Rethinking Needs Assessment and Evaluation through Co-Design and Deliberate Decision-Making

Introduction

The design of effective learning experiences increasingly requires approaches that are participatory, iterative, and contextually grounded. Traditional instructional design models have often separated needs assessment, design, and evaluation into linear phases, which can limit responsiveness to learner and stakeholder perspectives (Author, 2020). In contrast, co-design emphasizes collaboration among designers, learners, instructors, and other community members, enabling the joint creation of learning solutions relevant to a particular context. Integrating co-design with iterative needs assessment and evaluation provides a more holistic, evidence-informed, and participatory approach to learning design (Stefaniak et al., 2025).

Despite the growing interest in co-design, there remains a conceptual and practical gap in understanding how it can be systematically aligned with needs assessment and evaluation. Needs assessment is typically seen as an early-stage activity that identifies gaps and priorities, whereas evaluation is often treated as a summative judgment occurring at the end of a project. Co-design challenges this linear perspective by embedding stakeholder insight, reflection, and iterative testing throughout the design process (Calvo & Sclater, 2021; Nicholson et al., 2022; Steen, 2013). Recognizing these processes as complementary rather than sequential opens new possibilities for how instructional designers may approach needs assessment and evaluation activities in their projects.

Needs assessment and evaluation are central to instructional design, yet traditional approaches often lack the depth of engagement necessary for meaningful stakeholder involvement. Instructional designers frequently encounter difficulties in these processes, including limited stakeholder participation, misalignment with local contexts, and challenges in capturing the nuanced needs of diverse learners (Stefaniak, 2020). These challenges are sometimes overlooked, resulting in interventions that fail to fully address learner needs or adapt to the needs of an organization and its stakeholders. Co-design offers a structured framework in which instructional designers and stakeholders collaborate to understand and address challenges in their current reality, developing solutions to improve the future (Blomkamp, 2018; Gallent & Ciaffi, 2014; Zamenopoulos & Alexiou, 2018). Deliberative co-design builds on this by incorporating structured reflection and iterative dialogue (Schön, 1983; Tracey & Baaki, 2014), allowing for more adaptive and context-driven learning environments.

A key component of this approach is dynamic decision-making, which involves making interconnected decisions in response to evolving contexts and new information (Jonassen, 2012; Klein, 2008). Unlike well-structured problems that follow a clear and rational pathway (Jonassen, 2000), ill-structured problems in learning design require adaptability and iterative refinement (Jonassen, 1997). Dynamic decision-making enables instructional designers to navigate complex problem spaces by continuously assessing constraints, stakeholder needs, and environmental factors (Ge et al., 2016). When integrated with co-design, dynamic decision-making fosters greater responsiveness to learner needs and ensures that instructional interventions evolve in alignment with contextual realities (Stefaniak et al., 2025).

Dynamic decision-making in instructional design involves the ongoing use of evidence, stakeholder input, and professional judgment to adapt design choices throughout a project's life (Bagdy & Stefaniak, 2025; Korkmaz & Boling, 2013). Rather than relying on fixed plans established early in the design process, instructional designers continuously interpret data from needs assessments, formative evaluations, and contextual observations to guide real-time instructional adjustments (Stefaniak, 2024). These decisions may involve refining learning objectives, modifying instructional strategies, reallocating resources, or revising assessment approaches in response to emergent learner needs and contextual realities (Stefaniak & Pinckney, 2023).

Dynamic decision-making is both analytical and relational, requiring designers to balance empirical evidence with stakeholder perspectives and contextual constraints (Klein, 2008). Decisions are often made collaboratively through co-design conversations, where instructional designers and stakeholders interpret findings together and negotiate next steps (Brown et al., 2013). This process foregrounds design judgment and reflexivity, enabling instructional designers to remain responsive while maintaining alignment with learning goals and evaluation criteria (Demiral-Uzan & Boling, 2024).

In practice, dynamic decision-making is reflected in concrete choices made during needs assessment and evaluation, such as revising the scope of a needs analysis when early stakeholder input reveals unanticipated constraints or redefining learning goals after formative data suggest a mismatch between intended outcomes and learner experiences (Bagdy & Stefaniak, 2025). During evaluation, designers may shift from summative to formative data collection to better support iterative improvement, adjust assessment methods to align more closely with evolving instructional strategies, or prioritize qualitative evidence when quantitative measures fail to capture contextual nuance (Bagdy & Stefaniak, 2025). These dynamic decisions illustrate how instructional designers use ongoing evidence and stakeholder dialogue to adapt evaluative practices to strengthen alignment, relevance, and instructional effectiveness.

Purpose of Paper

This paper outlines key heuristics for integrating dynamic co-design into learning design, emphasizing how participatory practices can enrich both needs assessment and evaluation. Engaging stakeholders in deliberative dialogue through participatory ethnographic techniques ensures that the voices of learners, instructors, and other stakeholders actively shape instructional interventions (Cook-Sather, 2003; Könings et al., 2005, 2011, 2014). Iterative inquiry and reflexivity, drawing on Schön’s (1983) concept of reflection-in-action, highlight the importance of continuously refining learning experiences in response to contextual shifts and emergent insights. Contextual relevance and scalability address the challenge of localization by incorporating learner-centered contextual analyses to maintain relevance while supporting transfer of learning (Baaki & Tracey, 2019, 2022; Yang & Watson, 2022). Sustained collaborative decision-making underscores the need to structure ongoing interactions with community members, ensuring that instructional design and evaluation processes evolve into shared, co-owned practices rather than discrete phases (Tracey & Baaki, 2014, 2022). Together, these heuristics frame co-design as a deliberative, evidence-informed approach to learning design, highlighting opportunities, challenges, and implications for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers seeking to implement collaborative and contextually responsive instructional interventions.

Conceptual Underpinnings

Needs assessment and evaluation are often overlooked or underutilized in instructional design, despite their recognized value for guiding effective learning interventions (Barnett & Mattox, 2010; Stefaniak, 2021; Williams et al., 2011). Common challenges include limited resources, time pressures, and budget constraints, which can lead to rushed, superficial evaluations that fail to capture the effectiveness of instructional materials. A lack of stakeholder and client buy-in further complicates efforts, as clients may perceive evaluation as an unnecessary expenditure and resist investing in thorough assessment processes (Butterfoss et al., 2001; Giberson et al., 2006). Even when evaluation is conducted, aligning assessments with pre-defined learning goals can be difficult, particularly if measurable objectives were not established at the outset of a project (Guerra-Lopez, 2008; Russ-Eft et al., 2014).

Co-design offers a potential solution to these challenges by actively engaging stakeholders throughout the design process, fostering shared ownership of goals, and iteratively embedding evaluation and needs assessment. Through participatory approaches, instructional designers can build consensus on objectives, ensure that assessments are contextually relevant, and create evaluation processes that are both feasible and meaningful, ultimately enhancing the quality, relevance, and utility of instructional interventions.

Co-design in learning design emphasizes collaboration, shared decision-making, and equity among stakeholders, positioning learners, instructors, and other participants as active contributors whose experiences and insights shape instructional solutions (Stefaniak et al., 2025; Kimmons & Hall, 2016; McKenney & Reeves, 2018). Unlike traditional top-down approaches, co-design draws on principles from participatory design, design-based research, and human-centered design, which prioritize iterative development, contextual relevance, and stakeholder expertise (Dorst, 2015; Zamenopoulos & Alexiou, 2018). This orientation assumes that those closest to the learning environment possess unique knowledge that can enhance both the design process and the resulting learning experience.

Needs assessment complements co-design by providing a structured way to identify gaps between current and desired outcomes, clarify priorities, and inform instructional decisions. While historically treated as an early-stage, linear activity, needs assessment is an iterative process that evolves alongside the design process (Author, 2024). In co-design contexts, this iterative approach allows stakeholders to articulate emerging needs, uncover latent challenges, and refine goals in ways that are responsive to both learner and organizational needs (Gravemeijer & Cobb, 2006; Riikonen et al., 2018; Stefaniak & Pinckney, 2023).

Evaluation, as it relates to learning design, functions as a mechanism for generating evidence about the effectiveness, quality, and impact of learning interventions (Bagdy & Stefaniak, 2025). Traditional approaches often separate formative and summative evaluation, but embedding evaluation throughout the co-design process provides continuous, actionable feedback that informs iterative improvements. Together with needs assessment, evaluation ensures that design decisions remain aligned with stakeholder priorities and emergent learning outcomes, creating a cycle of reflection, testing, and refinement that strengthens both process and product (Bagdy & Stefaniak, 2025).

The convergence of co-design, needs assessment, and evaluation lies in their shared focus on stakeholder engagement, contextual relevance, and iterative adaptation. By integrating these practices, instructional designers can capture tacit knowledge and ensure that interventions are data-driven and impactful. Iterative cycles of feedback and reflection allow for continuous alignment between goals, strategies, and outcomes, producing learning experiences that are responsive, equitable, and sustainable (McDonald, 2022). Figure 1 provides a conceptual framework to demonstrate the relationship between co-design, needs assessment and evaluation activities, and dynamic decision-making.

Figure 1

The Relationship Between Co-Design and Dynamic Decision-Making to Support Needs Assessment and Evaluation

This conceptual framework positions co-design as the central organizing practice that integrates needs assessment and evaluation within an iterative learning design process (Jonassen, 2008). Rather than treating needs assessment and evaluation as discrete or sequential phases, both are embedded within deliberative co-design processes that foreground stakeholder dialogue, contextual knowledge, and shared problem framing (Svihla, 2020). Needs assessment functions as an emergent and participatory activity, continuously refined through engagement with learners and other stakeholders, while evaluation operates as an embedded, formative mechanism that generates actionable evidence throughout the design process (Bagdy & Stefaniak, 2025).

Data gathered from needs assessment and evaluation, along with contextual constraints, converge to inform dynamic decision-making and design judgment, enabling instructional designers to adapt goals and strategies in real time (Stefaniak et al., 2023). These decisions drive iterative design refinement, which in turn feeds back into co-design activities, sustaining a continuous cycle of inquiry, reflection, and adaptation (Örnekoğlu-Selçuk et al., 2024). The framework demonstrates how co-design mediates the relationship between evidence and action, supporting learning designs that are responsive and contextually relevant.

To illustrate the conceptual framework (Figure 1), consider an instructional designer leading the redesign of an undergraduate program in higher education with persistently high attrition rates. Co-design serves as the central organizing practice, bringing faculty, students, advisors, and administrators into structured dialogue to collaboratively frame the problem and surface contextual constraints such as inconsistent expectations across courses and misalignment between assessments and program-level outcomes. These deliberative design activities serve as an embedded needs assessment within the framework, generating emergent insights that inform early design decisions and establish shared ownership of project goals.

Evaluation is integrated in a formative, continuous manner, consistent with the framework’s emphasis on iterative feedback loops and dynamic decision-making. Data from student feedback, performance patterns, and faculty reflections are examined collaboratively during recurring co-design sessions, allowing stakeholders to interpret evidence together and adjust instructional strategies, assessment structures, and support mechanisms in real time. These collective interpretations drive dynamic design decisions such as revising course sequencing or modifying assessment scaffolds, which feed directly into iterative design refinement and subsequent cycles of co-design.

Navigating Tensions and Opportunities in Co-Design

Despite the complementary potential of co-design, needs assessment, and evaluation, these processes can sometimes generate tensions that challenge instructional designers. Linear needs assessments may conflict with participatory co-design approaches, which prioritize emergent insights over pre-defined requirements, while summative evaluation frameworks can constrain iterative exploration by prematurely judging a prototype or limiting flexibility. Resource and time constraints, stakeholder buy-in, alignment with learning goals, and power dynamics among participants further complicate the integration of these practices (Stefaniak & Pinckney, 2023). Table 1 summarizes several common tensions and potential solutions that support more effective alignment.

Table 1

These tensions, however, present opportunities for convergence. Embedding evaluation and needs assessment within iterative co-design cycles helps to mitigate potential bottlenecks that sometimes occur with needs assessment and evaluation activities. By engaging stakeholders in deliberative dialogue (e.g., Johnson et al., 2017), refining objectives collaboratively, and continuously triangulating data, instructional designers can ensure that both the verification of needs and the collection of evaluative evidence are grounded in participant experiences and contextual realities.

Attending explicitly to both tension and convergence allows instructional designers to cultivate processes that are simultaneously flexible and accountable. Integrating co-design with continuous needs assessment and evaluation fosters a design ecosystem where stakeholder perspectives drive improvement, emergent insights are captured and acted upon, and evidence informs iterative refinement (McKenney et al., 2015; Nthubu, 2021). This alignment strengthens both the quality and relevance of learning interventions, demonstrating how collaborative, evidence-informed design can overcome traditional barriers and enhance learning outcomes.

Heuristics to Support Co-Design in Needs Assessment and Evaluative Activities

Reexamining Problem Framing

How a problem is initially defined shapes not only the scope of potential solutions but also the criteria by which success is evaluated. Traditional instructional design models often emphasize analyzing performance gaps or aligning interventions with pre-determined objectives, which can unintentionally narrow the problem space (Author, 2024). When designers adopt more expansive approaches to problem framing, considering contextual variables, cultural dynamics, and stakeholder perspectives, they are better positioned to design interventions that address root causes rather than surface-level symptoms (Svihla. 2020).

Traditional needs assessments in learning design tend to focus on performance deficits (Stefaniak, 2020). While framing deficit can surface gaps, it risks constraining creativity and stakeholder engagement by implicitly defining learners and instructors in terms of limitations. Reframing needs as opportunities shifts the focus from problems to potential, encouraging co-design participants to envision future outcomes. Problem framing is essential because the way a challenge is defined directly shapes the range of solutions considered and the outcomes prioritized. In instructional design, a narrowly or inaccurately framed problem can lead to interventions that address symptoms rather than root causes (Author, 2024). Collaborative problem framing ensures that design efforts remain aligned with contextual realities and stakeholder needs, creating a stronger foundation for sustainable learning and performance outcomes.

Integrating co-design practices into problem framing further strengthens instructional design by making the process collaborative (Svihla et al. 2019). Instead of assuming a single authoritative definition of the problem, designers work with learners, educators, and other stakeholders to surface multiple perspectives and negotiate shared priorities (Svilha et al., 2021). By centering potential rather than deficiency, designers create a culture where stakeholders feel ownership, curiosity, and agency. This participatory framing not only leads to more inclusive and contextually grounded solutions but also ensures that subsequent needs assessment, evaluation, and design decisions are tied to the lived realities of those most affected (Svihla, 2019). Problem framing then becomes both an analytical and relational process that lays the foundation for responsive and sustainable learning design.

Framing needs as opportunities reinforces iterative co-design cycles. Early identification of possibilities guides prototyping and evaluation in ways that remain flexible and responsive. By centering potential rather than deficiency, designers create a culture where stakeholders feel ownership, curiosity, and agency (Svihla et al., 2019).

Attend to Power Dynamics

Power imbalances can distort the outcomes of needs assessment and evaluation (Stefaniak & Pinckney, 2023). Unacknowledged hierarchies between administrators and teachers, instructors and students, or instructional designers and users can compromise the legitimacy of findings and the inclusivity of design decisions (Higgins et al., 2019). Mitigating these dynamics requires intentional strategies such as creating safe spaces for expression, rotating leadership in design activities, and using anonymized or structured input mechanisms (Calvo & Sclater, 2021; Kyza & Agesilaou, 2022). By proactively addressing inequities, instructional designers can work to ensure that diverse perspectives influence both the identification of needs and the evaluation of interventions.

Attending to power dynamics is an ongoing process. It is not enough to establish equitable structures at the outset; facilitators must continuously monitor interactions, challenge dominance, and adjust processes to maintain authentic collaboration. Doing so strengthens trust, enhances the accuracy of needs assessment, and ensures that evaluation reflects collective priorities.

Prioritizing Contextual Relevance

Instructional design is inherently situated; effectiveness depends on alignment with the cultural, social, and organizational context in which it occurs. Needs assessments and evaluation frameworks that neglect context risk producing generic solutions that fail to resonate or scale. Co-design foregrounds context by involving stakeholders in defining relevant problems and design constraints. It helps instructional designers identify appropriate metrics to measure a project's success (Bagdy & Stefaniak, 2025).

Contextual relevance can be achieved through ethnographic techniques, site visits, or participatory observations, ensuring that the co-design process accounts for environmental and cultural realities (Stefaniak et al., 2025). These methods not only identify practical constraints but also identify opportunities for localization. Emphasizing context strengthens evaluation by producing measures that are meaningful to stakeholders. Co-designed, context-sensitive evaluation strategies can provide actionable insights while reinforcing the legitimacy of stakeholder knowledge.

Envision Evaluation as an Iterative Activity Throughout the Design Cycle

Evaluation is frequently treated as a summative activity occurring at the end of a project; however, this traditional approach limits the capacity to refine learning experiences in real-time. Embedding evaluation within the co-design process transforms it into a formative, iterative mechanism that continuously informs design decisions. This integration allows stakeholders to adjust interventions, refine prototypes, and reassess goals based on immediate evidence (Bagdy & Stefaniak, 2025).

Iterative evaluation can take multiple forms, such as debriefing meetings to gather feedback after prototyping, surveys during pilot implementations, or reflective journaling by learners and instructors. These data points provide actionable insights that guide iterative cycles while maintaining transparency about the rationale of design decisions. By linking evaluation directly to stakeholder contributions, the process becomes participatory, fostering trust and shared ownership.

Embedding evaluation throughout the design cycle can help to identify and remedy misalignments earlier. For example, learners may express a preference for collaboration tools in an online learning environment, but iterative testing may reveal low engagement. Continuous evaluation ensures that both expressed and observed needs inform the final learning experience, strengthening alignment between stakeholder expectations and design outcomes.

Iterative feedback loops are essential for ensuring that both needs assessment and evaluation remain dynamic and responsive. Instructional designers can capture evolving needs, validate assumptions, and quickly adjust both instructional strategies and evaluative metrics by embedding iterative mechanisms to evaluate progress throughout a project.

These four heuristics are interrelated and collectively support responsive, data-driven instructional design. Engaging stakeholders establishes the foundation for inclusive problem framing and ensures that diverse perspectives are incorporated, which in turn informs iterative inquiry and reflection. Contextual scalability allows these insights to be applied across multiple settings, whether adapting corporate training metrics to prioritize performance applications or scaling nursing simulations across hospital units while respecting workflow constraints. Sustained collaborative decision-making integrates these practices into ongoing cycles, ensuring that dynamic design decisions are continuously informed by stakeholder input, evaluation data, and contextual realities. Together, these heuristics create a cohesive framework in which stakeholder engagement, iterative evaluation, contextual responsiveness, and collaborative judgment mutually reinforce one another, enabling instructional designers to navigate complex learning environments.

Implications for Instructional Designers

By integrating deliberative co-design, instructional designers can create more contextually responsive, inclusive, and scalable instructional solutions. This approach empowers designers to navigate the complexities of learner diversity and instructional affordances while mitigating risks associated with overgeneralized assumptions about learners (Boling & Gray, 2015; Gurjar & Bai, 2023). Co-design fosters a recursive design process, ensuring that instructional interventions remain adaptive and learner-centered over time. As McKenney and Reeves (2018) emphasize, research must provide grounding to inform iterative design decisions, reinforcing the need for co-design as a sustainable methodology for instructional design.

Embedding co-design with iterative needs assessment and evaluation has significant implications for research and practice in learning design. For researchers, this integrated approach challenges traditional linear models of instructional design, emphasizing iterative, participatory methodologies (Stefaniak et al., 2025). It calls for studies that examine how stakeholder involvement shapes both the identification of needs and the interpretation of evaluation data, and how these processes influence learning outcomes (Cumbo & Selwyn, 2022). Such research can contribute to theory-building around co-design, participatory evaluation, and context-sensitive instructional strategies.

Embedding these processes encourages more responsive and adaptive instructional design practices. It provides instructional designers with structured mechanisms to capture evolving learner needs, address emergent challenges, and iterate solutions before large-scale implementation (Könings & McKenney, 2017; Stefaniak et al., 2025). This approach also fosters shared ownership, in which learners and instructors contribute not only to identifying instructional goals but also to ongoing judgments about the effectiveness, relevance, and utility of learning solutions.

Scalability represents an important consideration when integrating deliberative co-design with needs assessment and evaluation, particularly as instructional designers seek to extend innovations beyond localized contexts (Herman et al., 2023). While co-design often begins with intensive, small-scale engagement, scalability can be supported by identifying which elements of the needs assessment and evaluation processes are core versus context-specific. For example, instructional designers may scale needs assessment by developing reusable stakeholder interview protocols, survey instruments, or design artifacts that can be adapted across departments while still allowing for localized interpretation (Stefaniak et al., 2022). Similarly, evaluation practices can be scaled through shared formative assessment rubrics, common indicators of learning progress, or feedback mechanisms that are embedded across multiple courses or programs. For instructional designers, scalability may also involve shifting from direct facilitation to capacity building, such as training faculty or program leaders to conduct participatory needs assessments or to interpret evaluation data collaboratively. Scalability is achieved not by replicating a single design solution, but by extending co-design-informed processes that support adaptive decision-making across varied instructional contexts.

Limitations

While the heuristics and framework presented in this paper highlight the potential of dynamic co-design to strengthen needs assessment and evaluation, this approach is not without limitations. Co-design is resource-intensive, requiring sustained time, facilitation expertise, and stakeholder availability, which may be difficult to support in contexts with severe budgetary, staffing, or timeline constraints (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012; Örnekoğlu-Selçuk et al., 2024). Projects with narrowly defined performance problems or well-established solutions may benefit more from traditional, systematic instructional design approaches that prioritize efficiency and rapid implementation. In such cases, conventional needs assessment and summative evaluation methods can provide sufficient guidance without the added complexity of participatory processes. Acknowledging these limitations underscores the importance of exercising design judgment when selecting approaches, ensuring that co-design is applied strategically rather than universally.

Conclusion

Co-design, when integrated with continuous needs assessment and evaluation, provides a framework for developing learning experiences that are contextually relevant, stakeholder-driven, and evidence-informed. By transforming needs assessment and evaluation from discrete, linear activities into a dynamic, iterative cycle, insights from stakeholders continuously inform design decisions, supporting refinement and adaptation in the learning environment. Embedding collaboration, responsiveness, and adaptability in this way strengthens the alignment between learner needs, instructional strategies, and assessment of outcomes.

This paper presents deliberative co-design as a structured yet flexible methodology for integrating ethnographic and participatory practices into needs assessment and evaluation. By emphasizing careful reflection and active stakeholder engagement, co-design enhances the scalability and contextual relevance of instructional design, ensuring that learning environments remain responsive to diverse learner needs. The heuristics outlined herein provide practical guidance for instructional designers seeking to deepen participatory evaluation and collaborative decision-making, fostering a culture of iterative refinement and reflective practice that supports educational innovation.

