[tr]
| [td]
| Enhancing instructional design efficiency:
| Methodologies employed by instructional designers
| | [tr]
| [td]
| Margaret A.
| Roytek
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| This paper is published in memory of Margaret (Peg)
| Roytek. Margaret Roytek was an assistant
| professor in the Human Resources Development
| Department at Oakland University, USA. Her research interests were
| efficiencies and effectiveness in the design of instruction and the
| professional development of instructional designers. She passed
| away May, 2009. Address for correspondence: Rita C.Richey,
| Professor Emeritus, Wayne State University, Instructional
| Technology, Detroit, MI 48202;e-mail: rrichey @wayne.edu.
|
| | [tr]
| [td]
| Abstract
| Instructional systems design (ISD) has been
| frequently criticised as taking too
| long to implement, calling for a reduction in cycle
| time—the time that elapses
| between project initiation and delivery. While
| instructional design research
| has historically focused on increasing learner
| efficiencies, the study of what
| instructional designers do to increase efficiency
| during the design of instruc-
| tion, including web-based training, has not yet
| been fully examined. The
| purpose of this qualitative developmental study was
| to identify and understand
| the methodologies used by experienced instructional
| designers to increase the
| efficiency of the instructional design process. Data
| were gathered from 11
| instructional designers working within two business
| and industry consulting
| firms that provide learning solutions to global
| clients. Results revealed 47
| efficiency methodologies found within the four
| categories of design model,
| instructional design team member roles,
| instructional design processes and
| instructional design tools. Additionally, 14
| supporting instructional designer
| competencies were found within the category of
| instructional designer knowl-
| edge, skills and attitudes.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Introduction
| Given global economic conditions that are
| increasingly forcing organisations to down-
| size while simultaneously requiring an increase in
| productivity from their remaining,
| reduced workforce, instructional designers are
| increasingly called upon to produce
| higher quality instructional programmes using ever
| more efficient methodologies. This
| new economy can be summarised in two words: change
| and speed (Gordon & Zemke,
| 2000). The search for efficiencies is particularly
| intense in highly competitive global
| markets, such as automotive manufacturing. While
| instructional design research has
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| historically focused on increasing learner
| efficiencies through the examination of areas
| such as cognitive load theory and the use of
| web-based instruction, the study of what
| instructional designers actually do to increase
| efficiency during the design of instruc-
| tion, including web-based training, has not yet
| been fully examined. Much of what is
| found in the literature related to this topic is
| conceptual and not grounded in the study
| of instructional designer practice. Other
| contributions in this area must be inferred
| from studies primarily focused on the examination
| of effective—not efficient—
| instructional design. Still, other related studies
| report on emerging technologies not
| necessarily developed to increase efficiency and
| also not yet within the reach of most
| instructional designers. As there is little
| research of this area, a need exists for a sys-
| tematic study designed to identify methodologies
| that may contribute to increased
| efficiency in the instructional design process.
| Relatedly, Rowland (1993) articulated the
| need to systematically investigate the process of
| designing instruction, much as the
| design fields of architecture and engineering have
| done. Further, Schwier, Campbell
| and Kenny (2004) have articulated the concern that
| ‘much of the extensive work
| describing theoretical models of instructional
| design has not been drawn from the
| practice of the instructional designer and,
| consequently, instructional design theory
| is not grounded in practice’ (p. 1).
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Background and significance of the study
| Jones, Li and Merrill (1992) have identified several
| concerns that underlie traditional
| instructional systems design (ISD). One is that a
| concrete product is not available until
| late in the design process. Another is that
| accommodating changes during development
| that reflect back onto analysis and design can be
| very costly—even fatal—to a project.
| The most frequent criticism, however, is that ISD
| simply takes too long to implement
| (Bichelmeyer, 2004; Gordon & Zemke,
| 2000; Rowland, 1992). Cycle time—the time
| that elapses between project initiation and product
| delivery—may kill ISD unless it can
| be significantly reduced (Dick, 1993). The reduction
| of cycle time, then, provides an
| important rationale for conducting research in the
| area of identifying methodologies
| contributing to instructional design efficiency.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Jones and Richey (2000) conducted a study of rapid
| prototyping (RP) methodology
| within the design of instruction which had findings
| related to cycle time. Borrowed
| from the fields of computer software program design
| and manufacturing, RP is defined
| as quickly building and evaluating a series of
| prototypes early in the design process and
| has the advantage of providing the
| designer/developer and client with concrete, execut-
| able models for inspection well ahead of final
| production or implementation. Jones and
| Richey demonstrated that RP use increases
| instructional product quality, enhances
| customer satisfaction levels and appears to
| decrease cycle time. Additionally, van
| Merrienboer and Martens (2002) have characterised
| RP as a non-linear, highly flexible
| ‘zigzag’ design approach that is ‘more apt for the
| design of new learning environments’
| (p. 6). While serving as a study participant,
| Performance Design Lab Chairman Geary
| A. Rummler summarised the cycle time issue by
| stating to Gordon and Zemke (2000)
| that instead of spending months designing and
| developing a training course before it is
| piloted, a far more effective approach is to put
| together ‘a SWAT team of experienced
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| designers who are quick to see the real problem, who
| have a repertoire of imaginative
| solutions, and who can come up with a basic design in
| three days, not three months. Get a prototype ... . Then
| get on with it’ (p. 48).
|
| | [tr]
| [td]
| Emerging computer-based instructional design tools,
| which support analysis and
| design activities undertaken before the final media
| selection is made and the instruction
| is produced, hold potential for increasing design
| efficiency, although not specifically
| developed to do so (Gustafson, 2002). Prior
| instructional design tools have been limited
| to authoring tools created for the development or
| production of computer-based
| instruction, and not for design activities. van
| Merrienboer and Martens (2002) provide
| a review of emerging instructional design tools and
| state that they may assist with the
| growing complexity of the design process which is a
| result of modern instructional
| theories that focus on rich, multidisciplinary and
| often collaborative learning tasks. de
| Croock, Paas, Schlanbusch and van Merrienboer
| (2002) describe one such instruc-
| tional design training tool, Core, a component of a
| larger system of tools called ADAPTIT
| (Advanced Design Approach for Personalized
| Training), designed to support the analy-
| sis and design of complex-skill, competency-based
| training programmes in industrial
| settings. In summary, Gustafson (2000) has stated
| that ‘As the pace of change acceler-
| ates and the workplace becomes more complex,
| instructional design, in whatever form
| it takes, will require greater use of performance
| support tools ... the next step is to create EPSSs [Electronic
| Performance Support Systems] to create EPSSs’ (p. 43).
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Learning objects, defined by the IEEE (2004)
| Learning and Technology Standards Com-
| mittee as ‘any entity, digital or non-digital,
| which can be used, re-used or referenced
| during technology supported learning’ (p. 1), have
| been acknowledged as providing
| efficiency gains through their sharing and reuse
| (Koppi, Bogle, Hodgson & Lavitt,
| 2004). While the customisation of learning objects
| to achieve appropriate learning
| contextualisation may take additional designer
| time, in many applications their use
| decreases the total amount of time required to
| design and develop instruction.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| DeMars (2006) has identified a non-technology-based
| method using Lean thinking
| principles that may contribute to the efficiency of
| instructional design processes. He
| suggests that these principles, synthesised by
| Womack and Jones (2003) and demon-
| strated in the Toyota manufacturing production
| system, be applied to ISD to banish
| muda or waste in the system.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| While each of these methodologies, concepts and
| tools found in the literature may
| contribute to the reduction of the cycle time of
| ISD, collectively they do not represent a
| systematic review of this area, thereby calling for
| further related research. This inves-
| tigation was designed to begin to address this
| need.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Method
| This study used a qualitative case method that was a
| blend between descriptive and interpretive case studies. Foreman (1948) has stated
| that the case study is particularly useful when the
| investigation involves a new line of inquiry for the purpose of
| identifying
| | [tr]
| [td]
| particular patterns of factors significant in a
| given case. The research methodology was
| based on Yin’s (2003) case study method which
| includes the steps of theory develop-
| ment, case selection, data collection protocol
| design, data collection and data analysis.
| This study is also a design and development
| research project with an emphasis on model
| use, as it identifies and examines particular
| instructional design process components
| with the ultimate aim of improving the processes of
| instructional design (Richey & Klein,
| 2007). As a preliminary investigation of
| instructional designer practice, the primary
| research question was ‘What methodologies are used
| by instructional designers, during
| the design of instruction, to increase efficiency in
| the design process?’
| [table]
| [tr]
| [td]
| Research sites
| This research was conducted in cooperation with two
| business and industry consulting
| firms that provide learning solutions to global
| clients. Each of these sites represented a
| single case unit of analysis. Both organisations
| were selected because they represent
| peer-respected firms among performance improvement
| organisations who are known
| for innovations in instructional design processes.
| Additionally, both firms serve the
| automotive sector, a segment of the global economy
| that is notably under intense
| pressure to increase efficiencies, thereby offering
| an increased opportunity to reveal rich
| description of methodologies related to
| instructional design efficiencies. Eleven instruc-
| tional designers working within these organisations
| served as subjects for this study.
| The majority of the instructional projects
| completed by these designers represent web-
| based training, with a minority representing
| instructor-led training.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Research site no. 1 is a private consulting firm
| located in Metropolitan Detroit, USA,
| which offers consultation and development in the
| areas of learning strategy, curricu-
| lum design, learning design and development, and
| performance support to global
| clients representing the automotive, financial,
| retail, chemical and airline industries.
| Research site no. 2 is a professional learning
| services unit within a global, publicly
| traded defense and aerospace system supplier. This
| consulting group, located within the
| USA as well as within five other countries, offers a
| full range of learning capabilities,
| including learning strategy, curriculum
| architecture, design and development, training
| operations, learning technologies, and learning
| outsourcing. Its clients are located in
| over 70 countries and include the automotive,
| chemical and defense industries.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Participants
| Eleven experienced instructional designers served
| as study participants. They were
| identified through the use of selection criteria
| that included years of experience as an
| instructional designer, advanced academic degrees
| held, and experience using a
| methodology to increase instructional design
| efficiency. Research site no. 1 provided
| two instructional designers, one with 27 years of
| instructional design experience
| (Master of Arts) and one with 35 years of
| experience (Master of Business Administra-
| tion). Research site no. 2 was the source of nine
| instructional designers. Within this
| population, six designers had between 10 and 14
| years of instructional design
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| experience, whereas the experience of three others
| ranged from 16 to 21 years. Seven of these nine
| participants have earned master’s degrees and one has earned a
| PhD.
|
| [table]
| [tr]
| [td]
| Data collection and instrumentation
| The principal method of data collection for this
| study was audio-taped interviews with
| each of the eleven instructional designers,
| conducted by the investigator. No interview
| time limit was imposed, and both structured and
| open-ended questions were utilised.
| Prior to being interviewed, subjects were asked to
| complete a pre-interview review
| activity in which they recalled instances when they
| used a methodology to affect design
| efficiency, recalled the context and project in
| which the methodology was used,
| reviewed how the methodology was employed, and
| began to identify factors that influ-
| enced the successful use of the methodology. This
| instrument was piloted before use.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Triangulation was used to enhance the construct
| validity of this study. The multiple
| data collection methods used were materials review
| activities undertaken by the inves-
| tigator, as well as audio-recorded, face-to-face
| structured interviews with study sub-
| jects. Additionally, both research sites were
| represented by multiple participants who
| described processes and tools that were
| institutionalised within their respective organi-
| sations. This data corroboration served as an
| additional means to gain triangulation
| within the organisational content of study
| results.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Data analysis
| The literature review conducted prior to this study
| revealed several themes related to
| increasing instructional design efficiency, such as
| the use of a modified ISD model, and
| the use of RP methodologies, computer-based
| instructional design tools and learning
| objects. While these themes served to inform the
| data analysis process, the investigation
| was conducted in an open search for data-driven,
| emerging themes. The data analysis
| process used was one involving constant comparative
| analysis, as advocated by Glaser
| and Strauss (1999). Initially, the results of each
| interview were reviewed for statements
| that could be categorised as methodologies to
| enhance instructional design efficiency.
