Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“There’s got to be a better way to do this”: a qualitative investigation of informal learning among instructional designers

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study employed a qualitative research design to investigate informal learning among practicing instructional designers. Prior research has examined how instructional designers spend their time, make decisions, use theory, solve problems, and so on, but no published research has explored the nature and role of informal learning in instructional design work. Based on intensive interviews of practitioners in the field, this study produced eight themes organized according to two metathemes: (a) the nature of informal learning in instructional design practice and (b) instructional design as informal learning. Specific themes concerned what instructional designers learn through informal practical experience, how they learn it, and the meaning of this kind of learning for various aspects of their work. Overall, these results suggest that informal learning is a vital part of instructional design practice and that design itself can be thought of as a specialized type of informal learning. Other conclusions regarding informal learning in design are discussed and future directions for research are offered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2001). Teaching instructional design: an action learning approach. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. S. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research and teaching in instructional design and technology. In M. Orey, V. J. McClendon, & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook (Vol. 31, pp. 33–73). Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botkin, J., Elmandjra, M., & Malitza, M. (1979). No limits to learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr-Chellman, A. (1999). I have a problem! the use of cases in educating instructional designers. TechTrends, 43(6), 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, G., & Hokanson, B. (2012). Creativity in the training and practice of instructional designers: The design/creativity loops model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 111–130. doi:10.1007/s11423-011-9216-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L. (2002). Intelligence without representation: Merleau-ponty’s critique of mental representation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 367–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., York, C. S., & Gedik, N. (2009). Learning from the pros: How experienced designers translate instructional design models into practice. Educational Technology, 49(1), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, V., Gaidys, U., & Robb, Y. (2003). Hermeneutic research in nursing: Developing a gadamerian-based research method. Nursing Inquiry, 10(2), 113–120. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1800.2003.00163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frensch, D. A., & Rünger, D. (2003). Implicit learning. New Directions in Psychological Science, 12(1), 13–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelven, M. (1989). A commentary on Heidegger’s being and time revised. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2014). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giorgi, A. P., & Giorgi, B. M. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological psychological 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, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guignon, C. (2002). Ontological presuppositions of the determinism-free will debate. In H. Atmanspacher & R. Bishop (Eds.), Between chance and choice: Interdisciplinary perspectives on determinism (pp. 321–337). Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardre, P. L., Ge, X., & Thomas, M. K. (2006). An investigation of development toward instructional design expertise. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(4), 63–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie, E. Robinson Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.

  • Hoadley, C., & Cox, C. (2009). What is design knowledge and how do we teach it? In C. Digiano, S. Goodman, & M. Chorost (Eds.), Educating learning technology designers: Guiding and inspiring creators of innovative educational tools (pp. 19–35). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hokanson, B., & Miller, C. (2009). Role-based design: “A contemporary framework for innovation and creativity in instructional design”. Educational Technology, 49(2), 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling, and skill. New York: Routledge.

  • Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R. F., Zang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 9–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. T. (1983). Inside the black box: Making design decisions for instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 14(1), 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P., Carr, C., van Merrienboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15, 86–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., Gibby, S., Quiros, O., & Demps, E. (2002). Challenges of being an instructional designer for new media development: A view from practitioners. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 195–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, D. W., & Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. (2001). Adults’ informal learning: Definitions, findings, gaps, and future research. NALL. Working Paper #21.

  • Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez, E. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, J. (1994). Connecting education and practice in an instructional design graduate program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G., Parra, M. L., & Basnet, K. (1994). Educating instructional designers: Different methods for different outcomes. Educational Technology, 34(6), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot/Hampshire: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1996). Sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigliano, A. (1989). Hermeneutical practice. Saybrook Review, 7(2), 47–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher-Voerman, I., Kuiper, W., & Verhagen, P. (2007). Educating educational designers: The university of twente case. In M. Simonson (Ed.), Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed., pp. 332–343). Anaheim, CA: AECT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. D., South, J. B., Yanchar, S. C., Wilson, B. G., & Allen, S. (2011). How do instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 885–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C. (2011). Participational agency. Review of General Psychology, 15, 277–287.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., Spackman, J. S., & Faulconer, J. E. (2013). Learning as embodied familiarization. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33(4), 216–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yusop, F. D., & Correia, A. (2012). The civic-minded instructional designers framework: An alternative approach to contemporary instructional designers’ education in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 180–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Stephen C. Yanchar & Melissa Hawkley

Authors
  1. Stephen C. Yanchar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa Hawkley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen C. Yanchar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yanchar, S.C., Hawkley, M. “There’s got to be a better way to do this”: a qualitative investigation of informal learning among instructional designers. Education Tech Research Dev 62, 271–291 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9336-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9336-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation