Editing Instructional design (section)

==History==

===Origins ===
As a field, instructional design is historically and traditionally rooted in [[cognitive]] and [[behavioral psychology]], though recently [[constructivism (learning theory)|constructivism]] has influenced thinking in the field.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Mayer|first1=Richard E|year=1992|title=Cognition and instruction: Their historic meeting within educational psychology|journal=Journal of Educational Psychology|volume=84|issue=4|pages=405–412|doi=10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.405}}</ref><ref>Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan</ref><ref>Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction (pp. 1-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.</ref> This can be attributed to the way it emerged during a period when the behaviorist paradigm was dominating American psychology. There are also those who cite that, aside from behaviorist psychology, the origin of the concept could be traced back to [[systems engineering]]. While the impact of each of these fields is difficult to quantify, it is argued that the language and the "look and feel" of the early forms of instructional design and their progeny were derived from this engineering discipline.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Instructional Design: International Perspectives. Theory, research, and models. Vol. 1|last1=Tennyson|first1=Robert|last2=Dijkstra|first2=S.|last3=Schott|first3=Frank|last4=Seel|first4=Norbert|publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.|year=1997|isbn=0805814000|location=Mahwah, NJ|pages=42}}</ref> Specifically, they were linked to the training development model used by the [[United States Armed Forces|U.S. military]], which were based on systems approach and was explained as "the idea of viewing a problem or situation in its entirety with all its ramifications, with all its interior interactions, with all its exterior connections and with full cognizance of its place in its context."<ref>{{Cite book|title=Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace, Instructional Design and Training Delivery|last1=Silber|first1=Kenneth|last2=Foshay|first2=Wellesley|publisher=Pfeiffer|year=2010|isbn=9780470190685|location=San Francisco, CA|pages=62}}</ref>

The role of systems engineering in the early development of instructional design was demonstrated during [[World War II]] when a considerable amount of training materials for the military were developed based on the principles of instruction, learning, and human behavior. Tests for assessing a learner's abilities were used to screen candidates for the training programs. After the success of military training, psychologists began to view [[training]] as a system and developed various analysis, design, and evaluation procedures.<ref name="TrendsIssues">{{Cite book |title=Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology |date=2012 |publisher=[[Pearson]] |isbn=978-0-13-256358-1 |editor-last=Reiser |editor-first=Robert A. |edition=3rd |location=New Jersey}}</ref> In 1946, [[Edgar Dale]] outlined a hierarchy of instructional methods, organized intuitively by their concreteness.<ref name="slides">Clark, B. (2009). ''[http://www.slideshare.net/benton44/history-of-instructional-design-and-technology?from=embed The history of instructional design and technology.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121203232320/http://www.slideshare.net/benton44/history-of-instructional-design-and-technology?from=embed|date=2012-12-03}}''. {{Need better citation|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=April 2025}}</ref><ref>Thalheimer, Will. People remember 10%, 20%...Oh Really? October 8, 2006. {{cite web |url=http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/10/people_remember.html |title=Will at Work Learning: People remember 10%, 20%...Oh Really? |access-date=2016-09-15 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160914001649/http://www.willatworklearning.com/2006/10/people_remember.html |archive-date=2016-09-14 }}</ref> The framework first migrated to the industrial sector to train workers before it finally found its way to the education field.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Instructional Design: Principles and Applications|last1=Briggs|first1=Leslie|last2=Gustafson|first2=Kent|last3=Tillman|first3=Murray|publisher=Educational Technology Publications|year=1991|isbn=9780877782308|location=Englewood Cliffs, NJ|pages=375}}</ref>

===1950s===
[[File:BloomsTaxonomy.png|thumb|The original version of [[Bloom's taxonomy]] (published in 1956) defined a [[Bloom's taxonomy#The cognitive domain (knowledge-based)|cognitive domain]] in terms of six objectives.]]

In 1954, [[B. F. Skinner]] suggested<ref>{{Citation |last=Skinner |first=B. F. |title=The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching |date=1961 |work=Cumulative Record |pages=145–157 |url=https://content.apa.org/books/11324-010 |access-date=2025-04-11 |place=East Norwalk |publisher=Appleton-Century-Crofts |language=en |doi=10.1037/11324-010}}</ref> that effective instructional materials, called programmed instructional materials, should include small steps, frequent questions, and immediate feedback; and should allow self-pacing.<ref name="TrendsIssues" /> [[Robert F. Mager]] popularized the use of learning objectives.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Mager |first=Robert F. |title=Preparing Instructional Objectives: A Critical Tool in the Development of Effective Instruction |date=1997 |publisher=Center for Effective Performance |isbn=978-1-879618-03-9 |edition=3rd |location=Atlanta}}</ref> The article describes how to write objectives including desired behavior, learning condition, and assessment.<ref name="TrendsIssues" />

In 1956, a committee led by [[Benjamin Bloom]] published an influential [[Taxonomy of Educational Objectives|taxonomy]] with three domains of learning: cognitive (what one knows or thinks), psychomotor (what one does, physically) and [[affective]] (what one feels, or what [[Attitude (psychology)|attitudes]] one has). These taxonomies still influence the design of instruction.<ref name="slides" /><ref>Bloom's Taxonomy. Retrieved from Wikipedia on April 18, 2012 at [[Bloom's Taxonomy]]</ref>

===1960s===
[[Robert Glaser]] introduced "criterion-referenced measures" in 1962. In contrast to norm-referenced tests in which an individual's performance is compared to group performance, a criterion-referenced test is designed to test an individual's behavior in relation to an objective standard. It can be used to assess the learners' entry level behavior, and to what extent learners have developed mastery through an instructional program.<ref name="TrendsIssues" />

In 1965, [[Robert Gagné]] described three domains of learning outcomes (cognitive, affective, psychomotor), five l(verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategy, attitude, motor skills), and nine events of instruction in the conditions of learning, which remain foundations of instructional design practices. Gagne's work in learning hierarchies and hierarchical analysis led to an important notion in instruction – to ensure that learners acquire prerequisite skills before attempting superordinate ones.<ref name="TrendsIssues" />

In 1967, after analyzing the failure of training material, Michael Scriven suggested the need for formative assessment – e.g., to try out instructional materials with learners (and revise accordingly) before declaring them finalized.<ref name="TrendsIssues" />

===1970s===
During the 1970s, the number of instructional design models greatly increased and prospered in different sectors in military, academia, and industry.<ref name="TrendsIssues" /> Many instructional design theorists began to adopt an information-processing-based approach to the design of instruction. David Merrill for instance developed Component Display Theory (CDT), which concentrates on the means of presenting instructional materials (presentation techniques).<ref>[http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/component-display.html Instructional Design Theories] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111004194825/http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/component-display.html |date=2011-10-04 }}. Instructionaldesign.org. Retrieved on 2011-10-07.</ref>

===1980s===
Although interest in instructional design continued to be strong in business and the military, there was little evolution of ID in schools or higher education.<ref name="TrendsIssues" /><ref name="ReiserPDF">Reiser, R. A. (2001). "[https://files.nyu.edu/jpd247/public/2251/readings/Reiser_2001_History_of_ID.pdf A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part II: A History of Instructional Design] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120915184958/https://files.nyu.edu/jpd247/public/2251/readings/Reiser_2001_History_of_ID.pdf |date=2012-09-15 }}". ETR&D, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2001, pp. 57–67.</ref>
However, educators and researchers began to consider how the personal computer could be used in a [[learning environment]] or a [[learning space]].<ref name="TrendsIssues" /> [[PLATO (computer system)|PLATO]] is one example of how computers began to be integrated into instruction.<ref name="HyperHist">{{Cite web |last=McNeil |first=Sarah G. |title=A Brief History of Instructional Design (faculty webpage) |url=http://faculty.coe.uh.edu/smcneil/cuin6373/idhistory/index.html |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20230603183146/http://faculty.coe.uh.edu/smcneil/cuin6373/idhistory/index.html |archive-date=2023-06-03 |access-date=2025-04-11 |website=College of Education, [[University of Houston]]}}</ref> Many of the first uses of computers in the classroom were for "drill and skill" exercises.<ref name="Markham">Markham, R. "[http://home.utah.edu/~rgm15a60/Paper/html/index_files/Page1108.htm History of instructional design] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130228081307/http://home.utah.edu/~rgm15a60/Paper/html/index_files/Page1108.htm |date=2013-02-28 }}". Retrieved on April 11, 2012</ref> There was a growing interest in how cognitive psychology could be applied to instructional design.<ref name="slides" />

===1990s===
During the 1990s, [[performance improvement]] also emerged as a key goal in the design process.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Roytek |first=Margaret A. |date=2010 |title=Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional designers |url=https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00902.x |journal=British Journal of Educational Technology |language=en |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=170–180 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00902.x |issn=1467-8535}}</ref> The rise of the internet introduced new tools for online learning, which were seen as effective for supporting learning. As both technology and constructivist theory evolved, classroom practices shifted—from basic drill-and-practice methods to more interactive, cognitively demanding activities.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Reiser |first=Robert A. |date=2001 |title=A History of Instructional Design and Technology: Part I: A History of Instructional Media |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/30220299 |journal=Educational Technology Research and Development |volume=49 |issue=1 |pages=53–64 |doi=10.1007/BF02504506 |jstor=30220299 |issn=1042-1629}}</ref>

By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the term ''learning design'' entered the field of educational technology. It reflected the idea that designers and instructors should choose an appropriate blend of [[Behaviorism|behaviorist]] and constructivist strategies for their online courses.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Carr-Chellman |first1=Alison |last2=Duchastel |first2=Philip |date=2000 |title=The ideal online course |url=https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8535.00154 |journal=British Journal of Educational Technology |language=en |volume=31 |issue=3 |pages=229–241 |doi=10.1111/1467-8535.00154 |issn=1467-8535}}</ref> However, the underlying concept of designing for learning is likely as old as teaching itself. One definition describes learning design as “the description of the teaching-learning process that takes place in a unit of learning (e.g., a course, a lesson, or any other structured learning event).”<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Koper |first=Rob |date=2006 |title=Editorial: Current Research in Learning Design |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.9.1.13 |journal=Journal of Educational Technology & Society |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=13–22 |jstor=jeductechsoci.9.1.13 |issn=1176-3647}}</ref>

===2000–2010===
In 2008, the [[Association for Educational Communications and Technology]] changed the definition of ''educational technology'' to "the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources".<ref>{{Cite report |url=https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED192759 |title=The Definition of Educational Technology. AECT Task Force on Definition and Terminology |date=1977 |publisher=[[Association for Educational Communications and Technology]] |location=Washington, DC |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Hlynka|first1=Denis|last2=Jacobsen|first2=Michele|date=2009|title=What is educational technology, anyway? A commentary on the new AECT definition of the field|url=https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26395|journal=Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology|language=en|volume=35|issue=2|issn=1499-6685|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170904155646/https://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/26395|archive-date=2017-09-04}}</ref>

===2010–2020===
Academic degrees focused on integrating technology, internet, and [[human–computer interaction]] with education gained momentum with the introduction of Learning Design and Technology (LDT) majors. Universities such as [[Bowling Green State University]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bgsu.edu/technology-architecture-and-applied-engineering/departments-and-programs/visual-communication-and-technology-education/learning-design-and-technology.html |title=Learning Design and Technology |access-date=2016-08-03 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160805142032/http://www.bgsu.edu/technology-architecture-and-applied-engineering/departments-and-programs/visual-communication-and-technology-education/learning-design-and-technology.html |archive-date=2016-08-05 }} BGSU LDT</ref> [[Pennsylvania State University]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://ed.psu.edu/lps/ldt |title=Learning, Design, and Technology Program — Penn State College of Education |access-date=2016-08-03 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160723110536/http://ed.psu.edu/lps/ldt/ |archive-date=2016-07-23 }} Penn State LDT</ref> [[Purdue]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://online.purdue.edu/ldt/learning-design-technology |title=Master's in Learning Design and Technology &#124; Purdue Online |work=Purdue University Online |date=27 August 2014 |access-date=2016-08-03 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160803073738/http://online.purdue.edu/ldt/learning-design-technology |archive-date=2016-08-03 }} Purdue LDT</ref> [[San Diego State University]],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://jms.sdsu.edu/index.php/admissions/ldt_admissions_requirements |title=Journalism and Media Studies |access-date=2016-08-03 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160817222104/http://jms.sdsu.edu/index.php/admissions/ldt_admissions_requirements |archive-date=2016-08-17 }} SDSU LDT</ref> [[Stanford University|Stanford]], [[Harvard Graduate School of Education|Harvard]]<ref>{{cite web |url=https://ed.stanford.edu/academics/masters-handbook/program-requirements/ldt |title=Learning Design and Technology (LDT) |date=5 August 2011 |access-date=2016-08-03 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160819014703/https://ed.stanford.edu/academics/masters-handbook/program-requirements/ldt |archive-date=2016-08-19 }} Stanford LDT</ref> [[University of Georgia]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://coe.uga.edu/academics/degrees/med/learning-design-technology |title=MEd in Learning, Design, and Technology - University of Georgia College of Education |access-date=2016-08-03 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160901133238/https://coe.uga.edu/academics/degrees/med/learning-design-technology |archive-date=2016-09-01 }} UGA LDT</ref> California State University, Fullerton, and [[Carnegie Mellon University]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://metals.hcii.cmu.edu|title=METALS – Master of Educational Technology and Applied Learning Science @ Carnegie Mellon|website=metals.hcii.cmu.edu|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170401210608/http://metals.hcii.cmu.edu/|archive-date=2017-04-01}}</ref> have established undergraduate and graduate degrees in technology-centered methods of designing and delivering education.

Informal learning became an area of growing importance in instructional design, particularly in the workplace.<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=http://cyrilandersontraining.com/2014/05/05/instructional-design-and-technical-writing/|title=Instructional Design and Technical Writing|date=2014-05-05|work=Cyril Anderson's Learning and Performance Support Blog|access-date=2018-11-29|language=en-US|archive-date=2019-06-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190605055124/http://cyrilandersontraining.com/2014/05/05/instructional-design-and-technical-writing/|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite news|url=https://702010institute.com/informal-learning-important-formal-learning-moving-forward-702010/|title=Informal learning is more important than formal learning – moving forward with 70:20:10 - 70:20:10 Institute|date=2016-10-03|work=70:20:10 Institute|access-date=2018-11-29|language=en-US}}</ref> A 2014 study showed that formal training makes up only 4 percent of the 505 hours per year an average employee spends learning. It also found that the learning output of informal learning is equal to that of formal training.<ref name=":2" /> As a result of this and other research, more emphasis was placed on creating knowledge bases and other supports for self-directed learning.<ref name=":1" />

===Timeline===
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Instructional Media History<ref name="TrendsIssues"/>
|-
! Era!!  Media !!Characteristics  !! Outcome 
|-
| 1900s ||Visual media || School museum as supplementary material (First school museum opened in St. Louis in 1905)|| Materials are viewed as supplementary curriculum materials. District-wide media center is the modern equivalent.
|-
|  1914-1923||Visual media films, Slides, Photographer ||Visual Instruction Movement|| The effect of visual instruction was limited because of teacher resistance to change, quality of the file and cost etc.
|-
| Mid 1920s to 1930s || Radio broadcasting, Sound recordings, Sound motion pictures ||  Radio Audiovisual Instruction movement|| Education in large was not affected.
|-
|  World War II ||Training films, Overhead projector, Slide projector, Audio equipment, Simulators and training devices ||  Military and industry at this time had strong demand for training. || Growth of audio-visual instruction movement in school was slow, but audiovisual device were used extensively in military services and industry.
|-
|  Post World War II || Communication medium  ||Suggested to consider all aspects of a communication process (influenced by communication theories).  || This view point was first ignored, but eventually helped to expand the focus of the audiovisual movement.
|-
|  1950s to mid-1960s || Television  || Growth of Instructional television  || Instructional television was not adopted to a greater extent.
|-
|  1950s-1990s || Computer ||Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) research started in the 1950s, became popular in the 1980s a few years after computers became available to general public. || The effect of CAI was rather small and the use of computer was far from innovative.
|-
|  1990s-2000s || Internet, Simulation ||The internet offered opportunities to train many people long distances. Desktop simulation gave advent to levels of Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI).  || Online training increased rapidly to the point where entire curriculums were given through web-based training. Simulations are valuable but expensive, with the highest level being used primarily by the military and medical community. 
|-
|  2000s-2020s || Mobile Devices, Social Media||On-demand training moved to people's personal devices; social media allowed for collaborative learning. Smartphones allowed for real-time interactive feedback. || Personalized learning paths enhanced by artificial intelligence. Microlearning and gamification are widely adopted to deliver learning in the flow of work. Real-time data capture enables ongoing design and remediation.

|}