LIBERATING LEARNING OBJECT DESIGN

FROM THE LEARNING STYLE OF STUDENT

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNERS
Yavuz Akpınar

Learning objects are a new form of learning resource, and the design of these digital
environments has many facets. To investigate senior instructional design students’ use of
reflection tools in designing learning objects, a series of studies was conducted using the
Reflective Action Instructional Design and Learning Object Review Instrument tools. Analysis
revealed that most participants found the reflection questions useful in design but also that
intensive use of the tools is needed to free learning object design from the personal learning
traits of the designers.

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN requires complex intellec-
tual processes and high-level thinking skills to systemati-
cally problem-solve in instructional and training
situations (Nelson, Macliaro, & Sherman, 1988). “The
field is a challenging discipline that attempts to provide
effective and innovative solutions to instructional prob-
lems through a systematic process” (Bannan-Ritland,
2001, p. 38). Traditional methods of teaching instruc-
tional design do not adequately prepare students for
professional practice in the field (Ertmer & Cennamo,
1995; Winn, 1997) because this approach ignores the
complexity of this discipline and the high level of com-
munication, negotiation, and other related skills needed
for the practitioner to approach instructional problems
successfully (Bannan-Ritland, 2001).
A set of online tools and resources supports instruc-
tional designers and teachers as they in turn support the
students through active process. This set of online
resources delineates a suggested sequence of activities
based on what has worked in the past; each activity is
linked to additional information regarding the purpose of
the given activity, an elaboration of what the activity
entails, and guidelines for when to intervene.
With the growth of the Internet and the increase in
worldwide connections, new tools, resources, and con-
cepts have emerged, such as learning content management
systems (LCMSs) and learning objects. An LCMS enables
Performance Improvement, vol. 46, no. 10, November/December 2007
©2007 International Society for Performance Improvement
32 Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) • DOI: 10.1002/pfi.169
multiple users to easily share and reuse content, even if
they are at different geographical locations. For example, if
someone has already created an image, everyone author-
ized can search for it in the repository and insert it into a
lesson without having to create it from scratch. This has
led to the design and development of learning objects,
which serve to communicate a unique idea or a series of
concepts that represent a unit of learning during the tech-
nology-supported learning process (Wiley, 2000).
Reflective actions and taking different approaches into
account are necessary in the design of learning objects and
in the education of learning object designers. This article
studies the contribution of reflective tools to decision
making in the instructional design process.
DESIGN OF LEARNING OBJECTS
In the design of learning objects, different types of in-
formation might be created using tools such as word
processing, graphics tools, spreadsheets, HTML editors,
gifmakers, video editors and capturers, and some general-
and specific-purpose software. In learning object terms,
picture, animation, simulation, sound file, hyperlink,
game, video, and downloadable files, all called assets, can
be combined to form larger files and sharable content
object. The number, quality, and orientation of screen ele-
ments loaded into a lesson is an issue for the development
of learning objects, although LCMS and authoring envi-
ronments provide instructional designers with many
facilities to create and edit screen components. To ensure
effective learning, screen design decisions should reflect
balance among learner attributes, content factors, and the
processing requirements of the learning task.
Generally the most useful way to organize the compo-
nents of lesson modules is to organize the screen into func-
tional areas (Grabinger, 1993). Designers should decide
where status and progress information, navigational
buttons, content display control buttons, and illustrations
will be located. Consistency is important for using graphic
devices such as shading, lines, and boxes to separate areas.
The screen should be kept as simple and uncluttered as
possible; presenting too much information at one time can
be confusing and overwhelming to the user (Orr, Golas, &
Yao, 1994; Overbaugh, 1994; Stemler, 1997). Simplicity is
one of the essential goals of learning object design.
The design of learning objects should be directed and
influenced by learner and task analysis, instructional
strategy, formative and summative evaluation, subject
matter knowledge, and knowledge of context. To maxi-
mize learning for all students, a combination of methods
for presenting materials is very powerful (Felder, 1993).
Although instructional designers’ personal learning
styles may influence the design decisions they make, the
possible effect should be minimal so that target users
with different learning styles benefit from the designed
learning objects.
Reflective actions involved in carrying out an instruc-
tional design project are important for making objective
design decisions. Research has explored the relationship
between reflective actions and practice with instructional
design procedures (Bannan-Ritland, 2001; Luppicini,
2003; Moallem, 1998). One researcher, Moallem (1998),
suggested that
designers must have high-level thinking skills to
address instructional problems and to use a process
that is responsive to the learners and contexts. Second,
it is important to identify design problems in the con-
text of specific instructional situations because design
problems that are context specific provide opportuni-
ties for the designer to solve the problem within the
context that creates it. Finally, instructional design is
improved through reflective dialogue between the
designer and the context. This reflection-in-action
guides the designer to reframe the problem and possi-
ble solutions. (p. 61)
Mastering the process of reflection-in-action is inher-
ent in the design process and an important aspect of
becoming an instructional design professional (Schön,
1983; Rowland, 1993). Improving instructional design
through reflective dialogue between the designer and the
context has been identified as an innovative strategy
(Winn, 1997). Luppicini (2003) stressed that reflection
provides information concerning where ideas come from,
which is essential for improving learning or eliminating
habits that prevent learning. Luppicini also emphasizes
that developing a tool for promoting instructional
designer discourse and reflective dialogue could help
instructional designers become more aware of the creative
processes and decision-making strategies when they are
working on projects. In Luppicini’s proposed instructional
design tool, reflective action instructional design (RAID),
multiple areas of consideration are highlighted: design
processes and products, the design situation, and the influ-
ence of self and others in the design. He wrote, “The RAID
topology of reflective design questions is intended to be
used as a baseline for any instructional design project, and
points three sets of questions of reflective practices as:
Actor referenced, action referenced and situation refer-
enced” (p. 78). The reflective design questions used in dif-
ferent design contexts can be self-administered to (1) aid
designers in situating their design ideas in a community of
designers as well as the designers’ personal attachment to
those ideas and willingness to compromise their artistic
vision, (2) probe for design thinking that may not be typ-
ically communicated in group discussions, and (3) help in
rationalizing situational constraints in design decision
making. Applying the RAID framework in learning object
design is new to the field of instructional design and has
not been adequately addressed in the literature.
PROBLEMS OF THE STUDY
This research studied the effects of the RAID framework
and learning style on senior instructional design students’
design and development of learning objects in an LCMS.
In this regard, the study aimed to examine the students’
reflections through RAID questions in making design
decisions and the interactions between the students’ learn-
ing styles and quality of their designed learning objects for
grade 6–9 science with differences in these parameters:
• Number of assets (picture, animation, simulation,
sound file, hyperlink, game, video, downloadable file)
• Text density (small amount, moderate amount, and
large amount of text)
• Number of instructional elements (advance organiz-
ers, questions, and didactical directions)
• Number of screen orientations (templates, picture ori-
entation, font types and font sizes, colors, main topics,
sharable content object)
Performance Improvement • Volume 46 • Number 10 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 33
METHOD
Subjects
To investigate senior instructional design students’ design
and development of learning objects in an LCMS, a series
of studies was conducted with 22 subjects (6 females and
16 males) in the 2006 fall semester. These students earn
their BSc degree in four years, with an initial one-year
English language course. All subjects are in the Department
of Computer Education and Educational Technology, and
before this experiment, they had completed courses in
instruction, learning, analysis of performance problems,
and design, development, implementation, and evaluation
of instructional strategies and products. They had also
completed at least one instructional design activity for
computer-assisted learning, and all participants pro-
grammed and produced their materials.
TABLE 1 ONE STUDENT INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNER’S ANSWERS TO RAID QUESTIONS
RAID QUESTIONS
Actor-referenced reflective practices
Reflections-on-others: What is the role of
others involved?
Reflections-from-others: What do they think?
Reflections-on-self: What do I think of
myself and my role in practice?
Action-referenced reflective practices
Reflection-to-action: What led to this action?
Reflection-in-action: What is happening now?
Reflection-on-action: What brought you
to this?
Reflection-from-action: What could work?
Situation-referenced reflective practices
Reflections-to-situation: What expectations
do I have about the setting?
Reflections-on-situation: What do I think
about the setting?
Reflections-from-situation: How would I
change the setting?
34 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007
Study Materials and Procedure
The materials of this study included a course in Materials
Development for Web Based Learning, the learning objects
for grades 6–9 designed and developed by the subjects, and
four tools: BU-LeCoMaS, a learning content development
and management system (Akpinar & Simsek, 2006) that
the participants used to design and develop learning
objects; the Learning Object Review Instrument (LORI,
version 1.5, by Nesbitt & Li, 2004), used to examine the
quality of the designed learning objects; the Felder-
Silverman Learning Style Index (Felder, 1993; Felder &
Spurlin, 2005), used to measure the subjects’ learning style;
and the RAID questions (set out in the first column of
Table 1), used to assist in reflective design decisions.
The BU-LeCoMaS, learning content development, and
management system (see Figure 1) is an easy-to-use LCMS;
content authors with little or no technology expertise can
STUDENT ANSWERS
Examining the design features and suggesting ideas to improve my design.
The design is weak in interactive activities, the design doesn’t consider individual differ-
ences, the number of activities is small, and the designed screen components are not
contrastive.
Suggest and design ways of overcoming learning difficulties involved in the learning task.
Target students mix the concepts of volume and mass, so we need to differentiate them
within a pictorial example. I did not use different contexts because contextualization may
lessen the reusability of my learning object.
Target students measure volume and mass of a given object on the screen separately.
Target students have misconceptions; therefore, they were asked to compare screen
objects in terms of volume and mass.
Target students may first measure volume and mass of a given object on the screen
separately but compare the objects in terms of both features. More objects should be
embedded in the story of the instructional event.
The activities in my design should enable students to overcome the misconception that the
volume and mass of an object are the same.
Since the activities will show the mass and volume differences visually as well as mathe-
matically, the scenario will help learning.
More events, hence activities, should be designed and embedded in the system. The
orientation of some of the screen elements must be modified; the contrast between the
objects representing concepts should be increased.

