A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part II: A History of Instructional

Design
Author(s): Robert A. Reiser
Source: Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 49, No. 2 (2001), pp. 57-67
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30220311
Accessed: 27-09-2017 15:17 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational
Technology Research and Development

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
A History of Instructional
Design and Technology:
Part II: A History of Instructional Design

Robert A. Reiser

This is the second of a two-part article that O In Part I of this article, I presented the follow-
discusses the history of the field of ing definition of the field of instructional design
instructional design and technology in the and technology:
United States. The first part, which focused on
the history of instructional media, appeared in The field of instructional design and technology
the previous issue of this journal (volume 49, encompasses the analysis of learning and performance
number 1). This part of the article focuses on problems, and the design, development, implementa-
the history of instructional design. Starting tion, evaluation and management of instructional and
noninstructional processes and resources intended to
with a description of the efforts to develop
improve learning and performance in a variety of set-
training programs during World War II, and tings, particularly educational institutions and the
continuing on through the publication of some workplace. Professionals in the field of instructional
of the first instructional design models in the design and technology often use systematic instruc-
1960s and 1970s, major events in the tional design procedures and employ a variety of
instructional media to accomplish their goals. More-
development of the instructional design
over, in recent years, they have paid increasing atten-
process are described. Factors that have tion to noninstructional solutions to some performance
affected the field of instructional design over problems. Research and theory related to each of the
the last two decades, including increasing aforementioned areas is also an important part of the
interest in cognitive psychology, field. (Reiser, in press)

microcomputers, performance technology, and

constructivism, are also described.
As was pointed out in Part I, the major fea-
tures of this definition include (a) its listing of six
categories of activities or practices (analysis,
design, development, implementation, evalua-
tion, and management) often associated with the
field; (b) its identification of research and theory,
as well as practice, as important aspects of the
profession; and (c) its recognition of the influ-
ence the performance technology movement has
had on professional practices. Moreover, the
definition highlights two practices that have,
over the years, formed the core of the field.
These two practices are (a) the use of media for
instructional purposes and (b) the use of systematic
instructional design procedures (often simply
called instructional design). As was mentioned in
Part I, although many have argued about the
value of employing these practices, they remain
as the key defining elements of the field of

ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2001, pp. 57-67 ISSN 1042-1629 57

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 58 ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2

viduals, design
instructional including Robert Gagne, Leslie and Briggs, t
als involvedJohnin Flanagan,the
and many others,fieldexerted con- a
significant siderable influence on the characteristics
portion of of thethei
media, or with tasks associ
training materials that were developed, basing
instructional much design proced
of their work on instructional principles
In Part I, I derived
discussed the
from research and theory on instruction, h
tional media.learning,
In and Part II,
human behavior (Baker, I
1973;wi
of instructional design.
Dick, 1987; Saettler, 1990). Th
tion because, from a histor
of the Moreover, psychologists
practices relatedused their knowl- to
have edge of evaluation
occurred and testing to help assess the
independe
associated skills of trainees and
with select the individuals who
instructio
also be noted that
were most likely to benefit from althou
particular train-
events in the history
ing programs. For example, at oneof the
point in the
in other countries, the
war, the failure rate in a particular emp
flight training
this article is
program was unacceptably high. In order toth
on events
the United States.
overcome this problem, psychologists examined
the general intellectual, psychomotor and per-
ceptual skills of individuals who were able to
HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN
successfully perform the skills taught in the pro-
gram, and then developed tests that measured
Over the past four decades, a variety of sets of those traits. These tests were used to screen can-
systematic instructional design procedures (or didates for the program, with those individuals
models) have been developed, and have been who scored poorly being directed into other pro-
referred to by such terms as the systems approach,
grams. As a result of using this examination of
instructional systems design (ISD), instructional
entry skills as a screening device, the military
development, and instructional design (which is the
was able to significantly increase the percentage
term I will usually employ in this article).
of personnel who successfully completed the
Although the specific combination of proce-
dures often varies from one instructional design program (Gagne, personal communication,
model to the next, most of the models include 1985).
the analysis of instructional problems, and the Immediately after World War II, many of the
design, development, implementation and eval- psychologists responsible for the success of the
uation of instructional procedures and materials
military training programs continued to work
intended to solve those problems. How did this
on solving instructional problems. Organiza-
instructional design process come into being? tions such as the American Institutes for
This article will focus on answering that ques-
tion.
Research were established for this purpose. Dur-
ing the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, psy-
chologists working for such organizations
started viewing training as a system, and devel-
The Origins of Instructional Design:
World War II oped a number of innovative analysis, design,
and evaluation procedures (Dick, 1987). For
example, during this period, a detailed task
The origins of instructional design procedures
have been traced to World War II (Dick, 1987). analysis methodology was developed by Robert
B. Miller while he worked on projects for the
During the war, a large number of psychologists
and educators who had training and experience military (Miller,1953, 1962). His work and that of
in conducting experimental research were called other early pioneers in the instructional design
on to conduct research and develop training field is summarized in Psychological Principles in
materials for the military services. These indi- System Development, edited by Gagnd (1962b).

