interrelated. Smaldino et al 2004 state that each component in an ISD is interrelated and works together effectively and reliably within a framework to
provide learning activities needed in order to accomplish a learning goal. According to Dick and Carey 2009, interacting components which are made up together
produce instruction to satisfy needs expressed in the goal of its instruction. A leading definition of ISD describes
it as “a systemic process that is employed to develop education and training programs in consistent and reliable fashion”
Gustafson Branch, 2007, p.11. Dick and Carey 2009 argue that using systematic approaches to instructional design is effective since the interlocking
connection between each component, especially the relationship between instructional strategy and desired learning outcomes.
a. A Taxonomy of Instructional Development Models
There are number of ISD models which have similarity and differences. Therefore, instructional designers or teachers need to be selective in choosing or
adapting the suitable ISD models to design a learning program. It should not only meet the requirements of the discipline, but also strategic evaluations concerning
the learning effectiveness of the design and any possible improvements. To response this situation, Gustafson created taxonomy of instructional design models
in 1981 Gustafson and Branch, 2002. It aims to help instructional designers or teachers in clarifying the assumptions of each model and identifying the condition
so that the model chosen might be most appropriate used. Gustafson’s taxonomy
contains three categories where those models can be placed into each category. The categories are classroom orientation, product orientation, and system orientation.
The following table presents the characteristics of each category. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Table 2.1. A taxonomy of instructional design models based on selected characteristics Adapted from Gustafson and Branch, 2002.
Selected Characteristics
Classroom Orientation
Product Orientation
System Orientation
Goal
To improve a piece of content
To improve efficiency of
production To create an
instructional system
Typical Output
One or few hours of
instruction Self-instructional or
instructor-delivered package
Course or entire curriculum
Approach
Holistic Systematic
Systemic and systematic
Resources Committed to Develop
Very low High
High
Team or Individual Effort
Individual Usually a team
Team
ID SkillExperience
Low Low to Medium
HighVery high
Emphasis on Development or
Selection
Selection Development
Development
Amount of Front-End AnalysisNeed
Assessment
Low Low to Medium
Very high
Technological Complexity or
Delivery Media
Low Medium to High
Medium to High
Amount of Try-out and Revision
formative evaluation
Low to Medium Very High
Medium to High
Amount of Distribution
Dissemination
None High
Medium to Highs
Learner focus
High Moderate: Learner
characteristics are taken into account
during analysis phase Moderate: Learner
characteristics are taken into account
during analysis phase
The taxonomy of models above was developed by Gustafson in 1991 based on specific characteristics. It describes models as being classroom orientation,
product orientation, or system orientation. In classroom-oriented models, they usually have an output of one or a few hours of instruction. The models assume an
instructor, students, a classroom, and a piece of instruction that needs to be PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
improved. These characteristics are totally different from the other two categories of instructional design models. Product-oriented models have an output of an
instructional package and focus on making production more efficient. Whereas, system-oriented models have an output of a course or curriculum and aim to
provide a complete instructional system for managing learning needs. The other characteristics that distinguish each model are the level of
instructional design skill or experience needed to use a model, the amount of front- end analysis, the complexity of technology use and delivery media, and the amount
of try-out and revision formative evaluation. In terms of the amount of instructional design skill or experience and the amount of front-end analysis,
classroom-oriented models require low level, product-oriented models are low to medium, and system-oriented models are high to very high. Next, the complexity of
technology or delivery media, classroom-oriented models require low level, product-oriented and system-oriented models are medium to high. Lastly, in terms
of try-out and revision formative evaluation, classroom-oriented models require low to medium, product-oriented models are very high, and system-oriented models
are medium to high. In effort to design computerized-vocabulary learning, an appropriate ISD
model is exactly important as the conceptual framework. A number of models bear the label systems approach, and all of them share most of the same basic
components Dick Carey, 2009. In order to decide which design model to follow for the creation of this project,
Gustafson’s taxonomy of instructional design models is helpful to narrow the choices. Considering the objective of this study and
the outcome of the project, product-oriented models are suitable with this project. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
b. Product-oriented Models
The primary focus of product-oriented models is on creating instructional products. According to Gustafson and Branch p.30, 2002, there are four key
characteristics of these models: 1 the instructional product is needed, 2 something needs to be produced rather than selected or modified from existing materials, 3
there will be consideration on try-out and revision, and 4 the product must be usable by learners. To create instructional products, in some situation, the needs are
not considered as the limitation of these models. It means that the needs are unnecessary to ask, but rather only what needs to be done. Then, the task is to
develop several related products efficiently and effectively Gustafson and Branch, 2002.
With the framework for models selection clarified, the ability to choose the appropriate models
from Gustafson’s product development category is simplified. The models which meet most of the aforementioned qualities are the model of
Berman and Moore, and the model of Seels and Glasgow. One attributes which makes these models appropriate choices are that its focus is on the production of
interactive computer-based products. Furthermore, these models require learners’
participation by providing motivational features to gain learner interest and involving them to give their feedback. It is in line with one of the characteristics in
instructional designs categorized into product orientation. The adaptation of both instructional designs can be suitable guideline to this study.
The two instructional design models below are adapted in terms of their appropriateness to design a CAVL model on vocabulary retention. The models
contain the five ADDIE components: analysis, design, development, PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
