Instructional design

As a field, instructional design is historically and traditionally rooted in cognitive and behavioral psychology, though recently constructivism has influenced thinking in the field.{{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}}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 MacmillanDuffy, 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. 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.{{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}} Specifically, they were linked to the training development model used by the 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."{{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}}

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.{{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}} In 1946, Edgar Dale outlined a hierarchy of instructional methods, organized intuitively by their concreteness.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}}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 }} The framework first migrated to the industrial sector to train workers before it finally found its way to the education field.{{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}}

File:BloomsTaxonomy.png (published in 1956) defined a cognitive domain in terms of six objectives.]]

In 1954, B. F. Skinner suggested{{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}} that effective instructional materials, called programmed instructional materials, should include small steps, frequent questions, and immediate feedback; and should allow self-pacing. Robert F. Mager popularized the use of learning objectives.{{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}} The article describes how to write objectives including desired behavior, learning condition, and assessment.

In 1956, a committee led by Benjamin Bloom published an influential taxonomy with three domains of learning: cognitive (what one knows or thinks), psychomotor (what one does, physically) and affective (what one feels, or what attitudes one has). These taxonomies still influence the design of instruction.Bloom's Taxonomy. Retrieved from Wikipedia on April 18, 2012 at Bloom's Taxonomy

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.

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 analysis led to an important notion in instruction – to ensure that learners acquire prerequisite skills before attempting superordinate ones.

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.

During the 1970s, the number of instructional design models greatly increased and prospered in different sectors in military, academia, and industry. 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).[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.

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.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.

However, educators and researchers began to consider how the personal computer could be used in a learning environment or a learning space. PLATO is one example of how computers began to be integrated into instruction.{{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}} Many of the first uses of computers in the classroom were for "drill and skill" exercises.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 There was a growing interest in how cognitive psychology could be applied to instructional design.

During the 1990s, performance improvement also emerged as a key goal in the design process.{{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}} 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.{{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 |issn=1042-1629}}

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 behaviorist and constructivist strategies for their online courses.{{Cite journal |last=Carr-Chellman |first=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}} 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).”{{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 |issn=1176-3647}}

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".{{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}}{{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}}

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,{{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 Pennsylvania State University,{{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 Purdue,{{cite web |url=http://online.purdue.edu/ldt/learning-design-technology |title=Master's in Learning Design and Technology | Purdue Online |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 San Diego State University,{{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 Stanford, Harvard{{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 University of Georgia,{{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 California State University, Fullerton, and Carnegie Mellon University{{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}} 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.{{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}}{{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}} 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. As a result of this and other research, more emphasis was placed on creating knowledge bases and other supports for self-directed learning.

{{main|ADDIE model}}

File:ADDIE Model of Design.jpg

Perhaps the most common model used for creating instructional materials is the ADDIE Model. This acronym stands for the five phases contained in the model: Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate.

The ADDIE model was initially developed by Florida State University to explain "the processes involved in the formulation of an instructional systems development (ISD) program for military interservice training that will adequately train individuals to do a particular job, and which can also be applied to any interservice curriculum development activity."Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., King, F. J., Hannum, W. H. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development. (5 vols.) (TRADOC Pam 350-30 NAVEDTRA 106A). Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, August 1975. (NTIS No. ADA 019 486 through ADA 019 490). The model originally contained several steps under its five original phases (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and [Evaluation and] Control), whose completion was expected before movement to the next phase could occur. Over the years, the steps were revised and eventually the model itself became more dynamic and interactive than its original hierarchical rendition, until its most popular version appeared in the mid-80s, as we understand it today.

Connecting all phases of the model are external and reciprocal revision opportunities. As in the internal Evaluation phase, revisions should and can be made throughout the entire process.

Most of the current instructional design models are variations of the ADDIE model.Piskurich, G.M. (2006). Rapid Instructional Design: Learning ID fast and right.

