Instructional Design Models

Tonia A. Dousay

Researchers and practitioners have spent the past 50 years

attempting to define and create models of design with the intent to
improve instruction. As part of a joint, inter-university project, Barson
(1967) defined instructional development as the systematic process
for improving instruction. Perhaps most interesting about this project
and subsequent report is the caution that many different conditions
influence learning, including the use of media, and that generalizing
any sort of model would potentially be hazardous at best and
disastrous at worst. Shortly thereafter, however, Twelker, Urbach,
and Buck (1972) noted that a systematic approach to developing
instruction was an increasingly popular idea, but cautioned that
instructional design (ID) methods varied from simple to complex.
These historical observations predicted the reality that every
instructional design project is unique every time with no two projects
ever progressing through the process identically. These differences,
sometimes subtle while at other times significant, have given way to
literally dozens of different models used with varying popularity in a
wide variety of learning contexts.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 1

Figure 1. Mushrooms

In the midst of this explosion of models and theories, Gustafson (1991)

drafted his first monograph that would go on to become the Survey of
Instructional Development Models, now in its fifth edition (Branch &
Dousay, 2015). The book provides brief overviews of instructional
design models, classifying them within the context of classroom
product- and process-oriented instructional problems. The Surveys
book provides a concise summary to help beginning instructional
designers visualize the different design approaches as well as assist
more advanced instructional designers. However, this text is just one
of many often used in the study and practice of instructional design,
and those seeking to expand their knowledge of design process can
learn much from the rich history and theoretical development over
decades in our field. (See Resources section for suggestions.) In this
chapter, we explore a brief history of instructional design models,
common components of models, commonly referenced models, and

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 2

resources and advice for instructional designers as they engage in the
instructional design process.

Historical Context
The field of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (LIDT) has
had many periods of rapid development. Reiser (2001) noted that
training programs during World War II sparked the efforts to identify
efficient, systematic approaches to learning and instructional design.
It would be another 20 years before the first models emerged, but the
1960s and 1970s gave way to extracting instructional technology and
design processes from conversations about multimedia development
(Reiser, 2017), which in turn produced more than three dozen
different instructional design models referenced in the literature
between 1970 and 2005 (Branch & Dousay, 2015; Gustafson, 1991,
1991; Gustafson & Branch, 1997, 2002). These models help designers,
and sometimes educational stakeholders, simplify the complex reality
of instructional design and apply generic components across multiple
contexts (Gustafson & Branch, 2002), thus creating standardized
approaches to design within an organization. In turn, Molenda (2017)
noted that the standardization of processes and terminology triggered
interest in the field. Thus, an interesting relationship exists between
defining the field of instructional design and perpetuating its
existence. As designers seek to justify their role in education–whether
K-12, higher education, or industry–they often refer to existing models
or generate a new model to fit their context. These new models then
become a reference point for other designers and/or organizations.

But Where Do We Go From Here?

Despite some claims that classic instructional design is dead, or at

least seriously ill (Gordon & Zemke, 2000), there remains
considerable interest in and enthusiasm for its application (Beckschi
& Doty, 2000). This dichotomous view situates the perceived ongoing

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 3

debate between the theory of instructional design and its practice and
application. On one hand, scholars and faculty in higher education
often continue to research and practice based upon historical
foundations. On the other hand, scholars and practitioners in industry
often eschew the traditional literature, favoring instead more
business-oriented practices. Looking at the authors of various texts
consulted in higher education (see Branch, 2009; Carr-Chellman &
Rowland, 2017; Richey, Klein, & Tracey, 2010 for examples) versus
those consulted in industry (see Allen & Seaman, 2013; Biech, 2014;
Carliner, 2015; Hodell, 2015 for examples) confirms this dichotomy.
New professionals entering the field, should be aware of this tension
and how they may help mitigate potential pitfalls from focusing either
too much on foundational theory or too much on practitioner wisdom.
Both are essential to understanding how to design instruction for any
given audience.

Process vs. Models

The progression of analyzing, designing, developing, implementing,
and evaluating (ADDIE) forms the basic underlying process
(illustrated in Figure 2) that is a distinct component of instructional
design regardless of which model is used (Gustafson & Branch, 1997).
Branch (2009) said it well when he conceptualized the phases of the
ADDIE process as follows:

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 4

Figure 2. The ADDIE Process

1. Analyze – identify the probable causes for a performance gap,

2. Design –verify the desired performances and appropriate
testing methods,
3. Develop – generate and validate the learning resources,
4. Implement – prepare the learning environment and engage the
students,
5. Evaluate – assess the quality of the instructional products and
processes, both before and after implementation (p. 3).

Notice the use of the phrase process rather than model. For
instructional design purposes, a process is defined as a series of steps
necessary to reach an end result. Similarly, a model is defined as a
specific instance of a process that can be imitated or emulated. In
other words, a model seeks to personalize the generic into distinct
functions for a specific context. Thus, when discussing the

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 5

instructional design process, we often refer to ADDIE as the
overarching paradigm or framework by which we can explain
individual models. The prescribed steps of a model can be mapped or
aligned back to the phases of the ADDIE process.

Figure 3. The PIE Model

Consider the following examples. The Plan, Implement, Evaluate (PIE)

model from Newby, Stepich, Lehman, and Russell (1996) encourages
an emphasis on considering how technology assists with instructional
design, focusing on the what, when, why, and how. This phase
produces an artifact or plan that is then put into action during
implementation followed by evaluating both learner performance and
instruction effectiveness. During planning, designers work through a
series of questions related to the teacher, learner, and technology
resources. The questions are answered while also taking into
consideration the implementation and evaluation components of the
instructional problem. When considered through the lens of the

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 6

ADDIE process, PIE combines the analyzing, designing, and
developing phases into a singular focus area, which is somewhat
illustrated by the depiction in Figure 3. Similarly, the Diamond (1989)
model prescribes two phases: “Project Selection and Design” and
“Production, Implementation, and Evaluation for Each Unit.” Phase I
of the Diamond model essentially combines analyzing and designing,
while Phase II combines developing, implementing, and evaluating.
(See Figure 4 for a depiction of the model.) Diamond placed an
emphasis on the second phase of the model by prescribing an in-
depth, parallel development system to write objectives, design
evaluation instruments, select instructional strategies, and evaluate
existing resources. Then, as new resources are produced, they are
done so with consideration to the previously designed evaluation
instruments. The evaluation is again consulted during the
implementation, summative evaluation, and revision of the
instructional system. These two examples help demonstrate what is
meant by ADDIE being the general process and models being specific
applications. (For further discussion of how aspects of specific models
align with the ADDIE process, see Dousay and Logan (2011).)

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 7

Figure 4. The Diamond Model

This discussion might also be facilitated with a business example.

Consider the concept of process mapping; it helps organizations
assess operational procedures as they are currently practiced (Hunt,
1996). Mapping the process analytically to identify the steps carried
out in practice leads to process modeling, an exercise in optimization.
In other words, modeling helps move processes to a desired state
tailored to the unique needs of an organization. Many businesses of a
similar type find that they have similar processes. However, through
process modeling, their processes are customized to meet their needs.

The relationship between ADDIE and instructional design models

functions much like this business world scenario. As instructional
designers, we often follow the same process (ADDIE). However,
through modeling, we customize the process to meet the needs of our

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 8

instructional context and of our learners, stakeholders, resources, and
modes of delivery. Models assist us in selecting or developing
appropriate operational tools and techniques as we design.

Finally, models serve as a source of research questions as we seek to

develop a comprehensive theory of instructional development. Rarely
are these models tested through rigorous assessment of their results
against predetermined criteria. Rather, those ID models with wide
distribution and acceptance gain their credibility by being found
useful by practitioners, who frequently adapt and modify them to
match specific conditions (Branch & Dousay, 2015, p. 24). Thus,
popularity serves as a form of validation for these design models, but
a wise instructional designer knows when to use, adapt, or create a
new model of instructional design to fit their purposes.

Models
Because there are so many different ID models, how do we choose
which one to use? In framing this conversation, the Survey of ID
models (Branch & Dousay, 2015) serves as a foundation, but by no
means should be the sole reference. A total of 34 different
instructional design models (see Table 1 for a summary) have been
covered in the Survey text since its first edition, and this list does not
include every model. Still, this list of models is useful in providing a
concise guide to some of the more common approaches to
instructional design.

Table 1

Instructional Design Models

included in editions of the
Survey text
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
Model Name Ed Ed Ed Ed Ed
1981 1991 1997 2002 2015

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 9

Banathy (1968) x
DeCecco (1968) x
Blake & Mouton (1971) x
Briggs (1970) x
Baker & Schutz (1971) x
Gerlach & Ely (1971) x x x x x
Instructional Development Institute
x x x
(Twelker et al., 1972)
Learning Systems Design (Davis,
x
Alexander, & Yelon, 1974)
IPISD (Branson, Rayner, Cox,
x x x x x
Furman, & King, 1975)
Blondin (1977) x
Morrison, Ross, Kemp, & Kalman
x x x x x
(Kemp, 1977)
Dick, Carey, & Carey (Dick &
x x x x
Carey, 1978)
Gilbert (1978) Front End Analysis x
Courseware Development Process
x
(Control Data Corporation, 1979)
ASSURE (Heinich, Molenda, &
x x x x
Russell, 1982)
Diamond (1989) x x x x
Dick & Reiser (1989) x x
Van Patten (1989) x x
Bergman & Moore (1990) x x x x
Leshin, Pollock, & Reigeluth,
x x
(1992)
IPDM (Gentry, 1993) x x x
Smith & Ragan (1993) x x x
de Hoog, de Jong, & de Vries
x x
(1994)

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 10

Bates (1995) x x
PIE (Newby et al., 1996) x x
4C/ID (van Merriënboer, 1997) x
ISD Model 2 (Seels & Glasgow,
x x x
1997)
CASCADE (Nieveen, 1997) x x
Rapid Collaborative Prototyping
(Dorsey, Goodrum, & Schwen, x x
1997)
UbD (Wiggins & McTigue, 2000) x
Agile (Beck et al., 2001) x
3PD (Sims & Jones, 2002) x
Pebble in the Pond (Merrill, 2002) x
ILDF (Dabbagh & Bannan-Ritland,
x
2004)
TOTAL 13 12 13 15 21
Note. All references refer to the
original or first edition of a model;
however, the current name of the
model as well as current scholars
affiliated with the model may vary
from the original iteration.

When considering the models featured in Table 1, determining which

one to use might best be decided by taking into account a few factors.
First, what is the anticipated delivery format? Will the instruction be
synchronous online, synchronous face to face, asynchronous online, or
some combination of these formats? Some models are better tailored
for online contexts, such as Dick and Carey (1978); Bates (1995);
Dabbagh and Bannan-Ritland (2004); or Morrison, Ross, Kemp,
Kalman, and Kemp (2012). Another way to think about how to select a
model involves accounting for the context or anticipated output. Is the
instruction intended for a classroom? In that case, consider Gerlach

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 11

and Ely (1971); ASSURE (Smaldino, Lowther, Mims, & Russell, 2015);
PIE (Newby et al., 1996); UbD (Wiggins & McTigue, 2000); 4C/ID (van
Merriënboer & Kirschner, 2007); or 3PD (Sims & Jones, 2002).
Perhaps the instructional context involves producing an instructional
product handed over to another organization or group. In this case,
consider Bergman and Moore (1990); de Hoog et al. (1994); Nieveen
(1997); Seels and Glasgow (1997); or Agile (Beck et al., 2001). Lastly,
perhaps your context prescribes developing a system, such as a full-
scale curriculum. These instructional projects may benefit from the
IPISD (Branson et al., 1975); Gentry (1993); Dorsey et al. (1997);
Diamond (1989); Smith and Ragan (2004); or Pebble in the Pond
(Merrill, 2002) models. Deciding which model to use need not be a
cumbersome or overwhelming process. So long as a designer can
align components of an instructional problem with the priorities of a
particular model, they will likely be met with success through the
systematic process.

