Robert A. Reiser

This first of a two‑part article discusses the history of the instructional design and technology field in the United States. It offers a definition for the field and explains key features of that definition, justifies the use of the label instructional design and technology, and traces major developments in instructional media from the early 1900s onward, including school museums, audiovisual movements, World War II training, and interest in instructional television, computers, and the Internet. It concludes with reflections on media’s impact on practice and a prediction about the influence of digital media in the decade ahead.

This second article focuses on the history of instructional design. Beginning with World War II training efforts, it reviews early instructional design models of the 1960s and 1970s and major developments over subsequent decades, including growing interest in cognitive psychology, microcomputers, performance technology, and constructivism. The paper characterizes significant events shaping the design process and summarizes factors that have influenced the field’s evolution.

Examines whether a group of highly regarded K–12 teachers used systematic instructional‑planning practices. Findings indicated these superior teachers placed limited emphasis on specifying measurable objectives, creating objective‑based tests, or making other decisions explicitly in light of objectives; instead, their planning emphasized day‑to‑day adaptations, suggesting divergences between prescriptive planning models and expert teacher practice.

This article examines how major definitions of educational technology have mirrored changes in the field. Definitions from the early 1900s through 1994 are reviewed and compared in light of contemporary events and ideas. The authors identify notable shifts reflected in the definitions and discuss implications for future formulations describing the field.

Describes and evaluates a simplified version of the Reiser & Dick software‑evaluation model that emphasizes collecting student performance data to judge how well a program teaches targeted skills. Two field evaluations showed the simplified approach generally yields conclusions similar to those of the original model, and revealed that student learning data often contradict high subjective ratings from software review services. The results support school‑based, outcomes‑focused evaluation by teachers and media specialists.

Presents a new model for evaluating instructional software and reports a field test of the approach. Unlike many evaluation schemes that emphasize technical or surface features, this model focuses on the extent to which learners acquire the knowledge or skills the software intends to teach. The authors argue that this outcomes‑focused approach enables educators to identify software that is instructionally effective.