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 59

More Early Developments: The

The Popularization of Behavioral
Objectives Movement
Programmed Instruction

As indicated above, those

The programmed instruction involved in designing
movement, whic
programmed
ran from the mid-1950s instructional materials
through the oftenmid-1960s
proved to be another began
majorby identifying the specific in
factor objectives
the deve
learners who used the materials would be
opment of the systems approach. In 1954, B.F
expected
Skinner's article entitled Theto attain. In the early
Science of1960s, Robert
Learnin
Mager, recognizing
and the Art of Teaching began what might b the need to teach educators
called a minor revolution in the field of educa- how to write objectives, wrote Preparing Objec
tion. In this article and later ones (e.g., Skin- tives for Programmed Instruction (1962). This
ner,1958), Skinner described his ideas regarding book, now in its third edition (Mager,1997), ha
proved to be very popular, and has sold more
the requirements for increasing human learning
and the desired characteristics of effective than 1.5 million copies. The book describes how
to write objectives that include a description of
instructional materials. Skinner stated that such

materials, called programmed instructional desired learner behaviors, the conditions under
materials, should present instruction in small which the behaviors are to be performed, and
steps, require overt responses to frequent ques-the standards (criteria) by which the behaviors
tions, provide immediate feedback, and allow are to be judged. Many current-day adherents o
for learner self-pacing. Moreover, because each the instructional design process advocate the
step was small, it was thought that learnerspreparation of objectives that contain these three
elements.
would answer all questions correctly and thus
be positively reinforced by the feedback they Although Mager popularized the use of
received. objectives, the concept was discussed and used
The process Skinner and others (cf. Lumsda- by educators at least as far back as the early
ine & Glaser, 1960) described for developing1900s. Among those early advocates of the use of
programmed instruction exemplified an empiri-clearly stated objectives were Bobbitt, Charters,
cal approach to solving educational problems: and Burk (Gagne, 1965a). However, Ralph Tyler
Data regarding the effectiveness of the materials has often been considered the father of the
were collected, instructional weaknesses were behavioral objectives movement. In 1934, he
identified, and the materials were revised wrote, "Each objective must be defined in terms
which clarify the kind of behavior which the
accordingly. In addition to this trial and revision
procedure, which today would be called forma-course should help to develop" (cited in
tive evaluation, the process for developing pro-Walbesser & Eisenberg, 1972). During the
grammed materials involved many of the stepsfamous Eight-Year Study that Tyler directed, it
was found that in those instances in which
found in current instructional design models. As
Heinich (1970) indicated: schools did specify objectives, those objectives
were usually quite vague. By the end of the proj-
Programmed instruction has been credited by some ect, however, it was demonstrated that objec-
with introducing the systems approach to education. tives could be clarified by stating them in
By analyzing and breaking down content into specific behavioral terms, and those objectives could
behavioral objectives, devising the necessary steps to
serve as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness
achieve the objectives, setting up procedures to try out
and revise the steps, and validating the program of instruction (Borich, 1980; Tyler, 1975).
against attainment of the objectives, programmed In the 1950s, behavioral objectives were given
instruction succeeded in creating a small but effective another boost when Benjamin Bloom and his
self-instructional system-a technology of instruction.
colleagues published the Taxonomy of Educa
(p. 123)
tional Objectives (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, &
Krathwohl, 1956). The authors of this work indi
cated that within the cognitive domain there
were various types of learning outcomes, that
objectives could be classified according to the

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 60 ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2

type of this book, Gagne

learner described five domains, or
behavior de
that there types, of learning
was a outcomes-verbal informa-
hierarchica
the various tion, intellectual skills,of
types psychomotor skills,
outcom
indicated attitudes, tests
that and cognitive strategies-each
should of
sure each of which required a different
these set of conditions to of o
types
see in the next two
promote learning. sections
Gagne also provided detailed o
notions described by
descriptions of these conditions other
for each type of e
icant learning outcome.
implications for the sy
instruction.
In the same volume, Gagne also described
nine events of instruction, or teaching activities,
that he considered essential for promoting the
The Criterion-Referenced Testing attainment of any type of learning outcome.
Movement Gagnr also described which instructional events
were particularly crucial for which type of out-
come, and discussed the circumstances under
In the early 1960s, another important factor in
which particular events could be excluded. Now
the development of the instructional design pro-
in its fourth edition (Gagne, 1985), Gagne's
cess was the emergence of criterion-referenced
description of the various types of learning out-
testing. Until that time, most tests, called norm-
comes and the events of instruction remain cor-
referenced tests, were designed to spread out the
nerstones of instructional design practices.
performance of learners, resulting in some stu-
dents doing well on a test and others doing Gagne's work in the area of learning hierar-
chies
poorly. In contrast, a criterion-referenced test is and hierarchical analysis also has had a
intended to measure how well an individual can significant impact on the instructional design
field. In the early 1960s and later in his career
perform a particular behavior or set of behav-
iors, irrespective of how well others perform. As(e.g., Gagne, 1962a, 1985; Gagne, Briggs, and
early as 1932, Tyler had indicated that testsWager, 1992; Gagne & Medsker, 1996), Gagne
could be used for such purposes (Dale, 1967).indicated that skills within the intellectual skills
Later, Flanagan (1951) and Ebel (1962) discusseddomain have a hierarchical relationship to each
the differences between such tests and the more other, so that in order to readily learn to perform
familiar norm-referenced measures. However, a superordinate skill, one would first have to
master the skills subordinate to it. This concept
Robert Glaser (1963; Glaser & Klaus, 1962) was
leads to the important notion that instruction
the first to use the term criterion-referenced mea-
should be designed so as to ensure that learners
sures. In discussing such measures, Glaser (1963)
indicated that they could be used to assess stu- subordinate skills before they attempt to
acquire
dent entry-level behavior and to determine acquire
the superordinate ones. Gagne went on to
describe a hierarchical analysis process (also
extent to which students had acquired the
behaviors an instructional program was called learning task analysis or instructional task
designed to teach. The use of criterion-refer- analysis) for identifying subordinate skills. This
enced tests for these two purposes is a central process remains a key feature in many instruc-
feature of instructional design procedures. tional design models.

Robert M. Gagn6: Domains of Learning, Sputnik: The Indirect Launching of

Events of Instruction, and Hierarchical Formative Evaluation

Analysis

In 1957, when the Soviet Union launched Sput-

Another important event in the history of nik, the first orbiting space satellite, there began
instructional design occurred in 1965, with the a series of events that would eventually have a
publication of the first edition of The Conditions major impact on the instructional design pro-
of Learning, written by Robert Gagnd (1965b). In cess. In response to the launching of Sputnik, the

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 61

Early Instructional
United States government, Design Models
shocked by the suc
cess of the Soviet effort, poured millions of do
In the early and mid-1960s, the concepts that
lars into improving math and science educatio
in the United States. The instructional materials were being developed in such areas as task anal-
ysis, objective specification, and criterion-refer-
developed with these funds were usually writ-
enced testing were linked together to form
ten by subject matter experts and produced
processes, or models, for systematically
without tryouts with learners. Years later, in the
designing instructional materials. Among the
mid-1960s, when it was discovered that many offirst individuals to describe such models were
these materials were not particularly effective,Gagn" (1962b), Glaser (1962, 1965), and Silvern
Michael Scriven (1967) pointed to the need to try(1964). These individuals used terms such as
out drafts of instructional materials with learn- instructional design, system development, systematic
instruction, and instructional system to describe
ers prior to the time the materials were in their
the models they created. Other instructional
final form. Scriven indicated that this process
would enable educators to evaluate the effec- design models created and employed during
tiveness of materials while they were still this
in decade included those described by Banathy
(1968), Barson (1967), and Hamerus (1968).
their formative stages and, if necessary, revise
them before they were produced in their final
The 1970s: Burgeoning of Interest in the
form. Scriven named this tryout and revision
process formative evaluation, and contrastedSystems
it Approach
with what he labeled summative evaluation, the
During the 1970s, the number of instructional
testing of instructional materials after they are in
their final form. design models greatly increased. Building upon
the works of those who preceded them, many
Although the terms formative and summa-
individuals created new models for systemati-
cally designing instruction (e.g., Dick & Carey,
tive evaluation were coined by Scriven, the dis-
tinction between these two approaches was 1978; Gagne & Briggs, 1974; Gerlach & Ely, 1971;
Kemp, 1971). Indeed, by the end of the decade,
previously made by Lee Cronbach (1963). More-
more than 40 such models were identified
over, during the 1940s and the 1950s, a number
(Andrews and Goodson, 1980). A detailed dis-
of educators, such as Arthur Lumsdaine, Mark
cussion of a few of these models, as well as a
May, and C.R. Carpenter, described procedures
number of those developed in the 1980s and
for evaluating instructional materials that were
1990s, is contained in Gustafson and Branch
still in their formative stages (Cambre, 1981).
(1997b).
In spite of the writings of some educators,During the 1970s, interest in the instructional
very few of the instructional products devel-
design process flourished in a variety of differ-
oped in the 1940s and 1950s went through any ent sectors. In the mid 1970s, several branches of
the United States military adopted an instruc-
sort of formative evaluation process. This situa-
tion changed somewhat in the late 1950s tional
and design model (Branson et al., 1975)
intended
through the 1960s, as many of the programmed to guide the development of training
materials within those branches. In academia
instructional materials developed during that
during the first half of the decade, many instruc-
period were tested while they were being devel-
tional improvement centers were created with
oped. However, authors such as Susan Markle
the intent of helping faculty use media and
(1967) decried a lack of rigor in testing processes.
instructional design procedures to improve the
In light of this problem, Markle prescribed
quality of their instruction (Gaff, 1975; Gustaf-
detailed procedures for evaluating materials
son & Bratton, 1984). Moreover, many graduate
both during and after the design process. These
programs in instructional design were created
procedures are much like the formative and (Partridge & Tennyson, 1979; Redfield & Dick,
summative evaluation techniques generally pre-
1984; Silber, 1982). In business and industry,
scribed today. many organizations, seeing the value of using

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 62 ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2

instructional design
general to
downward trend in the imp
budgets of the
training, began adopting
remaining centers (Gustafson & Bratton, 1984).
Mager, 1977; Burkman
Miles, (1987a, 1987b) 1983). Int
provides an analysis of
nations, such as South Korea
the reasons why instructional design efforts in
nesia, saw schools and
the universities have not been success-
benefits of u
design to ful,
solve and contrasts these conditions with the more
instructiona
countries favorable conditions that exist in business and
(Chadwick, 1986
These nations
the military. supported t
instructional programs,
During the 1980s, there was a growing inter- crea
support use the
est in how theof instructio
principles of cognitive psychol-
vided support to individuals
ogy could be applied in the instructional design
this field. Many of
process, and a number of publicationsthese
outlining d
chronicled in potential
the Journal
applications were described (e.g., Bon- of I
ment, a journal that
ner, 1988; Divesta was
& Rieber, 1987; "Interview fir
the 1970s and which was the forerunner to the
with R.M. Gagne," 1982; Low, 1980). However,
development section of Educational Technologyseveral leading figures in the field have indi-
Research and Development. cated that the actual effects of cognitive psychol-
ogy on instructional design practices during this
decade were rather small (Dick, 1987; Gustafson,
The 1980s: Growth and Redirection
1993).

A factor that did have a major effect on

In many sectors, the interest in instructional
instructional design practices in the 1980s was
design that burgeoned during the previous
the increasing interest in the use of microcom-
decade continued to grow during the 1980s.
puters for instructional purposes. With the
Interest in the instructional design process
advent of these devices, many professionals in
remained strong in business and industry
the instructional design field turned their atten-
(Bowsher, 1989; Galagan, 1989) the military
tion to producing computer-based instruction
(Chevalier, 1990; Finch, 1987; McCombs, 1986;)
(Dick, 1987; Shrock, 1995). Others discussed the
and in the international arena (Ely & Plomp,
need to develop new models of instructional
1986: Morgan, 1989).
design to accommodate the interactive capabili-
In contrast to its influence in the aforemen-
ties of this technology (Merrill, Li, & Jones,
tioned sectors, during the 1980s instructional 1990a, 1990b). Moreover, computers began to be
design had minimal impact in other areas. In theused as tools to automate some instructional
public school arena, some curriculum develop- design tasks (Merrill & Li, 1989).
ment efforts involved the use of basic instruc-
In addition, the relatively new performance
tional design processes (e.g., Spady, 1988), and
technology movement, with its emphasis on
some instructional design textbooks for teachers
front-end analysis, on-the-job performance,
were produced (e.g., Dick & Reiser, 1989;
business results, and noninstructional solutions
Gerlach & Ely, 1980; Sullivan & Higgins, 1983).
to performance problems, was beginning to
However, in spite of these efforts, evidence indi-
have an effect on instructional design practices
cated that instructional design was having little
(Rosenberg, 1988,1990; Rossett, 1990). It was
impact on instruction in the public schools
during the 1990s, however, that the field was
(Branson & Grow, 1987; Burkman, 1987b;
significantly affected by this movement.
Rossett & Garbosky, 1987). In a similar vein,
with a few exceptions (e.g., Diamond, 1989),
instructional design practices had a minimal
The 1990s: Changing Views and
impact in higher education. Whereas instruc-Practices
tional improvement centers in higher education
were growing in number through the mid-
During the 1990s, a variety of developments had
1970s, by 1983 more than one fourth of thesea significant impact on instructional design prin-
organizations were disbanded and there was aciples and practices. As indicated above, one of

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 63

the major influences nature

was the
of the performance
work performed by many instruc- tech
nology movement, which
tional designers.broadened the scop
Electronic performance support
of the instructional design field.
systems are computer-based As
systems a to
designed result o
this movement, many
provideinstructional
workers with the help they need todesigner
per-
began conducting more careful
form certain analyses
job tasks, at the time they need that of th
help,problems,
causes of performance and in a form that will beand
most helpful.
oftentim
Such systems often include
discovered that poor training, oranlack information
ofbase trainin
was not the cause. that
In many
contains such
essential work-related instance
information;
instructional designers prescribed non- a series of work activities (often in the form of
instructional solutions, such as changes in incen- tutorials and simulations) that workers can
tive systems or in the work environment, to access as desired; intelligent coaching and expert
solve such problems (Dean, 1995). Thus the advisement systems that provide guidance in
types of activities many instructional designers performing various activities; and customized
engaged in greatly expanded. performance support tools that automate and
Another factor that affected the field during greatly simplify many job tasks (Wager & Mckay,

