A History of InstructionalDesign and Technology:Part II: A History of Instructional Design

El 'ober-A Rese!r

This is the seconid of a twvo-part article thatdiscusses the history of the.field ofinstructional design and technology in theUnited States. The first part, which focused onthe history of instructional media, appeared inthe vrevious issue of this journal (volurne 49,number 1). This part of the article focuses onthe histori, of instructional design. Startingwith a description of the eflorts to developtraining programs during World War II, andcontinuing on through the publication of someofthe first instructionial design model-s inl the1960s and 1970s, major events in thedevelopment of the instructional desngnprocess are described. Factors that haveaiected thefield of in1structional design overthe last two decades, including increasinginterest in cognitive psychology,microcomputers, performance technoiogy, andcons tructivism, are also described.

- In Part I of this article, I presented the follow-ing definition of the field of instructional designand techlnology:

The field of instructional design and technologyencompasses the analysis of learning and performanceproblems, and the design, development, implementa-tion, evaluation and management of instructional andnoninstructional processes and resources intended toimprove learning and performance in a variety of set-tings, particularly educational institutions and theworkplace. Professionals in the field of instructionaldesign and technology often use systematic instruc-tional design procedures and employ a variety ofinstructional media to accormplish their goals. More-over, in recent years, they have paid increasing atten-tion to noninstructional solutions to some performanceproblems. Research and theory related to each of theaforementioned areas is also an important part of thefield. (Reiser, in press)

As was pointed out in Part L, the major fea-tures of this definition include (a) its listing of sixcategories of activities or practices (analysis,design, development, implementation, evalua-tion, and management) often associated with thefield; (b) its identification of research and theory,as well as practice, as important aspects of theprofession; and (c) its recognition of the influ-ence the performance technology movement hashad on professional practices. Moreover, ftiedefinition highlights two practices that have,over the years, formed the core of the field.These two practices are (a) the use of media forinstructional purposes and (b) the use of svstematicznstructional design procedures (often simplycalled instructional design). As was mentioned inPart I, although many have argued about thevalue of employing these practices, they remainas the key defining elements of the field of

ETR&D, Vo. 49, No. 2,2001. pp. 57-6? ISSN 1042--6295 5>7

ETR&D. Voi 49. No, 2

instructional design and technology. Individu-

als involved in the field are those who spend asignificant portion of their time working withmedia, or with tasks associated with systemnaticinstructional design procedures. or with both.

In Part I, I discussed the history of instruc-tional media. In Part 11, 1 will focus on the historyof instructional design. This is a natural separa-tion because, from. a historical perspective, mostof the practices related to instructional mediahave occurred independent of developmentsassociated with instructional design. It shouldalso be noted that although many importantevents in the history of the field have taken placein other countries, the emphasis in both parts ofthis article is on events that have taken place inthe United States.

HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

Over the past four decades, a variety of sets ofsysternatic instructional design procedures (ormodels) have been developed, and have beenreferred to by such terms as the systems approach,instructional svstemls design (1TSD), instruictionaldevPelopment, and instructionai design (which is theterm I will usually employ in this article).Although the specific combination of proce-dures often v aries from one instructional designmodel to the next, most of the models include

the analvsis of instructional problems, and thedesign, development, implementation and eval-uation of instructional procedures and materialsintended to solve those problems. How did thisinstructional design process come into being?This article will focus on answering that ques-nion.

The Origins of Instructional Design:World War 1i

The origins of instructional design procedureshave been traced to World War I1 (Dick, 1.987).During the war, a large number of psychologistsand educators who had training and experiencein conducting experimental research were calledon to conduct research. and develop trainingmaterials for the militarv services. These indi-

viduals, including Robert Gagne, Leslie Briggs,

John Flanagan, and many others, exerted con-

siderable influence on the characteristics of the

training materials that were developed, basing

much of their work on instructional principles

derived from research and theory on instruction,

learning, and human behavior (Baker, 1973.

Dick, 1987; Saettler, 1990).

Moreover, psvchologist.s used their knowl-

edge of evaluation and testing to help assess the

skills of trainees and select the individuals who

were most likely to benefi t ftrom particular train-

ing programs. For example, at one point in the

war, the failure rate in a particular flight training

program was unacceptably high. In order to

overcome this problem, psychologists examinedthe general intellectual, psychomotor and per-

ceptual skills of individuals who were able to

successfully perform the skilis taught in the pro-

gram, and then developed tests that measured

those traits. These tests were used to screen can-

didates for the program, with those individuals

who scored poorly being directed into other pro-

grams. As a result of using this examination of

entry skills as a screening device, the military

was able to significantly increase the percentage

of personnel who successfully completed the

program (Gagne, personal com.munication,

1985).

Immediately after World War I1, many of the

psychologists responsible for the success of the

militarv training programs continued to work

on sohling instructional problerms. Organiza-

tions such as the American Institutes for

Research were established for this purpose. Dur-

ing the late 1 940s and throughout the 1950s, psv-

chologists working for such organizations

started viewing training as a systern, and devel-

oped a number of innovative analysis, design,

and evaluation procedures (Dick, 1l987). For

example, during this period, a detailed task

analvsis methodology was developed by Robert

B. Miller while he worked on projects for the

military (Miller,1953, 1962). His work and that of

other early pioneers in the instructional design

field is sumrmarized in Psychological Principles tin

System Development., edited by Gagne (1962b).

58

A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN'

More Early Developments; TheProgrammed Instruction Movement

The programmed instruction movement, whichran from the mnid-1950s through the mid-1960s,proved to be another major factor in the devel-opment of the systems approach. in 1954, B.F.Skinner's article entitled The Science of LearnIngand the Art of Teaching began what might becalled a minor revolution in the field of educa-tion. In this article and later ones (e.g., Skin-ner,1958), Skinner described his ideas regardingthe requirements for increasing human learningand the desired characteristics of effectiveinstructional materials. Skinner stated that such.materials, called programmed instructionalmaterials, should present instruction in smallsteps, require overt responses to freq-uent ques-tions, provide immediate feedback, and aliowfor learner self-pacing. Moreover, because eachstep was small, it was thought that learnerswould answer all questions correctly and thusbe positively reinforced by the feedback theyreceived.

The process Skinner and others (cf. Lumsda-ine & Glaser, 1960) described for developingprogrammed instruction exemplified an empiri-cal approach to solving educational problems:Data regarding the effectiveness of the materialswere collected, instructional weaknesses wereidentified, and the materials were revised

accordingly. In addition to this trial and revisionprocedure, wbich today would be called forma-tive evaluation, the process for developing pro-gramnmned materials involved manv of the stepsfound in current instructional design models. AsHeinich (1970) indicated:

Progranmned instruction has been credited. by somewith introducing the systems approach to education.By analyzing and breaking down content into specificbehavioral objectives, devising the necessary steps toachieve the objectives, setting up procedures to try outand revise the steps, and validating the programagainst attainment of the objectives, programmedinstruction succeeded in creating a small but effectiveself-instructional system-a technology of instruction.(p. 123)

The Popularization of BehavioralObjectives

As indicated above, those involved in designingprogrammed instructional materials oftenbegan by identifving the specific objectiveslearners who used the materials would beexpected to attain. In the early 1960s, RobertMager, recognizing the need to teach educatorshow to write objectives, wrote Preparirg Objec-tives for Programmed Instructiorn (1.962). Thisbook, now in its third edition (Mager,1997), hasproved to be very popular, and has sold morethan 1.5 million copies. The book describes howto write objectives that include a description ofdesired learner behaviors, the conditions underwhich the behaviors are to be performed, andthe standards (criteria) by which the behaviorsare to be judged. Many current-day adherents ofthe instructional design process advocate thepreparation of objectives that contain these threeelements.

Although Mager popularized the use ofobjectives, the concept was discussed and usedby educators at least as far back as the early1900s. Among those early advocates of the use ofclearly stated objectives were Bobbitt, Charters,and Burk (GagnO, 1965a). However, Ralph Tyierhas often been considered the father of thebehavioral objectives movement. In 1934, hewrote, "Each obiective must be defined in termswhich clarifv the kind of behavior which thecourse should help to develop" (cited inWalbesser & Eisenberg, 1972). During thefamous Eight-Year Study that Tyler directed, itwas found that in those instances in whichschools did specify objectives, those objectiveswere usually quite vague. By the end of the proj-ect, however, it was demonstrated that objec-tives could be clarified by stating them inbehavioral terms, and those objectives couldserve as the basis for evaluating the effectivenessof instruction (Borich, 1980; Tyler, 1975).

In fie 1 950s, behavioral objectives were givenanother boost when Benjamin Bloom and hiscolleagues published the Taxonomy of Educa-

tional Obiectives (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, &Krathwohl, 1956). The authors of this work indi-cated that within the cognitive domain therewere various types of learning outcomes, thatobjectives could be classified according to the

59

ETR&D. Vo.. 49. No. 2

type of learner behavior described therein, andthat there was a hierarchical relationship amongthe various types of outcomes. Moreover, theyindicated that tests should be designed to rnea-sure each of these types of outcomes. As we shallsee in the next two sections of this article, similarnotions described by other educators had signif-icant implications for the svstematic design ofinstruction.

Tne Criterion-Referenced TestingMovement

In the early 1960s, another important factor inthe development of the instructional design pro-cess was the emergence of criterion-referencedtesting. Until that time, most tests, called norm-referenced tests, were designed to spread out theperformance of learners, resulting in some stu-dents doing well on a test and others doingpoorly. In contrast, a criterion-referenced test isintended to measure how well an individual canperform a particular behavior or set of behav-iors, irrespective of how well others perforrr. Asearly as 1932, Tvler had indicated that testscould be used for such purposes (Dale, 1967).Later, Flanagan (1951) and Ebe' (1962) discussedthe differences between such tests and the morefamiliar norm-referenced measures. However,Robert Glaser (1963; Glaser & Klaus, 1962) w asthe first to use the term criterion-referenced mice-sures hi discussing such measures, Glaser (1963)indicated that thev could be used to assess stu-dent entry-level behavior and to determine theextent to which students had acquired thebehaviors an instruactional program wasdesigned to teach. The use of criterion-refer-enced tests for these two purposes is a centralfeature of instructional design procedures.

Robert M. Gagn_t: Domains of Learning.Events of Instruction, and HierarchicalAnalysis

Another important event in the history ofinstructional design occurred in 1965, with thepublication of the first edition of The C"Onditionsof Learning, written bv Robert Gagne (1965b). In

this book, Gagne described five domains, ortypes, of learning outcomes-verbal informa-tion, intellectual skills, psychomotor skills,attitudes, and cognitive strntegies-each ofwhich required a different set of' conditions topromote learning. Gagn6 also provided detaileddescriptions of these conditions for each ty-pe oflearning outcome.

In the same voluame, Gagnde also describednine events of instrnuwtio.,, or teaching activities,that he considered essential for promoting theattainment of any type of learning outcome,Gagne also described which instructional eventswere particularly crucial for which type of out-come, and discussed the circumstances underwhich particular events could be excluded. Nowin its fourth edition. Gagn 1.985i), Gagne'sdescription of the various types of learning out-comes and the events of instruction remain cor-nerstones of instructional design. practices.

GagnCs work in the area of learning hierar-chies and hierarchical analysis also has had asignificant impact on the instructional designfield. In the early 1960s and later in his career(e.g., Gagn6, 1962a, 1985; Gagne, Briggs, andWager, 1992; Gagne & Medsker, 1996), Gagn6indicated that skills xvithin the intellectual skillsdomain have a hierarchical relationship to eachother, so that in order to readily learn to performa superordinate skill, one would first have tomaster the skills subordinate to it. This conceptleads to the important notion that instructionshould be designed so as to ensure that learnersacquire subordinate skills before they attempt toacquire superordinate ones. Gagn6 went on todescribe a hierarchical analysis process (alsoca.led learning task analysis or instructional taskanaivsis) for identifying subordinate skills. Thisprocess remains a key feature in manv instruc-tional design. models.

Sputnik The Indirect iLaunching ofFormative Evaluation

In 1}957, when the Soviet Union launched Sput-nik, the first orbiting space satellite, there begana series of events that would eventually have amajor impact on the instructional design. pro-cess, in response to the launchinig of Sputnik, the

60

h HIS-ORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

United States government, shocked by the suc-

cess of the Soviet effort, poured millions of dol-

lars into improving math and science education

in the United States. The instructional materials

developed with these funds were usually writ-

ten by subJect matter experts and produced

without tryouts with learners. Years later, ir, the

mid-1960s, when it was discovered that many of

these materials were not particularly effective,

Michael Scriven (1967) pointed. to the need to try

out drafts of instructional materials with learn-

ers prior to the time the materials were in their

final form. Scriven indicated that this process

would enabie educators to evaluate the effec-

tiveness of materials while they were still in

their formative stages and, if necessary, revise

them before they were produced in their final

form. Scriven named this tryout and revision

process formative evaluation, and contrastecd it

with what he labeled summative eva!uation, the

testing of instructional materials after they are in

their final form.

Although the terms formative andi sumrna-

tive evaluation were coined by Scriven, the dis-

tinction between these two approaches was

previously made by Lee Cronbach (1963). More-

over, during the 1940s and the 1950s, a numberof educators, such as Arthur Lumsdaine, MarkMay, and C.R. Carpenter, described procedures

for evaluating instructional materials that were

still in their formative stages (Camnbre, 1981).

In spite of the writings of some educators,

very few of the instructional products devel-

oped in the 1940s and 1950s went through any

sort of formnative evaluation process. This situa-

tion changed somnewhat in. the late 1950s and

through the 1960s, as manv of the programmed

instructional materials developed during that

period were tested while they were being devel-

oped. However, authors such as Susan Markle

(1967) decried a lack of rigor in testing processes.

In light of this problem, Markle Prescribed

detailed procedures for evaluating materials

both during and after the design process. These

procedures are much like the formative and

surmuative evaluation techniques generallv pre-

scribed today.

Early Instructional Design Models

In the early and mid-1960s, the concepts thatwere being developed in such areas as task anal-ysis, objective specification, and criterion-refer-enced testing were linked together to formprocesses, or models, for systematicallydesigning instructional materials. Among thefirst individuals to describe such models wereGagne (1962b), Glaser 1962, 1965), and Silvern(1964). These individuals used terms such asinistructional design, system development, systematic

instriuction, and instructional system to describethe models they created. Other instructionaldesign models created and employed duringthis decade included 'those described by Banathy(1968), Barson (1967), and Hamerus (1968).

The 1970s: Burgeoning of Interest in theSystems Aoorooch

During the 1970s, the number of instructionaldesign models greatly increased. Building uponthe works of those who preceded them, manyindividuals created new models for systemati-cally designing instruction (e.g., Dick & Carey,1978; Gagn6 & Briggs, 1974; Gerlach & Ely, 1971;

Kemp, 1971). Indeed, by the end of the decade,more than 40 such models were identified(Andrews and Goodson, 1980). A detailed dis-cussion of a few of these models, as well as a

number of those developed in the 1980s and1990s, is contained in Gustafson and Branch(1997T).

During the 1970s, interest in the instructionaldesign process flourished in a variety of differ-ent sectors. In the mid 1970s, several branches ofthe United States military adopted an instruc-tional design model (Branson et al., 1975)intended to guide the development of trainingmaterials within those branches. In acaderniaduring the first half of the decade, many instruc-tional improvement centers were created withthe intent of helping faculty use media andinstructional design procedures to improve thequality of their instruction (Gaff, 1975; Gustaf-son & Bratton, 4984). Moreover, many graduateprograms in instructional design were created(Partridge & Tennyson, 1979; Redfield & Dick,1984; Silber, 1982). In business and industry,many organizations, seeing the value of using

61

ETR&D. Vcl 49 No. 2

instructional design to improve the quality oftraining, began adopting the approach (cf.Mager, 19977; Miles, 1983). Internationally , manynations, such as South Korea, Liberia, and Indo-nesia, saw the benefits of using instructionaldesign to solve instructional problerns in thosecountries (Chadwick, 1986.; Morgan, 1989).These nations supported the design of newinstructional programs, created organizations tosupport the use of instructional design, and pro-vided support to individuals desiring training inthis field. Many of tiese developments werechronicled in the Journal of Instructional Develop-men., a journal that was first published duringthe 1970s and which was the forerunner to thedevelopment section of Educational TechnologyResearch and Development.

The 1980s Growth and Redirectionr

In many sectors, the interest in instructionaldesign that burgeoned during the previousdecade continued to grow during the 1980s.Interest in the instructional design processremained strong in business and industry(Bowsher, 1989; Galagan, 1989) the militarv(Chevalier, 1990; Finchi, 1987; McCornbs, 1986;)and in tfhe international arena (Ely & Plomnp,1986: M4organ. 1989),

In contrast to its influence in the aforemen-tioned sectors, during the 1980s instructionaldesigrn had minimal impact in ot-her areas. In thepublic school arena, some curriculum develop-ment efforts involved the use of basic instruc-tional design processes (e.g., Spady, 1988), andsome instructional design textbooks for teacherswere produced (e.g., Dick & Reiser, 1989;Gerlach & Ely, 1980; Sullivan & Higgins, 1983).However, in spite of these efforts, evidence indi-cated that instructional design was having littleimpact on instruction in the public schools(Branson & Grow, 1987; Burkman, '1987b;Rossett & Garboskv, 1987). In a simnilar vein,with a few exceptions (e.g., Diamond, 1989),instructional design practices had a minimalimpact in higher education. iWflhereas instruc-tional improvement centers in higher educationwere growing in number through the rmid-1970s, by 1983 more than one fourth of theseorganizations were disbanded and there was a

general downward trend in the budgets of theremaining centers (Gustafson & Bratton, 1984).Burkman (1987a, 1987b) provides an analysis ofthe reasons whhy instructional design efforts inschools and universities have not been success-ful, and contrasts these conditions with the morefavorable conditions that exist in business andthe military.

During the 1.980s, there was a growing inter-est in how the principles of cognitive psychol-ogy could be applied in the instructional designprocess, and a number of publications outliningpotential applications were descr.ibed (e.g., Bon-ner, 1988; Divesta & Rieber, 1987; "Interviewwith R.M. GagneJ" 1982; Low, 1980). However,several leading figures in the field have indi-cated that the actual effects of cognitive psychol-ogy on instructional design practices during thisdecade were rather small (Dick, 1987; Gustafson,1993)-

A factor that did have a rnaior effect oninstructional design practices in the '980s wasthe increasing interest in the use of rmicrocom-puters for instructional purposes. With theadvent of these devices, manv professionals inthe instructional design field tumed their atten-tion to producing computer-based. instruction(Dick, 1987; Shrock. 1995). Others discussed theneed to develop new models of instructionaldesign to accommodate the interactive capabili-ties of this technologyv (Merrill, Li, & Jones,1990a, 1990b) . Moreover, computers began to beused as tools to automate some instructionaldesign tasks (Merrill & Li, 1989).

In addition, the relativelv new performancetechnology movement, with its emphasis onfront-end analysis, on-the-job performance,business results, and noninstructiona' solutionsto performance problems, was beginring tohave an effect on Lnstructional design practices(Rosenberg, 1988,1990; Rossett, 1990). Jr wasduring the 1990s, however, that the field wassignificantly affected by this movement.

The 1990s: Changing Views andPractices

During the 1990s, a variety of developments hada significant impact on mistructional design prin-ciples and practices. As indicated above, one of

62

A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

the major influences was the performance tech-nology movement, which broadened the scopeof the instructional design field. As a result ofthis movement, many instructional designersbegan conducting more careful analyses of thecauses of performance problerms, and oftentimesdiscovered that poor training, or lack of training,was not the cause. In many suc.h instances,instructional designers prescribed non-instructional solutions, such as changes in incen-tive systems or in the work environment, tosolve such problems (Dean, 1995). Thus thetypes of activities many instructional designersengaged in greatly expanded.

Another factor that affected the field duringthe C 990s was the growing interest in construc-tivism, a collection of simnilar views (labeled, bysome, as a theoryl of learning and instructionthat gained increasing popularity throughoutthe decade. The instructional principles associ-ated with constructivism include requiringleamers to (a) solve complex and realistic prob-lems; (b) work together to solve those problems;(c) examine the problems from multiple perspec-tives; (d) take ownership of the learning process(rather than being passive recipients of instruc-tion); and (e) become aware of their own role inthe knowledge construction process ,Driscoll,2000). During the past decade, constructivistviews of learning and instruction have had animpact on the thoughts and actions of nmany the-orists and practitioners in the instructionaldesign field. For example, the constructivistemphasis on designing "authentic" learningtasks-tasks that reflect the complexity of thereal-world environment in which learners willbe using the skills they are learning-has had aneffect on how instructional desigr, is being prac-ticed and taught (Dick, 1996). Although somehave argued that "traditional" instructionaldesign practices and constructivist principlesare antithetical, in recent years numerousauthors have described how consideration ofconstructivist principles can enhance instruc-tional design practices (e.g., Coleman, Perry, &Schwen, 1997; Dick, 1996; Lebow, 1993; Lin et al.,1996).

During the 1990s, rapid growth ir the useand development of electronic performancesupport systems also led to changes in the

nature of the work performed by many instruc-tional designers. Electronic performance supportsvstems are computer-based systems designed toprovide workers with the help they need to per-form certain job tasks, at the time they need thathelp, and in a form that will be most helpfuL.Such systems often include an information basethat contains essential work-related information;a series of work activities (often in the form oftutorials and simulations) that workers canaccess as desired; intelligent coaching and expertadvisement systems that provide guidance inperformning various activities; and customizedperformance support tools that automate andgreatly simplify many job tasks (Wager & Mckay,in press). By providing workers with the perfor-mance tools and information they need, well-designed electronic performance supportsvstems can reduce the need for training. It is notsurprising, then, that during the past decade anumber of training organizations and instruc-tional designers turned a portion of their atten-tion away from designing training prograrms andtoward designing electronic perforrmance sup-port systems (Rosenberg, 2001).

Rapid prototyping is another trend that hashad an effect on instructional design practices inrecent years. The rapid prototyping processinvolves quickly developing a prototype prod-uct in the very early stages of an instructionaldesign project and then going through a series ofrapid tryout and revision cycles until an accept-able version of the product is produced (Gustaf-son & Branch, 1.997a). This design technique hasbeen advocated as a means of producing qualityinstructional materials in less time than isrequired when more conventional instructionaldesign techniqiues are employed. During the1990s, there was an increasing interest in rapidprototyping among practitioners and theoristsin the instructional design field (e.g., Gustafson& Branch, 1997a; Jones & Richey, 2000).

Another recent trend that has affected theinstructional design profession has been the rap-

idly increasing interest ir using the Internet fordistance learning. Since 1995, there has been agreat increase in the use of the Internet to deliverinstruction at a distance (Bassi & Van Buren,1999; Lewis, Snow. Farris, Levin, and Greene,1999). As the demand for distance learning pro-

63

EP &D. Vol 59, N-. 2

grams has grown, so has the recognition that in

order to be effective, such programs cannot sim-ply be on-line replicas of the instruction deliv-ered in classrooms.; instead such programs mustbe carefully designed in light of the instructionalfeatures that can, and cannot, be incorporatedinto Internet-based courses (institute for HigherEducation Policy, 2000). As several authors havepointed out, the need for high quality Lnternet-based instruction already has created some newjob opportunities for instructional designers,

and is likely to create many more such opportu-nities in the near future (Dempsey & Van Eck, in

press; Hawkridge, in press).

Knowledge management is one of the most

recent trends to have affected the field of instruc-tional design. According to Rossett (1999),knowledge management involves identifying,documenting, and disseminating explicit and

tacit knowledge within an organization in orderto improve the performance of that organiza-tion. Oftentimes, useful knowledge and exper-tise within an organization reside with aparticular individual or group, but is not widelyknows n bevond that group or individual. Howt -ever, current--day technologies such as database

programs, groupware, and intranets allow orga-nizations to "manage" (i.e., collect, filter, and

disserminate) such knowledge and expertise inways that were not previouslv possible. Rosen-berg (2001) describes several examples of orga-nizations that have turned some of theirattention away from designing training pro-

grams and toward creating knowledge manage-

ment systems. Rossett and Donello (1999)suggest that as the interest in knowledge man-agement continues to grow, instructionaldesigners and other training professionals notonly will be responsible for improving hurmar.performance, but also will be responsible for

locating and improving access to useful organi-zational knowledge. Thus, the growing interestin knowledge management is likelv to changeand perhaps expand the types of tasks instruc-

tional designers are expected to undertake.

CONCLUSION

Although this article, appearing in tw.o consecu-tive issues of this journal, has provided separate

accounts of the history of instructional mediaand the history of instructional design, there isan obvious overlapping between these twoareas. Many instructional solutions arrived atthrough the use of instructional design pro-

cesses require the employment of the types of

instructional media that were the focus of Part I(i.e., media other than a teacher, chalkboard, ortextbook). Moreover, many individuals le,g,,Clark, 1994; Kozma, 1994; Morrison, 1994;Reiser, 1.994; Shrock, 1994) have argued that theeffective use of media for instructional purposesrequires careful instructional planning, such as

that prescribed by models of insu-uctionaldesign. In the field of instructional design and

technology, those whose work is influenced by

the lessons learned from the history of mediaand the history of instructional desig,n will be

well-positioned to have a positive influence onfuture developments withiin the field.

Robert A. Reiser is a professor in the instructionalSystems program at Florida State University, andmav be reached bv e-mail at rreisevrlmailer.fsu.edu

Portions of this article are from, a chapter that will.Iappear in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design andTechnology (Reiser & Dempsey, in press). Somesegments of the article previously appeared in a bookchapter by Reiser (1987)l

Tne author would like to thank Walter Dick, DonEly, and Kent Gustafson, each of whom reviewedvanous portions of this manuscript and providedhim with invaluable feedback.

REFE RENCES

Andrews, D.I1, & Goodson., L.A. (.198$'. A comrpara-tive analysis of models instructional design. jourilrofrinstructional Deveiopment, 3(41,2-16.

Baker, E.L. (1973). The technology of instructionaldevelopment. In R.M.W Travers (Ed.), Second hand-book of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNaliy.

Banathy, B.H. (1968., Instructional ststems. Belmont,CA: Fearon.

Barson, 3. (1967). InstmctionaL systems de vlopment. Ademonstration and evaluation pro ecit Final report. EastLansing. Ml: Michigan State University. (ERIC Doc-ument Reproduction Service No. ED 020 673)

Bassi, L.J., & Van Buren, M.E. (1999). Sharpening theleading edge. Training and Development. 53 1), 23-33.

Bloorn, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H1., &Krathwoh', D.R. (1956). Taxonoons or educationalobiectives: The classification af educational goals. Hanad-book 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.

64

65A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

Bonner, J. (1988). Implications of cognitive theorv for

instructional design. Educational Commumcation and

Technology Journal, 36, 3-14.Borich, G.D. (1980). A state of the art assessment of educa-

nional evaluation. Austin, TX: Universitv of Texas.(ERIC Document Reproduction Se-rvice No. ED 187

717)Bowsher, J.E. (1989). Educating America: Lessons

learned in the nation's corporations. New York:

Wiley.Branson, R.K., & Grow G. (1987). Instructional systems

development. In R.M. Gagne (Ed.), InstructionalTechnology: Foundations (pp. 397-428). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Branson, R.K., Rayner, G.T., Cox, J.L., Furnman, J.P.,King, FJ, & Hannum, W.H. (1975). Interserzvice proce-

dures for instructional systemns dezvelopment. Fort Mon-roe, VA: U.S. Army Training ancl Doctrine

Command.Burkman, E. (1987a). Factors affecting ut-lization. In

R.M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Foundcfa-

tions (pp. 429-456). Hillsdale, N3. Lawrence

Eribaum.Burkman, E. (1987b). Prospects for instructional svs-

tems design in the public schools. Journa' of lnstruc-tional Development, 10(4, 27-32.

Cambre, M.A. ( 1981). Historical overview of formativeevaluation of instructional media products. Educa-tional Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 3-25.

Chadwick, C.B. (1986). Instructional technologyresearch in Latin America. Educational Communica-tion and Technology Journal, 34,247-254.

Chevalier, R.D. (1990). Improving efficiency and effec-

tiveness of training: A six year case study ot systemn-atic change. Performance and instruction, 29(5), 21-23.

Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learniuig.

Educational Technotogy Research and Development,42(2,, 21-29.

Coleman, Perrv, & Schwen (1997). Constructivistinstructional development: Reflecting on practice

from an alternative paradigm. in C.R. Dills & A.J.Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional Devteiopment Para-digmns. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technol-

ogy.Cronbach, L.J. (1963). Course improvement through

evaluation. Teachers College Record, 64, 672-683wDale, E. (1967). Historical setting of programmed

instruction. In P.C. Lange (Ed.), Programmed instruc-tion: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for

the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: UFniversitv of

Chicago Press,Dean, P.J. (1995). Examining the practice of humran

performance technology. Performance ImprovementQuarterly, 8(2), 68-94.

Dempsey, J.V., & Van Eck, R.N. (in press), nstruc-tional design online: Evolving expectations. In R.A.Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in

instructional design and technology. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall,

Diamond, R.M. (1989). Designing and improving coursesand curricula in higher education: A systematic

approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-BassDick, W. (1987). A history of instructional design and

its impact on educational psychology. Irn J. Glover &

R. Roning (Eds.), Historical foundations of educationalpsychology. New York: Plenum.

Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it sur-vive the decade? Educational Technology Research and

Development. 44(3), 55-63.Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of

instruction (Ist ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Dick W., & Reiser, R.A. (1989). Planning effectiveinstruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Divesta, F.J., & Rieber, L..P. (1987). Characteristics ofcognitive engineering: The next generation ofinstructional systems. Educational Co0nmunicationand Technology Journal, 35, 213-230.

Driscoll, M.P. (2000). Psychology f learning for instruc-tion (2nd ed). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &

Bacon.Ebel, R.L. (1962). Content standard test scores. Educa-

tional and Psycholo$ical Measurement, 22, 15-25.

Ely, D.P., & Plomp, T. (1986). The promises of educa-tional technology: A reassessment. International

Reoiew of Education. 32, 231-249.Finch, C, R. (1987). Instructional systems development

in the military. Journal ofindustrial Teacher Education,

24(4), 18-26.Flanagan, J.C. (1951). Units, scores, and norms. In, E.T.

Lindquist (Ed.), Educational Measurement. Washing-ton, DC: American Council on Education.

Gaff, J.G. (1975). Towardfaculty renewal: Advances in fac-ulty. instructional, and organizational development. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Gagne, R.M. (1962a). The acquisition of knowledge.

Psychological Review, 69, 355-365.Gagn6, R.M. (1962b). hitroduction. I. R.M. Gagn6

(Ed.), Psychological principles in syste7n develo.pment.

New York: iolt, Rinehart and Winston.Gagne, R.M. (1965a). The analysis of instructiona)

ob1jectives for the design of instruction. In R. Glaser(Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed learning, II:.

Data and directions. Washington, DC: National Edu-

cation Association.Gagne, R.M. (1965b). The conditions of learning (Ist ed.).

New York: Hoit, Rinehart and Winston.Gagn6, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.).

New York: Holt, Rinehart and W'Vinston.Gagne, R.M., & Briggs, L.J. (1974). Principles of instruc-

tional design (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, andWinston.

Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992). Prin-

ciples of instructional design (4th ed.). New York: Holt,

Rinehart, and Winston.Gagne, R.M., & Medsker, K.L. (1996). The conditions of

iearning: Training apviications. Fort Worth, TX: Har-court Brace.

Galagan, P.A. (1989). IBM gets its arms around educa-tion. Training and Development journal, 43(1), 34-41.

ETR&D. VoF 49. N&. 2

Gerlach, V.S., & ElN, D.P. (1971). Teaching and media: Asystematic approach (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1980). Teaching and media: Asystematic approach (2nd ed.,. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hail.

Glaser, R. (1962). Psychology and instructional tech-nology. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Trainifig researck and edu-cation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and themeasurement of leaming outcomes: Some ques-tions. American Psychologist, 18, 519-521.

Glaser, R. (1965). Toward a behavioral science base forinstructional design. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Teachingmachines and programmed learning, 11: Data and direc-tions. Washington, DC: National Education Associa-tion.

Giaser, R., & Klaus, D.J. (1t962). Proficiency measure-ment: Assessing humnan performance. In R.M.Gagne (Ed.), Psychologi-al principles in system develop-ment. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gustafson, K.L. (1993). instructional design funda-mentals: Clouds on the horizon. Educational Technol-ogy, 33(2), 277-32.

Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997ai. Revisioningmodels of instructional development. EducationaiTechnology Research and DevJetopment. 45(3), 73-89.

Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997h). Survey ofInstructional Development Models (3rd ed.). Syracuse,NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on information & Technol-ogy.

Gustafson, K., & Bratton, B. (1984). Instructionalimprovement centers in higher education: A statusreport. Journal of instructional Developmrent. 7(2), 2-7.

Hamerus, D. (1968). The systems approach to instruc-tional development: The contribution of behavioral sci-ence to instructional technology. Monmouth: OR:Oregon State Systemr of Hfigher Education, TeachingResearch Division.

Hawkridge, D. (ir, press). Distance learning andinstructional design in international settings. In LiR.A. Reiser & j.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trend?s and issuesin instructional design and, technology. Upper SaddleRiver, ,Nj: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Heirich. R. (1970). Technology and the management ofinstruction (Association for Educational Communi-cations and Technology Monograph No. 4). Wash-ington, DC: Association for EducationalCommunications and Technology.

Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000). Quality onthe line: Benchmarks for success in Intern-t-based dis-iance education [Onlinei. Available:httv://wwr",w.ihep.com/PUtB.htm [2001. January281.

Interview with Robert M. Gagne. Developments inlearning psychology: implications for instructionaldesign; and effects of cormputer technology oninstructional design and development. (1982). Edu-cational Technoio -22(6) 11-25.

Jones, T.S., & Richey, R.C. (2000). Rapid prototyping

methodology in action: A developmrental study.Educational Technology Research and Development,48(2), 63-80.

Kemp, J.E. (1971). Instructional Design: A Plan for tinitand Course Development. Belmont, CA: Fearon.

Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning:Reframing the debate. Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Lebow. D. (1993). Constructivist values for instruc-tional systems design: Five principles toward a newminndset. Educational Technology Research and Devdel-opment, 41(3), 4-16.

Lewis, L, Snow, K., Farris, E., Levin, D., & Greene, b.(1999'. Distance education at postsecondary institutions:1997-98 (NCES 2000-0l3i. Washington. DC: U.S.Department of Education. National Center for EducationStatistics.

Lin, X., Bransford, j.D., H-melo, C.E., Kantor, R.J.,Hickey, D.T., Secules, T., Petrosino, A.J.. Goldman,S.R., and the Cognition and Technology Group atVanderbilt (1996). Instructional design and. develop-ment of learning communities: An invitation to adialogue. kn B.C. Wilson (Ed.), Construct ivist learningentironments: Case studies in instructiona' design.Engle-avood Cis,tfis NrJ: Educational Technology.

Low, W.C. (1980). Changes in instructional develop-ment: The aftermath of an information processingtakeover in psychology. Journal of InstructionalDevelopment, 4(2), 10-18.

Lumsdaine, A.A., & Giaser, R. (Eds.). (1960). Teachingmachines and programmed learning: A. source book.Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Mager, R.F. (1962). Preparing obiectives for programmedinstruction. Belmont, CA: Fearon.

Mager, R.F. (1977). The 'winds of change'. 7Training andDevelopment Journal 32(10), 12-20,

Mager, R.F. (1997). Preparing instructional objiectives: Acritical tool in the development of effective instruction(3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Perfor-mance.

