History of Instructional Design

Instructional design, as a field, found its roots in the midst of World War II . Psychologists and educators, such as Robert Gagne, were recruited by the military to utilize educational and psychological research to develop training materials based upon the known principles of instruction. Assessment and evaluation, informed by psychological perspectives, were also used to identify skills and to improve training of military personnel (Reiser, 2012). After the war, the psychologists and educators continued the work on instructional problems. The development of instructional design models and theories continued over the next several decades, informing computer-based instruction and job performance. Gustafson and Branch (1997) credit the Barson model used at Michigan State University between 1961 and 1965 as being one of the first instructional design models. However, it was not until the 1970’s that the term “instructional design” was even commonly used. Instead, most “designers” called themselves educational psychologists, or media specialists, or training specialists (Dick, 1987). Dick and Carey’s now-classic book, The Systematic Design of Instruction, was not published until 1978. For the most part, the early instructional design models had a product orientation. The model was directed toward the design and development of a product, but not the implementation and maintenance of that product in a given environment. With the exception of the work of Leonard Silvern, these design projects occurred either in a higher education setting or produced instruction for elementary or secondary schools.

In the early part of the 21st century, instructional design as a field boomed with increased access to the Internet and the influx of online instruction (Reiser, 2012). A recent study on instructional design in higher education found that 13,000 instructional designers are working in the United States alone (Instructional Design in Higher Education, 2016). As the field has grown, so have the needs of employers and the demand for employees. However, the contexts and needs of a Fortune 500 company, a K–12 school district, and a higher education institution vary greatly, as do the skill sets of employees in these contexts (Sugar, Hoard, Brown, & Daniels, 2012). Likewise, within these different contexts, competencies are often based on organizational culture (Larson & Lockee, 2013).

Dr. Mark Bullen, Education eLearning Specialist from the Commonwealth of Learning

What is an Instructional Designer?

The literature offers a variety of definitions for instructional design and those who carry it out in their job roles. Some of the key definitions originate from Sims and Koszella (2008) who define instructional design as a “purposeful activity that results in a combination of strategies, activities, and resources to facilitate learning” and an instructional designer as “a person with the competencies to design instruction” (p. 570).

Since the 1980’s, the preponderance of the instructional design practice has occurred within the private sector, primarily in business and industrial settings. This coincides with the steady growth of employee training as an integral part of most organizations. In the United States alone, the training industry was a $62.5 billion endeavor in 1999, up from the 1990 estimate of $45.5 billion and a 1985 estimate of $30 billion as reported by the American Society of Training and Development (Industry Report, 1999; Industry Report, 1990). Remarkably, these data are only partially descriptive, since they reflect only the direct cost of formal training in organizations with 100 or more employees. Informal, on-the-job training is not included. Training in smaller firms throughout the United States is not included. Moreover, such growth is not unique to the United States, but is duplicated to a great extent worldwide.

This growth reflects an emphasis not simply on producing a more knowledgeable workforce, but increasingly upon improving employee on-the-job performance and solving organizational problems. Correspondingly in today’s market, instructional design to many is not merely an organized approach to product or course development, but is instead a generic process for analyzing human performance problems and determining appropriate solutions to such problems. In addition, designers and training managers must often predict future problems and likely organizational changes and project ways to prepare employees for these new situations (Pieters, 1997).

Not only did the setting of this new design activity change from the early years, but there were also changes in the conditions under which designers worked. No longer did designers work primarily alone, but now design teams predominate, especially in large organizations. Often designers serve as external consultants or suppliers. The new technologies have drastically changed design tools and processes. The changes have been matched by increased pressures to reduce the time required for design and development, even as designers are now expected to prove their effectiveness by demonstrating they have a positive impact on the mission and profits of the organization.

This new work environment has stimulated changes in design tools and techniques, and correspondingly in the expansion of designer expertise. The basic 1970’s skills have been supplemented by new technology skills, business acumen, and more sophisticated evaluation skills, for example. Designer career ladders are developing to match these new skills.

In today’s design market, the field is no longer primarily an American endeavor. Instructional designers are working and being educated worldwide. As organizations expand beyond individual country boundaries, designers are addressing the issues of preparing and adapting instructional materials for different cultures. This is done both internationalizing the materials to make them “culture-free” and by localizing the products to make them “culturally dependent” (Richey and Morrison, 2000). Instructional designers, like others employed in the 21st century, are faced with the prospect of continual re-tooling to meet their new job demands. Even though new design paradigms have been introduced, most design practice is still dominated by systematic design procedures, but procedures that are implemented with new tools and new constraints.

Watch this brief video by Dr. Rohan Jowallah on his international experience being an Instructional Designer

What Skills Do an Instructional Designer Need?

Collaboration

The most frequently cited competency for instructional design and designers in the literature is collaboration. Collaboration is a complex skill that requires instructional designers to carefully interact with a variety of stakeholders to accomplish a shared goal. This competency may occur with subject-matter experts (SMEs), content experts, faculty, or instructors, all of whom we refer to as SMEs. Instructional designerss must consider multiple factors when working with SMEs, such as academic freedom for faculty in higher education institutions, consensus building among multiple stakeholders, and difficult decision-making based on resources and time (Brigance, 2011; Gray et al., 2015; Kelly, 2016). Solomonson (2008) suggests that instructional designers s act as consultants, navigating and developing relationships with SMEs. Relationship building occurs, in part, through effective communication. While the collaborative nature of the instructional designer role is cited frequently in the literature, the tension between designer and faculty is also described. In a recent survey of faculty attitudes, under half of respondents who teach online have worked with an instructional designer. These faculty did not believe that IDs could help them, and some did not have an interest in working with an ID (Jashick & Lederman, 2018). The Instructional Design in Higher Education (2016) report found that instructional designers consider lack of buy-in as the number one barrier to success. The lack of understanding of the ID role in higher education has contributed to tension between faculty and IDs. Clarity on the instructional designrole and its competencies can decrease the barriers to successful instructional–faculty collaboration.

Communication

Communication is widely cited as imperative to successful instructional design since the primary goal of an instructional designer is to work with others to facilitate learning. Communication includes written and verbal communication, as well as asynchronous (i.e., email) and synchronous (i.e., web conference) interactions. Kenny, Zhang, Schwier, and Campbell (2005) rate communication as one of the four main competencies for instructional designers. The International Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction (ibstpi) rates communication as an essential competency (Instructional Design Competencies, 2012). Yet Sims and Koszalka (2008) state that the designer’s communication skills must extend to combinations of asynchronous and synchronous interactions, and their ability to present instructional information must integrate key factors pertinent to the virtual environment. Even more frequently, instructional designers will have to rely on podcasts, wikis, and mobile phones to receive and respond to information; the traditional modes will be superseded by those underpinned by these emerging digital technologies. (p. 572) Thus, instructional designers must be comfortable communicating with others as well as adapting to new ways of communicating. Additionally, good communication skills facilitate the explanation of instructional design frameworks, models, and/or theories to key stakeholders.

Theoretical Knowledge

The literature cites knowledge and application of instructional design theory and models as necessary to the instructional designer role. Instructional design theories and models include, but are not limited to, the Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) model, adult learning models based on adult learning theory (i.e., andragogy), teaching theory, and learning theory. instructional designers may use theoretical knowledge to assist in decisions about projects and instructional problems (Sugar & Luterbach, 2015). While recognized as important to the instructional designer role, it is interesting to note that there is some debate on how often and how effectively theory is applied in practice, such as in day-to-day activities like course design and development that require instructional designers to constantly engage in problem-solving (Thompson-Sellers & Calandra, 2012).

Problem-Solving

Many of the authors describe the instructional design process as one of problem-solving. Ertmer and Stepich (2005) define an instructional designer as someone who can solve ill-defined problems. The design process requires an instructional designer to find solutions to multiple instructional problems (Kenny et al., 2005). IDs make multiple, complex judgements based on situational factors when collaborating with SMEs and designing instruction and courses (Gray et al., 2015).

Course Design

Instructional designers spend time designing instruction to facilitate learning. This is a key focus for the ID role. Course design may include crafting learning objectives, developing instructional strategies, developing assessment strategies, and finding resources for SMEs to use in instruction. Course development may include creating multimedia objects and other instructional activities. Other frequently cited instructional designer competencies that were commonly cited, but not as frequently as the previous five, include project management, research and analysis, and technical expertise.

Definitions

It is important to understand specific terms used in the instructional design field. Often times, they are used interchangeably yet they are distinct. Smith and Ragan (2005) define education as “experiences which people learn” (p.2). Education is the overarching term that encompasses instruction, training, and teaching. Instruction is narrowed as “the conduct of activities that are focused on learners learning specific things” (Smith and Ragan, 2005, p. 2). Training is the act of “instructional experiences that are focused upon individuals acquiring very specific skills that they will normally apply almost immediately” (Smith and Ragan, 2005, p. 3). While teaching is generally restricted to learning experiences that facilitated by a human being (Smith and Ragan, 2005). An important distinction is that teaching can overlap with training, instruction, and education while training can be considerate teaching or instruction.

One of the most confusing concepts in instructional design is the difference between a model and a process. For instructional design purposes, a process is defined as a series of steps necessary to reach an end result. Similarly, a model is defined as a specific instance of a process that can be imitated or emulated. In other words, a model seeks to personalize the generic into distinct functions for a specific context. Thus, when discussing the instructional design process, it is often referred to ADDIE as the overarching paradigm or framework by which we can explain individual models. You will see more information about model and process in the next section.

Another term within the realm of instructional design that is used inconsistently and further adds to the confusion of communication is system. The term system is used in at least three different ways. Some authors describe the outcomes or products of the development effort using the term system. Based on the second perspective, the actual learner environment and its related management and support components together comprise an instructional system. A third, less common use of the term system is in the context of general systems theory (GST). Numerous general systems theory concepts, such as open and closed systems, entropy, and interdependence, are applied during discussions of the instructional development process. Reiser (2001), in providing a history of instructional design, noted:

Over the past four decades, a variety of sets of systematic instructional design procedures (or models) have been developed, and have been referred to by such terms as the systems approach, instructional systems design (ISD), instructional development, and instructional design. Although the specific combination of procedures often varies from one instructional design model to the next, most of the models include design, development, implementation and evaluation of instructional procedures and materials intended to solve those problems. (p. 58)

An Instructional Design Process

Figure 1. The ADDIE Process

The most popular instructional design process is ADDIE. The five activities above have often been referred to as ADDIE and labeled as a generic instructional design paradigm. The ADDIE paradigm provides a useful set of criteria for determining whether a model is inclusive of the entire instructional design process or only one or more of its elements. The progression of analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating (ADDIE) forms the basic underlying process (illustrated in Figure 1) that is a distinct component of instructional design regardless of which model is used (Gustafson & Branch, 1997). Branch (2009) said it well when he conceptualized the phases of the ADDIE process as follows:

1. Analyze – identify the probable causes for a performance gap,
2. Design –verify the desired performances and appropriate testing methods,
3. Develop – generate and validate the learning resources,
4. Implement – prepare the learning environment and engage the students,
5. Evaluate – assess the quality of the instructional products and processes, both before and after implementation (p. 3).

References

Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York: Springer International Publishing.

Brigance, S. (2011). Leadership in online learning in higher education: Why instructional designers for online learning should lead the way. Performance Improvement, 50(11) 43– 48. doi:10.1002/pfi.20262

Dick, W. (1987). A history of instructional design and its on educational psychology. In Glover, J.A. & Ronning, R.R. (Eds.), Historical foundations of educational psychology. (pp. 183-202). New York: Plenum Press.

Ertmer, P. A., & Stepich, D. A. (2005). Instructional design expertise: How will we know it when we see it? Educational Technology, 45(6), 38–43.

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.

Industry Report, 1990. (October, 1990). Training, 27(10), 31-76.

Industry Report, 1999. (October, 1999). Training, 36(10), 37-80.

Instructional design in higher education. (2016). Retrieved from https://intentionalfutures.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Instructional-Design-in- Higher-Education-Report.pdf

Jashick, S., & Lederman, D. (2018). 2018 survey of faculty attitudes on technology. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/booklet/2018-survey-faculty-attitudes-technology

Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2013). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pieteres, J.M. (1997). Training for human resources development in industrial and professional organizations. In Dijkstra, S. et al. (Eds.), Instructional design: International perspectives. Volume 2: Solving instructional design problems (pp. 315-340). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53–64.

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67.

Richey, R.C. & Morrison, G.R. (2000). Instructional design in business and industry. In R. Reiser and J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Technology. New York: Merrill, an imprint of Macmillan College Publishing Company.

Sims, R. C., & Koszalka, T. (2008). Competencies for the new-age instructional designer. In J. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 569–575). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Solomonson, W. L. (2008). Toward fluent instructional design in the context of people. Performance Improvement, 47(7), 12–19.

Sugar, W., Hoard, B., Brown, A., & Daniels, L. (2012). Identifying multimedia production competencies and skills of instructional design and technology professionals: An analysis of recent job postings. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 40(3), 227–249.

Sugar, W., & Luterbach, K. (2015). Using critical incidents of instructional design and multimedia production activities to investigate instructional designers’ current practices and roles. Education Technology Research Development, 64, 285–312. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9414-5

Thompson-Sellers, I., & Calandra, B. (2012). Ask the instructional designers: A cursory glance at practice in the workplace. Performance Improvement, 51(7). doi:10.1002/pfi

Source

This work, “History and Instructional Designers”, is a derivative of the following works: