Aaron Spann

IDT 7074
Gustafson & Branch Critique
2/1/16

The taxonomy, Gustafsons Schema, is a classification system in which instructional

developers can refer to in order to determine the right instructional design model to
use for developing a specific instructional unit. The taxonomy is cleanly constructed
table that categorizes instructional development models into three categories:
Classroom Oriented, Product Oriented, and System Oriented.
The idea is that many instructional developer, be it teachers or actual instructional
designers dont deviate from their own trusted model, something one might assume
came from their own training/education. If they do use more than one model they
may not know if the model they have selected is one which lends itself to the task
at hand (creating an effective instructional unit). Hence the need for a simple and
easy-to-use system to assist instructional developers make correct decisions.
The classification is a comparison of the three previously-mentioned categories
which are the typical types of instruction. It takes the characteristics of instructional
design models and ranks them using a Likert scale ranging from none to very high,
and for one characteristic, development or selection. There are nine characteristics
in all: Typical Output, Resources Committed to Development, Team or Individual
Effort, ID Skill/Experience, Emphasis on Development or Selection, Amount of Frontend Analysis / Needs Assessment, Technological Complexity of Delivery Media,
Amount of Tryout and Revision, and Amount of Distribution / Dissemination.
While this taxonomy is a great tool I do have some issues with it. First, an
instructional developer must know multiple models. This is not a far stretch for an
experienced developer but as mentioned before, some developers are stuck using
one model over and over, especially many of the teachers in K-12 classrooms. So to
classify things as classroom oriented with an emphasis on school teachers, to me,
doesnt make a lot of sense. To be fair the monograph does a god job of explaining a
lot of models so if a developer who doesnt have multiple model knowledge were to
read it, they would not be lost. My second criticism is that I would prefer to see the
taxonomy include a number of the most popular models, by name, so that it could
be an easier tool for use by the more novice developers.
The monograph does an excellent job of taking my second criticism and actually
providing the same information in another format. I like how the different chapters
are organized to take popular models and cover the models which share orientation.
As I read through it I was immediately finding myself associating different models to
real-life scenarios. I can also admit that I am inspired to select a classroom oriented
model because I dont have the education background. Also, there are a lot of
educators in the IDT program and it makes me want to know a little about how they
develop instruction.

Another criticism I have is that some models were categorized into an orientation
based on Gustafson and Branchs interpretation of the model. In some cases the
categorization was obvious, or even stated, but in others I feel like they made the
easiest choice of placing it with the systems oriented models just to get a model
into a category (e.g. Dick, Carey and Carey). Even though it is taught as a systems
oriented model I wish they had expanded on the reason they thought it could be a
product oriented model. I would like to see, from the experts, how I can take one
model and bend it to make it work for a separate deliverable.
Overall I found the taxonomy to be very helpful in understanding the different
models and outputs that each is best suited to produce. This will be a tool I refer
back to for years to come.