Skip to main content

Instructional Design: A Conceptual Parallel Processor for Navigating Learning Space

  • Chapter
Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training

Abstract

Instructional design is a process used to generate curriculum, courses, teaching units, and single episodes of guided learning. While instructional design is applicable for curriculum development, and in many types of teaching environments, this is a presentation about how instructional design can be conceived as a way to navigate in spaces dedicated to intentional [or guided] learning. Guided learning is purported to be complex because the student, the content, the media, the teacher, peers, and the context, all interacting within a discrete period of time; while moving toward a common goal. The instructional design concept suggested here is intended to be a way to respond to the complexities of guided learning. The contention is that the fundamental purpose of instructional design is to 1) respond to a performance discrepancy that is attributable to a lack of knowledge and skills, 2) generate learner-centered strategies, and 3) validate the products and procedures used for episodes of guided learning; and to accomplish theses processes parallel to each other.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Andrews, D.H. and Goodson, L.A., 1980, A comparative analysis of models of instructional design, Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balachandran, I. and Branch, R., 1997, Continuing professional education among Cytotechnologists: Reasons for participation, The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 17, 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B.H., 1987, Instructional systems design, In Gagné, R.M. (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 85–112), Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B.H., 1991, Educational systems design:A journey to create the future, Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braden, R.A., 1996, The case for linear instructional design and development: A commentary on models, challenges, and myths, Educational Technology, 26(3), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R., 1996, Instructional design as a response to the complexities of instruction, In Venkataiah, N. (Ed.), Educational Technology (pp. 21–49), Ashish Publishing House, New Delhi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R., 1997, Perceptions of instructional design process models, In Griffin, R.E., Beauchamp, D.G., Hunter, J.M. and Schiffman, C.B. (Eds.), Selected Readings of the 28th Annual Convention of the International Visual Literacy Association, Cheyenne, WY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R. and Gustafson, K.L., 1998, Re-visioning models of instructional development, A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, St. Louis, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. and Carey, L., 1996, The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.), Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dills, C.R. and Romiszowski, A.J., 1997, The instructional development paradigm: An introduction, In Dills, C.R. and Romiszowski, A.J. (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 5–30), Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earle, R., 1998, Instructional design and teacher planning: Reflections and perspectives, In Branch, R. and Fitzgerald, M. (Ed.), Educational technology and media yearbook (pp. 29–41), Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds G., Branch, R. and Mukherjee, P., 1994, A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models, Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J. and Wager, W.W., 1992, Principles of instructional design (4th ed.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K.L., 1981, Survey of instructional development models, ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources, Syracuse University (IR-81).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K.L., 1991, Survey of instructional development models (2nd ed.) [with an annotated ERIC bibliography by G.C. Powell], ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse University:(IR-91).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K.L. and Branch, R., 1997a, Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.), ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, Syracuse University (IR-103).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K.L. and Branch, R., 1997b, Revisioning models of instructional development, Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S., 1962, 1970, The structure of scientific resolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster, 1991, Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, Springfield, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moallem, M. and Earle, R.S., 1998, Instructional design models and teacher thinking: Toward a new conceptual model for research and development, Educational Technology, 38(2), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, R.A. and Dick, W., 1996, Instructional planning: A guide for teachers (2nd ed.), Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossett, A., 1993, Needs assessment, In Anglin, G.J. (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.) (pp. 156–169), Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B. and Glasgow, Z., 1998, Making instructional design decisions, Merrill, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R.L.M., 1986, An analysis of development and design models for microcomputer-based instruction, Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1986), University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, S. and Bichelmeyer, B., 1990, Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy, Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Branch, R.M. (1999). Instructional Design: A Conceptual Parallel Processor for Navigating Learning Space. In: van den Akker, J., Branch, R.M., Gustafson, K., Nieveen, N., Plomp, T. (eds) Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-5845-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-4255-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics