Instructional design
[1][2] The process consists broadly of determining the state and needs of the learner, defining the end goal of instruction, and creating some "intervention" to assist in the transition.
While the impact of each of these fields is difficult to quantify, it is argued that the language and the "look and feel" of the early forms of instructional design and their progeny were derived from this engineering discipline.
[7] Specifically, they were linked to the training development model used by the U.S. military, which were based on systems approach and was explained as "the idea of viewing a problem or situation in its entirety with all its ramifications, with all its interior interactions, with all its exterior connections and with full cognizance of its place in its context.
[10][11] The framework first migrated to the industrial sector to train workers before it finally found its way to the education field.
[9] In 1956, a committee led by Benjamin Bloom published an influential taxonomy with three domains of learning: cognitive (what one knows or thinks), psychomotor (what one does, physically) and affective (what one feels, or what attitudes one has).
[9] Gagne's work in learning hierarchies and hierarchical analysis led to an important notion in instruction – to ensure that learners acquire prerequisite skills before attempting superordinate ones.
[9] During the 1970s, the number of instructional design models greatly increased and prospered in different sectors in military, academia, and industry.
[14] Although interest in instructional design continued to be strong in business and the military, there was little evolution of ID in schools or higher education.
[9][10][16] PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operation) is one example of how computers began to be integrated into instruction.
In this process, an instructional design project is prototyped quickly and then vetted through a series of try and revise cycles.
[37][38] A 2014 study showed that formal training makes up only 4 percent of the 505 hours per year an average employee spends learning.
[38] As a result of this and other research, more emphasis was placed on creating knowledge bases and other supports for self-directed learning.
This acronym stands for the five phases contained in the model: Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate.
Over the years, the steps were revised and eventually the model itself became more dynamic and interactive than its original hierarchical rendition, until its most popular version appeared in the mid-80s, as we understand it today.
Proponents suggest that through an iterative process the verification of the design documents saves time and money by catching problems while they are still easy to fix.
[45] The model was originally published in 1978 by Walter Dick and Lou Carey in their book entitled The Systematic Design of Instruction.
[48] Peter (1968) & Mary (1972) Esseff both received their doctorates in Educational Technology from the Catholic University of America under the mentorship of Gabriel Ofiesh, a founding father of the Military Model mentioned above.
Theories such as behaviorism, constructivism, social learning, and cognitivism help shape and define the outcome of instructional materials.
Hardré's model incorporates cognitive, needs, and affective theories as well as social elements of learning to address learner motivation.
MOM has seven key components spelling the acronym 'SUCCESS' – Situational, Utilization, Competence, Content, Emotional, Social, and Systemic.