the 1990s was the growing interest in construc- in press). By providing workers with the perfor-
tivism, a collection of similar views (labeled, by mance tools and information they need, well-
some, as a theory) of learning and instruction designed electronic performance support
that gained increasing popularity throughout systems can reduce the need for training. It is not

the decade. The instructional principles associ- surprising, then, that during the past decade a
ated with constructivism include requiring number of training organizations and instruc-
learners to (a) solve complex and realistic prob- tional designers turned a portion of their atten-

lems; (b) work together to solve those problems; tion away from designing training programs and
(c) examine the problems from multiple perspec- toward designing electronic performance sup-
port systems (Rosenberg, 2001).
tives; (d) take ownership of the learning process
(rather than being passive recipients of instruc- Rapid prototyping is another trend that has
tion); and (e) become aware of their own role in had an effect on instructional design practices in
the knowledge construction process (Driscoll, recent years. The rapid prototyping process
2000). During the past decade, constructivist involves quickly developing a prototype prod-
views of learning and instruction have had an uct in the very early stages of an instructional
impact on the thoughts and actions of many the- design project and then going through a series of
orists and practitioners in the instructional rapid tryout and revision cycles until an accept-
design field. For example, the constructivist able version of the product is produced (Gustaf-
emphasis on designing "authentic" learning son & Branch, 1997a). This design technique has
tasks-tasks that reflect the complexity of the been advocated as a means of producing quality
real-world environment in which learners will instructional materials in less time than is

be using the skills they are learning-has hadrequired

an when more conventional instructional
design techniques are employed. During th
effect on how instructional design is being prac-
ticed and taught (Dick, 1996). Although some 1990s, there was an increasing interest in rapid
prototyping among practitioners and theorists
have argued that "traditional" instructional
in the instructional design field (e.g., Gustafson
design practices and constructivist principles
are antithetical, in recent years numerous & Branch, 1997a; Jones & Richey, 2000).
authors have described how consideration of Another recent trend that has affected the
constructivist principles can enhance instruc-
instructional design profession has been the rap-
tional design practices (e.g., Coleman, Perry,
idly&increasing interest in using the Internet for
Schwen, 1997; Dick, 1996; Lebow, 1993; Lin etdistance
al., learning. Since 1995, there has been a
1996).
great increase in the use of the Internet to deliver
During the 1990s, rapid growth in the use instruction at a distance (Bassi & Van Buren,
and development of electronic performance 1999; Lewis, Snow, Farris, Levin, and Greene,
support systems also led to changes in the 1999). As the demand for distance learning pro-

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 64 ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2

grams has accounts of the history

grown, so of instructional
has media the
order to and the history of instructional
be
effective, design, there is
such pr
ply be an obvious overlapping between these two
on-line replicas of th
ered in areas. Many instructional
classrooms; solutions arrived at
instead s
be carefully through the use of instructional
designed in design pro-
light
features that
cessescan, and
require the employment cann
of the types of
into instructional media that werecourses
Internet-based the focus of Part I (
Education (i.e., media other than
Policy, a teacher, chalkboard,
2000). As or s
pointed out, textbook).
theMoreover, need many individuals
for (e.g., hi
based Clark, 1994; Kozma,
instruction 1994; Morrison, 1994;
already ha
job opportunities
Reiser, 1994; Shrock,for instru
1994) have argued that the
and is likely to use
effective create many
of media for instructional purposes
nities in the requires
near careful instructional
future planning, such(Dem
as
press; that prescribed byin
Hawkridge, models of instructional
press).
design. In the field of instructional design and
Knowledge management is
recent trends technology,
to havethose whose affected
work is influenced by t
the lessons learned from the history of media
tional design. According
and the history of instructional design will be
knowledge management inv
well-positioned to have a positive influence on
documenting, and dissemi
future developments within the field. O
tacit knowledge within an o
to improve the performanc
tion. Oftentimes, useful
Robert A. Reiser is a professor in the Instructional kn
tise within an
Systems program organizat
at Florida State University, and
particular may be reached by e-mail at rreiser@mailer.fsu.edu.
individual or grou
Portions of this article are from a chapter that will
known beyond that group o
appear in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and
ever, current-day technolog
Technology (Reiser & Dempsey, in press). Some
programs, groupware, and
segments of the article previously appeared in a book in
nizations to chapter
"manage"by Reiser (1987). (i.e., c
disseminate) Thesuchauthor would like knowledg
to thank Walter Dick, Don
Ely, and Kent Gustafson, each of whom reviewed
ways that were not previou
various portions of this manuscript and provided
berg (2001) describes
him with invaluable feedback. severa
nizations that have turned some of their

attention away from designing training pro-

grams and toward creating knowledge manage- REFERENCES
ment systems. Rossett and Donello (1999)
suggest that as the interest in knowledge man-
Andrews, D.H., & Goodson, L.A. (1980). A compara-
agement continues to grow, instructional
tive analysis of models instructional design. Journal
designers and other training professionals not
of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2-16.
Baker,
only will be responsible for improving E.L. (1973). The technology of instructional
human
development. In R.M.W. Travers (Ed.), Second hand-
performance, but also will be responsible for
book of research on teaching, Chicago: Rand McNally.
locating and improving access to useful organi-
Banathy, B.H. (1968). Instructional systems. Belmont,
zational knowledge. Thus, the growing interest
CA: Fearon.
in knowledge management is likely to change
Barson, J. (1967). Instructional systems development. A
and perhaps expand the types of tasks instruc-
demonstration and evaluation project: Final report. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. (ERIC Doc-
tional designers are expected to undertake.
ument Reproduction Service No. ED 020 673)
Bassi, L.J., & Van Buren, M.E. (1999). Sharpening the
leading edge. Training and Development, 53(1), 23-33.
CONCLUSION Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., &
Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
Although this article, appearing in two consecu-
objectives: The class'fication of educational goals. Hand-
tive issues of this journal, has provided separatebook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 65

Bonner, J. (1988). Implications of (1989).

Diamond, R.M. cognitive
Designing and theory for
improving courses
and curriculaCommunication
instructional design. Educational in higher education: A systematic
and
approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Technology Journal, 36, 3-14.
Dick, the
Borich, G.D. (1980). A state of W. (1987).
art A history of instructional
assessment of design and
educa-
tional evaluation. Austin,
its TX: University
impact on educational psychology.ofIn J.Texas.
Glover &
(ERIC Document Reproduction
R. Roning (Eds.),Service No. ofED
Historical foundations 187
educational
717) psychology. New York: Plenum.
Bowsher, J.E. (1989). Educating America: Lessons Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it sur-
learned in the nation's corporations. New York: vive the decade? Educational Technology Research and
Wiley. Development. 44(3), 55-63.
Branson, R.K., & Grow G. (1987). Instructional systems Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of
development. In R.M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional instruction (1st ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Technology: Foundations (pp. 397-428). Hillsdale, NJ: Dick W., & Reiser, R.A. (1989). Planning effective
Lawrence Erlbaum.
instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Branson, R.K., Rayner, G.T., Cox, J.L., Furman, J.P.,
Divesta, F.J., & Rieber, L.P. (1987). Characteristics of
King, FJ, & Hannum, W.H. (1975). Interservice proce-cognitive engineering: The next generation of
dures for instructional systems development. Fort Mon-instructional systems. Educational Communication
roe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine and Technology Journal, 35, 213-230.
Command.
Driscoll, M.P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruc-
Burkman, E. (1987a). Factors affecting utilization. In
tion (2nd ed). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
R.M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Founda-Bacon.
tions (pp. 429-456). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Ebel, R.L. (1962). Content standard test scores. Educa-
Erlbaum.
tional and Psychological Measurement, 22, 15-25.
Burkman, E. (1987b). Prospects for instructional sys-Ely, D.P., & Plomp, T. (1986). The promises of educa-
tems design in the public schools. Journal of Instruc- tional technology: A reassessment. International
tional Development, 10(4), 27-32. Review of Education. 32, 231-249.
Cambre, M.A. (1981). Historical overview of formative
Finch, C, R. (1987). Instructional systems development
evaluation of instructional media products. Educa- in the military. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education,
tional Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 3- 24(4), 18-26.
25.
Flanagan, J.C. (1951). Units, scores, and norms. In E.T.
Chadwick, C.B. (1986). Instructional technology Lindquist (Ed.), Educational Measurement. Washing-
research in Latin America. Educational Communica-
ton, DC: American Council on Education.
tion and Technology Journal, 34,247-254. Gaff, J.G. (1975). Toward faculty renewal: Advances infac-
Chevalier, R.D. (1990). Improving efficiency and effec- ulty, instructional, and organizational development. San
tiveness of training: A six year case study of system-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
atic change. Performance and Instruction, 29(5), 21-23.
Gagne, R.M. (1962a). The acquisition of knowledge.
Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning.
Psychological Review, 69, 355-365.
Educational Technology Research and Development, Gagne, R.M. (1962b). Introduction. In R.M. Gagne
42(2), 21-29.
(Ed.), Psychological principles in system development.
Coleman, Perry, & Schwen (1997). Constructivist New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
instructional development: Reflecting on practice
Gagne, R.M. (1965a). The analysis of instructional
from an alternative paradigm. In C.R. Dills & A.J. objectives for the design of instruction. In R. Glaser
Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional Development Para-(Ed.), Teaching machines and programmed learning, II:.
digms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technol-Data and directions. Washington, DC: National Edu-
ogy. cation Association.
Cronbach, L.J. (1963). Course improvement through
Gagnd, R.M. (1965b). The conditions of learning (1st ed.).
evaluation. Teachers' College Record, 64, 672-683.w New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Dale, E. (1967). Historical setting of programmed
Gagne, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.).
instruction. In P.C. Lange (Ed.), Programmed instruc-New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
tion: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for
Gagne, R.M., & Briggs, L.J. (1974). Principles of instruc-
the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of
tional design (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Chicago Press. Winston.
Dean, P.J. (1995). Examining the practice of human
Gagnd, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992). Prin-
performance technology. Performance Improvement
ciples of instructional design (4th ed.). New York: Holt,
Quarterly, 8(2), 68-94. Rinehart, and Winston.
Dempsey, J.V., & Van Eck, R.N. (in press). Instruc-
Gagn&, R.M., & Medsker, K.L. (1996). The conditions of
tional design online: Evolving expectations. In R.A.
learning: Training applications. Fort Worth, TX: Har-
Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues incourt Brace.
instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle
Galagan, P.A. (1989). IBM gets its arms around educa-
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
tion. Training and Development Journal, 43(1), 34-41.

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 66 ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2

Gerlach, V.S., methodology

& Ely, in action: A developmental
D.P. study. (1971)
systematic Educational Technology Research and(1st
approach Development, ed.).
Prentice-Hall. 48(2), 63-80.
Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1980). Teaching and media: Kemp,
A J.E. (1971). Instructional Design: A Plan for Unit
systematic approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: and Course Development. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Prentice-Hall. Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning:
Glaser, R. (1962). Psychology and instructional tech- Reframing the debate. Educational Technology
nology. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and edu- Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
cation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instruc-
Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the tional systems design: Five principles toward a new
measurement of learning outcomes: Some ques-mindset. Educational Technology Research and Devel-
tions. American Psychologist, 18, 519-521. opment, 41(3), 4-16.
Lewis, L, Snow, K., Farris, E., Levin, D., & Greene, B.
Glaser, R. (1965). Toward a behavioral science base for
instructional design. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Teaching (1999). Distance education at postsecondary institutions:
machines and programmed learning, II: Data and direc- 1997-98 (NCES 2000-013). Washington, DC: U.S.
tions. Washington, DC: National Education Associa- Department of Education, National Center for Education
tion. Statistics.

Glaser, R., & Klaus, D.J. (1962). Proficiency measure- Lin, X., Bransford, J.D., Hmelo, C.E., Kantor, R.J.,
ment: Assessing human performance. In R.M. Hickey, D.T., Secules, T., Petrosino, A.J., Goldman,
Gagn' (Ed.), Psychological principles in system develop- S.R., and the Cognition and Technology Group at
ment. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Vanderbilt (1996). Instructional design and develop-
Gustafson, K.L. (1993). Instructional design funda- ment of learning communities: An invitation to a
mentals: Clouds on the horizon. Educational Technol- dialogue. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning
ogy, 33(2), 27-32. environments: Case studies in instructional design.
Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997a). Revisioning Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
models of instructional development. Educational Low, W.C. (1980). Changes in instructional develop-
Technology Research and Development. 45(3), 73-89. ment: The aftermath of an information processing
Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997b). Survey of takeover in psychology. Journal of Instructional
Instructional Development Models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, Development, 4(2), 10-18.
NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technol- Lumsdaine, A.A., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (1960). Teaching
ogy. machines and programmed learning: A source book.
Gustafson, K., & Bratton, B. (1984). Instructional Washington, DC: National Education Association.
improvement centers in higher education: A status Mager, R.F. (1962). Preparing objectives for programmed
instruction. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
report. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(2), 2-7.
Hamerus, D. (1968). The systems approach to instruc- Mager, R.F. (1977). The 'winds of change'. Training and
tional development: The contribution of behavioral sci- Development Journal, 31(10), 12-20.
ence to instructional technology. Monmouth: OR: Mager, R.F. (1997). Preparing instructional objectives: A
Oregon State System of Higher Education, Teaching critical tool in the development of effective instruction
Research Division. (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Perfor-
Hawkridge, D. (in press). Distance learning and
mance.

instructional design in international settings. InMarkle,

In S.M. (1967). Empirical testing of p
R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issuesP.C. Lange (Ed.), Programmed instruction:
in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle sixth yearbook of the National Society for th
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Education, Part II. Chicago: University
Press.
Heinich, R. (1970). Technology and the management of
McCombs, B.L. (1986). The instructional systems
instruction (Association for Educational Communi-
cations and Technology Monograph No. 4). Wash- development (ISD) model: A review of those factors
ington, DC: Association for Educational critical to its successful implementation. Educational
Communications and Technology. Communications and Technology Journal, 34, 67-81.
Merrill, M.D., & Li, Z. (1989). An instructional design
Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000). Quality on
the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based dis- expert system. Journal of computer-based instruction,
tance education [Online]. Available: 16(3), 95-101.
Merrill,
http://www.ihep.com/PUB.htm [2001, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1990a) Limitations
January
28]. of first generation instructional design. Educational
Interview with Robert M. Gagnd: Developments in Technology, 30(1), 7-11.
learning psychology: Implications for instructional Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1990b) Second gen-
design; and effects of computer technology on eration instructional design (ID2). Educational Tech-
instructional design and development. (1982). Edu- nology, 30(2), 7-14.
cational Technology, 22(6), 11-15. Miles, G.D. (1983). Evaluating four years of ID experi-
Jones, T.S., & Richey, R.C. (2000). Rapid prototyping ence. Journal oflnstructional Development, 6(2), 9-14.

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A HISTORY OF INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN 67

Miller, R.B. (1953). A method for

analysis. Training man-machine
and Development, 53(5), 63-68. tas
analysis (Tech. Rep. No. 53-137).
Rossett, A., & Donello,Wright-Patterson
J.F. (1999). Knowledge manage-
Air Force Base, Ohio: Wright Airprofessionals
ment for training Development [Online]. Available:Cen-
ter.
http: / /defcon.sdsu.edu/3/objects/km/ [2001, Jan-
Miller, R.B. (1962). Analysis and specification of uary 28].
behavior for training. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training Rossett, A., & Garbosky, J. (1987). The use, misuse, and
research and education. Pittsburgh: University of Pitts- non-use of educational technologists in public edu-
burgh Press. cation. Educational Technology, 27(9), 37-42.
Morgan, R.M. (1989). Instructional systems develop- Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational
ment in third world countries. Educational Technol-
technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
ogy Research and Development, 37(1), 47-56. Scriven, M. (1967). The methodolgy of evaluation. In
Morrison, G.R. (1994). The media effects question: Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (American Edu-
"Unsolvable" or asking the right question. Educa- cational Research Association Monograph Series on
tional Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 41- Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1). Chicago: Rand
44.
McNally.
Partridge, M.I., & Tennyson, R.D. (1979). Graduate Shrock, S.A. (1994). The media influence debate: Read
programs in instructional systems: A review of the fine print, but don't lose sight of the big picture.
selected programs. Journal of Instructional Develop-
Educational Technology Research and Development,
ment, 2(2), 18-26. 42(2), 49-53.
Redfield, D.D., & Dick, W. (1984). An alumni-practi-
Shrock, S.A. (1995). A brief history of instructional
tioner review of doctoral competencies in instruc-
development. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional tech-
tional systems. Journal of Instructional Development,
nology: Past, present, and future. Englewood, CO:
7(1), 10-13. Libraries Unlimited.
Reiser, R.A. (1987). Instructional technology: A his-
Silber, K.H. (1982). An analysis of university training
tory. In R.M. Gagne (Ed.), Instructional technology:
programs for instructional developers. Journal of
Foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Instructional Development, 6(1), 15-28.
Reiser, R.A. (1994). Clark's invitation to the dance: An
Silvern, L.C. (1964). Designing instructional systems. Los
instructional designer's response. Educational Tech-
Angeles: Education and Training Consultants.
nology Research and Development, 42(2), 45-48.
Skinner, B.F. (1954). The science of learning and the art
Reiser, R.A. (in press). What field did you say you
of teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86-97.
were in? Defining and naming our field. In R.A.
Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in Skinner, B.F. (1958). Teaching machines. Science, 128,
969-977.
instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Spady, W.G. (1988). Organizing for results: The basis
Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.). (in press). Trends for at hentic restructuring and reform. Educational
and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Leadership, 46(2), 4-8.
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Sullivan, H.J., & Higgins, N (1983). Teaching for compe-
Rosenberg, M.J. (1988). The role of training in a perfor- tence. New York: Teachers College Press.
mance-oriented organization. Performance and Tyler, R.W. (1975). Educational benchmarks in retro-
Instruction, 27(2), 1-6. spect: Educational change since 1915. Viewpoints,
Rosenberg, M.J. (1990). Performance technology: 51(2), 11-31.
Working the system. Training, 27(2), 42-48. Wager, W.W., & Mckay, J. (in press). EPSS: Visions and
Rosenberg, M.J. (2001). e-Learning: Strategies for deliver- viewpoints. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.),
ing knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw Trends and issues in instructional design and technology.
Hill. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Rossett, A. (1990). Performance technology and aca- Walbesser, H.H., & Eisenberg, T.A. (1972). A review of
demic programs in instructional design and technol- the research on behavioral objectives and learning hierar-
ogy: Must we change? Educational Technology, 30(8), chies. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Center
48-51. for Science and Mathematics Education. (ERIC Doc-
Rossett, A. (1999). Knowledge management meets ument Reproduction Service No. ED 059 900)

This content downloaded from 138.86.46.94 on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 15:17:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms