Examining Instructional Design Principles Applied by Experienced Designers in Practice

Abstract

There has been ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of teaching instructional design models to novice designers given that experienced instructional designers often use principles and adapted models when they engage in the instructional design problem‐solving process. This study utilized the Delphi technique to identify a core set of guiding principles used by designers in their practice. The purpose of this study was (1) to examine and describe the principles that guided instructional designers’ practice and (2) to identify the extent to which participants’ frames of reference included components of the ADDIE instructional design model. Sixty‐one principles were ultimately identified (reached consensus among the Delphi panel members). Thirty‐two of the principles aligned with the primary components of the design process (e.g., analysis, design, development, and evaluation). Additional principles (n = 29) related to other characteristics of design such as communication, project management, and design characteristics.

Instructional Design Made Easy! Instructional Design Models, Categories, Frameworks, Educational Context, and Recommendations for Future Work

“…The authors of [ 10 , 11 ] have highlighted how IDs should learn; they conclude that learning should include a variety of methods, including studio- and practice-based activities as opposed to more typical classroom-based methods. The authors of [ 12 ] studied skilled IDs and found unanimity on 61 ID principles; 32 of the 61 design principles fit the ADDIE framework, including understanding your students and target audience, using the best technology, and piloting, if feasible. The remaining 29 principles include communication, client management, and project management.…”

“…The remaining 29 principles include communication, client management, and project management. The authors of [ 12 ] suggest that this could have a number of effects on the field of ID. IDs could undertake either case-based learning [ 13 , 14 ] or real-world problem solving to go beyond the model and cover the full range of principles mentioned above [ 15 ].…”

How External Instructional Design Consultants Do Their Work: A Case Study

“…1.4 Rationales Documenting how instructional designers spend their time is beneficial to the field for several reasons (Cox & Osguthorpe, 2003). First, past research suggested a mismatch between theory and practice (Ashbaugh, 2013;York & Ertmer, 2016). This mismatch may be due to models being built around a theoretical, or otherwise limited, view of instructional design practice (Gray et al, 2015).…”

“…Where the research is lacking is in providing a holistic view of what it is exactly that instructional designers do and how they do it (Sugar, 2014). While the research community seems to be aware of and working toward addressing this gap, the refrain referencing the void is still common (Boling et al, 2017;Cox & Osguthorpe, 2003;Rowland, 1992;Stefaniak et al, 2018;Sugar, 2014;York & Ertmer, 2016). There are multiple challenges facing researchers, however.…”

“…Instead, the results blend the outcomes from participants in multiple work environments (e.g., Christensen & Osguthorpe, 2004;Loughner & Moller, 1998;Pieters & Bergman, 1995). There are also studies, much like Sugar's, (2014) in which terms such as consultant, professional instructional designer, instructional design practitioner are each used without indication as to whether the participants are working as internal, external consultants, or in some other capacity entirely (Boling et al, 2014;e.g., Honebein & Honebein, 2014;Sugar, 2014;York & Ertmer, 2016).…”