Interpreting Learning Theories and Engaging with New Technologies
Sean Hickey & Ana-Paula Correia
As technologies emerge and create new job roles requiring new expertise, workplace learning and the role of “instructional designer” become increasingly important (Koszalka, 2013). This study seeks to better understand the work of high-performing instructional designers and the ways in which they successfully create training materials to meet specific educational or performance objectives by examining how they interpret theories related to learning, to what extent those theories are consciously applied in the development of learning experiences, and how they evaluate and engage with emerging technologies.
To meet its stated goals, the study proposes the use of an innovative qualitative research methodology that combines elements of a think-aloud or design-aloud process (e.g., Díaz Larenas et al., 2017; Wolcott and Lobczowski, 2021) and a stimulated recall interview approach (e.g., Calderhead, 1981). Research participants are asked to share an instructional artifact, such as a training website, an e-learning module, or an online course, during the interview. Participants will then discuss their thinking and the motivations behind the various design choices that resulted in the creation of the instructional product or experience. They will also be asked to discuss choices related to the specific tools and technologies used in the development of instructional materials, as well as how those choices are affected by the project’s instructional goals or how they might change over time.
While most instructional-design job postings require knowledge of learning theories and instructional-design frameworks (Wang et al., 2021), discourse among novice instructional designers often includes learning myths and outdated or debunked theories related to learning (Quinn, 2018; Sloan-Lynch, 2018). The results of this study will not only provide insights into how high-performing instructional designers have internalized legitimate and proven theories related to learning and instructional design but also has the potential inform how instructional design training programs might be improved, ensuring higher-quality instructional outcomes for learners across multiple job sectors and industries.
References:
Calderhead, J. (1981). Stimulated recall: A method for research on teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(2), 211-217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02474.x
Díaz Larenas, C., Ramos Leiva, L., & Ortiz Navarrete, M. (2017). Rhetorical, metacognitive, and cognitive strategies in teacher candidates’ essay writing. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 19(2), 87-100. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v19n2.60231
Koszalka, T. A., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Reiser, R. (2013). Instructional designer competencies: The standards (fourth edition). IAP.
Quinn, C. N. (2018). Millennials, goldfish & other training misconceptions: Debunking learning myths and superstitions. Association for Talent Development. https://www.td.org/books/millennials-goldfish-other-training-misconceptions
Sloan-Lynch, J. K. (2018). Designing with learning myths in mind. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/na8u2
Wang, X., Chen, Y., Ritzhaupt, A. D., & Martin, F. (2021). Examining competencies for the instructional design professional: An exploratory job announcement analysis. International Journal of Training and Development, 25(2), 95-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijtd.12209
Wolcott, M. D., & Lobczowski, N. G. (2021). Using cognitive interviews and think-aloud protocols to understand thought processes. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 13(2), 181-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2020.09.005