Educational Design and Development: A Study of Dutch Design Practices

  • Irene Visscher-Voerman


This chapter will report some preliminary findings of a study on educational design and development practices in the Netherlands. The purpose of the study is to describe the strategies that professional education and training developers use in practice. Twenty-four developers were interviewed intensively and documents of their projects were analyzed. The data show that there are many differences between developers, but that there are also several common themes. This paper discusses the most important results in both the technical-professional and socio-professional domain, as well as the overall structuring of the process.


Curriculum design Curriculum development Instructional design Instructional development Design approaches, Design practice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akker, J.J.H. Van den, 1988, Ontwerp en implementatie Van natuuronderwijs [Design and implementation of science education], Swets & Zeitlinger, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Akker, J.J.H. Van den, 1996, Designing from an implementation perspective, In Plomp, Tj. and Ely, D.P. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of educational technology (2nd ed.), pp. 290–293, Pergamon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Akker, J.J.H. Van den and Plomp, Tj., 1994, Curriculumontwikkelingsonderzoek vanuit implementatieperspectief [Curriculum developmental research from an implementation perspective], In Joha, B.C. and Joosten, F. (Eds.), Ontwikkelend onderzoek, (pp. 79–93), VU Uitgeverij, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. Akker, J.J.H. Van den, Boersma, K.Th. and Nies, A.C.M., 1990, Ontwikkelstrategieën in SLO-projecten [Development strategies in SLO-projects], Dutch National Institute for Curriculum Development, Enschede.Google Scholar
  5. Akker, J.J.H. Van den and Verloop, N., 1994, Evaluation approaches and results in curriculum research and development in the Netherlands, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrews, D.H. and Goodson, L.A., 1991, A comparative analysis of models of instructional design, In Anglin, G.J. (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future (pp. 133–155), Libraries unlimited, Englewood, CO.Google Scholar
  7. Berg, E. Van den, 1996, Effects of inservice education on implementation of elementary science, Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  8. Edmonds G., Branch, R. and Mukherjee, P., 1994, A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models, Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goel, V. and Pirolli, P., 1992, The structure of design problem spaces, Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodlad, J.I., 1994, Curriculum as a field of study, In Husén, T. & Postlethwaite, T.N. (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1262–1267), Pergamon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Gustafson, K. and Branch, R., 1997, Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.Google Scholar
  12. Holcomb C., Wedman, J.F. and Tessmer, M., 1996, ID activities and project success: Perceptions of practitioners, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. National Special Media Institute, 1971, What is an IDI—, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, J.C., 1990, Selecting ethnographic informants, Qualitative research methods series 22, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  15. Kessels, J.W.M., 1993, Towards design standards for curriculum consistency in corporate education, Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  16. Keursten, P., 1994, Courseware-ontwikkeling met het oog op implementatie: De docent centraal [Courseware development from an implementation perspective: A central role for the teacher], Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  17. Klimczak, A., 1997, Instructional design project success factors and indicators: An empirically based model, Paper presented at AERA meeting, Chicago, March.Google Scholar
  18. Kvale, S., 1996, Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Maloney, C, 1993, Implementing curriculum: A case study, Curriculum Perspectives, 13(3), 23–32.Google Scholar
  20. Maslowski, R. and Visscher, A.J., 1998, Methoden en technieken voor formatieve evaluatie in sociaal-wetenschappelijke ontwerpsituaties [Methods and techniques for formative evaluation in social scientific design situations], University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  21. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M., 1994, Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. OSF-program, 1993, Een sociaal-wetenschappelijke ontwerpmethodologie [A social-scientific design methodology], University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  25. Plomp, Tj., 1982, Onderwijskundige technologie: Enige verkenningen [Educational technology: An exploration], Inaugural address, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  26. Plomp, Tj., 1992, Onderwijskundig ontwerpen: Een inleiding [Educational design: An introduction], In Plomp, Tj., Feteris A., Pieters, J.M. and Tomic, W. (Eds.), Ontwerpen Van onderwijs en trainingen (pp. 19–38), Lemma, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  27. Richey, R.C. and Nelson, W.A., 1996, Developmental research, In Jonassen, D. (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 1213–1246), Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Roes, M., 1997, Nascholing op basis Van lesvoorbeelden in de context Van curriculumvernieuwing [Inservice education through exemplary lesson materials in the context of curriculum innovation], Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  29. Rowland, G., 1992, What do instructional designers actually do— An initial investigation of expert practice, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rowland, G. and Wilson, G., 1994, Liminal states in designing, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saroyan, A., 1993, Differences in expert practice: A case from formative evaluation, Instructional Science, 27, 451–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schön, D.A., 1983, The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Schön, D.A., 1987, Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  34. Semb, G.B., Ellis, J.A., Fitch, M.A., Parchman, S. and Irick, C, 1995, On-the-job training: Prescriptions and practice, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Short, E.C., 1983, The forms and use of alternative curriculum development strategies: Policy implications, Curriculum Inquiry, 13(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., 1994, Grounded theory methodology, In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 273–285), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  37. Tessmer, M., 1994, Formative evaluation alternatives, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tessmer, M. and Harris, D., 1990, Beyond instructional effectiveness: Key environmental decisions for instructional designers as change agents, Educational Technology, 30(7), 16–20.Google Scholar
  39. Tessmer, M. and Wedman, J., 1995, Context-sensitive instructional design models: A response to design research, studies, and criticism, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 38–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tripp, S.D. and Bichelmeyer, B., 1990, Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy, Educational Technology and Development, 38(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Visscher-Voerman, J.I.A. and Plomp, Tj., 1996, Design approaches in training and education, In Plomp, Tj. and Ely, D.P. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of educational technology (2nd ed.), p. 22–26, Pergamon, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Walker, D., 1990, Fundamentals of curriculum, Harcourt Brace College, Fort Worth.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Winer, L.R. and Vázquez-Abad, J., 1995, The present and future of ID practice, Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zemke, R., 1985, The systems approach: A nice theory but., Training, October, 103–108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Visscher-Voerman
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TwenteThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations