See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317098772

Instructional Design Models and Criticisms

Article · March 2017

CITATIONS READS
5 4,264

1 author:

Courtney R. Hebert
Sam Houston State University
3 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Courtney R. Hebert on 24 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Instructional Design Models and Criticisms

Courtney R. Hebert

Sam Houston State University

Abstract

The discussion of six major instructional design models is provided as a background into

instructional design. Instructional design, while increasingly popular, is not met without

criticism. Understanding these six major design models allows for insight into how instructional

design can be applied to other fields, for example, K-12 professional development. It is

concluded that McTighe & Wiggins’ Understanding by Design is the optimal model to use in K-

12 professional development based on the model’s characteristics and the theory of andragogy.
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 3

Instructional Design Models and Criticisms

Instructional design has been defined as “the systematic method for analyzing, designing,

developing, evaluating and managing the instructional process efficiently” (Baturay, 2008, p.

472). Instructional designers are responsible for creating and implementing instructional

strategies that best meet a given learner’s needs. As no two learners are exactly alike, no two

instructional design models are either (Baturay, 2008). Most instructional design models have

several common characteristics that stem from ADDIE, a family of models with a similar

structure. The ADDIE structure is comprised of analysis, design, development, implementation,

and evaluation (Roblyer, 2015). It is also possible to categorize instructional design models as

belonging to either the systematic or the constructivist approach. The systems design approach

focuses more heavily on the process in which the learner will achieve set goals; the constructivist

approach focuses on the process of the learner creating knowledge from given materials

(Fardanesh, 2006). Critics of instructional design regard the basic models as too generic for

beginner users, whom would be unable to use them without the help of an experienced designer

(Baturay, 2008). To better assert how different models can be applied to other areas of education,

six of the most widely used models and criticisms of instructional design are outlined below.

Dick, Carey & Carey

Dick, Carey and Carey’s model is seen as an appropriate model for beginners, and is

usually utilized in the product industry (Chaudry, 2010), although Gustafson & Branch (2002)

consider it a systems oriented model. The model has some flexibility, in that designers may

begin at any stage with the condition that the preceding steps have been met. The systems design

approach requires that the designer understand how all components work together to influence

the program (Chaudry, 2010), and it is often used to design whole courses or curriculum
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 4

(Gustafson & Branch, 2002). This design model is a collection of ten principles: identify the

instructional goal, analyze the instructional goal, study the characteristics of the learners and how

they will influence the program, develop learner objectives, develop assessment based on

objectives, design instructional strategies to meet learner objectives, create the instructional

delivery, design and conduct formative evaluation, revise the program based on the formative

evaluation, and design and conduct summative evaluation. In the linear process, the designer

identifies what it is he/she would like the learner to know based on a needs assessment or another

valid source. Goal identification is followed by a goal analysis, used to determine the skills and

attitudes that goal requires. The learners and the context in which the skills will be used must

also be analyzed before the designer can write performance objectives. Based on the objectives,

assessments are created. To meet the objective, a designer must decide what instructional

strategies will be used, and then either select or develop those materials. Before revising the

design, a formative evaluation is completed. The last step of the process is designing and

conducting a summative evaluation (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 1937). A depiction of this model

shows all main steps connected to the formative evaluation, allowing designers to continually

revise the program as it is being created (Baturay, 2008).

In a 1996 article by Walter Dick, he recognizes and responds to several criticisms of his

and Carey’s design. Opponents claim the creators did not create a complete analysis system, nor

include instructions for implementation and maintenance of the instruction itself. Essentially, it

lacks several key pieces of what some critics consider necessary for a full design model. Dick

(1996) responds that the model was formulated to help new designers begin the process of

instructional design, and, therefore, was never intended to be a direct reflection of what

instructional designers actually do.

Critics attack the model for its flexibility to begin at any stage in the process. Other

critics claim that the model is too rigid because experienced designers do not design in a line, but

back and forth between steps (Dick, 1996). However, the systems model allows for designers to

address design in an organized way (Tessmer & Richey, 1997). Proponents of systems based

models claim that a focus on the desired skills requires the instructor to plan for the individual

learner to be successful, creating more successful instruction (Kanuka, 2006).

Morrison, Ross, Kalman & Kemp

This center-outward design, sets curriculum development as the most important factor in

designing instruction (Baturay, 2008; Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Due to the model’s emphasis

on low output and selection (as opposed to creation) of materials, this model is categorized as

classroom-oriented (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Course development and lesson development

are considered small components of the larger agenda of curriculum development (Baturay,

2008). However, the learner, not the content, is considered most important when developing

instruction (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). In contrast to many other design models, this model is

extremely flexible in that designers may choose to skip steps of the process, creating a unique

model for each designer and situation. Nine principles are essential to the model. To begin,

designers determine the need of the learners, and decide if the need can be solved using

instruction. If instruction is deemed to be the appropriate solution, the following steps are

continued, but if instruction cannot solve the learner need, the designer would work with other

individuals to provide a solution. Secondly, the characteristics of the learner and how they will

influence the program are studied. The type of information gathered during this step will be

determined by the learner need being addressed. During the task analysis phase, the designer

identifies the content to be used and analyzes activities in relation to the need. This begins the
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 6

plan for how the learner will meet the chosen objectives and is recognized as the most crucial

part of the process. The development of learner objectives is required to help design the

instruction. Without the objectives, the designer would not be able to focus the instruction on the

learner need. The content sequencing step orders the activities for each learning unit in the most

logical sequence to optimize learning. The sequence may or may not be the same as the task

analysis. Instructional strategies are designed to meet the learner objectives. This includes

forming strategies for delivery of the information to the learner. The instructional delivery, or

designing the message, forces the instructional designer to consider how style and delivery will

aid the learner. The use of type, graphics, and syntax are considered in this step. Packaging the

materials together may require the location or creation of resources to aid in instruction and

activities. Lastly, the instructional designer creates assessments for learner objectives to

determine if the learner has met the objective (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2011). The

model is depicted as an oval to represent the continuous process, which has no beginning or

ending points. Designers using Morrison, Ross, Kalman and Kemp’s model have the freedom to

start from any phase and skip phases as they deem necessary. The oval also signifies that design

is continuous and more cyclical (Baturay, 2008).

Although classroom teachers may not be overly familiar with instructional design

models, Morrison, Ross, Kalman and Kemp’s model is attractive to the K-12 environment due to

the use of familiar language and the focus on locating, rather than developing materials

(Gustafson & Branch, 2002). While continuous modification of the model (Gustafson & Branch,

2002) ensures its relevance, Seels and Glasgow (1998) believe the model is lacking adequate

instructional analysis information. The flexible approach has increasing value in that they these

models allow designers to address any issues or concerns that arise during the design process
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 7

(Richey, 1994). Gordon and Zemke (2000) criticize instructional design for being too slow, not

creative, producing bad training, and unattractive to the modern adult learner. Morrison, Ross,

Kalman, and Kemp (2011) claim to counter these criticisms with their model that requires an

investment of time, but is better than the alternative; the opportunity for creativity within the

outline of the nine principles; a model based on cognitive strategies; and a focus on individual

learner needs. These criticisms, not dissimilar to how traditional K-12 instruction is criticized,

leaves much to be desired for beginner designers.

Seels & Glasgow

The Seels and Glasgow ISD Model II: For Practitioners was designed with the belief that

instructional design is a type of project management. The process is divided into three

management areas: needs analysis, instructional design, and implementation and evaluation.

During needs analysis management, goals, instruction, and learners are the focus (Gustafson &

Branch, 2002). A needs analysis is conducted in order to find a solution to the problem. Context

and performance analyses are also included in this step to allow for the creation of a formal

management plan (Seels & Glasgow, 1998). The majority of design and instructional decisions

are decided upon in the instructional design management step (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). The

steps may be done in order or at the same time, but they are always done recursively. Every

decision in this major step prompts data collection and interaction among the project team to

address needs and changes (Seels & Glasgow, 1998). This step concludes after formative

evaluation (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Implementation and evaluation management includes

the distribution of created materials and a summative evaluation (Gustafson & Branch, 2002).

This process includes the creation and evaluation of materials and instructions, along with

instructor training. Diffusion, the process of persuading others to invest in the solution, should
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 8

happen continually throughout the entire process, as this is the most effective method. Truly,

however, the entire model is an ongoing process to allow for the revision of products (Seels &

Glasgow, 1998). Gustafson and Branch (2002) categorize Seels and Glasgow’s model as product

oriented, as the model emphasizes development of materials (as opposed to selection) and there

is a very high level of trial and revision. The visual interpretation of the model is extremely

linear and shows the degree to which the steps are interconnected, simultaneous, and cyclical.

Despite the direct appearance of the model, it is not required that the activities within the larger

steps are completed in order (Gustafson & Branch, 2002).

Some authors may consider the needs management a limitation to the design, but

Gustafson and Branch (2002) disagree, claiming that in the majority of situations, the needs

analysis has either already been conducted or the need is obvious. Instructional design models,

such as Seels and Glasgow, have also been criticized for highlighting material development over

learner outcomes, which in turn can lead to greater emphasis on test data than unobservable or

unmeasurable learning (Bell & Lefoe, 1998). Richey (1993) recognizes that all systems based

approaches are criticized for being machine-like, too simple, too linear, and with not enough

focus on direct human learning. Seels and Glasgow’s model is especially susceptible to these

criticisms as it has been coined a “product oriented model,” which requires a team of individuals,

required to work within the confines of a time limit and budget (Donmez & Cagiltay, 2016).

Smith & Ragan

The three-step process of Smith & Ragan centers instructional alignment at the core of

their model; “the strategy (instructional method) that is used [must be] appropriate for the

learning task (goals) and...the tests [must] measure how well the learners have achieved the

learning task (assessment)” (Smith & Ragan, 1999, p.7). The main steps of the model are
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 9

instructional analysis, strategy selection, and evaluation development (Baturay, 2008; Seels &

Glasgow, 1998). Within each of those steps exists individual tasks to complete. An analysis of

the learning environment provides evidence that an issue exists and also analyzes the context in

which the learning will take place. Describing the characteristics of the learner allows for

personalization of the delivery and materials. Next, designers analyze the learning task, in order

to write instructional goals. Writing the test items occurs early in the process to ensure a valid

assessment is created for the objectives. Strategies for delivery of instruction are created based

on learner characteristics. Materials and user guides are created based on the instructional

strategies chosen. The designer conducts a formative evaluation and revises the instruction based

on evaluation (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Although their process is mostly linear, steps can be

skipped if the information is already present or has already been developed. What most

differentiates Smith and Ragan’s model from other models is the placement of assessment

development in the first stage, analysis (Baturay, 2008; Seels & Glasgow, 1998). If assessment

items cannot be created to meet the objectives, then the objectives can be revised. This process

ensures instructional alignment, which is central to the model (Baturay, 2008). Similar to Dick,

Carey, and Carey, this model is typically used to develop whole courses or curriculum, and is

categorized as a systems model (Gustafson & Branch, 2002).

Due to the highly systematic outline, this model exhibits strength in the development of

instructional strategies (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). However, some designers are likely, at

some point, to be unfamiliar with the process of interpreting the model and applying the correct

strategies to meet the needs of the learner (Andrews & Goodson, 1980). Further, social

constructivists argue that learning is not constructed through a systematic process, but through

social experiences, which would require instructional design to accommodate the unique
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 10

experiences of each learner (Kanuka, 2006). Richey (1993) also addresses this criticism by

calling for a systemic, rather than systematic, design model, where designers accommodate the

learner’s environment and experiences. Smith and Ragan (1999) site learner advocacy, appealing

instruction, coordination among designers, and uniformity between goals, activities, and

assessments, among others, as advantages to using a systematically designed approach. Smith

and Ragan (1999) also realize that the systematic design model is not optimal in situations where

the learning goals cannot be developed in advance or no learning goals are present.

McTighe & Wiggins (UbD)

Understanding by Design, a model by McTighe and Wiggins, is often referred to as a

backward design model. The authors argue that backward design is best when approaching

education because it is impossible to decide upon materials until a designer knows what

outcomes are expected and how they will be assessed. In other words, the purpose for the

learning must be established well before any other steps can be taken. After the purpose for

learning has been established, a designer should consider, “What does it look like to meet these

goals?” - all media and materials should be focused on allowing students the opportunity to

practice the answer to that question. This model of Understanding by Design is broken into three

stages: identify the desired results, determine a benchmark for the results, and plan the

experiences and instruction to achieve results. In stage one, identify desired results, essential

questions are developed based on the concept learners need to understand. Teachers must map

their priorities for student learning based on instructor goals; school, state, and national

standards; and the given curriculum. Stage two, determine acceptable evidence, requires that the

designer consider the collective assessments that will be used as evidence of a met objective.

Designers consider the assessment required or useful to validate that the learner has reached the
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 11

objective. It is imperative that this stage occur before the planning of activities or lessons. Lastly,

the activities are planned out in stage three, plan learning experiences and instruction. The

decision must be made, based on the assessment, what students need to know in order to achieve

the objective, and what activities, materials, and delivery will get them there. This process is

known as backwards design. The visual representation of this model appears similar to a lesson

planning guide: the tabular representation allows for designers to progress through each stage,

ensuring alignment of the three stages as he/she develops (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).

While systematic models are often cited for oversimplifying the outcome, nonlinear

models, such as Understanding by Design, have the ability to create design that is greater than its

individual areas. The nonlinear models are optimal for environments and contexts that change

often. Constructivists are striving to emphasize all areas that impact the learner, including

context and characteristics (Richey, 1994). In this nonlinear type of model, designers are able to

concurrently understand the problem and problem solve; this is not possible with a systems

design where a true understanding of the problem does not occur until steps have been taken to

solve it (Rowland, 1993). The fundamental shift in society from standardized learning to

individualized learning shows that instructional design requires a shift to customization, as well.

That customization is not possible with a rigid systematic design process (Reigeluth, 1996).

Opponents of constructivism based design argue that constructivist would ideally have a unique

design for each individual learner because no average learner exists, essentially making

instructional design impossible (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992). The biggest hurdle with

Understanding by Design, itself, directly recognized by even its supporters, is time. There is not

enough time for users to undergo thorough training of the process, to reflect on the changes to
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 12

their practice, to collect and analyze data, and to fully integrate the design principles (Brown &

Wiggins, 2004).

Willis (R2D2)

The basis for Willis’ model is the belief that knowledge is not a static process that occurs

in formulaic steps, but a dynamic process that is affected by the context and the environment of

the learner. As a result, there is no correct instructional design model that will meet every need.

Instead, Willis argues, the focus should be on creating multiple sound models based in theory

that will meet someone’s need. In direct opposition to systematic design models, Willis’

Reflective Recursive Design and Development (R2D2) model does not include rigid steps or

rules, but provides a guide of constructivist creation that allows for a generous amount of

flexibility. Three main principles of constructivist instructional design include recursion,

reflection, and participation. Recursion requires that the same issues be addressed continuously

throughout the design process. Reflection creates an environment where the problem drives the

application of research-based solutions; no pre-formed solutions are used. Participation involves

all stakeholders as designers, not simply observers (Willis, 2009). Willis (2009) argues that

constructivist models must have a nonlinear, reflective, participatory design. Design and

development are placed at the center of the model, and an in depth analysis at the beginning of

the model is unnecessary (Dick, 1996). This model is also not based on steps, but three areas of

importance: define, design and develop, and disseminate. The areas can be completed in any

order as desired by the designer. In the define step, a team of stakeholders who will take the

project through the steps is created. The progressive problem solution is a dynamic process

where objectives influence design and design influences objectives. Practical knowledge,

phronesis, of the learning context is also collected through observations and experts. In design
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 13

and develop, the design team selects the development environment by considering the

knowledge and level of involvement of the team and the work to be designed. Strategies for

learning are also addressed at this stage. During dissemination, summative evaluation, final

packaging, diffusion, and adoption of the design is completed (Willis, 2009). A depiction of his

model, appearing as an optical illusion, presents the three areas on the three legs of a triangle.

The intent of this unique drawing is “to show that the model has no beginning or ending, and

there is continuous interaction among the three major focal points (Dick, 1996, pg. 60). Whereas

the systematic design models call for two large areas of evaluation during the process (formative

and summative), Willis’ model advocates for smaller, more frequent evaluations, ensuring

deeper reflection during development (Willis, 2009).

The unstructured process of nonlinear design may seem chaotic to some designers, but it

ensures that the outcome is learner based, not product based (Willis, 2009). This nonlinear

application of the design model is intended to be flexible enough to be applied to many contexts,

which is a responsibility of the instructional designer. However, designers must be aware that

regardless of the amount of flexibility offered in their models, they cannot control the context in

which the learning takes place (Tessmer & Richey, 1997). Seels and Glasgow (1998) label R2D2

as “rapid prototyping,” which furthers the criticism of an overly flexible design model. Design

models that are too flexible tend to turn informal and create additional problems in the process

(Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990). Willis (2009) recognizes that his model is criticized by Merrill for

the use of participatory design – Merrill argues that users just do not have the expertise necessary

to be involved in the instructional design process. Although Willis (2009) presents his model as

the revolutionary answer to traditional design models, Dick (1996) reveals that the R2D2 model
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 14

is disguised; once the steps are sequenced, it appears strikingly similar to the models Willis

discounts.

Reflection

Utilizing instructional design in K-12 professional development requires that the

instructional design model is a flexible set of guidelines that teachers can transfer into their

classrooms (Reigeluth, 1996). Two design models discussed herein specifically target K-12

teachers. The Morrison, Ross, Kalman and Kemp (2011) model is already aligned with teachers’

pedagogical knowledge and vocabulary (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). McTighe & Wiggins

(2005) specifically state that educators are their audience. The flexibility of Morrison, Ross,

Kalman and Kemp (2011), labeled as a classroom-oriented model by Gustafson and Branch

(2002) allows for adequate customization in designing (Baturay, 2008). The draw of McTighe

and Wiggins (2005) is the fully developed framework that allows designers to organize the

design process in three stages (McTighe & Wiggins, 2012). The nine principles of Morrison,

Ross, Kalman and Kemp (2011), while useful for a beginner designer, is continuously modified

over time (Gustafson & Branch, 2002), which may cause it to become repetitive and inefficient.

Although the authors realize that time is a concern when using their model, using McTighe and

Wiggins’ (2005) design process allows for a designer to model the exact behavior that teachers

should transfer to the classroom.

It is of greater importance to compare the model to the theories of andragogy. The five

principles of andragogy state that the adult learner can direct his/her own learning, an adult

leaner’s experiences are vital to his/her learning, an adult learner’s needs depends on his/her

social role, the adult learner wishes to apply knowledge immediately, and the adult learner is

internally motivated (Merriam, 2011). Teachers, in my experience, often consider structured

professional development irrelevant, and, therefore, no (or very little) knowledge is transferred

into the classroom. McTighe and Wiggins’ (2005) model is flexible, it emphasizes learner

characteristics (Richey, 1994), and it encourages real-world, open-ended learning (Isman, Dabaj,

Altinay & Altinay, 2003). The framework associated with the model is familiar to teachers, and

designers with a background in teaching, because it appears as a curriculum map or lesson plan,

with language that is readily used in the classrooms today (i.e. essential question). This

framework can also allow teachers, with zero or limited knowledge in instructional design, to be

a part of the planning process. Approaching instructional design for professional development

from an arena that is familiar to the learner makes the instructional approaches more relevant,

allowing for a greater transfer of knowledge to the classroom.

Conclusion

As paradigms shift from content centered to learned centered instruction, instructional

design has the same obligation. However, it is often difficult to implement rigid systematic

design models in a K-12 school due to time and fear of the model itself. While the systems

models are well organized, more recent constructivist instructional design models more closely

align with the teaching occurring in schools today. Despite author preference, the best

instructional design model to use is the one that best suites the designer and the environment.
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 16

References

Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional

design. Journal of instructional development, 3(4), 2-16.

Baturay, M.H. (2008). Characteristics of basic instructional design models. Ekev Academic

Review, 12(34), 471-482.

Bell, M., & Lefoe, G.E. (1998, December). Curriculum design for flexible delivery – massaging

the model. Flexibility: The next wave? Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the

Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), (pp.

65-73). University of Wollongong: ASCILITE.

Brown, J.L., & Wiggins, G.P. (2004). Implementing Understanding by Design: A summary of

lessons learned. In Making the Most of Understanding Instructional Design (pp.12-37).

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Chaudry, M. D., & Rahman, F. (2010). A critical review of instructional design process of

distance learning system. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education (TOJDE),

11(3), 193-205.

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

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

Dick, W., Carey, L, & Carey, J.O. (1937). The Systematic Design of Instruction (6th ed). Boston,

MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Donmez, M., & Cagiltay, K. (November, 2016). A review and categorization of instructional

design models. Paper presented at the E-learn Conference, Washington, D.C. Retrieved

from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kursat_Cagiltay/publication/311466602_A_Review
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS AND CRITICISMS 17

_and_Categorization_of_Instructional_Design_Models/links/5849a58f08ae5038263d884

8/A-Review-and-Categorization-of-Instructional-Design-

Models.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Duffy, T.M., & Jonassen, D.H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional

technology. In T.M. Duffy & D.H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the Technology

of Instruction: A Conversation (pp. 1-15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Publishers.

Fardanesh, H. (2006). A classification of constructivist instructional design models based on

learning and teaching approaches. ERIC, Online Submission.

Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000) The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4), 42-45.

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed).

Syracuse University, NY. Retrieved from

Isman, A., Dabaj, F., Altinay, Z., & Altinay, F. (2003). Effects of Instructional Design on

Learning. Retrieved from

Kanuka, H. (2006). Instructional design and eLearning: A discussion of pedagogical content

knowledge as a missing construct. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology,

9(2), n2.

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by Design framework. [White paper].

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Merriam, S. B. (2001). Andragogy and self‐directed learning: Pillars of adult learning

theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 89, 3-14.

Morrison, K., Ross, S.M., Kalman, H.K., & Kemp, J.E. (2011). Designing effective instruction

(6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Richey, R. C. (1994, February). Design 2000: Theory-based design models of the future. In

Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Presentations at the 1994 National

Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology

Sponsored by the Research and Theory Division, (pp. 705-712), Nashville, TN.

Roblyer, M.D. (2015). Introduction to systematic instructional design for traditional, online,

and blended Environments. New York, NY: Pearson.

Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 41(1), 79-91.

Reigeluth, C. M. (1996). A new paradigm of ISD? Educational Technology, 36, 13-20.

Seels, B. & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Using models & paradigms. In Making instructional design

decisions (2nd ed.) (pp. 165-194). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Introduction to instructional design. In Instructional design

(p. 1-12). New York: Wiley.

Tessmer, M., & Richey, R. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85-115.

Tripp, S.D. & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid Prototyping: An alternative instructional design

strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44.

Wiggins, G.P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:

ASCD.

Willis, J. (2009). Constructivist Instructional Design (C-ID): Foundations, models, and

examples. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.

View publication stats