Other ID Models

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 12

Figure 5. Plompt’s OKT Model

While we cannot possibly discuss all of the ID models used in practice

and/or referenced in the literature, there are a few other instructional
design models that are useful to mention because of their unique
approaches to design. For example, Plomp’s (1982) OKT model (see
Figure 5), which is taught at the University of Twente in The
Netherlands, looks quite similar to the ADDIE process, but adds
testing/revising the instructional solution prior to full implementation.
When OKT was initially introduced, online or web-based instructional
design had not yet become part of the conversation. Yet, his model
astutely factors in the technology component not yet commonly seen
in other ID models referenced at the time. Notice how the OKT
process calls for a close relationship between implementation and the
other phases as well as alignment between evaluation and the other
phases. This design facilitates internal consistency in decision making.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 13

The intent here was to ensure that design decisions relating to
technology-based resources were consistently applied across the
instructional problem.

At their core, instructional design models seek to help designers

overcome gaps in what is learned due to either instruction,
motivation, or resources. Thus, some models seek to address non-
instructional gaps, like motivation. See Keller’s (2016) work on
motivational design targeting learner attention, relevance, confidence,
satisfaction, and volition (ARCS-V). Other models examine strategies
related to resources, like technology or media integration. Examples
here include Action Mapping (Moore, 2016); Substitution,
Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition (SAMR) Model (see
Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016 for a discussion); and TPACK-
IDDIRR model (Lee & Kim, 2014). And still other models consider
other gaps and needs like rapid development. (See the Successive
Approximation Model (SAM) from Allen Interaction, n.d.)

Recently, many instructional designers have emphasized the design

gaps in ID, drawing upon the broader field of design theory to guide
how designers select and arrange constructs or components. One
model, known as Design Layers (Gibbons, 2013), helps designers
prioritize concerns encountered during the ID process and may
overlay with an existing or adapted ID model being followed. In other
words, a designer may use design layers to organize the problems to
be addressed, but still use other models based on ADDIE processes to
solve some of these problems. While unintentional, the field of
instructional design often focuses on corporate and adult learning
contexts, sometimes feeling exclusionary to the K-12 instructional
designer (note: UbD, Wiggins & McTigue, 2000, is one of the more
well-known ID models also used by K-12 teachers and instructional
facilitators). Carr-Chellman’s (2015) Instructional Design for Teachers
(ID4T) model and Larson and Lockee’s (2013) Streamlined ID
represent attempts to break down some of the complex perceptions of
ID, making it more accessible for K-12 teachers and newer

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 14

instructional designers.

The primary takeaway from this entire discussion should be that ID is

rarely a simple process. In practice, designers often draw upon
personal experience and the wide variety of models, strategies, and
theories to customize each instance of instructional design.

Tips From the Field

While working on this chapter, I thought it might be interesting to
crowdsource advice and tips. We live, research, and teach in the age
of social constructivism. So, why not apply the theory in a way that
might have a far reaching and lasting impact? The following short
quotes about the practice of ID and ID models from scholars,
students, and (above all) practitioners provide focused advice that are
good tips for the beginning designer and great reminders for the more
advanced designer.

Focus on the systematic and iterative process of instructional

design. Models are not discrete steps to be checked off. [Kay
Persichitte, University of Wyoming]
The ADDIE paradigm is fundamental to most models, with
appropriate evaluation of each step implied. [Jon Anderle,
University of Wyoming]
Be aware of the tension in the field between theory and
practice. [Tara Buñag, University of the Pacific]
Practicing ID means considering all of the available tools. It’s
too easy for a designer to fixate on a single instructional
technique as a panacea. [Rhonda Gamble, Sweetwater County
School District #1]
In addition to the regular resources often referenced, don’t
forget to look at the works of Robert F. Mager. They are
foundational to the field. [Landra Rezabek, retired University of
Wyoming]
It bears repeating often; the reality of the instructional design

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 15

 practice is unique and complex each and every time. [Camille
Dickson-Deane, University of Melbourne]
Careful and purposeful instructional design brings an inherent
positivity to learning. [Terry Callaghan, Albany County School
District #1]
A dollar spent on formative evaluation pays off tenfold when it
comes to implementation of a new course or program. [Tom
Reeves, retired The University of Georgia]
Consider Robert Mager’s performance analysis flowchart or
Ruth Clark’s Content-Performance Matrices for teaching
procedures, processes, facts, concepts, and principles. All are
brilliant! [Marcy Brown, The CE Shop, Inc.]
When building out your toolbox, take a look at Cathy Moore and
her Action Mapping. [David Glow, Restaurant Magic Software]
Build opportunities into online courses to collect data and
conduct research about the course design, organization,
assessments, and teaching effectiveness. This can be used for
iterative enhancements. [Athena Kennedy, ASU Online]
Educate stakeholders involved in the ID process on what you do
and why you do it. This is crucial for successful collaboration in
design and development. [Megan C. Murtaugh, IDT Consultant]
Instructional design is a creative process. [Rob Branch, The
University of Georgia]
Understand the systemic implications of what you propose. If
you don’t know the difference between systemic and
systematic, please familiarize yourself—it will have vast
implications. Please know that models of ID are specifically
pedagogical in purpose. They teach you the basics, but the real
ID process is not captured by a model. Instead you have to
approach it more as art, as a holistic process. [Ali Carr-
Chellman, University of Idaho]
Think about what good instruction means. Are you following a
sound design procedure, e.g., ADDIE? Are you adhering to best
practices of the professional community? Are your strategies
supported by learning theory? Are design decisions validated by

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 16

 demonstrated gains on pre- and post- measures? Each of these
has a role in creating good instruction, but don’t forget to meet
the needs of learners, especially those at the margins. [Brent
Wilson, University of Colorado Denver]
Robert F. Mager (1968) once noted that, “If telling were
teaching, we’d all be so smart we could hardly stand it.” When
working on the phase of any model that involves material
development, designers must be careful with overloading
learners with information. Further, presenting information
must consider what Hugh Gardner, a professor at the
University of Georgia, used to call the “COIK” phenomenon;
Clear Only If Known. This phenomenon encourages breaking
down complex language, avoiding jargon, and making expert
knowledge accessible. These tasks are not easy, but must be
part of the process. [Marshall Jones, Winthrop University]

Acknowledgement
Thanks to Jeroen Breman, Northwest Lineman College, for the OKT-
model recommendation.

Application Exercises

While processes and models can be useful, why do you think it

is important to maintain flexibility in designing instruction?
What are some things to consider when selecting an
instructional design model?

References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of
tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA.

Allen Interaction. (n.d.). Agile elearning development with SAM.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 17

Retrieved August 25, 2017, from
http://www.alleninteractions.com/sam-process

ATD Research. (2015). Skills, challenges, and trends in instructional

design. Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from
https://www.td.org/Publications/Research-Reports/2015/Skills-Challen
ges-and-Trends-in-Instructional-Design

Baker, R. E., & Schutz, R. L. (1971). Instructional product

development. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.

Banathy, B. H. (1968). Instructional systems. Belmont, CA: Fearon

Publishers.

Barson, J. (1967). Instructional systems development: A demonstration

and evaluation project: Final report. East Lansing, MI.

Bates, A. W. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance

education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham,
W., Fowler, M., … Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for Agile software
development. Retrieved from http://agilemanifesto.org/

Beckschi, P., & Doty, M. (2000). Instructional systems design: A little

bit of ADDIEtude, please. In G. M. Piskurich, P. Beckschi, & B. Hall
(Eds.), The ASTD handbook of training design and delivery (pp.
28–41). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Bergman, R. E., & Moore, T. V. (1990). Managing interactive

video/multimedia projects. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.

Biech, E. (Ed.). (2014). ASTD Handbook (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:

Association for Talent Development.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 18

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1971). OD-Fad or fundamental?
Madison, WI: American Society for Training and Development, Inc.

Blondin, J. (1977). Development leadership. Manila, Philippines:

Southeast Asia Instructional Development Institute.

Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New

York: Springer International Publishing.

Branch, R. M., & Dousay, T. A. (2015). Survey of instructional design

models (5th ed.). Bloomington, IN: Association for Educational
Communications & Technology.

Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, L., Furman, J. P., & King, F. J.
(1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems
development. Executive summary and model. Springfield, VA:
National Technical Information Service.

Briggs, L. J. (1970). Handbook of procedures for the design of

instruction. Pittsburgh, PA: American Institutes for Research.

Carliner, S. (2015). Training Design Basics (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA:

Association for Talent Development.

Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2015). Instructional design for teachers:

Improving classroom practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Carr-Chellman, A. A., & Rowland, G. (Eds.). (2017). Issues in

technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and
contemporary dialogues. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Control Data Corporation. (1979). Courseware development process.

Minneapolis, MN: Control Data Corporation.

Dabbagh, N., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2004). Online learning: Concepts,

strategies, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 19

Education, Inc.

Davis, R. H., Alexander, L. T., & Yelon, S. L. (1974). Learning systems

design: An approach to the improvement of instruction. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.

de Hoog, R., de Jong, T., & de Vries, F. (1994). Constraint-driven

software design: An escape from the waterfall model. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 48–63.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1994.tb00637.x

DeCecco, J. P. (1968). The psychology of learning and instruction:

Educational psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Diamond, R. M. (1989). Designing and Improving Courses and

Curricula in Higher Education: A Systematic Approach. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The systematic design of instruction (1st
ed.). Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Dick, W., & Reiser, R. A. (1989). Planning effective instruction. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dorsey, L. T., Goodrum, D. A., & Schwen, T. M. (1997). Rapid

collaborative prototyping as an instructional development paradigm.
In C. R. Dills & A. J. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development
paradigms (pp. 445–465). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.

Dousay, T. A., & Logan, R. (2011). Analyzing and evaluating the

phases of ADDIE. In Proceedings from Design, Development and
Research Conference 2011 (pp. 32–43). Cape Town, South Africa.

Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2004).

Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 20

Learning.

Gentry, C. G. (1993). Introduction to instructional development:

Process and technique (1st ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

Gerlach, V. S., & Ely, D. P. (1971). Teaching and media: A systematic

approach (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to instructional

design. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gilbert, T. F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy

performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37(4),
43–53.

Gustafson, K. L. (1991). Survey of instructional development models

(2nd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information
Resources.

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional

development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University.

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional

development models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Information & Technology.

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The

Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model: A
critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5),
433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., & Russell, J. D. (1982). Instructional media:

The new technologies of instruction (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 21

Hodell, C. (2015). ISD from the ground up (4th ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Talent Development.

Hunt, V. D. (1996). Process mapping: How to reengineer your

business process. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Keller, J. M. (2016). Motivation, learning, and technology: Applying

the ARCS-V motivation model. Participatory Educational Research,
3(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.16.06.3.2

Kemp, J. (1977). Instructional design: A plan for unit and course

development. Belmont, CA: Fearon Publishers.

Larson, M. B., & Lockee, B. B. (2013). Streamlined ID: A practical

guide to instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lee, C.-J., & Kim, C. (2014). An implementation study of a TPACK-

based instructional design model in a technology integration course.
Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4),
437–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9335-8

Leshin, C. B., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C. M. (1992). Instructional

design: Strategies & tactics for improving learning and performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Mager, R. F. (1968). Developing attitude toward learning. Palo Alto,

CA: Fearon Publishers.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). A pebble-in-the-pond model for instructional

design. Performance Improvement, 41(7), 41–46.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140410709

Molenda, M. (2017). The systems approach to instructional

development. In A. A. Carr-Chellman & G. Rowland (Eds.), Issues in
technology, learning, and instructional design: Classic and
contemporary dialogues (1st ed., pp. 39–43). New York, NY: Taylor &

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 22

Francis.

Moore, C. (2016). Action mapping: A visual approach to training

design. Retrieved from
http://blog.cathy-moore.com/action-mapping-a-visual-approach-to-trai
ning-design/

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E.
(2012). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Newby, T. J., Stepich, D., Lehman, J., & Russell, J. D. (1996).

Instructional technology for teaching and learning: Designing,
integrating computers,and using media. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Nieveen, N. M. (1997). Computer support for curriculum developers:

A study on the potential of computer support in the domain of
formative curriculum evaluation. University of Twente, Enschede, The
Netherlands.

Plomp, T. (1982). Onderwijskundige technologie: Enige verkenningen

[Exploring educational technology]. Inaugural lecture, Enschede:
Universiteit Twente.

Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology:

Part II. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2),
57–67.

Reiser, R. A. (2017). What field did you say you were in? In R. A.
Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional
design and technology (4th ed., pp. 1–7). New York, NY: Pearson
Education, Inc.

Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2010). The instructional

design knowledge base: Theory, research, and practice. New York,
NY: Routledge.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 23

Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1997). Making instructional design
decisions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sims, R., & Jones, D. (2002). Continuous improvement through shared

understanding: Reconceptualising instructional design for online
learning. In Ascilite Conference: Winds of Change in the Sea of
Learning: Charting the Course of Digital Education (pp. 1–10).
Auckland. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/auckland02/proceedings/papers/1
62.pdf

Smaldino, S., Lowther, D. L., Mims, C., & Russell, J. D. (2015).

Instructional technology and media for learning (11th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1993). Instructional design. Princeton,

NC: Merrill Publishing Company.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design (3rd ed.).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Twelker, P. A., Urbach, F. D., & Buck, J. E. (1972). The systematic

development of instruction: An overview and basic guide to the
literature. Stanford, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Media
and Technology.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A

four-component instructional design model for technical training.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). Ten steps to

complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component
instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.

Van Patten, J. (1989). What is instructional design? In K. A. Johnson &

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 24

L. J. Foa (Eds.), Instructional design: New alternatives for effective
education and training (pp. 16–31). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTigue, J. (2000). Understanding by design (1st

ed.). Alexandria, VA: Merrill Education/ACSD College Textbook
Series.

Further Resources

The following textbooks, chapters, and articles represent a broad

collection of discussion, debate, and research in the field of learning
and instructional design. The list has been compiled from resources
such as the Survey of Instructional Design Models (Branch & Dousay,
2015), reading lists from graduate programs in LIDT, and publications
sponsored by the Association for Educational Communications &
Technology. However, the list should not be considered exhaustive. It
is merely provided here as a possible starting point for individuals or
organizations seeking to learn more about the field and how models
are developed and implemented.

1. Altun, S., & Büyükduman, F. Ä°. (2007). Teacher and student

beliefs on constructivist instructional design: A case study.
Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(1), 30–39.
2. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2005). Preservice elementary
teachers as information and communication technology
designers: An instructional systems design model based on an
expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 292–302.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00135.x
3. Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2015). Instructional design for teachers:
Improving classroom practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
4. Cennamo, K. S. (2003). Design as knowledge construction.
Computers in the Schools, 20(4), 13–35.
http://doi.org/10.1300/J025v20n04_03
5. Denham, T. J. (2002). Comparison of two

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 25

 curriculum/instructional design models: Ralph W. Tyler and
Siena College accounting class, ACCT205. Ft. Lauderdale, FL.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/62202965?accountid=1422
8
6. Dirksen, J. (2016). Design for how people learn (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: New Riders.
7. Fox, E. J. (2006). Constructing a pragmatic science of learning
and instruction with functional contextualism. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 54(1), 5–36.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-6491-5
8. Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M.
(2004). Principles of instructional design (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Cengage Learning.
9. Gibbons, A. S. (2013). An architectural approach to
instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.
10. Hannafin, M. J. (2006). Functional contextualism in learning
and instruction: Pragmatic science or objectivism revisited?
Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(1),
37–41. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-6492-4
11. Hokanson, B., & Gibbons, A. (Eds.). (2014). Design in
educational technology: Design thinking, design process, and
the design studio. New York, NY: Springer International
Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00927-8
12. Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., Jochems, W. M. G., & van
Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Exploring teachers’ instructional
design practices from a systems design perspective.
Instructional Science, 30(4), 291–305.
http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016081812908
13. Jonassen, D. H. (2006). On the role of concepts in learning and
instructional design. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 54(2), 177–196.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-8253-9
14. Koper, R., Giesbers, B., van Rosmalen, P., Sloep, P., van
Bruggen, J., Tattersall, C., … Brouns, F. (2005). A design model

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 26

 for lifelong learning networks. Interactive Learning
Environments, 13(1–2), 71–92.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10494820500173656
15. Magliaro, S. G., & Shambaugh, N. (2006). Student models of
instructional design. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 54(1), 83–106.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-6498-y
16. Nadolski, R. J., Kirschner, P. A., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., &
Wöretshofer, J. (2005). Development of an instrument for
measuring the complexity of learning tasks. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 11(1), 1–27.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500110125
17. Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2010). The
instructional design knowledge base: Theory, research, and
practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
18. Salter, D., Richards, L., & Carey, T. (2004). The “T5” design
model: An instructional model and learning environment to
support the integration of online and campus-based courses.
Educational Media International, 41(3), 207–218.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09523980410001680824
19. Sims, R. (2014). Design alchemy: Transforming the way we
think about learning and teaching. New York, NY: Springer
International Publishing.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02423-3
20. Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design (3rd
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
21. Song, H.-D., Grabowski, B. L., Koszalka, T. A., & Harkness, W.
L. (2006). Patterns of instructional-design factors prompting
reflective thinking in middle school and college-level problem-
based learning environments. Instructional Science, 34(1),
63–87. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-6922-4
22. Stubbs, M., Martin, I., & Endlar, L. (2006). The structuration of
blended learning: Putting holistic design principles into
practice. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2),
163–175. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00530.x

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 27

 23. van Berlo, M. P. W., Lowyck, J., & Schaafstal, A. (2007).
Supporting the instructional design process for team training.
Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1145–1161.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.007
24. Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., & Tabbers, H. K. (2006).
Cognitive aging and computer-based instructional design:
Where do we go from here? Educational Psychology Review,
18(2), 141–157. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9005-4
25. Verstegen, D. M. L., Barnard, Y. F., & Pilot, A. (2006). Which
events can cause iteration in instructional design? An empirical
study of the design process. Instructional Science, 34(6),
481–517. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-3346-0
26. Wang, H. C. (2007). Performing a course material enhancement
process with asynchronous interactive online system.
Computers and Education, 48(4), 567–581.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.03.007

Please complete this short survey to provide feedback on this chapter:

http://bit.ly/IDmodels

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 28

 Dousay, T. A. (2018). Instructional Design Models. In R.
E. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional
Design Technology. EdTech Books.
https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/instructional_des
ign_models

CC BY: This work is released under a

CC BY license, which means that you
are free to do with it as you please as long as you
properly attribute it.

Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology 29