Instructional Design Models

  • Andrew S. Gibbons
  • Elizabeth Boling
  • Kennon M. Smith
Chapter

Abstract

Design has become increasingly important in a number of technology-related fields. Even the business world is now seen as primarily a designed venue, where better design principles often equate to increased revenue (Baldwin and Clark, Design rules, Vol. 1: The power of modularity, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2000; Clark et al., Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 3:729–771, 1987; Martin, The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press, 2009). Research on the design process has increased proportionally, and within the field of instructional design (ID) this research has tended to focus almost exclusively on the use of design models. This chapter examines the emergence of the standard design model in ID, its proliferation, its wide dissemination, and a narrowing of focus which has occurred over time. Parallel and divergent developments in design research outside the field are considered in terms of what might be learned from them. The recommendation is that instructional designers should seek more robust and searching descriptions of design with an eye to advancing how we think about it and therefore how we pursue design (Gibbons and Yanchar, Educ Technol 50(4):16–26, 2010).

Keywords

Design Instruction Instructional design Instructional development Design model Instructional design model Instructional systems design ADDIE Systems approach 

References

  1. AECT. (1977). The definition of educational technology. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, C. (1969). The timeless way of building. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern ­language: Towns, building, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. *Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.Google Scholar
  6. Archer, B. (1965). Systematic method for designers. London: The Design Council.Google Scholar
  7. *Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules, Vol. 1: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  9. Braden, R. (1996). The case for linear instructional design and development: A commentary on models, challenges, and myths. Educational Technology, 36(2), 5–23.Google Scholar
  10. *Briggs, L. J. (1967). Instructional media: A procedure for the design of multi-media instruction, a critical review of research, and suggestions for future research. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  11. *Briggs, L. J. (1970). Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  12. Brooks, F. P. (2010). The design of design: Essays from a computer scientist. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  13. Buchanan, R., & Margolin, V. (1995). The idea of design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Burk, F. L. (1913). Lock-step schooling and a remedy. Sacramento, CA: Superintendent of State Printing.Google Scholar
  15. Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.Google Scholar
  17. Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Cross, N., Christaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.). (1997). Analysing design activity. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Dubberly, H. (2005). How do you design? A compendium of models. Retrieved from http://www.dubberly.com/articles/how-do-you-design.html.
  20. Ely, D. P. (Ed.) (1963). The changing role of the audiovisual process in education: A definition and a glossary of related terms. Audio-visual communication review, 11(1), entire issue.Google Scholar
  21. Ely, D. P. (1972). The field of educational technology: A statement of definition. Audiovisual Instruction, 17(8), 36–43.Google Scholar
  22. *Finn, J. D. (1953). Professionalizing the audio-visual field. Audio-Visual Communications Review, 1(1), 6–17.Google Scholar
  23. Fishbein, J. M., & Tyler, R. W. (1973). The father of behavioral objectives criticizes the: An interview with Ralph Tyler. Phi Delta Kappan, 55(1), 55–57.Google Scholar
  24. Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  25. *Gagné, R. M. (Ed.) (1965b). Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  26. Gibbons, A. S. (1997). Design and documentation: The state of the art. TechTrends, 43(3), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibbons, A. S. (2011). Contexts of instructional design. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 1(1), 5–12.Google Scholar
  28. Gibbons, A., & Rogers, P. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. III). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Gibbons, A. S., & Yanchar, S. C. (2010). An alternative view of the instructional design process: A response to Smith and Boling. Educational Technology, 50(4), 16–26.Google Scholar
  30. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 43–53.Google Scholar
  32. Gustafson, K. L. (1981). Survey of instructional development models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ED 211097.Google Scholar
  33. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997a). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ED 411780.Google Scholar
  34. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997b). Revisionsing models of instructional development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ED 477517.Google Scholar
  36. Gustafson, K. L., & Powell, G. C. (1991). Survey of instructional development models with an annotated ERIC bibliography (2nd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ED 335027.Google Scholar
  37. Gregory, S. A. (Ed). (1966). The design method. London, UK: The Butterworth Press.Google Scholar
  38. Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 32(2), 67–87.Google Scholar
  39. Hughes, A., & Hughes, T. (Eds.). (2000). Systems, experts, and computers: The systems approach in management and engineering, World War II and after. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2007). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Jones, J. C. (1970). Design methods: Seeds of human futures. London: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  42. *Kridel, C., & Bullough, R. V. (2007). Stories of the eight-year study: Reexamining Secondary education in America. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kruger, C., & Cross, N. (2006). Solution driven versus problem driven design: Strategies and outcomes. Design Studies, 27, 527–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think. New York: Architectural.Google Scholar
  45. Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think (3rd ed.). London, UK: Architectural.Google Scholar
  46. Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  47. Lockee, B., Moore, D., & Burton, J. (2004). Foundations of programmed instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational communications technology (2nd ed., pp. 545–569). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  48. Margolin, V. (2010). Design research: Towards a history. Paper ­presented at the Design Research Society Conference, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  49. Markle, S. M. (1964). The Harvard teaching machines project: The first hundred days. Audio-Visual Communications Review, 12(3), 344–351.Google Scholar
  50. Markle, D. (1967). The development of the Bell System First Aid and Personal Safety course: An exercise in the application of empirical methods to instructional systems design: Final report. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ED 026871.Google Scholar
  51. Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  52. Molenda, M. (2003). The ADDIE model. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson (Eds.), Educational technology: An encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.Google Scholar
  53. Morrison, H. C. (1926). The practice of teaching in the secondary school. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Ofeish, G. D. (1963/2008). Tomorrow’s educational engineers. Republished in Educational Technology, 48(1), 58–59.Google Scholar
  55. Ramo, S., & St. Claire, R. K. (1998). Retrieved December 26, 2011, from http://www.incose.org/productspubs/doc/systemsapproach.pdf
  56. Read, H. (1946). The practice of design. London: Lund Humphries.Google Scholar
  57. Richey, R. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  58. Rith, C., & Dubberly, H. (2006). Why Horst W. J. Rittel matters. Design Issues, 22(4), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rittel, H. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rowe, P. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Royal Institute of British Architects. (1965). Handbook of architectural practice and management. London, UK: RIBA.Google Scholar
  62. Saettler, P. (1968). A history of instructional technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  63. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  64. Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.Google Scholar
  65. Shrock, S. A. (1995). A brief history of instructional development. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology, past, present and future (2nd ed., pp. 11–19). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  66. Silvern, L. C. (1962). Teaching machine technology: The state of the art. Audio-Visual Communications Review, 10(3), 204–217.Google Scholar
  67. Silvern, L. C. (1968). Systems engineering of education I: Evolution of systems thinking in education. Los Angeles, CA: Education and Training Consultants Co.Google Scholar
  68. Simon, H. (1969). Sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128(3330), 969–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith, K. M. (2008). Meanings of “design” in instructional technology: A conceptual analysis based on the field’s foundational literature (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69–08, 3122A.Google Scholar
  71. *Smith, K., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.Google Scholar
  72. Stamas, S. T. (1973). A descriptive study of a synthesized operational instructional development model, reporting its effectiveness, efficiency, and the cognitive and affective influence of the developmental process on a client. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  73. Taylor, R., & Doughty, P. L. (1988). Instructional development models: Analysis at the task and subtask levels. Journal of Instructional Development, 11(4), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Twelker, P. A., Urbach, F. D., & Buck, J. E. (1972). The systematic development of instruction: An overview and basic guide to the literature. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Media and Technology. ED 059629, EM 009673.Google Scholar
  75. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  76. Washburne, C. W. (1920). The individual system in Winnetka. The Elementary School Journal, 21(1), 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yang, C., Moore, D. M., & Burton, J. K. (1995). Managing courseware production: An instructional design model with a software engineering approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Young, R. A. (2008). An integrated model of designing to aid understanding of the complexity paradigm in design practice. Futures, 40(6), 561–576 (Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.futures.2007.11.005.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew S. Gibbons
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Boling
    • 2
  • Kennon M. Smith
    • 2
  1. 1.David O. McKay School of Education, Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations