final instructional design model: a discussion paper

Instructional Design Model 1

University of Calgary

Final Instructional Design Model: A Discussion Paper

by

Kevin Schoepp

A Paper Submitted to Dr. G. Kopp

in Partial Fulfilment of Instructional Design

673- L01

in

The Graduate Division of Educational Research

Calgary, Alberta Fall 2002


Introduction

The development of an instructional design model is a complex process which

attempts to simplify a multifaceted procedure, the design of instruction. Personal attitudes

towards learning theory, instructional design theory, existing instructional design models,

the setting, and the learner, must be considered and their relationships examined. A quality

model should enable the instructional designer to scrutinize these constructs and their

connections, so that an appropriate set of events can be designed that affect learners so

that learning is facilitated (Gagne, Briggs, & Wager, 1988). This paper outlines the evolution

of this instructional design model though an investigation of its components and their

theoretical underpinnings.

Visual Model

Figure 1 Final Instructional Design Model

Curriculum Goals

Theories & Models

Learner

Setting


Model Description

Simple and easy to remember were the guide words and goals for this project, and

fortunately these aims have been realized through the development of this instructional

design model. Gustafson and Branch (1997, p. 76) stated that “a model is a simple

representation of more complex forms.” Hence, a complex model can inhibit instructional

design because it may be too difficult to understand. In order to enhance the understanding

of how these goals have been realized, a detailed description of the model follows.

At the core of this model are the curriculum goals. Because this model is designed

specifically for educational settings in which a prescribed curriculum exists such as a

preparatory language school, K-12, or tertiary institutions, curriculum goals must be central

to this model. The decision to design a model for a specific learning context was made after

reflecting upon the conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models

(Edmonds, Branch, & Mukherjee, 1994). The authors claimed that different models were

appropriate for different contexts. Concurrence with the author’s assertions lead to this

focussed model.

In the next phase of the model, the relationship between learning theories and

models, setting, and learners is that of equals being analyzed. This analysis occurs with

curriculum goals always a consideration. Assessment of all of these components then

progresses to the writing of micro level objectives. The creation phase includes reflection on

all that has come before, but it is the procedure of putting the lesson to paper and making

all the necessary preparations. It is during this process that modifications may be required

to some of the decisions made before. For example, the instructional designer may discover

that the email server will be down for maintenance during class time, so adjustments as to

how content will be exchanged must be made prior to instructional delivery but after having

written objectives. This ability to move between design phases is illustrated through the use

of dashed lines. The delivery phase denotes the actualization of the lesson. Lesson

modifications may be required though. For example, students may not be working


effectively in groups, so a lesson may change to more teacher directed. Changes of this

nature will effect other design phases, lesson objectives might change for instance.

The final two phases are similar in that they both involve evaluation. The learners

can be evaluated informally, formally, summatively, or formatively. The decision as to how

learner evaluation would happen would have been made in the foundation phase, but again

it may change depending on what occurred in the lesson. For example, time may run out,

so the instructor adapts the evaluation to be informal rather formal. Instruction revision is

the process in which an instructor reflects on the lesson and notes any strengths or

weaknesses, so the lesson or similar lessons can be improved upon. It is important to

recognize that this process occurs during all the design phases. That is the reason why it is

the perimeter stage which can permeate all the other phases.

Model Evolution

The three phase evolutionary process of designing an instructional design model was

full of trepidation, missteps, growth, and finally understanding and contentment. The

process, although rewarding, would have been enhanced through the utilization of a task or

project log, that is, a document to record the steps and cognition involved in the model’s

development. Reflection is often cited as an essential element of teaching in order to

improve it, and a project or task log would have fostered better reflection and, in turn,

simplify and improve the narration of the evolutionary process. However, the model has

evolved without a project or task log, and that process will be illustrated henceforth.

The basic layout, other than a few minor alterations, of this final instructional design

model has remained because feedback from the previous version was that it was a good

visual model which is simple and easy to remember. One of my goals in designing a model

were to keep it simple because many of the more prominent models such as Gerlach and

Ely (as cited in Berger, 1996) (see Appendix A), ADDIE (Strickland, n.d.) ASSURE

(Shepherd, n.d.) and Dick and Carey (Dick, 1996) (see Appendix B), have at their core a

level of simplicity that makes them accessible to more than experienced instructional


designers or researchers. While complexity may add to the breadth and depth of an

instructional design model, there is an inverse relationship to its usability. Even if a model is

the most comprehensive model in existence, if it is too difficult to understand, it will not be

used. Therefore, I have attempted to strike a balance between complexity,

comprehensiveness, and usability. The evidence that this goal has been accomplished is

that this model was able to guide the development of my instructional blueprint.

The initial model was very rudimentary in its theoretical underpinnings but did serve

as a constructive starting point for the creation of the informed and final instructional design

model. The first draft of the initial model was very hierarchical and moved from top to

bottom (see Figure 2). Following the realization that the parts encompassing the foundation

Figure 2 First Draft of Initial Model


of the model were at the top of the model, the model was changed to so that the foundation

would be at the bottom (see Figure 3). This decision was made because the foundation

Figure 3 Initial Model

metaphor, acting as a support structure, logically seemed more able to provide support

from the bottom not the top. The size of the boxes within the foundation were to represent

the degree of importance for each contributing factor. Desired learner outcomes and

corresponding learning theories were deemed to be most fundamental because goals

represent your destination and learning theories how to get there. Of course the setting and

the learner play a role in these decisions as well, but they were represented to a lesser

degree in smaller boxes. To better demonstrate the interplay between the parts of the


foundation, they were all placed inside a large box to represent that they are really one

phase. From the preliminary interaction between the foundation’s components came the

hierarchical progress through the remaining design stages until the revision loop signals a

re-examination of all that had been done.

The significance of the theoretical base was then upgraded by adding names of

theorists to show my many different influences. Because of influences from both second

language learning and learning theory, this was considered necessary. During the

identification of my influential theorists, I separated the theorists into two different camps,

those involved in language learning theory, Chomsky, Krashen, and Long, and those most

known for their work in learning theory, Skinner, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Dewey. The most

arousing moment for me, however, was the understanding that there was such a close

relationship between the two realms. Skinner’s behaviourist position had a strong influence

on language learning which manifested itself in through the use of discrete point grammar

practice with the hopes of establishing new habits (Lightbown, & Spada, 1995).

Unfortunately, this method was proved to be at best an incomplete explanation of the

language learning process. In response to Skinner, Chomsky (1959) argued that language

learning involves innate ability, that goes far beyond the recognition of patterns as claimed

by the behaviorists. These beliefs mimic those of the cognitivist Piaget since he postulated

that there were underlying mental structures guiding our understanding (On Purpose

Associates, 1998). From this, Krashen (1982) developed the input hypothesis which claims

in part that a learner requires input just beyond their current level to advance. This is

clearly the same concept as that posed by Vygotsky (1978) in which concepts need be

presented just above the learner for effective learning to occur. Further development in

language learning theory came from Long in the interaction hypothesis (Long, 1985, 1996,

as cited in Brown, 2000) which posits that authentic interaction is key to language learning.

Again there exists an intimate relationship between this concept and work by Vygotsky; the

zone of proximal development similarly sees learners construct new language through social


interaction. Finally, Dewey was included as a major influence because many of his writings

about education seemed to fit perfectly with modern ideas about learning and language

learning. For example, Dewey (1963) stated education is a social process and that

when education is based upon experience and educative experience is seen to

be a social process, the situation changes radically. The teacher loses the

position of external boss or dictator but takes on that of leader of group

activities. (p. 59)

At this stage of the models development, the parallel relationship between learning theory

and language learning theory became clear. I no longer viewed them as separate entities

but rather as different sides of the same coin.

Through further investigation of learning theories and instructional design models,

areas requiring adjustment within the initial model were recognized for the creation of an

informed model (see Figure 4). Nevertheless, the underlying principle of simplicity was to

Figure 4 Informed Model


remain. Most of the components from the previous version would again be present in this

model because they accurately characterized elements of an instructional design model. The

first major change to occur within the model was the move away from sharp edged boxes

presented hierarchically to the use of layered ovals. Support for this decision came from

Gustafson and Branch (1997) who claimed that curvilinear compositions with ovals better

acknowledge the complexities and iterative nature of the design process than do standard

rectilinear portrayals. Another modification to the model was that curriculum goals were

added as the center point to the original foundation components because it was decided

that the primary purpose of the model would be at the micro level. Consequently, all

instructional design decisions would need to revolve around a prescribed curriculum. The

interaction between the original foundation components would remain similar to the

previous version, but now they revolve around the prescribed curriculum. In addition, it was

decided that the foundation elements should be equal in size because no section takes

precedent over the others. Continued investigation into instructional design models and

instructional theory was making listing influences impractical. As a result, the influential

theorists were removed because they cluttered the foundation, and omission of a name

could be interpreted negatively. The sequential process was still represented through the

layers of the oval, but dashed lines were to help symbolize the possible movement between

phases.

At first glance, there does not appear to be much revision between the informed

model and the final model (see Figure 1). However, the three changes that have occurred

are far from subtle. It is noteworthy that comments from the instructor shaped these three

modifications since this was the first opportunity for instructor feedback. The only input

from a partner was that the model was clear, but it needed to be well justified. Desired

learner outcomes were eliminated from the foundation because of a perceived redundancy

between these and the curriculum goals. This lead to the addition of objectives as the next

phase in the process. This is to signify that through guidance from the curriculum, the


relationship amongst the learner, setting, and theories and models are analyzed which leads

to the creation of micro level objectives. Method of delivery was actually replaced by

objectives because there again seemed to be a redundancy with the delivery component in

the previous model. The final modification was the alteration to the wording of the core

element, learning theories. At this advanced stage of development, I realized that I was

influenced by far more than just learning theories. My opinions concerning instructional

design were now being affected by learning theory, second language learning theory,

instructional design theory, and instructional design models; thus, the oval was changed to

read theories and models. Again by not including the specific influences, the decision of

what theories and models are most appropriate for the instruction is left to the instructional

designer.

Model Rationale

The rationalization of this instructional design model requires that two essential ideas

be clarified. The first clarification has to do with my personal definition of instructional

design, while the second is the way in which I view the significance of context in the

application and design of a model. The personal definition of instructional design should

foster superior understanding in terms of the theoretical underpinnings that guide my model

design decisions. Information concerning the magnitude of context will improve the

evaluation of the model.

In order to effectively complete the instructional design model, I needed to define

the three constructs that constitute an instructional design model. Because I had never

heard of instructional design prior to registration in the Educational Technology Program,

this was essential if I was to complete the task. The terms would act as organizers as

defined by Ausubel (1968), that would allow me to bridge the gap of knowledge before

successfully completing the task at hand. The first term, instruction, is defined by Gagne,

Briggs and Wager (1988, p. 181) as “a set of events external to the learner designed to

support the internal process of learning. The important idea here is the internal process


because that directly relates to my forthcoming interpretation of the constructivist

construct. Next, Merriam-Webster (2002) described design as constructing according to a

plan. This is associated with the systematic nature of my model. From these two definitions,

my own interpretation of instructional design was born; Instructional design is the

systematic construction of learning which supports the internalization of knowledge. The

internalization of knowledge is a complex process involving memory which according to

Gagne, Briggs, and Wager (1988, p. 11) includes these internal processes:

1. Reception of stimuli by receptors,

2. Registration of information by sensory registers,

3. Selective perception for storage in short-term memory (STM),

4. Rehearsal to maintain information in STM,

5. Semantic encoding for storage in long-term memory (LTH),

6. Retrieval from LTM to working memory (STM),

7. Response generation to effectors,

8. Performance in the learner’s environment, and

9. Control of processes through executive strategies.

My interpretation of these processes are that learners should be able to demonstrate what

they have learned. Mayer (1999) claimed that the “hallmark of deep understanding is the

ability to transfer what was learned to novel situations” (p. 156). The final key construct is

that of the model. Gustafson and Branch (1997) wrote that models are created to

conceptualize a complex reality in a uncomplicated form. Hence, simplicity was one of the

foundations for my model. Clarification of these terms improved the depth and breadth of

my comprehension and allowed me to create a more informed model.

The key constituents to my instructional design definition are the words, systematic

and internalization of knowledge. I believe that a systematic instructional design model can

afford the opportunities for designing constructivist as well as objectivist learning

environments. This is achievable because I believe the theories behind a model should not


limit the type of instruction designed, and I concur with Mayer (1999) in that constructivist

learning can be fostered through a non-discovery approach. The structure of my model

supports both styles of instruction because no limits are placed on the instructional designer

as to what the theoretical direction must be. The core of the model represents the

interwoven relationship between the curriculum, learner, setting, and theories and models.

It does not dictate the theories or models that influence the instruction because this

decision should be made by the instructional designer, so the most appropriate methods will

be employed to accomplish the goals of the instruction. Jonassen (1999) had similar

sentiments:

I believe that objectivism and constructivism offer different perspectives on

the learning process from which we can make inferences about how we ought

to engender learning. The goal of my writing and teaching is not to reject or

replace objectivism. Rather, I prefer to think of them as complimentary

design tools to be applied in different contexts. (p. 217)

In addition to this, I believe that an iterative design process can be represented in a

fairly hierarchical manner in a well-articulated model. Currently, the impression I get from

most instructional design models is that one phase of the design process needs to be

completed before the next phase can begin. I do not think that these accurately represent

the iterative nature of the design process. The other extreme, a constructivist model such

as the R2D2 Model (Willis, 1995) (see Figure 5) can become so abstract that it is difficult to

understand, especially because there is no obvious starting point. I attempted to strike a

balance between the two instructional design paradigms, so that it could be accessible to

all. Further support for my belief that an iterative design process can be represented in a

fairly hierarchical manner in a well-articulated model is that as argued by Dick (1996), when

constructivist models are proceduralized, they are often very similar to more traditional ID

models. Therefore, the design of the model does not necessarily limit the type of learning

that will be fostered.


Figure 5 R2D2 Model

Besides requiring a deep understanding of the characteristics of an instructional

design model, it is essential to identify the context of a model’s utilization. As Gustafson and

Branch stated in 1997, the theory that provides a framework for a model must be

compatible to the context of where the model is to be applied if the instruction is to

succeed. The plethora of current instructional design models does not make any models

redundant because each one is uniquely situated serving different locations, goals, and

learners. Therefore, by using the conceptual framework provided by Edmonds, Branch, and

Mukherjee (1994), I have chosen to devise a Novice/Soft-System-Based Instructional

Design Model for higher education at the lesson level. This model is meant for novice

designers who have expertise in content such as teachers. While they may lack knowledge

into the formal design process, they are experts in instruction. The exact context for this

model is an English for Academic Purposes program following a content-based approach.

Theoretical Foundation

The theoretical foundation for this model is influenced by a number of theories and

models that were deemed most thought-provoking or supported previously held beliefs.

These dominant ideas manifest themselves throughout the entire model, from its core

through to revision. Many influences have already been discussed in other sections of the


paper, so this section will focus on the theories and models that either require elaboration

or have not yet been examined.

A good place to begin the discussion concerning the theoretical foundation for the

model is with the five first principles of instructional design as synthesized Merrill (2001).

His review of current instructional design theories led to the identification of these

principles:

1. Problem- effective instruction is problem-based;

2. Activation- effective instruction must activate existing relevant knowledge;

3. Demonstration- effective instruction needs to demonstrate the knowledge and skill;

4. Application- effective instruction provides the opportunity for the learner to apply the

new knowledge or skill;

5. Integration- effective instruction allows the learner to integrate the new knowledge

and skill into their everyday life.

Merrill claims that “research will demonstrate that if a given instructional program violates

one or more of these first principles, there will be a decrement in learning and performance”

(p. 460). The way in which these principles are manifested in my model are in the theories

and models component within the central core. If the principles are ingredients of all good

instruction, then they should be present in the instruction designed from the model because

it is influenced by many of the models investigated by Merrill. For example, the problem-

based principle can include the division of a complex problem into a series of smaller

problems until leaner has control. The Elaboration Theory (Reigeluth, 1999) is a model

based on this premise and the importance of problem sequence. In addition, Constructivist

Learning Environments (Jonassen, 1999) has at its core the problem, case, project, or

problem. It also stresses the importance of experience which facilitates knowledge

construction, a principle mentioned previously through Vygotsky, Long, and Dewey.

Another valuable tool that shaped development of my model is the ARCS Model

(Keller, 1987). Its greatest strength is that many of its motivational strategies can be


applied to other models and theories. In fact, many of the motivational strategies are

present in many of the models cited within this paper. One of the methods within ARCS to

capture the students attention is to use Inquiry or Incongruity. An example of this comes

from Constructivist Learning Environments (Jonassen, 1999) which also has the problem as

its focus. A supplementary benefit of the ARCS Model is that it includes a systematic design

process to be used other models. The procedure consists of four phases, define, design,

develop, and evaluate. Without going into great detail, it is obvious that there is overlap

between these four phases and the stages within my model. Some of the parallels are that

both contain an initial analysis, the writing of objectives, and an evaluation phase. The

belief that motivation is key to good instruction is present in my model through the

application of the ARCS process in all phases of my model.

Although the association between the theoretical foundation and my model is not

always obvious or prescribed, within the objective writing stage it is guided by Bloom’s

Taxonomy of the Cognitive Domain (Bloom, 1956) and Krathwohl's Taxonomy of the

Affective Domain (as cited in Dabbagh, 1999). The reason these taxonomies have been

selected over others is that they are very robust and well-known. Within the cognitive

domain, six hierarchical levels moving from simple to complex have been identified as

knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Depending upon

the purpose of the instruction, the instructional designer would need to write objectives

using the taxonomy. Many instructional units will include objectives from many of the levels,

but the higher level ones will facilitate a better understanding. The focus of my model is

clearly the cognitive domain, however, an instructional designer would be negligent if they

did not consider the affective domain. Martin and Reigeluth (1999) assert that “modern

theories of psychology recognize more than ever the interrelationships among thoughts and

feelings. Purposeful action is based on attention to both affect and cognition” (p. 488). An

example of the importance of the affective domain is that much of the work required in the

constructivist realm dictates collaboration to socially construct new meaning. Therefore,


instruction that utilizes collaboration will include some facet of the affective domain. The

model utilizes these taxonomies through the consideration of the core elements of the

model rotating around the established curriculum. The instructional designer would need to

decide upon what the appropriate objectives would be and use the taxonomies as a guide.

Another important consideration in my model is the learner and the recognition that

each learner is unique and possesses different strengths and weaknesses. Hence, a natural

relationship exists between this belief and the Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner,

1999). In relation to education, Gardner posits that “if students indeed harbour different

kinds of minds, with different strengths, interests, and strategies-then it is worth

considering whether pivotal curricular materials could be taught and assessed in a variety of

ways” (p. 79). This view of the learner as unique and its effect on the curriculum and

teaching is a focal point for my model. The instructional designer needs to continually

evaluate the ways in which instruction can occur so that various methods can be employed

with the hopes of benefiting all learners.

Model Limitations

The purpose of this section is twofold. First, it is to characterize the model using the

conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models (Edmonds, Branch, &

Mukherjee, 1994). Because instructional design can be practiced in numerous

environments, various models have been created to reflect this difference. Therefore,

classifying where a model works best is essential. Second, this analysis will allow for the

identification of the model’s limitations, provide a rationale for these, and finally, suggest

directions for future improvements.

The purpose of the framework designed by Edmonds, Branch, and Mukherjee (1994,

p. 56) is to “promote thinking about assessing the relative value of instructional design

models.” This is done by classification in the following categories:

1. Type of orientation;

2. Type of knowledge;


3. Required expertise;

4. Theoretical origins;

5. Instructional contexts;

6. Communication levels.

There are three possible orientations or purposes for models, either prescriptive,

descriptive, or both. Descriptive models describe a learning environment and speculate how

variables will be affected. Prescriptive models prescribe the ways in which a learning

environment can be altered to bring about the desired learning outcome. Instructional

design models which are both descriptive and prescriptive are very comprehensive and

detailed in how to proceed. My model is primarily descriptive because it allows for

interpretation amongst its elements rather than dictating directly, but it does contain

elements of a descriptive model.

It is also important to determine the type of knowledge acquisition that a model is to

support, either procedural or declarative. Clark in 1989 (as cited in Edmonds, Branch, &

Mukherjee, 1994) stated that procedural knowledge focuses on examples, practice with

feedback, and criterion-referenced evaluation, while declarative models emphasize

discovery-type instruction and more abstract material. My model does not discriminate

against either form of knowledge. The relationship between the core components will dictate

the type of knowledge desired.

One of the basic tents of this model was that it be accessible to more than just

expert instructional designers. Level of expertise, either novice or expert, required to work

with a model is the third phase in the framework. A model such as Dick and Carey (1996)

(see Appendix B) would be effective for a novice because it is very step-by-step, while

Willis’s R2D2 Model (1995) (see Figure 5) could be more useful for an expert because it

relies on intuition and experience. The classification of my model within this realm is novice

because it demonstrates the progressive processes involved in instructional design.


The next classification is that of theoretical origins; the three possibilities are

systems, soft systems, or intuition. To summarize the explanation provided by Edmonds,

Branch, and Mukherjee (1994), the relationship between these categories can be

represented on a continuum (see Figure 6) which moves from most structured, hard, to

Figure 6 Theoretical Continuum

least structured, intuitive. Because the basis for systems theory is on process, it is the

theoretical origin for most instructional design models.

At this stage of the categorization process, Edmonds, Branch, and Mukherjee (1994)

believe it is important to classify a model before advancing to the final two phases because

they both represent aspects of the environment, so they are fundamentally dissimilar to the

first four levels. My model is identified as Novice/Soft-System-Based:

An instructional design model that is meant for novice instructional designers

who have knowledge and expertise in a specific context such as teachers. A

teacher has expertise in instruction but may be a novice in terms of the

formal instructional design process. (pp. 65-66)

The final two categories, instructional contexts and communication levels, are vital

because a model has an ecology and ignoring the ramifications of this will lead to

inappropriate solutions to instructional problems (Edmonds, Branch, & Mukherjee, 1994).

The choices for instructional contexts are K-12, higher education, business, or government.

For communication levels, the options are lesson, unit, module, course, curriculum,

institutional, or mass. Because my model revolves around the prescribed curriculum, it is

best suited for K-12, but may include higher education as well. The most appropriate

classification for communication level is that of the lesson, unit, module, or course since the

Hard Systems

Soft Systems

Intuitive


curriculum goals are present and the model contains the actual lesson delivery. Figure 7

represents the classification of my model within the conceptual framework by highlighting

the appropriate categories.

Figure 7 Conceptual Framework

Examination into the meaning of this model iterates its appropriateness for the

tertiary teacher. A systems-theory-based model, which it is, recognizes the existing goals as

part of its structure (Edmonds, Branch, & Mukherjee, 1994). In an educational environment

this is usually the prescribed curriculum, so teachers have different needs from a model

than do others outside of the educational setting. The contemporary trend in education

toward constructivist learning can be constructed using a systems model. The negative

connotation a model may have because of its linear layout should not be confused with a

strict procedural system. As Dick (1996, p. 59) aptly phrased it, “when the model is used to

create instruction, the flow of information is always two-way and changes are made.” There

is no reason why a teacher cannot employ this model in the design of instruction which

follows a constructivist pedagogy because it has an iterative component.


