Table of Contents
- Introduction
- 1940s: The Origins of Instructional Design
- 1950s: The Formative Years
- 1960s: Objectives and Criterion-Referenced Testing
- 1970s: The Systems Approach
- 1980s: The CBI Era
- 1990s: A Time for Change
- 2000s: Where's my parachute?
- References
The field of instructional design is defined by Florida State University's Robert Reiser (2001) as involving 6 major activities: analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation, and management. These activities center on the development of instructional and non-instructional processes and resources for the purpose of enhancing learning and performance in educational and workplace settings (p. 57).
Though it is rooted in cognitive and behavioral psychology, instructional design is highly inter-disciplinary, involving best practices from the fields of communication, management, human performance technology (HPT), organizational development, educational psychology, sociology, psychometrics, educational theory, and many others. The field of instructional design has also been influenced heavily by technology, change theory, and systems theory, often placing instructional design practicioners in the forefront of technological change and diffusion. In fact, many in the field argue that systematic instructional design is a technology in and of itself, in the same way that GAAPs (generally accepted accounting procedures) represent a technology in the accounting field
Sometimes referred to as instructional technology, instructional media, instructional systems, and instructional development, the field of instructional design has undergone tremendous growth and transformation since its rise during World War II. In this section, I attempt to summarize Reiser's (2001) description of the history of instructional design, technology, and media.
1940s: The Origins of Instructional Design
During World War II, the U.S. military faced the monumental task of training hundreds of thousands of volunteers to become effective soldiers and support personnel. The War Department turned to psychologists and educators for help in finding the most efficient way possible to do this. Among those who participated were Robet Gagne, Leslie Briggs, and other educational psychology researchers who are today considered the founders of instructional design. They used their knowledge of psychometrics to conduct testing and evaluation, often for the purpose of screening volunteers and placing them in the jobs that best suited their skills and knowledge. They also developed instructional resources, primarily employing behaviorist techniques (e.g., drill and practice, checklists), which reflected the dominance of behavioral psychology at the time.
After the war, many psychology researchers continued to work with the military to develop more formalized instructional systems. In fact, it is during this post-war period that educational psychologists began to think of instructional design as a systematic process. Miller (1953) formalized detailed task analysis procedures, while Skinner (1954) proposed the use of programmed instruction, which entailed sequencing bite-sized amounts of information, prompting the learner with questions frequently, providing frequent feedback, and allowing self-pacing (Reiser), practices which are deeply embedded in instructional design procedures today. Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, and Krathwohl (1956) published their Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (more commonly known as Bloom's Taxonomy).
1960s: Objectives and Criterion-Referenced Testing
Mager (1962) formalized procedures for writing behavioral objectives (using behavior, standards, and conditions), a practice that had been in use since the turn of the century. Until the 1960s, most tests were norm-referenced, so that scores were spread around a normal ("bell") curve. Glaser (1963) was the first researcher to coin the term criterion-referenced testing, which involves testing learners against a given standard of performance (not against each other). Also, Scriven (1967) pointed out the importance of fomative evaluation (testing instructional resources before implementation), constrasting it with summative evaluation (testing the instructional resources after implementation). In modern instructional design, writing behavioral ("learning") objectives, applying criterion-referenced testing, as well as conducting formative and summative evaluation are critical (if sometimes overlooked) components.
During the 1970s, a variety of new models were developed for the systematic design of instruction, including the now famous Dick & Carey Model. For a description of this and other models, go to the ID Models section. By the end of the decade, Andrews and Goodson (1980) counted more than 40 models. During this decade, instructional design flourished, expanding its hold within the military branches; taking root in academia with the development of graduate degree programs in instructional systems and academic journals dedicated to instructional design issues; and gaining acceptance within educational and corporate settings as a way to improve the consistency and quality of instruction.
The 1980s marked a downward trend in the influence of instructional design on educational settings (K-12 and higher education). On the other hand, it found more favorable conditions in corporate settings and continued to flourish in training departments and consulting firms across the country. With the advent of microcomputers, many instructional designers turned their attention to computer-based instruction. As computer technology became more powerful and more commonly available, CBI began to dominate the field.
As instructional design made greater head-way into corporate settings, corporate settings began to have a greater impact on instructional design. One major example of this is the influence of human performance technology, which stems from research in the area of organizational development.
In the 1990s, instructional designers began to realize that not every performance problem can be solved by developing more instruction. In fact, as they began to focus more effort on analysis and evaluation, designers realized that most performance problems cannot be solved through training, and so they began to prescribe non-instructional interventions (e.g., workflow redesign, incentive plans, improved communication, etc.) to solve performance problems. This greatly expanded the role of instructional designers, paving the way for advancement within organizations to positions of leadership. A direct result of the increased presence of instructional leaders is the advent of knowledge management (and high-level positions like Chief Learning Officer, VP, Learning and Performance, etc.).
Another factor that has impacted the role of instructional design is the explosion of instructional technology. With the proliferation of personal computers and the Internet, instructional designers have been extremely busy developing/modifying instruction for delivery over intranets and the Internet in the form of stand-alone web-based applications and instructor-led online distance education. These have overshadowed yet also spurred interest in electronic performance support systems (EPSS) and rapid prototyping instructional development techniques.
So far, I have described three major influences: human-performance technology (HPT), knowledge management, and web-based instruction. Each of these is pushing instructional designers into organizational leadership positions and increasing the perceived value of the field.
A final, and perhaps more profound, change taking place is the rise of constructivism. A mixture of humanist, pragmatist, post-modern, and social cognitive beliefs, constructivism emphasizes the importance of learning process over product, of contextual details over empirical simplicity, of learner control over system control, of performance over rote memory, and of multiple perspectives over objective knowledge (Big-T Truth). Even if this paradigm fails to reverse the objectivist influence of cognitive and behavioral psychology (and maybe we don't want it to), it has significantly influenced a generation of instructional designers (including me), which may have a deep impact on the field as we begin the next millenium.
Where is instructional design today? With the decline in the economy, technology sectors and support services have been hit the hardest. While many instructional designers are holding onto their jobs (a testament to the perceived value of IDers), few new jobs are available as training budgets have been slashed. Similar problems are faced in educational settings. When the economy rebounds, it is likely that instructional designers will continue to emphasize their work with HPT, knowledge management, and instructional technology. However, it may also be the case that more and more instructional design work will be done by outside consultants. This again will influence the types of skills needed by IDers. Consulting, teamwork, and project management skills will be even more critical than they are today. With training directors becoming more and more dependent on external resources, they will value efficiency (the ability to get the job done right within budget and timeline) and creativity (the ability to come up with novel solutions to highly constrained situations) more than ever before.
Andrews, D.H., & Goodson, L.A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2-16.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. NewYork, NY: David McKay.
Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist, 18, 519-521.
Mager, R.F. (1962). Preparing Objectives for Programmed Instruction. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Miller, R.B. (1953). A method for man-machine task analysis (Tech. Rep. No. 53-137). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center.
Reiser, R.A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 49(2), 57-67.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation (American Educational Research Association Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Skinner (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86-97.
