In the instructional design debate, the content component most typically is analyzed from its structural and functional elements. In the tradition of Robert Gagné we differentiate different types of learning and David Merrill has distinguished facts, concepts, procedures and principles on different levels of performance to analyze contents. This relates to the idea that different types of contents rely on different processes of learning and, thus, require different strategies of instruction. This line of reasoning, however, does not address the question if and why a certain learning content should be learned at all and how to decide on choosing learning contents? The design of curricula seems to be an issue not directly related to instructional design. Didactical theories (Klafki, Heimann u.a.), on the other hand, emphasize the question what makes a learning content “valuable” to teach. This raises the question if there are criteria for making rational decisions about the selection (or even rejection) of learning contents or if learning contents eventually are just given by other agents (like school boards, ministries, corporate training departments etc.). From the view of didactical theories, it is important to always ask the question how learning can contribute to the development of the individual, the organization and the society. The specification of learning goals, in this line of reasoning, cannot be confined to learning objectives as a result of the learning processes but should relate to a broader developmental perspective. The paper wants to outline how this perspective on the value of learning contents and methods for analyzing their rationality could contribute to the international discussion on instructional design.

Norm Friesen: LESSON PLANNING: ANGLO-AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES. http://learningspaces.org/papers/lessonplanning.pdf Malte Brinkmann & Norm Friesen, eds.: German Educational Theory: The Human Science Tradition.