are static the design do they think warrant full development? Does this design seem like
and do not involve interactivity, graphic a good answer to the instructional problem? Are we using the best content?
design, or other expensive features. These are What insights do they have now about how to present the final product (e.g.
often “Wizard of Oz” or paper prototypes, what media format, location, or scale should we aim for?)? This is also a good
described below. time to estimate the potential costs in time and money to develop the design,
and to ensure all parties feel the scope is accurate.

Low fidelity prototypes are produced to give users and clients a better idea
Low fidelity product/process—These
about how a design may look and interact, and how instructional content and
prototypes have minimal interactivity and
strategies will be presented. Things do not work perfectly, but the focus is on
visual storyboards instead of full graphics.
testing the ideas, interaction, and potential of the design.

First impressions often matter a great deal, so before launching a product with
High fidelity product/process—These actual users, ready-to-launch prototypes should be rigorously tested internally
prototypes should be nearly completed or with a sample of users. This process is usually repeated multiple times with
designs, and ready for rigorous internal larger groups of people until there is confidence that most of the design bugs
testing. have been identified, the product works reasonably well, and users will be able
to use the product as intended.

Beta or soft launch of the design—Many

The goal of this stage is to fully test all aspects of the design, including user
designers now choose to launch a design in
satisfaction and implementation costs. However, by keeping the design in beta,
beta form, allowing users full range of access
there is still flexibility to redesign an aspect not working very well, and usually
to the design, but without a promise that
users will be more forgiving.
everything will work perfectly.

Even when we feel a design is “done” or ready for launch, we continue to

Full launch/implementation collect confirmative or “continuous” (Wiley and Bodily, 2020) evaluation data
on how well it is working and make adjustments as needed.

Prototyping Strategies
There are many strategies to prototyping ideas. Essentially, whatever you as a designer can do to test out any aspect of your design
is a prototype. For example, this can be something visual, tactile, auditory, or performance-related. Following are some of the most
common prototyping strategies.

Sketching
Sketches are “rough drawings representing the chief features of an object or scene and often made as a preliminary study”
(Sketches, n.d.). For an example of a sketch, see Figure 1. Because sketches are simple and easily created, they are used by
designers in the automotive industry to develop new design concepts. Researchers studied six designers at the Ford design studio to
understand the physical and mental processes these designers go through as they sketch. They compared the process of these
professional designers to student designers to ascertain the differences between the two groups. Findings indicated that, when
compared to novice designers, professionals have a greater understanding of physical dimension and used an iterative design
approach in which they used sketches to facilitate problem solving and creative thought (Tovey et al., 2003).

3.3.3 [Link]
 Figure 3.3.1: Sketch of Exhibit Design Layout
Note. Many of the examples provided in this chapter come from museum exhibit design, which was the background of the lead
author.
As illustrated by the automotive designers, sketches elucidate aspects of the parallel development of the designer and the product.
Sketches allow designers to set out ideas spontaneously (Bilda et al., 2006; Segers et al., 2005) without investing much in terms of
time (Rodgers et al., 2000; Stones & Cassidy, 2010) and money (McGown et al., 1998). Expert designers are more adept at using
visuals, suggesting that visuals are often a part of their professional development (Bilda et al., 2006). These visuals also contribute
significantly to the design process (Dörner, 1999; Jonson, 2005; Kavakli & Gero, 2001; Suwa & Tversky, 1997; Teng et al., 2014)
and are said to be essential for conceptual designing (Bilda et al., 2006). Designers use sketches to focus their non-verbal thinking
(Rodgers et al., 2000), consider the idea as both its component parts and as a whole (Bilda et al., 2006), and tap into the deeper
meaning and implications of their ideas (Eppler & Kernbach, 2016). Sketching enlivens previously only imagined designs (Bilda et
al., 2006; Tovey et al., 2003). Through sketching, designers can embody and explore ideas that are not fully developed (Rodgers et
al., 2000), communicate the physical nature of an idea (McGown et al., 1998), and subsequently clarify its characteristics to
determine what will and will not work (Dörner, 1999). All of these activities are critical in the product development process.

3.3.4 [Link]
Storyboarding
Sketch methods lead to the creation of storyboards because key ideas and images can be created and then organized in a storyboard
sequence (Teng et al., 2014). Storyboards are “a panel or series of panels on which a set of sketches is arranged depicting
consecutively the important changes of scene and action in a series of shots” (Storyboards, n.d.). Storyboards are an exploration,
analysis, and conceptualization tool generally used later in the design process once ideas from sketches have been evaluated and
selected for development.
The development of storyboards often starts with a collection of individual drawings that represent single scenes, which are part of
the whole design being drawn. Each separate depiction in the storyboard represents a specific scene or perspective. Taken together,
they represent the sequence in which things will flow.
Storyboards are utilized in cinematography, live television, animation, and special effects to plan the details of how a story will be
portrayed (Teng et al., 2014). In architecture, they are used to visualize presentations of projects by creating analog versions of
proposed buildings that will later be digitally designed (Cristiano, 2007). In other design contexts such as industrial design,
storyboarding is a way of visually recording social, environmental, and technical factors that affect the context of how end users
will interact with the product (Martin & Hanington, 2012).
Storyboards were used by students at Georgia Institute of Technology in their industrial design classes. When working on a product
development project to redesign travel luggage, students performed research about the needs of consumers as well as market
standards as a basis for beginning their design project. After completing the research, students storyboarded their designs to show
how luggage is handled through the whole travel experience from storage, packing, passing security, walking through the airport,
boarding the airplane, loading it into the overhead bins, and ultimately back into storage. These storyboards facilitated discussions
about various design features and how to prioritize them to meet user needs (Reeder, 2005b).
As this example demonstrates, storyboards can contribute to product development because they are drawn with the target audience
in mind (Martin & Hanington, 2012) and visually describe how users will interact with the product. When designers examine
design challenges in depth using storyboards, they can understand the complexity of the situation and consider individual portions
of the situation while not losing sight of the whole (Reeder, 2005a). They can visually document how users will interact with the
product and use this documentation to develop innovative product solutions that address the needs and expectations of users
(Reeder, 2005a). In general, storyboards act as a visual budget, which helps the production process run more smoothly by planning
and allocating resources effectively (Cristiano, 2007). Because nothing is fixed or unchangeable, storyboarding is a flexible way of
trying out ideas and incorporating changes; ideas can easily evolve as they are drawn in storyboards (Glebas, 2013), as was the case
with the exhibit pictured in Figure 2.

3.3.5 [Link]
Figure 3.3.2: Storyboard of Ostraka Layout

3.3.6 [Link]
 Figure 3.3.3: Storyboard Example
Note. CC-BY from Rosenfeld Media, available at [Link]

Product Builds
Product builds are any three-dimensional representation of an idea that an audience and designer can manipulate and experience.
They can be as complex as working versions of a tool, 3-D prints, or even Lego/fabric-based lower fidelity builds. They can also be
of varying levels of fidelity, as initial product builds may include a few layers of the design (such as the physical shape and visual
coloring/representation). However, later prototypes can have increasing more fidelity, including prototyping various versions of
audio, music, content, and dynamic interactivity to test how effective each new design element is.
Product builds are seen as an essential design activity because it allows designers to learn by doing as they explore ideas (Camere
& Bordegoni, 2015). This is a practice common to many fields, including experience design (Buchenau & Suri, 2000), education
(Barab & Plucker, 2002), engineering (Alley et al., 2011), social innovation (Brown & Wyatt, 2015), and instructional design
(Merrill & Wilson, 2007).
As an example, engineers at a precision pump manufacturing organization were tasked with creating a new line of pumps for a food
processing chain. The pumps needed to be more efficient and have fewer parts than the originals. The core design team was co-
located and created prototypes to test their new designs. The use of prototypes contributed to the direct aural and visual
communication team members had with each other. The prototypes were critiqued and approved, and in this way they structured
the design process for the engineers (Perry & Sanderson, 1998).
As this engineering example illustrates, product builds are a valuable communication tool. They can provide a shared, tangible
view of an idea and facilitate answering questions concretely (Yang, 2005). They can also be used to persuade others to adopt a
new mindset because they tangibly demonstrate the merit of an idea. Prototypes can be a source of positive peer pressure to move
forward with the development of ideas (Norris & Tisdale, 2013).
Product builds also reveal information about the designs through the process of fabrication. Creating prototypes reduces design risk
because designers can learn about the product-to-be without investing the time and cost required for full production (Yang, 2005).
This technique helps designers determine how to fulfill the tasks and requirements that must be accomplished for a given project

3.3.7 [Link]
(Smith, 2014). Designers learn from the mistakes they make on prototypes and the feedback they receive about their prototypes,
which then leads to improved designs, as was the case with the prototype pictured in Figure 4. This is an iterative process that
continues until they reach a product that will accomplish the desired results.

Figure 3.3.4: Product Build of an Early Iteration of a Museum Exhibit

Bodystorming, or Role-Playing
Bodystorming is a method in which brainstorming is made physical. During bodystorming, role-playing and simulation with simple
prototypes is done to create informative performances that illustrate what it might be like to use a product that is under
development (Martin & Hanington, 2012). Bodystorming is a way of developing greater user empathy: designers immerse
themselves in situations end users might experience and then focus on the decisions, emotional reactions, and interactive
experiences users might have. This approach is based on the premise that the best way to understand an interaction is to experience
it personally (Smith, 2014).
Participating in the interactions users might have can reduce the time designers spend studying documents of user observation. It
allows them to tap into aspects that are unobservable because they have experienced these elements firsthand (Oulasvirta et al.,
2003). This technique has the potential to help designers communicate better with their peers, clients, and end users because of the
performance aspect of this type of visual (Burns et al., 1994).
Designers at the Helsinki Institute for Information Technology enlisted 10 researchers and industry representatives to use
bodystorming to innovate ubiquitous computing technologies. They spent a full day bodystorming the interactions an elderly user
group would have at an old age service house, subway station, the subway, the mall, and a grocery store. They identified problems
related to activities performed at each of these locations and framed them as design questions. Those involved were split into two

3.3.8 [Link]
groups to perform the bodystorming. One researcher acted as a moderator, while another served as a group leader. These
researchers recorded ideas that emerged and facilitated the experience. They found that bodystorming inspired researchers to
become familiar with new contexts and improve their design abilities (Oulasvirta et al., 2003).
This example of bodystorming presents how this visual tool can support the product development process through facilitating
communication across peers, clients, and users. Like the other forms of visual representation, it offers a shared perspective to all
involved, which provides opportunities for further discussions (Burns et al., 1994). However, it contributes differently than other
visuals. It allows designers to experience, discuss, and evaluate their ideas in context, and helps designers to understand how the
settings in which a design is used can affect their intended use (Smith, 2014).
This approach is believed to be less error-prone than brainstorming because it allows designers to experience realistic constraints
that can affect the user experience (Smith, 2014). In bodystorming, designers rapidly prototype ideas, which allows for immediate
feedback on how the product works (Oulsavirta et al., 2003). Discussing the feedback brings up new issues for designers to explore
(Flink & Odde, 2012).

Wizard of Oz Prototypes
In the movie/book, The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and her companions seek the wisdom and power of the Great Oz to grant their
wishes. However, what they thought was an all-powerful wizard was really a man behind the curtain, pulling levers and pushing
buttons to give the effect of something magical happening. Similarly, in Wizard of Oz prototyping, the designer creates a low
fidelity or paper prototype, but without the interactivity or dynamic responses from the system. Instead, when a user or prototype
tester wants to do something, they indicate where they would go, or what they would click, and the designer provides the next low
fidelity prototype example. In this way, they simulate the interaction that they will eventually build into the system. In essence, as
Dam and Siang (2018) explained these are “prototypes with faked functions.”
Sometimes this “faking” can be more complex, with a human on one side of a screen typing responses to the user that appear to
come from the computer. As another example, a popular experience at Disneyland theme parks is Turtle Talk with Crush (shown in
Figure 5), where children talk to Crush, the popular turtle from Finding Nemo, through a computer screen. On the other side of the
screen, the performers make Crush respond to the children in authentic ways that make Crush seem real. This perhaps also
exemplifies an ethical issue with Wizard of Oz prototyping as many young children really do think Crush is real. Even with adults,
some Wizard of Oz prototyping can appear realistic, and participants should be informed that they are not, in reality, interacting
with a real product.

Figure 3.3.5: Turtle Talk at Disney World

Note. Photo CC-BY/SA from Josh Hallet and available at [Link]

3.3.9 [Link]
User-Driven Prototypes
Dam and Siang (2018) described one final prototyping strategy, where instead of designers creating prototypes for users, the users
create prototypes for the designers. They explained that this can be a way of understanding the users and developing empathy.
“When you ask the user to design a solution, rather than provide feedback on a prototype, you can learn about the assumptions and
desires that the user possesses. The purpose of a user-driven prototype is not to use the solutions that the users have generated;
instead, it is to use their designs to understand their thinking.”
According to Dam and Siang (2018), a designer sets up user-driven prototyping by asking users to design specifically to answer
questions designers have. They provide the example of airport designers asking users to sketch or build what they think an ideal
experience would look like.

Conclusion
Prototyping is an essential strategy for testing out emerging designs and refining ideas before expensive implementation launches.
In addition, prototyping is an essential part of the design process itself because prototypes help to structure the collaborations on a
design team and represent the distributed cognition of design teams and how ideas are negotiated by team members (Henderson,
1998). Thus, design cultures or styles are intrinsically tied to the way in which each constructs representations of their ideas. Such
prototypes—e.g. sketches, drawings, bodystorming, etc.—are the heart of design work and constitute the space in which ideas are
defined, refined, and negotiated. (Henderson, 1998, p. 141). A team’s ability to create, interpret, and communicate with prototypes
can facilitate or restrict how they interact as a group, making these prototypes “primary players in the social construction of the
design culture or design style of the designing group” (Henderson, 1998, p. 140). Thus, it is essential that designers think
deliberately about how they use prototypes as part of an effective team design culture.

References
Alley, M., Atman, C., Finelli, C., Diefes-, H., Kolmos, A., Riley, D., & Weimer, M. (2011).
Engineering education and the development of expertise. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 123–150.
Barab, S., & Plucker, J. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated
approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165–182.
Bilda, Z., Gero, J. S., & Purcell, T. (2006). To sketch or not to sketch? That is the question. Design Studies, 27(5), 587–613.
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2006.02.002
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2015). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 30–35.
[Link]/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Buchenau, M., & Suri, J. F. (2000). Experience prototyping. IDEO San Fransisco. Pier 28 Annex, The Embarcadero
Burns, C., Dishman, E., Verpiank, W., & Lassiter, B. (1994). Actors, hairdos & videotape: Informance design. Conference
Companion, April, 119-120.
Camere, S., & Bordegoni, M. (2015). A strategy to support experience design process: The principle of accordance. Theoretical
Issues in Ergonomics Science, 16(4), 347–365.
[Link]/10.1080/1463922X.2015.1014069
Cash, P., StankoviÄ ‡ , T., & Štorga, M. (2014). Using visual information analysis to explore complex patterns in the activity of
designers. Design Studies, 35(1), 1–28.
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2013.06.001
Cristiano, G. (2007). Storyboard design course (1st ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.
Dam, R., & Siang, T. (2018). Prototyping: Learn Eight Common Methods and Best Practices. Interaction Design Foundation
Website. [Link]
Do, E. Y. L., Gross, M. D., Neiman, B., & Zimring, C. (2000). Intentions in and relations among design drawings. Design Studies,
21(5), 483–503. [Link]/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00020-X

3.3.10 [Link]
Dörner, D. (1999). Approaching design thinking research. Design Studies, 20(5), 407–415. [Link]/10.1016/S0142-
694X(99)00023-X
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.
[Link]/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
Eppler, M. J., & Kernbach, S. (2016). Dynagrams: Enhancing Design Thinking Through Dynamic Diagrams. Design Thinking for
Innovation, 85-102. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-
26100-3_6
Flink, C., & Odde, D. J. (2012). Science + dance = bodystorming. Trends in Cell Biology, 22(12), 613–616.
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2012.10.005
Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. Routledge.
Glebas, F. (2013). The animator’s eye. Burlington, MA: Focal Press.
Henderson, K. (1998). The role of material objects in the design process: A comparison of two design cultures and how they
contend with automation. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 23(2), 139–174.
Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation: The conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613–624.
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2005.03.001
Kavakli, M., & Gero, J. S. (2001). Sketching as mental imagery processing. Design Studies, 22(4), 347–364.
[Link]/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00002-3
Martin, B., & Hanington, B. (2012). Universal methods of design. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers. [Link]/1592537561
McGown, A., Green, G., & Rodgers, P. A. (1998). Visible ideas: Information patterns of conceptual sketch activity. Design Studies,
19(4), 431–453.
[Link]/[Link]
Merrill, M. D., & Wilson, B. (2007). The future of instructional design: The proper study of instructional design. In R. A. Reiser &
J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 335–351). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Norris, L., & Tisdale, R. (2014). Creativity in museum practice. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Oulasvirta, A., Kurvinen, E., & Kankainen, T. (2003). Understanding contexts by being there: Case studies in bodystorming.
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7(2), 125–134.
[Link]/10.1007/s00779-003-0238-7
Perry, M., & Sanderson, D. (1998). Coordinating joint design work: The role of communication and artefacts. Design Studies,
19(3), 273–288.
Reeder, K. (2005a). Using storyboarding techniques to identify design opportunities. The Technology Teacher, April, 9-11.
Reeder, K. (2005b). Visual storyboarding provides a conceptual bridge from research to development. The Technology Teacher,
November, 9–12.
Rodgers, P. A., Green, G., & McGown, A. (2000). Using concept sketches to track design progress. Design Studies, 21(5), 451–
464. [Link]/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00018-1
Segers, N. M., De Vries, B., & Achten, H. H. (2005). Do word graphs stimulate design? Design Studies, 26(6), 625–647.
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2005.05.002
Smith, B. K. (2014). Bodystorming mobile learning experiences. TechTrends, 58(1), 71-76.
Stones, C., & Cassidy, T. (2010). Seeing and discovering: How do student designers reinterpret sketches and digital marks during
graphic design ideation? Design Studies, 31(5), 439-460. [Link]/10.1016/[Link].2010.05.003
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design
Studies, 18(4), 385–403. [Link]/[Link]

3.3.11 [Link]
Teng, P. S., Cai, D., & Yu, T. K. (2014). The relationship between individual characteristics and ideation behavior: An empirical
study of storyboards. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24, 459–471. [Link]/10.1007/s10798-014-9264-1
Tovey, M., Porter, S., & Newman, R. (2003). Sketching, concept development and automotive design. Design Studies, 24(2), 135–
153. [Link]/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00035-2
Yang, M. C. (2005). A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome. Design Studies, 26(6), 649–669.
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2005.04.005

This page titled 3.3: Instructional Design Prototyping Strategies is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

3.3.12 [Link]
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

4: Evaluating
4.1: Design Critique
4.2: The Role Of Design Judgment And Reflection In Instructional Design
4.3: Instructional Design Evaluation
4.4: Continuous Improvement Of Instructional Materials

This page titled 4: Evaluating is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard
E. West (EdTech Books) .

1
4.1: Design Critique

Design Critique
Brad Hokanson
Central to design and design education is the critique (Dannels, 2005; Gray, 2013). The methodology and practice of critique is
how designs are improved and how design skills are developed in workplaces and within studio education around the world. It is
where work is presented by a designer, criticized by others, its virtues and limitations debated, and the work improved.
By itself, designing is a challenge to any individual's abilities. Information must be gathered and analyzed and a guiding principle
or idea must be developed and communicated to others. Designers must expose their work to the criticism of others and answer
critiques with the quality of their arguments and improvement in the design. Critique looks at an idea—created through analysis
and an inventive process, which is shared by the learner/designer—and advances its quality.
The design critique can provide instructional design with a means for intensifying the learning process as well as improving the
design project itself. As a process, critique benefits the learner, other members of a class, and the critic.

Defining Critique
Used throughout the design and creative fields, "critique" is a formative, conversational method of interaction and assessment. It is
the systematic and objective examination of an idea, phenomenon, or artifact. Critique is a semi-structured method of sharing work
for evaluation and commentary by others; it is a discussion with a project focus. While there are a number of different forms and
terms for the process, critique is used here to refer to formal and informal discussions involving design disclosure and criticism.
This writing focuses on the formative aspects of critique, and does not address final critiques or formal reviews, processes meant to
conclude and evaluate a design project (see Figure 4). For less formal and individual scaled interactions, the terms "crit" and "desk
crit" are commonly used. Here the focus is on critiques which happen during the design process.
Design critique can be compared with user testing. Both allow the evaluation of design projects and provide important feedback to
the designer. Here the focus is on critiques which happen during the design process. In contrast, in user testing, most of the
understanding of the quality of design work comes from observation of appropriate test users. Comments from the test users can be
helpful, but often are limited by their experience with design or the project at hand. On the other hand, critique generally deals with
peers or mentors with experience in designs of this project type.
In the first major studies of these interactions in the design studio, Donald Schön (1983, 1985, 1987) directly observed architectural
education. His writing described the individual consultations between studio instructors and individual students. The intensity and
focus of this type of learning event is the essence of an effective studio education, it is not didactic. At its most positive, a critique
is meant to “coach” or “guide” the learner to a more effective answer, develop judgment, and model tacit design/problem setting
and solving skills. Per Schön, “The student cannot be taught what he needs to know, but he can be coached” (1987, p. 17).

Forms of Critique
There are a number of different structures for critique. Blythman et al. (2007) describe a variety of critique forms which range from
final reviews to industry presentations to individual critiques. In this writing three of these forms are described as central to design
and education: desk critiques, peer crits, and group critiques. Each of these types is formative, designed to encourage and direct
design progress, and are qualitatively the most effective.
Within a studio learning experience, the development of design skills is commonly sought through a form of informal critique or
desk crit (see Figure 1). A desk crit is “… an extended and loosely structured interaction between designer and critic (expert or
peer) involving discussion and collaborative work on a design in progress” (Shaffer, 2003, p. 5). In general, most of the activity
during scheduled class time in a design studio will be individual students receiving criticism of their work from instructors or
visitors.

4.1.1 [Link]
4.1.2 [Link]
 Figure 4.1.1: Desk Critique (illustration by the author, photo courtesy of University of Minnesota College of Design)
“During a crit, a student describes his or her work to the professor…As students present possible solutions, the professor explores
the implications of various design choices, suggesting alternative possibilities, or offering ways for the student to proceed in his or
her exploration of the problem” (Shaffer, 2000, pp. 251–252).
The desk crit is a personal conversation between a designer and a critic (who may be a visiting professional, expert, or professor).
The length varies with the discussion. “This model of social interaction between student and instructor involves a critical
conversation about the student’s design, and usually involves both people working towards solving a problem” (Conanan et al.,
1997, p. 2). It is inherently formative, guiding the work toward a more successful conclusion. It is also subjective, and when
successful, provides not only objective answers but directions focused on developing the designer's ideas and thought process.
An important concept in effective critiques is the focus of the criticism on the work itself and not on the designer. A positive,
formative atmosphere is essential to an effective critique; grading and evaluation occur elsewhere. Shaffer described this nature:
“The tone of desk crits was almost always supportive and nonjudgmental. On the other hand, pinups and reviews, although
constructive, were quite blunt and sometimes extremely critical—particularly in the case of formal reviews. Judgment was, in
effect, off-loaded from the more private desk crits to the more public presentations” (Shaffer, 2003, p. 2).
Non-participants also can benefit from the individual desk critique both through direct observation and through incidental listening
to the process. While not as formalized as a lecture, within a studio space, frequently there are informal observers who gain from
hearing another's desk critique.
Talking to two student designers at a time may be more effective as it allows designs to be compared and more designers to be
critiqued in a given time period. It does, however, lack the focus and attention found through the individual critique.
While access to instructors is limited, other members of a class or team are available at any time to provide opinions, clarifications,
and evaluations through a peer critique, inside or outside of formal meeting hours. This is the simplest form of critique in design,
the "peer crit", where design work and ideas are discussed between colleagues (see Figure 2).

4.1.3 [Link]
4.1.4 [Link]
 Figure 4.1.2: Peer Critique (illustration by the author, photo courtesy of University of Minnesota College of Design)
Any critique develops both the critic and designer. While they can provide an external review of one’s design decisions, peer crits
also provide the critic with the opportunity to extend their own skills. Peer critics review the validity and logic of a particular
design idea or set of design choices. While peer crits may be the least formal format, they are the basis for an extended professional
understanding of the use of critique. This practice occurs in a range of fields from graphic design to architecture to user-experience
design.
An individual working session with a single student can change learners' minds and their thinking process, providing, as Shaffer
describes it involves social scaffolding of learning the design process. At its core, critique as part of an educational experience is
constructivist. While the focus is on an external project, the overall goal of the critique is to develop the designs skills of the
learner.
"He [sic] has to see on his own behalf … Nobody else can see for him, and he can’t see just by being “told,” although the right kind
of telling may guide his seeing and thus help him see what he needs to see." (Dewey 1974, p. 151)
The importance of the informal critique in the development of learners in the studio classroom is clear. Frequent engagement and
discussion of ideas scaffold the experience, while the designer tacitly recognizes the value of engagement and collaboration with
other professionals by seeking criticism from others.
Designers who participate in critique may do so as a critic or as one being critiqued. Both roles have cognitive benefits to the
individual designer and to their broader understanding of design. Designs are developed conversationally, building from the initial
ideas of the designer, but tested and improved through the argumentation like process of a critique. Criticism of the work can help
improve the quality of the end-product. Over time, exposure to critique can also help develop thinking skills of the designer
building their capability to analyze, anticipate, and respond. For a beginning designer, a first critique may be challenging and
helpful comments may be rejected. Often the criticism of the work is conflated with criticism of the designer themselves, when
they should be separated. Discussions must focus on the work, and not on the designer.

4.1.5 [Link]
Small groups can also observe and participate in formative group critique as well, with selected projects serving to trigger
discussion and interaction with all present. In studio format learning, intermediate group critiques can have much of the same
coaching or generative functions as individual critiques. Whether as a group crit or pin-up, these can highlight specific milestones
in a project development. While similar in form to final reviews or "juries", the distinguishing quality is one of development and
advancing the work of the individual designer and benefiting the group from generalizable comments. It is inherently formative and
positive.

4.1.6 [Link]
4.1.7 [Link]
 Figure 4.1.3: Group Critique (illustration by the author, photo courtesy of University of Minnesota College of Design)
A general, but often tacit goal of design education is to instill a habit of critique, and an ongoing practice of generative evaluation
of creative work. Critique supports reflection and engagement among designers of all types.

4.1.8 [Link]
4.1.9 [Link]
 Figure 4.1.4: Final Review (illustration by the author, photo courtesy of University of Minnesota College of Design)

Use of Critique in Studio

Studio-based education is learning by designing, a rich and complex process. Designers in all fields examine problems, advance
possible exploratory resolutions, and iteratively evaluate their own work as a regular part of the design process. This process occurs
through personal reflection and evaluation, but it can also be improved through the interaction with others through as Shaffer calls
"…a variety of structured conversations…" (2003, p. 5). An important aspect of learning design is developing the professional
practice of seeking and giving critique; the formal and informal evaluation of the work. It is one of the consistent aspects across
design programs and schools worldwide, and importantly, in design culture. As a generative format, the critique process focuses on
the improvement and development of the design project.
The use of the studio model in instructional design has become increasingly common over the past ten years (Clinton and Rieber,
2010). Studios are based on the ideas of project-based learning and modeled directly from pedagogical methods in the creative
fields such as studio art, architecture, and product design. “The originators of the studio curriculum [at the University of Georgia]
… envisioned the learning of educational multimedia design to that of an art or architectural studio in which a group of people
learn skills and develop expertise while working on authentic projects in a public space comprised of tools and work areas”
(Clinton and Rieber, 2010).

Application in Instructional Design

Instructional design education can benefit from the models presented in studio-format classes. Instructional designers also can
utilize the general concept of critique in various ways in design products of their own. However, not everyone is experienced with
critique or even studio-based learning in an educational environment. Design schools have the advantage of a well-developed and
expected critique model; the scaffolding is explicit and the instructors are well versed in the process.
It is valuable to start using and employing critique as a method as a learner, as an instructor, and as an instructional designer. The
suggestions below intersperse these roles, describing critique from these three different orientations.

4.1.10 [Link]
Designers, even those without experience in studio-based learning, can start by opening themselves to critique as an educational
method. Beginning can be as simple as developing a habit of asking peers or friends for informal feedback on a project. The
author's own second year architecture critic began the year by saying "You have to expose yourself.", encouraging our own sharing
and interaction regarding design ideas. (Stageberg, 1973).
Peer critiques can be done at any time, whether during scheduled class time or at off-hours, exposing project ideas to others'
opinions and assessments. Critique can also be done between designers, developing their skills of synthesis and evaluation, and
expands the learning process…and importantly as a way to improve the design work itself. [An application exercise is included at
the conclusion of this writing.]
Designers seeking input on their work can begin by specifically focusing the critique on areas for improvement. A peer critique
should start with briefly describing the problem or design and outlining the objectives of the project. Present is an understanding of
the immediate goal of the critique being improvement of the design solution (Gibbons, 2016). As with writing, the goal is to seek a
larger understanding of the logic and tone as opposed to a copy edit.
While a critique is in progress, designers can help steer the direction of discussion to more important issues by focusing on
discourse within the design work, and by seeking evidence and the reasoning behind any criticisms.
Critiquing a colleague, peer, or student helps in developing one's own reflective ability to analyze and criticize design work.
Critiquing the work of others can help make one a better designer in the long term, and improve design projects in the present.
While giving a critique involves evaluating the work for errors and problems, it can also delve into the more philosophical and
theoretical aspects of the project. For example, an instructional design could begin from a behavioral basis or a constructivist basis,
which is a place for philosophical advocacy.
For instructors, individual critiques can be described as a regular system of tutoring individual learners, driven by attention and
engagement. Critique is contemporary and formative feedback, engaging, and scaffolds the design process. The skills of critique
should be consciously developed in learners both as recipients and for their role as critic. The critique model is extendable, as
individuals can be paired or grouped as need be, building collaborative learning events. A formative critique is comparable to
reviewing a written article draft for a colleague, building on their ideas and their thinking.
Critics or instructors themselves will need to begin by modeling a positive and formative approach to a constructive conversation.
Faculty will need to have a consistent pattern of using critique for helping learners develop their ideas as well as their thinking
process. Explicit standards for both the interaction and the quality of the work are helpful. Individual "desk" crits can be either
private or public, and faculty can encourage other students to informally listen in. As individual critiques can be face-to-face or
online, they can continue to allow others to participate or view. Establishing individual critiques as an educational practice in a
course can build to conducting small group critiques as well.
Instructional designers have the opportunity to build into their designs open frameworks for critique. A framework can, for
example, support student peer critiques, user testing of interactive designs, verbal critique of visual layouts, or a shared review of a
colleague's writing. In most cases it would be important to develop critique skills in learners to help improve responses. The goal of
any particular critique is progress toward improvement of the finished design, with the overarching goal of improving learner
thinking. It is valuable for a learner or critic to review over all ideas and evaluate their validity and consistency, and to be present,
positive, and engaged. Critique is a structure that can be built into instructional designs.
While critique is valuable for both face-to-face and online learning, there are challenges that exist with the increasing use of
technology-enhanced learning. The fluidity of conversation, whether online or in-person adds much to a critique, even if done
through sharing screens and talking synchronously, which is now possible with some course management systems. Critiques should
be done in a manner providing the highest fidelity of communication possible; while face-to-face is valuable, most synchronous
critique can be done through video conference software. A current example would be online music lessons connecting, say, a violin
player in Japan with an instructor in Finland (Furui [Link]., 2015; Nishimura, 2017).
Asynchronous critique may be less effective, but can still provide direction and formative assessment through mark-up and
annotation. Unfortunately, there isn't the same interaction with a "Track Changes" review or with software such as VoiceThread as
with a face-to-face conversation, but with investigation, structuring of the conversation could be improved. Online written texts can
be combined with synchronous audio for editing sessions as well.

4.1.11 [Link]
Conclusion
As with any educational practice, there are limits to the use of critique in education. More commonly, the limits on the use of
critique are due to time and the one-on-one nature of an instructor critique. Modern economics necessarily constrains the amount of
time spent reviewing, analyzing, and being involved with individual critiques. Lecture classes and objective evaluations are simpler
and much more financially viable in 'presenting' a large class than is a single design instructor working with individuals in a smaller
studio class. This is a continuing source of pressure on design departments. Pragmatically, class size and time limit the availability
of critique as an educational method.
Critiques do vary in quality as well as scale. Some critiques are helpful and advance the work, others challenge the designer's
thoughts, leading to new insight for future work. Other critiques, of course, are less successful, perhaps focusing on the traits of the
designer and not on the design itself. Critiques which focus primarily on minor details, facts or factual error are often distracted
from larger, more important issues. Critiques which are simplistic and present criticism without evidence are not helpful, nor are
those which are overwhelmingly negative or positive. The goal of a good critique is to make the design and designer better, and not
to express a power relationship.
The skills of the reviewer, whether educator or peer, are also important—recognizing the social and formative nature of the
interaction. However, it is within the systemic role of instructional designers to extend a valued and effective model to the
technology-enhanced learning of today.
Critique can be integrated into instructional design models and education. It can be the way instructional designers learn, and an
important aspect of how they practice.

Application Exercises
As a concluding exercise for this writing, try the following process. At some point in a design project, whether with early sketches
or more developed ideas, contact a peer who is working at a comparable scale. It might be the same type of project or one that has
similar requirements and standards. Ask if they would be willing to critique your work, and offer the same input on theirs. Review
the following process and set a reasonable time scale for the critique, with enough for discussion of both efforts.
For the critique itself, first give your colleague a brief outline of the current progress of your work and focus the critique on areas
of concern you may have. Solicit a comparable set of information from your partner. Spend a reasonable amount of time examining
the project, depending on the scope of the project and on your agreed upon time commitment. Take notes, and try to synthesize
your understanding and experience with their work. With a goal of seeking to improve the work, discuss your findings with them,
and in turn, learn of their findings. Restate what you heard in your own words to them for confirmation and clarification.

References
Blythman, M., Orr, S., & Blair, B. (2007). Critiquing the crit. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from [Link]
Clinton, G., & Rieber, L. (2010). The studio experience at the University of Georgia: An example of constructionist learning for
adults. Educational Technology Research & Development.
Conanan, D., & Pinkard, N. (2000). Studio zone: Computer support for reflective design. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss
(Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 176–177). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Dannels, D. (2005). Performing Tribal Rituals: A Genre Analysis of ‘‘Crits’’ in Design Studios, Communication Education. 54(2).
P. 136-160.
Dewey, J. (1974). John Dewey on Education: Selected Writings. (R. D. Archambault, ed.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Furui, H., Nishimura, A., Nakai, N., & Nishimua, S. (2015). Feasibility study on international violin lesson using video call.
Waseda University research report.
Gibbons, S. (2016). Design critiques: Encourage a positive culture to improve products. [weblog]
[Link]
Gray, C. M. (2013). Informal peer critique and the negotiation of habitus in a design studio. Art, Design & Communication in
Higher Education, 12(2), 195–209.

4.1.12 [Link]
Nishimura, S. (2017). e-mail communication.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Burlington: Ashgrove.
Schön, D. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shaffer, D. W. (2000). Design, collaboration, and computation: The design studio as a model for computer-supported collaboration
in mathematics. In CSCL ‘97 proceedings (pp. 249–255). Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Shaffer, D. W. (2003). Portrait of the Oxford studio: An ethnography of design pedagogy. Madison: Wisconsin Center for
Education Research.
Stageberg, J. (1973). Personal conversation.

This page titled 4.1: Design Critique is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald &
Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

4.1.13 [Link]
4.2: The Role Of Design Judgment And Reflection In Instructional Design

The Role of Design Judgment and Reflection in Instructional Design

Ahmed Lachheb & Elizabeth Boling
As a student of instructional design (ID), or as a future ID practitioner, you will have to make many decisions that allow you to
move forward in your design work. Such decisions will be informed in part by the particular situation you are dealing with,
influenced by precedent design experience (see more about design precedent here), and inflected with your values and ideals.
Making decisions is a fundamental human capacity. When designing, designers make decisions specific to design. The capacity to
make solid design decisions is what distinguishes excellent designers from mediocre designers. So how can designers make solid
decisions? The answer is through evoking good design judgments and constantly reflecting on their design work.

What is Design Judgment?

When designers face complex situations—a constraint, a problem with a client or another design stakeholder, a block in the design
process—they need to make design judgments to reduce the complexity of the situation or solve the issue that has been
encountered. Depending on the situation, a specific design judgment is invoked to make design decisions. In the area of general
design theory, Nelson and Stolterman (2012) have identified design judgment as “essential to design. It does not replicate decision
making but it is necessary” (p. 139). In this definition, the authors distinguish judgment from decision-making. Design judgments
for them are the means to achieve “wise action” (p. 139), or—in other words—good design decisions. In this way, designers can
think about design decisions as the “what and how,” of design, whereas design judgments have to do with the “why” a design
decision has been made (see Figure 1).

Figure 4.2.1: How Are Design Judgments Related to Design Decisions?

Design judgments rely on different types of logic than rule-based systems. For example, imagine you have been tasked to design an
instructional module to be delivered online. You are now faced with the choice of making this instructional module in the form of
video, or text, or text with visuals and a video. Eventually, you will make a decision about which form the instructional module will
take. That is the design decision. What allows you to make such a decision are your design judgments (e.g. preference for videos
over text, based on constraints you perceive in the design project or your past history as a designer). Design judgments are based on
your own knowledge. This knowledge cannot be separated from you, the designer, but it is not arbitrary either. Your appreciation of
media and understanding of time and tools are disciplined, based on intuitive but very rational logic, generated from “the
particularity or the uniqueness of a situation” (Nelson and Stolterman, 2012, p. 141).

4.2.1 [Link]
Designers’ Design Judgments
Nelson and Stolterman (2012) have proposed a construct comprising eleven design judgments that designers invoke. A summary of
these design judgments is available in Table 1. We, as authors, recommend that you read more in-depth about these design
judgments in Nelson and Stolterman’s (2012) book, The Design Way.
Table 1

4.2.2 [Link]
 General Summary of Design Judgments and Examples

Design Judgment Definition Example of Design Judgment in Action

Designer’s own value or thinking that

Designer advocates and insists on a designing discussions activity
Core can lead to invoke all other above
because they firmly believe that learning is interaction
design judgments

Selecting and using design

Drawing icons using a digital tool or using a paper and pencil, or
Instrumental tools/means to reach established
selecting to use a MAC vs. a PC for design work
design goals

Defining the boundaries of the design

Deciding whether to design an academic course, a workshop, a
Framing project by emphasizing its focus and
performance-support handout, etc.
outcomes

Generating “automatic” response to a Asking an SME to meet for a design project kick-off meeting
Default situation without hesitation, and because that is the first thing you do in all of your design projects,
without too much thinking no matter what

Emailing an SME about a first meeting and providing them with

Deliberated Recall of previous successful default
options of when to meet and whether the meeting is face-to-face or
Offhand (DOH) judgments, consciously
online

Appreciating the work a media developer has done but not

Emphasizing certain aspects of a
Appreciative emphasizing the challenging relationship they had with other
design, and backgrounding others
project’s stakeholders

Finding out the match/mismatch Discussing the quality of a slide deck presentation with a critical
between aesthetic norms/standards eye and through referencing branding guidelines of the organization
Quality
and the particular proposed design and/or aesthetic design norms in regards to colors, visuals, and
artifacts typeface, such as CARP principles

Examining the overall path of a learning experience in a course

Assessing the overall quality of the
Appearance design, and stating whether it feels cumbersome, boring, clunky or
design
smooth/friendly

Consider inviting an external SME to provide expertise about a

Considering a path/direction to follow
Navigational specific subject area that the current/available SMEs lack so you
in completing a design task
can fill a content gap that other SMEs and designers identified

Considering how a design of a lecture in an academic course is

Making connections of objects
related to another learning activity/assessment, and whether there is
Connective together for the specific design
a connection and or alignment between these two design objects or
situation
not

Considering how to place learning objects within structures of

Bringing all elements of design modules to form a whole, complete, and smooth 16-weeks long
Compositional
together to form a whole academic course, in a way that lectures and discussions precede
exams and major assignments

As a student of instructional design, there are the three of these design judgments that play a critical role in instructional design

4.2.3 [Link]
practice, and that will be examined more completely.
The first is core judgment—"buried deep within each individual, but unlike off-hand judgments, they are not easy to access” (p.
154). Designers invoke core judgments often in an unconscious manner because it stems from designers’ own values or thinking
that can be revealed through “why” questions (e.g., a designer advocates and insists on designing discussion activities because they
firmly believe that learning is interaction—that is their core judgment). Core judgment is behind every other design judgment. It is,
in a sense, our human capacity to have tacit knowledge, beliefs, and own philosophies. Designers invoke core design judgment to
make design decisions, including those based on prior experience.
The second is instrumental judgment—“interaction with their [designers’] materials and the tools” (p. 152). Instrumental is used
here to mean ‘instrument’ and not to mean ‘important.’ Designers invoke instrumental judgments to decide on which design tools to
use or not, and how to use them for their design projects (e.g., drawing icons using a digital tool or using a paper and pencil). This
judgment is one of the most invoked judgments as it is concerned with design tools—all kinds of means that designers use to
design, regardless of their form—and because design tools encompass almost every design activity. Design tools could be
abstract/theoretical or tangible, analog, or digital. If you are curious, you can read more about design tools in instructional design
practice in Lachheb and Boling (2018).
The third is framing judgment—“defining and embracing the space of potential design outcomes … [it] forms the limits that
delineate the conceptual container” (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012, p. 148). In evoking this design judgment, designers discuss the
goal of their design project (e.g., designing an academic course, a workshop, a performance-support handout, etc.) in order to frame
what the design project is about. Framing judgment is also invoked throughout the progress of a project that involves deciding what
is important to focus on next.

Guidance to Develop and Invoke Design Judgments

You might be asking now, “What design judgments should I make? Which ones are the best design judgments? How will I know?
How does a designer learn to make good design judgments?” These are very legitimate and important questions. Frankly, these
questions are what actually spark many research studies on design practice; answering them is not as straightforward as one
sometimes wishes.
First, it is important to think about these design judgments as not isolated units, but rather like pearls that are connected to each
other with strings. If you take one pearl and you hold it up, then the other ones just hang as a cluster underneath because they are
connected to each other (E. Stolterman, personal communication, November 18, 2013). Designers often invoke a number of design
judgments together—always interconnected and often overlapping (see Figure 2). That being said, as you are practicing design, you
will be making these design judgments at all times, most of the time unconsciously. Now that you read about them, you can think
about them in a conscious manner and watch for when a design judgment you invoke does not lead to the desired result.

4.2.4 [Link]
 Figure 4.2.2: How Are Design Judgments Interconnected?
Second, all of these design judgments are important to help you navigate the complexities of your design projects. However,
as mentioned earlier, the most important design judgments are core, instrumental, and framing. Core design judgment is connected
to every design decision—there is always a personal belief behind every design decision you make. Instrumental design judgments
are concerned with design tools—every aspect of your design projects involve using design tools of all kinds. Framing design
judgment allows you to set up the whole design project for success or failure, from the very beginning—if you frame your design
project incorrectly, there will be money and resources wasted, not to mention upset clients and supervisors. Third, knowing which
design judgments are you evoking, what design judgment you should or you should not evoke, and how you learn to make good
design judgments are always matters of deliberate reflection on your design practice—a topic addressed in the second part of this
chapter.
Finally, as a designer, you will face many situations when you feel uncertain; you can make several design judgments but you are
not sure what is the right choice to make. Uncertainty is a hallmark of the design profession and our advice is to embrace it, not to
be afraid of it. We, the authors, also advise you to trust your instinct and remember your rigorous design training. Additionally,
taking time to think and studying your design context should equip you with powerful insights to help you make the right choice
(e.g., using the instructional theory framework to inform your design judgments). You can also seek mentorship and consulting
from senior designers to help you deal with uncertainty, and ultimately make good design judgments.

Examples of Design Judgments Invoked by Instructional Design Students

Some researchers in the field have studied design judgments and how students of instructional designers invoke them (Demiral‐
Uzan, 2015; 2017, Korkmaz & Boling, 2014). From the studies of Demiral‐Uzan (2015; 2017), the authors provide the following
examples of design judgments invoked by ID students as they are designing instruction during graduate-level instructional design
courses.
Example 1: An instructional design student was asked to design an instruction for their final project. This student decided to design
a course for advanced Chinese ESL learners about business emails. This student invoked a framing and navigational design
judgment because when asked by the researcher how they decided to design this instruction, they said: “How I came up with that
specific topic and why is that, very simple. I mean, what’s the most practical, more effective easy to me, something that I am at least
familiar with, something I already know” (adapted from Demiral-Uzan, 2017).
Example 2: A group of instructional design students came together to discuss their group project in their instructional design
course. Their discussion was focused on the content of the instruction and the flow of information they wish to present in the

4.2.5 [Link]
instruction. A researcher observed and recorded their interaction. Each statement that a student says points to design judgments
being invoked and overlapped:
Student A: Should this go first or after the overview? (Appearance, Quality and
Connective design judgment)

Student B: This comes after the content on my part. (Default, Appearance, Quality and Connective design judgment)

Student A: Your approach is different than mine, which is okay. For learners to understand what networking is, the definition of
networking will come here first, then tell and show them what is networking is not. (Appreciative, Core, Quality and Compositional
design judgment)
(adapted from Demiral-Uzan, 2015).

What is Design Reflection?

Reflection is the personal and the internal building of knowledge through considering and interpreting one’s experiences or beliefs
(Tracey et al., 2014). It is usually a method to solve problems, as well as to define and refine one’s beliefs, values, and perspectives.
Reflecting on your design work, its qualities, process, and outcomes, allows you to become aware of your tacit knowledge and
learn from your design experience. Donald Schön—a prominent design scholar and a design educator—has identified two types of
design reflections (Schön, 1983): (1) Reflection-in-Action; and (2) Reflection-on-Action.
Reflection-in-action is that internal dialogue that designers have as they are engaged in solving a particular design problem, or
while using a specific design tool. For example, you could be working on designing a training program. You face a complex
situation where the capacity of the software you are using to develop the training materials is not allowing you to create a specific
interaction you wish to create. You could ask yourself something like “How do I get around this? Should I use another software or
try to think of another way to create the interaction the client and I want to see?” This self-questioning is essentially the internal
dialogue you could have, which constitutes “reflection-in-action.” You could have this internal dialogue without being aware of it,
as most of us think and reflect unconsciously and in silence. Eventually, reflection-in-action allows you to establish a ground to
make decisions and work toward a resolution of the problem (Schön, 1983).
Reflection-on-action has to do with looking back at past design experiences, to make sense of what happened, what worked well,
what did not work well, why taking one design approach seemed to be better than the other, etc. Many designers recognize
reflection-on-action as what happens in design “post-mortem” meetings—a dialogue between designers who reflect upon their
experiences, practices, and beliefs. Reflection-on-action dwells upon subjective interpretations of events, situations, and ideas. It is
personal and can be hard to express. Nevertheless, this type of reflection is proven to be an effective practice to learn from past
designer experience, so future design experiences are optimized. Additionally, when designers experience failure, only reflection-
on-action could allow them to process that failure, learn from it, and essentially become aware of future modes of failure that might
come their way.

An Example of a Design Reflection by an Instructional Design Student

Kaminski et al. (2018) has illustrated several design reflections written by ID students. One example is shared in this chapter, and
you are encouraged to read more—as shared by Kaminski et al. (2018).
"One of the hardest lessons I learned from the instructional design course (and still struggle with), is articulating my decisions and
actions onto paper. The best advice I received from Dr. Kaminski is to approach instructional design with the mindset that you are
making something that another instructor (without any prior experience) can recreate. I think my difficulty comes from the many
steps that I personally revisit and parts that I revise with research and experience. It is hard to describe all those directions that my
mind takes to come to a final product. The picture I drew allows me to provide an abstract visual of all those steps. The student is
the 'key,' the center of my purpose. As the 'doorknob, it is my responsibility to make sure all the working parts are in place so that
the individual can open the door to knowledge. Begin by identifying the goals of the training event, analyze the learner, and the
method for instruction, and verify the performance objectives. Start on outer edges and spiral toward the middle, and then through
evaluation back out and spiral back in again until you get through the door. Goals are set – look at the learner and environment to

4.2.6 [Link]
make it work. Facilitators need to address all the pieces and parts of the classroom component, so the facilitator ensures the
student has what they need to open the door."
As you can see in this example, the student expressed how hard it was for them to make design decisions. The student reflected on
what they believe to be the appropriate design moves, how to begin, and what the design should be focused on. Toward the end of
the reflection, the student expressed a set of values and ideals—core design judgments.

Design Judgments and Reflection: Recommendations for Instructional Design Students

The Reflection Journal
Some designers keep a journal. Some designers turn parts of their journal into a blog or a website where they reflect on their design
work publicly. Commit to a journal in the format you prefer–a simple notebook, a Google document, a blog, a video, a podcast.
Start your first entry about the last design project you completed in class and address the following prompt (adapted from Tracey et
al, 2014):
Describe a time when you felt totally uncertain while working on this design project. Try to remember how you felt and what was
the greatest challenge(s) you faced because of the uncertainty you felt. What actions did you take to overcome such uncertainty?
How did it go? Why did you take certain actions and not other actions? What did you believe to be happening vs. what actually
happened? Knowing that you will feel uncertain in future design projects, how do you feel about becoming a designer?
Start writing the reflection post using descriptive language. You should not worry about grammar and typos at this stage. Let the
words and thoughts flow and make their way from your head to the journal. Pay attention to how you felt and what thoughts you
had at the moment. Think about if someone reads this reflection, will they understand what was going on in the design project?
Will they get to feel how you felt? Don’t limit yourself to formal writing. Write as you think and speak. Once you complete this
first entry, share it with your ID faculty or another designer if you feel comfortable.
The following are some ways to document design reflections:
Pick what you want to focus on for each reflection—a challenge with a designer, a moment of design failure, a harsh critique
from a client, or an SME; you pick.
Describe your design actions by addressing the Five Ws (What, When, Where, Why, Who).
Elaborate on the “Why” part so you can reveal the design judgments you made that led to these design actions.
Speculate on the “Why” when speaking about other’s actions, unless you are certain.
Conclude with what you have learned from this design project—what you will not forget to do next time? To what extent this
design project will be similar to future projects you anticipate?

Exploring Your Core Design Judgments

People are surrounded by designs they use every day, and some they cannot live without. Commit to a week of noticing and
collecting—through photographs—designs that you appreciate and designs that you do not like at all. These could be the items you
use every day, such as your phone, the showerhead in your bathroom, a specific app, or a favorite frying pan in your kitchen, or
anything else. Challenge yourself to notice as many designs as possible. Such design could include instruction or performance
support materials around you (e.g., a flyer that teaches people how to wash their hands or the instructional book that comes with
IKEA furniture). Take about an hour or more to write down notes about each design—why you appreciate it and why you do not.
Keep asking yourself “why do I like/dislike this?” and record your answers. Repeat this activity until you cannot think of any more
answers to. For example, the authors appreciate public libraries. We like them because we find the books we like to borrow and not
buy, they are accessible to us, they are free, they are diverse, and they provide quiet places for us to concentrate. We can say more
why we like public libraries, but essentially we like public libraries because we believe in the noble cause of public goods, and
public libraries represent such a cause.
Now examine your answers to the “why” questions and try to think about how such answers represent values you hold. These could
be transparency, ease of use, elegance, democratic, accessible, inclusive/exclusive, soft, strong, and so on. These values constitute
your core judgments and influence all kinds of design judgments you make. You may not be able to access all of them completely,
but you are aiming to heighten your awareness of what your design values really are. Once you have spent some time on this
exercise, consider revisiting it in the future to see any change you might notice in terms of the values you have—write a reflection

4.2.7 [Link]
post on such change. You can focus the noticing experience on specific types of designs (e.g., phone apps), or you can mix designs
together that you see belong to each other (e.g., instructional posters and cooking books). Essentially, noticing designs and why you
appreciate them will become a somewhat automatic habit for you. By these means you can question and refine your judgement
across a whole career.

Additional Information
Ways to document design judgments and decisions:
Document your design through documents and project management tools—you will have an audit trail at the end of the project
that helps you or anyone else to trace back what design decisions you have made.
Use the margins of such documents to add comments/thoughts and explanations on design decisions you have made.
Archive written conversations (emails, chats, etc.…) between you and other design stakeholders that include design decisions
(and most likely your “defense” or such decisions).
Leverage your design reflections, notes, and design documents to write a design a case which you can publish in the
International Journal of Designs for Learning (IJDL).

Conclusion
You may have heard the common wisdom that to become a better professional, you should engage in at least 10,000 hours of
practice in your profession. While there is truth in the advice that many, many hours of practice are required to develop expertise,
the authors are also confident in an additional claim that there is more to expertise than just putting in a certain number of hours.
Without deliberately reflecting on your design actions and the design judgments that lead to those actions, not even 10,000 hours of
instructional design practice will be enough to make you an expert designer. Explicitly reflecting on your design judgments, in
addition to reflecting on your practice, is what will help you become a more engaged and expert designer. Make reflection on your
design judgments an intentional aspect of your efforts to develop your growing competence as a member of the instructional design
profession.

References and Suggested Readings

Boling, E., Alangari, H., Hajdu, I. M., Guo, M., Gyabak, K., Khlaif, Z., Kizilboga, R., Tomita, K., Alsaif, M., Lachheb, A., Bae, H.,
Ergulec, F., Zhu, M., Basdogan, M., Buggs, C., Sari., R., & Techawitthayachinda, R. I. (2017). Core judgments of instructional
designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(3), 199–219. [Link]
Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2015). Designerly tools, sketching, and instructional designers and the guarantors of design. In B.
Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learning experience: Creating the future of educational technology (pp.
109–126). Springer. [Link]
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–
55. [Link]
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. [Link]
Demiral-Uzan, M. (2017). The Development of Design Judgment in Instructional Design Students During a Semester in Their
Graduate Program (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University).
Demiral‐Uzan, M. (2015). Instructional design students’ design judgment in action. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 7–
23. [Link]
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on
representative tasks. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, 223–241.
Gray, C. M., Dagli, C., Demiral‐Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A. A., Gyabak, K., Hilligoss, M., Kizilboga, R., Tomita,
K. & Boling, E. (2015). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 28(3), 25–49. [Link]
Kaminski, K., Johnson, P., Otis, S., Perry, D., Schmidt, T., Whetsel, M., & Williams, H. (2018). Personal Tales of Instructional
Design from the Facilitator’s Perspective. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton & K. Kaminski (Eds.), Educational Technology and

4.2.8 [Link]
Narrative (pp. 87–101). Springer. [Link]
Korkmaz, N., & Boling, E. (2014). Development of design judgment in instructional design: Perspectives from instructors,
students, and instructional designers. Design in Educational Technology (pp. 161–184). Springer, Cham. [Link]
LQwb
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. [Link]
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). The MIT Press.
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Temple-Smith.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. John
Wiley & Sons.
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.
Stolterman, E., McAtee, J., Royer, D., & Thandapani, S. (2009). Designerly tools. [Link]
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. [Link]
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(1), 39–
60. [Link]

This page titled 4.2: The Role Of Design Judgment And Reflection In Instructional Design is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored,
remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

4.2.9 [Link]
4.3: Instructional Design Evaluation

Instructional Design Evaluation

Cheryl Calhoun, Shilpa Sahay, & Matthew Wilson

Editor's Note
This is a remixed version of an earlier chapter on evaluation in instructional design that can be found at the ADDIE
Explained website, and is printed here under the same license as the original.
Evaluation sits at the center of the instructional design model. It provides feedback to all other stages of the design process to
continually inform and improve our instructional designs. In this chapter we will discuss the Why, What, When, and How of
evaluation. We will explore several of the most cited evaluation models and frameworks for conducting formative, summative, and
confirmative evaluations. It is important to note that instruction can occur in formal instructional settings or through the
development of instructional products such as digital learning tools. Throughout this chapter we will discuss interchangeably
instructional programs and/or products. Effective evaluation applies to all of these forms of instructional design.

Figure 4.3.1: ADDIE Model of Design (Fav203, 2012)

Why Do We Evaluate?
Evaluation ensures that the instruction being designed both meets the identified need for instruction and is effective in achieving
the intended learning outcomes for participants. It helps to answer questions such as:
Are our instructional goals aligned with the requirements of the instructional program?
Are our lesson plans, instructional materials, media, and assessments, aligned with learning needs?
Do we need to make any changes to our design to improve the effectiveness and overall satisfaction with the instruction?
Does the implementation provide effective instruction and carry out the intended lesson plan and instructional objectives?
Have the learners obtained the knowledge and skills that are needed?
Are our learners able to transfer their learning into the desired contextual setting?
These questions help shape the instructional design, confirm what and to what extent the learner is learning, and validates the
learning over time to support the choices made regarding the design—as well as how the program holds up over time.

What Is Evaluation?
Evaluation is the process of reviewing both the instructional components and the resulting outcomes of instruction to determine
whether instruction achieves the desired outcomes. Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation proposes four levels of evaluation: reaction,
learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). While this is a fairly simplistic model, it provides a framework
for understanding evaluation and has provided a significant model of evaluation to the field of instructional design.

4.3.1 [Link]
 Figure 4.3.2: Kirkpatrick's Model of Evaluation

Reaction
In order to have effective instruction, one requires frequent feedback from the learners to check learning progress and monitor
efficacy of the pedagogical process selected for instruction (Heritage, 2007). An instructional designer can evaluate both the
teacher and the learner’s reaction to a new pedagogical instruction. Once it is determined that there is engagement by the learners,
one may assume that learners will not drop out due to their reaction to the quality or applicability of instruction. It also helps the
evaluator to control the pace of the program as one moves ahead in the training phase. It leaves less frustration and vagueness in the
evaluator’s mind if one knows that all the learners are positively oriented towards undertaking the training.

Learning
Evaluating learning is an ongoing process in instructional development. It is important to evaluate whether materials developed
solve the problems that were identified. When learners master the content of the training or exhibit proper learning through
assessment, one can assume the effectiveness of the program and identify what did not work if the learning outcomes show adverse
results. Several studies in the field of educational measurement have suggested that assessments and evaluations lead to higher
quality learning. Popham (2008) called this new aspect of assessment in the evaluation process as “Transformative Assessment”
where an evaluator identifies learning progression of the learners by analyzing the sequence of skills learned over the period of
study program. This also helps the evaluator or the instructional designer to develop methods to assess how much the learners
mastered the learning material.

Behavior
Attitudes and behavior are important indicators towards the acceptance and success of an instructional program. Dick, Carey, and
Carey (2015) mentioned that an evaluator needs to write directions to guide the learner’s activities and construct a rubric (e.g. a
checklist or a rating scale) in order to evaluate and measure performance, products, and attitudes. A learner develops several
intellectual and behavioral skills, and an evaluation can uncover what changes have been brought in the attitude and behavior of the
learners.

