Definitions of

Instructional Design as a Process: Instructional Design is the systematic development of instructional specifications using learning and instructional theory to ensure the quality of instruction. It is the entire process of analysis of learning needs and goals and the development of a delivery system to meet those needs. It includes development of instructional materials and activities; and tryout and evaluation of all instruction and learner activities.

Instructional Design as a Discipline: Instructional Design is that branch of knowledge concerned with research and theory about instructional strategies and the process for developing and implementing those strategies.

Instructional Design as a Science: Instructional design is the science of creating detailed specifications for the development, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance of situations that facilitate the learning of both large and small units of subject matter at all levels of complexity.

Instructional Design as Reality: Instructional design can start at any point in the design process. Often a glimmer of an idea is developed to give the core of an instruction situation. By the time the entire process is done the designer looks back and she or he checks to see that all parts of the "science" have been taken into account. Then the entire process is written up as if it occurred in a systematic fashion.

Instructional System: An instructional system is an arrangement of resources and procedures to promote learning. Instructional design is the systematic process of developing instructional systems and instructional development is the process of implementing the system or plan. Instructional Technology: Instructional technology is the systemic and systematic application of strategies and techniques derived from behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist theories to the solution of instructional problems.

Instructional technology is the systematic application of theory and other organized knowledge to the task of instructional design and development.

Instructional Technology = Instructional Design + Instructional Development

Instructional Development: The process of implementing the design plans.

A Brief History of Instructional Design

Douglas Leigh

As a formal discipline, Instructional Systems Design has been a long time in the making. The early contributions of thinkers such as Aristotle, Socrates and Plato regarding the cognitive basis of learning and memory was later expanded by the 13th century philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas who discussed the perception of teachings in terms of free will. Four hundred years later, John Locke advanced Aristotle's notion of human's initial state of mental blankness by proposing that almost all reason and knowledge must be gained from experience. Then, at the turn of the 20th century John Dewey presented several tenets of the philosophy of education which promoted the idea that learning occurs best when married with doing, rather than rote regurgitation of facts.

As the 1920's approached, a behaviorist approach to became increasingly predominant. Thorndike's theory of connectionism represents the original stimulus-response (S-R) model of behavioral psychology, and was expanded on some twenty years later by Hull in his exposition of drive reduction – a motivational model of behavior which emphasizes learner's wants, attention, and activities. With the Industrial Revolution came an increased attention to productivity, and educational behaviorists during the 1920's such as Sidney Pressey applied mechanized technology to increase the efficiency of the learning process. Though their initial incarnation did not see much use after the Depression, many of the lessons learned research into these teaching machines regarding the delivery of standardized instruction contributed to the instructional media research & development movement of World War II.

The advent of the Second World War presented a tremendous instructional dilemma: the rapid training of hundreds of thousands of military personnel. Ralph Tyler's work a decade before WWII indicated that objectives were most useful to instructional developers if written in terms of desired learner behaviors. Armed with this knowledge and the experience of creating standardize methods of instructional delivery using teaching machines, military researchers developed a bevy of training films and other mediated materials for instructional purposes. In part, the United States' heavy investment in training and R&D was credited with the country's victory in the war. With the economic boom that followed, federal dollars followed researcher's desire to better flesh out the underpinnings of learning, cognition, and instruction.

The 1950's are characterized by a shift away from the uninformed application of instructional technology to the formulation of theoretical models of learning. The publication of B. F. Skinner's The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching in 1954 canonized the basic behaviorist principles of S-R, feedback, and reinforcement. As the key element of his theory of operant conditioning, the reinforcement of desired learner responses was also incorporated into Skinner's implementations of programmed instruction. Considered by many the progenitor of contemporary instructional design, programmed instruction emphasizes the formulation of behavioral objectives, breaking instructional content into small units and rewarding correct responses early and often.

Another substantial instructional theorist of the 1950's was . His 1956 taxonomy of intellectual behaviors provided instructors a means by which to decide how to impart instructional content to learners most effectively. Advocating a mastery approach to learning, Bloom endorsed instructional techniques that varied both instruction and time according to learner requirements. While this approach provided instructional developers a means by which to match subject matter and instructional methods, Bloom's taxonomy was not in and of itself capable of satisfying the desire of large organizations to relate resources and processes to the performances of individuals. To achieve this researchers in the military's Air Research and Development Command borrowed from Ludwig von Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory of biological interactions to integrate the operations of a wide range of departments, such as training, intelligence, and staffing. Combined with the Bloom's Taxonomy, the systems approach to instructional and organizational development allowed planners and policy-makers to match the content and delivery of instruction in a fashion which considered both super- and sub-systems (the organization as a whole, as well as groups and individuals within the organization). These advances of Skinner, Bloom and von Bertalanffy were usually employed to develop instruction in what was only assumed to be an effective an efficient manner. The formalization of a standardized design process still had yet to be devised.

Again it was a crisis that spurred the next evolution of instructional technology – a shift away from an emphasis in the development of instructional programs to one which focused on the design of entire curriculum. Again the crisis was a war, but this time the war was a political one. In 1957 the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik satellite and began the "space race". America was taken by surprise and the government was forced to reevaluate the education system and its shortcomings. Science and math programs were the first to be targeted, and the government employed experts in these fields to bring the content up to date.

In 1962 Robert Glaser synthesized the work of previous researchers and introduced the concept of "instructional design", submitting a model which links learner analysis to the design and development of instruction. Interestingly, Glaser's contribution to the current field of instructional systems is not so much in the advancement of his model, but in work concerning Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI), an approach whereby the results of a learner's placement test are used to plan learner-specific instruction.

At the same time Glaser was developing his theories of instructional design and IPI, Robert Mager published his treatise on the construction of performance objectives. Mager suggested that an objective should describe in measurable terms who an objective targets, the behavior they will have exhibited, the conditions or limitations under which they must carry out this behavior, and the criteria against which their behavior will be gauged.

As early as 1962 when he published "Military Training and Principles of Learning" Robert Gagné demonstrated a concern for the different levels of learning. His differentiation of psychomotor skills, verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, and attitudes provides a companion to Bloom's six cognitive domains of learning. Later, Gagné extended his thinking to include nine instructional events that detail the conditions necessary for learning to occur. These events have long since been used for the basis for the design of instruction and the selection of appropriate media.

The mediation of instruction entered the computer age in the 1960's when conducted his initial investigations into computer-assisted instruction (CAI) at Stanford University. Developed through a systematic analysis of curriculum, Suppes' CAI provided learner feedback, branching, and response tracking – aspects were later incorporated into the PLATO system in the 1970's and continue guide the development of today's instructional software.

By the late 1960's America was again in crisis. Not only was the country involved in another war, but the nation's schools were unable to elicit the achievement from learners it anticipated. Grant Venn argued that since only 19% of first graders complete a bachelor or arts degree, that the current educational system is only serving the advantaged minority of schoolchildren. To counter this trend Robert Morgan proposed to conduct an experiment with an "organic curriculum" which would to incorporate into the educational system the best instructional practices identified through research. Accepted in 1967 the proposal by the US Office of Education, the project was dubbed "Educational Systems for the 1970's", or ES'70. Morgan engaged an array of experts in the field of learning, cognition, and instructional design to contribute to the project and carried out multiple experiments in a variety of settings. Of these was Leslie Briggs, who had demonstrated that an instructionally designed course could yield up to 2:1 increase over conventionally designed courses in terms of achievement, reduction in variance, and reduction of time-to-completion – this effect was four times that of the control group which received no training. In 1970, Morgan partnered with the Florida Research and Development Advisory Board to conduct a nation-wide educational reform project in South Korea. Faced with the task of increasing the achievement of learners while at the same time reducing the cost of schooling from $41.27 per student per year Morgan applied some of the same techniques as had been piloted in the ES'70 project and achieved striking results: an increase in student achievement, a more efficient organization of instructors and course content, an increased teacher to student ratio, a reduction in salary cost, and a reduction in yearly per student cost by $9.80. Around this time Roger Kaufman developed a problem-solving framework for educational strategic planning which provided practitioners a means by which to demonstrate value-added not only for the learner, but the school system and society as a whole. This framework provided the basis for the Organizational Elements Model (OEM), a needs assessment model which specifies results to be achieved at societal, organizational, and individual performance levels. By rigorously defining needs as gaps in results Kaufman emphasized that performance improvement interventions can not demonstrate return-on-investment unless those interventions were derived from the requirements of these three primary clients and beneficiaries of organizational action. This approach to needs assessment and strategic planning has since been used across the world as the foundation for planning, evaluation, and continuous improvement in military, business, and educational settings.

A variety of models for instructional system design proliferated the late 1970's and early 80's: Gagné and Briggs, Branson, Dick and Carey, and Atkins, to name a few. One possible reason for this phenomenon deals with the establishment of formal education and training departments within both public and private organizations. Faced with the computerized technologies of the times, these organizations require a means by which to quickly develop appropriate methods by which to educate internal employees in the new business practices ushered into existence by the Information Age. Another explanation is that businesses, especially consulting organizations, are becoming increasingly required to demonstrate value-added not only to their organization, but to the clients they serve. The evaluation and continuous improvement components of contemporary models of ISD make far strides from the early develop-and-implement models of the middle of the century in this aspect.

In the 1990's a dual focus on technology and performance improvement has developed. For example, in his 1988 essay "Why the Schools Can't Improve: The Upper Limit Hypothesis" Robert Branson offers an argument for systemic school reform, suggesting that schools are operating at near peak efficiency and must be redesigned from the top down using technological interventions. Later in that year Branson was contracted by the Florida Department of Education (DOE) to analyze it's various programs and plan a system-wide technology-based educational reform initiative for Florida called Schoolyear 2000. Over the next several years Branson's team developed and piloted multiple computerized instructional technologies, as well as models of the interaction between the internal operations of the school system and the experiences and knowledge of students, parents, and teachers. Developments in performance improvement outside ISD during the 1990's such as Quality Management (QM), Organizational Engineering, and Change Management have required that instructional designers look outside their profession to demonstrate the utility of their practice. Introduced earlier by Deming, QM has swept public and private organizations alike in the 90's. Whereas initially thought of in terms of "quality control" or "zero defects", quality practices have evolved into tools for organizational continuous improvement. Similarly, instructional designers in the 90's often work alongside authorities in the field of organizational engineering. Characterized by a concern for an organization's culture and interaction between groups, organizational engineering seeks to improve organizations through the identification of relationships between an organization's vision, mission, goals, methods and personnel. Similarly, change management has become a business in and of itself, with leaders such as Darly Conner and Joel Barker pioneering methods for and models of organizational change.

The advent of new media, such as the Internet and hypermedia, has brought about not only technological innovations, but also coupled these with new ways of approaching learning and instruction. As opposed to the behavioralist perspective that emphasizes learning objectives, the constructivist approach holds that learners construct their understanding of reality from interpretations of their experiences. Theorists such as Thomas Duffy and Seymour Papert suggest that constructivism provides a model whereby socio-cultural and cognitive issues regarding the design of learning environments can be supported by computer tools. This philosophy has been applied to such computerized technologies as online help systems and programming language LOGO.

In the future, instructional designers are likely to choose one of two paths: specialist or generalist. In the prior path, designers will focus on one aspect of learning or instruction and act as consultants or subject matter experts, whether internal or external to the organization. The other approach is one more aligned with managerial activities. Since the field is becoming too broad for most designers to work with authority in all matters, this option allows practitioners to oversee the development of instructional projects, rather than narrow their efforts exclusively on assessment, analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation or continuous improvement.

References Boling, E. (1996). Instructional Technology Foundations I: Historical Timelines Project Page [Online]. Available: http://education.indiana.edu/~istcore/r511/datelist.html [1998, June 7].

Kearsley, G. (1994). Learning & Instruction: The TIP Database [Online]. Available: http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/educ/tip/1.htm [1998, June 7].

Reiser, R. A. (1987). Instructional Technology: A History. In R. M. Gagné (ed.), Instructional Technology: Foundations (pp. 11 - 40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shrock, S. A. (No date). A Brief History of Instructional Development [Online].Available: http://uttc- med.utb.edu/6320/chapters/summary_ch2.html [1998, June 7].

Instructional design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (August 2010)

Instructional Design (also called Instructional Systems Design (ISD)) is the practice of maximizing the effectiveness, efficiency and appeal of instruction and other learning experiences. The process consists broadly of determining the current state and needs of the learner, defining the end goal of instruction, and creating some "intervention" to assist in the transition. Ideally the process is informed by pedagogically (process of teaching) and andragogically (adult learning) tested theories of learning and may take place in student-only, teacher-led or community-based settings. The outcome of this instruction may be directly observable and scientifically measured or completely hidden and assumed. There are many instructional design models but many are based on the ADDIE model with the five phases: 1) analysis, 2) design, 3) development, 4) implementation, and 5) evaluation. As a field, instructional design is historically and traditionally rooted in cognitive and behavioral psychology.

