Abstract
Instructional design problems are one of the most complicated and ill-structured types of problems due to the dynamic nature of design problems and decision-making processes. Formulating instructional design solutions thereby requires teachers to possess adequate decision-making knowledge and skills and apply them to instructional design. This study investigated how pre-service teachers made formative instructional design decisions for technology integration. Through a formative design activity related to teaching and technology, the study identified factors that influenced pre-service teachers’ design decision-making for technology integration as well as instructional approaches that can help pre-service teachers make design decisions. Based on the analysis of pre-service teachers’ design journals, design artifacts, and survey results, we identified six themes in terms of design decision-making according to three metathemes: (a) emphasis on the design process, (b) collaborative design experiences, and (c) iterative decision-making during prototyping. Meanwhile, instructional approaches such as open-ended guiding questions, conjecture mapping, peer-reviewing, and reflective practices allowed pre-service teachers to take an active role in instructional design decision-making for technology integration. Implications for teacher education practices and instructional design decision-making are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akcaoglu, M., & Green, L. S. (2019). Teaching systems thinking through game design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9596-8
Baaki, J., Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2017). Give us something to react to and make it rich: Designers reflecting in action with external representations. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(4), 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9371-2
Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2017). The process of designing for learning: Understanding university teachers’ design work. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9469-y
Boling, E. (2021). The nature and use of precedent in designing. Design for Learning.
Boschman, F., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2015). Exploring teachers’ use of TPACK in design talk: The collaborative design of technology-rich early literacy activities. Computers & Education, 82, 250–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.010
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating peer review as a systemic pedagogy for developing the design knowledge, skills, and dispositions of novice instructional design students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9421-6
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1), 29–43.
Cviko, A., McKenney, S., & Voogt, J. (2013). The teacher as re-designer of technology integrated activities for an early literacy curriculum. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.2190/ec.48.4.c
Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02299597
Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
Esteve-Mon, F. M., Cela-Ranilla, J. M., & Gisbert-Cervera, M. (2016). ETeach3D: Designing a 3D virtual environment for evaluating the digital competence of preservice teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(6), 816–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116637191
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.
Greenhow, C., Dexter, S., & Hughes, J. E. (2008). Teacher knowledge about technology integration: An examination of inservice and preservice teachers’ instructional decision-making. Science Education International, 19(1), 9–25.
Heitink, M., Voogt, J., Verplanken, L., van Braak, J., & Fisser, P. (2016). Teachers’ professional reasoning about their pedagogical use of technology. Computers & Education, 101, 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.05.009
Henriksen, D., Richardson, C., & Mehta, R. (2017). Design thinking: A creative approach to educational problems of practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.10.001
Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212.
Hoard, B., Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., & Draper, D. (2019). The influence of multimedia development knowledge and workplace pressures on the design decisions of the instructional designer. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1479–1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09687-y
Holmberg, J., Fransson, G., & Fors, U. (2018). Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and reframing of practice in digital contexts. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(2), 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijilt-09-2017-0084
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02300500
Jonassen, D. H. (2002). Learning as activity. Educational Technology, 42(2), 45–51.
Jonassen, D. H. (2010). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. Routledge.
Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9230-5
Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 21–26.
Jonassen, D. H., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. P. (1998). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in critical thinking. TechTrends, 43(2), 24–32.
Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2005). Learning by design. Common Ground.
Ke, F. (2014). An Implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A Case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.010
Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456–460. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008x288385
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.2190/0ew7-01wb-bkhl-qdyv
Kopcha, T. J. (2012). Teachers’ perceptions of the barriers to technology integration and practices with technology under situated professional development. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1109–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.014
Kopcha, T. J., Neumann, K. L., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Pitman, E. (2020). Process over product: The next evolution of our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 729–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09735-y
Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2015). Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: A three-phase design-based research investigation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9369-6
Lee, C. J., & Kim, C. (2014). An implementation study of a TPACK-based instructional design model in a technology integration course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9335-8
Lee, C. J., & Kim, C. (2017). A technological pedagogical content knowledge based instructional design model: A third version implementation study in a technology integration course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(6), 1627–1654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9544-z
Loughran, J. (2019). Pedagogical reasoning: The foundation of the professional knowledge of teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1633294
Loveless, A. (2011). Technology, pedagogy and education: Reflections on the accomplishment of what teachers know, do and believe in a digital age. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 20(3), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939x.2011.610931
Lowell, V. L., & Ashby, I. V. (2018). Supporting the development of collaboration and feedback skills in instructional designers. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9170-8
Luo, T., & Baaki, J. (2019). Graduate students using concept mapping to visualize instructional design processes. Tech Trends, 63(4), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0368-4
McDonald, J. K., Rich, P. J., & Gubler, N. B. (2019). The perceived value of informal, peer critique in the instructional design studio. TechTrends, 63(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0302-9
McKenney, S., Boschman, F., Pieters, J., & Voogt, J. (2016). Collaborative design of technology-enhanced learning: What can we learn from teacher talk? TechTrends, 60(4), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0078-8
Nelson, W. A. (2003). Problem solving through design. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.111
Nichols, M., & Meuleman, N. (2017). Reflections of a new educational designer. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 21(2), 31–43.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2008). Examining barriers in technology-enhanced problem-based learning: Using a performance support systems approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00858.x
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.
Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.778204
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action: Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 8–19.
Shafto, P., Goodman, N. D., & Griffiths, T. L. (2014). A rational account of pedagogical reasoning: Teaching by, and learning from, examples. Cognitive Psychology, 71, 55–89.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Starkey, L. (2010). Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and action in the digital age. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600903478433
Stefaniak, J., & Xu, M. (2020a). An examination of the systemic reach of instructional design models: A systematic review. TechTrends, 64(5), 710–719.
Stefaniak, J., & Xu, M. (2020b). Leveraging dynamic decision-making and environmental analysis to support authentic learning experiences in digital environments. Revista De Educación a Distancia (RED), 20(64). https://doi.org/10.6018/red.412171
Stefaniak, J., Luo, T., & Xu, M. (2021). Fostering pedagogical reasoning and dynamic decision-making practices: a conceptual framework to support learning design in a digital age. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2225–2241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09964-9
Tracey, M. W., Hutchinson, A., & Grzebyk, T. Q. (2014). Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: Developing professional identity through reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(3), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9334-9
Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 235–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759390400200183
Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040004807
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the university where the study took place.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Pre- and Post-survey questions
Pre-survey:
Please indicate the following information:
- 1.
Email:
- 2.
Gender:
- 3.
Year:
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
4th |
Other: _____ |
- 4.
Major:
- 5.
Do you have any instructional design experiences? If yes, please briefly describe your prior design experiences.
For each of the following statements, please indicate the degree to which you agree with the statement.
(7-point Likert scale: Choose from “Strongly disagree” “Disagree” “Somewhat disagree” “Neither agree nor disagree” “Somewhat agree” “Agree” and “Strongly agree”).
- 6.
I have sufficient knowledge about design thinking.
- 7.
I can use a design way of thinking.
- 8.
I have experienced instructional design work.
- 9.
I know about methods/strategies that I can use for completing instructional design work.
- 10.
I can make appropriate instructional design decisions for technology integration (e.g., make appropriate design decisions for the prototype design).
Post-survey:
Please indicate the following information:
- 1.
Email:
For each of the following statements, please indicate the degree to which you agree with the statement.
(7-point Likert scale: Choose from “Strongly disagree” “Disagree” “Somewhat disagree” “Neither agree nor disagree” “Somewhat agree” “Agree” and “Strongly agree”).
- 2.
I enjoyed this project overall.
- 3.
I experienced challenges while working on this project.
- 4.
This project is not challenging.
- 5.
The guiding questions on the worksheet helped me complete this project.
- 6.
Group collaboration is helpful to solve my problems/challenges during the project.
- 7.
Conjecture mapping is a helpful approach that guides my prototype design.
- 8.
I think reflection journals helped me make design decisions for the prototype design.
- 9.
I solved my problems/challenges from the peer reviewing process.
- 10.
I would like to receive more assistance to complete this project.
- 11.
After this project, I believe I can make appropriate instructional design decisions for technology integration (e.g., make appropriate design decisions for the prototype design).
Open-ended questions:
- 12.
Which aspect(s) in this project is most interesting to you? Why?
- 13.
Which aspect(s) in this project is most challenging to you? Why?
- 14.
What challenges or problems have you encountered in this project? How did you solve the problem(s)?
- 15.
If you want to improve this project for future pre-service teachers, what aspect(s) in this project can be improved? Why?
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Xu, M., Stefaniak, J. Pre-Service Teachers’ Instructional Design Decision-Making for Technology Integration. TechTrends (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00830-w
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00830-w