History of ID Theories

Like most fields, ID theory began by investigating general instructional variables, such as expository vs. discovery, lecture vs. discussion, and media-based vs. traditional methods. It was soon realized that two discovery methods could differ more from each other than do a discovery and an expository method. The field then gradually entered an analysis phase in its development (which began to gain visibility in the late 1950s with B F Skinner's work). The research objective was to break a method down into elementary components and discover which ones made a difference. Instructional researchers then proceeded to build a considerable knowledge base of validated prescriptions, primarily for the simpler types of learning, for which the behaviorist paradigm was fairly adequate.

Researchers have since found that the effects of each component are often influenced considerably by which other components happen to be present in the instruction. Furthermore, researchers have realized that practitioners need to think holistically; in other words, they need to identify the best combination of method components for a given situation. Hence, the field entered into a synthesis phase, which began to gain visibility in the 1980s with the publication ofReigeluth's (1983)edited volume Instructional Design Theories and Models, in which the focus is on building components into optimal models of instruction for different situations. The research objective is to improve a given model or theory.

Aside from this developmental process that most fields and disciplines seem to go through, another historical trend has strongly influenced the development of ID theories: the ongoing transformation from the industrial age to the global information age. Certain general characteristics prevailed during the industrial age that are giving way to new characteristics in the information age (Reigeluth 1992a). Some of those changes have particularly important implications for a new paradigm of education.

Perelman (1987) documented many problems with the current paradigm of education. In the United States and many other industrialized countries, consolidated districts are highly bureaucratic, centrally controlled autocracies in which students receive little preparation for participating in a democratic society. They frequently exhibit adversarial relationships, not only between teachers and administrators but also between teachers and students, and even between teachers and parents. Leadership is vested in individuals according to a hierarchical management structure, and all those lower in the hierarchy are expected to obey those above. Learning is highly compartmentalized into subject areas. Students are often treated as if they are all the same and are all expected to do the same things at the same time. They are also usually forced to be passive learners and passive members of their school community. These characteristics are all incompatible with society's needs in the emerging information age, and changes in this paradigm are beginning to emerge. Those changes will have very important implications for ID theory.