Skip to main content
Log in

Instructional systems design and public schools

  • Development
  • Response To Shrock And Higgins
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article is a reply to the commentary of Shrock and Higgins, which appears elsewhere in this issue. The original article by Martin and Clemente that sparked the discussion appeared inEducational Technology Research and Development, Volume 38, Number 2 (pp. 61–75).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Burkman, E. (1988). Prospects for instructional systems design in the public schools.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1984). Clark's reply.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 32(4), 238–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., & Reiser, R. A. (1989).Planning effective instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1987). Planning, doing, and coping with change. In R. V. Carlson & E. R. Ducharme (Eds.),School improvement—Theory and practice: A book of readings (pp. 1051–1089). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 383–434). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, S. T. (1981). How teachers design their materials: Implications for instructional design.Instructional Science, 10, 363–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, A. (1973). The power of the principal: Research findings. In C. M. Culver (Ed.),The power to change (pp. 35–47). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. L. (in press). Teachers' planning processes: Does ISD make a difference?Performance Improvement Quarterly.

  • Martin, B. L., & Clemente, R. (1990). Instructional systems design and public schools.Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R. A. (1987). Instructional technology: A history. In R. M. Gagne (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 11–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffman, S. S. (1988). Influencing public education: A “window of opportunity” through school library media centers.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 41–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrock, S. A., & Byrd, D. M. (1988). An instructional development look at staff development in the public schools.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, N., & Higgins, N. (1983).Teaching for competence. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. F. (1990). A layers-of-necessity instructional development model.Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Clemente, R., Martin, B.L. Instructional systems design and public schools. ETR&D 38, 81–85 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298186

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298186

Keywords

Navigation