The categorization of this model now permits an unbiased analysis of the model’s

limitations because it should not be applied into erroneous environments. One of the

limitations of this model stems from the goal of developing a simple and easy-to-use model.

As stated earlier, I believe there exists a trade-off between usability and complexity, but the

simplicity of the model may also be a weakness because of a lack of depth in some of the

elements. For example, the core elements in particular do not stress in any detail their

inherent complexity. There are many unstated elements within the learner, setting, and

theories and models. The instructional designer is expected to recognize and be able to

identify elements of each on their own. However, the categorization of the model is to

facilitate its appropriate utilization so incorrect implementations do not occur.

The other major limitation to the model is related to the lack of depth mentioned

above but is specific to the theories and models component in the core. The model takes no

stand as to which theories or models it deems as most influential for fostering effective

learning. It takes for granted that an instructional designer, which may be a teacher, is able

to make good design decisions. The reason behind this determination is my personal

experience as a teacher. I have felt that many of the theories and models discussed in this

course, although new to me, contained elements that have always been a consideration in

my instructional design. While the concepts behind the models and theories were not new,

their names and identification were. The model assumes that this is true of its target design

audience as well.


References

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational Psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Wilson.

Berger, C. (1996). Gerlach and Ely teaching and media: A systematic approach. Retrieved

November 18, 2002, from the University of Michigan web site:

http://www.umich.edu/~ed626/Gerlach_Ely/ge_main.htm.

Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive

domain. New York David McKay.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY:

Longman.

Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language, 35, 26-58.

Retrieved October December 1, 2002, from JSTOR database.

Dabbagh, N. (1999). Krathwohl's taxonomy of affective domain. Retrieved November 9,

2002, from George Mason University web site:

http://classweb.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/Resources/Resources2/krathstax.htm.

Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade? Educational

Technology, Research and Development, 44(3), 55-63.

Edmonds, G. S., Branch, R. C., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for

comparing instructional design models. Educational Technology, Research and

Development, 42(2), 55-72.

Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. & Wager, W. W. (1988). Principles of instructional design (3rd Ed.).

Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Gardner, H. (1999). Multiple approaches to understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),

Instructional-design theories and models, Volume ll: A new paradigm of instructional

theory (pp. 70-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Revisioning models of instructional development.

Educational Technology, Research and Development, 45(3), 73-89.

Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth

(Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models, Volume ll: A new paradigm of

instructional theory (pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design.

Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Toronto:

Pergamon Press.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1995). How languages are learned. Toronto: Oxford

university Press.

Martin, B. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Affective education and the affective domain:

Implications for instructional-design theories and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.),

Instructional-design theories and models, Volume ll: A new paradigm of instructional

theory (pp. 485-509). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth

(ED.), Instructional-design theories and models, Volume ll: A new paradigm of

instructional theory (pp. 141-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Merriam-Webster Online. (2002). Retrieved November 4, 2002, from http://www.m-

w.com/home.htm.

Merrill, D. M. (2001). First principles of instruction. Journal of Structural Learning &

Intelligent Systems, 14, 459-466.

On Purpose Associates. (1998). Piaget. Retrieved November 22, from

http://www.funderstanding.com/piaget.cfm.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). The elaboration theory: guidance for scope and sequence

decisions. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models, Volume


ll: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 425-453). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Shepherd, G. (n.d.). The ASSURE model. Retrieved November 19, 2002, from the University

of North Carolina Asheville web site:

http://www.unca.edu/education/edtech/techcourse/assure.htm.

Strickland, A. W. (n.d.) ADDIE. Retrieved October 14, 2002, from Idaho State University

web site: http://ed.isu.edu/addie/index.html.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-

interpretivist theory. Educational Technology, 30, Nov-Dec, 5-23.


Appendix A


Appendix B

final instructional design model: a discussion paper

Documents