Markle, S.M. (1967). Empirical testing of programs. InP.C. Lange (Ed.), Programmed instruction: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Studv of'Education, Part HI. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

McCombs, B.L. (1986). The instractional svstemsdevelopment (ISD) model: A review of those factorscritical to its successful implementation. EducationalCommunications and Technology Journal, 34, 67-'.

Merrill, M.D., & Li. Z. (1989). An instructional designexpert system. Journal of computer-based instruction,16(3), 95-101.

Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1 990a) Limitationsof first generation instructional design. EducationalTechnology, 30(1'), 7-11.

Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1 990b> Second gen-eration instructional design (ID2). Educational Tech-nology, 30(2), 7-144.

Miles, G.D. (1983). Evaluating four years of ID experi-ence, Journal of Instructional Development, 6(2), 9-14.

66

A HISTO9Y OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

Miller, R.B. (1953). A method for man-machine taskanalysis (Tech. Rep. No. 53-137). Wright-PattersonAir Force Base, Ohio: Wright Air Development Cen-ter.

Miller, R.B. (1962). Analysis and specification ofbehavior for training. Ln R. Glaser (Ed.), Trainingresearch and education. Pittsburgh: University of Pitts-burgh Press.

Morgan, R.M. (1989). Instructional systems develop-ment in third world countries. Educational Technol-ogy Research and Development, 37(1). 47-56.

Morrison, G.R. (1994). The media effects question:"Unsolvable' or asking the right question. Educa-tional Technology Researcl and Development, 42(2), 41-44.

Partridge, M.I., & Tennyson, R.D. (1979). Graduateprograms in instructional systems: A review ofselected programs. Journal of Instructional Develop-ment, 2(2), 18-26.

Redfield, D.D., & Dick, W. (1984). An aluimni-practi-tioner review of doctoral competencies in instruc-tional systems. Journal of Instructional Development,7(1), 10-13.

Reiser, R.A. (1987). Instructional technology: A his-torv. In R.M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional technology,:Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaur.n

Reiser, R.A. (1994). Clark's invitation to the dance: Aninstructional designer's response. Educational Tech-nology Research and Development, 42(2), 45-48.

Reiser, R.A. (in press). What field did vou sav youwere in? Defining and naming our field. In R.A.Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues ininstructional design and technology. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.). (in. press). Trendsand issues in instructional design and technology. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Rosenberg, MJ. (1988). The role of training in a perfor-mance-oriented organization. FPerformance andInstruction, 27(2), 1-6.

Rosenberg, M.J. (1990). Performance technology:Working the system. Training, 27(2), 42-48.

Rosenberg, M.J. (2001). e-Learning: Strategiesfbr-deliver-ing knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGrawHill.

Rossett, A. (1990). Performance technology and aca-dernic programs in instructional design and technol-ogy: Must we c.hange? Educational Technology, 30(8),48-51.

Rossett, A. (1999). Knowledge management meets

analysis. Training and Development., 53(5), 63-68.Rossett, A., & Donello, J.F. (1999). Knowiedge manage-

ment for training professionals [Online]. Available:http:/ /defcon.sdsu.edu/3/objects/km/ [2001, Jan-uary 281.

Rossett, A., & Garbosky, J. (1987). The use, misuse, andnon-use of eduacational technologists in public edu-cation. Educational. Technology, 27(9), 37-42.

Saettler, P. (1990). ThDe evolution ofAmerican educationaltechnology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Scriven, M. (1967). The methodolgy of evaluation. InPerspectives of curriculum evaluation (American Edu-cational Research Association Monograph Series onCurriculum Evaluation, No. 1). Chicago: RandMcNally.

Shrock, S.A. (1994'). The media influence debate: Readthe fine print, but don't lose sight of the big picture.Educational Technology Research and Development,42(2), 49-53.

Shrock, S.A. (1995). A brief history of instructionaldevelopment. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional tech-nology: Past, present, and future. Englewood, CO:Libraries Undimited.

Silber, K.H. (1982). An analysis of university trainingprograms for instructional developers. Journal ofinstructional Dezelopment, 6(l), 15-28.

Silvern, L.C. (1964). Designing instructional systems. LosAngeles: Education and Training Consultants.

Skinner, B.F. (1954). The science of learning and the artof teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86-97.

Skinner, B.F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128,969-977.

Spady, W.G. (1988). Organizing for results: The basisfor authentic restructuring and reform. EducationalLeadership, 46(2), 4-8.

Sullivan, H.J., & Higgins, N (1983). Teaching for compe-

tence. New York: Teachers College Press.Tyler, R.W. (1975). Educational benchmarks in retro-

spect: Educational change since 1915. Viewpoints,51(2), 11-31.

Wager, W.W., & Mckay, J. (in press). EPSS: Visions andviewpoints. In R.A. Reiser & JIV. Dempsey (Eds.),Trends and issues in instructional design and technology.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Walbesser, H,H., & Eisenberg, T.A. (1972). A review ofthe research on behavioral objectives and learning hierar-chies. Columbus, OFI: Ohio State University, Centerfor Science and Mathematics Education. (ERIC Doc-ument Reproduction Service No. ED 059 900)

67

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: A history of instructional design and technology: part II:A history of instructional design

SOURCE: Educational Technology Research and Development 49no2 2001

WN: 0100203447004

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2001 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.