update model critique kuan chung chen
TRANSCRIPT
Classroom Instructional Development Model
— The Gerlach & Ely Model
A Critique by Kuan-Chung Chen February 19, 2004 Dr. Rob Branch EDIT 6180
Specificationof Content
Specificationof Objectives
Measurementof EnteringBehaviors
Derminationof Strategy
Organizationof Groups
Allocation ofTime
Allocation ofSpace
Selection ofResources
Evaluation ofPerformance
Analysis ofFeedback
Figure1 The Gerlach and Ely ModelNote. From Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach, Second Edition, by V.S. Gerlach & D. P. Ely, 1980, MA: Allynand Bacon. Copyright 1980 by Pearson Education
Kuan-Chung Chen 2
Introduction
Classroom models of instructional development
Classroom instructional development models, classified by Gustafson (1981), are those that
are explicitly or implicitly designed as roadmaps for schoolteachers. The instructional events are
generally taking place in classrooms.
Relative to product and system oriented models, classroom models generate one or only a few
hours of instruction, commit lower resources to development, require lower instructional design
skills, and put more emphasis on arrangement and selection of instructional resources.
The Gerlach and Ely model
The Gerlach and Ely model (1980) is such a classroom model created by Vernon S. Gerlach
and Donald P. Ely. They decided that there was a great need for schoolteachers to have a
comprehensive overview of teaching and learning; specifically, they lack a practical roadmap for
planning their daily instruction. For this reason, the authors determined ten most necessary
instructional elements and created a step-by-step guidance for instructional planning (see Figure
1).
The Gerlach and Ely model was constructed based on two rationales: the systematic approach
and pragmatism. Throughout the model, the role of the teacher is a coordinator of learning
resources rather than a traditional presenter of information or knowledge. According to Ely, this
model “has stood the test of time” and “serves the classroom teachers well (personal
communication conducted by Sarah Graboski, February 2003).”
Kuan-Chung Chen 3
Conceptual Base
The Gerlach and Ely model was first introduced in their first edition of Teaching and media:
systematic approach in 1971. At the time, the “systems approach” became prevalent in academic
and educational settings. The systems approach is based on the premise that any organization of
people, things, or people and things is a system made up of elements. Each element has its
functions and goals. The goals of the total system are attended only when all the elements are
integrated in an effective and efficient pattern (Gerlach & Ely, 1980). However, due to the fact
that teachers were not provided with enough time, money or resources to handle this complex
approach, very few instances were proved successful.
In view of this, the authors adapted a more practical way called the “systematic approach” to
create the model. They synthesized several features from the systems approach and integrated
them into a step-by-step model comprising ten most necessary elements contributing to instruction.
The authors described it as “a systemic planning for instruction”.
Students are the focus of the systematic instructional planning. They are more concerned
about their motives, individual needs and learning pace. The role of the teacher, however, is no
more a giver of information; instead, is a coordinator of learning resources. They call upon the
spectrum of resources available to provide the conditions which will help pupils to reach their
objectives (Gerlach & Ely, 1980).
Theoretical Base
Systems theory and pragmatism formed the theoretical base of the Gerlach and Ely model:
Kuan-Chung Chen 4
Systems theory
Systems theory was proposed in the 1940's by the biologist Luding von Bertalanffy and
furthered by Ross Ashby. Bertalanffy emphasized that real systems are open to, and interact with
their environments, and that they can acquire qualitatively new properties through emergence,
resulting in continual evolution.
Within a respective system, there lie numerous elements. Each element has its own
functions and goals but simultaneously the elements are intercorrelated. Any change of one
element will affect all of the others and in turn, will have a magnified effect on the whole system.
The process is called the “ripple effect”.
The Gerlach and Ely model adapt the concept of the systems theory and regards content,
students, teachers, time, space, multimedia, and many other resources as elements of an
instructional event. Only after proper arrangement of the elements could the instructional goals be
effectively achieved.
Pragmatism
Pragmatism was first proposed in the 1870's by Charles Sanders Peirce. However, it was John
Dewey (1859-1952) that furthered its interpretation on education.
Pragmatism states that it is impossible and unnecessary to pursue the “ultimate truth”.
Instead, the goal of education is for students to actively obtain knowledge from interacting with
the ever-changing world (note: we can see the shadow of constructivism). To this end, students
become the center of education and that the “experience ” the students gain from the learning
environment become the focal point of planning instruction. The best way of teaching, in the
Kuan-Chung Chen 5
viewpoint of pragmatism, is through “guidance” rather than control or direction.
The Gerlach and Ely model stresses the importance of learning experience, focuses on the
interaction between students and the environmental elements, points out its student-center
orientation and specifies the coordinate and guidance role of the teacher. All of these fully
comply with the gist of pragmatism.
Operational Aspect
The Gerlach and Ely Model is a mix of linear and concurrent development activities.
Several steps are seen as simultaneous, but the model is generally linear in its orientation
(Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Ten elements are presented in the model and could roughly be
classified into five stages.
The first stage comprises two elements: specification of content and specification of
objectives. Objectives are defined as specific skills that the learner should be able to display
under defined conditions at a designated time (Gerlach, 1980). The authors put content ahead of
objective due to the fact that in schools content was usually pre-determined. However, the
two-way arrow between the elements shows that content and objectives may be simultaneous and
interconnected.
Stage 2 assesses the entering behavior of students. Teachers make use of available records or
design pretests to measure each student’s abilities, aptitudes and starting knowledge of the content.
The purpose of it is to get enough information that will ensure teachers to design individualized
instruction.
In stage 3 there are five interrelated elements: determination of strategy, organization of
Kuan-Chung Chen 6
groups, allocation of time, allocation of space, and selection of resources. These five elements
are simultaneous and interdependent. Teachers determine to take expository or inquiry
instructional strategies depending on learning objectives, group size, time, space and available
resources. For example, expository approach is better applied when the group size is large, and
the main objective is to convey information.
The next decision in this model is the organization of groups. Teachers determine the
appropriate group size according to the objectives. They could ask the following questions and
determine the best choice:
1. Which objectives can be reached by the learners on their own?
2. Which objectives can be achieved through interaction among the learners themselves?
3. Which objectives can be achieved through formal presentation and through interaction
between you and the learner?
Similarly, the decision of time, space and learning resources could be determined using the
same fashion, but note that due to time constraints, learning resources such as audio, motion
pictures, real things and computer-assisted instruction, are selected rather than developed. The
ability of coordination is better stressed in this stage.
Stage 4 comes to the evaluation of performance. According to the authors, performance is
the interaction between teachers and learners, between the learner and other learners, or between
the learner and an instructional medium. In simple cases teachers conduct evaluation by asking
questions to verify the correctness of the intended behavior. However, in more complex or
affectionate situations, it becomes difficult to evaluate.
The last stage is element 10, analysis of feedback. This process is like a thermostat that
Kuan-Chung Chen 7
provides confirmation or corrective information of room temperatures. In this stage, teachers get
the information from each previous stage about the extent the objectives have been reached, and
some corrective information to bridge the gap between entering behaviors and instructional goals.
ADDIE Components
The Correspondence of the Gerlach and Ely model to ADDIE is illustrated in Figure 2.
Analysis
The Gerlach and Ely model contains several components of the analysis phase. The first is
content resources specification, which lies in element 1, “specification of content”. The second
similarity is the statement of instructional goal in element 2, “specification of objectives”. Note
that the model doesn’t differentiate between instructional goals from performance objectives.
Consequently, item 2 corresponds to both the analysis and design phases in ADDIE. During
element 3 “measurement of entering behavior”, performance analysis and learner analysis are
performed. Teachers use available records and teacher-designed pretests to determine entering
behaviors of the individual. The last similarity is element 5 “organization of groups”. Learner
groups are specified according to the objectives.
