Index: Learning by Design

Instructional Design Recipes

The original version of this document was prepared by InSites, Inc. of Boulder, Colorado for the W. K. Kellogg Foundation of Battlecreek, Michigan under the title of "A Connoirsseur's Guide to Instructional Design Recipes: Theories, Models, and Prescribed Components."

Early Spring, 1996
Joseph P. Martinez, Ph.D.

Page Contents

Advanced Organizer Theoretical Appetizers General Models or The Main Course Figure 1. Dick & Carey Model of the Systematic Design of Instruction Figure 2. Gagne-Briggs' Nine Events of Instruction Figure 3. Lebow's Five Principles of Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design Figure 4. Factors Which Influence Self-Efficacy, Learning and Performance IMPORTANT NOTE Instructional Analysis Design and Development Assessment Final Notes In-Text Citations

Advanced Organizer

Making decisions about designing instruction is similar to making selections from a dim sum menu in a Chinese restaurant. There's a lot on the menu from which to pick and choose. If you're like most people, the choices you make are based on your unique connoirsseurship and appetite. Now, let's agree for a moment that one's connoirsseurship is determined by one's own preferences and expertise, and that one's appetite is driven by both internal and external opportunities and restraints. In such a far-flung analogy, you might imagine that the choices you make will be based on preferences, expertise, internal matters (such as whether your selection will actually solve the problem, or satisfy a craving), and external matters (such as dietary cash flow). Without a doubt, the more one understands the various components of making choices, the more likely the choices will produce more rewarding results.

This literature review is designed to provide educators with a menu of information and guidelines pertaining to instructional analysis (A), design and development (D), and assessment of learning (L). All three of these areas (A-D-L) are commonly subsumed under the broader heading of instructional technology (for general definitions about the field of instructional technology, see Seels & Richey, 1994). Because the eclectic field of instructional technology has grown in recent years to include numerous recipes (i,e. theories, models, heuristics, and strategies) within each A-D-L component (Edmonds, Branch, & Mukherjee, 1994; Saettler, 1990; Andrews & Goodson, 1980), this review includes only some seminal or popular recipes produced by some of the leading experts in the field. We are also focusing this review to include additional recipes which may be useful to educators working in the classroom, in addition to instructional innovations designed for families and neighborhoods.

Theoretical Appetizers

Generally speaking, the origins of instructional technology began with post-World War II research in the behaviorist tradition (Saettler, 1990). Although often successful, behaviorist teaching strategies generally ignored the learning component of the teaching-learning process and began falling out of favor with mainstream instructional designers by the late seventies.

Around the latter seventies came the "systems theory" era of instructional design, which sought to describe, and prescribe, the instructional process based on the sequential and interrelated organization of subject matter and topics.

The eighties brought on the "information processing" era which combines the systems approach with notions and heuristics about the learning process, which is still the mainstay among traditional designers. Information processing focuses on the organization of content in relation to how the mind processes information -- similar to how a computer transforms raw data into something meaningful.

Emphases in the nineties are centered around the decades-old but resurrected paradigmatic theories of constructivism. Constructivism focuses on how learners' construct knowledge and make meaning through mental activities and organization (see Lebow, 1993, for example).

Even more recently, social cognitivism is being used to explain and predict learning and performance (see Schunk, 1991; Bandura, 1986). Social cognitivism focuses on how personal factors, such as self-awareness, interact reciprocally with environmental influences to produce certain behaviors or performance.

Other theoretical viewpoints, such as post-modernism and humanism, also contribute to the state-of-the-art of instructional technology (see Hlynka & Belland, 1991). These more exotic theories, however, are yet to provide much in the way of prescriptive recipes for the teaching-learning process and are therefore not specifically included here.

The various theoretical viewpoints we do include are not in opposition, nor are they mutually exclusive. Simply put, each viewpoint is based on an integration of empirical research on improving learning and performance. And, although a theoretical purist may disagree, the basic recipes and ingredients (i,e. component tasks) can be separated or combined to produce the desired results of your unique instructional needs.

It should, therefore, be immediately obvious to the reader that neither of the theoretical appetizers, as they are displayed on the menu of instructional design, contains the best recipe and ingredients for all types of instruction, learning, and behavior. If you really must know which theoretical premise is guiding a given task, the year and title of the selected citation will often give some clue. This review suggests that YOU, practicing educators with your unique connoisseurship and appetites, make choices based on your intended outcomes and the unique kinds of issues associated with your endeavors.

The literature reviewed here summarizes some top-notch information processing/systems theory, constructivist, and social cognitivist A-D-L that is either prescriptive or practical for use in real-world settings. It is hoped, therefore, that it will assist you in strengthening your instructional designs based on empirical research and guidelines.

General Models or The Main Course

Models are the main courses of instructional design. Models can be used to guide, predict, or explain the various components of what is done and why.

The field of instructional design is replete with systems theory and information-processing models, commonly referred to as instructional systems design or ISD models. The backbone of these models usually follow a cybernetic or systematic sequence of interrelated analysis, design, and evaluation components, not necessarily unlike the A-D-L components described here. If you wish to employ a straightforward, detailed, tried-and-true approach to instructional design, you may wish to consider this approach. Below is a short list of some recommended citations (see also Figures 1 and 2): Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The Systematic Design of Instruction. (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design. (4th ed.). Chicago: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

From the constructivist view, meanwhile, designers are encouraged to follow guiding principles or considerations, which--by the way--can be applied to a cybernetic model of design. Constructivist principles, for example, include those outlined by Lebow (1993, see also Figure 3.)

Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset, Educational Technology, Research and Development, 41(3), 4-16.

Social-cognitivist considerations, however, originated in therapeutic contexts and are therefore suggestive of various ways one can influence performance based on improving or correcting personal perceptions, motivation, and environmental factors. These interacting and reciprocal influences are best exemplified by the construct of self-efficacy, which is one's judgments of personal capabilities to successfully perform a given task, expend greater effort, and persevere in the face of difficulties (Bandura, 1986, see also Figure 4).

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

If by now you're completely confused about which model is best suited to your instructional/learning/performance needs, consult any of the following citations for comparisons between some traditional models: Edmonds, G. S., Branch, R. C., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models, Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 55-72.

Reigeluth, C. M. (Ed.) (1983). Instructional-Design Theories and Models: An Overview of their Current Status. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design, Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2-16.

Gustafson, K. L. (1991). Survey of Instructional Development Models (2nd ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse and Reproduction Services (IR-91).

Thiagarajan, S. (1987). Help, I am trapped inside an ID model!, Performance and Instruction, 26(2), 15-16.

As you determine your main course of action for A-D-L, keep in mind that you only need to address those ingredients in each recipe of the main course that relate directly to your desired end-result. In many cases, there is simply no real need to implement a full-scale model. There is even an instructional design model that guides this decision (Wedman & Tessmer, 1991): Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1991). Adapting instructional design to project circumstances: The layers of necessity model, Educational Technology, July, 48-52.

Figure 1. Dick & Carey Model of the Systematic Design of Instruction

1. Identify the instructional goal

2. Conduct instructional analysis of the goal

3. Analyze subordinate skills

4. Identify entry behaviors and characteristics

5. Write performance objects

6. Develop criterion-referenced test items

7. Develop an instructional strategy

8. Develop instructional materials

9. Design and conduct formative evaluations

10. Revise instructional materials

11. Conduct summative evaluation

Figure 2. Gagne-Briggs' Nine Events of Instruction

1. Gain attention

2. Inform the learner of the lesson objective

3. Stimulate recall of prior learning

4. Present the stimulus material with distinctive features

5. Provide learner guidance

6. Elicit performance

7. Provide information feedback

8. Assess performance

9. Enhance retention and learning transfer

Figure 3. Lebow's Five Principles of Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design

1. Maintain a buffer between the learner and the potentially damaging effects of instructional practices

2. Provide a context for learning that supports both autonomy and relatedness

3. Embed the reasons for learning into the learning activity itself

4. Support self-regulation through the promotion of skills and attitudes that enable the learner to assume increasing responsibility for the developmental restructuring process

5. Strengthen the learner's tendency to engage in intentional learning processes, especially by encouraging the strategic exploration of errors

Figure 4. Factors Which Influence Self-Efficacy, Learning and Performance

Personal capabilities that interact with human nature
1. Symbolizing capability
2. Forethought capability
3. Vicarious capability
4. Self-regulatory capability

5. Self-reflective capability
Methods of influencing self-efficacy
1. Enactive experience
2. Vicarious experience
3. Verbal persuasion

4. Physiological state

IMPORTANT NOTE

We suggest that the reader not get bogged down in a model nor in any component task. For example, it might be sufficient to simply spend 20 minutes discussing and thinking about a particular component, rather than conduct a full-blown, costly, and lengthy procedure. In large-scale and highly-critical analyses, however, implementing the entire model and various tedious procedures may be reasonable.

In the following sections, we will look at each component of A-D-L separately and in greater detail.

Instructional Analysis

In conducting the analysis of instruction, indeed as a recipe for the process of learning, you might consider doing each or any part of the following

1. BRAINSTORM the particulars of the project with colleagues and the project participants. Decide whether the project is even worthwhile to do at all.

Recommended Source(s): Grossman, S. R. (1984). Brainstorming updated, Training and Development Journal, 38(2), 84-87.

Additional Source(s): Rawlinson, J. G. (1981). Creative Thinking and Brainstorming. Aldershot, UK: Gower.

McDermott, F. M. (1982). Try brainstorming--a quick route to job analysis, Training/HRD, 19(3), 38-40.

2. Conduct FORCE-FIELD ANALYSIS: That is, determine project benefits and constraints. You can do this by simply drawing a line down the center of a blank page and itemizing the pros and cons relating to the project.

Recommended Source(s): Hustedde, R., & Score, M. (1995). Force-Field Analysis: Incorporating Critical Thinking in Goal Setting. ERIC Clearinghouse and Reproduction Services (ED384712).

Additional Source(s): Knowles, M. S. (1969). Sequential Research Needs in Evolving Disciplines of Social Practice. ERIC Clearinghouse and Reproduction Services (ED038589).

3. Conduct NEEDS ASSESSMENT to determine whether a "gap" exists between actuals (what one knows, or does) and optimals (what one should know or do).

Recommended Source(s): Rossett, A. (1987). Training Needs Assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Rossett, A. (1991). Needs assessment. In G. J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Past, Present, and Future, (pp. 156-169). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.

Additional Source(s): Zemke, R., & Kramlinger, T. (1982). Figuring Things Out: A trainer's Guide to Needs and Task Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Kaufman, R., Stakenas, R. G., Wager, J. C., & Mayer, H. (1981). Relating needs assessment, program development, implementation, and evaluation, Journal of Instructional Development, 4(4), 17-26.

4. DETERMINE CRITICALITY OF THE PROJECT: Determine the level of importance for the project. For example, projects involving physical risk are more critical and will require more detailed analysis and design. Projects of high criticality will involve deeper and more careful analyses.

5. CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The learning environment is an important consideration in the A-D-L. One should consider the physical, social, and psychological influences of the environment.

Recommended Source(s): Tessmer, M., & Harris, D. (1992). Analyzing the Instructional Setting: Environmental Analysis. London: Kogan Page.

Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Designing Environments for Constructivist Learning. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Honebein, P. C., Duffy, T. M., & Fishman, B. J. (1993). Constructivism and the Design of Learning Environments: Context and Authentic Activities for Learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Additional Source(s): Woodson, W. E. (1981). Human Factors Design Handbook: Information and Guidelines for the Design of Systems, Facilities, Equipment, and Products for Human Use. New York: McGraw-Hill.

M. Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.). (1992). Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction : A Conversation. Hillsdale, N. J. : Lawrence Erlbaum.

6. CONDUCT TASK ANALYSES

Recommended Source(s): Jonassen, D. H., Hannum, W. H., & Tessmer, M. (Eds.). (1989). Handbook of Task Analysis Procedures. New York: Praeger.

Zemke, R., & Kramlinger, T. (1982). Figuring Things Out: A Trainer's Guide to Needs and Task Analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Additional Source(s): Merrill, P. F. (1978). Hierarchical and information-processing task analysis: A comparison, Journal of Instructional Development, 1(2), 35-40.

7. DO PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

Recommended Source(s): Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Patton, F. D. (1980). Beyond instructional design: A model for improving human performance, Journal of Instructional Development, 4(2), 27-30.

Additional Source(s): Gilbert, T. F. (1982). A question of performance: Part 1. The PROBE model, Training and Development Journal, 36(10), 21-30.

Harless, J. (1975). An Ounce Of Analysis is Worth a Pound of Objectives. Newnan, GA: Harless Performance Guild.

8. ANALYZE CONTENT

Recommended Source(s): Markle, S., & Tiemann, P. (1985). Analyzing Instructional Content: A Guide to Instruction and Evaluation. (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.

Jonassen, D. H., Hannum, W. H., & Tessmer, M. (Eds.). (1989). Handbook of Task Analysis Procedures. New York: Praeger.

Additional Source(s): Kelley, C. (1994). Determining curricula and exam content in the advanced placement program: Implications for national standards, Education and Urban Society, 26(2), 172-84.

Peters, C. W. (1991). You can't have authentic assessment without authentic content (assessment), Reading Teacher, 44(8), 590-91.

Reigeluth, C., Merrill, M., & Bunderson, C. (1978). The structure of subject matter content and its instructional design implications, Instructional Science, 7, 107-126.

9. CONDUCT LEARNER ANALYSIS

Recommended Source(s): Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence. New York: Basic Books.

Svinicki, M. D., & Dixon, N. M. (1987). The Kolb model modified for classroom activities, College Teaching, 35(4), 141-146.

Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of Individual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. HIllsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

9.1. ADULT LEARNERS

Brookfield, S. D. (1988). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1987). Research shows the benefits of adult cooperation, Educational Leadership, (November).

Knowles, M. S. (1984). Designing and managing learning, The Modern American Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. New York: Cambridge.

Design and Development

10. WRITE PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

Recommended Source(s): Rothwell, W. J. (1992). Mastering the instructional design process: A systematic approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dean, G. J. (1994). Designing Instruction for Adult Learners. Professional Practices in Adult Education and Human Resource Development Series . ERIC Clearinghouse and Reproduction Services (ED372248).

Additional Source(s): Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing Instructional Objectives. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon.

Harless, J. (1975). An Ounce of Analysis is Worth a Pound of Objectives. Newnan, GA: Harless Performance Guild.

Reed, L. C. (1993). Achieving the aims and purposes of schooling through authentic assessment, Middle School Journal, 25(2), 11-13.

11. DETERMINE INSTRUCTIONAL/TEACHING/LEARNING STRATEGIES

Recommended Source(s): Seaman, D. F., & Fellenz, R. A. (1989). Effective Strategies for Teaching Adults. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing.

Wiggins, G. (1989). The futility of trying to teach everything of importance, Educational Leadership, 47(3), 44-48, 57-59.

Schmeck, R. (1988). Strategies and styles of learning: An integration of varied perspectives. In R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, (pp. 317-346). New York: Plenum.

Rothwell, W. J. (1992). Mastering the Instructional Design Process : A Systematic Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kember, D. (1991). Instructional design for meaningful learning, Instructional Science, 20(4), 289-310.

Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can't be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning, (pp. 470-497). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Schlomo, S. (1990). Cooperative Learning. New York: Praeger.

Smith, R. M. (1990). Learning to Learn Across The Life Span: Jossey-Bass.

Vogel, S. A. (Ed.). (1992). Educational Alternatives for Students with Learning Disabilities. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Border, L. L. B., & Chism, N. V. N. (1992). Teaching for Diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Means, B., Chelemer, C., & Knapp, M. S. (Eds.). (1991). Teaching Advanced Skills to At-risk Students: Views from Research and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Additional Source(s): Putnam, J. W. (Ed.). (1993). Cooperative Learning and Strategies for Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity in the Classroom. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co.

Dodd, E. L., & Brock, D. R. (1994). Building partnerships with families through home-learning activities, Dimensions of Early Childhood, 22(2), 37-38, 46.

12. Develop Motivation Plan

Recommended Source(s): Wlodkowski, R. J. (1985). How to plan motivational strategies for adult instruction, Performance and Instruction Journal, 24(9), 1-6.

Keller, J. M., & Kopp, T. W. (1987). An application of the ARCS model of motivational design. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Theories in Action, . Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction: A theoretical perspective. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status, (pp. 383-433). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Additional Source(s): Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study of instruction, Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 289-309.

Lepper, M. R., & Chabay, R. W. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Conflicting views on the role of motivational processes in computer-based education, Educational Psychologist, 20, 217-230.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction: III. Conative and Affective Process Analyses, (pp. 223-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

13. DEVELOP INSTRUCTIONAL BLUEPRINT

Develop instructional plan: lessons, units, modules.

Recommended Source(s): Greer, M. (1992). Id Project Management : Tools and Techniques for Instructional Designers and Developers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Note: The source above is highly recommended for new project managers.

Additional Source(s): Hoey, R. (Ed.). (1994). Designing for Learning : Effectiveness with Efficiency. East Brunswick, NJ: Nichols Pub. Co.

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of Instructional Design. (4th ed.). Chicago: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Briggs, L. J. (1981). Handbook of Procedures for the Design of Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Einseidel, A. A. (1984). Improving Project Management.

Hannum, W. H., & Hansen, C. (1989). Instructional systems development in large organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Kemp, J. E. (1985). The Instructional Design Process. New York: Harper & Row.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990). The Systematic Design of Instruction. (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Romiszowski, A. J. (1981). Designing Instructional Systems : Decision Making in Course Planning and Curriculum Design. New York: Kogan Page.

14. DEVELOP DIFFUSION, ADOPTION, IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Recommended Source(s): Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd. Ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Knowles, M. S. (1983). Creating Lifelong Learning Communities (Conceptualizing All Social Systems as Systems of Learning Resources). ERIC Clearinghouse and Reproduction Services (ED252694 ).