| Next, full quotes were reduced to a sentence or
| phrase that reflected the essence of the
| original statement. A comparison of each of these
| statements was then undertaken to
| discover patterns and to subsequently generate a
| series of named categories of classifi-
| cation under which each incident could be
| clustered. Subcategories then emerged
| within these main categories. This process involved
| inductive reasoning, grounded in
| actual respondent statements. Throughout this study
| the investigator used NVivo7 (QSR
| International, Melbourne, Australia) qualitative
| analysis software for data analysis and
| to increase study reliability through the
| development of a case study database.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Results and discussion
| The purpose of this investigation was to identify
| methodologies used by instructional
| designers, during the design of instruction, to
| increase efficiency in the design process.
| Study results yielded 47 methodologies found to
| exist within the four categories of
| design model, instructional design team member
| roles, instructional design processes
| and instructional design tools. These methodologies
| are displayed in Table 1.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Table 1: Instructional design efficiency methodologies
| by categories (n = 11)
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Methodology
| categories
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Design model
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Methodology
| subcategories
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Efficiency methodologies
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Follow ADDIE (Analyze, Design, Develop,
| Implement, Evaluate) non-linearly
| Rarely implement evaluation step
| Incorporate rapid prototyping methodology
| Conduct extensive formative testing to identify
| issues early
| on
| Rotate instructional designers through
| same-customer
| projects
| Rotate instructional designers through
| same-industry
| projects
| Assign instructional designers to larger
| curriculum
| with ongoing subject matter
| expert
| Have instructional designers also serve as
| developers
| Use instructional design generalists across
| media for
| understanding differences
| Use instructional design specialists within a
| given
| media to
| promote technology awareness
| Have instructional designers also serve as
| subject matter
| experts
| Place client on design team
| Employ dedicated needs analysis team apart
| from design
| team
| Employ subject matter experts long-term on own
| staff
| Limit use of programmers
| Employ subject matter experts with
| instructional
| design
| experience
| Utilise a design process modelled after an
| assembly
| line
| Replace design document with specification
| sheets
| Have instructional designers use electronic
| storyboard
| templates, not authoring tools
| Provide additional structure to storyboard
| templates for
| new instructional designers
| Conduct extensive formative testing to identify
| issues early
| on
| Eliminate client storyboard reviews
| Incorporate reusable learning objects
| Reuse instructional strategies, content themes
| and creative
| themes across projects
| Have managers perform instructional design
| quality review
| processes
| Use rapid prototyping methodologies with
| new clients to
| provide appearanceprototypes
| Develop every course with translation in mind
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Instructional design
| team member
| roles
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Instructional
| designers
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Other team
| members
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Instructional
| design
| processes
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Practices
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| © 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008
| British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| 176
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| British Journal of Educational Technology
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Vol 41 No 2 2010
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Table 1: Continued
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Methodology
| categories
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Methodology
| subcategories
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Foundational
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Efficiency methodologies
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Limit use of programmers
| Ensure client representative is on-site
| full-time
| Have instructional designers also serve as
| developers
| Have instructional designers oversee designing
| completed by subject matter
| experts lacking
| design experience
| Cross-utilise learnings from other projects
| Hold regular team meetings to cross-share
| efficiencies
| Conduct Six Sigma, or similar practices, to
| improve overall processes
| Replace design document with specification
| sheets
| Use design document boiler plate
| Use needs analysis tools, such as an impact map
| Utilise electronic storyboard templates
| customised
| for different clients
| Create client-specific style guide
| Use predesigned electronic interactivity models
| within storyboards
| Use digital asset manager
| Use online review tool for project feedback
| Use digital asset manager (graphic artist)
| Track project using RASIC chart (manager)
| (Responsible, Approving, Supportive, Informed,
| Consulted)
| Use tracking sheet to report course status and
| to
| communicate processes with
| design team
| (manager)
| Use online review tool for project feedback
| (client)
| Utilise electronic storyboard templates
| customised
| for different clients (subject
| matter expert as
| instructional designer)
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Instructional
| design tools
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| For instructional
| designer use
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| For use by
| others (users
| indicatedin
| parentheses)
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| ADDIE, Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement,
| Evaluate; RASIC, Responsible, Approving,
| Supportive, Informed, Consulted.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Additionally, subcategories emerged within three of
| the four main categories which
| serve to provide useful distinctions among the
| methodologies revealed within them. By
| way of illustration, within the category,
| instructional design processes, the subcategory
| ‘practices’ includes the methodologies ‘Utilize a
| design process modeled after an assem-
| bly line’ and ‘eliminate client storyboard
| reviews’, while the subcategory ‘foundational’
| contains the methodology ‘Limit use of
| programmers’. Similarly, the category, instruc-
| tional design team member roles, contains the
| subcategories of ‘instructional designers’
| and ‘other team members’. These subcategories
| provide clarity to organising and under-
| standing the efficiency methodologies revealed
| within the larger category.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| © 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008
| British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Enhancing instructional design efficiency
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 177
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| A few of the efficiency methodologies that were
| found within this study were previously
| identified in the literature. For example, concerns
| regarding the use of the ISD model
| were affirmed through this study’s category design
| model (Bichelmeyer, 2004; Dick,
| 1993; Gordon & Zemke, 2000; Jones
| et al, 1992; Rowland, 1992). Participants dis-
| cussed not following the ISD model in a linear
| fashion and cited their infrequent use of
| its evaluation step. Additionally, interviewees
| described their use of RP methodology, as
| revealed in the categories, design model and
| instructional design processes: practices.
| Prior discussions support its use to increase
| design efficiency (Jones & Richey, 2000; van
| Merrienboer & Martens, 2002).
| Finally, the literature cites the growing trend towards
| the use of computer-based tools to enhance
| instructional design processes (de Croock
| et al, 2002; Gustafson, 2002; Koppi et al, 2004;
| van Merrienboer & Martens, 2002).
| This study strongly corroborated this trend through
| the wide variety of efficiency meth-
| odologies revealed within the categories,
| instructional design processes and instruc-
| tional design tools.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| One theme evidenced through the study results is
| the amount of instructional design
| process analysis that preceded the implementation
| of many of the identified efficiency
| methodologies. One study participant summarised, ‘I
| think it goes back to your whole
| system integration and whole system planning. When
| you look at what we did ... it’s a
| systematic integrative process. It’s not parts and
| pieces.’ And as both research sites ‘Hold
| regular team meetings to cross-share efficiencies’
| and ‘Cross-utilize learnings from other
| projects’, methodologies found within the study
| category instructional design processes:
| foundational, many methodologies have subsequently
| become institutionalised.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| A second theme revealed in this study is the extent
| to which both research sites have
| embraced the use of technology to obtain
| instructional design efficiencies. In some
| cases, off-the-shelf courseware has been used to
| achieve them, such as the use of a
| learning content management system. In the majority
| of cases, however, software
| originally designed for word processing,
| spreadsheets and message projection have been
| used to design, in-house, the electronic templates
| that are widely used. These are found
| within the study category instructional design
| tools and include programmes such as
| electronic storyboards, online review tools,
| client-specific style guides and project track-
| ing tools, to name but a few. Whether an
| organisation chooses to ‘Utilize a design
| process modeled after an assembly line’ whereby the
| traditional ISD process is seg-
| mented into steps to be performed by several
| instructional designers in a linear fashion,
| as noted in the category instructional design
| processes, or to follow an approach that
| has one instructional designer conducting all
| design tasks, these electronic tools were
| cited within this study as critical to designing
| and developing. When referring to
| storyboard templates, one study participant stated,
| ‘These templates have made com-
| munication between the designer and the developer
| seamless.’ A lead designer added, ‘I
| appreciate your creativity and your background
| experience, but I can’t have this project
| looking like seven different people did it. So
| here’s the template.’ Another instructional
| designer not only described a workaround to the
| issue of lost creativity when using
| templates but also illustrated the intensity of
| purpose to identify and implement effi-
| ciencies found throughout this study: ‘Creativity
| is proven to inefficiency because I’ve
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| © 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008
| British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 178
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| British Journal of Educational Technology
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Vol 41 No 2 2010
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| got to do it a new way ... so it drove us to this
| idea to templatize your creativity. How can
| I build it once and leverage this “cool” across the
| whole course ten times, twenty times?
| ... . So we use it more than once. The customer
| paid for a level two [some interactivity],
| but he was given a level three [high level of
| interactivity] and he’s so happy.’ As men-
| tioned earlier, each of the efficiencies found
| throughout this study have been driven by
| marketplace conditions. One study participant noted
| the pressures to be ever more
| efficient: ‘At the same time that we’re shrinking
| our timelines, we’re getting much more
| complex development than we’ve ever had.’
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Supporting competencies
| This research also identified 14 competencies in the
| area of instructional designer
| knowledge, skills and attitudes that were cited as
| useful to supporting the methodolo-
| gies used by instructional designers to increase
| design efficiency. Table 2 displays these
| competencies.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Of the supporting competencies found within Table
| 2, study participants identified two
| as particularly important. The first is ‘Knowledge
| of authoring tool capabilities’. One
| instructional designer stated, ‘It’s good to have a
| general idea of what programming is
| all about and what authoring tools they’re using,
| because when you want to change
| something in the template or want to propose a new
| type of interaction, it helps to know
| if you’re asking something that’s easy, or
| something that’s like asking for the moon.’
| Relatedly, the second supporting competency cited
| by interviewees as important was
| ‘Knowledge of programming Return on Investment
| (ROI) costs’. One instructional
| designer stated,
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Table 2: Instructional designer supporting
| competencies by categories (n = 11)
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Competency category
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Instructional designer
| knowledge/skills/
| attitudes
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Competency
| subcategories
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Technology
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Supporting competencies
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Knowledge of authoring tool capabilities
| Skill using authoring tool
| Knowledge of client computer delivery system
| Knowledge of programming return on
| investment costs
| Skill designing within an environment using
| electronic templates
| Ability to communicate with programmers
| Willingness to push the technological envelope
| Knowledge of specific industry
| Knowledge of client organisation
| Knowledge of particular content
| Organisational skills
| Ability to work well within a team
| Ability to write concisely and compellingly
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Foundational
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| © 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008
| British Educational Communications and Technology Agency.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Enhancing instructional design efficiency
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 179
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| I’ve learned not to ask the question ‘can this be
| done?’ because the answer is yes. Then the
| following question is how much time is it going to
| take us to do it? Well, that’s a whole different
| kind of question. What I’ve learned to say is,
| ‘This is what I’m trying to get across. How might this
| get done?’ I now have an eye on the cost-time issue
| of being able to do it reasonably.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Although this study identified methodologies used by
| experienced instructional design-
| ers to increase the efficiency of the instructional
| design process, it did not distinguish
| between the relative importance of these
| methodologies, nor did it distinguish between
| the relative importance of the instructional
| designer supporting competencies. A
| second study limitation is the number of
| instructional designers involved. A larger
| population across more diverse settings beyond
| business and industry, such as health
| care, and government, would be useful.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Conclusions
| A discussion of the constraints of traditional ISD
| has been found in the literature for
| decades. This, coupled with the highly competitive,
| global marketplace and its resultant
| demand for increased efficiencies in every aspect of
| the workplace, makes an examina-
| tion of instructional designer practice ever more
| important. This study served to begin
| this process by identifying methodologies that
| instructional designers actually employ
| in practice to increase their efficiency when
| designing instruction. Research results
| revealed the importance of appropriately assigning
| roles within the instructional
| design team and the need for instructional
| designers to serve in a variety of differing
| design team configurations. It also identified a
| number of instructional design processes
| intended to increase efficiency that can be
| implemented only through the use of elec-
| tronic tools. This interplay of technology within
| the instructional design process is a
| trend that can only grow, providing a rationale for
| its continued study. Future research
| would prove useful by expanding the settings in
| which the current research was con-
| ducted and by identifying the relative importance
| of the efficiency methodologies as
| well as the instructional designer supporting
| competencies that have been identified
| through this study.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| As an example of design and development research,
| this examination involved the
| production of knowledge with the ultimate aim of
| improving the processes of instruc-
| tional design. As such, this study has contributed
| to the discussion of instructional
| design efficiencies, and it is hoped that it may
| advance instructional design practice and
| instructional design theory grounded in practice as
| well.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| References
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2004). The ADDIE model—a
| metaphor for the lack of clarity in the field of IDT.
| Paper presented at the meeting
| of the Association for Educational Communications and
| Technology IDT Futures Group,
| Chicago, IL. Retrieved October 13, 2009 from http://
|
| www.catalog.unco.edu/cetl/sir/clt/documents/IDT_Bic.pdf
| de Croock, M. B. M., Paas, F., Schlanbusch, H.
| & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2002). ADAPTIT
| tools
| for training design and
| evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50,
| 4,
| 47–58.
| DeMars, S. (2006). Leaning the system: adding lean
| thinking to systems thinking. TechTrends, 50,
| 2, 49–50.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 180
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| British Journal of Educational Technology
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Vol 41 No 2 2010
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| Dick, W. (1993). Enhanced ISD: a response to
| changing environments for learning and perfor-
| mance. Educational Technology,
| 33, 2, 12–16.
| Foreman, P. B. (1948). The theory of case studies.
| Social Forces, 26, 4, 408–419.
| Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L.
| (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for
| qualitative
| research. New Brunswick, NJ:
| Aldine Transaction.
| Gordon, J. & Zemke, R. (2000). The
| attack on ISD. Training, 37, 4, 42–53.
| Gustafson, K. (2002). Instructional design tools: a
| critique and projections for the future. Educa-
| tional Technology Research and
| Development, 50, 4, 59–66.
| Gustafson, K. L. (2000). Designing technology-based
| performance support. Educational Technol-
| ogy, 40, 1, 38–44.
| IEEE (2004). Standard for Learning Object Metadata.
| Retrieved October 13, 2009 from http://
| ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/
| Jones, T. S. & Richey, R. C.
| (2000). Rapid prototyping methodology in action: a
| developmental
| study. Educational Technology
| Research and Development, 48, 2, 63–80.
| Jones, M. K., Li, Z. & Merrill, M.
| D. (1992). Rapid prototyping in automated instructional design.
| Educational Technology Research
| and Development, 40, 4, 95–100.
| Koppi, T., Bogle, L., Hodgson, N. &
| Lavitt, N. (2004). Institutional use of learning objects:
| lessons
| learned and future directions.
| Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13, 4, 449–
| 463.
| Richey, R. C. & Klein, J. D.
| (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies and
| issues.
| Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
| Associates, Publishers.
| Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers
| actually do? An initial investigation of
| expert practice. Performance
| Improvement Quarterly, 5, 2, 65–86.
| Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional
| design. Educational Technology Research and
| Development, 41, 1, 79–91.
| Schwier, R. A., Campbell, K. &
| Kenny, R. (2004). Instructional designers’ observations about
| identity, communities of
| practice and change agency. Australasian Journal of Educational
| Tech-
| nology, 20, 1, 69–100. Retrieved
| June 5, 2006, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet20/
| schwier.html
| Womack, J. P. & Jones, D. T.
| (2003). Lean thinking (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
| Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and
| methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
| van Merrienboer, J. J. G. &
| Martens, R. (2002). Computer-based tools for instructional design:
| an
| introduction to the special
| issue. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 4,
| 5–9.
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
| 中文翻译：
| 增强教学设计效率：教学设计师使用的方法论[/B]
| Margaret A.Roytek[/B]
| 这篇论文是在Margaret A.Roytek的记忆中被发表的。Margaret
| A.Roytek是美国奥克兰大学人力资源开发学院的助理教授。她的研究方向是教学设计的效率和效益，教学设计的专业发展。她在2009年5月去世了。通讯地址：Rita
| C.Richey,Processor Emeritus,Wayne State University,Instructional
| Technology,Detroit,MI 48202;E-mail:rrichey @wayne.edu
|
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| 摘要[/B]
| 教学系统设计（ISD）因为长时间的实施经常被指责，要求减少循环时间，这是项目开始和运输之间消逝的时间。当教学设计研究已经历史性地集中在提高学习者效率上，教学设计者所做的研究是为了在教学设计阶段提高效率，包括基于Web的培训，还没有被全面的检查。这种定性开发研究的目的是确定和理解方法论，这种方法论是由有经验的教学设计师为了提高教学设计过程的效率而使用的。从来自工作在给全球用户提供学习解决方案的两家商业和工业咨询公司的11位教学设计师身上收集数据。结果显示了在设计模型的4个范畴中发现47种有效率的方法论，教学设计团队成员的角色，教学设计过程和教学设计工具。另外，14种支持教学设计师资格（的指标）在教学设计师知识、技能和态度的范畴中发现。
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
|
|
| 前言[/B]
| 考虑到全球经济条件：正在迫切的要求组织缩小，同时从维持的基础上需要生产力的提升，减少劳动力，由此，教学设计师越来越强烈地号召用更有效的方法生产更高质量的教学程序。新经济可用两个单词来总结：变化和速度（戈登&泽姆克,2000）。对于效率的研究尤其强烈地是在全球市场的激烈竞争中，如汽车制造业。当教学设计研究已经历史性的集中在提高学习者效率方面，通过区域检查，如认知负荷理论和基于网络教学的运用，对于教学设计师真正应该做什么来提高效率在教学设计期间包括网络教学的研究，还没有被全面的检查。在图书馆发现的与这个话题相关的大多数内容是概念性的而不是根植于教学设计师实践的研究。这个方面的另一个贡献一定会被猜想，研究的首要目的集中在教学设计效率的检查，而不是教学设计效益。然而，其他相关研究报告了对于提高效率没必要开发的新兴技术，也没有达到大多数教学设计师（的要求）。因为这个领域有很少的研究，所以需要存在一种系统化的研究，这种研究能设计来确定可能会对在教学设计过程中提高效率做出贡献的方法论。相关地，罗兰(1993)清楚的表达了系统化地调查设计教学过程的需要，应当和建筑和工程学设计领域已经做得一样多。后来，施威尔,坎贝尔和肯尼(2004)已经清楚表达了关心：大量工作中的很多描述的教学设计理论模型还没有从教学设计师的实践中描绘出来，因此，教学设计理论没有根植于实践’（P.1）。
| 研究的背景及意义[/B]
| Jones,li和Merrill(梅瑞尔)（1992）确定了几个问题为传统的教学系统设计（ISD）奠定基础。一个问题是混凝土制品直到最近的设计过程才可用。另一个问题是在开发期间适应变化，慎重反思分析和设计过程可能要花费很多，甚至对于一个项目来说甚至是致命的。然而，最经常的批评是教学系统设计在实施方面需要花费太长的时间（Bichelmeyer,2004;Gordon&Zemke,2000;罗兰,1992)。循环时间——时间将在产品初始和产品运输间消逝——可能扼杀教学系统设计除非它能有意义的减少（迪克,1993）。然后，循环时间的减少对于实施研究产生了一个重要的基本理论，这个研究是对于教学设计效率做出贡献的方法论的确定这一领域。
| Jones和Richey(2000)实施了一项快速原型法研究，在已有关于循环时间发现的教学设计中。借鉴于计算机软件程序设计和手工业领域，RP被定义为在设计过程中快速建立和评价一系列早期原型，已经具有提供设计者/开发者和用户混合的、可执行的模型的优势，为了激发最终的生产和实施。
| Jones和Richey诊断RP的运用增强了教学产品的质量，加强了消费者的满意水平，似乎也减少了循环时间。另外，van
| Merrienboer和Martens（2002）已经总结了RP的特征：非线性，高度灵活的’zigzag’设计方法有’更强的适应性对于新的学习环境的设计’(P.6)。当作为研究的参与者，性能设计实验室主任Geary
| A.Rummlert通过向Gordon和Zemke(2000)陈述，总结了循环时间问题，在被实验之前避免花费几个月的时间设计和开发教学课程，一个更有效的方法将要放在一起’一个SWAT团队，有经验的设计师能够快速的看清真正的问题，能够具有富有想象力的解决方案的本领，能够在三天之内想出一个最基本的设计而不是三个月。得到一个原型，然后着手处理它’(P.48)。
| 新兴的基于计算机教学设计工具支持分析和被执行的设计活动，在最终媒体选择被制定、教学被产生之前，这种工具掌握了提高教学效率的潜能，尽管不是很明确的开发去这样做(Gustafson,2002)。预先的教学设计工具已经被限制为写作工具，被创造用于基于计算机教学的开发或生产，而不是为了设计活动。van
| Merrienboer和Martens（2002）对于新兴的教学设计工具提供了再检查，指出帮助解决设计过程日益增长的复杂性，因为当代教学理论集中在丰富的，多学科的，常常是合作的学习任务。deCrool,Paas,Schlanbusch和van
| Merrienboer(2002)描述了一个这样的教学设计教学工具，Core,工具中一个更大的系统的组合被称为ADAPT(为个性化教学的先进教学方法)，被设计支持复杂技能的分析和设计，在工业装置中基于资格的训练程序。总得说来，Gustafson(2002)已经阐明了随着改变速度步伐的加快和劳动人员变得越来越复杂，教学设计，无论以什么样的形式表现，将需要绩效支持工具更好的运用...下一步将是创造EPSSs[电子绩效支持系统]来创造EPSSs’(P.43)。
| 学习对象，被IEEE(2004)学习和技术委员会定义为’任何实体，数字化的或非数字化的，在技术支持学习期间能够被运用，重新利用或参考’(P.1)，已经被认可作为提供效率，通过分享和重新运用获得(Koppi,Bogle,Hodgson&Lavit,2004)。当完成适当学习情境的学习对象用户化时，可能需要额外的设计者时间，在许多应用中他们的运用减少了需要设计和开发教学的时间总量。
| DeMars(2006)已经确定了一种基于非技术的方法，运用Lean思考原则，这种原则可能能对教学设计过程的效率做出贡献。他建议这些原则，由Womack和Jones(2003)综合，在Toyota制造生产系统被诊断，被应用在教学系统设计中消除系统中无价值的作业或浪费。
| 尽管被发现在图书馆里的每一种方法论，概念和工具，可能对教学系统设计中循环时间的减少做出贡献，但它们都不能代表这个领域中系统的回顾，因此呼吁未来的相关研究。这个调查设计目的是开始表达这种需要。
| 方法[/B]
| 本研究运用一种定性的案例方法，这是介于描述的和解释的案例研究的一种混合。Foreman(1948)已经陈述了案例研究是尤其有用的当研究包括调查的新方法，其目的是在指定的案例中在各种有意义的因素中确定特定的模式。本研究方法是基于Yin的(2003)案例研究方法，包括理论开发的步骤，案例选择，数据收集草案设计，数据收集和数据分析。本研究也是一个设计和开发研究项目，强调模型的运用，因为它确定和检查特定教学设计过程组成要素，最大的目的是改善教学设计的过程(Richey&Klein,2007)。作为教学设计实践的初步调查，首要地研究问题是’什么方法被教学设计者运用，在教学设计为了提高设计过程的效率期间？’
| 研究网站
| 本研究是在两个商业和工业咨询公司合作下执行的，这公司是向全球用户提供学习解决方案的。每一个网站代表一个分析的单独案例单元。选择这两个组织是因为他们象征同龄-受尊重的公司在绩效提高的组织中，它们以在教学设计过程中的创新而出名。另外，这两个公司都作为自动化的部门，全球经济的一部分，在显著强烈地压力下增强效率，因此提供一个增长的机会去揭示关于教学设计效率的方法的描述。工作在这些机构的11位教学设计师作为本次研究的主题。被这些教学设计师完成的教学项目的大多数代表基于网络的教学，少数代表教师主导的教学。
