Research on Instructional Development

[] Rita C, Richey

The instructional technology field is periodi- [] The appropriate direction for instructional
cally faced with discussion of the appropriate technology research and theory construction is a
direction of its research and more spec~cally recurring theme in our field. Such issues fre-
of the relationship between research and prac- quently surface with significant changes in our
tice. This paper extends the discussion by journals. When Educational Communication and
examining the nature and scope of developmen- Technology Journal (ETCJ) and Journal of Instruc-
tal research. Two categories of developmental tional Development (JID) merged, there was much
research are explored. They vary in terms of discussion of the need for our research and the-
the extent to which the conclusions resulting ory to be prescriptive rather than descriptive in
from the research are generalizable or contextu- nature (Clark, 1989; Reigeluth, 1989), and of the
ally-spec~c. Type I research tends to be case importance of having research be not only scien-
studies of spec!fic design, development, or eval- tifically sound but practical and useful to
uation projects with its findings directed researchers and developers alike (Dick & Dick,
toward the improvement of a product or identi- 1989; Higgins & Sullivan, 1989; Ross & Morri-
fication of those conditions conducive to effi- son, 1989).
cient product development and use. Type 2 The 1989 discussion reflects a history of criti-
research typically addresses the validity and~or cism that our practice is not sufficiently
effectiveness of an existing or newly con- informed by research, and that our research is
structed development model, process, or tech- not sufficiently attuned to practice. In 1953, Finn
nique. The promise of developmental research asserted that the field at that time suffered from
as a vehicle for creating sound methods for a dominance of "gageteering" that reflected a
linking research and practice is discussed. "poverty of thought" (p. 13). This soul searching
was also facilitated by a journal change, the initi-
ation of AV Communication Review (AVCR). In
1967, Markle called for the development of
empirically grounded instructional materials
through systematic testing procedures that
guaranteed effectiveness via successive approxi-
mation. In 1984, Heinich stressed the need to
move from experimental to field-based research
in an effort to develop informed practice. The
debate continues today, again prompted in part
by a change in journal leadership. What should
be the character of our research? What is the
proper relationship between research and the-
ory, on the one hand, and practice on the other?
This article offers additional thoughts on this
subject specifically addressing research and
practice in instructional development.
For many, the design, development and eval-
uation of instructional products and programs is

ETR&D, Vol.45, No. 3, 1997, pp. 91-100 ISSN 1042-1629 91

92 ETR&D,Vo145, No. 3

the heart of the instructional technology field. It and in others to skill expansion (as in staff devel-
follows that a substantial part of the field's opment or executive development). In instruc-
research should address these processes. In tional technology it refers to the creation of new
other words, we should be studying design, instruction. Still the term has been used in a
development, and evaluation as well as doing it. variety of ways even in this field. Currently, the
Of course, this is not a new suggestion; some prevailing definition in the field views develop-
scholars have heeded it even though the field ment as "the process of translating the design
tends to put more effort into the "doing" part, specifications into physical form" (Seels &
perhaps continuing to reflect Finn's character- Richey, 1994, p. 35). In other words, it refers to
ization of the field. The body of research litera- the process of producing instructional materials.
ture that directly pertains to instructional It is distinct from design which is "the process of
development is known as developmental specifying conditions for learning" (Seels &
research, "the systematic study of designing, Richey, 1994, p. 30), essentially a planning pro-
developing and evaluating instructional pro- cess, and it is also distinct from evaluation, "the
grams, processes and products that must meet process of determining the adequacy of instruc-
the criteria of internal consistency and effective- tion and learning" (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 54).
ness" (Seels & Richey, 1994, p.127). Other interpretations have focused primarily
Developmental research seeks to create upon the distinctions between instructional
knowledge grounded in data systematically design and instructional development. For exam-
derived from practice. It is a pragmatic type of ple, Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino
research that offers a way to test "theory" that (1996) define instructional development as "the
has been only hypothesized and to validate process of analyzing needs, determining what
practice that has been perpetuated essentially content must be mastered, establishing educa-
through unchallenged tradition. In addition, it is tional goals, designing materials to reach the
a way to establish new procedures, techniques, objectives, and trying out and revising the pro-
and tools based upon a methodical analysis of gram in terms of learner achievement" (p. 410).
specific cases. Consequently, well-conceived Briggs (1977) summarized another view when
developmental research can offer a direct he defined instructional design as "the entire pro-
response to the many demands for research that cess of analysis of learning needs and goals and
is prescriptive and meets the pressing needs of the development of a delivery system to meet
practitioners. the needs; includes development of instructional
Such research, however, can be jeopardized materials and activities; and tryout and revision
by logical pitfalls often created by conflicting of all instruction and learner assessment activi-
definitions of development and by traditional ties" (p. xx). In the Briggs interpretation, design
views that research and development are dis- is the more generic term, encompassing both
tinct (though linked) activities. This paper will planning and production.
examine the nature and scope of developmental Here, the term instructional development will
research and discuss its potential role in advanc- be used in a broader sense (the "big D," if you
ing both theory and practice in instructional will, for research scope), even though the more
technology. common distinctions between instructional
design and development (the "small d" for pro-
THE NATURE OF
duction) are recognized. Thus, in this context
DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH development encompasses all aspects of the
design, development, evaluation, and mainte-
Development in Developmental Research. D e v e 1- nance of instructional materials and programs.
opment is an ambiguous term to many and has This broad scope is portrayed in Table 1.
generated considerable debate regarding its
proper interpretation. Even though it always Research in Developmental Research. The tradi-
implies gradual growth, evolution and change, tional orientation has been to view research as
in some circumstances it relates specifically to the discovery of new knowledge, while develop-
human maturation (as in life span development) ment was seen as the translation of that knowl-
DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH 93

Table 1 [ ] The Scope of Development In a Research Context

Design Development Utilization & Maintenance

Analysis and Planning for Production & Formative Usage, Management, &
Development, Evaluation, Evaluation Summative Evaluation
Utilization, & Maintenance

Note: From "Developmental Research" by R.C. Richey and W. Nelson, 1996. In D. Jonassen (Ed3 Handbook of Researchfor
Educational Communications and Technology, p. 1215. New York: Macmillan Simon & Schuster.

edge into a useful form (Pelz, 1967). Research, simply referred to here as Type 1 and Type 2.
then, is a precursor to the task of creating learn- They vary in terms of the extent to which the
ing materials. However, in developmental conclusions resulting from the research are gen-
research, the research process and the develop- eralizable or contextually specific. Table 2
ment process are either merged into a single, describes this division of developmental
iterative enterprise or, if separated, the develop- research projects.
ment project has preceded the primary research The most straightforward developmental
effort. In its simplest forms, developmental research projects fall into the first category of
research could be: Table 2. This category typically involves situa-
• a situation in which someone is performing tions in which the product development process
instructional design, development, or evalua- used in a particular situation is described, ana-
tion activities and studying the process at the lyzed, and the final product is evaluated. The
same time; or results are typically context and product spe-
cific, even though the implications for similar
• the study of the impact of someone else's
situations may be entertained. The second type
instructional design and development
of developmental study is oriented toward a
efforts; or
more macro-analytic assessment of either
• the study of the instructional design, devel- design, development, or evaluation processes as
opment, and evaluation process as a whole, a whole or toward any particular component of
or of a particular components of the process these processes and procedures. They are sim-
(Richey & Nelson, 1996, p. 1213). ilar to those studies Driscoll (1995) calls tech-
Developmental research is compatible with nique and model development research.
the idea that research can have a broader func- Typically, conclusions from Type 2 develop-
tion than the creation of generalizable conclu- mental research are generalized for application
sions or statements of law. It accepts tlie view to a variety of situations.
that research, especially developmental From some perspectives this scope may be
research, can also produce context-specific overly inclusive. However, there is much
knowledge and serve a problem-solving func- design-related research that is not developmen-
tion. Still, the primary goal of developmental tal in nature. For example, traditional instruc-
research is not to create instructional products tional psychology studies, media comparison
and programs, but rather to determine the mod- studies, and communication research typically
els and principles that best guide the design, address the relationships between isolated vari-
development, and evaluation processes utilized ables. While findings from suchresearch can be
in making these products and programs. As applicable to development projects, they are not
such, doing development and studying develop- studies of design or development processes or
ment are two different tasks. techniques per se. They serve as more basic,
foundational research for the field.
The Scope of Developmental Research. There are at Likewise, a distinction should be made
least two categories of developmental research, between analyses of actual development pro-
94 ETR&D,Vot 45, No. 3

Table 2 [ ] A Summary of the Two Types of Developmental Research

DevelopmentalResearch
Type I Type 2
Emphasis Study of specific product or program Study of design, development, or
design, development &/or evaluation evaluation processes, tools, or models
projects
Product Lessons learned from developing New design, development, and evaluation
specific products and analyzing the procedures &/or models, and conditions
conditions which facilitate their use which facilitate their use

Context-Specific Conclusions Generalized Conclusions

Note:From"DevelopmentalResearch"by R.C.Richeyand W.Nelson,1996.In D. lonassen(Ed.)HandbookofResearchfor

EducationalCommunicationsand Technology,p. 1217.New York:MacmillanSimon&Schuster.

jects, and recommended design and development Some Type 1 developmental studies reflect
procedures or models. While new models may traditional evaluation orientations in that the
represent a synthesis of critical research litera- development process is de-emphasized, and the
ture, they do not constitute research in them- product or program evaluation is paramount.
selves. A good example is Park and Hannafin's An example of this type of study is O'Quin, Kin-
(1993) guidelines for designing interactive mul- sey, and Beery's (1987) report of the evaluation
timedia. These guidelines are generalized prin- of a micro-computer training workshop for col-
ciples which speak to the development process, lege personnel. Other Type 1 studies, such as
and they are based upon a large body of Smith's (1993) comprehensive study of five
research. Still, the identification and explanation years of executive development, tend to empha-
of the guidelines is not in itself an example of size the long-term impact of instruction on
developmental research. A more detailed exam- learners or organizations. Often Type 1 studies
ination of the two categories of developmental serve as dissemination vehicles for exemplary
research may clarify the nature of such research. projects and strategies, but the most distinguish-
ing characteristics of Type 1 developmental
research relate to its development process focus,
TYPE 1 DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH the research methodologies employed, and the
nature of the conclusions.
Type 1 research is the most context-specific type
of inquiry and usually takes the form of a case Process Foci of Type 1 Developmental Research.
study. In general, Type 1 developmental Type 1 research studies typically originate with
research consists of studies that: the design and development of an instructional
• describe and document a particular design, product or program. This is the hallmark of
development, and/or evaluation project; Type 1 research. For many, a key purpose of
• emphasize entire models or specific develop- Type 1 developmental research is to encourage
ment tasks and/or processes; and replication and further experimentation with the
target process or media. Typically, the entire
• determine the effectiveness of the instruc- design, development, and evaluation process is
tional product or procedure. documented. Consistent with p r e d o m i n a n t
Buch's (1988/1989) documentation of the devel- practice in the field, the procedures employed
opment of an industrial microcomputer training usually follow the tenets of instructional sys-
program and Alessi's (1988) case study of the tems design (ISD), beginning with a front-end
development of an interactive videodisc are analysis and progressing through the summa-
both examples of Type I research. tive evaluation and the ongoing maintenance of
DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH 95

