Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The influence of perceived constraints during needs assessment on design conjecture

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Needs assessment is a fundamental step in the instructional design process where instructional designers must determine the difference between the current state of affairs and a desired state. Throughout the needs assessment process, the instructional designer must feel comfortable making decisions and assumptions based on the information that has been provided for a project. We refer to the ability to make these decisions with limited information as design conjecture. This research aims to explore the relationship between needs assessment and design conjecture by examining the influence of perceived constraints on instructional designers’ ability to make decisions. A total of 47 instructional designers participated in a design session where they were asked to design an intervention for a given scenario while using a think-aloud protocol. We dissected the design sessions to explore how the instructional designers conjectured over needs assessment topics. The results point to recommendations for how we can align and strengthen the relationship between analysis and conjecture in an instructional design context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altschuld, J. W., & Watkins, R. (2014). A primer on needs assessment. More than 40 years of research and practice. In J. W. Altschuld & R. Watkins (Eds.), Needs assessment: Trends and a view toward the future. New directions for Evaluation 144 (pp. 5–18). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altschuld, J. W., & Witkin, B. R. (2000). From needs assessment to action: Transforming needs into solution strategies. San Francisco: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baaki, J., Tracey, M. W., & Hutchinson, A. (2016). Give us something to react to and make it rich: Designers reflecting-in-action with external representations. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 667–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2001). Teaching instructional design: An action learning approach. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(2), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 118–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 77–87). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brethower, D. M. (2006). Systemic issues. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 111–137). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burner, K. J. (2010). From performance analysis to training needs assessment. In K. H. Silber & W. R. Foshay (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace: Instructional design and training delivery (Vol. 1, pp. 144–183). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, A., Shadbolt, N., Rugg, G., & Hedgecock, A. (1990). The efficacy of knowledge elicitation techniques: A comparison across domains and levels of expertise. Knowledge Acquisition, 2(2), 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalziel, J., Conole, G., Wills, S., Walker, S., Bennett, S., Dobozy, E., et al. (2016). The Larnaca declaration on learning design. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(7), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(3), 178–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Cennamo, K. S. (1993). Teaching instructional design: An apprenticeship model. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X. L., Zurek, S., et al. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoard, B., & Stefaniak, J. E. (2016). Knowledge of the human performance technology practitioner relative to ISPI Human Performance Technology Standards and the degree of standard acceptance by the field. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(1), 9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, R. (1983). A holistic planning model. A system approach for improving organizational effectiveness and impact. Performance and Instruction Journal, 22(8), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, R. (1999). Mega planning: Practical tools for organizational success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, R., & Guerra-Lopez, I. (2013). Needs assessment for organizational success. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, R., Oakley-Brown, H., Watkins, R., & Leigh, D. (2003). Strategic planning for success: Aligning people, performance, and payoffs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R. F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1). Retrieved April 12, 2017 from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/147/140.

  • Koszalka, T. A., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Reiser, R. (2013). Instructional designer competencies: The Standards (4th ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. F., Altschuld, J. W., & White, J. L. (2007). Effects of multiple stakeholders in identifying and interpreting perceived needs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, D., Watkins, R., Platt, W. A., & Kaufman, R. (2000). Alternate models of needs assessment: Selecting the right one for your organization. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(1), 87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1997). Analyzing performance problems (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: The Center for Effective Performance, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S., Kalman, H., & Kemp, J. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pershing, J. A. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 5–26). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, T. O. (2004). From felt need to actual need: A multi-method multi-sample approach to needs assessment. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossett, A. (1982). A typology for generating needs assessments. Journal of Instructional Development, 6(1), 28–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossett, A. (1987). Training needs assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (2013). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart (3rd ed.). New York: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. Journal of the learning sciences, 23(1), 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleezer, C. M. (1992). Needs assessment: Perspectives from the literature. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugar, W. (2014). Studies of ID practices: A review and synthesis of research on ID current practices. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tiem, D. M., Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2012). Fundamentals of performance improvement (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, R., Leigh, D., Platt, W., & Kaufman, R. (1998). Needs assessment—A digest, review, and comparison of needs assessment literature. Performance Improvement, 37(7), 40–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedman, J. (2014). Needs assessments in the private sector. New Directions for Evaluation, 2014(144), 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6, 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. D., South, J. B., Yanchar, S. C., Wilson, B. G., & Allen, S. (2011). How do instructional designers evaluate? A qualitative study of evaluation in practice. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 885–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilmoth, F. S., Prigmore, C., & Bray, M. (2010). HPT models: An overview of the major models in the field. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace: Selecting and implementing performance interventions (Vol. 2, pp. 5–26). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Old Dominion University, 4128 Education Building, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Jill Stefaniak, John Baaki, Brent Hoard & Laura Stapleton

Authors
  1. Jill Stefaniak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Baaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brent Hoard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Stapleton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill Stefaniak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stefaniak, J., Baaki, J., Hoard, B. et al. The influence of perceived constraints during needs assessment on design conjecture. J Comput High Educ 30, 55–71 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9173-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9173-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation