Management of instructional design and development

2003 ◽  
pp. 128-142
Keyword(s):  
Instructional Design ◽  
Design And Development ◽  
Instructional Design And Development

The Respective Roles of Broad and Deep Research in Instructional Design and Development Work

2020 ◽  
pp. 168-182
Author(s):  
Shalin Hai-Jew
Keyword(s):  
Instructional Design ◽  
Design Research ◽  
Development Work ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
Research Strategies ◽  
Design And Development ◽  
Content Learning ◽  
Design Projects ◽  
Instructional Design And Development ◽  
The Many

The work of instructional design (ID) requires new content learning, which often requires various types of published or secondary research as well as direct elicitations from the cooperating subject matter experts (SMEs) about the topic. For instructional design projects, both design and development, a range of information is required: who the target learners are; what content knowledge is required (as knowledge, skills, and abilities); what pedagogical designs may be most effective; what technologies will be required for the build; what learning sequences, objects, assignments, and assessments are needed; what legal and technological standards need to be abided by. This work describes research strategies for instructional design, research documentation, research citations, and applying the many acquired research insights to the instructional design and development work.

Designing a Systematized Program in Instructional Design and Development

1977 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard C. Boutwell
Keyword(s):  
Instructional Design ◽  
Systems Thinking ◽  
Role Model ◽  
Florida State University ◽  
State University ◽  
Instructional Systems ◽  
Educational Problem ◽  
Design And Development ◽  
Planning And Design ◽  
Instructional Design And Development

The Instructional Design and Development (IDD) Program at Florida State University is described and offered as a role model for other institutions. The planning and design of the IDD program include consideration of factors such as career fields of graduates and areas of competency in instructional systems. The matching of career fields and competency areas is then carried out. The IDD program itself is an example of applying systems thinking to an educational problem.

Structural Coupling as a Foundation for Instructional Design

2011 ◽  
pp. 363-379
Author(s):  
Jeanette Bopry ◽  
Donald J. Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Instructional Design ◽  
Design And Development ◽  
Structural Coupling ◽  
Instructional Design And Development ◽  
Humberto Maturana

In this chapter, we describe an alternative to the cognitive and neo-behavioral views of learning that currently dominate the field of instructional design and development. Founded in the work of Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, this view questions the fundamental notions that the environment can actually be “instructive” and that instruction can be prescribed to change learners in predictable ways. Instead we offer a proscriptive model of instructional design, one that embeds the process in the basic foundation that learners are organizationally closed, structurally determined, and coupled with their environment. Instead of threatening the field of instructional design, as some writers have expressed, we argue that this approach actually “sets it free”!

A Thinking and Doing Model of Competency-Based Education

1979 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-50
Author(s):  
Charles E. Feasley
Keyword(s):  
Instructional Design ◽  
Systems Analysis ◽  
Practical Experience ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Design And Development ◽  
Overall Design ◽  
Competency Based Education ◽  
Competency Based ◽  
Model Of Competency ◽  
Instructional Design And Development

A review of literature suggests that systems analysis is the foundation upon which current efforts in competency-based education (CBE) are built. The author merges into a model what various writers have put forth as refinements to systematic instructional design and development and his own practical experience on what will or will not work. The model consists of four phases: 1) competency identification, 2) overall design, 3) production, and 4) evaluation. Each phase is broken into a series of steps for thinking and doing. The model provides flexibility by being subject to many different orderings of efforts due to prior accomplishments and/or lack of resources.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document