A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design

  • Robert A. Reiser
Development

Abstract

This is the second of a two-part article that discusses the history of the field of instructional design and technology in the United States. The first part, which focused on the history of instructional media, appeared in the previous issue of this journal (volume 49, number 1). This part of the article focuses on the history of instructional design. Starting with a description of the efforts to develop training programs during World War II, and continuing on through the publication of some of the first instructional design models in the 1960s and 1970s, major events in the development of the instructional design process are described. Factors that have affected the field of instructional design over the last two decades, including increasing interest in cognitive psychology, microcomputers, performance technology, and constructivism, are also described.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, D.H., & Goodson, L.A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models instructional design.Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, E.L. (1973). The technology of instructional development. In R.M.W. Travers (Ed.),Second handbook of research on teaching, Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  3. Banathy, B.H. (1968).Instructional systems. Belmont, CA: Fearon.Google Scholar
  4. Barson, J. (1967).Instructional systems development. A demonstration and evaluation project: Final report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 020 673)Google Scholar
  5. Bassi, L.J., & Van Buren, M.E. (1999). Sharpening the leading edge.Training and Development, 53(1), 23–33.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  7. Bonner, J. (1988). Implications of cognitive theory for instructional design.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 36, 3–14.Google Scholar
  8. Borich, G.D. (1980).A state of the art assessment of educational evaluation. Austin, TX: University of Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 187 717)Google Scholar
  9. Bowsher, J.E. (1989). Educating America: Lessons learned in the nation's corporations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Branson, R.K., & Grow G. (1987). Instructional systems development. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional Technology: Foundations (pp. 397–428). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Branson, R.K., Rayner, G.T., Cox, J.L., Furman, J.P., King, FJ, & Hannum, W.H. (1975).Interservice procedures for instructional systems development. Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.Google Scholar
  12. Burkman, E. (1987a). Factors affecting utilization. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional Technology: Foundations (pp. 429–456). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Burkman, E. (1987b). Prospects for instructional systems design in the public schools.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 27–32.Google Scholar
  14. Cambre, M.A. (1981). Historical overview of formative evaluation of instructional media products.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 3–25.Google Scholar
  15. Chadwick, C.B. (1986). Instructional technology research in Latin America.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 34, 247–254.Google Scholar
  16. Chevalier, R.D. (1990). Improving efficiency and effectiveness of training: A six year case study of systematic change.Performance and Instruction, 29(5), 21–23.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coleman, Perry, & Schwen (1997). Constructivist instructional development: Reflecting on practice from an alternative paradigm. In C.R. Dills & A.J. Romiszowski (Eds.),Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  19. Cronbach, L.J. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation.Teachers' College Record, 64, 672–683.wGoogle Scholar
  20. Dale, E. (1967). Historical setting of programmed instruction. In P.C. Lange (Ed.),Programmed instruction: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Dean, P.J. (1995). Examining the practice of human performance technology.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(2), 68–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dempsey, J.V., & Van Eck, R.N. (in press). Instructional design online: Evolving expectations. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.),Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Diamond, R.M. (1989).Designing and improving courses and curricula in higher education: A systematic approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
  24. Dick, W. (1987). A history of instructional design and its impact on educational psychology. In J. Glover & R. Roning (Eds.),Historical foundations of educational psychology. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  25. Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade?Educational Technology Research and Development.44(3), 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978).The systematic design of instruction (1st ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  27. Dick W., & Reiser, R.A. (1989).Planning effective instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Divesta, F.J., & Rieber, L.P. (1987). Characteristics of cognitive engineering: The next generation of instructional systems.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35, 213–230.Google Scholar
  29. Driscoll, M.P. (2000).Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  30. Ebel, R.L. (1962). Content standard test scores.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22, 15–25.Google Scholar
  31. Ely, D.P., & Plomp, T. (1986). The promises of educational technology: A reassessment.International Review of Education.32, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Finch, C.R. (1987). Instructional systems development in the military.Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 24(4), 18–26.Google Scholar
  33. Flanagan, J.C. (1951). Units, scores, and norms. In E.T. Lindquist (Ed.),Educational Measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  34. Gaff, J.G. (1975).Toward faculty renewal: Advances in faculty, instructional, and organizational development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  35. Gagné, R.M. (1962a). The acquisition of knowledge.Psychological Review, 69, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gagné, R.M. (1962b). Introduction. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Psychological principles in system development.New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  37. Gagné, R.M. (1965a). The analysis of instructional objectives for the design of instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Teaching machines and programmed learning, II: Data and directions. Washington, DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  38. Gagné, R.M. (1965b).The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  39. Gagné, R.M. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  40. Gagné, R.M., & Briggs, L.J. (1974).Principles of instructional design (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  41. Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992).Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  42. Gagné, R.M., & Medsker, K.L. (1996).The conditions of learning: Training applications. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  43. Galagan, P.A. (1989). IBM gets its arms around education.Training and Development Journal, 43(1), 34–41.Google Scholar
  44. Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1971).Teaching and media: A systematic approach (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1980).Teaching and media: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  46. Glaser, R. (1962) Psychology and instructional technology. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Training research and education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  47. Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions.American Psychologist, 18, 519–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Glaser, R. (1965). Toward a behavioral science base for instructional design. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Teaching machines and programmed learning, II: Data and directions. Washington, DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  49. Glaser, R., & Klaus, D.J. (1962). Proficiency measurement: Assessing human performance. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  50. Gustafson, K.L. (1993). Instructional design fundamentals: Clouds on the horizon.Educational Technology, 33(2), 27–32.Google Scholar
  51. Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997a). Revisioning models of instructional development.Educational Technology Research and Development.45(3), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997b).Survey of Instructional Development Models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.Google Scholar
  53. Gustafson, K., & Bratton, B. (1984). Instructional improvement centers in higher education: A status report.Journal of Instructional Development, 7(2), 2–7.Google Scholar
  54. Hamerus, D. (1968).The systems approach to instructional development: The contribution of behavioral science to instructional technology. Monmouth: OR: Oregon State System of Higher Education, Teaching Research Division.Google Scholar
  55. Hawkridge, D. (in press). Distance learning and instructional design in international settings. In In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.),Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  56. Heinich, R. (1970). Technology and the management of instruction (Association for Educational Communications and Technology Monograph No. 4). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  57. Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000).Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education [Online]. Available: http://www.ihep.com/PUB.htm [2001, January 28].Google Scholar
  58. Interview with Robert M. Gagné: Developments in learning psychology: Implications for instructional design; and effects of computer technology on instructional design and development (1982).Educational Technology, 22(6), 11–15.Google Scholar
  59. Jones, T.S., & Richey, R.C. (2000). Rapid prototyping methodology in action: A developmental study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kemp, J.E. (1971).Instructional Design: A Plan for Unit and Course Development.Belmont, CA:Fearon.Google Scholar
  61. Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., Levin, D., & Greene, B. (1999).Distance education at postsecondary institutions: 1997–98 (NCES 2000-013).Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  64. Lin, X., Bransford, J.D., Hmelo, C.E., Kantor, R.J., Hickey, D.T., Secules, T., Petrosino, A.J., Goldman, S.R., and the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1996). Instructional design and development of learning communities: An invitation to a dialogue. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  65. Low, W.C. (1980). Changes in instructional development: The aftermath of an information processing takeover in psychology.Journal of Instructional Development, 4(2), 10–18.Google Scholar
  66. Lumsdaine, A.A., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (1960).Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book. Washington, DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  67. Mager, R.F. (1962).Preparing objectives for programmed instruction. Belmont, CA: Fearon.Google Scholar
  68. Mager, R.F. (1977). The ‘winds of change’.Training and Development Journal, 31(10), 12–20.Google Scholar
  69. Mager, R.F. (1997).Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in the development of effective instruction (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance.Google Scholar
  70. Markle, S.M. (1967). Empirical testing of programs. In P.C. Lange (Ed.),Programmed instruction: The sixtysixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. McCombs B.L. (1986). The instructional systems development (ISD) model: A review of those factors critical to its successful implementation.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 34, 67–81.Google Scholar
  72. Merrill, M.D., & Li, Z. (1989). An instructional design expert system.Journal of computer-based instruction, 16(3), 95–101.Google Scholar
  73. Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1990a) Limitations of first generation instructional design.Educational Technology, 30(1), 7–11.Google Scholar
  74. Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1990b) Second generation instructional design (ID2).Educational Technology, 30(2), 7–14.Google Scholar
  75. Miles, G.D. (1983). Evaluating four years of ID experience.Journal of Instructional Development, 6(2), 9–14.Google Scholar
  76. Miller, R.B. (1953). A method for man-machine task analysis (Tech. Rep. No. 53-137). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center.Google Scholar
  77. Miller, R.B. (1962). Analysis and specification of behavior for training. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Training research and education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  78. Morgan, R.M. (1989). Instructional systems development in third world countries.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Morrison, G.R. (1994). The media effects question: “Unsolvable” or asking the right question.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Partridge, M.I., & Tennyson, R.D. (1979). Graduate programs in instructional systems: A review of selected programs.Journal of Instructional Development, 2(2), 18–26.Google Scholar
  81. Redfield, D.D., & Dick, W. (1984). An alumni-practitioner review of doctoral competencies in instructional systems.Journal of Instructional Development, 7(1), 10–13.Google Scholar
  82. Reiser, R.A. (1987). Instructional technology: A history. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations, Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  83. Reiser, R.A. (1994). Clark's invitation to the dance: An instructional designer's response.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Reiser, R.A. (in press). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.),Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  85. Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.). (in press).Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  86. Rosenberg, M.J. (1988). The role of training in a performance-oriented organization.Performance and Instruction, 27(2), 1–6.Google Scholar
  87. Rosenberg, M.J. (1990). Performance technology: Working the system.Training, 27(2), 42–48.Google Scholar
  88. Rosenberg, M.J. (2001).e-Learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  89. Rossett, A. (1990). Performance technology and academic programs in instructional design and technology: Must we change?Educational Technology, 30(8), 48–51.Google Scholar
  90. Rossett, A. (1999). Knowledge management meets analysis.Training and Development, 53(5), 63–68.Google Scholar
  91. Rossett, A., & Donello, J.F. (1999).Knowledge management for training professionals [Online]. Available: http://defcon.sdsu.edu/3/objects/km/ [2001, January 28].Google Scholar
  92. Rossett, A., & Garbosky, J. (1987). The use, misuse, and non-use of educational technologists in public education.Educational Technology, 27(9), 37–42.Google Scholar
  93. Saettler, P. (1990).The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  94. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. InPerspectives of curriculum evaluation (American Educational Research Association Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  95. Shrock, S.A. (1994). The media influence debate: Read the fine print, but don't lose sight of the big picture.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Shrock, S.A. (1995). A brief history of instructional development. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present, and future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  97. Silber, K.H. (1982). An analysis of university training programs for instructional developers.Journal of Instructional Development, 6(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Silvern, L.C. (1964).Designing instructional systems. Los Angeles: Education and Training Consultants.Google Scholar
  99. Skinner, B.F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching.Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86–97.Google Scholar
  100. Skinner, B.F. (1958). Teaching machines.Science, 128, 969–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Spady, W.G. (1988). Organizing for results: The basis for authentic restructuring and reform.Educational Leadership 46(2), 4–8.Google Scholar
  102. Sullivan, H.J., & Higgins, N. (1983).Teaching for competence. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  103. Tyler, R.W. (1975). Educational benchmarks in retrospect: Educational change since 1915.Viewpoints, 51(2), 11–31.Google Scholar
  104. Wager, W.W., & McKay, J. (in press). EPSS: Visions and viewpoints. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.),Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  105. Walbesser, H.H., & Eisenberg, T.A. (1972).A review of the research on behavioral objectives and learning hierarchies. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Center for Science and Mathematics Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 059 900)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Reiser
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations