Definitions of Instructional Design

Instructional Design as a Process:

Instructional Design is the systematic development of instructional
specifications using learning and instructional theory to ensure the quality of
instruction. It is the entire process of analysis of learning needs and goals
and the development of a delivery system to meet those needs. It includes
development of instructional materials and activities; and tryout and
evaluation of all instruction and learner activities.

Instructional Design as a Discipline:

Instructional Design is that branch of knowledge concerned with research
and theory about instructional strategies and the process for developing and
implementing those strategies.

Instructional Design as a Science:

Instructional design is the science of creating detailed specifications for the
development, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance of situations that
facilitate the learning of both large and small units of subject matter at all
levels of complexity.

Instructional Design as Reality:

Instructional design can start at any point in the design process. Often a
glimmer of an idea is developed to give the core of an instruction situation.
By the time the entire process is done the designer looks back and she or he
checks to see that all parts of the "science" have been taken into account.
Then the entire process is written up as if it occurred in a systematic fashion.

Instructional System:
An instructional system is an arrangement of resources and procedures to
promote learning. Instructional design is the systematic process of
developing instructional systems and instructional development is the
process of implementing the system or plan.

Instructional Technology:
Instructional technology is the systemic and systematic application of
strategies and techniques derived from behavioral, cognitive, and
constructivist theories to the solution of instructional problems.

Instructional technology is the systematic application of theory and other

organized knowledge to the task of instructional design and development.

Instructional Technology = Instructional Design + Instructional

Development

Instructional Development:
The process of implementing the design plans.

A Brief History of Instructional Design

Douglas Leigh

As a formal discipline, Instructional Systems Design has been a long time in the
making. The early contributions of thinkers such as Aristotle, Socrates and Plato
regarding the cognitive basis of learning and memory was later expanded by the
13th century philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas who discussed the perception of
teachings in terms of free will. Four hundred years later, John Locke advanced
Aristotle's notion of human's initial state of mental blankness by proposing that
almost all reason and knowledge must be gained from experience. Then, at the turn
of the 20th century John Dewey presented several tenets of the philosophy of
education which promoted the idea that learning occurs best when married
with doing, rather than rote regurgitation of facts.
As the 1920's approached, a behaviorist approach to educational psychology
became increasingly predominant. Thorndike's theory of connectionism represents
the original stimulus-response (S-R) model of behavioral psychology, and was

expanded on some twenty years later by Hull in his exposition of drive reduction
a motivational model of behavior which emphasizes learner's wants, attention, and
activities. With the Industrial Revolution came an increased attention to
productivity, and educational behaviorists during the 1920's such as Sidney Pressey
applied mechanized technology to increase the efficiency of the learning process.
Though their initial incarnation did not see much use after the Depression, many of
the lessons learned research into these teaching machines regarding the delivery of
standardized instruction contributed to the instructional media research &
development movement of World War II.
The advent of the Second World War presented a tremendous instructional
dilemma: the rapid training of hundreds of thousands of military personnel. Ralph
Tyler's work a decade before WWII indicated that objectives were most useful to
instructional developers if written in terms of desired learner behaviors. Armed
with this knowledge and the experience of creating standardize methods of
instructional delivery using teaching machines, military researchers developed a
bevy of training films and other mediated materials for instructional purposes. In
part, the United States' heavy investment in training and R&D was credited with
the country's victory in the war. With the economic boom that followed, federal
dollars followed researcher's desire to better flesh out the underpinnings of
learning, cognition, and instruction.
The 1950's are characterized by a shift away from the uninformed application of
instructional technology to the formulation of theoretical models of learning. The
publication of B. F. Skinner's The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching in
1954 canonized the basic behaviorist principles of S-R, feedback, and
reinforcement. As the key element of his theory of operant conditioning, the
reinforcement of desired learner responses was also incorporated into Skinner's
implementations of programmed instruction. Considered by many the progenitor of
contemporary instructional design, programmed instruction emphasizes the
formulation of behavioral objectives, breaking instructional content into small units
and rewarding correct responses early and often.
Another substantial instructional theorist of the 1950's was Benjamin Bloom. His
1956 taxonomy of intellectual behaviors provided instructors a means by which to
decide how to impart instructional content to learners most effectively. Advocating
a mastery approach to learning, Bloom endorsed instructional techniques that
varied both instruction and time according to learner requirements. While this
approach provided instructional developers a means by which to match subject
matter and instructional methods, Bloom's taxonomy was not in and of itself

capable of satisfying the desire of large organizations to relate resources and

processes to the performances of individuals. To achieve this researchers in the
military's Air Research and Development Command borrowed from Ludwig von
Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory of biological interactions to integrate the
operations of a wide range of departments, such as training, intelligence, and
staffing. Combined with the Bloom's Taxonomy, the systems approach to
instructional and organizational development allowed planners and policy-makers
to match the content and delivery of instruction in a fashion which considered both
super- and sub-systems (the organization as a whole, as well as groups and
individuals within the organization). These advances of Skinner, Bloom and von
Bertalanffy were usually employed to develop instruction in what was
only assumed to be an effective an efficient manner. The formalization of a
standardized design process still had yet to be devised.
Again it was a crisis that spurred the next evolution of instructional technology a
shift away from an emphasis in the development of instructional programs to one
which focused on the design of entire curriculum. Again the crisis was a war, but
this time the war was a political one. In 1957 the Soviet Union launched the
Sputnik satellite and began the "space race". America was taken by surprise and the
government was forced to reevaluate the education system and its shortcomings.
Science and math programs were the first to be targeted, and the government
employed experts in these fields to bring the content up to date.
In 1962 Robert Glaser synthesized the work of previous researchers and introduced
the concept of "instructional design", submitting a model which links learner
analysis to the design and development of instruction. Interestingly, Glaser's
contribution to the current field of instructional systems is not so much in the
advancement of his model, but in work concerning Individually Prescribed
Instruction (IPI), an approach whereby the results of a learner's placement test are
used to plan learner-specific instruction.
At the same time Glaser was developing his theories of instructional design and IPI,
Robert Mager published his treatise on the construction of performance objectives.
Mager suggested that an objective should describe in measurable terms who an
objective targets, the behavior they will have exhibited, the conditions or
limitations under which they must carry out this behavior, and the criteria against
which their behavior will be gauged.
As early as 1962 when he published "Military Training and Principles of Learning"
Robert Gagn demonstrated a concern for the different levels of learning. His

differentiation of psychomotor skills, verbal information, intellectual skills,

cognitive strategies, and attitudes provides a companion to Bloom's six cognitive
domains of learning. Later, Gagn extended his thinking to include nine
instructional events that detail the conditions necessary for learning to occur. These
events have long since been used for the basis for the design of instruction and the
selection of appropriate media.
The mediation of instruction entered the computer age in the 1960's when Patrick
Suppes conducted his initial investigations into computer-assisted instruction (CAI)
at Stanford University. Developed through a systematic analysis of curriculum,
Suppes' CAI provided learner feedback, branching, and response tracking aspects
were later incorporated into the PLATO system in the 1970's and continue guide the
development of today's instructional software.
By the late 1960's America was again in crisis. Not only was the country involved
in another war, but the nation's schools were unable to elicit the achievement from
learners it anticipated. Grant Venn argued that since only 19% of first graders
complete a bachelor or arts degree, that the current educational system is only
serving the advantaged minority of schoolchildren. To counter this trend Robert
Morgan proposed to conduct an experiment with an "organic curriculum" which
would to incorporate into the educational system the best instructional practices
identified through research. Accepted in 1967 the proposal by the US Office of
Education, the project was dubbed "Educational Systems for the 1970's", or ES'70.
Morgan engaged an array of experts in the field of learning, cognition, and
instructional design to contribute to the project and carried out multiple
experiments in a variety of settings. Of these was Leslie Briggs, who had
demonstrated that an instructionally designed course could yield up to 2:1 increase
over conventionally designed courses in terms of achievement, reduction in
variance, and reduction of time-to-completion this effect was four times that of
the control group which received no training. In 1970, Morgan partnered with the
Florida Research and Development Advisory Board to conduct a nation-wide
educational reform project in South Korea. Faced with the task of increasing the
achievement of learners while at the same time reducing the cost of schooling from
$41.27 per student per year Morgan applied some of the same techniques as had
been piloted in the ES'70 project and achieved striking results: an increase in
student achievement, a more efficient organization of instructors and course
content, an increased teacher to student ratio, a reduction in salary cost, and a
reduction in yearly per student cost by $9.80.

