37018754

8/19/2019 37018754

1/13

471

Abstract

An instructional design indicates the existing plan and processes for any instruction

regardless of the eld of study and it works as a guide indicating how to implement aninstruction. Basically the routine of the instructional design includes and follows thestages of analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. Although thisis the common characteristic found in almost all instructional design models, there aresome minor differences in them. In this paper, the author rstly denes the concepts‘instructional design’ and ‘instructional designer’. Then, she examines Morrison, Rossand Kemp’s model of instructional design, Dick and Carey’s model and Smith and Ragan’s

instructional model by emphasizing their main and unique characteristics. Key Words: Instructional design, Instructional System Design, Model

Temel Öğretim Tasarımı Modelleri Karakteristikleri

Özet

Bir öğretim tasarımı çalışma alanına bakılmaksızın her öğretimin içinde var olan plan ve süreçleri ortaya koyar ve öğretimin nasıl gerçekleştirileceğini gösteren bir reh-ber niteliğindedir. Temelde ve basit haliyle bir öğretim planı analiz, tasarım, geliştirme,uygulama ve değerlendirme aşamalarını takip eder. Bu tüm öğretim tasarımı modelle-rinde ortak olan bir karakteristik olmasına rağmen, temel modeller arasında bazı küçük farklılıklar vardır. Bu çalışmada yazar ilk olarak ‘öğretim tasarımı’ ve ‘öğretim tasarım-

cısı’ kavramlarının ne olduğu üzerinde durmaktadır. Sonrasında ise Morrison, Ross veKemp’in öğretim tasarımı modeli, Dick ve Carey’in modeli ve Smith ve Ragan’ın öğretimtasarımı modellerinin kendilerine has temel özelliklerini vurgulayarak incelemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Öğretim Tasarımı, Öğretim Sistemi Tasarımı, Model

CHARACTERISTICS OF BASIC INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

MODELS

*) Dr., Gazi Üniversitesi, İngilizce Okutmanı (e-posta:[email protected])

Meltem Huri BATURAY (*)

EKEV AKADEMİ DERGİSİ Yı: 12 Sayı: 34 (Kış 2008)

8/19/2019 37018754

2/13

472 / Dr. Metem Hur BATURAY EKEV AKADEMİ DERGİSİ

Introduction

The sociological changes in the societies like the shift from industrial age to

information age have required making some changes in instructional design models

because the new age moving from standardization to customization in education forced

educational organizations to make changes in their training system in line with the new

management paradigm and life style. Moreover, there are innovations in the educational

domain in terms of theory and philosophies. What is questioned is whether instructional

system design models will be able to follow these changes or not and whether

the models will be able to meet the innovations in the educational organizations.

Today, instruction is customized and learner-centered. Mass-education has almost lostits power with the “anything, anytime and anywhere” approach to training1. Materials

are more authentic and strategies focus on performance enhancement. The concept

‘educated’ delineates the people who have the ability of solving critical thinking problems

and attracting others with their creative ideas. Although most of this competency might

be gained at birth no one can ignore that they can be enriched by instruction. Thus, some

changes have to be made in instructional system to meet such expectations; hence, ISD

models do not stay behind.

The Concept Instructional Design

The term instructional design can be dened as the systematic method for analyzing,

designing, developing, evaluating and managing the instructional process efciently; based

on the knowledge and experiences of learning and instructional theories2

so that it willimprove the quality of instruction and ensure effective and retentive learning. Sometimes

it goes further and covers information technology, human-computer interaction, human

performance technology and systematic analysis methods. An instructional designer is

thought to be a multi-skilled person knowledgeable in various disciplines, and responsible

for carrying out and coordinating the planned work. He has to be a multi-skilled person as

much as possible; however, if not, he could supply himself with the necessary knowledge

by the help of resources mainly the books on the subject matter 3. However, it often

becomes difcult for the designer to decide on the right topics for the design and right

strategies to apply. In such a circumstance, the second choice might be forming a team

of experts from different disciplines to consult. Hence, they could share their expertise in

1) Gustafson, K. L. and Branch, R. M., Survey of instructional development models, third edition.Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, 1997.