Contents [hide]

1 History

2 Cognitive load theory and the design of instruction

3 Learning design

4 Instructional design models

o 4.1 ADDIE process

o 4.2 Rapid prototyping

o 4.3 Dick and Carey

o 4.4 Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS)

o 4.5 Other models

5 Influential researchers and theorists

6 See also

7 References

8 External links

[edit]History

Much of the foundation of the field of instructional design was laid in World War II, when the U.S. military faced the need to rapidly train large numbers of people to perform complex technical tasks, from field-stripping a carbine to navigating across the ocean to building a bomber—see "Training Within Industry (TWI)". Drawing on the research and theories of B.F. Skinner on operant conditioning, training programs focused on observable behaviors. Tasks were broken down into subtasks, and each subtask treated as a separate learning goal. Training was designed to reward correct performance and remediate incorrect performance. Mastery was assumed to be possible for every learner, given enough repetition and feedback. After the war, the success of the wartime training model was replicated in business and industrial training, and to a lesser extent in the primary and secondary classroom. The approach is still common in the U.S. military.[1]

In 1956, a committee led by Benjamin Bloom published an influential taxonomy of what he termed the 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). These taxonomies still influence the design of instruction.[2]

During the latter half of the 20th century, learning theories began to be influenced by the growth of digital computers.

In the 1970s, many instructional design theorists began to adopt an information- processing-based approach to the design of instruction. David Merrill for instance developed Component Display Theory (CDT), which concentrates on the means of presenting instructional materials (presentation techniques).[3]

Later in the 1980s and throughout the 1990s cognitive load theory began to find empirical support for a variety of presentation techniques.[4]

[edit]Cognitive load theory and the design of instruction

Cognitive load theory developed out of several empirical studies of learners, as they interacted with instructional materials.[5] Sweller and his associates began to measure the effects of working memoryload, and found that the format of instructional materials has a direct effect on the performance of the learners using those materials.[6][7][8]

While the media debates of the 1990s focused on the influences of media on learning, cognitive load effects were being documented in several journals. Rather than attempting to substantiate the use of media, these cognitive load learning effects provided an empirical basis for the use of instructional strategies. Mayer asked the instructional design community to reassess the media debate, to refocus their attention on what was most important: learning.[9]

By the mid- to late-1990s, Sweller and his associates had discovered several learning effects related to cognitive load and the design of instruction (e.g. the split attention effect, redundancy effect, and the worked-example effect). Later, other researchers like Richard Mayer began to attribute learning effects to cognitive load.[9] Mayer and his associates soon developed a Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning.[10][11][12] In the past decade, cognitive load theory has begun to be internationally accepted[13] and begun to revolutionize how practitioners of instructional design view instruction. Recently, human performance experts have even taken notice of cognitive load theory, and have begun to promote this theory base as the science of instruction, with instructional designers as the practitioners of this field.[14] Finally Clark, Nguyen and Sweller[15] published a textbook describing how Instructional Designers can promote efficient learning using evidence-based guidelines of cognitive load theory.

Instructional Designers use various instructional strategies to reduce cognitive load. For example, they think that the onscreen text should not be more than 150 words or the text should be presented in small meaningful chunks.[citation needed] The designers also use auditory and visual methods to communicate information to the learner.

[edit]Learning design

The IMS Learning Design [16] specification supports the use of a wide range of teaching methods in online learning. Rather than attempting to capture the specifics of many strategies of instruction, it does this by providing a generic and flexible language. This language is designed to enable many different styles of instruction to be expressed. The approach has the advantage over alternatives in that only one set of learning design and runtime tools need to be implemented in order to support the desired wide range of teaching styles. The language was originally developed at the Open University of the Netherlands (OUNL), after extensive examination and comparison of a wide range of pedagogical approaches and their associated learning activities, and several iterations of the developing language to obtain a good balance between generality and pedagogic expressiveness.

A criticism of Learning Design theory is that learning is an outcome. While instructional theory Instructional Design focuses on outcomes, while properly accounting for a multi- variate context that can only be predictive, it acknowledges that (given the variabilities in human capability) a guarantee of reliable learning outcomes is improbable. We can only design instruction. We cannot design learning (an outcome). Automotive engineers can design a car that, under specific conditions, will achieve 50 miles per gallon. These engineers cannot guarantee that drivers of the cars they design will (or have the capability to) operate these vehicles according to the specific conditions prescribed. The former is the metaphor for instructional design. The latter is the metaphor for Learning Design.

[edit]Instructional design models [edit]ADDIE process

Perhaps the most common model used for creating instructional materials is the ADDIE Process. This acronym stands for the 5 phases contained in the model:

. Analyze – analyze learner characteristics, task to be learned, etc.

. Design – develop learning objectives, choose an instructional approach

. Develop – create instructional or training materials

. Implement – deliver or distribute the instructional materials

. Evaluate – make sure the materials achieved the desired goals

Most of the current instructional design models are variations of the ADDIE process.[17]

[edit]Rapid prototyping

A sometimes utilized adaptation to the ADDIE model is in a practice known as rapid prototyping.

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. This approach is not novel to the design of instruction, but appears in many design- related domains including software design, architecture, transportation planning, product development, message design, user experience design, etc.[17][18][19] In fact, some proponents of design prototyping assert that a sophisticated understanding of a problem is incomplete without creating and evaluating some type of prototype, regardless of the analysis rigor that may have been applied up front.[20] In other words, up-front analysis is rarely sufficient to allow one to confidently select an instructional model. For this reason many traditional methods of instructional design are beginning to be seen as incomplete, naive, and even counter-productive.[21]

However, some consider rapid prototyping to be a somewhat simplistic type of model. As this argument goes, at the heart of Instructional Design is the analysis phase. After you thoroughly conduct the analysis—you can then choose a model based on your findings. That is the area where most people get snagged—they simply do not do a thorough- enough analysis. (Part of Article By Chris Bressi on LinkedIn) [edit]Dick and Carey

Another well-known instructional design model is The Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model.[22] The model was originally published in 1978 by Walter Dick and Lou Carey in their book entitledThe Systematic Design of Instruction.

Dick and Carey made a significant contribution to the instructional design field by championing a systems view of instruction as opposed to viewing instruction as a sum of isolated parts. The model addresses instruction as an entire system, focusing on the interrelationship between context, content, learning and instruction. According to Dick and Carey, "Components such as the instructor, learners, materials, instructional activities, delivery system, and learning and performance environments interact with each other and work together to bring about the desired student learning outcomes". [22] The components of the Systems Approach Model, also known as the Dick and Carey Model, are as follows:

. Identify Instructional Goal(s)

. Conduct Instructional Analysis

. Analyze Learners and Contexts

. Write Performance Objectives

. Develop Assessment Instruments . Develop Instructional Strategy

. Develop and Select Instructional Materials

. Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation of Instruction

. Revise Instruction

. Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation

With this model, components are executed iteratively and in parallel rather than linearly. [22]

[edit]Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS)

Another instructional design model is the Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS).[23] The model was originally published in 1970 by Peter J. Esseff, PhD and Mary Sullivan Esseff, PhD in their book entitled IDLS—Pro Trainer 1: How to Design, Develop, and Validate Instructional Materials.[24]

Peter (1968) & Mary (1972) Esseff both received their doctorates in Educational Technology from the Catholic University of America under the mentorship of Dr. Gabriel Ofiesh, a Founding Father of the Military Model mentioned above. Esseff and Esseff contributed synthesized existing theories to develop their approach to systematic design, "Instructional Development Learning System" (IDLS).

The components of the IDLS Model are:

. Design a Task Analysis

. Develop Criterion Tests and Performance Measures

. Develop Interactive Instructional Materials

. Validate the Interactive Instructional Materials [edit]Other models

Some other useful models of instructional design include: the Smith/Ragan Model, the Morrison/Ross/Kemp Model and the OAR model, as well as, Wiggins theory of backward design. Learning theories also play an important role in the design of instructional materials. Theories such as behaviorism, constructivism, social learning and cognitivism help shape and define the outcome of instructional materials.

[edit]Influential researchers and theorists

The lists in this article may contain items that are not notable, not encyclopedic, or not helpful. Please help out by removing such elements and incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the article. (December 2010)

Alphabetic by last name

. Bloom, Benjamin – Taxonomies of the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains – 1955

. Bonk, Curtis – Blended learning – 2000s

. Bransford, John D. – How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice – 1999

. Bruner, Jerome – Constructivism

. Carr-Chellman, Alison – Instructional Design for Teachers ID4T -2010

. Carey, L. – "The Systematic Design of Instruction"

. Clark, Richard – Clark-Kosma "Media vs Methods debate", "Guidance" debate.

. Clark, Ruth – Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load / Guided Instruction / Cognitive Load Theory

. Dick, W. – "The Systematic Design of Instruction"

. Gagné, Robert M. – Nine Events of Instruction (Gagné and Merrill Video Seminar)

. Heinich, Robert – Instructional Media and the new technologies of instruction 3rd ed. – Educational Technology – 1989

. Jonassen, David – problem-solving strategies – 1990s

. Langdon, Danny G - The Instructional Designs Library: 40 Instructional Designs, Educational Tech. Publications . Mager, Robert F. – ABCD model for instructional objectives – 1962

. Merrill, M. David - Component Display Theory / Knowledge Objects

. Papert, Seymour – Constructionism, LOGO – 1970s

. Piaget, Jean – Cognitive development – 1960s

. Piskurich, George – Rapid Instructional Design – 2006

. Simonson, Michael – Instructional Systems and Design via Distance Education – 1980s

. Schank, Roger – Constructivist simulations – 1990s

. Sweller, John - Cognitive load, Worked-example effect, Split-attention effect

. Reigeluth, Charles – Elaboration Theory, "Green Books" I, II, and III - 1999-2010

. Skinner, B.F. – Radical Behaviorism, Programed Instruction

. Vygotsky, Lev – Learning as a social activity – 1930s

. Wiley, David – Learning Objects, Open Learning – 2000s

[edit]See also

Wikiversity has learning materials about Instructional design

Since instructional design deals with creating useful instruction and instructional materials, there are many other areas that are related to the field of instructional design.

. educational assessment

. confidence-based learning

. educational animation

. educational psychology . educational technology

. e-learning

. electronic portfolio

. evaluation

. human–computer interaction

. instructional design context

. instructional technology

. instructional theory

. interaction design

. learning object

. learning science

. m-learning

. multimedia learning

. online education

. instructional design coordinator

. storyboarding

. training

. interdisciplinary teaching

. rapid prototyping

. lesson study

. Understanding by Design

[edit]References 1. ^ MIL-HDBK-29612/2A Instructional Systems Development/Systems Approach to Training and Education

2. ^ Bloom's Taxonomy

3. ^ TIP: Theories

4. ^ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. - Educational Psychologist - 38(1):1 - Citation

5. ^ Sweller, J. (1988). "Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning". Cognitive Science 12 (1): 257–285. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7.

6. ^ Chandler, P. & Sweller, J. (1991). "Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction". Cognition and Instruction 8 (4): 293–332. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.

7. ^ Sweller, J., & Cooper, G.A. (1985). "The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra". Cognition and Instruction 2 (1): 59–89. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3.

8. ^ Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). "Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer". Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (4): 347– 362. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.79.4.347.

9. ^ a b Mayer, R.E. (1997). "Multimedia Learning: Are We Asking the Right Questions?". Educational Psychologist 32 (41): 1–19. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1.

10. ^ Mayer, R.E. (2001). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0- 521-78239-2.

11. ^ Mayer, R.E., Bove, W. Bryman, A. Mars, R. & Tapangco, L. (1996). "When Less Is More: Meaningful Learning From Visual and Verbal Summaries of Science Textbook Lessons". Journal of Educational Psychology 88 (1): 64–73. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.64.

12. ^ Mayer, R.E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G. and Mars, R. (1995). "A generative theory of textbook design: Using annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text". Educational Technology Research and Development 43 (1): 31–41. doi:10.1007/BF02300480.

13. ^ Paas, F., Renkl, A. & Sweller, J. (2004). "Cognitive Load Theory: Instructional Implications of the Interaction between Information Structures and Cognitive Architecture". Instructional Science 32: 1– 8.doi:10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516.d0. 14. ^ Clark, R.C., Mayer, R.E. (2002). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ISBN 0-7879-6051-9.

15. ^ Clark, R.C., Nguyen, F., and Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ISBN 0-7879-7728-4.

16. ^ IMS Learning Design webpage

17. ^ a b Piskurich, G.M. (2006). Rapid Instructional Design: Learning ID fast and right.

18. ^ Saettler, P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology.

19. ^ Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E. (1999). Handbook of human performance technology.

20. ^ Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO's strategies for beating the devil's advocate & driving creativity throughout your organization. New York: Doubleday.

21. ^ Hokanson, B., & Miller, C. (2009). Role-based design: A contemporary framework for innovation and creativity in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(2), 21–28.

22. ^ a b c Dick, Walter, Lou Carey, and James O. Carey (2005) [1978]. The Systematic Design of Instruction (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. pp. 1–12. ISBN 0205412742.

23. ^ Esseff, Peter J. and Esseff, Mary Sullivan (1998) [1970]. Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS) (8th ed.). ESF Press. pp. 1–12. ISBN 1582830371.

24. ^ [1] [edit] http://thingsorganic.tripod.com/Instructional_Design_Models.htm