Instructional Design

TRENDS AND ISSUES IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY

Third Edition

Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto

Delhi Mexico City Sa~o Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo

Edited by

Robert A. Reiser Florida State University

John V. Dempsey University of South Alabama

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 EDW 15 14 13 12 11

ISBN-10: 0-13-256358-4 ISBN-13: 978-0-13-256358-1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Reiser, Robert A. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology/edited by Robert A. Reiser, John V. Dempsey.—3rd ed.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-13-256358-1 (alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-13-256358-4 (alk. paper) 1. Instructional systems—Design. 2. Educational technology. I. Reiser, Robert A. II. Dempsey, John V. III. Title. LB1028.38.T74 2012 371.33—dc22

2010052044

Senior Acquisitions Editor: Kelly Villella Canton Editorial Assistant: Annalea Manalili Senior Marketing Manager: Darcy Betts Production Editor: Gregory Erb Editorial Production Service: S4Carlisle Publishing Services Manufacturing Buyer: Megan Cochran Electronic Composition: S4Carlisle Publishing Services Interior Design: S4Carlisle Publishing Services Cover Designer: Jennifer Hart

Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on appropriate page within text.

Copyright © 2012, 2007, 2002 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Allyn & Bacon, 501 Boylston Street, Boston, MA, 02116. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, 501 Boylston Street, Boston, MA, 02116, or email permissionsus@pearson.com.

Preface vi Introduction ix Robert A. Reiser and John V. Dempsey

SECTION I DEFINING THE FIELD 1

Chapter 1 What Field Did You Say You Were In? Defining and Naming Our Field 1

Robert A. Reiser

Chapter 2 Characteristics of Instructional Design Models 8 Robert M. Branch and M. David Merrill

Chapter 3 A History of Instructional Design and Technology 17 Robert A. Reiser

SECTION II THEORIES AND MODELS OF LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION 35

Chapter 4 Psychological Foundations of Instructional Design 35 Marcy P. Driscoll

Chapter 5 Constructivism in Practical and Historical Context 45 Brent G. Wilson

Chapter 6 The Learning Sciences: Where They Came From and What It Means for Instructional Designers 53

Christopher Hoadley and James P. Van Haneghan

Chapter 7 Designing for Problem Solving 64 David Jonassen

Chapter 8 Instructional Theory and Technology for a Postindustrial World 75 Charles M. Reigeluth

Chapter 9 Motivation, Volition, and Performance 84 John M. Keller and Markus Deimann

Contents

iii

iv CONTENTS

SECTION III EVALUATING AND MANAGING INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS 96

Chapter 10 Evaluation in Instructional Design: A Comparison of Evaluation Models 96

R. Burke Johnson and Walter Dick

Chapter 11 An Introduction to Return on Investment 105 Jack J. Phillips and Patricia P. Phillips

Chapter 12 Managing On-Site and Virtual Design Teams 116 Brenda C. Litchfield

Chapter 13 Managing Scarce Resources in Training Organizations 126 James J. Goldsmith and Richard D. Busby

SECTION IV PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT 135

Chapter 14 The Development and Evolution of Human Performance Improvement 135

Harold D. Stolovitch and Bonnie Beresford

Chapter 15 Performance Support 147 Frank Nyugen

Chapter 16 Knowledge Management and Learning: Perfect Together 158 Marc J. Rosenberg

Chapter 17 Informal Learning 169 Allison Rossett and Bob Hoffman

SECTION V TRENDS AND ISSUES IN VARIOUS SETTINGS 178 Chapter 18 Instructional Design in Business and Industry 178

Monica W. Tracey and Gary R. Morrison

Chapter 19 Instructional Design Opportunities in Military Education and Training Environments 187

Mary F. Bratton-Jeffery and Arthur B. Jeffery

Chapter 20 Performance, Instruction, and Technology in Health Care Education 197 Craig Locatis

Chapter 21 Instructional Designers and P-12 Technology Integration 208 Deborah L. Lowther and Steven M. Ross

Chapter 22 Five University Roles for Designers From Three Nations 218 Brenda C. Litchfield, J. V. Dempsey, Peter Albion, Jacquie McDonald, and Junko Nemoto

SECTION VI GLOBAL TRENDS AND ISSUES IN IDT 229

Chapter 23 Developing Learning to Meet Complex Challenges for an Undivided World 229

Jan Visser

Chapter 24 Instructional Design and Technology in an Asian Context: Focusing on Japan and Korea 239

Katsuaki Suzuki and Insung Jung

CONTENTS v

Chapter 25 Instructional Design in Europe 248 Phil Green

SECTION VII GETTING AN IDT POSITION AND SUCCEEDING AT IT 256

Chapter 26 Getting an Instructional Design Position: Lessons from a Personal History 256

Robert A. Reiser

Chapter 27 Getting a Job in Business and Industry 263 Gabrielle K. Gabrielli and Robert K. Branson

Chapter 28 Professional Organizations and Publications in Instructional Design and Technology 273

James D. Klein, Nick Rushby, and Yuyan Su

SECTION VIII NEW DIRECTIONS IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY 281

Chapter 29 E-Learning and Instructional Design 281 J. V. Dempsey and Richard N. Van Eck

Chapter 30 Learning Objects 290 Susan Smith Nash

Chapter 31 Networks, Web 2.0, and the Connected Learner 299 Terry Anderson

Chapter 32 Using Rich Media Wisely 309 Ruth Colvin Clark and Richard E. Mayer

Chapter 33 Games . . . and . . . Learning 321 Valerie J. Shute, Lloyd P. Rieber, and Richard Van Eck

Chapter 34 Designing in Virtual Worlds 333 J. V. Dempsey, Rebecca Reese, and Stasia Weston

SECTION IX CURRENT ISSUES IN INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY 342

Chapter 35 Professional Ethics: Rules Applied to Practice 342 Sharon E. Smaldino, J. Ana Donaldson, and Mary Herring

Chapter 36 Diversity and Accessibility 348 Joél P. Lewis and Stephen M. Sullivan

Chapter 37 The Changing Nature of Design 358 Elizabeth Boling and Kennon M. Smith

Chapter 38 Debate About the Benefits of Different Levels of Instructional Guidance 367

Richard E. Clark and Michael J. Hannafin

Epilogue 383 Robert A. Reiser and John V. Dempsey

Index 385

CHAPTER NUMBER Chapter Title vi

This book provides readers with a clear picture of the field of instructional design and technol- ogy. Many textbooks in the IDT field focus on the skills needed by instructional designers and technologists. However, we believe that professionals in the field should be able to do more than just perform the skills associated with it. They should also be able to clearly describe the nature of the field, know and understand the field’s history and its current status, and describe the trends and issues that have affected it and will be likely to do so in the future. This book will help readers attain these goals.

Organization of the Book Organized into nine sections, the first section of the book focuses on foundational issues—defining key terms in the field and presenting its history. The second section, addressing the theories and models of learning and instruction that serve as the basis for the field, discusses wide arrays of viewpoints ranging from cognitive and behavioral perspectives to some of the views of teaching and learning associated with constructivism and the learning sciences. Two of the often over- looked phases of the instructional design process, namely, evaluating and managing instructional programs and projects, receive attention in section three, with particular emphasis on current methods of evaluation, including return on investment, and on how to manage design teams and scarce resources. The fourth section of the book hones in on key ideas and practices associated with performance improvement. A variety of non-instructional solutions to performance problems, such as performance support, knowledge management, and informal learning, are described. The fifth section of the book describes what IDT professionals do in a variety of work settings, including business and industry, the military, health care, P–12 schools, and higher education. Global trends in instructional design and technology, section six of the book, offers insights about the instructional design practices and technologies employed in parts of Europe, Asia, and Africa. Section seven focuses on how to get an IDT position and succeed at it. In addition to offering suggestions to job seekers, the section describes some of the organizations and publica- tions that will foster the growth of IDT professionals. The eighth section explores new directions in the field, including the impact of recent trends such as social networking, virtual worlds, and game-based learning. The last section of the book addresses some of the current issues in the field of instructional design and technology. Topics such as diversity, accessibility, professional ethics, and the benefits of different levels of instructional guidance are among the current-day issues addressed.

Preface

vi

PREFACE vii

What’s New in This Edition? The third edition of this book differs significantly from the second edition. One major difference is the inclusion of 18 new chapters in this edition. Many of these chapters provide an in-depth look at topics that were either not covered, or briefly touched upon, in the second edition. These thoroughly new chapters focus on:

• Constructivism (Chapter 5) • The Learning Sciences (Chapter 6) • Designing for Problem Solving (Chapter 7) • Instructional Theory for a Postindustrial World (Chapter 8) • Return on Investment (Chapter 11) • Performance Support (Chapter 15) • Instructional Design in P–12 Education (Chapter 21) • Instructional Design in the Developing World (Chapter 23) • Instructional Design in Asia (Chapter 24) • Instructional Design in Europe (Chapter 25) • Reusability and Reusable Design (Chapter 30) • Web 2.0 and Social Networking (Chapter 31) • Game-Based Learning (Chapter 33) • Virtual Worlds (Chapter 34) • Professional Ethics (Chapter 35) • Diversity and Accessibility (Chapter 36) • The Changing Nature of Design (Chapter 37) • The Benefits of Different Levels of Instructional Guidance: A Debate (Chapter 38)

In addition to these new chapters, many of the other chapters have been extensively revised. These chapters include:

• Characteristics of Instructional Design Models (Chapter 2). This chapter now includes an entirely new major section devoted to whole task approaches to the instructional design process.

• A History of Instructional Design and Technology (Chapter 3). New sections discuss recent increases in the use of digital media and informal learning in a wide variety of instructional settings, and the impact of these events on instructional design practices.

• Motivation, Volition, and Performance (Chapter 9). An extensive discussion of volition has been added to this chapter.

• Evaluation in Instructional Design (Chapter 10). Descriptions of several evaluation models that were not previously discussed (i.e., Brinkerhoff, Patton, and Rossi) have been added to this chapter.

• Informal Learning (Chapter 17). This chapter now contains an extensive discussion of how reliance on informal learning has increased as a result of the expanding use of Web 2.0 and social networking tools.

• Five University Roles for Designers from Three Nations (Chapter 22) now includes an au- thor from Japan, who describes the Japanese experience, as well as authors from Australia and the United States.

• Professional Organizations and Publications in Instructional Design and Technology (Chapter 28) has been revised and updated and includes twenty professional organizations and fifty publications of interest to members of the IDT community.

• E-Learning and Instructional Design (Chapter 29) explores the primary drivers of e-learning such as convergence, virtual social learning communities, and personal technologies.

viii PREFACE

Also new to this edition of the book are end-of-chapter summaries of the key principles dis- cussed in each chapter. These summaries are designed to help students recall the key ideas expressed throughout each chapter.

The case-based application questions that appear at the end of each chapter of the book should also be mentioned. While a few questions of this type appeared in the previous editions, in this edition the majority of application questions present students with authentic (“real-world”) prob- lems and require them to solve those problems. We have used these sorts of application questions in our classes for quite a few years, and our students have indicated that trying to solve them has really helped them to learn how to apply the key principles and practices associated with the various trends they are studying.

New! CourseSmart eTextbook Available CourseSmart is an exciting new choice for students looking to save money. As an alternative to purchasing the printed textbook, students can purchase an electronic version of the same content. With a CourseSmart eTextbook, students can search the text, make notes online, print out reading assignments that incorporate lecture notes, and bookmark important passages for later review. For more information, or to purchase access to the CourseSmart eTextbook, visit www.coursesmart.com.

Acknowledgments This book would not have been possible if it were not for all the hard work done by the many in- dividuals who have written chapters for it. As a group, they voluntarily spent many hundreds of hours putting together a series of chapters that provides readers with what we consider an in- sightful overview of the field of instructional design and technology, and the trends and issues that are affecting it. We would like to express our deepest thanks and sincere appreciation to all of these authors for their outstanding efforts. We really believe they did an excellent job, and we are confident that after you read the chapters they wrote, you will feel the same way.

We would also like to express our sincere appreciation to Kelly Villella Canton, our editor at Pearson Teacher Education, to Annalea Manalili, Kelly’s editorial assistant, to Greg Erb, our production editor at Pearson, and to Nandini Loganathan and the production staff at S4Carlisle Publishing Services. Their help in putting together this manuscript has proved to be invaluable.

We also appreciate the input from users in the field. Sincere thanks to all of our reviewers: J. Ana Donaldson, Walden University; Patricia L. Hardré, The University of Oklahoma; Odin Jurkowski, University of Central Missouri; Susan A. Santo, University of South Dakota; and Pat Zawko, State University of New York Institute of Technology.

Introduction

Robert A. Reiser Florida State University

and

John V. Dempsey University of South Alabama

Many of us who have been in this field for a while have had the experience of facing our parents and trying to explain our profession to them. Long explanations, short explanations—the end result is always the same. Our parents go cross-eyed and mumble something like, “That’s nice, dear.”

How about your parents? How much do they know about the field you are now studying, the field this book is about? They probably can’t describe it very well; perhaps they can’t even name it. But that puts them in some pretty good company. Many professionals in this field have trouble describing it. Indeed, many of them aren’t sure exactly what to call it—instructional technology, educational technology, instructional design, instructional development, instructional systems, or instructional design and technology (IDT), the name we, the editors of this book, have decided to use. Just what is the nature of the field that practitioners call by so many names? This is the basic question that the authors of the chapters in this book have attempted to answer.

This volume grew from each of our experiences in teaching a “Trends and Issues” course at our respective universities (together, we have a total of almost sixty years of experience teach- ing a course of this nature!). For many years we used an ever-changing collection of readings from a variety of sources. For all the differences between our two courses, there were greater similarities. (Dempsey was, after all, a student in Reiser’s Trends & Issues course shortly after movable type was invented.) So, it was natural that we spoke together on several occasions about the kind of text we would like to have, if we had our druthers.

When the folks at Pearson Education encouraged us in our delusions, our first idea was to produce a book of reprints from germane periodicals. As our discussions continued, however, we decided to invite a number of the most talented individuals we know in the field to contribute original manu- scripts. The result is this book, Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology.

The many talented authors and leaders in the field who have contributed to this book join with us in the hope that by the time you finish reading it, you will have a clearer picture of the nature of the field of instructional design and technology, and the trends and issues that have affected it in the past, today, and in the future. If we succeed in our efforts, then you may be able to clearly describe our field to your parents, or anyone who will take the time to listen.

ix

This page intentionally left blank

Chapter 1 What Field Did You Say You Were In?

Defining and Naming Our Field1

What are the boundaries of the field we are in? Howshall we define it? Indeed, what shall we call it? These are important questions that professionals in our field should be able to answer or, because there is no gen- erally accepted “correct” answer, at least be able to discuss intelligently. This chapter is intended to provide you with information that should help you formulate some tentative answers to these questions. The chapter will examine how the definition of the field has changed over the years, pres- ent two new definitions, and discuss the term that we will use in this book as the label for our field.

Before beginning to examine the definitions of our field, it is important to point out that not only have the definitions changed, but the actual name of the field itself has often varied. Over the years, a variety of different labels have been used, including, among others, such terms as audiovi- sual instruction, audiovisual communications, and educa- tional technology. However, the term that has been used most frequently has been instructional technology. This is the term that will be used in the next few sections of this chapter. However, the issue of the proper name for the field will be revisited near the end of the chapter.

SECTION I Defining the Field

Robert A. Reiser Florida State University

What is the field of instructional technology? This is a difficult question to answer because the field is constantly changing. New ideas and innovations affect the practices of individuals in the field, changing, often broadening, the scope of their work. Moreover, as is the case with many professions, different individuals in the field focus their at- tention on different aspects of it, oftentimes thinking that the work they do is at the heart of the field, that their work is what instructional technology is “really all about.”

Over the years, many attempts have been made to define the field. Several such efforts have resulted in definitions that were accepted by a large number of professionals in the field, or at least by the professional organizations to which they be- longed. However, even when a leading organization in the field has endorsed a particular definition, professionals in the field have operated from a wide variety of different personal as well as institutional perspectives. This has held true among intellectual leaders as well as practitioners. Thus, throughout the history of the field, the thinking and actions of a substantial number of professionals in the field have not been, and likely never will be, captured by a single definition.

Early Definitions: Instructional Technology Viewed As Media Early definitions of the field of instructional technology focused on instructional media—the physical means via which instruction is presented to learners. The roots of the

1I would like thank Walter Dick, Don Ely, and Kent Gustafson for pro- viding me with invaluable feedback on earlier versions of this manu- script, portions of which previously appeared in Educational Technology Research and Development (Reiser & Ely, 1997).

1

2 SECTION I Defining the Field

field have been traced back at least as far as the first decade of the twentieth century, when one of these media— educational film—was first being produced (Saettler, 1990). Beginning with this period, and extending through the 1920s, there was a marked increase in the use of visual materials (such as films, pictures, and lantern slides) in the public schools. These activities were all part of what has become known as the visual instruction movement. For- mal definitions of visual instruction focused on the media that were used to present that instruction. For example, one of the first textbooks on visual instruction defined it as “the enrichment of education through the ‘seeing experience’ [involving] the use of all types of visual aids such as the excursion, flat pictures, models, exhibits, charts, maps, graphs, stereographs, stereopticon slides, and motion pictures” (Dorris, 1928, p. 6).

During the late 1920s through the 1940s, as a result of advances in such media as sound recordings, radio broad- casting, and motion pictures with sound, the focus of the field shifted from visual instruction to audiovisual instruc- tion. This interest in media continued through the 1950s, with the growth of television. Thus, during the first half of the twentieth century, most of those individuals involved in the field that we now call instructional technology were fo- cusing most of their attention on instructional media.

Today many individuals who view themselves as members of the instructional technology profession still focus much, if not all, of their attention on the design, production, and use of instructional media. Moreover, many individuals both within and outside of the field of instructional technology equate the field with instruc- tional media. Yet, although the view of instructional tech- nology as media has persisted over the years, during the past fifty years other views of instructional technology have emerged and have been subscribed to by many pro- fessionals in the field.

1960s and 1970s: Instructional Technology Viewed as a Process

Beginning in the 1950s, and particularly during the 1960s and 1970s, a number of leaders in the field of education started discussing instructional technology in a different way—rather than equating it with media, they discussed it as being a process. For example, Finn (1960) indicated that instructional technology should be viewed as a way of looking at instructional problems and examining fea- sible solutions to those problems. And Lumsdaine (1964) indicated that educational technology could be thought of as the application of science to instructional practices. As you will see, most of the definitions of the 1960s and 1970s reflect this view of instructional technology as a process.

The 1963 Definition

In 1963, the first definition to be approved by the major professional organization within the field of educational technology was published, and it too indicated that the field was not simply about media. This definition (Ely, 1963), produced by a commission established by the De- partment of Audiovisual Instruction (now known as the Association for Educational Communications and Tech- nology), was a departure from the “traditional” view of the field in several important respects. First, rather than focus- ing on media, the definition focused on “the design and use of messages which control the learning process” (p. 38). Moreover, the definition statement identified a series of steps that individuals should undertake in designing and using such messages. These steps, which included plan- ning, production, selection, utilization, and management, are similar to several of the major steps often associated with what has become known as systematic instructional design (more often simply referred to as instructional de- sign). In addition, the definition statement placed an em- phasis on learning rather than instruction. The differences identified here reflect how, at that time, some of the lead- ers in the field saw the nature of the field changing.

The 1970 Definitions

The changing nature of the field of instructional technol- ogy is even more apparent when you examine the next ma- jor definition statement, produced in 1970 by the Commission on Instructional Technology. The Commis- sion was established and funded by the U.S. government to examine the potential benefits and problems associated with increased use of instructional technology in schools. The Commission’s report, entitled To Improve Learning (Commission on Instructional Technology, 1970), pro- vided two definitions of instructional technology. The first definition reflected the older view of instructional technol- ogy, stating:

In its more familiar sense, it [instructional technology] means the media born of the communications revolution which can be used for instructional purposes alongside the teacher, textbook, and blackboard. . . . The pieces that make up instructional technology [include]: television, films, overhead projectors, computers, and other items of “hard- ware” and “software”. . . (p. 21)

In contrast to this definition, the Commission offered a second definition that described instructional technology as a process, stating:

The second and less familiar definition of instructional tech- nology goes beyond any particular medium or device. In this sense, instructional technology is more than the sum of its parts. It is a systematic way of designing, carrying out, and

CHAPTER 1 What Field Did You Say You Were In? 3

evaluating the whole process of learning and teaching in terms of specific objectives, based on research on human learning and communication, and employing a combination of human and nonhuman resources to bring about more ef- fective instruction. (p. 21)

Whereas the Commission’s first definition seems to re- inforce old notions about the field of instructional technol- ogy, its second definition definitely defines the field differently, introducing a variety of concepts that had not appeared in previous “official” definitions of the field. It is particularly important to note that this definition mentions a “systematic” process that includes the specification of objectives and the design, implementation, and evaluation of instruction, each term representing one of the steps in the systematic instructional design procedures that were beginning to be discussed in the professional literature of the field (e.g., Finn, 1960, Gagné, 1965; Hoban, 1977; Lumsdaine, 1964; Scriven, 1967). The definition also in- dicates that the field is based on research and that the goal of the field is to bring about more effective learning (echo- ing the 1963 emphasis on this concept). Finally, the defi- nition discusses the use of both nonhuman and human resources for instructional purposes, seemingly downplay- ing the role of media.

The 1977 Definition

In 1977, the Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) adopted a new definition of the field. This definition differed from the previous definitions in several ways. Perhaps most noteworthy was its length— it consisted of sixteen statements spread over seven pages of text, followed by nine pages of tables elaborating on some of the concepts mentioned in the statements, as well as nine more chapters (more than 120 pages) that provided further elaboration. Although the authors clearly indicated that no one portion of the definition was adequate by itself, and that the sixteen parts were to be taken as a whole, the first sentence of the definition statement provides a sense of its breadth:

Educational technology is a complex, integrated process involving people, procedures, ideas, devices, and organiza- tion, for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating, and managing solutions to those problems, involved in all aspects of human learning. (p. 1)

Much like the second 1970 definition put forth by the Commission, the 1977 definition placed a good deal of emphasis on a systematic (“complex, integrated”) design process; the various parts of the definition mentioned many of the steps in most current systematic design processes (e.g., design, production, implementation, and evaluation). It is particularly interesting to note that the

1977 definition statement was the first such statement to mention the analysis phase of the planning process, which at that time was beginning to receive increasing attention among professionals in the field.

The 1977 definition also broke new ground by incorpo- rating other terminology that, within a period of a few years, was to become commonplace in the profession. For example, the definition included the terms human learning problems and solutions, foreshadowing the frequent cur- rent use of these terms, especially in the context of perfor- mance improvement.

The 1977 definition also included detailed tables de- scribing the various learning resources associated with the field. This list gave equal emphasis to people, materials, and devices, reinforcing the notion that the work of in- structional technologists was not limited to the develop- ment and use of media.

The 1994 Definition: Beyond Viewing Instructional Technology as a Process

During the period from 1977 to the mid-1990s, many de- velopments affected the field of instructional technology.2

Whereas behavioral learning theory had previously served as the basis for many of the instructional design practices employed by those in the field, cognitive and constructivist learning theories began to have a major influence on design practices. The profession was also greatly influenced by technological advances such as the microcomputer, inter- active video, CD-ROM, and the Internet. The vast expan- sion of communications technologies led to burgeoning interest in distance learning, and “new” instructional strate- gies such as collaborative learning gained in popularity. As a result of these and many other influences, by the mid-1990s the field of instructional technology was very different from what it was in 1977, when the previous def- inition of the field had been published. Thus, it was time to redefine the field.

Work on a new definition of the field officially com- menced in 1990 and continued until 1994, when AECT published Instructional Technology: The Definitions and Domains of the Field (Seels & Richey, 1994). This book contains a detailed description of the field, as well as the following concise definition statement:

Instructional Technology is the theory and practice of de- sign, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning. (p. 1)

As is evident in the definition, the field is described in terms of five domains—design, development, utilization,

2Many of these developments will be discussed in detail in succeeding chapters in this book.

4 SECTION I Defining the Field

management, and evaluation—five areas of study and practice within the field. The interrelationship between these domains is visually represented by a wheel-like vi- sual, with each domain on the perimeter and connected to a “theory and practice” hub. This representation scheme was designed, in part, to prevent readers from coming to the erroneous conclusion that these domains are linearly related (Richey & Seels, 1994).

Unlike the second 1970 definition and the 1977 AECT definition, the 1994 definition does not describe the field as process oriented. In fact, the authors of the 1994 definition state they purposely excluded the word “systematic” in their definition so as to reflect current interests in alternative design methodologies such as constructivist approaches (Richey & Seels, 1994). Nonetheless, the five domains that are identified in the definition are very similar to the steps that comprise the “systematic” processes described in the previous two definitions. Indeed, each of the five terms (design, development, utilization, management, and evalua- tion) or a synonym is used directly or indirectly in one or both of the previous two definitions.

The 1994 definition statement moves in some other new directions and revisits some old ones. For example, much like the 1963 definition statement, the 1994 statement de- scribes the field in terms of theory and practice, emphasizing the notion that the field of instructional technology is not only an area of practice, but also an area of research and study. The documents in which the 1970 and 1977 definition statements appear also discuss theory and practice, but the definition statements themselves do not mention these terms.

In at least two respects, the 1994 definition is similar to its two most recent predecessors. First, it does not separate teachers from media, incorporating both into the phrase “resources for learning.” And second, it focuses on the im- provement of learning as the goal of the field, with in- struction being viewed as a means to that end.

Although the 1994 definition discusses instruction as a means to an end, a good deal of attention is devoted to in- structional processes. The authors indicate that the “processes . . . for learning” (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 1) mentioned in their definition refer to both design and de- livery processes. Their discussion of the latter revolves around a variety of instructional strategies, and reflects the profession’s current interest in a wide variety of instruc- tional techniques, ranging from traditional lecture/discus- sion approaches to open-ended learning environments.

Two Recent Definitions In the past few years, several definitions have been pub- lished. In this section of the chapter, we will focus on two of these—one that an AECT committee has recently

produced and one that we, the authors of this textbook, have developed.

The Latest AECT Definition

In 2008, an AECT committee produced a book that pre- sented a new definition of the field of educational technol- ogy (AECT Definition and Terminology Committee, 2008). The definition statement that appears in the book is as follows:

Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources. (p. 1)

One of the many useful features of the book is a series of chapters devoted to explaining each of the key terms in the definition statement and discussing how the new defi- nition differs from previous ones. Some of the key terms that the authors discuss in the chapters are described below.

One key term in the new definition is the word ethical. This term focuses attention on the fact that those in the pro- fession must maintain a high level of professional conduct. Many of the ethical standards professionals in the field are expected to adhere to are described in the AECT Code of Ethics (Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 2007).

The new definition also focuses on the notion that the instructional interventions created by professionals in field are intended to facilitate learning. The authors contrast this viewpoint with those expressed in earlier definitions, in which it was stated or implied that the instructional solu- tions that were produced would cause or control learning. The new perspective recognizes the important role that learners play in determining what they will learn, regard- less of the instructional intervention they are exposed to.

The new definition also indicates that one of the goals of professionals in the field is to improve performance. The authors indicate that this term emphasizes that it is not sufficient to simply help learners acquire inert knowledge. Instead, the goal should be to help learners apply the new skills and knowledge they have acquired.

Unlike previous definitions, in which terms such as de- sign, development, and evaluation were often used to denote major processes or domains within the field, the new defini- tion uses the terms creating, using, and managing to describe the major functions performed by educational tech- nology professionals. The creation function includes all of the steps involved in the generation of instructional inter- ventions and learning environments, including analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The utilization function includes the selection, diffusion, and institutionalization of instructional methods and materials,

CHAPTER 1 What Field Did You Say You Were In? 5

and the management function incorporates project, delivery system, personnel, and information management. The au- thors point out that these three less technical terms are used to describe the major functions so as to convey a broader view of the processes used within the field.

The definition also uses the adjective technological to describe the types of processes professionals in the field engage in, and the type of resources they often produce. The authors, drawing on the work of Galbraith (1967), indicate that technological processes are those that involve “the systematic application of scientific or other organized knowledge to accomplish practical tasks” (AECT Defini- tion and Terminology Committee, 2008, p. 12). The au- thors also indicate that technological resources refer to the hardware and software that is typically associated with the field, including such items as still pictures, videos, com- puter programs, DVD players, and so on.

The Definition Used in This Textbook

One of the many strengths of the new AECT definition of educational technology is that the definition clearly indi- cates that a focus on systematic processes and the use of technological resources are both integral parts of the field. The definition that we will use in this textbook emphasizes these two aspects of the field as well as the recent influence the human performance technology movement has had on the profession.

As will be pointed out in later chapters in this textbook (e.g., Chapter 14), in recent years many professionals in the field of instructional design and technology (ID&T), particularly those who have been primarily trained to de- sign instruction, have been focusing their efforts on im- proving human performance in the workplace. Although such improvements may be brought about by employing instructional interventions, careful analysis of the nature of performance problems often leads to non-instructional solutions, such as instituting new reward structures, pro- viding clearer feedback to workers, developing perfor- mance support tools (see Chapter 15), creating knowledge management systems (see Chapter 16), and/or promoting and enhancing opportunities for informal learning (see Chapter 17). This new emphasis on improving perfor- mance in the workplace via non-instructional as well as in- structional methods has been dubbed the human performance technology, or performance improvement, movement. We believe that any definition of the field of in- structional design and technology should reflect this em- phasis. The definition that we have developed, and that we will use in this book, clearly does so. The definition is as follows:

The field of instructional design and technology (also known as instructional technology) encompasses the

analysis of learning and performance problems, and the de- sign, development, implementation, evaluation and man- agement of instructional and non-instructional processes and resources intended to improve learning and perfor- mance in a variety of settings, particularly educational insti- tutions and the workplace.

Professionals in the field instructional design and tech- nology often use systematic instructional design procedures and employ instructional media to accomplish their goals. Moreover, in recent years, they have paid increasing atten- tion to non-instructional solutions to some performance problems. Research and theory related to each of the afore- mentioned areas is also an important part of the field.

As noted earlier, this definition highlights two sets of practices that have, over the years, formed the core of the field. We believe that these two practices—the use of me- dia for instructional purposes and the use of systematic in- structional design procedures (often simply called instructional design)—are the key defining elements of the field of instructional design and technology. Individu- als involved in the field are those who spend a significant portion of their time working with media and/or with tasks associated with systematic instructional design proce- dures. We believe that one of the strengths of this defini- tion is the prominent recognition it gives to both aspects of the field. More importantly, we feel the proposed defini- tion, unlike those that have preceded it, clearly points to the efforts that many professionals in the field are placing on improving human performance in the workplace through a variety of instructional and non-instructional means. There is no doubt that many of the concepts and practices associated with performance improvement have been integrated into the training that future ID&T profes- sionals receive (Fox & Klein, 2003), and the activities those individuals undertake once they enter the profession (Van Tiem, 2004). The definition we have put forward clearly reflects this reality.

Naming the Field: Why Should We Call It Instructional Design and Technology? The definition proposed in this chapter also differs from most of the previous definitions in that it refers to the field as instructional design and technology, rather than instructional technology. Why? Most individuals outside of our profession, as well as many inside of it, when asked to define the term instructional technology, will mention computers, DVDs, mobile devices, and the other types of hardware and software typically associated with the term instructional media. In other words, most individuals will equate the term instructional technology with the term

instructional media. This is the case in spite of all the broadened definitions of instructional technology that have appeared over the past thirty to forty years. In light of this fact, perhaps it is time to reconsider the label we use for the broad field that encompasses the areas of instruc- tional media, instructional design, and more recently, per- formance improvement. Any of a number of terms comes to mind, but one that seems particularly appropriate is instructional design and technology. This term, which has also been employed by one of the professional organiza- tions in our field (Professors of Instructional Design and Technology), mentions both of the areas focused on in ear- lier definitions. Performance improvement, the most re- cent area to have a major impact on the field, is not directly mentioned because adding it to the term instructional de- sign and technology would make that term unwieldy, and because in recent years, instructional design practices have broadened so that many of the concepts associated with the

6 SECTION I Defining the Field

performance improvement movement are now regularly employed by those individuals who call themselves in- structional designers.

In this book, our field will be referred to as instructional design and technology, and we will define this term as in- dicated above. However, regardless of the term that is used as the label for our field and the specific definition you pre- fer, it is important that you understand the ideas and prac- tices that are associated with the field, and the trends and issues that are likely to affect it. The purpose of this book is to introduce you to many of those ideas, practices, trends, and issues. As you proceed through this book, we anticipate that your view of the field will evolve, and we are confident that your understanding of the field will in- crease. Moreover, we expect that you will be able to add your reasoned opinion to the ongoing debate concerning the “proper” definition and label for the field we have called instructional design and technology.

Summary of Key Principles

1. Over the years, a variety of different labels have been used as the name for the field that in this book we refer to as instructional design and technology. In recent years, other frequently used names for the field have included instructional technology and educational technology.

2. Definitions of the field have also changed over the years. Changes in definitions are appropriate because as new ideas and innovations affect the practices of individuals in the field, definitions of the field should be revised so as to make mention of those new practices.

3. Whereas early definitions of the field focused on the instructional media that were being produced by professionals in the field, starting in the 1960s and 1970s a number of leaders in the field, working both as individuals and as members of professional committees, developed definitions that indicated that instructional (or educational) technology was a

process. In particular, a process for systematically designing instruction.

4. The goals specified in the various definition statements have also shifted over the years. Whereas the earlier definitions indicated that the goal of the field was to bring about more effective instruction, later definitions indicated that the primary goal was to improve learning. The most recent definition statements expanded this aim, indicating that the goal of the field is to improve (or facilitate) learning and performance.

5. The definition of the field that we use in this book focuses on the systematic design of instruction and the use of media for instructional purposes, the two sets of practices that have formed, and still do form, the foundation of our field. The definition also focuses on the efforts by many professionals in our field to use a variety of instructional and non- instructional means to improve human performance in the workplace.

Application Questions

1. Define the field: Reexamine the various definitions of the field that have been mentioned in this chapter as well as several other definitions that you find online and/or in other sources. Then prepare your own definition of the field. This definition may either be one you create, one that was taken verbatim from this chapter or elsewhere,

or one that is a modified version of an existing definition. In any case, be sure to reference the sources you used in preparing your definition. After you prepare your definition, describe why you feel it is a good one.

2. Name the field: As mentioned in this chapter, there are many labels for the field you are now studying.

CHAPTER 1 What Field Did You Say You Were In? 7

References

AECT Definition and Terminology Committee. (2008). Definition. In A. Januszewski & M. Molenda (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1977). Educational technology: Definition and glossary of terms. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2007). AECT: Code of professional ethics. Retrieved November 21, 2010 from http://www.aect.org/About/Ethics.asp

Commission on Instructional Technology. (1970). To improve learning: An evaluation of instructional technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dorris, A. V. (1928). Visual instruction in the public schools. Boston: Ginn.

Ely, D. P. (Ed.). (1963). The changing role of the audiovisual process in education: A definition and a glossary of related terms. AV Communication Review, 11(1).

Fox, E. J., & Klein, J. D. (2003). What should instructional designers and technologists know about human performance technology? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16(3), 87–98.

Finn, J. D. (1960). Technology and the instructional process. AV Communication Review, 8(1) 5–26.

Gagné, R. M. (1965). The analysis of instructional objectives for the design of instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed learning, II: Data and directions. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Galbraith, J. K. (1967). The new industrial state. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hoban, C. F., Jr. (1977). A systems approach to audio-visual communications: The Okoboji 1956 keynote address. In Cochran, L. W. (Ed.), Okoboji: A 20 year review of leadership 1955–1974. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Lumsdaine, A. A. (1964). Educational technology, programmed learning, and instructional science. In E. R. Hilgard (Ed.), Theories of learning and instruction: The sixty-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reiser, R. A., & Ely, D. P. (1997). The field of educational technology as reflected in its definitions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 63–72.

Richey, R. C., & Seels, B. (1994). Defining a field: A case study of the development of the 1994 definition of instructional technology. In D. P. Ely (Ed.), Educational media and technology yearbook: 1994. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (American Educational Research Association Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Van Tiem, D. M. (2004). Interventions (solutions) usage and expertise in performance technology practice: An empirical investigation. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 23–44.

Author Information

Robert A. Reiser is a Distinguished Teaching Professor, the Robert M. Morgan Professor of Instructional Systems

and the Associate Dean for Research in the College of Education at Florida State University.

These labels include educational technology, instructional technology, instructional design and technology, instructional design, performance improvement, and many others. Examine some

outside resources in which several of these labels are defined and discussed. Then identify which label you feel is the best one for the field, and describe why you feel that way.

Chapter 2 Characteristics of Instructional Design Models

Instructional design (ID) is a system of procedures fordeveloping education and training curricula in a consis- tent and reliable fashion. A system is an integrated set of elements that interact with each other (Banathy, 1987). Although the exact origins of the instructional design process can be debated, Silvern (1965) presented an early attempt to apply general systems theory (GST) as an approach to accomplishing learning tasks and solving instructional problems. Silvern’s model, and practically all other early ID models, was based in behaviorism. Although behaviorism is commonly associated with B. F. Skinner and stimulus-response theory, many early behaviorists held far more encompassing theoretical and philosophical perspectives. Burton, Moore, and Magliaro (1996) broadly defined behaviorism as the philosophy and values associated with the measurement and study of hu- man behavior. Cognitive psychologists, particularly from the perspective of information processing, such as Gagné (1985), have also made major contributions to the underly- ing theories of instructional design.

Soon after behaviorism was acknowledged as a tenet of instructional design, general systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1968) emerged as another fundamental tenet of instructional design. The general systems concept is characterized as being systematic, systemic, responsive, interdependent, redundant, dynamic, cybernetic, synergistic, and creative. Systematic merely means agreeing to adopt rules and proce- dures as a way to move through a process. However, being

Robert M. Branch University of Georgia

M. David Merrill Utah State University

systematic does not mean blindly following a sequence with- out reflection on the process. Systemic stresses the applica- tion of creative problem-solving methods. The evidence that something is systemic is when you can observe that all com- ponents of a system respond when a single component within that system is stimulated. Responsive, within the con- text of instructional design, means accepting whatever goals are established as its orientation. Interdependence means that all elements within a system are connected to every other element within that same system, and therefore, all elements depend on each other to accomplish the system’s goals. Redundancy refers to duplicate processes and duplicate pro- cedures that are intended to prevent failure of the entire system. Dynamic means the system can adjust to changing conditions and constantly monitors its environment. Cybernetic means the elements efficiently communicate among themselves for the purpose to steer, govern, and guide. Cybernetics is most often associated with theories re- lated to automated control systems. Synergistic means that together, all the elements can achieve more than the individ- ual elements can achieve alone. Thus, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Creativity in instructional design refers to the use of special human talents and imagination in generating original ideas that permit instructional designers to expand the limitations of any system.

The nine characteristics just described enable a systems approach to facilitate the complexities of an educational sit- uation by responding to multiple components that form the

8

CHAPTER 2 Characteristics of Instructional Design Models 9

system, the interactions within a system, and the interactions that occur between different systems. Different learning out- comes often require various applications to a general systems concept. As a result, systems theory has been used as the basis for the development of a wide variety of instructional design models. The next section of this chapter describes several such ID models.

“Traditional” Instructional Design Models One of the most popular and influential ID models was cre- ated by Dick, Carey, and Carey (2005) and is depicted in Figure 2.1. While instructional design has traditionally been portrayed as rectilinear rows of boxes connected by straight lines with one-way arrows and a return line that is parallel to other straight lines, similar to the model as depicted in Figure 2.1, it is worth noting here that the actual practice of instructional design might be better communicated as a curvilinear flow diagram. Curvilinear compositions of ovals connected by curved lines with two-way arrows effectively acknowledge the complex reality upon which instructional design is practiced. Curvilinear portrayals of ID models tend to communicate more iterations, which characterize the ac- tual way instructional design is typically practiced (Branch, 1996). Figure 2.2 illustrates another example of an ID model based on the systems approach to instructional design that employs some curvilinear elements.

While there are a variety of ID models that have been generated since the 1970s (Gustafson & Branch, 2002), practically all ID models contain the core elements of ADDIE (Figure 2.3). ADDIE is an acronym for analyze, de- sign, develop, implement, and evaluate. ADDIE is based on a systematic product development concept. The concept of

systematic product development has existed since the for- mation of social communities. Creating products using an ADDIE process remains one of today’s most effective tools. However, ADDIE is not a specific, fully elaborated model in its own right, but rather a paradigm that refers to a family of models that share a common underlying structure. Accord- ing to Molenda (2008), the ADDIE label seems to have evolved informally through oral tradition, rather than having been formalized as a term by a single author. Molenda fur- ther asserts that ADDIE has become a colloquial term used to describe a systematic approach to instructional design.

Analyze often includes conducting a needs assessment (Rossett, 1993), identifying a performance problem in a business setting or some other environment (Gilbert, 1978; Harless, 1975), and stating a goal (Mager, 1984a). Design includes writing objectives in measurable terms (Mager, 1984b; Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2005; Smith & Ragan, 1999), classifying learning as to type (Gagné, et al. 2005; Merrill, 1983), specifying learning activities (Briggs, Gustafson & Tillman, 1991), and specifying media (Reiser & Gagné, 1983; Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell, 2007). Development in- cludes preparing student and instructor materials (both print and nonprint) as specified during design (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp, 2004). Implementation includes delivering the in- struction in the settings for which it was designed (Greer, 1996). Evaluation includes both formative and summative evaluation, as well as revision (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2005). Formative evaluation involves collecting data to identify needed revisions to the instruction, while summative evalua- tion involves collecting data to assess the overall effectiveness and worth of the instruction. Revision involves making needed changes based on the formative evaluation data.

It is important to note that the ADDIE activities typically are not completed in a linear step-by-step manner, even though for convenience they may be presented that way by

FIGURE 2.1 Example of a popular instructional design model. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2005).1

Conduct instructional analysis

Revise instruction

Develop assessment instruments

Develop Instructional strategy

Develop and select instructional materials

Design and conduct formative evaluation of instruction

Design and conduct summative evaluation

Write performance objectives

Assess needs to identify goal(s)

Analyze learners and contexts

1Reprinted by permission.

various authors. For example, during the life of a project, as data are collected and the development team gains insights, it is often necessary to move back and forth among the ac- tivities of analysis, design, and formative evaluation and re- vision. Thus, the iterative and self-correcting nature of the instructional design process emerges as one of its greatest strengths. Therefore, ID models should assure opportunities for recurring and concurrent design activities from the be- ginning to the end of the instructional design process.

Characteristics of Instructional Design Although the ADDIE activities mentioned earlier repre- sent the fundamental concepts of the instructional design process, there are several characteristics that should be present in all instructional design efforts.

1. Instructional design is student centered. 2. Instructional design is goal oriented. 3. Instructional design focuses on meaningful performance.

10 SECTION I Defining the Field

FIGURE 2.2 An ID model based on a systems approach to instructional design (Branch 1996).

Formative evaluation C on

te nt

a na

ly si

s

Objectives

Media

Instructional strategies

Situational assessment

Context Learner analysis

Performance assessment

Summative evaluation

plan Acceptable

Pilot test

YesNo

Instructional goals

Evaluate

revision revi sio

n

revisionrev isio

n Analyze

Implement Design

Develop

FIGURE 2.3 The core elements of ADDIE.

CHAPTER 2 Characteristics of Instructional Design Models 11

4. Instructional design assumes outcomes can be meas- ured in a reliable and valid way.

5. Instructional design is empirical, iterative, and self- correcting.

6. Instructional design typically is a team effort.

Instructional Design Is Student Centered

Student-centered instruction means that learners and their performance are the focal points of all teaching and learn- ing activities. Teaching and other forms of instruction are simply means to the end of learner performance. Thus, there may be no initial assumption that a live teacher is even needed for the learner to achieve the stated objectives. Self and group study, technology-based instruction, and teacher-based strategies are all options to be considered, with the result often being a mix of all these and other strategies. Learners may also be given opportunities to select their own objectives and/or learning methods in some circumstances. This change in perspective from teaching to learning represents a paradigm shift of immense power when planning for effective educational environments.

Instructional Design Is Goal Oriented

Establishing well-defined project goals is central to the ID process. Goals should reflect client expectations for the project and, if met, ensure its appropriate implementation. Unfortunately, many well-intended projects fail from lack of agreement on the goals or the decision to put off this impor- tant step in the false belief that this can be settled later. Iden- tifying and managing client expectations are of particular importance to the project manager, but team members also need to share a common vision of the anticipated outcomes of the project. The ultimate question for an instructional sys- tem is, “Have the goals of the project been attained?”

Instructional Design Focuses on Meaningful Performance

Rather than requiring learners to simply recall information or apply rules on a contrived task, instructional design fo- cuses on preparing learners to perform meaningful and perhaps complex behaviors including solving of authentic problems. Learner objectives are stated so as to reflect the environment in which students will be expected to apply the acquired knowledge or skill. Thus, there should be a high degree of congruence between the learning environ- ment and the setting in which the actual behaviors are per- formed. While it is usually easier to identify performance settings for training programs (e.g., operating a drill press) than for school-based learning (e.g., a college biology course), instructional designers should strive to identify authentic performance measures for both settings.

Instructional Design Assumes Outcomes Can be Measured in a Reliable and Valid Way

Related to the issue of performance is creating valid and re- liable assessment instruments. For example, if the objective is to safely and efficiently operate a drill press, then a valid (authentic) assessment technique would likely involve hav- ing an observer with a checklist observe the leaner per- forming selected drilling operations and also examining the quality of the products created. In contrast, a multiple- choice, paper-and-pencil test would not be a valid measure. In schools, the issue of validity often is more complex, but nonetheless the instructional designer can still ask how the knowledge and skill might be applied or otherwise used to enhance the validity of the assessment. Reliability concerns the consistency of the assessment across time and individ- uals. Obviously, if the assessment is not stable, its validity is seriously compromised.

Instructional Design Is Empirical, Iterative, and Self-correcting

Data are at the heart of the ID process. Data collection be- gins during the initial analysis and continues through im- plementation. For example, during the analysis phase, data may be collected so as to compare what learners already know to what they need to know. Guidance and feedback from subject matter experts ensures the accuracy and rele- vance of the skills and knowledge to be taught. Results of research and prior experience guide the selection of in- structional strategies and media. Data collected during formative tryout identifies needed revisions, and data from the field after implementation indicates whether the in- struction is effective. Although the data may not always bring good news, they are always “friendly” in that they provide a rational basis for decision making and a basis for successfully completing the project. Thus, the ID process usually is not as linear and sequential as most ID models imply.

Instructional Design Typically Is a Team Effort

Although it is possible for a single individual to complete an ID project, usually it is a team effort. Due to their size, scope, and technical complexity, most ID projects require the specialized skills of a variety of individuals. At a min- imum, a team will typically consist of a subject matter expert, an instructional designer, one or more production personnel, clerical support, and a project manager. Sometimes a single individual may play more than one role on a team, but larger projects invariably require

12 SECTION I Defining the Field

greater specialization. For example, high-tech projects may require computer programmers, videographers, edi- tors, graphic artists, and interface designers. Demands for logistic support in the form of clerical staff, librarians, business managers, and system support expand as the size and duration of projects increase.

Whole Task Approaches to Instructional Design Within the past decade, “traditional” instructional design models, particularly models such as the ADDIE model of instructional design, have came under attack (e.g., Gordon & Zemke, 2000, van Merriënboer, 2007), generating consid- erable debate about whether this type of approach is an effective and efficient way to design instruction, especially when the instruction is intended to teach learners how to perform complex skills. A key criticism has been that tra- ditional ID approaches emphasize breaking complex skills down into their component parts, and designing instruc- tion that initially focuses on teaching those component skills. It has been argued that doing so leads to fragmented instruction and is likely to result in learners having diffi- culty integrating the various part-skills that are they learn- ing; in other words, inhibiting learner ability to perform complex skills (e.g., de Croock, Paas, Schlanbusch, & van Merriënboer, 2002; van Merriënboer, 1997; 2007).

In response to this criticism, several “whole task” mod- els of instructional design have been proposed. In general, these models prescribe that throughout a sequence of in- struction, learners should be presented with a series of pro- gressively more difficult whole task problems of the type that the learners will be expected to solve by the end of that instructional sequence. A key idea is that such task se- quences are more likely to enable learners to successfully perform the complex whole task. The next two sections of this chapter briefly describe two whole task ID models.

The Pebble-in-the-Pond Approach

In an attempt to overcome some of the aforementioned problems, and as an extension of his work on first prin- ciples of instruction, Merrill (2002a, 2002b) proposed the pebble-in-the-pond instructional design model, an approach to instructional design built around a progression of whole problems or tasks (see Figure 2.4). This model is not a sub- stitute for ID but rather a content-centered modification of more traditional ID that facilitates incorporating first principles into an instructional product.

Traditional ID advocates the early specification of in- structional objectives. The problem with this traditional approach is that instructional objectives are abstract repre- sentations of the knowledge to be taught, rather than the

knowledge itself. Often the specification of the actual con- tent is delayed until the development phase of the ID process. Many designers have experienced the difficulty of writing meaningful objectives early in the design process. Often, after the development starts, the objectives written early in the process are abandoned or revised to more closely correspond with the content that is finally produced.

Pebble-in-the-pond avoids this problem by starting with the content to be taught (the whole tasks to be completed) rather than some abstract representation of this content (ob- jectives). Pebble-in-the-Pond assumes that the designer has already identified an instructional goal (not detailed objec- tives) and a learner population. The first step, the pebble, is to specify a typical problem that represents the whole task that the student will be able to do following the instruction. The word specify indicates that the complete problem or task should be identified, not just some information about the problem or task. A whole task includes the information that the learner is given and the transformation of this informa- tion that will result when the problem is solved or the task completed. The third component is to work the problem; that is, to indicate in detail every step required to solve the problem or complete the task.

Figure 2.4 indicates that the pebble-in-the-pond design model consists of a series of expanding activities initiated by first casting in a pebble, a whole task or problem of the type that learners will be taught to accomplish by the in- struction. Having identified an initial problem the second ripple in the design pond is to identify a progression of such problems of increasing difficulty or complexity, such that if learners are able to do all of the whole tasks thus identified, they will have mastered the knowledge and skill to be taught. The third ripple in the design pond is to iden- tify the component knowledge and skill required to com- plete each task or solve each problem in the progression. The fourth ripple is to determine the instructional strategy that will be used to engage learners in the problems and help them acquire the component knowledge and skill required to complete the tasks or solve the problems. The

FIGURE 2.4 A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design.

Task

Progression

Components

Strategy

Interface

Evaluation

Pebble-in-the-Pond Instructional Design

CHAPTER 2 Characteristics of Instructional Design Models 13

fifth ripple is interface design. It is at this point in the de- sign process that the content to be learned and the strategy used to engage learners is adapted to the delivery system and instructional architecture of the learning situation or product. The ripples have now expanded sufficiently to en- gage in the production of the instructional materials or sit- uation. Merrill prefers the term production to the term development, typically used in the ADDIE models since too often actual specification of the material to be learned is delayed in the traditional model until the development phase.

It should be noted that pebble-in-the-pond is primarily a design model; hence, we have not shown other necessary phases of the ID process, such as front-end analysis, im- plementation, and evaluation. These phases are still criti- cal and necessary to a complete development process using pebble-in-the-pond.

Pebble-in-the-pond also leads to a problem- or task- centered instructional strategy. One example of such a task-centered strategy is illustrated in Figure 2.5 (Merrill, 2007).

As shown in Figure 2.5, a problem- or task-centered in- structional strategy combines problem solving with direct instruction for the required knowledge and skill, demon- strates the problem-solving process, and then engages

learners in the problem-solving process. In a problem- or task-centered strategy, learners are engaged in doing real tasks early in the instructional sequence. Component skills (topics) are introduced as they are needed to enable learn- ers to do each task in the progression. The tell (2), show (3), do (5) sequence in the instructional strategy as il- lustrated in the figure corresponds to the demonstration and application principles of the first principles of instruction.

In contrast with a topic-centered approach, which often delays application of skills until a final culminating proj- ect, a problem-centered approach involves learners in ap- plying skills to the application of whole problems early in the sequence, demonstrates the application of individual component skills in the context of a whole problem, and engages learners in a progression of problems giving them multiple opportunities to apply their new knowledge and skill.

The Ten Steps to Complex Learning Approach

The pebble-in-the-pond ID model and the resulting task- centered instructional strategy is closely related to the 4C/ID model first proposed by van Merriënboer (1997) and later elaborated on with his colleague Kirschner

Topic 1

1. Show a new whole task.

Task-Centered Instructional Strategy

2. Present topic components specific to the task.

3. Demonstrate the topic components for the task.

4. Show another new whole task.

5. Have learners apply previously learned topic components to the task.

6. Present additional topic components specific to this task.

7. Demonstrate the application of these additional topic components.

8. Repeat apply, present, demonstrate cycle (steps 4 – 7) for subsequent tasks.

A B C D E

Topic 2

Topic 3

Topic 4

Topic 5

1 6 4 8

755

2

Learners are able to

complete a new task without further

instruction.

FIGURE 2.5 A task-centered instructional strategy.

14 SECTION I Defining the Field

(Van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2007) in their Ten Steps to Complex Learning approach to instructional design. As with the pebble-in-the-pond approach, van Merriënboer and Kirschner suggest that designers using the ten-steps approach should begin by specifying a series of learning tasks that are typical of the complex skill that the learner will be expected to perform following the instruction. These tasks should be of increasing difficulty so that dur- ing instruction the learner will begin by performing a sim- ple version of the whole skill and will gradually move on to performing more complex versions.

The ten-steps approach, like the pebble-in-the-pond ap- proach, also calls on designers to identify the subordinate knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to perform each learning task. The authors describe a series of design strategies and instructional techniques that designers can employ to help learners acquire these subordinate skills as well as successfully master performance of the complex whole skill. In many cases, these suggestions go beyond those provided by the pebble-in-the-pond approach.

Although the level of design guidance offered by the two aforementioned approaches differs, what is most im- portant is what they have in common, namely, that they are whole-task approaches to instructional design. In other words, they prescribe that from the very early stages in an instructional sequence, learners should be engaged in per- forming simplified versions of the complex whole task they are expected to learn, with the level of complexity in- creasing as learners become more proficient at performing the necessary subordinate skills. The authors of these ap- proaches argue this approach is more effective than some

of the more traditional approaches to instructional design in which the initial focus is on having learners acquire a se- ries of subordinate skills that the learner is not required to put together to perform the complex whole task until the end of the instructional sequence.

Conclusion During the past few years, there have been many ad- vances in learning theory, the technology of develop- ment, learning management systems, and the level of sophistication among the cadre of certified instructional designers. The whole-task models described in the pre- ceding sections respond to authentic problems or tasks by increasing the effectiveness, efficiency, and engagement of the learning experience within contemporary teaching and learning situations. The pebble-in-the-pond model and the ten-steps approach facilitate the implementation of first principles of instruction and the 4C/ID model by specifying the content to be learned at the beginning of the ID process and then building a strategy around solv- ing a progression of problems or doing a progression of increasingly complex tasks. However, the unifying vari- ables contained in most of the original ID models remain the same. These unifying variables are that instructional design is a systematic process, usually conducted by a team of professionals. Additionally, instructional design is an empirical process that is student centered and goals oriented, geared toward helping learner acquire mean- ingful skills and knowledge that can be measured in a reliable and valid manner.

