University instructors' design process did not appear to draw on instructional design models¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2026: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The study found university instructors' design process did not appear to draw on instructional design models, suggesting future research on how such models could be used. → Karakaya 2021

Evidence¶

Karakaya 2021¶

Karakaya, K. (2021). Design considerations in emergency remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic: a human-centered approach. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09884-0

q2 · i? · theoretical · r2

The commentary reports this finding from Bennett et al.'s interview study, noting that instructors' design processes "did not appear to draw on instructional design models."

"The study found that university instructors' design process did not appear to draw on instructional design models. Therefore, future studies could focus on to what extent and how such models could be used by university instructors."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Instructors engage LLM-generated suggestions as a controllable refinement process — related
• Instructors reported that FORAP packaging reduced the initial effort to adopt and adapt PjBL activities, based on anecdotal feedback — related
• A limitation of the Bennett et al. study is reliance on self-reported interview data without design artifacts for triangulation — related
• Bennett et al.'s qualitative study found university instructors' design process is top-down, breadth-first, iterative, responsive, and reflective — related