Around this time Roger Kaufman developed a problem-solving framework for

educational strategic planning which provided practitioners a means by which to
demonstrate value-added not only for the learner, but the school system and society
as a whole. This framework provided the basis for the Organizational Elements
Model (OEM), a needs assessment model which specifies results to be achieved at
societal, organizational, and individual performance levels. By rigorously defining
needs as gaps in results Kaufman emphasized that performance improvement
interventions can not demonstrate return-on-investment unless those interventions
were derived from the requirements of these three primary clients and beneficiaries
of organizational action. This approach to needs assessment and strategic planning
has since been used across the world as the foundation for planning, evaluation, and
continuous improvement in military, business, and educational settings.
A variety of models for instructional system design proliferated the late 1970's and
early 80's: Gagn and Briggs, Branson, Dick and Carey, and Atkins, to name a few.
One possible reason for this phenomenon deals with the establishment of formal
education and training departments within both public and private organizations.
Faced with the computerized technologies of the times, these organizations require
a means by which to quickly develop appropriate methods by which to educate
internal employees in the new business practices ushered into existence by the
Information Age. Another explanation is that businesses, especially consulting
organizations, are becoming increasingly required to demonstrate value-added not
only to their organization, but to the clients they serve. The evaluation and
continuous improvement components of contemporary models of ISD make far
strides from the early develop-and-implement models of the middle of the century
in this aspect.
In the 1990's a dual focus on technology and performance improvement has
developed. For example, in his 1988 essay "Why the Schools Can't Improve: The
Upper Limit Hypothesis" Robert Branson offers an argument for systemic school
reform, suggesting that schools are operating at near peak efficiency and must be
redesigned from the top down using technological interventions. Later in that year
Branson was contracted by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) to analyze
it's various programs and plan a system-wide technology-based educational reform
initiative for Florida called Schoolyear 2000. Over the next several years Branson's
team developed and piloted multiple computerized instructional technologies, as
well as models of the interaction between the internal operations of the school
system and the experiences and knowledge of students, parents, and teachers.

Developments in performance improvement outside ISD during the 1990's such as

Quality Management (QM), Organizational Engineering, and Change Management
have required that instructional designers look outside their profession to
demonstrate the utility of their practice. Introduced earlier by Deming, QM has
swept public and private organizations alike in the 90's. Whereas initially thought
of in terms of "quality control" or "zero defects", quality practices have evolved
into tools for organizational continuous improvement. Similarly, instructional
designers in the 90's often work alongside authorities in the field of organizational
engineering. Characterized by a concern for an organization's culture and
interaction between groups, organizational engineering seeks to improve
organizations through the identification of relationships between an organization's
vision, mission, goals, methods and personnel. Similarly, change management has
become a business in and of itself, with leaders such as Darly Conner and Joel
Barker pioneering methods for and models of organizational change.
The advent of new media, such as the Internet and hypermedia, has brought about
not only technological innovations, but also coupled these with new ways of
approaching learning and instruction. As opposed to the behavioralist perspective
that emphasizes learning objectives, the constructivist approach holds that learners
construct their understanding of reality from interpretations of their experiences.
Theorists such as Thomas Duffy and Seymour Papert suggest that constructivism
provides a model whereby socio-cultural and cognitive issues regarding the design
of learning environments can be supported by computer tools. This philosophy has
been applied to such computerized technologies as online help systems and
programming language LOGO.
In the future, instructional designers are likely to choose one of two paths:
specialist or generalist. In the prior path, designers will focus on one aspect of
learning or instruction and act as consultants or subject matter experts, whether
internal or external to the organization. The other approach is one more aligned
with managerial activities. Since the field is becoming too broad for most designers
to work with authority in all matters, this option allows practitioners to oversee the
development of instructional projects, rather than narrow their efforts exclusively
on assessment, analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation or
continuous improvement.
References

Boling, E. (1996). Instructional Technology Foundations I: Historical Timelines

Project Page [Online]. Available:
http://education.indiana.edu/~istcore/r511/datelist.html [1998, June 7].
Kearsley, G. (1994). Learning & Instruction: The TIP Database [Online].
Available: http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/educ/tip/1.htm [1998, June 7].
Reiser, R. A. (1987). Instructional Technology: A History. In R. M. Gagn
(ed.), Instructional Technology: Foundations (pp. 11 - 40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Shrock, S. A. (No date). A Brief History of Instructional
Development [Online].Available: http://uttcmed.utb.edu/6320/chapters/summary_ch2.html [1998, June 7].

Instructional design
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent

a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss
the issue on the talk page. (August 2010)

Instructional Design (also called Instructional Systems Design (ISD)) is the practice
of maximizing the effectiveness, efficiency and appeal of instruction and other learning
experiences. The process consists broadly of determining the current state and needs of
the learner, defining the end goal of instruction, and creating some "intervention" to assist
in the transition. Ideally the process is informed by pedagogically (process of teaching)
and andragogically (adult learning) tested theories of learning and may take place in
student-only, teacher-led or community-based settings. The outcome of this instruction
may be directly observable and scientifically measured or completely hidden and
assumed. There are many instructional design models but many are based on the ADDIE
model with the five phases: 1) analysis, 2) design, 3) development, 4) implementation,
and 5) evaluation. As a field, instructional design is historically and traditionally rooted
in cognitive and behavioral psychology.

Contents

[hide]

1 History
2 Cognitive load theory and the design of instruction
3 Learning design
4 Instructional design models
o

4.1 ADDIE process

4.2 Rapid prototyping

4.3 Dick and Carey

4.4 Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS)

4.5 Other models

5 Influential researchers and theorists
6 See also
7 References
8 External links

[edit]History

Much of the foundation of the field of instructional design was laid in World War II, when
the U.S. military faced the need to rapidly train large numbers of people to perform
complex technical tasks, from field-stripping a carbine to navigating across the ocean to
building a bombersee "Training Within Industry (TWI)". Drawing on the research and
theories of B.F. Skinner on operant conditioning, training programs focused on
observable behaviors. Tasks were broken down into subtasks, and each subtask treated
as a separate learning goal. Training was designed to reward correct performance and
remediate incorrect performance. Mastery was assumed to be possible for every learner,
given enough repetition and feedback. After the war, the success of the wartime training

model was replicated in business and industrial training, and to a lesser extent in the
primary and secondary classroom. The approach is still common in the U.S. military.[1]
In 1956, a committee led by Benjamin Bloom published an influential taxonomy of what
he termed the three domains of learning: Cognitive (what one knows or thinks),
Psychomotor (what one does, physically) and Affective (what one feels, or
what attitudes one has). These taxonomies still influence the design of instruction. [2]
During the latter half of the 20th century, learning theories began to be influenced by the
growth of digital computers.
In the 1970s, many instructional design theorists began to adopt an informationprocessing-based approach to the design of instruction. David Merrill for instance
developed Component Display Theory (CDT), which concentrates on the means of
presenting instructional materials (presentation techniques). [3]
Later in the 1980s and throughout the 1990s cognitive load theory began to find
empirical support for a variety of presentation techniques. [4]
[edit]Cognitive

load theory and the design of instruction

Cognitive load theory developed out of several empirical studies of learners, as they
interacted with instructional materials. [5] Sweller and his associates began to measure the
effects of working memoryload, and found that the format of instructional materials has a
direct effect on the performance of the learners using those materials. [6][7][8]
While the media debates of the 1990s focused on the influences of media on learning,
cognitive load effects were being documented in several journals. Rather than attempting
to substantiate the use of media, these cognitive load learning effects provided an
empirical basis for the use of instructional strategies. Mayer asked the instructional
design community to reassess the media debate, to refocus their attention on what was
most important: learning.[9]
By the mid- to late-1990s, Sweller and his associates had discovered several learning
effects related to cognitive load and the design of instruction (e.g. the split attention
effect, redundancy effect, and the worked-example effect). Later, other researchers like
Richard Mayer began to attribute learning effects to cognitive load. [9] Mayer and his
associates soon developed a Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. [10][11][12]

In the past decade, cognitive load theory has begun to be internationally accepted [13] and
begun to revolutionize how practitioners of instructional design view instruction. Recently,
human performance experts have even taken notice of cognitive load theory, and have
begun to promote this theory base as the science of instruction, with instructional
designers as the practitioners of this field. [14] Finally Clark, Nguyen and
Sweller[15] published a textbook describing how Instructional Designers can promote
efficient learning using evidence-based guidelines of cognitive load theory.
Instructional Designers use various instructional strategies to reduce cognitive load. For
example, they think that the onscreen text should not be more than 150 words or the text
should be presented in small meaningful chunks. [citation needed] The designers also use
auditory and visual methods to communicate information to the learner.
[edit]Learning

design

The IMS Learning Design[16] specification supports the use of a wide range of teaching
methods in online learning. Rather than attempting to capture the specifics of many
strategies of instruction, it does this by providing a generic and flexible language. This
language is designed to enable many different styles of instruction to be expressed. The
approach has the advantage over alternatives in that only one set of learning design and
runtime tools need to be implemented in order to support the desired wide range of
teaching styles. The language was originally developed at the Open University of the
Netherlands (OUNL), after extensive examination and comparison of a wide range of
pedagogical approaches and their associated learning activities, and several iterations of
the developing language to obtain a good balance between generality and pedagogic
expressiveness.
A criticism of Learning Design theory is that learning is an outcome. While instructional
theory Instructional Design focuses on outcomes, while properly accounting for a multivariate context that can only be predictive, it acknowledges that (given the variabilities in
human capability) a guarantee of reliable learning outcomes is improbable. We can only
design instruction. We cannot design learning (an outcome). Automotive engineers can
design a car that, under specific conditions, will achieve 50 miles per gallon. These
engineers cannot guarantee that drivers of the cars they design will (or have the
capability to) operate these vehicles according to the specific conditions prescribed. The
former is the metaphor for instructional design. The latter is the metaphor for Learning
Design.
[edit]Instructional

design models

[edit]ADDIE

process

Perhaps the most common model used for creating instructional materials is the ADDIE
Process. This acronym stands for the 5 phases contained in the model:

Analyze analyze learner characteristics, task to be learned, etc.

Design develop learning objectives, choose an instructional approach

Develop create instructional or training materials

Implement deliver or distribute the instructional materials

Evaluate make sure the materials achieved the desired goals

Most of the current instructional design models are variations of the ADDIE process. [17]
[edit]Rapid

prototyping

A sometimes utilized adaptation to the ADDIE model is in a practice known as rapid

prototyping.
Proponents suggest that through an iterative process the verification of the design
documents saves time and money by catching problems while they are still easy to fix.
This approach is not novel to the design of instruction, but appears in many designrelated domains including software design, architecture, transportation planning, product
development, message design, user experience design, etc. [17][18][19] In fact, some
proponents of design prototyping assert that a sophisticated understanding of a problem
is incomplete without creating and evaluating some type of prototype, regardless of the
analysis rigor that may have been applied up front. [20] In other words, up-front analysis is
rarely sufficient to allow one to confidently select an instructional model. For this reason
many traditional methods of instructional design are beginning to be seen as incomplete,
naive, and even counter-productive.[21]
However, some consider rapid prototyping to be a somewhat simplistic type of model. As
this argument goes, at the heart of Instructional Design is the analysis phase. After you
thoroughly conduct the analysisyou can then choose a model based on your findings.
That is the area where most people get snaggedthey simply do not do a thoroughenough analysis. (Part of Article By Chris Bressi on LinkedIn)

[edit]Dick

and Carey

Another well-known instructional design model is The Dick and Carey Systems
Approach Model.[22] The model was originally published in 1978 by Walter Dick and Lou
Carey in their book entitledThe Systematic Design of Instruction.

Dick and Carey made a significant contribution to the instructional design field by
championing a systems view of instruction as opposed to viewing instruction as a sum of
isolated parts. The model addresses instruction as an entire system, focusing on the
interrelationship between context, content, learning and instruction. According to Dick
and Carey, "Components such as the instructor, learners, materials, instructional
activities, delivery system, and learning and performance environments interact with
each other and work together to bring about the desired student learning outcomes".
[22]

The components of the Systems Approach Model, also known as the Dick and Carey

Model, are as follows:

Identify Instructional Goal(s)

Conduct Instructional Analysis

Analyze Learners and Contexts

Write Performance Objectives

Develop Assessment Instruments

Develop Instructional Strategy

Develop and Select Instructional Materials

Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation of Instruction

Revise Instruction

Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation

With this model, components are executed iteratively and in parallel rather than linearly.
[22]

[edit]Instructional

Development Learning System (IDLS)

Another instructional design model is the Instructional Development Learning System

(IDLS).[23] The model was originally published in 1970 by Peter J. Esseff, PhD and Mary
Sullivan Esseff, PhD in their book entitled IDLSPro Trainer 1: How to Design, Develop,
and Validate Instructional Materials.[24]
Peter (1968) & Mary (1972) Esseff both received their doctorates in Educational
Technology from the Catholic University of America under the mentorship of Dr. Gabriel
Ofiesh, a Founding Father of the Military Model mentioned above. Esseff and Esseff
contributed synthesized existing theories to develop their approach to systematic design,
"Instructional Development Learning System" (IDLS).
The components of the IDLS Model are:

Design a Task Analysis

Develop Criterion Tests and Performance Measures

Develop Interactive Instructional Materials

Validate the Interactive Instructional Materials

[edit]Other

models

Some other useful models of instructional design include: the Smith/Ragan Model, the
Morrison/Ross/Kemp Model and the OAR model, as well as, Wiggins theory of backward
design.

Learning theories also play an important role in the design of instructional materials.
Theories such as behaviorism, constructivism, social learning and cognitivism help
shape and define the outcome of instructional materials.
[edit]Influential

researchers and theorists

The lists in this article may contain items that are not notable,
not encyclopedic, or not helpful. Please help out by removing such
elements and incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the
article. (December 2010)

Alphabetic by last name

Bloom, Benjamin Taxonomies of the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor

domains 1955

Bonk, Curtis Blended learning 2000s

Bransford, John D. How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice 1999

Bruner, Jerome Constructivism

Carr-Chellman, Alison Instructional Design for Teachers ID4T -2010

Carey, L. "The Systematic Design of Instruction"

Clark, Richard Clark-Kosma "Media vs Methods debate", "Guidance" debate.

Clark, Ruth Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage

Cognitive Load / Guided Instruction / Cognitive Load Theory

Dick, W. "The Systematic Design of Instruction"

Gagn, Robert M. Nine Events of Instruction (Gagn and Merrill Video Seminar)

Heinich, Robert Instructional Media and the new technologies of instruction 3rd
ed. Educational Technology 1989

Jonassen, David problem-solving strategies 1990s

Langdon, Danny G - The Instructional Designs Library: 40 Instructional Designs,

Educational Tech. Publications

Mager, Robert F. ABCD model for instructional objectives 1962

Merrill, M. David - Component Display Theory / Knowledge Objects

Papert, Seymour Constructionism, LOGO 1970s

Piaget, Jean Cognitive development 1960s

Piskurich, George Rapid Instructional Design 2006

Simonson, Michael Instructional Systems and Design via Distance Education

1980s

Schank, Roger Constructivist simulations 1990s

Sweller, John - Cognitive load, Worked-example effect, Split-attention effect

Reigeluth, Charles Elaboration Theory, "Green Books" I, II, and III - 1999-2010

Skinner, B.F. Radical Behaviorism, Programed Instruction

Vygotsky, Lev Learning as a social activity 1930s

Wiley, David Learning Objects, Open Learning 2000s

[edit]See

also
Wikiversity has
learning materials
about Instructional
design

Since instructional design deals with creating useful instruction and instructional
materials, there are many other areas that are related to the field of instructional design.

educational assessment

confidence-based learning

educational animation

educational psychology

educational technology

e-learning

electronic portfolio

evaluation

humancomputer interaction

instructional design context

instructional technology

instructional theory

interaction design

learning object

learning science

m-learning

multimedia learning

online education

instructional design coordinator

storyboarding

training

interdisciplinary teaching

rapid prototyping

lesson study

Understanding by Design

[edit]References

1.

^ MIL-HDBK-29612/2A Instructional Systems Development/Systems Approach to Training and

Education

2.

^ Bloom's Taxonomy

3.

^ TIP: Theories

4.

^ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. - Educational Psychologist - 38(1):1 - Citation

5.

^ Sweller, J. (1988). "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning". Cognitive
Science 12 (1): 257285. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7.

6.

^ Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). "Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of
Instruction". Cognition and Instruction 8 (4): 293332. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.

7.

^ Sweller, J., & Cooper, G.A. (1985). "The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem
solving in learning algebra". Cognition and Instruction 2 (1): 5989. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3.

8.

^ Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). "Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on
mathematical problem-solving transfer". Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (4): 347
362. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.347.

9.

^ a b Mayer, R.E. (1997). "Multimedia Learning: Are We Asking the Right

Questions?". Educational Psychologist 32 (41): 119. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1.

10.

^ Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521-78239-2.

11.

^ Mayer, R.E., Bove, W. Bryman, A. Mars, R. & Tapangco, L. (1996). "When Less Is More:
Meaningful Learning From Visual and Verbal Summaries of Science Textbook Lessons". Journal of
Educational Psychology 88 (1): 6473. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.64.

12.

^ Mayer, R.E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G. and Mars, R. (1995). "A generative theory of textbook
design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text". Educational
Technology Research and Development 43 (1): 3141. doi:10.1007/BF02300480.

13.

^ Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2004). "Cognitive Load Theory: Instructional Implications of
the Interaction between Information Structures and Cognitive Architecture". Instructional Science 32: 1
8.doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516.d0.

14.

^ Clark, R.C., Mayer, R.E. (2002). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines
for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ISBN 0-7879-6051-9.

15.

^ Clark, R.C., Nguyen, F., and Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based
Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ISBN 0-7879-7728-4.

16.

^ IMS Learning Design webpage

17.

^ a b Piskurich, G.M. (2006). Rapid Instructional Design: Learning ID fast and right.

18.

^ Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology.

19.

^ Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E. (1999). Handbook of human performance technology.

20.

^ Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO's strategies for beating the
devil's advocate & driving creativity throughout your organization. New York: Doubleday.

21.

^ Hokanson, B., & Miller, C. (2009). Role-based design: A contemporary framework for
innovation and creativity in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(2), 2128.

22.

^ a b c Dick, Walter, Lou Carey, and James O. Carey (2005) [1978]. The Systematic Design of
Instruction (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. pp. 112. ISBN 0205412742.

23.

^ Esseff, Peter J. and Esseff, Mary Sullivan (1998) [1970]. Instructional Development Learning
System (IDLS) (8th ed.). ESF Press. pp. 112. ISBN 1582830371.

24.

[edit]

^ [1]

http://thingsorganic.tripod.com/Instructional_Design_Models.htm