This study primarily deals with following topics; 1) What are the limitations of basic assumptions and applications in ID1? 2) Why ID2 is needed in the field of instructional design theory? 3) What are the basic assumptions, prescription principles, and characteristics in ID2? 4) Is ID2 the new paradigms in instructional design theory? Current instructional design theory is firmly rooted in behavioral psychology. The major principles of traditional instructional design theory (ID1) have been derived from Skinner's programmed instruction and Gagné's conditions of learning. In addition, it has been integrated, along with other principles (e.g., some cognitive psychology and information processing theory) into systems approaches for designing instruction. But the use of contemporary instructional design methodologies does result in instruction that is more effective than that based only on folklore and trial and error. These methods have not provided the hoped for increase in instructional effectiveness that enables learners to more adequately and efficiently grasp, and to apply, the content presented. More specifically, the limitations of ID1 can be pointed out as followings: Content analysis focuses on components, not integrated wholes; prescriptions for course organization strategies are superficial; the theories are closed systems, asserting principles based on a subset of available knowledge, but not easily able to accommodate new knowledge as it becomes available; each phase of instructional development is performed essentially independently of other phases, as the theories provide no means for integration or for sharing data; and the resulting instruction is often passive rather than interactive; and so forth. In this sense, second generation instructional design theory(ID2) are responding to limitations In design and practice of IDI. Its underlying assumption about the teaching and learning theories is based on constructivism which emphasizes the active learner. The active learner means not just that the learner is an active processor of information, but more importantly that the learner elaborates upon and interprets the informations. Therefore, approaches to instructional design need to be developed that don't just transmit knowledge, or even knowledge structures, but are able to accomplish conceptual change in students. In addition, as instructional media become more powerful and more varied, the task of managing instruction becomes more formidable and more important. But ID1 has neglected to prescribe for new media environment. Because ID1 predates the development of highly interactive, technology- based delivery systems, little guidance is provided for developing instruction for these systems. If interactive instructional technologies are to provide a significant part of the increasing amount of education demanded by society, then there is a critical need for significantly improved methodology and tools to guide the design and development of high quality interactive technology-based instructional materials. There is a need for ID2. ID2 will be characterized with the following components: a knowledge base for representing domain knowledge for the purposes of making instructional decisions; a series of intelligent computer-based design tools for knowledge analysis/ acquisition, strategy analysis and transaction generation/ configuration; a collection of mini-experts, each contributing a small knowledge base relevant to a particular instructional design decision or a set of such decisions; a library of instructional transactions for the delivery of instruction, and the capacity to add new or existing transactions to the library; an on-line intelligent advisor program that dynamically customizes the instruction during delivery, based on a mixed-initiative dialog with the student. Finally, our aim in this article is to discuss an alternative instructional design theory as a theory. The major characteristic of ID2 is that it is not a new approach to instructional design, but an attempt to overcome limitations of ID1. That is, ID2 provides a few techniques available in current instructional media environment rather than pursues methodological change in instructional design theory. In this sense, the argument of paradigm shift in instructional design theory is incomplete. Because paradigm shift requires change in global perspective on theory. Nevertheless, ID1 and ID2 are different approaches in instructional design theory.