ERIC Identifier: ED411778
Publication Date: 1997-09-00
Author: Plotnick, Eric
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Information and Technology Syracuse NY.
Survey of Instructional Development Models. ERIC Digest.
In Survey of Instructional Development Models, Third Edition, Gustafson &
Branch (1997) define instructional development (ID) in terms of four major
--Analysis of the setting and learner needs;
--Design of a set of specifications for an effective, efficient, and relevant
--Development of all learner and management materials; and
--Evaluation of the results of the development both formatively and
A TAXONOMY OF ID MODELS
A taxonomy of ID models can help
clarify the underlying assumptions of each model, and help identify the
conditions under which each might be most appropriately applied. Gustafson's
(1981, 1991) schema contains three categories into which models can be placed.
Placement of any model in one of the categories is based on the set of
assumptions that its creator has made, often implicitly, about the conditions
under which both the development and delivery of instruction will occur. The
taxonomy has three categories indicating whether the model is best applied for
developing: individual classroom instruction; products for implementation by
users other than the developers; or large and complex instructional systems
directed at an organization's problems or goals.
I. Classroom Orientation ID Models: Classroom ID models are of interest
primarily to professional teachers who accept as a given that their role is to
teach, and that their students require some form of instruction. Teaching
personnel usually view an ID model as a general road map to follow. Typically, a
classroom ID model outlines only a few functions, and simply provides a guide
for the teacher. The developer who works with teachers would do well to employ
any ID model with caution because teachers are not likely to be familiar with
the concepts or processes of systematic instructional development.
Gustafson & Branch select and discuss four models to represent the
variety of ID models most applicable in the classroom environment:
--Gerlach and Ely (1980). Teaching and media: A systematic approach.
--Kemp, Morrison and Ross (1994). Designing effective instruction.
--Heinich, Molenda, Russell and Smaldino (1996). ASSURE.
--Reiser and Dick (1996). Instructional planning: A guide for teachers.
II. Product Orientation ID Models: Product development models typically
assume that the amount of product to be developed will be several hours, or
perhaps several days, in length. The amount of front-end analysis for product
oriented models may vary widely, but it is usually assumed that a technically
sophisticated product will be produced. Users may have no contact with the
developers. Product development models are characterized by four key features:
--Assumption that an instructional product is needed.
--Assumption that something needs to be produced, rather than selected or
modified from existing materials.
--Considerable emphasis is placed on tryout and revision.
--Assumption that the product must be usable by a variety of managers of
Gustafson & Branch select and discuss three models to represent the
variety of ID models that have a product orientation:
--Van Patten (1989). What is instructional design?
--Leshin, Pollock and Reigeluth (1990). Instructional design: Strategies and
tactics for improving learning and performance.
--Bergman and Moore (1990). Managing interactive video/multimedia projects.
III. System Orientation ID Models: System oriented ID models typically assume
that a large amount of instruction, such as an entire course or entire
curriculum, will be developed, and that substantial resources will be made
available to a team of highly trained developers. Assumptions as to whether
original production or selection of materials will occur vary, but in many cases
original development is specified. Assumptions about the technological
sophistication of the delivery system vary, with trainers often opting for more
technology than classroom teachers. The amount of front-end analysis is usually
high, as is the amount of tryout and revision. Dissemination is usually quite
wide, and typically does not involve the team that did the development.
Systems oriented ID models usually begin with a data collection phase to
determine the feasibility and desirability of developing an instructional
solution to a "problem." Systems models, as a class, differ from product
development models in the amount of emphasis placed on analysis of the larger
environment before committing to development. Systems models also typically
assume a larger scope of effort than product development models. However, in the
design, development, and evaluation phases, the primary difference between
systems models and product models is one of magnitude, rather than type of
specific tasks to be performed.
Gustafson & Branch select and discuss six models to represent the variety
of ID models most applicable in the systems environment:
--Instructional Development Institute (IDI) (National Special Media
Institute, 1971). IDI model.
--Branson, (1975). Interservices Procedures for Instructional Systems
--Diamond (1989, 1997). Designing and improving courses and curricula: A
--Smith and Ragan (1993). Instructional design.
--Gentry (1994). Introduction to instructional development process and
--Dick and Carey (1996). The systematic design of instruction.
Gustafson & Branch suggest that developers
need to acquire a working knowledge of several instructional development models,
and ensure that all three categories in their taxonomy are represented in that
knowledge. As new and different models are encountered, the new models can then
be compared to those with which the developers are familiar. Gustafson & Branch also suggest that developers maintain a repertoire of examples of ID
models that can be presented to clients along with varying levels of detail.
Such a repertoire will allow developers to introduce the ID process to
uninformed clients easily. Developers should always be in the position of
selecting an appropriate model to fit a situation, rather than forcing the
situation to fit a model.
There has been little substantive change in the general conceptual framework
of ID models in recent years that suggest any trend. While some recent models
(e.g. Bergman & Moore, 1990) focus on new delivery systems, these models do
not represent new conceptions of the ID process. The only safe forecast based on
the past would be that little change is likely to occur in the next few years.
Gustafson & Branch believe that all the instructional development models
they reviewed and discussed will survive well into the next century, and will be
able to accommodate new developments in theory and technology.
Bergman, R., & Moore, T. (1990). "Managing
interactive video/multimedia projects." Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Branson, R. K. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems
development: Executive summary and model. Tallahassee, FL: Center for
Educational Technology, Florida State University. (National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. Document Nos.
AD-A019 486 to AD-A019 490)
Diamond, R. M. (1989). "Designing and improving courses and curricula in
higher education." San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (ED 304 056)
Diamond, R. M. (1997). "Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A
practical guide." San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. In press.
Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade?
"Educational Technology Research and Development," 44(3), 55-63. (EJ 532 854)
Gentry, C. G. (1994). "Introduction to instructional development: Process and
technique." Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Gerlach, V. S., & Ely, D. P. (1980). "Teaching and media: A systematic
approach (2nd ed.)." Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Incorporated.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (1996).
"Instructional media and technologies for learning (5th ed.)." New York:
Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1994). "Designing effective
instruction." New York: Merrill.
Leshin, C., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C. (1992). "Instructional design:
Strategies and tactics for improving learning and performance." Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
National Special Media Institute. (1971). "What is an IDI?" East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University.
Reiser, R., & Dick, W. (1996). "Instructional planning: A guide for
teachers (2nd ed.)." Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). "Instructional design." New York:
Van Patten, J. (1989). What is instructional design? In K. A. Johnson &
L. K. Foa (Eds.), "Instructional design: New alternatives for effective
education and training." New York: Macmillan.