Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Instructional design tools: A critique and projections for the future

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article critiques the instructional design tools described in the special issue of Educational Technology Research and Development, Volume 50 Number 4, “Computer-Based Tools for Instructional Design.” Although focusing on four tools, (a) digital management systems, (b) CASCADE, (c) knowledge management systems, and (d) ADAPTIT, the author also comments on the introductory article (van Merriënboer and Martens), and compares the four described tools with earlier models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barson, J. (1967).Instructional systems development. A demonstration and evaluation project: Final report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. (Also available as ED 020673)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. (1968)Learning for mastery. Durham, NC: Regional Educational Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia. (Also available as ERIC document ED 053419)

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, L., Gustafson, K., & Tillman, M. (1991)Instructional design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, J., & Shafer, L. (1989).Structured rapid prototyping: An evolutionary approach to software development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Yourdan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996).The systematic design of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD.Training, 37(4), 42–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. (1997).Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.), Syracuse, NY: Eric Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, J. (1985).The instructional design process. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieveen, N., & Gustafson, K. (1999). Characteristics of computer-based tools for education and training development: An introduction. In J. van den Akker, R. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.),Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 155–174). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. (1993). Instructional designers' decisions and priorities: A survey of design practice.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(2), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher-Voerman, I. (1999).Design approaches in education and training. Doctoral dissertation. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Georgia, Geogia, USA

    Kent Gustafson

Authors
  1. Kent Gustafson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gustafson, K. Instructional design tools: A critique and projections for the future. ETR&D 50, 59–66 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504985

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504985

Keywords

Search

Navigation