Results
With every instructional product, evaluating results is the most significant task by an evaluator, and is done to determine how
closely one has been able to achieve success in the implementation of the program. An evaluator conducts an evaluation in order to
test the effectiveness of the instruction to create the desired learning outcome (Morrison et al., 2019). Morrison et al. (2019)
suggested evaluators measure the efficiency of learning by comparing the skills mastered with the time taken; cost of program
development; continuing expenses; reactions towards the program; and long-term benefits of the program.

4.3.2 [Link]
When Do We Evaluate?
Three commonly used types of evaluation for instruction are formative, summative, and confirmative (Morrison et al., 2019; Ross
& Morrison, 2010). Formative evaluation is conducted during the design process to provide feedback that informs the design
process. Summative evaluation is conducted at the end of the design process to determine if the instructional product achieves the
intended outcomes. Confirmative evaluation is conducted over time to determine the lasting effects of instruction. Each of these
stages of evaluation is examined in detail here, both through the definition of the form itself and through a discussion of some of
the key tools within each.
“When the cook tastes the soup that’s formative; when the guests taste the soup, that’s summative.” – Robert E. Stake (M. Scriven,
1991, p. 169)

Formative
Formative evaluation occurs during instructional design. It is the process of evaluating instruction and instructional materials to
obtain feedback that in turn drives revisions to make instruction more efficient and effective. One way to think about this is to liken
it to a chef tasting his food before he sends it out to the customer. Morrison et al. (2019) explained that the formative evaluation
process utilizes data from media, instruction, and learner engagement to formulate a picture of learning from which the designer
can make changes to the product before the final implementation.
Boston (2002, p. 2) stated the purpose of formative evaluation as “all activities that teachers and students undertake to get
information that can be used diagnostically to alter teaching and learning.” Formative evaluation results in the improvement of
instructional processes for the betterment of the learner. While making formative changes are best conducted during earlier stages
of the design process, these changes may come later if the situation dictates it. According to Morrison et al., (2019), when
summative and confirmative evaluations demonstrate undesirable effects, then the results may be used as a formative evaluation
tool to make improvements.

Instructional designers should consider a variety of data sources to create a full picture of the effectiveness of their design.
Morrison et al. (2019) proposed that connoisseur-based, decision-oriented, objective-based, and constructivist evaluations are each
appropriate methodologies within the formative process. More recently Patton (2016) introduced developmental evaluation which
introduces innovation and adaptation in dynamic environments.

Types of Formative Evaluation

Connoisseur-Based
Employs subject matter experts (SMEs) in the review of performance objectives, instruction, and assessments to verify learning,
instructional analysis, context accuracy, material appropriateness, test item validity, and sequencing. Each of these items allow the
designer to improve the organization and flow of instruction, accuracy of content, readability of materials, instructional practices,
and total effectiveness (Morrison et al., 2019).

Decision-Oriented
Questions asked may develop out of the professional knowledge of an instructional designer or design team. These questions
subsequently require the designer to develop further tools to assess the question, and as such should be completed at a time when
change is still an option and financially prudent (Morrison et al., 2019).

Objective-Based
Through an examination of the goals of a course of instruction, the success of a learner’s performance may be analyzed.

Constructivist
Takes into account the skills students learned during the learning process as well as how they have assimilated what is learned into
their real lives.

Developmental
Responsive to context and more agile, allowing for quicker response and support of innovative designs (Patton, 2011).

4.3.3 [Link]
Summative
Dick et al. (2015, p. 320) claimed the ultimate summative evaluation question is “Did it solve the problem?" That is the essence of
summative evaluation. Continuing with the chef analogy from above, one asks, “Did the customer enjoy the food?" (M. Scriven,
1991). The parties involved in the evaluation take the data and draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of the designed
instruction. However, over time, summative evaluation has developed into a process that is more complex than the initial question
may let on. In modern instructional design, practitioners investigate multiple questions through assessment to determine learning
effectiveness, learning efficiency, and cost effectiveness, as well as attitudes and reactions to learning (Morrison et al., 2019).

Learning Effectiveness
Learning effectiveness can be evaluated in many ways. Here we are trying to understand:
How well did the student learn?
Are the students motivated to change behavior?
Did we engage the intended population of learners?
Even, did we teach the learner the right thing?
Measurement of learning effectiveness can be ascertained from assessments, ratings of projects and performance, observations of
learners’ behavior, end of course surveys, focus groups, and interviews. Dick et al. (2015) outlined a comprehensive plan for
summative evaluation throughout the design process, including collecting data from SMEs and during field trials for feedback.

Learning Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness

While learning efficiency and cost-effectiveness of instruction are certainly distinct constructs, the successfulness of the former
impacts the latter. Learning efficiency is a matter of resources (e.g., time, instructors, facilities, etc.), and how those resources are
used within the instruction to reach the goal of successful instruction (Morrison et al., 2019). Dick et al. (2015) recommended
comparing the materials against an organization’s needs, target group, and resources. The result is the analysis of the data to make a
final conclusion about the cost effectiveness based on any number of prescribed formulas.

Attitudes and Reactions to Learning

The attitudes and reactions to the learning, while integral to formative evaluation, can be summatively evaluated as well. Morrison
et al. (2019) explained there are two uses for attitudinal evaluation: evaluating the instruction and evaluating outcomes within the
learning. While most objectives within learning are cognitive, psychomotor and affective objectives may also be goals of learning.
Summative evaluations often center on measuring achievement of objectives. As a result, there is a natural connection between
attitudes and the assessment of affective objectives. Conversely, designers may utilize summative assessments that collect data on
the final versions of their learning product. This summative assessment measures the reactions to the learning.

Confirmative
The purpose of a confirmative evaluation is to determine if instruction is effective and if it met the organization’s defined
instructional needs. In effect, did it solve the problem? The customer ate the food and enjoyed it. But, did they come back?
Confirmative evaluation goes beyond the scope of formative and summative evaluation and looks at whether the long-term effects
of instruction is what the organization was hoping to achieve. Is instruction affecting behavior or providing learners with the skills
needed as determined by the original goals of the instruction? Confirmative evaluation methods may not differ much from
formative and summative outside of the fact that it occurs after implementation of a design. Moseley and Solomon (1997)
described confirmative evaluation as maintaining focus on what is important to your stakeholders and ensuring the expectations for
learning continue to be met.

How Do We Evaluate?
Formative Evaluation
Formative evaluation is an iterative process that requires the involvement of instructional designers, subject matter experts,
learners, and instructors. Tessmer (2013) identified four stages of formative evaluation including expert review, one-to-one, small
group, and field test evaluation. Results from each phase of evaluation are fed back to the instructional designers to be used in the

4.3.4 [Link]
process of improving design. In all stages of evaluation, it is important that learners are selected that will closely match the
characteristics of the target learner population.

Figure 4.3.3: The Cycle of Formative Evaluation

Expert Review
The purpose of the expert review is to identify and remove the most obvious errors and to obtain feedback on the effectiveness of
the instruction. The expert judgment phase can include congruence analysis, content analysis, design analysis, feasibility analysis,
and user analysis. Results from expert review can be used to improve instructional components and materials before a pilot
implementation. This phase is conducted with the instructional designer, the subject matter experts, and often an external reviewer.
Target learners are not involved in this stage of evaluation.
Figure 4

4.3.5 [Link]
 Figure 4.3.4: The Expert Judgment Phase (Dick et al., 2015)

One-to-One
The one-to-one evaluation is much like a usability study. During this evaluation, IDs should be looking for clarity, impact, and
feasibility (Dick et al., 2015, p. 262; Earnshaw, Tawfik, & Schmidt, 2017). The learner is presented with the instructional materials
that will be provided during the instruction. The evaluator should encourage the learner to discuss what they see, write on materials
as appropriate, and note any errors. The ID can engage the learner in dialog to solicit feedback on the materials and clarity of
instruction. There are many technological tools that can facilitate a one-on-one evaluation. The principles of Human Computer
Interaction and User Center Design can inform the instructional design review (Earnshaw et al., 2017). In Don’t Make Me Think,
Krug (2014) described a process of performing a usability study for website development. The steps he provided are a good guide
for performing a one-to-one evaluation. Krug recommended video recording the session for later analysis. If instruction is
computer based, there are tools available that can record the learner interaction as well as the learner’s responses. Morae from
Techsmith ([Link] is a tool that allows you to record user interactions and efficiently analyze the results.

Small Group
Small group evaluation is used to determine the effectiveness of changes made to the instruction following the one-to-one
evaluation and to identify any additional problems learners may be experiencing. The focus is on consideration of whether learners
can use the instruction without interaction from the instructor. In a small group evaluation, the instructor administers the instruction
and materials in the way they are designed. The small-group participants complete the lesson(s) as described. The instructional
designer observes but does not intervene. After the instructional lesson is complete, participants should be asked to complete a
post-assessment designed to provide feedback about the instruction.

Field Trial
After the recommendations from the small group evaluation have been implemented, it is time for a field trial. The selected
instruction should be delivered as close as possible to the way the design is meant to be implemented in the final instructional
setting, and instruction should occur in a setting as close to the targeted setting as possible. Learners should be selected that closely
match the characteristics of the intended learners. All instructional materials for the selected instructional section, including the
instructor manual, should be complete and ready to use. Data should be gathered on learner performance and attitudes, time
required to use the materials in the instructional context, and the effectiveness of the instructional management plan. During the
field trial the ID does not participate in delivery of instruction. The ID and the review team will observe the process and record data
about their observations.

4.3.6 [Link]
 Figure 4.3.5: Field Trial

Summative Evaluation
The purpose of a summative evaluation is to evaluate instruction and/or instructional materials after they are finalized. It is
conducted during or immediately after implementation. This evaluation can be used to document the strengths and weaknesses in
instruction or instructional materials, to decide whether to continue instruction, or whether to adopt instruction. External evaluators
for decision makers often conduct or participate in summative evaluation. Subject matter experts may be needed to ensure integrity
of the instruction and/or instructional materials. There are several models we can consider for summative evaluation including the
CIPP Model, Stake’s Model, and Scriven’s Model.

CIPP Model
The CIPP evaluation model by Stufflebeam (1971) describes a framework for proactive evaluation to serve decision making and
retroactive evaluation to serve accountability. The model defines evaluation as the process of delineating, obtaining, and providing
useful information for judging decision alternatives. It includes four kinds of evaluation: context, input, process, and product. The
first letters of the names of these four kinds of evaluation gave the acronym - CIPP. The model provides guidelines for how the
steps in evaluation process interact with these different kinds of evaluation.

The CIPP Model of Evaluation by Mallory Buzun-Miller

The CIPP Model of Evaluation

Mallory Buzun-Miller

Watch on

4.3.7 [Link]
Stake’s Model
Stake in 1969 created an evaluation framework to assist an evaluator in collecting, organizing, and interpreting data for the two
major operations of evaluation (Stake, 1967; Wood, 2001). These include (a) complete description and (b) judgment of the
program. W. J. Popham (1993) defined that Stake's schemes draw attention towards the differences between the descriptive and
judgmental acts according to their phase in an educational program, and these phases can be antecedent, transaction, and outcome.
This is a comprehensive model for an evaluator to completely think through the procedures of an evaluation.

Dr. Robert Stake by Education at Illinois

Dr. Robert Stake

Education at Illinois

Watch on

Scriven’s Goal-Free Model

Scriven provides a transdisciplinary model of evaluation in which one draws from an objectivist view of evaluation (Michael
Scriven, 1991a, 1991b). Scriven defined three characteristics to this model: epistemological, political, and disciplinary. Some of the
important features of Scriven’s goal free evaluation stress on validity, reliability, objectivity/credibility, importance/timeliness,
relevance, scope, and efficiency in the whole process of teaching and learning. Youker (2013) expanded on the model to create
general principles for guiding the goal-free evaluator. Younker proposed the following principles:
1. Identify relevant effects to examine without referencing goals and objectives.
2. Identify what occurred without the prompting of goals and objectives.
3. Determine if what occurred can logically be attributed to the program or intervention.
4. Determine the degree to which the effects are positive, negative, or neutral.
The main purpose of the goal-free evaluation is to determine what change has occurred that can be attributed to the instructional
program. By conducting the evaluation without prior knowledge of learning outcomes or goals, the evaluator serves as a check to
see if the program produced the outcome desired by the instructional designer(s).

4.3.8 [Link]
The Past, Present, and Future of Evaluation: Possible Roles for the University of Melbourne, by The
University of Melbourne

The Past, Present and Future of Evalu

The University of Melbourne

Watch on

Confirmative Evaluation
The focus of confirmative evaluation should be on the transfer of knowledge or skill into a long-term context. To conduct a
confirmative evaluation, you may want to use observations with verification by expert review. You may also develop or use
checklists, interviews, observations, rating scales, assessments, and a review of organizational productivity data. Confirmative
evaluation should be conducted on a regular basis. The interval of evaluation should be based on the needs of the organization and
the instructional context.

Conclusion
Evaluation is the process of determining whether the designed instruction meets its intended goals. In addition, evaluation helps us
to determine whether learners can transfer the skills and knowledge learned back into long-term changes in behavior and skills
required for the target context. Evaluation provides the opportunity for instructional designers to ensure all stakeholders agree that
the developed instruction is meeting the organizational goals.

In this chapter we reviewed what evaluation looks like and its relationship within the instructional design process. We looked at
several models of evaluation including Kirkpatrick's Model and the four levels of evaluation: Evaluating Reaction, Evaluating
Learning, Evaluating Behavior, and Evaluating Results. We also looked at the three phases of evaluation including formative,
summative, and confirmative evaluation, and introduced several different models and methods for conducting evaluation from
many leading evaluation scholars.

Discussion
Where does evaluation stand in the instructional design model? How will your flow chart look when you describe evaluation in
relation to the other stages of instructional design?
Describe the three stages of evaluation. Give an example to explain how an instructional designer will use these three stages in
a specific case of a learning product.
Which are the five types of formative evaluation methods mentioned in the chapter that assist in collecting data points for the
initial evaluation? Which two of these methods will be your preferred choice for your formative evaluation and why?
What will be the parameters to evaluate the success of the instructional training?
What are some of the techniques to conduct formative and summative evaluation?
Several models of evaluation have been discussed in the chapter. Discuss any two of these models in detail and explain how you
will apply these models in your evaluation process.

Application Exercises
For the following exercises, you may use an instructional module that you are familiar with from early childhood, k-12, higher ed,
career and technical, corporate, or other implementation where instructional design is needed. Be creative and use something from
an educational setting that you are interested in. Be sure to describe your selected instructional module as it relates to each of these

4.3.9 [Link]
exercises. You may need to do some additional online research to answer these questions. Be sure to include your references in
your responses.
1. Describe how you would conduct the three phases of the formative evaluation. Define your strategies, populations, and
methodologies for each stage within the process.
2. Draw a diagram of the iterative formative evaluation process. What specific pieces of the instructional intervention are
considered within each stage of the process? How is the data gathered during this process employed to improve the design of
instruction?
3. Describe the context and learner selection process you would use for setting up a formative evaluation field trial. What special
considerations need to be made to conduct this stage of evaluation effectively?
4. What materials should the designer include in a field trial? How do the materials used for field trials contrast with the one-to-
one and small group evaluations?
You have been asked to serve as an external evaluator on a summative evaluation of a training model designed by one of your
colleagues. Explain the phases of the summative evaluation that you may be asked to participate in as an external reviewer. Imagine
you have created a rubric to help you evaluate the instructional intervention. What items might that rubric contain to help you
effectively and efficiently conduct a review?

Group Assignment
Conduct an evaluation study to understand how successful an instructional intervention has been in achieving the goals of the
designed instruction. Keep in mind the group project conducted in the previous development and implementation chapters and
conduct an evaluation study to assess the success of achieving the goals and objectives of the instruction. To achieve these goals,
you should conduct several rounds of evaluation:
Conduct a one-on-one evaluation with a student from the target population. Make observations of the student’s actions within
the instruction and reactions to the materials, content, and overall design. Propose changes to the instructional intervention
based on the sample student’s feedback.
Conduct a small group evaluation with a group of 3 to 5 learners. This evaluation should reflect the changes you made after the
one-to-one stage and evaluate nearly operational materials and instruction. You must recruit an instructor to deliver instruction.
Make observations and have the instructor administer a summative assessment after instruction. Analyze the data gathered and
create a one-page report on the results.
Implement a field test with an instructor and a student population of at least 15 people. Instructional materials, including the
instructor manual, should be complete and ready to use. Gather data on learner performance and attitudes, as well as time
required for instruction and the effectiveness of the instructional management plan. Observe the process and record data, and
create a final report detailing the full evaluation cycle.

References
Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessement. In ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). USA: Pearson.
Earnshaw, Y., Tawfik, A. A., & Schmidt, M. (2017). User experience design. In Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design
Technology.
Fav203. (2012). ADDIE_Model_of_Design.jpg. In. [Link]: is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Retrieved from [Link]
Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140–145.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation: Association for Talent
Development.
Krug, S. (2014). Don't Make Me Think, Revisited (Vol. 3): New Riders.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. J., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (2019). Designing effective instruction: Wiley.

4.3.10 [Link]
Moseley, J. L., & Solomon, D. L. (1997). Confirmative Evaluation: A New Paradigm for Continuous Improvement. Performance
Improvement, 36(5), 12-16.
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use: Guilford Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2016). The state of the art and practice of developmental evaluation. Developmental evaluation exemplars, 1-24.
Popham, W. (2008). Transformative Assessment: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1703 North
Beauregard Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1714. In: Tel.
Popham, W. J. (1993). Educational Evaluation: Allyn and Bacon. Retrieved from [Link]
id=_UolAQAAIAAJ
Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2010). The Role of Evaluation in Instructional Design. In Handbook of Improving Performance in
the Workplace: Instructional Design and Training Delivery.
Scriven, M. (1991a). Beyond formative and summative evaluation. Evaluation and education: At quarter century, 10(Part II), 19-64.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Scriven, M. (1991b). Prose and cons about goal-free evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 12(1), 55-62.
Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation: Citeseer.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. Retrieved from
[Link]
Tessmer, M. (2013). Planning and conducting formative evaluations: Routledge.
Wood, B. B. (2001). Stake's countenance model: evaluating an environmental education professional development course. The
Journal of Environmental Education, 32(2), 18-27.
Youker, B. W. (2013). Goal-free evaluation: A potential model for the evaluation of social work programs. Social Work Research,
37(4), 432-438.

This page titled 4.3: Instructional Design Evaluation is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

4.3.11 [Link]
4.4: Continuous Improvement Of Instructional Materials

Continuous Improvement of Instructional Materials

David Wiley, Ross Strader, & Robert Bodily
From time to time new technologies provide us with a qualitatively different ability to engage in previously possible activities. For
example, 20 years ago it was already possible to publish an essay online. You simply used the command line program Telnet to
login to a remote server, navigated into the directory from which your webserver made html files available to the public, launched
the pico editor from the command line, wrote your essay, and manually added all the necessary html tags. Today, open source
blogging software like Wordpress makes publishing an essay online as easy as using a word processor. Yes, it was possible to
publish essays online before, but the modern experience is qualitatively different.
“Evaluate” is the final step in the traditional ADDIE meta-model of instructional design, and it has always been possible—if, at
times, expensive and difficult—to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional materials. Modern technology has made the process of
measuring the effectiveness of instructional materials a qualitatively different experience. Gathering data in the online context is
orders of magnitude less expensive than gathering data in classrooms, and open source analysis tools have greatly simplified the
process of analyzing these data.
Historically, any needed improvements discovered during the evaluation process would take a significant amount of time to reach
learners, as they could only be accessed once new editions of a book were printed or new DVDs were pressed. Again, modern
technology makes the delivery of improvements a qualitatively different exercise. When instructional materials are delivered
online, instructional designers can engage in continuous delivery practices, where improvements are made available to learners
immediately, as often as multiple times per day.
The modern approach to continuous improvement designed for use in the context of online services described by Ries (2011),
called the “build - measure - learn cycle,” is illustrated in Figure 1.

4.4.1 [Link]
 Figure 4.4.1: The Build - Measure - Learn Cycle
In this chapter we adapt the build - measure - learn cycle for use by instructional designers who want to engage in continuous
improvement. Because our focus is on the improvement of instructional materials, our discussion below does not include a
discussion of the creation of the first version of the materials. (The first version of the materials could be open educational
resources created by someone else or a first version that you created previously.)
The chapter will proceed as follows:
Conceptual Framework: We argue that all instructional materials are hypotheses, or our best guesses, informed by research,
about what instructional design approach will support student learning in a specific context. Thinking this way will naturally
lead us to collect and analyze data to test the effectiveness of our instructional materials.
Build: We describe the implications of designing for data collection, together with the instrumentation and tooling that must be
built in order to collect the data necessary for continuous improvement.
Measure: We describe the process of analyzing data in order to identify portions of the instructional materials that are not
effectively supporting student learning.
Learn: We discuss methods to use when reviewing less effective portions of the instructional materials and deciding what
improvements to make before beginning the cycle again.

4.4.2 [Link]
 Technical Note: We briefly pause to discuss the role of copyright, licensing, and file formats in continuous improvement.
Worked Example: We demonstrate one trip through the cycle with a worked example.
Conclusion: We end with some thoughts about the imperative implied for instructional designers by the existence and relative
ease of use of continuous improvement approaches like the build - measure - learn cycle.

Conceptual Framework
Instructional Materials Are Hypotheses
People who design instructional materials (who we will refer to as instructional designers throughout) make hundreds of decisions
about how to best support student learning. Each decision is a hypothesis of the form “in the context of these learners and this
topic, applying this instructional design approach in this manner will maximize students’ likelihood of learning.” The ways in
which these individual decisions are interwoven together creates a network of hypotheses about how best to support student
learning.

Hypotheses Need to Be Tested

It reveals a fatal lack of curiosity for an instructional designer to simply say “these materials were designed in accordance with
current research on learning” without following through to measure their actual effectiveness with actual learners in the actual
world. While designing instructional materials in accordance with research is a positive first step, to our minds the most important
measure of the quality of instructional materials is the degree to which they actually support student learning. Questions of whether
or not the materials are informed by research, are finished on schedule and on budget, are stunningly beautiful, render correctly on
a mobile device, or were authored by a famous academic become meaningless if students who use the materials do not learn what
the designers intended.

Initial Hypotheses Are Seldom Correct

Hypotheses need to be refined in an ongoing cycle of improvement. Data collected during student use of content and from
assessments of learning can be used to identify specific portions of the instructional materials (i.e., specific instructional design
hypotheses) that are not successfully supporting student learning. Once these underperforming designs (hypotheses) are identified,
they can be redesigned, improved, and incorporated into a new version of the instructional materials. The updated collection of
instructional design hypotheses can then be deployed for student use, and the cycle of continuous improvement can begin again.

Build: Designing for Data, Instrumentation, and Tools for Data Collection
In order to be able to engage in continuous improvement, instructional materials must be designed for data collection. There must
be a unifying design framework that will allow data from a wide range of sources to be aggregated meaningfully. The method we
will describe throughout this chapter organizes instructional materials around a network of learning outcomes. In this method of
designing for data collection, all instructional materials (e.g., readings, simulations, videos, practice opportunities) are aligned with
one or more learning outcomes. All forms of assessment, both formative or summative, are also aligned with one or more learning
outcomes (this alignment must be done at the individual assessment item level.)
Once instructional materials have been designed for data collection, tools and instrumentation must be created so that the data can
actually be collected and managed. The system that mediates student use of the instructional materials (e.g., a learning management
system) must be capable of (a) expressing the relationships between learning outcomes, instructional materials, and assessments,
(b) capturing data about student engagement with these instructional materials, and (c) capturing item-level data about student
engagement with, and performance on, assessments. The data collected by the system should be able to answer questions such as,
for any given learning outcome, what instructional materials in the system are aligned with that outcome? (If instructional activities
are “aligned with” a learning outcome, student engagement with the instructional activities should support mastery of the outcome.)
For any given learning outcome, what assessment items in the system are aligned with that outcome? (If assessments are “aligned
with” a learning outcome, student success on these assessments should provide evidence that they have mastered the outcome).

Measure: Using RISE Analysis to Identify Less Effective Learning Materials

As described in Bodily, Nyland, and Wiley (2017), activity engagement data and assessment performance data can be analyzed
together to identify learning outcomes whose aligned instructional materials are not sufficiently supporting student mastery (as

4.4.3 [Link]
demonstrated by performance on aligned assessments). The purpose of Resource Inspection, Selection, and Enhancement (RISE)
analysis is to identify learning outcomes where students were highly engaged with aligned instructional materials, but
simultaneously performed poorly on aligned assessments.
Each point in Figure 2 represents a learning outcome. The x-axis is engagement with instructional materials and the y-axis is
assessment performance, both converted to z-scores. The bottom-right quadrant (high engagement, low performance) indicates
which outcomes should be targeted for improvement and are numbered to indicate the order in which they should be addressed.

Figure 4.4.2: A RISE Analysis Plot

An open source software implementation of RISE analysis is described in Wiley (2018). This greatly simplifies the process of
running RISE analyses, as long as appropriate data on learning outcome names, content engagement, and assessment performance
are available.

Learn: Understanding Why Learning Outcomes End up in the Bottom Right Quadrant
Once learning outcomes are identified as being in the bottom right quadrant of a RISE analysis plot, the cause of the problem can
be isolated. For brevity, we will refer to learning outcomes in the bottom right quadrant of a RISE analysis plot as
“underperforming learning outcomes” below. The root of the problem can generally be identified in two steps.
The first step in isolating the problem with an underperforming learning outcome is evaluating assessments aligned with each
learning outcome. Are the assessments accurately measuring student learning? Questions to ask at this stage include: are there
technical problems with the assessment? Are items miskeyed? Are other sources of spurious or construct-irrelevant difficulty

4.4.4 [Link]
present? Are measures of reliability, validity, or discrimination unacceptably low? If the answer to any of these questions is yes,
improvements should be made to problematic assessments, after which the instructional designer can stop working on this learning
outcome and move onto the next. There is likely no need to make improvements to instructional materials aligned with this
learning outcome.
If the aligned assessments are functioning as intended, the instructional designer can move on to the second step—reviewing the
instructional materials to determine why they aren’t sufficiently supporting student learning. This process is highly subjective and
brings the full expertise of the instructional designer to bear. The instructional designer reviews the instructional materials aligned
with the learning outcome and asks questions about why students might be struggling here. For example:
Is there a mismatch between the type of information being taught and the instructional design approach originally selected? For
example, if students are learning a classification task, are examples and non-examples provided without a specific discussion of
the critical attributes that separate instances from non-instances?
Is there a mismatch in Bloom’s Taxonomy level between the learning outcome, the instructional materials, and the assessment?
(For example, are the learning outcome and instructional materials primarily the Remember level, while the assessments require
students to Apply?)
Have the instructional materials failed to provide learners with an opportunity to practice in a no/low-stakes setting and receive
feedback on the current state of their understanding?
We cannot list every question an instructional designer might ask, but we hope these examples are illustrative. Talking with
students can also be incredibly helpful at this stage. These conversations are an effective way for the instructional designer to zero
in on root causes of students’ misunderstandings.
Once the instructional designer believes they have identified the problems (i.e., they have a new hypothesis about how to better
support student learning), new or existing instructional materials and assessments can be created, adapted, or modified. Students
can also be powerful partners and collaborators in creating improvements to the instructional materials (e.g., OER-enabled
pedagogy as described by Wiley and Hilton (2018)).
When this (Build) process is completed, the new or improved materials can be released to students immediately. Once students are
using the new version of the materials, this use will result in the creation of new data which the instructional designer can examine
using RISE analysis (Measure). These analyses support the instructional designer in forming new hypotheses about why students
aren’t succeeding (Learn). When this continuous improvement process is followed, instructional materials should become more
effective at supporting student learning with each trip through the cycle.

Technical Note: The Role of Copyright and File Formats

Before adaptations or modifications can be made, instructional designers must have legal permission to make changes to the
instructional materials. Because copyright prohibits the creation of derivative works that are often the result of the improvement of
instructional materials, one of two conditions must hold. In the first condition, the instructional designer (or their employer) must
hold the copyright to the instructional materials, making the creation and distribution of improved versions legal. In the second
condition, the instructional materials must be licensed under an open license (like a Creative Commons license) that grants the
instructional designer permission to create derivative works (aka improved versions of the instructional materials).
Legal permission to create derivative works can be rendered ineffective if the instructional materials are not available in a technical
format amenable to editing (e.g., HTML). ALMS analysis as described in Hilton, Wiley, Stein, and Johnson (2010) includes four
factors to consider regarding the “improvability” of instructional materials. The first factor is Access to editing tools—is the
software needed to make changes commonly available (e.g., MS Word) or obscure (e.g., Blender)? The second factor is the Level of
expertise required to make changes—is the content easy to change (e.g., Powerpoint) or difficult to change (e.g., an interactive
simulation written in Javascript)? The third factor is whether or not the instructional materials are Meaningfully editable—is the
document a scanned image of handwritten notes (this text is not easily editable) or an HTML file (easily editable)? The final factor
is Source file access—is the file format preferred for using the resource also the format preferred for editing the resource (e.g., an
HTML file) or are the preferred formats preferred for using and editing the files different (e.g., PSD versus JPG)?
If the instructional materials you are working with do not belong to you or your employer, are not openly licensed, or are available
only in file formats that are not conducive to adaptation and modification, you may not be able to engage in continuous

4.4.5 [Link]
improvement.

A Worked Example
Lumen Learning, a company that offers instructional materials for college classes that can be adopted in place of traditional
textbooks, offers a Biology for Non-majors course in its Waymaker platform. This platform allows instructional designers to enter
learning outcomes and align all instructional materials and assessment items with the learning outcomes. A RISE analysis was
conducted using the content engagement data and assessment performance data for all students who took the Biology for Non-
majors course during a semester. Among the top 10 underperforming learning outcomes it identified, the RISE analysis revealed
that students were performing poorly on assessments aligned with the learning outcome “compare inductive reasoning with
deductive reasoning” despite the fact that students were engaging with the aligned instructional materials at an above average rate
(see outcome 1 in Figure 3 below). This learning outcome was selected for continuous improvement work.

Figure 4.4.3: Biology for Non-Majors RISE Analysis Plot

A review of the aligned assessment items by an instructional designer revealed that the items appeared to be keyed correctly and
free from other problems. Following this review of the aligned assessments, the instructional designer reviewed the aligned
instructional materials guided by the question, “why are students who use these instructional materials not mastering the outcome?”
The analysis revealed that the instructional materials for this outcome were comprised of two paragraphs of text content, each of
which defined one of the terms. No other instructional materials were provided in support of mastery of this learning outcome and
students appeared to be unable to remember which of these similar sounding terms was which.
The instructional designer decided to make minor edits to the existing paragraphs to improve their clarity and also to create an
online interactive practice activity (Koedinger et al., 2017) in support of this learning outcome. This activity provided students with
mnemonic tools to help them remember which term is which, and combined these mnemonics with practice exercises in which
students classify examples as either inductive or deductive and receive immediate, targeted feedback on their performance. The
online interactive practice activitity can be viewed in context at [Link]

4.4.6 [Link]
These new and updated instructional materials are now integrated into the existing materials and are being used by faculty and
students across the United States. After another semester is over, the RISE analysis will be rerun. This new analysis will either
confirm that the improvements to the instructional materials have improved student learning, in which case other underperforming
learning outcomes will be selected for continuous improvement, or they will confirm that there is still work to do to better support
student learning of this outcome.

Conclusion
Modern technologies, including the internet and open source software, have radically decreased the cost and difficulty of collecting
and analyzing learning data. Where evaluation alone was once prohibitively difficult and expensive, today the entire continuous
improvement process is within reach of those who design instructional materials for use in online classes and other technology-
mediated teaching and learning settings. While Ries (2011) described the build - measure - learn cycle as a way to rapidly increase
a company’s revenue, we see a clear analog in which similar approaches can be used to rapidly increase student learning. We now
live in a world where it is completely reasonable to expect instructional materials to be more effective at supporting student
learning each and every term.
We invite the reader to help us make this possible state of affairs the actual state of affairs by engaging in continuous improvement
activities in their own instructional design practice. And in the spirit of continuous improvement, we further invite the reader to join
us in developing and refining the processes described in this chapter—in part by completing the survey at the end of this chapter
and providing us feedback on how the chapter can be improved.

4.4.7 [Link]
References
Bodily, R., Nyland, R., & Wiley, D. (2017). The RISE framework: Using learning analytics to automatically identify open
educational resources for continuous improvement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
18(2). [Link]
Hilton, J., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four R's of openness and ALMS analysis: Frameworks for open
educational resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(1), 37-44. [Link]
Koedinger, K. R., McLaughlin. E. A., Zhuxin, J., & Bier, N. L. (2016). Is the doer effect a causal relationship?: How can we tell
and why it's important. LAK '16: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Learning Analytics &
Knowledge. [Link]
Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup. Crown Business: New York.
Wiley, D. (2018). RISE: An R package for RISE analysis. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(28), 846, [Link]
LKLb
Wiley, D. & Hilton, J. (2018). Defining OER-enabled Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
19(4). [Link]

David Wiley
David Wiley profile picture

Figure :
Dr. David Wiley is the chief academic officer of Lumen Learning, an organization offering open educational resources designed to
increase student access and success. Dr. Wiley has founded or co-founded numerous entities, including Lumen Learning, Mountain
Heights Academy (an open high school), and Degreed. He was named one of the 100 Most Creative People in Business by Fast
Company, currently serves as Education Fellow at Creative Commons, and leads the Open Education Group in Brigham Young
University’s instructional psychology and technology graduate program. He has been a Shuttleworth Fellow, served as a Fellow of
Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, and was a Fellow of Social Entrepreneurship at BYU’s Marriott School of
Management

Robert Bodily
Robert Bodily profile picture

Figure :
Dr. Bob Bodily is a Senior Data Scientist and Educational Researcher at Lumen Learning. He focuses on building educational data
pipelines, creating actionable reports, and generating insights to improve teaching and learning. His interests include using data to
continuously improve course materials, building nudges to influence student and faculty behavior, and crowdsourcing educational
content improvements and assessment items. He is currently working on educational technologies to improve teaching and learning
at [Link] and [Link].

This page titled 4.4: Continuous Improvement Of Instructional Materials is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

4.4.8 [Link]
 SECTION OVERVIEW

2: Instructional Design Knowledge

5: Sources of Design Knowledge
5.1: Learning Theories
5.2: The Role Of Theory In Instructional Design
5.3: Making Good Design Judgments via The Instructional Theory Framework
5.4: The Nature And Use Of Precedent In Designing
5.5: Standards And Competencies For Instructional Design And Technology Professionals

6: Instructional Design Processes

6.1: Design Thinking
6.2: Robert Gagné And The Systematic Design Of Instruction
6.3: Designing Instruction For Complex Learning
6.4: Curriculum Design Processes
6.5: Agile Design Processes And Project Management

7: Designing Instructional Activities

7.1: Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Experiences
7.2: Designing Instructional Text
7.3: Audio And Video Production For Instructional Design Professionals
7.4: Using Visual And Graphic Elements While Designing Instructional Activities
7.5: Simulations And Games
7.6: Designing Informal Learning Environments
7.7: The Design Of Holistic Learning Environments
7.8: Measuring Student Learning

8: Design Relationships
8.1: Working With Stakeholders And Clients
8.2: Leading Project Teams
8.3: Implementation And Instructional Design

This page titled 2: Instructional Design Knowledge is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

5: Sources of Design Knowledge

5.1: Learning Theories
5.2: The Role Of Theory In Instructional Design
5.3: Making Good Design Judgments via The Instructional Theory Framework
5.4: The Nature And Use Of Precedent In Designing
5.5: Standards And Competencies For Instructional Design And Technology Professionals

This page titled 5: Sources of Design Knowledge is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1
5.1: Learning Theories

Learning Theories
Beth Oyarzun & Sheri Conklin
Learning theories are the foundation for designing instructional solutions to achieve desired learning outcomes. Analogies can
assist in understanding new concepts, so imagine that you have purchased a new home and are considering the best options for
furniture placement in the living room. Your desired outcome is a furniture arrangement that is aesthetically pleasing yet also
functional. Many factors can play into the decision depending on how you view the problem, and there can also be more than one
solution that meets the desired outcomes.
Similarly, theories and models provide a foundation and framework for any instructional design project. Theories serve as lenses to
view the problem from different perspectives, much like interior design styles and preferences may affect decisions about which
furniture to purchase for your new home based on your overall aesthetic. Models then provide guidance about how to build the
solution or where to place the furniture in the home. Depending on the theory and model used, the solution might look different,
much like a living room would look very different using modern vs. western-style decor with various arrangements. However, the
desired outcomes can still be achieved. It is essential to conduct a thorough analysis to ensure the theory and/or selected strategy
will support the desired outcomes and the targeted learners.
Learning theories help instructional designers understand how people retain and recall information and stay motivated and engaged
in learning. There are three main families of learning theories and an emerging fourth: behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism,
and connectivism. Referring back to the house analogy, these could be different decorative styles (lenses) used to view a room in
the house or to view an instructional problem and how to address it. Much like decorative styles have evolved and changed over
time, so have learning theories. This chapter will define the four main families of learning and then explore some additional social
and motivational learning theories that have derived from some of the families of learning.

Behaviorism
Behaviorism grew from the work of many psychologists in the early 20th Century, such as Watson (1913), Thorndike (1898), and
Skinner (1953), who hypothesized that learning occurs through interaction with the environment. Hence, observable behaviors
resulting from a response to a stimulus followed by a reward or punishment based on the behavior is how a behaviorist would
condition learners to elicit the desired outcome. Conversely, if the stimulus is removed, then the behavior will stop over time. This
phenomenon is called extinction.
This type of behavior modification can be considered conditioning. Two types of conditioning were defined by Pavlov (1960) and
Skinner (1953): classical and operant respectively. An example of classical conditioning is Pavlov’s dog in which he trained the dog
to salivate with a bell ringing by providing food every time a bell rang. Extinction occurred when the food was not delivered when
the bell rang over time. Operant conditioning relies on positive and negative consequences occurring to shape behavior. This
method is focused on changing the learner's external behavior using stimuli (an event that evokes a specific functional reaction)
with positive and negative reinforcement. Reinforcements (positive or negative) are environmental responses that increase the
probability of a behavior being repeated. Punishment, on the other hand, decreases the likelihood of a behavior being repeated, yet
weakens the behavior. As an illustration, a simple way to shape student behavior is to provide feedback on learner performance.
Through positive feedback (e.g., praise, compliments, encouragement), students are reinforced on learning a new behavior. Over
time, as the performance improves, the feedback occurs less frequently until only exceptional outcomes are reinforced. Over time
the behavior changes given the response to or removal of the stimulus. In the elementary school environment, operant conditioning
methods are often used for behavior modification. Behavior charts in which learners earn stickers for displaying good behavior and
have stickers removed for displaying bad behavior during the week is an example. A reward or punishment is delivered at the end
of the week based upon the number of stars accumulated or removed. The rewards for learners might be a class party, or the
punishment might be taking away privileges.
Behaviorist theory informs key aspects of the instructional design process such as the task analysis. The task analysis involves
identifying observable behaviors or steps learners need to take to achieve the desired learning outcome. A designer often observes
learners from various expertise levels completing the task to create a thorough task analysis to inform the design of instruction.

5.1.1 [Link]
Behaviorism has been criticized due to the emphasis on external behaviors only, which led to the development of a new learning
theory in the mid-1900s.

Cognitivism
A contrast to the external nature of behaviorism is the internal natured cognitivism learning theory. Cognitivism focuses on how the
brain internally processes, retains, and recalls information based upon how the learner organizes information into existing
knowledge schemas. Schemas are structures of existing information in the learner's mind. To ensure new information is retained for
recall, instruction can be designed to enhance the probability that the new information will be added to the learner's existing
schema. For instance, if the desired learning outcome is to explain the water cycle, then the instructor may use questions to have
learners recall information in their existing schemas about water and weather by having them tell stories about storms, clouds,
lakes, and oceans. Once they have activated those schemas, the instructor could then relate the new information about the water
cycle to the stories they told, in order to help learners integrate this new information into their existing knowledge about water.
A common tool used by cognitivist learning theorists are taxonomies of learning outcomes that specify what mental processes are
relied upon for various types of learning. Perhaps one of the more well-known and used taxonomies is Bloom's taxonomy (1956),
which was later revised (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). The revised taxonomy has six levels: remember, understand, apply,
analyze, evaluate, and create (see Figure 1). Using this taxonomy to identify the level of desired learning can assist in writing
learning objectives, selecting appropriate instructional methods, and designing assessments to increase the probability that the
desired learning outcome is achieved. The taxonomy relies on the use of action verbs to ensure learning outcomes are measurable.
Many resources such as this one from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln provide a variety of verbs to use for each level of the
taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, available at [Link] ).

Figure 5.1.1: Bloom's Revised Taxonomy

For example, if the desired learning outcome were for a student to solve a simple algebraic equation, that would fall under the
application level of Bloom’s revised taxonomy because the learners will apply previously learned concepts to solve the problem.
The instructor may use the suggested verbs (eLearning Heroes, 2020, available at [Link] to write a clear

5.1.2 [Link]
instructional objective such as “given an algebraic equation, the learner will solve the equation by selecting the appropriate method,
showing work, and checking the solution.” Next, the instructor would design assessment items that measure the attainment of that
objective. In this case several equations would serve as assessment items (i.e. x + 5 = 7, x - 8 = 12, 7 + x = 9). Lastly, the
instructional methods would be designed to align with the objective and assessment. Here, presenting examples with and without
manipulatives, and practice problems with and without manipulatives, would be appropriate.
Cognitivism also brought about the shift from learning theory to instructional theory, which focused on the design of instruction
instead of how learners process information or learners' behavior. This is an important shift that provided the foundation for the
instructional design field. In 1971, a revolutionary project entitled TICCIT, an acronym for Time-shared, Interactive, Computer-
Controlled Information/Instructional Television, was funded by the National Science Foundation and MIT research corporation to
test computer-assisted delivery of instruction using a cognitive approach. This project produced learner-controlled instruction that
was adaptive to learner choices (Gibbons & O’Neil, 2014). Other projects followed that similarly sought to apply new cognitive
theories to emerging educational technologies, leading to the explosion of computer-assisted instruction applications.

Constructivism
Cognitivism added a new perspective based upon research of brain functionality during the learning process. However, another
learning theory gained attention in the mid-1990s, which combined learner’s interactions with the external environment and their
internal learning process: constructivism. Constructivism is divided into two major schools of thought: cognitive constructivism
and social constructivism.
Cognitive constructivism is based upon the work of Dewey (1938), Bruner (1966), and Piaget (1972). This theory revolves around
the concept that learners construct their knowledge through individual personal experiences. For example, when learners are
exploring complex concepts through project-based learning, some learners may grasp the concepts quickly while others may
struggle. Facilitating knowledge development through probing questions to help learners identify where they are having difficulty
is part of an inquiry method to alleviate misinterpretation. It can also help learners reflect on their knowledge, misconceptions, and
progress. Anchored instruction is an example of a cognitive constructivist theory that incorporates instructional technology such as
video (Bradsford et al., 1990). Anchored instruction suggests that learning is anchored in a realistic, evolving context with guiding
resources available to help the learners solve the instructional problem presented. The Adventures of Jasper Woodbury is a
mathematics video series that was designed using the anchored instruction theory (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbuilt,
1992, available at [Link]
Social exchange and collaboration are foci of the social constructivist theory grounded in the work of Vygotsky (1978). A major
theme of social constructivist theory is that social interaction plays a fundamental role in the development of cognition. Vygotsky
postulated that cultural development happens twice, first on the social level (between people), then later on the individual level
(inside the mind). One example of social constructivist theory is the development of language. If you are building a house, you may
have basic language skills but may be unaware of terms associated with construction. As you continue to work with your peers, you
begin to learn various tools and terms associated with construction through your interactions with them. Think about learning
another language. Language mobile applications now offer the ability to have conversations with a native speaker electronically.
This social interaction allows learners to first hear and engage with correct grammar and pronunciation. Over time, the learner can
begin to process and think in another language, using proper grammar and pronunciation.
This perspective deepens our experiences in the world and aids our construction of new knowledge through the exchange of ideas
with others. Often group activities such as projects, experimentation, and discussions are utilized. Learners engage with the content
and then decompress with one another to develop or construct meaning from various activities. The teacher acts as a guide or
translator by setting up the instruction to allow the learners to explore concepts. As the learners explore the concepts, the teacher
then assists the learners in translating what they have found into the learner’s current state of understanding.
Quest Atlantis is an example of an instructional design and technology product based on social constructivist theory (Barab et al.,
2005). The goal of Quest Atlantis was to provide an immersive learning environment that combined academics and play with
interdisciplinary cultural quests that supports learning, development, and social transformation. Players created a persona and by
completing quests they engaged in educational activities while interacting with other users and mentors. The authors described the
design as socially responsive because the quests adapted to the decisions of the players.

5.1.3 [Link]
Connectivism
Early in the 21st Century, a new learning theory emerged from the digital age: connectivism. Connectivism is based on the work of
Siemens (2004) and is the first theory that defines learning as more than an internal and individual process
(see [Link] for a republishing of this article). The connectivist theory posits that learning takes place when
learners make connections between ideas located throughout personal learning networks (e.g., other individuals, databases, social
media, Internet, learning management systems). The connection of the right individuals to the right resources can enhance the
learning for all within the network.
Technology increases learners’ access to information and their ability to be a part of a greater learning community (Siemens, 2004).
There are premises around connectivism. One premise is that learners need to distinguish between important and unimportant
information, as well as valid information, since there is a continuous flow of new information. If we go back to the house example,
you are working on building your house, and you want to install a fireplace. You can go to the Internet and join a builder’s
community on YouTube or a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) forum. You may also be able to access reviews for various types of fireplaces
and what has worked and what has not. Once you have built the fireplace, you can share your experience with these communities to
enhance the experiences of others.
To summarize the four families of thought on learning theories, Figure 2 identifies some possible instructional methods for each
learning theory presented so far.

Figure 5.1.2: Methods Used for Learning Theories Adapted from Morrison (2013)

Additional Readings and Resources

1. Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology Book - Chapters 9, 10, 11 and 19. (West, 2018)
2. Learning Theory and Instructional Design (Mcleod, 2003)
3. Understanding the practices of Instructional Designers through the lens of different Learning Theories (Yeo, 2013)
4. How People Learn I (National Research Council, 2000)

5.1.4 [Link]
Social Learning Theories
As noted above, interaction with both individuals and the environment is embedded in learning theories. From these types of
interactions, multiple social learning theories emerged during the late 1990s that enhanced or deepened some of the ideas from the
major families of thought around learning at that time. We will discuss the following social learning theories: social cognitive
theory, social development theory, collaborative learning, and cooperative learning.

Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory teaches that people learn by observing others and is based upon the work of Bandura (1986). He believed
that people construct knowledge from learning from others' experiences. By observing others' behavior, learners derive conceptions
regarding the behavior being modeled. This observation can happen directly or through the media. Reflection is a crucial
component of this theory as once the learner observes the action, they reflect and determine whether this is something they want to
incorporate or use. Four processes coincide with observational learning techniques: attention, retention, reproduction, and
motivation. Within the social cognitive theory, motivation is seen as depending upon one's self-efficacy and agency. In order to
proceed through all four processes, the learner must have the confidence to exhibit control over a desired behavior or self-efficacy.
Social cognitive theory is rooted in the view of human agency in which individuals are agents proactively engaged in their
development and can make things happen through individual actions. For example, if a learner struggles with learning a particular
behavior or task, allowing the learner to work with another person that has mastered the behavior or task will allow the learner to
view how the ideal behavior or task is performed successfully.

Collaborative Learning
Instructors and designers sometimes want learners to work together to construct new knowledge deliberately. Collaborative
learning is a social learning theory that involves learners grouping themselves together to explore a concept or to work on a project
collectively. Collaborative learning is a loosely structured, discovery learning approach in which learners have much control. It is
an “umbrella” term that encompasses a variety of educational approaches involving joint efforts by learners working together.
Group members capitalize on the skills of one another through the sharing of information and ideas that build towards a common
group goal.

Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning is a carefully structured type of collaborative learning. In both of these social learning theories, the
instructor's role is that of facilitator, and the tasks for the groups should be open-ended and complex. Cooperative learning is rooted
in social interdependence theories (Deutsch, 1949; Lewin, 1935). Johnson and Johnson (1989) conducted extensive research on
defining the parameters of cooperative learning, which requires these five components: interaction, positive interdependence, group
processing, individual accountability, and social skills. In other words, groups need to interact, depend on one another, monitor
their progress, be responsible for their work, and be able to work together. For example, a team research project could require each
team member to find several resources, and an annotated bibliography of those resources could be submitted individually
(individual accountability). The team could then co-write and edit the research paper with all of the resources (interaction, social
skills, and positive interdependence). The group could use a cloud-based text editor to ensure all team members are contributing in
a timely fashion (group processing). Cooperative learning requires intentional planning by the instructor or the designer to ensure
all five components are present.

Additional Readings and Resources

1. Collaborative vs. cooperative learning video (wufei87, 2018)
2. Social Cognitive Theory video (Bandura, 2010)

Motivational Theories
Keeping learners motivated and engaged is just as important as understanding how they learn best. Therefore, motivation and
engagement theories are essential to include when discussing learning theory. We will discuss three motivation theories (self-
determination, hierarchy of needs, ARCS), and one engagement theory (flow).

5.1.5 [Link]
Self-Determination Theory
Self-determination theory is a motivational theory that suggests learners can become self-determined when their needs for
competence, connection, and autonomy are satisfied (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Self-determination theory views internalization as a
process for transforming external regulations into internal regulations and thereby integrating them into one’s self (Deci, Eghrari,
Patrick, & Leone, 1994). Social support, along with intrinsic and extrinsic motivators are important factors for developing self-
determination. Extrinsic motivators can hinder self-determination, whereas intrinsic motivators can enhance self-determination.
Intrinsic motivators such as joy and self-fulfillment allow learners to be autonomous and engage with learning. When learners
complete their work or a challenge, they feel competent. Both competence and autonomy are components necessary to maintain
intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivators can hinder self-determination, whereas intrinsic motivators can enhance self-
determination. External motivators, such as being rewarded for making an A on a test, can hinder learning. Social support should be
considered over extrinsic rewards to foster self-determination. For example, ensuring every member of a team can play a role and
understand their contributions are valuable. Methods to complete that could be establishing roles based on team member talents and
providing positive feedback. Allowing individual learners and teams to set their own learning goals can also be beneficial. Another
example of utilizing intrinsic motivators is giving learners an assignment where learners teach the concepts to other learners
(internal) rather than teaching the learners to take a test on the concepts (external). This type of motivation is fostered and
encouraged by fostering autonomous support for the learners rather than controlling.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Creating an autonomous environment may not always motivate learners as there are basic needs that need to be in place before
learners can begin to move in the direction of self-fulfillment. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943) is a second
motivational theory. Maslow stated that some needs take precedence over others, such as basic needs for survival. Maslow
developed a hierarchy stating the needs at the bottom should be met first and then move their way up (see Figure 3).

Figure 5.1.3: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

At the bottom of the pyramid are the physiological needs such as air, food, shelter. Next is safety needs, such as protection from the
elements, order, and freedom from fear, followed by love and belongingness. Next, are esteem needs, which are achievement,

5.1.6 [Link]
mastery, and the desire for reputation or respect from others. Finally, the self-actualization needs are realizing personal potential or
the ability or desire to become capable. Although the order of the needs seems rigid, they are flexible, depending on the external
circumstances or individual differences. For example, if a learner is concerned about where they are going to sleep or eat that night,
they will not be as inclined to learn new concepts as their basic needs are not met. However, if a learner who is well-fed and is
loved and has a sense of belonging, whether it is part of a social group or family, they are more inclined to strive to learn new
concepts.

Keller’s ARCS Model

Within the motivational theories, there are models that provide guidance to assist designers in planning to ensure learners’
motivation. For example, Keller’s Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction (ARCS) is a motivational model that can be
used to guide instructional planning to be intentionally motivational for learners (Keller, 1987). This model focuses on promoting
and sustaining motivation throughout the learning process. First, gain the attention of the learner by piquing their curiosity. Games,
roleplay, humor, or the use of inquiry are all techniques to gain learner attention, particularly when introducing a new concept.
Next, to increase the learner’s motivation, relevance needs to be established. To establish relevance, you need to present the worth
of knowledge gained, what does it mean to the learner? How will this knowledge directly affect the learner? Next, provide
confidence and give the learners control over their learning while providing feedback. The instructor can achieve this by providing
the learner’s opportunities for short term wins and small steps of growth during the learning process. Finally, the learning needs to
be rewarding or satisfying in some way, either from a sense of achievement or external means; however, without patronizing the
learner through over-rewarding easy tasks.

Flow
Once a learner’s attention is gained, the instructor or designer’s focus should turn to keep the learner engaged. Flow is an
engagement theory that is sometimes described as “being in the zone.” Flow was defined by Csíkszentmihályi (1990), who was
inspired by watching artists, athletes, chess players, and others who become immersed in completing tasks. Flow tends to happen
when someone is engaged in an activity they enjoy, either due to their skill level or other intrinsic stimuli. Csíkszentmihályi defined
10 components of flow, but not all 10 have to happen for flow to occur. These 10 components are: (1) clear and challenging goals,
(2) strong concentration, (3) intrinsic motivation, (4) serenity feeling, (5) timelessness, (6) immediate feedback, (7) a balance
between challenge and skill level, (8) feeling of control, (9) loss of awareness of other needs, and (10) complete focus. To create
flow for learners, designers should allow some choice of activity to build on the learner’s strengths and interests and strive to match
and personalize the challenge level of the learning to the learner’s abilities. “Genius Hour” (West & Roberts, 2016) is an example
of applying Flow theory to education. In this approach, learners are given an hour each day, or every other day, to be “geniuses" in
whatever topic they are excited about. They work for an extended period of time to complete a major project in their area before
sharing their ideas with the class or families. These types of projects often produce substantial learning benefits by encouraging
conditions where learners are more likely to be in flow.

Conclusion
Learning theories and models are tools that help to shape and guide learning. Like decorating a living room in a new house, various
tools can be employed to move an empty room to one with a functional design and a pleasing look and feel to the designer and
client. Instructional designers can rely on learning theories and models to design learning solutions that meet the needs of their
clients. The theories and models also give designers language and structure to communicate their designs and research to give
evidence that their designs will be effective. Consider if you were the client that bought the house and received several proposals
from interior designers for the living room decorations. Proposal 1 was a diagram and a budget. Proposal 2 had a narrative
description that justified the attached diagram and budget. The justification was based on their interior design philosophy and
detailed how the diagram would prove to be functional for the client. Provided the design philosophies match, you would probably
select proposal 2. Using instructional design theories and models helps guide your design or learning solution and helps justify
your design solution as an effective one for potential clients.

Additional Readings and Resources

1. Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology Book - Chapters 12, 13, 14 and 16. (West, 2018)
2. Development and use of the ARCS model in instructional design article (Keller, 1987)

5.1.7 [Link]
3. Flow TED talk (Csikszentmihalyi, n.d.)
4. Edward Deci—Self-determination theory (Deci, 2017)

Application Exercises
1. Create a reference guide or chart of theories, characteristics, methodologies, and how you may best apply them to your own
design context and situation.
2. Create a timeline of the evolution of learning theories.

References
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for teaching, learning, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of
educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2010, June 22). Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory: An Introduction (Davidson Films, Inc.) [Video file] Retrieved
from [Link]
Barab, S., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(1), 86-107. [Link]
Benware, C.A., and Deci, E.L. (1984). Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set. American Educational
Research Journal, 21, 755–65. [Link]
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York, NY: Longmans,
Green.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belkapp Press.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1992). The Jasper experiment: An exploration of issues in learning and
instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40, 65-80. [Link]
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(1), 93–
94. [Link]
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (n.d.). Flow, the secret to happiness. Retrieved from [Link]
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory
perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119-142. [Link]
Deci, E. L., (2017, October 17). Edward Deci—Self-Determination Theory [Video file] Retrieved
from [Link]
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier.
E-Learning Heroes. (2020). Learn About Bloom's Taxonomy with These Interactive Examples #141. [online] Available at:
[Link] [Accessed 14 Feb. 2020].
Gibbons, A., & O'Neal, A. (2014). TICCIT: Building theory for practical purposes. International Journal of Designs for Learning,
5(2). [Link]
Keller, J. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-
[Link]://[Link]/-wMjS
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.
Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York: McGraw Hill.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-96. [Link]
McLeod, G. (2003). Learning theory and instructional design. Learning Matters, 2(1), 35-43.

5.1.8 [Link]
Morrison, D. (2013). How course design puts the focus on learning not teaching. Retrieved from [Link]
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. National Academies
Press.
Pavlov, I. (1960). Conditioned reflexes; an investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. New York: Dover
Publications.
Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Siemens, G. (2004). “Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age”, Retrieved
from [Link]/Articles/[Link].
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: an experimental study of the associative processes in animals. The Psychological
Review: Monograph Supplements, 2(4), [Link]
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158. [Link]
West, R. E. (2018). Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology: The Past, Present, and Future of Learning and
Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.). EdTech Books. Retrieved from [Link]
West, J. M., & Roberts, K. L. (2016). Caught up in curiosity: Genius hour in the kindergarten classroom. The Reading Teacher,
70(2), 227-232. [Link]
wufei87. (2018). Retrieved 25 February 2020, from [Link]
Yeo, S.S. (2013). Understanding the practices of instructional designers through the lenses of different learning theories
(unpublished master's thesis). Bowling Green State University, Career and Technology Education/Technology, Bowling Green, OH.
retrieved from [Link]

This page titled 5.1: Learning Theories is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald &
Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

5.1.9 [Link]
5.2: The Role Of Theory In Instructional Design

The Role of Theory in Instructional Design

Trudy K. Christensen

Editor's Note
This is a version of Christensen, T. K. (2008). The role of theory in instructional design: Some views of an ID
practitioner. Performance Improvement, 47(4), 25–32. [Link] and has been republished here with
permission from the publisher.

