Journal of instructional development

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 9–13 | Cite as

Relevance revisited systematically

  • Allison Rossett


Everyone wants to develop and experience relevance in instruction; some have wanted it badly enough to protest militantly a status quo perceived as irrelevant. This article uses the language and processes of instructional design and development to attempt a definition of relevance and then to apply that definition to what is and isn’t being done in instruction. The instructional developer’s role in an era of declining enrollments and accountability mandates must expand to screening for and increasing instances of relevant instruction. What is relevance? How does it manifest itself in single courses? In sequences of courses? Why is it important? These questions are addressed through a model that emphasizes time, instructor control, and location for practice opportunities as they relate to course and program objectives.


Instructional Design Instructional Development Relevant Education Instructor Control Instructional Developer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, R. L., & Schutz, R. E.Instructional product development. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971.Google Scholar
  2. Bruner, J. S.The relevance of education. New York: W. W. Norton, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. Ditmer, A. On knowing but not learning.The English Journal, 1979,68 (3), 31–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Figurski, A. J. The 70’s and beyond: An age of assessment, accountability and synthesis.Man, Society, Technology, 1972,31, 177–179.Google Scholar
  5. Getz, H. G., & Pierce, W. Relating pertinence to proximity.The Clearinghouse, 1971,45, 281–284.Google Scholar
  6. Kahn, A. S. Relevance: Some historical perspectives, past, present and future.Journal of Education, 1971,154, 49–57.Google Scholar
  7. Kapfer, P. G., Kapfer, M. B., Woodruff, A., & Stutz, R. C. Realism and relevance—Payoffs of the life internship approach.Educational Technology, 1970,10(11), 29–31.Google Scholar
  8. Kaufman, R. Needs assessment: Internal and external.NSPI Journal, 1978,17(1), 17–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Popham, J. W., & Baker, E. L.Systematic instruction. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.Google Scholar
  10. Robenson, T. E. The Waldtopia school system: A program for secondary education, 1985.Phi Delta Kappan, 1980,61(7), 465–466.Google Scholar
  11. Shanahan, D. Toward a redefinition of relevance.Educational Leadership, 1979,36(7), 511–514.Google Scholar
  12. Svboda, W.S. The ultimate innovation?Educational Technology, 1974,14 (1), 46–48.Google Scholar
  13. Tosti, D., & Carleton, J. R. Instructional development—Proactive or reactive.NSPI Journal, in press.Google Scholar
  14. Thomas, L.The medusa and the snail, New York: Viking, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. Tyler, R.Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949.Google Scholar
  16. Wagner, R. Relevance and revolt.Audiovisual Instruction, 1969,14 (6), 36–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allison Rossett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational TechnologySan Diego State UniversitySan Diego

Personalised recommendations