The Instructional Design process has been used in dozens of schools and school districts since 1990.   It is based on the seminal work in educational theory by heavy-weights like John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Edward Thorndike, Hilda Taba, Jerome Bruner, and Benjamin Bloom — pioneers for what matters most in contemporary education and on whose shoulders stand every contemporary school reformer.

Origins

The Instructional Design process was originally developed in the 1980s using the various research findings from the Effective Schools movement, including that of Ronald Edmonds; Wilbur Brookover; and Larry Lezotte (synthesized by Dan Levine and Larry Lezotte, 1990);  the teacher effects research of Barak Rosenshine (1983 ) and Jere Brophy and Thomas Good  (1986); the early project -based or constructivist curriculum set forth in the SCANs Report (1991); the authentic or performance assessment work by Lorrie Shephard  (1983); and the early 'working-on-the work' efforts of Phil Schlechty  (1990).

? of the late 20th Century

The Instructional Design process was further enhanced and expanded by the tremendous tide of school reform activity characterizing the last two decades of the 20th century.   These developments included the work of John Goodlad ( 1984 and 1990 ); Ted Sizer (1992 ); Bill Spady's work in outcome-based education ( 1994 ); learning theorist Linda Darling-Hammond  (1991; 1994 ); curriculum reformer Elliot  Eisner ( 997 ); leadership guru MIcheal Fullan ( 1997 ); cognitive coaching  pioneers Robert Garmston and Bruce Wellman (1994 ); curriculum mapping expert Heidi  Hayes Jacobs ( 1989; 1997 ); the early "best practices" work of Robert Marzano, Debra Pickering, and Jay McTighe ( 1992; 1997  ); systems theorist Sydney Pogrow ( 1996; 1997 ); additional work by Phil Schlechty ( (1994; 1997 ); and Lorri Shephard  ( 1993; 1997 ); the original formative assessment efforts of Paul Black and Dylan Willam (1998), and Richard  Stiggins ( 1992; 1994 ); the TIMSS analysis by James Stigler and James Hiebert ( 1997 ); backwards design by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe ( 1992 and 1995 ); the 'what works' precursor to the "best practices" research of Steve Zemmelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde ( 1993; 1998  ); visualization and graphic representation expert David Hyerle ( 1996 ); and the results-based / data-driven suggestions of Mike Schmoker (1999 ).

Continuing with 21st Century Reform Efforts

With the new millennium, school reform still commands the nation's attention.  Predictably, the findings and recommendations of 21st century school reformers continue to validate the basic premises of the Instructional Design process.  This constant renewal enables Instructional Design begin its third decade as one of the oldest and most viable school reform processes.  The work used to update and further authenticate Instructional Design include the following:

• district-wide, comprehensive reform, limiting the scope to what's 'do-able, and building local capacity to sustain the reforms  by Rebecca DuFour, 2003; Douglas Fiore, 2004 ( in addressing the ISLLC Standards for Administrators ); Mike Schmoker, 2004; Joan Herman and Eva Baker, 2005;  Michael Fullan, 2004; Doug Reeves, 2004 and 2005; and Michael Fullan, 2008;
• prioritizing content standards as "power" outcomes  ( or Indicators ) by Beverly Falk, 2002; Larry Ainsworth , 2003; Richard Strong, Harvey Silver, Mathew Perini, and Greg Tuculescu, 2003; Jack Jennings, 2003; Richard Elmore, 2003; Hayes Mizell, 2003; Robert Marzano, 2004; and Doug Reeves, 2004;
• authentic, project-based, and  performance assessment s to validate student mastery by Victoria Bernhardt, 2002; Geraldine Brooks, 2004; and Lorrie Shephard, 2005;
• formative and summative assessments  to guide instructional decisions by Richard Stiggins, 2004;  Stephen Chappuis, Richard Stiggins, Judith Arter, and Jan Chappuis, 2004;  and Dylan Willam, James Popham, and Richard Stiggins ( interview; Olson, 2005 )
• constructivism and the self-directed learner by Richard Elmore, 2003; Art Costa and Bena Kallick, 2004; Elliott Eisner, 2004; Robert Sternberg, 2004; and  Doug Reeves, 2005;
• connecting teacher performance with student achievement by Linda  Darling-Hammond, 2000; 2004, and 2009; Charlotte Danielson, 2004;  and Richard DuFour, 2004;
• additional developments in curriculum mapping by Chip Wood, 2002; William Schmidt, 2004; and Heidi Hayes Jacobs, 2004;
• Research on teaching methods, differentiation, and additional work in the "best practices" by Bruce Joyce, Beverly Showers, 2002;  Marilyn Bizar and Harvey  Daniels, 2003; Carolyn Tomlinson, 2004; Jay McTighe, Elliott Seif, and Grant Wiggins, 2004;  Jay McTighe and Kevin O'Connor ( 2005); and arvey Daniels, Steven Zemmelman, and Pamela Hyde, 2006;
• The achievement gap by James Hiebart, Robert Gallimore, and James Stigler, 2003; raising the bar and lowering the gap by Michael Barber and Michael Fullan, 2004; and using Value-Added data to help reduce the gap by William Sanders, 2005;
• Response to Intervention ( RTI ) by Austin Buffum, Mike Matts, and Chris Weber, 2009;
• Lesson Study by Richard DuFour, 2004; lesson study relative to TIMSS results by Andre Audette, 2004; and lesson study to increase student performance by Valerie Chrisman, 2005

Currently, EdFOCUS continues to validate and enhance the Instructional Design process with the most recent findings and research outcomes.