FIGURE 1. LEARNING OBJECT DESIGN IN THE
BU-LeCoMaS BY ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS
easily develop learning objects. The architecture of BU-
LeCoMaS can handle any content and can integrate tex-
tual content, sound, and animations in software packages
to enable multimedia platform creation. It has lesson
templates, layout templates, and information creation and
editing tools. Multiple users may easily and collabora-
tively construct, share, and reuse content within the
LCMS and reuse it after development. Furthermore, it
supports SCORM standards, allowing developed content
to be used in different learning management systems
based on the idea of reusable learning content as sharable
content object.
LORI uses nine items with brief descriptive rubrics
anchored to each item and a Likert-style five-point
response scale, with the items scored from low (1) to high
(5). If an item is judged not relevant to the learning object
or the reviewer does not feel qualified to judge that crite-
rion, he or she may opt out of the item by selecting “not
applicable.” The items of LORI 1.5 are given in the first
column of Table 2.
The Felder-Silverman Learning Style Index is based on
eight learning styles under four dimensions: type of infor-
mation individuals preferentially perceive as sensory or
intuitive; type of sensory information most effectively
perceived as visual or verbal; type of preferred informa-
tion processing as actively or reflectively; and type of
characteristic progress toward understanding as sequen-
tially or globally. There are 42 statements in the index to
reply to; the psychometric data are provided by Felder
and Spurlin (2005).
The student instructional designers were first provided
with a user name and a password to the BU-LeCoMaS
server and given one hour of training for using the BU-
LeCoMaS learning content management system. Then
they were instructed to select a grade 6–9 science learning
task from a list for which learning difficulties and possible
misconceptions were provided to each participant. In
designing and developing the learning objects, students
were told to use any learning material, from text to ani-
mations and from static graphics to video segments, that
they found appropriate. They spent five weeks designing
their materials and three weeks developing and imple-
menting their materials.
Following their initial design activities, they met with
the researcher to discuss their design features and justify
each screen component they had used. These discussions
focused on the screen elements and their contribution to
overcoming a specified learning difficulty or misconcep-
tion in the learning task. During the meetings, the students
presented and shared their design ideas and sketches with
the class and received comments. The class discussed the
following issues regarding a design presentation:
• The scenario
• Learning activities in the story
• Tools to enhance memory
• Presentation of knowledge representation means
• Enabling meaningful learning and linking knowledge
patterns
• Individual differences
• Motivation and feedback
• Screen design
• Design originality
Each presenter then replied to the RAID questions and
continued development work. One lesson was allocated
for each participant’s design presentation and discussion
about the presentations. Also, the student designers
shared their responses to RAID in one final lesson.
Once the design and development of the learning
objects were complete, an online version of the Felder-
Silverman Learning Style Index was administered to the
subjects to study the student instructional designers’
learning styles. Then each learning object was placed in
the LCMS and analyzed in terms of number of assets, text,
and instructional components. Next, the quality of each
participant’s production was evaluated using the LORI.
The students’ learning objects (see Figure 1 for an exam-
ple) were made available in a Web server to the partici-
pants, who reviewed and rated them independently using
the LORI; the 21 (the owner of the learning object did not
Performance Improvement • Volume 46 • Number 10 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 35
 TABLE 2 DATA ON THE STUDENT INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNERS’ LEARNING OBJECTS

