This post will provide a summary of Patricia Young’s Culture Based Model for Instructional Design taken from her groundbreaking and useful guide, Instructional design frameworks and intercultural models (2009). 

So far, one of the most comprehensive design frameworks with attention to culture in the process of instructional design has been offered by Young in her body of work from 1999-2009. Young finds that methods of integrating culture in design are limited in scope: “design has not caught up with technology and that to create for diverse audiences the process must be deliberate… the integration of culture in the design of ICTs will require novel ways of engaging the design process” (2008, p.14).  Young (2009) seeks to establish culture as a design construct. First, she establishes that design is a deliberate, creative, social action that generates meaning and that “design constructs function to explain, predict and interpret design related data” (p.26). Then, she proposes that “culture is a design” that is also a creative, social act that generates meaning and order (p.26). She sees this as a semiotic relationship that should be acknowledged in design frameworks.
Young offers the Culture-Based Model (CBM) with the acronym ID_TABLET: inquiry, development, team, assessments, brainstorming, learners, elements, and training with 70 design factors tied to these features (see Figure 1). As part of the ID-TABLET framework, she lists twenty-five elements that “can be used to understand, define or evaluate the target audience” in three categories: anthropology of culture, psychology of culture and science of culture (p.64).

Figure 1 Young’s (2009) Culture Based Model

Visual Representations
Consider technical, aesthetic, content, culture-based, and target audience design specifications.
Mass distribution formats.
Effective technology.
Diversify ICT format.
Understand target audience.
Explore environmental and individual/group cultures.
Quality design.
Authenticate product.
Control for interference.
Model the product or process.
Cultural expert.
Enlist educators.
Culturally informed team.
Multiple evaluation options.
Assess the assessment.
External review.
Culture-specific assessments.
Financial support.
Pilot studies/field tests of product.
Assess community’s response.
Community representative on team.
Investigate target audience to authenticate product.
Reflect and assess learning goals.
Affordable design.
Meet needs of target audience.
Discuss and consider cultural context.
Present and consider outcomes.
Extend learning.
Differentiate opportunities to learn.
Empower and engage learners.
Teach proactive learning.
Identify educational objectives.
Culture-specific instructional strategies.
Enrich instructional content.
Adapt instruction to learner.
Plan for instruction.
Enculturate the learner.
Anthropology of culture
Cultural aesthetics
Cultural artifacts
Cultural capital
Cultural classification
Cultural communications
Cultural demographics
Cultural environment
Cultural history
Cultural knowledge
Cultural language
Cultural physiology
Cultural relations
Cultural resources
Psychology of culture
Cultural beliefs and values
Cultural experiences
Cultural ideas
Cultural identity
Cultural interests
Cultural misconceptions
Cultural ways
Science of culture
Cultural anomalies
Cultural cultures
Cultural futures
Cultural infinities
Cultural nature
Product training.
Culture-based training.

Note. Quoted from Young (2009) pages 41-45.

Young (2009) emphasizes that her work maintains the traditional definition of instructional design, citing Reigeluth’s (1983) emphasis on systematic processes and measurability and explaining that these processes are “grounded in the generic system” of the ADDIE model (p. xv). She proposes to fill the gap where a “comprehensive framework to align culture with the ADDIE model has not been available” (p. xv).  In the Foreword to Young’s book, Instructional Design Frameworks and Intercultural Models, Richey (2009) calls Young’s model an “over-lay model, one which adds the cultural component to a somewhat traditional ID model” (p. ix). However, she also says that Young’s model is “compatible with a systemic (rather than a systematic) view of the world” (p.xi). Young’s work is new and cannot yet claim to have empirical support evaluating the effectiveness of what it prescribes to designers; however, Richey (2009) declares that Young’s model is supported by rock-solid research. Young’s method for developing the model is grounded in empirical observation and qualitative analysis of instructional design artifacts.