Abstract
Instructional theory is intended to guide instructional designers in selecting the best instructional methods for a given situation. There have been numerous qualitative investigations into how instructional designers make decisions and the alignment of those decisions with theoretical influences. The purpose of this research is to more quantitatively explore the question of how instructional designers actually use instructional planning theory to judge the usefulness of instructional methods. We asked 56 instructional designers to rate the usefulness of 31 instructional methods for six different cognitive domain content level conditions. The results show that content level has a statistically-significant influence on a designer’s judgments regarding the usefulness of an instructional method. A designer’s gender also has a statistically-significant influence on a designer’s judgments regarding methods, but a weak effect size limits this result. Overall, the results provide evidence that supports the core principles of instructional planning theory, specifically method generality. The results also provide instructional designers further guidance in selecting the most useful instructional methods for cognitive domain content levels.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beatty, B. J. (2002). Social interaction in online learning: A situationalities framework for choosing instructional methods. Dissertation Abstracts International. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, DAI-A 63/05, p. 1795.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cohen, B. H. (2008). Explaining psychological statistics (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122(1), 5–37.
Di Dio, L., Saragovi, C., Koestner, R., & Aubé, J. (1996). Linking personal values to gender. Sex Roles, 34(9/10), 621–636.
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 141(1), 2–18. doi:10.1037/a0024338.
Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self: A development perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional Design as Design Problem Solving: An Iterative Process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.
Morrison, G., Ross, S., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. (2011). Designing effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999a). 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. II, pp. 5–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C.M. (1999b). Module 3: Concept classification. (Online training program). Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~idtheory/methods/m3.html.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 3–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press, Collier Macmillan.
Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.
Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.
Weston, C., & Cranton, P. A. (1986). Selecting instructional strategies. The Journal of Higher Education, 57(3), 259–288.
Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. B., 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(1), 39–60. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9129-6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Honebein, P.C., Honebein, C.H. The influence of cognitive domain content levels and gender on designer judgments regarding useful instructional methods. Education Tech Research Dev 62, 53–69 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9322-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9322-5