the system. Petry and Edwards's (1984) descrip- likely to employ case study techniques, but
tion of the systematic design, development, and many use a combination of methodologies, espe-
evaluation of a university applied phonetics cially utilizing traditional evaluation methods.
course describes the application of a particular The case study is seen as a way to explore or
ISD model as well as the use of elaboration the- describe complex situations. This is especially
ory in content sequencing. This study also appropriate for design and development pro-
addresses the production of course materials, jects which must accommodate a host of critical
and reports the results of an evaluation of stu- contextual variables, as well as process complex-
dent performance and attitudes in the revised ities. For example, Dick (1991) described a cor-
course. This is a classic Type 1 study with a porate design project in Singapore aimed at
course focus. training instructional designers. The report of
Not all studies document the entire design, his Type I study focuses upon the needs assess-
development, and evaluation process. A com- ment and actual design phases rather than the
mon alternative is to concentrate on the produc- entire design-development-evaluation process.
tion aspect only, or to de-emphasize phases such This case study used a qualitative design to
as needs assessment. Many recent studies focus guide data collection.
only on the development of technology-based Another case study example is that of Plum-
instruction. One example is Bowers and Tsai's mer, Gillis, Legree, and Sanders (1992). This
(1990) research on the use of hypertext as a vehi- Type 1 study incorporated an experimental
cle for creating computer-based instructional design into the evaluation component. The proj-
materials. This report describes authoring proce- ect revolved around the development of a job
dures in great detail, facilitating replication of aid to be used by the military in operating a
the innovative development processes. Similar complicated piece of communications equip-
studies can be found in the research of our field ment. Three instructional situations were com-
as each new technological advancement p a r e d - u s i n g the job aid alone, using it in
emerges. combination with a demonstration, and using
Some Type 1 developmental research reports the technical manual in combination with a
emphasize a particular aspect of the design and demonstration. As a result, both impact data
development process, even though all phases and information relating to conditions for effec-
had been completed. For example, Link and tive use of the new product were obtained.
Cherow-O'Leary (1990) document and analyze Evaluation components of Type 1 develop-
the needs assessment procedures followed by mental research often use a variety of method-
the Children's Television Workshop (CTW) to ological approaches, including systematic
determine the needs and interests of elementary learner observations and survey techniques.
school teachers. The data are then used to Pizzuto (1982/1983) studied the development of
develop a magazine published by the CTW. a simulation game used in a corporate environ-
They also describe formative evaluation tech- ment to make change agents aware of diffusion
niques for testing the effectiveness of children's communication strategies for bringing about
and parents' magazines. changes in on-the-job behavior. He conducted
Type I developmental studies illuminate the surveys to determine the attitudes of trainees
range of design and development procedures who had used the new game. This is a typical
currently available to practitioners. They also application of survey methodology in Type 1
commonly offer an evaluation of the products developmental research.
and programs that were created, and include an
examination of the changes in learners who had The Nature of Conclusionsfrom Type 1 Developmen-
interacted with the newly developed products. tal Research. Type I studies are characterized by
their reliance upon contextually specific projects
Research Methodologies Employed in Type 1 Devel- and contextually specific conclusions. This is con-
opmental Research. The research methods used sistent with the more applied nature of develop-
in a particular project tend to vary with the type mental research. Typical context-specific con-
of developmental research. Type 1 studies are clusions addressed in Type I research include:
96 ETR&D, Vo145, No. 3

• suggested improvements in the instructional relate to an actual development project, they do

product or program (e.g. Alessi, 1988; Link & study the design and development process.
Cherow-O'Leary, 1990); They are characterized by their efforts to
describe, explain, or validate conditions that
• the conditions that promote successful use of
facilitate successful design and development.
the product or program (e.g. Pizzuto,
The focus, methodology, and conclusion profiles
1982/1983);
of this type of research distinguish it from the
• the impact of the particular product or pro- Type I studies.
gram (e.g. Plummer et al., 1992); and
• the conditions which are conducive to effi- Process Foci of Type 2 Developmental Research. I n
cient design, development, and/or evalua- Type 1 research there is a tendency to combine
tion of the instructional product or program the tasks of doing development and studying
(e.g. Alessi, 1988; Dick, 1991; Jonassen, 1988; development. Type 2 research is different. It
Link & Cherow-O'Leary, 1990). usually does not begin with the actual develop-
ment of an instructional product or program,
Even though these conclusions are directed but concentrates instead on previously devel-
toward a particular product or program and are oped instruction. These studies tend to focus on
context-specific, it is possible for them to pro- the more generic use of development processes,
vide direction to others who are confronting offering implications for any design, develop-
similar design and development projects. Con- ment, or evaluation project.
sequently, the "lessons learned" can apply to Given the broader aims of such research,
others. Type 2 studies are likely to concentrate upon a
particular development process or technique.
TYPE2 DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH For example, Cambre (1978/1979) studied for-
mative evaluation processes in reference to the
Type 2 developmental research has the discov- design and development of instructional televi-
ery of these generalized principles or lessons sion. She was studying the manner in which this
learned as its primary function. These studies task had been conducted in many situations
typically focus upon the design, development, over a fifty-year period.
and evaluation processes or techniques them- While most Type 2 studies do not tackle the
selves, rather than the demonstration of such entire design and development process, some
processes. The ultimate objective of this research do. For example, Spector, Muraida, and Marlino
is the production of generalized knowledge by (1992) offer an enhanced ISD model for use in
validating models. Such models may be new or courseware authoring which is grounded in
enhancements of existing models. Typical exam- cognitive theory. If their paper had stopped at
ples of Type 2 research are the Taylor and Ellis this point, it would not have been viewed as
(1991) study in which they evaluate the use of developmental research, rather only as a litera-
instructional systems design procedures in the ture review resulting in a proposed design
Navy, and Jonassen's (1988) examination of the model. However, they proceeded to describe
use of needs assessment data in the develop- and evaluate the use of this model in multiple
ment of a university program. military training projects and identify general
Type 2 research may draw its population principles relating to its use. This is a good
from either one target project such as King and example of a Type 2 study.
Dille's (1993) study of the application of quality
concepts in the systematic design of instruction Research Methodologies Employed in Type 2 Devel-
at the Motorola Training and Education Center, opmental Research. While the case study serves
or from a variety of design and development as the dominant methodological orientation of
environments. Riplinger's (1985/1987) survey of Type I developmental research, it is less promi-
current task analysis procedures is an example nent in Type 2 studies. In general, the literature
of the latter approach. of Type 2 studies shows a much greater diver-
Even though Type 2 studies ordinarily do not sity of research methods. Experimental and
DEVELOPMENTALRESEARCH 97

quasi-experimental studies are common, but processes. Nelson (1988/1990) and Rowland
some Type 2 studies also use philosophical and (1992) both used another qualitative technique,
historical techniques, as well as a variety of qual- that of "think-aloud protocols" in their studies.
itative methodologies (Richey & Nelson, 1996).
The Nature of Conclusions from Type 2 Devel-
Experimental and quasi-experimental meth-
opmental Research. Type 2 studies are directed
ods serve a variety of functions in Type 2 devel-
toward establishing data-based principles
opmental research, but most often they are
which are applicable in a wide range of design
employed to validate a particular design or
and development projects. There is usually not
development technique through an evaluation
the project-specific focus found in Type 1
of the impact of its use. For example, Driscoll
research. Type 2 conclusions typically pertain to
and Tessmer (1985) confirmed the utility of the
a technique or model, as opposed to a particular
rational set generator as a way of creating exam-
product or program. The issues that are com-
ples and nonexamples in instruction by using an
monly addressed in conclusions from Type 2
experimental design to compare its impact on
studies can be summarized as follows:
student performance. Keller (1987) used quasi-
experimental methods to test the impact of the • evidence of the validity a n d / o r effectiveness
ARCS Model of Motivation Design as it was of a particular technique or model (Driscoll &
applied to the development of teacher in-service Tessmer, 1985; Richey, 1992);
training workshops. • conditions and procedures that facilitate the
Surveys are also frequently used in Type 2 successful use of a particular technique or
developmental studies as vehicles of determin- model (King & Dille, 1993; Nelson,
ing effective procedures across projects, as 1988/1990; Rowland, 1992; Spector et al.,
opposed to serving as a means of gathering spe- 1992);
cific product impact or effectiveness data as is • explanations of the successes or failures
typical of Type I studies. For example, there is a encountered in using a particular technique
growing body of instructional design research or model (Cambre, 1978/1979; King & Dille,
that uses survey data gathered from designers 1993; Taylor & Ellis, 1991; Wedman & Tess-
working in a variety of settings. Riplinger mer, 1993);
(1985/1987), Rowland (1992), and Wedman and
• a synthesis of events a n d / o r opinions related
Tessmer (1993) conducted surveys across a
to the use of a particular technique or model
range of typical design environments--Riplin-
(Cambre, 1978/1979; Riplinger, 1985/1987);
ger to determine the type of task analyses used
in the field, and Rowland and Wedman and Tes- • a new or enhanced design, development,
smer to analyze the nature of designer decisions. and/or evaluation model (King & Dille, 1993;
These can all be considered Type 2 developmen- Richey, 1992; Spector et al., 1992; Wedman &
tal studies, each resulting in generalized conclu- Tessmer, 1993).
sions ranging from principles of task analysis, to It is common for Type 2 studies to generate more
narratives of how experienced designers work, than one type of conclusion.
to the Layers of Necessity Model of Instructional
Design.
THE PROMISE OF
It is not uncommon for Type 2 studies to have DEVELOPMENTAL RESEARCH
a qualitative facet to their design. Survey meth-
odologies have been employed to obtain data of Relating Research and Practice. The larger issue,
a more qualitative nature. For example, Richey however, is the reciprocal relationship between
(1992) conducted structured personal interviews research and practice and the potential of devel-
with trainees to verify and expand the more opmental research techniques to provide for
quantitative data collected in her study. Row- significant advancement in the field. Develop-
land (1992) used a systematic posttask interview mental research is directed toward both the
in addition to other data collection techniques improvement of practice and the enhancement
designed to document one's decision-making of our knowledge base. It provides a fairly
~8 ETR&D,Vo145, No. 3

robust design structure to guide research however, lies not in its perceived relevance and
embedded in actual work situations. As such, it credibility, but in its use in addressing long-
offers the advantages and credibility of being standing issues and emerging problems of the
from the "real world" without suffering the dis- field. For example, the field is currently wres-
advantages that frequently occur with reliance tling with how to use the full capabilities of new
on possibly biased reports of unstructured prac- technologies to enhance instruction and learning
titioner experience. Such credibility is a key ele- and to serve as performance support tools for
ment in establishing firm links between research designers and developers. Type 1 developmen-
and practice. tal research provides an avenue for studying
Typically, assessments of research relevance techniques for using these new technologies in
and credibility are based upon the extent to design and development. There are possibilities
which the conclusions can be readily applied in for research on topics such as the construction of
work settings. Practice-based data contribute to, distance learning classrooms, Web-based
but do not insure, these impressions of rele- instruction, or the use of student electronic
vance. The ultimate practicality of developmen- response systems.
tal research is more likely to be a function of Developmental methods can also provide
diverse factors, such as: direction for more general model development
• the importance of the topic to practitioners and validation tasks, especially in relation to
and the value of the topic for theory develop- instructional design models. It has been argued
ment; that these models constitute the field's design
• the accuracy and fullness of the description of theory (Dick, 1981, 1997). While these models
underlying processes or techniques; are logical extensions of foundational research
and theory, few have been formally validated
• the validity of the inferences that have been (Gustafson, 1991). This is not to say they have
drawn and their usability in other settings; not been used, but that their use has not been
• the extent to which prescriptive procedures systematically studied to any great extent. This
have been (or can be) devised based upon the is true of the models guiding instructional strat-
descriptive and explanatory inferences made; egy selection and sequencing (such as Gagn6's
as well as Events of Instruction or Reigeluth's Elaboration
• the extent to which the resulting procedures Theory), as well as the models guiding the com-
can be successfully replicated. prehensive management of an instructional
design and development project (such as Dick
Research practicality is a complex issue, one and Carey's Systematic Design of Instruction
that is dependent upon more attributes than Model). Such validation is the crux of Type 2
only the realism of the study's setting. Develop- developmental research.
mental research methodologies provide one
means of building a research effort that reflects Additional research is also needed that
the range of resources and constraints common addresses evaluation procedures and issues. The
to the workplace, thereby establishing credibil- literature contains much evaluation discussion,
ity. Type 2 studies can provide the bases for gen- including recommendations for how to conduct
erating and validating new design and needs assessments, formative and summative
development techniques, procedures and mod- evaluations, and even some emerging discus-
els, and Type 1 studies can provide the descrip- sions of the need for confirmative evaluation.
tive foundations necessary to allow one to However, there is little, if any, study of the eval-
successfully replicate these techniques, proce- uation processes themselves. Developmental
dures, and models in a variety of settings. studies, both Types I and 2, can provide a vehi-
Together they can establish a convincing link cle for this research. For example, a Type 1 case
between research and practice. study of rapid prototyping as a formative evalu-
ation procedure could address one current
Opportunitiesfor Specific Research Contributions. design issue--the need to simultaneously
The primary value of developmental research, reduce cycle time and increase the assurance of
DEVELOPMENTALRESEARCH 99

quality. Type 2 studies could validate needs program for microcomputer users in an industrial
assessment procedures that address the broad setting. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pitts-
burgh, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International-A,
range of contextual factors that other types of
49(4), 750.
research have shown play a major role in trans- Cambre, M.A. (1979). The development of formative
fer of training. evaluation procedures for instructional film and
There is an a r r a y of additional topics a p p r o - television: The first fifty years. (Doctoral disserta-
priate for developmental studies--constructivist tion, Indiana University, 1978). DissertationAbstracts
International-A, 39(7), 3995.
design models, virtual reality, and curriculum
Clark, R.E. (1989). Current progress and future direc-
design, for example. Topic selection is depen- tions for research in instructional technology. Educa-
dent u p o n not only individual interest and set- tional Technology Research & Development, 37(1),
ting availability, but also the resources p r o v i d e d 57-66.
b y existing theory, and scholar and practitioner Dick, W. (1981). Instructional design models: Future
expertise. trends and issues. Educational Technology, 2•(7), 29-
32.
Dick, W. (1991). The Singapore project: A case study in
CONCLUSIONS instructional design. Pe~CormanceImprovement Quar-
terly, 4(1), 14-22.
Perhaps there will always be some measure of Dick, W. (1997). Better instructional design theory:
tension between researchers and practitioners, Process improvement or reengineering? A paper
presented at the 1997 annual conference of the Asso-
and between those with basic and applied orien-
ciation of Educational Communications and Tech-
tations to inquiry. However, in this very applied nology in Albuquerque, NM.
field of instructional technology, it seems that Dick, W., & Dick, W.D. (1989). Analytical and empiri-
our disciplinary d e v e l o p m e n t greatly d e p e n d s cal comparisons of the Journal afInstructional Devel-
u p o n our success in devising a methodologically opment and Educational Communication and
TechnologyJournal. Educational TechnologyResearch&
sound b o n d between theory and practice. Devel-
Development, 37(1), 81-87.
opmental research offers one solution to this Driscoll, M.P. (1995). Paradigms for research in
problem, providing an answer to those recur- instructional systems. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instruc-
ring pleas for prescriptive research that is both tional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd Ed.)
useful and rigorous. It w o u l d be advantageous (pp. 322-329). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
for the research community to encourage stu- Driscoll, M.P., & Tessmer, M.. (1985). The rational set
dents and colleagues to tackle such projects. Of
generator: A method for creating concept examples
for teaching and testing. Educational Technology,
equal importance, is for our journals to publish 25(2), 29-32.
reports of developmental research so that these Finn, J.D. (1953). Professionalizing the audio-visual
findings can be readily available for researchers field. Audio-visual communication review 1(1), 6-18.
and practitioners alike. [] Gustafson, K.L. (1991). Survey of instructional develop-
ment models (2nd. Ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Uni-
versity, ERIC Clearinghouse on Information
Rita C. Richey is Professor of Instructional Resources.
Technology at Wayne State University in Detroit. She Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional
may be reached at (313) 577-1736; fax (313) 577-1693; technology. EducationalTechnologyResearch& Devel-
e-mail rrichey@wayne.edu. opment, 32(2), 67-87.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J.D., & Smaldino,
S.E. (1996). Instructional mediaand the new technologies
REFERENCES of instruction (5th Ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill,
an imprint of Prentice Hall. Inc.
Alessi, S.M. (1988). Learning interactive videodisc Higgins, N., & Sullivan, H. (1989). Perspectives on
development: A case study. Journal of Instructional Educational Technology Research and Development.
Development, 11(2), 2-7. Educational TechnologyResearch& Development, 37(1),
Bowers, D., & Tsai, C. (1990). Hypercard in educa- 7-17.
tional research: An introduction and case study. Jonassen, D.H. (1988). Using needs assessment data to
Educational Technology,30(2), 19-24. design a graduate instructional development pro-
Briggs, L.J. (Ed.). (1977). Instructional design: Principles gram. Journal of Instructional Development, 11(2), 14-
and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational 23.
Technology Publications. Keller, J.M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS
Buch, E.E. (1989). A systematicallydeveloped training model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional
100 ETR&D,Vo145, No, 3

Development, •0(3), 2-10. crossroads: New mindsets and new directions. Edu-
King, D., & Dille, A. (1993). An early endeavor to apply cational Technology Research and Development, 37(1),
quality concepts to the systematic design of instruc- 67-80.
tion: Successes and lessons learned. Performance Richey, R.C. (1992). Designing instruction for the adult
Improvement Quarterly, 6(3), 48--63. learner: Systemic training theory and practice. Lon-
Link, N., & Cherow-O'Leary, R. (1990). Research and don/Bristol, PA: Kogan Page/Taylor and Francis.
development of print materials at the Children's Richey, R.C., & Nelson, W. (1996). Developmental
Television Workshop. Educational Technology Research. In D. Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of Research
Research & Development,38(4), 34-44. for Educational Communications and Technology (pp.
Markle, S.M. (1967). Empirical testing of programs. In 1213-1245). New York: Macmillan Simon & Schus-
P.C. Lange (Ed.) Programmedinstruction. The Sixty- ter.
sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study
Riplinger, J.A. (1987). A survey of task analysis activi-
of Education, Part II (pp. 104-138). Chicago: The
ties used by instructional designers. (Doctoral dis-
University of Chicago Press.
sertation, University of Iowa, 1985). Dissertation
Nelson, W.A. (1990). Selection and utilization of prob-
Abstracts International-A, 47(3), 778.
lem information by instructional designers. (Doc-
toral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Ross, S.M., & Morrison, G.R. (1989). In search of a
State University, 1988). Dissertation Abstract Interna- happy medium in instructional technology research:
tional-A, 50(4), 866. Issues concerning external validity, media replica-
O'Quin, K., Kinsey, T.G., & Beery, D. (1987). Effective- tions, and learner control. Educational Technology
ness of a microcomputer-training workshop for col- Researchand Development,37(1), 19-33.
lege professionals. Computers in Human Behavior, Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers
3(2), 85-94. actually do? An initial investigation of expert prac-
Park, I., & Hannafin, M.J. (1993). Empirically-based tice. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly, 5(2), 65-86.
guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia. Seels, B.B., & Richey, R.C. (1994). Instructional technol-
Educational Technology Research and Development, ogy: The definition and domains of the field. Washing-
4•(3), 63-85. ton, D.C.: Association for Educational
Pelz, D.C. (1967, July). Creative tensions in the research Communications and Technology.
and development climate. Science,pp. 160-165. Smith, M. (1993). Evaluation of executive develop-
Petry, B.A., & Edwards, M.L. (1984). Systematic devel- ment: A case study. PerformanceImprovement Quar-
opment of an applied phonetics course. Journal of terly, 6(1), 26-42.
Instructional Development,7(4), 6-11.
Spector, J.M., Muraida, D.J., & Marlino, M.R. (1992).
Pizzuto, A.E. (1983). The development and evaluation
Cognitively based models of courseware develop-
of a simulation game demonstrating diffusion com-
ment. Educational Technology Research and Develop-
munications in a corporate organization. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1982). Disser-
merit, 40(2), 45-54.
tation Abstracts International-A, 43(4), 1273. Taylor, B., & Ellis, J. (1991). An evaluation of instruc-
Plummer, K.H., Gillis, P.D., Legree, P.J., & Sanders, tional systems development in the Navy. Educational
M.G. (1992). The development and evaluation of a Technology Researchand Development, 39(1), 93-103.
job aid to support mobile subscriber radio-telephone Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional
terminal (MSRT). Performance Improvement Quar- designers' decisions and priorities: A survey of
terly, 5(1), 90-105. design practice. PerformanceImprovement Quarterly,
Reigeluth, C.M. (1989). Educational technology at the 6(2), 43-57.