View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Role of Precedent Knowledge in Decision-Making among Practicing Instructional Designers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Role of Precedent Knowledge in Decision-Making among Practicing Instructional Designers
Language: English
Authors: Elizabeth Boling, Victoria Abramenka-Lachheb, Dilnoza Kadirova, Merve Basdogan, Rajagopal Sankaranarayanan, Vanessa Johnson, Alyse Harris, Ahmed Lachheb (ORCID 0000-0003-4046-6385)
Source: TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning. 2025 69(4):723-736.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Prior Learning, Decision Making, Instructional Design, Program Validation, Models, Professional Development
DOI: 10.1007/s11528-025-01080-2
ISSN: 8756-3894
1559-7075
Abstract: As part of a larger study (Boling et al., 2024a, b), this paper reports on how instructional designers define and use precedent knowledge, including its sources, forms, and role in decision-making. Using a qualitative approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with instructional designers from higher education and non-profit professional settings to explore how precedent knowledge is built, stored, and applied in instructional design practice. The findings of the study indicate that instructional designers implicitly engage with precedent knowledge, drawing on personal experiences, established frameworks, and external influences such as professional networks. They use precedent knowledge for validating design choices, modifying existing designs, and inspiring new projects, often as part of collective-held schema (e.g., design models, such as ADDIE and SAM). The study highlights the underrecognized role of precedent knowledge in decision-making within the instructional design practice, emphasizing the need for greater awareness and integration of precedent knowledge in instructional design education and professional development.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1480296
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFMcDSBqr4UYeXVItM39FX7AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDBmsBiOQi6ER816wxQIBEICBm-_wBhi_Hr5P3FUa89gA0sczM8wvmHwLNjC_aRh9_oC6tunUiQNoTATBhMqL10e0U97Gf83FtnujaXBNNy4obihRzByBuOniCLQb9AKw7OS2AHqFv60avT5WlzPduDN4lS_RGNQRftPfsCOahpq2zzlNyOtKSXKxoscDOiMMHm5BGDT0cr4CaEL8Xy42JmZO_B_ezoo31v3iM9PR
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187262898;ttr01jul.25;2025Aug13.05:37;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187262898-1">The Role of Precedent Knowledge in Decision-Making Among Practicing Instructional Designers </title> <p>As part of a larger study (Boling et al., 2024a, b), this paper reports on how instructional designers define and use precedent knowledge, including its sources, forms, and role in decision-making. Using a qualitative approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with instructional designers from higher education and non-profit professional settings to explore how precedent knowledge is built, stored, and applied in instructional design practice. The findings of the study indicate that instructional designers implicitly engage with precedent knowledge, drawing on personal experiences, established frameworks, and external influences such as professional networks. They use precedent knowledge for validating design choices, modifying existing designs, and inspiring new projects, often as part of collective-held schema (e.g., design models, such as ADDIE and SAM). The study highlights the underrecognized role of precedent knowledge in decision-making within the instructional design practice, emphasizing the need for greater awareness and integration of precedent knowledge in instructional design education and professional development.</p> <p>Keywords: Instructional design; Precedent knowledge; Decision-making</p> <p>Authors' Note : Throughout this paper, we refer to Instructional Design (as a profession and a field of design) and Instructional Designers (as professionals of Instructional Design) as synonymous with Learning (Experience) Design and Learning (Experience) Designers.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Precedent knowledge is a fundamental yet underexplored aspect of instructional design practice. In design several design disciplines, precedent knowledge refers to the accumulated experiences, examples, and past design decisions that inform current and future design work (Boling, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref1">3</reflink>]; Lawson, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]; Schön, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref3">39</reflink>]). <emph>Precedent knowledge</emph> (Lawson, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]; Passman, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref5">33</reflink>]; Schön, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref6">39</reflink>]) is a central construct in studies of design practice and designers' thinking (Boling, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>]; Lawson, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref8">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref9">24</reflink>]; Oxman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref10">32</reflink>]). Designers rely on precedent knowledge to inspire, validate, and guide their decision-making processes across various domains (Oxman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref11">32</reflink>]). However, while precedent knowledge is widely studied in disciplines like architecture and industrial design, its role in instructional design has not been explicitly recognized or well-documented.</p> <p>The value of designers' individual knowledge is well established in the Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) field (Gray et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>], Gray & Boling [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>]; Rowland, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref14">35</reflink>]; Sentz & Stefaniak, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref15">40</reflink>]; Sentz et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref16">41</reflink>]). It plays an integral role in making design decisions that impact their design work—both processes and outcomes (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]; Boling, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>]; Lachheb & Bolling, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref19">21</reflink>]). Instructional designers do not solely rely on existing theories and models. They actively interpret, adapt, and integrate their own experiences, values, and design judgments into the design process (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]). While the field of instructional design has traditionally emphasized formal design knowledge—such as frameworks, models, and theories (e.g., ADDIE, Merrill's Principles of Instruction, Bloom's Taxonomy)—there has been little empirical research on how instructional designers use precedent knowledge in their decision-making. Given that design inherently involves making choices based on prior experiences, understanding how instructional designers access, interpret, and apply precedent knowledge is critical for advancing both instructional design theory and practice.</p> <p>This study addresses this gap by exploring how practicing instructional designers define, build, and use precedent knowledge in their work, with a particular focus on how it informs their decision-making processes. Through qualitative analysis of interviews with three instructional designers, we examine the sources of precedent knowledge, the ways in which it is stored and enacted, and the role it plays in shaping instructional design choices. The findings of this study contribute to a broader understanding of how instructional designers navigate both formalized knowledge structures and personal experiences to make design decisions in situ.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-3">Significance of the Study</hd> <p>In the instructional design field, to date, there has not been a well-established and robust understanding of precedent knowledge and the role it plays in designing for learning. Multiple terms used in neighboring domains of designs, such as <emph>exemplars</emph> or <emph>design exemplars</emph> (Bardzell et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]), existing/prior knowledge (Kim & Ryu, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref22">20</reflink>]), and design cases (Boling, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref23">2</reflink>]) have made their way to instructional design literature and do point to the construct. However, despite having a rich body of design knowledge, mainly formed by design models and theories (e.g., ADDIE Model, Dick & Carey Instructional Model, Kirkpatrick Model, SAM Model, Gagne's Nine Events of Instructions, Merrill's Principles of Instruction, Bloom's Taxonomy, etc.), instructional design literature does not explicitly reference the construct of precedent knowledge. The field has traditionally favored formal design knowledge that includes "the principles and procedures by which instructional materials, lessons, and the whole system can be developed" (Molenda et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref24">30</reflink>], p. 574) or declarative knowledge that takes the shape of principles, frameworks, guidelines, and theories (Reiser, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref25">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Yet, instructional designers do not solely rely on existing theories; they make their own design judgments on how they use such theories and bring their values (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>]), skills (Lachheb & Abramenka-Lachheb, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref27">22</reflink>]), and experiences (Lachheb & Boling, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref28">22</reflink>]) into the design process. Although empirical research exists on design actions (Rowland, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref29">35</reflink>]; Sentz & Stefaniak, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref30">40</reflink>]; Sentz et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref31">41</reflink>]; Stefaniak & Tracey, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref32">44</reflink>]), there is a need for more focus on the references or precedent knowledge used in decision-making and how they inform the design process within instructional design. This paper focuses on three instructional designers out of the 18 designers we interviewed in a larger research study, as we explain in the next section.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-4">Theoretical Background and Related Work</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187262898-5">Definition of Precedent Knowledge</hd> <p>Precedent knowledge is a fundamental aspect of design knowledge, which encompasses both tangible and intangible elements that inform design decisions. Scholars have conceptualized precedent knowledge in various ways, recognizing its role in design actions, schema, theories, and individual experiences (Lawson, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref33">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref34">25</reflink>]; Nelson & Stolterman, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]). It is most commonly understood as a collection of episodic memories of design experiences, enabling designers to apply past knowledge to new, context-specific design problems (Boling, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>]; Lawson, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>]). Designers build precedent knowledge through personal and professional experiences, accumulating both explicit artifacts (e.g., design examples, templates) and implicit insights (e.g., heuristics, mental models, professional judgment) (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our previous research (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref40">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>]) has contributed to defining and mapping the construct of precedent knowledge across multiple design domains. Through a systematic literature review of precedent knowledge across 11 design fields, we identified key sources, characteristics, and uses of precedent knowledge, culminating in a theoretical construct map (Fig. 1). This map provided a comprehensive framework for understanding precedent knowledge as a multi-dimensional concept.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 The Precedent Knowledge Construct Map. Extended and refined with new elements (dark shaded boxes) based on findings from the literature review</p> <p>In the second study (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref42">6</reflink>]), we interviewed 18 designers from eight different domains of design to gather their perspectives on precedent knowledge and its use in their respective design contexts. Figure 2 illustrates the refined and extended precedent construct map based on the findings of the interview study.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 The Precedent Knowledge Construct Map. Extended and refined with new elements based on interview study findings</p> <p>These studies built a detailed map of the precedent construct and established that precedent knowledge is widely used in design, with variation from designer to designer.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-6">Precedent Knowledge and Decision-Making in Instructional Design</hd> <p>Despite the well-established significance of precedent knowledge in design fields, its role in instructional design decision-making has received limited empirical attention. Instructional designers navigate ill-structured, nuanced, and complex design situations, requiring them to make context-dependent decisions (Stefaniak, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref43">43</reflink>]). Stefaniak and Tracey ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref44">44</reflink>]) align instructional design with design thinking, suggesting that instructional designers similar to designers in other domains of design, engage in iterative problem-solving where precedent knowledge plays a key role.</p> <p>Precedent knowledge is known to serve several functions during the design process, and decision-making is one of the major processes that it activates. Out of the few published IDT studies that examine precedent knowledge, we find, for example, Stefaniak ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref45">42</reflink>]) has argued that precedent knowledge functions as a source of inspiration to promote ideation and dynamic decision-making in ambiguous and ill-defined designed situations and has added that precedent knowledge increases instructional designers' abilities to embark on creative risk-taking. Further, Exter and Ashby ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref46">13</reflink>]) have pointed out that precedent knowledge informs instructional designers' decisions on how to approach a new design. Similarly, Boling and Gray ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref47">15</reflink>]) have emphasized that precedent knowledge encourages instructional designers to raise complex and novel questions during the design process.</p> <p>When using precedent knowledge, an instructional designer performs several functions, such as engaging in direct modeling for invention, abduction, analogical reasoning, and problem framing (Boling, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>]). Further, Fiock ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref49">14</reflink>]) described precedent knowledge as a "known" or "required" piece of knowledge. Thus, instructional designers use precedent knowledge to inform their decisions during the design process (Exter & Ashby, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref50">13</reflink>]). Although the discussion of precedent knowledge in studies incorporating precedent is emergent in the Instructional Design and Technology (IDT) field, in this study, we are examining instructional designers' perspectives in the context of building a detailed map of the construct.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-7">Collecting, Storing, and Disseminating Precedent Knowledge in Instructional Design</hd> <p>As a form of design knowledge that informs decision-making during the design process, precedent knowledge is important to collect and share with other designers (Boling, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref51">2</reflink>]). Howard et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref52">18</reflink>]) have pointed to a lack of shared design examples and designers'reflections in instructional design, but also to instructional design cases as a means of "precedent building." More specifically, design cases (e.g., Chen, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref53">8</reflink>]; Lowell & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref54">27</reflink>]; Scharber et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref55">38</reflink>]) provide detailed accounts of design processes, which help readers learn vicariously about what precedent exists in the field.</p> <p>Additionally, the role of the designer and their responsibility in the design process, including how they make decisions in the design process, have not received significant attention in the scholarly works in the IDT field (Lachheb & Boling, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref56">22</reflink>]). Instead, scholarly works have largely focused on a scientized approach to designing instruction, such as using instructional design models. Because of the central role of precedent in design, studying how instructional designers define, build, and use precedent knowledge in the design process and ultimately use it during decision-making is important and is the purpose of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-8">Purpose of the Study</hd> <p>This study investigated how instructional designers define and use precedent knowledge in their design work, particularly in decision-making processes. While precedent knowledge is widely recognized in other design disciplines (Boling, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>]; Lawson, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref58">23</reflink>]; Oxman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref59">32</reflink>]), its role within instructional design has received limited empirical attention. Instructional designers often operate in ill-structured and context-rich environments (Stefaniak, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref60">43</reflink>]), where formal models alone may not sufficiently guide decision-making. Building on recent calls to better understand informal and experiential aspects of design practice (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>]; Lachheb & Boling, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>]), this study addresses an important gap in the literature by exploring precedent knowledge as it is understood and enacted in instructional design practice. In doing so, it aims to advance instructional design theory and improve professional development practices. To address this gap, the following research questions guided this study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ1: How do practicing designers define precedent knowledge?</item> <p></p> <item> RQ2: How do practicing designers describe enacting precedent knowledge in their design work?</item> </ulist> <p>We formulated the above research questions to expand on previous research questions used in the prior literature review study (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref63">5</reflink>]) where we asked: What is precedent knowledge? Where does it come from? How is it stored/built? When is precedent knowledge used? How does it work?