{{Vague|reason=Who?|date=April 2025|text=Proponents}} suggest that through an iterative process the verification of the design documents saves time and money by catching problems while they are still easy to fix. This approach is not novel to the design of instruction, but appears in many design-related domains including software design, architecture, transportation planning, product development, message design, user experience design, etc.{{cite book |author=Saettler, P. |year=1990 |title=The evolution of American educational technology}}{{cite book |author=Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E. |title= Handbook of human performance technology |year=1999}} In fact, some proponents of design prototyping assert that a sophisticated understanding of a problem is incomplete without creating and evaluating some type of prototype, regardless of the analysis rigor that may have been applied up front.Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO's strategies for beating the devil's advocate & driving creativity throughout your organization. New York: Doubleday. In other words, up-front analysis is rarely sufficient to allow one to confidently select an instructional model. For this reason many traditional methods of instructional design are beginning to be seen as incomplete, naive, and even counter-productive.Hokanson, B., & Miller, C. (2009). Role-based design: A contemporary framework for innovation and creativity in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(2), 21–28.

Another well-known instructional design model is the Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model.{{cite book |last1=Dick |first1=Walter |first2=Lou |last2=Carey |first3=James O. |last3=Carey |year=2005 |title=The Systematic Design of Instruction |edition=6th |orig-year=1978 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sYQCAAAACAAJ&q=the+systematic+design+of+instruction |pages=1–12 |publisher=Allyn & Bacon |isbn=0-205-41274-2 }}{{Dead link|date=September 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} The model was originally published in 1978 by Walter Dick and Lou Carey in their book entitled The Systematic Design of Instruction.

File:Dick Carey.png

Dick and Carey made a significant contribution to the instructional design field by championing a systems view of instruction, in contrast to defining instruction as the sum of isolated parts. The model addresses instruction as an entire system, focusing on the interrelationship between context, content, learning and instruction.{{cite web|title=Dick and Carey Instructional Model|url=http://educationaltechnology.net/dick-and-carey-instructional-model/|author=Ed Forest|date=23 November 2015 |url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151124215130/http://educationaltechnology.net/dick-and-carey-instructional-model/|archive-date=2015-11-24}} 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 bring about the desired student learning outcomes". The components of the Systems Approach Model, also known as the Dick and Carey Model, are as follows:

• Identify Instructional Goal(s): A goal statement describes a skill, knowledge or attitude (SKA) that a learner will be expected to acquire
• Conduct instructional Analysis: Identify what a learner must recall and identify what learner must be able to do to perform particular task
• Analyze Learners and Contexts: Identify general characteristics of the target audience, including prior skills, prior experience, and basic demographics; identify characteristics directly related to the skill to be taught; and perform analysis of the performance and learning settings.
• Write Performance Objectives: Objectives consists of a description of the behavior, the condition and criteria. The component of an objective that describes the criteria will be used to judge the learner's performance.
• Develop Assessment Instruments: Purpose of entry behavior testing, purpose of pretesting, purpose of post-testing, purpose of practice items/practice problems
• Develop Instructional Strategy: Pre-instructional activities, content presentation, Learner participation, assessment
• Develop and Select Instructional Materials
• Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation of Instruction: Designers try to identify areas of the instructional materials that need improvement.
• Revise Instruction: To identify poor test items and to identify poor instruction
• Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation

With this model, components are executed iteratively and in parallel, rather than linearly.

The instructional design model, Guaranteed Learning, was formerly known as the Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS).{{cite book |author1=Esseff, Peter J. |author2=Esseff, Mary Sullivan |year=1998 |title=Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS) |edition=8th |orig-year=1970 |url=http://esf-protrainer.com/Materials.html |pages=1–12 |publisher=ESF Press |isbn=1-58283-037-1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081119152404/http://www.esf-protrainer.com/Materials.html |archive-date=2008-11-19 }} The model was originally published in 1970 by Peter J. Esseff, PhD and Mary Sullivan Esseff, PhD in their book entitled IDLS—Pro Trainer 1: How to Design, Develop, and Validate Instructional Materials.[http://esf-protrainer.com/Materials.html ESF, Inc. – Train-the-Trainer – ESF ProTrainer Materials – 813.814.1192] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081119152404/http://www.esf-protrainer.com/Materials.html |date=2008-11-19 }}. ESF-ProTrainer.com (2007-11-06). Retrieved on 2011-10-07.

Peter (1968) & Mary (1972) Esseff both received their doctorates in Educational Technology from the Catholic University of America under the mentorship of Gabriel Ofiesh, a founding father of the Military Model mentioned above. Esseff and Esseff synthesized existing theories to develop their approach to systematic design, "Guaranteed Learning" aka "Instructional Development Learning System" (IDLS). In 2015, the Drs. Esseffs created an eLearning course to enable participants to take the GL course online under the direction of Esseff.

The components of the Guaranteed Learning Model are the following:

• Design a task analysis
• Develop criterion tests and performance measures
• Develop interactive instructional materials
• Validate the interactive instructional materials
• Create simulations or performance activities (Case Studies, Role Plays, and Demonstrations)

Other useful instructional design models include: the Smith/Ragan Model,Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design (3rd Ed.). Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons. the Morrison/Ross/Kemp ModelMorrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2001). Designing effective instruction, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley. and the OAR Model of instructional design in higher education,Joeckel, G., Jeon, T., Gardner, J. (2010). Instructional Challenges In Higher Education: Online Courses Delivered Through A Learning Management System By Subject Matter Experts. In Song, H. (Ed.) Distance Learning Technology, Current Instruction, and the Future of Education: Applications of Today, Practices of Tomorrow. ([http://www.fact.usu.edu/files/uploads/Chapter_Final.pdf link to article] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503015755/http://www.fact.usu.edu/files/uploads/Chapter_Final.pdf |date=2012-05-03 }}) as well as, Wiggins' theory of backward design.

Learning theories also play an important role in the design of instructional materials. Theories such as behaviorism, constructivism, social learning, and cognitivism help shape and define the outcome of instructional materials.

Motivation is defined as an internal drive that activates behavior and gives it direction. The term motivation theory is concerned with the process that describes why and how human behavior is activated and directed.

Motivation concepts include intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation.

John M. Keller{{cite web|last=Keller|first=John|title=arcsmodel.com|url=http://www.arcsmodel.com/home.htm|publisher=John M. Keller|access-date=April 1, 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120530000410/http://www.arcsmodel.com/home.htm|archive-date=May 30, 2012}}

has devoted his career to researching and understanding motivation in instructional systems. These decades of work constitute a major contribution to the instructional design field. First, by applying motivation theories systematically to design theory. Second, in developing a unique problem-solving process he calls the ARCS model.

Although Keller's ARCS model currently dominates instructional design with respect to learner motivation, in 2006 Hardré and Miller{{cite journal|last=Hardré|first=Patricia|author2=Miller, Raymond B.|title=Toward a current, comprehensive, integrative, and flexible model of motivation for instructional design|journal=Performance Improvement Quarterly|year=2006|volume=19|issue=3}} proposed a need for a new design model that includes current research in human motivation, a comprehensive treatment of motivation, integrates various fields of psychology and provides designers the flexibility to be applied to a myriad of situations.

Hardré{{cite journal|last=Hardré|first=Patricia|title=The motivating opportunities model for Performance SUCCESS: Design, Development, and Instructional Implications|journal=Performance Improvement Quarterly|year=2009|volume=22|issue=1|pages=5–26|doi=10.1002/piq.20043}} proposes an alternate model for designers called the Motivating Opportunities Model or MOM. Hardré's model incorporates cognitive, needs, and affective theories as well as social elements of learning to address learner motivation. MOM has seven key components spelling the acronym 'SUCCESS' – Situational, Utilization, Competence, Content, Emotional, Social, and Systemic.

{{cleanup list|date=December 2010}}

{{Confusing|reason=are these influential instructional designers, or anyone that influenced instructional design?|date=February 2022}}

Alphabetic by last name

• Bloom, Benjamin – Taxonomies of the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains – 1950s
• Bransford, John D. – How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice – 1990s
• Bruner, Jerome – Constructivism - 1950s-1990s
• Gagné, Robert M. – The Conditions of Learning has had a great influence on the discipline.{{cite book |last1=Dick |first1=Walter |last2=Carey |first2=Lou |last3=Carey |first3=James O. |title=The Systematic Design of Instruction |date=17 March 2014 |publisher=Pearson |pages=3–4 |edition=8 }}
• Gibbons, Andrew S - developed the Theory of Model Centered Instruction; a theory rooted in Cognitive Psychology.
• Heinich, Robert – Instructional Media and the new technologies of instruction 3rd ed. – Educational Technology – 1989
• Jonassen, David – problem-solving strategies – 1990s
• Kemp, Jerold E. – Created a cognitive learning design model - 1980s
• Mager, Robert F. – ABCD model for instructional objectives – 1962 - Criterion-Referenced Instruction and Learning Objectives
• Marzano, Robert J. - "Dimensions of Learning", Formative Assessment - 2000s
• Mayer, Richard E. - Multimedia Learning - 2000s
• Merrill, M. David – Component Display Theory / Knowledge Objects / First Principles of Instruction
• Osguthorpe, Russell T. – Overview of Instructional Design – The education of the heart: rediscovering the spiritual roots of learning{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6692woU7NZIC&q=russell+t+osguthorpe+byu+research|title=The education of the heart: rediscovering the spiritual roots of learning|last=Osguthorpe|first=Russell T.|date=1996-09-01|publisher=Covenant Communications|isbn=9781555039851|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170207114028/https://books.google.com/books?id=6692woU7NZIC&q=russell+t+osguthorpe+byu+research&dq=russell+t+osguthorpe+byu+research&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiurfrlhf3RAhVGQI8KHcu8CYA4ChDoAQg5MAI|archive-date=2017-02-07}}
• Papert, Seymour – Constructionism, LOGO – 1970s-1980s
• Piaget, Jean – Cognitive development – 1960s
• Reigeluth, Charles – Elaboration Theory, "Green Books" I, II, and III – 1990s–2010s
• Rita Richey - instructional design theory and research methods{{Cite book |last1=Richey |first1=Rita C. |url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203826034/design-development-research-rita-richey-james-klein |title=Design and Development Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues |last2=Klein |first2=James D. |year=2014 |doi=10.4324/9780203826034|isbn=9780203826034 }}
• Schank, Roger – Constructivist simulations – 1990s
• Simonson, Michael – Instructional Systems and Design via Distance Education – 1980s
• Skinner, B.F. – Radical Behaviorism, Programed Instruction - 1950s-1970s
• Vygotsky, Lev – Learning as a social activity – 1930s
• Wiley, David A. - influential work on open content, open educational resources, and informal online learning communities

{{div col}}

• {{annotated link|Confidence-based learning}}
• {{annotated link|Design-based learning}}
• {{annotated link|E-learning (theory)}}
• {{annotated link|Educational animation}}
• {{annotated link|Educational assessment}}
• {{annotated link|Educational psychology}}
• {{annotated link|Educational technology}}
• {{annotated link|Electronic portfolio}}
• {{annotated link|Expertise reversal effect}}
• {{annotated link|Interdisciplinary teaching}}
• {{annotated link|Instructional design coordinator}}
• {{annotated link|Instructional theory}}
• {{annotated link|Interaction design}}
• {{annotated link|Learning object}}
• {{annotated link|Learning sciences}}
• {{annotated link|Lesson study}}
• {{annotated link|M-learning}}
• {{annotated link|Pedagogy}}
• {{annotated link|Storyboard}}
• {{annotated link|Understanding by Design}}
• {{Annotated link|Universal Design for Learning}}
• {{div col end}}

{{Reflist|35em}}

{{wikiversity}}

• [https://www.51elementsoflearning.com/instructional-design/ Instructional Design] – An overview of Instructional Design
• [http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat.html ISD Handbook]
• [http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Instructional_design_model Edutech wiki: Instructional design model]
• [https://www.td.org/what-is-instructional-design ATD: What Is Instructional Design?]

{{Design}}

{{Education}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Instructional Design}}

Category:Applied psychology

Category:Educational technology

Category:Learning

Category:Pedagogy

Category:Communication design

Category:Curricula

Category:Instructional design