Page | 1

Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and

Technology

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

Corey Lynne, Bruce Barker, and Michele Bennett

University of Colorado Denver

September 3, 2009

Authors’ Note

Corey Lynn, Bruce Barker, and Michele Bennett are UCD students in Brent Wilson’s Current

Trends and Issues in Instructional Technology – IT 6750 class, 2009 Fall Semester.

Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and Technology

 Page | 2
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

Definitions

The terms instructional technology, educational technology, instructional

design, and instructional design and technology (IDT) all denote the same
professional field. It may not be possible to agree on a single name for the
field, but it is important for current and future professionals to understand
the scope of the field in order to communicate, study and perform their roles
effectively. This section will discuss and compare some of the prevalent
definitions of these terms, including a brief history of the evolution of some
of the names and their meanings. Before proceeding, it might help to look at
typical dictionary definitions for a few of the main terms as a starting point;
these are taken from the Oxford Concise American Dictionary (Oxford, 2006).
Education: “The process of receiving or giving systematic instruction,
esp. at a school or university.”; “The theory and practice of teaching.”
Instruction: “The teaching of (someone) how something should be done,
operated, or assembled.”
Technology: “The application of scientific knowledge for practical
purposes.”; “The machinery and equipment developed from such
scientific knowledge.”

Instructional Technology
One difficulty with using the terms Instructional Technology or Educational
Technology is that their popular conception, for laypersons, is that of the
actual technological media (e.g., computers, internet, video) and/or
applications of those media (distance learning, tutorial programs, etc.);
another is that the two terms are often used interchangeably – by people
both within and outside the field.
It could be argued when the practice of using ‘technology’ in education
originated – with the use of cave paintings to teach the young many
thousands of years ago, with early uses of training manuals such as the
Navy’s Blue Jackets’ Manual from the late 1800s (Jones, 1999), with the
advent of slide shows and motion pictures used for training military
personnel beginning early in the 20th century, etc. One of the earliest
definitions for the field, from the National Academy of Visual Instruction in
1925 states:
“…. visual instruction involves the schoolroom use of motion pictures,
lantern slides, and a ‘wealth of devices’ such as still pictures, wall maps,
charts, and the actual objects,” (Reiser and Ely ,1997).
This definition almost entirely focused on the current technological media
that could be used in teaching. A new field of study devoted to the use of
technology in teaching originated, in large part, to assist the classroom
teacher in employing technology in his/her delivery of instructional material;
 Page | 3
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

in the 50’s and 60’s, there was a big push for Junior College programs to
train teachers how to use the latest media (Jones, 1999). The primary focus
was essentially: “Here’s the latest technology, and here’s how to use it. Now
go use it in your teaching”
By the mid-1900’s, theories of education and learning evolved to view
education as more of a systematic process rather than as the end product of
teaching. With this shift, the name of the field changed from visual to
audiovisual instruction and then, by the 1960’s, to instructional technology.
Along with these changes in the education field, the scope of the
instructional technology field also advanced. In 1972, one of the primary
professional organizations for this emerging field, the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology (aka. AECT) defined
Instructional Technology as: “A field involved in the facilitation of human
learning through the systematic identification, development, organization,
and utilization of learning resources and through the management of these
processes” (AECT, 1972.) AECT’s definition was a significant change from
the 1925 definition and included a focus on the “facilitation of human
learning” rather than on the narrow view of “using the technology.”

Educational Technology – A Current Definition

The term educational technology has recently become more prevalent, due
in part to the AECT’s use of term in their 2008 definition of the field. The
broader meaning of this phrase encompasses not just instructional design
and practice but also the learning theories and other processes that guide
and drive instruction. The 2008 AECT definition states:
“Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating
learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing
appropriate technological processes and resources” (Molenda and
Robinson, 2008)
Along with the definition, Molenda and Robinson included a great deal of
detail about the meaning of the different parts of their definition. The
following is a synopsis of the definition:
Study - The research into new educational technologies, as well as research,
influenced by learning theory and other related fields. The term implies a
cyclical process of inquiry, research, design, practice and reflection that
leads to continued improvements in educational practices.
Ethical practice - The traditional focus of using media ethically and
respecting intellectual property, and also a focus on the needs, inclusion,
safety and empowering of learners and educational professionals.
Facilitating - A shift of views from the traditional view (a teacher’s instruction
causes a student’s learning) to the constructivist view (the learner’s active
role drives his/her own learning and construction knowledge rather than a
passive recipient of information). This shift has resulted in a more facilitative
 Page | 4
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