Summary of Key Principles

1. The instructional design (ID) process consists of a set of procedures for systematically developing education and training materials. Most of the “traditional” models (i.e., versions) of the ID process include five phases of activities: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, often referred to by the acronym ADDIE.

2. Although some descriptions may seem to portray the ID process as a linear one, instructional design procedures are rarely conducted in a linear fashion. It would be more appropriate to characterize the instructional design process as iterative; as instructional designers conduct their work, they often move back and forth among the various phases of the ID process.

3. The ID process often centers around designing instruction that will enable learners to attain well- defined goals that usually involve the learners being able to perform meaningful, and often complex, behaviors. An important part of the process involves accurately assessing whether learners can perform those behaviors. The data that is gathered via these assessments is often used by instructional designers and other members of an instructional design team to help them improve the quality of the instruction they are producing.

4. A key criticism of traditional instructional design approaches has been that by breaking complex skills down into their component parts, and designing instruction that initially focuses on teaching those component skills, such approaches result in learners

CHAPTER 2 Characteristics of Instructional Design Models 15

having difficulty integrating the various part-skills that they are learning; in other words, inhibiting learner ability to perform complex skills.

5. In contrast to traditional instructional design approaches, whole-task approaches (such as the pebble-in-the-pond approach and the ten-steps to complex learning approach) prescribe that

throughout a sequence of instruction, learners should be presented with a series of progressively more difficult whole task problems of the type that the learners will be expected to solve by the end of that instructional sequence. Such task sequences are more likely to enable learners to successfully perform the complex whole task.

References

Banathy, B. H. (1987). Instructional systems design. In R. M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: Braziller.

Branch, R. (1996). Instructional design as a response to the complexities of instruction. In N. Venkataiah (Ed.), Educational technology (pp. 21–49). New Delhi: S. B. Nangia for APH Publishing Corporation.

Briggs, L. J., Gustafson, K. L., & Tillman, M. H. (Eds.). (1991). Instructional design: Principles and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Burton, J., Moore, D., & Magliaro, S. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Macmillan.

de Croock, M.B. M., Paas, F. Schlanbusch, H., van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2002). ADAPTit: Tools for training design and evaluation Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(4), 47–58.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, L. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Application Questions

1. You have recently been hired by a large plumbing company to design a course to train recent high school graduates how to perform some basic plumbing skills. Describe how you might use each of the six characteristics of instructional design that were described in this chapter to help you design an effective course.

2. Do you think that whole-task approaches are an improvement over “traditional” instructional design models? Explain why or why not.

3. Select a content area and try to specify a whole problem or task including both a demonstration and application. What were the challenges? Did you find designing a whole task helpful in identifying the instruction needed to help learners acquire the skills necessary to do this task or solve this problem? Why? Why not?

Author Information

Robert M. Branch is Professor of Learning, Design, and Technology, and Department Head of Educational Psychol- ogy and Instructional Technology at the University of Georgia.

M. David Merrill is an Emeritus Professor at Utah State University and an instructional effectiveness consultant.

16 SECTION I Defining the Field

Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Gilbert, T. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000 April). The attack on ISD. Training, 37, 43–53.

Greer, M. (1996). The project manager’s partner: A step- by-step guide to project management. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). Syracuse University: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.

Harless, J. (1975). An ounce of analysis is worth a pound of cure. Newnan, GA: Harless Performance Guild.

Mager, R. (1984a). Goal analysis. Belmont, CA: Pitman Management and Training.

Mager, R. (1984b). Preparing instructional objectives (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Pitman Management and Training.

Merrill, D. M. (1983). Component display theory. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design: Theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 279–334). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Merrill, M. D. (2002a). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.

Merrill, M. D. (2002b). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 39–44.

Merrill, M. D. (2007). A task-centered instructional strategy. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 33–50.

Molenda, M. (2008). Historical foundations. In J. M. Spector, M. David Merrill, J. van

Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Morrison, G., Ross, S., & Kemp, J. (2004). Designing effective instruction (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Reiser, R., & Gagné, R. (1983). Selecting media for instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

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

Silvern, L. C. (1965). Basic analysis. Los Angeles: Education and Training Consultants Company.

Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Russell, J. D. (2007). Instructional technology and media for learning (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Alternate models of instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 72–81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chapter 3 A History of Instructional Design and Technology

As was indicated in the first chapter of this book, over theyears, two practices—the use of systematic instruc- tional design procedures (often simply called instructional design) and the use of media for instructional purposes— have formed the core of the field of instructional design and technology. This chapter will review the history of the field by examining the history of instructional media and the history of instructional design. From a historical perspective, most of the practices related to instructional media have occurred independent of developments associated with instructional design. Therefore the history of each of these two sets of practices will be described separately. It should also be noted that although many important events in the history of the field of instructional design and technology have taken place in other countries, the emphasis in this chapter will be on events that have taken place in the United States.

History of Instructional Media The term instructional media has been defined as the physical means via which instruction is presented to learn- ers (Reiser & Gagné, 1983). Under this definition, every

Robert A. Reiser1

Florida State University

physical means of instructional delivery, from the live instructor to the textbook to the computer and so on, would be classified as an instructional medium. It may be wise for practitioners in the field to adopt this viewpoint; how- ever, in most discussions of the history of instructional media, the three primary means of instruction prior to the twentieth century (and still the most common means today)—the teacher, the chalkboard, and the textbook— have been categorized separately from other media (cf. Commission on Instructional Technology, 1970). In order to clearly describe the history of media, this view- point will be employed in this chapter. Thus, instructional media will be defined as the physical means, other than the teacher, chalkboard, and textbook, via which instruction is presented to learners.

School Museums

In the United States, the use of media for instructional purposes has been traced back to at least as early as the first decade of the twentieth century (Saettler, 1990). It was at that time that school museums came into exis- tence. As Saettler (1968) has indicated, these museums “served as the central administrative unit[s] for visual instruction by [their] distribution of portable museum exhibits, stereographs [three-dimensional photographs], slides, films, study prints, charts, and other instructional materials” (p. 89). The first school museum was opened

1Portions of this chapter previously appeared as a book chapter (Reiser, 1987).

17

in St. Louis in 1905, and shortly thereafter school museums were opened in Reading, Pennsylvania, and Cleveland, Ohio. Although few such museums have been established since the early 1900s, the district-wide media center can be considered a modern equivalent.

Saettler (1990) has also stated that the materials housed in school museums were viewed as supplementary cur- riculum materials. They were not intended to supplant the teacher or the textbook. Throughout the past one hundred years, this early view of the role of instructional media has remained prevalent in the educational community at large. That is, during this time period most educators have viewed instructional media as supplementary means of presenting instruction. In contrast, teachers and textbooks are generally viewed as the primary means of presenting instruction, and teachers are usually given the authority to decide what other instructional media they will employ. Over the years, a number of professionals in the field of instructional design and technology (e.g., Heinich, 1970) have argued against this notion, indicating that (a) teachers should be viewed on an equal footing with instructional media—as just one of many possible means of presenting instruction; and (b) teachers should not be given sole au- thority for deciding what instructional media will be em- ployed in classrooms. However, in the broad educational community, these viewpoints have not prevailed.

The Visual Instruction Movement and Instructional Films

As Saettler (1990) has indicated, in the early part of the twentieth century, most of the media housed in school mu- seums were visual media, such as films, slides, and photo- graphs. Thus, at the time, the increasing interest in using media in the school was referred to as the “visual instruc- tion” or “visual education” movement. The latter term was used at least as far back as 1908, when the Keystone View Company published Visual Education, a teacher’s guide to lantern slides and stereographs.

Besides magic lanterns (lantern slide projectors) and stereopticons (stereograph viewers), which were used in some schools during the second half of the nineteenth cen- tury (Anderson, 1962), the motion picture projector was one of the first media devices used in schools. In the United States, the first catalog of instructional films was published in 1910. Later that year, the public school sys- tem of Rochester, New York, became the first to adopt films for regular instructional use. In 1913, Thomas Edison proclaimed: “Books will soon be obsolete in the schools. . . . It is possible to teach every branch of human knowledge with the motion picture. Our school system will be completely changed in the next ten years” (cited in Saettler, 1968, p. 98).

Durning the ten-year period Edison was referring to (1914–1923), the visual instruction movement did grow. Five national professional organizations for visual instruc- tion were established, five journals focusing on visual instruction began publication, more than twenty teacher- training institutions began offering courses in visual instruction, and at least a dozen large-city school systems developed bureaus of visual education (Saettler, 1990). However, by the end of that ten-year period, the revolun- tary changes in education envisoned by that Edison had not come about. Cuban (1986) indicates that the impact of the visual instruction was limited because of a wide variety of factors, including teacher resistance to change, the diffi- cultly teachers had in operating film equipment, the paucity and poor instructional quality of relevant films in many subject areas, and the costs associated with purchas- ing and maintaining films and equipment.

The Audiovisual Instruction Movement and Instructional Radio

During the remainder of the 1920s and through much of the 1930s, technological advances in such areas as radio broadcasting, sound recordings, and sound motion pic- tures led to increased interest in instructional media. With the advent of media incorporating sound, the visual instruction movement became known as the audiovisual instruction movement (Finn, 1972; McCluskey, 1981). However, McCluskey (1981), who was one of the leaders in the field during this period, indicates that while the field continued to grow, the educational community at large was not greatly affected by that growth. He states that by 1930, commercial interests in the visual instruction movement had invested and lost more than $50 million, only part of which was due to the Great Depression, which began in 1929.

In spite of the adverse economic effects of the Great Depression, the audiovisual instruction movement contin- ued to evolve. According to Saettler (1990), one of the most significant events in this evolution was the merging, in 1932, of the three existing national professional organi- zations for visual instruction. As a result of this merger, leadership in the movement was consolidated within one organization, the Department of Visual Instruction (DVI), which at that time was part of the National Education Association. Over the years, this organization, which was created in 1923, and which is now called the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), has maintained a leadership role in the field of instruc- tional design and technology.

During the 1920s and 1930s, a number of textbooks on the topic of visual instruction were written. Perhaps the most important of these textbooks was Visualizing the

18 SECTION I Defining the Field

CHAPTER 3 A History of Instructional Design and Technology 19

Curriculum, written by Charles F. Hoban, Sr., Charles F. Hoban, Jr., and Stanley B. Zissman (1937). In this book, the authors stated that the value of audiovisual material was a function of their degree of realism. The authors also presented a hierarchy of media, ranging from those that could only present concepts in an abstract fashion to those that allowed for very concrete representations (Heinich, Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino, 1999). Some of these ideas had previously been discussed by others, but had not been dealt with as thoroughly. In 1946, Edgar Dale further elaborated on these ideas when he developed his famous “Cone of Experience.” Throughout the history of the au- diovisual instruction movement, many have indicated that part of the value of audiovisual materials is their ability to present concepts in a concrete manner (Saettler, 1990).

A medium that gained a great deal of attention during this period was radio. By the early 1930s, many audiovisual enthusiasts were hailing radio as the medium that would revolutionize education. For example, in referring to the in- structional potential of radio, films, and television, the edi- tor of publications for the National Education Association stated that “tomorrow they will be as common as the book and powerful in their effect on learning and teaching” (Morgan, 1932, p. ix). However, contrary to these sorts of predictions, over the next twenty years, radio had very little impact on instructional practices. Cuban (1986) indicates that poor equipment, poor reception of radio signals, sched- uling problems and teacher resistance to change were among the many factors that resulted in this lack of impact.

World War II

With the onset of World War II, the growth of the audio- visual instruction movement in the schools slowed; how- ever, audiovisual devices were used extensively in the military services and in industry. For example, during the war the U.S. Army Air Force produced more than 400 training films and 600 filmstrips and during a two-year period (from mid-1943 to mid-1945) it was estimated that there were over 4 million showings of training films to U.S. military personnel. Although there was little time and opportunity to collect hard data regarding the effect of these films on the performance of military personnel, several surveys of military instruc- tors revealed that they felt that the training films and filmstrips used during the war were effective training tools (Saettler, 1990). Apparently, at least some of the enemy agreed; in 1945, after the war ended, the German Chief of General Staff said: “We had everything calcu- lated perfectly except the speed with which America was able to train its people. Our major miscalculation was in underestimating their quick and complete mastery of film education” (cited in Olsen & Bass, 1982, p. 33).

During the war, training films also played an impor- tant role in preparing civilians in the United States to work in industry. In 1941, the federal government estab- lished the Division of Visual Aids for War Training. From 1941 to 1945, this organization oversaw the production of 457 training films. Most training directors reported that the films reduced training time without having a neg- ative impact on training effectiveness, and that the films were more interesting and resulted in less absenteeism than traditional training programs (Saettler, 1990).

In addition to training films and film projectors, a wide variety of other audiovisual materials and equipment were employed in the military forces and in industry during World War II. Those devices that were used extensively in- cluded overhead projectors, which were first produced during the war; slide projectors, which were used in teach- ing aircraft and ship recognition; audio equipment, which was used in teaching foreign languages; and simulators and training devices, which were employed in flight train- ing (Olsen & Bass, 1982; Saettler, 1990).

Theories of Communication

During the decade after World War II, many leaders in the audiovisual instruction movement became interested in various theories or models of communication, such as the model put forth by Shannon and Weaver (1949). These models focused on the communication process, a process involving a sender and a receiver of a message, and a chan- nel, or medium, through which that message is sent. The authors of these models indicated that during planning for communication it was necessary to consider all the ele- ments of the communication process, and not just focus on the medium, as many in the audiovisual field tended to do. As Berlo (1963) stated: “As a communication man I must argue strongly that it is the process that is central and that the media, though important, are secondary” (p. 378). Several leaders in the audiovisual movement, such as Dale (1953) and Finn (1954), also emphasized the importance of the communication process. Although at first, audiovisual practitioners were not greatly influenced by this notion (Lumsdaine, 1964; Meierhenry, 1980), the expression of this point of view eventually helped expand the focus of the audiovisual movement (Ely, 1963, 1970; Silber, 1981).

Instructional Television

Perhaps the most important factor to affect the audio- visual movement in the 1950s was the increased interest in television as a medium for delivering instruction. Prior to the 1950s, there had been a number of instances in which television had been used for instructional pur- poses (Gumpert, 1967; Taylor, 1967). During the 1950s, however, there was a tremendous growth in the use of

20 SECTION I Defining the Field

instructional television. This growth was stimulated by at least two major factors.

One factor that spurred the growth of instructional tele- vision was the 1952 decision by the Federal Communica- tions Commission to set aside 242 television channels for educational purposes. This decision led to the rapid devel- opment of a large number of public (then called “educa- tional”) television stations. By 1955, there were seventeen such stations in the United States, and by 1960 that number had increased to more than fifty (Blakely, 1979). One of the primary missions of these stations was the presentation of instructional programs. As Hezel (1980) indicates: “The teaching role has been ascribed to public broadcasting since its origins. Especially prior to the 1960s, educational broad- casting was seen as a quick, efficient, inexpensive means of satisfying the nation’s instructional needs” (p. 173).

The growth of instructional television during the 1950s was also stimulated by funding provided by the Ford Foun- dation. It has been estimated that during the 1950s and 1960s the foundation and its agencies spent more than $170 million on educational television (Gordon, l970). Those projects sponsored by the foundation included a closed-circuit television system that was used to deliver in- struction in all major subject areas at all grade levels throughout the school system in Washington County (Hagerstown), Maryland; a junior-college curriculum which was presented via public television in Chicago; a large-scale experimental research program designed to as- sess the effectiveness of a series of college courses taught via closed circuit television at Pennsylvania State Univer- sity; and the Midwest Program on Airborne Television In- struction, a program designed to simultaneously transmit televised lessons from an airplane to schools in six states.

By the mid-1960s, much of the interest in using televi- sion for instructional purposes had abated. Many of the in- structional television projects developed during this period had short lives. For example, by 1963 the Ford Foundation decided to focus its support on public television in general, rather than on in-school applications of instructional tele- vision (Blakely, 1979). In addition, many school districts discontinued instructional television demonstration proj- ects when the external funding for those projects was halted (Tyler, 1975b). Moreover, instructional program- ming was still an important part of the mission of public television, but that mission was now wider, encompassing other types of programming, such as cultural and informa- tional presentations (Hezel, 1980). In light of these and other developments, in 1967 the Carnegie Commission on Educational Television concluded:

The role played in formal education by instructional tele- vision has been on the whole a small one . . . nothing which approached the true potential of instructional

television has been realized in practice. . . . With minor exceptions, the total disappearance of instructional televi- sion would leave the educational system fundamentally unchanged. (pp. 80–81)

Many reasons have been given as to why instructional television was not adopted to a greater extent. These in- clude teacher resistance to change, especially top-down change (change mandated by school adminstrators with little or no input from teachers), the mediocre instructional quality of many of the television programs (many of them did little more than present a teacher delivering a lecture), the expense of installing and maintaining television sys- tems in schools, and the failure to provide teachers with adequate guidance as to how to integrate the use of in- structional television into their instructional practices (Chu & Schramm, 1975; Cuban, 1986; Gordon, 1970; Tyler, 1975b).

Using Computers for Instructional Purposes

After the interest in instructional television faded, the next technological innovation to catch the attention of a large number of educators was the computer. Although wide- spread interest in the computer as an instructional tool did not occur until the 1980s, computers were first used in ed- ucation and training at a much earlier date. Much of the early work in computer-assisted instruction (CAI) was done in the 1950s by researchers at IBM, who developed the first CAI author language and designed one of the first CAI programs to be used in the public schools. Other pioneers in this area included Gordon Pask, whose adap- tive teaching machines made use of computer technology (Lewis & Pask, 1965; Pask, 1960; Stolorow & Davis, 1965), and Richard Atkinson and Patrick Suppes, whose work during the 1960s led to some of the earliest applica- tions of CAI at both the public school and university lev- els (Atkinson & Hansen, 1966; Suppes & Macken, 1978). Other major efforts during the 1960s and early 1970s in- cluded the development of CAI systems such as PLATO and TICCIT. However, in spite of the work that had been done, by the end of the 1970s, CAI had had very little im- pact on education (Pagliaro, 1983).

By the early 1980s, a few years after personal comput- ers became available to the general public, the enthusiasm surrounding this tool led to increasing interest in using computers for instructional purposes. By January 1983, computers were being used for instructional purposes in more than 40 percent of all elementary schools and more than 75 percent of all secondary schools in the United States (Center for Social Organization of Schools, 1983).

Many educators became attracted to personal comput- ers as an instructional tool because they were relatively

CHAPTER 3 A History of Instructional Design and Technology 21

inexpensive, were compact enough for desktop use, and could perform many of the functions performed by the large computers that had preceded them. As was the case when other new media were first introduced into the in- structional arena, many expected that this medium would have a major impact on instructional practices. For exam- ple, in 1984, Papert indicated that the computer was going to be “a catalyst of very deep and radical change in the ed- ucational system” (p. 422) and that by 1990 one computer per child would be a very common state of affairs in schools in the United States.

At first, optimistic predictons about the extent to which computers would transform instructional practices ap- peared to be wrong. By the mid-1990s that impact had been rather small. Surveys revealed that by 1995, although schools in the United States possessed, on average, one computer for every nine students, the impact of computers on instructional practices was minimal, with a substantial number of teachers reporting little or no use of computers for instructional purposes. Moreover, in most cases, the use of computers was far from innovative. In elementary schools, teachers reported that computers were being pri- marily used for drill and practice, and at the secondary level, reports indicated that computers were mainly used for teaching computer-related skills such as word process- ing (Anderson & Ronnkvist, 1999; Becker, 1998; Office of Technology Assessment, 1995). However, as discussed be- low, events during the first decade of the current century indicate that computers and other new technologies are having more of an impact on education and training than many of the media that preceded these innovations.

Recent Developments

During the past ten years, rapid advances in computers and other digital technology, including the Internet, have led to a rapidly increasing interest in, and use of, these media for instructional purposes. This conclusion appears to be true across a wide variety of training and educational settings, including businees and industry, higher education, K–12 education, and the military.

In buisness and industry, surveys reveal that during the past decade there has been a substantial increase in percentage of training that is presented via instructional media. A recent survey of over three hundred companies in the United States indicated that more than 30 percent of the total amount of training hours during 2008 was presented via technology, with more than 24 percent of that training delivered online (Amercian Society for Training & Development, 2009). In comparison, in 1999, less than 10 percent of the training in business and industry was presented via technology (American Society for Training & Development, 2004).

In higher education, the use of instructional technology, particularly newer media, has also been on the rise in re- cent years. For example, a 2010 survey revealed that over 50 percent of college faculty use social media for instruc- tional purposes. Having students view online videos, listen to podcasts, and read and/or create blogs and wikis were the most common types of activities involving such media (Babson, 2010).

Recently, the use of distance learning in higher educa- tion has also grown dramatically, with the annual growth in online enrollments in higher education recently being more than ten times greater than the annual overall growth in the student population in higher education. In the fall 2008 term, more than 4.6 million students were taking online courses offered by higher education institutions in the United States, which represented a 17 percent increase in the number of students from the previous year (Allen & Seaman, 2010).

Online instruction is also becoming prevalent in K–12 settings. A recent report reveals that in the United States, forty-five of the fifty states have an online school initiative, with twenty-four of those states having statewide full-time online schools. Moreover, 57 percent of the public secondary schools in the United States provide students with access to online learning (International Association for K-12 Online Learning, 2009).

During the first decade of this century, the availability of technology in public schools in the United States has also increased significantly. For example, whereas in 1999 only 64 percent of classrooms had computers with Internet access, in 2009 Internet access was available in 93 percent of classroms (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010b; Snyder & Dillow, 2010). Morover, the instructional utilization of technology in the schools seems to have shifted consider- ably during the decade. Whereas earlier reports revealed that the instructional uses of computers often centered around drill and practice activities for students (SRI International, 2002), a 2009 survey revealed that many teachers were having their students use technology for a much wider array of instructional activities. For example, 24 percent of the teachers indicated that they frequently had their students use technology to conduct research, with another 42 percent indicating that they had their students do so occasionally. Morover, at least 25 percent of the teachers indicated that on a frequent or occasional basis they had their students use technology to solve problems, analyze data, perform calculations, develop mulitmedia presentations, and create art, music, movies, webcasts, graphics, or visual displays (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010a).

Currently, technology is also playing a major role in the delivery of instruction in the U.S. military, with much of that technology-based instruction being delivered online.

22 SECTION I Defining the Field

For example, the Army e-Learning program offers world- wide 24/7 access to more than 2600 courses to the entire Army workforce, including active-duty and reserve sol- diers, cadets, and Army civilian personnel (Kring & Thomas, 2008). Another example of the pervasiveness of online learning in the military is the Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) system, which provides online joint forces training to personnel in all branches of the military. In its first two years of operations, JKO offered more than 330 courses, which were taken by more than 100,000 users (Camacho, 2009). Simulation and gaming technology now also plays a major role in military training, with virtual simulations and digital 3D games often being employed (Erwin, 2009; Fletcher, 2009).

Most of the evidence presented in this section of this chap- ter clearly indicates that in recent years there has been a sig- nificant increase in the use of instructional media in a variety of settings, ranging from business and industry to the military and higher education. What are some of the reasons for this increased usage? In business and industry and the military, the Internet has been viewed as a means of providing instruction and information to widely dispersed learners at a relatively low cost. Moreover, in many cases, the easy accessibility of computers makes it possible for learners to receive instruction and/or performance support when and where they need it, oftentimes as they are performing particular job tasks.

In higher education, distance education via the Internet has been seen as a low-cost method of providing instruc- tion to students who, due to a variety of factors (e.g., job and family responsibilities, geographic factors), might not otherwise have been able to receive it. Moreover, institu- tions of higher education often view online courses as a significant source of additional revenue.

Another reason that the newer media are being used to a greater extent may be due to their increased interactive capabilities. Moore (1989) describes three types of inter- actions among the agents usually involved in an instruc- tional activity. These interactions are between learners and instructional content, between learners and the instructor, and among learners themselves. Due to their attributes, the instructional media that were prevalent during some por- tion of the first two thirds of the past century (e.g., films and instructional television) were primarily employed as a means of having learners interact with instructional con- tent. In contrast, through the use of such features as e-mail, chat rooms, and bulletin boards, the Internet is often used as a means of having learners interact with their instructor and with other learners, as well as with instructional con- tent. This is one example of how some of the newer media make it easier to promote the various types of interactions described by Moore.

In addition, advances in computer technology, particu- larly with regard to the increasing multimedia capabilities

of this medium, have made it easier for educators to design learning experiences that involve more complex interac- tions between learners and instructional content than has previously been the case. For example, as the amount and type of information (e.g., print, video, audio) that can be presented by computers has increased, the type of feed- back, as well as the type of problems, that can be presented to learners has greatly expanded. These increased instruc- tional capabilities have attracted the attention of many ed- ucators. Moreover, the ability of computers to present information in a wide variety of forms, as well as to allow learners to easily link to various content, has attracted the interest of instructional designers having a constructivist perspective. They and others who are particularly con- cerned with presenting authentic (i.e., “real-world”) prob- lems in learning environments in which learners have a great deal of control of the activities they engage in and the tools and resources they use, find the new digital technol- ogy more accommodating than its predecessors.

Finally, in recent years, technologies such as personal computers, mobile devices, and the Internet have become pervasive, and the use of the tools and technologies associ- ated with social networking (e.g., Facebook and LinkedIn) and social media (e.g., blogs, wikis, YouTube, and Twitter) has become widespread. These tools and technologies have become commonplace devices for individuals to share in- formation and acquire new skills and knowledge. In light of this fact, it is not surprising that educators are frequently turning to these devices as a means of supporting instruc- tion, learning, and on-the-job performance.

Conclusions Regarding the History of Instructional Media

Of the many lessons we can learn by reviewing the history of instructional media, perhaps one of the most important involves a comparison between the anticipated and actual effects of media on instructional practices. As Cuban (1986) has pointed out, as you look back over the past cen- tury of media history, you are likely to note a recurrent pat- tern of expectations and outcomes. As a new medium enters the educational scene, there is a great deal of initial interest and much enthusiasm about the effects it is likely to have on instructional practices. However, enthusiasm and interest eventually fade, and an examination reveals that the medium has had a minimal impact on such prac- tices. For example, Edison’s optimistic prediction that films would revolutionize education proved to be incor- rect, and the enthusiasm for instructional television that existed during the 1950s greatly abated by the mid-1960s, with little impact on instruction in the schools. Both of these examples involve the use of media in schools, the set- ting in which the use of instructional media has been most

CHAPTER 3 A History of Instructional Design and Technology 23

closely examined. However, data regarding the use of instructional media in business and industry supports a similar conclusion; namely, that in spite of enthusiasm about the use of instructional media in business and indus- try, until recently media have had a minimal impact on instructional practices in that environment.

What about the predictions, first made in the 1980s, that computers would revolutionize instruction? As the previ- ous section indicates, during the past ten years, computers and related technologies have been playing a larger and larger role in the instructional process, but they have not as yet brought about the instructional revolution that some envisioned. Will that revolution eventually come about? In light of the aforementioned reasons for the increasing use of the newer media, I think it is reasonable to predict that over the next three to five years, computers, the Internet, and other digital media, while not totally revolutionalizing education and training, will continue to bring about far greater changes in instructional practices than the media that preceded them.

History of Instructional Design As mentioned earlier, in additon to being closely associ- ated with instructional media, the field of instructional de- sign and technology has also been closely associated with the use of systematic instructional design procedures. As was indicated in Chapter 2, a variety of sets of systematic instructional design procedures (or models) have been de- veloped, and have been referred to by such terms as the systems approach, instructional systems design (ISD), instructional development, and instructional design (which is the term I will use in the remainder of this chapter). Although the specific combination of procedures often varies from one instructional design model to the next, most of the models include the analysis of instructional problems and the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of instruction procedures and materials in- tended to solve those problems. How did this instructional design process come into being? This portion of this chap- ter will focus on answering that question.

The Origins of Instructional Design: World War II

The origins of instructional design procedures have been traced to World War II (Dick, 1987). During the war, a large number of psychologists and educators who had training and experience in conducting experimental research were called upon to conduct research and de- velop training materials for the military services. These individuals, including Robert Gagne, Leslie Briggs, John Flanagan, and many others, exerted considerable

influence on the characteristics of the training materials that were developed, basing much of their work upon in- structional principles derived from research and theory on instruction, learning, and human behavior (Baker, 1973; Saettler, 1990).

Moreover, psychologists used their knowledge of eval- uation and testing to help assess the skills of trainees and select the individuals who were most likely to benefit from particular training programs. For example, at one point in the war, the failure rate in a particular flight train- ing program was unacceptably high. To overcome this problem, psychologists examined the general intellectual, psychomotor, and perceptual skills of individuals who were able to successfully perform the skills taught in the program, and then developed tests that measured these traits. These tests were used to screen candidates for the program, with those individuals who scored poorly being directed into other programs. As a result of using this examination of entry skills as a screening device, the military was able to significantly increase the percentage of personnel who successfully completed the program (Gagné, personal communication, 1985).

Immediately after the war, many of the psychologists responsible for the success of World War II military train- ing programs continued to work on solving instructional problems. Organizations such as the American Institutes for Research were established for this purpose. During the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, psychologists work- ing for such organizations started viewing training as a system, and developed a number of innovative analysis, design, and evaluation procedures (Dick, 1987). For ex- ample, during this period, a detailed task analysis method- ology was developed by Robert B. Miller while he worked on projects for the military (Miller, 1953, 1962). His work and those of other early pioneers in the instructional design field are summarized in Psychological Principles in Sys- tem Development, edited by Gagné (1962b).

More Early Developments: The Programmed Instruction Movement

The programmed instruction movement, which ran from the mid-1950s through the mid-1960s, proved to be another major factor in the development of the systems approach. In 1954, B. F. Skinner’s article entitled “The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching” began what might be called a minor revolution in the field of educa- tion. In this article and later ones (e.g., Skinner, 1958), Skinner described his ideas regarding the requirements for increasing human learning and the desired characteristics of effective instructional materials. Skinner stated that such materials, called programmed instructional materials, should present instruction in small steps, require active

24 SECTION I Defining the Field

responses to frequent questions, provide immediate feed- back, and allow for learner self-pacing. Moreover, because each step was small, it was thought that learners would answer all questions correctly and thus be positively rein- forced by the feedback they received.

The process Skinner and others (cf. Lumsdaine & Glaser, 1960) described for developing programmed instruction ex- emplified an empirical approach to solving educational prob- lems: data regarding the effectiveness of the materials were collected, instructional weaknesses were identified, and the materials were revised accordingly. In addition to this trial and revision procedure, which today would be called forma- tive evaluation, the process for developing programmed ma- terials involved many of the steps found in current instructional design models. As Heinich (1970) indicates:

Programmed instruction has been credited by some with in- troducing the systems approach to education. By analyzing and breaking down content into specific behavioral objec- tives, devising the necessary steps to achieve the objectives, setting up procedures to try out and revise the steps, and validating the program against attainment of the objectives, programmed instruction succeeded in creating a small but effective self-instructional system—a technology of instruction. (p. 123)

The Popularization of Behavioral Objectives

As indicated above, those involved in designing pro- grammed instructional materials often began by identify- ing the specific objectives learners who used the materials would be expected to attain. In the early 1960s, Robert Mager, recognizing the need to teach educators how to write objectives, wrote Preparing Objectives for Pro- grammed Instruction (1962). This small, humorously writ- ten programmed book, now in its third edition (Mager, 1997), has proved to be very popular, and has sold over 1.5 million copies. The book describes how to write objectives that include a description of desired learner behaviors, the conditions under which the behaviors are to be performed, and the standards (criteria) by which the behaviors are to be judged. Many current day adherents of the instructional design process advocate the preparation of objectives that contain these three elements.

Although Mager popularized the use of objectives, the concept was discussed and used by educators at least as far back at the early 1900s. Among those early advocates of the use of clearly stated objectives were Bobbitt, Charters, and Burk (Gagné, 1965a). However, Ralph Tyler has often been considered the father of the behavioral objectives movement. In 1934, he wrote, “Each objective must be defined in terms which clarify the kind of behavior which the course should help to develop” (cited in Walbesser & Eisenberg, 1972).

During the famous Eight-Year Study that Tyler directed, it was found that in those instances in which schools did spec- ify objectives, those objectives were usually quite vague. By the end of the project, however, it was demonstrated that ob- jectives could be clarified by stating them in behavioral terms, and those objectives could serve as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of instruction (Borich, 1980; Tyler, 1975a).

In the 1950s, behavioral objectives were given another boost when Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues published the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956). The authors of this work indicated that within the cognitive do- main there were various types of learning outcomes, that objectives could be classified according to the type of learner behavior described therein, and that there was a hierarchical relationship among the various types of out- comes. Moreover, they indicated that tests should be designed to measure each of these types of outcomes. As we shall see in the next two sections of this chapter, simi- lar notions described by other educators had significant implications for the systematic design of instruction.

The Criterion-Referenced Testing Movement

In the early 1960s, another important factor in the develop- ment of the instructional design process was the emergence of criterion-referenced testing. Until that time, most tests, called norm-referenced tests, were designed to spread out the performance of learners, resulting in some students doing well on a test and others doing poorly. In contrast, a criterion-referenced test is intended to measure how well an individual can perform a particular behavior or set of be- haviors, irrespective of how well others perform. As early as 1932, Tyler had indicated that tests could be used for such purposes (Dale, 1967). And later, Flanagan (1951) and Ebel (1962) discussed the differences between such tests and the more familiar norm-referenced measures. However, Robert Glaser (1963; Glaser & Klaus, 1962) was the first to use the term “criterion-referenced measures.” In discussing such measures, Glaser (1963) indicated that they could be used to assess student entry-level behavior and to determine the ex- tent to which students had acquired the behaviors an in- structional program was designed to teach. The use of criterion-referenced tests for these two purposes is a central feature of instructional design procedures.

Robert M. Gagné: Domains of Learning, Events of Instruction, and Hierarchical Analysis

Another important event in the history of instructional design occurred in 1965, with the publication of the first edition of The Conditions of Learning, written by Robert

CHAPTER 3 A History of Instructional Design and Technology 25

Gagné (1965b). In this book, Gagné described five do- mains, or types, of learning outcomes—verbal informa- tion, intellectual skills, psychomotor skills, attitudes, and cognitive strategies—each of which required a different set of conditions to promote learning. Gagné also provided detailed descriptions of these conditions for each type of learning outcome.

In the same volume, Gagné also described nine events of instruction, or teaching activities, that he considered essential for promoting the attainment of any type of learn- ing outcome. Gagné also described which instructional events were particularly crucial for which type of out- come, and discussed the circumstances under which par- ticular events could be excluded. Now in its fourth edition (Gagné, 1985), Gagné’s description of the various types of learning outcomes and the events of instruction remain cornerstones of instructional design practices.

Gagné’s work in the area of learning hierarchies and hi- erarchical analysis also has had a significant impact on the instructional design field. In the early 1960s and later in his career (e.g., Gagné, 1962a, 1985; Gagné, Briggs, & Wager, 1992; Gagné & Medsker, 1996), Gagné indicated that skills within the intellectual skills domain have a hier- archical relationship to each other, so that to readily learn to perform a superordinate skill, one would first have to master the skills subordinate to it. This concept leads to the important notion that instruction should be designed so as to ensure that learners acquire subordinate skills before they attempt to acquire superordinate ones. Gagné went on to describe a hierarchical analysis process (also called learning task analysis or instructional task analysis) for identifying subordinate skills. This process remains a key feature in many instructional design models.

Sputnik: The Indirect Launching of Formative Evaluation

In 1957, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first orbiting space satellite, there began a series of events that would eventually have a major impact on the instructional design process. In response to the launching of Sputnik, the U.S. government, shocked by the success of the Soviet effort, poured millions of dollars into improving math and science education in the United States. The instructional materials developed with these funds were usually written by subject matter experts and produced without tryouts with learners. Years later, in the mid-1960s, when it was discovered that many of these materials were not particu- larly effective, Michael Scriven (1967) pointed to the need to try out drafts of instructional materials with learners prior to the time the materials were in their final form. This process would enable educators to examine the materials and, if necessary, revise them while the materials were still

in their formative stages. Scriven coined this tryout and re- vision process formative evaluation, and contrasted it with what he labeled summative evaluation, the testing of in- structional materials after they are in their final form.

Although the terms formative and summative evalua- tion were coined by Scriven, the distinction between these two approaches was previously made by Lee Cronbach (1963). Moreover, during the 1940s and the 1950s, a num- ber of educators, such as Arthur Lumsdaine, Mark May, and C. R. Carpenter, described procedures for evaluating instructional materials that were still in their formative stages (Cambre, 1981). However, in spite of the writings of such educators, very few of the instructional products de- veloped in the 1940s and 1950s went through any sort of formative evaluation process. This situation changed somewhat in the late 1950s and through the 1960s, as many of the programmed instructional materials devel- oped during that period were tested while they were being developed. However, authors such as Susan Markle (1967) decried a lack of rigor in testing processes. In light of this problem, Markle prescribed detailed procedures for evalu- ating materials both during and after the design process. These procedures are much like the formative and sum- mative evaluation techniques generally prescribed today.

Early Instructional Design Models

In early and mid-1960s, the concepts that were being de- veloped in such areas as task analysis, objective specifica- tion, and criterion-referenced testing were linked together to form a process, or model, for systematically designing instructional materials. Among the first individuals to de- scribe such models were Gagné (1962b), Glaser (1962, 1965), and Silvern (1964). These individuals used terms such as “instructional design,” “system development,” “systematic instruction,” and “instructional system” to de- scribe the models they created. Other instructional design models created and employed during this decade included those described by Banathy (1968), Barson (1967), and Hamerus (1968).

The 1970s: Burgeoning of Interest in the Systems Approach

During the 1970s, the number of instructional design mod- els greatly increased. Building upon the works of those who preceded them, many individuals created new models for systematically designing instruction (e.g., Dick & Carey, 1978; Gagné & Briggs, 1974; Gerlach & Ely, 1971; Kemp, 1971), several of which became “standards” in the field. Indeed, updated versions of at least two of these models (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2009; Morrison, Ross, Kemp, & Kalman 2010) are still frequently taught to

26 SECTION I Defining the Field

graduate students studying instructional design (Reiser, Mackal, & Sachs, 2005).

During the 1970s, interest in the instructional design process flourished in a variety of different sectors. In 1975, several branches of the U.S. military adopted an instruc- tional design model (Branson et al., 1975) intended to guide the development of training materials within those branches. In academia, during the first half of the decade, many instructional improvement centers were created with the intent of helping faculty use media and instructional design procedures to improve the quality of their instruc- tion (Gaff, 1975; Gustafson & Bratton, 1984). Moreover, many graduate programs in instructional design were cre- ated (Partridge & Tennyson, 1979; Redfield & Dick, 1984; Silber, 1982). In business and industry, many organiza- tions, seeing the value of using instructional design to im- prove the quality of training, began adopting the approach (cf. Mager, 1977; Miles, 1983). Internationally, many na- tions, such as South Korea, Liberia, and Indonesia, saw the benefits of using instructional design to solve instructional problems in those countries (Chadwick, 1986; Morgan, 1989). These nations supported the design of new instruc- tional programs, created organizations to support the use of instructional design, and provided support to individu- als desiring training in this field. Many of these develop- ments were chronicled in the Journal of Instructional Development, a journal that was first published during the 1970s.

The 1980s: Growth and Redirection

In many sectors, the interest in instructional design that burgeoned during the previous decade continued to grow during the 1980s. Interest in the instructional design pro- cess remained strong in business and industry (Bowsher, 1989; Galagan, 1989) the military (Chevalier, 1990; Finch, 1987; McCombs, 1986;) and in the international arena (Ely & Plomp, 1986: Morgan, 1989).

In contrast to its influence in the aforementioned sec- tors, during the 1980s, instructional design had minimal impact in other areas. In the public school arena, some cur- riculum development efforts involved the use of basic instructional design processes (e.g., Spady, 1988), and some instructional design textbooks for teachers were pro- duced (e.g., Dick & Reiser, 1989; Gerlach & Ely, 1980; Sullivan & Higgins, 1983). However, in spite of these efforts, evidence indicated that instructional design was having little impact on instruction in the public schools (Branson & Grow, 1987; Burkman, 1987b; Rossett & Garbosky, 1987). In a similar vein, with a few exceptions (e.g., Diamond, 1989), instructional design practices had a minimal impact in higher education. Whereas instructional improvement centers in higher education were growing in

number through the mid-1970s, by 1983 more than one- fourth of these organizations were disbanded and there was a general downward trend in the budgets of the re- maining centers (Gustafson & Bratton, 1984). Burkman (1987a, 1987b) provides an enlightening analysis of the reasons why instructional design efforts in schools and universities have not been successful, and contrasts these conditions with the more favorable conditions that exist in business and the military.

During the 1980s, there was a growing interest in how the principles of cognitive psychology could be applied in the instructional design process, and a number of publica- tions outlining potential applications were described (e.g., Bonner, 1988; Divesta & Rieber, 1987; “Interview with Robert M. Gagné,” 1982; Low, 1980). However, several leading figures in the field have indicated that the actual ef- fects of cognitive psychology on instructional design prac- tices during this decade were rather small (Dick, 1987; Gustafson, 1993).

A factor that did have a major effect on instructional de- sign practices in the 1980s was the increasing interest in the use of personal computers for instructional purposes. With the advent of these devices, many professionals in the instructional design field turned their attention to produc- ing computer-based instruction (Dick, 1987; Shrock, 1995). Others discussed the need to develop new models of instructional design to accommodate the interactive ca- pabilities of this technology (Merrill, Li, & Jones, 1990a, 1990b). Moreover, computers began to be used as tools to automate some instructional design tasks (Merrill & Li, 1989).

The 1990s: Recognizing the Importance of Performance

Beginning in the 1990s and continuing on into the current century, one of the trends that has had a major impact on the field has been the human performance improvement movement (see Section 4 of this book). This movement, with its emphasis on on-the-job performance (rather than learning), business results, and non-instructional solutions to performance problems, has broadened the scope of the instructional design field.

During the 1990s, another factor that began to have a major influence on the field was the growing interest in constructivist views of teaching and learning. For exam- ple, the constructivist emphasis on designing “authentic” learning tasks—tasks that reflect the complexity of the real world environment in which learners will be using the skills they are learning—has had an effect on how instruc- tional design is being practiced and taught.

During the 1990s, instructional designers also began to have an interest in using computers not only as an

CHAPTER 3 A History of Instructional Design and Technology 27

instructional tool to enhance learning, but also as an aid to improve on-the-job performance. In particular, it was during this decade that an interest in using electronic performance support tools and systems to support on-the-job performance began to flourish. In addition, during this decade instruc- tional designers began to discuss the use of computer-based knowledge management systems to support learning and performance (viz., Schwen, Kalman, Hara & Kisling, 1998).

Into the Twenty-First Century: e-Learning and Informal Learning

During the first decade of the twenty-first century, several developments have had a major influence on the field of instructional design. One such development involves the increasing use of the Internet as a means of presenting in- struction to learners. As noted in an earlier section of this chapter, during this decade there has been significant growth in online learning in business and industry and the military, as well as K–12 and higher education. Along with this growth has come the realization that instructional de- signers play a vital part in the creation of online courses. This realization has opened new job opportunities for those in the instructional design field and has also pre- sented new challenges as instructional design profession- als attempt to identify interesting and effective means of delivering instruction online.

Another recent development that has had a major impact on the instructional design field has been the increasing reliance on informal methods, as opposed to formal training, as a means of improving learning and performance in the workplace. For example, in 2008, 75 percent of employees

in business and industry reported that they used knowledge bases to help them learn and perform their jobs, 74 percent reported using performance support tools, and 67 percent re- ported using online communities of practice (American Society for Training and Development, 2009). Moreover, as discussed earlier, the increasing use of social media to share knowledge and skills serves as another example of the bur- geoning reliance on the use of informal methods to improve learning and performance. As interest in using these informal mechanisms increases, it is likely that many instructional de- signers will have to learn how to design, implement, and sup- port these alternate means of acquiring knowledge and skills.

Conclusion Although this chapter has provided separate accounts of the history of instructional media and the history of in- structional design, there is an obvious overlapping be- tween these two areas. Many instructional solutions arrived at through the use of instructional design processes require the employment of the instructional media discussed in the first half of this chapter. Moreover, many individuals (e.g., Clark, 2001; Clark, 1994; Kozma, 1994; Morrison, 1994; Reiser, 1994; Shrock, 1994) have argued that the effective use of media for instructional purposes requires careful instructional planning, such as that pre- scribed by models of instructional design. In the field of instructional design and technology, those whose work is influenced by the lessons learned from the history of media and the history of instructional design will be well- positioned to have a positive influence on future develop- ments within the field.

1. Throughout most of the 1900s, as each new medium (i.e., films, radio, and television) entered the world of education, there was a great deal of optimism regarding the extent to which that medium would change instructional practices. However, contrary to expectations, none of the aforementioned media had nearly the effect that the optimists envisioned.

2. The likely reasons as to why each medium had minimal effects on practice are many. Those that are frequently cited include teacher resistance to change, especially top-down change, the costs associated with purchasing and maintaining the necessary media hardware, the poor instructional quality of media software, and failure to provide teachers with adequate guidance as to how to integrate the new media into their instructional practices.

3. In recent years, computers and related technologies have had a greater effect on instructional practices and learning than did the various media that preceded them. The interactive capabilities of these media, their ability to present information and instruction in a wide variety of forms, and the ease with which learners can create and share their own knowledge and skills via these media appear to be some of the primary reasons why these media have had a greater influence on instruction and learning.

4. Portions of most of the instructional design models that were created in the 1960s and 1970s, and which still remain popular today, can be traced back to developments in education and training during the 1940s through the 1960s. Advances in military training during World War II, new

Summary of Key Principles

28 SECTION I Defining the Field

directions in instruction emanating from the programmed instruction movement, and new ideas involving behavioral objectives, criterion- referenced testing, learning hierarchies, and formative evaluation are often reflected in the various steps in these models.

5. In the 1980s and 1990s, many instructional design models and practices were influenced by the principles derived from cognitive psychology and the new views of teaching and learning associated with constructivism. Moreover, during that period the performance improvement movement led many

instructional designers to begin thinking about the importance of positively influencing on-the-job performance, and identifying non-instructional, as well as instructional, means of doing so.

6. During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the increasing interest in e-learning has opened new opportunities for instructional designers. At the same time, the burgeoning use of informal methods of acquiring knowledge and skills is likely to result in many instructional designers learning how to design, implement and support informal learning opportunities.

Application Questions

1. During the previous school year, all the students assigned to four subject area teachers (math, language arts, social studies, and science) in the seventh grade at a local middle school were given laptop computers and provided with wireless Internet access at home and in school for an entire year. The students took the laptops home every evening and brought them into classes every day. Teachers were also provided with laptops and wireless Internet access 24/7 (24 hours a day, every day of the week) for the entire year. Moreover, all of the curriculum materials (textbooks, workbooks, student study guides, teacher curriculum guides, etc.) that the teachers normally used during the school year were installed on the laptops.

Assume that you were assigned as one of the evaluators for the project described above and that throughout the year you examined how this innovation (providing teachers and students with 24/7 access to laptops, curriculum materials, and wireless Internet service) changed the way instruction was presented in the classrooms of the four teachers who were involved in the project. Further assume that your findings clearly indicated that the innovation had very little effect on the manner in which instruction was presented in the teachers’ classrooms. Now do the following: a. Describe at least three possible reasons (factors)

why the project described above had very little ef- fect on the instructional practices employed by the teachers. Each of the factors you identify should be related to the factors mentioned in this chapter as to why earlier forms of instructional media (i.e., films, radio, and televison) had very limited effects on instructional practices.

b. Describe at least two strategies that could have been employed to help mitigate the factors that you think contributed to the minimal effect this project had on instructional practices. Indicate why you think each of these strategies might have been helpful.

2. Congratulations! Your instructional design consulting company has just been selected as one of the finalists to receive a contract to design a print-based instructional unit that will teach sixth- grade students throughout the United States how to multiply fractions. Now, to receive the contract, the contracting agency has asked you to prepare a memo in which you describe why your company is well-suited to take on this task. However, as noted below, this memo isn’t your normal memo!

The agency’s chief contract officer feels that the contract should be awarded to someone who understands the history of instructional design and can apply the ideas from that history to today’s instructional design tasks. Therefore, he has asked that each of the finalists send him a 250- to 300-word memo in which they select four of the six historical periods listed below, and briefly describe how an instructional design principle derived from that period might be used in the design and/or presentation of the instructional unit on fractions. Write the memo! Historical periods: • World War II • Programmed instruction movement • Behavioral objectives movement • Criterion-referenced testing movement • Early work of Robert M. Gagne • Formative evaluation movement

CHAPTER 3 A History of Instructional Design and Technology 29

Author Information

Robert A. Reiser is a Distinguished Teaching Professor, the Robert M. Morgan Professor of Instructional Systems

and the Associate Dean for Research in the College of Education at Florida State University.

References

Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Boston, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

American Society for Training & Development. (2004). 2004 State of the Industry Report. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American Society for Training & Development. (2009). 2009 State of the Industry Report. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Anderson, C. (1962). Technology in American education: 1650–1900 (Report No. OE-34018). Washington, DC: Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Anderson, R. E., & Ronnkvist, A. (1999). The presence of computers in American schools: Teaching, learning and computing: 1998 national survey (Report #2). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 548).

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

Atkinson, R. C., & Hansen, D. N. (1966). Computer- assisted instruction in initial reading: The Stanford project. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 5–25.

Babson (2010). Sociable Professors. Retrieved November 24, 2010, from http://www3.babson.edu/ Newsroom/Releases/socialmediafaculty.cfm

Baker, E. L. (1973). The technology of instructional development. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Banathy, B. H. (1968). Instructional systems. Belmont, CA: Fearon.

Barson, J. (1967). Instructional systems development. A demonstration and evaluation project: Final report. East Lansing: Michigan State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 020 673).

Becker, H. J. (1998). Running to catch a moving train: Schools and information technologies. Theory into Practice, 37(1), 20–30.

Berlo, D. K. (1963). “You are in the people business.” Audiovisual Instruction, 8, 372–381.

Blakely, R. J. (1979). To serve the public interest: Educational broadcasting in the United States. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

Bonner, J. (1986). Implications of cognitive theory for instructional design. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 36, 3–14.

Borich, G. D. (1980). A state of the art assessment of educational evaluation. Austin: University of Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 187 717).

Bowsher, J. E. (1989). Educating America: Lessons learned in the nation’s corporations. New York: Wiley.

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

Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. I., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., King, F. J., & Hannum, W. H. (1975). Inter-service procedures for instructional systems development. Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

Burkman, E. (1987a). Factors affecting utilization. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 429–456). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Burkman, E. (1987b). Prospects for instructional systems design in the public schools. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 27–32.

Camacho, J. (2009). Next generation JKO. Military Training Technology, 14(5). Retrieved November 24, 2010, from http://www.military-training-technology. com/mt2-home/197-mt2-2009-volume-14-issue-5-/ 1925-next-generation-jko.html

30 SECTION I Defining the Field

Cambre, M. A. (1981). Historical overview of formative evaluation of instructional media products. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 3–25.

Carnegie Commission on Educational Television. (1967). Public television: A program for action. New York: Harper & Row.

Center for Social Organization of Schools. (1983). School uses of microcomputers: Reports from a national survey (Issue no. 1). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.

Chadwick, C. B. (1986). Instructional technology research in Latin America. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 34, 247254.

Chevalier, R. D. (1990). Improving efficiency and effectiveness of training: A six year case study of systematic change. Performance and Instruction, 29(5), 2123.

Chu, G. C., & Schramm, W. (1975). Learning from television: What the research says (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association of Educational Broadcasters.

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.

Clark, R. E. (2001). What is next in the media and methods debate? In R. E. Clark (Ed.), Learning from media. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Commission on Instructional Technology. (1970). To improve learning: An evaluation of instructional technology (Vol. 1). New York: Bowker.

Cronbach, L. J. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers’ College Record, 64, 672–683.

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dale, E. (1946). Audio-visual methods in teaching (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Dale, E. (1953), What does it mean to communicate? AV Communication Review, 1, 3–5.

Dale, E. (1967). Historical setting of programmed instruction. In P. C. Lange (Ed.), Programmed Instruction: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 11. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Diamond, R. M. (1989). Designing and improving courses and curricula in higher education:

A systematic approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dick, W. (1987). A history of instructional design and its impact on educational psychology. In J. Glover & R. Roning (Eds.), Historical foundations of educational psychology. New York: Plenum.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of instruction (1st ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Dick W., & Reiser, R. A. (1989). Planning effective instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Divesta, F. J., & Rieber, L. P. (1987). Characteristics of cognitive engineering: The next generation of instructional systems. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35, 213–230.

Ebel, R. L. (1962). Content standard test scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22, 15–25.

Ely, D. P. (Ed.). (1963). The changing role of the audiovisual process in education: A definition and glossary of related terms. AV Communication Review, 11(1).

Ely, D. P. (1970). Toward a philosophy of instructional technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2), 81–94.

Ely, D. P., & Plomp, T. (1986). The promises of educational technology: A reassessment. International Review of Education. 32, 231–249.

Erwin, S. I. (2009). In times of Pentagon budget gloom, sunnier outlook for simulation industry. National Defense, 60(673), 60.

Finch, C. R. (1987). Instructional systems development in the military. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 24(4), 18–26.

Finn, J. D. (1954). Direction in AV communication research. AV Communication Review, 2, 83–102.

Finn, J. D. (1972). The emerging technology of education. In R. J. McBeath (Ed.), Extending education through technology: Selected writings by James D. Finn. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Flanagan, J. C. (1951). Units, scores, and norms. In E. T. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational Measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Fletcher, J. D. (2009). Education and Training Technology in the Military. Science, 323, 72–75.

Gaff, J. G. (1975). Toward faculty renewal: Advances in faculty, instructional, and organizational development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gagné, R. M. (1962a). The acquisition of knowledge. Psychological Review, 69, 355–365.

Gagné, R. M. (1962b). Introduction. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.), Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gagné, R. M. (1965a). The analysis of instructional objectives for the design of instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed learning, II: Data and directions. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Gagné, R. M. (1965b). The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1974). Principles of instructional design (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

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

Gagné, R. M., & Medsker, K. L. (1996). The conditions of learning: Training applications. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

Galagan, P. A. (1989). IBM gets its arms around education. Training and Development Journal, 43(1), 34–41.

Gerlach, V. S., & Ely, D. P. (1971). Teaching and media: A systematic approach (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gerlach, V. S., & Ely, D. P. (1980). Teaching and media: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Glaser, R. (1962). Psychology and instructional technology. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist, 18, 519–521.

Glaser, R. (1965). Toward a behavioral science base for instructional design. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed learning, II: Data and directions. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Glaser, R., & Klaus, D. J. (1962). Proficiency measurement: Assessing human performance.

In R. M. Gagné (Ed.), Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.