~Classification schemes~

Orientation: I would say my model is descriptive in nature, since it's based on "practical experiences of instruction and learning." I'd say it's definitely more step by step with not much room for variation from the formula. In order to create the instruction modules, certain definite procedures must occur. Prescriptive theories leave room for alterations, and while each instructional module is different in contents, the structure should be the same from module to module.

Knowledge Structure: The model is more procedural than declarative because it is meant to consider the modules as instructional tools that are instructing library databases and such. The modules themselves are much more guided in nature, providing the user with what the creators of the modules want them to know, rather than the user discovering and poking around on their own.

Expertise Level: The modules are definitely geared towards the novice user, and the model I'm creating is specifically meant for someone who is new to the process of creating online instructional tutorials.

Structure: I'll point out that the librarians who created the modules had expert/intuitive-based knowledge, but I won't assume that everyone who will create the instructional modules in the future will have that kind of knowledge. I feel like the librarian would have a mix between novice/soft-system, and maybe expert/intuitive based knowledge.

Context: The context of my model is definitely Higher Ed., but the model for the creation of modules can be applied to any setting in my opinion. The procedure can be standardized, it's the context of what educational outcomes that will vary.

Level: Similarly to the Rapid Prototyping and Gerlach & Ely models, my model would apply to unit, module, lesson and course levels of instructional design.