</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-9">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187262898-10">Reflexivity Statement</hd> <p>For the purposes of transparency and trustworthiness, and guided by Creswell and Poth ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref64">10</reflink>]), we crafted a bracketing statement, re-worded here. <emph>We are 11 scholars in a research group at a large Midwestern research-intensive university in the United States. The research group, founded and led by a faculty member since the early 2000 s, engages doctoral students in design practice, theory, and education research. Members of the research group come from eight countries, with two members from the U.S. At the time of the study, we were at various stages of our doctoral programs, and most of us obtained our doctoral degrees between 2020 and 2022. We all share an interest in design practice. We draw on diverse personal, cultural, and professional experiences, critical perspectives on design, and a concern for the future of instructional design as a profession.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0187262898-11">Study Design</hd> <p>When conducting our larger qualitative study, of which this study is a part, we were guided by the theoretical orientation of design theory, which foregrounds the idea that design is situational, provisional, and context-dependent (Nelson & Stolterman, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref65">31</reflink>]). This lens allowed us to approach each designer's context and design situation as unique and to appreciate each designer's voice. To this end, we used a basic qualitative study design—a foundational and essential study design for understanding human experiences, behaviors, and interactions (Creswell & Poth, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref66">10</reflink>]; Merriam & Tisdell, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref67">29</reflink>]). A critical component of our study design was conducting a pilot study to test and refine our interview protocol. As a result of the pilot study, we included a clear definition of precedent knowledge to clarify the focus of the study. We avoided providing this definition at the beginning of the interviews to prevent prompting participants to skew their responses to fit our definition.</p> <p>This study focused on three instructional designers from higher education and non-profit professional settings, each bringing a unique perspective on precedent knowledge in instructional design. Rather than emphasizing sample size, we prioritized depth and richness of data by following qualitative research principles that value contextualized insights over broad generalizability. This study serves as an exploratory deep dive into a complex phenomenon to offer valuable theoretical and practical contributions to instructional design research and practice.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-12">Participants</hd> <p>This study draws from a subset of participants from a larger research project, with 18 practicing designers across eight design domains, including three instructional designers. The three selected instructional designers represent varied professional roles, including faculty instructional support, consulting, and training within a non-profit setting, allowing for a comparative understanding of precedent knowledge across different instructional design environments. We used purposeful sampling to ensure diverse perspectives on precedent knowledge. Purposive sampling is widely used in qualitative research to select participants who have direct experience with the phenomenon under investigation (Guetterman, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref68">17</reflink>]). We recruited participants through Google and LinkedIn search, as well as through our professional networks. Our inclusion criteria were as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Be a practicing designer in any design domain, including but not limited to instructional design, architecture, engineering, and graphic design.</item> <p></p> <item> Have at least five years of professional experience in a design-related field.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 1 below highlights key instructional design participants' key characteristics.</p> <p>Table 1 Instructional Design Participants'Key Characteristics, including their professional contexts, educational background, and prior professional experience</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Participant Code</p></th><th align="left"><p>Professional Context</p></th><th align="left"><p>Highest Level of Education</p></th><th align="left"><p>Prior Professional Experience</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>C1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ph.D. in Instructional Systems Technology</p></td><td align="left"><p>Foreign language teacher</p><p>Higher ed ID consultant</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>C2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Non-Profit</p></td><td align="left"><p>Doctoral Candidate</p></td><td align="left"><p>Corporate trainer at the phone company for four years, training new employees</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>C3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Higher Education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ph.D. in Instructional Systems Technology</p></td><td align="left"><p>ID to support faculty in designing learning materials for online learning, evaluating, accessing, and sometimes providing training</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187262898-13">Data Collection</hd> <p>By conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews, we captured detailed accounts of the lived experiences of our participants that provide nuanced insights into how instructional designers define, store, and enact precedent knowledge. We conducted interviews in teams of three to four research members, all of whom had prior experience with conducting qualitative inquiry and using interviews as a data collection method. We developed the semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix A) based on existing literature on precedent knowledge. We pilot tested this protocol with five practicing designers from different domains to refine the clarity, structure, and sequence of questions.</p> <p>Based on the pilot study, we incorporated a clear definition of precedent knowledge into the study but intentionally omitted it at the beginning of interviews to avoid influencing participants' responses. Each interview lasted between 45 and 90 min, online via Zoom. We recorded all interviews with participant consent and took notes to capture important insights. The research group transcribed all interviews verbatim, resulting in approximately 20 h of recorded interview and over 400 pages of transcribed data for analysis. We conducted all research activities, including participant recruitment, data collection, and data storage in compliance with ethical guidelines and received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval prior to conducting the study. For the purpose of trustworthiness, we kept a detailed audit trail documenting who conducted interviews and participated in each analysis round.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-14">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Our data analysis followed a thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref69">7</reflink>]) structured into four iterative cycles, incorporating qualitative coding techniques to systematically examine patterns within the data. Our coding process involved both inductive and deductive approaches, allowing for flexibility while ensuring alignment with our research questions.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-15">First Cycle: Initial Open Coding</hd> <p>Each team member conducted open coding (Saldana, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref70">37</reflink>]) by individually reviewing interview transcripts to gain a holistic understanding of participant responses. This cycle was inductive, allowing codes to emerge naturally from the data without predetermined categories. We used initial descriptive coding to capture key statements reflecting participants' perspectives and experiences with precedent knowledge. We agreed on definitions for key terms to ensure a shared understanding.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-16">Second Cycle: Provisional and A Priori Coding</hd> <p>As a research team, we then conducted provisional coding (Saldana, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref71">37</reflink>]), informed by existing literature and research questions. We identified and abstracted relevant statements on: (a) Definition of precedent knowledge (b) Origins and development of precedent knowledge (c) How precedent knowledge is built and stored (d) When it is used in design processes (e) How it is enacted in design. In teams of three to four, research group members conducted low-inference coding, maintaining proximity to participants' original wording. We held multiple debriefing meetings to discuss and refine the initial codes to ensure consistency across researchers.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-17">Third Cycle: Axial Coding and Thematic Categorization</hd> <p>After refining our codes, we engaged in axial coding (Saldana, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref72">37</reflink>]), grouping related codes into higher-level thematic categories. In this phase, we transitioned from low-inference coding to high-inference coding, making interpretive connections between participants' responses and theoretical constructs. This process was guided by deductive reasoning (Hyde, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref73">19</reflink>]) to align our coding with our research framework. To ensure transparency, we developed a codebook that documented. Table 2 presents an excerpt from the codebook. The full codebook is provided in Appendix B.</p> <p>Table 2 Example of the codebook</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Question</p></th><th align="left"><p>Explanation/Elaboration</p></th><th align="left"><p>Nature of the Inference</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>What is precedent?</p></td><td align="left"><p>Restating: what do these respondents report that they consider to be precedent? Specifically, what do they mention that they collect/notice?</p><p>EXAMPLES:</p><p>• objects (large, like buildings or smaller, like dolls, machines, leaves, clothes, etc.) – give the actual names of objects if they are given rather than saying"objects")</p><p>• images (like from magazines or the internet) – specify which if given)</p><p>• non-tangible experiences (using software, viewing movies, observing nature) – state what the experience is, not just"non-tangible"</p><p>• other – you may spot something not given as an example here, so report that</p></td><td align="left"><p>No inference to low inference ... I understand that we will probably report these by category, and our previous analysis often made this jump from specific to category – in Round 3 however we will back up if we need to and record the specific information from the interviews</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187262898-18">Fourth Cycle: Consensus Building and Code Refinement</hd> <p>In pairs, we reviewed coded statements for accuracy and consistency. We addressed discrepancies through team discussions and consensus-building (MacQueen & Guest, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref74">28</reflink>]), ensuring inter-coder agreement. We solved our disagreements through dialogic argumentation, where we presented our perspectives on code meaning until we reached consensus. When necessary, we revisited the original transcripts and the interview recordings to validate interpretations. The lead researcher also checked the full analysis for accuracy and consistency.</p> <p>We purposefully relied on multiple analysis cycles that involved team members cross-checking and discussing our interpretations to reach a consensus on any confusing statements (Ryan & Bernard, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref75">36</reflink>]). Finally, we constructed an aggregate list of interpretations for all statements. We also identified and removed statements irrelevant to the research questions. Involving multiple team members and re-grouping subteams helped us minimize our biases, thereby increasing the credibility and trustworthiness of our analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-19">Findings</hd> <p>Based on our interview analysis, we identified several key interpretations that describe how practicing instructional designers define, acquire, store, and enact precedent knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-20">Precedent Knowledge as Lessons Learned and Best Practices</hd> <p>None of the participants firmly stated that they were familiar with the construct of precedent knowledge. Neither did any of the participants share the definition of the construct of precedent knowledge we found in the literature, or the definition we used for the purpose of this study. However, they offered their understanding of precedent knowledge and provided examples of it from their professional experiences and contexts, some of which resembled the discussion of the construct in the literature as discussed here.</p> <p>Certain well-established guidelines in the form of best practices, which also include ready-to-use templates, represent these instructional designers' understanding of precedent knowledge. Based on their reports, such best practices and lessons learned impact how they approach design situations and what decisions they make during the design process. One participant (C1) posited this definition:<emph>Well, something that was successful or not successful, right? We can learn from mistakes as well. [...] We can say this project overall didn't go well, but this element worked really well.</emph></p> <p>This insight highlights how precedent knowledge functions as a reflective tool, allowing designers to extract key takeaways from past projects and apply them to new situations. Rather than starting from scratch, designers leverage prior experiences to refine their decision-making. Similarly, participants noted that templates and established workflows serve as structured forms of precedent knowledge, providing reliable frameworks for design work, as another participant (C3) noted:<emph>So, most of the time, when I design a course, I will just follow what we have in our university. And then, we have a workflow. [...] And we are using mostly our online templates, which makes my life much easier.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0187262898-21">Precedent Knowledge as Inspiration and Idea Generation</hd> <p>All the participants mentioned that other instructional designers' ideas or examples of their work enrich their repertoire of design approaches and help them shape their design ideas. Participants reported that exposure to others' design work, academic literature, and real-world observations influenced their design approaches, which implies decision-making as well. One participant (C1) specifically reported how they look for opportunities to network and engage in knowledge and expertise sharing:<emph>That's when you go to conferences and talk about it. People come to you, they want to know. Then you exchange ideas.</emph></p> <p>This quote illustrates how designers can build their precedent knowledge through collaborative and knowledge-building events and activities within professional communities. Conferences, networking, and literature serve as crucial sources of inspiration.</p> <p>Additionally, some participants noted that design examples from outside the instructional design field, such as advertising, visual media, or architecture, also contribute to their precedent knowledge, as illustrated by the quote below:<emph>They come from just general things in the public, like pop media or things like that. Ideas from everywhere.</emph></p> <p>This highlights the idea that precedent knowledge is not limited to one's immediate field but can be drawn from a broad spectrum of experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-22">Sources of Precedent Knowledge</hd> <p>For these designers, there is a close link between what they say constitutes their precedent knowledge and where it comes from: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>) Established practices in the participants' workplaces, such as design workflows and templates; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>) Well-known and established theories in the IDT field, such as instructional design models (e.g., ADDIE); (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>) Personal/professional experiences and prior knowledge; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref79">4</reflink>) Design work of other instructional designers; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref80">5</reflink>) Design work or design examples outside the domain of instructional design (see Table 3).</p> <p>Table 3 Sources of Precedent Knowledge Based on Participants'Statements</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Participant</p></th><th align="left"><p>Statement</p></th><th align="left"><p>Sources of Precedent Knowledge</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>C1</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>So, if something is out there that's already working, you don't have to recreate it. So that's something you can definitely learn from it, you know?</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>(3) Personal/professional experiences and prior knowledge;</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>C1</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Yes. It's very important to me to stay informed, what's happening in the fields. What other people in my group, like other in our group are doing across executes, is doing across the field in general. Often, we face very similar problems, the way we address these problems, and the resources we have probably different. But you want us to identify trends</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>(4) Design work of other instructional designers;</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>C2</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Yeah, I do have I have some things like that. Some physical objects occasionally, if I see you know, an interesting article or something like that I'll said it online in a folder that's related to design or development or whatever</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>(3) Personal/professional experiences and prior knowledge;</p><p>(4) Design work of other instructional designers;</p><p>(5) Design work or design examples outside the domain of instructional design</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>C2</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>All over. Um, past project I have created, you know, I definitely, draw from graduate schoolwork</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>(1) Established practices in the participants' workplaces, such as design workflows and templates;</p><p>(2) Well-known and established theories in the IDT field, such as instructional design models (e.g., ADDIE)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>C3</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>And the one thing I looked up is when I want to do something very unique or I want to demo a course. And I do not want to do I want to stand out from the normal kind of design. I will go to, like, some MOOCs course, and I take a look how they do. I think is always very interesting, and I can get something from them</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>(4) Design work of other instructional designers;</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>C3</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>So for me, I will read the article and later on, because our job is kind of, more projects to do, and we will just go to the Quality Matter. They have a research library because those are all the kind of evidence based things. So it's easier for me especially where I wanted to talk, "Why you wanna set this? Um, like this content more Interactive." Um, based on the standard in the Quality Matter, because that's part of our job</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p>(1) Established practices in the participants' workplaces, such as design workflows and templates;</p><p>(2) Well-known and established theories in the IDT field, such as instructional design models (e.g., ADDIE)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0187262898-23">How Precedent Knowledge is Built and Stored</hd> <p>Participants described both intentional and unintentional processes for building and storing precedent knowledge. Some actively collect tangible artifacts, such as images, articles, and design templates, while others rely on episodic memory and lived experiences. For instance, another participant (C2) shares their experience:<emph>I see a billboard as I'm driving. Some designs are cluttered, others are clear. I notice the differences, even if I'm not actively looking for them.</emph></p> <p>Another participant (C3) shared how they collected images and stored them on their computer. Collected images help the participant build their precedent knowledge and help them when they are working on creating visual experiences in courses. In the statement below, the participant shared what kind of images they collect and how they store them:<emph>I save images, and we also have some collected by our university's marketing team. We reuse those because they are high quality.</emph></p> <p>These tangible, physical objects are stored without immediate intentionality to use them, which occurs in parallel with an active search for ideas, insights, and knowledge—intangible assets– at the time they are needed. Intangible assets may also include design ideas that catch their attention in the real world. Participant C2 did not indicate that they actively engage in spotting such examples but describes a kind of noticing as a way of collecting episodic memory as precedent:<emph>You know, I know a little bit of graphic design [unclear] but I see a billboard as I'm driving down the way. It's hard to read or [it's] cluttered. [...] There's been some billboards in particular close to where I live that I've seen a couple times, and that's been kind of interesting. So it's not anything that I did. It's more observing, but I'm able to kind of see how the design changed.</emph></p> <p>All three participants indicated how their prior professional experiences helped them build precedent knowledge. For instance, this participant (C1) specifically shared how previously successful projects left them with a memory of good design that they could use in the future:<emph>A previous design set something, what worked well, what didn't work well previously, and how I remember that. Well, something that was successful or not successful, right? We can learn from mistakes as well. So, like that, say: Hey, that didn't work at all. It can be projects, but it can also be like individual parts of a project. So, hey, we can say this was the project overall didn't go well, but this element worked really well. Okay. I wouldn't say it by that specific term [precedent knowledge]. But I'm pretty sure that lessons learned and best practices that has been, it has been established.</emph></p> <p>These sources collectively form a dynamic repertoire of design knowledge that designers draw upon in their work.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-24">How Precedent Knowledge is Enacted in Design Work</hd> <p>Based on the participants' statements, it is clear that they frequently speak of design knowledge as precedent, which is, in fact, abstracted and not individual to the designer. This is the case where designers reported the use of certain collectively-held schema (models and principles) ratified in the field, possibly derived partially from precedent knowledge. These schemas play an important role in their decision-making process when designing. Specifically, these schemas are used to validate and support their decisions, evaluate both their own and others' designs, and modify existing designs. Additionally, these schemas serve as immediate references that they store for future use.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-25">Using Collectively-Held Schema for Validation and Evidence</hd> <p>Participants report using best practices and lessons learned as a validation mechanism to ensure that their design turns out right. Their statements implicitly convey that such best practices and lessons learned serve as guarantors of a successful design. For instance, one participant (C1) confirms this statement by saying:<emph>These principles mean a lot for us, for example, say a rigorous, these courses that were designing have to be the same quality or even better of on ground or online courses and so on. So, they should not be watered down or something like that. So, that we have these principles that we established before. Pretty much what we have here is three phases that are broken down into pre-course development; the extra design, which has some rapid prototyping in there; and rapid design like SAM [e.g., Successive Approximation Model] and so on.</emph></p> <p>Another participant (C2) adds to the same perspective by stating:<emph>But we follow a typical ADDIE design and development and then, you know, implementation and reviewing you know, and pretty standard we try to fallow so that we're creating good, high quality material for our work.</emph></p> <p>The perspectives and experiences of the other participant (C3) also confirm the above statements. Specifically, the participant points out how they try to use templates designed within their team to ensure consistency of design and evidence of a good design. The participant shares the following experience:<emph>Okay, so that's basically all kinds of people that we have. So for the course design, our team actually designed the course templates. So what we need to know to do is talk with faculty if they feel okay, we will just import these templates for them. So most of the other courses are kind of uniformed.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0187262898-26">Using Collectively-Held Schema for Modifying Existing Designs</hd> <p>Per the participants, precedent knowledge plays an important role in the decision-making process by serving as a point of reference and informing decisions on how to modify existing designs. This use falls under using precedent for case-based reasoning (see Fig. 2). For instance, participant (C1) shared how they can use precedent when creating something new by adjusting or modifying it to meet the requirements of a new project or a design situation.<emph>So, yeah, sometimes, you want to, have to address a new solution, address a new problem, from sometimes for the old problem, that were established procedures and sequences and so on. But for the new problem, you might have to switch the sequence. You might have to put a different entry point or something like that, and into the process. Yes, so you can draw from existing solutions, but put them in a new sequence.</emph></p> <p>Similarly, another participant (C2) shared how looking at a previously completed project can encourage them to think about different ways of approaching that specific design situation or a specific design. Specifically, the participant stated:<emph>Especially I've now been doing this for a few years. Some early, we've started on I look back on the and say: Oh, yeah. Maybe I could have done a little differently.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0187262898-27">Using Precedent Knowledge as an Immediate Reference and Storing It for Use in the Future</hd> <p>One participant (C3) described their experience of using precedent knowledge as an immediate reference to improve their design. Specifically, they referred to a design idea they liked and re-used in their design project to improve the visual representation of the course.<emph>So, what I... I think I want to utilize the tool so what I did is I, I think I saw some other people's course and they have a very nice-looking design, the widget, so our learning management system is the widget-based course. So, they designed a very nice widget on the course. So, I went back and I looked up how to embed the code. So, I found the code, and then I put it in my course.</emph></p> <p>The same participant shared how a design idea that drew their attention served as a store they planned to draw upon in the future. Specifically, the participant shared:<emph>I really saw something interesting, and I wanted to maybe use it in the future I would talk with the manager. I will let her know. "See, this is something maybe we can use in the future." And this is one. And I think there's some details, little small things we use the later.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0187262898-28">Using Precedent Knowledge as an Evaluation Mechanism to Inform Future Designs</hd> <p>When talking about evaluation, participants did not specifically refer to a formal evaluation process but rather a thinking process that helped them identify successful elements in the design that they would like to use in the future, as one participant (C3) mentioned:<emph>So, what I usually do you as I will take a look of the related the other courses, like what they have? Or do they have some other good similar courses... But taught by different instructor... this happen as well. But I will also see... this is my notes. I will also do the EdX or Coursera and yeah, google sometimes... can you see the notes, so sometimes there's also some good course design Web sites I think they can give you some specific information.</emph></p> <p>Further, another participant (C1) reported using precedent knowledge as a way to investigate the reasons and rationales behind unsuccessful design decisions and actions to inform future designs:<emph>So, once you have identified potential solution, you want to find out why they made these decisions as well. Often you find out while we couldn't do it because we didn't have the time and didn't have the money, these kinds of things. So, you want to look behind the product. You got someone looking into the process, but also why the decisions were made. So, and maybe that's different in all cases. Maybe we have $10 million that we can easily spent on these kinds of things. So that might be changing.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0187262898-29">Discussion</hd> <p>We discuss the findings of the study in light of two important dimensions: the presence of precedent knowledge in instructional design as a domain of design, and the role precedent knowledge plays in decision-making among instructional designers.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-30">Precedent Knowledge in Instructional Design</hd> <p>None of the instructional designers we interviewed was familiar with the construct of precedent knowledge either by this name or as a general construct. However, their responses allowed us to identify their understanding of precedent knowledge and its use in their design practice. Similarly to other designers (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref81">6</reflink>]), the definition of precedent from the perspective of instructional designers encompasses both tangible and intangible assets. They also report using collectively-held schema from the field as a major part of their design practice.</p> <p>Like other designers that we interviewed as a part of the larger study (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref82">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref83">6</reflink>]), instructional designers build precedent knowledge from a variety of sources, including their professional life and outside work experiences. Interestingly, one instructional designer specifically referred to design ideas that are part of precedent knowledge coming from areas outside the domain of instructional design, such as print media. Through careful observation and interpretation, the instructional designers could purposefully interact with other designers' work, which broadens their design perspectives and repertoire about current design trends and practices within their work.</p> <p>This finding aligns with broader studies in design research, which show that professionals often draw precedent knowledge from both within and beyond their immediate domain. For example, Eckert and Stacey ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref84">12</reflink>]) observed that inspiration in industrial design often emerges from unexpected sources, and Doboli and Umbarkar ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref85">11</reflink>]) emphasized the role of interdisciplinary precedents in fostering creativity. This cross-domain borrowing of ideas may expand the instructional designers' capacity for innovation and reflective adaptation.</p> <p>Our findings reaffirm that instructional designers draw from both tangible and intangible forms of precedent knowledge, echoing similar practices observed in other design fields (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref86">6</reflink>]). Tangible precedents include templates, workflows, and best practices, while intangible forms involve experiential knowledge, heuristics, and abstract design schemas that guide their decision-making. Importantly, instructional designers rely on collectively-held schema, such as established instructional design models (e.g., ADDIE, SAM) and research-based best practices, reinforcing that precedent knowledge in instructional design is often institutionalized and codified rather than individually-held. This characteristic distinguishes instructional design from fields like architecture or industrial design, where precedent knowledge is often grounded in individual case-based reasoning (Lachheb & Boling, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref87">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Further, our study shows that instructional designers' precedent knowledge is not limited to their professional domain. One notable finding is the example of how an instructional designer actively seeks inspiration from non-instructional design sources, including advertising, media, and other creative industries. This suggests that instructional designers engage in a cross-disciplinary synthesis of design knowledge, drawing from a broad range of experiences to inform their practice. This aligns with findings in other design disciplines where professionals actively incorporate precedent knowledge from diverse sources (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref88">6</reflink>]). However, unlike fields where precedent knowledge is explicitly studied and discussed, instructional design appears to operate on an implicit precedent knowledge system, where designers internalize and enact precedent without necessarily naming or reflecting on it as a structured construct.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-31">The Role Precedent Knowledge Plays in Decision-Making Among Instructional Designers</hd> <p>In addition to the discussions of what instructional designers understand precedent knowledge to be, we asked them to discuss the role precedent knowledge plays in their design work—processes and outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-32">Using Collectively-Held Schema for Validation, Evidence, & Evaluation</hd> <p>It is interesting that collectively-held schema are reported to serve as validation and evidence and, in other words, a 'safety net' for instructional designers. When using those in practice, the participants appeared to communicate the following principle: When using existing theoretical frameworks, best practices, and design models, they can be reassured that their design decisions are sound and will result in successful outcomes. Specifically, their reported use of schematized precedent knowledge is closely related to making decisions about whether to follow existing steps outlined in an instructional design theory or navigate design situations according to established best practices within a specific design setting. This resonates with the construct of precedent knowledge as schema, as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2, and is possibly connected to the way instructional designers are trained. Traditionally, instructional design education prioritizes a scientized approach to designing learning experiences, placing a heavy emphasis on models and theories—foundational/formal forms of design knowledge. While foundational knowledge is essential, it is also worthwhile to recognize and account for the designers' role in the process, which includes their judgments, values, and overall personal design philosophies (Nelson & Stolterman, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref89">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the case of using collectively-held schema as an evaluation mechanism to inform future designs, instructional designers reported using them to determine what makes a specific design successful or unsuccessful (see also: Lachheb & Boling, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref90">22</reflink>]). This thinking process is instrumental in making decisions about how designers can improve their designs in the future or what design elements they can use in similar design situations. This is different from how other designers from other domains of design have reported (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref91">6</reflink>]) using precedent knowledge when evaluating design work and solving design problems. While precedent is not a topic treated frequently in our field, the findings both verify the use of precedent by instructional designers and problematize that use by demonstrating that they speak frequently of knowledge as a precedent, which is, in fact, abstracted and not individual to the designer.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-33">Using Precedent Knowledge In and For Design</hd> <p>In addition to validation, instructional designers use precedent knowledge as a reference for making design improvements. Specifically, to modify existing designs, we found evidence that instructional designers, like other designers (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref92">6</reflink>]), use precedent knowledge to decide on design iterations. Precedent knowledge serves as an important starting point in deciding which elements need to be modified to improve the existing design. They also use precedent knowledge as an immediate reference and as a resource for future use to help in deciding what a design should be like in a specific situation. Precedent knowledge activates the designer's thinking process regarding which specific features of a given design they appreciate and how they can incorporate these features into their future design work. However, unlike fields where precedent knowledge is formally documented (e.g., precedent catalogs in architecture), we found that instructional designers primarily store knowledge informally through personal experience, networking, and observation. This raises important implications for how instructional designers document and share design knowledge within organizations and across the field.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-34">Study Implications</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187262898-35">Implication for Future Research and Practice</hd> <p>This study opens questions for specific further research—what do instructional designers do when their experiential knowledge and the pre-schematized knowledge in the field are not compatible in context? Specifically, it raises the question of whether instructional designers use precedent knowledge as case-based thinking and whether instructional designers consistently set aside precedent knowledge in favor of other forms of knowledge.