Embedded Files
Definition of Instructional Design and Technology
To learn more, click here ⬇️
AECT (2023) Definition for Educational Technology:
"Educational technology is the ethical study and application of theory, research, and practices to advance knowledge, improve learning and performance, and empower learners through strategic design, management, implementation, and evaluation of learning experiences and environments using appropriate processes and resources".
Note. Image generated by ChatGPT.
My definition of Instructional Design and Technology (IDT):
The field of study and practice that focuses on the implementation of technologies and development of effective, ethical, and strategic instructional design through incorporation of learning theories to facilitate learning and academic performance (Ma, 2025).
Artifact 1:
Glossary from my team project that demonstrates understanding and interpretation of key terminologies and underlying principles for Instructional Designers and the IDT field.
History of IDT
History of IDT
📚 Learning Theories 📚
📚 Learning Theories 📚
Note. Image generated by Google Gemini.
This theory aligns with my philosophy because it emphasizes the critical role of the learning environment and illustrates how feedback and reinforcement can shape and strengthen desired student behaviors.
Note. Image generated by Google Gemini.
I intend to use cognitivism theory in my philosophy to create learning and teaching experiences that can help manage memory load and reduce cognitive overload through structured design and the integration of technology.
Note. Image generated by Google Gemini.
This perspective resonates with my philosophy of “Engaged Pedagogy” (Hooks, 2010) because it shows learners as active participants that can build their own knowledge through individual or social interactions rather than simply and passively absorbing information.
Note. Image generated by Google Gemini.
By integrating connectivism to my philosophy, I plan to help learners and teachers build meaningful connections, use technology to create collaborative and connected learning environments, and have more access to resources at an affordable cost.
💡 Distinguished Theorists and Contributors 🧠
💡 Distinguished Theorists and Contributors 🧠
Jerome Bruner
Cognitive Constructivism (1966)
Note. Image source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Bruner
Lev Vygotsky
Social Constructivism (1978)
Note. Image source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky
Mary Cover Jones
Behaviorism (1924)
Note. Image source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Cover_Jones
Bärbel Inhelder
Cognitivism (1950s–1970s)
Note. Image source: https://alchetron.com/B%C3%A4rbel-Inhelder
Eleanor Duckworth
Constructivism (1970s–2000s)
Note. Image source: https://www.gse.harvard.edu/hgse100/story/teacher-who-truly-values-learner
Artifact 2:
While it is important to learn foundational learning theories and the contributions they make to the IDT field, it is also necessary to learn about current IDT professionals and their insights. Artifact 2, which details an interview with an IDT professional, shows the connection of theoretical learning within real-scenario practice. The interview report covers IDT competencies and standards, as well as an exploration of current IDT trends.
🌐 IDT Trends 👩🏻💻
🌐 IDT Trends 👩🏻💻
Artificial intelligence (AI)
The most significant trend in the IDT field is AI due to its transformative nature and its key role in shaping the future of education. A clear example is the widespread use of AI tools like ChatGPT.
This is why the IDT field must adapt and develop strategies that effectively support students by taking advantage of AI tools along with addressing the associated ethical concerns of AI.
Online Education
Online Education is another significant IDT trend in higher education. There is much call for it currently due to the interplay of AI and Online Instruction (A. Taylor, personal communication, October 17, 2025).
The increasing demand for online and hybrid instruction, driven by technology expanding capabilities, is encouraging instructional designers to help faculty adopt more design-minded and innovative approaches to teaching.
Artifact 3:
The Educational Technology Philosophy paper serves as the culminating experience of the ETEC 5000 course: Foundations of Instructional Design and Technology. Working on Artifact 3 allowed me to explore and clarify my own perspective on how people learn, as well as to examine the role of technology in facilitating and enhancing the learning process.
Reflection
Reflection
Engaging in this exploration of the definition and history of IDT, as well as crafting my own definition of it helped me deepen my understanding of how the field has evolved.
Designing the timeline gave me the opportunity to put on my Instructional Designer hat. I was particularly interested in the historical context of World War II, which showed how necessity led to innovation.
It was also interesting to learn that, in addition to the foundational learning theories, there are also new and emerging learning theories that instructional designers must consider in order to stay current—not only with technological advancements, but also with evolving learning approaches.
References
References
Allen, M. (2025). The Successive Approximation Model (SAM). In R. A. Reiser, A. A. Carr-Chellman, & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (5th ed., pp. 67-81). New York: Routledge.
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for teaching, learning, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (n.d.). Home. https://www.aect.org/home
Baek, E. O., & Wilson, R. V. (2024). An inquiry into the use of generative AI and its implications in education: Boon or bane. International Journal of Adult Education andTechnology, 15(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAET.349233
Boettcher, J. V. & Conrad, R.M. (2016). The online teaching survival guide (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass A Wiley Brand.
Christensen, T. K. (2008). The role of theory in instructional design: Some views of an ID practitioner. Performance Improvement, 47(4), 25-32.
Driscoll, M. P., & Burner, K. J. (2025). Psychological Foundations of Instructional Design. In R. A. Reiser, A. A. Carr-Chellman, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (5th ed., pp. 85-99). New York: Routledge.
Dousay, T. A., Stefaniak, J. E., & Branch, R. M. (2025). Characteristics and Evolution of Foundational Design Models. In R. A. Reiser, A. A. Carr-Chellman, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (5th ed., pp. 41-53). New York: Routledge.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From an Instructional Design Perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21143
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Hooks, B. (1994). “Embracing Change: Teaching in a Multicultural World.” In Teaching to Transgress (1st ed., pp. 35–44). Routledge.
Hooks, B. (2010). “Engaged Pedagogy.” In Teaching critical thinking: practical wisdom (1st ed., pp. 19–22). Taylor & Francis Group.
Maloy, R. W., Verock, R., Edwards, S., & Trust, T. (2019). Transforming Learning with New Technologies (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
OpenAI. (2023). ChatGPT (Version 5) [Large language model]. https://chatgpt.com/
Oyarzun, B., & Conklin, S. (2021). Learning theories. Design for learning: Principles, processes, and praxis. EdTechBooks. https://edtechbooks.org/id/learning_theories
Prensky, M. (2001). “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants”. In On the Horizon, October 2001, 9 (5). Lincoln: NCB University Press.
Reiser, R. A., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2025). What Field Did You Say You Were In? Defining and Naming Our Field. In R. A. Reiser, A. A. Carr-Chellman, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (5th ed., pp. 3-14). New York: Routledge.
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Kumar, S., & Martin, F. (2021). The Competencies for Instructional Designers in Higher Education. A Practitioner's Guide to I Instructional Design in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.59668/164.4268
Page updated
Report abuse