An Exploration of Instructional Designers' Prioritizations for Integrating ChatGPT in Design Practice
Saved in:
| Title: | An Exploration of Instructional Designers' Prioritizations for Integrating ChatGPT in Design Practice |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Fan Yang (ORCID |
| Source: | Educational Technology Research and Development. 2025 73(4):2761-2784. |
| 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: | 24 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Instructional Design, Technology Integration, Artificial Intelligence, Teacher Attitudes, Evaluators, Advocacy, Writing Improvement, Problem Solving, Information Seeking, Educational Practices |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11423-025-10509-7 |
| ISSN: | 1042-1629 1556-6501 |
| Abstract: | In this study, Q methodology was employed to explore instructional designers' perceptions of integrating ChatGPT in their design practices. Compared with traditional survey-based instruments that rely heavily on Likert-scale items, open-ended questions, interviews, or focus groups, Q methodology has the potential to systematically reveal and study subjectivity within a certain group of participants with both quantitative and qualitative techniques. The participants of this study consisted of 19 practicing instructional designers, who were asked to sort a total of 25 statements regarding the integration of ChatGPT into instructional design practices. Findings revealed three distinct types of factors: (1) Pessimistic Evaluators, (2) Optimistic Advocates, and (3) Wary Thinkers. Characteristics are discussed with direct quotes from representative participants from each of the three factors. The study also revealed that instructional designers mainly used ChatGPT to generate content, help improve writing and problem-solving, communicate, and engage in information searching. Regarding the challenges instructional designers encounter, the study reported that they were primarily bothered by the low quality of the ChatGPT-generated content, the limitation of ChatGPT itself, and their unpreparedness to embrace the tool. Limitations of the current study, as well as recommendations for future studies were also mentioned. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1483913 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | In this study, Q methodology was employed to explore instructional designers' perceptions of integrating ChatGPT in their design practices. Compared with traditional survey-based instruments that rely heavily on Likert-scale items, open-ended questions, interviews, or focus groups, Q methodology has the potential to systematically reveal and study subjectivity within a certain group of participants with both quantitative and qualitative techniques. The participants of this study consisted of 19 practicing instructional designers, who were asked to sort a total of 25 statements regarding the integration of ChatGPT into instructional design practices. Findings revealed three distinct types of factors: (1) Pessimistic Evaluators, (2) Optimistic Advocates, and (3) Wary Thinkers. Characteristics are discussed with direct quotes from representative participants from each of the three factors. The study also revealed that instructional designers mainly used ChatGPT to generate content, help improve writing and problem-solving, communicate, and engage in information searching. Regarding the challenges instructional designers encounter, the study reported that they were primarily bothered by the low quality of the ChatGPT-generated content, the limitation of ChatGPT itself, and their unpreparedness to embrace the tool. Limitations of the current study, as well as recommendations for future studies were also mentioned. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1042-1629 1556-6501 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11423-025-10509-7 |
