Revisión de los principales modelos de diseño instruccional

Autores/as

  • Francisco Javier Jardines Garza UANL

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29105/rinn8.16-7

Resumen

Abstract. The intention of this document is to describe and to analyze the taxonomy of Instructional Development models (ID) elaborated by Kent L. Gustafson and Robert Maribe Branch (2002). A taxonomy of ID models is useful because it allows to identify and to analyze in a more expeditious way each model and help us to consider which can be more useful in the application in different situation. Three categories in the classification settled down of ID:
a) Instruction in the classroom, b) products for implementation by other users, and c) instructional systems more extensive and complexes directed to problems or goals of an organization. In order to categorize the models, nine characteristics of the ID models are considered: characteristic product in terms of prepared instruction; resources entrusted to the developed attempt, if it is an individual effort or teamwork, the ability and experience that ID delay of the individual or the team, if the instructional materials are selected of the existing
resources or represent a design and original product; the amount of realized preliminary analysis, the anticipated technological complexity of development atmospheres and gives, the amount of realized tests and revision, the amount of diffusion and pursuit that happens after the development. This taxonomy is not unique nor is the best one of the classifications ID models but it possible to be concluded that he is useful for the professionals, instructional and educating investigators, and designers in the development of its educative activities.

Keywords: Instructional Design, Instructional Development, Instructional Materials, Models Taxonomy

Resumen. El propósito de este documento es describir y analizar la taxonomía de modelos de Diseño Instruccional (DI) elaborada por Kent L. Gustafson y Robert Maribe Branch (2002). Una taxonomía de modelos de DI es útil porque permite identificar y analizar de una manera más expedita cada modelo y considerar cuál o cuáles pueden ser más útiles en la aplicación en una situación específica. Se establecieron tres categorías en la clasificación de DI a) instrucción en el salón de clases, b) productos para implementación por otros usuarios y c) sistemas instruccionales más complejos y extensos dirigidos a problemas o metas de una organización. Para categorizar los modelos, se consideraron nueve características de los modelos de DI: producto característico en términos de instrucción preparada, recursos encomendados a la tentativa desarrollada, si es un esfuerzo individual o en equipo, la habilidad y experiencia que el DI espera del individuo o del equipo, si los materiales instruccionales son seleccionados de los recursos existentes o representan un diseño y producto original, la cantidad de análisis preliminar realizado, la complejidad tecnológica prevista de los ambientes de desarrollo y entrega, la cantidad de pruebas y revisión realizadas, y la cantidad de difusión y seguimiento que ocurre después del desarrollo. Esta taxonomía no es la única ni la mejor de las clasificaciones de DI pero sí se puede concluir que es útil para los profesionales, investigadores, diseñadores instruccionales y educadores en el desarrollo de sus actividades educativas.

 

Palabras clave: Desarrollo Instruccional, Diseño Instruccional, Materiales Instruccionales, Modelos, Taxonomía

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Akker, J. van den, Branch, R., Gustafson, K., Nieveen, N., & Plomp, T. (1999). Design approaches and tools in education and training. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7

Barson, J. (1967). Instructional systems development: A demonstration and evaluation project: Final report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 020673)

Bass, C., & Romiszowski, A. (Eds.) (1997). Instruccional development paradigms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Bergman, R., & Moore, T. (1990). Managing interactive video/multimedia projects. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Boehm, B. (1988). A Spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Computer, 21 (2), pp. 61-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/2.59

Branch, R. (1997). Perceptions of instructional design process models. In R. E. Griffin, D. C. Beauchamp, I. M. Hunter, & C. B. Schiffman (Eds.), In VisionQuest: Journeys toward visual literacy. Selected readings from the 28th Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, Cheyenne, WY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 408998)

Branson, R.K. (1975). Interservice procedures for instruccional systems development: Executive summary and model. Tallahassee, FL: Center for Educational Technology, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA023892

Florida State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 122 022)

De Hoog, R., De Jong, T. & De Vries, F. (1994). Constraint driven software design: an escape from the waterfall model. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7 (3). pp. 48-63. ISSN 0898-5952 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1994.tb00637.x

Diamond, R.M. (1989). Designing and improving courses and curricula in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 304056)

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

Dorsey, L., Goodrum, D., & Schwen, T. (1997). Rapid collaborative prototyping as an instructional development paradigm. In C. Dills & A. Romiszowski (Eds.), Instructional development paradigms (pp.445-465). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology

Publications (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 932)

Ertmer, P., & Quinn, J. (1999). The ID casebook: Case studies in instructional design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Gentry, C. G. (1994). Introduction to instructional development: Process and technique. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Gerlach, V. S., & Ely, D.P. (1980). Teaching and media: A systematic approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Incorporated.

Gilbert, T. (1978). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York: McGraw-Hill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4180170915

Goodyear, P. (1997). Instructional design environments: Methods and tools for the design of complex instructional systemas. In S. Dijkstra, N. Seel, F. Schott, & R. Tennyson (Eds.), Instructional design: International perspectives, Vol. 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gustafson, K.L., Branch, R.M. (2002) Survey of instructional development models. (4th Ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 211 097)

Hamreus, D. (1968). The systems approach to instructional development. In The contribution of behavioral science to instructional technology. Monmouth, Oregon: Oregon State

System of Higher Education, Teaching Research Division. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 041448)

Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (1999). Instructional media and technologies for learning (6th) ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice-Hall.

Mager, R. & Pipe P. (1984). Analyzing performance problems: Or you really aught wanna (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing.

Morrison, G., Ross, S., & Kemp, J. (2001). Designing effective instruction (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Newby, T., Stepich, D., Lehman, J., & Russell, J. (2000). Instructional Technology for teaching and learning: Designing instruction, integrating computers, and using media (2nd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nieveen, N. (1997). Computer support for curriculum developers: A study on the potential of computer support in the domain of formative evaluation. Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Seel, N. M. (1997). Models of instructional design: Introduction and overview. In R. D. Tennyson, R. Schott, N. Seel., & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Instructional design, Vol. 1., International perspectives (pp. 355-359). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice-Hall.

Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (1999). Instructional design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. (1995). Context-sensitive instructional design models: A response to design research studies and criticism. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8 (3), 38-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1995.tb00685.x

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

Descargas

Publicado

2017-12-07

Cómo citar

Jardines Garza, F. J. (2017). Revisión de los principales modelos de diseño instruccional. Revista Innovaciones De Negocios, 8(16). https://doi.org/10.29105/rinn8.16-7