Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Instructional systems design and public schools

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A great deal has been written in the last several years about the use or lack of use of instructional systems design (ISD) in public schools. The general discussion has revolved around why ISD has not been accepted by public schools; why instructional design experts have not been hired by public school systems; and primarily what an educational technologist can do to change the situation. The focus of most discussions by educational technologists is: how can schools and teachers alter their practice to benefit from ISD?

In this article, we maintain that one reason why ISD has not been adopted in schools is that there may not be a fit between the philosophies, needs, resources, and constraints of schools and the benefits of adopting ISD. We also argue that for ISD to have a significant influence in public schools, it must be accepted by teachers.

The general question we ask in this paper is this: are we attempting to redesign schools and classrooms to accommodate our technologies with insufficient attention to the perceived needs of clients and to the consequences of adopting ISD? Our approach to answering this question was to search the literature to uncover perceived inconsistencies between ISD theory and practice on the one hand and teacher needs, wants, and practices on the other.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Branson, R. K. (1988). Why the schools can't improve: The upper limit hypothesis.Journal of Instructional Development, 10, 15–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branson, R. K., & Grow, G. (1987). Instructional systems development. In R. M. Gagné (Ed),Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 397–428). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, L. J. (Ed.). (1977).Instructional design: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, L. J. (1982). Instructional design: Present strengths and weaknesses, and a view of the future.Educational Technology, 22(10), 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkman, E. (1989). Prospects for instructional systems design in the public schools.Journal of Instructional Development, 10, 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers thought process. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 255–296). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1980).The hidden world of teaching: Implications of research on teacher planning. Research series No. 77. East Lansing: Michigan State University, The Institute for Research on Teaching.

  • Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research, 53, 445–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). A cognitive theory of inquiry teaching. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: An overview. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. (1977). Formative evaluation. In L. J. Briggs (Ed.),Instructional design: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1985).The systematic design of instruction (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1982).The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation.Review of Educational Research, 47, 335–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1988).Principles of instructional design (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hechinger, P. (1988). Does school structure matter?Educational Researcher, 17(6), 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., & Katz, R. (1978).The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. L., & Briggs, L. J. (1986).The affective and cognitive domains: Integration for instruction and research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and influences on it.The Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 4–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, M., & Marsh, D. (1978). Staff development and school change.Teachers College Record, 80, 69–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, L. M. (1988). Contradictions of control, part 1: Administrators and teachers.Phi Delta Kappan, 69, 333–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morine-Dershimer, G. (1978–79). Planning in classroom reality an in-depth look.Educational Research Quarterly, 3(4), 83–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J. (1981). Teacher influence in the classroom: A context for understanding curriculum translation.Instructional Science, 10, 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. C., & Soltis, J. F. (1985).Perspectives on learning. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, W. A. (1987). Institutions and practices: Professional education reports and the language of reform.Educational Researcher, 16(8), 10–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1988). The search for meaningful reform: A third-wave educational system.Journal of Instructional Development, 10, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. (1986).The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. New York: Nichols.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1983).Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romiszowski, A. J. (1981).Designing instructional systems. New York: Nichols.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffman, S. S. (1988). Influencing public education: A “window of opportunity” through school library media centers.Journal of Instructional Development, 10, 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, 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement functions of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change.American Education Research Journal, 25, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snelbecker, G. E. (1988). Instructional design skills for classroom teachers.Journal of Instructional Development, 10, 33–40.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Yinger, R. (1979). Routines in teacher planning.Theory Into Practice, 18(3), 163–169.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Technology, Kent State University, 44240, Kent, OH

    Barbara L. Martin (Associate Professor)

  2. Curriculum and Instruction, Kent State University, 44240, Kent, OH

    Rebecca Clemente (graduate student)

Authors
  1. Barbara L. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca Clemente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin, B.L., Clemente, R. Instructional systems design and public schools. ETR&D 38, 61–75 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298270

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298270

Keywords

Search

Navigation