SpringerLink
Log in

A methodological framework for instructional design model development: Critical dimensions and synthesized procedures

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Instructional design (ID) models have been developed to promote understandings of ID reality and guide ID performance. As the number and diversity of ID practices grows, implicit doubts regarding the reliability, validity, and usefulness of ID models suggest the need for methodological guidance that would help to generate ID models that are relevant and appropriate to the ever-changing design challenges in our world. Because the construction of an ID model involves an intricate externalization of unique sets of design experiences as well as a logical synthesis of relevant research, the purpose of this study was to formulate a methodological framework for ID model development. Through the analysis of 20 selected studies, four critical dimensions and ten synthesized procedures for constructing ID models were formulated. The resulting framework is intended to provide a useful theoretical and practical contribution to the field of ID.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Germany)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Studies marked by an asterisk were used in the analysis

  • *Adamski, A. D. (1998). The development of a systems design model for job performance aids: A qualitative developmental study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

  • *Alonso, F., López, G., Manrique, D. & Viñes, J. M. (2005). An instructional model for web-based e-learning education with a blended learning process approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 217–235.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, B. (1965). Systematic method for designers. London: The Design Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagdonis, A., & Salisbury, D. (1994). Development and validation of models in instructional design. Educational Technology, 34(4), 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, R. E., & Moore, T. V. (1990). Managing interactive video/multimedia projects. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichelmeyer, B., Boling, E., & Gibbons, A. (2006). Instructional design and technology models: Their impact on research, practice and teaching in IDT. In M. Orey, J. McLendon, & R. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook 2006 (pp. 33–49). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boling, E., Easterling, W., Hardré, P., Howard, R., & Roman, T. (2011). ADDIE: Perspectives in transition. Educational Technology, 51(5), 34–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braden, R. A. (1996). The case for linear instructional design and development: A commentary on models, challenges, and myths. Educational Technology, 36(2), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R., & Merrill, M. D. (2011). Characteristics of instructional design models. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 8–16). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional design models. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 77–87). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Branson, R. K. (1978). The interservice procedures for instructional systems development. Educational Technology, 18(3), 11–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, L. J. (1970). Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Chang, K. (2011). A model of action learning program design in higher education. Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 475–505.

  • Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional-design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Clifford, M. A. (2009). Dissecting local design; instructional leadership, curriculum and science education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

  • Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Crawford, C. (2004). Non-linear instructional design model: eternal, synergistic design and development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 413–420.

  • Davies, I. K. (1996). Educational technology: Archetypes, paradigms and models. In D. P. Ely & T. Plomp (Eds.), Classic writings on instructional technology (pp. 15–30). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1900). Psychology and social practice. The Psychological Review, 7(2), 105–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. M. (1978). The systemic design of instruction. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systemic design of instruction (6th ed.). New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, G., Branch, R., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 55–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X., & Zurek, S. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill-structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., York, C. S., & Gedik, N. (2009). Learning from the pros: How experienced designers translate instructional design models into practice. Educational Technology, 49(1), 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Forsyth, J. E. (1997). The construction and validation of an instructional systems design model for community-based train-the-trainer instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

  • Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A., & Rogers, P. (2009). The architecture of instructional theory. In C. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. III, pp. 305–326). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, A. S., Boling, E., & Smith, K. M. (2014). Instructional design models. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 607–616). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, C. (2001). Doing a literature search. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Hegstad, C. D. (2002). Development and maintenance of exemplary formal mentoring programs in fortune 500 companies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL.

  • *Jones, T. S., & Richey, R. C. (2000). Rapid prototy** methodology in action: A developmental study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(2), 63–80.

  • Jung, I., & Rha, I. (1989). Instructional design theories. Seoul: Educational Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kang, J., & Lee, S. S. (2009). The development of blended instructional design model for scaffolding: Applying design-based research. Korean Journal of Educational Information and Media, 15(2), 89–121.