Design
The main part of the design phase is task inventory. Though Gerlach and Ely model doesn’t
create such a detailed inventory, there are two elements that correspond to the design phase: in
element 2 “specification of objectives” instructional goals were proposed, accompanied by the
Specificationof Content
Specificationof
Objectives
Measurement of EnteringBehaviors
Evaluation ofPerformance
Analysis ofFeedback
Analysis Design Development Implementation Evaluationv Analyze
Performancev Determine
Instructionalgoals
v Conduct a learneranalysis
v Determine probabledelivery system(including costestimate)
v Submit a projectmanage plan
v Conduct a taskinventory
v Composeperformanceobjectives
v Generatetestingstrategies
v Calculate returnon investment
v Generateinstructionalstrategies
v Select or developsupporting media
v Develop guides forthe learner
v Develop guides forthe facilitator
v Conduct formativerevisions
v Conduct a Pilot Test
v Select, prepare andschedule learners
v Select, prepare andschedule facilitators
v Determine qualityassurance criteria
v Select evaluationtools
v Conductevaluations
Dete
rmin
e In
stru
ctio
nal G
oals
Compose Perform
ance Pbjectives
1
2
39
10
Conduct Evaluations
The Gerlach & Ely Model
The ADDIE Model
Inte
grat
e In
stru
ctio
nal S
trate
gies
, Tec
hniq
ues
and
Reso
urce
s in
Inst
ruct
iona
l Eve
nts
Dete
rmin
e Le
arne
r Gro
up A
ccor
ding
To
the
Obj
ectiv
es
Derminationof Strategy
Organizationof Groups
Allocation ofTime
Allocation ofSpace
Selection ofResources
4
5
6
7
8
Selec
t App
ropr
iate
Instr
uctio
nal M
ater
ials
Measur
e the D
egree
of Ac
hievem
tnt of t
he Ob
jective
sTesti
ng S
trateg
y
Cont
ent R
esou
rces
Spe
cifica
tion
Kuan-Chung ChenFigure 2 The ADDIE correspondence of the Garlach and Ely model
Analy
ze Le
arne
r Abil
ity an
d Apti
tude
Kuan-Chung Chen 9
corresponding situation and criteria. Additionally, in element 9 “evaluation of performance”
testing strategies are also created.
Development
The Gerlach and Ely model has the most similarities with ADDIE in this phase. From element
4 through element 8, teachers integrate and plan appropriate strategies, learner groups, time, space
and resources. Specifically, in element 8, teachers select appropriate instructional materials,
which directly relate to the development phase. Finally, in element 10 “analysis of feedback”,
teachers measure the extent of goal achievement. It assimilates formative revisions in the
ADDIE model.
Implementation
Typically the implementation stage of ADDIE comprises learner plan, facilitator plan and
train-the-trainer agenda. However, in Gerlach and Ely model no direct correspondence of
ADDIE could be found in this stage. It might be that the authors stressed the “planning” instead
of “implementing” of instruction. Moreover, since the model is designed for schoolteachers for
their daily instruction, there is less possibility to generate a train-the-trainer session.
In spite of this, we cannot immediately conclude that there is no implementational aspect in
the Gerlach and Ely model. Instead, when we look closer to the learner plan and facilitator plan
in ADDIE, we could see that some points are implicitly embedded in the Gerlach and Ely model,
such as schedules in the learner plan, especially in stage3.
Kuan-Chung Chen 10
Evaluation
Element 9 “evaluation of performance” corresponds to the evaluation phase of ADDIE. In
addition, element 10 “analysis of feedback” is also indirectly linked to evaluation. It is because
the analysis of feedback provides information of the degree the objectives have been reached and
is thus supportive to the evaluation.
Edmonds’ Six-level Components
Edmonds, Branch, and Mukherjee (1994) constructed a conceptual framework for classifying
instructional development models. It includes six levels: (1) type of orientation, (2) type of
knowledge, (3) required expertise, (4) theoretical origins, (5) instructional contexts, and (6) level
of communication. The correspondence of the Gerlach and Ely model on Edmonds six-level
components is illustrated in Figure 3.
Orientation
Evidently, the Gerlach and Ely model is considered to be a “prescriptive” model. This
orientation lays stress on how to change or organize variables in the learning environment and
expect the desired outcomes. Identically, the Gerlach and Ely model was created as a guidance
for schoolteachers to plan their instruction. Only when variables, such as time, space, resources
are properly allocated could the desired objectives be achieved.
