Classroom Instructional Development Model

— The Gerlach & Ely Model

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

Specificationof Content

Specificationof Objectives

Measurementof EnteringBehaviors

Derminationof Strategy

Organizationof Groups

Allocation ofTime

Allocation ofSpace

Selection ofResources

Evaluation ofPerformance

Analysis ofFeedback

Figure1 The Gerlach and Ely ModelNote. From Teaching and Media: A Systematic Approach, Second Edition, by V.S. Gerlach & D. P. Ely, 1980, MA: Allynand Bacon. Copyright 1980 by Pearson Education

Kuan-Chung Chen 2

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).”

Kuan-Chung Chen 3

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 4

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 5

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’s abilities, aptitudes and starting knowledge of the content.

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

Kuan-Chung Chen 6

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

Kuan-Chung Chen 7

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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t

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

Specificationof Content

Specificationof

Objectives

Measurement of EnteringBehaviors

Evaluation ofPerformance

Analysis ofFeedback

Analysis Design Development Implementation Evaluationv Analyze

Performancev Determine

Instructionalgoals

v Conduct a learneranalysis

v Determine probabledelivery system(including costestimate)

v Submit a projectmanage plan

v Conduct a taskinventory

v Composeperformanceobjectives

v Generatetestingstrategies

v Calculate returnon investment

v Generateinstructionalstrategies

v Select or developsupporting media

v Develop guides forthe learner

v Develop guides forthe facilitator

v Conduct formativerevisions

v Conduct a Pilot Test

v Select, prepare andschedule learners

v Select, prepare andschedule facilitators

v Determine qualityassurance criteria

v Select evaluationtools

v Conductevaluations

Dete

rmin

e In

stru

ctio

nal G

oals

Compose Perform

ance Pbjectives

1

2

39

10

Conduct Evaluations

The Gerlach & Ely Model

The ADDIE Model

Inte

grat

e In

stru

ctio

nal S

trate

gies

, Tec

hniq

ues

and

Reso

urce

s in

Inst

ruct

iona

l Eve

nts

Dete

rmin

e Le

arne

r Gro

up A

ccor

ding

To

the

Obj

ectiv

es

Derminationof Strategy

Organizationof Groups

Allocation ofTime

Allocation ofSpace

Selection ofResources

4

5

6

7

8

Selec

t App

ropr

iate

Instr

uctio

nal M

ater

ials

Measur

e the D

egree

of Ac

hievem

tnt of t

he Ob

jective

sTesti

ng S

trateg

y

Cont

ent R

esou

rces

Spe

cifica

tion

Kuan-Chung ChenFigure 2 The ADDIE correspondence of the Garlach and Ely model

Analy

ze Le

arne

r Abil

ity an

d Apti

tude

Kuan-Chung Chen 9

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. It assimilates formative revisions in the

ADDIE model.

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 10

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.

Edmonds’ Six-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

Kuan-Chung Chen 11

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.

Kuan-Chung Chen 12

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.

Kuan-Chung Chen 13

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’s role as a

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

Kuan-Chung Chen 14

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), 55–72.

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

Kuan-Chung Chen 15

Peer Reviews

Members of EDIT 6180

² Myung Hwa Kuo

² William M. Gray

Members of the Studio

² Chris Oxendine