Paradigms in the Theory and Practice of Education and Training Design
Educational Technology Research and Development Volume 52, Number 2, ISSN 1042-1629
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.
Visscher-Voerman, I. & Gustafson, K.L. (2004). Paradigms in the Theory and Practice of Education and Training Design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69-91.
Cited ByView References & Citations Map
Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component Instructional Design. 2007. Jeroen J. G.. van Merriënboer & Paul Kirschner. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. 306 pages. ISBN: 9780805857931
Eugene Kowch, University of Calgary
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie Vol. 34, No. 1 (Dec 31, 2008)
Collaborative curriculum-design to increase science teaching self-efficacy: a qualitative exploration of teacher interactions
Chantal Velthuis, Edith Stein University for Teacher Education, Netherlands; Petra Fisser, Jules Pieters & Joke Voogt, University of Twente, Netherlands
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2012 (Mar 05, 2012) pp. 4550–4555
Charles Miller & Brad Hokanson, University of Minnesota, United States
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2011 (Oct 18, 2011) pp. 2031–2038
Knut Arne Strand, Faculty of Informatics and e-learning - Sør-Trøndelag University College, Norway; Arvid Staupe, Department of Computer and Information Science - Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
Global Learn 2010 (May 17, 2010) pp. 4067–4076
Charles Miller & Brad Hokanson, University of Minnesota, United States; Simon Hooper, Penn State University, United States
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2009 (Oct 26, 2009) pp. 1804–1811
Katy Campbell, University of Alberta, Canada; Rick Schwier, University of Saskatchewan, Canada; Richard Kenny, Athabasca University, Canada
EdMedia + Innovate Learning 2007 (Jun 25, 2007) pp. 15–21
These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.