Instructional design (ID) is the intentional process of developing instructional material. More specifically, ID is the systematic approach of incorporating various elements, such as learning theories and instructional design models, to meet learner needs and performance goals. Additionally, ID requires several competencies and skills (Ritzhaupt et al., 2021). Some competencies include communication, collaboration, problem-solving, and project management; some skills include experience with technology and ability to conduct research (Wang, 2021). In other words, instructional design does not only involve principles and procedures that generate instruction, but it also necessitates the conduction of various roles and responsibilities in order to create effective instruction.
The ADDIE Model
An instructional design framework, used by instructional designers, encompassing five phases: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. This model serves as a systematic guide for developing instructional or training products for organizations in any sector.
A hierarchical cognitive framework, developed by Benjamin Bloom, utilized by instructional designers. This taxonomy classifies low-order cognitive skills and higher-order cognitive skills into six categories to organize the appropriate verbs for defining measurable and actionable learning objectives.
A comprehensive instructional design framework encompassing ten phases. This model employs a systems approach where each phase is interconnected and is built upon each other. Goals, analysis, assessments, and revisions are maintained in continuous alignment to effectively guide the instructional design process.
The following artifacts correspond to each phase of the ADDIE model, which were part of a culminating team project in the ETEC 5440 course. This project was conducted collaboratively, resulting in the development of a proposed online, self-paced Canvas course focused on ethically utilizing artificial intelligence to enhance school-life balance for incoming undergraduate students.
The following artifacts were part of a culminating team project in the ETEC 6440 course, which was conducted in collaboration with a real client and guided by the Dick & Carey Model as well as Merill's First Principles of Instruction. This project was a collaborative partnership with the Office of Civil Rights & Title IX at CSUSB, resulting in the development of a training module for CSUSB employees.
The first image is a diagram illustrating a hybrid combination of hierarchical and procedural steps, viewed from a bottom-up and right-left perspective. It outlines the primary skills and the associated sub-skills necessary to successfully achieve the instructional goal. Additionally, entry behaviors are identified as skills that are presumed to be already possessed by the learners.
The following images depict the instructional strategies for the primary skills, which were later subsequently translated into major performance objectives 1, 2, and 3, in that order. Essentially each strategy outlines the instructional sequence for the corresponding performance objective or terminal skill. Moreover, each strategy follows a consistent format, presenting the subskills, or enabling skills, with example items, practice activities, and feedback integration, culminating in an assessment.
This image outlines the sequence of the training's final assessment. The assessment is a branching scenario that integrates all key terminal skills of the training module, presenting learners with an authentic-like experience. Learners are provided with decision points to apply their newly acquired knowledge and their choices will influence their progression through the scenario. Ultimately, learners are evaluated based on the appropriateness of their decisions throughout the assessment.
Instructional design is incredibly challenging, yet profoundly fulfilling. My journey through the 5440 and 6440 courses has taught me patience and trust, especially regarding the collaborative nature of instructional design. Working through the ADDIE and Dick and Carey model with a team throughout this program has taught me an undeniable truth: instructional design cannot be achieved alone. My once self-reliant and solitary approach has blossomed into a more open and collaborative mindset, which was fueled by the incredible experience of working side by side with amazing teammates. The push we gave each other to grow, the respect for one another's perspectives, and the genuine support through every challenge has shaped my understanding of what true collaboration can achieve. Simply, instructional design is not just about following a model or a guide. Instructional design necessitates a rich collective of diverse perspectives, skills, and competencies to create meaningful, impactful, and resonating training and instruction.
Moving forward in my career, I will no longer rely solely on my own capabilities. I will choose to trust, and be patient, in the abilities of others and draw inspiration from their knowledge as we unite a shared mission to enhance learning experiences. As such, I will approach my own work with continuous improvement, embracing that I am always learning as I develop and design training/instruction. This is reflective of my personal experience with the ADDIE and Dick and Carey model in which I've observed that each phase is connected and built upon each other, fueling on-going transformations.
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for teaching, learning, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook: The cognitive domain. David McKay, New York.
Bronack, S. (2026, January 28). Module 1: Introduction to the course - Systematic Design of Instruction [Google Slides]. ETEC 6440: Instructional Design II, California State University, San Bernardino. Google Classroom.
Bronack, S. (2026, January 28). Module 2: The Dick and Carey Model [Google Docs]. ETEC 6440: Instructional Design II, California State University, San Bernardino. Google Classroom.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Dousay, T. A., Stefaniak, J. E., & Branch, R. M. (2025). Characteristics and Evolution of Foundational Design Models. In R. A. Reiser, A. A. Carr-Chellman, & J. V.
Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (5th ed., pp. 41-53). New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003502302-5
Oyarzun, B. , & Conklin, S. (2021). Learning theories. Design for learning: Principles, processes, and praxis. EdTechBooks. https://edtechbooks.org/id learning_theories
Piskurich, G. M. (2015). Rapid Instructional Design (3rd ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207528
Ritzhaupt, A. D., Kumar, S., & Martin, F. (2021). The competencies for instructional designers in higher education. A practitioner's guide to instructional design in higher education. EdTechBooks. https://doi.org/10.59668/164.4268
Wang, S. (2021). 5 essential things you need as an instructional designer. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/instructional-design-skills-things-need