2) Dick W., Carey L.& Carey J. O., The Systematic Design of Instruction, Addison-Wesley EducationalPublishers Inc., 2001; Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M. & Kemp, J. E., Designing Effective Instruction,John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2004; Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J., Instructional Design, New York:Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993; Posner, G. J. & Rudnitsky, A. N. Course Design. New York:Longman, 2001.

3) Curaoglu, O., Cakir, R., Baturay, H. M. & Kiraz, E., A Technology Supported Method Course: Basedon the Revision of Instructional Design Models. In C. Crawford et al. (Eds.), in the Proceedings ofSociety for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference Chesapeake,VA: AACE, pp. 1484-1490, 2006.

8/19/2019 37018754

3/13

473CHARACTERiSTiCS of BASiC inSTRUCTionAl DESiGn MoDElS

their elds with the designer. In fact, which alternative to apply rst changes according

to the situation and the eld.

As for the denition of instructional designer, he is the person who decides on the

practices guided by a theory or theories. According to Mager4, the instructional designer’s

job is to answer three major questions:

1. Where are we going? (What are the objectives of the instruction?)

2. How will we get there? (What are the instructional strategies and the instructional

medium?)

3. How will we know when we have arrived? (What should our tests look like? How

will we evaluate and revise the instructional materials?)

Therefore, the aim of a designer is to select the right alternative among many

theoretical perspectives leading to the best results. His responsibility is not deciding on

the subject matter as some people assume but choosing the right instructional strategies

backed up with the theories in order to apply the subject matter. However, one theoretical

perspective might not meet the needs of a designer, teacher or even a student. Just as a

class is full of mixed ability students with different mental abilities, learning habits and

intelligences, the route the designer follows should consist of various perspectives meeting

the needs of the learners and solving the instructional problem(s). Bonner emphasizes that

“Instructional design undoubtedly will remain an eclectic practice that will draw from

cognitive psychology as well as other disciplines, and this selective variety will continue

to be viewed as strength.”5

Besides, the individual differences among the learners mayrequire different strategies to be applied while designing the instruction.

The terms Instructional Design (ID) and Instructional Systems Design (ISD) could be

used interchangeably. The same holds for Instructional Development and Instructional

Systems Development; therefore, both can be used interchangeably. Kent Gustafson

points out this mixed use of terminology in many places within each version of his

Survey of Instructional Development Models6. For example, while Dick and Carey referto their model as Instructional Design7, Gustafson believes it should be categorized as an

Instructional Development model.

Instructional System Design indicates the overall plan and it is concerned with the

processes for any instruction regardless of the eld. It works as a guide indicating how

to implement an instruction. Basically and simply the routine of the instructional design

4) Mager, R. Developing Attitude Toward �earningoward �earning. Center for effective performance; 2nd edition,1984.

5) Bonner, J. Implications for cognitive theory for instructional design: Revisited. EducationalCommunication and Technology Journal 36 (1), pp. 3-14, 1998.

6) Gustafson, K. L. and Branch, R. M.,Gustafson, K. L. and Branch, R. M., Survey of instructional development models, third edition.Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, 1997.

7) DickW., Carey L.& Carey J. O.,) Dick W., Carey L.& Carey J. O.,Dick W., Carey L.& Carey J. O., The Systematic Design of Instruction, Addison-Wesley EducationalPublishers Inc., 2001.

8/19/2019 37018754

4/13


includes and follows the stages of analysis, design, development, implementation and

evaluation and shortly this model is called ADDIE. These are the common characteristics

found in almost all instructional design models.

The rst step, which is called analysis, involves with analysis of the learners, setting

and the task; design begins with the determination of the objectives for the course and

follows with the decision on the right strategies and tactics to perform those objectives.

The choice is very much dependent on the analysis results carried out in the rst stage.

Development is the period in which the materials that are used to carry out those strategies

are decided and/or developed. Sometimes there is a prototype testing step(s) in which

the appropriateness and effectiveness of the materials are tested. The implementation

part is concerned with the implementation of the tasks previously decided; however, this

stage might prevent one designer from going further due to the occurrence of probable

resistance to change. In such a situation, the designer gures out the problem by either

applying orientation or getting help from the experienced people or change agents. The

last step, evaluation, involves a summative evaluation besides formative evaluation,

which often appears in various stages of the model. Formative evaluation is carried out

to revise and make any necessary changes during the instructional process. Summative

evaluation, on the other hand, is the process of collecting data and information in order

to verify the effectiveness of the instructional material with the target learners and make

decisions about whether to maintain or adopt instruction. It is generally not a part of

instructional design process; it is an evaluation of the absolute and/or relative value of

the instruction and occurs only after the instruction has been formatively evaluated.Preferably, it is carried out as a last stage in the models. In addition, it is often conducted

by an independent evaluator and does not involve the designer of the instruction so

that objectivity could be maintained in the evaluation and in the declaration of both the

strengths and weaknesses of the material.

To exemplify, supposing that, one has been called out to design the instructional

system of a large company to educate its employees, the rst modication in his model

would probably be about the strategies in the design part. After analyzing the learners

and the setting, one would dene the specic objectives of the instruction through the

perspectives of the learners or the organization. Later one would choose, one of the

strategies among, say, problem-based, project-based or cooperative learning to increase

the critical-thinking skills, cooperative working abilities and job performance of the

workers. Apart from this, the designer is likely to change the way he evaluates people, andprepare his materials more authentic, to exemplify by using portfolios. Shortly, he would

adopt the strategies and tactics that will be more effective for those workers. Regarding

the model, one would probably add more formative evaluation steps in his model to check

the progress of the instructional process and to make changes if necessary.

Because the appearance of phenomenon “instructional system design” met the years

when Behaviorism was the common theory to be supported by the educational authorities,

the design system was greatly affected by the characteristics of Behaviorism and a step-

8/19/2019 37018754

5/13


by-step approach which was called linearity became dominant on the design models. As

known, in a linear design, the output of one procedure becomes the input of the following

one. Today, some people claim that this systematic format of ISD models is too rigid and

mechanic with boxes and straight lines/arrows and behind the time which impede users’

freedom and kindness in education. Furthermore, this approach to instructional design

is found to be “anti-humanistic” by some people as it disregards the fact that human-

beings are not like machines8; they have different needs and personalities and that the

process of instructing people is open to unexpected events which require modications. It

is obvious that, there is no certainty if you are working on human beings. Regarding the

critiques about the models’ rigidness, some people suggested that it might be eradicated

by using curvilinear shape with oval boxes providing addressees with more choices.

Another criticism regarding ISD is concerned with the target people making use of these

models. It is claimed that these models might assist experienced teachers but not novice

or inexperienced ones since they need further explanations and guidance for their details.

That is, ISD models are too generic and simple to work for the complicated system of

instruction. Perhaps, the problem is not with the models but with the individuals who do

not know how to use them. Whether they are simple or too generic these models guide

people at least by indicating how to progress in the instructional process.

BASIC INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS

Branch and Gustafson state that in order to understand the fundamental concepts

of guided learning and its phenomenological, philosophical and theoretical origins one

may benet from its instructional development model9. Instructional systems leading to

learning are usually presented with models and without a model; it is hard to envisage the

system completely. Namely, in order to prevent probable misses and misunderstandings

about the whole instructional system, the models are prepared. As Gustafson and Branch

state, “The role of models in instructional development is: to provide us with conceptual

and communication tools that we can use to visualize, direct, and manage processes for

generating episodes of guided learning; to allow us to view both the linear and concurrent

aspects of instructional development; and to allow us to select or develop appropriate

operational tools.”10 That is, an instructional model, which facilitates the comprehension

of the process, exhibits what exists in the mind of the designer in a schema.

ID Models are made up of either rectilinear rows of boxes connected by straight

lines with one way arrows or curvilinear ovals connected by curved lines with two-way

arrows concerning the complexity of the instructional development process. That is, the

8) Schiffman, Shirl S. Instructional Systems Design: Five views of the eld. Chapter 11 in Gary Anglin(Ed.). Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future. 2nd ed. Englewood, CO:LibrariesUnlimited., p. 135, 1995.

9) Branch, R. M. & Gustafson, K. L. Re-Visioning Models of Instructional Development, EducationalTechnology Research and Development , 45(3), 73–89. 1998.

10) Gustafson, K. L. and Branch, R. M. Survey of instructional development models, third edition.Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, p. 18, 1997.

8/19/2019 37018754

6/13


application of these models indicates some reality about their process and complexity.

Whether a model is linear or not, the use of the lines, boxes and arrows makes it more

comprehensible. It provides an addressee with a route to follow which is very valuable for

one while designing his own course or curriculum.

As aforementioned, due to the behaviorist affect, the models follow a rigid and

mechanistic route. This is an old habit, which was started in 1960s because of the affect

of military education. Concerning this, Reid claims that “although the general task of

ISD models has remained stable for the past 10 to 15 years, the specic approaches and

methodologies applied within each step are still evolving”11. The physical characteristic of

the models is still common today, however, with a difference since the designs have been

enriched with other theories of learning that evolved after behaviorism. Today, designs

involve more cognitively oriented approaches, higher order reasoning and problem-

solving skills, which is similar to real life applications. Instructional system design is no

more dened together with the skills such as writing objectives and criterion measures

but it is viewed as a problem-solving process. Moreover, ISD is a project management

scheme rather than a step-by-step process for building instructional programs and these

models are not far from reality. Any project in real life such as remodeling your bathroom

would follow the model including analyze, design, develop and evaluate sequence that is

similar to instructional design12.

Dick and Carey, Kemp, Taylor, Smith and Ragan, to name a few, are some of the

creators of well-known ISD models. These models follow almost the same routine in

the ADDIE model; however there are some additional procedures or variations in theirorder. Some models support the necessity of an evaluation stage (formative evaluation)

after each procedure some respected only summative evaluation and so on. The typical

differences among those models were generally based on the steps and their order.

Morrison, Ross and Kemp’s Model of Instructional Design

In this instructional model, the ID process usually starts with curriculum development at

the macro level, continues with course development at micro level and lesson development

at the nano-level. It has a exible, dynamic and adaptive set of processes and procedures

and iterative cycles and follows a ow that begins from the center and moves to the outer

parts. However, an instructional designer has the exibility of following the model from

the steps at which s/he wants and can skip the steps, which s/he has data already present

at hand. In fact this creates an authentic design for every instructional designer. With thisreality the model seems to have a non-linear procedure.

11) McCombs, B. L. The Instructional Systems Development (ISD) Model: A Review of Those FactorsCritical to Its Successful Implementation. ECTJ, Vol. 34 No:2, pp.67-81, 1986.

12) Zemke, R., & Rossett, A. A hard look at ISD. Training, 39(2), pp. 27-35., February, 2002.

8/19/2019 37018754

7/13


Figure 1. Components of the instructional design plan.13

This model of instructional design underlies the following principles:

1. Identifying the instructional problems and specifying goals for designing the

instructional program.

2. Examining learner characteristics which will inuence your instructional

decisions.

3. Identifying subject content and analyzing task components related to stated goals

and purposes.

4. Specifying instructional objectives for the learners.

5. Sequencing content within each instructional unit for logical learning.

6. Designing instructional strategies so that each learner can master the objectives.7. Planning the instructional message and developing the instruction.

8. Developing evaluation instruments to assess objectives.

9. Selecting resources to support instruction and learning activities14.

13) Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M. & Kemp, J. E.,Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M. & Kemp, J. E., Designing Effective Instruction, John Wiley and Sons,Inc., p. 9, 2004.

14) Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M. & Kemp, J. E.,) Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M. & Kemp, J. E.,Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M. & Kemp, J. E., Designing Effective Instruction, John Wiley and Sons,Inc., p. 7-8, 2004.

8/19/2019 37018754

8/13


As indicated, the model with its nine elements is an oval shaped model which

represents the exibility. There might be cases in which all nine elements are not applied.

The oval shape of the model gives the designer the sense that the design and development

process is a continuous cycle which requires constant planning, design, development

and assessment to insure effective instruction. In addition to this, as previously stated,

there are not specic starting points. The model is systematic and nonlinear and seems to

encourage designers to work in all elds as appropriate. Individuals may progress through

the instructional process according to their preferences, starting with one element or

another and following whatever order they consider logical or suitable. This characteristic

of the model is its main characteristic, which discriminate it from the other models.

Moreover, besides formative (in process) and summative (after process) evaluation, thereis conrmative evaluation in the Kemp’s model. The evaluation step assesses the degree

to which instructional objectives are being achieved over an extended period after the

course. In fact, evaluation is not the last step in the model since developing and selecting

instructional resources is the last step of the model.

Morrison, Ross and Kemp think that ID is a continuous cycle and that revision is an on

going activity associated with all the other elements. Starting anywhere and proceeding at

any order are essentially a general system view of development wherein all elements are

interdependent, and in which stages might be performed independently or simultaneously

as required. They believe that there is hardly any perfect approach to solve an ID problem

by supporting the view that a design model must grow with the instructional designer.

Besides this, according to them there is no single best way to design an instruction.Dick and Carey’s Design Model

The most striking characteristic of the model is that it is exible enough to allow the

designer to start from any of the main steps in the model provided that the preceding

steps were met. This was also true for the Morrison, Ross and Kemp’s model. However,

the only constraint of the model appears in the step of writing instructional objectives.

The model compels the designer to perform an analysis and needs assessment before

writing the instructional objectives. In addition, each main step of the model except for

the analysis and needs assessment steps is linked to the formative evaluation with broken

lines which enables the designer go and evaluate each main step during the development

of instructional design and turn back if any revision or renement is required.

8/19/2019 37018754

9/13


Figure 2. The Dick and Carey systems approach model.15

Dick and Carey’s design model have the following steps:

1. Determining instructional goal: Thinking of what you want learners to be able to

do when they have completed the instruction.

2. Analyzing the instructional goal: A step-by-step determination of what people are

doing when they perform the goal and what entry behaviors are needed.

3. Analyzing the learners and the context in which the skills will be learned and the

context in which the skills will be used.

4. Writing performance objectives by emphasizing specic behavior skills to be

learned, the conditions under which they must be performed and the criteria for

successful performance.5. Developing assessment instruments based on the objectives

6. Developing instructional strategy: Identifying a strategy to achieve the terminal

objective by emphasizing presentation of information, practice and feedback,

testing.

7. Developing and selecting instruction: Using the preferred strategy to produce

instructional materials.

8. Designing and conducting formative evaluation: Testing of instructional materials

in one-to-one, small groups or eld evaluations so that the materials could be

evaluated with learners and could be revised prior to distribution.

9. Revising instruction: Data from the formative evaluation are summarized and

interpreted to attempt to identify difculties experienced by learners in achievingthe objectives and to relate these difculties to specic deciencies in the

materials.

10. Summative evaluation: It is the independent evaluation to judge the worth of the

instruction16.

15) Dick W., Carey L.& Carey J. O., The Systematic Design of Instruction, Addison-Wesley EducationalPublishers Inc., p. 2-3, 2001.

16) Dick W., Carey L.& Carey J. O.,) Dick W., Carey L.& Carey J. O.,Dick W., Carey L.& Carey J. O., The Systematic Design of Instruction, Addison-Wesley EducationalPublishers Inc., p. 6-8, 2001.

8/19/2019 37018754

10/13


The model tends to be more product-oriented than system-oriented. The model tends

to be applied in product development and it is more helpful to novice designers who arelikely to work alone.

Smith and Ragan’s Instructional Design Model

Smith and Ragan’s model reects principles associated with: the systematic process,

problem solving orientation, learner centered instruction, goal oriented instruction,

instructional alignment, and theoretical and empirical foundations.

Smith and Ragan’s Instructional design model17 have three main parts and these parts

have the following stages;

1. Instructional analysis• Analyzing the learning context

• Analyzing the learners

• Analyzing the learning task

• Writing test items.

2. Selecting Strategy

• Determining organizational, delivery and management strategies

• Writing and producing instruction

3. Developing Evaluation

• Conducting formative evaluation

• Conducting summative evaluation

4. Revising InstructionDuring the instructional design process, the designer should complete three steps that

form the foundations of instructional design. As aforementioned those three steps and thequestions an instructional designer should ask himself at the stages are:

• Analysis step. The question is “where we are going”

• Strategy development step: The question is “how we will get there”

• Evaluation step: The question is “how we’ll know when we are there”

Analysis step consists of analyzing the learning context, analyzing the learner and

analyzing the learning task. After the analysis step, the strategy development step whichconsists of determination of organizational strategies, delivery strategies and management

strategies come and the instruction is written and produced. With Smith and Ragan’s

words strategy is a set of decisions (organizational, delivery, and management) that resultin a plan, method, or series of activities aimed at obtaining a specic instructional goal.

The last step of the model is the evaluation step. In this step after evaluation of “whetherwe’re there” with regard to the individual student’s learning, the instructional designer

goes back to previous steps to revise them. In the model, the function of the formative

evaluation is to revise instruction so as to make it as effective as possible for larger

number of students. The function of summative evaluation is to study the effectiveness

of the system as a whole.

17) Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J., Instructional Design, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993.

8/19/2019 37018754

11/13


The steps in the Smith and Ragan’s systematic model follow each other in a linear

way. However, if required the designer is likely to make some changes in its order. To

exemplify, if the necessary information about the learners exist, analysis of the learners

step might be left out and the designer might go on with the next step. What is necessary is

that, there must be consistency among the determined objectives, instructional strategies

and evaluation methodologies. Namely, the presentation of information, learning activities

and evaluation should complement each other.

In Smith & Ragan’s Instructional design model, there is writing test items stage in the

analyzing part after writing objectives. According to Smith & Ragan, it is important that

the designers think about assessing learners’ performance before developing instructional

strategy. It is carried out to ensure that the items in the ‘write test items’ step matchwith the objectives. Thus, the objectives are considered while writing of each assessment

item. There are denite benets of writing test items in the analysis step. These are;

the intentions of the objectives are fresh on the designer’s mind, if the designer cannot

write an item for the objective then s/he needs to revise the objective in some way so

that students’ performance on it can be measured and a good time to write test items

immediately after writing objective because it is easy.

Figure 3. Instructional design by Smith and Ragan.18

18) Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J., Instructional Design, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993.

Reprinted from Instructional design by Smith, P.L., &Ragan, T.J., 1992.

8/19/2019 37018754

12/13


As a conclusion, Dick & Carey’s design model, Morrison, Ross and Kemp’s model

of instructional design and Smith & Ragan’s instructional design model have common

fundamental elements of instructional planning and design as learners, objectives and

evaluation. They are similar in their model’s elements to complete the instructional design.

However, there are some differences. Kemp’s model is exible, that is, the designer can

start with whatever element s/he wants to without the completion of previous steps but the

designer cannot apply this in Dick & Carey’s and Smith & Ragan’s models. In the Smith

& Ragan’s model, there is a ‘writing test item’ stage and in Dick & Carey model there is

a developing criterion test items’ stage at the very beginning of the designs. However, in

the Kemp’s model one cannot nd such a stage. Stages are called with different names

at different steps in the models but their functions and their purposes are the same. Onthe other hand, there is Posner’s course design model which is different from all above

instructional designs in that this model works like a guide that could be used as a manual

for course teachers and for only course development19.

Conclusion

As Gayeski states, “there is design in any project”20. Without design everything

may get more perplexing and it is obvious that there is a need of instructional design

in every instruction; however, the instructional models need some adjustments with

respect to the educational setting, learners and objectives of the instruction. That is

the steps of instructional design have been listed in a particular sequence as analysis,

design, development, implementation and evaluation; however, particular circumstances

may cause a designer to modify the sequence of design steps. Educators often preferapplying or using ready-made ID models to designing their own models specic to their

conditions which is great mistake because the models developed for a specic place or

school do not work as presupposed since there needs to be always a change specic

to educational circumstances. This should not be ignored by the designers or by the

teachers. Furthermore, possible changes might arise in the process any time which have

not been estimated at the design of the process. And these changes may depend on some

psychological, sociological or even technological (media) facts, which require different

strategies. The design of any model should be prepared by keeping in mind the needs of the

educational organization and the addressees so that the individuals could be able to catch

the dynamism in real life. It is stated by Schiffman21 that whether at educational settings,

business, industrial, health related or military training, when instructional designers are

at work, they are translating theory-based instructional design into practice by juggling

many sources of information and skills in keeping with the addressees’ needs. It is an

important and sometimes exhausting job.

19) Posner, G. J. & Rudnitsky, A. N.,) Posner, G. J. & Rudnitsky, A. N., Course Design, New York: Longman, 2001.

20) Zemke, R., & Rossett, A. A hard look at ISD. Training, 39(2), pp. 27-35., February, 2002.

21) Schiffman, Shirl S. Instructional Systems Design: Five views of the eld. Chapter 11 in GarySchiffman, Shirl S. Instructional Systems Design: Five views of the eld. Chapter 11 in GaryAnglin (Ed.). Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future. 2nd ed. Englewood, CO:LibrariesUnlimited., p. 142, 1995

8/19/2019 37018754

13/13

Documents

37018754