Knowledge Structure
The Gerlach and Ely model presents a mix of linear and concurrent development activities
Kuan-Chung Chen 11
that allows users to follow step-by-step. It stresses on how to reach the goal instead of why we
reach a goal, and thus could be classified as a “procedural” model.
Figure 3 Gerlach and Ely model on Edmonds et. al.: Six-level Components. Graphic
Sketched by Sarah Graboski (2003). Reprinted with permission.
Expertise Level
Basically, the model is designed for a novice teacher to follow step-by-step to plan their
instruction. However, experts can also benefit from it since it renders an overall and systematic
view of instruction, plus valuable information of learning resources allocation that are suitable for
their reference.
Kuan-Chung Chen 12
Structure
The Gerlach and Ely model could be regarded as a soft-system-based model. Though its
concept framework originates from the systems theory, it was adjusted to be a “systematic” model
due to the general failure of systems approach in education, and time, budget and resources
constraints in real instructional settings.
Context
In general, the model is designed for school education without specifying suitability for K-12
or higher education. However, my opinion is that it is more suitable for K-12 instruction than
higher education. One reason is that the situations described in the model and many other
examples the authors provide are occurred in K-12 classrooms. Another reason is that the K-12
instruction requires more guidance and planning of teachers. In higher education, students are
supposed to have more opportunity and responsibility for self-directed and self-paced learning as
well as resource finding.
In addition, the Gerlach and Ely model is not supposed to be well suited in business and
government since the environmental contexts and the course structure are significantly different.
Level
Corresponding to its instructional contexts, the model best addresses the levels of unit,
module, lesson, and course since all of these are conducted in K-12 and higher educational
instructions.
Kuan-Chung Chen 13
Scholarly Opinion
The Gerlach and Ely model takes a systematic view of instruction. It notes that elements in
an education system are dynamic and interdependent. It also clarifies the teacher’s role as a
coordinator of learning resources and stresses that students are the center of instruction. Most of
those perspectives remain true even after thirty years in the 21st century.
The model provides a procedural, step-by-step guidance for teachers. It practically adopts
the features of systems approach and transformed it into a more viable structure, and takes in to
account the time, money, and resource constraints. All of the evidence reveals the endeavor that
the authors tried to make the model more realistic and ready to apply.
However, the model is relatively weak for implementation. Though each step in the model
provides some implications for implementation, it is better to specify it as a single stage. In this
way, the “roadmap” might be clearer and easier to help teachers find ways out.
In addition, the inclusion of teaching affective domain is stated. However, due to the
intrinsic behaviorisic nature of the model, transferring affectionate properties into behavioral goals
and evaluating its performance becomes even more challenging. It might add difficulty for
schoolteachers to apply the model.
Conclusion
Being a soft-system derived from the systems theory and pragmatism, the Gerlach and Ely
model systematically provides a prescriptive and procedural guidance for schoolteachers (either
Kuan-Chung Chen 14
novices or experts), to plan units, modules, lessons, and courses that are utilized in the classroom.
Though it does not fully correspond to the ADDIE framework, especially as it lacks a clarification
of the implementation stage, plus several limitations on planning and evaluating the affective
domain, the Gerlach and Ely model remains to be a practical, powerful and easy-to-use roadmap
for planning instruction.
Reference
Edmonds, G., Branch, R., Mukherjee, P. (1994). A Conceptual Framework for Comparing
Instructional Design Models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (4), 55–72.
Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1980). Teaching & Media: A Systematic Approach (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Incorporated.
Gustafson, K. L. (1981). Survey of Instructional Development Models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University.
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. (2002). Survey of Instructional Development Models (4th ed.).
Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University.
Sarah Graboski. (2003). Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach— The Gerlach and Ely
model. Retrieved Feb 2, 2004, from the personal website of Sarah Graboski. Web site:
http://www.arches.uga.edu/~sarahlee/edit6180/gerlach_ely.doc