Instructional Design Models and Theories
Instructional Design Models and Theories History*
- 1903 – Ivan Pavlov discovers Classical Conditioning Theory, while conducting research on the digestive system of dogs.
- 1910 – Thorndike introduces its Laws and Connectionism Theory, which are based on the Active Learning Principles.
- 1922 – Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka and Wolfgang Köhler introduce Gestalt Psychology.
- 1932 – Psychologist Frederic Bartlett proposes the Schema Theory.
- 1937 – B.F. Skinner introduces the Operant Conditioning Theory.
- 1937 – May and Doob publish Competition and Cooperation, where the Cooperative and Collaborative Learning Theory is launched, discussed and analyzed.
- 1950s – The Information Processing Theory emerges.
- 1950s – Computer-based Instruction is used in educational and training environments.
- 1954 – Skinner introduces the Programmed Instruction Educational Model.
- 1960s – The Inquiry-based Learning Model is developed, based on constructivist learning theories.
- 1961 – Jerome Bruner introduces the Discovery Learning Model.
- 1960s – Howard Barrows introduces Problem-based Learning (PBL) in the medical education program at McMaster University in Canada.
- 1963 – David Ausubel publishes his findings on the Subsumption Theory.
- 1962 – The Keller Plan revolves around the Individualized Instruction Model and is used in educational environments throughout the United States.
- 1971 – Allan Paivio hypothesized about the Dual Coding Theory; a theory of cognition.
- 1974 – Merlin Wittrock publishes the Generative Learning Theory.
- 1978- Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Learning Theory influences the West.
- 1979 – Charles Reigeluth introduces the Elaboration Theory.
- 1980 – Reginald Revans introduces the Action Learning Model.
- 1983 – David Merrill introduces the Component Display Theory and Instructional Model.
- 1983 – J. M. Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivation is published.
- 1988 – Spiro, Feltovich, and Coulson introduce their Cognitive Flexibility Theory.
- 1989 – Brown, Collins, Duguid and Newman introduce their Situated Cognition Theory and the Cognitive Apprenticeship Model.
- 1990 – The Cognition & Technology Group at Vanderbilt University develops the Anchored InstructionEducational Model.
- 1990s – Multimedia and CD-ROMs are introduced in educational environments.
- 1991 – Lave and Wenger introduce the Communities of Practice Model and the Situated Learning Theory in “Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation”.
- 1991 – Hudspeth and Knirk publish the case-based Learning Model in Performance Improvement Quarterly.
- 1992 – Roger C. Schank releases a technical report, introducing the Goal-based Scenario Model.
- 1993 – The first Computer-supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILEs) prototype is used in a university setting.
- 1995 – Saltzberg and Polyson publish Distributed Learning on the World Wide Web, which outlines the Distributed Learning Model.
- 1995 – Dodge and March develop WebQuest.
- 1996 – Professor Joseph R. Codde publishes a report that outlines Contract Learning.
- 2007 – M. Lombardi publishes a report, outlining the Authentic Learning Model.
more on ID in this IMS blog
Arshad, M., & Akram, M. S. (2018). Social Media Adoption by the Academic Community: Theoretical Insights and Empirical Evidence From Developing Countries. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3500
Building on the social constructivist paradigm and technology acceptance model, we propose a conceptual model to assess social media adoption in academia by incorporating collaboration, communication, and resource sharing as predictors of social media adoption, whereas perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness act as mediators in this relationship.
According to the latest social media statistics, there are more than 2 billion Facebook users, more than 300 million Twitter users, more than 500 million Google+ users, and more than 400 million LinkedIn users (InternetLiveStats, 2018).
although social media is rapidly penetrating into the society, there is no consensus in the literature on the drivers of social media adoption in an academic context. Moreover, it is not clear how social media can impact academic performance.
Social media platforms have significant capability to support the social constructivist paradigm that promotes collaborative learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
- Perceived usefulness (PU) – This was defined by Fred Davis as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance“.
- Perceived ease-of-use (PEOU) – Davis defined this as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free from effort” (Davis 1989).
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). USER ACCEPTANCE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: TOWARD A UNIFIED VIEW. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
proposing a Social Media Adoption Model (SMAM) for the academic community
Social media platforms provide an easy alternative, to the academic community, as compared to official communications such as email and blackboard. my note: this has been established as long as back as in 2006 – https://www.chronicle.com/article/E-Mail-is-for-Old-People/4169. Around the time, when SCSU announced email as the “formal mode of communication).Thus, it is emerging as a new communication and collaboration tool among the academic community in higher education institutions (Roblyer, McDaniel, Webb, Herman, & Witty, 2010). Social media has greatly changed the communication/feedback environment by introducing technologies that have modified the educational perspective of learning and interacting (Prensky, 2001).
Theory of Reasoned Action : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_reasoned_action
the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989) have been used to assess individuals’ acceptance and use of technology. According to the Technology Acceptance Model, perceived usefulness and perceived ease are the main determinants of an individual’s behavioral intentions and actual usage (Davis, 1989).
Perceived usefulness, derived from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), is the particular level that an individual perceives that they can improve their job performance or create ease in attaining the targeted goals by using an information system. It is also believed to make an individual free from mental pressure (Davis, 1989).
Perceived ease of use can be defined as the level to which an individual believes that using a specific system will make a task easier (Gruzd, Staves, & Wilk, 2012) and will reduce mental exertion (Davis, 1989). Venkatesh (2000) posits this construct as a vital element in determining a user’s behavior toward technology. Though generally, there is consensus on the positive effect of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness on users’ attitude towards social media, it is not yet clear which one of these is more relevant in explaining users’ attitude towards social media in the academic community (Lowry, 2002). Perceived ease of use is one of the eminent behavioral beliefs affecting the users’ intention toward technology acceptance (Lu et al., 2005). The literature suggests that perceived ease of use of technology develops a positive attitude toward its usage (Davis, 1989).
Collaborative learning is considered as an essential instructional method as it assists in overcoming the communication gap among the academic community (Bernard, Rubalcava, & St-Pierre, 2000). The academic community utilizes various social media platforms with the intention to socialize and communicate with others and to share common interests (Sánchez et al., 2014; Sobaih et al., 2016). The exchange of information through social media platforms help the academic community to develop an easy and effective communication among classmates and colleagues (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Social media platforms can also help in developing communities of practice that may help improve collaboration and communication among members of the community (Sánchez et al., 2014). Evidence from previous work confirms that social media platforms are beneficial to college and university students for education purposes (Forkosh-Baruch & Hershkovitz, 2012). Due to the intrinsic ease of use and usefulness of social media, academics are regularly using information and communication technologies, especially social media, for collaboration with colleagues in one way or the other (Koh & Lim, 2012; Wang, 2010).
more about social media in education in this IMS blog
What do you think are the main difficulties of using games for learning in higher education?
more on gaming in this IMS blog
Ungerer, L. M. (2016). Digital Curation as a Core Competency in Current Learning and Literacy: A Higher Education Perspective. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning
Technology considerably impacts on current literacy requirements (Reinking, as cited in Sharma & Deschaine, 2016). Being literate in the 21st century requires being able to decode and comprehend multimodal texts and digital format and also engage with these texts in a purposeful manner. Literacy is not merely based on a specific skill, but consists of a process that embraces the dynamic, social, and collaborative facets of digital technology (Lewis & Fabos, as cited in Mills, 2013).
Mackey and Jacobson (2011) suggest reframing the concept of information literacy as metaliteracy (supporting multiple literacy types) because of a tremendous growth in social media and collaborative online communities. They propose that information literacy currently involves more than a set of discrete skills, since active knowledge production and distribution in collaborative online communities are also necessary.
Mackey and Jacobson (2011) position metaliteracy as an overarching and comprehensive framework that informs other literacy types. It serves as the basis for media literacy, digital literacy, ICT literacy, and visual literacy.
According to Mills (2013, p. 47), digital curation is the sifting and aggregation of internet and other digital resources into a manageable collection of what teachers and students find relevant, personalized and dynamic. It incorporates the vibrancy of components of the Internet and provides a repository that is easily accessible and usable.
Pedagogies of Abundance
According to Weller (2011), a pedagogy of abundance should consider a number of assumptions such as that content often is freely available and abundant. Content further takes on various forms and it is often easy and inexpensive to share information. Content is socially based and since people filter and share content, a social approach to learning is advisable. Further, establishing and preserving connections in a network is easy and they do not have to be maintained on a one-to-one basis. Successful informal groupings occur frequently, reducing the need to formally manage groups.
Resource-based learning. Ryan (as cited in Weller, 2011) defines resource-based learning as “an integrated set of strategies to promote student centred learning in a mass education context, through a combination of specially designed learning resources and interactive media and technologies.”
Problem-based learning. Problem-based learning takes place when learners experience the process of working toward resolving a problem encountered early in the learning process (Barrows & Tamblyn, as cited in Weller, 2011). Students often collaborate in small groups to identify solutions to ill-defined problems, while the teacher acts as facilitator and assists groups if they need help. Problem-based learning meets a number of important requirements such as being learner-directed, using diverse resources and taking an open-ended approach.
Communities of practice. Lave and Wenger’s (as cited in Weller, 2011) concept of situated learning and Wenger’s (as cited in Weller, 2011) idea of communities of practice highlight the importance of apprenticeship and the social role in learning.
My note: this article spells out what needs to be done and how. it is just flabeghasting that research guides are employed so religiously by librarians. They are exactly the opposite concept of the one presented in this article: they are closed, controlled by one or several librarians, without a constant and easy access of the instructor, not to mention the students’ participation