</p> <p>The findings of the study provide several implications for practice. First, they stress the importance of the designer's role in the design process. Apart from well-established practices and foundational theoretical knowledge, it is the designer who makes the final decisions on how to implement theories and navigate design situations. Additionally, this study can encourage instructional designers to engage in reflective practice to help them examine how they think about their design work, what values they bring into the design process, and what helps them in making decisions.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-36">Implications for Design Education & Practice</hd> <p>The findings of this study also offer implications for instructional design education and practice. Specifically, they emphasize the importance of establishing disciplined practice in searching, collecting, accumulating, examining, and using precedent knowledge among students of instructional design and practicing instructional designers (Boling, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref93">3</reflink>]). Design educators could incorporate explicit activities for their students to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>) make them aware of the construct of precedent knowledge, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>) keep a generous eye for designs—inside and outside of instructional design—that could be noted and stored for later use, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref96">3</reflink>) encouraging them to value their individually held-knowledge. Students and practitioners could commit to noticing and challenging themselves to notice as many kinds of learning designs as possible in diverse contexts around them throughout their ID program or professional experience. This disciplined habit would build an appreciation of designs ubiquitously found around them. Noticing design precedents becomes automatic eventually, and more importantly, remaining conscious of the disciplined habit of forming precedent knowledge.</p> <p>One of the concrete learning activities that Boling ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref97">3</reflink>]) has detailed is called the "Noticing Journal". This activity involves challenging instructional design students to spend a week observing different forms of instruction or performance support around them—whether on product labels, digital tutorials, maps, vending machines, or even informal moments like a parent teaching a child. The student would document their observations with notes or photos to track what they discover. Over time, this practice can become second nature, but continuing to consciously engage in noticing will help strengthen students' awareness and understanding of precedent knowledge.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-37">Conclusion</hd> <p>As part of a larger study involving designers from multiple domains of design, our research team was able to obtain intriguing insights into the use of precedent knowledge among instructional designers. Their commitment to collectively-held pre-schematized knowledge was both a more conscious aspect of their practice and easier for them to articulate than most elements of precedent knowledge represented in the construct map (see Figs. 1 and 2). While precedent is not a topic treated frequently in our field, the findings both verify the use of precedent by instructional designers and problematize that use by demonstrating that they speak frequently of knowledge as a precedent, which is, in fact, abstracted and not individual to the designer.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-38">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>Several members of the Indiana University Design Research Group contributed to the initial work of this large research project but left the group before they could contribute to the writing of this study. These members are (ordered alphabetically by first name): Annisa Sari, Candace Buggs, Fatih Ergulec, Grant Chartrand, Haesol Bae, Hamid Nadir, Ilona Marie Hajdu, Khadijah Alghamdi, Manal AlSaif, Meina Zhu, Meize Guo. Mia Fan. Parama Chaudhuri. Taufik Slamet, Yichuan Yan, and Zixi Li. We acknowledge their contributions to the research project.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-39">Declaration</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187262898-40">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflict of interest and no competing interests. The authors contributed to the study's design, data collection, and analysis. All authors contributed to the study's writing. All authors listed read and approved the final manuscript. This study involved human participants. Ethics approval was approved by the [blinded] University Institutional Review Board (Exempt Study Protocol #1802231288). Informed consent was sought from the participants before participating in recorded interviews for a large research project. This study was not funded.</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-41">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 KB)</p> <hd id="AN0187262898-42">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0187262898-43"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref21" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bardzell, J, Bardzell, S, & Koefoed Hansen, L. (2015). Immodest proposals: Research through design and knowledge. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, USA, 2093–2102. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref23" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v1i1.919</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref1" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Boling, E. (2021). The Nature and use of precedent in designing. In McDonald, J. K, & West, R. E. (Eds.), Design for learning: Principles, processes, and praxis. https://edtechbooks.org/precedent</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref17" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Boling E, Alangari H, Hajdu IM, Guo M, Gyabak K, Khlaif Z, Kizilboga R, Tomita K, Alsaif M, Lachheb A, Bae H, Ergulec F, Zhu M, Basdogan M, Buggs C, Sari A, Techawitthayachinda R. Core judgments of instructional designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2017; 30; 3: 199-219. 10.1002/piq.21250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref40" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boling, E, Basdogan, M, Abramenka-Lachheb, V, Guo, M, Nadir, H, Sankaranarayanan, R, Yan, Y, Alghamdi, K, Chaudhuri, P, Li, Z, AlSaif, M, & Lachheb, A. (2024a) Precedent knowledge in multiple domains of design: A review and analysis of literature. In C. Gray, E. Ciliotta Chehade, P. Hekkert, L. Forlano, P. Ciuccarelli, & P. Lloyd (Eds.), DRS2024: Boston, 23–28 June, Boston, USA. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2024.614</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref41" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Boling, E, Abramenka-Lachheb, V, Guo, M, Basdogan, M, Li, Z, Nadir, H, Kadirova, D, Slamet, T, Chartrand, G, Chaudhuri, P, Yan, Y, Sankaranarayanan, R, & Lachheb, A. (2024b) Precedent knowledge: Practicing designers' perspectives and experiences. In C. Gray, E. Ciliotta Chehade, P. Hekkert, L. Forlano, P. Ciuccarelli, & P. Lloyd (Eds.), DRS2024: Boston, 23–28 June, Boston, USA. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2024.616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref69" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis. 2012; American Psychological Association</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref53" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen J. Designing online project-based learning instruction for EFL learners: A WebQuest approach. MEXTESOL Journal. 2019; 43; 2: 1-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref38" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chen Y. Beyond the ordinary: Designing a mobile-assisted funds-of-knowledge-featured instructional framework for English learners. International Journal of Designs for Learning. 2021; 12; 2: 49-58. 10.14434/ijdl.v12i2.29064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J, & Poth, C. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doboli A, Umbarkar A. The role of precedents in increasing creativity during iterative de-sign of electronic embedded systems. Design Studies. 2014; 35; 3: 298-326. 10.1016/j.destud.2014.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eckert C, Stacey M. Sources of inspiration: A language of design. Design Studies. 2000; 21; 5: 523-538. 10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00022-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Exter M, Ashby I. Lifelong learning of instructional design and educational technology professionals: A heutagogical approach. TechTrends. 2022; 66; 2: 254-264. 10.1007/s11528-021-00657-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fiock H. Designing an online student center. International Journal of Designs for Learning. 2022; 13; 1: 19-34. 10.14434/ijdl.v13i1.31961</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, C. M, spsampsps Boling, E. (2017). Designers' articulation and activation of instrumental design judgements in cross-cultural user research. In Christensen, B, Ball, J. L, spsampsps Halskov K. (Eds.), Analysing design thinking: Studies of cross-cultural co-creation (pp. 19–211). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315208169</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, C. M, Dagli, C, Demiral-Uzan, M, Ergulec, F, Tan, V, & Altuwaijri, A. A. et al. (2015). Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly,28(3), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guetterman, T. C. (2015). Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative research in education and the health sciences. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-16.2.2290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howard, C. D, Boling, E, Rowland, G, & Smith, K. M. (2012). Instructional design cases and why we need them. Educational Technology, 34–38. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/44430039">www.jstor.org/stable/44430039</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyde KF. Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. 2000; 3; 2: 82-90. 10.1108/13522750010322089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim J, Ryu H. A design thinking rationality framework: Framing and solving design problems in early concept generation. Human-Computer Interaction. 2014; 29; 5–6: 516-553. 10.1080/07370024.2014.896706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lachheb A, Boling E. Design tools in practice: Instructional designers report which tools they use and why. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2018; 30: 34-54. 10.1007/s12528-017-9165-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lachheb A, Boling E. How do they define design failure? An investigation of design failure in instructional design practice from the practitioners' perspective. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2024; 72: 687-725. 10.1007/s11423-023-10329-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson B. Schemata, gambits and precedent: Some factors in design expertise. Design Studies. 2004; 25; 5: 443-457. 10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, B. (2012). What designers know. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080481722</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawson, B. (2018). The design student's journey: Understanding how designers think. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429448577</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, N, Nelson, A, & Svihla, V. (2018). Refining a summer biomedical research training program for American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) students. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 9(1), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v9i1.23049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lowell VL, Yang M. Authentic learning experiences to improve online instructor's performance and self-efficacy: The design of an online mentoring program. TechTrends. 2023; 67; 1: 112-123. 10.1007/s11528-022-00770-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacQueen KM, Guest GGuest G, MacQueen KM. An introduction to team-based qualitative research. Handbook for team-based qualitative research. 2008; Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group: 3-19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B, & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molenda, M, Reigeluth, C. M, & Nelson, L. M. (2003). Instructional design. https://ocw.metu.edu.tr/file.php/118/Week_6/instructional_design_-_molenda-reigeluth-nelson.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, H. G, & Stolterman, E. (2014). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9188.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oxman RE. Precedents in design: A computational model for the organization of precedent knowledge. Design Studies. 1994; 15; 2: 141-157. 10.1016/0142-694X(94)90021-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pasman G. Designing with precedents. 2003; Delft University of Technology</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiser RA. A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2001; 49; 2: 57-67. 10.1007/BF02504928</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowland G. What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 1992; 5; 2: 65-86. 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1992.tb00546.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, G. W, & Bernard, H. R. (2000). Techniques to identify themes in qualitative data.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldana, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scharber C, Peterson L, Baskin K, Cabeen J, Gustafson D, Alberts J. A research-practice partnership about K12 technology integration: Technology as a catalyst for teacher learning through failure and creative risk-taking. TechTrends. 2021; 65; 4: 626-635. 10.1007/s11528-021-00621-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schön DADowie J, Elstein A. From technical rationality to reflection-in-action. Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision making. 1988; Cambridge University Press: 60-77</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sentz J, Stefaniak J. Instructional heuristics for the use of worked examples to manage instructional designers' cognitive load while problem-solving. TechTrends. 2019; 63; 2: 209-225. 10.1007/s11528-018-0348-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sentz J, Stefaniak J, Baaki J, Eckhoff A. How do instructional designers manage learners' cognitive load? An examination of awareness and application of strategies. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2019; 67; 1: 199-245. 10.1007/s11423-018-09640-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefaniak J. Leveraging failure-based learning to support decision-making and creative risk in instructional design pedagogy. TechTrends. 2021; 65; 4: 646-652. 10.1007/s11528-021-00608-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefaniak, J. E. (2023). Examining the intersection between instructional design decision-making and problem-solving of ill-structured problems through bounded rationality. In Allman, B, Leary, H, & Kimmons, R. (Eds.), Theories to influence the future of learning design and technology: Theory spotlight competition 2022 (pp. 3–8). EdTech Books. https://doi.org/10.59668/534.11934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefaniak JE, Tracey MW. An examination of the decision-making process used by designers in multiple disciplines. TechTrends. 2014; 58: 80-89. 10.1007/s11528-014-0789-7</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Elizabeth Boling; Victoria Abramenka-Lachheb; Dilnoza Kadirova; Merve Basdogan; Rajagopal Sankaranarayanan; Vanessa Johnson; Alyse Harris and Ahmed Lachheb</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref85"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1480296
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Role of Precedent Knowledge in Decision-Making among Practicing Instructional Designers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elizabeth+Boling%22">Elizabeth Boling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Victoria+Abramenka-Lachheb%22">Victoria Abramenka-Lachheb</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dilnoza+Kadirova%22">Dilnoza Kadirova</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Merve+Basdogan%22">Merve Basdogan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rajagopal+Sankaranarayanan%22">Rajagopal Sankaranarayanan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vanessa+Johnson%22">Vanessa Johnson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alyse+Harris%22">Alyse Harris</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ahmed+Lachheb%22">Ahmed Lachheb</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4046-6385">0000-0003-4046-6385</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22TechTrends%3A+Linking+Research+and+Practice+to+Improve+Learning%22"><i>TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning</i></searchLink>. 2025 69(4):723-736.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prior+Learning%22">Prior Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Design%22">Instructional Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Validation%22">Program Validation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Development%22">Professional Development</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11528-025-01080-2
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 8756-3894<br />1559-7075
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: As part of a larger study (Boling et al., 2024a, b), this paper reports on how instructional designers define and use precedent knowledge, including its sources, forms, and role in decision-making. Using a qualitative approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with instructional designers from higher education and non-profit professional settings to explore how precedent knowledge is built, stored, and applied in instructional design practice. The findings of the study indicate that instructional designers implicitly engage with precedent knowledge, drawing on personal experiences, established frameworks, and external influences such as professional networks. They use precedent knowledge for validating design choices, modifying existing designs, and inspiring new projects, often as part of collective-held schema (e.g., design models, such as ADDIE and SAM). The study highlights the underrecognized role of precedent knowledge in decision-making within the instructional design practice, emphasizing the need for greater awareness and integration of precedent knowledge in instructional design education and professional development.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1480296
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1480296
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11528-025-01080-2
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 723
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Prior Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Validation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Development
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Role of Precedent Knowledge in Decision-Making among Practicing Instructional Designers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elizabeth Boling
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Victoria Abramenka-Lachheb
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dilnoza Kadirova
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Merve Basdogan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rajagopal Sankaranarayanan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vanessa Johnson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alyse Harris
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ahmed Lachheb
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 8756-3894
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1559-7075
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 69
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning
              Type: main
ResultId 1