The role of theory in instructional design

One of my professors brought to my attention a research article in AECT about theory utilization specifically, theories “functioning as conceptual tools.” The qualitative study (informed by hermeneutic, phenomenological and ethnographic approaches) explores “views and actual uses of theory in context.” The research question examines “the nature of instructional designers’ practical involvement with formalized theories.”

Semi-structured interviews and examination of actual online courses were used to explore the way designers go about their practical duties. Four men and three women participated* – one from a high-volume design organization, two from custom design companies, one from a university instructional design center, two in-house designers for a laboratory-based organization, and one in-house designer for a technology company. Some had formal training (4), some did not (3).

The researchers were studying any use of formal design theories so didn’t differentiate among learning theories, instructional theories, process models, etc.). Three interviews with each participant were conducted – the first about background/everyday work experiences/practical involvement in the design process, the second about specific uses and views of formal theory, and the third to address unresolved issues from prior interviews.)

The researchers found 10 themes. Some findings within those themes:

Participant desire to use theory and report that they often do.

Participants expressed ambivalence toward theory (theories were “viewed as overly abstract, rigid, or complex with relatively little guidance regarding application.”)

The range of theories chose are “likely limited to those that practitioners know about, understand how to apply, and find useful in their work.” The researchers then suggested that “practitioners may seldom identify theories that are actually useful in their specific setting, even if a helpful theory exists.”

Practitioners did not distinguish between theories, models, and design processes in descriptions of their work, “possibly suggesting that – given the abstractness and complexity of many of these conceptual tools – practicing designers are offered little basis for differentiating them and may lack the ability to select ones most suitable for their purposes.”

Using theory as an argumentative device brings a measure of legitimacy and professional to design decisions. However, theory use was somewhat hindered by others who did not see its value. This, the researchers noted, pointed to “an interesting and often tension-filled aspect of instructional design work (i.e, the process of negotiation to arrive at a workable design plan.)”

Decisions are often made on the basis of intuitive judgment and practical wisdom developed over time.

There are limitations with any study. Here, the researchers note that they didn’t query participants regarding their theoretical knowledge in general and the inquiry approach used is not easily researched.

(*About the sample size: Researchers note the “focus on thick description and intensive analysis prohibited a more expansive sampling procedure and investigation.”

Yanchar, S., South, J., Williams, D, Allen, S., and Wilson, B. (2009) Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2009.