See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311466602

A Review and Categorization of Instructional Design Models

Conference Paper · November 2016

CITATION READS
1 2,531

2 authors:

Mehmet Donmez Kursat Cagiltay

Middle East Technical University Middle East Technical University
27 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    228 PUBLICATIONS   1,679 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

İstihdamda Yeni Bir Boyut: Engelliler İçin Teknoloji Temelli Mesleki Eğitim Laboratuvarı (TANAP/2017/02/DG) View project

Establishment of Internet and its Infrastructure in Turkey View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kursat Cagiltay on 31 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

A Review and Categorization of Instructional Design Models

Mehmet Donmez
Kursat Cagiltay
Middle East Technical University
Turkey
mdonmez@metu.edu.tr
kursat@metu.edu.tr

Abstract: The aim of this study is to provide a review of instructional design (ID) models and to
enlighten the evolution of ID models. The review study starts from the generic ID model which is
ADDIE model, and continues to explore the other ID models. The review includes the articles
indexed in Thomson’s Web of Science database published between 2000 and 2016. In this
context, 43 articles were reached. After the analysis of these articles, 33 ID models were identified
and 14 more articles related to these models were found. As a result of this study, the identified ID
models are reported and grouped into categories according to their components.
Keywords: Instructional Design, Instructional Design Models, ADDIE Model, Categorization of
ID models

Introduction
Instructional design (ID) strategies are needed to provide effective design of instructional materials and to
reach more successful learning outcomes (Khalil & Elkhider, 2016). Instructional Design (ID) is a system which
includes procedures to develop educational and training programs according to a consistent and reliable way
(Gustafson & Branch, 2002b). In addition, Şimşek (2013) defines ID as developing functional learning systems
based on systematic approach in order to meet the requirements of a specific target group. Branch (2010) describes
ID as a systemic process to develop education and training programs consistently and reliably, but a complex
process with its creativity, activity and interactivity. Advances in technology shapes the ID process which provides
tools for the processes of visualization, direction and management for developing high quality teaching and learning
materials (Branch & Kopcha, 2014).
There is a common idea in the ID field that ID models are usually the adaptations of the generic model
which consists of five phases, namely analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation (Seels &
Glasgow, 1998). The generic ID model is also called as ADDIE model ( Figure 1) which includes useful set of
criteria and continuous revision until the implementation of the instruction (Gustafson & Branch, 2002a). In
addition, the ADDIE model can provide instructional designers with a uniform and effective delivery model
(Pittenger, Janke, & Bumgardner, 2009; Robinson & Dearmon, 2013).

Figure 1. ADDIE Model

The first phase of the ADDIE model is the analysis phase that includes the analysis of the learner, context
and instructional materials conducted to define the intended learner characteristics like their prior knowledge,

-370-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

attitudes, culture and interests, and decide on instructional goals to be achieved and learning context such as learning
environment like classroom and laboratory. The second phase is the design phase that consists of the identification
of learning objectives decided together with the delivery methods, types of learning activities and different types of
media. The third phase is the development phase that includes the production of instructional contents, a prototype
and assessment instruments. The fourth phase is the implementation phase that provides support for learners by
delivering the instructional materials. The last phase is the evaluation phase that consists of formative and
summative evaluation. Formative evaluation refers to the evaluation which occurs during the development phase of
ADDIE model, while summative evaluation refers to the evaluation at the end of ADDIE model process (Branch,
2010). As a result, ADDIE model helps instructional designer with simple and easy to use framework during design
of the instruction (Khalil & Elkhider, 2016).
Gustafson and Branch (2002a) classified ID models into three categories as classroom, product and system
oriented models. Moreover, Şimşek (2013) categorizes ID models into six headings as core models, linear models,
flexible models, communicative models, heuristic models and hybrid models. These categorizations may provide
guidance for instructional designers to choose an ID model by considering the purpose, scope and structure. Both of
these categorizations is discussed in detail later on this study.

Significance of the study

With moving emphasize from teacher centered education to the student centered education, the
requirements and specifications of designing the instruction has been evolved. In other words, there is a shift on
emphasize from teaching to learning (Branch & Kopcha, 2014; Gustafson & Branch, 2002b). Instructional
designers have developed hundreds of ID models to meet the needs of their times. The aim to develop ID models is
to endorse understandings of ID reality and monitor ID performance (Lee & Jang, 2014). Although there are a lot of
ID models which are developed for both general and specific usage, there are a few major distinctions between them
(Branch & Kopcha, 2014). However, these distinctions may help instructional designers to implement the ID model
better according to their purposes. In this context, there is a need for a categorization of ID models to provide
guidance for instructional designers while they are designing, producing, evaluating and utilizing the complete
system of instruction (Branch & Kopcha, 2014).
The findings of this study are important to look at ID models following generic ID model (ADDIE model).
In addition, this study is helpful to comprehend the categorization of ID models with their specifications. Moreover,
since the analyzed and grouped ID models are essential, the findings provide contribution to the field of ID. Besides,
this study explores the ID models after 14 years from the study of Gustafson and Branch (2002a), so it provides the
analysis of the ID models between this interval.

Research Questions
This study is guided by the following research questions:
1. What are the ID models which emerged after the generic ID model which is ADDIE model?
2. How can ID models be grouped into categories according to their specifications?

Methodology
This study is started with the selection of the database and key words related to ID models. In order to
define the boundaries of this research, the database for using to specify ID models is selected as Thomson’s Web of
Science. Then, the key words, namely “instructional design models”, “instructional design model”, “models of
instructional design” and “model of instructional design” are determined to search exactly one of them in such
database. In addition, the timespan is set between 2000 and 2016.
According to the limitations, 145 articles are found and their abstracts are analyzed manually in order to
decide whether it is related to a specific model, or not. After analyzing, 80 articles are reported as related specific
models and 48 articles are reached. Then, each article is reviewed to label name of ID model and to identify whether
it is new ID model or modified from available ID models, so 33 ID models identified. Besides, 19 of them are
related to new ID model and 14 of them are used from available ID models. Then, the original articles related to 14

-371-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

available ID models are found from other sources. After that, the identified ID models are reported and showed on a
table with their citations. Subsequently, categories based on the purpose of usage and scope of the ID model, and the
structure of the ID model are explained with their specifications. Finally, these ID models are categorized under the
two-dimension matrix based on their specifications.

Discussion
There are 33 ID models which are identified in this study. The name of these ID model, its developers, the
publication year of it, the identified sources from this study which implemented original ID model and their years,
and citations for both original and implemented sources based on “Google Scholar” database are reported in the
Error: Reference source not found.

Original ID Model Implemented ID Model

Name of ID Model
Reference Year Cit. Reference Year Cit.

She, Wu, Wang, &

2009 10
Chen (2009)

ADDIE Model Generic ID Model Pittenger et al. (2009) 2009 6

Robinson & Dearmon

2013 41
(2013)

Experiential Learning
Kolb (1984) 1984 98
Theory (ELT) Model

Carlton, Kicklighter,
Dick and Carey Model Dick & Carey (1985) 1985 4162 Jonnalagadda, & 2000 24
Shoffner (2000)

Cognitive Apprenticeship Collins, Brown, &

1987 6593 Kearns (2011) 2011 5
ID Model Newman (1987)

Nadolny, Woolfrey,
2013 3
Pierlott, & Kahn (2013)
Rapid Prototyping ID Tripp & Bichelmeyer
1990 451
Model (1990)
Sahrir, Yahaya, &
2013 2
Nasir (2013)

Kemp Morrison and Ross Kemp, Morrison, & Ross Knowlton & Simms
1994 1725 2010 4
ID Model (1994) (2010)

Nordin, Zakaria,
Mohamed, & Embi 2010 22
Reiser and Dick Model Reiser & Dick (1995) 1995 205 (2010)

Li & Fu (2012) 2012 35

Passerini & Granger

Hybrid Design Model 2000 228
(2000)

-372-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

Ling, Khong, & Lee

SWLing Model 2001 13
(2001)

Hoogveld, Paas,
Jochems, & 2001 36
Merrienboer (2001)

Janssen-Noordman,
Merrienboer, der
2006 48
Vleuten, & Scherpbier
(2006)

Sarfo & Elen (2008) 2008 7

Van Merrienboer et al.
Four-component ID Model 2002 550
(2002)
Tjiam et al. (2012) 2012 13

Van Merrienboer
2013 30
(2013)

Postma & White

2015 7
(2015)

Vandewaetere et al.
2015 2
(2015)

Smaldino, Russell,
Nurpandi, Langi, &
ASSURE model Heinich, & Molenda 2004 649 2013 1
Bandung (2013)
(2004)

Guided Experiential
Clark & Ed (2004) 2004 32
Learning (GEL) Model

Eternal, Synergistic
Design and Development Crawford (2004) 2004 64
Model

Fazelian, Ebrahim, &

5E ID Model Bybee et al. (2006) 2006 590 2010 6
Soraghi (2010)

Gunawardena et al. Gunawardena et al.

Wiscom Model 2006 80 2012 4
(2006) (2012)

Katase, Yamamoto,
E-Seneca Model Mutsuura, & Oshita 2006 3
(2006)

The Fuzzified Instructional

Design Development of
Akıllı & Cağıltay (2006) 2006 24
Game-Like Environments
(FIDGE) Model

Multiple Intelligence (MI)

Tracey & Richey (2007) 2007 31 Tracey (2009) 2009 24
Model

Model of Instructional Chiappe Laverde, 2007 107

-373-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

Design based on Learning Segovia Cifuentes, &

Objects (MIDLO) Rincon Rodriguez (2007)

E-learning ID model based

Cao, He, Wang, & Zheng Cao, Wang, & Zheng
on Cognitive Flexibility 2008 2 2012 4
(2008) (2012)
Theory (CFT)

ILC-CMAS (Intuitive Life

Cycle-Content Creation
Onn, Zaman, & Yeen
and Management 2008 0
(2008)
Automation System)
Model

MI-MathS (Multimedia
Mathematics Courseware
Based on the Multiple Ali & Zaman (2008) 2008 4
Intelligences) Cognitive
ID Model

Pedrazzoli (2010) 2010 2

PENTHA ID Model Dall’Acqua (2009) 2009 13 Dall’Acqua (2010) 2010 1

Dall’Acqua (2011) 2011 1

Guangzuo, Xinqi,
Semantic Model for ID
Haitao, & Ronghuai 2009 5
(SMID)
(2009)

Document-Oriented
Design and Development McMahon & Cowan
2009 6
for Experiential Learning (2009)
(DODDEL) Model

SEEP ID Model Wold (2011) 2011 10

Papan & Sompong

5C Model 2012 1
(2012)

Metacognition in the
Engineering Design
Carr & Strobel (2012) 2012 0
Process (MCinEDP)
Model

Jurjus, Krum, &

PLHET Model 2013 9
Goldman (2013)

IDEA Model Mullins (2014) 2014 7 Mullins (2016) 2016 0

TPACK-IDDIRR Model Lee & Kim (2014) 2014 9

Model of ID Integrated
Louhapensang & Seviset
with QFD and TRIZ40 2014 0
(2014)
Principles Model

-374-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

Science Laboratory
Instructional Design Balta (2015) 2015 1
(SLID) Model

Table 1. List of Original and Implemented ID models

There are different categorization approaches for ID models in the literature. According to Akker, Branch,
Gustafson, Nieveen, and Plomp (1999), there are four-category classification for designing instruction, namely
instrumental for planning by objectives, communicative to achieve consensus, pragmatic with interactive and
recurrent trial and revision, and artistic by creating the products based on expertness. Besides, ID models can be
categorized into two groups, namely conceptual models and procedural models (Lee & Jang, 2014). While
conceptual models explain the important variables and their relationships, procedural models provides detailed,
visual and verbal information to actualize the design process of the instruction. In addition, there are two more
categorizations based on the purpose of usage and scope of the ID model, and the structure of the ID model.

Categorization of ID Models based on the Purpose of Usage and Scope

Gustafson and Branch (2002a) state that ID models can be categorized as three categories, namely
classroom-oriented models, product-oriented models and system oriented models. This categorization provides help
for instructional designers to decide on ID model according to their purpose and scope.

Classroom Oriented Models (COM)

There are certain characteristics of ID models in order to be applied in a classroom (Gustafson & Branch,
2002a). First of all, they provide procedure to apply in a small size instruction, because they are for applying in the
classroom environment. In addition, they require low amount of resources and individual effort instead of team
work. Besides, they are applicable by instructor easily, because the instructor can have no prior knowledge about ID.

Product Oriented Models (POM)

There are required specifications for the design of the instruction as product (Gustafson & Branch, 2002a).
They usually require a team to design the instruction instead of individual development. Moreover, they aim to
produce a sophisticated and original product in generally few hours or days. They usually assume that there are
enough resources for design, trained team members, and professional managers.

System Oriented Models (SOM)

There are specifications of ID models to apply for designing a system (Gustafson & Branch, 2002a).
Firstly, they aim to design a system like course or curriculum. In addition, they require for a team which consists of
professional instructional designers and subject matter experts. They can be based on the available infrastructure or
delivery system to design the course or entire curriculum.

Categorization of ID Models based on the Structure

Şimşek (2013) categorizes ID models under six headings, namely core models, linear models, flexible
models, communicative models, heuristic models and hybrid models. This categorization provides guidance for
instructional designers to choose an ID model by considering the structure.

Analysis of ID Models

The analysis of ID models was reported according to the categorization of Şimşek (2013). While explaining
each category, ID models was grouped based on categorization of Gustafson and Branch (2002b).

-375-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

Core Models

The core models take ID as comprehensive progress (Şimşek, 2013). They also point out that there are
certain steps for designing the instruction which is not changing when the approach for ID is changed.
There are two ID models under both product oriented models (POM) and system oriented models (SOM).
The first and the most known core model is ADDIE model which consists of analysis, design, development,
implementation and evaluation steps (Gustafson & Branch, 2002a). The second one is experiential learning theory
(ELT) model which can provide basis for designing and examining simulation-based learning environments (Craft,
Feldon, & Brown, 2014). It covers learning process for enhancing knowledge with transformational experience and
minimal guidance.
In addition, there is one more ID model under SOM which is cognitive apprenticeship ID model. It
supports the idea that is to state expert thought processes and to make them visible to the student (Collins et al.,
1987).

Linear Models

The linear models are composed of step by step processes which are based on standard systems approach,
though there can be some concurrent processes (Şimşek, 2013). Generally, they start with need analysis and end
with evaluation.
There are six ID models under classroom oriented models (COM). The first one is Dick and Carey model
(Dick & Carey, 1985). It consists of following steps to describe the procedure to design instruction (Dick, Carey, &
Carey, 2004). The steps are to “determine the instructional goal, analyze the instructional goal, analyze the learners
and contexts, write performance objectives, develop assessment instruments, develop instructional strategy, develop
and select instruction, design and conduct formative evaluation, revise instruction, and use summative evaluation.”
(Information Resources Management Association, 2011, p. 85). According to Khalil and Elkhider (2016), it gives
easy to follow processes with step by step details. They also state that it includes more elaboration. The second one
is ASSURE model which consists of six steps, namely analyze learners, state objectives, select methods, media, and
materials, utilize media and materials, require learner participation, and evaluate and revise (Smaldino et al., 2004).
The third one is 5E ID model which consists of five phases, namely engagement, exploration, explanation,
elaboration, and evaluation (Bybee et al., 2006). The fourth one is SEEP ID model which consists of structure,
environment, experience and people components (Wold, 2011). The fifth one is PLHET model which provides
learner centered ID model including preparing, linking, hooking, engaging, and transferring learning steps (Jurjus et
al., 2013). The sixth one is TPACK-IDDIRR model which starts with introduce and demonstrate stages for trainee to
understand the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) concept (Lee & Kim, 2014). Then, trainee
actualizes develop, implement, reflect, and revise stages iteratively.
There are three ID models under both POM and SOM. The first one is Reiser and Dick (1995) model which
has six steps, namely identifying instructional goals, identifying objectives, planning or choosing instructional
activities or media, developing assessment tools, implement instruction, and revising instruction. The second one is
four-component ID model which is used for designing complex learning environments. It is described with four
interrelated components based on four categories, namely learning task, supportive information, just in time (JIT)
information and part-task practice (Van Merrienboer et al., 2002). Firstly, learning tasks provides the construction of
schemas of learners with concrete, authentic, whole task experiences. They support the construction of schemata
from concrete experiences to mindful abstraction with the help of instructional methods. Secondly, supportive
information provides support for learning and performance. It connects the previous knowledge of learners with the
learning tasks. Thirdly, JIT information plays important role as being prerequisite for learning and performance.
Lastly, part-task practice helps to learners by providing practice items to enhance rule automation for selected
repetitive aspects of the whole skill. The third one is Guided Experiential Learning (GEL) model which follows
eight steps respectively for designing a course (Clark & Ed, 2004).
There are three more ID models under POM. The first one is intuitive life cycle-content creation and
management automation system (ILC-CMAS) model which is created for the research and development of content
creation and management automation system (Onn et al., 2008). The second one is MI-MathS (multimedia
mathematics courseware based on the multiple intelligences) cognitive ID model which consists of six elements,
namely types of intelligences, learning outcomes, learning theories, approaches, strategy and interactivity (Ali &
Zaman, 2008). The third one is semantic model for instructional design (SMID) which supports computer based
actualization (Guangzuo et al., 2009). It has nine steps, namely choosing a learning goal, decomposing knowledge
object into simple knowledge object, selecting a knowledge object to learn, getting the type of the knowledge object,

-376-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

generating instructional strategy with cognitive performance or knowledge type, generating learning resource,
testing, checking the goal, and ending or selecting another learning goal.
There are eight more ID models under SOM. The first one is SWLing model which consists of five iterative
phases, namely situate, analyze, develop, formative evaluation and implementation (Ling et al., 2001). The second
one is eternal, synergistic design and development model which supports the non-linear nature of the ID process by
providing continuous design and development especially on the core evaluation of the product (Katase et al., 2006).
The third one is e-Seneca model which includes steps to be followed and supports to create the transfer of learning
in a course (Katase et al., 2006). The fourth one is multiple intelligence (MI) model which helps designers to follow
a systematic way to create products introducing instruction to learners (Tracey & Richey, 2007). The fifth one is
model of instructional design based on learning objects (MIDLO) which is based on starting a clear differentiation
between learning objects and information objects (Chiappe Laverde et al., 2007). The sixth one is 5C model which
consists of five linear components, namely condition, conflict, catalyst, consideration, and construction (Papan &
Sompong, 2012). The seventh one is metacognition in the engineering design process (MCinEDP) model is also an
example which employs engineering in order to implement metacognitive activities and to improve specific abilities
in engineering design (Carr & Strobel, 2012). The eighth one is the IDEA model which includes four phases, namely
interview, design, embed and asses (Mullins, 2014). It is based on systematic approach by following sequential
steps. The output of each step provides verification for the information of previous step.

Flexible Models

The flexible models are generally based on designing the instruction as spiral, so they object to linear
models by suggesting that instructional designer can decide where to start and then follow a systematic way
(Şimşek, 2013). Besides, they state that linear and strict approaches can limit the creativity for some special cases.
There is one ID model under both POM which is the fuzzified instructional design development of game-
like environments (FIDGE) model. It consists of pre-analysis, analysis, design and development and evaluation
(Akilli & Cagiltay, 2006).
There are three ID models under SOM. The first one is Kemp Morrison and Ross ID model which suggests
circular nine elements to follow and instructional designers can start from one of the elements, namely “instructional
problems, learner characteristics, task analysis, instructional objectives, content sequencing, instructional strategies,
designing the message, instructional delivery, evaluation instruments” (Kemp et al., 1994, p. 12). It also includes
two stages, the first one with revisions and formative evaluation, and the second one with planning, summative
evaluation, project management and support services. The second one is PENTHA ID model which consists of
personalization, environment, network, tutoring, hypermedia and activity (Dall’Acqua, 2009). It is also based on
five conceptual dimensions, namely knowledge, cognitive, didactical, semiotic and social. The third one is e-
learning ID model based on cognitive flexibility theory (CFT) which aims to express the feasibility and
effectiveness of the model by encouraging higher-order learning, answering ill-structured problems and enhancing
creative thinking ability (Cao et al., 2008).