  • Kirschner, P., Carr, C., van Merriёnboer, J., & Sloep, P. (2002). How expert designers design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 15(4), 86–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landa, L. N. (1976). Instructional regulation and control: Cybernetics, algorithmatization and heuristics in education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Laverde, A. C., Cifuentes, Y. S., & Rodriguez, H. Y. R. (2007). Toward an instructional design model based on learning objects. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55 (3), 671–681.

  • Lee, J. (2012). Development of a visual summarizer design model for digital learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

  • *Lee, J., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2009). Formative research on the heuristic task analysis process. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(4), 5–24.

  • Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 255–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lim, C., Youn, S., Park, K., & Hong, M. (2009). A study of an integrated instructional model in a college course for creative problem-solving with online support system. Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 171–203.

  • Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., & Eylon, B. (2004). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Caffee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 438–490). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course: A collaborative design model. Educational Technology Research & Development, 51(4), 85–103.

  • *Olsafsky, B. L. (2006). Rethinking learner-centered instructional design in the context of “No child left behind”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

  • *Park, K. (2010). Designing contexts for the introductory learning activities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

  • Pearl, J. (1984). Heuristics: Intelligent search strategies for computer problem solving. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Peterson, B. J. (2007). An instructional design model for heuristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

  • *Rha, I., & Chung, H. (2001). Develo** an action model for WBI design. Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 27–52.

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (Vol. I, pp. 3–36). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Some thoughts about theories, perfection, and instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. II, pp. 31–47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y. (2009). Theory building. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. III, pp. 365–386). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Instructional design theories and models (Vol. III). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, M. (1975). Patterns of problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B. B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehan, M. D., & Johnson, R. B. (2012). Philosophical and methodological beliefs of instructional design faculty and professionals. Education Technology Research and Development, 60(1), 131–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silber, K. H. (2007). A principle-based model of instructional design: A new way of thinking about and teaching ID. Educational Technology, 47(5), 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvern, L. C. (1968). Systems engineering of education I: Evolution of systems thinking in education. Los Angeles: Education and Training Consultants Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K., & Boling, E. (2009). What do we make of design? Design as a concept in educational technology. Educational Technology, 49(4), 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Spector, J. M., Muraida, D. J., & Marlino, M. R. (1992). Cognitively based models of courseware development. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40(2), 45–54.

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for develo** grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Tracey, M. W. (2001). The construction and validation of an instructional systems design model incorporating multiple intelligences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.

  • Van Merrìënboer, J. J. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four-component instructional design model for teaching training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers’ decisions and priorities: A survey of design practices. Performance & Instruction, 6(2), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory. Educational Technology, 35(6), 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J. (2009). Three trends in instructional design. In J. W. Willis (Ed.), Constructivist instructional design (C-ID); Foundations, models, and examples (pp. 11–45). Charlotte: IAP-information Age Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., South, J. B., Williams, D. D., Allen, S., & Wilson, B. G. (2010). Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanchar, S. C., & Gabbitas, B. W. (2011). Between eclecticism and orthodoxy in instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • York, C., & Ertmer, P. (2011). Towards an understanding of instructional design heuristics: An exploratory Delphi study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(4), 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • *You, Y. (2002). Toward a systemic interpretive model of ISD for understanding ill-structured problem situation. Korean Journal of Educational Technology, 18(2), 249–295.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers whose insightful and supportive comments greatly helped to improve an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Education, Chung-Ang University, 221 Heukseok-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, 156-756, Korea

    Jihyun Lee

  2. Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Seoul, 163 Seoulsiripdae-ro, Dondaemun-gu, Seoul, 130-743, Korea

    Seonyoung Jang

Authors
  1. Jihyun Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seonyoung Jang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seonyoung Jang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, J., Jang, S. A methodological framework for instructional design model development: Critical dimensions and synthesized procedures. Education Tech Research Dev 62, 743–765 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9352-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9352-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation