View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Comprehensive Review of Instructional Designer Research and Approaches in Learning Design

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Comprehensive Review of Instructional Designer Research and Approaches in Learning Design
Language: English
Authors: Jill E. Stefaniak (ORCID 0000-0002-9571-9215), Eunkyoung Elaine Cha, Fan Yang, Stephanie Gilstrap, Liangke Yang
Source: Educational Technology Research and Development. 2025 73(4):2057-2079.
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: 23
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Instructional Design, Educational Research, Teacher Attitudes, Decision Making, Teacher Competencies, Problem Solving, Teacher Collaboration, Organizational Development, Evidence Based Practice
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-025-10501-1
ISSN: 1042-1629
1556-6501
Abstract: The current systematic review study explores instructional designer practices to develop a comprehensive understanding of strategies employed by instructional designers and the expectations of the field. Using the PRISMA protocol, a total of 98 articles were included in the review consisting of 65 qualitative, 15 quantitative, and 18 mixed-methods studies. Instructional designer practices were analyzed through the lens of 10 different topical areas: (1) Attitudes and perceptions, (2) decision-making and design judgments, (3) design strategies, (4) professional development and professional identity, (5) design heuristics, (6) instructional designer and faculty relationships, (7) instructional design competencies, (8) problem-solving, (9) instructional design teams, (10) change management and organizational development. Evidence-based recommendations and suggestions for practices of current and future instructional designers were discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1483977
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGVQxL7gyTy5nZWQLt2WXmmAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEvYKiRGbx1erw18uwIBEICBmx2lrb_FmtTkN4FDj470jB73G42BwpjrTlk90HBbB-NkvV9N67GdW2gLSvq2WaxqpyADpSgJRNNASOVVHn3eH8NI6XW4nc68H02xIPbL9JtDl-D2ShoF_0ZsMmJxo2e-JgGWE1ayGPyivci4ZFUKrmMWQHOheQaZsn9eZFV6htJcpgI-gs9k7dOr-809j6tkZHReYZFPpDc5EHoc
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188049018;etr01aug.25;2025Sep22.01:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188049018-1">A comprehensive review of instructional designer research and approaches in learning design </title> <p>The current systematic review study explores instructional designer practices to develop a comprehensive understanding of strategies employed by instructional designers and the expectations of the field. Using the PRISMA protocol, a total of 98 articles were included in the review consisting of 65 qualitative, 15 quantitative, and 18 mixed-methods studies. Instructional designer practices were analyzed through the lens of 10 different topical areas: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) Attitudes and perceptions, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) decision-making and design judgments, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) design strategies, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) professional development and professional identity, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>) design heuristics, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>) instructional designer and faculty relationships, (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>) instructional design competencies, (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>) problem-solving, (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>) instructional design teams, (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>) instructional design teams, (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>) change management and organizational development. Evidence-based recommendations and suggestions for practices of current and future instructional designers were discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: Instructional designers; Instructional design competencies; Design decisions; Design strategies; Professional identity</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Instructional design is a systematic and purposeful approach to creating effective and engaging learning experiences. At its core, instructional design is about designing learning experiences that facilitate learning and improve performance. Instructional designers utilize a combination of pedagogical principles, instructional science, design strategies, and technology to develop learning solutions (Bond & Dirkin, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>]; Kumar & Ritzhaupt, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref13">60</reflink>]). This process involves analyzing the needs of learners, defining learning goals, designing and developing instructional materials, and assessing the effectiveness of the learning experience (An, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Instructional designers work in a variety of settings including K-12 schools, higher education, healthcare, military and government, and business and industry. They work closely with subject matter experts, educators, and stakeholders to understand the unique needs of the organization and stakeholders related to learning and performance. By employing a systematic and systemic design process, instructional designers create a blueprint for instruction that is intended to deliver instruction efficiently and effectively. It is important to note that each setting brings forth its own unique needs and contextual factors that should be considered during the design process. This study seeks to examine research that has been conducted on instructional designers' practices.</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-3">Background literature</hd> <p>Over the past several decades, researchers have explored what competencies are expected of instructional designers in the field (e.g., Arafah & Sihes, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]; Dooley et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]; Klein & Kelly, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref17">55</reflink>]; Ritzhaupt et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref18">93</reflink>]). The International Board of Standards for Training, Performance, and Instruction (ibstpi) has developed and validated instructional design competencies that have been used in consultation to support the development of job announcements in the field and the overarching objectives for instructional design programs in higher education (Koszalka et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref19">59</reflink>]). Table 1 provides an overview of the various studies conducted to explore instructional design competencies in different contexts.</p> <p>Table 1 Summary of Studies Examining Instructional Designer Competencies</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Studies</p></th><th align="left"><p>Authors</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Examination of job analyses related to instructional design</p></td><td align="left"><p>Chongwony et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2020</xref>); Martin et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr72">2022</xref>); Wang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr125">2021</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Examination of ID competencies in higher education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ashby and Exter (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7">2019</xref>); Pollard and Kumar (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr89">2022</xref>); Ritzhaupt and Kumar (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr92">2015</xref>); Ritzhaupt et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr93">2021</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Examination of ID competencies in medical education</p></td><td align="left"><p>Anderson et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4">2019</xref>); van Merrienboer and Dolmans (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr120">2015</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Examination of project management competencies related to instructional design</p></td><td align="left"><p>Allen and Gardner (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">2021</xref>); Gardner and Allen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2021</xref>); Kline et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2020</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Instructional design competencies within instructional design programs</p></td><td align="left"><p>Dabbagh and English (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Employers' perspectives on instructional design competencies</p></td><td align="left"><p>Klein and Kelly (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">2018</xref>); Larson aand Lockee (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2004</xref>); Wakefield et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr124">2012</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188049018-4">The development of instructional design expertise</hd> <p>For years, scholars in the field of instructional design have delved into the essence of possessing expertise in this domain (Fadde, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref20">31</reflink>]; Hardré et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref21">39</reflink>]; Perez & Emery, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref22">87</reflink>]; Stepich et al., [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref23">109</reflink>]; York & Ertmer, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref24">140</reflink>]; York et al., [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref25">138</reflink>]). The consensus among researchers is that it is crucial to discern the characteristics of instructional design expertise to equip aspiring designers to acquire it (Hardré et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref26">39</reflink>]). Instructional design experts exhibit an inherent capacity to apply their knowledge across diverse projects, with knowledge typically categorized into procedural, conditional, and conceptual domains (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>]; Bransford et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref28">11</reflink>]; Swan et al., [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref29">115</reflink>]).</p> <p>In a systematic review of instructional design coursework, Stefaniak and Hwang ([<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref30">108</reflink>]) explored how expertise is cultivated in instructional design coursework. The research focused on three knowledge domains: procedural, conditional, and conceptual. The study highlighted the differences in mindset between novice and expert instructional designers, indicating that novices struggle with deep analysis, ideation, and integrating needs assessment into their practices. The research also identified the need for further exploration of design heuristics, leveraging analysis to interpret the situation, and the promotion of reflective practice and decision-making to support the development of instructional design students.</p> <p>The study's recommendations emphasized the need for instructional strategies to strengthen students'abilities in procedural, conditional, and conceptual knowledge domains. Additionally, the research highlighted the importance of further exploration of design heuristics, leveraging analysis to interpret the situation, and promoting reflective practice and decision-making to support the development of instructional design students. These findings offer valuable implications for the cultivation of expertise in instructional design coursework and provide a foundation for future research in this field.</p> <p>York and Ertmer ([<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref31">139</reflink>]) conducted an exploratory Delphi study to develop a better understanding of heuristics employed by instructional designers. Sixty-one heuristics were ultimately identified, aligning with competencies outlined by IBSTPI. The study found that experienced instructional designers often adapt instructional design models heuristically, emphasizing the importance of communication, client interaction, needs assessment, and design and development competencies. They suggest that heuristics could potentially serve as scaffolds for novice designers and should be incorporated into graduate education programs.</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-5">A research agenda studying instructional designer practices</hd> <p>The research on the development of instructional designer expertise remains to be explored. By understanding the dynamic interplay between theoretical knowledge and practical application, studies that have been conducted to examine instructional designers' practices provide an in-depth look into strategies they must employ within situated contexts to facilitate learning. As the field of learning, design, and technology continues to advance, instructional designers are confronted with new tools, methodologies, and challenges. Investigating how instructional designers adapt and integrate emerging technologies into their practice becomes a crucial aspect of this research (Lachheb & Boling, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref32">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>The exploration of the intersection between traditional instructional design principles and the integration of innovative technologies not only sheds light on the evolution of expertise but also informs the development of training programs to better prepare the next generation of instructional designers for the ever-changing demands of the field (Stefaniak, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref33">104</reflink>]). Studies are now exploring the personal and professional development of instructional designers to understand the factors that contribute to their effectiveness and success in designing impactful learning experiences (Brown & Green, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref34">14</reflink>]; Hutchinson & Tracey, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref35">49</reflink>]; Larson & Lockee, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref36">63</reflink>]; Tracey & Hutchinson, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref37">118</reflink>]). This line of research not only sheds light on the skills and competencies that make instructional designers effective but also provides insights into the type of support that is needed.