Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
TechTrends
Published in: TechTrends 2/2018

27-12-2017 | Original Paper

Instructional Design as Manipulation of, or Cooperation with, Learners?

Authors: Michael T. Matthews, Stephen C. Yanchar

Published in: TechTrends | Issue 2/2018

Login to get access

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We present a qualitative study of the tension between manipulative and cooperative approaches to instructional design. We found that our participants struggled to resist manipulative tendencies in their work contexts. More specifically, our findings suggest that our participants sought to design with their learners in mind to foster a more cooperative approach. In doing so, participants in our study reported asking themselves key questions in their design practice that had to do with (a) inviting learners to engage through relevant and meaningful instruction, (b) imagining what learners are thinking and feeling, and (c) putting themselves in their learners’ shoes to understand possible learner experience with the designed instruction. For designers in similarly constrained work contexts, we recommend self-questioning that leads toward cooperative (and less manipulative) instructional design practices.
previous article A Case Study of the Implementation of Social Models of Teaching in e-Learning: “The Social Networks in Education”, Online Course of the Inter-Orthodox Centre of the Church of Greece
next article The Case for Captioned Lectures in Australian Higher Education
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
Baek, E. O., Cagiltay, K., Boling, E., & Frick, T. (2008). User-centered design and development. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 1, 660–668.
Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety & W. Ickes (Eds.), The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRef
Buchanan, S. (1963). Technology as a system of exploitation. In C. F. Stover (Ed.), The technological order: Proceedings of the Encyclopaedia Britannica conference (pp. 151–159). Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Button, G. (2000). The ethnographic tradition and design. Design Studies, 21(4), 319–322.CrossRef
Chang, Y., Lim, Y., & Stolterman, E. (2008). Personas: From theory to practices. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 5th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction, Lund.
Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.CrossRef
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1998). Technology or craft: What are we doing? Educational Technology, 38(5), 5–11.
Dick, W. (1993). Enhanced ISD: A response to changing environments for learning and performance. Educational Technology, 33(2), 5–8.
Giorgi, A. P., & Giorgi, B. M. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological method. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 243–273). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.CrossRef
Komoski, P. K. (1987). Educational technology: The closing-in or the opening-out of curriculum and instruction. Syracuse: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.
Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Merrill, M. D. (1996). What new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36(4), 57–58.
Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Molenda, M., & Boling, E. (2008). Creating. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (pp. 81–139). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Parrish, P. E. (2014). Designing for the half-known world: Lessons for instructional designers from the craft of narrative fiction. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio (pp. 261–270). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRef
Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36(3), 13–20.
Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.
van Rooij, S. W. (2012). Research-based personas: Teaching empathy in professional education. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 12(3), 77–86.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, Inc..
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.
Tracey, M. W., & Boling, E. (2014). Preparing instructional designers: Traditional and emerging perspectives. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 653–660). New York: Springer.
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), 69–89.CrossRef
Wilson, B. G. (2013). A practice-centered approach to instructional design. In J. M. Spector, B. Lockee, S. Barbara, E. Smaldino, & M. C. Herring (Eds.), Learning, problem solving, and mindtools: Essays in honor of David H. Jonassen (pp. 35–54). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Metadata
Title
Instructional Design as Manipulation of, or Cooperation with, Learners?
Authors
Michael T. Matthews
Stephen C. Yanchar
Publication date
27-12-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
TechTrends / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 8756-3894
Electronic ISSN: 1559-7075
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0245-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

TechTrends 2/2018 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Domain-Specific Aspects of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Music Education and the Importance of Affect

Original Paper

Goal Setting and Open Digital Badges in Higher Education

Original Paper

Paper Circuits: A Tangible, Low Threshold, Low Cost Entry to Computational Thinking

Column: Book Review

Ten Steps to Complex Learning: a Systematic Approach to Four-Component Instructional Design (3rd ed.), by Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer and Paul A. Kirschner

Column: ICT International

Reflections on World Education Day 2017

Original Paper

The Case for Captioned Lectures in Australian Higher Education

Premium Partner

    Image Credits