Additional Source(s): Kaufman, R., Stakenas, R. G., Wager, J. C., & Mayer, H. (1981). Relating needs assessment, program development, implementation, and evaluation, Journal of Instructional Development, 4(4), 17-26.

Assessment

15. Conduct formative evaluation based on criterial objectives

Recommended Source(s): Tessmer, M. (1993). Planning and Conducting Formative Evaluations : Improving the Quality of Education and Training. Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

Cunningham, D. J. (1991). Assessing construction and constructing assessments: a dialogue, Journal of Educational Technology, 5, 13-17.

Meyer, C. A. (1992). What's the difference between "authentic" and "performance" assessment?, Educational Leadership, 49(8), 39-40.

Nott, L. et al. (1992). Scoring rubrics: an assessment option, Science Scope, 15(6), 44-45.

Additional Source(s): Pate, P. E., et al. (1993). Designing rubrics for authentic assessment, Middle School Journal, 25(2), 25-27.

Popham, W. J. (1993). Circumventing the high costs of authentic assessment., Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 470-73.

Stiggins, R. J. (1991). FacIng the challenges of a new era of educational assessment, Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 263-73.

Zaharis, J. K., et al. (1993). A proposal for a comprehensive national assessment plan, International Journal of Educational Reform, 2(3), 292-95.

Wiggins, G. (1992). Creating tests worth taking, Educational Leadership, 49(8), 26-33.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity, Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 200-08, 210-14.

16. Conduct summative evaluation of learning

Recommended Source(s): Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: toward more authentic and equitable assessment, Phi Delta Kappan, 70(9), 703-13.

Stiggins, R. J. (1991). Facing the challenges of a new era of educational assessment, Applied Measurement in Education, 4(4), 263-73.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity, Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 200-08, 210-14.

Marjoribanks, K. (1983). The evaluation of a family learning environment model, Studies in Educational Evaluation, 9(3), 343-51.

Additional Source(s): Hughes, S. (1993). What is alternative/authentic assessment and how does it impact special education?, Educational Horizons, 72(1), 28-35.

Kaufman, R., Stakenas, R. G., Wager, J. C., & Mayer, H. (1981). Relating needs assessment, program development, implementation, and evaluation, Journal of Instructional Development, 4(4), 17-26.

Zaharis, J. K. A. O. (1993). A proposal for a comprehensive national assessment plan, International Journal of Educational Reform, 2(3), 292-95.

Walberg, H. J., & Haertel, G. D. (1984). Community influences on learning, Evaluation in Education: An International Review Series, 8(1), 3-73.

Markle, S., & Tiemann, P. (1985). Analyzing Instructional Content: A Guide to Instruction and Evaluation. (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.

Hughes, S. (1993). What is alternative/authentic assessment and how does it impact special education?, Educational Horizons, 72(1), 28-35.

Powell, J. C. (1993). What does it mean to have authentic assessment?, Middle School Journal, 25(2), 36-42.

Touzel, T. J. (1993). Portfolio Analysis: Windows of Competence . ERIC Clearinghouse and Reproduction Services (ED356207).

Final Notes

Instructional design projects always take varied forms. Large-scale programs are usually more elaborate and critical. These programs often require detailed analyses before any design and development phases take place. Large-scale programs also require more control and tracking over the various components. Models that integrate all components of A-D-L are more efficient, rigid, and expensive to implement.

With small-scale programs, there is often more flexibility and creativity in all components of A-D-L. Some of the component tasks may also be excluded depending on the program goals and restraints. The design and development phase may sometimes, although rarely, take place simultaneously with analyses.

In all cases, formative evaluation should be a component that occurs throughout the A-D-L project timeline. Strategies for evaluation and assessment are useful for identifying problems and discovering new opportunities before the instruction is implemented.

A number of recipes and ingredients are available from the menu of instructional design. No single recipe is best or appropriate for all situations. When in doubt, follow those procedures that are sequential and linear in form. When possible, consult models or procedures and improve upon them with fresh approaches that are more appropriate to your given problem situation. Finally, report on your approaches and the success of your innovations. There is always room for another item on the menu.

In-Text Citations

Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design, Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2-16.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Edmonds, G. S. , Branch, R. C. , & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models, Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 55-72.

Hlynka, D. , & Belland, J. C. (Eds. ). (1991). Paradigms Regained : The Uses of Illuminative, Semiotic, and Post-Modern Criticism as Modes Of Inquiry In Educational Technology : A Book of Readings. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Educational Technology Publications.

Saettler, P. (1990). The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective. New York: Macmillan.

Seels, B. , & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of The Field. Washington, D. C. : Association for Educational Communications and Technology.