Instructional design tools: A critique and projections for the future

  • Kent Gustafson
Development

Abstract

This article critiques the instructional design tools described in the special issue of Educational Technology Research and Development, Volume 50 Number 4, “Computer-Based Tools for Instructional Design.” Although focusing on four tools, (a) digital management systems, (b) CASCADE, (c) knowledge management systems, and (d) ADAPTIT, the author also comments on the introductory article (van Merriënboer and Martens), and compares the four described tools with earlier models.

Keywords

Instructional Design Knowledge Management System Educational Technology Research Instructional Design Model Collaborative Learning Environment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barson, J. (1967).Instructional systems development. A demonstration and evaluation project: Final report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. (Also available as ED 020673)Google Scholar
  2. Bloom, B. (1968)Learning for mastery. Durham, NC: Regional Educational Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia. (Also available as ERIC document ED 053419)Google Scholar
  3. Briggs, L., Gustafson, K., & Tillman, M. (1991)Instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Connell, J., & Shafer, L. (1989).Structured rapid prototyping: An evolutionary approach to software development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Yourdan Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996).The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD.Training, 37(4), 42–45.Google Scholar
  7. Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. (1997).Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.), Syracuse, NY: Eric Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.Google Scholar
  8. Kemp, J. (1985).The instructional design process. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  9. Nieveen, N., & Gustafson, K. (1999). Characteristics of computer-based tools for education and training development: An introduction. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.),Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 155–174). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.Google Scholar
  11. Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. (1993). Instructional designers' decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.Google Scholar
  12. Visscher-Voerman, I. (1999).Design approaches in education and training. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kent Gustafson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaUSA

Personalised recommendations