Classroom Instructional Development Model The Gerlach & Ely Model

A Critique by Kuan-Chung Chen February 19, 2004 Dr. Rob Branch EDIT 6180

Specification of Content

Dermination of Strategy
Organization of Groups Evaluation of Performance Allocation of Time Allocation of Space Selection of Resources

Measurement of Entering Behaviors

Specification of Objectives

Analysis of Feedback

Figure1 The Gerlach and Ely Model

Note. From Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach, Second Edition, by V.S. Gerlach & D. P. Ely, 1980, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Copyright 1980 by Pearson Education

Introduction

Classroom models of instructional development

Classroom instructional development models, classified by Gustafson (1981), are those that are explicitly or implicitly designed as roadmaps for schoolteachers. The instructional events are generally taking place in classrooms. Relative to product and system oriented models, classroom models generate one or only a few hours of instruction, commit lower resources to development, require lower instructional design skills, and put more emphasis on arrangement and selection of instructional resources.

The Gerlach and Ely model

The Gerlach and Ely model (1980) is such a classroom model created by Vernon S. Gerlach and Donald P. Ely. They decided that there was a great need for schoolteachers to have a comprehensive overview of teaching and learning; specifically, they lack a practical roadmap for planning their daily instruction. For this reason, the authors determined ten most necessary instructional elements and created a step-by-step guidance for instructional planning (see Figure 1). The Gerlach and Ely model was constructed based on two rationales: the systematic approach and pragmatism. Throughout the model, the role of the teacher is a coordinator of learning resources rather than a traditional presenter of information or knowledge. According to Ely, this model has stood the test of time and serves the classroom teachers well (personal communication conducted by Sarah Graboski, February 2003).
2 Kuan-Chung Chen

Conceptual Base
The Gerlach and Ely model was first introduced in their first edition of Teaching and media: systematic approach in 1971. At the time, the systems approach became prevalent in academic and educational settings. The systems approach is based on the premise that any organization of people, things, or people and things is a system made up of elements. Each element has its functions and goals. The goals of the total system are attended only when all the elements are integrated in an effective and efficient pattern (Gerlach & Ely, 1980). However, due to the fact that teachers were not provided with enough time, money or resources to handle this complex approach, very few instances were proved successful. In view of this, the authors adapted a more practical way called the systematic approach to create the model. They synthesized several features from the systems approach and integrated them into a step-by-step model comprising ten most necessary elements contributing to instruction. The authors described it as a systemic planning for instruction. Students are the focus of the systematic instructional planning. They are more concerned about their motives, individual needs and learning pace. The role of the teacher, however, is no more a giver of information; instead, is a coordinator of learning resources. They call upon the spectrum of resources available to provide the conditions which will help pupils to reach their objectives (Gerlach & Ely, 1980).

Theoretical Base
Systems theory and pragmatism formed the theoretical base of the Gerlach and Ely model:

Kuan-Chung Chen

Systems theory
Systems theory was proposed in the 1940's by the biologist Luding von Bertalanffy and furthered by Ross Ashby. Bertalanffy emphasized that real systems are open to, and interact with

their environments, and that they can acquire qualitatively new properties through emergence, resulting in continual evolution. Within a respective system, there lie numerous elements. Each element has its own functions and goals but simultaneously the elements are intercorrelated. Any change of one element will affect all of the others and in turn, will have a magnified effect on the whole system. The process is called the ripple effect. The Gerlach and Ely model adapt the concept of the systems theory and regards content, students, teachers, time, space, multimedia, and many other resources as elements of an instructional event. Only after proper arrangement of the elements could the instructional goals be effectively achieved.

Pragmatism
Pragmatism was first proposed in the 1870's by Charles Sanders Peirce. However, it was John Dewey (1859-1952) that furthered its interpretation on education. Pragmatism states that it is impossible and unnecessary to pursue the ultimate truth. Instead, the goal of education is for students to actively obtain knowledge from interacting with the ever-changing world (note: we can see the shadow of constructivism). To this end, students become the center of education and that the experience the students gain from the learning environment become the focal point of planning instruction. The best way of teaching, in the

Kuan-Chung Chen

viewpoint of pragmatism, is through guidance rather than control or direction. The Gerlach and Ely model stresses the importance of learning experience, focuses on the interaction between students and the environmental elements, points out its student-center orientation and specifies the coordinate and guidance role of the teacher. All of these fully comply with the gist of pragmatism.

Operational Aspect
The Gerlach and Ely Model is a mix of linear and concurrent development activities. Several steps are seen as simultaneous, but the model is generally linear in its orientation (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Ten elements are presented in the model and could roughly be classified into five stages. The first stage comprises two elements: specification of content and specification of objectives. Objectives are defined as specific skills that the learner should be able to display under defined conditions at a designated time (Gerlach, 1980). The authors put content ahead of objective due to the fact that in schools content was usually pre-determined. However, the two-way arrow between the elements shows that content and objectives may be simultaneous and interconnected. Stage 2 assesses the entering behavior of students. Teachers make use of available records or design pretests to measure each student abilities, aptitudes and starting knowledge of the content. s The purpose of it is to get enough information that will ensure teachers to design individualized instruction. In stage 3 there are five interrelated elements: determination of strategy, organization of
5 Kuan-Chung Chen

groups, allocation of time, allocation of space, and selection of resources. These five elements are simultaneous and interdependent. Teachers determine to take expository or inquiry instructional strategies depending on learning objectives, group size, time, space and available resources. For example, expository approach is better applied when the group size is large, and the main objective is to convey information. The next decision in this model is the organization of groups. Teachers determine the appropriate group size according to the objectives. They could ask the following questions and determine the best choice: 1. Which objectives can be reached by the learners on their own? 2. Which objectives can be achieved through interaction among the learners themselves? 3. Which objectives can be achieved through formal presentation and through interaction between you and the learner? Similarly, the decision of time, space and learning resources could be determined using the same fashion, but note that due to time constraints, learning resources such as audio, motion pictures, real things and computer-assisted instruction, are selected rather than developed. The ability of coordination is better stressed in this stage. Stage 4 comes to the evaluation of performance. According to the authors, performance is the interaction between teachers and learners, between the learner and other learners, or between the learner and an instructional medium. In simple cases teachers conduct evaluation by asking questions to verify the correctness of the intended behavior. However, in more complex or affectionate situations, it becomes difficult to evaluate. The last stage is element 10, analysis of feedback. This process is like a thermostat that
6 Kuan-Chung Chen

provides confirmation or corrective information of room temperatures. In this stage, teachers get the information from each previous stage about the extent the objectives have been reached, and some corrective information to bridge the gap between entering behaviors and instructional goals.

ADDIE Components
The Correspondence of the Gerlach and Ely model to ADDIE is illustrated in Figure 2.

Analysis
The Gerlach and Ely model contains several components of the analysis phase. The first is content resources specification, which lies in element 1, specification of content. The second similarity is the statement of instructional goal in element 2, specification of objectives. Note that the model doesnt differentiate between instructional goals from performance objectives. Consequently, item 2 corresponds to both the analysis and design phases in ADDIE. During element 3 measurement of entering behavior, performance analysis and learner analysis are performed. Teachers use available records and teacher-designed pretests to determine entering behaviors of the individual. The last similarity is element 5 organization of groups. Learner groups are specified according to the objectives.

Design
The main part of the design phase is task inventory. Though Gerlach and Ely model doesnt create such a detailed inventory, there are two elements that correspond to the design phase: in element 2 specification of objectives instructional goals were proposed, accompanied by the

Kuan-Chung Chen

The Gerlach & Ely Model

1

Dermination of Strategy
5

Specification of Content
3
Conten t Reso urces S pecific ation

Organization of Groups
9

Specification of Objectives

Measuremen t of Entering Behaviors

Allocation of Time
7

Evaluation of Performance

Allocation of Space
8 Integrate Instructional Strategies, Techniques and Resources in Instructional Events

ns Evaluatio Conduct

Accord ing To the Ob jectives

Selection of Resources

10

Analysis of Feedback

Determ ine Lea rner Gr oup

Test ing S trate gy

Determin Ana e Instruc lyze tional Go Lear als ner Abili ty an d Ap titud e

Analysis
v v Analyze Performance Determine Instructional goals Conduct a learner analysis Determine probable delivery system (including cost estimate) Submit a project manage plan v v

Design
Conduct a task inventory Compose performance objectives Generate testing strategies Calculate return on investment

Development Implementation
v Generate instructional strategies Select or develop supporting media Develop guides for the learner Develop guides for the facilitator Conduct formative revisions Conduct a Pilot Test v v Select, prepare and schedule learners Select, prepare and schedule facilitators v v v

Selec t Appr opriat e Instr uction Me al Ma asu terials re t he De gre eo f Ac hie vem tnt of t he Ob ject ives

Compose Pe rformance P bjectives

Evaluation
Determine quality assurance criteria Select evaluation tools Conduct evaluations

v v v v v

v v

The ADDIE Model

Kuan-Chung Chen

Figure 2 The ADDIE correspondence of the Garlach and Ely model

corresponding situation and criteria. Additionally, in element 9 evaluation of performance testing strategies are also created.

Development
The Gerlach and Ely model has the most similarities with ADDIE in this phase. From element 4 through element 8, teachers integrate and plan appropriate strategies, learner groups, time, space and resources. Specifically, in element 8, teachers select appropriate instructional materials, which directly relate to the development phase. Finally, in element 10 analysis of feedback, teachers measure the extent of goal achievement. ADDIE model. It assimilates formative revisions in the

Implementation
Typically the implementation stage of ADDIE comprises learner plan, facilitator plan and train-the-trainer agenda. However, in Gerlach and Ely model no direct correspondence of ADDIE could be found in this stage. It might be that the authors stressed the planning instead of implementing of instruction. Moreover, since the model is designed for schoolteachers for their daily instruction, there is less possibility to generate a train-the-trainer session. In spite of this, we cannot immediately conclude that there is no implementational aspect in the Gerlach and Ely model. Instead, when we look closer to the learner plan and facilitator plan in ADDIE, we could see that some points are implicitly embedded in the Gerlach and Ely model, such as schedules in the learner plan, especially in stage3.

Kuan-Chung Chen

Evaluation
Element 9 evaluation of performance corresponds to the evaluation phase of ADDIE. In addition, element 10 analysis of feedback is also indirectly linked to evaluation. It is because the analysis of feedback provides information of the degree the objectives have been reached and is thus supportive to the evaluation.

EdmondsSix-level Components
Edmonds, Branch, and Mukherjee (1994) constructed a conceptual framework for classifying instructional development models. It includes six levels: (1) type of orientation, (2) type of knowledge, (3) required expertise, (4) theoretical origins, (5) instructional contexts, and (6) level of communication. The correspondence of the Gerlach and Ely model on Edmonds six-level components is illustrated in Figure 3.

Orientation
Evidently, the Gerlach and Ely model is considered to be a prescriptive model. This orientation lays stress on how to change or organize variables in the learning environment and expect the desired outcomes. Identically, the Gerlach and Ely model was created as a guidance for schoolteachers to plan their instruction. Only when variables, such as time, space, resources are properly allocated could the desired objectives be achieved.

Knowledge Structure
The Gerlach and Ely model presents a mix of linear and concurrent development activities
10 Kuan-Chung Chen

that allows users to follow step-by-step. It stresses on how to reach the goal instead of why we reach a goal, and thus could be classified as a procedural model.

Figure 3 Gerlach and Ely model on Edmonds et. al.: Six-level Components. Graphic Sketched by Sarah Graboski (2003). Reprinted with permission.

Expertise Level
Basically, the model is designed for a novice teacher to follow step-by-step to plan their instruction. However, experts can also benefit from it since it renders an overall and systematic view of instruction, plus valuable information of learning resources allocation that are suitable for their reference.

11

Kuan-Chung Chen

Structure
The Gerlach and Ely model could be regarded as a soft-system-based model. Though its concept framework originates from the systems theory, it was adjusted to be a systematic model due to the general failure of systems approach in education, and time, budget and resources constraints in real instructional settings.

Context
In general, the model is designed for school education without specifying suitability for K-12 or higher education. However, my opinion is that it is more suitable for K-12 instruction than higher education. One reason is that the situations described in the model and many other examples the authors provide are occurred in K-12 classrooms. Another reason is that the K-12 instruction requires more guidance and planning of teachers. In higher education, students are supposed to have more opportunity and responsibility for self-directed and self-paced learning as well as resource finding. In addition, the Gerlach and Ely model is not supposed to be well suited in business and government since the environmental contexts and the course structure are significantly different.

Level
Corresponding to its instructional contexts, the model best addresses the levels of unit, module, lesson, and course since all of these are conducted in K-12 and higher educational instructions.

12

Kuan-Chung Chen

Scholarly Opinion
The Gerlach and Ely model takes a systematic view of instruction. It notes that elements in an education system are dynamic and interdependent. It also clarifies the teacher role as a s coordinator of learning resources and stresses that students are the center of instruction. Most of those perspectives remain true even after thirty years in the 21st century. The model provides a procedural, step-by-step guidance for teachers. It practically adopts the features of systems approach and transformed it into a more viable structure, and takes in to account the time, money, and resource constraints. All of the evidence reveals the endeavor that the authors tried to make the model more realistic and ready to apply. However, the model is relatively weak for implementation. Though each step in the model provides some implications for implementation, it is better to specify it as a single stage. In this way, the roadmap might be clearer and easier to help teachers find ways out. In addition, the inclusion of teaching affective domain is stated. However, due to the

intrinsic behaviorisic nature of the model, transferring affectionate properties into behavioral goals and evaluating its performance becomes even more challenging. It might add difficulty for schoolteachers to apply the model.

Conclusion

Being a soft-system derived from the systems theory and pragmatism, the Gerlach and Ely model systematically provides a prescriptive and procedural guidance for schoolteachers (either

13

Kuan-Chung Chen

novices or experts), to plan units, modules, lessons, and courses that are utilized in the classroom. Though it does not fully correspond to the ADDIE framework, especially as it lacks a clarification of the implementation stage, plus several limitations on planning and evaluating the affective domain, the Gerlach and Ely model remains to be a practical, powerful and easy-to-use roadmap for planning instruction.

Reference

Edmonds, G., Branch, R., Mukherjee, P. (1994). A Conceptual Framework for Comparing Instructional Design Models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42 (4), 5572. Gerlach, V.S., & Ely, D.P. (1980). Teaching & Media: A Systematic Approach (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Incorporated. Gustafson, K. L. (1981). Survey of Instructional Development Models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University. Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. (2002). Survey of Instructional Development Models (4th ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology, Syracuse University. Sarah Graboski. (2003). Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach The Gerlach and Ely model. Retrieved Feb 2, 2004, from the personal website of Sarah Graboski. Web site: http://www.arches.uga.edu/~sarahlee/edit6180/gerlach_ely.doc

14

Kuan-Chung Chen

Peer Reviews

Members of EDIT 6180

Myung Hwa Kuo William M. Gray

Members of the Studio

Chris Oxendine

15

Kuan-Chung Chen