A “Softer” Instructional Systems Design for Language Pedagogy

  • Kyoko HosogoshiEmail author
  • Sachi Takahashi
Part of the Translational Systems Sciences book series (TSS, volume 17)


This chapter examines the application of instructional systems design (ISD) in language pedagogy. ISD, a systematic approach to analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating instruction, has been suggested to provide clear step-by-step models to instruction, thereby assisting instructors in the effective and efficient conveying of information and promotion of learning. Attempts at introducing ISD into language pedagogy have generally been praised in the literature of applied linguistics. On the other hand, some criticisms of ISD have surfaced in the field of general education, including the idea that ISD is too systematic and rigid and cannot account for the human element in the classroom. In this chapter, we revisit ISD in the language classroom, through review of a case study application of one iteration of ISD (the ADDIE model). Through examination of the theory and the case study present, we suggest that in language course design, it is beneficial to first take a rigid, systematic approach to course design, and rather it is in the implementation of the course that individual units necessarily have a degree of flexibility. We propose that a “softer” approach to ISD might be applied to the implementation of ISD in a language course, allowing for both a guided approach to instruction and the flexibility required in human interaction systems.


Gagné’s nine instructional events Instructional systems design (ISD) Skill-integrated tasks Task-based language teaching (TBLT) ADDIE model 


  1. Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. S. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research and teaching in instructional design and technology. Educational media and technology yearbook, 31, 33–73.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co.Google Scholar
  5. Bonk, W. J. (2000). Second language lexical knowledge and listening comprehension. International Journal of Listening, 14(1), 14–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brownell, K. D. (2008). Introduction: What we eat, why we eat, and the key role of food in modern life. Retrieved from
  7. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Introduction. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning. Teaching and testing (pp. 1–22). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  8. Canaan, J. E., & Shumar, W. (2008). Higher education in the era of globalization and neoliberalism. In J. E. Canaan & E. Shumar (Eds.), Structure and agency in the neoliberal university. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chung, J. M., & Huang, S. C. (1998). The effects of three aural advance organizers for video viewing in a foreign language classroom. System, 26, 553–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Educational Testing Service. (1997). TOEFL® practice tests vol. 2. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001). Issues in EAP: A preliminary perspective. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 8–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  15. Herron, C. (1994). An investigation of the effectiveness of using an advance organizer to introduce video in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hosogoshi, K., & Takahashi, S. (2015). The use of integrated listening, reading, speaking and writing tasks on students’ productive skills in a university EAP course. Professional and Academic English, 45, 22–30.Google Scholar
  17. Jafari, K., & Hashim, F. (2012). The effects of using advance organizers on improving EFL learners’ listening comprehension: A mixed method study. System, 40, 270–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knoch, U., & Sitajalabhorn, W. (2013). A closer look at integrated tasks: Towards a more focused definition for assessment purposes. Assessing Writing, 18, 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Long, M., & Norris, J. (2009). Task-based teaching and assessment. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. M. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 135–142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  21. Mayer, R. (2003). Learning and instruction. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  22. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2012). Designing effective instruction. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Oxford, R. (2001). Integrated skills in the ESL/EFL classroom. ESL Magazine, 6(1). Reprinted in ERIC/CLL Digest, EDO-FL-01-05.Google Scholar
  24. Phillips, D. (2007). Longman preparation for the TOEFL® test : iBT. White Plains: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  25. Richards, J. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Robinson, B. K., & Dearmon, V. (2013). Evidence-based nursing education: Effective use of instructional design and simulated learning environments to enhance knowledge transfer in undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(4), 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rost, M. (2011). Teaching and researching listening (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Takahashi, S., Pearce, D. R., & Dalsky, D. (2018). MAP grammar and instructional design. In A. Tajino (Ed.), A new approach to English pedagogical grammar : The order of meanings (pp. 103–115). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Vandergrift, L., & Goh, C. C. M. (2012). Teaching and learning second language listening: Metacognition in action. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zeeland, H. V., & Schmitt, N. (2013). Lexical coverage in L1 and L2 listening comprehension: The same or different from reading comprehension? Applied Linguistics, 34(4), 457–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LettersKyoto Prefectural UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Institute for Liberal Arts and SciencesKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations