The strategies for promoting reflective practice include such methods as real-world projects, studio experiences, apprenticeships, and case study methods (Rowland et al., 1994). Over the past decade, numerous instructional strategies were designed in an effort to increase the breadth and depth of ID experience that novice designers could take with them into the workplace. Many of the strategies were adopted from other design fields, such as architecture and engineering, that had successfully implemented open-ended learning experiences that encouraged reflective practice. Their interest was to incorporate some of the skills that research into professional practice and cognitive learning theory uncovered such as collaboration, problem-solving, management, and effective, yet flexible implementation of the ID process

Perez (1995) and Quinn (1994) found that real-world projects with actual clients provided opportunities for learners to transform procedural knowledge into practical knowledge, such as problem solving in new situations, through this experience. They found that learners needed considerable guidance in project management and the instructors found that it was challenging to create an environment where the learners felt comfortable openly discussing and reflecting on the process. Considering the time-intensive nature of project development and the limited pool of available projects, learners could not complete more that one or two real-world projects during their graduate experience.

Ertmer and Cennamo (1995) also explored the use of real-world projects, but focused the students on their cognitive and metacognitive processes rather than simply on procedural skills engaged during the design and development process. The 'expert' instructors modeled their cognitive and metacognitive skills by talking aloud as they reflected on design issues and provided the students with feedback on their projects. Ertmer and Cennamo found that this was a positive learning experience for their students and observed them taking the time to think through the process before jumping to the generation of solutions. They felt this resulted in an increased understanding of quality design. Ertmer and Cennamo noted that one of their greatest challenges as experts modeling a process was analyzing how they think as experts and describing their internal thoughts about design issues. They also found that the students required coaching throughout the process to keep them from getting too far off base. The students also benefited from frequent encouragement to consider multiple perspectives and reflect on their decisions.

Ertmer, P. A., & Cennamo, K. S. (1995). Teaching instructional design: an apprenticeship model. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(4), 43-58.

Perez, R. (1995). Instructional Design Expertise: a cognitive model of design. Instructional Science, 23(5-6), 321-349.

Perez, R. S., & Emery, C. D. (1995). Designer Thinking: How novices and experts think about instructional design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 80-95.

Quinn, J. (1994). Connecting education and practice in an instructional design graduate program. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(3), 71-82.

Quinn, J. (1995). The education of instructional designers: reflections on the Tripp paper. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(3), 111-117.

Rowland, G., Parra, M. L., & Basnet, K. (1994). Educating instructional designers: different methods for different outcomes. Educational Technology, 34(4), 5-11.