Introduction
Researchers and practitioners have spent the past 50 years attempting to define and create models of design with the intent to improve instruction. As part of a joint, inter-university project, Barson (1967) defined instructional development as the systematic process for improving instruction. Perhaps most interesting about this project and subsequent report is the caution that many different conditions influence learning, including the use of media, and that generalizing any sort of model would potentially be hazardous at best and disastrous at worst. Shortly thereafter, however, Twelker, Urbach, and Buck (1972) noted that a systematic approach to developing instruction was an increasingly popular idea, but cautioned that instructional design (ID) methods varied from simple to complex. These historical observations predicted the reality that every instructional design project is unique every time with no two projects ever progressing through the process identically. These differences, sometimes subtle while at other times significant, have given way to literally dozens of different models used with varying popularity in a wide variety of learning contexts.
Mushrooms
Models
Because there are so many different ID models, how to choose which one to use? A total of 34 different instructional design models (see Table 1 for a summary) have been covered by Survey of Instructional Design Models text since its first edition in 1981, and this list does not include every model. Still, this list of models is useful in providing a concise guide to some of the more common approaches to instructional design.
| Table 1
Instructional Design Models included in editions of the Survey text |
|||||
| Model Name | 1st Ed 1981 | 2nd Ed 1991 | 3rd Ed 1997 | 4th Ed 2002 | 5th Ed 2015 |
| Banathy (1968) | x | ||||
| DeCecco (1968) | x | ||||
| Blake & Mouton (1971) | x | ||||
| Briggs (1970) | x | ||||
| Baker & Schutz (1971) | x | ||||
| Gerlach & Ely (1971) | x | x | x | x | x |
| Instructional Development Institute (Twelker et al., 1972) | x | x | x | ||
| Learning Systems Design (Davis, Alexander, & Yelon, 1974) | x | ||||
| IPISD (Branson, Rayner, Cox, Furman, & King, 1975) | x | x | x | x | x |
| Blondin (1977) | x | ||||
| Morrison, Ross, Kemp, & Kalman (Kemp, 1977) | x | x | x | x | x |
| Dick, Carey, & Carey (Dick & Carey, 1978) | x | x | x | x | |
| Gilbert (1978) Front End Analysis | x | ||||
| Courseware Development Process (Control Data Corporation, 1979) | x | ||||
| ASSURE (Heinich, Molenda, & Russell, 1982) | x | x | x | x | |
| Diamond (1989) | x | x | x | x | |
| Dick & Reiser (1989) | x | x | |||
| Van Patten (1989) | x | x | |||
| Bergman & Moore (1990) | x | x | x | x | |
| Leshin, Pollock, & Reigeluth, (1992) | x | x | |||
| IPDM (Gentry, 1993) | x | x | x | ||
| Smith & Ragan (1993) | x | x | x | ||
| de Hoog, de Jong, & de Vries (1994) | x | x | |||
| Bates (1995) | x | x | |||
| PIE (Newby et al., 1996) | x | x | |||
| 4C/ID (van Merriënboer, 1997) | x | ||||
| ISD Model 2 (Seels & Glasgow, 1997) | x | x | x | ||
| CASCADE (Nieveen, 1997) | x | x | |||
| Rapid Collaborative Prototyping (Dorsey, Goodrum, & Schwen, 1997) | x | x | |||
| UbD (Wiggins & McTigue, 2000) | x | ||||
| Agile (Beck et al., 2001) | x | ||||
| 3PD (Sims & Jones, 2002) | x | ||||
| Pebble in the Pond (Merrill, 2002) | x | ||||
| ILDF (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland, 2004) | x | ||||
| TOTAL | 13 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 21 |
| Note. All references refer to the original or first edition of a model; however, the current name of the model as well as current scholars affiliated with the model may vary from the original iteration. |
When considering the models featured in Table 1, determining which one to use might best be decided by taking into account a few factors. First, what is the anticipated delivery format? Will the instruction be synchronous online, synchronous face to face, asynchronous online, or some combination of these formats? Some models are better tailored for online contexts, such as Dick and Carey (1978); Bates (1995); Dabbagh and Bannan-Ritland (2004); or Morrison, Ross, Kemp, Kalman, and Kemp (2012). Another way to think about how to select a model involves accounting for the context or anticipated output. Is the instruction intended for a classroom? In that case, consider Gerlach and Ely (1971); ASSURE (Smaldino, Lowther, Mims, & Russell, 2015); PIE (Newby et al., 1996); UbD (Wiggins & McTigue, 2000); 4C/ID (van Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2007); or 3PD (Sims & Jones, 2002). Perhaps the instructional context involves producing an instructional product handed over to another organization or group. In this case, consider Bergman and Moore (1990); de Hoog et al. (1994); Nieveen (1997); Seels and Glasgow (1997); or Agile (Beck et al., 2001). Lastly, perhaps your context prescribes developing a system, such as a full-scale curriculum. These instructional projects may benefit from the IPISD (Branson et al., 1975); Gentry (1993); Dorsey et al. (1997); Diamond (1989); Smith and Ragan (2004); or Pebble in the Pond (Merrill, 2002) models. Deciding which model to use need not be a cumbersome or overwhelming process. So long as a designer can align components of an instructional problem with the priorities of a particular model, they will likely be met with success through the systematic process.
Featured Models
Pie Model
The PIE Model: Newby, Stepich, Lehman, and Russell (1996)
Consider the following examples. The Plan, Implement, Evaluate (PIE) model from Newby, Stepich, Lehman, and Russell (1996) encourages an emphasis on considering how technology assists with instructional design, focusing on the what, when, why, and how. This phase produces an artifact or plan that is then put into action during implementation followed by evaluating both learner performance and instruction effectiveness. During planning, designers work through a series of questions related to the teacher, learner, and technology resources. The questions are answered while also taking into consideration the implementation and evaluation components of the instructional problem. When considered through the lens of the ADDIE process, PIE combines the analyzing, designing, and developing phases into a singular focus area, which is somewhat illustrated by the depiction in Figure 3.
Diamond Model
The Diamond Model (1989)
The Diamond (1989) model prescribes two phases: “Project Selection and Design” and “Production, Implementation, and Evaluation for Each Unit.” Phase I of the Diamond model essentially combines analyzing and designing, while Phase II combines developing, implementing, and evaluating. Diamond placed an emphasis on the second phase of the model by prescribing an in-depth, parallel development system to write objectives, design evaluation instruments, select instructional strategies, and evaluate existing resources. Then, as new resources are produced, they are done so with consideration to the previously designed evaluation instruments. The evaluation is again consulted during the implementation, summative evaluation, and revision of the instructional system. These two examples help demonstrate what is meant by ADDIE being the general process and models being specific applications.
The Smith and Ragan Model
The Smith and Ragan Model (1999)
Smith and Ragan (1999) created an instructional design process model that is becoming increasingly popular for students and professionals in the field of instructional technology who are particularly interested in the cognitive psychology base of the ID process. Almost half of the procedures in their process address the design of instructional strategies.
Smith and Ragan’s model has three phases: analyzing the learning context, generating instructional strategies, and formative and summative evaluation. These three phases provide the conceptual framework for the eight steps that comprise their ID process. Their eight-step approach includes: analyzing the learning context, analyzing the learners, analyzing the learning task, assessing learner performance, developing instructional strategies, producing instruction, conducting evaluation, and revising instruction.
Analyzing the learning context involves a two-part procedure: 1) substantiation of a need for instruction in a certain content area, and 2) preparing a description of the learning environment in which the instructional product will be used. Analyzing the learners describes procedures for describing the stable and changing characteristics of the intended learner audience. Analyzing the learning task describes procedures for recognizing and writing appropriate instructional goals. Assessing learner performance describes procedures for identifying which of sever- al possible assessment items are valid assessments of objectives for various types of learning. Developing instructional strategies is the step that presents strategies for organizing and managing instruction. Producing instruction is the step that provides strategies for translating the decisions and specifications made in previous steps into instructional materials and trainer guides. Production is followed by formative and summative evaluation. Smith and Ragan offer procedures for evaluating the effectiveness of the instructional materials both during development and after implementation. Lastly, revising instruction offers procedures for modifying the proposed instruction. Although this description suggests that the process is highly linear, Smith and Ragan caution that circumstances often require concurrent attention to several steps in their model.
The Smith and Ragan model reflects their philosophic belief that applying a systematic, problem-solving process can result in effective, learner-centered instruction. Their model is particularly strong in the area of developing specific instructional strategies, a common weakness of many other ID models.
Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp Model
Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp Model (1994)
This popular ID model initially was created by Kemp and adapted by Kemp, Morrison, and Ross in 1994. In the sixth edition of their book Kalman joined the group of authors, but the important influence of Kemp remains obvious. The most significant change to this model includes design considerations for technology-based instruction. Computer-based, web-based, and distance instruction are classified into five groups: drill-and- practice, tutorials, simulations, games, and hypermedia. The benefits of each type of instruction are summarized and design considerations are detailed for both individualized and group- based instruction. Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp (2011) present an instructional development model (Figure 12) with a focus on curriculum planning. They approach instruction from the perspective of the learner rather than content and contrast ID with traditional design practice by asking the following questions:
- What level of readiness do individual students need for accomplishing the objectives?
- What instructional strategies are most appropriate in terms of objectives and student characteristics?
- What technology or other resources are most suitable?
- What support is needed for successful learning?
- How is achievement of objectives measured?
- What revisions are necessary if a tryout of the program does not match expectations? (p. 6)
Based on how various individuals might approach de- signing a course, Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp (2011) identify four fundamental planning elements for systematic instructional planning that are represented by answers to the following questions:
- For whom is the program developed? (learners)
- What do you want the learners or trainees to learn or demonstrate? (objectives)
- How is the subject content or skill best learned? (methods)
- How do you determine the extent to which learning is achieved? (evaluation)
The entirety of the Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp model includes the four interrelated elements of the framework as they relate to additional components and ongoing processes that continue throughout the life of an instructional design project, as illustrated by the outer ovals in the figure.
Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp’s model communicates their belief that ID is a continuous cycle with revision as an on-going activity associated with all of the other elements. They feel the teacher/designer can start anywhere and proceed in any order. This is essentially a general system view of development wherein all elements are interdependent and may be performed independently or simultaneously as appropriate. Although the Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp model indicates that the developer can start anywhere, in their narrative it is presented in a conventional framework starting with topics, tasks, and purposes. The classroom orientation of the model is apparent through their choice of the words, topics and subject content for determining what will be taught. Both K-12 and business and industry instructors can readily identify with these words. From a teacher’s perspective the strength of this model is the concept of starting “where you are.” Also, the emphasis on subject matter content, goals and purposes, and selection of resources makes it attractive to teachers. The inclusion of design considerations for technology-based instruction and project management gives the model a modern appeal that is not found elsewhere. This model is one of the few that continues to be modified over time.
The Dick, Carey, and Carey Model
Dick, Carey, and Carey (2009)
Without a doubt the most widely cited ID model is one originally published by Walter Dick and Lou Carey, to which they have now added James Carey. Both advocates of ID and its most vocal critics invariably cite this model when expressing their opinions about the desirability of systematically designing instruction. The Dick, Carey, and Carey model has become the standard by which all other ID models (and alternative approaches to de- sign and development of instruction) are compared.
In their widely used text, now in its seventh edition, Dick, Carey, and Carey (2009) include a model that is largely unchanged from earlier editions. This model might be considered product oriented rather than system oriented depending on the size and scope of step one activities (identify instructional goals). Additionally, the first step has been updated to reflect that identifying goals may occur through a variety of actions, including established goals, learner experience, analysis, or some other requirement. The authors have also refreshed the narrative to include learning with portable devices. The serial case study is directed at a specific instructional product, but parts of the narrative suggest a more encompassing perspective. For our purpose we consider it to be a course or system level model that is also applicable to projects having a more limited focus.
Dick, Carey, and Carey’s model begins with Identify Instructional Goal(s). The first component of their model immediately distinguishes it from many other instructional development models by promoting needs assessment procedures and the importance of identifying clear and measurable goals. They recommend criteria for establishing instructional goals as a way to decide what the designer is trying to achieve before beginning the ID process. Two steps are then done in parallel: Conduct Instructional Analysis and Analyze Learners and Contexts. The former is vintage hierarchical analysis as conceived by Gagné, with added procedures for constructing cluster analysis diagrams for verbal information. The latter step specifies collecting information about prospective learners’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes and the environment in which they are situated. The next step is to Write Performance Objectives in measurable terms, followed by Developing Assessment Instruments. Criterion-referenced test items then are generated for each objective. In the Develop Instructional Strategy step they recommend ways to develop strategies for assisting particular groups of learners to achieve the stated objectives. The next step is to Develop and Select Instructional Materials. Dick, Cary, and Carey acknowledge the desirability of selecting as well as developing materials, but the degree of emphasis devoted to development suggests that they are far more interested in original development. The next step is to Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation, a process for which they give excellent guidance. The process of conducting a formative evaluation of instructional materials is iterative and consists of at least three cycles of data collection, analysis, and revision. The first cycle pinpoints errors in the materials. The second cycle occurs after these errors have been corrected and is designed to locate additional errors in the materials and procedures. The third cycle is a field trial that is conducted following the refinement of materials after the second cycle and is intended to identify errors when the materials are used in their intended setting. Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation also deter- mines the degree to which the original instructional goals (and perhaps other unintended ones) have been achieved.
The Dick, Carey, and Carey model reflects the fundamental design process used in many business, industry, government, and military training settings, as well as the influence of performance technology and the application of computers to instruction. It is particularly detailed and useful during the analysis and evaluation phases of a project.
Plompt’s OKT Model
Plompt’s OKT Model
Plomp’s (1982) OKT model, which is taught at the University of Twente in The Netherlands, looks quite similar to the ADDIE process, but adds testing/revising the instructional solution prior to full implementation. When OKT was initially introduced, online or web-based instructional design had not yet become part of the conversation. Yet, his model astutely factors in the technology component not yet commonly seen in other ID models referenced at the time. Notice how the OKT process calls for a close relationship between implementation and the other phases as well as alignment between evaluation and the other phases. This design facilitates internal consistency in decision making. The intent here was to ensure that design decisions relating to technology-based resources were consistently applied across the instructional problem.
At their core, instructional design models seek to help designers overcome gaps in what is learned due to either instruction, motivation, or resources. Thus, some models seek to address non-instructional gaps, like motivation. See Keller’s (2016) work on motivational design targeting learner attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction, and volition (ARCS-V). Other models examine strategies related to resources, like technology or media integration. Examples here include Action Mapping (Moore, 2016); Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition (SAMR) Model (see Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016 for a discussion); and TPACK-IDDIRR model (Lee & Kim, 2014). And still other models consider other gaps and needs like rapid development. (See the Successive Approximation Model (SAM) from Allen Interaction, n.d.)
Recently, many instructional designers have emphasized the design gaps in ID, drawing upon the broader field of design theory to guide how designers select and arrange constructs or components. One model, known as Design Layers (Gibbons, 2013), helps designers prioritize concerns encountered during the ID process and may overlay with an existing or adapted ID model being followed. In other words, a designer may use design layers to organize the problems to be addressed, but still use other models based on ADDIE processes to solve some of these problems. While unintentional, the field of instructional design often focuses on corporate and adult learning contexts, sometimes feeling exclusionary to the K-12 instructional designer (note: UbD, Wiggins & McTigue, 2000, is one of the more well-known ID models also used by K-12 teachers and instructional facilitators). Carr-Chellman’s (2015) Instructional Design for Teachers (ID4T) model and Larson and Lockee’s (2013) Streamlined ID represent attempts to break down some of the complex perceptions of ID, making it more accessible for K-12 teachers and newer instructional designers.
The primary takeaway from this entire discussion should be that ID is rarely a simple process. In practice, designers often draw upon personal experience and the wide variety of models, strategies, and theories to customize each instance of instructional design.
Tips From the Field
The following short quotes about the practice of ID and ID models from scholars, students, and practitioners provide focused advice that are good tips for the beginning designer and great reminders for the more advanced designer.
- Focus on the systematic and iterative process of instructional design. Models are not discrete steps to be checked off. [Kay Persichitte, University of Wyoming]
- The ADDIE paradigm is fundamental to most models, with appropriate evaluation of each step implied. [Jon Anderle, University of Wyoming]
- Be aware of the tension in the field between theory and practice. [Tara Buñag, University of the Pacific]
- Practicing ID means considering all of the available tools. It’s too easy for a designer to fixate on a single instructional technique as a panacea. [Rhonda Gamble, Sweetwater County School District #1]
- In addition to the regular resources often referenced, don’t forget to look at the works of Robert F. Mager. They are foundational to the field. [Landra Rezabek, retired University of Wyoming]
- It bears repeating often; the reality of the instructional design practice is unique and complex each and every time. [Camille Dickson-Deane, University of Melbourne]
- Careful and purposeful instructional design brings an inherent positivity to learning. [Terry Callaghan, Albany County School District #1]
- A dollar spent on formative evaluation pays off tenfold when it comes to implementation of a new course or program. [Tom Reeves, retired The University of Georgia]
- Consider Robert Mager’s performance analysis flowchart or Ruth Clark’s Content-Performance Matrices for teaching procedures, processes, facts, concepts, and principles. All are brilliant! [Marcy Brown, The CE Shop, Inc.]
- When building out your toolbox, take a look at Cathy Moore and her Action Mapping. [David Glow, Restaurant Magic Software]
- Build opportunities into online courses to collect data and conduct research about the course design, organization, assessments, and teaching effectiveness. This can be used for iterative enhancements. [Athena Kennedy, ASU Online]
- Educate stakeholders involved in the ID process on what you do and why you do it. This is crucial for successful collaboration in design and development. [Megan C. Murtaugh, IDT Consultant]
- Instructional design is a creative process. [Rob Branch, The University of Georgia]
- Understand the systemic implications of what you propose. If you don’t know the difference between systemic and systematic, please familiarize yourself—it will have vast implications. Please know that models of ID are specifically pedagogical in purpose. They teach you the basics, but the real ID process is not captured by a model. Instead you have to approach it more as art, as a holistic process. [Ali Carr-Chellman, University of Idaho]
- Think about what good instruction means. Are you following a sound design procedure, e.g., ADDIE? Are you adhering to best practices of the professional community? Are your strategies supported by learning theory? Are design decisions validated by demonstrated gains on pre- and post- measures? Each of these has a role in creating good instruction, but don’t forget to meet the needs of learners, especially those at the margins. [Brent Wilson, University of Colorado Denver]
- Robert F. Mager (1968) once noted that, “If telling were teaching, we’d all be so smart we could hardly stand it.” When working on the phase of any model that involves material development, designers must be careful with overloading learners with information. Further, presenting information must consider what Hugh Gardner, a professor at the University of Georgia, used to call the “COIK” phenomenon; Clear Only If Known. This phenomenon encourages breaking down complex language, avoiding jargon, and making expert knowledge accessible. These tasks are not easy, but must be part of the process. [Marshall Jones, Winthrop University]
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA.
Allen Interaction. (n.d.). Agile elearning development with SAM. Retrieved August 25, 2017, from http://www.alleninteractions.com/sam-process
ATD Research. (2015). Skills, challenges, and trends in instructional design. Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from https://www.td.org/Publications/Research-Reports/2015/Skills-Challenges-and-Trends-in-Instructional-Design
Baker, R. E., & Schutz, R. L. (1971). Instructional product development. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Banathy, B. H. (1968). Instructional systems. Belmont, CA: Fearon Publishers.
Barson, J. (1967). Instructional systems development: A demonstration and evaluation project: Final report. East Lansing, MI.
Bates, A. W. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., … Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for Agile software development. Retrieved from http://agilemanifesto.org/
Beckschi, P., & Doty, M. (2000). Instructional systems design: A little bit of ADDIEtude, please. In G. M. Piskurich, P. Beckschi, & B. Hall (Eds.), The ASTD handbook of training design and delivery (pp. 28–41). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bergman, R. E., & Moore, T. V. (1990). Managing interactive video/multimedia projects. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Biech, E. (Ed.). (2014). ASTD Handbook (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1971). OD-Fad or fundamental? Madison, WI: American Society for Training and Development, Inc.
Blondin, J. (1977). Development leadership. Manila, Philippines: Southeast Asia Instructional Development Institute.
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York: Springer International Publishing.
Branch, R. M., & Dousay, T. A. (2015). Survey of instructional design models (5th ed.). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational Communications & Technology.
Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, L., Furman, J. P., & King, F. J. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development. Executive summary and model. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.
Briggs, L. J. (1970). Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. Pittsburgh, PA: American Institutes for Research.
Carliner, S. (2015). Training Design Basics (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2015). Instructional design for teachers: Improving classroom practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carr-Chellman, A. A., & Rowland, G. (Eds.). (2017). Issues in technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and contemporary dialogues. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Control Data Corporation. (1979). Courseware development process. Minneapolis, MN: Control Data Corporation.
Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2004). Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Davis, R. H., Alexander, L. T., & Yelon, S. L. (1974). Learning systems design: An approach to the improvement of instruction. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
de Hoog, R., de Jong, T., & de Vries, F. (1994). Constraint-driven software design: An escape from the waterfall model. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1994.tb00637.x
DeCecco, J. P. (1968). The psychology of learning and instruction: Educational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Diamond, R. M. (1989). Designing and Improving Courses and Curricula in Higher Education: A Systematic Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of instruction (1st ed.). Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Dick, W., & Reiser, R. A. (1989). Planning effective instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dorsey, L. T., Goodrum, D. A., & Schwen, T. M. (1997). Rapid collaborative prototyping as an instructional development paradigm. In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp. 445–465). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Dousay, T. A., & Logan, R. (2011). Analyzing and evaluating the phases of ADDIE. In Proceedings from Design, Development and Research Conference 2011 (pp. 32–43). Cape Town, South Africa.
Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2004). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Gentry, C. G. (1993). Introduction to instructional development: Process and technique (1st ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
Gerlach, V. S., & Ely, D. P. (1971). Teaching and media: A systematic approach (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 43–53.
Gustafson, K. L. (1991). Survey of instructional development models (2nd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.
Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., & Russell, J. D. (1982). Instructional media: The new technologies of instruction (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hodell, C. (2015). ISD from the ground up (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
Hunt, V. D. (1996). Process mapping: How to reengineer your business process. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Keller, J. M. (2016). Motivation, learning, and technology: Applying the ARCS-V motivation model. Participatory Educational Research, 3(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.16.06.3.2
Kemp, J. (1977). Instructional design: A plan for unit and course development. Belmont, CA: Fearon Publishers.
Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2013). Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lee, C.-J., & Kim, C. (2014). An implementation study of a TPACK-based instructional design model in a technology integration course. Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 437–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9335-8
Leshin, C. B., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). Instructional design: Strategies & tactics for improving learning and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Mager, R. F. (1968). Developing attitude toward learning. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon Publishers.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140410709
Molenda, M. (2017). The systems approach to instructional development. In A. A. Carr-Chellman & G. Rowland (Eds.), Issues in technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and contemporary dialogues (1st ed., pp. 39–43). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Moore, C. (2016). Action mapping: A visual approach to training design. Retrieved from http://blog.cathy-moore.com/action-mapping-a-visual-approach-to-training-design/
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2012). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Newby, T. J., Stepich, D., Lehman, J., & Russell, J. D. (1996). Instructional technology for teaching and learning: Designing, integrating computers,and using media. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Nieveen, N. M. (1997). Computer support for curriculum developers: A study on the potential of computer support in the domain of formative curriculum evaluation. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Plomp, T. (1982). Onderwijskundige technologie: Enige verkenningen [Exploring educational technology]. Inaugural lecture, Enschede: Universiteit Twente.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57–67.
Reiser, R. A. (2017). What field did you say you were in? In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed., pp. 1–7). New York, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.
Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2010). The instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1997). Making instructional design decisions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous improvement through shared understanding: Reconceptualising instructional design for online learning. In Ascilite Conference: Winds of Change in the Sea of Learning: Charting the Course of Digital Education (pp. 1–10). Auckland. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/162.pdf
Smaldino, S., Lowther, D. L., Mims, C., & Russell, J. D. (2015). Instructional technology and media for learning (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. Princeton, NC: Merrill Publishing Company.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Twelker, P. A., Urbach, F. D., & Buck, J. E. (1972). The systematic development of instruction: An overview and basic guide to the literature. Stanford, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Media and Technology.
van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for technical training. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
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, Publishers.
Van Patten, J. (1989). What is instructional design? In K. A. Johnson & L. J. Foa (Eds.), Instructional design: New alternatives for effective education and training (pp. 16–31). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTigue, J. (2000). Understanding by design (1st ed.). Alexandria, VA: Merrill Education/ACSD College Textbook Series.
Source:
This work, “Instructional Design Models, is a derivative of the following works:
- Instructional Design Models by Tonia Dousay is used under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
- Survey of Instructional Design Models by Tonia Dousay, Robert Brach, and AECT is used under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
“Instructional Design Models” is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 license by John Raible.