A Taxonomy of ID Models

“Why should we have models? Models help us conceptualize representations of reality. A model is a simple representation of more complex forms, processes, and functions of physical phenomena or ideas” (Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p. 17).

ID models are useful for ID professionals to guide their practice. However, with the proliferation of variations in ID theories, applications, and related models since the sixties, how does one select a specific model for a particular instructional situation? There have been many attempts to compare and classify various ID models. Notably, Gustafson and Branch (1997) proposed a taxonomy of ID models with three categories: (1) classroom orientation ID models, (2) product orientation ID models, and (3) system orientation ID models. The taxonomy is based on the following characteristics/assumptions (Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p. 29) associated with each model:

• Typical output in terms of amount of instruction prepared
• Resources committed to the development effort
• Whether it is a team or individual effort
• ID skill and experience of the individual or team
• Whether most instructional materials will be selected from existing resources or represent original design and production
• Amount of preliminary (front-end) analysis conducted
• Anticipated technological complexity of the learning environment
• Amount of tryout and revision conducted, and
• Amount of dissemination and follow-up occurring after development

Classroom Orientation ID Models:

Characteristics:

• Typical output - One or a few hours of instruction
• Resources committed to the development - Very low
• Team or individual effort - Individual
• ID skill/experience - Low
• Emphasis on development or selection - Select
• Amount of front-end analysis/needs assessment - Low
• Technological complexity - Low
• Amount of tryout and revision – Low to medium
• Amount of distribution/dissemination - None

Examples:

• The Gerlach and Ely Model (1980)
• The Kemp, Morrison and Ross Model (1994)
• The Heinich, Molenda, Russell and Smaldino Model (1996) (i.e., The ASSURE Model: Analyze learners, State objectives, Select media and Materials, Utilize materials, Require learner participation, and Evaluation/review).
• The Reiser and Dick Model (1996)

Product Orientation ID Models:

Characteristics:

• Typical output - Self instructional or instructor delivered package
• Resources committed to the development - High
• Team or individual effort – Usually a team
• ID skill/experience - High
• Emphasis on development or selection - Develop
• Amount of front-end analysis/needs assessment – Low to medium
• Technological complexity - Medium to high
• Amount of tryout and revision – Very high
• Amount of distribution/dissemination - High

Examples:

• The Van Patten Model (1989)
• The Leshin, Pollock and Reigeluth Model (1990)
• The Bergman and Moore Model (1990)
  

System Orientation ID Models:

Characteristics:

• Typical output - Course or entire curriculum
• Resources committed to the development - High
• Team or individual effort – Team
• ID skill/experience - High/very high
• Emphasis on development or selection - Develop
• Amount of front-end analysis/needs assessment – Very high
• Technological complexity - Medium to high
• Amount of tryout and revision – Medium to high
• Amount of distribution/dissemination - Medium to high

Examples:

• The IDI (Instructional Development Institute) Model (National Special Media Institute, 1971)
• The IPISD Model (Branson, 1975, Interservices Procedures for Instructional Systems Development)
• The Diamond Model (Robert Diamond, 1989, 1997). Designing and improving courses and curricula: A practical guide
• The Smith and Ragan Model (1993)
• The Gentry IPDM Model (Gentry, 1994, Instructional Project Development and Management Model)
• The Dick and Carey Model (1996). The systematic design of instruction

As suggested by Gustafson and Branch, “A taxonomy of ID models can help clarify the underlying assumptions of each model, and help identify the conditions under which each might be most appropriately applied” (p. 27). A summary of Gustafson and Branch’s taxonomy and relevant references can be found in this ERIC report: Survey of Instructional Development Models. ERIC Digest.

Reference: Gustafson, K. L. and Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of Instructional Development Models, third edition. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.