</p> <p>The exploration of instructional designers involves investigating their attitudes, beliefs, and practices in designing instruction. Researchers are keen to uncover the challenges instructional designers face, the strategies they employ in problem-solving, and the impact of their decisions on learning outcomes (e.g., Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref38">8</reflink>]; Hoard et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>]; Kenny et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref40">52</reflink>]; Pollard & Kumar, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref41">89</reflink>]). By focusing on the designers themselves, the research aims to enhance our understanding of the nuanced and dynamic nature of instructional design.</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-6">Purpose of the study</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine what research has been conducted on instructional designers' practices. This study involved the systematic identification, selection, and critical analysis of relevant studies that specifically address the practices of instructional designers. By undertaking such a review, instructional designers and researchers can gain a thorough understanding of strategies employed by instructional designers and the expectations of the field. This process aids in the development of evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for instructional design practices. Through a targeted review of research in this domain, instructional designers can enhance their decision-making processes and ensure that their methods align with the latest insights and best practices in the field.</p> <p>The following research questions guided this systematic review:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What are the main characteristics of studies that have explored instructional designer practices? (i.e., types of studies, context, geographical distributions)?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the focus areas of research examining instructional designers' practices?</item> <p></p> <item> What implications do the reviewed studies offer for instructional design practice?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188049018-7">Method</hd> <p>This study adhered to the guidelines outlined in the Preferred-Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA) protocol (Liberati, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref42">67</reflink>]). The review process consisted of clarifying research questions, mapping study scopes, reviewing and evaluating studies, and establishing evidence for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-8">Screening phase</hd> <p>We conducted an initial search in two research databases, the Educational Research Information Center (ERIC) and PsycInfo. We searched for peer-reviewed articles using the keywords "instructional designer," "instructional designers," "instructional design team," and "learning designer" for published articles between the years 1990 and 2023. Our initial search yielded an aggregate of 1068 articles. We then used the same search terms in Google Scholar and reviewed the first 10 pages. As a result, 11 additional studies were added. This yielded an aggregate of 1079. Each article had to meet the screening criteria to be included in this systematic review (Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Criteria</p></th><th align="left"><p>Inclusion</p></th><th align="left"><p>Exclusion</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Publication date</p></td><td align="left"><p>1990–2023</p></td><td align="left"><p>Before 1990 and after 2023</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Publication Type</p></td><td align="left"><p>Empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals</p></td><td align="left"><p>Book chapters, technical reports, dissertations, proceedings, literature reviews</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Focus of the article</p></td><td align="left"><p>Articles focused primarily on instructional designers' practice</p></td><td align="left"><p>Articles did not focus specifically on instructional designers</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Language</p></td><td align="left"><p>The Journal article was written in English</p></td><td align="left"><p>The Journal article was written in a language other than English</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>After removing the duplicates, 817 articles remained in the pool. The articles had a general focus related to the keyword search terms. We screened the 817 articles according to our inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined in Table 2. A total of 98 articles remained eligible after we screened the papers (Fig. 1).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram adapted from Page et al. (2021)</p> <p>The 98 articles that remained in the final pool were coded according to the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Year of publication</item> <p></p> <item> Geographic publication</item> <p></p> <item> Research design</item> <p></p> <item> Data collection method</item> <p></p> <item> Topical focus of study</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188049018-9">Results</hd> <p>Our search yielded 98 studies for this review. All studies included in this review were empirical studies in peer-reviewed journals. We present the following descriptive statistics on the research that has examined instructional designers based on publication trends, research methodologies, and context. We then present an overview of the thematic foci of research examining instructional designers.</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-10">Trajectory</hd> <p>Research on instructional designers has steadily increased over the past 30 years as indicated in Table 3 and Fig. 2). This also mirrors the growth in instructional design programs and job postings in the field (Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref43">72</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref44">125</reflink>]). As more industries recognize the need for instructional designers, we can anticipate that there will be a growing body of research seeking to understand instructional design practices in different settings.</p> <p>Table 3 Publication Trajectory</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Years</p></th><th align="left"><p>(n)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Studies</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1990–1995</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Perez et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88">1995</xref>); Wedman and Tessmer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr126">1993</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1996–2000</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Le Maistre (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">1998</xref>); Le Maistre and Weston (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">1996</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2001–2005</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brown (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2004</xref>); Campbell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2005</xref>); Cox and Osguthorpe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2003</xref>); Ge et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2005</xref>); Pan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2003</xref>); Schwier et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97">2004</xref>); Surry and Robinson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr114">2001</xref>); Visscher-Voerman and Gustofson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr122">2004</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2006–2010</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brill et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2006</xref>); Campbell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2006</xref>); Campbell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2009</xref>); Cheong et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2006</xref>); Dicks and Ives (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2008</xref>); Francis and Murphy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2008</xref>); Jin and Boling (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2010</xref>); Lee and Reigeluth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">2009</xref>); Magliaro and Shambaugh (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr70">2006</xref>), Roytek (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr95">2010</xref>); Verstegen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr121">2008</xref>); Wilson and Schwier (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr129">2009</xref>); Yanchar et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2010</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2011–2015</p></td><td align="left"><p>20</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ashbaugh (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2013</xref>); Fortney and Yamagata-Lynch (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2013</xref>); Gray et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2015</xref>); Honebein and Honebein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Honebein and Honebein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2015</xref>); Kinuthia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">2012</xref>); Maddrell (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr69">2014</xref>); Ritzhaupt and Kumar (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr92">2015</xref>); Sharif and Gisbert (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr100">2015</xref>); Sheehan and Johnson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr101">2012</xref>); Sugar et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr110">2011</xref>) Sugar et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr111">2012</xref>); Sugar and Moore (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr113">2015</xref>); Thompson-Sellers and Calandra (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr116">2012</xref>); Tracey et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr119">2014</xref>); Williams et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr127">2011</xref>); Williams van Rooij (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr128">2013</xref>); Yanchar and Hawkley (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr134">2014</xref>); Yanchar and Hawkley (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr135">2015</xref>); York and Ertmer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr139">2011</xref>); Yusop and Correia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr141">2014</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2016–2020</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td><td align="left"><p>Boling et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2017</xref>); Bond and Dirkin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2020</xref>); Genc and Tinmaz (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Harrison and DeVries (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2019</xref>); Hoard et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2019</xref>); Honebein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr45">2017</xref>); Honebein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Iqdami and Branch (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2016</xref>); Klein and Kelly (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">2018</xref>); Klein and Mendenhall (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">2018</xref>); Kline et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2020</xref>); Lachheb and Boling (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2018</xref>); Lowell and Ashby (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">2018</xref>); Magruder et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2019</xref>); Matthews et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr74">2017</xref>); Matthews and Yanchar (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr73">2018</xref>); Morgan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">2019</xref>); Muljana and Luo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr80">2021</xref>); Park and Luo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr84">2017</xref>); Richardson et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91">2019</xref>); Sancar-Tokmak and Dogusoy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr96">2023</xref>); Sentz et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr99">2019</xref>); Singleton et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr102">2019</xref>); Slagter van Tryon et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr103">2018</xref>); Stefaniak et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr105">2018</xref>); Yilmaz and Cagiltay (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr137">2016</xref>); York and Ertmer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr140">2016</xref>); Zhu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr143">2020</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2021–2023</p></td><td align="left"><p>23</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bond et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2021</xref>); Caskurlu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Drysdale (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2021</xref>); Exter and Ashby (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2022</xref>); Giacumo and Breman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2021</xref>); Heggart and Dickson-Deane (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2022</xref>); McDonald et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr75">2021</xref>); McDonald et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr75">2021</xref>); Muljana and Luo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr81">2023</xref>); Mose (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77">2022</xref>); Mueller et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr78">2022a</xref>); Mueller et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr79">2022b</xref>); Nworie (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr82">2022</xref>); Petherbridge et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr86">2022</xref>); Rausch et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">2022</xref>); Rogers and Gronseth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr94">2021</xref>); Stefaniak et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr106">2022</xref>); Tracey et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr117">2022</xref>); Waight et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr123">2023</xref>); Wang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr125">2021</xref>); Xie and Rice (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr130">2021</xref>); Xie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr131">2021</xref>); Yalcin et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr133">2021</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Publication Trajectory</p> <p>Table 4 provides an overview of the geographical location of the study's context. A majority of the studies were conducted in North America (88; 90%). This was followed by Asia (8; 8%), Europe (1; 1%), and Oceania (1; 1%). The inclusion criterion for all studies in this review to be published in English may have influenced the geographic distribution of the articles included in the study.</p> <p>Table 4 Countries of study</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Continent</p></th><th align="left"><p>Country</p></th><th align="left"><p>(n)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Asia</p></td><td align="left"><p>Turkey</p><p>Singapore</p><p>South Korea</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p><p>1</p><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Europe</p></td><td align="left"><p>Netherlands</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>North America</p></td><td align="left"><p>USA</p></td><td align="left"><p>76</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Canada</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Oceania</p></td><td align="left"><p>Australia</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5 provides an overview of the types of methods employed in the studies included in this review. Among the 98 studies included in this review, 65 studies (66%) reported using qualitative methods. These studies used interviews, observations, reflections, think-aloud protocols, and video archives as data sources. Eighteen studies (18%) reported using mixed methods. The studies reported using audio recordings, data logs, interviews, job announcements, surveys, think-aloud protocols, and video observations. Fifteen studies (15%) reported using quantitative methods. These studies used data logs, surveys, and cluster analyses.</p> <p>Table 5 Types of Studies Reviewed</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Methodology</p></th><th align="left"><p>Data Sources</p></th><th align="left"><p>Studies</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Qualitative (n = 65)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Interviews</p><p>Observations</p><p>Reflections</p><p>Think-aloud protocols</p><p>Video archives</p><p>Job announcements</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ashbaugh (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2013</xref>); Boling et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2017</xref>); Brill et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2006</xref>); Brown (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2004</xref>); Campbell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2005</xref>); Campbell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2006</xref>); Campbell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2009</xref>); Caskurlu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Cheong et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2006</xref>); Dicks and Ives (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2008</xref>); Drysdale (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2021</xref>); Exter and Ashby (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2022</xref>); Fortney and Yamagata-Lynch (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2013</xref>); Francis and Murphy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2008</xref>); Ge et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2005</xref>); Gray et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2015</xref>); Heggart and Dickson-Deane (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2022</xref>); Jin and Boling (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2010</xref>); Kinuthia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">2012</xref>); Klein and Mendenhall (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">2018</xref>); Lachheb and Boling (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2018</xref>); Le Maistre (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">1998</xref>); Lee and Reigeluth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">2009</xref>); Maddrell (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr69">2014</xref>); Matthews and Yanchar (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr73">2018</xref>); Matthews et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr74">2017</xref>); McDonald (2023); McDonald et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr75">2021</xref>); Morgan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">2019</xref>); Mose (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77">2022</xref>); Mueller et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr78">2022a</xref>); Mueller et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr79">2022b</xref>); Muljana and Luo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr80">2021</xref>); Muljana and Luo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr81">2023</xref>); Pan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2003</xref>); Petherbridge et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr86">2022</xref>); Richardson et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91">2019</xref>); Ritzhaupt and Kumar (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr92">2015</xref>); Roytek (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr95">2010</xref>); Sancar-Tokmak and Dogusoy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr96">2023</xref>); Schwier et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97">2004</xref>); Singleton et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr102">2019</xref>); Slagter van Tryon et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr103">2018</xref>); Sugar et al.. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr110">2011</xref>); Sugar et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr111">2012</xref>); Sugar and Moore (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr113">2015</xref>); Surry and Robinson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr114">2001</xref>); Thompson-Sellers and Calandra (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr116">2012</xref>); Tracey et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr117">2022</xref>); Tracey et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr119">2014</xref>); Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr122">2004</xref>); Waight et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr123">2023</xref>), Williams van Rooij (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr128">2013</xref>); Williams et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr127">2011</xref>); Wilson and Schweir (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr129">2009</xref>); Xie and Rice (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr130">2021</xref>); Xie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr131">2021</xref>); Yanchar and Hawkley (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr134">2014</xref>); Yanchar and Hawkley (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr135">2015</xref>); Yilmaz and Cagiltay (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr137">2016</xref>); York and Ertmer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr139">2011</xref>); York and Ertmer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr140">2016</xref>); Yusop and Correia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr141">2014</xref>); Zhu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr143">2020</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Quantitative (n = 15)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Data logs</p><p>Surveys</p><p>Cluster Analysis</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bond and Dirkin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2020</xref>); Bond et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2021</xref>); Cox and Osguthorpe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">2003</xref>); Genc and Tinmaz (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Honebein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr45">2017</xref>); Honebein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Honebein and Honebein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>); Honebein and Honebein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2015</xref>); Iqdami and Branch (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2016</xref>); Magliaro and Shambaugh (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr70">2006</xref>); Nworie (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr82">2022</xref>); Sharif and Gisbert (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr100">2015</xref>); Sheehan and Johnson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr101">2012</xref>); Wedman and Tessmer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr126">1993</xref>); Yalcin et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr133">2021</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mixed Methods (n = 18)</p></td><td align="left"><p>Audio recordings</p><p>Data logs</p><p>Interviews</p><p>Job Announcements</p><p>Surveys</p><p>Think-aloud Protocols</p><p>Video observations</p></td><td align="left"><p>Giacumo and Breman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2021</xref>); Harrison and DeVries (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2019</xref>); Hoard et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2019</xref>); Klein and Kelly (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">2018</xref>); Kline et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2020</xref>); Le Maistre and Weston (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">1996</xref>); Lowell and Ashby (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">2018</xref>); Magruder et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2019</xref>); Park and Luo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr84">2017</xref>); Perez et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88">1995</xref>); Rausch et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">2022</xref>); Rogers and Gronseth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr94">2021</xref>); Sentz et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr99">2019</xref>); Stefaniak et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr105">2018</xref>); Stefaniak et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr106">2022</xref>); Sugar and Luterbach (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr112">2016</xref>); Verstegen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr121">2008</xref>); Wang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr125">2021</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To gain a better understanding of the research foci of the studies on instructional designers, we organized the studies according to theme (Table 6). Our research team employed thematic analysis with an open coding process of the purpose of study sections from each paper included in this review. Each team member independently reviewed the purpose of the studies and identified initial concepts. The initial themes were then reviewed by a second researcher. Through iterative discussions, we compared codes and refined overlapping categories to consolidate emergent themes. The research talked about instructional designers'perceptions of various aspects of their profession. Caskurlu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref45">18</reflink>]) study specifically focused on instructional designers'perceptions of course quality. The results indicated that quality was highly subjective and influenced by personal experiences. Honebein ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref46">45</reflink>]) further emphasized the importance of subjectivity in shaping instructional designers'design decisions.</p> <p>Table 6 Topical Foci of studies</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Topics</p></th><th align="left"><p>Number of articles</p></th><th align="left"><p>Studies</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Attitudes and perceptions</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brown (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2004</xref>); Caskurlu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr18">2021</xref>); Exter and Ashby (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">2022</xref>); Genc and Tinmaz (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2016</xref>); Honebein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr45">2017</xref>); Kinuthia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">2012</xref>); Lowell and Ashby (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">2018</xref>); Sharif and Gisbert (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr100">2015</xref>); Sheehan and Johnson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr101">2012</xref>); Singleton et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr102">2019</xref>); Wedman and Tessmer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr126">1993</xref>); Xie and Rice (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr130">2021</xref>); Xie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr131">2021</xref>); Yilmaz and Cagiltay (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr137">2016</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Decision-making and design judgments</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>Boling et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2017</xref>); Gray et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2015</xref>); Hoard et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">2019</xref>); Honebein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">2019</xref>); Honebein and Honebein (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47">2014</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2015</xref>); Jin and Boling (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51">2010</xref>); Klein and Mendenhall (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">2018</xref>); Lachheb and Boling (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2018</xref>); Le Maistre (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">1998</xref>); Sentz et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr99">2019</xref>); Stefaniak et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr105">2018</xref>); Stefaniak et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr106">2022</xref>); Zhu et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr143">2020</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Design strategies</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>Francis and Murphy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2008</xref>); Giacumo and Breman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2021</xref>); Harrison and DeVries (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2019</xref>); McDonald et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr75">2021</xref>); Le Maistre and Weston (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">1996</xref>); Magliaro and Shambaugh (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr70">2006</xref>); Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr122">2004</xref>); Williams et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr127">2011</xref>); Wilson and Schwier (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr129">2009</xref>); Yanchar et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr136">2010</xref>); Yusop and Correia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr141">2014</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Professional development and professional identity</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bond et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2021</xref>); Campbell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">2009</xref>); Cheong et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">2006</xref>); Heggart and Dickson-Deane (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2022</xref>); Magruder et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71">2019</xref>); Muljana and Luo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr81">2023</xref>); Slagter van Tryon et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr103">2018</xref>); Tracey et al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr119">2014</xref>); Yanchar and Hawkley (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr134">2014</xref>); Yanchar and Hawkley (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr135">2015</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Design heuristics</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bond and Dirkin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2020</xref>); Lee and Reigeluth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">2009</xref>); Maddrell (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr69">2014</xref>); Petherbridge et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr86">2022</xref>); Rogers and Gronseth (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr94">2021</xref>); Roytek (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr95">2010</xref>); Sugar and Luterbach (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr112">2016</xref>); Sugar and Moore (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr113">2015</xref>); York and Ertmer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr139">2011</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr140">2016</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Instructional designer and faculty relationships</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Campbell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr16">2006</xref>); Morgan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">2019</xref>); Mose (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77">2022</xref>); Mueller et al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr78">2022a</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr79">2022b</xref>); Pan et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">2003</xref>); Richardson et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91">2019</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Instructional design competencies</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>Ashbaugh (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2013</xref>); Dicks and Ives (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">2008</xref>); Iqdami and Branch (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">2016</xref>); Klein and Kelly (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55">2018</xref>); Kline et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">2020</xref>); Nworie (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr82">2022</xref>); Park and Luo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr84">2017</xref>); Ritzhaupt and Kumar (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr92">2015</xref>); Sugar et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr110">2011</xref>); Sugar et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr111">2012</xref>); Surry and Robinson (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr114">2001</xref>); Waight et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr123">2023</xref>); Wang et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr125">2021</xref>); Williams van Rooij (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr128">2013</xref>); Yalcin et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr133">2021</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Problem-solving</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Perez et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88">1995</xref>); Sancar-Tokmak and Dogusoy (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr96">2023</xref>); Verstegen et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr121">2008</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Instructional design teams</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>McDonald et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr75">2021</xref>); Rausch et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr90">2022</xref>); Tracey et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr117">2022</xref>)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Change management and organizational development</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Brill et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr12">2006</xref>); Campbell et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">2005</xref>); Drysdale (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr27">2021</xref>); Schwier et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97">2004</xref>)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Several studies delved into the instructional designers'design process, illustrating how they approached their work and outlining the challenges they faced. These challenges included bridging the gap between theory and practice, adapting to technological changes, and applying appropriate strategies to projects (Kinuthia, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref47">54</reflink>]; Matthews et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref48">74</reflink>]; Matthews & Yanchar, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref49">73</reflink>]; Singleton et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref50">102</reflink>]; Yilmaz & Cagitay, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref51">137</reflink>]).</p> <p>Professional development emerged as a key concern for instructional designers. One study explored attitudes and practices related to lifelong learning, suggesting that it should be an integral part of the professional identity for instructional designers to adapt to dynamic technological changes (Exter & Ashby, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref52">30</reflink>]). Additionally, instructional designers contemplated their changing roles and responsibilities during the transition from offline to online settings (Xie & Rice, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref53">130</reflink>]).</p> <p>The preparedness of prospective instructional designers was another theme that emerged from this review. Lowell and Ashby ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref54">68</reflink>]) underscored the importance of developing collaboration and feedback skills for students majoring in learning design and development to prepare for future careers. Genç and Tinmaz ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref55">36</reflink>]) provided insights into how novice instructional designers viewed their role in the future and how individual experiences shaped their understanding of the field.</p> <p>Instructional designers actively employed design judgment in their professional practices, involving making informed decisions about various aspects of the instructional design process. One aspect involved the comparison of decision-making processes between novice and expert instructional designers, particularly considering how factors such as multimedia production competencies and workplace pressure influenced their design choices (Hoard et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref56">42</reflink>]). Instructional designers also critically evaluated the usefulness of instructional methods, considering the influences of content level, designer's gender, values, learning domain, learning outcome, and their interaction (Honebein & Honebein, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref57">47</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref58">48</reflink>]). In addition to instructional methods, instructional tools were also examined by instructional designers. It is noteworthy that practicing instructional designers did not limit certain tools to particular design activities; rather, they had a preference for designerly tools—those that supported their work without guiding it (Lachheb & Boling, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref59">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>One study extended the scope of instructional designers and explored how a design team that included project leads, team leaders, and instructional designers made decisions when using Merrill's First Principles of Instruction (Klein & Mendenhall, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref60">56</reflink>]). The study revealed that time, designer experience, training, and team meetings all affected their use and application of the principles. Attention was also directed towards instructional design students regarding their decision-making process during design practices. The relationship between their ability to tolerate work with uncertainty and confidence to conjecture was examined (Stefaniak et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref61">106</reflink>]).</p> <p>Design heuristics were typically referred to as guiding principles, rules of thumb, or practical strategies used by instructional designers to inform their decision-making process. For example, Roytek ([<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref62">95</reflink>]) identified 47 methodologies within four categories of design model, instructional design team member roles, instructional design processes, and instructional design tools, aimed at increasing the efficiency of the instructional design processes. Another Delphi study identified 61 instructional design heuristics that aligned with IBSTPI competencies (York & Ertmer, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref63">139</reflink>]). York and Ertmer ([<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref64">140</reflink>]) further analyzed the 61 instructional design heuristics, indicating that 32 of them were related to the ADDIE process, and the remaining 29 principles were linked to communication, client, and project management.</p> <p>The relationship between instructional designers and faculty within higher education settings is characterized by a complex interplay of collaboration, negotiation, and mutual learning. Instructional designers play a part in far more than applying a process to a design project, during collaboration also serve as project managers, faculty developers, researchers, and evaluators (Kumar & Ritzhaupt, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref65">60</reflink>]). Instructional designers play a crucial role in bridging gaps between pedagogy and the integration of technology-enhanced learning, employing technology in ways that support faculty and aim to reduce their burden of work (Ritzhaupt & Kumar, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref66">92</reflink>]; Schwier et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref67">98</reflink>]). The ID-faculty partnership is grounded in the shared goal of enhancing learning experiences and outcomes, requiring trust, respect, reciprocity, and open dialogue (Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref68">16</reflink>]; Ziegenfuss & Lawler, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref69">142</reflink>]). Success in these collaborations is often contingent upon the early establishment of rapport, an understanding and respect for each other's expertise, and the presence of administrative support and faculty buy-in (Richardson, et al., [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref70">91</reflink>]). Effective collaboration between IDs and faculty involves navigating both opportunities for innovation and barriers to change (Morgan, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref71">76</reflink>]). Key to overcoming these challenges is the ability to build and maintain relationships with meaningful conversation that each party to express concerns, disagree, find resolution, and develop solutions fit for their context (Campbell, et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref72">16</reflink>]; Schwier et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref73">98</reflink>]).</p> <p>These relationships may be initiated in many ways, depending on the institution's model for design collaboration. This may include working together by assignment, where an instructional designer is paired with faculty for an identified development project, as facilitators, or as consultants (Chen & Carliner, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref74">20</reflink>]; Xu & Morris, [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref75">132</reflink>]). As facilitators and consultants, instructional designers may serve in customer-service style role, offering advice on a just-in-time needed basis (Ritzhaupt & Kumar, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref76">92</reflink>]) or as quality assurance, reviewing projects with a pre-defined set of quality standards (Chao et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref77">19</reflink>]; Knowles & Kalata, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref78">58</reflink>]). When successful, these course development projects often lead to long-term relationships. Once formed, partnerships often persist to support the maintenance and future iterations of a course, and support engagement for further projects (Chao et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref79">19</reflink>]; Knowles & Kalata, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref80">58</reflink>]; Ziegenfuss & Lawler, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref81">142</reflink>]).</p> <p>Professional development has been perceived by instructional designers as important, yet demanding at times. Research has indicated that the lack of time and resources, along with insufficient support from organizations, prevented instructional designers from engaging in professional development (Cheong et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref82">21</reflink>]; Magruder et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref83">71</reflink>]). Magruder et al. ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref84">71</reflink>]) also pointed out that faculty misunderstandings of instructional design roles, being understaffed, and miscellaneous tasks outside of collaboration/consultation roles partly contributed to barriers for IDs to focus on their career development.</p> <p>In terms of the nature of professional development, Yanchar and Hawkley ([<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref85">134</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref86">135</reflink>]) explored how instructional designers engage in learning within their dynamic work environments. They found the essence of informal and implicit learning that instructional designers often experienced as they not only developed skills to use already-existing technology but also constantly learned to use them in unique and novel ways. It was further emphasized that however informal learning contributed to either the survival or vulnerability of instructional designers, it was inevitable for them to engage in informal learning as they dedicated their effort to solving problems relying on their ways while seeking balance between quality and feasibility.</p> <p>Studies have also investigated ways to prepare future instructional designers (Heggart & Dickson-Deane, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref87">41</reflink>]; Muljana & Luo, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref88">81</reflink>]; Slagter van Tryon et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref89">103</reflink>]; Tracey et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref90">119</reflink>]). For example, Slagter van Tryon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref91">103</reflink>]) suggested a model for cross-institution faculty collaboration to come up with course designs that would better serve the professional development of instructional design students in graduate schools. Others claimed the importance of conducting need assessments in developing a course for future instructional designers to reflect their competing demands (Heggart & Dickson-Deane, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref92">41</reflink>]; Muljana & Luo, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref93">81</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, there was a line of research focusing on the different identities of instructional designers (Bond et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref94">10</reflink>]; Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref95">17</reflink>]; Magruder et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref96">71</reflink>]). In their survey study, Magruder et al. ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref97">71</reflink>]) discovered that instructional designers in higher education perceived themselves as course content creators as they worked with faculty most of the time. Others described their role as experts in teaching and learning, supporting faculty to develop meaningful online classes. Campbell et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref98">17</reflink>]) proposed a multivariate agentic model to discuss the core values embodied in the practices of instructional designers. They viewed instructional design as a moral practice that advocates social access, equity, inclusion, personal agency, and critical action. They discussed interpersonal, professional, institutional, and social agency in addition to the interactions among these four types of agencies in micro, macro, and meso-levels. Furthermore, Bond et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref99">10</reflink>]) explored gender differences in instructional design roles and practices in light of elements of the glass escalator phenomenon.</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-11">Discussion</hd> <p>Researching instructional designers'practices holds significant implications for the broader field of learning, design, and technology. Gaining insights into the decision-making processes and strategies employed by instructional designers contributes to the refinement and evolution of instructional design theories and models (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref100">8</reflink>]; Giacumo & Breman, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref101">37</reflink>]; Stefaniak et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref102">106</reflink>]). This research allows for a more nuanced understanding of how instructional designers navigate the complexities of designing effective learning experiences, leading to the enhancement of existing frameworks and the development of more tailored and adaptive approaches to instructional design (Gray et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref103">38</reflink>]; Hoard et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref104">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Understanding instructional designers'practices is necessary for the advancement of professional development opportunities and programs in the field of learning, design, and technology. By identifying the key skills, competencies, and knowledge areas that contribute to effective instructional design, instructional design programs can better equip aspiring instructional designers with the tools they need for success (Roytek, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref105">95</reflink>]; Yalcin et al., [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref106">133</reflink>]; York & Ertmer, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref107">140</reflink>]). This research can inform the creation of targeted training modules, workshops, and mentorship programs, ensuring that instructional designers are well-prepared to meet the evolving demands of the field (Muljana & Luo, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref108">81</reflink>]; Stefaniak, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref109">104</reflink>]; Yanchar & Hawkley, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref110">134</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research on instructional designers'practices has the potential to influence the design and implementation of educational technologies (Pollard & Kumar, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref111">89</reflink>]; Tracey & Hutchinson, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref112">118</reflink>]; York & Ertmer, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref113">140</reflink>]). As instructional designers increasingly integrate technology into their work, understanding how they navigate and incorporate emerging tools can inform the development of more user-friendly and effective educational technologies (Lachheb & Boling, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref114">61</reflink>]). This research contributes to the alignment of technological innovations with the needs of instructional designers.</p> <p>Understanding the challenges faced by instructional designers, as well as the strategies they employ to overcome these challenges, can inform decisions related to curriculum development, resource allocation, and professional recognition within educational institutions and organizations (Bond et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref115">10</reflink>]; Heggart & Dickson-Deane, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref116">41</reflink>]; Sugar & Luterbach, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref117">112</reflink>]; Yanchar & Hawkley, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref118">135</reflink>]). By acknowledging the role and expertise of instructional designers, institutions can create environments that foster learning, collaboration, and continuous improvement in the design and delivery of educational experiences (Ertmer & Stepich, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref119">29</reflink>]; Stefaniak & Hwang, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref120">108</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-12">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>Our search criteria limited our study to empirical studies that were published in English language journals. These inclusion criteria left out several conceptual pieces and literature reviews offering best practices for instructional design practice. Additionally, it is important to note that the requirement for all studies to have been published in English may have limited the opportunity to gain a full view of the research on instructional designers on a global scale. Future research examining instructional design practices in different countries can help inform the field's understanding of how instructional designers work in different countries and the implications that have on their design practices.</p> <p>We did not include the term "instructional technologist" because our review focused on instructional designers who are primarily responsible for creating and designing learning experiences rather than on instructional technologists who emphasize the implementation of educational technologies. We recognize that this could be perceived as a limitation as it excludes perspectives of technological applications in K-12 settings. It is also important to note that many studies did not address learning experience design. We attribute this to its relative newness as a term in the field which may further limit insights into emerging approaches to instructional design work. As more research is done addressing learning experience design, we anticipate that there will be additional studies conducted on individuals who identify as learning experience designers.</p> <p>The roles and functions of instructional designers will continue to evolve. After institutions had to pivot to emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for support integrating technology and developing online courses is higher than ever (Edouard, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref121">28</reflink>]). Meeting this increased demand requires institutions to consider models outside of traditional offerings such as generalized workshops, generic resources, or just-in-time helpdesk support. Faculty need and deserve training in technology integration and online transformation that is appropriate for their specific subject and meets the needs of their unique learners, and offering this level of support requires dedicated time to engage in inquiry and dialogue (Campbell, et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref122">16</reflink>]; Schwier et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref123">98</reflink>]). Past research has noted that long-term relationships support the effectiveness of a design partnership (Ziegenfuss & Lawler, [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref124">142</reflink>]), but as the demand for online transformation increases, both faculty and instructional designers face the challenge of juggling multiple projects and responsibilities (Chen and Carliner, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref125">20</reflink>]; Xu & Morris, [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref126">132</reflink>]).</p> <p>Employing a collaboration model that builds faculty confidence and self-efficacy for their ability to complete design, development, implementation, and maintenance tasks independently after the collaboration period serves all stakeholders involved. Utilizing a model of coaching incorporates the multiple facets of successful relationships that have been documented in existing literature, like the importance of building and maintaining relationships with trust and respect, and identifying goals and paths to reach them. In addition, coaching emphasizes a deeper exploration of irrational beliefs or other derailing behaviors that may act as roadblocks between the coachee and their goal (Passmore, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref127">85</reflink>]; Stefaniak & Gilstrap, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref128">107</reflink>]). Coaching also seeks to uncover underlying motivations and highlight consequences of behaviors, supporting the instructional designer's ability to measure readiness for change and identify the changes that could be easy wins, as well as more difficult changes that could have a significant impact (Passmore, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref129">85</reflink>]; Stefaniak & Gilstrap, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref130">107</reflink>]). Importantly, Passmore's Integrative Coaching Model ([<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref131">85</reflink>]) highlights the system where all activities occur. In the context of instructional designers in higher education, this system outlines the culture, resources, and support available to scaffold or undermine design efforts.</p> <p>As instructional designers make great strides in integrating emerging technologies into daily practices, they should take into consideration ethical concerns that may come along. ChatGPT, as an example, has been employed by instructional designers to generate ideas, provide assessment and feedback, and develop adaptive learning experiences for learners (reference needed, if any). A study by Khlaif et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref132">53</reflink>]) noted issues such as biased responses, false or misleading information, concerns about authorship, and copyright implications when ChatGPT is employed in scientific research. Similar suggestions came from Hodges and Kirschner ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref133">43</reflink>]) when they advocated that learners should be educated about the ethical use of AI, including academic integrity, limitations of AI, and the significance of original work. To address these issues, a framework that incorporates guidance addressing fairness, accountability, transparency, bias, autonomy, agency, and inclusion should be applied at the intersection of AI and the learning sciences for ethical considerations (Holmes et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref134">44</reflink>]). It is therefore suggested that future studies should work on developing more comprehensive ethical guidelines specially tailored to the use of AI in educational settings. The guidelines should address such issues as data privacy, intellectual property implications, fairness, accountability, and the responsible use of AI technologies. With a more comprehensive list of guidelines, scholars can contribute to the responsible and ethical integration of AI technologies in educational contexts and positively impact learning experiences for all students while upholding ethical standards and principles.</p> <p>As more research continues to be conducted that examines the design practices of instructional designers, the results will be informative to the preparation of future instructional designers. Today, many organizations rely on instructional designer competencies curated by professional organizations such as IBSTPI (e.g., Koszalka et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref135">59</reflink>]) to guide the creation of job descriptions for various instructional design and training functions. Graduate programs rely on similar competencies to inform the scaffolding of their curricular offerings. As more studies explore how instructional designers are employing various design competencies in different contexts, there is an opportunity for competencies guiding our field to be updated to not only keep up with the technological advances and emerging trends but also anticipate the needs of the future.</p> <p>Moreover, the globalization of industries and the interconnectedness of economies have given rise to a more diverse and interconnected workforce. As a result, cultural competence, intercultural communication, and collaboration skills have become increasingly crucial competencies. Individuals need to develop a heightened awareness and understanding of diverse perspectives, norms, and communication styles to effectively navigate multicultural work environments. Therefore, updating competencies is not just about staying current with technological trends but also about cultivating the interpersonal and cultural skills necessary to thrive in an evolving field. In essence, a commitment to ongoing learning and the proactive updating of competencies are integral components of professional success and sustainability in the face of evolving industry trends.</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-13">Conclusion</hd> <p>Delving into the intricacies of how instructional designers conceptualize, plan, and implement learning experiences provides invaluable insights for refining pedagogical and design approaches (Boling et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref136">8</reflink>]; McDonald et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref137">75</reflink>]; Yanchar et al., [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref138">136</reflink>]), improving professional development initiatives, guiding technological innovations, and influencing institutional policies. By recognizing the expertise of instructional designers and understanding the dynamic nature of their work, scholars in the field can work to provide the necessary tools and resources to support instructional designers in their professional development.</p> <p>As technology continues to evolve and the recognition for instructional design continues to grow among other industries, ongoing research on instructional designer practices remains essential for ensuring that instructional designers shaping the future of learning and performance are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and support needed to create impactful and meaningful learning experiences for their learning audiences.</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-14">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188049018-15">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-16">Ethical approval</hd> <p>No data was collected for this paper; therefore, the authors did not need to obtain Institutional Review Board approval.</p> <hd id="AN0188049018-17">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0188049018-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allen SA, Gardner JL. Project management competencies in instructional design. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 2021; 24; 2: n2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> An Y. A history of instructional media, instructional design, and theories. International Journal of Technology in Education. 2021; 4; 1: 1-21. 10.46328/ijte.35</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, Airasian PW, Cruikshank KA, Mayer RE, Pintrich PR. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (abridged edition). 2001; Longman</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson MC, Love LM, Haggar FL. Looking beyond the physician educator: The evolving roles of instructional designers in medical education. Medical Science Educator. 2019; 29: 507-513. 10.1007/s40670-019-00720-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Arafah H, Sihes AJB. Competencies for the classroom instructional designer. International Journal of Secondary Education. 2015; 3; 2: 16-20. 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20150302.11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ashbaugh ML. Expert instructional designer voices: Leadership competencies critical to global practice and quality online learning designs. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 2013; 14; 2: 97-118. 10.1007/s11528-013-0694-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ashby I, Exter M. Designing for interdisciplinarity in higher education: Considerations for instructional designers. TechTrends. 2019; 63; 2: 202-208. 10.1007/s11528-018-0352-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Boling E, Alangari H, Hajdu IM, Guo M, Gyabak K, Khlaif Z, Kizilboga R, Tomita K, Alsaif A, Lachheb A, Bae H, ERgulec F, Zhu M, Basdogan M, Buggs C, Sari A, Techawitthayachinda RI. Core judgments of instructional designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2017; 30; 3: 199-219. 10.1002/piq.21250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bond J, Dirkin K. What models are instructional designers using today?. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design. 2020. 10.51869/92jbkd</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bond J, Dirkin K, Tyler AJ, Lassitter S. Ladders and escalators: Examining advancement obstacles for women in instructional design. Journal of Applied Instructional Design. 2021. 10.51869/102/jb</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bransford J, Brown A, Cocking R, Center ERI. How people learning: Brain, mind, experience, and school. 20002; National Academy Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brill JM, Bishop MJ, Walker AE. The competencies and characteristics required of an effective project manager: A web-based Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2006; 54; 2: 115-140. 10.1007/s11423-006-8251-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown A. Building blocks for information architects: Teaching digital media production within an instructional design program. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia. 2004; 13; 3: 265-281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown AH, Green TD. Beyond teaching instructional design models: Exploring the design process to advance professional development and expertise. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2018; 30; 3: 176-186. 10.1007/s12528-017-9164-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell K, Schwier RA, Kenny RF. Agency of the instructional designer: Moral coherence and transformative social practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2005; 21; 2: 242-262. 10.14742/ajet.1337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell K, Schwier RA, Kenny RF. Conversation as inquiry: A conversation with instructional designers. Journal of Learning Design. 2006; 1; 3: 1-18. 10.5204/jld.v1i3.21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell K, Schwier RA, Kenny RF. The Critical, relational practice of instructional design in higher education: An emerging model of change agency. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2009; 57; 5: 645-663. 10.1007/s11423-007-9061-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caskurlu S, Richardson JC, Alamri HA, Chartier K, Farmer T, Janakiraman S, Strait M, Yang M. Cognitive load and online course quality: Insights from instructional designers in a higher education context. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2021; 52; 2: 584-605. 10.1111/bjet.13043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chao IT, Saj T, Hamilton D. Using collaborative course development to achieve online course quality standards. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 2010; 11; 3: 106-126. 10.19173/irrodl.v11i3.912</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen Y, Carliner S. A special SME: An integrative literature review of the relationship between instructional designers and faculty in the design of online courses for higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2020; 33; 4: 471-495. 10.1002/piq.21339</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheong E, Wettasinghe MC, Murphy J. Professional development of instructional designers: A proposed framework based on a Singapore study. International Journal on E-Learning. 2006; 5; 2: 197-219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chongwony L, Gardner JL, Tope A. Instructional design leadership and management competencies: Job description analysis. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 2020; 23; 1: 1-18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cox S, Osguthorpe RT. How do instructional design professionals spend their time?. TechTrends. 2003; 47; 3: 45-47. 10.1007/bf02763476</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dabbagh N, English M. Using student self-ratings to assess the alignment of instructional design competencies and courses in a graduate program. TechTrends. 2015; 59: 22-31. 10.1007/s11528-015-0868-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dicks D, Ives C. Instructional designers at work: A study of how designers design. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 2008. 10.21432/t28w26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dooley KE, Lindner JR, Telg RW, Irani T, Moore L, Lundy L. Roadmap to measuring distance education instructional design competencies. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 2007; 8; 2: 151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drysdale J. The story is in the structure: A multi-case study of instructional design teams. Online Learning. 2021; 25; 3: 57-80. 10.24059/olj.v25i3.2877</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edouard G. Why and how colleges and universities should leverage technology mentoring to maximize faculty's technology integration efforts. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning. 2023; 67; 1: 124-132. 10.1007/s11528-022-00769-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ertmer PA, Stepich DA. Instructional design expertise: How will we know it when we see it?. Educational Technology. 2005; 45; 6: 38-43</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> Fadde PJ. Instructional design for advanced learners: Training recognition skills to hasten expertise. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2009; 57; 3: 359-376. 10.1007/s11423-007-9046-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fortney KS, Yamagata-Lynch LC. How instructional designers solve workplace problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2013; 25; 4: 91-109. 10.1002/piq.21130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Francis DE, Murphy E. Instructional designers' conceptualisations of learning objects. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2008; 24; 5: 475-486. 10.14742/ajet.1186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gardner, J. L, & Allen, S. A. (2021). Project management competencies in instructional design. Project Management, 24(2).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ge X, Chen C-H, Davis KA. Scaffolding novice instructional designers' problem-solving processes using question prompts in a web-based learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 2005; 33; 2: 219-248. 10.2190/5f6j-hhvf-2u2b-8t3g</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Genç Z, Tinmaz H. The perception on fundamentals of online courses: A case on prospective instructional designers. European Journal of Contemporary Education. 2016; 15; 1: 163-172. 10.13187/ejced.2016.15.163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giacumo LA, Breman J. Trends and implications of models, frameworks, and approaches used by instructional designers in workplace learning and performance improvement. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2021; 34; 2: 131-170. 10.1002/piq.21349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray CM, Dagli C, Demiral UM, Ergulec F, Tan V, Altuwaijri AA, Gyabak K, Hilligoss M, Kizilboga R, Tomita K, Boling E. Judgment and instructional design: How ID practitioners work in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2015; 28; 3: 25-49. 10.1002/piq.21198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hardré PL, Ge X, Thomas MK. Toward a model of development for instructional design expertise. Educational Technology. 2005; 45; 1: 53-57</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison M, DeVries I. Open educational practices advocacy: The instructional designer experience. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 2019. 10.21432/cjlt27881</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heggart K, Dickson-Deane C. What should learning designers learn?. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2022; 34; 2: 281-296. 10.1007/s12528-021-09286-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoard B, Stefaniak J, Baaki J, Draper D. The influence of multimedia development knowledge and workplace pressures on the design decisions of the instructional designer. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2019; 67: 1479-1505. 10.1007/s11423-019-09687-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hodges CB, Kirschner PA. Innovation of instructional design and assessment in the age of generative artificial intelligence. TechTrends. 2024; 68; 1: 195-199. 10.1007/s11528-023-00926-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmes W, Porayska-Pomsta K, Holstein K, Sutherland E, Baker T, Shum SB, Santos OC, Rodrigo MT, Cukurova M, Bittencourt II, Koedinger KR. Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community-wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 2022; 30: 504-526. 