Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 59, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 383-398

  Yanchar, Stephen C ^a   Gabbitas, Bruce W ^b  

^a BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Assumptions; Critical thinking; Eclecticism; Practice; Theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955737371     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-010-9180-3     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Joeey Bass.
2. Bateson, M. C. (1994). Peripheral visions: Learning along the way. New York: Harper Collins.
3. Beail, N. (Ed.). (1985). Repertory grid techniques and personal constructs: Applications in clinical and educational settings. London: Croom Helm.
4. 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). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Bohman, J. (1991). New philosophy of social science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres.
6. Braden, R. A. (1996). The case for linear instructional design and development: A commentary on models, challenges, and myths. Educational Technology, 36(2), 5-23.
7. Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers: Challenging adults to explore alternative ways of thinking. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8. Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45-65.
9. Clark, R. E. (1989). Current progress and future directions for research in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 57-66.
10. Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1998). Technology or craft? What are we doing? Educational Technology, 38(5), 5-11.
11. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.
12. Der-Thanq, C., Hung, D., & Wang, Y. M. (2007). Educational design as a quest for congruence: The need for alternative learning design tools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 876-884.
13. Dreyfus, H. L. (1991). Being-in-the-world: A commentary on Heidegger's Being and Tine Division 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.
15. Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
16. Ely, D. P. (1999). Toward a philosophy of instructional technology: Thirty years on. British Journal of Educational Technology, 30, 305-310.
17. Engeström, Y., Hakkarainen, P., & Hedegaard, M. (1984). On the methodological basis of research in teaching and learning. In M. Hedegaard, P. Hakkarainen, & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Learning and teaching on a scientific basis (pp. 119-183). Aarhus Universitat: Psykologisk Institut.
18. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.
19. Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X., Zurek, S., et al. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17-42.
20. Gabbitas, B. W. (2009). Critical thinking and analyzing assumptions in instructional technology. Unpublished master's thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
21. Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed.). New York: Continuum.
22. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (pp. 243-258). Forth Worth, Holt: Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
23. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24. Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1997). Grounded practice and the design of constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 101-117.
25. Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2007). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional technology (2nd ed., pp. 53-61). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
26. Hardré, P. L., Ge, X., & Thomas, M. K. (2006). An investigation of development toward instructional design expertise. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(4), 63-90.
27. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper and Row.
28. Honebein, P. C., & Goldsworthy, R. C. (2009). Is your design story limiting you? Purposefully perturbing our practices through instructional design "Mashups". Educational Technology, 49(4), 27-33.
29. Hostetler, K. (1994). Community and neutrality in critical thought: A nonobjectivist view on the conduct and teaching of critical thinking. In K. S. Walters (Ed.), Re-thinking reason: New perspectives in critical thinking (pp. 135-154). Albany: SUNY Press.
30. Hunt, D. E. (1987). How to be your own best theorist. Theory into Practice, 26, 512-518.
31. Irving, J. A., & Williams, D. I. (1995). Critical thinking and reflective practice in counseling. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 23(1), 107-114.
32. Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
33. Kirschner, P., Carr, C., van Merrienboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86-104.
34. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
35. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). New York: Architectural Press.
36. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. New York: Architectural Press.
37. McDonald, J. K., Yanchar, S. C., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2005). Learning from programmed instruction: Examining implications for modern instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(2), 84-98.
38. Merrill, D. M., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., Pratt, J., & The ID2 Research Group. (1996). Reclaiming instructional design. Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.
39. Miller, C., & Hokanson, B. (2009). The artist and architect: Creativity and innovation through role-based design. Educational Technology, 49(4), 18-27.
40. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
41. Osguthorpe, R. T., & Osguthorpe, R. D. (2007). Instructional design as living practice: Toward a conscience of craft. Educational Technology, 47(4), 13-23.
42. Osmo, R. (2001). A conceptual tool: making social workers' assumptions explicit. Social Work Education, 20, 209-217.
43. Parrish, P. E. (2005). Embracing the aesthetics of instructional design. Educational Technology, 45(2), 16-25.
44. Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57, 511-528.
45. Polkinghorne, D. E. (2004). Practice and the human sciences: The case for a judgment-based practice of care. Albany: State University of New York Press.
46. Randi, J., & Corno, L. (1997). Teachers and innovators. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (Vol. 3, pp. 1163-1221). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
47. Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. J. (2009). Theory building. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. 3, pp. 365-386). New York: Routledge.
48. Rorty, R. (1991). Inquiry as recontextualization. In R. Rorty (Ed.), Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1, pp. 93-110). New York: Cambridge University press.
49. Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79-91.
50. Schank, 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 161-181). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot/Hampshire: Ashgate.
52. Slife, B. D., & Williams, R. N. (1995). What's behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
53. 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.
54. Spector, J. M. (2001). Philosophical implications for the design of instruction. Instructional Science, 29, 381-402.
55. Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophy and the human sciences: Philosophical papers (Vol. 2). New York: Cambridge University Press.
56. Tennyson, R. D. (2010). Historical reflection on learning theories and instructional design. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 1-16.
57. Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44.
58. 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.
59. Weideman, A. (2001). The old and the new: Reconsidering eclecticism in language teaching. Per Linguam, 17(1), 1-13.
60. Westerman, M. A. (2006). Quantitative research as an interpretive enterprise: The mostly unacknowledged role of interpretation in research efforts and suggestions for explicitly interpretive quantitative investigations. New Ideas in Psychology, 24, 189-211.
61. Wild, M., & Quinn, C. (1998). Implications of educational theory for the design of instructional multimedia. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29, 73-82.
62. Wilson, B. G. (1997). Thoughts on theory in educational technology. Educational Technology, 37(1), 22-27.
63. Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a theory-building curriculum in instructional technology. Educational Technology, 38(1), 34-41.
64. Yanchar, S. C., Slife, B. D., & Warne, R. T. (2008). Critical thinking as disciplinary practice. Review of General Psychology, 12, 265-281.
65. Yanchar, S. C., & South, J. B. (2009). Beyond the theory-practice split in instructional design: The current situation and future directions. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2009 (pp. 81-100). New York: Springer.
66. 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, 39-60.
67. Yanchar, S. C., & Williams, D. D. (2006). Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 3-12.