NEED FOR RECLAIMING INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

Authors

  • Necmi Esgi Assoc. Prof. Dr., Gazi Osman Paşa Üniversity, Faculty of Education, Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Turkey

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.663

Keywords:

instructional design, pre-service, teachers, opinion, interview

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify preservice teachers’ opinions regarding instructional design. In order to achieve this goal interviews with the sophomore students, who finished instructional design course, was conducted. Afterwards, interviews were transcribed, categorized and analyzed. Majority of the preservice teachers claimed that instructional design models were not applicable to classroom settings in real life. They also emphasized that technology integration did not included instructional design and there was excessive concentration on technology; and instructional design dimension was overlooked. Participants claimed that Robert Gagne’s approach was the most appropriate instructional design approach in classroom settings. They believe the theorist after Gagne was not very successful and instructional design lost its effectiveness. They underlined that the field required new theorists. 

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

References

Andrews, D., H. ve Goodson, L., A. (1980) A Comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development. 3(4).p2-16.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Esgi, N. ve Arslan, Ö. (2015) Öğretim Tasarımı üzerine birsöyleşi: Robert Gagne ve David Merril No: 1-2. Asosjournal, 4(27), 46-54.

Esgi, N. ve Arslan, Ö. (2016) Öğretim Tasarımı üzerine birsöyleşi: Robert Gagne ve David Merril No: 3. Asosjournal, 4(3), 481-493.

Esgi, N. veArslan, Ö. (2016) ÖğretimTasarımı üzerine birsöyleşi: Robert Gagne ve David Merril No: 4. Asosjournal, 3(21), 561-589.

Gagné, R. M. (1967). Learning and individual differences. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.

Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. 4th Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Rinehartand Winston.

Gagné, R. M. & Briggs, L. (1974). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gagné, R.M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction .Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ouimette, Surry, Grubb and Hall 747

Gagné, R.M. & Medsker, K.L. (1996). The conditions of learning: Training applications. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Glesne, C. (2010). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction, 4th ed. Boston: Pearson.

Jonassen, D. (1996) There is no need to reclaim the field of ID: it is just growing. Division of Instructional Development Newsletter. https://notendur.hi.is //~joner/eaps/whDHJ01.htm 26.06.2016.

Jones, S. R., Torres, V. & Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues. New York: Routledge.

Merrill, D. (1991) Second Generation Instructional Design (ID2) Educational Technology, 1991, 30(1), 7-11 and 30(2), 7-14.

Merrill, D., Drake, L., Lacy, M., Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming Instructional Design. Educational Technology, 36 (5), 5-7

Merrill, D. (2002) First Principles of Instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development. Vol. 50, No. 3, 2002, pp. 43–59.

Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.)., (1983). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.)., (1987). Instructional theories in action: Lessons illustrating selected theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36(3), 13-20.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 13-

Reiser, R. A. & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.) (2006). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Richey, R., Fields, D., Foxon, M., Roberts, R., Spannaus, T. & Spector, J. M. (2001). Instructional design competencies: The standards (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. http://www.eric.ed.gov80/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED483803

Rothwell, W. J. (2006). The handbook of training technologies: An introductory guide to facilitating learning with technology - from planning through evaluation. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Downloads

Published

2017-04-11

Issue

Vol 3, No 5 (2017)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).