A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of instructional design

This is the second of a two-part article that discusses the history of the field of instructional design and technology in the United States. The first part, which focused on the history of instructional media, appeared in the previous issue of this journal (volume 49, number 1). This part of the article focuses on the history of instructional design. Starting with a description of the efforts to develop training programs during World War II, and continuing on through the publication of some of the first instructional design models in the 1960s and 1970s, major events in the development of the instructional design process are described. Factors that have affected the field of instructional design over the last two decades, including increasing interest in cognitive psychology, microcomputers, performance technology, and constructivism, are also described.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Similar content being viewed by others

The Many Facets of Design and Research in Instructional Design

Instructional Design Models

Instructional Design Models

Explore related subjects

References

• Andrews, D.H., & Goodson, L.A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models instructional design.Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16. Google Scholar
• Baker, E.L. (1973). The technology of instructional development. In R.M.W. Travers (Ed.),Second handbook of research on teaching, Chicago: Rand McNally. Google Scholar
• Banathy, B.H. (1968).Instructional systems. Belmont, CA: Fearon. Google Scholar
• Barson, J. (1967).Instructional systems development. A demonstration and evaluation project: Final report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 020 673) Google Scholar
• Bassi, L.J., & Van Buren, M.E. (1999). Sharpening the leading edge.Training and Development, 53(1), 23–33. Google Scholar
• Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay. Google Scholar
• Bonner, J. (1988). Implications of cognitive theory for instructional design.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 36, 3–14. Google Scholar
• Borich, G.D. (1980).A state of the art assessment of educational evaluation. Austin, TX: University of Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 187 717) Google Scholar
• Bowsher, J.E. (1989). Educating America: Lessons learned in the nation's corporations. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
• Branson, R.K., & Grow G. (1987). Instructional systems development. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional Technology: Foundations (pp. 397–428). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
• Branson, R.K., Rayner, G.T., Cox, J.L., Furman, J.P., King, FJ, & Hannum, W.H. (1975).Interservice procedures for instructional systems development. Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Google Scholar
• Burkman, E. (1987a). Factors affecting utilization. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional Technology: Foundations (pp. 429–456). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
• Burkman, E. (1987b). Prospects for instructional systems design in the public schools.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(4), 27–32. Google Scholar
• Cambre, M.A. (1981). Historical overview of formative evaluation of instructional media products.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 3–25. Google Scholar
• Chadwick, C.B. (1986). Instructional technology research in Latin America.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 34, 247–254. Google Scholar
• Chevalier, R.D. (1990). Improving efficiency and effectiveness of training: A six year case study of systematic change.Performance and Instruction, 29(5), 21–23. Google Scholar
• Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Coleman, Perry, & Schwen (1997). Constructivist instructional development: Reflecting on practice from an alternative paradigm. In C.R. Dills & A.J. Romiszowski (Eds.),Instructional Development Paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology. Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L.J. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation.Teachers' College Record, 64, 672–683.w Google Scholar
• Dale, E. (1967). Historical setting of programmed instruction. In P.C. Lange (Ed.),Programmed instruction: The sixty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
• Dean, P.J. (1995). Examining the practice of human performance technology.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8(2), 68–94. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Dempsey, J.V., & Van Eck, R.N. (in press). Instructional design online: Evolving expectations. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.),Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Diamond, R.M. (1989).Designing and improving courses and curricula in higher education: A systematic approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Google Scholar
• Dick, W. (1987). A history of instructional design and its impact on educational psychology. In J. Glover & R. Roning (Eds.),Historical foundations of educational psychology. New York: Plenum. Google Scholar
• Dick, W. (1996). The Dick and Carey model: Will it survive the decade?Educational Technology Research and Development.44(3), 55–63. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978).The systematic design of instruction (1st ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Google Scholar
• Dick W., & Reiser, R.A. (1989).Planning effective instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
• Divesta, F.J., & Rieber, L.P. (1987). Characteristics of cognitive engineering: The next generation of instructional systems.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 35, 213–230. Google Scholar
• Driscoll, M.P. (2000).Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Google Scholar
• Ebel, R.L. (1962). Content standard test scores.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22, 15–25. Google Scholar
• Ely, D.P., & Plomp, T. (1986). The promises of educational technology: A reassessment.International Review of Education.32, 231–249. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Finch, C.R. (1987). Instructional systems development in the military.Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 24(4), 18–26. Google Scholar
• Flanagan, J.C. (1951). Units, scores, and norms. In E.T. Lindquist (Ed.),Educational Measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Google Scholar
• Gaff, J.G. (1975).Toward faculty renewal: Advances in faculty, instructional, and organizational development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
• Gagné, R.M. (1962a). The acquisition of knowledge.Psychological Review, 69, 355–365. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Gagné, R.M. (1962b). Introduction. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Psychological principles in system development.New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
• Gagné, R.M. (1965a). The analysis of instructional objectives for the design of instruction. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Teaching machines and programmed learning, II: Data and directions. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Google Scholar
• Gagné, R.M. (1965b).The conditions of learning (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
• Gagné, R.M. (1985).The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
• Gagné, R.M., & Briggs, L.J. (1974).Principles of instructional design (1st ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Google Scholar
• Gagné, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wager, W.W. (1992).Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Google Scholar
• Gagné, R.M., & Medsker, K.L. (1996).The conditions of learning: Training applications. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Google Scholar
• Galagan, P.A. (1989). IBM gets its arms around education.Training and Development Journal, 43(1), 34–41. Google Scholar
• Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1971).Teaching and media: A systematic approach (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
• Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1980).Teaching and media: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Google Scholar
• Glaser, R. (1962) Psychology and instructional technology. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Training research and education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Google Scholar
• Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions.American Psychologist, 18, 519–521. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Glaser, R. (1965). Toward a behavioral science base for instructional design. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Teaching machines and programmed learning, II: Data and directions. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Google Scholar
• Glaser, R., & Klaus, D.J. (1962). Proficiency measurement: Assessing human performance. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Psychological principles in system development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Google Scholar
• Gustafson, K.L. (1993). Instructional design fundamentals: Clouds on the horizon.Educational Technology, 33(2), 27–32. Google Scholar
• Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997a). Revisioning models of instructional development.Educational Technology Research and Development.45(3), 73–89. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997b).Survey of Instructional Development Models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. Google Scholar
• Gustafson, K., & Bratton, B. (1984). Instructional improvement centers in higher education: A status report.Journal of Instructional Development, 7(2), 2–7. Google Scholar
• Hamerus, D. (1968).The systems approach to instructional development: The contribution of behavioral science to instructional technology. Monmouth: OR: Oregon State System of Higher Education, Teaching Research Division. Google Scholar
• Hawkridge, D. (in press). Distance learning and instructional design in international settings. In In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.),Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Heinich, R. (1970). Technology and the management of instruction (Association for Educational Communications and Technology Monograph No. 4). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Google Scholar
• Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000).Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education [Online]. Available: http://www.ihep.com/PUB.htm [2001, January 28].
• Interview with Robert M. Gagné: Developments in learning psychology: Implications for instructional design; and effects of computer technology on instructional design and development (1982).Educational Technology, 22(6), 11–15. Google Scholar
• Jones, T.S., & Richey, R.C. (2000). Rapid prototyping methodology in action: A developmental study.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 63–80. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kemp, J.E. (1971).Instructional Design: A Plan for Unit and Course Development.Belmont, CA:Fearon. Google Scholar
• Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lebow, D. (1993). Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(3), 4–16. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., Levin, D., & Greene, B. (1999).Distance education at postsecondary institutions: 1997–98 (NCES 2000-013).Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Google Scholar
• Lin, X., Bransford, J.D., Hmelo, C.E., Kantor, R.J., Hickey, D.T., Secules, T., Petrosino, A.J., Goldman, S.R., and the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1996). Instructional design and development of learning communities: An invitation to a dialogue. In B.G. Wilson (Ed.),Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design.Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology. Google Scholar
• Low, W.C. (1980). Changes in instructional development: The aftermath of an information processing takeover in psychology.Journal of Instructional Development, 4(2), 10–18. Google Scholar
• Lumsdaine, A.A., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (1960).Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Google Scholar
• Mager, R.F. (1962).Preparing objectives for programmed instruction. Belmont, CA: Fearon. Google Scholar
• Mager, R.F. (1977). The ‘winds of change’.Training and Development Journal, 31(10), 12–20. Google Scholar
• Mager, R.F. (1997).Preparing instructional objectives: A critical tool in the development of effective instruction (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance. Google Scholar
• Markle, S.M. (1967). Empirical testing of programs. In P.C. Lange (Ed.),Programmed instruction: The sixtysixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
• McCombs B.L. (1986). The instructional systems development (ISD) model: A review of those factors critical to its successful implementation.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 34, 67–81. Google Scholar
• Merrill, M.D., & Li, Z. (1989). An instructional design expert system.Journal of computer-based instruction, 16(3), 95–101. Google Scholar
• Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1990a) Limitations of first generation instructional design.Educational Technology, 30(1), 7–11. Google Scholar
• Merrill, M.D., Li, Z., & Jones, M.K. (1990b) Second generation instructional design (ID2).Educational Technology, 30(2), 7–14. Google Scholar
• Miles, G.D. (1983). Evaluating four years of ID experience.Journal of Instructional Development, 6(2), 9–14. Google Scholar
• Miller, R.B. (1953). A method for man-machine task analysis (Tech. Rep. No. 53-137). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center. Google Scholar
• Miller, R.B. (1962). Analysis and specification of behavior for training. In R. Glaser (Ed.),Training research and education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Google Scholar
• Morgan, R.M. (1989). Instructional systems development in third world countries.Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 47–56. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Morrison, G.R. (1994). The media effects question: “Unsolvable” or asking the right question.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 41–44. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Partridge, M.I., & Tennyson, R.D. (1979). Graduate programs in instructional systems: A review of selected programs.Journal of Instructional Development, 2(2), 18–26. Google Scholar
• Redfield, D.D., & Dick, W. (1984). An alumni-practitioner review of doctoral competencies in instructional systems.Journal of Instructional Development, 7(1), 10–13. Google Scholar
• Reiser, R.A. (1987). Instructional technology: A history. In R.M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations, Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
• Reiser, R.A. (1994). Clark's invitation to the dance: An instructional designer's response.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 45–48. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Reiser, R.A. (in press). What field did you say you were in? Defining and naming our field. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.),Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Reiser, R.A., & Dempsey, J.V. (Eds.). (in press).Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Rosenberg, M.J. (1988). The role of training in a performance-oriented organization.Performance and Instruction, 27(2), 1–6. Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, M.J. (1990). Performance technology: Working the system.Training, 27(2), 42–48. Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, M.J. (2001).e-Learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York: McGraw Hill. Google Scholar
• Rossett, A. (1990). Performance technology and academic programs in instructional design and technology: Must we change?Educational Technology, 30(8), 48–51. Google Scholar
• Rossett, A. (1999). Knowledge management meets analysis.Training and Development, 53(5), 63–68. Google Scholar
• Rossett, A., & Donello, J.F. (1999).Knowledge management for training professionals [Online]. Available: http://defcon.sdsu.edu/3/objects/km/ [2001, January 28].
• Rossett, A., & Garbosky, J. (1987). The use, misuse, and non-use of educational technologists in public education.Educational Technology, 27(9), 37–42. Google Scholar
• Saettler, P. (1990).The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Google Scholar
• Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. InPerspectives of curriculum evaluation (American Educational Research Association Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1). Chicago: Rand McNally. Google Scholar
• Shrock, S.A. (1994). The media influence debate: Read the fine print, but don't lose sight of the big picture.Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 49–53. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Shrock, S.A. (1995). A brief history of instructional development. In G.J. Anglin (Ed.),Instructional technology: Past, present, and future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Google Scholar
• Silber, K.H. (1982). An analysis of university training programs for instructional developers.Journal of Instructional Development, 6(1), 15–28. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Silvern, L.C. (1964).Designing instructional systems. Los Angeles: Education and Training Consultants. Google Scholar
• Skinner, B.F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching.Harvard Educational Review, 24, 86–97. Google Scholar
• Skinner, B.F. (1958). Teaching machines.Science, 128, 969–977. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Spady, W.G. (1988). Organizing for results: The basis for authentic restructuring and reform.Educational Leadership 46(2), 4–8. Google Scholar
• Sullivan, H.J., & Higgins, N. (1983).Teaching for competence. New York: Teachers College Press. Google Scholar
• Tyler, R.W. (1975). Educational benchmarks in retrospect: Educational change since 1915.Viewpoints, 51(2), 11–31. Google Scholar
• Wager, W.W., & McKay, J. (in press). EPSS: Visions and viewpoints. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.),Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Walbesser, H.H., & Eisenberg, T.A. (1972).A review of the research on behavioral objectives and learning hierarchies. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Center for Science and Mathematics Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 059 900) Google Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Florida State University, Florida, USA Robert A. Reiser ( a professor in the Instructional Systems program )

1. Robert A. Reiser