A Conceptual Framework for Comparing Instructional Design Models

EDUA 6377 - Instructional Design

A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models can help instructional designers select the most appropriate model for a given instructional situation. Edmonds et. al (1994) proposed a comprehensive conceptual framework for evaluating instructional design models. The framework comprises four interrelated components that are essential for designing and evaluating effective instructional materials.

The first component is to review the fundamental components of instructional design process. This involves following various steps and procedures used to design the instruction. The goal of instructional design is to be responsive to the educational environment, learner-centered, goal-driven, procedural, and sensitive to each relationship that occurs during the instructional episode.

The second component is identify instructional design contexts, which include the environmental factors that may affect the implementation and effectiveness of the instructional materials. This includes the characteristics of the learners, the instructional setting, the available resources, and other contextual factors that may impact the design and delivery of the instruction

The third component is presnet a conceptual framework for determining appropriate instructional design applications, which is centered on four classifications:

1. Type of Orientation: models can be descriptive, prescriptive, or both. Descriptive models provide a description of the learning environment and predict how the variables of interest will be affected in such environments. On the other hand, prescriptive models provide guidance on how a learning environment can be constructed to affect the variables of interest in a specific way

2. Type of knowledge: procedural or declarative. Procedural theories use examples, non-examples, short sequences, low verbal materials, and practice with feedback. Declarative models use analogies, discovery-type instruction, and norm-referenced evaluation.

3. Required expertise: novice, intermediate, or expert. The instructional designer's level of skills determines which models are useful for the designer.

4. Theoretical origins: Hard systems, Soft Systems, or Intuition. Hard Systems approach focus on identifying problems and finding solutions to rectify those problems. Soft Systems advocates, on the other hand, do not believe that the complexity of the world can be reduced to systemic models. Lastly, Intuition allows the designer to impact upon the process of design in a more subjective and creative manner.

By using these four classifications, a conceptual framework for instructional design can provide a structured approach to designing effective instruction that is tailored to the needs of the learners and the instructional context.

The fourth component is to propose a matrix for comparing instructional design models. The comparison tests the comprehensiveness and utility of the framework proposed.

By considering all components, the framework provides a comprehensive approach to evaluating instructional design models. It helps instructional designers create effective instructional materials that are tailored to the needs of the learners and the instructional context.

Reference

Edmonds, G. S., Branch, R. M., & Mukherjee, P. (1994). A conceptual framework for comparing instructional design models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(4), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02298055