LORI ITEMS MEAN STD. DEV.

1. Content quality: Veracity, accuracy, balanced presentation of ideas, and appropriate level of detail 3.45 0.38

2. Learning goal alignment: Alignment among learning goals, activities, assessments, and learner 3.01 0.52
characteristics

3. Feedback and adaptation: Adaptive content or feedback driven by differential learner input or learner 2.66 0.57
modeling

4. Motivation: Ability to motivate and interest an identified population of learners 2.86 0.61

5. Presentation design: Design of visual and auditory information for enhanced learning and efficient 3.31 0.54
mental processing

6. Interaction usability: Ease of navigation, predictability of the user interface, and quality of the interface 3.19 0.54
help features

7. Accessibility: Design of controls and presentation formats to accommodate disabled and mobile able- 3.03 0.39
bodied learners

8. Reusability: Ability to use in varying learning contexts and with learners from differing backgrounds 3.08 0.47

9. Standards compliance: Adherence to international standards and specifications 5.00 0.00

Number of assets 16.30 8.06

Amount of text 1.70 0.57

Number of instructional elements 5.55 4.85

Number of screen orientations 5.95 2.58

rate his or her learning object) student instructional
designers’ ratings and the researcher’s rating were aver-
aged. Finally a two-hour discussion meeting was organ-
ized to discuss the use of RAID questions and the LORI.
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Comments on Reflection Tools
The data consisted of the participants’ written answers to
the RAID questions and their comments addressing the
use of reflective strategies. (The answers of one of the par-
ticipant’s to the RAID questions are given in Table 1.) The
first issue the participants addressed was whether the
design discussions based on RAID contributed to their
learning the process of the design. They were divided on
this issue. The 16 students who responded positively val-
ued the variety of viewpoints presented: most said that
they revised the type of assets they had chosen for their
learning objects, the number of activities to be carried out
on the settings, and the story of the design. One stated,
“They helped me to learn because they provided much
more breadth and diversity of opinion. Sharing alterna-
tive design ideas is what makes the environment a valu-

36 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007

able part of learning.” The view of taking one’s own learn-
ing style into consideration was highlighted by one of the
participants and confirmed by a few others: “First, how I
learn a given task best is important for me, so I think of
arranging materials in that way, but then I consider other
types of learners. In that sense, the RAID framework suits
the way I design. It also enhances taking another’s opin-
ion into account.”
One student not in favor of the RAID questions stated,
“The RAID questions are very general and do not directly
help me question the instructional properties of my
design. I may miss some of the instructional principles if
I stick to those questions only.” In addition, a few student
instructional designers agreed with the following state-
ment: “In my opinion, instructional design is a multidi-
mensional work, and the current version of the RAID
alone will not help me enough. I think I need more com-
prehensive guideline tools.”
Another student, referring to the LORI as a reflective
aid, continued on this theme: “Expectations of LORI are
too much in a student project, but it helps in identifying
our mistakes in the instructional framework of our
design.” Another student added that “LORI items are
valuable, but they should be subdivided so that we can
examine and debug our designs more explicitly.”
Those who said that they did not improve their design
much after the discussions raised an issue common in
group work: the discussions were not challenging enough.
One student summarized this view: “I think as a group,
we were very gentle with one another. We should have
been more challenging than the course tutor who raised
instructional design issues and got us to think over alter-
native ways. We know that suggestions should be con-
structive; however, we are sometimes very critical and
suggestions are not rational.”
The students accepted that it is not easy to disregard
their own learning style when they design learning mate-
rials. Using the LORI items as a guideline before, during,
and after the design process was another recommenda-
tion. Similarly, the students suggested that the RAID
questions are good as a guideline. The usefulness of such
reflective aids was confirmed by a couple of students.
However, they favored using aids within the dynamics of
the instructional designer groups.
Quality of the Designed Learning Objects
The quality of the designed learning objects was studied
through the LORI (see Table 2). The quality of the content
in the designed learning objects measured by the first
item of LORI was generally adequate, but some learning
objects omitted important and relevant information and
therefore may mislead learners. In some other learning
objects, the level of detail was not appropriate, and the
content did not emphasize key ideas. Learning goal align-
ment was measured by the second LORI item. The major
drawback in the designed objects was that the learning
activities and content provided by the object did not align
with the declared goals.
The learning objects received the lowest rating in the
feedback and adaptation (item 3) features of the LORI.
Although some of the learning objects supported interac-
tivity for navigation or selection of information, they
failed to provide feedback concerning the quality or cor-
rectness of a student’s response and contained no simula-
tion or tool set that can vary its output according to
learner input. Motivation quality of the LORI was the
next item receiving a low rating. In most learning objects,
the learner would not be able to control or interact with
the animation. Learners are likely to report neutral inter-
est in the topic after working with the learning object. The
activities were too easy for the intended learners, and
learners had no opportunity to practice.
The information design values of the learning objects
studied with the fifth item are moderate but need
improvements in terms of font or type size, legibility of
information, consistency in screen orientation, and align-
ment between the information design and necessary cog-
nitive processing. The interface of the learning objects is
usable but can be improved by better design or instruc-
tions. Interactive features in some learning objects are
absent, and the behavior of the user interface is not always
consistent and predictable.
Reviewing the learning objects for accessibility (item 7)
showed that the learning objects provide a moderate
degree of accommodation for learners with sensory and
motor disabilities and can be accessed through assistive
and highly portable devices. However, major improve-
ments are needed to adapt the learning objects to disabled
learners. The learning objects are reusable (item 8) to a
certain extent and seem to be stand-alone resources that
can be transferred readily to different courses, learning
designs, and contexts with small modifications. They often
refer to the module, course, or instructor for which it was
originally designed. Finally, all the learning objects
designed complied with the SCORM standards because
the BULeCoMaS supported easy conversion of learning
objects to a downloadable SCORM-compliant zip archive
for use outside the BULeCoMaS.
Interaction Between Learning Styles and
Designed Learning Objects
The influence and interaction between the student
instructional designers’ learning style and their use of
assets, instructional assets, and text in the learning
objects designed was examined using Kendall’s tau-b cor-
relation studies. When the tests were used, insignificant