References

1. Baaki, J., & Tracey, M. W. (2019). Weaving a localized context of use: What it means for instructional design. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 8(1), 1-13.
2. Baaki, J., & Tracey, M.W. (2022). Empathy for action in instructional design. In J.E. Stefaniak & R.M. Reese (Eds.), The instructional design trainer’s guide: Authentic practices and considerations for mentoring ID and ed tech professionals (pp. 56-66). Routledge.
3. Bagdy, L.M., & Stefaniak, J.E. (2025). Evaluative practice in learning, design, and technology: Theory, process, and decision-making in context. Routledge.
4. Barnett, K., & Mattox, J. R. (2010). Measuring success and ROI in corporate training. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(2), 28-44. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v14i2.157
5. Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.A. (2012). Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Design Issues, 28(3), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00165
6. Blomkamp, E. (2018). The promise of co-design for public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(4), 729-743. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12310
7. Boling, E., & Gray, C. M. (2015). Designerly tools, sketching, and instructional designers and the guarantors of design. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & M.W. Tracey (Eds.), The design of learning experience: Creating the future of educational technology (pp. 109-126). Springer.
8. Brown, B., Eaton, S., Jacobsen, D., Roy, S., & Friesen, S. (2013). Instructional design collaboration: A professional learning and growth experience. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 439.
9. Butterfoss, F. D., Francisco, V., & Capwell, E. M. (2001). Stakeholder participation in evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 2(2), 114-119.
10. Calvo, M., & Sclater, M. (2021). Creating spaces for collaboration in community co‐design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 40(1), 232-250. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12349
11. Cook-Sather, A. (2003). Movements of mind: The Matrix, metaphors, and re-imagining education. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 946–977. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00274
12. Cumbo, B., & Selwyn, N. (2022). Using participatory design approaches in educational research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 45(1), 60- 72. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2021.1902981
13. Demiral-Uzan, M., & Boling, E. (2024). Instructional design students’ design judgment development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 72(3), 1813-1849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10361-1
14. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.
15. Gallent, N., & Ciaffi, D. (2014). Communities, community action and planning. In N. Gallent & D. Ciaffi (Eds.), Community action and planning: Contexts, drivers and outcomes. PolicyPress.
16. Ge, X., Law, V., & Huang, K. (2016). Detangling the interrelationships between self-regulation and ill-structure problem solving in problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1622
17. Giberson, T. R., Tracey, M. W., & Harris, M. T. (2006). Confirmative evaluation of trainingoutcomes. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 19(4),43-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2006.tb00384.x
18. Guerra-Lopez, I.J. (2008). Performance evaluation: Proven approaches for improving program and organizational performance. Jossey Bass.
19. Gurjar, N., & Bai, H. (2023). Assessing culturally inclusive instructional design in online learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 71(3), 1253-1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10226-z
20. Herman, K., Baaki, J., & Tracey, M. (2023). “Faced with given circumstances”: A localized context of use approach. In B. Hokanson, M. Exter, M. Schmidt, & A. Tawfik (Eds.), Toward inclusive learning design: Social justice, equity, and community. Springer.
21. Higgins, D., Dennis, A., Stoddard, A., Maier, A. G., & Howitt, S. (2019). ‘Power to empower’: conceptions of teaching and learning in a pedagogical co-design partnership. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(6), 1154-1167. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1621270
22. Johnson, G. F., Morrell, M. E., & Black, L. W. (2019). Emotions and deliberation in the citizens’ initiative review. Social Science Quarterly, 100(6), 2168-2187. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12707
23. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299613
24. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500
25. Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 21-26.
26. Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 341-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9230-5
27. Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2015). All problems are not equal: Implications for problem-based learning. Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows, 1741. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1080
28. Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2016). Toward a broader understanding of teacher technology integration beliefs and values. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 24(3), 309- 335. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/172627/
29. Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50(3), 456-460. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288385
30. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S. & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2011). The match between students’ lesson perceptions and preferences: Relations with student characteristics and the importance of motivation. Educational Research, 53(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.625155
31. Könings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S. & Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2005). Towards more powerful learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers, and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 645–660. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905x43616
32. Könings, K. D., Seidel, T. & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2014). Participatory design of learning environments: Integrating perspectives of students, teachers, and designers. Instructional Science, 42(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9305-2
33. Korkmaz, N., & Boling, E. (2013). Development of design judgment in instructional design: Perspectives from instructors, students, and instructional designers. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio (pp. 161-184). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8_10
34. Kyza, E. A., & Agesilaou, A. (2022). Investigating the processes of teacher and researcher empowerment and learning in co-design settings. Cognition and Instruction, 40(1), 100-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.2010213
35. McDonald, J.K. (2022). Preparing instructional design students for reflective practice. In J.E. Stefaniak and R.M. Reese (Eds.), The instructional designer trainer’s guide; Authentic practices and considerations for mentoring ID and ed tech professionals (pp. 29-37). Routledge.
36. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T.C. (2018). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
37. Nicholson, R., Bartindale, T., Kharrufa, A., Kirk, D., & Walker-Gleaves, C. (2022, April). Participatory design goes to school: Co-teaching as a form of co-design for educational technology. Proceedings of the 2022 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-17).
38. Nthubu, B. (2021). The value of a co-design visualization approach: Enhancing the understanding of local entrepreneurial ecosystems. The Design Journal, 24(5), 749-760. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2021.1957327
39. Örnekoğlu-Selçuk, M., Emmanouil, M., Hasirci, D., Grizioti, M., & Van Langenhove, L. (2024). A systematic literature review on co-design education and preparing future designers for their role in co-design. CoDesign, 20(2), 351-366.
40. Riikonen, S., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2018). Bringing practice of co-design and making to basic education. In J. Kay, & R. Luckin (Eds.), Rethinking learning in the digital age: Making the learning sciences count. Proceedings of the 13th international conference of the learning sciences.
41. Russ-Eft, D.F., Bober-Michel, M.J., Koszalka, T.A., & Sleezer, C.M. (2014). Fieldbook of IBSTPI evaluator competencies. Information Age Publishing.
42. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
43. Steen, M. (2013). Co-design as a process of joint inquiry and imagination. Design issues, 29(2),16-28. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00207
44. Stefaniak, J.E. (2020). Needs assessment for learning and performance: Theory, process, and practice. Routledge.
45. Stefaniak, J. E. (2021). Conducting needs assessments to inform instructional design practices and decisions. A practitioner’s guide to instructional design in higher education. EdTech Books.
46. Stefaniak, J.E. (2024). Advanced instructional design techniques: Theories and strategies for complex learning. Routledge.
47. Stefaniak, J. E., Dousay, T., Asino, T. I., & Bagdy, L. M. (2025). Promoting co-design in learning design research: Integrating design-based research, decision-making, and ethnographic approaches. TechTrends, 69(3), 645–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-025-01067-z
48. Stefaniak, J.E., Giacumo, L.A., & Villachica, S. (2022). Preparing instructional designers to scale needs assessment. In J.E. & R.M. Reese (Eds.), The instructional design trainer’s guide: Authentic practices and considerations for mentoring ID and ed tech professionals (pp.147-160). Routledge.
49. Stefaniak, J., & Pinckney, Lewis, K. (2023). A systemic approach toward needs assessment to promote inclusive learning design. In B. Hokanson, M. Exter, M. Schmidt, & A.A.Tawfik (Eds.), Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations (pp. 409-419). Springer.
50. Stefaniak, J., Tawfik, A., & Sentz, J. (2023). Supporting dynamic instructional design decisions within a bounded rationality. TechTrends, 67(2), 231-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00792-z
51. Svihla, V. (2020). Problem framing. In J.K. McDonald & R.E. West (Eds.), Design for learning: Principles, processes, and praxis. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks. org/id/problem_framing.
52. Svihla, V., Peele-Eady, T., & Chen, Y. (2019, April). Agency in framing design problems. In American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting Program.
53. Svihla, V., Peele-Eady, T. B., & Gallup, A. (2021). Exploring agency in capstone design problem framing. Studies in Engineering Education, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.21061/see.69
54. Tracey, M. W. & Baaki, J. (2014). Design, designers, and reflection-in-action. In B. Hokanson & A. Gibbons (Eds.), Design in educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and the design studio (1st ed., pp. 1–13). Springer.
55. 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, 885-907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9211-8
56. Yang, M., & Watson, S. L. (2022). Attitudinal influences on transfer of training: A systematic literature review. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 34(4), 327-365. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21351
57. Zamenopoulos, T., & Alexiou, K. (2018). Co-design as collaborative research. Connected Communities Foundation Series. Bristol University/AHRC Connected Communities Programme.