role for technology. The term learning has also evolved greatly over time.
Today there is an understanding that mere memorizing is often a wasted
effort and ‘deep learning’ is essential for a person to understand a concept
and to apply his/her knowledge to a variety of problem solving situations.
Improving performance - Technological products should lead predictably and
efficiently to the attainment of specific learning goals – new capabilities that
the learner can use and apply. In addition, the educational technology should
also help educators reach their goals more efficiently and effectively.
Creating, using and managing - The processes of instructional design. The
creation of instructional materials or “learning systems” involves a
systematic sequence of steps to analyze the problem/goal, determine learner
characteristics, specify what capabilities must be learned, and then develop
the lessons, resources and/or systems to meet those goals and outcomes.
Assessments should be made throughout the process and during use of the
final product to analyze the effectiveness and identify ways to improve the
instruction. ‘ADDIE’ (Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate) is
a commonly-used template for this process. As the collection of educational
technologies has grown and become more and more complicated, so has the
responsibility of managing the technology, which entails procuring, installing,
monitoring and maintaining the various hardware and software components.
Appropriate technological processes and resources - Choosing which media
and applications, based on sound scientific knowledge (as in Oxford’s
definition above), would best implement a particular learning objective. This
also refers to issues of cost/benefit, safety, the inclusion of diversity, and
avoidance of stereotypes. The term “processes” in the definition highlights
the need for a systems approach to instructional and technology
development, viewed by many as central to the field.

Other Names for the Field

The publishing of AECT’s most recent definition of the field certainly does not
preclude current researchers and practitioners from developing their own
names and definitions for the field. An additional name worth mentioning is
Instructional Design and Technology (IDT). This phrase proposed by Robert
A. Reiser and employed by the professional organization: Professors of
Instructional Design and Technology, attempts to clarify the dual focus of the
field – the process of designing the instruction and the technology employed
with the instruction. It also implies the precedence of the two parts
(analyzing the problem and developing a solution before deciding on the
technologies to use). Reiser’s IDT definition is very similar to the AECT
definition by its mention of five procedural categories: design, development,
implementation, management and evaluation. IDT adds a sixth activity –
analysis of learning and performance problems – at the beginning of the
process. IDT also explicitly mentions the importance of research and theory
throughout the process. In addition, IDT refers to performance technology,
 Page | 5
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

which addresses non-instructional practices to increase performance in the

workplace (Reiser, 2001).
There is no one universal, definitive name and definition for this field. The
choice of a name can depend on the audience. The word ‘technology’ in the
name usually means simply the hardware and software used in teaching to a
layperson. For many, the use of ‘education’ in the name connotes K-12
education, so it may not be preferred by those involved in adult and higher
education, or in professional training. The use of ‘instruction’, in addition to
its narrow focus, can also have the negative connotation of the old, non-
constructivist view of a teacher imparting their knowledge to students in a
very prescribed way (as seen by “The teaching of someone …” in the Oxford
dictionary); this negative connotation for the term is especially prevalent in
many foreign countries. Maybe a better name for the field, without as much
baggage, would be “Learning Technology,” which is using by some
organizations, including the Institute of Electrical and Electronics (IEEE)
Computing Society – the world’s leading organization of computing
professionals. Whatever the terminology, more important is that
professionals in the instructional technology field are knowledgeable about
the state of the ‘art’, and are adaptable to the continual changes in
technology and education.

History of the Field

Through a closer examination of the key events in the history of educational

technology, a better understanding of interesting trends and developments
the field encountered over the years can be achieved. This better
understanding of ‘what came before’ can help inform practitioners in the
field of concerns that may lie ahead, since history and educational
technology are alike – at the very least – in their gravitation to systematic
processes that are built upon previous ones.
After Cave Paintings – The Oral Traditions (500 BC – 300 BC)
The self-defined field of educational technology may not have existed before
the 20th century, but trendsetters towards its objectives did. From the
Confucians to the Sophists, from Socrates to Aristotle, early practitioners of
educational technology knew that to teach effectively, instruction had to be
systematically designed while keeping learner characteristics in mind.
Confucians thought of learning as a deeply individual activity; they
recognized different instructional approaches were needed for different
people, and they individualized instruction through discussion. The Sophists,
too, appreciated individual differences, while championing the use of
rhetoric, applied analysis, and higher education. Socrates, Plato, and
Aristotle – though treading different philosophical ground – used the Socratic
method as an instructional model, individualizing education through
 Page | 6
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

questioning. Clearly, effective systems and strategies for instruction and

learning are not predicated on having state-of-the-art technologies; many of
the same instructional values and models guiding instruction in 500 BC are
present today. This trend of keeping past effective systems while developing
new ones is an ongoing process.
From Philosophy to Science – Learn by Doing (13th- 19th Centuries)
New developments in scientific inquiry and experimentation as related to
education characterized the period between the 13th and 19th centuries. The
Scholastic method of instruction – a method emphasizing syllogisms – was
developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century and employed in
European universities everywhere. It laid the groundwork for scientific,
psychological, and evaluative developments in educational technology.
Comenius published a piece called Orbis Pictus in the 17th Century, a
children’s instructional book with 150 pictures connected with abstract word
symbols because he believed language should be taught in stages
paralleling the stages of human development and that learning occurred
through sensory exposure. Pestalozzi and Lancaster of the 18th century also
employed ‘learn-by-doing’ means of instruction. Pestalozzi focused learners
on the study of objects through senses rather than the study of words, and
organized instruction based on the natural laws of human development. He
also demanded teachers be competent and pursue scientific discovery of
better teaching methods. Lancaster developed a monitorial system of
teaching, using brighter, more proficient students to teach other children
(under the direction of an adult); his philosophy was ‘Qui docet, dicet,’ or,
‘He who teaches, learns.’ Lancaster made strides in the areas of learner
motivation, teacher competence, and quality instructional media. By the end
of the 19th century under such educational technology practitioners like
Johanna Herbart and Friederich Froebel, the object-sensory push of
Comenius and Pestalozzi were taken to new intellectual heights by
incorporating motor expression, deconstruction, creativity, association, and
testing of the system. These developments would lead from an
experimental-inquiry-based educational technology to a more objective-
based audiovisual educational design.
A Modern Marriage – Audiovisual Media Meets Behavioral/Cognitive
Psychology (20th Century)
The 20th century is really where the modern concept of educational
technology really begins to coalesce at a rapid rate with all its recognizable
components under the AECT’s 2008 definition of the field.
• 1920s – 1940s – The increasing accessibility and quality of sound
recording, radio, and film opened up interesting possibilities and
spurned great study and analysis about how the effectiveness of media
materials in instruction is related to their realism (illustrated by Edgar
Dale’s “Cone of Experience” educational technology model). The
 Page | 7
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

United States invested in 457 instructional training films and 55,000

film projectors toward military and industrial objectives in the World
War II effort and was said to be so victorious in the war because of its
“quick and complete mastery of film education.” (Reiser, 1987)
• 1950s – 1960s – The U.S. government poured funds into curriculum
development, media research, and University-based development and
research. In the world of psychology, well-known Skinner, Piaget, and
Bloom developed systems and taxonomies for achieving behavioral
and cognitive objectives through conditioning, programming, and/or
instruction. Television as a vehicle for instruction and training gained –
and then lost – viability when poorly produced programming and an
inability to appropriately choose technological applications and
resources kept it from reaching its true instructional potential in
practice. (Reiser, 1987)
• 1970s – 1980s – The educational technology field carved out a name
for itself as the Department of Audiovisual Instruction became the
AECT as it is known today, with graduate programs and hiring
opportunities for practitioners in the field gaining a more widespread
presence. The advent and use of microcomputers (e.g. Macintosh
Apple II) changed the learning landscape of schools everywhere with
the Center of Social Organization of Schools reporting that computers
were being used for instruction in over 40% of elementary schools and
75% of secondary schools by 1983. This came on the heels of a
growing interest in applying cognitive psychology principles in
education for being able to differentiate and adapt instruction to the
needs of individual learners; the interactivity and programmability of
computers presented potential for these objectives.
• 1990s – 2000s – Unfortunately, though technology in education was
viewed as a major vehicle for educational reform and the push to use
computers toward individualized and interactive education had schools
and businesses investing in an influx of technological hardware (the
ratio of computers in public schools reached 6:1), only half of all
teachers described having opportunities to develop skills or to be
prepared to use the new technology, according to The National
Education Goals in 1995. On a positive swing, any constructivist
educators that did find a way to take advantage of the technology
could design more learner-centered educational experiences. As of
1995, enrollments in distance-learning-type courses via computers and
the Internet doubled from the previous year with 78% of universities
offering distance learning opportunities. The numbers reflecting this
trend of individualized, adaptable, anywhere-education have surely
increased by now, and studies are underway to determine whether
true instruction and learning is occurring under these systems – or if
there are yet better ways.
Summary
 Page | 8
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

As technological trends, systematic approaches to instruction, and

understanding of human development and learning have compounded over
history, practitioners in the field of educational technology today can draw
from any number of oral, hands-on, behavioral, programmed, media-infused,
taxonomy-guided, evaluated-and-tested vehicles for instruction, depending
on the most appropriate conditions for reaching a desired objective. History
is stacked with numerous effective strategies and models that can be
combined or parceled out to ethically facilitate learning and improve
performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological
processes and resources: From the Socratic method to distance learning via
the Internet. One concern that appears to be constant throughout history,
however, is how to design and deliver instruction that best reaches unique
learners on an individual level. Until a system or model is developed that can
address that concern in all its permutations and possibilities, practitioners in
the educational technology field can count on working on finding the next
best thing.

Core Models

“Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in
school” (Albert Einstein).

Technology-delivered instruction has evolved from the early use of visual

illustrations: to mechanical devices: to plugging electronic
telecommunication devices into classrooms: to connecting to the World Wide
Web. Even though every step of the way has yielded to controversy,
criticism, and the constraints due to monetary and time restrictions, the
quest for delivering instruction through technology continues to move
towards a more effective and defined future. However, the outcome and
intended results of the objective greatly depends on the quality of the
instruction.
Specifically addressing the design process, the core models of instructional
technology are based upon the early works of educational theorist such as
Piaget, B.F. Skinner, and, most effectively utilized, B. Bloom’s Cognitive
Process Taxonomy and his construction of projected learning outcomes.

Piaget - The Balance of Power

Piaget’s research led him to conclude that cognitive development was

caused by 1) environmental factor and 2) heredity. Focusing on the
environmental factors that aid in cognitive development, Piaget supported
the thought that students learned more from peer interaction that from
interactions with adults. Due to the obvious precept that the power between
 Page | 9
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

adults and children is too superior to overcome, students tend to connect

easily with their cognitively-equal peers – thus engaging themselves in more
opportunities for learning.

Operant Conditioning

According to Snowman & Biehler, the definition of B.F. Skinner’s behavioral

theory of operant condition is as follows:

“Voluntary response (is) strengthened or weakened by consequences that

follow.”

In the context of instruction, the application of behavioral reinforcement

(positive, negative, or punishment) directly affects the outcome of a
student’s ability to learn. He believed if operant conditioning methods were
systematically applied to instruction then students would readily respond,
absorb, and perform at a higher level. Snowman and Biehler state that
Skinner’s systematic approach included:
1. Be clear about what is to be taught,
2. Teach first things first,
3. Allow students to learn at their own rate, and
4. Program the subject matter.
Skinner’s theory applied both the systematic design of instruction and
acknowledged the student as an individual in the learning process. As Clark
translates, “Individualized instruction in essence replaces the teacher with
systematic or programmed materials.”

Bloom’s Taxonomy

According to the authors of Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives,
“…this work indicated that within the cognitive domain there were various
types of learning outcomes, that objectives could be classified according to
the type of learner behavior described therein, …tests should be designed to
measure each of these types of outcomes” (Reiser, n.d.).
The creation of any instruction should contain, within its systematical design,
a clear understanding of the process that addresses the cognitive, age-
appropriate, and schema driven use of specified objectives and outcomes.

Bloom's Taxonomy: The Cognitive Process Dimension the

Knowledge

The Rememb Underst Apply Analyze Evaluat Create

 Page | 10
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

Knowle er and e

dge

Dimensi

on
Factual List Summar Classify Order Rank Combin

Knowle ize e

dge
Concept Describe Interpre Experim Explain Assess Plan

ual t ent

Knowle

dge
Procedu Tabulate Predict Calculat Different Conclu Compo

ral e iate de se

Knowle

dge
Meta- Appropri Execute Constru Achieve Action Actuali

Cognitiv ate Use r ct ze

Knowle

dge

Figure 1: Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of

Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Lorin W. Andersin, David R.
Krathwohl; et al. 2001 Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Encompassing Piaget, Skinner, and Bloom’s learning theories become the

starting point for instructional designers to analyze and identify the gaps in
learning, the audience’s needs, assessing existing knowledge, and defining
objectives. Although computer-based technology may have had its roots in
 Page | 11
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

behavioral learning theory, current technology is more likely to reflect an

informational-processing perspective (Snowman & Beilher).

Early Systematic Design Models

“If one were to analyze current notions and fashionable catchwords, he

would find 'systems' high on the list” - von Bertalanffy

The core of any instructional model is generally based upon a systematic

structure of means and ends. During the 1940’s, when WWII training
“spurned great study and analysis about how the effectiveness of media
materials in instruction.” One of the leading instructional design theorists of
that time, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, introduced the values of a systematic
approach to instruction. Von Bertalanffy believed “A system is a complex of
interacting elements … they are open to, and interact with their
environments. In addition, they can acquire qualitatively new properties
through emergence, thus they are in a continual evolution.” In his General
System Theory-1950’s, von Bertalanffy visualized system theory as the “…
general science of “wholeness…” concrete theories, many theorist furthered
his studies to create a set of general instruction, learning, and training
models.
One of these models is the Instructional System Design (ISD) or sometimes
referred to as the Systems Approach to Training (SAT). This initial model
made the connection between the systems and the learning process. (Clark,
2004).
The components of the IDS model are: Analysis, Design, Develop, and
Implement, with Evaluation continually executed throughout the process.
 Page | 12
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

Figure 2: Instructional System and Design Model (Clark, 2004)

The IDS term prompted the more generic “ADDIE” model of instructional
design.
“Thus, it seems as if the acronym "ADDIE" did not make its way into the
popular literature until the mid 1990s, while the ISD model itself has been in
use since 1975” (Clark, 2004). Examining most instructional design models
juxtaposed to the ADDIE model will reveal the similarities between their
basic systematic approaches.

The acronym “ADDIE” stands for Analysis-Design-Development-Implement-

Evaluation

Figure 3: ADDIE Model

According to Kevin Kruse, the ADDIE model offers clearly defined linear
building blocks that enable the designer to focus on the specific tasks and
create a product to defined standards (Kruse, 2000). This model lends itself
 Page | 13
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

to an adherence of strict time and budget constraints. However, this

approach does not offer students the ability to interact with the designer or
to take part in the development of the design; nor does it assess learning
outcome.
Variations of the ADDIE model of Instructional Design and continued research
of student performance outcomes have lead to a differentiated variety of
other technology-based models.
Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS)
The Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS), published in 1970
by Mary and Peter Esseff, added a more constructivist approach to the
systematic design and implementation of instructional technology. The IDLS
Model moves beyond the ADDIE methodology to include assessments, not
only of the design criteria, but also of the instruction, and student outcomes.

The Dick and Carey Model - 1978

Although there are several versions of ISD, with an almost unlimited number
of possible design outcomes, the ADDIE model continues to be the model of
choice, closely followed by the Dick and Carey model (Clark, 2006).

Figure 4: The System Approach Model

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
 Page | 14
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

bring about the desired student learning outcomes" (Dick, W., & Carey,
L.,1978).
Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model emphasizes the following aspects
of instructional design:
• 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
(wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design)
This model demonstrates more inclusive perspectives from the designer,
instructor and learner (and perhaps even the environmental conditions)
working simultaneously on the final outcome of the design.
The Never Ending Conclusion
“The day is coming when the work done by correspondence will be greater in
amount than that done in the classrooms of our academies and colleges.” -
William Rainey Harper, distance-education pioneer and president of the
University of Chicago - 1885
Dick and Carey’s methodology shifts the design paradigm beyond its generic
ADDIE predecessor to a more holistic and comprehensive instructional
program. Evaluating this method reveals reflections of the idealistic
foresights of Piaget, Skinner, and Bloom. One might see the value of Piaget’s
thought on the balance of power between adults and children and how it
might apply to students who learn from computers as opposed to students
who learn from adult teachers. Skinner’s views on operant conditioning could
be referred to in the present as the immediate positive-feedback that media
and computers offer learners. Into every instructional design format should
be the workings of Bloom’s guiding Taxonomy of Cognitive Processes.
“640K ought to be enough for anybody” (Bill Gates).
Reflecting on The Systems Approach Model, one can trace the threads of
research by Ludwig von Bertalanffy (the roots of systematic instructional),
Esseff and Esseff, as well as many other influential theorists and designer. If
the field researchers and designers continue in the pioneering footsteps of
those who launched the concepts that guide instructional design, the
possibilities for successful instructional technology design are infinite. The
 Page | 15
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

pieces are in place to advance instructional technologies into the 21st

century. Obstacles such as money restrictions, opposing views, traditionalists
and purists, and time will be the true determining factors in the future of
instructional technologies. However, more attention needs to be placed on
the transfer of relevant knowledge from the instructor to the student
(recognizing culture, gender, language, and special needs), motivational
factors, accessibility, equity (the digital divide), and training.

References

Chadha, R., Dixon, M., Treat, A., Wang, Y. (2006). Major Developments in
Instructional Technology: Prior to the 20th Century. Retrieved August,
2009, from
http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/ITprior20.html

Chadha, R., Dixon, M., Treat, A., Wang, Y. (2006). Major Developments in
Instructional Technology: During the 20th Century. Retrieved August, 2009,
from
http://www.indiana.edu/~idt/shortpapers/documents/ITduring20.html

Clark, D. R. (2004), Instructional System Design Concept Map. Created

November 7, 2004
Updated June 10, 2007. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/about/about.html

AECT (1972). The Field of Educational Technology: A statement of definition.

Audiovisual Instruction, 17, 36-43.
 Page | 16
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

Hug, W. E. (1978). Instructional Technology: Factors Influencing the Field.

Occasional Paper No. 1, Syracuse University, National Institute of
Education, Washington D.C.
Jones, B. W. (1999). A Differentiating Definition of Instructional Technology
and Educational Technology. Retrieved August 27, 2009, from
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/campus/7941/trmpprh.html
Molenda, M. (2003). Instructional Technology. In A. Kovalchick & K. Dawson
(Eds.), Educational Technology: An Encyclopedia (pp. 341-343). Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.
Molenda, M. and Robinson, R. (2007). Definition. In A. Januszewski & M.
Molenda (Eds.), Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary.
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates..
Oxford Concise American Dictionary. (2006). New York: Oxford University
Press, Inc.
Reiser, R.A. and Ely, D.P. (1997). The Field of Educational Technology as
Reflected Through its Definitions. Educational Technology Research and
Development.
McGovern, C. (2009). The Instructional Devlopment Timeline. Retrieved
August, 2009, from
http://my-ecoach.com/project.php?id=12152
von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1976). General System Theory: Foundations,
Development, Applications. Publisher: George Braziller. Retrieved September
1, 2009, from …http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/about/about.html
Ashby, Ross W. (1964) Introduction to Cybernetics. Publisher: Routledge,
Kegan & Paul. Retrieved September 1, 2009 from
http://nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/ahold/isd.html

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978). The Systematic Design of Instruction. Glenview,
IL.: Scott, Foresman. Retreived August 31, 2009 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design

Wikipedia. Instructional Design. Retrieved September 1, 2009 from …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design#Instructional_design_model
s

Kruse, Kevin. (2006). e-Learning Blueprints: The Design Phase. Retrieved

August 31, 2009, from,
http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art2_1.htm
 Page | 17
Running Head: Introduction to the Field of Instructional Design and
Technology

Kruse, Kevin & Keil, Jason. (2000) Technology-Based Training: The Art and
Science of Design, Development, and Delivery. Retrieved August 31, 2009,
from
http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/art2_1.htm

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/coursedev/models/id/taxonomy/#tab
le

Figure 1: Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's

Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Lorin W. Andersin, David R. Krathwohl; et al.

2001 Addison Wesley Longman, Inc...........................................................................9

Figure 2: Instructional System and Design Model (Clark, 2004)..............................10

Figure 3: ADDIE Model.............................................................................................11

Figure 4: The System Approach Model...

………………………………………………………………………………………. 12