Ken Hubbell: Worksheet 1: Instructional Systems Design (ISD) Models

1. The Dick and Carey ISD Model consists of ten steps, some of which are conducted in parallel while the rest are executed in sequence (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. The Dick and Carey process model.

Over the past twenty years, I have primarily used the modern day ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model with the addition of a sixth stage called Maintenance (M). I have reviewed other models and in the end it all comes down to production. Interestingly enough, during my first decade I did not know anything about ADDIE. What I did know was industrial design, project management, and software development. There are logical similarities between the ADDIE model and these other three processes or methodologies. In fact, in many ways, ADDIE is the instructional designers version of project management with Donald Kirkpatricks 4 Levels of assessment the equivalent of industrial quality assurance and quality control. The names of the steps and reports may be different, but at their core, these models or processes are the same. ADDIE-M really is an evolution of the best of the Dick and Carey design model with the inclusion of the Gerlach and Ely design model stages for scoping and allocation of resources. (Strickland, 2011) Only recently have I been introduced the ASSURE instructional systems design

process. Robert Heinich and Michael Molenda developed the ASSURE model incorporating Robert Gagnes events of instruction with a focus on the classroom and assuring effective use of media to support learning. (Hanley, 2009) Finally, according to the Project Management Institutes PMBOK Guide 4th Edition, there are five process stages in every project. Note that in principle, each of these stages maps to the stages of the instructional design models (see Table 1).
Dick and Carey Identify Instructional Goals Conduct Instructional Analysis Analyze Learners and Contexts Write Performance Objectives Revise Instruction Develop Assessment Instruments Develop Instructional Strategy Develop and Select Instructional Materials Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation of Instruction State standards & objectives Design Select strategies, technology, media & materials Utilize technology, media & materials Require learner participation Planning Analyze learners Analysis Initiating ASSURE ADDIE-M PMBOK

Development

Executing

Implementation and Evaluation

Monitoring and Controlling

Design and Conduct Summative Evaluate & revise Maintenance Closing Evaluation Table 1. Comparison of the Dick and Carey, ASSURE, ADDIE-M and PMBOK processes.

In all of these approaches the analysis stage is one of contention varying from almost no analysis resulting in misalignment of learning objectives to so much analysis that the project stalls and is never delivered. The instructional designer must understand at a minimum who is the audience, what are the learning objectives and what the limits for deploying the learning content are. Once these have been identified, additional analysis should be carefully bounded by time and resources. 2. According to John Kellers ARCS Model of Motivational Design (Dick et al, 2011), there are

four steps for promoting and sustaining motivation in the learning process: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy and Perry (Bednar et

al, 1995) emphasize the relationship between ARC theory and a premise of free will as well
as behavioral theories based on the premise of determination. In a learning experience, according to the ARCS model, the content must first get the learner's attention. This can be accomplished through entertainment, pretesting, ice-breaker activities, or any number of options. The key is to not only gain this initial attention but to maintain it throughout the course which leads us to "relevance." Relevance can be incorporated in the initial attention stage as with a real world example of how the learner will apply the course content or it may come at a later stage forming the basis for quizzes or other interactive activities. It is during these latter types that learner confidence in the materials can be established through progressively more difficult activities and well placed feedback and remediation. Finally, satisfaction can be achieved by providing the learner with the appropriate amount of engaging instruction, assessment, and feedback providing clear connections with the stated learning objectives of the course. Of the four, I believe confidence resonates most with my instructional design philosophy. It is interesting that in Keller's model, satisfaction is the final component, whereas to me, confidence is the pinnacle of learning. It is this level of confidence in most learning content I have participated in either as learner or technical designer that is neither addressed nor assessed. One of my goals as a designer is to have the opportunity and the budget to conduct confidence assessment in parallel to knowledge and behavioral assessment. Ideally the learner would perform the knowledge, behavior or skill and then be asked how confident they were of their response before being provided with feedback from the learning. The two responses could then be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the learning material.

3. Coming from a software development background as well as having a degree in industrial

product design, I have used rapid prototyping for many years. According to Tripp and Bichelemeyer (Tripp and Bichelmeyer, 1990) this same model can be used for instructional design. From my experience, instructional design content is a product and as such falls under the same requirements as any other product: it is targeted to a specific set of consumers (the learners) to meet a specific set of functional requirements (learning objectives/outcomes) and manufactured (developed), distributed (implemented) and measured for effectiveness (evaluation). I like the rapid approach because it also addresses my inclination for minimalist instructional design. van der Meij and Carroll (van der Meij

and Carroll, 1995) describe minimalist instruction as a need for the learner to act early in
the instructional process, often before they fully know what to do. This approach to learning by doing requires the course content be prepared to engage the learner in activities from the beginning, selecting the appropriate tasks to the content domain and reinforcing behaviors with constructive feedback and providing support materials to allow the user to seek out and find answers to questions as needed. Rapid prototyping, also known as spiral design and any of a number of other terms for the same set of practices, provides a system for addressing the needs determined by an initial, high-level, gap analysis quantified as a small set of objectives for the learning solution. This is especially beneficial for large scale programs, where a large investment of time and effort could be expended on objectives not fully understood or uncovered during the analysis process. These early objectives are presented to the learner in a series of prototypes which provide insight as to their effectiveness (formative evaluation) and allow for course corrections early in the design and development cycle while reducing the impact on the solution at large. This is similar to the idea behind minimalist instruction where engaging the learner early provides feedback as to the effectiveness of the approach as defined by their ability to successfully achieve the learning objectives. As the learner seeks out additional support materials, the instructional designers can build into the course additional learning objectives that include this material in the overall program. Depending on the scale of the

program, the number of prototype iterations can be range from few to many and are often constrained by resources.

4. Two years ago I designed a simulation/game to develop behavioral skills required by FAA air traffic controllers to safely facilitate take-off and landing procedures.

(1) The instructional objective for this learning solution is that after receiving instruction and practice the FAA air traffic controller will be able to respond to the pilot requests with the correct course corrections to facilitate the traffic of inbound and outbound planes.

(2) The target audience for this learning solution includes FAA air traffic controllers working in the 313 terminals across the United States ranging in age from 18 to 52.

(3) Prerequisite knowledge and skills necessary for learners to engage in the instruction include common FAA terminology, weather conditions, maps, and aircraft types and characteristics.

(4) This type of instruction is designed to augment classroom instruction as well as performed individually at any location.

(5) Using a simulation or game, the learner will practice landing approach and take-off of aircraft with feedback provided to support the learner. Instructors have the capability of observing student performance and providing coaching and mentoring to those students requiring additional support.

(6) This simulation/game is distributed as an App for iPhone, iPad and Android devices. A PC version is provided for classroom exercises and to introduce the basic concepts prior to individual practice. A PDF job aid accompanies the App to facilitate rapid immersion

in the learning.

(7) The instruction is provided in successive levels increasing in complexity and difficulty. Each level is real-time and lasts from five to sixty minutes depending on the focus of the level. This App is designed to provide continuous practice throughout the career of the FAA controller, introducing new aircraft types and traffic conditions as required.

This type of learning activity is constructivism at its core. The premise behind Constructivism is the idea that knowledge is subjective and dependent upon ones experiences. By providing a simulated/game environment that represents the actual activities an FAA air traffic controller performs, the learner is able to continuously learn in context, learning from their experiences solving authentic, realistic problems. (Bednar et al, 1995)

5. Six scholarly works (i.e., journal articles or books) that discuss ISD from behavioral, cognitive, and constructivist conceptions of learning.

Behavioral Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6). Retrieved from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ddl/articlesCopy/FischerTheoryCognDev1980.pdf Todd, J. T., & Morris, E. K. (1995). Modern perspectives on B.F. Skinner and contemporary behaviorism. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. Cognitive Descombes, V., & Descombes, V. (2001). The mind's provisions: A critique of cognitivism. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Johnson, O. A. (1978). Skepticism and cognitivism: A study in the foundations of knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press. Constructivist Fosnot, C. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Steele, M.M. (2005, April 30). Teaching Students with Learning Disabilities: Constructivism or Behaviorism? Current Issues in Education [On-line], 8(10). Available:http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume8/number10/

References

Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M., Perry, J.P. (1995). Theory into practice: How do we link? In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future. (2nd ed., pp. 100-111). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill/Pearson. Hanley, M. (2009, June 24). Assure model: Discovering instructional design 18. Retrieved from E-Learning Curve Blog website: http://michaelhanley.ie/elearningcurve/assure-modeldiscovering-instructional-design-18/2009/06/24/

Keller, J.M. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction, 26(8), 1-7. Keller, J.M. (1987). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance & Instruction, 26(9), 1-8.
Strickland, A. W. (2011). Isd models. Retrieved from Dr. AW Strickland website: http://www.doctoraws.com/?page_id=7

Tripp, S. D. and Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44. van der Meij, H. & Carroll, J. M. (1995) Principles and heuristics in designing minimalist instruction, Technical Communication, 42(2), 243--261.