Advertisement

Educational Design and Development: An Overview of Paradigms

  • Irene Visscher-Voerman
  • Kent Gustafson
  • Tjeerd Plomp
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter will provide four different perspectives on educational design and development: instrumental, communicative, pragmatic, and artistic. The perspectives will be compared, and upon technical as well as social aspects of design will be their different views described. We will argue that designers should be aware of the usefulness of these perspectives and use the one that is most adequate for a certain design situation.

Keywords

Curriculum development Instructional development Design paradigms Design rationality Instrumental approach Deliberative approach Prototyping approach Artistic approach 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bobbitt, F., 1924, How to make a curriculum, Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, Houghton.Google Scholar
  2. Coyne, R., 1995, Designing information technology in the Postmodern Age, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Dick, W. and Carey, L., 1996, The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.), Harper Collins College Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Eisner, E.W., 1979, 1996, The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Gagné, R., Briggs, L. and Wager, W., 1992, Principles of instructional design (4th ed.), Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Gustafson, K. and Branch, R., 1997, Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.Google Scholar
  7. Hix, D. and Hartson, H., 1993, Developing user interfaces: Ensuring usability through product & Process, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Kemp J., Morrison, S. and Ross, G., 1994, Designing effective instruction, Merrill, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Kessels, J.W.M., 1993, Towards design standards for curriculum consistency in corporate education. Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  10. Kessels, J.W.M. and Plomp, Tj., 1997, The importance of relational aspects in the systems approach, In Romiszowski, A.J and Dills, C.R. (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 93–126), Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Keursten, P., 1994, Courseware-ontwikkeling met het oog op implementatie: de docent centraal [Courseware development from an implementation perspective: focus on the teacher]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  12. Marsh, C. and Willis, G., 1995, Curriculum:alternative approaches, ongoing issues, Merrill, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Maslowski, R. and Visscher, A.J., 1997, Methoden en technieken voor formatieve evaluatie in sociaalwetenschappelijke ontwerpsituaties [Methods and techniques for formative evaluation in social scientific design situations], University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  14. Moonen, J.C.M.M., 1996, Prototyping as a design method, In Plomp, Tj. and Ely, D.P. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of educational technology (2nd ed., pp. 186–190), Pergamon, Cambridge..Google Scholar
  15. Nieveen, N.M., 1997, Computer support for curriculum developers:A study on the potential of computer support in the domain of formative curriculum evaluation, Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  16. Rieber, L.P., 1994, Computers, graphics and learning, Brown and Benchmark, Dubuque, IA.Google Scholar
  17. Self, J., 1997, From Constructionism to Deconstructionism: Anticipating Trends in Educational Styles, European Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schön, D.A., 1983, The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Schwab, J. J., 1970, The practical: A language for curriculum, National education association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. Tessmer, M., 1994, Formative evaluation alternatives, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tripp, S.D. and Bichelmeyer, B., 1990, Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy, Educational Technology and Development, 38(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tyler, R.W., 1949, Basic principles of curriculum and instruction, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Visscher, J.I.A., 1997, Hoe werken professionele ontwerpers in de onderwijs-en opleidingspraktijk— [How do professional developers work in training and education practice—] Paper presented at the ORD, Leuven, Belgium, 21-23 May.Google Scholar
  24. Visscher, J.I.A. and Schulten, E., 1997, Design approaches in training and education: Insights from practice, Paper presented at the AERA, Chicago, IL, March.Google Scholar
  25. Walker, D., 1990, Fundamentals of curriculum, Harcourt Brace College, Fort Worth.Google Scholar
  26. Wedman, J. and Tessmer, M., 1993, Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zwanenburg, M.A., 1993, Methodologie Van sociaal ontwerp: Voorbereiding op epistemologische aspecten [Methodology of social design: Preparation to epistemological aspects] (OSF report 4), University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Visscher-Voerman
    • 1
  • Kent Gustafson
    • 2
  • Tjeerd Plomp
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TwenteThe Netherlands
  2. 2.The University of GeorgiaUSA

Personalised recommendations