This article describes how an experienced instructional designer thinks about and uses
learning theories to inform instructional design decisions. It uses a vision metaphor to
provide a simple heuristic framework for identifying the nature of instructional problems
and relating different types of problems to useful theoretical perspectives, methods of
instructional analysis, and assessment strategies. Finally, it provides a synopsis of major
learning theory perspectives and situations that could be addressed by applying models
and strategies representing the different theoretical perspectives.
There has been considerable discussion in recent years about the role that learning theories play in instructional design practice
(Wilson, 2005; Christensen & Osguthorpe, 2004; Reigeluth, 1999; Hannafin, Hannafin, Land, & Oliver, 1997; Bednar,
Cunningham, Duffy, & Perry, 1992). Do instructional designers actually think about and apply the theories they learned in college?
Are these theories really useful? In a recent survey of over 100 instructional designers, about half of the designers indicated that
they regularly use specific learning or instructional theories or research to make instructional strategy decisions (Christensen &
Osguthorpe, 2004). This study did not reveal, however, when and how instructional practitioners use these theories. What theories
do they think about? How do they think about the theories? Do they use more than one theory at a time? How do they use these
theories to inform their decisions? After almost 25 years of instructional design practice, I have developed some ways of thinking
about learning theories that have proven useful for me. I have shared these ideas with students and other designers over the years,
and many have found them helpful. I share them here as a type of think-aloud exercise, not to claim they are the only way to think
about and apply theory to instructional practice but as a type of heuristic that might help novice designers. I encourage other
experienced practitioners to reflect on and record their strategies for applying theory to practice as a means of documenting and
comparing best practices.
When I design instruction, I do not usually start with a particular theory. My main focus is the problem and the problem situation. I
start by considering the nature of the instructional problem and then ask: “What theory or models would be most useful and
appropriate to help address this problem?” Deciding on a theoretical perspective early in the design process not only helps later
when it comes to designing the instruction, but also serves as a guide for deciding how to analyze the learning tasks or content and
how to assess learning.

What Is the Nature of the Problem?

I have found it useful to use a vision metaphor when considering the nature of instructional problems. I decided on this metaphor
because I am very conscious of vision issues since I have poor eyesight and come from a family of eye doctors. One time I visited
my eye-doctor brother for help with my worsening vision. In the process of discussing what would be the best solution for my
problems, he mentioned that he is continually confronted with a range of trade-offs and alternatives when trying to come up with
the most appropriate prescription for his patients. He described one occasion when a woman walked into his office with a thread
and needle and simply stated, “Doctor, I want glasses that will help me thread this needle.” That was all she seemed to care about.
She had specific and measurable criteria for the solution, and in no time he was able to determine the most appropriate prescription
for her.
My brother admitted that these kinds of cases are the most straightforward to solve. But most often he must devise an all-purpose
prescription that will allow his patients to perform in many situations—some known, but most of them unknown. This is when it is

5.2.1 [Link]
more difficult to determine the appropriate solution. It is usually less clear in these cases what the optimal solution should be
because it is impossible to evaluate the adequacy of the prescription in all the potential situations where the glasses may be needed.
I often think of instructional problems according to the continuum shown in Figure 1. On one end of the continuum are problems
that are usually fairly easy to describe: the nature of the task can be defined, and the conditions under which it must be performed
can be specified. I call these training problems. On the other end of the continuum are the problems that may require a more all-
purpose prescription, where it is not possible to define or anticipate all the task requirements or the conditions under which the
tasks may need to be performed. I refer to these types of problems as education problems. The importance of evaluating the overall
goal or nature of an instructional problem at the outset should not be underestimated. Other designers have advocated a similar
strategy. For instance, Wilson, Teslow, and Osman-Jouchaoux (1995) advise:
Distinguish between educational and training goals. Acknowledge that education and training goals arise in every setting. Schools
train as well as educate; and workers must be educated—not just trained in skills— to work effectively on the factory floor.
Discerning different learning goals in every setting provides a basis for appropriate instructional strategies. (p. 149)
I refer to the middle of the instructional problem continuum as the preparation domain. Problems that fall near the center are not as
focused or easily measured as the training problems, but they still represent more readily definable ranges of needs than the
education problems. For example, using the vision metaphor, if someone came to the doctor and asked for help passing the driver’s
vision exam so that she would later be able to drive, that would be a preparation problem. Preparation problems represent an
intermediate range of goals—ones that may be necessary to achieve the more application-oriented ends of training and education.
Preparation goals undergird or provide critical prerequisite skills or knowledge for training and education. Clearly many
instructional problems have elements of all of these instructional goals, but I try to identify the overriding goal, the goal with the
highest priority, in the problem situation I am addressing. This helps me focus and optimize my efforts throughout the remaining
design process.

How Does Learning Theory Relate to the Different Types of Problems?

It is important to remember that unlike the field of physics, which has been fairly successful in finding unifying theories to help
guide work in that area, there is no one unifying theory of learning or instruction. Many theories have been devised over the years,
with varying degrees of success in guiding practice. As these theories prove inadequate to explain or help with some types of
learning, they usually fall out of favor. This is just what Thomas Kuhn (1996) in his famous treatise, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, would predict. Most often there is a current favorite theory or paradigm that guides practice in education. However,
we should not be so eager to use a particular theory just for the sake of being current. We may be ignoring or overlooking some
effective and important strategies for the situation at hand. Many of the earlier learning paradigms and theories (e.g., behaviorism)
are still useful for certain types of learning problems.

Figure 5.2.1: Continuum of Instruction Problems

Many theories and models of learning and instruction have been developed over the years—so many that it is often difficult to
assimilate and remember them all, let alone use them to help guide instructional practice. Fortunately, some educational
psychologists group these theories and practices into three or four main categories. For instance, Ormrod (2008) categorizes
learning theories according to three main perspectives of learning: cognitive psychology, behaviorism, and social cognitive theory.
Woolfolk (2007) describes four main views of learning: behavioral, information processing, psychological/individual
constructivist, and social/situated constructivist views.
Figure 2 summarizes my synthesis of different learning theory perspectives as they relate to instructional design and metaphors that
I have found useful. The figure also lists assumptions regarding the nature of knowledge underlying each perspective, as well as the
role of the instruction, the role of the learner, and the main instructional and motivational strategies suggested by these
perspectives. When reading about a new idea or model, I ask myself, “What are the assumptions underlying this model, and where

5.2.2 [Link]
would it fit under these major theoretical perspectives?” Finally, I ask, “Does this theory or model reveal a useful new idea that
distinguishes it from others?” Then I try to remember that idea so I can apply it in my designs if appropriate.
Figure 3 shows the theoretical perspectives that seem to have the most to say about each type of problem. Training problems, as I
have defined them, represent more limited, specific behaviors or tasks to be completed under definable conditions. Therefore, many
of the strategies underlying behaviorism are still very useful to help address these types of problems. In addition, some aspects of
social cognitive theories (e.g., Bandura, 1986), such as vicarious reinforcement and modeling, can be useful to address many
training problems. Learners benefit from seeing others model specific tasks or behaviors and noting the consequences of correct or
incorrect actions.

Figure 5.2.2: Major Learning Theory Perspectives and IImplications for Instructional Design

Figure 5.2.3: Instruction Problem Types and Related Goals, Theoretical Perspectives, Types of Instructional Analysis, and
Assessment Strategies

5.2.3 [Link]
Many preparation problems may be addressed by strategies suggested by an information-processing perspective that focuses on the
capabilities and limitations of human memory and cognitive processes. These theories (e.g., Norman, 1982) suggest strategies for
presenting and chunking information for optimal encoding and retrieval, assimilating new information into existing schemas, and
encouraging and enhancing meaningful learning. In addition, as social cognitive theory suggests, learners may benefit from having
others model how to apply effective learning strategies for remembering, understanding, and extending ideas.
Constructivist approaches, both cognitive and social, provide strategies for addressing many education problems. They suggest
ways of helping learners develop expertise and problem-solving skills to function effectively in complex, social, unpredictable, and
nuanced real-world environments. In addition, education problems may be addressed by emphasizing aspects of social cognitive
theory that focus on strategies for helping students become self-regulated learners—able to define problems effectively, identify
possible solutions, predict consequences, choose best solutions, identify how to carry out the solution, implement solutions, and
evaluate results (Bandura, 1986).
To some, this high-level synopsis may sound like a gross overgeneralization, but it helps me address a vast and complex array of
theories, models, and strategies. This high-level approach is just a heuristic. When I design, I still may draw from multiple theories
or perspectives to address a particular problem. For instance, I might decide to use a particular social constructivist strategy such as
team-based learning (Michaelsen, Knight, & Fink, 2004) as my main strategy to help students learn to solve real-world problems
by coconstructing knowledge as learning teams. But in the process of implementing this approach, I might also incorporate the use
of incentives, such as posting team scores or giving extra points for exceptional team performance, motivational strategies derived
from behaviorist theories.

How Do the Theoretical Perspectives and Problem Types Guide My Design?

It is important to remember that there is no formula for great design. By definition, this is a problem-solving process that cannot be
described step-by-step. Nevertheless, Figure 3 summarizes what I think the major theoretical perspectives and learning goals
generally imply for the type of assessment strategies and analysis techniques most appropriate for each problem type. The
instructional analysis strategies listed—job, procedural, and skill analysis; content analysis; learning analysis; cognitive task
analysis; and activity analysis—reflect the main categories of analysis outlined by Jonassen, Tessmer, and Hannum (1999). Job,
procedural, and skill analyses are frequently the best approaches to use for training problems because they involve creating specific
task, skill, or procedural descriptions as they relate to an organizational context or larger system. For preparation problems, content
and learning analyses, which focus on hierarchical relationships among concepts, principles, tasks, or behaviors, are useful
strategies for analyzing content or skill domains that may be prerequisites to training or problem-solving tasks. These approaches
focus more on ways of representing content for optimal retention and retrieval rather than sequencing tasks for actual performance.
Finally, cognitive task analysis (CTA) techniques and strategies are best suited to capture the explicit and implicit knowledge that
experts use to perform complex tasks (Clark, Feldon, van Merriënboer, Yates, & Early, 2007). CTA is often used to create expert
systems and complex simulations. In addition, activity analysis, based on activity theory, is frequently used to analyze education
problems. Activity analysis focuses on understanding the rich contexts in which people live and work; it is used to examine the
activities in which experts engage, the tools they use, and the social context and interrelationships among participants in real-world
environments (Jonassen et al., 1999).
Thinking in terms of the instructional problem continuum shown in Figure 3 also helps to identify useful assessment strategies.
Training problems generally lend themselves to performance assessment or mastery-testing strategies. Performance assessment “is
assessment based on observation and judgment” (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2004, p. 191). The main goal in using
performance assessment is to describe a skill or task and the criteria that will be used to judge the performance. This type of
assessment may use checklists, rating scales, or rubrics to measure achievement or mastery.
Since it is often not practical or even possible to test mastery of large areas of underlying content knowledge or expertise,
preparation problems are frequently assessed by sampling from a domain of potential terms, concepts, and principles that represent
critical content underlying an area of study. This approach is sometimes referred to as domain-referenced assessment. According to
the technical definition, domain-referenced assessment “requires the specification of rules that determine membership in the
domain and a procedure for sampling individual elements so that inferences can be made from the sample to the domain” (Gipps,
1994, p. 82). I use this term more loosely to describe an attempt to sample from a content domain by using a table of specifications
or other forms of systematic analysis to represent critical content in an area of study. Typically, domain-referenced assessment uses

5.2.4 [Link]
standard written test item formats, such as multiple-choice, true-false, or short-answer questions, to test learner knowledge or
understanding. Finally, education problems lend themselves to alternative forms of assessment, including holistic assessments, or
portfolio or authentic assessments, where the goal is to measure the application of principles and concepts through the production
of outcomes or performance of behaviors in realistic, complex settings.

5.2.5 [Link]
To illustrate how the three main problem categories I have defined could be applied to different settings and situations, Table 1

5.2.6 [Link]
shows how I might use the problem types to categorize representative situations, examples, and instructional models.

Example Situations, Applications, and Models Related to Different Types of Instructional Problems
Table 1

Types of Instructional Problems

Training Preparation Education

To gain fluency in the vocabulary,

concepts, skills, and strategies of
To improve performance on a
a particular subject area
specific job or task To know how and when to apply
To promote in-depth
To know or learn skills to achieve content or process knowledge
understanding of a subject matter
mastery under differing circumstances
or content domain
To know how to use a new To be able to solve a variety of
When to use To acquire critical prerequisite
product, process, or skill to some unique problems
concepts necessary for
required level of mastery or To learn how to work
performing a job or pursuing a
proficiency cooperatively to solve problems
profession
To achieve automaticity in a in a given area
To provide needed background
critical skill
knowledge for completing a task
or solving a problem

To learn about
Human anatomy in
preparation for a health care
To learn
To learn profession
How to diagnose a disease
The features and functions of a Different types of computer
How to conduct a technical
new computer program networks to become a systems
Examples systems analysis for a large
How to handle a new machine analyst
corporation
The steps of a new Various learning theories to
How to apply principles of
development process become an educator
physics to daily life
Mathematical concepts and
principles in preparation for a
science career

Useful teaching Bloom’s mastery learning model Ausubel’s meaningful reception Cognitive
or instructional (Bloom, 1976) learning (1978) Discovery learning (Bruner,
models Programmed instruction (Skinner, Gagné’s theory of instruction 1966)
1968) (1985) Social
Personalized systems of Cognitive apprenticeship
instruction (Keller, 1968) (Collins, Brown, & Newman,
1989)
Goal-based scenarios (Schank,
1992)
Problem-based learning
(Savery & Duffy, 1995)

5.2.7 [Link]
 Team-based learning
(Michaelsen et al., 2004)
Service-learning (Campus
Compact, 2003)

When Might It be Useful to Combine Approaches?

Now that I have differentiated problem types and theoretical approaches, I want to highlight a connective thread that has emerged
in recent years to help me tie these approaches together when circumstances allow. The emphasis on situated cognition (Wilson &
Myers, 2000) proposed by social-constructivist approaches to learning has implications for combining strategies from the different
learning perspectives. Situated cognition suggests that learning should be taking place in the context in which it is used. Therefore,
when I am creating learning environments to address educational needs, I try to find ways of incorporating preparation activities
into the setting where the problem solving takes place. Strategies for accomplishing this goal include using simulations,
apprenticeships, internships, service-learning, and other approaches. The implication of this perspective for both training and
educational goals has also led to an emphasis on work-based, just-in-time learning. With the increasing speed and accessibility of
electronic media, this notion has become the basis of a new field emphasizing the design and development of electronic
performance support systems (Gery, 1991). Whenever possible, I watch for opportunities to use an electronic performance support
system or even non-electronic job aids to help learners achieve preparation objectives in training and educational contexts.
If I were to show the implications of situated cognition on the problem continuum, I would show more preparation goals being
addressed at the ends of the continuum in the performance contexts, as illustrated by Figure 4. This means learners would have
ready access to important supporting skills or knowledge in the same context where they are performing the training task or trying
to solve problems.

Figure 5.2.4: Situated Cognition and the Problem Continuum

Summary and Implications for Practice

In summary, I use learning theory to guide design by first deciding on the nature of the instructional problem and the main goal of
the instruction. Then I decide which theoretical perspective or perspectives best match the needs of the situation. Next, I often
investigate specific teaching models that reflect the theoretical perspectives I have determined are most useful and appropriate for
addressing the problem. I may apply a particular model or simply rely on basic strategies related to the different theoretical
perspectives to help guide, inform, and justify my design. I also watch for opportunities to use technology to help support and
achieve preparation goals in performance contexts. HPT professionals who use this type of process can balance instructional
decisions with the time, cost, and contextual constraints of the situation.
In reflecting on the use of theory in instructional design practice, I tend to concur with Wilson and Myers’s (2000) assessment of
the way practitioners generally use theory:

Most clinical psychologists are reportedly “eclectic” in their stance towards the various
theories of psychotherapy. Many teachers and instructional designers take the same non-
committal stance toward theory. They prefer a menu or toolbox metaphor instead of an
application/consistency metaphor. Practitioners tend to be opportunistic with respect to
different theoretical conceptions. This stance toward theory might be termed “eclectic” or

5.2.8 [Link]
 “grab-bag,” but we prefer to think of it as problem- or practitioner-centered. People
rather than ideologies are in control. The needs of the situation rise above the dictates of
rules, models, or even standard values. (p. 82)

References
Ausubel, D.P. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M., & Perry, J.D. (1992). Theory into practice: How do we link? In T.M. Duffy &
D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction: A conversation (pp. 17–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bloom, B.S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Campus Compact. (2003). Introduction to service-learning toolkit: Readings and resources for faculty (2nd ed.). Providence, RI:
Brown University.
Christensen, T.K., & Osguthorpe, R.T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions?
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.
Clark, R.E., Feldon, D., van Merriënboer, J., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2007). Cognitive task analysis. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill,
J.J.G. van Merriënboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and
mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Driscoll, M.P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Gagné, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Gery, G. (1991). Electronic performance support systems. Boston: Weingarten.
Gipps, C.V. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Hannafin, M.J., Hannafin, K., Land, S.M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning
environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101–117.
Jonassen, D.H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W.H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Keller, F.S. (1968). “Goodbye, teacher . . .” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79–89.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Michaelsen, L.K., Knight, A.B., & Fink, L.D. (Eds.). (2004). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college
teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Norman, D.P. (1982). Learning and memory. New York: Freeman.
Ormrod, J.E. (2008). Educational psychology: Developing learners (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design
theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 5–29). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Savery, J.R., & Duffy, T.M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational
Technology, 35(5), 31–38.
Schank, R. (1992). Goal-based scenarios (Institute for the Learning Sciences Technical Report 36). Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University.

5.2.9 [Link]
Skinner, B.F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Stiggins, R.J., Arter, J.A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right, using it
well. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.
Wilson, B., & Myers, K.M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical context. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.),
Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 57–88). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Wilson, B., Teslow, J., & Osman-Jouchoux, R. (1995). The impact of constructivism (and postmodernism) on ID fundamentals. In
B. Seels (Ed.), Instructional design fundamentals: A reconsideration (pp. 137–157). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Wilson, B.G. (2005). Broadening our foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology, 45(2),
10–15.
Woolfolk, A.E. (2007). Educational psychology (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

This page titled 5.2: The Role Of Theory In Instructional Design is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

5.2.10 [Link]
5.3: Making Good Design Judgments via The Instructional Theory Framework

Making Good Design Judgments via the Instructional Theory Framework

Peter C. Honebein & Charles M. Reigeluth
Many instructional designers who design innovative learning experiences, and then conduct research that investigates the
usefulness of those learning experiences, fail to fully apply the instructional theory framework as a design foundation. This reduces
the usefulness of their designs and ultimately leads to learners and other stakeholders not fully adopting and benefitting from the
designer’s learning experiences.
The aims of this chapter are to (1) help both designers and researchers improve the usefulness of their instructional designs and
subsequent research, and (2) reduce diffusion barriers that impact the dissemination and adoption of learning experiences. The
sections of this chapter include:
Real Instructional Designers Use Theory
Using the Instructional Theory Framework for Good Design
Conclusion
Formally linking instructional design and research to the instructional theory framework and its related design principles enables
designers and researchers to answer questions about the relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability, and trialability
of their innovations (Rogers, 2003).

Real Instructional Designers Use Theory

What is a theory? Simply put, it is a set of ideas about how something might work. For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution
contains the ideas of genetic variation and natural selection, among a host of others. In the education field, learning theory is a set
of ideas about how people learn, such as behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. However, what should most interest
instructional designers is instructional theory, a set of ideas for how best to help people learn.
Here is a simple example of an instructional theory: Drill-and-practice is a useful method for efficiently helping a learner memorize
such things as the names of all the U.S. states. This theory contains the idea of an instructional method (drill-and-practice) to help a
person remember things. How well will it work? We will not know until we actually deliver our instructional theory to learners in
the intended type of situation.
Yanchar et al. (2010) suggested some instructional designers feel that instructional theory has little relevance in how they design
instruction: “There is clearly an uneasiness about the applicability of theories and other conceptual tools in everyday design work”
(p. 41). Honebein and Honebein (2014), on the other hand, suggest designers do use instructional theory, “but their usage of theory
is tacit—e.g. not apparent, even to them” (p. 2).
Thus, the number-one job for instructional designers is to create or modify instructional theories more overtly in a way that meets a
client’s requirements. To accomplish this, designers should consider using the instructional theory framework (Honebein &
Reigeluth, 2020; Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009a), illustrated in Figure 1.

5.3.1 [Link]
 Figure 5.3.1: A Simple Representation of the Instructional Theory Framework in Action
Note. We call the product (outcome) of this framework an instructional theory.
The instructional theory framework is a design theory, a set of ideas focused on how to “create” instruction rather than “describe”
instruction. Central to this idea of creating things is the concept of a method, which encapsulates the know-how a designer uses to
create something.
There are several categories of methods that instructional designers use in their design work, such as process methods (e.g.,
ADDIE), instructional methods (e.g., demonstrations and practice with feedback), media methods (e.g., words, pictures, or video to
communicate content), and data-management methods (e.g., gradebooks and learning management systems). While the
instructional theory framework guides all of these types of design decisions, our specific interest in this chapter is instructional
methods, for example lecture and project-based instruction, which promote learning.
Designers use the instructional theory framework as a way to select instructional methods that promote learning. To select the most
useful instructional methods, designers rely on the instructional situation to guide them. Front-end analysis (the “A” part of
ADDIE) is where the instructional theory framework begins its journey to deliver value. As shown in Figure 1, the instructional
situation has two parts: conditions and values.
Conditions are matters of fact about the situation that a designer can elicit empirically and objectively from stakeholders and
documents. Conditions include information about:
1. Learners, such as number, demographics, geographics, psychographics, and behaviors, potentially represented as “personas”
2. Content, the subject matter the learning experience will teach
3. Context, which reflects place, resources, and tools
4. Instructional development constraints, which includes money, time, and person-hours
This type of information is usually what designers and clients focus on collecting during front-end analysis.

5.3.2 [Link]
However, what designers often fail to collect during front-end analysis is information about values. Values are matters of opinion
that are subjective in nature. For example, a client might say “I hate lectures and I don’t want them in my course!” In that
statement, the client is expressing a value—an opinion—that is true for them but may not be true for others. A designer elicits
values empirically and multidimensionally from a variety of stakeholders. Values can have a huge impact on the success of an
instructional design project. The instructional theory framework specifies four unique types of values:
1. Values about learning goals, which reflect different opinions stakeholders have about what the learners should learn
2. Values about priority, which reflect different opinions about whether a learning experience should favor effectiveness
(mastering the behavior), efficiency (delivering the lowest time or cost), or appeal (whether people like the learning experience
or not)
3. Values about methods, which reflect what instructional methods stakeholders see as being most useful (or not)—the “I hate
lecture” example above
4. Values about power, which reflect which stakeholders should have the most power to get their way regarding the learning-
experience design.
Like conditions and values, instructional methods have their own unique characteristics, such as:
1. Scope, which describes whether a method teaches a single idea (micro) or multiple ideas (macro)
2. Generality, which describes whether the designer should use a method broadly or only within specific narrow situations
3. Precision, which reflects the detail to which a designer specifies a method, in terms of its parts, kinds, and criteria
4. Power, which describes how much a method contributes to attaining a learning goal
5. Consistency, which describes how reliable a method is in attaining a learning goal within a specific situation.
Once a designer understands the situation (conditions and values), the designer uses their knowledge of the situation in
combination with method characteristics to select the best methods. In other words, the instructional theory framework is like a
conditional heuristic (Figure 1) whereby a manager or client gives a designer a situation (a mess), and the designer must then
consider the conditions and values to select methods that enable the designer to create a solution that cleans up the mess.
The framework shown in Figure 1 is a pattern that produces and characterizes all instructional theories. Essentially, an instructional
theory is the product of the instructional theory framework. It contains a collection of one or more instructional methods that best
fit one or more designated situations. An instructional theory is different from learning theories, such as behaviorism, cognitivism,
and constructivism. As shown in Figure 2, learning theory descriptively explains the “what happens” of the learning process,
typically what might be going on in one’s head. For example, a cognitivist learning theory suggests that information received by a
learner is first processed in short-term memory, and then transferred to long-term memory. Also, notice that a learning theory does
not include any methods.

Figure 5.3.2: Learning Theory Describes the “What Happens” of Various Learning Processes

5.3.3 [Link]
Note. The arrow indicates the flow of knowledge. Instructional theory prescribes possible methods for “how” one might effectively,
efficiently, and appealingly learn. The arrow indicates that drill & practice is a possible instructional method that enables a learner
to recall U.S. state names.
Examples of instructional theories include those summarized in the four volumes of the “Green Book” (Instructional-Design
Theories and Models) (Reigeluth, 1983; Reigeluth 1999; Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009a; and Reigeluth et al. 2017), such as
Shank and colleague's (1999) goal-based scenarios, and Huitt and colleague's (1999) direct approach to instruction. Instructional
theories do not need to be published in a book to be instructional theories. Because instructional theory is situational, anyone can
create instructional theories for situations that are narrow or wide in scope, and they can improve, change, or “mash up” existing
instructional theories in any way they want to fit the situation. In fact, we believe that all people have their own personal theory of
instruction, often as tacit knowledge, based on their experiences as a learner or instructor. The challenge for designers is to improve
and expand their personal instructional theories.

Using the Instructional Theory Framework for Good Design

Applying the instructional theory framework is not hard. In some regards, the instructional theory framework is like a checklist of
good practices. To elaborate our ideas about how to use the framework, we have synthesized six core principles that will help
instructional designers embrace the ideals of the instructional theory framework:
1. Understand learning experiences as complex systems
2. Value learning-experience-design fundamentals
3. Practice unbiased consideration of instructional methods
4. Respect the instructional design iron triangle
5. Differentiate between methods and media
6. Know your personal instructional design theory
These principles facilitate the transition between situations and methods that leads to superior instructional solutions, as well as
demonstrating a solution’s value. We suggest instructional designers find renewed inspiration to embrace the instructional theory
framework through these six principles.

Understand Learning Experiences as Complex Systems

Instructional designers conduct the work they do in a living, self-organizing, complex system (You, 1993; Rowland, 1993, 2007;
Solomon, 2000, 2002; Honebein, 2009). What this means is that learning experience designs will behave in ways that designers
cannot predict or expect; their nature is emergent “…in that [it is] shaped and developed over time through an evolutionary
process” (Honebein, 2009, p. 29). For example, an instructor can design and teach a class one semester, and then the very next
semester teach the same class again, and the experience for the instructor, the learners, and any other stakeholders will likely be
different.
Reigeluth and Carr-Chellman’s (2009b) and Honebein’s (2019) explorations of the “galaxy” question, which is about whether some
instructional methods have universal properties, provide evidence to support the proposition that the instructional theory framework
represents a complex system. Merrill (2002, 2009) has argued that some instructional methods are universal, that they are present in
all good instruction, such as his first principles. However, those principles are described on a very imprecise level. The
implementation of any of those principles will vary from one situation to another, making any reasonably precise description of the
principle situational, in recognition of the complexity of instructional situations. Furthermore, given that the instructional theory
framework provides categories for conditions, values, and methods, the permutations of instances for each category a learning-
experience designer could combine is immeasurable. In other words, situations and methods represent a complex system (Honebein
& Reigeluth, 2020).
This idea of complexity is expanded upon philosophically by Cilliers (2000), who distinguishes a system as simple, complicated,
and complex based upon the distance from which one observes that system. For example, an aquarium seen in one’s home,
observed as a decoration, is simple. That same aquarium can seem complicated when observed by a person who needs to repair it,
in terms of heaters, pumps, tubes, and chemicals. The aquarium becomes complex when a person observes the aquarium as an
ecosystem, with an immeasurable number of variables.

5.3.4 [Link]
What does this mean for designers? It means that designers should be comfortable knowing their design situation qualitatively,
whereby a variety of learning-experience “experiences” are possible due to the number of elements present in a situation and the
interaction between those elements (Honebein & Reigeluth, 2020).

Value Learning Experience Design Fundamentals

A design fundamental is a “good practice” that one expects a learning-experience designer to overtly apply when designing a
learning experience. For us, learning-experience-design fundamentals focus on three key instructional design practices: (1) clearly
synthesized situations (conditions, including the nature of the content, and values) that should be stated as instructional objectives,
(2) aligned assessments, and (3) formative evaluation that demonstrates a learning experience can achieve the mastery standard
specified in the objective.

Instructional Objectives
When a learning-experience designer conducts an instructional analysis, the designer gathers data about the situation in the form of
conditions and values. The designer then synthesizes the situation’s primary, actionable factors into a form that enables the
selection of instructional methods, an instructional objective.
A well-formed instructional objective has three parts: the conditions for performing the behavior, the behavior, and a standard of
performance (criteria for mastery). There are specific rules for each part that maintain logical consistency and hierarchy of the
instructional objective (Mager, 1984). In instructional theory framework terms, the specification of mastery is called values about
goals, and since it is a value (a matter of opinion), a designer can define it quantitatively, qualitatively, or some mixture of both.

Aligned Assessments
Instructional designers must specifically link and align instructional objectives with assessments. Assessments not only confirm
mastery of desired behaviors, but also provide data about formative improvements.
What is typically missing in criterion-referenced assessments is an indication of acceptable mastery. For example, learning
experience “A” might report test performance of 83%, while learning experience “B” might report test performance of 89%. If the
instructional objective guiding both learning experiences lacks mastery criteria, it becomes very difficult to assess the efficacy of
each learning experience across the outcomes of effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal. Designers must identify acceptable mastery
so that other designers and researchers can assess the improved learning effects within the context of efficiency and appeal. You
can learn more about this in the Measuring Student Learning chapter.

Formative Evaluation
Learning-experience design must be more about “improving” and less about “proving”. Research methods to prove the usefulness
of an instructional method or theory make little sense when the instructional situation surrounding the learning experience can vary
so much that the level of usefulness does not generalize (Honebein & Reigeluth, 2020; Reeves & Lin, 2020). What makes more
sense is research that aims to improve the instructional theory, such as formative evaluation using single-subject techniques
(Brenneman, 1986) or expert reviews, and formative research (Reigeluth & An, 2009; Reigeluth & Frick, 1999). This improvement
orientation is particularly important when a method or theory is at a relatively early stage in its development. However, the iterative
nature of research to improve also allows a general method to be tailored to a specific situation. This enables designers to, over
time, offer multiple versions of the general method for different situations. Designers can learn more about this in the Continuous
Improvement of Instructional Materials chapter.
When designers implement a learning experience (delivery to actual learners), they should collect formative data about all three
metrics: its effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal. From that point, the learning experience may undergo any number of formative
improvements over various iterations in its design lifecycle. Why? Because the learning experience will never be perfect; the
situation (a complex system) is always changing, forcing the learning experience to change and adapt to deliver the right
proportions of effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal. Thus, designers must not only consider the changes in methods and the
resulting changes to effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal, but also how the changes in the situation influence the various effects of
those methods.
What do these three design fundamentals mean for designers? It means that no matter where you work or who your clients are, you
will have core data that enables you to defend your designs against nit-picking know-it-alls. And if the client has new or additional

5.3.5 [Link]
data, you will have a structure by which to collaboratively improve the design rather than a fight to prove a design.

Practice Unbiased Consideration of Instructional Methods

Instructional designers must adopt a mindset that considers all instructional methods as having unknown or neutral usefulness until
the instructional situation is known. It is only at this time when data is present that a designer can assess an instructional method’s
usefulness (Honebein, 2016, 2019).
This practice helps avoid philosophical bias. Honebein’s research showed that designers have a pre-existing bias toward certain
instructional methods; the instructional theory framework calls this values about methods. For example, as shown in Figure 3,
many designers view authentic tasks as very useful, whereas those same designers view peer-based or cooperative methods as less
useful. This type of biased thinking can lead designers to reject instructional methods that might be very useful in a given situation,
just because those methods are incompatible with their biases. There are situations in which behaviorist methods (e.g., drill and
practice) are useful and many situations in which they are not.

Figure 5.3.3: Chart Illustrating Designer Bias

Note. Instructional designers in introductory and capstone instructional design courses at two different universities were asked to
rate the usefulness of various instructional methods in the absence of any type of “condition.” This chart illustrates designer bias
(values about methods), where more useful (powerful) methods are to the left, and less useful methods are to the right. If there was
no bias, all bars in the chart should be the same, at 3.5. From Honebein (2019).
What does unbiased consideration of instructional methods mean for designers? It means that the solution to a thorny instructional
design situation might just be an instructional method that you or your client hates. So, anytime you find yourself saying, “I hate
lectures,” watch Randy Pausch’s Last Lecture (20+ million viewers), and find the hidden value and inspiration present in all
instructional methods.

Respect the Instructional Design Iron Triangle

All instructional designs involve some sort of sacrifice (Gropper & Kress, 1965; Tosti & Ball, 1969; Clark & Angert, 1980;
Hannifin & Rieber, 1989). Honebein and Honebein’s (2015) research into this topic suggested that an instructional design iron
triangle likely exists in all instructional design projects (see Figure 4). The theory of the iron triangle is that if you have three
competing factors, you can only maximize two of them; you always sacrifice one. In instructional design, the competing factors
(outcomes) are effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal. For example, if a designer favors effectiveness and appeal, the designer will
sacrifice efficiency. Favoring efficiency and appeal sacrifices effectiveness, and favoring effectiveness and efficiency sacrifices
appeal.

5.3.6 [Link]
 Figure 5.3.4: The Instructional Design Iron Triangle
Note. The triangle depicts the three outcomes (or constraints) associated with instructional methods: effectiveness, efficiency, and
appeal. An instructional theory, model, or method typically involves the sacrifice of one or more of the outcomes.
What does the iron triangle mean for designers? It means that you’ll always have to give up something in your designs, and that is
okay. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

Differentiate between Methods and Media

Methods and media have a unique influence on effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal. We have already defined instructional
methods earlier in this paper. Examples of instructional methods include lecture, drill and practice, and apprenticeship, as well as
others depicted in Figure 3. Media is, of course, the communication channel that carries instructional methods to learners (Heinich
et al.1989). Media itself is a method, and as such one should differentiate between instructional methods and media methods.
Media methods include such things as words, diagrams, pictures, films, models, and realia—organized across categories of
enactive, iconic, and symbolic (Bruner, 1966).
There has been much debate in our field about how instructional methods and instructional media contribute to effectiveness,
efficiency, and appeal (Clark, 1985, 1986, 1994). Following Clark’s arguments and our own design experiences, we feel that
instructional methods influence effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal, whereas instructional media influence only efficiency and
appeal.
Why should the designer be aware of this point of view? Because as designers explore our field’s research to help construct their
own personal instructional theory, they will find studies and examples that describe what Tennyson (1994) calls “big wrench”
solutions, which take the form of a panacea. Big wrenches, which are typically media methods, are sprinkled throughout the history
of our science, from Thomas Edison’s “motion pictures” which promised to make books obsolete, to today’s mobile game-based
learning (mGBL) solutions. The studies and examples may suggest it is the media method that drives effectiveness, whereas in
reality it is more likely the instructional method that does.
What does this mean for designers? It means that you should be cautious about media in terms of touting its influence on
effectiveness. No one doubts its strong impact on efficiency and appeal. As noted previously, learning experiences are complex
systems that mash together a variety of methods to deliver results. A designer may never know what design element (or more likely,
combination of elements) served as the secret sauce for effectiveness. But more than likely, it will be an instructional method (or
combination of instructional methods).

Know Your Personal Instructional Design Theory

For more than 15 years now, the authors have taught a capstone instructional theory framework course for graduate students at
Indiana University. The course culminates in students writing their own personal theory of instruction (see the application exercise
below). In writing their personal theory paper, students consider the conditions (learner, content, context, constraints) and values

5.3.7 [Link]
(about goals, outcomes, methods, power) associated with their situation, and discuss the instructional methods that reflect their
“stamp” as a designer.

Application Exercise
Your Task:
Write a reflection paper that outlines your personal theory of
instruction. This should be an in-depth, APA-style paper that answers the questions
below and provides citations and references describing the literature that has
influenced your personal theory of instruction.
1. What is the nature of the situation (conditions and values) that governs your instructional design work?
2. How do you think you are “wired” to design instruction?
3. What “stamp” does the instruction you design have, in terms of the methods you use, that enables others to recognize it was you
who designed it?
Rubric for Quality:
Paper is equal to or less than eight, single-spaced pages.
Paper is logically structured in APA style, with clear sequence and clear organization of thoughts. Reader can read it once
quickly and comprehend its contents.
Paper is free of grammar and spelling errors.
Cites/references in APA style literature from readings to support positions and ideas described in the personal instructional
theory.
Clearly describes the personal instructional theory through the situation-methods structure.
Clearly discusses and references the theoretical foundations and influences of the personal theory.
Gives an example of the “stamp” one would see on instruction one would design.
The activity our students complete should be an activity that all designers regularly engage in as well, since the activity is all about
drawing a line in the sand about your design principles (Brown & Campione, 1996; Stolterman & Nelson, 2000; Collins et al.,
2004; Boling et al., 2017). We see such design principles connected to important emerging ideas from the above authors related
to design character, design judgment, core judgment, and accountability. As we understand these terms, one’s design character
represents inherent, assumed responsibilities for both creative process and outcomes. Design judgment involves creativity and
innovation, integrating multiple forms of judgment associated with those aims. Stolterman and Nelson (2000) refer to design
judgment as “an act of faith” (p. 8). After a designer experiences the results of their design judgments, design judgments contribute
to core judgment, in which certain judgments over time become fixed and very hard to change. For example, the learning-
experience-design fundamentals we discuss in this paper are, for us, core judgments. Ultimately, designers must be accountable for
their designs in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal, and avoid the temptation to move, hide, or remove accountability to
some other stakeholder. The aggregate of these ideas represents one’s design character and one’s belief “in his or her capacity to
make good judgments” (p. 8). That belief is reinforced in terms of how one reflects on their actions.
What does this mean for designers? We think one’s design principles were meant to be dynamic, not static. As the comedian
Groucho Marx once said, “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them …, well, I have others.” Groucho was wise, as he
appears to have known the instructional theory framework’s foundational idea that situation drives methods, or in this case,
principles. Whether a learning-experience designer is eclectic or orthodox in their adoption of learning theories and instructional
methods (Yancher & Gabbitas, 2011; Honebein & Sink, 2012), the designer’s choice of methods must be dependent on the
situation. Designers should not assume even Merrill’s (2002, 2009) first principles to be appropriate in all situations (Honebein,
2019). It is through the ideas of formative evaluation, design research, and reflection-in-action/reflection-on-action that one’s
principles increase and decrease in strength.

Conclusion
The instructional theory framework is a cornerstone that must guide our field’s practice and research. The foundations of situation
and methods are simple, logical, and aligned with good practice. Philosophically, the instructional theory framework addresses both

5.3.8 [Link]
the objective world (conditions) and the subjective world (values), which mimics what instructional designers encounter in the real
world. It provides designers a means to assess and articulate their design judgment, enabling them to be more confident in
assuming accountability (Stolterman & Nelson, 2000). And as shown by Honebein and Honebein (2014, 2015) and Honebein
(2017, 2019), the instructional theory framework functions as expected. The instructional theory framework’s key benefit is that it
guides designers in creating learning experiences that have a higher relative advantage (effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal), better
compatibility, lower complexity, easier observability, and actionable trialability.
However, a word of advice: avoid using the “theory” word when you are talking with your clients and subject-matter experts about
how you design learning experiences. It will scare them. Keep it as your little, tacit secret.

References
Boling, E., Alangari, H., Hajdu, I. M., Guo, M., Gyabak, K., Khlaif, Z., Kizilboga, R., Tomita, K., Alsaif, M., Lachheb, A., Bae, H.,
Ergulec, F., Zhu, M., Basdogan, M., Buggs, C., Sari, A., & Techawitthayachinda, R.I. (2017). Core judgments of instructional
designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(3), 199–219. DOI: 10.1002/piq.21250
Brenneman, J. (1989, March). When you can’t use a crowd: Single-subject testing. Performance & Improvement, 22–25.
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures,
principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–
325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Cillers, P. (2000). Complexity and postmodernism. London: Routledge.
Clark, R. E. (1985). Evidence for confounding in computer-based instruction studies: Analyzing the meta-analyses. Educational
Communications and Technology Journal, 33(4), 249–262.
Clark, R. E. (1986). Absolutes and angst in educational technology research: A reply to Don Cunningham. Educational
Communications and Technology Journal, 34(1), 8–10.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 21–29.
Clark, F. E., & Angert, J.F. (1980). Instructional design research and teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Southwest Educational Research Association (San Antonio, TX, February 8, 1980). ERIC Document 183528.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. [Link]
Czeropski, S., & Pembroke, C. (2017). E-learning ain’t performance: Revising HPT in an era of agile and lean. Performance
Improvement, 56(8), 37–47. 10.1002/pfi.21728
Gibbons, A. S., & Rogers, P. C. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.),
Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III) (pp. 305–326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Gropper, G. L. & Kress, G.C. (1965). Individualizing instruction through pacing procedures. AV Communications Review, 13(2),
165–182.
Hannifin, M. J., & Rieber, L.P. (1989). Psychological foundations of instructional design for emerging computer-based
instructional technologies, part II. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(2), 102–114.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., & Russell, J. D. (1989). Instructional Media (3rd Ed.). Macmillian: New York.
Honebein, P. C. (2009, January-February). Transmergent learning and the creation of extraordinary learning
experiences. Educational Technology, 27–34.
Honebein, P. C. (2016). The influence of values and rich conditions on designers’ judgments about useful instructional
methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(2), 341–357. [Link]

5.3.9 [Link]
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), 665–689. [Link]
019-09660-9
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. [Link]
Honebein, P. C., & Honebein, C. H. (2015). Effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal: pick any two? The influence of learning domains
and learning outcomes on designer judgments of useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 63(6), 937–955. [Link]
Honebein, P. C., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2020). The instructional theory framework appears lost. Isn’t it time we find it again? Revista
de Educación a Distancia, 64(20). [Link]
Honebein, P. C., & Sink, D. L. (2012). The practice of eclectic instructional design. Performance Improvement, 51(10), 26–31.
Huitt, W. G., Monetti, D. D., & Hummel, J. H. (1999). Direction approach to instruction. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-
design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, volume II (pp. 73–97). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Mager, R. F. (1984). Preparing instructional objectives. Belmont, CA: Lake.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.
Merrill, M. D. (2009). First principles of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories
and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III) (pp. 41–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 42(4), 34–36.
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Reeves, T. C., & Lin, L. (2020). The research we have is not the research we need. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 68, 1991–2001. [Link]
Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and
models: An overview of their current status (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design
theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, volume II (pp. 5–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M. & An, Y. (2009). Theory building. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories
and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III) (pp. 365–386). New York, NY: Routledge.
Reigeluth, C. M., Beatty, B. J., & Myers, R. D. (Eds.). (2017). Instructional-design theories and models, Volume IV: The learner-
centered paradigm of education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Reigeluth, C. M. & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009a). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.),
Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III) (pp. 3–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M. & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009b). Situational principles of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman
(Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III) (pp. 57–68). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Frick, T. W. (1999). Formative research: A methodology for creating and improving design theories. In C.M.
Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, volume II (pp. 633–651).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C.M. & Keller, J. B. (2009). Understanding instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-
design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III) (pp. 27–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

5.3.10 [Link]
Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M., Myers, R. D., & Lee, D. (2017). The learner-centered paradigm of education. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, &
R. D. Myers (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models, Volume IV: The learner-centered paradigm of education (Vol. IV, pp.
5–32). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th Ed.). New York: Free Press.
Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 79–91.
Rowland, G. (2007). Performance improvement assuming complexity. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(2), 117–136.
Shank, R. C., Berman, T. R., & Macpherson, K. A. (1999). Learning by doing. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design
theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, volume II (pp. 161–181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Solomon, D. L. (2000). Toward a post-modern agenda in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(4), 5–20.
Solomon, D. L. (2002). Rediscovering post-modern perspectives in IT: Deconstructing Voithofer and Foley. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 50(1), 15–20.
Stolterman, E., & Nelson, H. (2000). The guarantor of design. Proceedings of IRIS 23. Laboratorium for Interaction Technology,
University of Trollhättan Uddevalla, 2000. L. Svensson, U. Snis, C. Sørensen, H. Fägerlind, T. Lindroth, M. Magnusson, C.
Östlund (eds.)
Tosti, D. T. & Ball, J. R. (1969). A behavioral approach to instructional design and media selection. AV Communications
Review, 17(1), 5–24.
Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 59(3), 383–398. [Link]
You, Y. (1993). What can we learn from chaos theory? An alternative approach to instructional systems design. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 17–32.

This page titled 5.3: Making Good Design Judgments via The Instructional Theory Framework is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was
authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

5.3.11 [Link]
5.4: The Nature And Use Of Precedent In Designing

The Nature and Use of Precedent in Designing

Elizabeth Boling
As a student, or as a practicing designer, you may have noticed that moment when, even if you are following a detailed model, you
have to figure out what is this material, this experience, this system I am designing actually going to be? Whether you have
consciously done so or not, you have turned to your own memories, your store of precedent knowledge, in order to tackle these
questions. Precedent knowledge is a form of knowledge specific to the activities and goals of design—and you do have some,
whether you realize it consciously or not. When you do understand what precedent is and think about how you obtain it and use it,
you have increased both the discipline and the imagination that you bring to the act of designing.

Precedent as a Form of Design Knowledge

One of the fundamental elements of design knowledge is precedent (Lawson, 2004; Lawson, 2019). Unlike in law, where the term
precedent refers to the accretion of decisions made over time and constraining future decisions, in design precedent refers to the
store of experiential (episodic) memories each designer accumulates over time—expanding their future possibilities for actions or
decisions. And unlike in science, where past discoveries or established facts form a solid foundation of knowledge which must be
accepted or definitively proven incorrect, precedent knowledge in design is gathered by individual designers through their
experiences of the world. Each designers’ store of experiences is unique to that designer. Even when multiple designers share the
same experiences, they do not necessarily pay attention to the same aspects of those experiences, or recall them later in the same
way. Some designers possess more experience and some less; no single designer's store of experiences is comprehensive or the
same as any other one, and none can be transferred in an abstract way to another designer. Consider something you have
experienced yourself, something that left a vivid memory with you. If you want to share this memory with someone else, you will
likely use concrete means to do so—photos, video, audio—providing you have those means. If you do not, it can be difficult to
transmit to another person the quality of what you have experienced. Now think about how you might share a career full of design
experiences with another designer. You might summarize your memories as principles, or as lessons learned, but this would not
reproduce for that other designer what you know. Some design knowledge, like principles, can be stated in abstract form for the
benefit of others. But precedent knowledge, a designer's store of experiences, cannot be communicated easily or completely to
someone else.
In architecture education, building precedent knowledge has long been a highly structured activity, overtly and rigorously pursued
by means of memorization (Lawson, 2019), and of the requirement to refer to celebrated structures from the past in support of, or
in contrast to, decisions made in the present (Eastman, 2001). Conflict persists over the canon, the body of works deemed worthy
of this intensive study. Some argue that the canon is narrow and discriminatory (Gürel & Anthony, 2006), while others bemoan
moves in architecture education to eliminate the canon because they argue that the benefits of this form of education outweigh the
drawbacks (Breitschmid, 2010).
Although fields like instructional design do not maintain a canon, less formal means of noting, storing, and applying precedent
knowledge in architecture also exist. Reviewing publications across multiple fields in which design is the primary practice, it is
possible to see that building and using precedent knowledge is common across all of them (Boling et al., 2019), although the term
precedent is not always the term used and sometimes the references are just brief glimpses of how precedent is actually used. For
example, Rowe (1987) talks about architects and other designers using literal analogies, “borrowing known or found forms” either
in canonic form (“‘ideal’ proportional systems” as in the architectural canon), or iconic form (“objects from the natural world …
imagery from some scene, painterly conception, or narrative account of real or imagined circumstances”) (p. 80-83).
In the canonic form of precedent use, an architect may use forms (columns, arches, proportions) from classic structures in a current
design. Without an existing canon in instructional design, it does not make sense to offer an example of canonic precedent use by
instructional designers. Consider, however, examples of the iconic use of precedent. Madhavan (2015) quotes engineer John
Shepherd-Barron, inventor of the ATM cash dispenser as saying, “I hit upon the idea of a chocolate bar dispenser, but replacing
chocolate with cash” (p. 70), and Zimmerman (2003) mentions in passing that the graphics in his widely-known video game SiSSY
FiGHT were “inspired by Henry Darger’s outsider art and retro game graphics” (p. 178). And as an instructional designer, a co-

5.4.1 [Link]
instructor and I used our experiences with buffet restaurants to offer multiple mini-lessons on technology to our students, letting
them choose a "plateful" of learning in the multimedia production class we were developing.

How Precedent Is Collected

Goldschmidt (2014, p. 1) addresses the way informal, or iconic precedent is collected, saying the “designer possesses a ‘prepared
eye’ which is able to take advantage of stimuli it encounters, randomly or intentionally, in any environment.” In other words,
building precedent knowledge is a disciplined practice in which the preparation of experience allows designers to notice more that
is potentially useful and relevant to them than novices or non-designers do. To picture this, imagine that an instructional designer
working for an insurance company takes her children to a theme park where employees explain to guests, quickly but clearly, how
to enter each ride and buckle themselves in safely. This designer is experiencing a happy day with her kids as many parents do, but
because she is a designer, she is also noticing these just-in-time instructions. Without knowing when she might retrieve and use this
memory, she stores it automatically; she has developed the habit of noticing and remembering experiences that may be relevant to
her work.
Within the mind of each designer, precedent knowledge is structured over time into multiple schemata; “precedent stored in the
form of episodic schemata is used by experts to recognize design situations for which gambits are available” (Lawson, 2004, p. 1).
Lawson does not imply that precedent knowledge becomes, or should become, abstract knowledge by being transformed into
generalized principles. He discusses schemata as patterns in which the original experiential elements remain intact as potential
“gambits,” or design actions, recognized as possibly applicable to the immediate design situation. Considering the instructional
designer who took her children to the theme park, it is likely that when she noted park employees giving instructions to guests as
they boarded rides, she did not simply store that memory. This memory probably joined memories of experiences she had stored
previously as part of a schema that might be thought of as, perhaps, "super-condensed instructions." It may also have joined other
schema, possibly "scripted instructions easy for employees to learn," or "minimal scripts."

The Nature of Precedent Knowledge

Drawing on the discussions of precedent in the literature, and the ways in which designers refer to precedent, it is possible to
consider the nature of this special form of knowledge.

Precedent Is Concrete
As noted, precedent knowledge is composed of the memory of experiences, not the abstract meaning we impose on those
experiences. These experiences can be ones in which an object was held and used, a building walked through or lived in, a class
taken or taught, an ocean beheld or sailed upon. They may, with equal validity, be vicarious, formed through encountering pictures,
diagrams and narratives that represent designs to those who are not interacting with the designs directly. Whatever way this form of
knowledge has been acquired, it is stored the same way that memories of a vacation trip or a day at school would be. It contains the
details that struck the designer at the time of the experience, making it flexible in the ways that it can be used because more than
one aspect of the experience can be related to a new design situation.

Precedent Is Neither Good or Bad; Its Value Is Determined When It Is Used

Precedent knowledge is neutral. The original precedent experience may have been a positive or negative one, and the designer
recalling that experience may have thought at the time, “That’s a weak design,” or “That’s a great design.” We call the knowledge
itself neutral, however, because later it will not be confined to use as an exemplar or as a cautionary tale. A weak, or even a failed,
design can yield an affordance or an analogy that proves useful in a future design situation. In some situations, therefore, a designer
might need to know whether an instructional design was proven to be effective when it was implemented. However, in many more
designs its value as precedent is dependent on what it offers as part of a schema, or of multiple schemata, as inspiration for a design
action or as a way to frame a new design problem.

Precedent Is Relevant When It Is Used; It May or May Not Be Relevant When It Is Collected
The relevance of any precedent memory to the work of the designer who holds that memory is determined at the time the precedent
is used. As we will see in the discussion of precedent knowledge in use, designers sometimes seek examples of design intentionally
to use them right away as models or inspirations for the work at hand. However, they also notice and store memories of designs
continuously without knowing how they are going to use those memories later. This means that the exact relevance, even the vague

5.4.2 [Link]
relevance, of much precedent knowledge cannot be assessed in advance. In order to have precedent knowledge available when it is
needed, designers who have been trained and encouraged to do so form the habit of attending to their environments with a
generalized focus on potentially useful experiences, but also with a productive lack of boundaries as to which experiences they
should note.

Precedent Can Be Used Repeatedly, and May Be Used Differently Each Time
As a form of knowledge that is simultaneously detailed and non-specific, precedent offers rich possibilities that can be connected
by the designer to multiple design situations. Unlike case-based problem-solving-in which there is a match between the problem
and the case being used to solve, or illuminate, it-design precedent does not have to be well-matched to the situation where it is
being used. In some cases, there may be little to indicate that the precedent is related to the design situation at all. As we will see
during the discussion of precedent in use, it is the designer who perceives the possibility that precedent knowledge affords an
insight, a possibility for addressing a design problem (a gambit), or a bumper that pushes their thoughts in a new direction.
Therefore, the designer's perception may be different in a precedent memory based on the current design situation than based on a
previous one. Because this knowledge has not been abstracted into a fixed, declarative form, the designer is free to use it differently
each time they recall it.

Precedent Knowledge in Use

In a current study of precedent knowledge across the literature in multiple fields of design, Boling et. al. (2019), have identified
several primary modes of precedent use.

Linear
A linear use of precedent is one in which the bridge between precedent and a design decision or action (Lawson, 2019) is
conscious, direct, and simply connected to the design. A designer might face a situation in which a particular style of design is
required and look for examples of that style in order to perceive and reproduce its key elements. An instructional designer may
have framed a project as one for which many precedent examples already exist and decide, appropriately, that drawing on one or
more prior designs known to be effective will provide a reasonable template. Similarly, designers may seek, or draw upon,
precedent knowledge to understand what a class or type of design looks like, sounds like, or how it is constructed. This happens
when, for example, an inexperienced designer is preparing to develop a student workbook and collects examples of existing
workbooks to learn more about how this class of design is put together. This is a kind of deliberate reverse-engineering in which
the application of the precedent experience is determined in advance.

Field-Specific Sources and Validation of Judgment

Using the architectural canon, or less systematized bodies of recognized precedent (sometimes the bodies of work produced by
famous designers), designers can draw on precedent knowledge that they share with many other designers and use it to guide or
validate their own design decisions or actions. In this type of use, schema within the body of precedent knowledge may be less
personal to an individual designer than understood across a professional community. A majority of precedent experiences for many
of these designers may be vicarious-gathered through photographs and descriptions made available during their studies, found in
curated collections published in books and periodicals. A product designer, for example, may be well aware of a shift toward
rounded surfaces and complex "dashboards" of buttons on household appliances because designs like these appear in trade
magazines and win professional design awards. They do not refer to any single prior design when they develop a dishwasher for the
manufacturer employing the designer, but the widely-known schema informs their design and they refer to that schema to support
their decisions. It may be difficult to picture this form of precedent use among instructional designers because the field does not
now build, or disseminate, organized bodies of precedent, or acknowledge individual practitioners to the extent of making them
famous.

Direct Model for Invention

Engineers in particular use precedent knowledge in a combinatory way, incorporating precedent designs directly into new ones
when subsystems are required for a complex situation and existing examples can be used with minimal adaption. In what is
termed normal design, when the requirement for invention is low, Vincenti (1990) describes a special form of precedent
termed normal configurations, in which the designer’s experience includes both the elements directly usable for the situation and

5.4.3 [Link]
examples of how those elements will work together. Every engineer who needs to include a pump in a design does not re-invent the
pump if there is an existing pump design compatible with the larger system being created. It is easy to observe a similar form of
precedent use among program designers who maintain, share and draw upon libraries of code. Instructional designers may
recognize that this form of precedent use shares characteristics with reusable learning objects.

Abduction/Analogic Reasoning/Inspiration
Cross (2011) explains that abductive thought suggests “what may be,” instead of figuring out what must be (deduction) or
determining what is (induction) (p. 33). The abductive use of precedent involves allowing the experience of what exists to suggest
possibilities for that which is still to be designed. To understand this use of precedent, consider an instructional designer who is a
relay runner in their off-time. They are working on a web-based design for a high-enrollment college course in which
undergraduates are supposed to be learning collaboratively. As they consider that students are not always excited about group work,
it occurs to the designer that the feeling of handing off a baton during a relay race is both intense (motivating) and positive
(satisfying). Without literally building the course as a relay race, the designer decides to try dividing the class into small teams and
incorporating "hand-off-ness" into the process of working together. The students will set a goal for their final assignment together,
then use an online collaborative writing tool that is open to each of them sequentially for additions and revisions until they
complete the assignment. Still inspired by their running experience, the designer builds in some practice in sequential writing
("handing off") as part of smaller assignments during the semester.
While many fruitless forays may be conducted into one’s store of precedent, or there may be only a tenuous connection between a
possibility discovered there with the problem in hand, abduction is not just random exploration. Because precedent tends, with
experience, to gather into schema (Lawson, 1994), analogic use of precedent is likely a key factor in the efficacy of abductive
thought. Analogic reasoning “is a method of activating stored schema based on the identification of connections, parallels, or
similarities between, what are typically perceived as dissimilar items” (Daugherty & Mentzer, 2008, p. 9). In the case of what we
perceive as inspiration, analogic reasoning utilizing multiple schema may occur and, because these processes are not linear (not
propositional or easily converted into rationalized form), they appear to be—or are experienced as—unexplainable leaps from what
is known to something entirely new. Consider again the instructional designer inspired by their experiences as a relay runner. Let's
suppose that in addition to being a relay runner currently, the designer also participated in improvisational theater as a high school
student and performed in a short-lived jazz ensemble during college. Each of these experiences involves handing off from one
participant to another (a baton, a story line, a musical theme), and by the time they begin designing this college course, the
designer's use of the schema for handing off may not have been a conscious design act as described above. They may have
experienced the idea of sequential authorship in this online class as something that "just came to them;" they drew on a schema for
parallels between it and their design problems that are not obvious on the surface and were not deliberately sought.

Problem Framing
Dorst and Cross (2001) discuss how a “problem-solution pair is framed” (p. 435) by designers, defining the design situation by
considering the insight that a possible solution can provide. Such possible solutions are drawn from, or suggested by, the designer’s
store of precedent knowledge. In this use of precedent, the designer’s knowledge is not being used to guide specific design actions,
but to explore, understand and define the situation overall. Many designers can bring to mind the point in a project where someone
throws out an idea; "what if we put together something like a kit that the instructors in the field could use to assemble lessons on
the fly? Like IkeaTM lessons!" The project may or may not follow this direction, but considering the idea can bring to light factors
in the design situation that may or may not have been evident before—or suggest new information that a project team may need to
gather which was not considered previously.

Design Talk
As designers work together, they engage in design talk, a specialized form of discourse described by Fleming (1989), of which a
central component is discussion of the object (or system, or experience) being designed. Lawson (1994) offers a vivid description
of such talk among architects in which they all used a single term derived from separate but overlapping, bodies of precedent
knowledge and probably from experiential memories the team also shared. While a comparative lack of precedent dissemination in
instructional design can limit this element of design talk, you may be able to recognize a discussion in which team members share
an educational background and use terms like "WebQuest" or "MOOC" that carry an entire set of experiential meanings for the
participants.

5.4.4 [Link]
Design Models and Precedent
Design models are one of the most widely discussed forms of design knowledge discussed and used in the field of instructional
design (Smith & Boling, 2009). These are a declarative form of knowledge, meaning that they are abstract and fixed; they can be
passed from one person to another through explanation and memorization. Such models are useful (Branch, 2009), but they do not
serve the same purpose for designers that precedent knowledge serves. In fact, without the judgment of designers (Archer, 1965;
Holt, 1997; Merrill; Vickers, 1983; Gibbons et al. 2014; Smith and Boling, 2009) and their precedent knowledge, design models are
not actually effective. Discussion of design judgment may be found elsewhere (Boling et al., 2017; Dunne, 1999; Gray et al., 2015;
Nelson & Stolterman, 2014). Here we will consider the role that precedent knowledge plays within design models.
In each model of design that exists, and there are many (e.g.; Archer, 1965; Dick et al., 2000; Dubberly, 2019; Gustafsen & Branch,
2002; Lawson & Dorst, 2009; Morrison et al., 2012; Reigeluth & Carr-Chelman, 2009), close examination will uncover a point at
which many aspects of a design situation may be known, but all the rational sources of knowledge and decision-making have
reached the limits of their usefulness. The results of analysis, and the application of established principles or prescriptions, may
have precluded some design moves, or implied fruitful directions for others (Krippendorf, 2005). But now—what to do precisely?
What, exactly, will come to exist that did not exist before all the preparation was done?
Bruce Archer’s (1965) early, influential, and detailed engineering design model, created at the start of high excitement regarding
systematic design, was presented as a long diagram that extended for yards, and included a short text of fifteen pages explaining it.
Of those fifteen pages, ten are devoted to discussing the human activity and perspective actually required to make the model
function, pointing specifically to the one place in the model where nothing but the human designer can bridge from one step to the
next by saying, “there is no escape for the designer from the task of getting his own creative ideas” (p. 11). And where do those
ideas come from? Archer explains that looking at other people’s end results (designs) “including phenomena and artefacts in …
unlikely fields,” and “a rich, wide and fruitful experience … as well as the capacity for flexibility and fantasy in thought” (p. 12)
are required; in other words, building and using precedent knowledge.
Looking at a more recent and familiar prescriptive model for developing instruction, consider the 4C-ID Model, focused
specifically on designing instruction for complex tasks, and summarized by van Merriënboer et al. (2002).
Figure 1

5.4.5 [Link]
 Figure 5.4.1: Ten Steps of the 4C/ID Model. Obtained From [Link]
This model is quite detailed, focusing on prescriptions for breaking down complex skills, providing practice of part-tasks and
whole-tasks, and providing materials for support and for just-in-time information. Explanations for using the model do not address
explicitly, as Archer did, what is required from designers to carry out the steps of the model. If we examine it, though, we will see
that the model can only be used when designers employ precedent knowledge.
For example, in the case example the authors provide, the complex task to be learned is literature searching. They describe a
scenario in which a designer has, in step 1, broken down “literature searching” into several “task classes,” and specified that
“learners receive three worked-out (good) examples of literature searches (step 4). Each example contains an elaborate search
query in which Boolean operators are used” (p. 56). Guidelines are offered as to what a task class may be, and the characteristics
that practice items or informational materials should have. However, neither the model nor the explanation of it acknowledge the
invention required to move from knowing what kind of example is to be offered, to actually inventing this example—or to deciding
the nature of the event in which the examples will be introduced and used.
The very language—“learners receive”—masks what actually has to happen; unless the appropriate worked-out example of a
literature search is readily available, one must be made to exist where previously it did not. Even if the appropriate example is
readily available, its relationship to this instructional event must be created. While this is not a criticism of the model, it is
important that designers recognize the additional forms of knowledge they need to use such models.

Conclusion
While precedent knowledge interacts with other forms of knowledge that designers possess (like their knowledge of guidelines,
theories or principles), it is different in important ways. Designers need to understand those differences so that they can build and
use this knowledge effectively.

5.4.6 [Link]
Application Exercises

The Noticing Journal

The beginning of a disciplined practice in accumulating and using precedent knowledge is to develop the simple habit of noticing.
Commit to a week of noticing and challenge yourself to notice as many kinds of instruction or performance support around you as
you can for that week. Jot down a note about each one, or take a photo with your phone, so that you can see how many have built
up over the week.
Not sure where to begin? Consider how many things you use or see in a day that carry instructions on them -- shampoo, instant
noodles, fire extinguishers, bus and subway maps, vending machines. Pay attention to digital experiences like videogame and
software tutorials, or website navigation instructions. Don't limit yourself to formal instruction either. Did you overhear a parent
teaching something to a child or a child showing a parent how to use a smartphone app? It all counts!
Once you have spent a week on this exercise, consider continuing with it, adding items as you come across them. While noticing
precedent becomes automatic at some point, there is no harm in remaining conscious of the discipline of noticing.

Exploring Your Existing Store

Set aside 30 minutes to an hour in a quiet place where you can bring to mind past experiences. Begin with the earliest learning
experiences you can remember. From the perspective of an instructional designer, call up as many as you can. Don't worry if some
of them are negative. Precedent knowledge is built from all experiences, not just exemplary ones. While I recall a great experience
with the SRA Reading System in 4th grade, that same year yields the painful memory of "math races" in which two students had to
run to the blackboard and solve a problem written there quickly, trying to beat each other to the answer.
As you bring these memories of learning to mind, resist the urge to try to turn them into lessons learned, to diagnose what
happened, or to draw conclusions about what happened. What you are doing right now is just taking stock of how many
experiences you already have in your store of precedent, and recognizing that it belongs to you. You have probably been using it;
you may well be conscious of that. And if you have not been, then this exercise may prove illuminating!
As with the first exercise, consider spending 30 minutes this way more than once. You probably have more than 30 minutes of
learning memories!

Deconstruct Your Present

If you are studying in school now, begin to take note of the way one of your courses is structured and of the materials you are using
in this class. Don't stop there, though. The experience of a course is not the same thing as a syllabus or a textbook. It is the
experience that you remember and that forms part of your precedent knowledge. Write the story of this class—take several pages to
do so. While this is your experience, pretend that you are an observer trying to give someone else a vicarious experience of what it
is like to be in the course.
As an example, a short time ago I participated in a square dancing club as a student for a year. While the structure of the lessons
was straightforward—3-4 new calls introduced each week, with several repeated each time as a refresher, and each student dancing
with an experienced partner—the experience of these lessons would take more time to describe. The experienced dancers were
uniformly elderly and enthusiastic. Every student was greeted warmly at the start of the session, encouraged and praised throughout
each dance, and treated to homemade goodies by the members of the club. Actually, concentrating on learning and dancing at the
same time is surprisingly strenuous, so the goodies were welcome. So was the encouragement! While the steps we were learning
were each pretty simple, they were not called out in a set order. The caller changed the sequence constantly and more than one
student stepped on more than one toe. Every so often the entire group came to a halt when one or more students swirled left instead
of right. In these instances, I'm sure some of the experienced dancers were frustrated but no one complained and we all formed up
to begin again. I could go on for several more pages, explaining in more detail about the sequence of the steps we learned and how
the caller handled the dances, what the room was like, the "final exam." Once you get started on this exercise, you will find that
you have plenty to say as well.
If you are not studying right now, you can choose a learning experience that, like mine, took place over an extended period. Or, if
you teach, complete the exercise using one of your own courses, trying to keep that observer perspective. And no matter what
experience you use for this exercise, once you have completed it, read it over and ask yourself what kind of schema this experience

5.4.7 [Link]
may be, or could be, part of. You are not trying to abstract this experience, but to consider what others come to mind and what
patterns they might both be part of. There could be several or many.
NOTE: As you carry out these exercises, focus on the fact that you are building awareness of your design knowledge and thinking.
These exercises are not intended to become part of your design process; although I have recommended repeating them for the sake
of building awareness, they will not tell you what to design or how to design. They will strengthen abilities you already have and
use.

References
Archer, B. (1965). Systematic method for designers. London, UK: The Council of Industrial Design.
Boling, E., Alangari, H., Hajdu, I., Guo, M., Gyabak, K., Khlaif, Z., Kizilboga, R., Tomita, K., Alsaif, M., Bae, H., Ergulec, F.,
Lachheb, A.,Zhu, M., Basdogan, M., Buggs, C., Sari, A., Techawitthaychinda, R. (2017). Core judgments of instructional designers
in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(3): 199-219.
Boling, E., Lachheb, Basdogan, M., Abremanka, V., Guo, M., Alghamdi, K., Nadir, H., Zhu, M. & Bhattacharya, P. (2019). Design
precedent: Critical knowledge as it is defined and used across fields of design. AECT Las Vegas, October 21-25.
Boling, E., Lachheb, Basdogan, M., Abremanka, V., Guo, M., Alghamdi, K., Nadir, H., Zhu, M. & Bhattacharya, P. Design
precedent: Critical knowledge as it is defined and used across fields of design. AECT Las Vegas, October 21-25.
Branch, R. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York, NY: Springer.
Breitschmid, M. (2010). In defense of the validity of the “canon” in architecture. In Proceedings of the panel “Still on the Margin:
Reflections on the Perspective of the Canon in Architectural History.” 1st conference of the European Architectural History
Network, Guimaraes, Portugal, 17–20 June 2010.
Buchanan, R. (1995). Rhetoric, humanism and design. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolin (Eds.). Discovering design: Explorations in
design studies. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers.
Dick, W., Carey, L. & Carey,J. (2000). The systematic design of instruction. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dorst, K. & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-situation. Design Studies, 22(5); 425-437
Dubberly, H. (2019). Models. [Link]
Dunne, J. (1999). Professional judgment and the predicaments of practice. European Journal of Marketing, 33(7/8); 707-719.
Eastman, C. (2001). New directions in design cognition: Studies of representation and recall. In C. Eastman, M. McKraken & W.
Newstetter (eds.). Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, Ltd.
Fleming, D. (1989). Design talk: Constructing the object in studio conversations. Design Issues, 14(2), 41-62.s
Gray, C.M., Dagli, C., Demiral-Uzan, M., Ergulec, F., Tan, V., Altuwaijri, A., Gyabak, K., Hilligoss, M., Kizilboga, R. & Tomita,
K., Boling, E.(2015). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 28(3), 25-49.
Gibbons, A., Boling, E. & Smith, K. (2014). Design models. In (M. Spector, D. Merrill, M.J. Bishop & J. Elen, Eds.) Handbook for
research in Educational Communications and Technology, 4th Ed. New York, NY: Springer.
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch,R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ED 477517.
Gürel, Ö. & Anthony, K. (2006). The canon and the void: Gender, race, and architectural history texts. Journal of Architectural
Education, 59(3): 66-76.
Holt, J. E. (1997). The designer’s judgement. Design Studies 18(1); 113-123.
Krippendorf, K. (2005). The semantic turn. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Lawson, B. & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. New York, NY: Routledge.

5.4.8 [Link]
Morrison, G., Ross, S., Kalman, H. & Kemp, J. (2012). Designing effective instruction. New York, NY: Wiley.
Nelson, H. & Stolterman, E. (2014). The design way: intentional change in an unpredictable world. 2nd Ed. Bpston, MA: The MIT
Press.
Lawson, B. (2019). The design student’s journey: Understanding how designers think. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lawson, B. (2004). Schemata, gambits and precedent: Some factors in design expertise. Design Studies, 24(5); 443–457.
Oxman, R. (1994). Precedents in design: A computational model of the organization of precedent knowledge. Design Studies,
15(2); 141-157.
Reigeluth, C. M. & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Instructional-design theories and models, Volume III: Building a common
knowledge base. New York, NY: Routledge.
Rowe, P. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
van Merriënboer, J., Clark, R. & de Crook, M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-Model. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 50(2), 39-64.
Vickers, G. V. (1983). The art of judgement. London, England: Harper & Row.
Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zimmerman, E. (2003). Play as research: The iterative design process. Design research: Methods and perspectives, 2003, 176-184.

Additional Readings and Resources

Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers.
Lawson, B. (2019). The design student’s journey: Understanding how designers think. New York, NY: Routledge.

This page titled 5.4: The Nature And Use Of Precedent In Designing is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

5.4.9 [Link]
5.5: Standards And Competencies For Instructional Design And Technology
Professionals

Standards and Competencies for Instructional Design and Technology

Professionals
Florence Martin & Albert D. Ritzhaupt
Students entering the field of instructional design must possess a wide array of competencies to be successful in their future roles
(Ritzhaupt & Martin, 2014). Competencies are the knowledge, skills, and abilities professionals need in their roles, while standards
speak to a pre-defined level of quality or attainment of those competencies. Competencies and standards are essential aspects to
advance professionals in this field. Several professional organizations guide the development of competencies and standards. They
also have certification programs for instructional designers and instructional programs. In this chapter, we review the instructional
design standards and competencies both from professional organizations and those proposed by researchers who guide the
educational preparation of instructional designers and also support their academic and work experiences.

Competency and Standard

In this section, we review the term competency and standard before we introduce instructional design competencies from
professional organizations and from research. Richey et al. (2001) defined competency as “a knowledge, skill or [ability] that
enables one to effectively perform the activities of a given occupation or function to the standards expected in employment” (p.
26). Spector and De la Teja (2001, p. 2) refer to the term competency as “a state of being well qualified to perform an activity, task
or job function” and competency refers to the “way that a state of competence can be demonstrated to the relevant community.”
Thus, competencies are specific to a community of endeavor in which professionals determine the competencies valuable to the
profession. As competencies are identified and developed, professionals express these competencies as standards to assist
professionals, professional associations, academic programs, and the larger community to better understand the domain of interest.
The KSA framework, comprised of Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities, has been used by researchers to study competencies in the
field. Ritzhaupt et al. (2010) used the KSA framework to categorize educational technology competencies into knowledge, skills
and abilities statements. Figure 1 illustrates this framework in light of three domains used to characterize the field: creating, using,
and managing. The KSAs represent the core processes and resources used by those practicing in the field, which are the creation of
instructional materials, learning environments, and instructional products using systematic approaches and based on research to
improve learning and performance. Using refers to selecting, using, and implementing educational technologies and processes to
support student learning and to enhance their pedagogy. Management refers to managing people, processes, physical
infrastructures, and financial resources to create diverse learning environments and provide supportive learning communities to
improve learning and performance (AECT Standards 2012, 2008).

Figure 5.5.1: Knowledge, Skill, and Abilities Statements for Educational Technologists (Adapted from Ritzhaupt et al., 2010)
Standards are critically important to establish a foundation for a field. For instance, the field of project management established the
well-known American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) Guide to The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK),

5.5.1 [Link]
which is used as the basis for the Project Management Professional (PMP) certification program and as the official body of
knowledge for the profession.

Instructional Design and Technology Competencies and Standards From Professional

Organizations
The field of instructional design is comprised of several professional organizations, several of which define competencies and
standards for the profession. Table 1 provides a summary of these professional organizations and the following section provides
more details about each. Each organization has a different focus and provides standards and competencies for their relevant
programs. Students should be reminded that these standards and competencies serve as ideal frameworks, and should not be
discouraged by their scope.
Table 1
Professional Organizations Who Publish Instructional Design and Technology Standards

Professional Organization Website Address

International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction [Link]

International Society for Performance Improvement [Link]

Association for Talent Development [Link]

Association for Educational Communications and Technology [Link]

Online Learning Consortium [Link]

International Society for Technology in Education [Link]

University Professional and Continuing Education Association [Link]

International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (IBSTPI)

[Link]
Ibstpi Vision: To be the leader in setting international standards in the areas of training, instruction, learning, and performance
improvement.
Ibstpi Mission: Develop, validate, and promote implementation of international standards to advance training, instruction, learning,
and performance improvement for individuals and organizations.
Ibstpi has competency sets for various learning and development roles, including the instructional designer. They also have
competency sets for other roles such as training manager, evaluator, instructor, and learner. For the instructional designer, Ibstpi
(2012) developed 22 competencies across five domains.
1. Professional Foundations
2. Planning and Analysis
3. Design and Development
4. Evaluation and Implementation
5. Management
Each of these competencies has detailed performance statements and a level of expertise (essential, managerial and advanced)
identified for each of them. Ibstpi goes through a rigorous development model to identify and validate these competencies. The
steps in the model include preliminary analysis of job roles, identification of foundational research, competency drafting by
directors and experts, validation study design, translation of research instruments in multiple languages and implementation

5.5.2 [Link]
worldwide with working professionals, data analysis and competency validation, publishing final competencies and performance
statements and disseminating the competencies to practitioners, researchers and organizations.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE)

[Link]
ISTE Vision: ISTE’s vision is that all educators are empowered to harness technology to accelerate innovation in teaching and
learning, and inspire learners to reach their greatest potential.
ISTE Mission: ISTE inspires educators worldwide to use technology to innovate teaching and learning, accelerate good practice,
and solve tough problems in education by providing community, knowledge, and the ISTE Standards—a framework for rethinking
education and empowering learners.
ISTE has developed well-adopted standards for students, teachers, administrators, coaches, and computer science educators. The
ISTE standards are widely accepted in the K-12 community, and have been transformed into assessment systems (Hohlfeld et al.,
2010) and a new professional credential offered by ISTE known as the ISTE Certification, which is a vendor neutral teacher
certification based on the ISTE Standards for Educators. The ISTE Standards for Educators can be accessed at [Link]
> standards for more information.
They include:
1. Learner: Educators continually improve their practice by learning from and with others and exploring proven and promising
practices that leverage technology to improve student learning.
2. Leader: Educators seek out opportunities for leadership to support student empowerment and success and to improve teaching
and learning.
3. Citizen: Educators inspire students to positively contribute to and responsibly participate in the digital world.
4. Collaborator: Educators dedicate time to collaborate with both colleagues and students to improve practice, discover and share
resources and ideas, and solve problems.
5. Designer: Educators design authentic, learner-driven activities and environments that recognize and accommodate learner
variability.
6. Facilitator: Educators facilitate learning with technology to support student achievement of the ISTE Standards for Students.
7. Analyst: Educators understand and use data to drive their instruction and support students in achieving their learning goals.

International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI)

[Link]
ISPI Vision: Performance improvement practices are recognized globally as an essential part of every organization’s competitive
strategy.
ISPI Mission: ISPI and its members use evidence-based performance improvement research and practices to effect sustainable,
measurable results and add value to stakeholders in the private, public, and social sectors.
ISPI has proposed 10 Human Performance Practitioner Standards for instructional designers who assume the specialized role of
performance consultants. The ten standards include,
1. Focus on Results or Outcomes
2. Take a Systemic View
3. Add Value
4. Work in Partnership with Clients and Stakeholders
5. Determine Need or Opportunity
6. Determine Cause
7. Design Solutions including Implementation and Evaluation
8. Ensure Solutions’ Conformity and Feasibility
9. Implement Solutions
10. Evaluate Results and Impact

5.5.3 [Link]
In addition to the practitioner standards, ISPI also has accreditation standards for organizations and programs/courses. ISPI certifies
practitioners though a rigorous peer-review process and with the opportunity for the practitioners to be re-certified every three
years.

Association for Talent Development (ATD)

[Link]
ATD Vision: Create a World That Works Better
ATD Mission: Empower Professionals to Develop Talent in the Workplace
ATD certifies professionals in learning and performance (CPLP) and associate professionals in talent development. The Certified
Professional in Learning and Performance (CPLP) candidates are tested on ten (10) areas of expertise and include:
1. Performance Improvement
2. Instructional Design
3. Training Delivery
4. Learning Technologies
5. Evaluating Learning Impact
6. Managing Learning Programs
7. Integrated Talent Management
8. Coaching
9. Knowledge Management
10. Change Management
ATD also has a competency model for learning and development through which they identify roles, areas of expertise, and
foundational competencies for professionals in learning and performance.

Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT)

[Link]
AECT Vision: We seek to be the premier international organization in educational technology, the organization to which others
refer for research and best practices.
AECT Mission: Provide international leadership by promoting scholarship and best practices in the creation, use, and management
of technologies for effective teaching and learning.
Januszewski and Molenda (2007) defined Educational Technology as “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and
improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources“ (p.1).
AECT has developed standards for educational technologists in five areas. These standards can be accessed from the AECT
website.
1. Content Knowledge
2. Content Pedagogy
3. Learning Environments
4. Professional Knowledge and Skills
5. Research
For each of the standards, there are several indicators provided. AECT certifies graduate certificate programs in higher education
who prepare educational technologists based on these standards.

University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA)

[Link]
UPCEA is a leading association of professional, continuing and online education. Their goal is to provide high quality,
professional, continuing and online education programs of practice in higher education.
UPCEA® Purposes:

5.5.4 [Link]
 To promote quality in professional and continuing higher education.
UPCEA has seven standards identified to provide excellence in online learning leadership.
1. Internal Advocacy
2. Entrepreneurial Initiative
3. Faculty Support
4. Student Support
5. Digital Technology
6. External Advocacy
7. Professionalism

Online Learning Consortium (OLC)

[Link]
OLC® Vision: Setting the global standard in online and digital learning
OLC® Mission: Creating community and connections around quality online and digital learning while driving innovation
OLC's Five Pillars of Quality Online Education include:
1. Learning Effectiveness
2. Scale
3. Access
4. Faculty Satisfaction
5. Student Satisfaction

Instructional Design and Technology Competencies From Research

In addition to the professional organizations, several researchers have examined instructional design competencies and standards
over the years. Table 2 below provides details of researchers and the competencies and standards examined for various instructional
design professionals. These articles can be used to plan professional development, academic programs, and learning experiences
for our professionals and emerging professionals.
Table 2

5.5.5 [Link]
 Instructional Design and Technology Competencies From Research

Authors Audience Research Method Competencies Identified

Educational foundations, instructional systems

Instructional Development of design methodology, and instructional design
Tennyson (2001)
Technologists competency worksheet process experience

Liu, Gibby, Quiros,

Instructional Designers Interviews Problem-solving and decision-making skills
and Demps (2002)

Authoring applications media producers regularly

Media Producers in
Brown, Sugar and use and attributes that are most important to the
entry-level multimedia Biennial Survey
Daniels (2007) choice of an authoring application
production

Kenny, Zhang, Communication skills, knowledge of instructional

Schwier and Instructional Designers Literature Review design models, problem-solving/decision-making
Campbell (2007) skills, and technology skills

Educational Job Announcement

Ritzhaupt, Martin Multimedia competencies for educational
Technologists Analysis and Survey of
and Daniels (2010) technologists
Professionals

Lowenthal, Wilson Instructional design experience, communication

Job Announcement
and Dunlap (2010) Instructional Designers skills and collaboration skills
Analysis

Communication and interpersonal skills,

Wakefield, Warren managing multiple instructional
Job Announcement
and Mills (2012) Instructional Designers Design projects, specific traits, and collaborative
Analysis
skills

Solid foundation in instructional design and

Ritzhaupt and
Instructional Designers learning theory, possess soft skills and technical
Kumar (2015) In-depth Interviews
in Higher Education skills, and have a willingness to learn on the job

Instructional design, project management,

Kang and Ritzhaupt Educational Job Announcement
technical skills, and soft skills
(2015) Technologists Analysis

Instructional design, development, facilitation,

Ritzhaupt, Martin,
Educational assessment, evaluation, communication, problem-
Pastore and Kang Survey of Professionals
Technologists solving, and interpersonal skills
(2018)

Learning theory also guides ethical decision-making when engaged in the creation of a wide-array of learning solutions.
Professionals must also stay abreast in emerging learning technologies and should possess both the ability to learn independently
and the commitment to lifelong learning. Other knowledge, skills, and abilities were identified in these studies, but these areas
noted were frequently observed and noted.

5.5.6 [Link]
Conclusion
Professional competencies and standards are helpful ways to communicate the value-add of our professionals to stakeholders
outside of our community in various professional contexts (e.g., healthcare), to assist our professionals and emerging professionals
in planning professional development and lifelong learning (e.g., which webinar to attend), and to guide our academic programs to
align with the expectations of the needs in our field (e.g., selecting which topics to cover in an instructional design course). While
no list of competencies and standards is complete, those enumerated in this chapter provide readers a glimpse of the status of the
profession as described by our professional organizations and existing research literature. Students entering the profession should
spend time on learning these competencies and standards to identify career paths and professional development opportunities. We
conclude the chapter with some independent learning activities for your edification.

Application Exercises
1. How should professional competencies and standards be identified, documented, and used by professionals in our field? What
forms of research methods have been used to identify and document these competencies and standards? Write a brief overview
of how you think competencies and standards should be developed in our profession by reviewing the existing articles listed in
Table 2.
2. Read three of the recent articles listed in Table 2. Using the competencies and standards provided in these articles, write a short
list of professional learning outcomes for yourself to achieve in the next calendar year.
3. Explore one of the professional organizations discussed in this chapter to identify more detailed information about the
organization, including when the professional organization hosts its annual conference, the cost of membership, the list of
readings available with membership, and any of professional learning (e.g., webinars) provided by the organization for its
members.
4. Some scholars, such as Ritzhaupt and Martin (2010; 2014; 2018) have expressed the competencies of professionals using
knowledge, skill, and ability statements. Using this approach, search and identify 10 instructional design professional position
announcements using tools like [Link]. After identifying the announcements, code the knowledge, skill, and ability
statements found in these announcements.

References
Brown, A., Sugar, B. & Daniels, L. (2007). Media production curriculum and competencies: Identifying entry-level multimedia
production competencies and skills of instructional design and technology professionals: Results from a biennial survey. Paper
presented at Association of Educational Communcations and Technology.
Hohlfeld, T. N., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Barron, A. E. (2010). Development and validation of the Student Tool for Technology Literacy
(ST2L). Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 361-389.
Januszewski, A., Molenda, M., & Harris, P. (Eds.). (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate
Kang, Y., & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2015). A job announcement analysis of educational technology professional positions: Knowledge,
skills, and abilities. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 43(3), 231-256.
Kenny, R.F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R.A., & Campbell, K. (2008). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered
and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1).
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.
Lowenthal, P., Wilson, B. G., & Dunlap, J. C. (2010). An analysis of what instructional designers need to know and be able to do to
get a job. Presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Anaheim, CA.
Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Kumar, S. (2015). Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in higher education. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 28(3), 51–69.
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.

5.5.7 [Link]
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.
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Martin, F., Pastore, R., & Kang, Y. (2018). Development and validation of the educational technologist
competencies survey (ETCS): Knowledge, skills, and abilities. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 3–33.
Spector, J. M., & De la Teja, I. (2001). Competencies for online teaching. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology,
Syracuse University.
Tennyson, R. D. (2001). Defining core competencies of an instructional technologist. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 355–361.
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.
Wakefield, J., Warren, S., & Mills, L. (2012). Traits, skills, and competencies aligned with workplace demands: What today’s
instructional designers need to master. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of society for information technology and teacher education
international conference 2012 (pp.3126–3132).

Suggested Citation
Martin, F. & Ritzhaupt, A. D. (2021). Standards and Competencies for Instructional Design and Technology Professionals. In J. K.
McDonald & R. E. West (Eds.), Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and Praxis. EdTech
Books. [Link]

This page titled 5.5: Standards And Competencies For Instructional Design And Technology Professionals is shared under a CC BY-NC license
and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

5.5.8 [Link]
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

6: Instructional Design Processes

6.1: Design Thinking
6.2: Robert Gagné And The Systematic Design Of Instruction
6.3: Designing Instruction For Complex Learning
6.4: Curriculum Design Processes
6.5: Agile Design Processes And Project Management

This page titled 6: Instructional Design Processes is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1
6.1: Design Thinking

Design Thinking
Vanessa Svihla

Editor's Note
This is a condensed version of a chapter originally published in the open textbook Foundations of Learning and Instructional
Design Technology. It is printed here under the same license as the original.

Introduction
Many depictions of design process, and a majority of early design learning experiences, depict design as rather linear—a
“waterfall” view of design (Figure 1). This depiction was put forward as a flawed model (Royce, 1970), yet it is relatively common.
It also contrasts with what researchers have documented as expert design practice.

Figure 6.1.1: Google Image Search Results of Design as a Waterfall Model

Fortunately, as instructional designers, we have many models and methods of design practice to guide us. While ADDIE is
ubiquitous, it is not a singular, prescriptive approach, though it is sometimes depicted—and even practiced—as such. When we
look at what experienced designers do, we find they tend to use iterative methods that sometimes appear a bit messy or magical,
leveraging their past experiences as precedent. Perhaps the most inspiring approaches that reflect this are human-centered design
and design thinking. However, most of us harbor more than a few doubts and questions about these approaches, such as the
following:
Design thinking seems both useful and cool, but I have to practice a more traditional approach like ADDIE or waterfall. Can I
integrate design thinking into my practice?
Design thinking—particularly the work by IDEO—is inspiring. As an instructional designer, can design thinking guide me to
create instructional designs that really help people?
Given that design thinking seems to hold such potential for instructional designers, I want to do a research study on design
thinking. Because it is still so novel, what literature should I review?
As a designer, I sometimes get to the end of the project, and then have a huge insight about improvements. Is there a way to
shift such insights to earlier in the process so that I can take advantage of them?
If design thinking methods are so effective, why aren’t we taught to do them from beginning?
To answer these questions, I explore how research on design thinking sheds light on different design methods, considering how
these methods originated and focusing on lessons for instructional designers. I then share a case to illustrate how different design
methods might incorporate design thinking. I close by raising concerns and suggesting ways forward.

6.1.1 [Link]
What is Design Thinking?
There is no single, agreed-upon definition of design thinking, nor even of what being adept at it might result in, beyond good
design (Rodgers, 2013), which is, itself, subjective. If we look at definitions over time and across fields (Table 1), we see most
researchers reference design thinking as methods, practices or processes, and a few others reference cognition or mindset. This
reflects the desire to understand both what it is that designers do and how and when they know to do it (Adams, Daly, Mann, &
Dall’Alba, 2011). Some definitions emphasize identity (Adams et al., 2011), as well as values (e.g., practicality, empathy) (Cross,
1982). In later definitions, design thinking is more clearly connected to creativity and innovation (Wylant, 2008); we note that
while mentioned in early design research publications (e.g., Buchanan, 1992), innovation was treated as relatively implicit.
Table 1
Characterizations of Design Thinking (DT) Across Fields, Authors, and Over Time

Education
Stanford [Link] Design researchers
researchers
IDEO president introduces (2012) & IDEO continue to develop
Design research field characterize DT
DT to the business world, (2011) introduce DT nuanced
characterizes DT (1992) for education
2008 resources for characterizations of
research &
educators DT in practice, 2013
practice, 2012

“how designers formulate

“a mindset.” It is
problems, how they “uses the designer’s human-centered, “analytic and
generate solutions, and sensibility and methods
collaborative, creative process “a methodology to
the cognitive strategies [empathy, integrative optimistic, and that engages a generate innovative
they employ.” These thinking, optimism, experimental. person in ideas.”
include framing the experimentalism,
opportunities to
problem, oscillating collaboration] to match
between possible people’s needs with what is The “structured” experiment, create These include
and prototype
solutions and reframing technologically feasible and process of design switching between
models, gather
the problem, imposing what a viable business includes discovery, design tasks and
feedback, and
constraints to generate strategy can convert into interpretation, working iteratively.
redesign”
ideas, and reasoning customer value and market ideation,
abductively. (Rodgers, 2013, p.
opportunity.“
experimentation, and (Razzouk & Shute, 434)
evolution ([Link], 2012, p. 330)
(Cross, Dorst, & (Brown, 2008, p. 2)
2012; IDEO, 2011)
Roozenburg, 1992, p. 4)

Additional Reading
For another great summary of various approaches to design thinking, see this article by the Interaction Design Foundation. This
foundation has many other interesting articles on design that would be good reading for an instructional design student.
[Link]

Where Did Design Thinking Come From? What Does It Mean for Instructional Designers?
Design thinking emerged from the design research field[1]—an interdisciplinary field that studies how designers do their work.
Initially, design thinking was proposed out of a desire to differentiate the work of designers from that of scientists. As Nigel Cross
explained, “We do not have to turn design into an imitation of science, nor do we have to treat design as a mysterious, ineffable art”
(Cross, 1999, p. 7). By documenting what accomplished designers do and how they explain their process, design researchers
argued that while scientific thinking can be characterized as reasoning inductively and deductively, designers
reason constructively or abductively (Kolko, 2010). When designers think abductively, they fill in gaps in knowledge about the
problem space and the solution space, drawing inferences based on their past design work and on what they understand the problem
to be

6.1.2 [Link]
Lesson #1 for ID
Research on design thinking should inspire us to critically consider how we use precedent to fill in gaps as we design. Precedent
includes our experiences as learners, which may be saturated with uninspired and ineffective instructional design.
A critical difference between scientific thinking and design thinking is the treatment of the problem. Whereas in scientific thinking
the problem is treated as solvable through empirical reasoning, in design thinking problems are tentative, sometimes irrational
conjectures to be dealt with (Diethelm, 2016). This type of thinking has an argumentative grammar, meaning the designer considers
suppositional if-then and what-if scenarios to iteratively frame the problem and design something that is valuable for others (Dorst,
2011). As designers do this kind of work, they are jointly framing the problem and posing possible solutions, checking to see if
their solutions satisfy the identified requirements (Cross et al., 1992; Kimbell, 2012). From this point of view, we don’t really know
what the design problem is until it is solved! And when doing design iteratively, this means we are changing the design problem
multiple times.
Other design methods that engage stakeholders early in the design process, such as participatory design (Muller & Kuhn, 1993;
Schuler & Namioka, 1993) and human-centered design (Rouse, 1991) have also influenced research on design thinking. While
these approaches differed in original intent, these differences have been blurred as they have come into practice. Instead of defining
each, let’s consider design characteristics made salient by comparing them with more traditional, linear methods. These methods
tend to be iterative, and tend to bring stakeholders into the process more deeply to better understand their experiences, extending
the approach taken in ADDIE, or even to invite stakeholders to generate possible design ideas and help frame the design problem.
When designing with end-users, we get their perspective and give them more ownership over the design, but it can be difficult to
help them be visionary. As an example, consider early smartphone design. Early versions had keyboards and very small screens and
each new version was incrementally different from the prior version. If we had asked users what they wanted, most would have
suggested minor changes in line with the kinds of changes they were seeing with each slightly different version. Likewise,
traditional approaches to instruction should help inspire stakeholder expectations of what is possible in a learning design.

Lesson #2 for ID
Inviting stakeholders into instructional design process early can lead to more successful designs, but we should be ready to support
them to be visionary, while considering how research on how people learn might inform the design.
Designers who engage with end-users must also attend to power dynamics (Kim, Tan, & Kim, 2012). As instructional designers,
when we choose to include learners in the design process, they may be uncertain about how honest they can be with us. This is
especially true when working with children or adults from marginalized communities or cultures unfamiliar to us. For instance, an
instructional designer who develops a basic computer literacy training for women fleeing abuse may well want to understand more
about learner needs, but should consider carefully the situations in which learners will feel empowered to share.

Lesson #3 for ID
With a focus on understanding human need, design thinking should also draw our attention to inclusivity, diversity, and participant
safety.
We next turn to an example, considering what design thinking might look like across different instructional design practices.

Design Thinking in ID Practice

To understand how design thinking might play out in different instructional design methods, let’s consider a case, with the
following three different instructional design practices:
Waterfall design proceeds in a linear, stepwise fashion, treating the problem as known and unchanging
ADDIE design, in this example, often proceeds in a slow, methodical manner, spending time stepwise on each phase
Human-centered design prioritizes understanding stakeholder experiences, sometimes co-designing with stakeholders
A client—a state agency—issued a call for proposals that addressed a design brief for instructional materials paired with new
approaches to assessment that would be “worth teaching to.” They provided information on the context, learners, constraints,
requirements, and what they saw as the failings of current practice. They provided evaluation reports conducted by an external
contractor and a list of 10 sources of inspiration from other states.

6.1.3 [Link]
They reviewed short proposals from 10 instructional design firms. In reviewing these proposals, they noted that even though all
designers had access to the same information and the same design brief, the solutions were different, yet all were satisficing,
meaning they met the requirements without violating any constraints. They also realized that not only were there 10 different
solutions, there were also 10 different problems being solved! Even though the client had issued a design brief, each team defined
the problem differently.
The client invited three teams to submit long proposals, which needed to include a clear depiction of the designed solution, budget
implications for the agency, and evidence that the solution would be viable. Members of these teams were given a small budget to
be spent as they chose.
Team Waterfall, feeling confident in having completed earlier design steps during the short proposal stage, used the funds to begin
designing their solution, hoping to create a strong sense of what they would deliver if chosen. They focused on details noted in the
mostly positive feedback on their short proposal. They felt confident they were creating a solution that the client would be satisfied
with because their design met all identified requirements, because they used their time efficiently, and because as experienced
designers, they knew they were doing quality, professional design. Team Waterfall treated the problem as adequately framed and
solved it without iteration. Designers often do this when there is little time or budget[2], or simply because the problem appears to
be an another-of problem—“this is just another of something I have designed before.” While this can be an efficient way to design,
it seldom gets at the problem behind the problem, and does not account for changes in who might need to use the designed solution
or what their needs are. Just because Team Waterfall used a more linear process does not mean that they did not engage in design
thinking. They used design thinking to frame the problem in their initial short proposal, and then again as they used design
precedent—their past experience solving similar problems—to deliver a professional, timely, and complete solution.
Team ADDIE used the funds to conduct a traditional needs assessment, interviewing five stakeholders to better understand the
context, and then collecting data with a survey they created based on their analysis. They identified specific needs, some of which
aligned to those in the design brief and some that demonstrated the complexity of the problem. They reframed the problem and
created a low fidelity prototype. They did not have time to test it with stakeholders, but could explain how it met the identified
needs. They felt confident the investment in understanding needs would pay off later, because it gave them insight into the
problem. Team ADDIE used design thinking to fill gaps in their understanding of context, allowing them to extend their design
conjectures to propose a solution based on a reframing of the design problem.
Team Human-centered used the budget to hold an intensive five-day co-design session with a major stakeholder group.
Stakeholders shared their experiences and ideas for improving on their experience. Team Human crafted three personas based on
this information and created a prototype, which the stakeholder group reviewed favorably. They submitted this review with their
prototype. Team Human-centered valued stakeholder point of view above all else, but failed to consider that an intensive five-day
workshop would limit who could attend. They used design thinking to understand differences in stakeholder point of view and
reframed the problem based on this; however, they treated this as covering the territory of stakeholder perspectives. They learned a
great deal about the experiences these stakeholders had, but failed to help the stakeholders think beyond their own experiences,
resulting in a design that was only incrementally better than existing solutions and catered to the desires of one group over others.
The case above depicts ways of proceeding in design process and different ways of using design thinking. These characterizations
are not intended to privilege one design approach over others, but rather to provoke the reader to consider them in terms of how
designers fill in gaps in understanding, how they involve stakeholders, and how iteratively they work. Each approach, however,
also carries potential risks and challenges (Figure 2). For instance, designers may not have easy access to stakeholders, and large
projects may make more human-centered approaches unwieldy to carry out (Turk, France, & Rumpe, 2002).

6.1.4 [Link]
 Figure 6.1.2: Risks and Pitfalls Associated with Different Levels of End-User Participation and Iteration

Critiques of Design Thinking

While originally a construct introduced by design researchers to investigate how designers think and do their work, design thinking
became popularized, first in the business world (Brown, 2008) and later in education. Given this popularity, design thinking was
bound to draw critique in the public sphere. To understand these critiques, it is worth returning to the definitions cited earlier (Table
1). Definitions outside of the design research field tend to be based in specific techniques and strategies aimed at innovation; such
accounts fail to capture the diversity of actual design practices (Kimbell, 2011). They also tend to privilege the designer as a savior,
an idea at odds with the keen focus on designing with stakeholders that is visible in the design research field (Kimbell, 2011). As a
result, some have raised concerns that design thinking can be a rather privileged process—e.g., upper middle class white people
drinking wine in a museum while solving poverty with sticky note ideas—that fails to lead to sufficiently multidimensional
understandings of complex processes (Collier, 2017). Still others argue that much of design thinking is nothing new (Merholz,
2009), to which researchers in the design research field have responded: design thinking, as represented externally might not be
new, but the rich body of research from the field could inform new practices (Dorst, 2011).
These critiques should make us cautious about how we, as instructional designers, take up design thinking and new design
practices. Below, I raise a few concerns for new instructional designers, for instructional designers interested in incorporating new
methods, for those who teach instructional design, and for those planning research studies about new design methods.
My first concern builds directly on critiques from the popular press and my experience as a reviewer of manuscripts. Design
thinking is indeed trendy, and of course people want to engage with it. But as we have seen, it is also complex and subtle.
Whenever we engage with a new topic, we necessarily build on our past understandings and beliefs as we make connections. It
should not be surprising, then, that when our understanding of a new concept is nascent, it might not be very differentiated from
previous ideas. Compare, for example, Polya’s “How to Solve it” from 1945 to Stanford’s [Link] representation of design
thinking (Table 2). While Polya did not detail a design process, but rather a process for solving mathematics problems, the two
processes are superficially very similar. These general models of complex, detailed processes are zoomed out to such a degree that
we lose the detail. These details matter, whether you are a designer learning a new practice or a researcher studying how designers
do their work. For those learning a new practice, I advise you to attend to the differences, not the similarities. For those planning
studies of design thinking, keep in mind that “design thinking” is too broad to study effectively as a whole. Narrow your scope
and zoom in to a focal length that lets you investigate the details. As you do so, however, do not lose sight of how the details

6.1.5 [Link]
function in a complex process. For instance, consider the various approaches being investigated to measure design thinking; some
treat these as discrete, separable skills, and others consider them in tandem (Carmel-Gilfilen & Portillo, 2010; Dolata, Uebernickel,
& Schwabe, 2017; Lande, Sonalkar, Jung, Han, & Banerjee, 2012; Razzouk & Shute, 2012).
Table 2
Similarities Between “How to Solve it” and a Representation of Design Thinking

Polya, 1945 How to solve it Stanford’s [Link] design thinking representation

Understand the problem Empathize, Define

Devise a plan Ideate

Carry out the plan Prototype

Look back Test

My second concern is that we tend, as a field, to remain naïve about the extant and extensive research on design thinking and other
design methods, in part because many of these studies were conducted in other design fields (e.g., architecture, engineering) and
published in journals such as Design Studies (which has seldom referenced instructional design). Not attending to past and current
research, and instead receiving information about alternative design methods filtered through other sources is akin to the game of
telephone. By the time the message reaches us, it can be distorted. While we need to adapt alternative methods to our own ID
practices and contexts, we should do more to learn from other design fields, and also contribute our findings to the design research
field. As designers, we would do well to learn from fields that concern themselves with human experience and focus somewhat less
on efficiency.
My third concern is about teaching alternative design methods to novice designers. The experience of learning ID is often just a
single pass, with no or few opportunities to iterate. As a result, flexible methods inspired by design thinking may seem the perfect
way to begin learning to design, because there is no conflicting traditional foundation to overcome. However, novice designers tend
to jump to solutions too quickly, a condition no doubt brought about in part by an emphasis in schooling on getting to the right
answer using the most efficient method. Design thinking methods encourage designers to come to a tentative solution right away,
then get feedback by testing low fidelity prototypes. This approach could exacerbate a new designer’s tendency to leap to solutions.
And once a solution is found, it can be hard to give alternatives serious thought. Yet, I argue that the solution is not to ignore
human-centered methods in early instruction. By focusing only on ADDIE, we may create a different problem by signaling to new
designers that the ID process is linear and tidy, when this is typically not the case.
Instead, if we consider ADDIE as a scaffold for designers, we can see that its clarity makes it a useful set of supports for those new
to design. Alternative methods seldom offer such clarity, and have far fewer resources available, making it challenging to find the
needed supports. To resolve this, we need more and better scaffolds that support novice designers to engage in human-centered
work. For instance, I developed a Wrong Theory Design Protocol ([Link] that helps inexperienced designers
get unstuck, consider the problem from different points of view, and consider new solutions. Such scaffolds could lead to a new
generation of instructional designers who are better prepared to tackle complex learning designs, who value the process of framing
problems with stakeholders, and who consider issues of power, inclusivity, and diversity in their designing.

Concluding Thoughts
I encourage novice instructional designers, as they ponder the various ID models, approaches, practices and methods available to
them, to be suspicious of any that render design work tidy and linear. If, in the midst of designing, you feel muddy and uncertain,
unsure how to proceed, you are likely exactly where you ought to be.
In such situations, we use design thinking to fill in gaps in our understanding of the problem and to consider how our solution ideas
might satisfy design requirements. While experienced designers have an expansive set of precedents to work with in filling these
gaps, novice designers need to look more assiduously for such inspiration. Our past educational experiences may covertly convince
us that just because something is common, it is best. While a traditional instructional approach may be effective for some learners, I
encourage novice designers to consider the following questions to scaffold their evaluation of instructional designs:

6.1.6 [Link]
 Does its effectiveness depend significantly on having compliant learners who do everything asked of them without questioning
why they are doing it?
Is it a design worth engaging with? Would you want to be the learner? Would your mother, child, or next-door neighbor want to
be? If yes on all counts, consider who wouldn’t, and why they wouldn’t.
Is the design, as one of my favorite project-based teachers used to ask, “provocative” for the learners, meaning, will it provoke a
strong response, a curiosity, and a desire to know more?
Is the design “chocolate-covered broccoli” that tricks learners into engaging?
To be clear, the goal is not to make all learning experiences fun or easy, but to make them worthwhile. And I can think of no better
way to ensure this than using iterative, human-centered methods that help designers understand and value multiple stakeholder
perspectives. And if, in the midst of seeking, analyzing, and integrating such points of view, you find yourself thinking, “This is
difficult,” that is because it is difficult. Providing a low fidelity prototype for stakeholders to react to can make this process clearer
and easier to manage, because it narrows the focus.
However, success of this approach depends on several factors. First, it helps to have forthright stakeholders who are at least a little
hard to please. Second, if the design is visionary compared to the current state, stakeholders may need to be coaxed to envision new
learning situations to react effectively. Third, designers need to resist the temptation to settle on an early design idea.

Figure 6.1.3: Designers Need to Resist the Temptation to Settle on an Early Design Idea
Finally, I encourage instructional designers—novice and expert alike—to let themselves be inspired by the design research field
and human-centered approaches, and then to give back by sharing their design work as design cases (such as in the International
Journal of Designs for Learning ) and by publishing in design research journals .

References
Adams, R. S., Daly, S. R., Mann, L. M., & Dall’Alba, G. (2011). Being a professional: Three lenses into design thinking, acting,
and being. Design Studies, 32(6), 588-607. doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.07.004
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21. doi:10.2307/1511637
Carmel-Gilfilen, C., & Portillo, M. (2010). Developmental trajectories in design thinking: An examination of criteria. Design
Studies, 31(1), 74-91. doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.06.004
Collier, A. (2017). Surprising insights, outliers, and privilege in design thinking. Retrieved from [Link]

6.1.7 [Link]
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227. doi:[Link]
Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5-10. doi:10.2307/1511837
Cross, N., Dorst, K., & Roozenburg, N. F. M. (Eds.). (1992). Research in design thinking: Delft University Press.
[Link]. (2012). An introduction to design thinking: Facilitator’s guide. Retrieved from [Link]
Diethelm, J. (2016). De-colonizing design thinking. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2(2), 166-172.
doi:[Link]
Dolata, M., Uebernickel, F., & Schwabe, G. (2017). The power of words: Towards a methodology for progress monitoring in
design thinking projects. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik. St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.07.006
Floyd, C. (1988). A paradigm change in software engineering. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 13(2), 25-38.
IDEO. (2011). Design thinking for educators: Toolkit. [Link]
Kim, B., Tan, L., & Kim, M. S. (2012). Learners as informants of educational game design. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J.
Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning
Sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 401-405). Sydney, Australia: ISLS.
Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285-306. doi:[Link]
Kimbell, L. (2012). Rethinking design thinking: Part II. Design and Culture, 4(2), 129-148. doi:[Link]
Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15-28.
doi:10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15
Lande, M., Sonalkar, N., Jung, M., Han, C., & Banerjee, S. (2012). Monitoring design thinking through in-situ
interventions. Design thinking research (pp. 211-226). Berlin: Springer.
Merholz, P. (2009). Why design thinking won’t save you. Harvard Business Review, 09-09. Retrieved
from [Link]
Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 24-28. doi:10.1145/153571.255960
Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (1986). User centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ: CRC Press.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330-
348. doi:[Link]
Rodgers, P. A. (2013). Articulating design thinking. Design Studies, 34(4), 433-437. doi:[Link]
Rouse, W. B. (1991). Design for success: A human-centered approach to designing successful products and systems: Wiley-
Interscience.
Royce, W. W. (1970). Managing the development of large software systems Proceedings of IEEE WESCON(pp. 1-9): The Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44. doi:[Link]
Turk, D., France, R., & Rumpe, B. (2002). Limitations of agile software processes. Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Extreme Programming and Flexible Processes in Software Engineering (pp. 43-46).
Wylant, B. (2008). Design thinking and the experience of innovation. Design Issues, 24(2), 3-14. doi:10.1162/desi.2008.24.2.3

This page titled 6.1: Design Thinking is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald &
Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

6.1.8 [Link]
6.2: Robert Gagné And The Systematic Design Of Instruction

Robert Gagné and the Systematic Design of Instruction

John H. Curry, Sacha Johnson, & Rebeca Peacock
To begin any study of instructional design, it is beneficial to examine the roots of the field. Where did the field originate? How did
we develop into a field of study and practice? As your study continues, you can better see how the knowledge base of the field
began, how it progressed, and how it was researched and when, which will help you gain a better understanding of the process and
practice of instructional design as well as the field as a whole. Specifically, understanding the origins of the systematic design of
instruction will give the learner a greater appreciation for today’s more robust design theories and models.
As the United States entered World War II, they faced an enormous problem: How were they going to train so many troops? The
numbers are staggering. The military trained over 16 million troops. In addition, the technology of the war had changed drastically
from World War I, and the troops needed to be trained on all the skills necessary to complete their tasks at hand, and FAST. They
did not have the luxury of time—the training needed to be done quickly, effectively, and efficiently.
After the war ended, cognitive psychologists, many of whom had served in World War II themselves, began studying how to apply
the training lessons from the war to other instructional settings to help people learn better. Combining the work of those
researchers, the systematic instructional design process was born.

Gagné’s Conditions of Learning

Conditions of Learning

Instructional Design Series: Episode

Epigogy, Inc.

Watch on

Robert Gagné was working on his Ph.D. in Psychology when World War II began. While assigned to Psychological Research Unit
No. 1, he administered scoring and aptitude tests to select aviation cadets. After the War, Gagné joined the Air Force Personnel and
Training Research Center where he directed the Perceptual and Motor Skills Laboratory. He held multiple academic positions
throughout his career, ranging from the Connecticut College for Women to Princeton to Florida State University. His experiences in
the military and training there guided much of his research. In 1959, he participated in the prestigious Woods Hole Conference, a
gathering of outstanding educators, psychologists, mathematicians and other scientists from the United States in response to the
Soviet Union launching the Sputnik satellite. The results of the conference were published in Bruner’s The Process of Education
(1961). Four years later, Gagné published The Conditions of Learning (1965).

Taxonomy of Learning Outcomes

Gagné posited that not all learning is equal and each distinct learning domain should be presented and assessed differently.
Therefore, as an instructional designer one of the first tasks is to determine which learning domain applies to the content. The
theoretical basis behind the Conditions of Learning is that learning outcomes can be broken down into five different domains:
verbal information, cognitive strategies, motor skills, attitudes, and intellectual skills (see Figure 1).

6.2.1 [Link]
 Figure 6.2.1: Gagné’s Domains of Learning
Verbal information includes basic labels and facts (e.g. names of people, places, objects, or events) as well as bodies of knowledge
(e.g. paraphrasing of ideas or rules and regulations). Cognitive strategies are internal processes where the learner can control
his/her own way of thinking such as creating mental models or self-evaluating study skills. Motor skills require bodily movement
such as throwing a ball, tying a shoelace, or using a saw. Attitude is a state that affects a learner’s action towards an event, person,
or object. For example, appreciating a selection of music or writing a letter to the editor. Intellectual skills have their own
hierarchical structure within the Gagné taxonomy and are broken down into discrimination, concrete concepts, rule using, and
problem solving. Discrimination is when the learner can identify differences between inputs or members of a particular class and
respond appropriately to each. For example, distinguishing when to use a Phillips-head or a flat-head screwdriver. Concrete
concepts are the opposite of discrimination because they entail responding the same way to all members of a class or events. An
example would be classifying music as pop, country, or classical. Rule using is applying a rule to a given situation or condition. A
learner will need to relate two or more simpler concepts, as a rule states the relationship among concepts. In many cases, it is
helpful to think of these as “if-then” statements. For example, “if the tire is flat, then I either need to put air in the tire or change the
flat tire.” Finally, problem solving is combining lower-level rules and applying them to previously unencountered situations. This
could include generating new rules through trial and error until a problem is solved.

Nine Events of Instruction

Beyond his assertion that not all learning is equal, Gagné also theorized an effective learning process consisting of nine separate
and distinct steps or events (see Figure 2). These events build naturally upon each other and improve the communication supporting
the learning process. The events facilitate learner engagement as well as retention of the content being presented. For an
instructional designer, they provide a framework or outline to structure the delivery of instructional content.

6.2.2 [Link]
 Figure 6.2.2: Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction

Event one: Gain attention. Before learning can happen, the learners must be engaged. To gain the learners’ attention, any number
of strategies can be employed. It could be as simple as turning the lights on and off, the teacher counting down, or the teacher
clapping three times. Other options could include a discussion prompt, showing a video, or discussing current events.
Event two: Inform learners of objective. Once learners are engaged, they are informed of the objective of the instruction, which
gives learners a road map to the instruction. It allows them to actively navigate the instruction and know where they are supposed
to end up. This could be written on a whiteboard in front of the class, highlighted on materials, spoken verbally, or posted clearly in
an online context.
Event three: Stimulate recall of prior learning. Stimulating recall of prior learning allows learners to build upon previous
content covered or skills acquired. This can be done by referring to previous instruction, using polls to determine previous content
understanding (and then discussing the results), or by using a discussion on previous topics as a segue between previous content
and new content.

6.2.3 [Link]
Event four: Present the stimulus material. Presenting the stimulus material is simply where the instructor presents new content.
According to Gagné, this presentation should vary depending on the domain of learning corresponding to the new content.
Event five: Provide learner guidance. Providing learner guidance entails giving learners the scaffolding and tools needed to be
successful in the learning context. Instructors can provide detailed rubrics or give clear instruction on expectations for the learning
context and the timeline for completion.
Event six: Elicit performance. Eliciting performance allows learners to apply the knowledge or skills learned before being
formally assessed. It allows learners to practice without penalty and receive further instruction, remediation, or clarification needed
to be successful.
Event seven: Provide feedback. Hand in hand with eliciting performance in a practice setting, the instructor provides feedback to
further assist learners’ content or skill mastery.
Event eight: Assess performance. Following the opportunity to practice the new knowledge or skill (events five, six, and seven),
learner performance is assessed. It is imperative that the performance be assessed in a manner consistent with its domain of
learning. For example, verbal knowledge can be assessed using traditional fact tests or with rote memorization, but motor skills
must be assessed by having the learner demonstrate the skill.
Event nine: Enhance retention and transfer. Enhancing retention and transfer gives the learner the opportunity to apply the skill
or knowledge to a previously unencountered situation or to personal contexts. For example, using class discussion, designing
projects, or by writing essays.

The Nine Events: Explained by Training Cats

Gagnes 9 events of instruction featur

Leslie Combe

Watch on

Gagné’s Impact on Instructional Design

The impact Robert Gagné had on the field of instructional design cannot be understated. For example, from his initial work we can
trace the evolution of the domains of learning from the Conditions of Learning through other theories such as Merrill’s Component
Display Theory (1994), to Smith and Ragan’s Instructional Design Theory (1992), to van Merrienboer’s complex cognitive skills in
the 4C/ID model of instructional design (1997). Beyond that, Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction also paved the way for a
systematic process for designing instruction. For the first time, those designing instruction had a process to follow, a blueprint. And
almost 60 years later, Gagné’s work still serves as the basic framework all instructional designers who use systematic processes
follow.

ADDIE
In 1965, the United States Air Force created their first major instructional system. By 1970, the system had grown into a full Five-
Step Approach to designing instruction (US Air Force). The five steps for designing instruction were: Analyze system
requirements; Define education training requirements; Develop objectives and tests; Plan, develop, and validate instruction; and
Conduct and evaluate instruction. Reflexive within this circular model was feedback and intervention. This model gave way to the
conceptual framework known as ADDIE, upon which the majority of subsequent systematic instructional design (ID) models are
inherently based. It consists of five phases: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (see Figure 3). Each

6.2.4 [Link]
of these phases builds on the previous phase to systematically identify and clarify an instructional problem, develop and implement
a solution, and evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the solution. Additionally, evaluation occurs throughout the other phases
to inform the design of the instruction.

Figure 6.2.3: The ADDIE model

The systematic process of designing instruction begins with the analysis of a problem to determine whether instruction is a possible
solution. The analysis phase includes analyzing the needs, tasks, and learners in order to clarify the problem, goals and objectives
of the instruction, the learning environment, and learner characteristics. Based on the results of the analyses, the instructional
designer clarifies the instructional problem and identifies the instructional goals and objectives. During the design phase, the
instructional designer writes the learning objectives and chooses an ID model. The development phase consists of creating all
instructional materials. Implementation is when the instruction is delivered to learners either in a formative or summative setting.

6.2.5 [Link]
The evaluation phase is reflexive with formative evaluation, which consists of ongoing feedback as the instruction is designed and
developed, and summative evaluation consisting of the final evaluation after full implementation. These phases are discussed more
in-depth in their respective chapters.

Dick and Carey Model

Working from the conceptual framework of the ADDIE model and building upon a systematic approach to instruction like Gagné’s
Conditions of Learning, the Dick and Carey Model is one of many systematic instructional design processes. While each model
may have its own individual process, they also have many characteristics in common such as attention to detail and precision. The
Dick and Carey model is comprised of nine stages incorporating elements from previous design models as well as elements from
behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism (see Figure 4). This model provides the designer with a process that incorporates
flexibility and allows the designer to make appropriate adaptations for their particular situation.

Figure 9.2.4: The Dick and Carey model

Instructional Goals
Instructional goals can be set using a variety of methods; however, the key is to determine whether instruction truly is the solution
or if there are other factors that may be contributing to a performance issue. The designer’s job is to sift through many points of
data to get to the root of the problem. For example, employees in auto manufacturing may not be meeting company-defined
benchmarks due to poor training, but it could also be due to poorly defined processes that take too much time to complete. In
education, students may fall behind on benchmarks due to poor teaching, but it could be that teachers are required to cover too
many topics and the students are not able to retain all of this information. To help gather this information, instructional designers
perform a performance analysis and needs assessment.
Performance analysis. In a performance analysis, the designer will compare a desired performance outcome to the current
performance level and identify a performance gap. This process involves reviewing data to identify the gap. Some designers will
use a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis framework to help define this gap.
Needs assessment. In a needs assessment, the designer works to identify what the learners will need in order to bridge the
identified performance gap. Some methods to help identify this gap can be performance data, including tests, observations,
interviews, surveys, and even doing the work of the learner to help identify challenges or opportunities.

Instructional Analysis
Once goals have been established, it is important to map out the step-by-step process students will need in order to achieve these
goals. In an instructional analysis it often helps to use a flow-chart to map out each skill into its smallest step but also to identify
any additional steps or skills, often called subordinate skills, that must be mastered before mastering the main skill.

6.2.6 [Link]
Entry Behaviors and Characteristics
It is also essential to identify the behaviors and characteristics of the learner in order to provide the optimum learning experience.
This involves determining what the learner already knows or can do—these are called entry skills. However, it is also important to
gather information on their attitudes toward learning, their motivation for learning, education backgrounds, ability levels, and
personal characteristics such as age or experience with technology.

Performance Objectives
Performance objectives are what the learner will be able to do following instruction. While there are variations on how to write
performance objectives, a general rule is to include a condition, a behavior, and a criterion. Many designers use Bloom’s
Taxonomy or Mager’s ABCD model to help define measurable behaviors in their objectives. Ultimately, objectives should be
specific and measurable.

Criterion-Referenced Test Items

Criterion-referenced test items are used to measure the performance objectives. These items can be used on assessments such as
pre- and post-tests as well as performance-based measures such as performance observations using rubrics or attitude changes.

Instructional Strategy
When the assessment has been defined, the designer can work on mapping out an instructional strategy. The designer will need to
review and sequence the content into a meaningful lesson. They will also need to decide on the types of learning experiences and
activities they want the learner to engage in. As described earlier in this chapter, Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction is one method
for structuring a learning experience.

Instructional Materials
Once the instructional framework is developed, appropriate materials are created. This can include using existing print or media
materials or creating new materials. This should be an iterative process, gathering feedback and making improvements. Some
designers will provide rough draft outlines to graphic or multimedia designers for development.

Formative Evaluation
As mentioned previously, formative evaluation is used to help a designer measure the effectiveness of their instructional strategy
and materials. The designer will work with individuals and groups to review the instruction and identify weaknesses and/or gaps.
The materials are revised based on this input to make sure the instruction is appropriate and clear for the learners.

Summative Evaluation
Finally, the instruction is reviewed by experts and field-tested. The objective is to ensure that the instruction targets the necessary
skills defined in the instructional analysis and produces the desired results in the field.

Conclusion
The study of instructional design is eclectic and full of history. From its roots in cognitive psychology and the training of troops in
World War II to the rise of the systematic instructional design models, researchers have worked to provide those designing
instruction a process by which not only could they create meaningful instruction more quickly, but also to consider the diversity of
learners and learning contexts as well as the difference in the types of content to be learned.
If a student of instructional design looks critically at the models and theories in the field, it is not very hard to trace the continuing
influence of these early researchers into today’s current practices. For example, Gagné’s domains of learning influenced Merrill’s
Component Display Theory (Merrill, 1983), as Merrill had similar categories of learning, but gave them different names. However,
the idea that all content falls into one distinct domain of learning shifted with the research of van Merrienboer (1997) who wrote
about complex cognitive skills that have aspects of multiple domains. The same can be said of the systematic instructional design
models. The Conditions of Learning led to the Air Force model (Department of the Air Force, 1993) and the ADDIE framework.
The ADDIE framework gave way to other instructional design models like the Smith and Ragan (1992); ASSURE (Heinich,
Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino, and 2001); and the Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2012). Most recently, David Merrill (2002)

6.2.7 [Link]
distilled the similarities in each model down to what he termed the “First Principles of Instruction,” a model that encompasses all
the others and provides a new framework for designing problem-based instruction.
The influence of Robert Gagné and the systematic instructional design models on the field of instructional design is clear. What
was new in the 1950s and 1960s is now accepted unilaterally and generally implemented: not all instruction is equal; there are
different domains of learning and each should be presented and assessed appropriately; and an intentional design process should
lead to more effective and efficient instruction.

Application Exercises
1. Consider the different ID models in this chapter. What are the benefits of using these processes? What are the challenges with
using these processes?
2. Compare and contrast the ID models in this chapter. How might the differences in each model impact the overall design
process?
3. Consider instruction you have participated in at school, work, or in the community. Describe how you would apply Gagne's
Nine Events of Instruction to improve that instruction.
4. You have been asked to design instruction for a large company on their new telephone system. Use either ADDIE or the Dick
and Carey Model to describe the steps you would take to provide this instruction. Be specific and use the language of the model
to frame your discussion.

References
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longmans, Green.
Bruner, J. (1961). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction, 4th edition. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Gagné, R.M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Glaser, R. (1962). Psychology and Instructional Technology. Training Research and Education. Glaser, R. (ed). Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J. D., & Smaldino, S. E. (2001). Instructional media and technologies for learning (7th ed.),
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mager, R.F. (1962). Preparing objectives for programmed instruction. Pitman Learning.
Merrill, M. D. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Eds), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview
of their current status (pp. 282-333). New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc.
Merrill, M.D. (1994). The descriptive component display theory. In M.D. Merrill, Instructional design theory (pp. 111-157).
Educational Technology Publications.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development. 50(3), 43-59.
Skinner, B F. (1959). Teaching Machines. In A. A. Lumsdine & R. Glaser (Ed.) Teaching Machines and Programmed Learning.
Washington, D.C.: National Education Association. Pp. 137-158.
Smith, P.L. & Ragan, T.R. (1992). Instructional Design. New York: Wiley.
U.S. Air Force. (1970). Instructional System Development. AFM 50-2. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Department of the Air Force. (1993). Manual 36-2234 Instructional System Development.
Van Merrienboer, J.G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical
training. Educational Technology Publications.

This page titled 6.2: Robert Gagné And The Systematic Design Of Instruction is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed,
and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

6.2.8 [Link]
6.3: Designing Instruction For Complex Learning

Designing Instruction for Complex Learning

Jimmy Frerejean, Jeroen J.G. van Merriënboer, Paul A. Kirschner, Ann Roex, Bert Aertgeerts, & Marco Marcellis

Editor's Note
This is a condensed version of Frerejean, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., Roex, A., Aertgeerts, B., & Marcellis, M.
(2019). Designing instruction for complex learning: 4C/ID in higher education. European Journal of Education, 54(4), 513–524.
[Link] and is printed here under the same license as the original.

Continuing technological and societal innovations create high demands on the field of education. In order to deal with increasing
globalisation, multidisciplinarity, mobility and the complexity of current and future jobs, a strong emphasis is placed on quality and
efficiency at all levels of education and training (European Union, 2009, 2018). To prepare learners for a job market that is
continually evolving, it is imperative that educational programmes provide them with an extensive knowledge and skills base that
they can apply flexibly when encountering unfamiliar tasks in daily practice. This requires different instructional design
approaches, including a shift away from objectives‐based design approaches towards more task‐centred approaches in an attempt to
better address the learning of complex cognitive skills and professional competencies.
The objectives‐based approach breaks down tasks into their constituent parts and describes desired outcomes for each of these part‐
tasks in learning objectives which are often classified according to a taxonomy such as Bloom's revised taxonomy (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001) or Marzano and Kendall's taxonomy (2007). Bloom's revised taxonomy, for example, classifies objectives in the
cognitive domain in six categories based on remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating and creating. These
taxonomies result from the idea that different instructional methods are needed to reach objectives in different categories. Teaching
concepts and principles (e.g., understanding what a scientific paper is and how it is structured) requires different instructional
methods from teaching the application of procedures (e.g., carrying out a literature search for a paper). This objectives‐based
approach is suitable for tasks where there are few relations between the objectives. However, it is less effective for those that
require an integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes and the coordination of sometimes many different constituent skills (van
Merriënboer & Dolmans, 2015). First, the compartmentalisation of learning into separate categories of objectives and using
separate methods for declarative, procedural and affective learning is ineffective because carrying out a complex professional task
requires more than just the stacking of these constituent elements. Instead, carrying out complex tasks generally requires
an integration of knowledge, skills and attitudes in so‐called competencies. Instruction should therefore focus on developing an
interconnected knowledge base that allows one to activate different kinds of knowledge when confronted with new and unfamiliar
tasks (Janssen‐Noordman, van Merriënboer, van der Vleuten, & Scherpbier, 2006).
Second, the objectives‐based approach of teaching complex skills leads to fragmentation. Because it breaks up the complex tasks
into separate isolated parts, students only learn a limited number of skills at the same time. Instruction is focused on parts of the
task and provides little opportunity to learn how to coordinate the performance of these separate parts into a coherent whole when
confronted with a professional task (Lim, Reiser, & Olina, 2009). In an attempt to address these problems of fragmentation and
compartmentalisation, task‐centred approaches centre learning on whole real‐world (i.e., authentic) problems or professional tasks
as a way to better connect the learning setting to the workplace setting and foster the necessary skills. This holistic approach
advocates creating educational programmes that contain sequences of learning tasks that are based on authentic professional tasks.
Examples of task‐centred models are cognitive apprenticeship (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989), elaboration theory (Reigeluth,
1999), first principles of instruction (Merrill, 2002) and the four‐component instructional design model (4C/ID model) (van
Merriënboer, 1997).
This chapter provides a brief summary of the 4C/ID model and illustrates its application in higher education by describing an
educational programme that was designed using the model. The chapter concludes with a short reflection on the educational
programme that was developed, a list of important considerations for implementing task‐centred curricula and a look at future
developments in task‐centred learning.

6.3.1 [Link]
Four-Component Instructional Design (4C/ID)
The basic assumption of the 4C/ID model is that educational programmes for complex learning or the teaching of professional
competencies (i.e., the integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes and coordination of skills and their constituents) can be
described in four components, namely learning tasks, supportive information, procedural information and part‐task practice (see
Figure 1).

Figure 6.3.1: Overview of 4C/ID model, Based on Van Merriënboer and Kirschner (2018)
Learning tasks form the backbone of the instructional blueprint and are based on authentic real‐life situations that are encountered
in practice because this helps the learner to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes in an integrated fashion. Learning tasks can
be projects, tasks, cases, problems, or other types of assignments. Importantly, they show a variation that is representative of the
variation in tasks in professional or daily life because this “variability of practice” will help in the transfer of learning. Learning
tasks of equal complexity are grouped together, creating task classes that are sequenced from simple to complex. Learners start
with the simplest tasks that a professional could encounter and end with tasks at the level of complexity that a recently‐graduated
student should be able to handle (van Merriënboer, Kirschner, & Kester, 2003). While working on these tasks, the teacher and the
instructional materials provide the necessary support and guidance to help learners to carry out the tasks to completion. In a process
of scaffolding, this support and guidance are gradually withdrawn until the learners are able to independently carry out tasks of a
certain level of complexity before engaging in more complex tasks (i.e., the next task class). The three other components are
logically connected to this backbone of learning tasks.
While Figure 1 may suggest a linear path through these learning tasks, the model allows for extensive flexibilisation and
personalisation of learning. Learners may be given the opportunity to select different paths through the designed learning tasks,
based on their interest or demonstrated proficiency. One way to support this dynamic selection is by using electronic development
portfolios that help students and teachers to monitor progress and make informed decisions on future learning tasks that fit the
learner's level and needs (Beckers, Dolmans, & van Merriënboer, 2019; Kicken, Brand‐Gruwel, van Merriënboer, & Slot, 2009).

6.3.2 [Link]
The second component, supportive information, is often referred to as “the theory” and includes information to develop mental
models and cognitive strategies that are necessary to complete the learning tasks. Supportive information aims at non‐recurrent
aspects of the task that deal with problem‐solving, reasoning and decision making. It can be presented in the form of lectures,
workshops, or study materials and is available for students to study before or while they carry out the learning tasks. These first two
components help students to acquire highly‐structured knowledge, or cognitive schemas. Learning tasks stimulate the construction
of such schemas through inductive learning: a process whereby students learn from mindful abstraction from concrete experiences
and examples. Supportive information helps schema construction by elaboration: acquiring new knowledge and linking it to the
existing knowledge base.
The remaining two components stimulate the automation of schemas and the development of automatic, task‐specific procedures
that can be applied without much demand on cognitive resources. Procedural information aims at recurrent and procedural aspects
and provides step‐by‐step instructions when the learner performs those aspects. Part‐task practice, the fourth component, can be
included to provide repeated practice to train routine skills until they can be performed automatically. (For a more extensive
description of the model, see van Merriënboer, 1997; van Merriënboer et al., 2003; or van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2018).

A 4C/ID Approach to a Blended Course in Android App Development

Developing mobile applications is a typical complex skill, as it requires extensive knowledge of programming languages,
databases, development environments, etc. It also requires multiple skills, such as operating the development software, writing
clean and correct codes, and/or designing a user interface. A professional, critical and creative attitude is necessary to translate
clients' wishes into a working application. Therefore the development of mobile applications lends itself well to teaching with a
task‐centred approach. The Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences in the Netherlands designed a course on Android app
development using the 4C/ID model ([Link]).
Traditionally, the design of such courses starts from the “theory”. Teachers begin with a clear picture of the information their
students should know and design a series of lectures to “transmit” this theory to the students. In addition, they design homework
assignments to practise with single, small aspects of the whole task. For example, these assignments could focus on how to use
loops in the programming language or creating, reading, updating, and deleting information in a database. Teachers then mix
lectures with small practice items until all topics have been covered. This follows the approach of traditional design models:
starting with the presentation of theoretical knowledge and coupling it to specific practice items. The 4C/ID model topples this
approach: it starts by specifying professional tasks, translates these into learning tasks and only then investigates which “theory”
should help students to complete these learning tasks.
In their description of the design of the course, Marcellis, Barendsen, and van Merriënboer (2018) elaborate on the use of 4C/ID
and the Ten Steps to achieve a blended design consisting of the four components. The learning tasks form the backbone of the
curriculum. These are not small practice items focused on a particular aspect of the task (i.e., using loops or updating a database).
Instead, learning tasks are whole tasks, based on professional practice, grouped in task classes that grow in complexity. The first
task class starts with the least complex (i.e., simplest) whole tasks. For example, the very first task asks the student to develop a
single‐screen app that simulates a dice roll and asks the user to guess whether the next roll will be higher or lower. Subsequent task
classes include learning tasks of increasing complexity, imposing more demands on the user interface, interaction modes and
handling of data. At the end of the course, students are asked to create multi‐screen applications that retrieve information (e.g.,
movie information, recipes) from remote locations and allow the user to view, swipe, and manipulate these data.
Students receive strong support and guidance when starting learning tasks in a new and more complex task class. The design
achieves this by employing modelling examples and imitation tasks at the start of each task class. The teacher demonstrates the
development of an application while thinking aloud and asks students to build an identical application on their computers. In
subsequent tasks, students receive partially‐completed applications they must finish (i.e., completion tasks), while the final tasks in
a task class are conventional tasks without any support and guidance. Hence, support gradually decreases as the student progresses
through the task class.
Supportive information helps students with the non‐recurrent aspects of the task by providing domain knowledge (e.g., how
databases work) and systematic approaches to developing apps (e.g., demonstrations by the teacher). Procedural information helps
with the recurrent aspects (e.g., using the development environment or automatic highlighting of incorrect programming syntax).
For the designers, providing supportive and procedural information constituted a serious challenge, as both are subject to frequent

6.3.3 [Link]
and unpredictable changes. For example, development software is frequently updated with changed functionality and programming
languages continually evolve, requiring programmers to learn new syntax and unlearn old methods. To make sure that the
supportive and procedural information reflect the most recent conventions and rules in the domain, the course designers depended
less on pre‐prepared lectures or recorded videos and instead referred students to a list of external sources, including manuals and
Android developer documentation. Not only is it easier to keep a list of links up to date, it also creates a more authentic situation
where students learn to study official documentation, as they would do in practice.
As the course is intended for students from all over the world who are studying full‐time or part‐time, the designers chose a
blended design where learning tasks, supportive information and procedural information resided in an online learning environment.
Classroom activities can be followed by students on‐site and include modelling examples, imitation tasks in small groups and
feedback sessions led by the teacher. Other learning tasks are presented in the online learning environment and are performed
individually by students. Student evaluations show that students perceive the learning tasks as very helpful for learning how to
develop an Android app. The modelling examples specifically contribute to understanding how to approach a certain challenge in
Android app development, especially when they not only show the actual coding, but also make explicit the reasoning behind each
step. In addition, students perceive the classroom sessions in which they discuss theory using guided questions as beneficial. This
Android app development course illustrates a well‐executed application of fundamental 4C/ID principles leading to a course design
that is strongly informed by educational research.

Conclusion
Designing educational programmes using the 4C/ID model is different from designing using objectives‐based approaches. It
requires task‐centred thinking which may be challenging for designers, teachers and faculty who are schooled and experienced in
objectives‐based instructional design. The 4C/ID model is well‐aligned with the concept of competency‐based education, but it
stresses that competencies should always be clearly related to the professional tasks the student is expected to carry out after
completing the programme. An educational programme taking a competency framework as a backbone for its development and
assessment may still hamper the transfer of learning to the workplace if the learning activities in that programme are not strongly
based on professional tasks. Designing task‐centred learning environments therefore requires assigning equal weight to tasks on the
one hand and to the competencies required to carry out these tasks on the other. The Ten Steps approach starts the design by
specifying professional tasks to serve as a basis for designing learning tasks. The professional and learning tasks are then explicitly
linked to the competencies that are necessary to carry out those tasks up to standards, for example by generating a matrix with tasks
at one end and competencies or standards at the other. As seen in the example provided in this chapter, this shifts the balance from
the atomistic, compartmentalised and fragmented teaching of isolated objectives towards integrative acquisition of knowledge,
skills and attitudes.
Concerning the design and implementation of task‐centred curricula, Dolmans, Wolfhagen, and van Merriënboer (2013) identify 12
common pitfalls and tips that may help to make such (re)designs work. The four most significant deal with building infrastructure,
multidisciplinary teaching teams, continuous progress monitoring and involving students. First, in task‐centred designs, a series of
whole‐tasks forms the backbone of the programme. Therefore, the main educational activities consist of small group meetings in
which students collaboratively work on these learning tasks. To facilitate this, there should be sufficient small group rooms
available that are equipped with all the necessities such as whiteboards, projectors, and high‐speed wireless Internet. Other facilities
could be necessary, such as lecture halls, simulation labs, or individual reading and studying rooms, but they are present in most
schools. It is more often the lack of sufficient small group rooms that impedes the implementation of task‐centred learning.
Secondly, task‐centred curricula require the design of a series of learning tasks for an integrative acquisition of knowledge, skills
and attitudes. Content that was previously taught separately by different teachers must now be taught in an integrated fashion and
teachers should therefore work together in multidisciplinary teams that preferably also include outside domain experts working in
the field. These experts can help to align the educational programme with practice and ensure the relevance of the tasks, tools and
required knowledge. Teaching staff should also be prepared to adopt different roles, as teachers in task‐centred curricula generally
have a tutoring or coaching role in order to facilitate small group learning or skills training. They may also be involved in whole‐
task design and continuous assessment. If teachers are unfamiliar with these new roles, faculty development programmes may be
needed to prepare staff members for this change.

6.3.4 [Link]
Thirdly, in the Ten Steps approach, the assessment programme is developed simultaneously with the design of learning tasks
because assessment drives learning. In a task‐centred curriculum, assessment should not be used solely for making pass/fail
decisions for separate courses. Instead, it should allow for the monitoring of individual student progress at the level of the whole
curriculum. This can be done by using electronic development portfolios that combine multiple assessment results and provide a
dashboard that informs both students and teachers of the students' progress and improvement. This approach no longer relies on
traditional assessment arrangements, such as fixed‐length semesters with pre‐planned exam weeks.
Lastly, students themselves should play an important role in the design of the whole curriculum and of individual learning tasks.
Involving students in the design process provides valuable insights into the curriculum's strengths and weaknesses, as they are the
only ones to experience the curriculum. As it is crucial that students experience the learning tasks as meaningful and useful, their
perceptions are very informative for designers. Thoroughly informing students of the ideas behind the task‐centred curriculum may
also benefit implementation, as those students can become advocates of the reform. Furthermore, just as teachers have different
roles in a task‐centred curriculum, students also need to be prepared for their new roles. They need to function in small group
meetings and learn how to actively contribute to group discussions, how to act as group leaders or scribes and how to provide
effective feedback to peers. As is the case with faculty development, such student training preferably extends over a prolonged
period.
To conclude, dealing with current and future developments in the job market requires that educational programmes produce
lifelong learners who are equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes to deal with familiar and unfamiliar complex tasks in
their domain. The way these programmes are designed must therefore match this goal of creating learners who are able to transfer
their knowledge from the learning to the professional setting. Task‐centred instructional design models such as the 4C/ID model
stimulate this process by prescribing learning methods that lead to a rich knowledge base allowing for creative applications of
knowledge in new and innovative settings. Additionally, they create a strong alignment between education and practice by blending
learning in the educational setting with learning in the workplace. This encourages cross‐institutional and international
collaboration when designing educational programmes, which is especially important in those settings where tasks require
international and interdisciplinary work, such as the banking, aviation, or tech sector. A clear implication for educational policy is
that collaboration between employers and higher education must be strengthened: A two‐way interaction is needed where
educational institutions not only prepare students for the job market, but where employers also bring state‐of‐the art knowledge,
future job requirements and tasks to the educational institutions.

Future Developments
In the book Ten Steps to Complex Learning, van Merriënboer and Kirschner (2018) present an extensive systematic approach to
design task‐centred educational programmes with the 4C/ID model, based on evidence from research on education and learning
going back to the late 1980s. They also identify several important directions for advancing the model. Future developments will
focus on the integration of new educational technologies (e.g., blended programmes, gamification), dealing with large learner
groups (e.g., learning analytics, customisation), teaching domain‐generalisable skills (e.g., intertwining domain‐general and
domain‐specific programmes) and promoting motivation and preventing negative emotions. With research on these topics now
maturing, designers can look forward to an expanded set of guidelines to design effective, efficient, and enjoyable programmes for
complex learning.

References
L. W. Anderson, & D. R Krathwohl. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's
taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Beckers, J., Dolmans, D. H. J. M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2019). PERFLECT: Design and evaluation of an electronic
development portfolio aimed at supporting self‐directed learning. TechTrends, 63, 420– 427. [Link]
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–
42. [Link]
Dolmans, D. H. J. M., Wolfhagen, I. H. A. P., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2013). Twelve tips for implementing whole‐task
curricula: How to make it work. Medical Teacher, 35, 801– 805. [Link]

6.3.5 [Link]
European Union. (2009). Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and
training (ET 2020) (2009). Official Journal of the European Union, C119, 2– 10.
European Union. (2018). Council recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning (2018). Official
Journal of the European Union, C189, 1– 13.
Janssen‐Noordman, A. M. B., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., van der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2006). Design of
integrated practice for learning professional competences. Medical Teacher, 28, 447– 452. [Link]
Kicken, W., Brand‐Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Slot, W. (2009). Design and evaluation of a development portfolio:
How to improve students' self‐directed learning skills. Instructional Science, 37, 453– 473. [Link]
Marcellis, M., Barendsen, E., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2018). Designing a blended course in android app development using
4C/ID. In Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling
’18) (pp. 1– 5). Koli, Finland: ACM Press. [Link]
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives ( 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 43–
59. [Link]
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: Guidance for scope and sequence decisions. In C. M.
Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional‐design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Vol II (pp. 425– 453). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four‐component instructional design model for technical
training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Dolmans, D. H. J. M. (2015). Research on instructional design in the health sciences: From
taxonomies of learning to whole‐task models. In J. Cleland & S. J. Durning(Eds.), Researching medical education (pp. 193–
206). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2018). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four‐component
instructional design ( 3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2003). Taking the load off a learner's mind: Instructional design for
complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5– 13. [Link]

This page titled 6.3: Designing Instruction For Complex Learning is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

6.3.6 [Link]
6.4: Curriculum Design Processes

Curriculum Design Processes

Bucky J. Dodd
Whether you realize it or not, we experience curriculum every single day. Curriculum influences the most obvious learning
situations like classroom lessons and workplace training sessions, but it also influences a variety of less-obvious situations such as
how we learn about products, how we learn from online tutorials (yes, to an extent this applies to using YouTube to fix a leaky
faucet!), and how organizations plan large-scale change efforts. Curriculum influences how people learn and grow from very young
ages and continues to shape learning experiences throughout our lives.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a survey of curriculum design processes across diverse educational and professional
contexts and to highlight essential curriculum design skills embedded in these processes. Curriculum design is a core pillar of how
we educate, train, and engage in formal learning experiences. At the core of curriculum design is a mental model for how people
learn and a design representation for how knowledge and skill transfer occurs from theory into practice.
For emerging professionals in the instructional design field, curriculum design is one of a series of core competencies that are
necessary for professional success (Burning Glass, 2019). In the most basic of terms, curriculum design is the process of planning
formal learning experiences. Yet, there are many tacit criteria that differentiate between effective and ineffective curriculum design
processes. For the purposes of this chapter, we will examine curriculum design as a strategic-level process for how learning
experiences are designed. This differentiates from instructional design processes, which tend to involve more operational-level
processes. For example, you can differentiate curriculum design from instructional design as curriculum design is more “big picture
thinking” while instructional design is concerned with more tactical decisions within instructional materials and interactions.

Defining Curriculum Design

Curriculum design is operationally defined for this chapter as the intentional planning, organization, and design of learning
strategies, processes, materials, and experiences towards defined learning and/or performance outcomes. Curriculum design is
concerned with much more than learning materials. In one sense, curriculum design is creating a holistic plan for the environments
where learning happens. This includes considering the physical, digital, social, and psychological factors that define the spaces and
places where people learn (American Educational Research Association, n.d.).

6.4.1 [Link]
 Figure 6.4.1: Diagram Illustrating Elements of Curriculum Design vs. Instructional Design
Curriculum design is a team sport. The teams who engage in curriculum design processes are comprised of people with diverse
areas of expertise. Typically, a curriculum design team will include subject matter experts (e.g. faculty member), curriculum
coordinator/director, curriculum oversight groups, instructional design and development specialists, and teaching/facilitation
personnel. Depending on the nature of the curriculum, this can also include information technology specialists, organizational
development specialists, data and research specialists, and senior leadership.

6.4.2 [Link]
 Figure 6.4.2: Diagram Illustrating an Example Curriculum Design Team
Curriculum design, when done well, is a process that is collaborative, results-oriented and transforms diverse ideas into a focused
vision for learning.

Designing Curriculum with the End in Mind

The primary goal of curriculum design is aligning learning strategies, materials, and experiences to defined outcomes. From this
standpoint, good curriculum should be results-focused and efficient. To accomplish this, curriculum designers often use tools such
as learner personas, needs analysis, and existing assessment data to determine the scope of a project. From there, it becomes
important to develop learning strategies that connect to the characteristics of the intended learners to help them reach the desired
outcomes.
Designing curriculum with the end in mind involves managing, designing, and organizing learning objectives, competencies, and
standards within a curriculum. The process of designing curriculum with the end in mind is commonly referred to as “backward
design” (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). The major concept important to curriculum designers is that instead of starting with content
or topics (common historical practice by many educators), backward design starts with the outcomes and then works backwards to
address the content, topics, strategies, and materials.

6.4.3 [Link]
 Figure 6.4.3: Diagram Comparing Design Approaches
One of the key tools important to backward design is the use of learning objectives taxonomies. One of the most widely used of
these taxonomies is Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956). Bloom’s Taxonomy organizes learning objectives based on a “level of
learning.” The revised version classifies these as: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. These levels describe
cognitive learning processes that are demonstrated through various forms of behaviors.

Figure 6.4.4: Bloom's Taxonomy (Source: [Link]

Taxonomies like Bloom’s provide a framework for organizing types of learning outcomes and selecting appropriate curriculum
strategies for a specific level of learning. For example, a learning objective at the understand level will likely be designed far
differently than an objective at the evaluate or create levels. This not only influences the types of strategies used, but also the
alignment of curriculum elements and appropriate level of learner (i.e. novice, intermediate, advanced).
Standards and competency frameworks are common resources curriculum designers use in the process of conducting their work.
These frameworks vary across countries and disciplines; however, they often serve a common purpose of aligning curriculum to
common outcomes and learning/performance goals (e.g. Common Core Standards, Talent Develop Capability Model).

6.4.4 [Link]
Representing and Mapping Curriculum
Curriculum design can be a complex process that includes many different forms of data, information, and goals. On a practical
level, curriculum designers often use forms of representations or diagrams to help manage the complexity and decision-making
processes. Curriculum representations provide a method for communicating and collaborating with others during the curriculum
design process. This often includes representing plans for how curriculum will be organized and made available to the learner.
When mapping curriculum, there are several major and interdependent variables of curriculum that can be important to visualize.
These variables are referred to as design “layers” (Gibbons, 2014). While there can be many different aspects important to
represent in curriculum design processes, the following list outlines major considerations, or design variables.
Outcomes—the intended learning or performance result from the curriculum
Content—the topics or information included in the curriculum
Instructional Strategies—how the curriculum is organized, structured, and/or presented to achieve a defined result
Technology—the digital or analog tools used to support the curriculum delivery, development, or assessment
Data—how metrics and data elements are captured, organized, stored, and represented
Media—the physical or digital assets used to present curriculum to the learner
Policy—the guiding principles, rules, or regulations that frame the design of the curriculum
These “layers” represent the essential variables that effective curriculum designers consider when working on curriculum projects
and initiatives. Each of these layers are interdependent and should be considered in concert with one another and not independently.
For example, both outcomes and content should align to ensure the content being presented supports learners as they work towards
achieving specified learning outcomes.
In the process of designing curriculum layers, curriculum designers often use representation tools and methods to organize ideas
and communicate this information to stakeholders. While there are many different approaches to representing curriculum, the
following list highlights common frameworks used in the curriculum design field.
“The Canvas.” Canvas tools are analog or digital documents that organize various elements of curriculum design decisions in a
single visual field. The purpose of curriculum canvas documents is to provide a structured way of organizing ideas at a
conceptual level and establishing a common vision for the curriculum. Canvas tools are often used to support collaboration and
brainstorming processes; however, they can also be used as a way to organize individual ideas and communicate those to others
in structured ways.

6.4.5 [Link]
 Figure 6.4.5: Conceptual illustration of a Canvas Curriculum Planning Tool
Visit [Link] for an example of a canvas-based curriculum design tool. The following video explains the
elements of the Learning Experience Canvas.

Elements of the Learning Experience Canvas

Elements of the Learning Experience

Shapers

Watch on

“The Lesson Plan.” Lesson plans are one of the most common forms of curriculum representations across various education and
training contexts. There are many, many different formats and approaches to creating curriculum lesson plans. These can range
from simple outlines, to structured documents that represent many elements of curriculum including learning outcomes,
instructional sequence, facilitator prompts, time markers, and teaching notes. How a lesson plan should be created is largely
dependent on the intended uses and audiences for the documents.

6.4.6 [Link]
 Figure 6.4.6: Conceptual Illustration of a Lesson Plan
Visit [Link] for example lesson plan formats.
“The Curriculum Matrix.” Curriculum matrices are documents that represent relationships and alignment between key variables
in the curriculum. This representation is often presented as crosstabulation tables that have one variable across the top row and
another down the left column. Next, relationship indicators are placed in the interesting cells to show a relationship between the
two variable elements. A curriculum matrix representation is commonly used to show how learning outcomes are represented
across courses or units in the curriculum.

6.4.7 [Link]
 Figure 6.4.7: Conceptual Illustration of a Curriculum Matrix
Visit [Link] for an example curriculum matrix.
“The Blueprint.” Blueprint-style curriculum representations integrate a number of design variables in a single diagram, or
“blueprint.” The primary purpose of this type of representation is to create documentation that can be used to develop and
implement curriculum. Blueprint representations often contain instructional elements organized in segments and sequences as
well as production notes to guide how the curriculum should be developed and/or implemented. They often also represent
relationships between the various curriculum elements. For example, a blueprint may note that a learner must complete a certain
set of exercises successfully at a given mastery level before progressing to the next set of exercises. The blueprint represents the
curriculum design strategy in an actionable format.

6.4.8 [Link]
 Figure 6.4.8: Conceptual Illustration of a Blueprint Curriculum Diagram
Visit [Link] for an example curriculum blueprint.

Comparing and Selecting Curriculum Mapping Tools

Selecting the most appropriate curriculum mapping method is often determined based on the current phase and goals of the
curriculum design process. The following table compares the curriculum mapping tools discussed in this chapter and presents
selection considerations.
Table 1
Comparison of Curriculum Mapping Tools

Canvas Lesson Plan Matrix Blueprint

Use to align curriculum to

Use early in the design Use to plan the sequence
Use to plan and facilitate outcomes
Uses process for brainstorming and arrangement of
specific lessons Use for assessment of learning
and ideation curriculum
outcomes

Encourage group Common format for many Clearly shows alignment Visually shows curriculum
Pros collaboration and professionals in education between curriculum and elements, flows, and
interaction and training outcomes sequence.

Some may see lesson plan as Some matrix documents can be Blueprints can be visually
Can lack specifics needed
Cons limiting creativity or very complex which may limit complex and unfamiliar for
to implement curriculum
adaptability of curriculum their application in practice some audiences.

Learning Environment Modeling™—A Method for Creating Curriculum Blueprints

A particularly critical challenge faced by many curriculum designers is the lack of a generally accepted design language and system
in the field (Gibbons, 2014). For example, many design professions have a language to represent their work so that the audience
versed in the language can easily understand and build from their work. Architects, engineers, and software programmers are all
examples of professionals that use design languages to communicate ideas.

6.4.9 [Link]
Learning Environment Modeling™ was created to advance a solution to the absence of a shared design language for curriculum
and instructional design. At the core of Learning Environment Modeling™ is a language that represents five “building blocks” of
curriculum, four learning contexts, three transitional actions, and two standard notations. These language elements are combined
together in a blueprint that shows how the curriculum is to be organized and implemented.
Visit [Link] to learn more about Learning Environment Modeling™ and how it can be used to design
curriculum.
Over the previous several years, a number of digital platforms have become available on the market to manage curriculum design
processes. While these platforms vary in strategy, most seek to increase efficiency and provide a common digital hub for managing
information and communication about curriculum processes. These platforms are currently distinct from content authoring tools
used for creating materials, in that they focus solely on the curriculum organization and design, rather than content development
and delivery. In addition to standalone curriculum design platforms, many learning management systems are incorporating similar
features as part of their capabilities.
Examples of Curriculum Design Platforms
Coursetune
eLumens
Synapes
Examples of Learning Management Systems with Integrated Curriculum Design Capabilities
Moodle
Canvas
Brightspace by D2L
Blackboard

Innovation Considerations for Curriculum Design Processes

As innovations in learning design and technology are created and scaled, curriculum design processes must adapt to ensure these
methods remain grounded in effective learning practices. This section discusses several innovation trends and their possible
implications on curriculum design processes.
One of the foundational innovations influencing curriculum design processes is a shift from individual-focused design to team-
based curriculum design. Curriculum design is becoming more and more a “team sport” where people from diverse backgrounds,
professions, and areas of expertise work together to create curriculum. The increasing influence of technology continues to not only
incorporate new backgrounds (e.g. technologists), but also allows people from all around the world to collaborate on curriculum
more efficiently. Successful curriculum design professionals are master facilitators across different types of contexts and through
the effective use of collaborative technologies.
In addition to curriculum design becoming more collaborative, it is also becoming a more strategic and holistic activity.
Traditionally curriculum was viewed like a product that was self-contained and independent. As such, curriculum design processes
mirrored product development cycles and approaches. As organizations, learning needs, and technologies change, curriculum
design is moving more towards a holistic perspective of learning environment design. This mindset goes beyond curriculum as a
product, and more about designing the collective spaces and places where people learn at a strategic level. While this may seem
like semantics at first, the implications for how curriculum is designed and connected with other elements in a learning
environment is profound.
Moving from curriculum design to learning environment design requires a systems thinking perspective that involves not only
designing elements in the learning environment, but also designing how those elements interact together. A good example of this is
the emergence of blended learning as a common instructional practice. Blended learning is the combination of classroom and
digital learning experience in a unified strategy. Curriculum designers must not only be considered with the design of classroom
curriculum and digital curriculum, but also how they interact together in a unified learning environment.
The broad adoption of mobile devices have also caused innovations in curriculum design. For example, designing curriculum that
is responsive across different types of devices with different screen sizes is a basic innovation influencing the field. In addition,

6.4.10 [Link]
designing curriculum for other mobile device features such as geo-positioning, imaging, and content creation capabilities offer
exciting and often challenging situations. Many modern mobile devices now have immersive virtual space capabilities such as
virtual reality and augmented reality. These capabilities highlight the need for new curriculum design approaches that have not
traditionally been required. Mobile and extended reality learning capabilities will continue to be a major consideration for
tomorrow’s curriculum designers.
In addition to collaborative design processes, mobile learning, and extended reality innovations, one of the more profound
innovations influencing curriculum design processes is adaptive learning. Adaptive learning is a general concept that describes the
process of providing learners with dynamic learning experiences based on their prior performance (Educause, 2017). This is
commonly used for recommending remediated learning experiences and encouraging peak learning performance. The reason
adaptive learning is such a profound innovation for curriculum design processes is because it introduces the dynamic layers that
have not traditionally been used. For example, a curriculum designer would create a defined path for learners to follow based on
assumptions and requirements set forth in the design process. Adaptive learning shifts this decision making to programmatic
algorithms or a more complex map of learning experience options. This requires curriculum designers to think and make design
decisions about much more complex and dynamic learning environments.

Conclusion
Curriculum design processes are essential to effective learning experiences across education and professional contexts. Without
effective curriculum design processes, learners often lack the structure and guidance necessary for optimal learning and
organizations lack the ability to effectively measure results and optimize their return on investments. While we have all
experienced curriculum, the process of designing curriculum is changing, becoming more complex, and incorporating new
technologies and strategies. One of the most profound shifts is expanding the scope of curriculum design to consider how
curriculum connects to broader and more networked learning environments. Curriculum design is an essential skill for emerging
education and learning professionals and will continue to be a dynamic, innovative, and exciting field of practice for years to come.

References
American Educational Research Association (n.d.). Learning Environments SIG 120. Retrieved from [Link]
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York, NY: Longmans,
Green.
Burning Glass (2019). Program Insights [Electronic Database]. Retrieved from [Link]
Educause (2017). Seven Things You Should Know About Adaptive Learning. Retrieved from [Link]
Gibbons, A. S. (2014). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design.

This page titled 6.4: Curriculum Design Processes is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

6.4.11 [Link]
6.5: Agile Design Processes And Project Management

Agile Design Processes and Project Management

Theresa A. Cullen
Due to the changes in and flexibility of computing today, software engineering and instructional design have made major changes
in their approach to development. This evolution to a knowledge economy required processes to change from approaches where
planning and communication happen up front to more agile processes where projects are completed in smaller chunks with greater
communication between team members and clients. Adopting these agile processes may enable instructional designers to create
more flexible designs that better meet the needs of clients and allow for greater collaboration with others involved in the
development process (e.g., UX designers, programmers, media production).

What is Agile Development?

Agile development has its roots in a document written by 17 people at a retreat in 2001, when a group of software developers met
together to decide how projects should be approached. They were frustrated by static lists of tasks that were developed early in
projects that could not easily be changed, creating a process that lacked flexibility and feedback. This kind of static list was known
within the industry as “Waterfall,” referring to the slow trickle of development that happens from a prescribed list of designs (Nyce,
2017). The group had championed different approaches during their extensive careers, but it was not until they came together in
2001 that they laid the groundwork that would change how many products were designed. They agreed that good programming and
design had 12 key principles. As agile processes have been adopted by other fields such as business, education, health care, finance,
and marketing (Oprins et al., 2019), the foundation of the approach has been based on these 12 principles, which make up the Agile
Manifesto (Beck et al., 2001):
1. Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.
2. Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive
advantage.
3. Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.
4. Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.
5. Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need and trust them to get the job
done.
6. The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face
conversation.
7. Working software is the primary measure of progress. Agile processes promote sustainable development.
8. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.
9. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.
10. Simplicity—the art of maximizing the amount of work not done—is essential.
11. The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.
12. At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

6.5.1 [Link]
Summary of the 4 Values of the Agile Manifesto

The 4 Values of Agile Manifesto Exp

upGrad KnowledgeHut

Watch on

Agile has become a generic term for processes that adhere to the agile principles laid out in this Agile Manifesto, much like ADDIE
is a basic process for instructional design or design thinking is a generic process for approaching design projects. For example,
there are different instructional design approaches (e.g., Dick and Carey; Morrison, Ross, Kemp, and Kalman; and Smith and
Regan), but they all include basic principles such as needs analysis and evaluation. The same is true of agile processes, as there are
different approaches to realize the key components of the agile manifesto in practice.
One of the most prevalent agile approaches is called Scrum, which is used by businesses both in software engineering and other
areas. The value of Scrum is that it has clear roles for different individuals and a variety of agile processes used in design. Even as
agile processes are repackaged in a variety of products (Scrum, Adaptive Project Development [ADP], Kanban, etc.) they all adhere
to these 12 principles that define agile development (Portman, 2019). Key components present in all products include constant
communication with the client, support for the development team, a focus on deliverables that are fast enough to produce forward
motion, and a focus on developing a reliable and robust product.

Review of Agile Principles

What is Agile?
Mark Shead

Watch on

To examine designing through an agile framework, let’s look at some key components of Scrum. Scrum is defined as “a framework
within which people can address complex adaptive problems, while productively and creatively delivering products of the highest
possible value.” (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017). The Scrum processes and roles defined in Table 1 support agile processes in
practice.
Table 1

6.5.2 [Link]
 Key Terms Related to Scrum Processes

A list of tasks that need to be completed as part of the project. This list is prioritized by team members at the
Backlog beginning of each sprint. The backlog allows the team to communicate priorities with a client and accurately
predict the timeline of a project.

A short interval of time (often two weeks) where the team decides on a set of backlog tasks to achieve as a
Sprint team. An example sprint dashboard, representing the backlog and completed items on a project, is shown in
Figure 1. An example sprint team is shown in Figure 2.

As in all agile processes, reflection is an important part of Scrum. At the end of each sprint, the Scrum team
Sprint
takes time to review how the processes went and make plans to improve processes in the future. They ask
Retrospective
questions like, “What did we do well and what should continue?” or “What could we improve?”.

A daily meeting that is designed to last 15 minutes or less to update the team on accomplishments, problems,
and status. It is called a stand up because it is meant to be kept short by having everyone stand during the
Stand Up
meeting. During the meeting, team members ask questions like, “What did I do yesterday?”, “Am I blocked by
anything?”, or “What do I plan to do today?”.

The person managing the Scrum team who makes sure that all team members are getting the resources they
Scrum Master
need and adhering to the team plan.

Definition of This is an agreed-upon level of fidelity for product production in each sprint. The team must agree what is the
Done expectation of each team member’s work.

This is the person who is responsible for the backlog. They work to develop an accurate timeline and keep the
Product Owner
project on track. The Product Owner cannot be the Scrum Master.

All of the people involved with the design of the product. This could include developers, UX designers, QA,
Scrum Team
and instructional designers, given the project. Different sprints could have different team members.

Scrum Basics and Roles

Scrum 101 - Part 1 - Scrum Basics | S

Agile Training Videos

Watch on

6.5.3 [Link]
 Figure 6.5.1: Example Sprint Dashboard
Note. "Sprint dashboard" by Tiendq is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Figure 6.5.2: Example Sprint Team

Note. "The Agile PM Game (Aug '11)" by VFS Digital Design is licensed under CC BY 2.0

6.5.4 [Link]
Need for Agile Processes in Instructional Design
By nature of their work, instructional designers (IDs) collaborate with diverse groups such as UX designers, programmers, media
creators, and a variety of subject matter experts. It is to be expected that instructional design processes may be influenced by those
other fields and IDs may even be required to use processes from other disciplines such as programming. One problem that many
teams find is the need for quick results and to maintain good communication with a client throughout the design process. Adnan
and Ritzhaupt (2018) summarized the criticism that traditional instructional design approaches like ADDIE are not flexible and are
less able to produce dynamic projects—especially those that require flexibility and updating. The flexibility of an agile approach
allows for both speed of design, but also better repurposing and tailoring for different design problems. Being knowledgeable about
agile processes in both instructional design and other fields will enable better team collaboration and client communication (Oprins
et al., 2019).
Fernandez and Fernandez (2006) examined agile versus traditional approaches to project management. In a traditional approach,
instructional designers may meet with a client at the beginning of a process, and then create designs, only to unveil them when the
project is done. They found that these traditional or waterfall approaches did not meet the needs of the fast-changing markets and
the need to have products available quickly to stay competitive. They found that business practices were changing towards shared
responsibility and team collaboration. Leaders were no longer in charge of projects, but instead they were in charge of teams that
have different skills but were all committed to making the client’s project a reality. Agile is a mindset above all else that includes
shared responsibility and design, regular client communication, and embracing change throughout the process.
While an agile approach is different from traditional instructional design approaches, our field has a history of flexible design
approaches too. The most notable was rapid prototyping, proposed by Tripp and Bichelmeyer in 1990. Rapid prototyping comes
from software engineering’s approach to design where they create prototypes, test them, and then quickly revise them based on the
results. Tripp and Bichelmeyer (1990) argued that instructional problems cannot be defined fully at one time and therefore a new
flexible approach would allow for more adaptability and response to deep learning issues that become apparent through the design
process.
There are many similarities between rapid prototyping discussed in 1990 and agile processes now, specifically, the focus on the
product and being open to change in design through regular communication with clients. That is not to say that most instructional
designers do not communicate with clients regularly, but rather that choosing an agile approach places the client at the forefront
while still not conflicting with key components of the instructional design process like establishing need, breaking down learning
processes, and designing effective evaluation.
Now that you have some of the terminology and history, let’s compare traditional instructional design approaches to agile
approaches in Table 2. Using the ADDIE acronym to compare how each method approaches important tasks in designing effective
instruction allows us to see that both approaches deal with the same information and issues and both can produce effective
instruction.
Table 2

6.5.5 [Link]
 Comparison of Traditional Instructional Design to Agile Processes

Task Traditional Instructional Design Agile Processes

Utilizes a single or a few major delivery

Client Relies on delivery points to the client in short time intervals (often
points and feedback points with the
Involvement 2 weeks). Focuses on constant iterations.
client.

Perform needs and task analysis at the Generates user stories throughout the process to illustrate needs
Analysis beginning of the design process. which are revisited at the beginning of each sprint. Emphasizes
Emphasizes depth. speed.

Communicates overall design by

Communicates overall design by creating a backlog of tasks that
producing design documentation at the
Design the development team chooses from to set goals for each sprint.
beginning of the process that is used
Design is revisited at the end of each sprint.
throughout the entire process.

Produces large parts of a project at once

Produces small components of content throughout the process
based on learning objectives or content
Development focused on delivery to address items in the backlog. Emphasizes
topics. Emphasizes producing a
forward movement on content development.
complete learning unit.

Releases completed components at the end of each sprint. In a web

Implements a complete project or or app-based design, the team can “push out” parts of the project
Implementation complete module with all parts of regularly. The release may not produce a complete product at every
instruction and assessment complete. update, but instead focuses on continual improvement of released
content.

Engaged in constant evaluation due to the retrospective process at

Evaluated as a complete unit with the end of each sprint. Project is constantly going through feedback
Evaluation
feedback from users and clients. loops and adjusting based on client and updated user stories at each
sprint.

An Example of Scrum in Practice

At a university where I worked, our Information Technology department used Scrum processes to manage large projects. The
department set out to redesign the student and faculty portal. They started by having focus groups of faculty and students about
how they used the existing tools and what they thought was missing. This would be very similar to learner and needs analysis
processes in instructional design. The team used these focus groups to create user stories. Each user story highlighted a different
stakeholder and what they needed from the product they were designing. Then, the Product Owner took that feedback and created a
backlog of tasks with different priorities that had to be completed (see Figure 3 for an example backlog). They created these with
input from all members of the team with a goal of forward movement and the ability to release improved functionality at regular
intervals.
For example, in this project, the first sprints focused on interface design. Members of the sprint team included people from
marketing and web design to make sure that the overall look matched the brand and other components used by faculty and students.
After several sprints to design the look, the product owner moved people down the list of priorities to begin to design the
functionality. Not all tools were redesigned at once. In fact, the Scrum team decided to focus on student tools first like enrollment
and financial services. About halfway through the year-long project, members of the Scrum team visited faculty and student
meetings to ask for input on what they had designed so far. They announced that it would be several months until faculty functions
would be the priority in the backlog and continued to refine student functions based on feedback.
Throughout the process, the Scrum team published new tools and functions in the portal and had students and faculty start using
them. They gained feedback, reflected on what they had already designed and changed their priorities and the product moving

6.5.6 [Link]
forward. Redesigning an entire university records and communication portal is a major undertaking, but by using Scrum processes
the team was able to show results and continue to tailor their product to their stakeholders. They were also able to push out
different usable products throughout the year without waiting for the entire project to be finished.

Figure 6.5.3: Example Backlog for the Portal Project

Conclusion
Following more agile processes can be a choice by an instructional designer, or it can be part of a company’s culture. Agile
processes are not at conflict with good practices in instructional design. In fact, steps like creating a backlog that prioritize features,
gaining customer feedback on designs during the process, and being reflective is good practice. Taking an agile approach to
instructional design can benefit the team dynamic and instructional product. The team dynamic is improved through improved
client communication, flexibility, and creating components that could be better reused in other projects with similar user stories.
Tripp and colleagues (2016) found that a workplace that embraces agile processes could increase job satisfaction among its
employees. Fernandez and Fernandez (2006) found that agile made projects more adaptable and able to produce products faster.
Oprins and colleagues (2019) point out having an agile approach emphasizes the importance of people in an organization, builds
empathy, and guards against automation. Agile processes, when followed, can improve team communication and keep team
members from pursuing dead ends or wasting important time because all of the team were not “on the same page.”

There are also downsides to following agile processes. Regular communication with team members and clients takes time and can
slow down some aspects of design. Since agile processes are designed to always be flexible, it can be frustrating to live in constant
change, even if it produces a better product. For many, following agile processes requires a change in approach and communication
style which can be difficult. Finally, agile is a buzzword: There are many companies that say that they use agile processes but do
not have trained individuals, necessary resources for team members, and do not embrace the agile mindset. This kind of workplace
can be incredibly frustrating because it can produce unpredictable results. Agile processes take commitment from all stakeholders
and the leaders of an organization or company.

Next Steps
Instructional designers have many opportunities to become more knowledgeable of agile processes.
First, there are many resources available about agile processes and thought processes available online. In addition to the Agile
Manifesto itself, many Scrum professionals start with the Scrum guide ([Link] to learn about agile
processes in practice.

6.5.7 [Link]
Second, talk to people working in the industry. Reach out to alumni from your instructional design program and ask them about the
project management processes that they use.
Third, for those interested in pursuing an agile philosophy further, consider pursuing a professional certification as a Scrum Master
([Link] The certification can be earned after taking a short workshop about agile processes and then passing
an exam. The workshops can range from $1000 to $5000, but the training produces a certification that can be included on a resume
or LinkedIn profile.

Takeaways
As an instructional designer, you will work with a variety of teams within a company (instructional designers, content experts,
trainers, HR, etc.). Understanding different ways that projects are managed within a company not only makes you more valuable
within the organization, a better team member, but also helps you to be more flexible to your approach to instructional problems.
Many companies that have adopted this approach would value instructional designers who are both aware of and have practiced
agile approaches to be able meet the changing needs of the organization and its clients. If this is the way that you enjoy working,
then become more knowledgeable on agile processes and look for a company that clearly integrates it into their culture.

Links and Resources

Scrum Guide (A good place to start)
[Link]
Scrum Alliance ([Link]
Agile Instructional Design Course on LinkedIn Learning [Link]

Agile Activities
Following are six activities designed to help you think critically about agile processes:
1. (A collaborative slides version of this activity is available view only at [Link] To be able to edit, choose make
a copy from the file menu, then save it to your own Google Drive.)
An instructional design project on training about workplace bullying was handed to a team that had been designed in a traditional
way. The new team uses agile processes. How could they break down this project into smaller chunks (aka create a backlog) to
allow for prioritizing parts of the task and providing logical places to stop and receive feedback from the client throughout the
process?
The tasks developed by the traditional team included:
Explain terminology: bullying, bystander, and victim.
Outline the roles that each individual takes in a bullying incident.
Outline what employees should do if they witness bullying.
Outline what employees should do if they experience bullying.
Create a design for the look of the materials to create consistency between a face to face and online learning module.
Create a list of resources available for additional information and training.
Outline the company policies on bullying.
Outline the processes for reporting bullying.
Create example stories or cases with different perspectives (bully, bystander, and victim).
Develop face-to-face workshop that will last 90 minutes.
Develop an online tutorial that can be used to document compliance.
Develop discussion questions for in person training.
Develop quiz questions for an online module which can be recorded for compliance.
Create a video with a bullying scenario from the workplace for in person training.
Create a video with a bullying scenario for the online training.
Develop a script and support materials for a face-to-face facilitator.

6.5.8 [Link]
After breaking up the task into smaller groups, then plan the backlog. Many companies use a table design to show the progression
of a project. Assign priorities to the groups you created above and explain why you arranged them that way.

In Progress Soon Future Completed

Did the original team forget any task they might need? What were the tasks? How does this agile process help to refine the project
and identify gaps?
2. You are designing a remote learning activity to be used by a teacher for a middle school classroom. Create a user story for the
stakeholders involved. Think about parent, student, teacher, and curriculum coach. Explain what their needs may be and think
about how your design may need to incorporate those needs.
3. Agile teams have been shown to be more effective than traditional teams. Why do you think this is the case?
4. Explain how agile processes value the relationship with the client.
5. At the end of a sprint, an agile team takes time to do a retrospective before starting the next group of tasks. How does scheduling
time to reflect on a project in process increase efficiency when designing?
6. Read over the agile manifesto. Give examples of how it honors collaboration and the value of stakeholders.

References
Adnan, N.H. & Ritzhaupt, A.D. (2018). Software engineering design principles applied to instructional design: What can we learn
from our sister discipline? TechTrends, 62, 77–94. DOI: 10.1007/s11528-017-0238-5
Agile Manifesto (2019) Agile Manifesto retrieved from [Link]
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., ... & Kern, J. (2001). Manifesto for agile
software development.
Budoya, C.M., Kissake, M.M., & Mtebe, J.S. (2019). Instructional design enabled agile method using ADDIE model and feature
driven development method. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication
Technology, 15(1), 35–54.
Fernandez D.J & Fernandez J.D. (2008) Agile project management—agilism versus traditional approaches, Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 49:2, 10–17, DOI: 10.1080/08874417.2009.11646044
Monteiro, C. V., da Silva, F. Q., dos Santos, I. R., Farias, F., Cardozo, E. S., do A. Leitão, A. R., Neto, D.N.& Pernambuco Filho,
M. J. (2011, May). A qualitative study of the determinants of self-managing team effectiveness in a scrum team. In Proceedings of
the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (pp. 16–23).
Nyce, C. M. (2017, December 8). Agile software development: A history. The Atlantic. Retrieved from:
[Link]
Oprins, R. J., Frijns, H. A., & Stettina, C. J. (2019, May). Evolution of scrum transcending business domains and the future of agile
project management. In International Conference on Agile Software Development (pp. 244–259). Springer, Cham.
Portman, H. (2019). A project manager’s guide to agile methodologies. Retrieved from:
[Link]
Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.
Tripp, J. F., Riemenschneider, C., & Thatcher, J. B. (2016). Job satisfaction in agile development teams: Agile development as
work redesign. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(4), 1.

6.5.9 [Link]
Sutherland, J., & Schwaber, K. (2013). The scrum guide. The definitive guide to scrum: The rules of the game. [Link], 268.
Retrieved from: [Link]
Willeke, M. H. (2011, August). Agile in academics: applying agile to instructional design. In 2011 Agile Conference (pp. 246–251).
[Link]: 10.1109/AGILE.2011.17.

This page titled 6.5: Agile Design Processes And Project Management is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

6.5.10 [Link]
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

7: Designing Instructional Activities

7.1: Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Experiences
7.2: Designing Instructional Text
7.3: Audio And Video Production For Instructional Design Professionals
7.4: Using Visual And Graphic Elements While Designing Instructional Activities
7.5: Simulations And Games
7.6: Designing Informal Learning Environments
7.7: The Design Of Holistic Learning Environments
7.8: Measuring Student Learning

This page titled 7: Designing Instructional Activities is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1
7.1: Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Experiences

Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Experiences

Bohdana Allman & Richard E. West
The field of instructional/learning design has at times been conflicted about the role of technology in helping students learn (see the
classic debate between Richard Clark and Robert Kozma in the “media debate” of the early 1990s—Clark, 1994; Kozma, 1994).
While this debate effectively moved the field away from considering digital technologies as the primary variable affecting student
learning, these technologies still play an important role in how we learn about, design for, and evaluate learners. In the 21st
Century, as networked technologies undergird nearly all human activities, it is nearly impossible to conceive of most instructional
situations being devoid of technology entirely.
Indeed, technology may be considered an important layer in most instructional systems, similar to how architectural buildings
comprise various layers from the framing to the electrical to (nowadays) the technological. Gibbons (2014) articulated this layered
approach to instructional design, arguing that just as multiple layers work together to support the purpose of the building, various
design layers must similarly work together within instructional products. As we attend to different elements within instructional
design layers, we should consider the content, purposes, and instructional strategies as well as how the instruction is represented
and controlled through available technology tools. This enables us to design more effective and purposeful instructional solutions
and promote powerful learning experiences.
In this chapter, we attempt to provide suggestions for making instructional design decisions that utilize available digital
technologies effectively. We will begin by discussing what instructional technologies are, and how we can incorporate them into
our designs. We will review design layers that are particularly relevant when using technology to design instruction and discuss the
importance of analyzing the technology’s affordances and matching them to the underlying pedagogical purposes. We will include
a discussion about utilizing different models to focus the technology choices on student learning. We then conclude with some
challenges to be aware of when integrating technologies into our designs.

What Is an Instructional Technology?

The field of learning and instructional design considers “technology” to be any tool that extends human capability or assists us in
achieving a desired learning outcome. In this definition, the technology or tool does not need to be digital. Experts in the field of
educational technology often adopt the terms “hard” and “soft” technologies. In this dichotomy, hard technologies refer to
machine-based or digital technologies, such as a computer or a web-enabled app, while soft technologies are human-driven
processes, methods, and theories that similarly extend or improve our abilities to teach or learn. As an example, in the second
edition of the Handbook of Educational Communication Technology, (Jonassen, 2004), there was a section for chapters on “hard”
technologies, such as television, virtual reality, and internet-based learning, and a separate section for “soft” technologies such as
programmed instruction and game-based learning.
Many of the chapters in this textbook are, in fact, discussing “soft” technologies to support designing instruction (see particularly
the sections on instructional design knowledge and processes). However, this dichotomy is becoming less relevant, as hard and soft
technologies are increasingly considered simply “strategies” for influencing learning and typically involve some combination of
process, pedagogy, and digital tools. Our chapter continues to merge these ideas together by discussing “hard” digital technologies
specifically, but with strong consideration for their pedagogical fit.

How Can Instructional Technologies Influence Learning?

As mentioned above, technologies are tools that extend human capability, including learning. In the past, educators and
instructional designers viewed technologies as primarily hard technologies, a medium to learn from. This view was associated with
the teacher-centered instruction or transmission model of education and associated theories. The focus was typically on content
transmission, practice of basic skills through repetition, reinforcement of desired behaviors, and evaluation of how accurately the
learners could respond to pre-programmed questions. The technology may have allowed for some interaction with peers and
instructors, but mostly the learner individually interacted with the content in isolation. The learner’s role was to acquire provided
information and reproduce it for evaluation. The instructor’s primary roles were to manage the content and evaluate learners’ work.

7.1.1 [Link]
This perspective is still valuable for some tasks and types of instruction. However, alone, these types of activities have only limited
power in actively engaging learners in the meaning-making process necessary for successful learning and transferring knowledge to
new situations.
As an alternative, Jonassen (1996) envisioned instructional technologies as mindtools that students learn with, not from, requiring
attention to the underlying strategies for using the technology, i.e., soft technologies, in addition to the medium, i.e., hard
technologies. This perspective acknowledges that technologies do not directly mediate learning. Learning is mediated by thinking,
collaboration, and dialogue facilitated by a variety of tools. Technologies as mindtools support learners as they interpret and
organize their knowledge, engage in critical thinking about the content, and actively participate in knowledge construction.
Examples of such tools are semantic and conceptual maps (Hwang et al. 2011, visualization tools (Huang, 2020), microworlds and
simulations (Warren & Wakefield, 2013), and even emerging technologies such as robotics (Mikropoulos & Bellou, 2013).
Building on this idea of mindtools, and reflecting a general trend in education toward a learner-centered paradigm, the instructional
technology field began using technology to mediate meaningful learning experiences and to focus on supporting the learner and the
process of learning. Terms such as learning design and technology-mediated instruction reflect this shift in thinking. As Ertmer and
Ottenbreit-Leftwich (2013) explained, “technology integration is no longer an isolated goal to be achieved separately from
pedagogical goals, but simply the means by which students engage in relevant and meaningful interdisciplinary work” (p. 176).
Learning experiences are now designed with greater emphasis on our understanding of how people learn (Bransford et al., 2000).
Learners are viewed as active agents who bring their own knowledge, past experiences, and ideas into the learning process, which
impacts how they learn new information. As learners engage in the learning process, they construct and negotiate new meaning
individually and with others. The goal of learning is to gain new understanding, broaden perspective, and apply knowledge in
practice rather than to reproduce a specific set of facts. The instructor facilitates the interactions among peers to promote deeper
understanding and acts as a guide and a mentor rather than “a sage on the stage.”
In this approach, technologies are used more intentionally as tools that mediate learning in a variety of ways. In this chapter, we
will briefly discuss three powerful ways that technology can improve learning through (1) simulating authentic human activity, (2)
enhancing interaction among people, and (3) enriching the learning process.

Technologies Can Simulate Authentic Human Activity

Learning, and especially learning of complex professional skills, is optimal when it is contextualized and situated in real-life
experiences and authentic activities. Certain approaches use varied technology tools to mimic real-world situations to support
learning. For example, computer simulations and problem-based learning (PBL) use technology to create conditions that are similar
to real life and encourage the learner to gain new knowledge and skills through repeated practice and solving authentic
problems. Inquiry-based learning (IBL) encourages the learner to actively explore the material, ask questions, and discuss possible
solutions modeling the real-life process of examining issues and systematically looking for answers. Another similar
approach, project-based learning (PjBL) engages learners in authentic and complex projects, often developing a tangible product,
enabling learners to actively explore real-world problems and gain deeper knowledge and skills. In all these methods, technologies
can be used to create authentic or near-authentic problem-solving scenarios and simulations. Additionally, easier replication of
digital problem scenarios enables multiple practice opportunities, and using the actual technological tools of the discipline supports
learners as they develop professional skills to practice problem solving while in school.

Technologies Can Enhance Interactions

Digital technology has a tremendous potential to enable interactions and connections between people. Whereas individuals were
previously limited by space and time constraints, they can now interact through near ubiquitous access and connection to each
other. This has led to the development of several theories of digitally mediated social interaction, such as the Communities of
Inquiry framework. This theory describes learning as happening within a community where technology enables different types of
human presence:
social presence (the feeling of being connected and present with each other, for example through video or text discussions
designed for students and instructors to learn about each other),
cognitive presence (the feeling of being intellectually present in the community, growing and developing meaning through
interaction, for example through online question and answer sessions or group collaboration via shared documents), and

7.1.2 [Link]
 teaching presence (the feeling of being supported by a teacher designing and facilitating the interactions and content, for
example through well-designed online curriculum and opportunities for feedback).
Collaborativism (Online Collaborative Learning Theory) is another model of online learning that creates opportunities for
meaningful learning experiences through technology (Harasim, 2017). In this process-oriented model, collaborative technology
enables students to actively work together, create knowledge, and learn to use the language, analytical concepts, and activities of
the discipline while being supported by an experienced educator who helps them move through three stages. In stage 1 (Divergent
Thinking), students engage in discussions about a specific problem or a topic. They generate ideas, questions, responses, and
solutions based on their personal perspectives and experiences and share them in a group setting. During stage 2 (Idea Organizing),
conceptual changes and convergence of different ideas begin as students clarify, organize, and narrow down options through
reflection, analysis, and negotiation of ideas that were shared previously. During Stage 3 (Intellectual Convergence), the group is
actively engaged in the co-construction of knowledge. Everyone contributes as the group works on a joint knowledge product or
solution, which may later extend to an authentic application or be further refined through another collaborative learning cycle.

Technologies Can Enrich the Learning Process

Technologies have a powerful potential to enrich and transform the learning process in ways that may be difficult or impossible
without these tools. For example, online and collaborative technologies offer unique affordances that go beyond connecting
learners across time and space by enabling easy access to multiple perspectives from diverse populations and across the globe. The
asynchronous and recorded character of technology-mediated exchanges enables coherent organization of thoughts, clear and
authentic expression, and deep analysis and reflection, which in turn facilitates deeper learning and enhances theory-to-practice
connection. The opportunity to create multidimensional and multidisciplinary responses presents authentic evidence of a deeper
understanding that goes beyond “correct” answers. Technology also enhances participation opportunities for all types of learners,
not just for the traditional mainstream student. Those that may be timid, need more time, or are learning the language are
automatically provided with additional support to access the material and interactions in ways that meets their needs. Furthermore,
through its flexibility, technology provides access to learning for many non-traditional students as well as busy professionals who
may not be able to gain credentials or participate in ongoing professional development in more traditional ways.

How Should We Incorporate Technology In Our Designs?

Entire handbooks have been written about the topic of how to effectively design learning through the support of technologies (see,
for example, Bishop et al., 2020; Dillon, 2020; Mayer, 2014; and Stanley, 2013). This chapter cannot expound on all of these
theories and ideas, and truthfully, the path of an instructional/learning designer is one of continuous learning—particularly in the
area of instructional technologies because these technologies are continually evolving. However, we present two key ideas that will
guide you in making wise technology choices in your design work, namely: (1) align technology with pedagogy and (2) focus on
what students will do with the technology.

Principle 1: Align Technology with Pedagogy

The quality and accessibility of technology-mediated learning experiences is an issue of both technology and pedagogy. Whether
we design a single learning experience, a course, or a full program, strategic orchestration of desired results, assessments, and
instructional methods with intentional use of technology are essential. Understanding by Design (UbD) or Backward Design
(McTighe & Wiggins, 2005; see also Dodd, 2020, in this book) is a useful framework that helps designers align these essential
elements, focus on student learning, and attend to the underlying pedagogy. Rather than the content, materials, or tools dictating
what the student should learn, designers pinpoint the most important ideas, knowledge, and skills that the students should learn, and
identify appropriate assessments and pedagogies for supporting student learning..

Pedagogy
Pedagogy refers to principles and practices guiding instructional action with a goal to support learning.
Recognizing that technology is a strategic tool encourages designers to deliberately align technology with underlying pedagogical
strategies. Any design can be visualized as having two main layers: a physical layer and a pedagogical layer (see Figure 1). Each
layer has distinct core attributes that make the design functional. Core attributes within the physical layer exemplify the surface
features of presentation and delivery of instruction and influence access and cost. The pedagogical layer core attributes represent

7.1.3 [Link]
the underlying pedagogical structures and strategies, enable learning to take place, and contribute to successful achievement of
learning outcomes (Graham et al., 2014). To increase the effectiveness of any instructional design, the layers and its core attributes
should be aligned during the design and development process.

Figure 7.1.1: A Visual Representation of Two Design Layers From Graham, et al. (2014).
Allman and Leary (2020) studied the process and identified a set of core attributes within the pedagogical layer that drive the two
design layers’ alignment. This set of attributes, so-called pedagogical intent, pivot around the learning event and encompass core
components, core methods, and core strategies (see Figure 2). As designers establish pedagogical intent related to a specific
learning event, it is easier to recognize technological affordances that may be needed and match them with available technological
tools. The alignment is achieved iteratively through purposefully utilizing available technology tools to fulfill the underlying
pedagogical intent requirements.

7.1.4 [Link]
 Figure 7.1.2: Pedagogical Intent—A Set of Core Attributes Within the Pedagogical Design Layer.

Affordances
The concept of affordances represents what a specific technological tool can do, as well as, “afford” the user, a designer, a teacher,
or a learner, to do. Affordances are determined by the properties of the tool but also by the capabilities of the user.
Although the choices of technological resources are important, it is the pedagogical purposes that should drive the form of
instructional design solutions. By allowing the function to guide the form through prioritizing pedagogical purposes and aligning
pedagogical and physical design layers, we can design more effective technology-mediated learning experiences and use current
technologies in innovative ways.

Principle 2: Identify What Students Will Do With the Technology

In the discipline of instructional/educational technology, researchers have developed many different models for describing how
teachers can integrate technology into their teaching. Most of these models focus on how teachers utilize technology. See, for
example, the following:
The TPACK model, which focuses on teacher technological pedagogical content knowledge (Koehler and Mishra, 2009);
The SAMR model, which focuses on how teachers can use technological strategies to substitute, augment, modify, or redefine
their current pedagogical practices (Hamilton et al., 2016);
The RAT model, which similarly categorizes technology decisions according to whether the technology replaces, amplifies, or
transforms the teachers’ existing teaching practices;
The LoTI model, which depicted seven levels of technology use by teachers in the classroom (Moersch, 1995).
While these models can be helpful in teacher preparation programs, they perpetuate a teacher-centric approach to technology use,
often ignoring the learner’s experience.
PICRAT. However, a new model has been proposed that builds off of the common SAMR/RAT approaches, but turns the emphasis
away from what the teacher does with the technology and toward how the student utilizes the technology (Kimmons et al., 2020).
In this model, called PICRAT, designers still consider how to use technology to replace, amplify, and transform the learning; but in
addition, designers consider what the student is doing as part of the activity: is the student’s learning passive, active, or creative?

7.1.5 [Link]
The PICRAT model does not dictate that all good instruction must be transformative or that students must be creative while using
the technology. However, it does help teachers and designers to diagnose how often they incorporate activities in each of the
squares, and whether they are overusing some strategies to the detriment of others. For example, we often find that
designers/teachers overuse technology to replace passive forms of learning (e.g. viewing a lecture, reading a textbook) and PICRAT
can stimulate thinking about how to engage students more actively and creatively in their learning with technology.

Figure 7.1.3: PICRAT Model

PICRAT for Effective Technology Integration in Teaching

PICRAT for Effective Technology Inte

Royce Kimmons

Watch on

Challenges When Designing Learning With Technology

In this chapter, we have mostly proposed technology as a powerful asset for designers as they create effective learning, as long as
they first, focus on aligning the technology’s affordances with matching pedagogies; and second, focus on the students’ experiences
with the technology. By maintaining these two foci, technology can have a powerful influence on student learning. However,
research has provided several additional cautions. We highlight a few important ones here, but be aware that there are many more,
and technology, as would be the case with any tool or strategy, should be applied judiciously after careful learner/needs analysis.

Challenge #1: Technology Can Be Distracting

While technology can enhance learning, it can also easily distract from it. We are all familiar with overworked Powerpoint slides or
videos where the core message is lost amid spinning graphics, useless animations, distracting photos, or disconnected audio.
Richard Mayer, and his collaborators, have outlined key principles for designing effective educational multimedia in their
Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning, or CTML (Mayer, 1995). These principles are based on core cognitivist assumptions
and theories such as dual coding theory (Paivio, 1990) and information processing limits and activity (West et al., 2013). The core

7.1.6 [Link]
idea behind the theory is that of congruence—or that various media should work together, not at disarray, to solidify interpretation
of an idea and the development of appropriate mental schemas. More specifically, Mayer and Moreno (1998) identified 5 key
principles for designers:
1. Multiple Representation Principle: It is better to present an explanation in words and pictures than solely in words.
2. Contiguity Principle: When giving a multimedia explanation, present corresponding words and pictures contiguously rather
than separately.
3. Split-Attention Principle: When giving a multimedia explanation, present words as auditory narration rather than as visual on-
screen text.
4. Individual Differences Principle: The foregoing principles are more important for low-knowledge than high-knowledge
learners, and for high-spatial rather than low-spatial learners.
5. Coherence Principle: When giving a multimedia explanation, use few rather than many extraneous words and pictures.
The research on CTML is quite extensive with a great deal of applicability to designers, and you are encouraged to continue your
learning in this area by seeking out recent publications on this topic.

Challenge #2: Equity

Although technology has the potential to contribute to equity among learners, it is frequently a great source of inequality with
regards to access and usage. Technology is typically adopted faster and in more engaging and innovative ways in schools serving
affluent communities. Students in low-income schools may have comparable access to computers while at school but their access
to computers and reliable internet may be limited at home. Additionally, low-income schools frequently employ technology for
routine drills, content delivery, and in teacher-centered ways rather than facilitating access to knowledge and learning further
enlarging the digital divide (Reich, 2019; Warschauer et al., 2004).
Effective use of technology can remove barriers to learning. It can make content and materials more accessible, less culturally
biased, and less linguistically challenging. Technology can support educators to regularly assess their learners’ needs, promptly
respond to their progress, and provide tailored support based on those needs. In order for technology to promote a more equitable
learning environment, access to computers, tablets or devices and reliable fast internet connection must be ensured both at school
and at home. Next, attention needs to be paid to ongoing professional development and instructional coaching to support teachers,
particularly to understand how they can influence student equity.
However, change in teacher practice and effective technology integration occurs gradually. In order to create more equitable
learning environments and innovative uses of technology in their classrooms, teachers need to see multiple examples and have
opportunities to practice in their classrooms. Finally, to promote equity, it is imperative that we see beyond technology integration
and recognize the importance of using technology-generated data to better understand where learners are and monitor their progress
as well as utilize learner-centered educational approaches to promote authentic and meaningful learning experiences mediated by
technology.

Challenge #3: Media Centrism

The field of instructional design evolved in part from a foundation in educational media. Perhaps for this reason, there is sometimes
a bias towards overemphasizing technology in our designs. Throughout the history of our field, we see initial, frenzied excitement
over a new technology that eventually is born out to be not nearly as disruptive as originally envisioned (e.g. virtual reality, moocs,
interactive whiteboards, clickers, etc.).
Gibbons (2018) outlined succinctly a common pattern for new instructional designers, arguing they begin media centric, because
“The technology itself holds great attraction for new designers. They often construct their designs in the vocabulary of the medium
rather than seeing the medium as a . . . preferably invisible channel for learning interaction” (para. 3). According to Gibbons,
designers then evolve to focus on the instructional message, then the instructional strategy, before finally learning to design
according to an instructional model. “Model centering encourages the designer to think first in terms of the system and model
constructs that lie at the base of subject-matter knowledge. . . . Then to this base of design is added strategy, message, and media
constructs” (para 6).
Because of this inherent bias towards technology as the first solution, designers must practice discipline in not choosing the novel
technological choice first before fully analyzing its true affordances.

7.1.7 [Link]
Challenge #4: Time/Cost/Efficiency Tradeoffs
Technology is often expensive to integrate into a learning environment—particularly if it is a new technology and especially if
access must be provided for a large number of students to maintain equity. For example, the ability to teach mathematics to young
children using virtual manipulatives using proprietary software on expensive tablets may be superior for some learning objectives
to plastic, physical manipulatives. However, would the cost of buying and replacing the tablets be worth it? In addition, how much
time will it take to train teachers and students on the new software? How much instructional time will it take in the class period to
conduct the activity, including charging the devices, organizing them on the media cart, and retrieving them from students
afterwards?
In making decisions about integrating technology into learning environments, designers must not only analyze what decisions will
help people learn best, but also which decisions are most practical.

Conclusion
It is clear that technology plays a very important role in our discipline, as many academic programs include the word in the title of
their department. However, what technology designers use in the learning environments they create is less important than how they
use it. In this chapter, two key principles have been outlined for designing effective instruction with technology: First, match the
pedagogy to the technology’s affordances; and second, focus on what students will do with the technology, more so than the
teacher. Four challenges have also been outlined that are common when technoloy is used in design, and some suggestions have
been provided for confronting these challenges. Perhaps the most important idea is to remember digital technologies, like theories,
processes, and models, are tools—and tools are only as effective as the builder and the blueprints that will utilize the tools.

Application Exercise
Consider a time in your life when you needed to learn something difficult. Some examples might be fractions as a child, learning
another language, or learning a new routine at work. First, analyze what your needs were as a learner: what did you need to learn,
and what made it challenging? Second, describe what kind of technology could have helped you? What affordances of the
technology would have made it useful? Third, pick one of the challenges outlined in this chapter and discuss how an instructional
designer could have utilized the technology effectively while minimizing those challenges. For example, how could they have
reasonably provided equitable access? Or utilized CTML design principles?

References
Allman, B. & Leary, H. (2020). Aligning Pedagogy with Technology in Online Course Design [Manuscript submitted for
publication]. Instructional Psychology & Technology, Brigham Young University.
Bishop, M. J., Boling, E., Elen, J., & Svihla, V. (2020). Handbook of Research in Educational Communications and Technology
(5th Ed.). Springer.
Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks with learning technologies. Educational Media
International, 45(1), 3–15. [Link]
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn (Vol. 11). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.
Dillon, R. (2020). The digital gaming handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2013). Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen's vision of
authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education, 64, 175–182.
Gibbons, A. S. (2014). An architectural approach to instructional design. Routledge.
Gibbons, A. (2018). What and how do designers design? A theory of design structure and layers. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations
of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. EdTech Books. Retrieved from
[Link]
Graham, C. R., Henrie, C. R., & Gibbons, A. S. (2014). Developing models and theory for blended learning research. In A. G.
Picciano, C. D. Dziuban, & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (Volume 2), 2, 13–33.

7.1.8 [Link]
Routledge. [Link]
Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR)
model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441.
Harasim, L. (2017). Learning theory and online technologies (2nd ed.). New York:
Routledge. [Link]
Huang, Y. M. (2020). What drives students to continue using social mindtools? The perspectives of social support and social
influence. Computers in Human Behavior, 106447.
Hwang, G. J., Shi, Y. R., & Chu, H. C. (2011). A concept map approach to developing collaborative Mindtools for context‐aware
ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 778–789.
Jonassen, D. H. (1996). Computers in the classroom: Mindtools for critical thinking. Prentice-Hall, Inc..
Jonassen, D. H. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of research on Educational Communications and Technology (2nd edition). Mawah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kimmons, R. (2017). K-12 technology frameworks. Adapted from R. Kimmons (2016). K-12 technology integration. PressBooks.
In R. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. Retrieved from [Link]
Kimmons, R., Graham, C. R., & West, R. E. (2020). The PICRAT model for technology integration in teacher
preparation. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 176–198.
Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?. Contemporary Issues in
Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42(2), 7–19.
Mikropoulos, T. A., & Bellou, I. (2013). Educational robotics as mindtools. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 5–
14.
Moersch, C. (1995). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning
and Leading with Technology, 23, 40–42.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E. (1995). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 41, 31–48.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A cognitive theory of multimedia learning: Implications for design principles. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.
Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Reich, J. (2019). Teaching our way to digital equity. Educational Leadership, 76(5), 30–35.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.
Stanley, G. (2013). Language learning with technology: Ideas for integrating technology in the classroom. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Warren, S. J., & Wakefield, J. S. (2013). Simulations, games, and virtual worlds as mindtools. In Learning, Problem Solving, and
Mindtools (pp. 78–99). Routledge.
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M. & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital
divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562–588.
West, R. E., Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., & Song, L. (2013). Cognitive perspectives on online learning environments. Handbook of
Distance Education, 3, 125–141.
Wiggins, G., Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.

7.1.9 [Link]
This page titled 7.1: Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning Experiences is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed,
and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

7.1.10 [Link]
7.2: Designing Instructional Text

Designing Instructional Text

Shanali Govender & Tasneem Jaffer
The term “instructional text” has been widely used to describe a wide range of textual objects, from whole texts (such as textbooks,
manuals, guides and even narrative, reading scheme texts) to parts of a text. Historically, much of the research on instructional text
has been in relation to the linguistic construction of texts (Tarasov et al., 2015) and document design (Misanchuk, 1992). In this
chapter, we are going to narrow the focus substantially. This is not a chapter on how to write a didactic text, in other words, how to
convey subject-specific information in print texts or online. Instead, this chapter will focus on the often overlooked “instructional
text” that supports learning. Drawing on concepts from fields such as applied linguistics, graphic and multimedia design, and
diversity studies, we’re going to focus our attention on the kind of textual features that work alongside subject-specific content to
direct learners’ attention and action—instructional text.

What Does Instructional Text Do?

Instructional text is commonly found hiding inside other texts: in classroom conversation, in textbooks and learner guides, in
educator-produced material such as worksheets or assignment briefs, and on websites and course sites. We often do not really
notice instructional text unless it is badly written and disrupts the flow of the learning. Instructional text can play a number of roles
in face-to-face, print, and online learning contexts, including:
contributing to creating a learning environment,
outlining the structure of a learning experience,
directing learners’ attention to specific areas,
directing learners' actions and behaviours, and
creating links between different parts of a learning experience.
Issitt (2004) noted that when we are constructing instructional text for print media, we should pay careful attention to the
placement, construction, and design of these texts, and this is equally true for online and multimodal media, especially in
asynchronous formats.

Instructional Text: In the Classroom, in Print, and Online

While most educators pay careful attention to instructional text that conveys subject-specific content, less attention is given to
instructional text that supports the learning of content.
In face-to-face spaces, instructional text often happens in direct response to learners’ actions. Moving into an online or multimodal
context poses some new challenges and affordances for constructing instructional text. Poorly constructed instructional text in
online and multimedia forms can be very confusing for learners but well-constructed instructional text can also open the door to a
wonderful range of visual and verbal opportunities. So if you are an instructional designer, you need to think intentionally about the
different spaces where instruction is needed.

Towards a Theoretical Perspective

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Figure 1), developed almost 20 years ago, drew together the useful categories of
Social Presence, Cognitive Presence, and Teaching Presence to describe the “dynamics of an online educational experience” in
light of asynchronous, text-based group discussions (Garrison et al., 2010, p. 6).

7.2.1 [Link]
 Figure 7.2.1: Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework
This model remains useful today, and can be used to think about instructional text in print media, online text, and multimodal
media. While most educators’ focus tends to remain resolutely on cognitive presence, attention to social presence and teaching
presence when constructing successful instructional text can enhance learner satisfaction and strengthen a sense of community.
Social presence in an online learning experience can help participants to “identify with the community (e.g., course of study),
communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop interpersonal relationships by way of projecting their individual
personalities” (Garrison, 2009, p. 352). The specific textual choices that an educator makes in constructing instructional text will
either support the achievement of this aim or hamper it.

Principles for Constructing Instructional Text

Additional Information
Slides for Principles for constructing instructional text
Video for Principles for constructing instructional text
Whether you are constructing instructional text for written, online, multimodal contexts, there are a number of key principles that
you will need to bear in mind. These principles come from a wide variety of research fields, including perception studies in
psychology, user experience research, multimodal studies, and applied linguistics.

Principle 1: Simplify: Reduce Extraneous Load

Simplifying texts and producing ‘‘easy-to-read texts’’, or ‘‘plain language texts’’ is another way of thinking about reducing
extraneous load to produce texts that align with readers’ ability levels (Arfe et al., 2017). Extraneous load or processing refers to
any work that a learner might need to do that does not contribute to the learning goal or outcome (Mayer, 2019). Poorly written,
excessively complicated instructional text, or instructions that are only issued verbally can contribute to extraneous cognitive load.
Instructional text should
be short and direct

7.2.2 [Link]
 avoid jargon
highlight key actions
be easily “findable”
hyperlink where appropriate

Principle 2: Personalise: Connect Through Voice and Tone

Research suggests that belonging, achieved in part through affective connection, is a key predictor of learner success (Masika &
Jones, 2016; Trujillo & Tanner, 2017). In face-to-face classroom contexts, successful educators instinctively use body language and
tone of voice to create connection through conveying emotion. This is particularly true for minority learners (Meeuwisse et al.,
2010; Rahman, 2013) and in online learning spaces (Delahunty et al., 2014).
Instructional text, in print, online text, or multimodal texts, often suffers from an absence of emotional connection between the
writer and the reader (Issitt, 2004), failing to build belonging in support of learning. Instructional text is, however, an opportunity to
connect with learners on levels beyond the purely cognitive, enhancing learning through building connection, belonging and trust
(see Figure 2). The use of a human (as opposed to synthesized voice) and to “you” and “I” as opposed to third person pronouns or
more formal language are ways of building connections (Ginns et al., 2013).

Figure 7.2.2: Exemplar Email Showing Tone and Personalising Practices for Instructional Text
The text, highlighted in yellow above, points to some of the language choices made in an instructional text to build connection and
convey emotion. Not everyone will do this in the same ways based on factors such as the personality of the instructor, the age of
your learners, and the context in which you work; but for this educator, this is an authentic example of “voice” that seeks to
promote connection. In certain contexts, the use of emoticons, gifs, and memes might be an authentic and approachable way to
build connection.
The pervasiveness of recording devices in the form of cellphones, cameras, lecture recording, and live video conferencing
contribute to educators across the educational sector feeling increasingly under surveillance. In the context from which we are
writing, a research-intensive university in South Africa, staff are hyper-aware and often uncomfortable with being recorded. This
can result in both teaching and learning interactions and instructional text that is hyper-correct, hyper-formal and devoid of
personality and the opportunity for connection.

7.2.3 [Link]
Consider Multimodal Instructional Text
Instructional texts in multimodal contexts can take advantage of the affordances of video and audio to improve clarity and
strengthen connection. In blended contexts, making the instructional text available in both online and face-to-face modes can
support learning in a seamless manner.

Figure 7.2.3: Example Showing the Complexity of Conveying Tone in Different Modalities
Note. Image adapted from macrovector_official - [Link]
In written text on the page or screen, Option 1 seems much friendlier than Option 2. But what if we were in a live video conference
call, and Option 1 was said in a monotone, and Option 2 was said with a cheery smile and a “zip the lips and throw away the key”
gesture? The tone changes entirely. The same would be true of an audio recording, video or podcast—formal language, paired with
welcoming tone and visuals can have a very different impact than just the text, and of course, text, audio and visuals that work in
support of each other would be the most powerful.

Principle 3: Communicate Regularly

The temptation with instructional text is sometimes to write or present long and complex screeds of instructions at the outset of a
process. We would encourage you, however, to communicate regularly with learners and to offer instructional text in brief, just-in-
time chunks. This is for a number of reasons. Instructional text is most likely to make sense to learners when it is directly related to
what a learner needs to do immediately. While it is useful to tell learners at the beginning of the semester how it is that they will
submit their final semester project, you really should be prepared to come back in the final weeks of semester and remind them.
Instructional text is also a way of building a connection with learners across time. Knowing that a lecturer will email weekly with
key submissions, key activities, and a summary of what went well in the previous week is something that learners, particularly in
online contexts, value. Instructional communication over time is also an opportunity to acknowledge and encourage learners on an
ongoing basis.

Purpose and Placement of Instructional Text

There are many places where you should consider inserting instructional design text. Given the broad role instructional text plays,
it is ubiquitous in course design and delivery. There are, however, some typical placements (see Figure 4) of instructional text.

7.2.4 [Link]
 Figure 7.2.4: Example Structure of an Online Course With Typical Instructional Text Placements

Introductory, Linking, and Concluding Instructional Texts

Instructional text is often needed at the beginning of a unit or module in a course or textbook. In this location, instructional text will
usually outline the shape of the text learning experience ahead of the learner by articulating learning outcomes and identifying key
aspects of the learning activities. It might alert the learner to activities such as live sessions, expected time on tasks, or equipment
required for that week. Figure 5 is an example of introductory instructional text.

Figure 7.2.5: Example Showing Introductory Instructional Text

While the text above performs an introductory function, similar texts can perform linking functions between sections of text or
activities, and to conclude learning “chunks.”

Instructional Text to Support Navigation

Both print learning texts and online learning spaces have their own rules and norms. As an educator, you may be very aware that
bold text or italicized text requires particular attention, or that text in a particular shade of blue with an underline is likely to be

7.2.5 [Link]
hyperlinked. However, the norms of texts and online spaces are not always immediately apparent to all learners, who may need
some assistance navigating either the text or the space. Further, learners are almost always enrolled in multiple courses, each with
its own structure, rules and norms. Figure 6 provides an example of instructional text with a navigation purpose.

Figure 7.2.6: Example Showing Navigation Techniques in a Learning Activity

Being explicit about the structure, rules, and norms of your course can improve the learner experience by reducing extraneous
cognitive load. That is, because of the way the content is presented, learners may have to do excessive analyzing that is not
necessary to achieve the learning outcomes of the course (Mayer, 2019). It is our responsibility as instructors to limit this load,
allowing learners to focus their attention and efforts on what we really want them to learn.

Learning Activity Instructional Text

If you research older articles, you will often come across instructional text articles that refer to writing the instructions of an
assignment or manual for print. Each assignment or assessment created for learners contains instruction—sometimes the instruction
is minimal if it is an open-ended question or more intensive if it is a step-by-tutorial. Depending on the level of the learners, the
level of instruction used for assessments may differ. Figure 7 is the instruction for a small activity on learner personas.

7.2.6 [Link]
 Figure 7.2.7: Example Showing Instructional Text in a Learning Activity

Email as Instructional Text

In an online setting, course announcements or emails are often used by the instructor to communicate with learners on a regular
basis (see Figure 8). This type of instruction typically includes, but is not limited to reminders, deadlines, changes in course
information, and feedback on assessment. While other forms of instruction may be pre-planned, emails are done with a short
turnaround time and therefore contextual to what is currently happening in the class. If we, as instructors, are communicating
sensitive or not-so-great information about learner grades, we want to pay particular attention to our tone. It is the little things that
contribute to a successful email—like the usage of greetings.
Figure 8

7.2.7 [Link]
 Example of an Instructional Text in an Email

Example:

Hello everyone

We don't have any new work/input at the moment, so I hope you are all catching your breath and writing happily!

In this week's live session, we focused on the first two sections of the Learning Design Rationale. We talked about trigger
problems in relation to the introduction and started to think about the "Thinking like a designer" section. We tried two short
activities to get everyone to think about the goal of both these two sections.

Seema had a great question about how to use the feedback in the blogs. Do not use this feedback to rewrite your blogs—it's
totally unnecessary. The blogs are, however, actually key parts of your LDR, so use this feedback to improve your final LDR.

Next week, we are using our two live sessions to continue strengthening the LDRs

Monday (4:30pm) - Context section (Saadiq)

Wednesday (3pm) - Design and Develop sections (Sandiso, Widad)

Thanks to our volunteers for next week—we will have some examples to think about our work in relation to!

Also, check out the Commons tool in the left-hand menu! It's a great place for leaving messages or sharing questions and
resources.

Stay strong!
Shanali

Visual Design of Instructional Text

While the content of the instructional text is central to its purpose of guiding the learner, there are many other factors that
contribute to its success. An example is focusing on accessibility in the instructional text's visual design. When designing
instructional text, we need to think about how it caters to the learner’s experience from a visual perspective, which affects the
learner’s ability to find information (Lonsdale, 2016). These visual guidelines draw on the work of Hartley (1981), Universal
Design for Learning (UDL), and the field of User Experience (UX) to name a few. Regardless of a physical or digital medium,
these guidelines are important considerations for the design of your instructional text. Good instructional text will not always be
noticeable to the learner, but poor instructional text or the absence of instructional text will be evident. When designing
instructional text there are a few key areas that need to be considered.

Headings
Headings improve the learner's ability to scan and navigate the content. At any point, a learner should know where they came from,
where they are, and where they are going. Headings signal the topic, and in many cases give you an idea of whether the information
under the heading will be relevant. Before lesson planning, it is a good idea to sit down and plan the structure including the
headings and subheadings for one unit or lesson. This allows you to mimic the heading structure for future lessons, creating a
consistent learning experience. For optimum accessibility, here you want to make use of the heading styles provided by Word,
Google Docs, or any text editor.

Numbering
Numbering aids in sequencing and organizing information. Furthermore, it is particularly valuable for referencing purposes
(Hartley, 1981). Where possible, numbering is encouraged, as it provides opportunities to reference by number in announcements,
emails, assignments, and other parts of the course (see Figure 9; e.g., "Please have a look at section 2.2 detailing how to use an

7.2.8 [Link]
empathy map.") If the course content changes regularly, you may want to be cautious about the upkeep of a numbering system.
Numbering also provides learners with an easy reference method when emailing an instructor with queries.
Figure 9
Example Showing Content Structure Using Headings and Numbering

1. Introduction to Online Learning Design

1.1 What is online learning design?
1.2 Knowing your context
2. Understanding your learners
2.1 Personas 2.2
Empathy maps

Bullets
Break up large chunks of text into smaller numbered or bulleted lists. For example, if there are five key points for a topic, it might
be a good idea to outline this using bulleted lists (see Figure 10).
Figure 10
Example Showing a Before and After of Converting a Chunk of Text to a Bulleted List

Tips for filming your online lectures

Example: Large chunk of text (Before)

Script writing is an essential part of preparing to film your lecture for an online course. Here are five key tips you need to think
about when filming. If writing a verbatim script, use short sentences, short paragraphs and simple syntax. Be clear and concise:
aim to convey maximum information using minimum words. Check that your script flows, that you are explaining the links
between paragraphs or sections. Storytelling is a useful device to keep learners engaged—try to mimic this in your videos. Don’t
use abbreviations in the spoken form—e.g., say the United States instead of the US, University of Cape Town instead of UCT.

Example: Bulleted list (After)

Script writing is an essential part of preparing to film your lecture for an online course. Here are five key tips you need to think
about when filming:
Use short sentences, short paragraphs and simple syntax.
Be clear and concise: aim to convey maximum information using minimum words.
Check that your script flows, that you are explaining the links between paragraphs or sections.
Use storytelling in your videos to keep learners engaged.
Don’t use abbreviations in the spoken form—e.g., say the United States instead of the US, University of Cape Town instead
of UCT.

Spacing
Designers talk about “white space”—which is the space around text and images like in this textbook. Golombisky and Hagen
(2013) phrase it really well “Too much space, and visuals and type get lost or don’t talk to each other. Not enough space and they
start to fight with each other”(p. 7). White space is necessary and appropriate when placing text and images, and it contributes to
the readability of the instruction. Having white space around the most important information allows it to stand out from the rest of
the text. Following the methodology of chunking (see Figure 11), you should break up text into logical chunks which can provide
the white space needed to maximize readability (Moran, 2016).

7.2.9 [Link]
 Figure 7.2.11: Example Showing How Groupings of Text May Appear to a Learner

Fonts
Font choice can impact the readability of the text. Opt for common, highly readable fonts like Arial, Tahoma, Verdana, or others
and avoid decorative fonts that are difficult to read. Some font-families are considered more readable than others, with division
among those who prefer sans-serif or serif fonts. A simple web search for the most accessible fonts will give a selection of suitable
fonts. Limit text to one or a few select fonts—having too many will be distracting for the reader. Although they may seem boring,
they are effective and easy on the eyes. Let’s leave the decorative fonts for the kids (see Figure 12).

Figure 7.2.12: Example Showing How Decorative Fonts May Not Be Easy on the Eye

Font Size
Depending on the placement of the instructional text, it’s important to consider the font size. If important instructions are too small
and illegible, they might be overlooked by the reader (see Figure 13).
Figure 13
Example Showing Readability of Different Font Sizes

This is 8px

This is 10px
This is 12px
This 14px
This is 18px

Emphasis Using Text Effects

When communicating important information like deadlines, it is common to bold, underline, or italicize certain parts of the text to
make it stand out to the learner. For example, the bolding on this part of the sentence signals that you should focus on it. Here it is
important to be consistent in the style of emphasis you are going to be using throughout your course materials in order to not
confuse learners.

7.2.10 [Link]
Colors and Highlighting
If color is used to signal important text, you want a good contrast between the colors used. Poor color contrast may not be readable
and particularly affect learners who are color-blind. Using an online contrast checker like WebAIM will determine whether the text
is well-contrasted (see Figure 14). As far as possible, color should not be the only way to show emphasis.

Figure 7.2.14: Example of a Contrast Checker Showing Inaccessible Color Usage

Conclusion
In this chapter, we have limited our focus to the kind of instructional text that works between subject-specific material to support
learning. While we hope that the principles suggested to you will continue to be useful over a period of time, factors such as mode
(face to face, blended, or online) and ever-changing technological and digital contexts, mean that what learners find appealing and
supportive will change. We encourage you to pay attention to the role of instructional text in learning, and to take steps to develop
your capacity with constructing instructional text by, above all, listening to your learners.

Application Exercises

Exercise 1
Refer to Figure 7: Example showing instructional text in a learning activity. Which principles for constructing instructional text do
you see at work in this example? Compare your answers with a peer and see if you missed anything.

Exercise 2:
Here’s a version of the email announcement example we used earlier with some creative use of font and colour. Copy this email
into a text editor, remove all the formatting and think about font colour, size and spacing to improve the read-ability.
Example:
Hello everyone. We don't have any new work/ input at the moment so I hope you are all catching your breath and writing happily!
In this week's live session we focused on the first two sections of the LDR. We talked about trigger problems in relation to the
introduction and started to think about the "Thinking like a designer section". We tried two short activities to get everyone to think
about the goal of both these two sections. Seema had a great question about how to use the feedback in the blogs. Do not use this
feedback to rewrite your blogs - it's totally unnecessary. The blogs are however, actually key parts of your LDR, so use this
feedback to improve your final LDR. Next week, we are using our two live sessions to continue strengthening the LDRs - Monday

7.2.11 [Link]
(4:30pm) - Context section (Saadiq) and Wednesday (3pm) - Design and Develop sections (Sandiso, Widad). Thanks to our
volunteers for next week - we will have some examples to think about our work in relation to! Also, check out the Commons tool in
the left-hand menu! It's a great place for leaving messages or sharing questions and resources.

Kind regards
Shanali

Exercise 3:
Find an existing example of instructional text. This could be something you have written previously or an example from a textbook
or online course. Using what you have learned in this chapter about principles for constructing and designing instructional text, edit
the example you have found. Share your edits with a peer or a friend for feedback.

References
Delahunty, J., Verenikina, I., & Jones, P. (2014). Socio-emotional connections: Identity, belonging and learning in online
interactions. A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(2), 243–265.
Garrison, D. R. (2009). Communities of inquiry in online learning. In Encyclopedia of Distance Learning, Second Edition (pp. 352-
355). IGI Global.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The
Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5–9.
Ginns, P., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2013). Designing instructional text in a conversational style: A meta-analysis. Educational
Psychology Review, 25(4), 445–472.
Golombisky, K., & Hagen, R. (2013). White space is not your enemy: A beginner's guide to communicating visually through
graphic, web & multimedia design. Taylor & Francis.
Hartley, J. (1981). Eighty ways of improving instructional text. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 1, 17–27.
Issitt, J. (2004). Reflections on the study of textbooks. History of Education, 33(6), 683–696.
Lonsdale, M. D. S. (2016). Typographic features of text and their contribution to the legibility of academic reading materials: An
empirical study. Visible Language, 50(1), 79-111.
Masika, R., & Jones, J. (2016). Building student belonging and engagement: Insights into higher education students’ experiences of
participating and learning together. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(2), 138–150.
Mayer, R. E. (2019). Thirty years of research on online learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(2), 152–159.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1),
43–52.
Meeuwisse, M., Severiens, S. E., & Born, M. P. (2010). Learning environment, interaction, sense of belonging and study success in
ethnically diverse student groups. Research in Higher Education, 51(6), 528–545.
Misanchuk, E. R. (1992). Preparing instructional text: Document design using desktop publishing. Educational Technology.
Moran, K. (2016). How Chunking Helps Content Processing. [Link]/articles/chunking/
Rahman, K. (2013). Belonging and learning to belong in school: The implications of the hidden curriculum for indigenous
students. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(5), 660–672.
Tarasov, D. A., Sergeev, A. P., & Filimonov, V. V. (2015). Legibility of textbooks: A literature review. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 174, 1300–1308.
Trujillo, G., & Tanner, K. D. (2014). Considering the role of affect in learning: Monitoring students' self-efficacy, sense of
belonging, and science identity. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(1), 6-15.

7.2.12 [Link]
This page titled 7.2: Designing Instructional Text is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

7.2.13 [Link]
7.3: Audio And Video Production For Instructional Design Professionals

Audio and Video Production for Instructional Design Professionals

Marshall G. Jones & Lisa Harris
Practicing instructional design professionals use digital audio and video in learning materials for a variety of reasons including
content presentation, feedback, and assessment. Some audio and video materials used for purposes like feedback and assessment
may have a narrow audience and may not require high production value (i.e. the editing needed to make audio and video materials
professional and polished). For those uses, you simply record and share.
Depending on the resources of a project, instructional designers may create these materials themselves or work with media
production professionals. Because modern smartphones have access to basic media production tools, it is possible for anybody to
capture and edit audio and video. This is an acceptable solution for materials with a narrow audience or materials that will not be
shared widely. However, media that is included in professional learning materials needs to have a polished and professional look
and feel.
This chapter will provide an overview of audio and video tools that instructional designers can use to capture, edit, and share
professional learning materials with limited resources. In addition, terms and issues associated with audio and video production
will be introduced. This introductory knowledge will help guide you as you seek to enhance your skills and will also help you
communicate effectively with media production professionals during your career.

Lossless and Lossy Media

Audio and video files are commonly referred to as media files. There will be other media files that you work with as an
instructional design professional, but these are the foundations of most media production projects.
Because so much of the work we do is shared digitally on the Internet, working with any type of media is a compromise between
the highest quality and the smallest file size. Which is why you need to learn how to compress uncompressed media files. We
sometimes refer to uncompressed media as lossless and compressed media as lossy.
A lossless file is uncompressed and is at the highest digital quality. “Lossy” media has lost some of the original quality. This means
that it has been exported to a file size and type that can be used and shared easily. An exported file is a compromise between file
size and quality. Lossless media is media captured in its highest quality. This allows us to edit in the highest quality available and
then export it in the most appropriate format. Audio and video examples are included below.

Audio
The most common lossless audio file you will work with is a .wav file (Waveform Audio Format. Pronounced wave). There are
others, but .wav files are the most commonly used. (See [Link] for a list). A .wav file is uncompressed and
at its highest quality. After the audio is recorded, it is edited for length, clarity, and production quality and exported to a lossy
compressed format. The most common compressed audio file is an .mp3 file. The sound quality of a .wav file is higher in quality
and preferred by professional musicians and audio engineers. However, a .wav file can be as much as ten times larger than an .mp3
file. Given the file size difference, instructional designers often use .mp3 files as a compromise between file size and quality.

Video
The quality of the video recorded is determined by the camera used. Video quality is referred to as video resolution and measured
by pixel dimensions. See Table 1 for common types of video resolution from lowest quality to highest quality.
Table 1

7.3.1 [Link]
 Common Video Resolutions

Video Resolution Abbreviation(s) Pixel Dimensions

Standard Definition SD 720x480

High Definition HD 1280x720 (Also written as 720p)

Full High Definition Full HD 1920x1080 (Also written as 1080p)

Ultra High Definition or 4K Ultra HD or 4K 3840x2160

Note. See [Link] and [Link] for more details.

The quality of the camera determines the highest quality of the video available to you. As of the writing of this chapter, newer
smartphones record in HD and Full HD, though some newer phones do allow for 4K recordings. Professional video cameras, and
many consumer level cameras, will record in 4K. Once the video is edited for length, content, and production values, the final
resolution can be determined when the video is exported and saved to a lossy file type to share, typically an .mp4 file.

How to Compromise Between Quality and File Size

This will depend on several factors such as:
how you will deliver the materials,
the content of the materials, and
where you will be using the materials.
For example, if you were recording music and wanted to distribute it on a compact disc, you would want to export your audio file
in a .wav format. You would want the highest quality so that the nuances of the music could be enjoyed by the listener. If you are
recording a podcast, lecture, or some other type of voice file and your plan is to distribute that through a learning management
system or some other internet-based option, an .mp3 file is preferred. An .mp3 file has levels of audio quality, or fidelity, which are
measured by the bitrate. The lower the bitrate, the lower the quality or fidelity to the original recording. A bitrate of 96 would be a
lower quality .mp3 while a bitrate of 320 would be the highest quality. The bitrate is chosen when the audio file is exported. For
more information on bitrate, see [Link]
When exporting video, it also depends on what you plan to do with the video. If you are broadcasting the video through a television
network or streaming service, you would likely want to export in 4k or Full HD (1080p). If you are distributing your video through
an online streaming service such as YouTube or Vimeo, you could likely use a lower resolution HD file. Your choice of resolution
will depend on the content of the video. If you were creating a highly technical video that requires significant granular detail, such
as repairing a piece of equipment, or performing surgery, you would want a higher resolution, likely 4K (Ultra HD) or Full HD
(1080p). If you were recording a lecture or a narrated PowerPoint presentation a lower resolution such as HD (720p) would be fine.
It would depend on the content and how you are distributing it. It is unlikely that you would ever export in Standard Definition
(SD). That is the resolution that was common to many video cassette recorders. We include it here as you may see it if you are
including older recorded materials in a project.

Recording and Editing Digital Audio

Before you can compress your audio as an .mp3 file, you must capture, or record the audio. On the face of it, recording audio is
relatively straightforward, assuming you have a recorder:
1. Press the record button.
2. Talk.
3. Press the stop button.
4. Export it as an .mp3 file.
Recording high quality audio is more difficult. Where you record is an issue to consider. Field recording, such as interviews in
offices, classrooms, or outside areas are different from recording in a single stationary place, like a studio. This chapter primarily

7.3.2 [Link]
covers the fundamentals of audio recording in a stationary space with limited resources.

Additional Resources
If you are interested in field recording, Michael Helms’ podcast and website are helpful resources
([Link]
To record professional sounding audio, you have to think about a number of factors such as what microphone you are using, how
close you are to your microphone, where you are recording, and how to edit your audio before you export it and share it. We will
cover each in turn.

Microphone Quality
For professional sounding audio, you need a better microphone than the one in your computer or your smartphone. You also need a
microphone that records in stereo. Mono (also known as monaural or monophonic) audio plays in a single channel. Stereo plays in
two channels, left and right. Put more simply, mono audio plays in only one ear of your headphones. Stereo plays in both. Space
limits our discussion of every type of microphone, and there are many such as dynamic and ribbon microphones. For more
information on dynamic and ribbon microphones, see: [Link] If you have access to recording engineers and
their studio, they will have professional microphones available. We are focusing our chapter on a versatile microphone for
instructional designers, the condenser microphone.
Condenser microphones have electronics inside of them to help provide a better-quality recording. They typically connect directly
to your computer through a USB port. They provide for greater fidelity in sound, which means the microphone can provide a
recording that is very close to the original performance. If you listen to live music and a recording of the same performance, you
will hear things differently. Your ears will pick up sounds at a live performance that even the best microphone cannot capture.
Better microphones will provide recordings as close as possible to the original. So higher fidelity means better quality. And better
microphones produce higher fidelity.
Condenser microphones capture a wide range of frequencies well. They make the low tones richer and the high tones sound crisp
without sounding “tinny.” Condenser microphones can be very expensive. You can pay thousands of dollars for a condenser
microphone, and if you were a recording engineer working with symphonies or studio musicians, you would. However, for the type
of recording most instructional design professionals do—mostly voice recordings for .mp3 files or voice overs for video—you need
a good microphone, not a great one. There are many to choose from and an internet search for comparisons will yield many. What
you choose will likely depend on your budget.
The “Snowball” microphone by Blue is an example of a compromise between cost and quality. It is an example of a good, but not
great, microphone. This USB microphone provides good sound quality at a reasonable price and is a good addition to your
instructional designer tool kit. It is available at many retailers or from the website directly. Our inclusion of the Snowball
microphone is used as an example only and should not be considered a commercial endorsement.

7.3.3 [Link]
 Figure 7.3.1: Blue Snowball Condenser Microphone
Note. Visit [Link] for more information.

Distance from Your Microphone

The closer you are to your microphone, the better the sound quality. How close depends on the microphone, so it is best to
experiment until you get to know your microphone better, but think two–six inches away as being close.
Your microphone will record every sound in the room. When you record, think about air conditioners, fans, and other ambient
noises. Also, think about air. The air between you and your microphone is recorded as dead air. If there is a lot of air between you
and your microphone, you will get a hissing noise when you turn up the volume. While the microphone can and will pick up all of
the sounds, the mic will pick up sounds closer to the microphone more clearly. Which is why you want to be close to the
microphone. However, if you get too close to a microphone you may “pop the mic”. Popping the mic is the term used to describe
the noise that you hear when hard consonants like p, t, d, etc. are used close to the microphone. The microphone may pick these
sounds up and produce an annoying popping sound on a recording. To lessen mic popping, use a pop filter. These devices provide a
mesh like fabric that rests between you and the microphone and help diffuse the sound of the hard consonants.

7.3.4 [Link]
 Figure 7.3.2: Blue Snowball Mic with Pop Filter
Note. Source: [Link]
Pop filters are relatively inexpensive. Because a person sits close to a pop filter when speaking, they are likely to spread aerosols as
they speak. We recommend you treat them as personal items.

Room Size
The best place to record audio is in a recording studio. Recording studios have baffling, soft material on the walls and ceilings, to
lessen echo in the room. If you do not have access to a recording studio, consider the size of your room. Large rooms may produce
more echo. Small rooms will produce less. The less echo in a recording the better.
The larger the room, the greater the problems for recording. Your microphone will pick up ambient noises like your air conditioner,
but it will also pick up the echoes of the room. Rooms with a lot of tile and glass and tile (think kitchens and bathrooms in your
home) allow the sound to “bounce” off the hard surfaces. Audio recording in large rooms produces audio that may sound thin and
produce unwanted echoes.
When possible, use a small room with carpets, drapes, and other fabrics to help absorb excess sound. You can also create a better
environment with boxes to contain the microphone and soft materials to surround it. In the image below, the person has placed their
microphone in a box with foam to absorb excess sound. You could also achieve this effect with a box and any kind of fabric like
towels or small pillows. Notice that the microphone is close to the foam in the box. This will help keep sound on the other side of
the microphone from being recorded as well and helps eliminate dead air.

7.3.5 [Link]
 Figure 7.3.3: Creating a Better Recording Environment
Note. See [Link] for more information.

Audio Software
To create a professional sounding recording, you need multitrack software to edit audio. A finished audio file is a number of tracks,
or layers of audio, edited together for quality and clarity. Each track is a type of audio. One track might be your voice, and another
track your background music (see Figure 4). Audio software allows you to mix your audio. Mixing audio means that you adjust
levels of each track to make your voice loud enough and your background music soft enough to blend well together.

Figure 7.3.4: Multiple Audio Tracks

Note. The top track is a voice track and the bottom track is a background music track.
There are many professional options available, but Audacity is a free, open source tool that we recommend. It is available for both
Mac and PC computers. Below are a set of tutorials that will help you get started with Audacity (version 2.3.2) and audio editing.

7.3.6 [Link]
 1. Audacity: An Introduction
A brief tutorial demonstrating the user interface and basic functions of Audacity audio software.
2. Audacity: Adding Background Music To Your Project
How to add background music to your podcast using Audacity. The video covers importing a music file and how to use "fade
in" and "fade out" to make the final version sound more polished.
3. Audacity: The Effects Menu
This short tutorial introduces the Effects menu in Audacity and demonstrates how to apply a change in pitch effect.
4. Audacity: The Time Shift Tool
This tutorial introduces the Time Shift Tool in Audacity. Use the Time Shift Tool to move an audio track horizontally on your
timeline.
5. Audacity: Exporting Audio as an. Mp3 File
This brief tutorial demonstrates how to export your Audacity project as an mp3 file so it can be shared with others. This is the
stage of the production process when you would choose the bitrate for an .mp3 file.

Digital Video
Most people have a better-than-average video camera in their pocket or bag. Modern smartphones contain impressive cameras and
can record quality video. Because everybody can create video easily now, we think of video as being easy. On the face of it, digital
video is easy. Sound and lighting are hard.

Video and Expectations

Without the resources of professional videographers and filmmakers, you should not expect to make videos that will look like the
ones you see on television or in the movies. Those videos require resources including multiple cameras, multiple camera angles,
good field recording equipment, professional lighting kits, sophisticated video editing software, personnel, and more. However,
depending on the needs of your learners and the type of content you need to create, it is possible to make compelling and
professional looking videos with limited resources. What follows are some resources to help you produce video with limited
resources. Experience producing video yourself will help you work with professional video production teams during your career.

Video Terminology
Below is an alphabetical list of terms used in capturing, editing, and sharing videos that you are likely to encounter. While this is
far from a complete list, some knowledge of these terms will help you both produce your own video and work with professional
video producers.
Table 2

7.3.7 [Link]
 Video Terminology

The relationship between the width and height of your video. It is expressed numerically such as 4:3 and
Aspect Ratio
16:9.

High quality microphones that can attach to your camera to allow better sound while you are shooting
Boom Mics
video.

Supplemental background footage. This is stock footage that is used while voice over audio plays. For
B Roll example, if there is a news report about vaping, you will often see video clips of random people not
associated with the story vaping. Those clips are B Roll footage.

A piece of video. You can take one long video clip and split it to make multiple small clips. You can take
Clip
multiple small clips and order them to create a final product.

The amount of data in a video file. Smaller files have higher compression rates. High-definition video has
Compression
lower compression rates.

Information at the end of a video detailing information about the creator of the video, actors, or other
Credits
important information about the video.

An editing term. A transition between two elements in your video. You might dissolve between two video
Dissolve
clips, or between a clip and a title.

“Saving” your video in a format that can be shared with others or uploaded to a video sharing site,
Export
typically an MP4 file.

An editing term. It is the transition between a visual and a black screen. As in “Fade to Black”.
Fade

An editing term. Color Corrections that can be made to a video clip. Much like filters you might add to an
Filters
image in image editing software.

The area of the screen in a video editor that lets you see the movie in part or in entirety within the
Preview Window
software as you edit the video.

An area in your editing software that contains all of the video clips, still images, and audio files you have
Project Library
imported to use in your video.

In video editing software, the area of the screen that contains clips that you have moved from the library
Timeline/Storyboard for editing and inclusion in your project. The timeline/storyboard is typically found at the bottom of the
screen.

Scrub An editing term. To fast forward or rewind a video or audio clip on the Timeline/Storyboard.

Shot List A list of all of the shots, or video you need to collect, that you will need in your project.

An editing term. To cut a single video clip into two separate clips. You would do this to isolate the video
you want to remove by splitting it before and after the video you want to remove and then deleting the
Split
piece in the middle. You would split a clip to insert something before or after the clip, such as a title, still
image, or another video clip.

Text that appears on a solid color or an image that helps mark the beginning of the video or provides a
Titles
section break descriptor for the video.

An editing term. To remove content from the beginning or the end of a video clip. Trimming does not
Trim
allow you to remove video from the middle of a clip. To do that, you would need to split the clip.

Tripod A three-legged stand used to hold a camera still during filming.

Note. A more complete collection of terms is available from Vimeo.

7.3.8 [Link]
Video Cameras
Professional video cameras used by professional videographers are more expensive and sophisticated than consumer level cameras.
Nevertheless, quality video can be captured with consumer level cameras. For example, most modern Digital Single Lens Reflex
(DSLR) cameras are capable of shooting Full High Definition video. Many mirrorless cameras are capable of shooting in 4K or
Ultra High Definition video. If you are recording a speaker, you would likely need an external microphone, such as a boom
microphone, for your live audio. However, if you are able to use voice over audio, the information on audio recording in this
chapter would help you create your audio track.
Smartphones are capable of shooting high quality video. As with DSLRs and Mirrorless Cameras, you will need an external
microphone to record live audio. When shooting with a smartphone, always orient the camera in landscape mode (see Figure 5).
Recording video with a smartphone in portrait mode will produce black bars on either side of the video when you edit (see Figure
6).
Camera technology changes rapidly. While 4K video is the current highest resolution commonly available, 8K video technology is
available as of the writing of this chapter. If you are considering purchasing video equipment, it is best to research current standards
before you purchase. The website, [Link], has buying guides that are a good place to begin your search.

Figure 7.3.5: Still Frame of Smart Phone Video Shot in Landscape Mode

Figure 7.3.6: Still Frame of Smart Phone Video Shot in Portrait Mode

7.3.9 [Link]
Video Editing Tools
Once the video is recorded, you will want to edit the video for quality and clarity. To edit the video you need to import the video
into a video editor. Much like word processors let you edit the length, quality, and appearance of text, video editors do the same for
video. Video editors range from the basic and introductory, such as the free Windows Video App available in Windows 10
and iMovie available on Apple computers, to the professional level tools Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro. As you might imagine,
professional video tools are more sophisticated, more complicated to use, provide better final products, and are expensive. Windows
Video App and iMovie are included in your system software and require no additional purchase.
If you have never used a video editor, Windows Video App, available in Windows 10, and iMovie, available on Apple computers,
are excellent places to start. Tutorials for both are widely available online, but we offer these introductory tutorials on the Windows
Video App. For non Windows users, these videos can also introduce you to the basic interface of video editing software and some of
the tools and features common to all video editing software applications.

Windows Video App Interface

This short video is an introduction to not only the Windows Video App interface, but also to what video editors look like. You
will see examples of the Project Library, the Storyboard/Timeline, and the Preview Window.
Introduction to Editing
This short video provides an introduction on editing video with the Windows Video App. While the tutorial is specific to
the Windows Video App, the terms and techniques are mirrored in most video editors.
Editing and Special Effects
This short video provides more editing options and demonstrates how to use special effects in the Windows Video App.

There are free open source video editing tools available as well. Shotcut and OpenShot are cross platform video editors with
sophisticated features rivaling those of paid professional video editing software.

Screencasts
Screencasts are recordings of the action displayed on a computer or mobile device screen. They are often used as tutorials to
demonstrate how to use a particular function of a piece of software. The cursor is often highlighted by a halo of color so that it is
easy for a viewer to track the cursor’s movement on the screen. The person demonstrating the task on screen typically narrates
these videos in real time. Screencasts may or may not include a thumbnail video image of the speaker overlaid on the screencast.
The videos used to demonstrate the audio editing software above are examples of screencasts. Screencasting video can be uploaded
into video editing software and used as a clip in a longer video or edited for clarity and quality.

Screencasting Software
There are multiple options for screencasting software, including free and paid versions.

Camtasia
Camtasia offers a suite of video capturing and editing tools. It is available for a free trial but does require a paid account for the
most sophisticated features.
Loom
Loom is advertised as a video communication tool, but its functions include screencasting.
Screencastify
Screencastify is popular with users because of its integration of screencasts with Google products.
Screencast-o-matic
Screencast-o-matic has a free and paid version. The paid version removes the watermark, extends your recording time, and
offers video editing tools. The free version is quite robust.

Video and Your Computer

Video is memory intensive and, depending on your computer’s processor and memory, may tax your computer quickly. You should
save early and often. At times, your video editing software will start to do things that you know it is not supposed to do. For

7.3.10 [Link]
example, you may insert a title and it will show up in the wrong place. This is a memory management issue. Quitting and restarting
the application will clear the working memory and the software should work properly. It may be necessary to do this multiple times
when editing.

Tips for Creating Video

It is possible for instructional designers and developers to create good, effective learning materials with limited video resources.
For example, adding titles and credits to a screencast will help give it a more polished and professional look. Editing out unwanted
pieces of a video will help focus the learner. When creating video with limited tools, there are some basic things to remember.

Length
For videos produced with limited resources, typically the shorter the better. For example, instead of creating one long video that
demonstrates the five functions of the Audacity audio editing software, five shorter videos were created. This allows learners to
watch what they need without rewinding and fast forwarding. If you are recording an hour-long lecture, break that lecture up into
shorter videos. This allows the learner to watch pieces when they have time. It can seem overwhelming to sit down to watch an
hour-long lecture. If these shorter videos are labeled well when placed in a learning management system, it also allows the learner
to locate and rewatch only the parts they feel they need remediation on.

Special Effects
Use them judiciously. Use them sparingly. When people first use video editing software and realize how easy it is to use special
effects and transitions, it can be tempting to overuse them. We advise people new to video editing to make a video early that uses
every wipe, fade, and explosion they can find and get it out of their system. After that, use them only when they make sense in
context of the content.

Lighting
When shooting video with limited resources, shoot in places that provide as much indirect natural light as possible. Look for rooms
with windows on multiple walls. Notice the direction the light is coming from as it may cast shadows on subjects. Avoid filming in
front of windows to avoid backlights making your subject appear as a shadow. If professional lighting is not available, look for
lamps that you can place on either side of your subject to balance the light and avoid shadows.

Audio
Capturing live audio will sound better in a smaller space. If you are recording in a large room, use an external microphone like a
lapel microphone or boom microphone to capture your audio. Unless you have professional level skills and equipment, do not
record your audio source separately from your video source. Synching the audio with the video can be difficult for users with
limited resources and may result in the person's lips not matching their words. When possible, use voice-over narration and the
recommendations presented in the audio section of this chapter for the best quality.

B Roll Footage
When added carefully and paying attention to the needs of your content, high quality B Roll footage can dramatically improve the
look and professionalism of your video project. The websites [Link] and [Link] provide free high quality B Roll footage
that you can use in your projects.

Conclusion
With free and open source software and some reasonably priced pieces of equipment, it is possible for instructional design
professionals to create quality audio and video learning materials with limited resources. The tools, resources, and tips provided
here are a starting point for you to begin work with audio and video. Once you have worked with entry-level skills you will be able
to expand upon those during your career as an instructional design professional.

This page titled 7.3: Audio And Video Production For Instructional Design Professionals is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored,
remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

7.3.11 [Link]
7.4: Using Visual And Graphic Elements While Designing Instructional Activities

Using Visual and Graphic Elements While Designing Instructional Activities

Justin Sentz
The time and expense of creating and obtaining visual/graphic elements, or pictures, for use within instruction is not insignificant.
Then why use visual or graphic elements during instruction at all? The use of pictures during the design of instructional activities
has been shown to have a significant impact with regard to both increased learner motivation and improved learning outcomes
(Carney & Levin, 2002). Pictures and graphics can serve to convey information to the learner directly or facilitate the learner's
understanding of related textual information within the instruction. Different types of visual and graphic materials are particularly
suited for specific functions during instruction, and there are well-established design considerations for their use within
instructional activities to increase their effectiveness. The use of pictures and graphics plays an important role in helping to manage
the intrinsic cognitive load and reducing the extraneous cognitive load experienced by learners, who are then able to devote mental
resources to learning the material within the instruction (Sweller et al., 2019).

The Role of Visual Messages in the Communication of Information

In order to be intentional about the use of visual and graphic elements during the design of instruction, it is important to first
consider some of the fundamental concepts related to the role of visual messages within the communication of information more
generally. What exactly is a picture, and what purpose does it serve? Knowlton (1966) proposed that visuals, or pictures, could be
categorized according to their purpose or function within instruction-realistic, logical, or analogical. Realistic pictures look like the
objects they refer to in the real world outside of the instruction. If the intention is to communicate a concrete example of the
concept being presented, then a realistic picture is a good option for doing so. Logical pictures, on the other hand, provide a visual
depiction of the structure of a concept being presented. If the purpose is to communicate an understanding of the organization of
territories within a country or how electricity flows through a circuit, then a logical picture such as a map or diagram would be
effective. Finally, an analogical picture depicts relationships among complex concepts through the use of concrete visual elements
that are more familiar to the person. When there is a need to compare a particular phenomenon to something a learner is more
likely to encounter in everyday life, then an analogical picture is a helpful option for communicating that information.

Using Visual or Graphic Elements to Increase the Effectiveness of Instruction

Taking into consideration the role of visual messages in the process of communicating information, it is important to think about
ways in which visual and graphic elements can be used to increase the effectiveness of instructional materials. Peeck (1993) has
suggested that the effectiveness of pictures within instruction is dependent upon the manner in which they cause the learner to
process the information contained within the visual elements provided. This, in turn, is a product of both the characteristics of the
learners themselves and the graphic materials used within the design. For example, visual elements can be a powerful means of
showing spatial relationships or positioning of objects that are being presented within the instruction. These types of visuals can be
placed before a section of text when learners are expected to draw upon prior knowledge of the information. They may also be
placed in-line with the text when learners are unfamiliar with the spatial relationships and will benefit from a picture that shows
relative positioning of the objects being discussed. Depending on the complexity of the material relative to the expertise level of the
learner, pictures may also serve to illustrate abstract concepts that are presented textually within the instruction. Learners can use
these visual elements to supplement their comprehension of the material through these representations or confirm their
understanding of the text by reviewing the graphics and pictures provided. Yet another element of effectively using visual and
graphic elements within instruction is the potential to motivate learners to pay particular attention to specific material and process
information from the text more deeply. A learner may prefer to clarify or reinforce their understanding of textual information
through visual elements, which can in turn help with the encoding and subsequent retrieval of that information at a later time.

Types of Visual Elements and Their Functions Within Instruction

While pictures and other visual elements can be extremely effective for learner motivation and comprehension, specific types of
visual elements are more effective than others based on their function relative to the ways in which they relate to the instruction.

7.4.1 [Link]
Levin et al. (1987) categorize pictures into five general types according to those functions-representation, organization,
interpretation, transformation, and decoration. One of the most common types of pictures used in instruction is representational,
which illustrates the textual information being presented for the purpose of reinforcement (see Figure 1). When the purpose of
using a picture is to present a concrete visual representation of information contained in the instruction, a representational picture is
often the way to go.

Figure 7.4.1: A Representational Picture Illustrating the Components of an Atom

Note. Retrieved from [Link]
Another type of visual element is organizational, which shows relationships between different parts presented in the text (see
Figure 2). These can serve the purpose of illustrating a series of steps in a procedure or provide a large set of data through graphics
such as diagrams or charts.

Figure 7.4.2: An Organizational Picture Illustrating the Steps for Performing CPR
Note. Retrieved from [Link]
An interpretational picture is a third type of visual element that is often used when the intent is to clarify complex information
provided within the text (see Figure 3). Much like Knowlton's (1966) idea of analogical pictures, these visual analogies can be used
to ground more abstract concepts in visual elements that are easier for the learner to comprehend.

7.4.2 [Link]
 Figure 7.4.3: An Interpretational Picture Presenting the Structures in an Animal Cell as Buildings in a City
Note. Retrieved from [Link]

Yet another type of graphic element that is somewhat infrequently used is the transformational picture, which provides a mnemonic
that facilitates retrieval of information from memory at a later time (see Figure 4). If the intent of the visual element is to help the
learner memorize information through the association of a related picture, then the creation of a transformational picture may be
worth the time and effort to design.

Figure 7.4.4: A Transformational Picture Using Mnemonics for the Actions of Neurotransmitters
Note. Retrieved from [Link]/hluJ7
A final type of visual element that is used within instruction but has no empirical support for its impact on learning is the decorative
picture, which serves to break up textual information or provide “eye candy” for the learner (see Figure 5). While it is sometimes
argued that decorative images may motivate learners, their use is not directly tied to improved learning outcomes and are thus
generally discouraged.

7.4.3 [Link]
 Figure 7.4.5: A Decorative Picture of a Mountain
Note. "Mountain" by barnyz is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Strategies for Structuring Visual or Graphic Elements to Facilitate Processing

We can see that visual and graphic elements have the potential to increase the effectiveness of instruction, and specific types of
visual elements are more appropriate based on their intended function within the instruction. However, it is also important to note
that the manner in which visual and graphic elements are structured have a significant impact on the manner in which they are
processed by learners. Sweller et al. (2019) describe cognitive load as the mental effort required by learning tasks that impact the
learner's ability to both process new information and store it within long-term memory. They propose a set of strategies for
structuring visual and graphic information to help manage the intrinsic load associated with the material itself and the extraneous
cognitive load that is introduced by the instructional techniques employed:
Integrate textual and graphic information into one element in order to eliminate the effect of splitting the learner’s attention.
This could be accomplished by taking a list of procedural steps and overlaying them on a diagram to show where each step
should be performed.
Eliminate multiple stand-alone sources of textual and graphical information in order to reduce the mental effort needed to deal
with redundant information. If a visual or graphic element can fully communicate a concept without additional textual
information, then it should be used on its own.
Present concepts before adding context by giving the learner increasingly realistic visual elements during the instruction. By
starting with low-fidelity visual elements and building toward high-fidelity elements, the learner is able to gain an
understanding of the concepts rather than being distracted by contextual details.
Gradually present information to learners through visual and graphic elements. Through the use of this simple-to-complex
strategy, the learner will be able to avoid getting overloaded by too much information before processing the required
information.
Strategies to reduce cognitive load tend to have a reverse effect on learners with greater levels of expertise, and thus need to be
adjusted accordingly. An example of this would be if the instruction will be used with expert learners who are familiar with a

7.4.4 [Link]
 procedural diagram, the textual instructions could be removed from the graphic element and replaced with numbers for each
step.

Finding and Creating Visual and Graphic Elements

Locating or creating visual and graphic elements to enhance instructional activities according to the principles discussed in this
chapter may seem like a daunting task, but there are a number of resources available to make the process manageable. If you would
like to find visual elements that have already been created by someone else, a number of sites online have collections of images
that can be used without having to pay for their use. A few of these sites include:
Creative Commons image search
Unsplash
Pixabay
[Link]
Pexels
In addition to these individual sites, you can also use the Google Image Search in order to identify visual elements that have usage
rights allowing you to employ them in your instruction without infringing on the copyrights of the owner. Watch this video to learn
how this is done:

Google Image Search and the Usage Rights Filter Tutorial

Google Image Search and the Usage

LDSBC Library

Watch on

If you are unable to locate existing visual or graphic elements for use in your instruction or have specific requirements in mind, you
can always create them yourself in a number of different ways. First, you can take photos with a smartphone or digital camera and
download these onto your computer for incorporation into your materials. Second, you could create the visual element by hand
with a line drawing that communicates the desired information and scan that image into your computer using a digital scanner or
printer. Finally, you can create visual elements in software packages such as Adobe Photoshop or through the SmartArt feature in
Microsoft Word or PowerPoint and export them for use in your instruction. Google Drawings is a free, web-based alternative to
these types of software that can be used to create charts, maps, or diagrams and download them as PNG or JPEG files without a
great deal of design experience. Watch this video to see the basic use of this tool:

7.4.5 [Link]
Introduction to Google Drawing

Introduction to Google Drawing

KnowledgeWave

Watch on

Conclusion
Employing the use of visual and graphic elements during the instructional design process is not simply a matter of finding or
creating a set of pictures that are somehow related to the textual information in the instruction. Research has shown that visual
elements have the potential to increase motivation and foster improved learning outcomes, but only when the appropriate role of
visual messages in the communication of information is taken into account. Specific types of visual elements can be used to serve a
particular function in the instruction based on the manner in which information is presented, such as showing spatial relationships
or illustrating abstract concepts within the text. In addition, following basic strategies for structuring visual and graphic information
can facilitate learner processing through the management or elimination of the cognitive load experienced by the learner. In the
end, the creation and curation of visual/graphic elements for instructional activities will be well worth the time and effort invested
when the purpose of using those elements is aligned with the objectives of the overall instruction.

Application Exercises
1. Using an existing unit of instruction or one that you are in the process of creating, explain how you would use visual or graphic
elements to increase the effectiveness of the instruction by doing the following:
1. Showing spatial relationships or the relative positioning of objects
2. Illustrating abstract concepts that are presented in the text
3. Motivating learners to pay particular attention to specific material in the text
2. Using pre-existing instruction or materials you have created, explain how visual elements are used (or could be used) to serve
each of the following functions:
1. Representation
2. Organization
3. Interpretation
4. Transformation
3. Within a unit of instruction that employs visual and graphic elements, explain how at least three of the five strategies for
structuring visual elements outlined in this chapter could be used to reduce cognitive load and facilitate processing for the
learner.

Additional Readings and Resources

Check out these resources for additional information on the topic of using visual and graphic elements while designing instructional
activities:
233 Tips on Graphics and Visual Design [PDF eBook]
Instructional Design and Visual Design: The Pillars of Great eLearning
10 Types of Visual Content You Should Use to Increase Learner Engagement
Accessible U: Instructional Graphics

7.4.6 [Link]
 Do Learners Understand Your Instructional Graphics? [Podcast]

References
Carney, R. N., & Levin, J. R. (2002). Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learning from text. Educational Psychology
Review, 14(1), 5-26.
Knowlton, J. Q. (1966). On the definition of ‘picture’. AV Communication Review, 14(2), 157-183.
Levin, J. R., Anglin, G. J., & Carney, R. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In D. M. Willows & H.
A. Houghton (Eds.), The Psychology of Illustration: I. Basic Research (pp. 51-85). New York: Springer.
Peeck, J. (1993). Increasing picture effects in learning from illustrated text. Learning and Instruction, 3(3), 227-238.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational
Psychology Review, 31(2), 261-292.

This page titled 7.4: Using Visual And Graphic Elements While Designing Instructional Activities is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was
authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

7.4.7 [Link]
7.5: Simulations And Games

Simulations and Games

Jeff Batt
Simulations present the learner with real world scenarios and allow them to explore the scenario in a "safe" environment. A basic
pattern for this is to (a) present or show the desired end result; (b) allow students to safely try the result out; (c) then evaluate if the
student is able to complete the task; (d) and allow them to play around with the concepts in an engaging way to deepen their
learning. Let's call these: present, try, evaluate, and play.
Present: Presenting starts by showing the learner how to perform a certain action. This could be by simply showing them a video
or having them click through a series of slides or steps to see how to accomplish a task.
Try: Trying happens as the learner is placed in an environment that is reminiscent of the real-world environment, but this
environment has been simplified, altered to minimize or eliminate risks, or has been otherwise modified to draw out the material to
be learned. This is what we mean when we say a simulation is a "safe environment." For instance, in a simulated Information
Technology environment, the learner can't cause a system to crash or accidentally send out secure user data as they try things out.
You do want the simualted environment to be recognizable when compared to the real-world scenario, however, so that learners get
an authentic experience and can transfer what they learned back into the real environment.
Evaluate: After learners have seen the desired outcome and tried it in a safe environment, you want to evaluate them: can they do it
in an environment with no extra help and with real consequences? Evaluation helps both solidify lessons learned as well as
providing the teacher/instructional designer insight into whether the learner can perform the task or not.
Play: Simulations and games allow for exploration; learners don't have to just proceed through the instructional material in a linear
way. And even fun, exciting games can be educational; they create engagement that helps students learn the concepts in a different
manner through their simulated play. Games can even create a desire for the student to "try again" to see if they can get a higher
score or if they can master a concept. Gaming, then, could be a useful technique to help solidify the concepts being taught.
Keeping these four principles in mind, let’s consider how they could be applied in some common scenarios.

Simulation—Watch
One form of an instructional simulation asks learners to watch a procedure or skill. One of the more common forms these
simulations can take is the software simulation. A software simulation is essentially showing someone how to do some action on a
computer by recording your screen. In Video 1 you can see an example of how to create a Watch simulation using the screen
recording tool Camtasia.

Video 1: How to Create a Watch Simulation

Watch on Vimeo

7.5.1 [Link]
Simulation—Try
The next kind of simulation is one that allows students to try a skill or procedure themselves. This allows the learner to engage with
the content and practice it in a safe environment. There are various applications that can be used for creating a Try simulation; in
Video 2 you can see an example of how to create a Try simulation using the tool Captivate.

Video 2: How to Create a Try Simulation

Watch on Vimeo
One last tip: when you create Try simulations, consider including ways that the student could possibly fail. Failing is part of
learning; it can help the learner see what happens if they select various alternatives, as well as help them consider how they can
recover from their mistakes.

Simulation—Evaluate
After the learner has watched a procedure and tried it out for themselves, you may need to ensure they know how to perform
certain tasks. This is where the role of Evaluate simulations come into play. Evaluate simulations help both you and the learner
judge if they are able to perform a task they have just learned. The most helpful evaluation simulations are ones that allow the user
to fail and learn from their mistakes. The key here is to try to make the simulations as close to the real environment as possible.
Video 3 shows you how to get started doing this.

Video 3: An Example of How to Create an Evaluate Simulation

Watch on Vimeo

7.5.2 [Link]
Simulation—Play
The last type of simulation allows students to play with ideas or concepts associated with the instructional environment. Playing
helps learners work with the knowledge they have gained in different, engaging ways. The goal is to help them take what they learn
and apply it in novel ways so they are able to master it better. Let's walk through some important parts of a game.
There are key factors that go into creating a learning game which enables this simulated play. I don't think anyone expects you to
create a World of Warcraft type game, but there are some parts you can use to make the game stand out in an engaging and fun way
for the learner. Some important considerations for Play simulations include: Theme, Progression, and Challenge. Consider each of
these principles using the extended example below.

Theme
A theme is a unifying core to your game that helps express its purpose, and bring a sense of harmony between that purpose and the
tone, visuals, audio, video, text, and other elements you create. To immerse learners into the game, introduce a theme as soon as
possible, perhaps expressed by using a clever or unique logo. This helps the learner know they are exiting the standard instructional
format and entering a gamifed environment.
Review this Jeopardy-style game. Notice how a theme is introduced when the learner first begins the game, as are initially
presented with a large logo that provides clues about what they will be doing.

Figure 7.5.1: Initial Logo of a Game

Providing a theme has a couple of results. It sets the tone of the game through the logo and visuals that complement the logo. And
the theme can help you tell the "story" of the game, or provide cues to the learners about how they should interact with the
environment.

7.5.3 [Link]
Progression
Progression is how learners move from the beginning to the end of your game, and how they navigate through the steps in between.
Progression is a principle you could use in different ways. In the case of our Jeopardy game, the tool to manage progression is the
game board.

Figure 7.5.2: Progression Screen

As the learner moves throughout the game, they clearly see where they have been along with what levels or cards were successful
or unsuccessful.

7.5.4 [Link]
 Figure 7.5.4: Progression Screen Reflecting Progress
This type of progression tool is also helpful for the learner if they try the game again. They can use the progression board to gauge
how they are doing each time they play.

Challenge
Challenges are how you present instructional content and allow learners to interact with that content. In our game, when the learner
chooses options on our the progression board, they begin an individual challenge. These challenges can come in many different
forms with varying levels of challenge between the tasks. One way to challenge the learner is through a standard question.

7.5.5 [Link]
 Figure 7.5.4: Standard Question
If the learner gets the answer incorrect, they will see some kind of visual indication, and perhaps some feedback.

7.5.6 [Link]
 Figure 7.5.5: Feedback on Incorrect Answer
If the learner gets the question correct, they will see correct feedback.

7.5.7 [Link]
 Figure 7.5.6: Feedback on Correct Answer
But you can present challenges in ways other than through questions. You can also add some more ambitious aspects into each
challenge, like having them try a procedure or a skill.
Also, since this is a game, you might want to have an overall score that is visible to the learner. When the learner gets the challenge
correct, the score increases. To make it even more challenging, points could be taken away when the learner does not answer
correctly. You could also add a timer or other sense of urgency for students to complete the game.

Managing Interactions in Simulations and Games

Simulations and games require you to manage interactions that students have with the program, such as when you have to pass
information from one screen to another based on how students respond to a question. Three common ways of managing
interactions you should know about are Variables, Triggers, and Conditions.

Variables
Variables are storage locations. They hold information that can change or be updated later. The most common type of variable for a
game is the Number variable which will store a number value. This is perfect for scoring or being able to calculate end results in a
final interaction. For instance, if you create a game with a score, you want to create a variable that holds the initial starting value
(probably 0), but can then be changed depending on whether learners earn points or have them taken away.
Let’s explore how to create a variable in this video in a common instructional authoring tool.

7.5.8 [Link]
Video 4: Creating Variables

Watch on Vimeo

Triggers
Triggers are events that happen in a simulation. For instance, when a button is clicked, what should happens next? In many
instructional authoring tools, you'll use triggers to show and hide different elements based on how learners interact with a page.
You have a lot of flexibility with triggers, and the key to adding different types of interactive play is to try out different types of
triggers. Instead of only using standard questions in a game, for example, you can use drag and drop, timed elements, and more.
This creates the interaction and intensity of simulated play.

Video 5: Using Triggers

Watch on Vimeo
One key to using triggers is deciding when the trigger will happen. This is done under the "when" part of the triggers. Figure 7
provides a list of instances when a trigger can fire.

7.5.9 [Link]
Figure 7.5.7: Trigger Selection Screen

7.5.10 [Link]
Conditions
Triggers are great, but there may be times you only want the trigger to happen if a certain condition is true. Consider the following
statement: "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands."
This is a simple statement, but it reflects so much of what a condition is. It starts with the key word if. Meaning, we only want this
condition to happen if certain conditions are true, and the conditions are, "if you are happy and you know it." We are checking for
two conditions, then running the action if the condition is true.

Video 6: Understanding Conditions

Watch on Vimeo
Most of the time you will use conditions when you are checking a variable value. So, with the Variable option selected, find the
variable you are checking for and select the value. It will then ask you to select an operator. Let's use the score variable and check if
it is greater than or equal to 100.

7.5.11 [Link]
 Figure 7.5.8: Trigger Condition Screen
Now this trigger will only run if the value is 100 or greater. This is a great way for you to only have triggers run if a condition is
met.

Conclusion
The goal of instruction is to help the learner first understand and then be able to apply what they are learning in safe and controlled
environment. Simulations and games are great tools for doing this, allowing learners to test the new concepts before entering the
real world, practice mastery through fun and engaging games, and try scenarios in an environment that allows them to fail and learn
from their mistakes.

This page titled 7.5: Simulations And Games is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

7.5.12 [Link]
7.6: Designing Informal Learning Environments

Designing Informal Learning Environments

Seth A. Martinez & Justin N. Whiting
For the past 30 years, the prevailing 70-20-10 industry model of employee development postulates that 70 percent of individual
learning and growth occurs through relevant but challenging experiences, 20 percent through relationships and social interactions,
and only 10 percent through formal learning activities (Center for Creative Leadership, 2020; Watkins et al., 2014). What, then, is
the implication for learning design given these trends? To assist in taking advantage of such patterns, this chapter is dedicated to the
design of informal learning environments.

Defining Formal and Informal Learning

Have you ever sat outside at night and gazed up at the stars? Perhaps you have done this with a child as you talk about
constellations. Now imagine you pick up a smartphone with an augmented reality app that can provide instant information and
feedback on the stars that you see. Without stepping foot in a classroom or reading a textbook, personalized and on-demand
informal learning has occurred. This scenario of real-time information and feedback not connected with any formal setting is one
example of informal learning.
According to [Link], formal learning refers to “a type of learning program in which the goals and objectives are
defined by the training department, instructional designer, and/or instructor.” Informal learning can be defined as the pursuit of any
knowledge, skill, or understanding that occurs outside a formal or non-formal learning event, such as a classroom, training facility,
or eLearning course (Dirksen, 2015). Informal learning includes family discussions at home, Googling a topic on the Internet,
seeking advice from a colleague, visits to museums, and other everyday experiences (Livingstone, 1999; Bell, 2009). Informal
learning has shown to be effective across many contexts (Allen, 2004; Bell, 2009; Miller et al., 2008), especially in work
environments (Carliner 2012). Examples in the workplace include “brown bag” learning, like Talks at Google; the Boeing
Leadership Center, which devotes an entire portion of the learning path to an open-ended, unstructured mentoring program;
and GE’s Crotenville training, which is famous for the shadowing and rotation program that was created precisely to take
advantage of the informal learning that occurs between a novice and an expert.
In trying to delineate formal and informal learning, it may also be helpful to consider the formality of instruction on a scale. Sefton-
Green (2004) stated that informal learning is used quite loosely to describe many kinds of learning that occur outside of schools or
other formal settings. Rather than pointing to a specific definition for informal learning, he proposed that learning environments be
evaluated on a scale from informal to formal on two criteria: (1) organization of the curricula and (2) the setting, as seen in Figure
1.

7.6.1 [Link]
 Figure 7.6.1: Evaluating Learning Environments
If we use this as a guide to identify informal learning spaces, we can determine not only if a learning environment is formal or
informal, but we can see where it might sit on this spectrum. For example, schools have traditionally been highly formal on both
the setting and the curricula. But recent growth of online/virtual schools may still be formal and highly structured in terms of the
curricula, while the setting may be in someone’s own home and on their own time schedule. Similarly, workplaces are using more
informal newsletters, podcasts, wikis, or informal professional development, rather than formal, in-person training meetings, or
assigned computer-based training.

Designing for Informal Learning

With informal learning now defined, the focus of this chapter shifts to four principles that are effective guides to consider when
designing environments conducive to informal learning.

Principle 1: Provide Learners a Choice in Their Learning

Instructional designers should deeply consider how learners are going to interact with content. For teachers and professors
developing a syllabus, allowing the learner a choice in their learning experience can have a direct link to intrinsic motivation
(Cordova & Lepper, 1996). Consider providing several options for a midterm assignment and allow the learner to decide which
assignment looks most relevant to them. Or, rather than assign a topic for a project, allow the learner to submit a proposal of a topic
of personal interest.
In a corporate setting, developers can provide a list of possible related topics, and only require mastery of one. Consider curating a
library of resources in various media such as video, image, text, audio (podcast), self-guided modules, and then allow learners to
decide how to gain mastery of the topic. Even in instances where there is a more strict set of regulations (e.g. compliance) that must
be covered, there are options to allow the learner some control over their learning. For example, consider presenting the content not

7.6.2 [Link]
in a linear way, where the learner proceeds from topic A to topic Z, but instead allow them to choose the order of topics they may
want to go through first. Instead of a bulleted list or outline in a computer module, consider a more visual layout where they can
choose the order from a group of topics.
Museums have long been an excellent example of providing learners with a choice in their learning experience. While museums
may provide courses, scripted tours, and other formal learning experiences, for many, museums are open spaces that encourage
exploration and even learning through failure (Simpson et al., 2019). Museum educators carefully plan out displays, flow of the
rooms, and many other factors to create fun and engaging environments. Learners in a museum choose where they go, how long
they interact with a specific exhibit or section, and generally do not have many constraints.

Principle 2: Design for Collaboration, Idea Sharing, and Peer Interaction

While teamwork, collaboration, and group projects are all components of formal learning, informal learning is also well suited to
benefit from social interaction. Albert Bandura argued that “most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling:
from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information
serves as a guide for action” (p. 22, 1977). Further, Lev Vygotsky maintained that social learning consists of learning through social
interaction (1978).
When more specific knowledge is needed by an individual, a personalized informal experience in the form of coaching or
mentoring will allow a novice to learn directly from an expert. A learning experience that centers on group work and peer
interaction will invite informal learning to take place as individuals pose questions to and receive answers from their teammates
and colleagues. To do this, consider assigning group tasks or projects, or posing problems that require multiple individuals to
complete. A technique to take advantage of the unscheduled nature of informal social learning is to design a wiki or forum system
that leverages the knowledge of the community in a socially constructed manner. Lastly, an emerging trend in informal learning
－ －
is microlearning small learning units such as text phrases, photos, or audio snippets and its associated affordances for
instructional designers (Giurgiu, 2017). For the specific principles of microlearning design, see Zhang and West (2020).

Principle 3: Leverage the Benefits of Constructionism and Project-Based Learning

Constructionism and project-based learning are two additional areas where we can design informal learning opportunities. With
constructionism and project-based learning, learners typically become active participants in the experience and learn organically as
they work through a challenge. Designers working to implement informal learning principles can include opportunities for
exploration and creation. Many businesses have implemented innovation centers or creativity labs where new ideas can be tested
and prototyped. For example, Pixar fosters innovation and encourages their employees to develop new skills through their Pixar
University. As part of the “university,” employees can sign up for free classes in painting, ballet, or sculpting. Additionally, Lowe’s
Home Improvement company has created innovation labs where employees reimagine how to help customers using augmented
reality to plan virtual home renovation projects. Allowing learning through experimentation and failure can lead to better quality
products and services (see April 2011 issue of Harvard Business Review).
A recent trend in schools, communities, museums, and even healthcare, is the rise of makerspaces. Makerspaces provide a physical
space where many forms of constructionist and project-based learning may occur (Peppler et al., 2016). Maker Faires have been
promoted and popularized by Make Magazine and other organizations around the globe. The effort to overcome constraints can
often lead to creativity in these spaces (Stokes, 2005). In a makerspace, learners may be mentored by another individual on how to
use a machine such as a 3D printer or laser cutter. Often, small groups may work together to prototype and test ideas.

Principle 4: Leverage the Benefits of Gamification and Playful Competition

Playful competition and gaming are proven mechanisms for increasing learner engagement (Steinkuehler & Squire, 2014). While
the principle holds for formal learning, it is particularly effective in designing informal learning environments. Gamification is “a
relatively recent term that describes using game thinking and game mechanisms in nongame contexts to engage users (Deterding,
2013)” (Steinkuehler & Squire, 2014, p. 389). The key criteria for an effective gamified design are exploration, immersion,
socialization, and competition.
To design for exploration, it is important to design an experience that does not necessarily have a single path toward a solution.
This allows the learners to truly discover, explore, make mistakes, and iterate. To design for immersion, it is important that the
challenge be such that the only way to solve the problem is with dedicated, focused time, over an extended period. For example,

7.6.3 [Link]
learners can (a) build or produce an artifact from scratch, (b) solve a problem that requires the synthesis and application of multiple
concepts simultaneously, (c) give or receive feedback to or from peers or experts where they must refine their work as part of the
final solution, or (d) some combination of all three. (Socialization is discussed in Principle 2 above.) To design for competition, it is
helpful to consider something that determines one or multiple winners. Challenges with levels, simulations, scoring, badges, and
leaderboards are features of competition that you can incorporate into your design.

Designing for Informal Learning at Adobe

In late 2016, the Adobe CTO set forth a new charge: to upskill all software engineers (SWE), of which there were approximately
6,000 globally, in the machine learning (ML) discipline. To accomplish this, an ML Training Program was launched to begin the
process of mass upskilling. After one year, an initial cohort of 1,000 individuals had completed the five-month e-learning courses,
bringing with them many lessons learned. One consistent point of feedback across multiple stakeholders was that an opportunity
for more in-person, hands-on learning was needed compared to the one-hour-per-week classroom sessions that had been available
for the participants over the five months. In this instance, the challenge loomed large to introduce a more intensive in-person,
hands-on experience to 1,000 people who were scattered across the globe.
To address the feedback, the training team designed and implemented a bootcamp model that incorporated a project-based
competition in the form of a hackathon for the second cohort of 1,000. The bootcamps would be three consecutive days each. Over
those three days, the team would spend three-fourths of one day delivering company-specific material related to the company’s
AI/ML platform. The remaining two and one-fourth days for the learners would be spent in the hackathon competition, thus
allowing for the immersive and dedicated time-on-task.
To start each hackathon, the training team provided the basic rules and constraints. Bootcamp attendees would divide into small
teams of two to six people, organized by their shared ML interests. To gamify the hackathon, each team was asked to prepare a
brief "Venture Capital Pitch" to present the ML feature they each worked on over the two or more days. There were four categories
that would be awarded winners: most interesting feature, most likely to become an actual Adobe product feature, most whimsical,
and best overall feature. During the course of the entire hackathon, a small number of ML experts would roam the large room and
answer any questions a team may have.
By creating this environment, the learners spent two or more days laboring to develop their ML feature. The ID team observed that
the competition fueled their natural interest by increasing the participants’ drive to ask project-relevant questions and to consume
publicly available ML content on the internet. Numerous teams arrived hours before the days started and stayed hours past the
day’s allotted block of time. Participants would extend what they had learned from the e-Learning courses by scouring publicly
available websites to find help for their unique scenarios. Some would watch brief tutorials and, if relevant, immediately teach their
teammates what they learned; other teams would divide and test out open-source code and, once successful, exclaim “I got it, it
worked!” for the others on the team to know they need not search further.
This pattern repeated itself constantly over the approximately two days. Ultimately, the hackathon experience fostered an
environment in which participants would seek out anything and everything to assist them in overcoming an obstacle and therefore
advance the ML feature they were designing in hopes of building a competitive feature for the competition. In the end, knowing
(and hearing) the effort put forth by all teams, the participants reported taking great pleasure in listening to the presentations and
viewing the demos of each team’s ML solution developed over the hackathon.

Reflection
Table 1 below lists several informal learning activities with their associated strengths and limitations. The application exercise that
follows Table 1 will assist in your thinking of when and how to apply the informal learning design principles discussed in this
chapter.
Table 1

7.6.4 [Link]
 Strengths and Limitations of Informal Learning Activities

Learning
Description Strengths Limitations
Activity/Tool

Can address multiple learning

Projects/problems allow learners to objectives with a single
Cost: potentially very
appropriately struggle through problem scenario
Project- or expensive to execute
arriving at a solution. The struggle Can be accomplished in small
problem-based Time: potentially very time-
area is essentially the zone of groups, thus alleviating the
scenarios consuming to design,
proximal development, where need for a high number of
execute, and evaluate
informal learning occurs. experts to provide guidance
or help

Time: often difficult to design

An example of social learning,
a program that requires so
where a novice can learn directly Close proximity to relevant
much time of someone senior
Coaching or from someone more expert. The expertise
in experience
mentoring cycle of practicing/trying, receiving Feedback that is very specific,
Challenging to find one (let
programs feedback, and trying again is timely, and personalized
alone many) individuals with
strongly supported by an expert Often 1:1
seniority willing to
who serves as a guide.
participate

A strong collection of relevant

Cost: minimal Potential lack of
resources is generally superior to
Speed: utility is all that monitoring/governance
Job aids, wikis, formal instruction. In contrast to
matters, so they can be Because utility is most
tutorials, or formal instruction, these resources
created quickly important, they can
internal forums require little cost, take little time to
Crowd-sourced information is sometimes be poorly
design and produce, and are
often highly actionable designed visually
extremely tactical in nature.

Cost: typically free or

Communities of inexpensive
A community of practice is
practice, learning Typically more broadly Can be overly general (i.e.,
designed for, and by, the interested
networks, or applicable than information in not applicable enough)
participants themselves.
external forums an internal forum
Maintenance & governance

Exhibits and displays can be

highly engaging
Socializing with other Cost: entry can be potentially
Exhibits and museums are open
attendees/participants is quite expensive
Exhibits, spaces that encourage exploration
common, thus inviting the Time: to maximize learning at
museums, or and even learning through failure.
social component of informal a performance or museum
performances At a performance, an individual
learning often requires multiple hours,
learns through observation.
Observational learning is also minimum.
very effective (Bandura,
2003)

7.6.5 [Link]
Application Exercise
For your reflection:
1. What is the relative amount of information intended to be taught?
1. If it is a considerable amount, consider a formal learning approach.
2. If it is a small amount, formal learning could simply be excessive. Consider a simpler solution like a wiki or job-aid that
would require much less time/cost to create.
2. What needs to be learned? Is it explicit or tacit?
1. If it is explicit information (i.e., codified or written down), then consider formal instruction.
2. If it is tacit information (i.e., not codified or recorded), consider leveraging an informal learning environment.
3. How complex is the material?
1. If it is highly complex, consider formal instruction.
2. If it is not highly complex, consider leveraging a social learning component, where participants must work together or share
knowledge to achieve a common goal.
4. How much/often is the content subject to change?
1. If it is not often, consider formal instruction. Taking the time, cost, and effort to design a formal experience is justified when
it will have a long shelf-life.
2. If the content will change fairly often (or more), then consider an informal learning design which, by definition, embraces a
changing landscape and seeks up-to-date, accurate information—regardless of the source.

Conclusion
The evidence is clear that often, learners gain knowledge predominantly outside of formal settings. As a result, instructional and
learning experience designers should be intentional about taking advantage of the affordances of informal learning. To that end, as
you follow the four design principles shared above, you will be able to design informal learning experiences that take advantage of
the natural interests and curiosity of your learners.

References
Allen, S. (2004). Designs for learning: Studying science museum exhibits that do more than entertain. Science Education, 88(S1),
S17–S33.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall.
Bandura, A. (2003). Observational learning. In J. H. Byrne (Ed.), Encyclopedia of learning and memory, 2nd ed., p. 482–484. New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Bell, P. (Ed.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. National Academy Press.
Carliner, S. (2012). How to evaluate informal learning. Newsletters published by the Association for Talent Development. Article
retrieved from [Link]
Center for Creative Leadership. (2020, August 5). The 70-20-10 rule for leadership development.
[Link]
Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization,
personalization, and choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 715.
Dirksen, J. (2015). Design for how people learn. New Riders.
Evans, J. R., Karlsven, M., & Perry, S. B. (2018). Informal Learning. In R. Kimmons (Ed.), The students' guide to learning design
and research. EdTech Books. Retrieved from [Link]
Galanis, N., Mayol, E., Alier, M., & Garcia-Peñalvo, F. J. (2015). Designing an informal learning support framework. In
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 461–466).

7.6.6 [Link]
Giurgiu, L. (2017). Microlearning an evolving elearning trend. Scientific Bulletin, 22(1), 18–23.
Livingstone, D.W. (1999). Exploring the icebergs of adult learning: Findings of the first Canadian survey of informal learning
practices. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education. 13,2: 49–72.
Miller, C., Veletsianos, G., & Doering, A. (2008). Curriculum at forty below: A phenomenological inquiry of an educator/explorer’s
experience with adventure learning in the Arctic. Distance Education, 29(3), 253–267.
Peppler, K., Halverson, E., & Kafai, Y. B. (Eds.). (2016). Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments (Volume 1) (Vol. 1).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Sefton-Green, J. (2004). Literature review in informal learning with technology outside school. Futurelab, Report 7. Available at:
[Link]/research/lit_reviews.htm
Sefton-Green, J. (2012). Learning at not-school: A review of study, theory, and advocacy for education in non-formal settings.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Simpson, A., Anderson, A., & Maltese, A. V. (2019). Caught on camera: Youth and educators’ noticing of and responding to failure
within making contexts. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(5), 480–492.
Steinkuehler, C., & Squire, K. (2014). Videogames and learning. Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, 377–396.
Stokes, P. D. (2005). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. London, UK: Springer Publishing Company.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Watkins, K. E., Marsick, V. J., & Fernández de Álava, M. (2014). Evaluating informal learning in the workplace. In T. Halttenen,
M. Koivsto, & S. Billett (Eds.), Promoting, assessing, recognizing and certifying lifelong learning (pp. 59–77). London, UK:
Springer.
Zhang, J., & West, R. E. (2020). Designing microlearning instruction for professional development through a competency based
approach. TechTrends, 64(2), 310–318.

This page titled 7.6: Designing Informal Learning Environments is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated
by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

7.6.7 [Link]
7.7: The Design Of Holistic Learning Environments

The Design of Holistic Learning Environments

Jason K. McDonald
One of the factors that makes a design compelling is when it has a sense of harmony and completeness. When we experience the
design, it does not feel like a collection of individual parts that just happen to be together. Instead, they “fit” together. In fact, we
likely do not stop to consider the discrete components making up the design at all. But if we do notice the individual parts, we
typically can sense how each belongs. There is a sense of balance and resonance that emerges from the precise configuration we
experience. We see the design as a whole, meant to be experienced as a whole. And in the best cases, the sense of completeness and
balance somehow extends into us—we feel more complete and more in balance because we have encountered something as
complete and in balance as this design. Nelson and Stolterman (2012), in their book, The Design Way: Intentional Change in an
Unpredictable World, call this type of experience holistic design. In this chapter, I consider some of the conditions that lead to
holistic designs, along with what these conditions could mean in the context of instructional design.
Figure 1 presents a diagram from The Design Way that highlights the major conditions of holistic design. Discussion of the entire
diagram is more complex than we need to consider here, but if you are interested in the topic, I encourage you to review Nelson
and Stolterman’s complete treatment in their book (Nelson & Stolterman, 2012, pp. 93–102).

Figure 7.7.1: Dimensions of Emergent Wholes

Note. Reprinted from Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd
ed.). The MIT Press, p. 94. Used by permission; all rights reserved.
The diagram illustrates how we can design objects or services in a way that transcends the individual parts from which they are
assembled to create something holistic. As Nelson and Stolterman put it, we rely on “those unifying forces that cause things to
stand together . . . thus forming meaning for individuals who are part of the whole or served by the whole” (p. 94). When
something is holistic, it has properties that cannot be predicted when we examine each of the pieces individually. But that does not
mean the individual parts are not important. Quite the opposite, in fact. Each component contributes something to the overall sense
of the whole and is necessary to achieve the effect of the whole. Removing or changing the pieces, then, could lead to a design with
a completely different effect.
Holism is not often addressed in instructional design. Perhaps the closest we come is when we consider the graphic design of our
instruction. In this case we do frequently consider what effect the visual components of our instruction are having, and if they are
contributing to an overall pleasing visual sense. (For tips on how to create a pleasing visual design, see the articles The Building
Blocks of Visual Design or 10 Basic Principles of Graphic Design). Holism is important to consider in other aspects of instruction

7.7.1 [Link]
as well. Yet despite its importance, holistic design can also be difficult to talk about explicitly. The effects it has are subtle. But
using Nelson and Stolterman (2012) as our guide, let’s explore some ways that the instruction you design can inspire a sense of
holistic completeness.

Connection
First, consider the effects of the connections between individual elements in your design. There is an analogy here to connections
between physical objects: when joining together two pieces of wood, we connect them with a nail or a screw. When joining
together pieces of metal, we connect them with a weld. We can also consider more sophisticated methods of connecting when we
include the idea of an intermediary fastener. Nails and screws are a direct connector between two pieces of wood, and the result is a
rigid link. But we could connect our wood using an intermediary: a hinge. We screw the hinge into adjacent pieces of wood and the
result is a connection between the wood that is more flexible. When building an object, then, we need to consider what materials
we are working with, and this will help us decide what kinds of connections we can make. Then we consider what we want the
connection between the elements to be, and this will help us further choose an appropriate link to achieve our objective. A holistic
design will choose connections that are both appropriate for the material being used as well as the type of connection that is
desired.
There are at least two applications of this analogy to instructional design. The first is between different elements of an instructional
product that students experience. What types of connections are possible between the different pages of an online educational
activity, for instance? Or between elements on the same page? Or between different units of the same course? The types of
connections that are possible will be partly a function of the material the designer is working with (images, text, web pages, etc.),
and partly a function of the effect the designer wants to have (the student can choose between these three pages; or the student must
go to this page, etc.). Attentive designers will consider the connections between these elements as much as a carpenter will consider
the connection between wood beams supporting the structure they are creating.
Another type of connection instructional designers can consider is between the different layers of their instruction. Gibbons (2013)
proposed that all instructional products or learning systems are composed of different layers that perform different functions in a
design. For example, one of the layers is the representations that students experience (what they see, hear, touch, etc.). Another
layer is the controls that students use to input information back into the instruction (typing into a text box, submitting a form, or
answering a teacher’s question). There must be some kind of connection between these layers for the instruction to have its effect.
If instructional designers pay attention to the effects they want each layer to have, they can find connections between the layers
they can intentionally design to help lead to that effect. Similar to connections between individual elements, designers should both
pay attention to the material each layer is made of (physical or conceptual) as well as the type of connections that are appropriate
for the intended effect.

Application Exercise
Find an example of an instructional product or service (perhaps an online training module, a face-to-face classroom lesson, or a
museum-type experience). Ask yourself:
What are the individual elements of which the product is composed? (e.g. different pages in the module; different activities in
the lesson)
What is connecting those elements together?
Why do you think they were connected in that way?
Can you imagine alternative ways of connecting these elements?

Relationships
The second condition of holistic design is the relationships between elements in a design. Relationships are similar to the idea of
connection, since every relationship connects different entities in some way. So everything just described about connections applies
to relationships as well. But relationship implies more than the fact that elements are connected. The idea of relationship implies
there is a structure to the connection, one that suggests an effect that transcends what the individual elements provide on their own.
When two (or more) things are in relationship with each other, we can see that they belong together. Returning to our previous
example of making something out of wood, we can easily nail together wood of any shape or size. But a relationship between
different pieces of wood implies that we have done more. We also consider how our joint between the pieces fits together

7.7.2 [Link]
harmoniously. We might cut one board so it fits into an existing grove in the other. Or we apply stain or paint so the coloring of the
wood produces a pleasing effect when placed next to each other. We can also consider the relationship of what we build with
something larger than itself. For instance, when we ask whether a chair fits in a room, we usually aren’t talking about if we can
actually squeeze it into the space. Rather, what we usually mean is does the chair feel like it belongs? Is the relationship between
the chair and the rest of the furniture harmonious? Or does it feel like the chair came from a different family than everything else in
the room?
Parrish (2005) described some ways that instructional designers can pay attention to the relationship between elements in their
designs. He encouraged designers to pay attention to the “rhythms of instructional activities” in their products, to find “methods for
creating dynamic tension and revealing unity within content sequences,” or to develop “strategies that provide memorable closure
to learning experiences” (p. 17). In each of these cases, elements in an instructional product would not only be connected in some
way, but the structure of that connection would produce an aesthetic effect. This effect transcends the actual material being
interacted with in a way that communicates messages that often cannot be spoken (e.g. why a subject matters, what is beautiful
about it, or how might I [the student] be changed by it).

Application Exercise
Using the example you found earlier, try identifying the relationships between elements in the instruction. Ask:
What are the structures of the connections identified in this instruction?
What kind of effects do those relational structures suggest?
Can you imagine alternative relationships that can connect these elements?

Unity
The last factor to consider is unity, or the overall effect the connections and relationships have in a complete design. In considering
unity we should first recognize that there will always be connections and relationships between design elements. If designers do not
consider them intentionally (leaving them to chance), people will look for some kind of connection, and there is no guarantee the
designer will be happy with what they find. When designers do not intentionally plan for unity between connections/relationships,
often this leads to the design being experienced as disjointed. People may not be able to identify what about it is dissatisfying, but
they will sense something about it that is harsh or jarring. But worse is when the connections and relationships that people find
generate a sense of dissonance or incongruity, an active sense that these elements do not belong together. And more than being
slightly displeased with the design, people actively dislike it, again often without knowing exactly why.
But if connections and relationships are intentionally considered, they can generate an overall, unifying effect that is pleasing and
pleasurable to experience. People feel comfortable with these types of design. Wilson (2013) described this as “how elements hang
together” for the person experiencing it, “and support [them having] a coherent experience” (p. 40). The word coherent is the key.
Unity is a result of everything in the design seeming to belong, to be in its proper place, and be in that place for a proper reason.
Let’s assume we designed and built a beautiful, ornate chair, with intricate patterns in the legs and a soft, luxurious fabric on the
back and seat. If we place the chair in an elementary school cafeteria, it will stick out. Any sense of unity in the room (assuming
there was one before!) would be lost. But if we place our chair in a university library, perhaps in a special collections reading room,
it could contribute to a sense of unity that people experience in the room as being a place of learning.
How does unity apply in instructional design? Parrish (2009) described it as the designer’s care for experiences that are “infused
with meaning, and felt as coherent and complete” (p. 511). While there might be multiple ways to do this, Parrish proposed that
designers can pursue unity by intentionally considering connections and relationships between instructional elements that (a) create
distinct beginnings, middles, and endings for the instruction; (b) set students in the role of being the protagonist of their own
learning; (c) set a theme for the instruction through the choice of learning activities; and (d) create a context that immerses students
in the instructional situation.

Application Exercise
Using the same example as before, consider the sense of unity you experience with the instruction. Ask:
Do the connections and relationships in the instruction contribute towards an overall effect?
How would you characterize this effect?

7.7.3 [Link]
 Is there any evidence to suggest this effect was intentionally considered by designers? Or did they seem to leave it to chance?
What might you change about the instruction to generate a stronger sense of unity?

Conclusion
Nelson and Stolterman (2012) concluded that a holistic design creates emergent qualities, or qualities that cannot be experienced
when only considering the individual elements that are connected together in intentionally considered relationships of unity. They
also stated these emergent qualities have “significance” for the people using a design. They mean something to people, and
“embody [some] essence of human potential more fully” (p. 101). This seems to be sufficient justification for considering holistic
design as part of the instructional design process. Instructional design is about helping people learn, or, in other words, unlocking
some aspect of their human potential. And it is more than the educational content and instructional strategies that do this. To create
designs that are truly remarkable and uncover at least some aspects of human potential, people need to experience instruction with
emergent, holistic qualities. These are generated as designers consider the connections between individual elements of their
instruction, form those connections into structured relationships, and align both into a unified whole that can produce an aesthetic,
transcendent effect.

References
Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. Routledge.
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). The MIT Press.
Parrish, P. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16–25.
Parrish, P. (2009). Aesthetics principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(4), 511-
528.
Wilson, B. G. (2013). A practice-centered approach to instructional design. In J. M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, S. E. Smaldino, & M.
Herring (Eds.), Learning, problem solving, and mind tools: Essays in honor of David H. Jonassen (pp. 35–54). Routledge.

This page titled 7.7: The Design Of Holistic Learning Environments is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or
curated by Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

7.7.4 [Link]
7.8: Measuring Student Learning

Measuring Student Learning

Lisa Harris & Marshall G. Jones
Measuring student learning is critical in the teaching and learning processes and can serve many purposes. Instructors can use
assessment results to plan future instruction, adapt current instruction, communicate levels of understanding to students, and
examine the overall effectiveness of instruction and course design. The measurement of student learning can take place before,
during, or after instruction. Before lessons are even developed, instructors need to know what students already know and can do
related to the content. There is no point in wasting time teaching something students already know, or in starting at a level that is so
advanced students don’t have the prerequisite knowledge necessary to be successful. To that end, the learner analysis in
instructional design could be considered a type of assessment. Giving a pre-assessment, also called diagnostic assessment, can
provide instructors with this valuable information. Measuring student learning during instruction, a formative assessment, provides
instructors with important information about how students are progressing towards the learning objectives while there is still time
to adjust instruction. Instructor may ask questions such as:
Are students getting it?
Are they confused about something that needs to be retaught?
Is it time to move on with new material?
Finally, measuring student learning at the end of instruction, a summative assessment, provides information about the degree to
which students mastered the learning objectives.
This chapter outlines practical strategies instructional designers can use to develop high-quality assessments to measure student
learning. Best practices are the same for constructing diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments. Links to additional tools
and resources are also provided.

Constructing High-Quality Assessments

High-quality assessments are those that lead to valid, reliable and fair assessment results. Validity refers to the trustworthiness of
the assessment results. For instance, if a student gets 80% of test items correct, does that mean they understand 80% of the material
taught? Does the assessment measure what it purports to measure, or is the final score polluted by other factors? For example,
consider a test that assesses mathematical ability and is made up of word problems. When taken by an English language learner or
by an emerging reader, does the test assess math, reading, or a combination of both? The reliability of an assessment refers to the
consistency of the measure. Multiple-choice test items, when properly constructed, are highly reliable. There should be only one
correct answer and it is easy to grade. Essay items or performance assessments, on the other hand, are more subjective to grade.
Finally, the extent to which an assessment is fair is a characteristic of a high-quality assessment. Fairness is the degree to which an
assessment provides all learners an equal opportunity to learn and demonstrate achievement. While some aspects of validity and
reliability can be measured through statistical analysis, it is uncommon that such complex measurement procedures are used for
typical classroom assessments. Attending to best practices in assessment alignment and test item and assessment construction helps
instructional designers increase the validity, reliability, and fairness of assessment instruments.

Assessment Alignment
One of the most important concepts in assessment is alignment. It is critical that assessments and assessment items are aligned with
goals and objectives. It is impossible to determine the extent to which learners have met course or workshop goals and objectives if
their knowledge and skills have not been assessed. Assessment alignment tables and test blueprints are two tools instructional
designers can use to align assessments and assessment items with learning objectives.

Learning Taxonomies and Learning Objectives

Learning taxonomies assists instructional designers in constructing both learning objectives and assessment items. Bloom’s
Revised Taxonomy and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (DOK) are two frameworks commonly used by educators to categorize the
academic rigor of an assessment as a whole or individual assessment items. To increase the content validity of an assessment, the

7.8.1 [Link]
complexity of the individual test questions should align with the level of knowledge or skill specified in the learning goal. If a
learning objective states that a student compares and contrasts information, it is not appropriate for test items to simply ask students
to recall information. Likewise, if the learning goal states that students will be able to synthesize information, a paper-and-pencil
test will likely not be a sufficient measure of that skill.
Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy divides learning into three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor (Anderson et al., 2001).
This chapter focuses on the cognitive domain which consists of six levels that vary in complexity. The three lower levels
(remembering, understanding, and applying) are referred to as lower order thinking skills also called LOTS. The top three
(analyzing, evaluating, and creating) are referred to as higher order thinking skills, or HOTS. Lists of verbs associated with each of
these levels are readily available on the web and are very instrumental in helping instructional designers write measurable learning
objectives and test questions that go beyond recalling definitions. (For an example, see: [Link]
Similar to Bloom, Webb divides levels of knowledge into increasingly complex categories. These include recall and reproduction,
skills and concepts, strategic thinking, and extended thinking (Webb, 1999). Student tasks range from a student being able to recall
facts to synthesizing information from a variety of sources. A description of tasks at each level can be found online
at [Link] These descriptions can help instructional designers design assessment tasks that range in
complexity.

Assessment Alignment Tables

Regardless of the assessment method, instructional designers can ensure that learning goals, objectives, and assessments align by
creating an alignment table. In the example below, course goals, student learning outcomes, and assessments are aligned in a table.
This example is from a college level course on teaching with technology for pre-service teachers. This table indicates there is at
least one learning objective aligned with each course goal and at least one assessment method aligned with each objective. If you
find that a particular learning objective isn’t being assessed, you can go back and develop an assessment to measure the learner’s
progress. A link to an Assessment Alignment Table Template is provided at the end of this chapter in the Additional Resources list.
Table 1
Example Assessment Alignment Table

Course Goal Student Learning Objective (SLO) Assessment(s)

SLO1. Develop a technology integrated activity plan Technology

that meets the needs of diverse learners (e.g. ELL, at- Integration
Plan and implement meaningful learning risk, gifted, learners with learning disabilities). Portfolio
opportunities that engage learners in the Technology
appropriate use of technology to meet learning
SLO2. Explain how and why to use technology to Integration
outcomes.
meets the needs of diverse learners (e.g. ELL, at-risk, Portfolio
gifted, students with learning disabilities).
Midterm

Technology
Use technology to implement Universal Design SLO3. Describe the elements of UDL included in the Integration
for Learning. technology integrated activity. Portfolio

Model and require safe, legal, ethical, and Midterm

SLO4. Describe legal, ethical, cultural, and societal
appropriate use of digital information and
issues related to technology.
technology. Final

7.8.2 [Link]
Table of Specifications
In addition to creating an alignment table for all assessments in the entire course, instructional designers can also create a table of
specifications, or test blueprint, to align individual test items to course objectives. A table of specifications aligns the learning
objective, all items on a single test, and the level of knowledge being assessed. This is evidence of content validity. This also helps
the instructional designer see if the test includes items related to all the learning goals, and if the assessment items are written to
elicit knowledge at the appropriate level of complexity. If you find that you have too many questions about one topic or not enough
about another, or that you are only asking lower level questions when the learning objective is focused on higher order thinking
skills, the test can be edited accordingly. The figure below shows a test blueprint for a 12-item test about assessment. Each number
represents the question number on the test. A link to a Table of Specifications Template is provided at the end of this chapter in the
Additional Resources list.
Table 2
Sample Test Blueprint for a 12 Item Test

Level of Knowledge
Learning objective
Lower Order Higher Order

Analyze learning objectives in terms of format, specificity, reasonableness, and alignment. 1, 2 8, 12

Explain the importance of alignment when designing lessons and assessments. 3, 5 10

Compare and contrast reliability and validity of classroom assessment 4, 6, 7 11, 9

Assessment Formats
Common assessment formats include multiple-choice and essay questions, observation, oral-questioning, and performance-based
assessments. This chapter focuses on paper-and-pencil tests and performance assessments. Best practices in constructing each are
described below. These guidelines help increase the validity, reliability, and fairness of assessments.

Multiple-Choice Best Practice Guidelines

Multiple-choice items are very easy to grade (assuming there is only one correct answer) but very difficult to write. Coming up
with plausible distractors, or the incorrect responses, is the hardest part. If some answer choices aren’t plausible (ones that are
meant to be funny, for example), the probability that a student will be able to guess the correct answer increases. It is also difficult,
but not impossible, to write multiple-choice questions that assess higher-order thinking skills. Tips for constructing multiple-choice
test questions that assess HOTS are provided below.
1. All answer choices should be similar in length and grammatically correct in relation to the item stem.
2. Avoid “all of the above”, and “none of the above” answer choices.
3. Avoid confusing combinations of answer choices such as “A and B”; “B and C”; “A, B and C but not D”.
4. Avoid negatively stated stems. If you must use them, bold the negative word to make it what you are asking clearer to the
learner.
5. Avoid overlapping answer choices. (This most commonly occurs with number choices.)
6. The item stem should make sense on its own and not contain any extraneous information.
7. Don't include any clues in the item stem that would give the answer away.
8. Don’t include too many answer choices. Typically, multiple choice questions contain four options.
9. Ensure the correct answer is the best answer.
10. Randomize the order of the correct answers.
Table 3
Examples of Poor and Improved Items

7.8.3 [Link]
 Poor Item Improved Item Explanation

If a boy is swimming two miles an

A boy is swimming two miles
hour down a river that is polluted and
per hour down a river relative to
contains no fish and the river is
the water. The water is flowing
flowing at the rate of three miles per The poor item contains extraneous information and a
at the rate of three miles per
hour in the same direction as the boy confusing sentence structure. In the improved item,
hour. How far will the boy
is swimming, how far will the boy the extraneous information was removed. In
travel in two hours?
travel in two hours? addition, the prompt was broken up into several
a. four miles
a. four miles sentences and the actual question stands on its own.
b. six miles
b. six miles
c. ten miles
c. ten miles
d. twelve miles
d. twelve miles

All of the following are safe

Which one of the following is not a
driving practices on icy When reading the poor item, a test taker may not
safe driving practice on icy roads?
roads EXCEPT recognize that they are being asked to pick a non-
a. accelerating slowly
a. accelerating slowly. example of a safe driving practice. In the improved
b. jamming on the brakes
b. jamming on the brakes. item, the word “except” is in all caps and underlined
c. holding the wheel firmly
c. holding the wheel firmly. to call attention to what is being asked.
d. slowing down gradually
d. slowing down gradually.

In most commercial publishing of a

In publishing a book, galley
book, galley proofs are most often
proofs are most often used to In the poor item, each answer choice is not
used _________ .
1. aid in minor editing after grammatically correct in relation to the item stem.
1. page proofs precede galley proofs
page proofs. Often, a test taker can pick out the correct answer
for minor editing.
2. isolate minor defects prior to choice because it is the only one that is
2. to help isolate minor defects prior
page proofs. grammatically correct and not because they actually
to printing of page proofs.
3. assist in major editing or knew the answer. In the improved item, the item
3. they can be useful for major
rewriting. stem and answer choices have been edited so that
editing or rewriting.
4. validate menus on large they are all grammatically correct.
4. publishers decide whether book is
ships.
worth publishing.

Tips for Writing Higher Order Thinking Multiple-Choice Questions

Tip 1: Use scenarios or provide examples that are new to learners. This allows you to ask learners to do more than simply
recognize the correct answer. (Note that this can be problematic if you are assessing struggling readers or ESL learners. Know your
audience!)
Tip 2: Develop multiple-choice questions around a stimulus you provide such as a map, graph, diagram, or reading passage. These
are called interpretive exercises. Interpretive exercises include a set of data or information and a series of multiple-choice questions
having answers that are dependent upon the information given.

Best Practice Guidelines for Writing Essay Items

Essay questions are a good way to assess deep understanding and reasoning skills. Students can provide more in-depth answers in
essay questions. Essay questions are also much easier to write than multiple-choice items. They are, however, harder to grade.
Below are best practice guidelines for constructing and grading essay items and some real-world examples.
Select the most important content in the workshop or unit to assess with essay times. Using essay items limits the amount of
content you can cover on any one test because they take more time for a learner to answer. If one topic is less important than
another, consider only asking multiple-choice questions about it.

7.8.4 [Link]
 Write the prompt to focus learners on the key ideas they should address in their response. For example, tell learners how many
reasons should they give, or how many examples should they provide. Stating directly what you want means that the learner
doesn’t have to try to interpret how much is enough.
Break multi-faceted questions up into individual items. If the question is very long, make it more than one essay question on the
test. This helps focus both the test taker and the grader.
Include scoring criteria with the prompt and assign appropriate point values. If you want someone to provide three reasons why
the Renaissance began in Italy, decide how many points each reason should count and make that clear to the learner. It is very
difficult to objectively grade an essay question worth 10 or 20 points without first determining the grading criteria.
Only include essay items that require higher-order thinking. Essay questions are too time consuming to grade. If it can be
assessed with a multiple-choice question instead, don’t waste valuable time reading essay answers.
Avoid allowing learners to select which essay items they answer. This keeps learner scores comparable. If learners can choose
which essay questions to answer, the test is not assessing the same thing for all students.
Note: Essay items can also be assessed with rubrics. See Performance Assessments and Rubric Development for more information
on how to construct a rubric.

Essay Item Examples

Below are examples of high- and low-quality essay items. Note that the high quality examples include explicit instructions about
what needs to be included in the answer. In addition, how the points will be allocated is clear. The low quality essay items are both
very broad in scope. A test taker could easily answer the question without touching on any of the topics the instructor wanted them
to include in their answer. In addition, it isn’t clear to the test taker or the instructor how the points are allocated. This can lead to
inconsistencies in grading.

High-Quality Examples
1. Proof 1: Given ABC is equilateral, and BD is the angle bisector of angle ABC. Prove that the measure of angle ADB and angle
CDB is equal to 90 degrees. Provide the statement and reason for each step using the two-column proof format. (1/2 point for
each correct statement and 1/2 point for each correct reason given. 8 total points.)

2. Compare and contrast large-scale assessment and classroom assessment on the dimensions of frequency and nature of feedback.
(2 points frequency, 2 points feedback. 4 total points)

Low-Quality Examples
1. Explain weather and climate. (20 points)
2. Describe the three principles of Universal Design for Learning. Do you believe they should be used to guide instruction? Why
or why not? (10 points)

Best Practice Guidelines in Developing Performance-Based Assessments

Performance-based assessment allows learners to apply knowledge and skills in authentic situations. Performance-based
assessment results in the creation of a performance or a product. Performance examples include public speaking, inventing
something to solve a problem, putting on a play, or playing in a basketball game. Public service announcements, digital videos, and
infographics created by learners are examples of products. Consider the following guidelines when constructing performance
assessments:
1. Design a task that applies to real-world situations. The more authentic a performance-based assessment can be the more
meaningful it will be to the learner, although access to resources and time will certainly impose project limitations. For
example, writing a paper on gardening, designing a garden, and creating a garden are all examples of performance tasks with
varying degrees of authenticity.
2. Develop a task description that includes the following:

7.8.5 [Link]
 1. Purpose/learning objectives. Why are the learners completing this task? Write the learning objectives in learner friendly
language.
2. Clear directions. Break down the task into its component parts. Don’t assume learners know how to jump immediately into
creating the final performance or product.
3. Perimeters and constraints. How much time do the learners have to complete the project? What resources are they allowed to
use? Is it a group or individual project? Who are they allowed to ask for help?
4. Assessment criteria. How will the performance or product be graded? This is discussed in more detail below in the Rubrics
section.
3. Develop any job aides learners will need in order to complete the task. Do you need to teach any additional skills such as how
to locate articles in a database, how to measure volume, or how to use a particular piece of software?
4. If at all possible, provide learners with an example.

Rubrics
As discussed earlier in the chapter, reliability is related to scoring consistency. One way to help ensure scoring consistency is to use
rubrics for grading subjective assessment items, including essay questions and performance assessments. Rubrics focus the
attention of a grader on what is most important about the assignment. Rubrics include topics or elements and descriptions of levels
of performance. This provides a roadmap for how to assess an assignment that is more subjective than a multiple-choice question.
Without a rubric, it is easy for a grader to grade for one thing for the first 10 papers and grade for something else the last 10 papers.
This occurs when an instructor has a lot of papers to grade, grading takes place over several days, and if more than one instructor is
grading the same assignment. Providing a rubric up front is also beneficial to the student. They communicate to the student from
the beginning what is important, on what to focus, and where to spend time and energy.
There are three types of rubrics: holistic, analytic, and single-point. This section will focus on analytic rubrics, because they allow
instructors to assess the component parts of the performance assessment individually and provide the clearest grading criteria.
Several additional resources about the different types of rubrics are provided below.
An analytic rubric consists of criteria, levels of performance, and descriptors.

Figure 7.8.1: Example of an Analytic Rubric

7.8.6 [Link]
Best Practice Guidelines for Creating Rubrics
1. Determine the criteria. Criteria can be written as a learning objective or category. Criteria should be measurable, important to
the performance task, and taught. For example, creativity is often assessed in performance-based assessments. If creativity was
not explicitly taught, it shouldn’t be measured.
2. Determine the weight of each criteria. Will they all be worth the same amount of points or will some count for more than
others?
3. Determine the number of performance levels. How many levels of the rating scale will be delineated on the rubric? Will they be
numbers such as 4, 3, 2, 1 or descriptive such as developing, meets expectations, and exceeds expectations. Typically, analytic
rubrics contain three to five performance levels.
4. Write descriptors for each of the performance levels. This is the hardest part! Descriptors should address the quality of the
product. It is okay to count project elements for some of your criteria (i.e. number of references, number of graphs), but not for
all of them. See examples of quality and numerical descriptors below.

Numerical Descriptors vs Quality Descriptors Example

Table 4
Numerical Descriptors in an Annotated Bibliography Rubric

4 3 2 1

Quality / All sources cited are At least 80% of sources At least 50% of sources Less than 50% of sources
Reliability of reliable and cited are reliable and are reliable and cited are reliable and
Sources trustworthy. trustworthy. trustworthy. trustworthy.

5 points 4-3 points 2 points 0-1 point

Table 5
Quality Descriptors in a Technology Lesson Plan Rubric

Below Expectations (C-

Exceeds Expectations (A) Meets Expectations (B to C)
and below)

Teacher candidate develops a Activity promotes significant Activity promotes creatively, Activity focuses on
learner-centered, technology- learner engagement through collaboration, or communication teacher-use of
integrated activity that promotes creativity, collaboration, and and focuses on learner technology but lacks
creativity, collaboration, or communication. Actively engagement with technology. opportunities for
communication, and results in a includes opportunity for learner Actively includes opportunity learner engagement
learner-created product. to create a product. for learner to create a product. and/or product creation

5 points 2-4 points 1 point

Note also that the rubric element directly above is written as a learning objective rather than simply a category.

Conclusion
Aligning test items and performance assessments to learning objectives, using best practice guidelines to create assessments, and
using rubrics to grade complex tasks, are strategies instructional designers can use to develop high-quality assessments. High-
quality assessments provide instructors with accurate information regarding the extent to which learners met the learning
objectives, a critical component of the teaching and learning process. Accurate assessment results help instructional designers plan
future instruction, adapt current instruction, communicate levels of understanding to students, and examine the overall effectiveness
of instruction and course design.

7.8.7 [Link]
References
Anderson, L.W. (Ed.), Krathwohl, D.R. (Ed.), Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., Pintrich, P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock,
M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
(Complete edition). New York: Longman.
Webb, N. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states (Research Monograph No. 18).
Washington, DC: CCSSO.

This page titled 7.8: Measuring Student Learning is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

7.8.8 [Link]
 CHAPTER OVERVIEW

8: Design Relationships
8.1: Working With Stakeholders And Clients
8.2: Leading Project Teams
8.3: Implementation And Instructional Design

This page titled 8: Design Relationships is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K. McDonald
& Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

1
8.1: Working With Stakeholders And Clients

Working With Stakeholders and Clients

Lee Tran, Kathy Sindt, Rudy Rico, & Benjamin Kohntopp
Throughout your experiences as an instructional designer, you may form many different relationships with your colleagues.
However, one of your most important relationships will be the one you have with your stakeholders or clients. It is important to
recognize that the relationship with your stakeholders or clients is not solely based on transaction, but is also one of collaboration.
In any instructional development process, there will be many different roles that each collaborator plays, as each brings a different
set of expertise.
Remember, as an instructional designer, the communication style you choose to use will involve feedback from both parties. Your
stakeholders or clients are looking to you for guidance in instructional design and content delivery. However, part of your work will
be reliant on the content that your stakeholders or clients are giving you.
As instructional designers, we want to build trust with those we work with to better collaborate and deliver an end-product that
meets the goals of a project. By building a stakeholder or client relationship, we can better understand who our target audience is,
the project needs, and what our learning outcomes are.
For example, let’s say you received a set of instructional materials on how to make toast. The instructional material provided may
be simple to follow, but there may be details missing needed for you to start your work, such as knowing if your target audience has
access to a toaster. This detail would be important in your design to ensure that learners have access to all of the materials needed
to successfully complete the course. As we continue this chapter, think about what kind of details you would need to start a course
development and write them down.
Throughout this chapter, we will be looking at different aspects of the client relationship, including the process, guidance and
communication, scope of work, collaborative workspaces, challenges, ethical concerns, and reviewing content.

The Process
Every instructional design project should follow an instructional design model. The most familiar model is the ADDIE model. This
model includes the following components: Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (Kurt, 2017).
Another popular model and the one we use at Colorado Community Colleges Online (CCCOnline) is the backward design model
(Wiggins and McTighe, 1998). In this model, the focus is on the result of the instruction, while also asking what the students should
be able to understand and do after the instruction has been provided. All instruction, learning activities, and assessments direct the
students toward achieving the result.
Whether you are following the ADDIE model, the backward design model, or another process to design your instruction, it is
important that your stakeholders understand your process and the reasons you are using that process. It's also important to be sure
your stakeholders know what you expect of them as part of the process. Getting buy-in on your process at the start will eliminate
problems later. If the stakeholders understand what you expect, and the reasons for the expectations, they are better equipped to
follow your procedures and processes.
There are different ways to ensure your stakeholders understand your process. One excellent option is to have initial meetings with
all the stakeholders where you provide the stakeholders with information about the process and your expectations of each of them.
At CCCOnline, all of our stakeholders are required to take an orientation course that describes our processes and expectations.
Once all stakeholders have completed the orientation, an initial vision meeting is held to discuss the scope of the project, to clarify
the expectations from the stakeholder perspective, and to establish the duties and roles of all members of the team. After the vision
meeting is completed, a kickoff meeting is held a couple of weeks later to review and finalize the project outline and scope, to set
the timeline for the project, including deliverable due dates, review dates, and the final project deliverable due dates. The kickoff
meeting is the beginning of the design phase of the project.

8.1.1 [Link]
Guidance and Communication
Setting Communication Standards
As you work with your clients in your course development, you will want to ensure there is a standard of communication in place.
A communication standard may include preferred methods of communication, frequency, and availability. By setting
communication standards, you and your client can follow the expectations of each party in the development and promote a steady
workflow. Remember that even though you are the instructional designer, your client is very much your partner throughout the
development to ensure content validity and that the end product meets the needs of the target audience.

Becoming a Learning Coach

Your client will be looking at you for guidance in your expertise in instructional design. This expertise makes you what we will be
calling a Learning Coach. A client may be an expert in their particular field, but may not have the same expertise with learning
theories and applications to deliver their content to a mass audience. By understanding your role as not only the instructional
designer, but as a Learning Coach to your clients, you are there to help guide your clients in their instruction development journey.
Some clients may come to you with anxieties or questions like, “How do we engage the audience within different learning
environments?” or “How do we measure the appropriate outcomes?”. Your coaching is meant to put your client at ease. As you
coach your client through their concerns, you may notice your client becoming more confident in what your instructional product
will be and in turn providing content that is better suited for the learning environment. This mutual understanding can ensure
success.

Flexibility
Always remember that your client is human. Much like you, certain circumstances in their lives may affect the delivery of content.
We want to ensure that the proper expectations are set in place, but also be flexible enough to understand that certain circumstances
may get in the way. By being flexible and empathetic, you ensure that neither you nor your clients lose motivation or energy
throughout the development process.

Scope of Work
When beginning work on an instructional design project, it is important to ensure that all the stakeholders agree on the scope of
work (SOW) for the project. The project scope determines the goals/objectives, deliverables, and deadlines of the project.
At the start of any project, define the goals and objectives so you understand what the stakeholders are expecting. We have included
some templates that can aid in defining your goals and setting the scope of your project. These include a PreMeeting and vision
Meeting Guide, a Vision Scope Template, a Kickoff Call script, and a Course Map (outline of the project).
In addition to the goals and objectives, determine what deliverables you will provide as part of the project. Will you be creating a
large, full-scale curriculum project, with multiple courses, or are you developing a single course? You need to know what kinds of
media you will be developing. Are you expected to create video or interactive content, or will you be developing more static
content? If you are developing any multimedia, be sure to determine the length/amount of this content before beginning. The more
multimedia and interactive content you will be developing, the more resources your project will take. You need to be in agreement
with your stakeholders on all aspects related to the scope of the work before the start of the project.
Finally, you need to determine the timeline of the project. Decide upfront when each deliverable is due, how long the stakeholders
have to review the content, and how long you will need to make any revisions requested by the stakeholders. Agreement on these
issues avoids conflict later in the process.
In addition to having the scope clearly defined at the start of the project, it is important that you and the stakeholders have clearly
defined expectations of all members of the team. Are the stakeholders expected to write content? Are they expected to review
content, and if so, at what stages of the project? Some stakeholders may only be directly involved at the beginning and end of a
design project, while others may be involved during the entire process. Be sure that each stakeholder, including you, understands
the expectations of them during the development process.
A major reason for clearly defining the scope of the work and your expectations of the stakeholders is to help eliminate scope
creep. Scope creep occurs when a part of the project takes longer or more work than originally determined. This usually happens

8.1.2 [Link]
when one of the stakeholders expects or asks for additional work beyond the original agreement or statement of work. The best way
to avoid scope creep is to have clearly defined and agreed upon scope and expectations before the project starts.

Setting up a Collaborative Workspace

In this section, we will focus on collaborating with your design team and setting up a workspace that allows each member to
contribute. Depending on your situation, a collaborative workspace can include both physical and virtual spaces. Setting up a
collaborative workspace is key to ensuring that all stakeholders can contribute during the design process and questions about
content can be addressed before developing course materials.
The first step to consider when setting up a collaborative workspace is the types of materials that will be delivered. If the instructor
or subject matter expert you are working with is delivering large files, such as MP4 video files or large text files, then a cloud-
based file hosting service like Dropbox, Microsoft’s One Drive, or Google’s G Drive may be a solution. File hosting services allow
the user to upload large files and share the uploaded content with members in your organization.
Once you agree on a file hosting service, set up a folder, and share the folder with the stakeholders who will be delivering content.
Make sure you provide the right type of access so that the stakeholders have permission to edit and add content.
In addition to setting up a file-sharing collaborative workspace, you should set a schedule for delivering content, and schedule
regular meetings to check in with your stakeholders. Having a regular meeting scheduled can help prevent any communication
issues or identify issues that come up as content is delivered.

Collaboration Tools

Tools for Meeting With Stakeholders

Web conferencing software – ex. Zoom, Skype

Tools for Project Planning

Spreadsheets, Shared Calendars – ex. MS Excel, Google Calendar

Tools for Content Delivery

Cloud-based services – ex. Dropbox, MS One Drive
Depending on your institution, a face-to-face meeting can be held at the start of the project and then transition to online meetings or
conference calls. Meeting with all your stakeholders face-to-face at the beginning of course development can help determine which
members of the development team are essential to future meetings and which content to assign for development to each member.

Challenges
Communication with stakeholders, as stated in our section on setting up a collaboration space, is key to ensuring completion of the
course development on deadline. One common issue that occurs when developing online courses is lack of communication leading
to confusion on how content is delivered, when content is to be delivered, and how content is reviewed for quality. For example,
while working on a teacher education course last summer, I encountered an issue with the subject matter expert’s schedule. At the
initial meeting, the subject matter expert indicated she was familiar with the content from previously teaching the course and would
have no issues making the content updates. However, the subject matter expert also indicated during the meeting that she would be
on vacation abroad and would not be able to deliver content until after she returned. Since the subject matter expert indicated she
was familiar with the content as an instructor, I recommended that she complete an initial review and submission of new content
for the course’s first two modules prior to going on vacation. Knowing that the subject matter expert would be unavailable during
the first phase of development prompted me to update the content delivery schedule. Therefore, setting up expectations early on is
essential to catching possible scheduling conflicts and avoiding confusion later in the content delivery stage of course development.
To avoid communication issues, also speak with your stakeholders regularly. We emphasize “speak,” because long emails can lead
to more confusion. Email communication is good for quick updates, but long emails chains can be more time consuming than
simply talking on the phone for 5 minutes to clarify an issue. Therefore, set up a regular meeting time each week and check in with
your stakeholders often by phone or web conference. After all the stakeholders are comfortable with the development process, you
can hold meetings less frequently, but at the beginning stages of development avoid going more than a week between meetings.

8.1.3 [Link]
Not communicating expectations early on with all of your stakeholders can lead to missed deadlines and content delivery falling
behind schedule. Therefore, make deadlines clear and use a project plan to keep track of all the major milestones during the content
delivery phase. If a deadline is missed, communicate with your stakeholders immediately and identify the issue that caused the
delay. However, sometimes the stakeholder in charge of delivering the content may have fallen behind and need additional support
to create the content. Courses that incorporate Open Educational Resources (OER) may be more challenging to develop content for
and, therefore, may require more time. This is due to the "open" nature of OER content. While there are many free resources
available to educators, not all OER content is high quality, or accessible.
Technical issues may also prevent the delivery of content; checking with your stakeholders when they miss deadlines can help
identify if it is a technology issue or a content issue. Depending on the file-sharing system you selected, there may be issues
updating content in the online workspace, and you may need to coach your stakeholders as to how to properly upload and share
content with the design team.
When content is not delivered, and several deadlines are missed, set up a meeting with the key stakeholders, and develop a plan to
get content delivery back on schedule. For this reason, it is often a good idea to set up a buffer between the end of content delivery
and the start of the course launch. I typically set an early content delivery date of about 3 weeks before content is due for review.

Ethical Concerns
On some days during your course development cycle, you may feel like teacher dealing with a student. You know that the student is
very skilled, but at times they may need your guidance. This is especially true when it comes to Ethical Concerns that might arise
during the course development process. While a subject matter expert (SME) is exactly that, an expert in their chosen subject, they
aren’t expected to know everything. This means that, regardless of the type of development (OER or otherwise), your subject
matter expert will be looking for outside sources to supplement their material.

Plagiarism
Although some might think of plagiarism as a concern reserved for students, it is a reality for the individuals creating the courses as
well. Any time a subject matter expert looks for material, they run the risk of plagiarizing content. In most environments, this is
very problematic. Many places will take ownership of a SME’s work upon its completion; therefore, having plagiarized or stolen
content can cause problems for that institution or place of business. Here a few strategies you can use when working with your
SME:
1. When the content first comes in, be sure to read it thoroughly. Reading your content is the simplest way to tell if a SME has
been plagiarizing. You should have a feeling for how a SME writes by now, from emails to course maps, so if anything in their
content seems suspect to you, it might be time to raise a red flag and ask them about it, especially if they are missing citations
for their material.
2. If you’re able, run the content through a plagiarism checker, such as Turnitin, Quetext, or Prepostseo (those last two are free).
Keep in mind that while the plagiarism checker will give you a better idea of where an SME’s content came from, it doesn’t
necessarily mean plagiarism has taken place.
3. As you read over the content and suspect plagiarism in a particular passage, highlight it, and paste the suspected content into a
Google search. Believe it or not, the search results that come back may be bolded portions of a website where the content is
from. If it is, you need to discuss this with your SME.
Catching plagiarism early is vital. SMEs may not be aware that what they’re doing is plagiarism and may continue to do it
throughout the process. It might be helpful to discuss Creative Commons licenses with them to elucidate what they can and cannot
do. Reading through a basic overview of the licenses ([Link] might save you from future issues.

Conflict
Unfortunately, sometimes, conflicts between you and your SME arise. Remember that during development, communication is key.
More often than not, SMEs are happy to dispense their knowledge, but they also must be heard. They are not a tool to be used and
discarded. Keep this in mind to save your developments from falling apart. Here is one example:
During the development of a course, the SME, who was writing an entire OER eBook, decided that she wanted links to the eBook
placed in every page of the course so students could readily access it everywhere. While I immediately disagreed with her, I

8.1.4 [Link]
allowed her to finish her reasoning. Once she concluded, I explained that from a design perspective, this could cause confusion for
students, regardless of her good intentions. I told her I appreciated her input and told her that if she disagreed, we could have a
meeting involving the dean (her boss) and we could talk things out with him. She decided to do so, we talked it out and we came to
an agreement: the links to the eBook would be placed in only the most relevant and useful places. We both walked away from the
conflict satisfied with our agreement.

Reviewing the Content

Quality Assurance
We all want our students to have the best quality courses. One of the most important components of a course development comes
during the quality assurance (QA) check. Whether you as the ID do it alone or you’re lucky to have someone there to help you with
it, quality assurance is paramount. CCCOnline implements QA via a two-fold approach: we have a designated QA person checking
the course throughout the entirety of the build. When the content first comes in, they go over all the essential components
thoroughly and write feedback and recommendations. Then, once the course is in place in the LMS, they review it again.
Throughout the entire process, the QA person is viewing the course as a student would and ensuring everything makes sense. As
Instructional Designers, we should never forget the end user: our students.

Approval
Not only should a QA person sign off on the content, but the SME and the program leader(s) should also have a say in approving
the content. Essentially, when the content is in, and before it is placed in the LMS all parties should have their voices heard:
1. The QA person should be viewing the course from the student’s perspective, giving valuable insight that might go unnoticed
otherwise.
2. The SME and program leader(s) should have the best understanding of the content and should, therefore, ensure the course
aligns with all objectives and hits all of its necessary deliverables.
3. As the ID, you must do some of both: ensure the content aligns with the outcomes that have been set and ensure the course will
make sense from a student perspective.

Conclusion
In this chapter we discussed some strategies for collaborating with various stakeholders during a course development and provided
some recommendations for solving some common issues instructional designers encounter during the collaboration phase. As the
instructional designer, having a well-developed project plan, that includes deadlines for content delivery and dates for meetings
with stakeholders, is essential for a successful course development. Therefore, when developing your project plan remember some
of the issues we presented here and the types of challenges your stakeholders may encounter during content delivery. What can you
do as the instructional designer to help your stakeholders meet the deadlines? Consider the following:
1. What type of content are your stakeholders expected to deliver?
2. When is the course expected to launch? Consider potential time constraints for stakeholders.
3. How much time will the quality assurance process take?
4. Will stakeholders be asked to review content on multiple occasions? How will reviews and feedback be managed?

Templates
Kickoff Call Script
Pre-Meeting and Vision Meeting Guide
Vision Scope Template
Course Map (.xlsx)

References
Kurt, S. (2017). ADDIE model: Instructional design. Retrieved from [Link]
Mochal, T. (n.d). Defining project goals and objectives. Retrieved from [Link]

8.1.5 [Link]
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

This page titled 8.1: Working With Stakeholders And Clients is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

8.1.6 [Link]
8.2: Leading Project Teams

Leading Project Teams

Ashley Smith
My palms were sweaty. The conference room was warm. Seated directly across the table was the Vice President of Asset Protection
of Walmart US. The company had flown me from Idaho to Bentonville, Arkansas, for this moment, my first big break, and my
chance to make a name for myself. I was leading a team tasked with developing a curriculum that would be implemented
everywhere in the United States, and I was ready—ready to spring into action and dazzle the high-level executives with my
instructional design prowess.
Finally, the VP turned to me and asked, “When do you think we can roll this out?” I gave an estimate, but that wasn’t what I
thought was the most crucial part of my presentation. Then came the follow-up question. “Do you have a breakdown of who will
pay for what?” I did not. Reality smacked me square across my overly confident face. I was not there to present a proposal for my
innovative, custom-designed, and beautifully-built curriculum. I mean, yes, I was, but that was only a small part of my role. As this
development progressed, it became more evident that the senior leadership was more concerned about milestones and deadlines
than my knowledge of ADDIE. I was not only an instructional designer; I was the project manager, the bottom line. It was my
responsibility to handle timelines, budgets, and all the not-so-fun, not-so-creative details that would enable my team to pull off this
massive project and produce an excellent product.
When I left the corporate world behind and started to design curriculum for higher education, my project management skills were
invaluable. As you join the world of instructional designers, you will often find yourself in the role of a project manager. Over the
years, I have learned, leading project teams is an essential skill for an instructional designer to master. It is something to embrace
and not fear.

Basics of Project Management

From the Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide (PMBOK Guide), a project is “a temporary endeavor undertaken to
create a unique product, service, or result” (Project Management Institute, 4). The keyword in the definition of project
is temporary. The permanent, everyday production of products and services is called operations. Project management is “the
application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the project requirements” (Project Management
Institute, 10).
Now let’s explore several basic concepts of Project Management: Project Phases, Project Constraints, Project Management
Triangle, and Ethics of Working with Teams.

Project Phases
The textbook, Project Management for Instructional Designers, describes four typical lifecycle phases of a project: Initiation,
Planning, Execution, and Closeout (or Closing) (see Figure 1).
Arrows showing the four phases of project management (initiation, planning, execution, and closeout).

Figure 8.2.1: Four Phases of Project Management

The Initiation phase encompasses all the assignments and actions that need to occur before project planning. The Initiation phase
starts “with the assignment of the project manager and ends when the project team has sufficient information to begin developing a
detailed schedule and budget” (Wiley et al., p. 3.1). The Planning phase centers on developing “an understanding of how the
project will be executed and a plan for acquiring the resources needed to execute it” (Wiley et al., p. 3.1). The Execution phase
emphasizes “the major activities needed to accomplish the work of the project” (Wiley et al., p. 3.1). The Closeout (or Closing)
phase signifies the last stage of a project and where “project staff is transferred off the project, project documents are archived, and
the final few items or punch list is completed” (Wiley et al., p. 3.1). I would recommend exploring more about each of these phases
in this textbook, Project Management for Instructional Designers.

8.2.1 [Link]
Additional Videos
4 Phases of the Project Life Cycle
The Typical Phases in Project Management

Project Constraints

Scope
With every project, we must consider scope. The definition of project scope is "what tasks the project team is expected to
accomplish and, just as importantly, what is not part of the project" (Wiley et al, p. 7.2).
Every project, being temporary in nature, has a beginning and ending. As the project manager, you need a clear vision of where the
project needs to go. To help understand this concept, we will explore the second habit of 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,
"Begin with the end in mind." Stephen Covey (2013) states,
“‘Begin with the end in mind’ is based on the principle that all things are created twice. There's a mental or first creation, and a
physical or second creation, to all things. Take the construction of a home, for example. You create it in every detail before you
ever hammer the first nail into place. You try to get a very clear sense of what kind of house you want…
The carpenter's rule is 'measure twice, cut once.' You have to make sure that the blueprint, the first creation, is really what you
want, that you've thought everything through. Then you put it into bricks and mortar. Each day you go to the construction shed and
pull out the blueprint to get marching orders for the day. You begin with the end in mind” (p. 95).
Like the construction of a house, you need to plan and create a “blueprint” for your project before work can begin. After you
understand the project, you will need to articulate this vision to your team. Your team will never have a better understanding of the
project scope than you. As the project manager, if you are unclear about the project’s expectations, your team will also be unclear
on them. This path leads to scope creep.

Dangers of Scope Creep

Scope creep happens anytime the project’s requirements change after you start the project. This creep is a subtle phenomenon.
Threats to time and cost loom as you allow small changes to occur based on last-minute suggestions. These change requests are
often coupled with the rationale that, “We are already adjusting the curriculum anyway.” Or “It's only one small change.” One
small change can have an enormous impact on the project. In many cases, as the project manager, you will underestimate the full
effect of the change. You never want to find yourself in the position where you overpromise and underdeliver. Scope creep will
make you unable to fill your commitments and leave your stakeholders disappointed.

Cost
As a project manager, you have an essential role to manage budgets and cost. You will need know your budgetary constraints and
work to minimize costs. As illustrated in my Walmart example, knowing your budget and costs are of crucial consideration and
interest to your stakeholders.

Time
Your stakeholders also want to know whether the project is on schedule. Stakeholders’ satisfaction is often tied to project
performance expectations. You need to know the timeframe you have to accomplish the project. You will need to estimate how long
every stage of the project will take and find the project’s critical path.
Rapid prototyping reduces time and cost in a project. (Rapid prototyping was explored in earlier chapters.) By prototyping, you and
your stakeholders can make decisions that will save time and money. This process results in higher overall quality and allows you
to influence the decision-making process along the way. Prototyping enables you to make the best use of our next concept, the
project management triangle.

Project Management Triangle

A common adage about project management is, “You can have it good, fast, or cheap. Pick two.” This statement derives from the
concept called the “project management triangle,” or sometimes referred to as the “iron triangle.” There are several variations of

8.2.2 [Link]
the triangle. One of the most common variations is the constraints of cost, time, and scope make the sides of the triangle with the
center representing quality (see Figure 2).

Figure 8.2.2: Project Management Triangle

Let’s say you are creating a training course, and you want it to be done quickly (time constraint) and at a low cost (cost constraint.)
It becomes evident that the scope needs to be limited (scope constraint). You will not be able to add a lot of extras to the course (e-
learning or VR experience). If you try to do all three, the quality of the course will suffer. If the clients want the VR experience,
then the costs will rise. There are always tradeoffs for every adjustment made to a project because you cannot improve all three
constraints simultaneously. As the project manager, it is critical to understand the consequences of every decision made and how it
affects other decisions.

Application Exercises
Create a chart that explains what happens at each phase of the project management lifecycle.
How can effectively managing project constraints (scope, time, and cost) help a project to be successful and prevent scope
creep?

Working With Teams

Besides knowing the constraints, understanding the different teams that you will be working with on a project is imperative. There
are several different types of teams that you may work with on any project. In this chapter, we will only highlight a few of those
teams.

8.2.3 [Link]
 Figure 8.2.3: Relationship Between Different Teams on a Project

Working With Your Team

Whether you were given your team or you selected your team, your leadership will determine the team effectiveness and ultimately
the success of the project. Your ability to manage and inspire people will be one of the most critical factors to the success of the
project. You will need to assess what skills you will need for the project and match them with your team members.
As you identify strengths and skills of your team members, you need to allow people to play off their strengths. In the
book, Strengths Finder 2.0, Gallup scientists “discovered that people have several times more potential for growth when they invest
energy to developing their strengths instead of correcting their deficiencies” (Rath, 2007, p. i). I have found when people are
leveraging their strengths, they are happier and more productive.

Working With SME

A subject-matter expert (SME) can be a blessing and a curse at the same time. A SME offers much-needed content knowledge;
however, the project can quickly become off schedule if the SME is unavailable or unable to meet critical deadlines. Developing a
relationship with an SME is explored more in the chapter called, “Working With Stakeholders and Clients.” Maintaining healthy
relationships with key stakeholders, like the SME, will dramatically impact the project.

Working With the Delivery Team (Instructors, Faculty, Trainers, etc.)

As an instructional designer, rarely are you the one delivering or teaching the curriculum. Because of that, it is critical to keep the
instructor/trainer in mind with the design of the materials, and how will it be implemented by the delivery team. With the excellent
materials your team created, you will want the instructor training performed at the same high level. It may be necessary for you to
work with your organization's delivery arm to ensure that the Train the Trainer (T3) sessions or teacher education programs happen
according to plan. With this coordination, a successful implementation will allow the participants to experience the curriculum the

8.2.4 [Link]
way you design it. To explore more about implementation, read the chapter in this textbook titled, “Implementation and
Instructional Design.”

Working With the Stakeholders and Clients

Your underlying goal of the project is to deliver what your stakeholders and clients want. To effectively do that, you need to answer
these questions: what is the goal and how will success be assessed? You need to know the goal and design in the assessment.
When I created my first workshop for Walmart, I built it solely around the content given to me by the subject matter experts. I
created beautiful workbooks and presentations. I even had the chance to attend the workshop as the material was delivered. At the
end of the workshop, all the participants were ready to change the world because of my class. I thought to myself,
“#LearningWasAchieved.” A few weeks later, I was asked by a senior leader what type of return on investment (ROI) metrics I had
and how well did the workshop achieve the outcomes? After scrambling to pull information together about the success of the class,
I was only able to generate a pitiful report. I realized the failure was not in the workshop, but that I was unprepared to report on its
success. From this experience, I learned the importance of backward design. In backward design, you start with the learning
outcomes or goals, create assessments to measure those outcomes, and then create the content that will enable the learners to
complete the assessments successfully.
The next time I developed a class, I started the conversation by asking questions such as: “What do we want to measure?” and
“What do the students need to know?” I did this questioning on the front side of the project. I designed in key outcome metrics with
how they would be assessed in the curriculum. This time, I had the reports prepared, showing ROI. Of all the leadership and
management skills I have learned, the ability to show value (ROI) to my stakeholders has had the greatest impact on my
professional success as a designer. Another chapter, “Working With Stakeholders and Clients,” reviews more on these interactions.

Effective Strategies in Leading a Team

Figure 4 shows the strategies to use to help you successfully lead your team through a project.

Figure 8.2.4: Effective Strategies in Leading a Team

8.2.5 [Link]
Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities
Define the roles of your team. You need to understand who is ultimately responsible. Hyman G. Rickover, the “Father of the
Nuclear Navy,” led a team to build the world’s first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus. He had a deep understanding of
responsibility. He said, “Responsibility is a unique concept... You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You
may delegate it, but it is still with you... If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift
the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you
have never had anyone really responsible.” (United States Congress, 1965, p. 87). Although you may have delegated tasks, the
shared successes and failures of your project are yours to bear.

Additional Videos
Key Project Team Roles

Streamlining Workflow
Find bottlenecks. As a leader, you can’t fully delegate responsibility away for a project. So, if tasks aren’t happening, you need to
ask, “Why?” You will need to find solutions. In the book, The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement, the main character
receives a critical insight from one of his professors, “What you have learned is that the capacity of the [project] is equal to the
capacity of its bottlenecks” (Goldratt, 1992, p. 158). This capacity of any given bottleneck on your team or as part of your project
affects the amount of work accomplished during a particular timeframe.
The speed of the project will depend on the number of bottlenecks. It would be best if you gave time and attention to improving
those bottlenecks each day. The priority has to be what problems your team is having and helping them solve the issues quickly.
These problems or bottlenecks will determine whether you will meet your deadline.

Communicating Effectively
Don’t keep your people in the dark. As the project manager, you will need to develop strong communication channels with your
team and stakeholders. B.G. Zulch discovered that “The single most significant factor affecting the success of a project is the
communication ability of the project manager. If it seems true that everything rises and falls on communication and leadership, it
stands to reason that leadership communication ability is the foundational skill that must be attained for a project manager to be
effective…Communication is so important to project success that it has been referred to as the lifeblood of a project…” (2014, p.
1001).
Don’t allow blind spots to develop. The responsibility of communication does not rest solely on the project manager. The entire
team needs to be communicating regularly with updates on progress. Without regular updates, blind spots will occur.
Have regular meetings with your team. Many meetings are considered boring and a waste of time because the leader conducting the
meeting does not know how to have a productive meeting. From the book, Death by Meeting, Lencioni (2004) asserts two ideas for
more productive meetings. First, meetings need more drama. The meetings need to be centered around conflict by addressing
difficult questions. Let your people be passionate about what they do. Second, meetings need contextual structure. Not every
meeting is the same type. Have the right kind of meeting that addresses your needs from a daily check-in to a monthly strategic
meeting.

Additional Videos
Improving Your Project Management Communication
How to Run Team Meetings

Creating a Feedback Culture

Foster a culture of offering and receiving feedback. Feedback creates accountability. In the book, The Oz Principle, Connors et al.
(2004) state, "You can gain great insight from frequent, regular, and ongoing feedback from other people. Although it can cause a
great deal of pain and embarrassment at times, honest input helps create the accurate picture of reality that lies at the core of
accountability" (p. 81). With any project, you need people to be accountable for their assigned tasks. With this loop of giving and
receiving feedback, you, as the manager, can see the status of each part of the project. When you see epic failures with projects,
many times, the lack of feedback is the underlying reason for it.

8.2.6 [Link]
Additional Videos
Managing Teams & Giving Feedback – Project Management

Be in the Details
Spend the majority of your time in the details of the project. Admiral Rickover, the manager who led the team to build the world’s
first nuclear-powered submarine, drove this point home by stating, "The man in charge must concern himself with details. If he
does not consider them important, neither will his subordinates. Yet 'the devil is in the details.' It is hard and monotonous to pay
attention to seemingly minor matters. In my work, I probably spend about ninety-nine percent of my time on what others may call
petty details. Most managers would rather focus on lofty policy matters. But when the details are ignored, the project fails. No
infusion of policy or lofty ideals can then correct the situation" (Rickover, 1982). Success is through the execution of small tasks.

Managing Conflicts
Have crucial conversations. Anytime you are dealing with people under time and money constraints, you are going to have conflict.
As a project manager, you will be required to have crucial conversations. From the book, Crucial Conversations, Patterson et al.
(2002) define a crucial conversation as "a discussion between two or more people where stakes are high, opinions vary, and
emotions run strong" (p. 3). When leading a crucial conversation, it is imperative to stay focused on the facts and issues. Prepare
ahead of time so you can stay calm and not be distracted by strong feelings and emotional appeals. A leader who approaches these
difficult conversations in a non-emotional way serves his people more effectively. You can create a safe environment for a crucial
conversation by validating the other person’s position. Patterson et al. (2002) recommend the STATE method to manage conflict.
The STATE method is an acronym of the tools you can use: Share your facts, Tell your story, Ask for others’ paths, Talk tentatively
(or speaking gently and respectfully), and Encourage testing (or invite others to talk) (p. 124).

Additional Videos
Conflict Management – Key Concepts in Project Management

Application Exercises
Identify the type of support you will need to give for each of the different teams with which you are interacting.
Which strategies do you feel are the most important and how would you apply those strategies to your situation?

Conclusion
In this chapter, we discussed that although you may be an instructional designer, you might often find yourself in the project
manager role. We explored the four phases of the project management lifecycle: initiation, planning, execution, and closeout. We
also studied how the project management triangle showed how the three constraints of scope, time, and cost can impact quality of a
project. We reviewed the different teams you will work with on a project and provided effective strategies in leading a team.
Even if project management is new to you, becoming an effective project manager can be learned. As you master those skills, you
will find yourself leading effective teams. A well-managed project will cause a positive outlook for everyone from your team down
to the stakeholders and clients. Your finely-tuned project management skills will lead you to future success.

Resources
Project Management for Instructional Designers Textbook (PM4ID)
Project Management Institute – [Link]
A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge ( PMBOK® Guide)

References
Connors, R., Smith, T., & Hickman, C. (2004). The Oz Principle: Getting results through individual and organizational
accountability. New York, NY: Portfolio.
Covey, S. (2013). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change (25th anniversary edition).
Retrieved from [Link]
Goldratt, E.M. & Cox, J. (1992). The Goal: A process of ongoing improvement (Second revised edition). Great Barrington, MA:
North River Press.

8.2.7 [Link]
Lencioni, P. (2004). Death by meeting : A leadership fable...about solving the most painful problem in business (Vol. 1st ed). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from [Link]
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., Switzler, A. (2002). Crucial conversations. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional
Publishing.
Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)–Sixth Edition.
Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
Rath, T. (2007). Strengths Finder 2.0. New York, NY: Gallup Press.
Rickover, H. G. (1982). Doing a Job. Retrieved from [Link]
United States Congress. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. (1965). Loss of the U.S.S. "Thresher.": Hearings, Eighty-eigth
Congress, First and Second Sessions. Washington D. C.: U.S. Government Publishing Office
Wiley et al. (n.d.). Project management for instructional designers. Retrieved from [Link]
Zulch, B. (2014). Communication: The foundation of project management. Procedia Technology, 16, 1000–1009.
[Link]

This page titled 8.2: Leading Project Teams is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Jason K.
McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

8.2.8 [Link]
8.3: Implementation And Instructional Design

Implementation and Instructional Design

Brittany Eichler & Jason K. McDonald

Editor's Note
This is a remixed version of an earlier chapter on implementation in instructional design that can be found at the ADDIE
Explained website, and is printed here under the same license as the original.
Instruction is designed to be used. This seemingly obvious statement carries a rather significant implication: the work of an
instructional designer should not end upon the final development of the product, but must include considerations for when, where,
and how the instruction will be used by real learners in actual situations. This work is called implementation. It requires planning
and attention to detail—the same as found throughout the rest of the instructional design process, in fact—to complete successfully.
Without implementing an instructional design, all the design work would, in large measure, be wasted.
Implementation is a frequently-skipped step of the instructional design process, however. Designers are often (understandably)
ready for their next exciting assignment, and often the client or other stakeholders want to be the primary actors during
implementation. The organization the designer works for may also not consider it within their scope to assign instructional
designers to help in the implementation phase.
But even when someone else has the actual responsibility to implement an instructional design, the designer can (and should) still
be involved, at least in some fashion. Often he or she will have information that no one else has about the design (what certain
components are meant for, or how certain features behave), and that information is crucial to ensure it can be implemented
successfully. Few people know the entire project as well as the designer does, and this expertise should be drawn upon during the
implementation process.
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce considerations that need to be made during the implementation phase of the instructional
design process. To organize our discussion we rely on the five stages of introducing a new design as described by Everett M.
Rogers (2003). Additionally, it is imperative that instructional designers (or other change agents like teachers or stakeholders) are
aware of how people typically use products or services as they are being implemented. So we also describe how adopters of new
products or services commonly move through Rogers’s stages.

Adopting New Designs

Gibbons (2013) described the importance of implementation as follows:
Implementation is a period of intense and important change. In addition, it is a period of high-stakes decisions that affect the
judgment of continued use of your product. Your product is not only making its first impression on people during implementation,
but it is gathering either support or censure from those most likely to determine its viability—students, instructors, and
administrators. A careful implementation plan can help your product to be introduced with the best possible chances of success (p.
410).
Similarly, Rogers (2003) suggested that, “the perceived newness of an innovation, and the uncertainty associated with this newness,
is a distinctive aspect of innovation decision making” (p.161). As a result of this “uncertainty,” understanding the design adoption
process can help designers plan an instructional design implementation to maximize the chances it can have its intended effect with
learners. To help instructional designers create a complete implementation plan, we recommend considering the phases of
innovation adoption as a framework for creating their implementation plans (see Figure 1). The five stages in Rogers’s model that
will be discussed in this chapter are:
Knowledge
Persuasion
Decision
Use
Confirmation

8.3.1 [Link]
Note that the stage when people actually use the new material is stage four of this model! This should be evidence of how
important it is to consider many factors that affect how someone will successfully use an instructional design, and encourage
designers to not just complete the project and walk away.

Figure 8.3.1: The Stages of Roger's Implementation Model

Knowledge
The expectation within the knowledge stage is that the adopter becomes aware of the design to be implemented, and determines if a
need for adopting (or implementing) the design is actually present. In the context of instructional design, this could mean the
designer prepares (or helps prepare) material that is useful to decision-makers about why they should use the instruction. This could
take the form of an information sheet, or be more sophisticated like a full marketing campaign. It can also be directed to the
students themselves, or others who might be the primary adopter of the design who will then introduce it to students (like a teacher
or a school district).

Persuasion
The persuasion stage occurs when the adopter begins to decide if they find the new design acceptable. During this process, the
adopter “actively seeks information about the new idea, decides what messages he or she regards as credible, and decides how he
or she interprets the information that is received” (Rogers, 2003). It is through this process that an adopter begins to decide if the
design will be accepted. Instructional designers can facilitate the persuasion stage at the same time they provide knowledge about
it. Why is it compelling? How does it fulfill real needs? What can be said about it that adopters will feel emotionally attracted to?
(Do more than just provide the facts!) Like before, persuasion can be directed to both the student or other decision-makers.

Decision
The decision stage includes the adopter actively participating in tests that will assist them in determining if the design will be
adopted or rejected. It is important to note that this process can justifiably lead to either of these results: adoption or rejection. If the
design is adopted, it is evidence that it is seen as a solution to the problem or issue the adopter initially defined. If the design is
rejected, it can be classified as either active or passive rejection. According to Rogers (2003), active rejection consists of
considering adoption of an innovation and then actively deciding not to adopt it. Passive rejection is when no identifiable decision
is made, but due to inaction the innovation is effectively rejected. Instructional designers can help with the decision phase by
making it as easy as possible for students or decision-makers to try out the instruction before committing to it. Can the designer be

8.3.2 [Link]
on-site for a test of the materials? Can they demonstrate to students or decision-makers what it actually looks like when the
instruction is being used? Can they give away a component for free that people can test?

Use
The next stage in this model is the actual usage of the new design. Using a new product is generally not a one-time endeavor. New
design usage is generally considered a long-term process. While the definition of “long-term” can be ambiguous and is heavily
determined by the context, it is important to know the use of a new innovation within instructional design is usually not simply
“plug and play.” There is generally a period of continued education and professional development associated with the adoption.
The instructional designer might provide getting started materials so people begin using the materials successfully, or technical
support to make sure problems can be solved as soon as they are apparent. They might have to train the person leading the
instruction, or at the very least show students how to use all of the features found in the instruction.
As the design is implemented, it is likely that an event referred to as re-invention may occur. Re-invention is defined in this context
“as the degree to which an innovation is changed or modified by a user in the process of its adoption and implementation” (Rogers,
2003, p. 180). It is important to note that re-invention is not necessarily a negative, as it can lead to improved results. For instance,
an instructional designer may have intended that students complete an online module individually, but as it begins to be used
throughout a company, the employees start to gather together in groups and complete the assignments together. Even though the
designer did not intend for this kind of use, evaluations could show that it is more effective—students learn more and have deeper
insights as they work together. An implication of this is that designers should make their designs flexible, so they don’t break down
during re-invention. They should also watch for re-invention because it might give them ideas for how they can design better in the
future.

Confirmation
Confirmation occurs as the adopter evaluates the decision to adopt and implement the design. Are they satisfied with what they
chose? During this stage it is possible that the design will be subsequently discontinued. The evaluation can be based on many
measures: learner performance, ease of use, satisfaction, cost to maintain, etc. If discontinuance occurs, it is often a result of some
kind of dissonance, or the gap adopters experience between what they expected to happen and what actually happened. It is
important, then, for continued use of the design, that the instructional designer seeks methods to reduce or eliminate dissonance.
Some methods to achieve reduction of elimination include helping adopters understand how to incorporate the design into their
existing practices, continued support and training, and fixing problems the adopter may be experiencing with the instruction that
interfere with its ability to achieve its intended outcomes.

Application Exercise
Consider an instructional design project you are either currently involved in, or one you are familiar with. Write a brief
implementation plan for this project that uses all five of Rogers’s implementation phases.
Prepare a brief presentation about this implementation plan, as if you were assigned to explain to your client why each phase is
important to successfully implement the project.

Attributes of Designs That Lead to Successful Implementation

In addition to the innovation-decision process, it is important for the instructional designer to consider factors in the design itself
that contribute to rates of adoption. Rogers (2003) identified five such attributes: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
trialability and observability.

Relative Advantage
The concept of relative advantage refers to whether the design is actually an improvement over the current product or service the
adopter has been using. If the adopter perceives that the design’s value does not exceed that of the current product used, the design
is much less desirable and unlikely to be adopted. In contrast, a design that is determined to be of greater value is more likely to be
adopted. Instructional designers should be considering the relative advantage of their instruction throughout the design process.
How is what they are designing better than the status quo?

8.3.3 [Link]
Compatibility
Compatibility is in reference to how well the design aligns with other aspects of the adopter’s life and circumstances. This could
include the adopter’s professional, pedagogical, and sociocultural ideologies. Conflict with any of these schemas, whether directly
impacting the design's actual use, could threaten adoption. As indicated by Rogers (2003), “any new idea is evaluated in
comparison to existing practice. Thus compatibility is, not surprisingly, related to the rate of adoption of an innovation” (p. 249).
Through careful attention to the adopter's (students or other decision-makers) beliefs, interests, needs, and concerns throughout the
design process, designers can help prepare their instruction so it is more compatible with what adopters expect and need.

Complexity
Complexity is how difficult it is to comprehend, incorporate, and actually use the design. While complexity does not impact the
rate of adoption to the same degree as relative advantage and compatibility, the complexity of a design can negatively impact how
likely it is for adopters to use (or want to use) it. If a design is perceived to be too difficult to incorporate or use, it is less likely to
be adopted in the first place or more likely to be discontinued if it is adopted. Good evaluation and testing of prototypes throughout
the instructional design process can help minimize the complexity of their instruction. Designers, in fact, can consider how they can
specifically test prototypes to help minimize complexity (such as through a usability test).

Trialability
Trialability refers to how readily a design can be tested or used with a limited commitment. For example, software is often
introduced in stages, or “betas.” These stages of progressively more complete versions of a product permit its testing on a limited
basis. Such testing permits users to identify issues and helps increase adoption. Trialability has a positive impact on the rate of
adoption for early adopters, but is less impactful on the rate of adoption for later adopters (Rogers, 2003). As is hopefully clear, the
trialability of instruction is closely associated with the decision phase described above. Designers should prepare for the trialability
of their instruction as early as possible in their design process. High fidelity prototypes might be an easy and low-cost way of doing
this.

Observability
Observability refers to “the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others” (Rogers, 2003, p. 16). Designs that
are more difficult to observe or difficult to explain and operationalize are less likely to be adopted. This can be especially difficult
for instructional designers because so much of the learning process is invisible or hard to observe. It helps to make sure the learning
goals of the instruction are as measurable and observable as possible. Regularly reporting the results of assessments of student
learning can also help. While important, however, observability is the least impactful of the attributes Rogers identified.

Application Exercise
You are an instructional designer implementing a new computer-based learning tool in a K-12 classroom. The teacher is not
technologically savvy and is hesitant to use this new tool. Explain what steps might be taken to support the teacher and mitigate
their concerns.
Considering Rogers’ five attributes that impact the rate of adoption of innovations, please explain how these attributes would affect
implementation decisions that you, as an instructional designer, would make, for this teacher.

Conclusion
In this chapter, we discussed the implementation phase of the instructional design process. We described important factors of
implementation using the five stages of the diffusion of innovations: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and
confirmation. We also reviewed characteristics of a design itself that can impact rates of implementation: relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability.
Implementation is a phase instructional designers should begin planning for at the beginning of their project. By carefully
reviewing the material we provide here, designers—and those they support—will be able to ensure the instruction they create is
actually used by those it is intended for so the desired changes that led to its creation can be brought about.

8.3.4 [Link]
References
Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. Routledge.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.

This page titled 8.3: Implementation And Instructional Design is shared under a CC BY-NC license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by
Jason K. McDonald & Richard E. West (EdTech Books) .

8.3.5 [Link]
Index
D
dire

1 [Link]
Glossary
Sample Word 1 | Sample Definition 1

1 [Link]
Detailed Licensing
Overview
Title: Design for Learning - Principles, Processes, and Praxis (McDonald and West)
Webpages: 58
Applicable Restrictions: Noncommercial
All licenses found:
CC BY-NC 4.0: 94.8% (55 pages)
Undeclared: 5.2% (3 pages)

By Page
Design for Learning - Principles, Processes, and Praxis 4.2: The Role Of Design Judgment And
(McDonald and West) - CC BY-NC 4.0 Reflection In Instructional Design - CC BY-NC
Front Matter - CC BY-NC 4.0 4.0
TitlePage - CC BY-NC 4.0 4.3: Instructional Design Evaluation - CC BY-NC
InfoPage - CC BY-NC 4.0 4.0
Table of Contents - Undeclared 4.4: Continuous Improvement Of Instructional
Materials - CC BY-NC 4.0
About the Authors - CC BY-NC 4.0
2: Instructional Design Knowledge - CC BY-NC 4.0
Licensing - Undeclared
Introduction - CC BY-NC 4.0 5: Sources of Design Knowledge - CC BY-NC 4.0
1: Instructional Design Practice - CC BY-NC 4.0 5.1: Learning Theories - CC BY-NC 4.0
5.2: The Role Of Theory In Instructional Design -
1: Understanding - CC BY-NC 4.0
CC BY-NC 4.0
1.1: Becoming A Learning Designer - CC BY-NC
5.3: Making Good Design Judgments via The
4.0
Instructional Theory Framework - CC BY-NC 4.0
1.2: Designing for Diverse Learners - CC BY-NC
5.4: The Nature And Use Of Precedent In
4.0
Designing - CC BY-NC 4.0
1.3: Conducting Research For Design - CC BY-NC
5.5: Standards And Competencies For
4.0
Instructional Design And Technology
1.4: Determining Environmental and Contextual
Professionals - CC BY-NC 4.0
Needs - CC BY-NC 4.0
1.5: Conducting A Learner Analysis - CC BY-NC 6: Instructional Design Processes - CC BY-NC 4.0
4.0 6.1: Design Thinking - CC BY-NC 4.0
2: Exploring - CC BY-NC 4.0 6.2: Robert Gagné And The Systematic Design Of
Instruction - CC BY-NC 4.0
2.1: Problem Framing - CC BY-NC 4.0
6.3: Designing Instruction For Complex Learning
2.2: Task And Content Analysis - CC BY-NC 4.0
- CC BY-NC 4.0
2.3: Documenting Instructional Design Decisions
6.4: Curriculum Design Processes - CC BY-NC
- CC BY-NC 4.0
4.0
3: Creating - CC BY-NC 4.0 6.5: Agile Design Processes And Project
3.1: Generating Ideas - CC BY-NC 4.0 Management - CC BY-NC 4.0
3.2: Instructional Strategies - CC BY-NC 4.0 7: Designing Instructional Activities - CC BY-NC 4.0
3.3: Instructional Design Prototyping Strategies -
7.1: Designing Technology-Enhanced Learning
CC BY-NC 4.0
Experiences - CC BY-NC 4.0
4: Evaluating - CC BY-NC 4.0 7.2: Designing Instructional Text - CC BY-NC 4.0
4.1: Design Critique - CC BY-NC 4.0 7.3: Audio And Video Production For
Instructional Design Professionals - CC BY-NC

1 [Link]
 4.0 8.1: Working With Stakeholders And Clients - CC
7.4: Using Visual And Graphic Elements While BY-NC 4.0
Designing Instructional Activities - CC BY-NC 4.0 8.2: Leading Project Teams - CC BY-NC 4.0
7.5: Simulations And Games - CC BY-NC 4.0 8.3: Implementation And Instructional Design -
7.6: Designing Informal Learning Environments - CC BY-NC 4.0
CC BY-NC 4.0 Back Matter - CC BY-NC 4.0
7.7: The Design Of Holistic Learning Index - CC BY-NC 4.0
Environments - CC BY-NC 4.0 Glossary - CC BY-NC 4.0
7.8: Measuring Student Learning - CC BY-NC 4.0 Detailed Licensing - Undeclared
8: Design Relationships - CC BY-NC 4.0

2 [Link]