Communicative Models

The communicative models usually do not follow linear or spiral paths while designing the instruction
(Şimşek, 2013). Before the design of the instruction is completely finished, they require to collect data at the each
step and use these data as feedback for the process. Therefore, they support to design the instruction based on
communicative and working progress.
There is one ID model under both POM and SOM which is the WisCom model. It aims to enhance
transformational learning with its cycle design for module and a spiral design for program (Gunawardena et al.,
2006).

Heuristic Models

The heuristic models can provide instructional designers to use their creativity by not following the linear
or systematical steps (Şimşek, 2013). They can help to design the instruction urgently by using current technology
and decreasing the budget.
There are two ID models under POM. The first one is rapid prototyping ID model which starts with
analysis of needs and continues with parallel processes of design and research which enable instructional designers
to change plan easily (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990). The second one is document-oriented design and development

-377-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

for experiential learning (DODDEL) model which provides more attention on existing approaches, but it has unique
about highlights the instructional medium in a game (McMahon & Cowan, 2009).

Hybrid Models

The hybrid models provide chance for instructional designer to use multiple models as a combination
which seems like clusters interacting with each other (Şimşek, 2013).
There is one ID model under COM which is hybrid design model by Passerini and Granger (2000). It is a
combination of step by step and objectivist approaches by using flexible design and strategies of constructivism. It
allows instructional designers to make revisions during the development and delivery of the instruction.
There is one ID model under POM which is science laboratory instructional design (SLID) model. It
follows the structure of Dick and Carey model, and includes all components of the ADDIE model (Balta, 2015).
There is one ID model under SOM which is model of ID integrated with QFD and TRIZ40 principles
model. It consists of three steps of ID development with the combination of quality function deployment (QFD) and
theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ40) principles model (Louhapensang & Seviset, 2014).

Overview for Categorization of ID Models

According to the categorizations which are used for this study, Error: Reference source not found is
generated to provide overview for the identified models ( Error: Reference source not found ) and their
categories. The models which fit more than one category is placed multiple times in the Error: Reference source
not found.

Classroom
Product Oriented Models System Oriented Models
Oriented Models

ADDIE Model, ADDIE Model,

Experiential Learning Experiential Learning Theory
Core Models Theory (ELT) Model (ELT) Model,
Cognitive Apprenticeship ID
Model

Dick and Carey Reiser and Dick Model, Reiser and Dick Model,
Model, Four-component ID SWLing Model,
ASSURE model, Model, Four-component ID Model,
5E ID Model, Guided Experiential Guided Experiential Learning
SEEP ID Model, Learning (GEL) Model, (GEL) Model,
PLHET Model, ILC-CMAS (Intuitive Life Eternal, Synergistic Design and
TPACK-IDDIRR Cycle-Content Creation Development Model,
Model and Management E-Seneca Model,
Automation System) Multiple Intelligence (MI) Model,
Linear Models
Model, Model of Instructional Design
MI-MathS (Multimedia based on Learning Objects
Mathematics Courseware (MIDLO),
Based on the Multiple 5C Model,
Intelligences) Cognitive Metacognition in the Engineering
ID Model, Design Process (MCinEDP)
Semantic Model for Model,
Instructional Design IDEA Model
(SMID)

Flexible Models The Fuzzified Instructional Kemp Morrison and Ross ID

Design Development of Model,
Game-Like Environments PENTHA ID Model,

-378-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

(FIDGE) Model E-learning ID model based on

Cognitive Flexibility Theory
(CFT)

Communicative Wiscom Model Wiscom Model

Models

Rapid Prototyping ID
Model,
Document-Oriented
Heuristic Models
Design and Development
for Experiential Learning
(DODDEL) Model

Science Laboratory Model of ID Integrated Hybrid Design Model

Instructional with QFD and TRIZ40
Hybrid Models
Design (SLID) Principles Model
Model

Table 2. Categorization of ID Models

With the help this study, instructional designers have opportunity to select one of seven classroom oriented
models, thirteen product oriented models, or nineteen system oriented models based on their purposes. In addition,
they can choose one of three core models, twenty linear models, four flexible models, one communicative models,
two heuristic models, or three hybrid models based on their preferred structure. According to this study, linear
models are the most developed ID models and most of them are for designing a system, as it is seen from .

Figure 2. Number of ID Models Based on Purpose and Structure

Conclusion
In this study, ID models are examined, identified and labeled as original or implemented. Then, the
categorizations for ID models are examined and expressed in terms of their on the purpose of usage and scope, and
their structure. Firstly, the literature is searched by using “Web of Science” database. Then, ID models are listed and
categorized by using two different categorization. As a result, this study provides a list of ID models which aims to
show a review for instructional designers. In addition, the identified ID models are categorized in a matrix table.
This table categorizes ID models according to three purposes, namely classroom oriented models, product oriented
models and system oriented models. In addition, it provides categorization based on six structures, namely core
models, linear models, flexible models, communicative models, heuristic models and hybrid models. Therefore,
instructional designers can use this table while deciding on ID model to use for their design.

-379-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

With the help of this study, instructional designer may get benefits while deciding to use ID models for
their design, because there are few major distinctions between ID models and the decision of them may affect their
design positively (Branch & Kopcha, 2014). Moreover, the results of this study can provide base to comprehend the
categorization of ID models with their specifications. Since the analyzed and grouped ID models help to construct
fundamental knowledge, the findings provide contribution to the field of ID. In addition, one of the aims of this
study is to provide update for the study of Gustafson and Branch (2002a) Therefore, it provides up-to-date analysis
of the ID models for instructional designers.

References
Akilli, G. K., & Cagiltay, K. (2006). An instructional design/development model for the creation of game-like
learning environments: The FIDGE model. Affective and Emotional Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction:
Game-Based and Innovative Learning, 93–112.

Akker, J. van den, Branch, R. M., Gustafson, K., Nieveen, N., & Plomp, T. (1999). Design Approaches and Tool in
Education and Training.

Ali, B., & Zaman, H. B. (2008). Multimedia Mathematics Courseware Based on the Multiple Intelligences Model
(MI-MathS). In Zaman, HB and Sembok, TMT and VanRijsbergen, K and Zadeh, L and Buza, P and Shih, T and
Taib, MN (Ed.), International Symposium of Information Technology 2008, Vols 1-4, Proceedings: Cognitive
Informatics: Bridging Natural and Artificial Knowledge (pp. 1341–1345).

Balta, N. (2015). A Systematic Planning for Science Laboratory Instruction: Research-Based Evidence. Eurasia
Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 957–969.
Branch, R. M. (2010). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach.
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6.

Branch, R. M., & Kopcha, T. J. (2014). Instructional Design Models. In Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 77–87). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5.

Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., … Springs, C. (2006). The BSCS
5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness, (June).

Cao, X., He, R., Wang, F., & Zheng, Z. (2008). E-learning system design model based on Cognitive Flexibility
Theory. In Proc. International Workshop on Computer Science and Engineering, Fei Yu and Qi Luo, Eds.
Liverpool: World Academic Press (pp. 153–155).

Cao, X., Wang, F., & Zheng, Z. (2012). The Experimental Research on E-Learning Instructional Design Model
Based on Cognitive Flexibility Theory. In Lee, G (Ed.), International Conference on Solid State Devices and
Materials Science (Vol. 25, pp. 997–1005). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2012.03.190.

Carlton, D. J., Kicklighter, J. R., Jonnalagadda, S. S., & Shoffner, M. B. (2000). Design, development, and
formative evaluation of ``Put Nutrition Into Practice,{’'} a multimedia nutrition education program for adults.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 100(5), 555–563. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(00)00171-1.

Carr, R. L., & Strobel, J. (2012). Work in Progress: Development of a Metacognition Scaffold in STEM/P-6
Engineering Context: MCinEDP. In 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

Chiappe Laverde, A., Segovia Cifuentes, Y., & Rincon Rodriguez, H. Y. (2007). Toward an instructional design
model based on learning objects. ETR&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(6), 671–681.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9059-0.

-380-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

Clark, R. E., & Ed, D. (2004). Design Document For A Guided Experiential Learning Course, (53), 1–90.

Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1987). Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the art of reading, writing, and
mathematics (Tech. Rep. No. 403).

Craft, C., Feldon, D. F., & Brown, E. A. (2014). Instructional design affects the efficacy of simulation-based
training in central venous catheterization. American Journal of Surgery, 207(5), 782–789.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.06.003.

Crawford, C. (2004). Non-linear instructional design model: eternal, synergistic design and development. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 413–420. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00400.x.
Dall’Acqua, L. (2009). A Model for an Adaptive e-Learning Environment. World Congress on Engineering and
Computer Science, I, 8–13. Retrieved from http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCECS2009/WCECS2009_pp604-
609.pdf.

Dall’Acqua, L. (2010). Cognitive Tutoring based on Intelligent Decision Support in the PENTHA Instructional
Design Model. In S. Ao (Ed.), Iaeng Transactions on Engineering Technologies, Vol 4 (Vol. 1247, pp. 261–275).
http://doi.org/10.1063/1.3460235.

Dall’Acqua, L. (2011). Didactical suggestion for a Dynamic Hybrid Intelligent e-Learning Environment (DHILE)
applying the PENTHA ID Model. In Ao, SL (Ed.), Iaeng Transactions on Engineering Technologies, Vol 6 (Vol.
1373). http://doi.org/10.1063/1.3627202.

Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1985). The Systematic Design of Instruction. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, j. o. (2004). Introduction to Instructional Design. In The Systematic Design of
Instruction (6th ed., pp. 2–14).

Fazelian, P., Ebrahim, A. N., & Soraghi, S. (2010). The effect of 5E instructional design model on learning and
retention of sciences for middle class students. In Hacifazlioglu, O and Halat, MM (Ed.), WCPCG 2010 (Vol. 5, pp.
140–143). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.062.
Guangzuo, C., Xinqi, R., Haitao, Z., & Ronghuai, H. (2009). SMID: A Semantic Model of Instructional Design. In
Hu, ZB and Liu, QT (Ed.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Education Technology and
Computer Science, Vol III (pp. 130–134). http://doi.org/10.1109/ETCS.2009.553.

Gunawardena, C. N., Jayatilleke, B. G., Fernando, S., Kulasekere, C., Lamontagne, M. D., Ekanayake, M. B., &
Thaiyamuthu, T. (2012). Developing Online Tutors and Mentors in Sri Lanka through a Community Building
Model: Predictors of Satisfaction. In International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions
(ICTER2012) (pp. 145–155).

Gunawardena, C. N., Ortegano‐Layne, L., Carabajal, K., Frechette, C., Lindemann, K., & Jennings, B. (2006). New

Model, New Strategies: Instructional design for building online wisdom communities. Distance Education, 27(2),
217–232. http://doi.org/10.1080/01587910600789613.

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002a). Survey of Instructional Development Models. Fourth Edition.
http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02763388.
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002b). What is Instructional Design? In R. A. Reiser & J. A. Dempsey (Eds.),
Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386531-1.00002-8.

Hoogveld, A. W. M., Paas, F., Jochems, W. M. G., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2001). The effects of a Web-based
training in an instructional systems design approach on teachers’ instructional design behavior. Computers in
Human Behavior, 17(4), 363–371. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00013-9.

-381-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

Information Resources Management Association. (2011). Instructional Design: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools
and Applications. IGI Global.

Janssen-Noordman, A. M. B., Merrienboer, J. J. G., der Vleuten, C. P. M., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2006). Design
of integrated practice for learning professional competences. Medical Teacher, 28(5), 447–452.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01421590600825276.

Jurjus, R. A., Krum, J., & Goldman, E. F. (2013). Design for learning: Adapting the microscopic anatomy laboratory
to adult learners. Anatomical Sciences Education, 6(3), 177–181. http://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1324.

Katase, T., Yamamoto, H., Mutsuura, K., & Oshita, S. (2006). Instructional design model promoting transfer using
group development method of e-learning teaching materials by learners themselves. In 2006 7th International
Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training, Vols 1 and 2 (pp. 137–144).

Kearns, S. (2011). Online Single-Pilot Resource Management: Assessing the Feasibility of Computer-Based Safety
Training. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 21(2), 175–190.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10508414.2011.556499.

Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. V. (1994). Design effective instruction. New York, NY: Macmillan. New
York, NY: Macmillan.

Khalil, M. K., & Elkhider, I. A. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective
instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 147–156. http://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2015
Knowlton, D. S., & Simms, J. (2010). Computer-based instruction and generative strategies: Conceptual framework
& illustrative example. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 996–1003. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.013.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as The Source of Learning and Development. Prentice Hall,
Inc., (1984), 20–38. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-7506-7223-8.50017-4.

Lee, C.-J., & Kim, C. (2014). An implementation study of a TPACK-based instructional design model in a
technology integration course. Etr&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 437–460.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9335-8.

Lee, J., & Jang, S. (2014). A methodological framework for instructional design model development: Critical
dimensions and synthesized procedures. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(6), 743–765.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9352-7.

Li, J., & Fu, S. (2012). A Systematic Approach to Engineering Ethics Education. Science and Engineering Ethics,
18(2), 339–349. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-010-9249-8.

Ling, S. W., Khong, C. W., & Lee, C. S. (2001). An evolving instructional design model for designing Web-based
courses. In Okamoto, T and Hartley, R and Klus, JP (Ed.), IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning
Technologies, Proceedings (pp. 443–444).

Louhapensang, C., & Seviset, S. (2014). Instructional Design Integrated with Quality Function Deployment(QFD)
and TRIZ40. In Wei, PS (Ed.), Industrial Engineering and Applied Research (Vol. 620, pp. 93–99).
http://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.620.93.

McMahon, M., & Cowan, E. (2009). The DODDEL Model: A Flexible Document-Oriented Model for the Design of
Serious Games. Games-Based Learning Advancements for Multi-Sensory Human Computer Interfaces: Techniques
and Effective Practices, 98–119. http://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-360-9.ch007.

Mullins, K. (2014). Good IDEA: Instructional Design Model for Integrating Information Literacy. JOURNAL OF
ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, 40(3-4), 339–349. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.04.012.

-382-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

Mullins, K. (2016). IDEA Model from Theory to Practice: Integrating Information Literacy in Academic Courses.
JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP, 42(1), 55–64. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.10.008.

Nadolny, L., Woolfrey, J., Pierlott, M., & Kahn, S. (2013). SciEthics Interactive: science and ethics learning in a
virtual environment. ETR&D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(6), 979–999.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9319-0.

Nordin, N., Zakaria, E., Mohamed, N. R. N., & Embi, M. A. (2010). Pedagogical Usability of the Geometer’s
Sketchpad (GPS) Digital Module in the Mathematics Teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,
9(4), 113–117.

Nurpandi, F., Langi, A. Z. R., & Bandung, Y. (2013). Using Instructional Design Model to Implement Open Lesson
with Lesson Study Approach for Online Teacher Community. In Proceedings of the 2013 Joint International
Conference on Rural Information & Communication Technology and Electric-Vehicle Technology (RICT & ICEV-
T).

Onn, C. W., Zaman, H. B., & Yeen, C. W. (2008). ILC-CMAS Model, Summary of Research Findings and
Implication for Content Creation and Management Automation System (CMAS). In Zaman, HB and Sembok, TMT
and VanRijsbergen, K and Zadeh, L and Buza, P and Shih, T and Taib, MN (Ed.), International Symposium of
Information Technology 2008, Vols 1-4, Proceedings: Cognitive Informatics: Bridging Natural and Artificial
Knowledge (pp. 560–565).

Papan, N., & Sompong, N. (2012). A Development of Training Model Based on Constructivism Theory for
Teachers under the Jurisdiction of the Basic Education Commission. In Isman, A and Liu, EZF and Kiyici, M (Ed.),
12th International Educational Technology Conference - IETC 2012 (Vol. 64, pp. 665–670).
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.078.

Passerini, K., & Granger, M. J. (2000). A developmental model for distance learning using the Internet. Computers
& Education, 34(1), 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00024-X.
Pedrazzoli, A. (2010). OPUS One: An Intelligent Adaptive Learning Environment Using Artificial Intelligence
Support. In Ao, S (Ed.), Iaeng Transactions on Engineering Technologies, Vol 4 (Vol. 1247, pp. 215–227).
http://doi.org/10.1063/1.3460231.

Pittenger, A. L., Janke, K. K., & Bumgardner, M. A. (2009). An Online Elective Course for Undergraduate Students
on Common Prescription Medications. American Journal Of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(4).

Postma, T. C., & White, J. G. (2015). Developing clinical reasoning in the classroom - analysis of the 4C/ID-model.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DENTAL EDUCATION, 19(2), 74–80. http://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12105.

Reiser, R. A., & Dick, W. (1995). Instructional planning: A guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Robinson, B. K., & Dearmon, V. (2013). Evidence-Based Nursing Education: Effective Use of Instructional Design
And Simulated Learning Environments to Enhance Knowledge Transfer in Undergraduate Nursing Students.
Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(4), 203–209. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2012.04.022.

Sahrir, M. S., Yahaya, M. F., & Nasir, M. S. (2013). EZ-Arabic for children: A virtual learning resource tool for
Malaysian primary schools. In Ismail, IS and AbdRahman, SB and Noordin, NM and Mustafa, SMS (Ed.), 6th
International Conference on University Learning and Teaching (INCULT 2012) (Vol. 90, pp. 396–404).
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.108.

Sarfo, F. K., & Elen, J. (2008). The moderating effect of instructional conceptions on the effect of powerful learning
environments. Instructional Science, 36(2), 137–153. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9023-8.

Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Using Models and Paradigms. In Making Instructional Design Decisions (2nd ed.,
p. 342).

She, J.-H., Wu, C., Wang, H., & Chen, S. (2009). Design of an e-Learning System for Technical Chinese Courses

-383-
 E-Learn 2016 - Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016

Using Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. Electronics and Communications in Japan, 92(8), 1–10.
http://doi.org/10.1002/ecj.10204.

Smaldino, S. E., Russell, J. D., Heinich, R., & Molenda, M. (2004). Instructional Technology and Media for
Learning 8th Edition.

Şimşek, A. (2013). Öğretim Tasarımı ve Modelleri. In K. Çağıltay & Y. Göktaş (Eds.), Öğretim Teknolojilerinin
Temelleri: Teoriler, Araştırmalar, Eğilimler (1st ed., pp. 99–116). Pegem Akademi.

Tjiam, I. M., Schout, B. M. A., Hendrikx, A. J. M., Scherpbier, A. J. J. M., Witjes, J. A., & Van Merrienboer, J. J.
G. (2012). Designing simulator-based training: An approach integrating cognitive task analysis and four-component
instructional design. Medical Teacher, 34(10), E698–E707. http://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.687480.

Tracey, M. W. (2009). Design and development research: a model validation case. ETR&D-Educational Technology
Research And Development, 57(4), 553–571. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9075-0.

Tracey, M. W., & Richey, R. C. (2007). ID model construction and validation: A multiple intelligences case.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(4), 369–390. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-9015-4.

Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02298246.

Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2013). Perspectives on problem solving and instruction. Computers & Education, 64,
153–160. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.025.

Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., Clark, R. E., & Croock, M. B. M. (2002). Blueprints for complex learning: The 4C/ID-
model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 39–64. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504993.
Vandewaetere, M., Manhaeve, D., Aertgeerts, B., Clarebout, G., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Roex, A. (2015).
4C/ID in medical education: How to design an educational program based on whole-task learning: AMEE Guide
No. 93. Medical Teacher, 37(1), 4–20. http://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.928407.

Wold, K. A. (2011). Blending theories for instructional design: creating and implementing the structure,
environment, experience, and people (SEEP) model. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(4), 371–382.
http://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.572900.

-384-

View publication stats