ISD Models

What is ISD?

ISD, also known as Instructional Systems Design, refers to the way in which we approach the creation of instruction for our learners. Specifically, ISD focuses on the steps we take before, during, and after we design lessons for those who we are responsible for teaching. ISD models are used to help us, as instructional designers, through this "before, during, and after" process. There are numerous ISD models, many of them relying on the same fundamental, underlying principles (see ADDIE below).

Just what is the ADDIE process? It is a basic outline for how many ISD models are based and structured. There are five steps: analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate, and most all other ISD models include these five steps in some fashion (Brown & Green, 2016). To analyze is to pre-determine what the current needs and problems are, or what the goal should be. To design is to layout what the specific objectives are, as well as the appropriate tools and activities to use. To develop is the actual creation step of what was determined to be used during design. To implement is to put into practice what has been developed, or to carry out the lesson. To evaluate is to gather feedback, reflect on the process (including each step), and make the necessary revisions. It is possible to go back to any particular step after evaluation and continue from there (Reiser & Dempsey, 2017).

Seven Basics of Instructional Design

In Reiser and Dempsey's book Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, they point out that there are seven features that should be found in any instructional design (ID) process, and I feel these are important enough to outline below (2017):

1. ID is student-centered
2. ID is goal-oriented
3. ID is creative
4. ID is focused on meaningful performance
5. ID assumes outcomes are measurable, reliable, and valid
6. ID is observable, frequentative, and able to self-correct
7. ID is completed with team effort

As we create lessons for our students, we need to integrate these steps into the process. The educational experience (as we focus on our pre-determined goals and objectives) should be relevant and spark interest in students, as the lesson tries to bring out the strengths of our students. Our approach should give time for collaboration, and, as facilitators, we should make time to give useful feedback throughout the lesson (even peer-to-peer feedback). This, in turn, should allow for revisions to be made to improve student performance.

Any instructional designer should make concerted efforts to include these seven crucial steps of effective instructional design, whether working in the educational field, business field, or government posts. Without them, there is a greater chance for having error or failure during the instructional design process.

Examples of ISD Models

The Dick and Carey Design Model sets its focus on having the user set and define specific instructional goals and objectives at the start of the instructional design process (revised with analysis). From there, the user would develop the teaching/training strategies and materials, implement the lesson, and proceed with summative evaluation, where revision can occur, if needed (Dick & Carey, 2009).

In the classroom, the instructor would begin by determining what information students will need to know, in the form of more broad goals and specific objectives that should be met. From there, a lesson is designed around those goals, and then the students are given instruction regarding the topic at hand. At some point, assessments may be given to determine whether or not students have made progress towards meeting the given objectives.

The Hannafin and Peck Design Model is a little different from the Dick and Carey, though it shows similarities (as do many ISD models). This model emphasizes the use of a needs analysis to start the instructional design process. In other words, a survey of sorts is taken to determine what the problem is, or the lack of knowledge or skills that needs to be addressed by the instruction. Following the needs analysis, the designer would construct the layout of the lesson and bring it all together as a unit. Finally, the instruction is put into practice with the learners. One key aspect of the Hannafin and Peck Model is the concrete inclusion of evaluation and revision throughout each step of the process (Hannafin & Peck, 2009).

With this model, an instructor would begin by finding out what the learners do or do not know about the goals/objectives that need to be met. Based upon this information that is gathered, the instructor will then create a lesson tailored to address these needs, while also ensuring that the lesson is structured around the pre-determined goal(s). Once that is complete, the lesson is implemented and feedback is continuously gathered so that adjustments can be made as learning occurs. The process allows for assessment and modifications to be made along the way.

Rapid prototyping is a more recent development in the ISD thought process. As pointed out by Brown and Green, this process, primarily the user, "is to arrive at a final product through the creation of a number of prototypes" (2016, p. 18). In other words, the user would continue designing and testing numerous prototypes until he or she is satisfied with a product. There is a drawback to this approach, however. In Brown and Green's text, they share some insight on where the rapid prototyping philosophy could lead, according to Tripp and Bichelmeyer: "...prototyping can lead to a design-by-repair philosophy, which is only an excuse for lack of discipline" (2016, p. 19). As this approach evolves, we must take care not to abuse emerging ideas, yet ensure that we are still delivering a solid, efficient, reputable product, that does its best to adhere to those seven basic steps of ID.

Take this basic physics lesson, for example: given a set of parameters to work within, students must design and create a bottle rocket that remains in the air for the longest period of time. If we apply the idea of rapid prototyping to this lesson, it would look a bit different. Instead of emphasizing the research and design process as much, students would be allowed to come together and build different models to test out. Students would continue building and testing until they found a design that worked best and met the specifications. Now, this approach may produce just as good of a design as taking the time to research and design, but will it hold up to the seven basic steps of instructional design? When considering whether this lesson does abuse basic ISD principles, most likely, step #4 would be the one negatively affected: ID is focused on meaningful performance. If the rapid prototyping lesson is used, the facilitator must ensure that the students are engaged in "meaningful performance", and the valuable instructional time is not lost.