10.1007/s40593-021-00239-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honebein PC. The influence of values and rich conditions on designers' judgments about useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2017; 65; 2: 341-357. 10.1007/s11423-016-9485-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honebein PC. Exploring the galaxy question: The influence of situation and first principles on designers' judgments about useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2019; 67; 3: 665-689. 10.1007/s11423-019-09660-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honebein PC, Honebein CH. The influence of cognitive domain content levels and gender on designer judgments regarding useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2014; 62; 1: 53-69. 10.1007/s11423-013-9322-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Honebein PC, Honebein CH. Effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal: Pick any two? The influence of learning domains and learning outcomes on designer judgments of useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2015; 63; 6: 937-955. 10.1007/s11423-015-9396-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchinson A, Tracey MW. Design ideas, reflection, and professional identity: How graduate students explore the idea generation process. Instructional Science. 2015; 43: 527-544. 10.1007/s11251-015-9354-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iqdami MN, Branch RM. Examining multimedia competencies for educational technologists in higher education. TechTrends. 2016; 60: 365-373. 10.1007/s11528-016-0064-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jin S-H, Boling E. Instructional designer's intentions and learners' perceptions of the instructional functions of visuals in an e-learning context. Journal of Visual Literacy. 2010; 29; 2: 143-166. 10.1080/23796529.2010.11674678</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenny, R, Zhang, Z, Schwier, R, & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l'apprentissage et de la technologie, 31(1).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khlaif ZN, Mousa A, Hattab MK, Itmazi J, Hassan AA, Sanmugam M, Ayyoub A. The potential and concerns of using AI in scientific research: ChatGPT performance evaluation. JMIR Medical Education. 2023; 9: e47049. 10.2196/47049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinuthia W. Reported challenges for socio-cultural curricula in instructional design. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal. 2012; 6; 2: 87-99. 10.1108/17504971211236281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein JD, Kelly WQ. Competencies for instructional designers: A view from employers. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2018; 31; 3: 225-247. 10.1002/piq.21257</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein JD, Mendenhall A. Applying the first principles of instruction in a short-term, high volume, rapid production of online professional development modules. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2018; 30; 1: 93-110. 10.1007/s12528-017-9166-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline J, Kumar S, Ritzhaupt AD. Project management competencies of educational technology professionals in higher education. Journal of Applied Instructional Design. 2020. 10.51869/93jkskadr</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knowles E, Kalata K. A model for enhancing online course development. Innovate: Journal of Online Education. 2008; 4; 2: 3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koszalka TA, Russ-Eft DF, Reiser R. Instructional designer competencies: The standards. 20134; Information Age Publishing</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar S, Ritzhaupt A. What do instructional designers in higher education really do?. In International Journal on E-Learning. 2017; 16; 4: 371-393</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> Larson MB, Lockee BB. Instructional design practice: Career environments, job roles, and a climate of change. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2004; 17; 1: 22-40. 10.1111/j.1937-8327.2004.tb00300.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larson MB, Lockee BB. Preparing instructional designers for different career environments: A case study. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2009; 57: 1-24. 10.1007/s11423-006-9031-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Le Maistre C. What is an expert instructional designer? Evidence of expert performance during formative evaluation. Educational Technology Research and Development. 1998; 46; 3: 21-36. 10.1007/bf02299759</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Le Maistre K, Weston C. The priorities established among data sources when instructional designers revise written materials. Educational Technology Research and Development. 1996; 44; 1: 61-70. 10.1007/bf02300326</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee J-Y, Reigeluth CM. Heuristic task analysis on e-learning course development: A formative research study. Asia Pacific Education Review. 2009; 10; 2: 169-181. 10.1007/s12564-009-9016-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liberati A. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009; 151; 4: 65-94. 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lowell VL, Ashby IV. Supporting the development of collaboration and feedback skills in instructional designers. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2018; 30; 1: 72-92. 10.1007/s12528-018-9170-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maddrell J. Service-learning instructional design considerations. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2014; 26; 3: 213-226. 10.1007/s12528-014-9085-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magliaro SG, Shambaugh N. Student models of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2006; 54; 1: 83-106. 10.1007/s11423-006-6498-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magruder O, Arnold DA, Moore S, Edwards M. What is an ID? A survey study. Online Learning. 2019; 23; 3: 137-160. 10.24059/olj.v23i3.1546</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin F, Chen Y, Oyarzun B, Lee M. Learning and development roles and competency domains in higher education: A content analysis of job announcements. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2022; 34; 2: 297-320. 10.1007/s12528-021-09290-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matthews MT, Yanchar SC. Instructional designers' perspectives on learners' responsibility for learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2018; 30; 1: 111-124. 10.1007/s12528-018-9175-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matthews MT, Williams GS, Yanchar SC, McDonald JK. Empathy in distance learning design practice. TechTrends. 2017; 61; 5: 486-493. 10.1007/s11528-017-0212-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald JK, Jackson BD, Hunter MB. Understanding distinctions of worth in the practices of instructional design teams. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2021; 69; 3: 1641-1663. 10.1007/s11423-021-09995-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan T. Instructional designers and open education practices: Negotiating the gap between intentional and operational agency. Open Praxis. 2019; 11; 4: 369-380. 10.5944/openpraxis.11.4.1011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mose PO. Instructional design in a time of crisis: Experiences of instructional designers and faculty as "first responders". Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2022; 51; 1: 545-567. 10.1177/00472395221105901</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mueller CM, Richardson J, Watson SL, Watson W. Instructional designers' perceptions & experiences of collaborative conflict with faculty. TechTrends. 2022; 66; 4: 578-589. 10.1007/s11528-022-00694-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mueller CM, Richardson JC, Watson SL, Watson WR. How instructional designers approach conflict with faculty. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design. 2022; 11; 1: 25-41. 10.59668/354.5894</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muljana PS, Luo T. Utilizing learning analytics in course design: Voices from instructional designers in higher education. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2021; 33; 1: 206-234. 10.1007/s12528-020-09262-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muljana PS, Luo T. Pursuing professional learning by using social media: How do instructional designers apply self-regulated learning?. Research in Learning Technology. 2023. 10.25304/rlt.v31.2934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nworie J. The increasing quest for instructional designers and technologists in higher education and corporate settings. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2022. 10.30935/cedtech/11481</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan C-C, Deets J, Phillips W, Cornell R. Pulling tigers' teeth without getting bitten: Instructional designers and faculty. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 2003; 4; 3: 289-302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park J-Y, Luo H. Refining a competency model for instructional designers in the context of online higher education. International Education Studies. 2017; 10; 9: 87-98. 10.5539/ies.v10n9p87</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Passmore J. An integrative model for executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 2007; 59; 1: 68-78. 10.1037/1065-9293.59.1.68</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petherbridge D, Bartlett M, White J, Chapman D. The disruption to the practice of instructional design during COVID-19. Journal of Applied Instructional Design. 2022; 11; 2: 1-8. 10.51869/112/dpmbjwdc</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perez RS, Emery CD. Designer thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 1995; 8; 3: 80-95. 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1995.tb00688.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perez RS, Johnson JF, Emery CD. Instructional design expertise: A cognitive model of design. Instructional Science. 1995; 23; 5–6: 321-349. 10.1007/BF00896877</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pollard R, Kumar S. Instructional designers in higher education: Roles, challenges, and supports. The Journal of Applied Instructional Design. 2022; 11; 1: 7-25. 10.59668/354.5896</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rausch M, Flood L, Moreno R, Kluge S, Takahashi A. Emergency support for faculty: Adherence to best practices in designing, developing, and implementing virtual training during a pandemic. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 2022; 19; 2: 27-42. 10.53761/1.19.2.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson JC, Ashby I, Alshammari AN, Cheng Z, Johnson BS, Krause TS, Lee D, Randolph AE, Wang H. Faculty and instructional designers on building successful collaborative relationships. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2019; 67; 4: 855-880. 10.1007/s11423-018-9636-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritzhaupt AD, Kumar S. Knowledge and skills needed by instructional designers in higher education. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2015; 28; 3: 51-69. 10.1002/piq.21196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ritzhaupt, A. D, Kumar, S, & Martin, F. (2021). The competencies for instructional designers in higher education. A Practitioner's Guide to Instructional Design in Higher Education. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/-uYhb.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers S, Gronseth SL. Applying UDL to online active learning: Instructional designer perceptions. Journal of Applied Instructional Design. 2021; 10; 1: 7-29. 10.59668/223.3748</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roytek MA. Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2010; 41; 2: 170-180. 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00902.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sancar-Tokmak H, Dogusoy B. Novices' instructional design problem-solving processes: Second life as a problem-based learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments. 2020; 31; 1: 562-575. 10.1080/10494820.2020.1799025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwier RA, Campbell K, Kenny R. Instructional designers' observations about identity, communities of practice and change agency. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2004; 20; 1: 69-100. 10.14742/ajet.1368</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwier RA, Campbell K, Kenny RFKeppell. Instructional designers' perceptions of their agency: Tales of change and community. Instructional design: Case studies in communities of practice. 2007; IGI Global</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: 199-245. 10.1007/s11423-018-09640-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharif A, Gisbert M. The impact of culture on instructional design and quality. International Journal of Instruction. 2015; 8; 1: 143-156. 10.12973/iji.2015.8111a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheehan MD, Johnson RB. Philosophical and methodological beliefs of instructional design faculty and professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2012; 60; 1: 131-153. 10.1007/s11423-011-9220-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singleton K, Evmenova A, Jerome MK, Clark K. Integrating UDL strategies into the online course development process: Instructional designers' perspectives. Online Learning. 2019; 23; 1: 206-235. 10.24059/olj.v23i1.1407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slagter van Tryon PJ, McDonald J, Hirumi A. Preparing the next generation of instructional designers: A cross-institution faculty collaboration. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2018; 30; 1: 125-153. 10.1007/s12528-018-9167-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefaniak JReiser RA, Carr-Chellman AA, Dempsey JV. Avenues to support the professional development of instructional designers. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. 2025; Routledge</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefaniak J, Baaki J, Hoard B, Stapleton L. The influence of perceived constraints during needs assessment on design conjecture. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2018; 30: 55-71. 10.1007/s12528-018-9173-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefaniak J, Baaki J, Stapleton L. An exploration of conjecture strategies used by instructional design students to support design decision-making. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2022; 70; 2: 585-613. 10.1007/s11423-022-10092-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefaniak J, Gilstrap S. Enacting change: Examining the instructional designer's role in higher education through a coaching lens. Journal of Applied Instructional Design. 