Performance Improvement • Volume 46 • Number 10 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 37
correlations between the student instructional designers’ DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
learning style and the number of instructional assets
The participants in this study showed that designers who
(such as questions, directions, and exercises), amount of
learn reflectively use relatively more graphical representa-
text, and number of screen orientations in their learning
tions in their design, and those who learn actively used
objects were observed. Significant relations between a
fewer. In addition, student designers with a strong visual
reflective learning style of the student designers and the
learning style used fewer graphical representations than
number of pictures they used (r = .64; p = .012) in their
those with a weak visual style of learning. Regarding
design and significant reverse relations were observed
learning styles, disproportionate interest in using certain
between (1) the active learning style of the student
types of materials is important in learning object design
designers and their use of number of pictures (r = −.69;
because the objectivity of design decisions will be facili-
p = .046) and the number of animations (r = −.89; p =
tated when the influence of personal factors in the design
.012) in their learning object design and (2) the visual
process is minimized. A well-balanced and unbiased
learning style of the student designers and the number of
interaction is expected between the designers’ personal
animations they used (r = −.41; p = .039) in their learn-
preferences and their design of learning materials. This
ing object design. Similar correlation studies between the
study, though limited due to the number of participants,
student designers’ learning styles and the quality of their
demonstrated that the students’ designs of learning
learning objects measured by the LORI 1.5 showed that
objects were influenced by their own learning style, but
significant reverse relations are observed between the
the amount of the influence was small. The use of the
sequential learning style of the student designers and the
RAID questions seems to have contributed to design deci-
quality of content in their learning object design meas-
sions and modifications of those decisions.
ured by the first item of the LORI (r = −.60; p = .020), but
Answering RAID questions helped designers revise
the other eight items of the LORI did not meaningfully
their design ideas and make modifications, particularly in
interact with the student designers’ different learning
the type of assets for their learning objects, the number of
styles.
activities to be carried out on the settings and related
The student designers did not show a strong prefer-
activities to patterns difficult to learn, and the originality
ence for one dimension of the learning style index: the
of the story of the design. RAID questions, along with the
visual dimension received a mean of 5.44, indicating a
other materials in the instructional design course, helped
moderate preference. All other dimensions of the index
to free design decisions from the students’ learning styles
received a mean of less than 5, indicating a fairly well-
to a large extent. Further studies should investigate neu-
balanced learning style on the two dimensions of the
tralizing the effect of instructional design students’ learn-
scale. However, the students with a reflective learning
ing styles on their design of learning objects.
style, who prefer to think quietly about the material they
The design students highlighted that they should be
are learning, showed proportional interest in the number
using LORI-like tools, which provide a more pedagogical
of pictures they used in their learning object design. The
and technical guideline in the design of learning objects
student designers with an active learning style, who tend
than RAID questions. However, they noted that the RAID
to retain and understand information best by doing
questions were helpful in elaborating design ideas and
something or discussing, applying, or explaining it to
taking others’ opinions into consideration. Hence, both
others in learning, showed, relative to their level, dispro-
the LORI and RAID questions were welcomed and should
portionate interest in using a number of pictures or ani-
be used together when designing and developing learning
mations in their learning object design. Similarly, student
objects based on reflective production processes.
designers with a visual learning style, who remember best
what they see (pictures, diagrams, flowcharts, time lines,
films, and demonstrations in learning), showed, relative IMPLICATIONS FOR HPT
to their level, disproportionate interest in using more
animations (but not pictures) in their learning object PROFESSIONALS
design. And student designers with a sequential learning The results from this study highlight two important issues
style, who tend to gain understanding in linear steps, for HPT practitioners to consider when including reflec-
with each step following logically from the previous one, tive aid in their instructional design education. First,
showed relative to their level disproportionate interest in reflective and structured tools and discussions for devel-
designing learning objects with content accuracy, a bal- oping design ideas are useful in producing learning
anced presentation of ideas, and an appropriate level of objects that target multiple learning styles. Second, the
detail. student designers provided insight into how the reflective

38 www.ispi.org • DOI: 10.1002/pfi • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2007

tools might help them design more concrete and interac-
tive activities in the learning objects.
The findings confirm previous suggestions (Bannan-
Ritland, 2001; Winn, 1989) that design education should
focus on the reflective practice of instructional design for
students rather than supply more courses. The students’
experiences should lead to self-observation and reflec-
tion, which then trigger new ideas before making a design
decision. That requires instructional designers to inte-
grate their observations into conceptual models, consider
new experiences in tackling new problems, and quickly
move on to new tasks to ensure fresh approaches. Hence,
“what-if ” interpretive, reflective, and thought-provoking
questions should be raised to bring about the creative
design and development of learning objects.
Note: Further work on this research is currently supported
by Boğaziçi University Scientific Research Fund under
Grant no: 07D201.
References
Akpınar, Y., & Simsek, H. (2006). Learning object organization
behaviors in a home-made learning content management sys-
tem. TOJDE, 7(4). Retrieved May 9, 2007, from
http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde24/pdf/article_3.pdf.
Luppicini, R. (2003). Reflective action instructional design
(RAID): A designer’s aid. International Journal of Technology
and Design Education, 13, 75–82.
Moallem, M. (1998). An expert teacher’s thinking and teaching
and instructional design models and principles: An ethno-
graphic study. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 46(2), 37–64.
Nelson, W.A., Macliaro, S., & Sherman, T.M. (1988). The intel-
lectual content of instructional design. Journal of Instructional
Development, 2(1), 29–35.
Nesbit, J.C., & Li, J. (2004). Web-based tools for learning object
evaluation. In F. Malpica, F. Welsch, & A. Tremant (Eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and
Information Systems: Technologies and Applications (Vol. 2, pp.
334–339). Orlando, FL: International Institute of Informatics
and Systemics.
Orr, K.L., Golas, K.C., & Yao, K. (1994, Winter). Storyboard
development for interactive multimedia training. Journal of
Interactive Instruction Development, 18–31.
Overbaugh, R.C. (1994). Research based guidelines for com-
puter based instruction development. Journal of Research on
Computing in Education, 27(l), 29–47.
Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1),
79–91.

Bannan-Ritland, B. (2001). Teaching instructional design: An
action learning approach. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
14(2), 37–52.
Ertmer, P., & Cennamo, K.S. (1995). Teaching instructional
design: An apprenticeship model. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 8(4), 43–58.
Felder, R.M. (1993). Teaching the second tier: Learning and
teaching styles in college science education. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 23(5), 286–290.
Felder, R.M., & Spurlin, J.E. (2005). Applications, reliability,
and validity of the index of learning styles. International
Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 103–112.
Grabinger, R.S. (1993). Computer screen designs: Viewer judg-
ments. Educational Technology, Research and Development,
41(2), 35–73.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Stemler, L.K. (1997). Educational characteristics of multime-
dia: A literature review. Journal of Educational Multimedia and
Hypermedia, 6(3/4), 339–359.
Wiley, D.A. (2000). Connecting learning objects to instruc-
tional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxon-
omy. In D.A. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional use of learning
objects. Retrieved May 9, 2007, from
http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/wiley.doc.
Winn, W. (1989). Toward a rationale and theoretical base for
educational technology. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 37(1), 35–46.
Winn, W. (1997). Advantages of a theory-based curriculum in
instructional technology. Educational Technology, 37(1), 34–41.

YAVUZ AKPINAR is an associate professor in the Department of Computer Education and Educational
Technology, Boğaziçi University, Turkey. He has a PhD in interactive learning environments design,
and his research interests are in interactive learning environments design, human-computer interac-
tion, graphical user interfaces, simulations in learning, authoring systems for software design, edu-
cational testing, designing and evaluating multimedia and hypermedia in education and training,
distance education, learning object and e-learning design, and learning managements systems. He
may be reached at akpinar@boun.edu.tr.

Performance Improvement • Volume 46 • Number 10 • DOI: 10.1002/pfi 39