Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Instructional Design Models

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology

Abstract

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

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • AECT. (1977). The definition of educational technology. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, C. (1969). The timeless way of building. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern ­language: Towns, building, construction. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, B. (1965). Systematic method for designers. London: The Design Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules, Vol. 1: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braden, R. (1996). The case for linear instructional design and development: A commentary on models, challenges, and myths. Educational Technology, 36(2), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Briggs, L. J. (1967). Instructional media: A procedure for the design of multi-media instruction, a critical review of research, and suggestions for future research. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Briggs, L. J. (1970). Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, F. P. (2010). The design of design: Essays from a computer scientist. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, R., & Margolin, V. (1995). The idea of design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burk, F. L. (1913). Lock-step schooling and a remedy. Sacramento, CA: Superintendent of State Printing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology. Chichester, England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2007). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N., Christaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.). (1997). Analysing design activity. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubberly, H. (2005). How do you design? A compendium of models. Retrieved from http://www.dubberly.com/articles/how-do-you-design.html.

  • Ely, D. P. (Ed.) (1963). The changing role of the audiovisual process in education: A definition and a glossary of related terms. Audio-visual communication review, 11(1), entire issue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely, D. P. (1972). The field of educational technology: A statement of definition. Audiovisual Instruction, 17(8), 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Finn, J. D. (1953). Professionalizing the audio-visual field. Audio-Visual Communications Review, 1(1), 6–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, J. M., & Tyler, R. W. (1973). The father of behavioral objectives criticizes the: An interview with Ralph Tyler. Phi Delta Kappan, 55(1), 55–57.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • *Gagné, R. M. (Ed.) (1965b). Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (1997). Design and documentation: The state of the art. TechTrends, 43(3), 27–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S. (2011). Contexts of instructional design. Journal of Applied Instructional Design, 1(1), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A., & Rogers, P. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. III). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., & Yanchar, S. C. (2010). An alternative view of the instructional design process: A response to Smith and Boling. Educational Technology, 50(4), 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 395–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K. L. (1981). Survey of instructional development models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ED 211097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997a). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ED 411780.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ED 477517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K. L., & Powell, G. C. (1991). Survey of instructional development models with an annotated ERIC bibliography (2nd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ED 335027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, S. A. (Ed). (1966). The design method. London, UK: The Butterworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 32(2), 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, A., & Hughes, T. (Eds.). (2000). Systems, experts, and computers: The systems approach in management and engineering, World War II and after. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (Eds.). (2007). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. C. (1970). Design methods: Seeds of human futures. London: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kridel, C., & Bullough, R. V. (2007). Stories of the eight-year study: Reexamining Secondary education in America. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, C., & Cross, N. (2006). Solution driven versus problem driven design: Strategies and outcomes. Design Studies, 27, 527–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think. New York: Architectural.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think (3rd ed.). London, UK: Architectural.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockee, B., Moore, D., & Burton, J. (2004). Foundations of programmed instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research in educational communications technology (2nd ed., pp. 545–569). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, V. (2010). Design research: Towards a history. Paper ­presented at the Design Research Society Conference, Montreal, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M. (1964). The Harvard teaching machines project: The first hundred days. Audio-Visual Communications Review, 12(3), 344–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, D. (1967). The development of the Bell System First Aid and Personal Safety course: An exercise in the application of empirical methods to instructional systems design: Final report. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ED 026871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molenda, M. (2003). The ADDIE model. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson (Eds.), Educational technology: An encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, H. C. (1926). The practice of teaching in the secondary school. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofeish, G. D. (1963/2008). Tomorrow’s educational engineers. Republished in Educational Technology, 48(1), 58–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramo, S., & St. Claire, R. K. (1998). Retrieved December 26, 2011, from http://www.incose.org/productspubs/doc/systemsapproach.pdf

  • Read, H. (1946). The practice of design. London: Lund Humphries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual bases of instructional design. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rith, C., & Dubberly, H. (2006). Why Horst W. J. Rittel matters. Design Issues, 22(4), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, P. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Institute of British Architects. (1965). Handbook of architectural practice and management. London, UK: RIBA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saettler, P. (1968). A history of instructional technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrock, S. A. (1995). A brief history of instructional development. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology, past, present and future (2nd ed., pp. 11–19). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvern, L. C. (1962). Teaching machine technology: The state of the art. Audio-Visual Communications Review, 10(3), 204–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvern, L. C. (1968). Systems engineering of education I: Evolution of systems thinking in education. Los Angeles, CA: Education and Training Consultants Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1969). Sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, B. F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128(3330), 969–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. M. (2008). Meanings of “design” in instructional technology: A conceptual analysis based on the field’s foundational literature (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 2008). Dissertation Abstracts International, 69–08, 3122A.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Smith, K., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamas, S. T. (1973). A descriptive study of a synthesized operational instructional development model, reporting its effectiveness, efficiency, and the cognitive and affective influence of the developmental process on a client. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R., & Doughty, P. L. (1988). Instructional development models: Analysis at the task and subtask levels. Journal of Instructional Development, 11(4), 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twelker, P. A., Urbach, F. D., & Buck, J. E. (1972). The systematic development of instruction: An overview and basic guide to the literature. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Media and Technology. ED 059629, EM 009673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washburne, C. W. (1920). The individual system in Winnetka. The Elementary School Journal, 21(1), 52–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C., Moore, D. M., & Burton, J. K. (1995). Managing courseware production: An instructional design model with a software engineering approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, R. A. (2008). An integrated model of designing to aid understanding of the complexity paradigm in design practice. Futures, 40(6), 561–576 (Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.futures.2007.11.005.).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. David O. McKay School of Education, Brigham Young University, 150-C McKay Building, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Andrew S. Gibbons Ph.D.

  2. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Elizabeth Boling M.F.A. & Kennon M. Smith Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Andrew S. Gibbons Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth Boling M.F.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kennon M. Smith Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew S. Gibbons Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Learning Technologies, C, University of North Texas, North Elm 3940, Denton, 76207-7102, Texas, USA

    J. Michael Spector

  2. W. Sunset Blvd. 1812, St. George, 84770, Utah, USA

    M. David Merrill

  3. , Centr. Instructiepsychol.&-technologie, K.U. Leuven, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 2, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Jan Elen

  4. Research Drive, Iacocca A109 111, Bethlehem, 18015, Pennsylvania, USA

    M. J. Bishop

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gibbons, A.S., Boling, E., Smith, K.M. (2014). Instructional Design Models. In: Spector, J., Merrill, M., Elen, J., Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_48

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation