ELRC 7503:  Instructional Design

Fall, 2004

Date and Time:  Wednesday, 4:40-730pm

Location:  114 PEABODY


Jerry Willis, 111F Peabody

578-1356 (0ffice), 769-4035 (home)

Email:  jerryw@lsu.edu


Overview of the Course

Several hundred universities in the United States offer graduate degrees in the field of educational or instructional technology.  Quite a few others offer degrees in related fields such as instructional science and educational computing.  Internationally, another hundred or so universities, concentrated in the United Kingdom and Australia, also offer graduate degrees in educational technology.  However, while most programs describe themselves as dealing with “educational technology” (ET) or “instructional technology” (IT), that does not mean they all teach essentially the same things.  They don’t.  Some emphasize learning about computer hardware and software, some emphasize foundational areas like educational psychology, and some focus on specialty areas like distance education.  There are, in fact, few courses that students in virtually all programs complete.  The exception is this course, instructional design.  Virtually all graduate students in both master’s and doctoral IT and ET programs complete at least one course on the design of instructional materials.


The Character of Instructional Design (ID) Courses

There are three major “flavors” of the standard ID course.

  • Pedagogy.  Some ID courses emphasize pedagogy – approaches to teaching and learning.  They may focus on anything from “how to develop strong tutorial materials” to “building collaborative learning environments” but the focus is on the pedagogy.  There is often little focus on the process of ID.
  • The ID Model.  This type of ID course focuses on one model of the process of instructional design, usually the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model developed by Dick and Carey.  An example is the course taught at Connecticut State University (http://so-mako.sysoff.ctstateu.edu/put/ocsu.nsf/0/21ccf736e7ee265285256d3300533521?OpenDocument). These courses typically cover each of the steps in the ISD model and require students to complete a mini instructional design project that demonstrates they can understand and apply the ID model they learn. There are over 200 different ID models and any of them can be used as the basis for a course like this.  However, as noted above, the Dick and Carey ISD model is most often used in these courses.  Other popular models were developed by Kemp,  Smith & Ragan, and Seels & Glasgow. Many courses also emphasize the generic ADDIE model of ID that involves five steps:  Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate.
  • ID Alternatives.  ID courses in this tradition are based on the assumption that ID is not a monolithic field where you learn the process of instructional design. Instead, the field of ID is treated as one in a state of flux with several competing theoretical frameworks, families of ID models, and communities of practice.  Students typically learn about several different models of ID as well as the theoretical and conceptual foundations of different models.  Some of these courses focus on the process of ID and others focus on the pedagogies used by designers when they create educational materials.


The Personality of This Course

 This course uses the ID Alternatives model and it covers both pedagogy and process but the emphasis is on process.  Over the semester you will explore six major topics:

  • History and Definition of Instructional Design
  • Foundations of ID
  • ID Models
  • ID Today
  • ID in the Instructional Systems Design/Dick and Carey Tradition
  • Alternative ID Paradigms
    • Soft Systems Theory ID
    • Chaos Theory ID
    • Constructivist ID
    • Modern Behavioral, Information Processing, and Cognitive Science ID


We will devote some time to the families of pedagogy that are most commonly associated with instructional design.  These include Gagne’s Conditions of Learning theory as well as several models of constructivist learning.


The Format of the Course

Each of the major topics in the course has a set of readings associated with it.  The reading lists are available on the course web site (http://blackboard.lsu.edu) and each student registered for the class should be automatically registered with Blackboard so that you can go to the LSU Blackboard site (http://blackboard.lsu.edu), sign in using your LSU email ID and password, and then go to the course web site.


Our class meetings will emphasize discussions of the readings.  You will be expected to come to class ready to participate in informed discussions of the readings as well as small group activities..  Some reading assignments will be for one week.  Others will be for  two weeks.  For two week assignments, you will be expected to come to the first class session with basic or fundamental questions about the readings – what you did not understand, what seems unclear or contradictory.  Raise those questions in class and we will discuss them.  For the second week, you will be expected to come to class ready to discuss the implications of the readings – what they mean for your area(s) of interest.  For that second class period you should:

·        Find and read two resources relevant to the topic that deal specifically with your area of interest.  For example, if you are very interested in distance education and we are reading papers on instructional design, you might read two resources on the design of distance education such as the University of Illinois’ web site on Instructional Design for Online Courses at http://www.online.uillinois.edu/oakley/presentations/instructional_design.html or Jeff Boulton’s 2002 paper, Web Based Distance Education: Pedagogy, Epistemology, and Instructional Design (http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/boulton/).

·        Write a one to two page summary of the article and place it on the web site at least a day before the class meets.  Start the summary with a correct APA citation of the article/resource/book/whatever.  Then on a separate line put “Summarized by yourfirst&lastname”.  Then, after a blank line, write your summary.  When you place it on the course web site make the heading for the message the title of the article (or an abbreviated version if it is very long).


Your only other Big assignment for the semester is a 10 to 25 page paper (12 point type, 1 inch margins, single spaced) on instructional design in an area that interests you. Your paper can analyze the current literature on a type of ID theory of model such as Rapid Prototyping, constructivist design, Spiral Design, or ISD.  Or, you could focus on a type of design work such as teacher as instructional designer or creating distance learning environments.  Or, you could emphasize one aspect of ID such as building collaborative teams, iterative or recursive design procedures, evaluation, needs assessment, or diffusion and support.  Or?



Final grades will be based on the following:

  • Paper – 25%.
  • Summaries – 25%
  • Readings – 50%


A Note on Absolutism versus Subjectivism

A course outline is generally treated as the absolute and final guide for how a course will be conducted.  I do not want this outline to be treated that way.  Instead, please consider the outline as a starting point for discussions and negotiations of what we will do in the course.  You may, for example, find that your paper becomes a much more important part of your work in the course and prefer that it count for more of your grade.  You could, for example, find that the readings are not as appropriate to your interests as they might be.  You can propose alternative readings for yourself or for the class as a whole.  Thus, while I have taken the responsibility for initially structuring this course, I expect you to participate in that process as well across the semester.




The Reading Assignments

There are six sets of readings, with some suggestions about what to look for, think about, and consider as you do your readings.  We will discuss in class how I will evaluate your work in this area, but what I generally want you to do is:

  • Find issues, topics, concepts, models, theories that you do not understand and come to class ready to ask questions about them.
  • Master the material so that you can participate in informed discussions about them and also apply the ideas you are learning to real world design problems.


The Spiral Nature of the Readings

There is a good deal of overlap across the readings.  You will, for example, run into models such as Rapid Prototyping several times.  You will also run into frameworks such as cognitivism as well as procedures such as iteration, in more than one idea.  The readings have been organized using Bruner’s concept of a spiral curriculum.  In his 1960 book, The Process of Education, Bruner explained the idea this way:


A curriculum as it develops should revisit this basic ideas repeatedly, building upon them until the student has grasped the full formal apparatus that goes with them' (Bruner, 1960, p.13)


Sólrún B. Kristinsdóttir  (2001, http://starfsfolk.khi.is/solrunb/jbruner.htm_3.htm) succinctly describes the use of Bruner’s concept in educational technology and instructional design:

It was in the 1980s, that a body of literature had accumulated in support of individual components of a spiral curriculum model.  Reigeluth and Stein (1983) published the seminal work on “The Elaboration Theory of Instruction”.  It proposes that when structuring a course, it should be organised in a simple-to-complex, general-to-detailed, abstract-to-concrete manner.  Another principle is that one should follow learning prerequisite sequence, it is applied to individual lessons within a course.  In order for a student to develop from simple to more complex lessons, certain prerequisite knowledge and skills must first be mastered.  This prerequisite sequencing provides linkages between each lesson as student spirals upwards in a course of a study.  As new knowledge and skills are introduced in subsequent lessons, they reinforce what is already learnt and become related to previously learned information.  What the student gradually achieves is a rich breadth and depth of information that is not normally developed in curricula where each topic is discrete and disconnected from each other (Dowding, T.J. 1993).

The readings for this course are roughly organized in a spiral so that you visit the same ideas many times over the semester.  In some cases you read simpler and less detailed content first, then approach more sophisticated material later in the semester.  In other cases, the initial exposure to the material is relatively complex and sophisticated but you will probably not understand it fully until you spiral through several more exposures to the ideas and concepts discussed.

1.  History and Definition of Instructional Design

We can trace the history of design back thousands of years.  In fact, archaeologists often determine what civilization built and occupied a certain ancient site by the design of common items such as pottery and by the shape of things like spear points and arrow heads.  Instructional design does not have such a long history (although related fields like educational psychology and pedagogy do).  However, it does have a set of complex relationships with a diverse set of fields that include everything from psychology to philosophy.  Gus Prestera’s (http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/g/e/gep111/html/M4/L2%20-%20Theories/M4L2P4.htm) graphic of the theoretical landscape illustrates just how complex ID’s relations with other fields are.


As you read the material for this first assignment I would like you to think about the issues of how these areas interact.  What, for example, is the relationship between learning theories and instructional design theories?  Even more basic, what are learning theories and instructional design theories?  How are they different?  This same set of questions can be asked about any of the fields depicted in Prestera’s graphic.


Several of the readings also deal with historical influences.  Did great intellectual movements like Darwin’s theory of evolution really influence educational technology and ID?  Did practical movements like the school museum movement (the antecedent to the AV center and today’s media center) influence the field?  How?


This set of readings also illustrates two aspects of the framework in which ID is practiced.  One has already been mentioned.  ID as a field interacts with and is influenced by many different disciplines and by many historical patterns.  Also, within virtually every discipline that touches ID there are contradictory and competing lines of influence.  Within learning theory, for example, theories based on behaviorism, constructivism, and many other foundations, have influenced educational technology and ID.  The result is that ideological and theoretical positions that are not always compatible have been the foundation for different approaches to ID.  What are the major influences today?  Historically, how did they emerge and develop?  Are there historical antecedents to the current influences?  For example, can we see modern expressions of the efficiency movement and Taylorism in today’s debates about education and ID?  Is Dewey’s progressive education movement alive and well today in ID? 







Another question, which should perhaps be considered first, concerns the meaning of the term Instructional Design.  What is ID?  Is this a unified concept?  Or do different people define it differently?  If they do, what are the reasons?  Are they theoretical?  Practical? You will find, for example, that some people use the term ID broadly, so that it includes pedagogy issues.  Others use it narrowly to mean the process of designing without a heavy focus on pedagogy.


Why do we have such different approaches?  What position to you take on the meaning of the term ID?  Finally, these readings will illustrate some of the issues that are at the core of decisions about ID.  Ann Shortridge, for example, talks about “three challenges” that face designers.  Each of these challenges involves choices about crucial issues related to both ID and learning.  These readings should help you develop an understanding of the current issues and you should begin to develop your own understanding and interpretation of those issues.



Sara McNeil. (2003). A Hypertext History of Instructional Design.  Available:  http://www.coe.uh.edu/courses/cuin6373/idhistory/index.html


Karin M. Wiburg. (1995). An Historical Perspective on Instructional Design: Is it Time to Exchange Skinner's Teaching Machine for Dewey's Toolbox? Available: http://www.internettime.com/itimegroup/Is%20it%20Time%20to%20Exchange%20Skinner's%20Teaching%20Machine%20for%20Dewey's.htm


Robert Reiser. (2001).  A History of Instructional Design and Technology.  Part II:  A History of Instructional Design.  Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 57-67.  Available:  http://www.aect.org/pdf/etr&d/4902/4902-04.pdf


Douglas Leigh.  (no date).  A Brief History of Instructional Design.  Available:  http://www.pignc-ispi.com/articles/education/brief%20history.htm


Michael Molenda, Charles Reigeluth and Laurie Nelson. (2003).  L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (Vol. 2, pp. 574-578).  London:  Nature Publishing Group.  Draft available at: http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/ID_Cog%20Sci.pdf


Ann Marie Shortridge.  (2003).  Instructional Design Paradigms.  Available:  http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/anscmatr/shortam/page1.htm  Note:  Be sure to follow the links in the text as they are also assigned readings (except for the link on Vygotsky).


Carl Berger and Rosalind Kam.  (no date).  Definitions of Instructional Design.  Available:  http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/define.html


Barbara Bichelmeyer.  (2003).  Instructional Theory and Instructional Design Theory:  What’s the Difference and Why Should We Care?  IDT Record.  Available:  http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/articles/documents/ID_theory.Bichelmeyer.html


Charles Reigeluth.  (2003). Clearing the Muddy Waters:
A Response to Barbara Bichelmeyer.  IDT Record.  Available:  http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eidt/articles/documents/Reigeluth_response_to_Bichelmeyer.htm


2.  Foundations of Instructional Design

A few years ago the field of ID was rather simple:  ID was based on a behavioral theory of learning and hard systems theory.  It was a linear process that relied on direct instruction models, and the process of design was focused on experts who developed materials according to models that all followed what some have referred to as the “waterfall” approach.  That is, the output of one step (such as developing behavioral objectives) was the input required to start the next step (e.g., designing assessment procedures).  Today, the monolithic nature of ID has been broken.  None of the assumptions or foundations mentioned above remains unchallenged.  Alternative theories, alternative models, and alternative procedures abound, and the literature is filled with proposals and approaches that reject or radically modify canonical positions from just a few years ago. 


Many of these readings are about instructional theories, models, and strategies.  The focus of this courses is instructional design models, but any instructional design project must of necessity deal with instructional strategies.  You cannot design instructional material without selecting and incorporating instructional strategies.  And, of course, instructional strategies and models are often based on instructional theories which are based on theories of learning.  In this set of readings you will study both the traditional foundations and the emerging alternatives of ID as well as instruction.  I have included one very long reading – chapters 2,3, and 4 of Dr. Mary Ruth De Villiers’ dissertation at the University of Pretoria – because it does such a good job of laying out the foundations of ID and the foundations of instruction.  Please pay particular attention to the material on the three learning theories that influence ID today:  behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.  Likewise, look at the way these broad theories generate instructional theories and procedures such as Gagne’s events of instruction and anchored instruction.  And, consider the influence of broader theories such as systems theory and chaos theory on both the way we think about learning and about ID.


As you read the foundations literature, continue to work on your understanding of the basic issues involved in ID (and educational technology) and what is behind those issues from a conceptual and theoretical perspective.  Why are principles of instruction from behaviorists different from the principles of cognitivists and constructivists?  Why are the principles of ID from these three perspectives different?  And, how are they different?


You will also be reading papers about different foundations for ID such as postmodernism, constructivism, and cognitive science.  Please be sure you understand these paradigms.  You should be able to link the foundational assumptions of the paradigms to the practices of ID within that tradition.


By the time you finish this set of readings you should be starting to develop your own ideas about how you would approach ID and also be able to explain why. 



Mary Ruth De Villiers.  (2002).  The Dynamics of Theory and Practice in Instructional Design. (Chapters 2, 3, and 4 only).  Ph.D. Thesis submitted to the Department of Teaching and Training Studies of the Faculty of Education, University of Pretoria, South Africa.  Available:  http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-02212003-180121/


Brenda Mergel. (1998).  Instructional Design and Learning Theory. Available:  http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm

Comparison of Behaviorism / Cognitivism / Constructivism.  Available:  http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/t/x/txl166/kb/theory/compar.html

Peggy A. Ertmer & Timothy J. Newby. (1993).  Behaviorism , Cognitivism, Constructivism:  Comparing Critical Features from an Instructional Design Perspective.  Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4).  Available:  http://vcs.ccc.cccd.edu/crs/special/ertnew1.htm
Note:  There are five sections to this article; please be sure to read all five sections. They are at different addresses (…ertnew2.htm, ertnew3.htm, etc, ect) and there is a link at the bottom of each piece that takes you to the next piece.

Peter de Lisle (1997).  What Is Instructional Design Theory?  Available:  http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/peterdl/ID%20Theory.htm


Doreen Clough.  (no date).  Postmodern Instructional Design.  Available:  http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/postmodern/index.htm


Maureen Tam.  (2000).  Constructivism, Instructional Design, and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3(2).  Available:  http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_2_2000/tam.html


Brent Wilson, David Jonassen, and Peggy Cole.  (1993).  Cognitive Approaches to Instructional Design.  In G. Piskurich (Ed.), The ASTD Handbook of Instructional Technology.  New York:  McGraw Hill.  Available:  http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/training.html


3.  Instructional Design Models

In this set of readings we will begin to explore in some detail the process of creating instructional materials.  You will read several overview articles/chapters, such as Chapter 7 from Barbara Seels and Zita Glasgow’s book.  Consider each of the ID models presented individually, then look at how one model is similar, and different, from another.  Other readings in this set deal with one specific model or group of models.  By the end of the readings you should start to see families of instructional design models that have so many similarities that they form a cohesive group in spite of the fact they have many differences as well.  And, an idea should be forming of different families of ID models that, as a group, are so different from models in other families that they constitute a fundamentally different approach to ID.



*Barbara Seels and Zita Glasgow.  (1998). Making Instructional Design Decisions, 2nd ed. Columbus, Ohio:  Merrill

            Chapter 7.  Using Models and Paradigms.  (pp. 165-194.


NOTE:  The * indicates this is a reading that is not available online.  We will discuss in class how each student can get copies of the readings that are available only in print.


Martin Ryder.  (2004)  Instructional Design Models.  Available: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/idmodels.html

Note: This is a large site and I do not expect you to become familiar with all the material.  Instead, study the material on instructional design models you are not familiar with.


Occupational and Technical Studies. (2001).  ISD: Instructional Systems Design. Norfolk, VA:  Old Dominion University.  Available:  http://www.lions.odu.edu/~dnethert/Courses/oted400/isd.pdf


Donald Clark. (2004).  ADDIE -1975.  Available:  http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html


ISD Overview.  Available:  http://www.soe.unc.edu/ISD/About/ISD_Overview/isd_overview.html


  The Multimedia Development Process.  Available:  http://www.oten.edu.au/id/Bank/IDOnline_Development_process.pdf


Human Performance Center.  (no date).  Spiral Development. Available:  https://www.spider.hpc.navy.mil/index.cfm?RID=TTE_OT_1000054


4.  Instructional Design Today:  The Current Context

This set of readings takes a contemporary look at what is happening in the field of ID today.  What are the issues?  The transitions?  The problems?  The emerging concepts and solutions?  As you read this material I would like you to develop ideas about the basic issues that are being discussed, the reasons those issues have arisen, and your informed view of how they can be resolved.  Several of these articles are criticisms of, or responses to criticisms of particular ID models or approaches.  You should understand not only the criticisms but also the lines of defense against criticisms.


Brent Wilson.  (1997 ).  Reflections on Constructivist ID.  In C. R. Dills and A. A. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional Development Paradigms.  Englewood Cliffs NJ: Educational Technology Publications.  Available:  http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/construct.html


Diane Gayeski. (April, 1997).  Out of the Box Instructional Design:  Moving from Assembly Line to Non-Linear Models.   Training and Development, Draft Available: http://www.omnicomassociates.com/t&disd.html


Donald Clark.  (2004). The Attack on ISD – 2000.  Available:  http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/attack.html


Donald Clark.  (2004). A Hard Look at IST – 2004.  Available:  http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/look.html


Ruth Colvin Clark.  (August, 2002).  The New ISD:  Applying Cognitive Strategies to Instructional Design.  Performance Improvement, 41(7).  Available:  http://www.clarktraining.com/CogStrat.pdf


M. David Merrill.  (2002).  A Pebble-in-the-Pond Model for Instructional Design.  Performance and Improvement, 41(7).  Available:  http://www.ispi.org/pdf/Merrill.pdf


M. David Merrill, Leston Drake, Mark J. Lacy, Jean Pratt
& the ID2 Research Group.  (1996). Reclaiming Instructional Design.  Educational Technology, 36(5), 5-7.  Available:  http://www.ittheory.com/reclaim.htm


Brent Wilson. (2005). The Future of Instructional Design and Technology.  In M. David Merrill and Brent G. Wilson. R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (2nd ed.). Draft available: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~bwilson/ChoosingOurFuture.html


ADDIE.  Available http://www.managersforum.com/astd/2001-2002/ISD-ADDIE.htm


Jared Carman. (2003). Blended Learning Design:  Five Key Ingredients.  Available:  http://www.knowledgenet.com/pdf/Blended%20Learning%20Design_1028.PDF


*Jerry Willis.  (June, 1998).  Alternative Instructional Design Paradigms:  What’s Worth Discussing and What Isn’t.  Educational Technology, 5-16.


Barbara Schindelka.  (2000). Lessons Learned from the Real World:  Reflections on a Journey.  Available:  http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/schindelka/schindelka.pdf


Thomas Reeves.  (2000).  Enhancing the Worth of Instructional Technology Research through “Design Experiments” and Other Development Research Strategies.  Available:  http://it.coe.uga.edu/~treeves/AERA2000Reeves.pdf


Special Issue of Educational Researcher, January/February, 2003.  Read at least four of the papers in this issue.  We will discuss in class which articles each person will be responsible for.  Available:  http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/toc/er3201.htm


Marc Prensky. (2001).  Digital Game-Based Learning.  New York:  McGraw Hill.

            Chapter 3.  Why Education and Training Have Not Changed.  Available: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Ch3-Digital%20Game-Based%20Learning.pdf


Rick Kenny. (2004). Instructional designers in search of identity and community.  Abstract of a paper to be presented at Section 6b of the Distance Education Technology Symposium – 2004 at Athabaska University, Canada.  Available:  http://cde.athabascau.ca/DET/2004/presentations.doc



5.  ID in the ISD/Dick and Carey Tradition

Don Clark. (2000). Developing Instruction or Instructional Design. Available:  http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/learning/development.html

Note:  Read the material on Gagne, Keller, Merrill, and Reigeluth; the stuff on constructivism isn’t that great.


Patricia Rogers.  (2002). Chapter 1. Teacher-Designers:  How Teachers Use Instructional Design in Real Classrooms.  In Patricia Rogers, Designing Instruction for Technology-Enhanced Learning.  Hershey, Pa:  Idea Group Publishing.  Available:  http://www.idea-group.com/downloads/excerpts/1930708289BookEx.pdf


*Roberts Braden.  (1996). The Case for Linear Instructional Design and Development:  A Commentary on Models, Challenges, and Myths.  Educational Technology 36(2), 5-23.


Darryl Sink.  (2002).  ISD:  Faster, Better, Easier.  Performance and Improvement, 41(7), 16-22.  Available:  http://www.dsink.com/news/ISD-faster-better-easier.pdf


*Walter Dick.  (July/August, 1995).  Instructional Design and Creativity:  A Response to Critics.  Educational Technology, 5-11.


*Walter Dick.  (1996). The Dick and Carey Model:  Will It Survive the Decade?  Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55-63.


*Jerry Willis.  (1995).  A Recursive, Reflective Instructional Design Model Based on Constructivist-Interpretivist Theory.  Educational Technology, 36(6), 5-23.


Guy Wallace, Peter Hybert, Kelly Smith, and Brian Blecke.  (2002).  Lean-ISD:  Designing for the Life-cycle.  Performance Improvement Journal, 41(7).  Available:  http://hobsongroup.com/pdf/lean-ISD%20Designing%20for%20the%20Life-cycle.pdf


*M. David Merrill.  (May-June, 2000).  A Response to Jerry Willis.  Educational Technology, 40, 61.



6.  Alternative Instructional Design Paradigms

In this set of readings you will explore current work within four different paradigms.  The last set of readings is about work within the dominant paradigm in the field – behavioral/information processing/cognitive science.  The first set introduces you to systems theory, particularly soft systems theory.  The second set covers chaos theory and the third is about constructivist ID.  As you read these four sets of articles make the link between the underlying theoretical models and the practice of ID.  Make sure you understand what difference approaches to ID actually involve and begin to develop your own ideas about how you would approach ID.



A. Systems Theory

Systems theory is traditionally thought of in the Newell and Simon model which is “hard” systems theory – the model that has dominated ID for several decades.  These readings introduce you to “soft” systems theory.  You should understand the difference between these two approaches to system theory and be able to link those differences to practices in ID.


*Ahn-Sook Hwang.  (1995).  Two Traditions of Systems Thinking in Instructional Development.  Educational Technology, 35(2), 40-42.


In-Sook Lee.  (2003).  Retrospective and Prospective Images on the Relationship Between Educational Technology and Systems Science.  Educational Technology International, 5(1), 3-29.  Available:  http://dasan.sejong.ac.kr/~inlee/set/articles/2003_KSET_RETROSPECTIVE_AND_PROSPECTIVE_IMAGES.pdf


B. Chaos Theory

Chaos theory is a relatively recent development that is still finding its place in both the natural sciences and the social sciences.  Some see it as a revolutionary concept that is as important as Newton’s theories or those of Einstein.  Others see it as an interesting curiosity that has limited application.  As you read these articles I want you to become familiar with the basic concepts of chaos theory, how it can be applied in areas of education such as ID, and what it would mean to you as an educator if you adopted chaos theory (also known as nonlinear systems) as a paradigm for practice.


*Yeongmahn You.  (1993).  What Can We Learn from Chaos Theory?  An Alternative Approach to Instructional Systems Design.  Educational Technology, Research and Development, 43(3), 17-32.


Charles Reigeluth. (2004).  Chaos Theory and the Sciences of Complexity:  Foundations for Transforming Education.  Available:  http://www.indiana.edu/~syschang/decatur/documents/chaos_reigeluth_s2004.pdf


William Hunter and Garth Benson.  (1997). Arrows in Time:  The Misapplication of Chaos Theory to Education.  Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(1), 87-100.


Joseph M. Conte. (Winter, 1996).  "Design and Debris":  John Hawkes's Travesty, Chaos Theory, and the Swerve.  CRITIQUE: Studies in Contemporary Fiction, 37(2), 120-138. 



C.  Constructivist Perspectives

By this point you have already read several papers on constructivist ID.  In this set you will go into more detail on both the foundations of Constructivist ID (C-ID) and approaches to practice. Some of the practice articles present entire models, such as R2D2, and others focus on a particular strategy or approach such as participatory design.  When you finish reading these articles you should understand the foundational assumptions of C-ID at both the epistemological and psychological level, be familiar with the different models of C-ID and be able to distinguish them from one another on the basis of practical and foundational differences, and know about the different strategies and approaches to implementing C-ID.

*Jerry Willis.  (1995). Beyond Machinery:  Considering the Epistemologies of Wittgenstein, Dewey, and Rorty as Potential Foundations for IT Research and Development.  Paper delivered at the First Annual ITTE Research Conference, Cambridge University, UK.


Nirod Kumer Dash.  (no date).  Implications of Constructivism for Instructional Design in Open and Distance Learning.  Available:  http://www.ignou.ac.in/Theme-2/Nirod%20Kumar%20Dash.htm


Charalambos Vrasidas. (2000).  Constructivism versus Objectivism:  Implications for Interaction, Course Design, and Evaluation in Distance Education.  International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 6(4), 339-362.  Available:  http://www.cait.org/vrasidas/continuum.pdf


Jose Otaola.  (2003).  Constructivism Across the Borders of Russia, Switzerland, and the US:  Evolution, Coincidences, and Differences.  Available:  http://netdial.caribe.net/~euzkal/ed7620.htm


Joan Grudin and John Pruitt.  (no date).  Personas, Participatory Design, and Product Development:  An Infrastructure for Engagement.  Available:  http://research.microsoft.com/research/coet/Grudin/Personas/Grudin-Pruitt.pdf


Michael Muller.  Participatory Design:  The Third Space in HCI.  Available:  http://domino.research.ibm.com/cambridge/research.nsf/0/56844f3de38f806285256aaf005a45ab/$FILE/muller%20Chapter%20v1-2.pdf


Lisa D. Young (2003).  Bridging Theory and Practice: Developing Guidelines to Facilitate the Design of Computer-based Learning Environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29(3).  Available:  http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol29.3/cjlt29-3_art4.html


Debate in an ID class at the U of Alberta on constructivism versus ISD.  Available:  http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/AHE/ae404/debate.htm


Stephen Gance.  (May, 2002).  Are constructivism and computer-based learning environments incompatible?  Journal of the Association for History and Computing, 5(1).  Available:  http://mcel.pacificu.edu/JAHC/JAHCV1/K-12/gance.html


*Reigeluth, C.  (1996). A New Paradigm of ISD?  Educational Technology, 36(5), 11-20.


*Reigeluth, C.  (1996). Of Paradigms Lost and Gained?  Educational Technology, 36(6), 58-61.

*Willis, J. (2000). The maturing of constructivist instructional design: Some basic principles that guide practice. Educational Technology, 40(1), 5-16.

*Willis, J., & Wright, K. E. (2000). A general set of procedures for constructivist instructional design: The new R2D2 model. Educational Technology, 40(2), 5-20.

*Fred Nickols.  (July-August, 2000).  Letter to the Editor.  Comments on R2D2 and ISD.  Educational Technology, 40.

Paula Vincini.  (no date).  The Use of Participatory Design Methods in a Learner-Centered Design Process.  University of Georgia ITForum, Paper 54.  Available:  http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper54/paper54.html

Rod Sims and Deborah Jones.  (2002).  Continuous Improvement Through Shared Understanding:  REconceptualising Instructional Design for Online Learning.  Available:  http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/162.pdf

Karen Norum. (2002).  Appreciative Instructional Design (AiD): A New Model.  Avilable:  http://appreciativeinquiry.cwru.edu/research/bibPapersDetail.cfm?coid=201

*Katherine Cennamo, Sandra Abell, and Mi-Lee Chung.  (1996).  A “Layers of Negotiation” Model for Designing Constructivist Learning Materials.  Educational Technology, 36, 39-48.

Brandie Colon, Kay Ann Taylor, and Jerry Willis.  (May, 2000).  Constructivist Instructional Design:  Creating a Multimedia Package for Teaching Critical Qualitative Research.  The Qualitative Report, 5(1/2), 2000. Available:  http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR5-1/colon.html


D.  Behavioral, Information Processing, and Cognitive Science Perspectives

This final set of readings looks at current developments within the main path of ID development.  That path was originally based on behavioral theory but expanded in the sixties and seventies to include information processing theory as well as other cognitive theories of learning. Later, cognitive science theories were added to the mix and today the result is a very active and energetic field of work on ID, but one that increasingly has to respond to developments within other paradigms.  As you read these articles consider questions such as whether the positions taken reflect current research and scholarship, whether the solutions and approaches have broad appeal, and whether the work within this stream of development remains separate from the work in alternative paradigms.  Or, can it be integrated into a broader, more inclusive paradigm that encompasses advances from other paradigms as well?


*Walter Dick.  (1995).  Instructional Design and Creativity:  A Response to the Critics.  Educational Technology, 35(6), 5-11.


*M. David Merrill.  (1996). What New Paradigm of ISD?  Educational Technology, 36(6), 57-58.


*Steven Tripp and Barbara Bichelmeyer (1990).  Rapid Prototyping:  An Alternative Insructional Design Strategy.  Educational Technology, Research, and Development, 38(1), 31-44.


The Defense Acquisition University.  (1997).  Section II:  Overview of the Systematic Approach to Instructional Design and the Rapid Prototyping Model.  In Guide for Curriculum Development, Delivery, and Acquisition.  Available:  http://www.dau.mil/career/files/curguide.pdf


Barry Boehm.  (2000).  Spiral Development:  Experience, Principles, Refinements.  Pittsburgh, PA:  Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute.  Available:  http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cbs/spiral2000/february2000/SR08.pdf


Barry Boehm and Wilfred Hansen.  (May, 2001).  The Spiral Model As A Tool for Evolutionary Acquisition.  CrossTalk:  The Journal of Defense Software Engineering.  Available:  http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2001/05/boehm.html


Thiagarajan, Sivasailam (1993). Just-in-time instructional design. In Piskurich, G. (Ed.) The ASTD Handbook of Instructional Technology.  New York: McGraw-Hill.  Available:  http://www.thiagi.com/article-rid.html


Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to cognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Available:  http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/infoproc.html


Walter Wagner.  (no date).  Information Processing:  Man Overboard.  Available:  http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper23/paper23.html


James Taylor.  (no date).  Novex Analysis:  A Cognitive Science Approach To Instructional Design.  Available:  http://www.usq.edu.au/users/taylorj/readings/novex/novex.htm