2024. 10.59668/723.13041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stefaniak JE, Hwang H. A systematic review of how expertise is cultivated in instructional design coursework. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2021; 69; 6: 3331-3366. 10.1007/s11423-021-10064-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stepich DA, Ertmer PA, Lane MM. Problem-solving in a case-based course: Strategies for facilitating coached expertise. Educational Technology Research & Development. 2001; 49; 3: 53-67. 10.1007/BF02504915</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugar W, Brown A, Daniels L, Hoard B. Instructional design and technology professionals in higher education: Multimedia production knowledge and skills identified from a Delphi study. Journal of Applied Instructional Design. 2011; 1; 2: 30-46</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugar W, Hoard B, Brown A, Daniels L. Identifying multimedia production competencies and skills of instructional design and technology professionals: An analysis of recent job postings. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2012; 40; 3: 227-249. 10.2190/et.40.3.b</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugar WA, Luterbach KJ. Using critical incidents of instructional design and multimedia production activities to investigate instructional designers' current practices and roles. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2016; 64: 285-312. 10.1007/s11423-015-9414-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugar W, Moore RL. Documenting current instructional design practices. Towards a typology of instructional design activities, roles, and collaborations. Journal of Applied Instructional Design. 2015; 5; 1: 51-59</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Surry DW, Robinson MA. A taxonomy of instructional technology service positions in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2001; 38; 3: 231-238. 10.1080/14703290110051406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swan RH, Plummer KJ, West RE. Toward functional expertise through formal education: Identifying an opportunity for higher education. Educational Technology Research & Development. 2020; 68; 5: 2551-2568. 10.1007/s11423-020-09778-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson-Sellers I, Calandra B. Ask the instructional designers: A cursory glance at practice in the workplace. Performance Improvement. 2012; 51; 7: 21-27. 10.1002/pfi.21283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tracey MW, Baaki J, Budhrani K, Shah S. "Behind the curtain": Exploring how instructional design teams function to complete design and development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2022; 32; 5: 2853-2871. 10.1007/s10798-021-09715-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tracey MW, Hutchinson A. Reflection and professional identity development in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2018; 28: 263-285. 10.1007/s10798-016-9380-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tracey MW, Hutchinson A, Grzebyk TQ. Instructional designers as reflective practitioners: Developing professional identity through reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2014; 62; 3: 315-334. 10.1007/s11423-014-9334-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Merrienboer JJG, Dolmans DHJMCleland J, Durning S. Research on instructional design in the health sciences: From taxonomies of learning to whole-task models. Researching medical education. 2015; Wiley: 193-206. 10.1002/9781118838983.ch17</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verstegen D, Barnard Y, Pilot A. Instructional design by novice designers: Two empirical studies. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 2008; 19; 2: 351-383. 10.1007/s11251-005-3346-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Visscher-Voerman I, Gustafson KL. Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2004; 52; 2: 69-89. 10.1007/BF02504840</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waight CL, Edwards MT, Waight JE. The learning experience designer skillset: Employer expectations. Advances in Developing Human Resources. 2023; 25; 4: 225-246. 10.1177/15234223231193319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wakefield, J, Warren, S, & Mills, L. (2012). Traits, skills, & competencies aligned with workplace demands: What today's instructional designers need to master. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 3126–3132). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang X, Chen Y, Ritzhaupt AD, Martin F. Examining competencies for the instructional design professional: An exploratory job announcement analysis. International Journal of Training and Development. 2021; 25; 2: 95-123. 10.1111/ijtd.12209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wedman J, Tessmer M. Instructional designers decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 1993; 6; 2: 43-57. 10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00583.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams DD, South JB, Yanchar SC, Wilson BG, Allen S. How do instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2011; 59; 6: 885-907. 10.1007/s11423-011-9211-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams van Rooij S. The career path to instructional design project management: An expert perspective from the US Professional Services Sector. International Journal of Training and Development. 2013; 17; 1: 33-53. 10.1111/j.1468-2419.2012.00414.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson JR, Schwier RA. Authenticity in the process of learning about instructional design. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 2009. 10.21432/t2ds3s</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie J, Rice MF. Instructional designers' roles in emergency remote teaching during COVID-19. Distance Education. 2021; 42; 1: 70-87. 10.1080/01587919.2020.1869526</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie J, Rice MF, Griswold DE. Instructional designers' shifting thinking about supporting teaching during and post-COVID-19. Distance Education. 2021; 42; 3: 331-351. 10.1080/01587919.2021.1956305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu H, Morris LV. Collaborative course development for online courses. Innovative Higher Education. 2007; 32; 1: 35-47. 10.1007/s10755-006-9033-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yalçin Y, Ursavas ÖF, Klein JD. Measuring instructional design competencies of future professionals: Construct validity of the ibstpi® standards. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2021; 69; 3: 1701-1727. 10.1007/s11423-021-10006-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yanchar SC, Hawkley M. 'There's got to be a better way to do this': A qualitative investigation of informal learning among instructional designers. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2014; 62; 3: 271-291. 10.1007/s11423-014-9336-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yanchar SC, Hawkley MN. Instructional design and professional informal learning: Practices, tensions, and ironies. Educational Technology & Society. 2015; 18; 4: 424-434. 10.1007/s11423-014-9336-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yanchar SC, South JB, Williams DD, Allen S, Wilson BG. Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2010; 58; 1: 39-60. 10.1007/s11423-009-9129-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yilmaz TK, Cagiltay K. Designing and developing game-like learning experience in virtual worlds: Challenges and design decisions of novice instructional designers. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2016; 7; 3: 206-222. 10.30935/cedtech/6173</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> York CS, Ertmer PA. Towards an understanding of instructional design heuristics: An exploratory Delphi study. Educational Technology Research & Development. 2011; 59; 6: 841-863. 10.1007/s11423-011-9209-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> York CS, Ertmer PA. Examining instructional design principles applied by experienced designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 2016; 29; 2: 169-192. 10.1002/piq.21220</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> York, C. S, Ertmer, P. A, & Gedik, N. (2009). Extracting heuristics from expert instructional designers. In Proceedings of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (Vol. 1, pp. 496–510).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yusop FD, Correia A. On becoming a civic-minded instructional designer: An ethnographic study of an instructional design experience. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2014; 45; 5: 782-792. 10.1111/bjet.12112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegenfuss DH, Lawler PA. Collaborative course design: Changing the process, acknowledging the context, and implications for academic development. International Journal for Academic Development. 2008; 13; 3: 151-160. 10.1080/13601440802242309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu M, Basdogan M, Bonk CJ. A case study of the design practices and judgments of novice instructional designers. Contemporary Educational Technology. 2020. 10.30935/cedtech/7829</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jill E. Stefaniak; Eunkyoung Elaine Cha; Fan Yang; Stephanie Gilstrap and Liangke Yang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Jill Stefaniak Jill E. Stefaniak is an associate professor in the Learning, Design, and Technology program at the University of Georgia. Her research interests focus on the professional development of instructional designers, designer decision-making processes, and contextual factors influencing instructional design in situated environments.</p> <p>Eunkyoung Elaine Cha Eunkyoung Elaine Cha is a Ph.D. student in the area of Learning, Design, and Technology at the University of Georgia and her research interests include the psychological state of multilingual college students and their development of cultural and linguistic identities.</p> <p>Fan Yang Fan Yang is a graduate of the Learning, Design, and Technology doctoral program at the University of Georgia and his research interests focus on online learning engagement and instructional design practices that facilitate learners' academic help-seeking behavior.</p> <p>Stephanie Gilstrap Stephanie Gilstrap is a Ph.D. student in the area of Learning, Design, and Technology at the University of Georgia. Her research interests center on instructional designers in higher education and their role as institutional change agents.</p> <p>Liangke Yang Liangke Yang is a Ph.D. student in the area of Learning, Design, and Technology at the University of Georgia and her research interests focus on integrating motivational design into online pedagogy to help instructors improve students' motivation and learning performance.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref138"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1483977
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Comprehensive Review of Instructional Designer Research and Approaches in Learning Design
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jill+E%2E+Stefaniak%22">Jill E. Stefaniak</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9571-9215">0000-0002-9571-9215</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eunkyoung+Elaine+Cha%22">Eunkyoung Elaine Cha</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fan+Yang%22">Fan Yang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stephanie+Gilstrap%22">Stephanie Gilstrap</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Liangke+Yang%22">Liangke Yang</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Technology+Research+and+Development%22"><i>Educational Technology Research and Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 73(4):2057-2079.
– 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: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Design%22">Instructional Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Competencies%22">Teacher Competencies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Collaboration%22">Teacher Collaboration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Development%22">Organizational Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evidence+Based+Practice%22">Evidence Based Practice</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11423-025-10501-1
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1042-1629<br />1556-6501
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The current systematic review study explores instructional designer practices to develop a comprehensive understanding of strategies employed by instructional designers and the expectations of the field. Using the PRISMA protocol, a total of 98 articles were included in the review consisting of 65 qualitative, 15 quantitative, and 18 mixed-methods studies. Instructional designer practices were analyzed through the lens of 10 different topical areas: (1) Attitudes and perceptions, (2) decision-making and design judgments, (3) design strategies, (4) professional development and professional identity, (5) design heuristics, (6) instructional designer and faculty relationships, (7) instructional design competencies, (8) problem-solving, (9) instructional design teams, (10) change management and organizational development. Evidence-based recommendations and suggestions for practices of current and future instructional designers were discussed.
– 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: EJ1483977
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1483977
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11423-025-10501-1
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 2057
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Competencies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Solving
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Collaboration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evidence Based Practice
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Comprehensive Review of Instructional Designer Research and Approaches in Learning Design
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jill E. Stefaniak
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eunkyoung Elaine Cha
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fan Yang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stephanie Gilstrap
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Liangke Yang
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1042-1629
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1556-6501
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 73
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Technology Research and Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1