| 研究网站no.1是坐落于美国大都会底特律的私人咨询公司，这里提供咨询和开发在学习范畴，课程设计，学习设计和开发等领域，还有面向全球的绩效支持代表自动化的，金融的，零售，化学的和航空路线企业。研究网站no.2是一个专业化的学习服务单元，里面是一个全球的，公众的交易防护和宇宙空间的供给者。这个咨询小组坐落在美国，也在五个不同的其他国家，提供了广阔范围的学习能力，包括学习策略，课程构建，设计和开发，训练操作，学习技术，和学习外购。它的用户坐落在70多个国家，包括汽车的，化学的和国防工业。
| 参与者
| 11位有经验的教学设计师作为研究的参与者。他们是通过选择标准的运用被确定的，选择标准包括作为教学设计师拥有多年的经验、高学术学历，和运用方法论提高教学设计效率的经历。研究网站no.1提供了两位教学设计师，一位具有27年教学设计经验(艺术硕士)和一位具有35年的经验(商业管理硕士)。研究网站no.2是9位教学设计师的来源。在这9人中，6位设计师有10到14年的教学设计经验，然而其他三个人的经验是从16到21年范围内。这些9个参与者中的7个已经取得了硕士学位，一个已经取得哲学博士学位。
| 数据收集和使用仪器
| 本研究收集数据最重要的方法是与11位教学设计师中的每一位进行录音-磁带的面试，由调查者执行。无时间限制，有结构的和广泛的问题都可以被使用。预先被面试，主题被要求完成一个提前面试的检查活动，在这里他们能回想实例当他们用方法论影响设计效率的时候，回想方法论被运用的情境和
| 科研项目，回顾方法论是怎样被使用的，开始确定影响方法论成功使用的因素。这个仪器在使用之前要被试验。
| 使用三角测量法是为了加强本研究观念的有效性。运用多样的数据收集方法有调查者执行的材料回顾活动，也有声音录制，关于研究主题面对面有结构的交谈。此外，两个研究网站被多样化的参与者所代表，他们描述在他们各自的组织具有机构化的过程和工具。数据的进一步证实作为获得三角测量法额外的途径，在研究结果的机构背景之内。
| 数据分析
| 在本研究之前执行的文学回顾揭示了关于提高教学设计效率的几个主题，如修改的教学系统设计(ISD)模型的运用，BP方法论的应用，基于计算机的教学设计工具和学习对象。尽管被提供的这些主题使数据分析过程变得活跃，调查被执行在一个开放的研究中为了数据驱动、新出现主题。数据分析过程是一个包括持续的、全面的分析过程，像Glaser和Strauss所倡导的(1999)。开始，每一次面试的结果都被再次检查，因为陈述可能被归纳到方法论的范畴为了增强教学设计效率。下一步，所有的引用被减少到句子或段落，反应了原始陈述的精髓。然后每一个陈述的对比被执行来发现模式，接着产生一系列分类的命名范畴在每一事件被聚集的情况下。然后子范畴出现在这些主要的范畴之内。这个过程包括归纳推理，扎根于真实应答的陈述。整个研究中，调查者运用NVivo(QSR国际,墨尔本,澳大利亚)定性分析软件做数据分析，通过案例研究数据库的开发提高了研究的可靠性。
| 结论和探讨[/B]
| 本研究的目的是确定教学设计师使用的方法，在教学设计期间，为了提高设计过程的效率。研究结果产生47种方法，被发现存在于设计模型的4个范畴，教学设计团队成员角色，教学设计过程和教学设计工具。这些方法在表1中呈现出来。
| 表1:教学设计效率方法的分类（n=11）
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| 方法子范畴方法范畴
|
|
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 效率方法范畴
|
|
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 方法范畴方法范畴
|
|
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| 根据ADDIE模型（分析、设计、开发、实施、评价）非线性
| 很少实施评价步骤
| 包含快速原型法
| 执行大范围的形式测验来确定早期的问题
| 通过相同的消费者项目轮换教学设计者
| 通过相同工业项目轮换教学设计者
| 分配教学设计师一个更大的课程同正进行的论题专家
| 让教学设计师也担任开发者
| 用在媒体中的教学设计多面手为了理解区别
| 用教学设计专家在给出的媒体为了提高技术意识
| 让教学设计师也承担论题专家
| 将用户放在设计的团队中
| 使用专业（注）的需求分析的团队从设计团队中分离出来
|
|
|
|
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 设计模型
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 教学设计团队成员角色
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 教学设计师
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| 其他团队成员
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
|
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| 长期地使用论题专家作为自己成员
| 程序员的限制使用
| 雇佣有教学设计经验的论题专家
| 在装配线后使用已作为模型的设计过程
| 有样本情况下重置设计文档
| 让教学设计师使用电子的故事模版，而不是创作工具
| 对于新手教学设计师，提高故事模版额外的结构
| 执行广泛的形成性测验来确定早期的问题
| 排除用户故事版的再检查
| 合并重利用的学习对象
| 重新使用教学策略，内容主题和贯穿项目的创造性主题
| 让经理执行教学设计质量检查过程
| 使用快速原型法让新用户提供外观原型
| 通过在脑海中翻译开发每一种课程
| 程序员的限制使用
| 确保有代表性的用户是全日制在现场的
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| 教学设计
| 过程
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| 基础的
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
|
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| 让教学设计师也作为开发者
| 让教学设计师监督已完成的设计，通过缺乏设计经验的论题专家完成的
| 从其他项目中交叉使用学习资源
| 控制常规团队会议相互分享效率
| 执行六个标准差，或者简单的实践，来改善整个过程
| 根据样本重置设计文档
| 用设计文档分发样板文件
| 运用需要分析工具，如impact map
| 针对不同的用户，使用客户化的电子故事模版
| 创造用户-具体的风格向导
| 使用预先设计的电子交互模型在故事版中
| 使用数字资产管理人
| 对于项目的反馈，使用在线的检查工具
| 使用数字资产管理人(图像艺术家)
|
|
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 为教学设计师利用
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 教学设计
| 工具
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 为他人利用(用户指明插入)
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| 监测项目使用RASIC表(管理者)
| (责任、批准、支持、通报、咨询)
| 使用监测脚本来报道课程的地位和与设计团队交流过程(管理者)
| 为了项目反馈运用网上监测工具(用户)
| 针对不同的用户使用不同客户化的电子故事版(主题专家作为教学设计师)
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| ADDIE,分析、设计、开发、实施、评价；RASIC，责任、批准、支持、通报、咨询。
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 此外，子范畴出现在这四个主要范畴中的三个之中，有助于在它们所显示的方法中提供有用的区别。通过解释的方法，在种类、教学设计过程之内，子类’实践’包括方法’在装配线后使用已作为模型的设计过程’和’消除用户故事版的检查’，子类’基础的’包括’程序员限制使用’的方法。相似地，分类，教学设计团队成员角色，包括’教学设计师’和’其他团队成员’这两子类。这些子类为在更大的类中组织和理解被显示的有效的方法清晰。
| 本研究中发现的很少的有效方法先前在图书馆里被确认。例如，关于教学系统设计模型的运用的关系被确定通过本研究的分类设计模型
| (Bichelmeyer,2004;Dick,2003;Gordon&Zemke,2000;Jones
| et
| al,1992;Rowland,1992)。参与者讨论以线性的方式，而不是依照教学系统模型，引用在评价阶段很少的运用。此外，被访问者描述了RP方法的应用，正如在分类，设计模型和教学设计过程揭示的那样:实践。先前的讨论支持它的运用增强设计效率(Jones&Richey,2000;van
| Merrienboer&Martens,2002)。文献引证了日益增加的趋势，趋向于基于计算机工具的运用来增加教学设计过程(de
| Croock et al,2002;Gustafson,2002;Koppi et al,2004;van
| Merrienboer&Martens,2002)。本研究强烈支持这种趋势，通过在种类、教学设计过程和教学设计工具之中有效方法的多样性揭示。
| 通过本研究结果一个被证明的主题是教学设计过程分析的总量，超过了许多已证实的有效方法的实施(量).一位研究参与者总结说,’我认为它应该来自你整个系统整合和整个系统计划之后。当你看我们已经做了什么...这是一个系统的整合过程。它不是部分和碎片。’正如这两个网站’举行正规的团队会议来相互分享效率’和’从其他项目中交叉使用学习资源’，在研究分类教学设计中发现的方法是:基础的。许多方法已经接着变成了机构化的。
| 本研究揭示的第二个主题是一种程度，这两个研究网站已经包括了技术的运用来获得教学设计效率。在一些案例中，现成的课件已经被用来完成它们，如学习内容管理系统的运用。然而，在大多数案例中，起初为了字处理、电子数据表、信息预测被设计的软件已经被用来设计、在机构内部和被广泛运用的电子模版。这些在研究分类教学设计工具中被发现，包括的程序，如电子故事版、在线检查工具、用户-特定的风格性格和项目监测工具，去命名但很少。机构是否选择’在装配线后使用已作为模型的设计过程’通过传统的教学系统设计模型被分割成小步子来表现出来由几个教学设计师以线性的方式，正如在分类教学设计过程中被记录，或实行一种一个教学设计师执行所有任务的方法，在本研究中被引用的电子工具对于设计和开发起着决定性的作用。当关于故事模版，一个研究参与者说,’这些模版已经使得设计者和开发者之间的交流是无缝的。’一位设计领导者补充说,’我感谢你的创造力和你的背景经历，但是我不能有这样一个项目，看起来7个不同的人都能做。所以这是模版。’另一位教学设计师不仅描述了当用模版时失去创造力问题的一个工作区，而且阐明了目的的强度来确定和实施贯穿本研究所发现的方法:’创造力被证明是无效率的因为我已经用一种新方法来做了...所以它驱使我们用这种方法来开发你的创造力。那我怎样一次性的建立它呢，怎样补充支持这种’凉气‘通过整个课程10次，20次?...。所以我们不止一次的使用它。消费者被支付两等级[某种交互活动],但他被给了三等级[交互活动的高水平]，他非常高兴。’正如前面提到的，贯穿在本研究的每一种效率都是受市场条件驱使。一位研究参与者记录了压力为了使之更有效率;’在我们正在缩短时间线的同时，我们正在进行更复杂的开发比起以前。’
| 支持资格
| 本研究也确定了14种资格在教学设计师的知识、技能和态度领域，被引用作为有用的来支持方法，由教学设计师为了提高设计效率所用的方法。表2呈现这些资格。
| 在表2中被发现的支持资格，研究参与者确定了两个作为尤其重要的。这一个是’创作工具能力的知识’。一位教学设计师说，’这是好的有这样一般的想法：一个程序是关于什么的和他们用的创作工具是什么的，因为当你改变模版中的东西或想要达到一种新交互形式的目的，它帮助去知道是否你正在问一些简单的问题，或像要求去月球这样的问题。’相关地，第二个支持资格由被访者引用作为重要的是’项目投资回报率费用的知识’。一位教学设计师陈述。
| 表2：教学设计师支持资格分类(n=11)
|
| [tr]
| [td]
| 资格分类
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 资格子类
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 支持资格
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 创作工具能力的知识
| 运用创作工具的技能
| 用户计算机传输系统的知识
| 项目投资回报率费用的知识
| 在一种环境中用电子模版的设计技能
| 与程序员的交流能力
| 愿意推动技术包围
| 具体工业的知识
| 用户组织的知识
| 特定内容的知识
| 组织技能
| 团队协作能力
| 简明地和引人入胜地协作能力
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 技术
| 技术
|
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 教学设计师知识/技能/背景
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [tr]
| [td]
| 基础的
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 我已经了解到不能去问这样的问题’这个能做吗?’因为答案是肯定的。然后接下来的问题是我们将花费多长时间来做。这是整个不同类型的问题。我所学到的是这样说,’这是我努力想要跨越的。将怎样着手做呢?’
| 尽管本研究确定了方法，由有经验的教学设计师提高教学设计过程效率所使用的方法，不区分这些方法的相对重要性，也不区分教学设计支持资格的相对重要性。第二个研究限制是包括的教学设计师的数量。更大的人口数穿过更多样的装置在超越商业和企业之外，如健康医疗和政府，将是有用的。
| 结论[/B]
| 几十年来，传统教学系统设计的限制性的讨论已经在文献中发现。这，与激烈的竞争、全球经济市场和为了提高效率的结果需要在工作区的每个方面相同，使得教学设计师实践的检查变得更加重要了。本研究有助于开始实施这个过程，通过确定方法，在设计教学时教学设计师在实践中真正使用地来提高教学效率方法。研究结果表明在教学设计团队中适时地承担角色的重要性，教学设计者承担各种不同设计组合的需要。它也确定了很多以增强效率为目标的教学设计过程，仅仅通过电子工具的使用就能实施。在教学设计过程中技术的相互作用是一种只能增长的趋势，对于持续研究提供了一种基本理论。未来的研究将是有用的通过扩展装置，在当前研究正在执行的情况下和通过确定效率方法的相对重要性还有通过本研究已被确定的教学设计师支持资格。
| 作为设计和开发研究的例子，这次检查包括知识的产量，在终极目标是提高教学设计过程的情况下。本研究为教学设计效率的探讨作出了贡献，同时也希望它能推动教学设计实践，还有扎根于实践的教学设计理论。
| 参考文献[/B]
|
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
|
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
| [/TD]
| | [/TR] |
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/table]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/table]
|
