Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design

Abstract

Over the years, many authors have tried to describe, conceptualize, and visualize the instructional design or development processes via a variety of process models. Most descriptions imply a rather homogeneous view of design, depicting it as an overall problem-solving process following general phases such as analysis, design and development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE). However, researchers who have investigated how instructional designers actually work suggest that the process is much more heterogeneous and diverse than these ADDIE models suggest. This study collected case study data from 24 instructional designers in six different settings; they were identified as experts by their peers. The design processes they used for a specific project were compared to four different paradigms created from the literature. The four paradigms and their underlying theoretical foundations are described and illustrated. Detailed results are reported, and reasons that designers did or did not use a particular paradigm are considered.

A review and new framework for instructional design practice variation research

“…Further corroborative support for the varying ways in which ID can be approached and executed is demonstrated by a number of classic empirical studies of variation in ID practice (Kirschner, van Merriënboer, Sloep, & Carr, 2002;Rowland, 1992; e.g. Tessmer & Wedman, 1992;Visscher-Voerman & Gustafson, 2004;Wedman & Tessmer, 1993).…”

“…When needs assessments are conducted, they are performed in a limited manner (Holcomb, Wedman, & Tessmer, 1996;Visscher-Voerman & Gustafson, 2004). Holcomb, Wedman, and Tessmer (1996) found both a higher rate of needs assessment completion (60%) and high average degree of implementation (6.6) (SD=2.5) but designers participating in the study rated the thoroughness of these needs assessments on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being 'hardly gave it any thought at all' and 10 being 'as thoroughly as possible' (p. 56).…”

Identifying complex cultural interactions in the instructional design process: a case study of a cross-border, cross-sector training for innovation program

“…Yet, in a later collaboration, Gustafson with Visscher-Voerman (2004) found in gathering data from highly reputable designers that their activities "indeed, do deviate from the activities and order proposed by ADDIE models" (p. 70). Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson (2004) collect data through interviews and document analysis on twentyfour highly reputable designers in order to fill a gap in empirical research to support claims that activities in the instructional design process are more "heterogeneous and diverse" than those described in the ADDIE model (p. 70).…”

“…Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson (2004) collect data through interviews and document analysis on twentyfour highly reputable designers in order to fill a gap in empirical research to support claims that activities in the instructional design process are more "heterogeneous and diverse" than those described in the ADDIE model (p. 70). This study shows some movement away from traditional views of ISD and welcoming of more complex characterizations of the process of instructional design.…”

Design and development research: a model validation case

“…The primary goal of this research is production of new knowledge, as in this case in the form of a new design model. Since most ID models are based on an assumption that they are valid (Richey, 2005), and the data supporting validity is often rare Reconstructing the actual practices of designers is an essential step toward developing insight into the gap in design models and design practice, and identifying their reasons for this gap (Visscher-Voerman, 2004). Designer use studies indicate the focus should be on designers' rationales and reasons for decisions made rather than on the activities performed.…”