The Historical Perspective of ISD
Instructional Systems Design dates back to classical
philosophers such as Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. Early thinkers and classical
philosophers contributed to our
knowledge of learning
theory through their
development, implementation, and refinement of instructional strategies. Principles
of questioning, argumentation, modeling, repeated
practice, and timely feedback
are still central to modern instruction.
One can trace the development of ISD in the past century
through several different movements (Anglin, 1991). In the early 1900s the
behavioral approach to educational psychology dominated the field. Hull and
Thorndike provided guidelines for using stimulus-response exercises as the
basis for instructional materials. The advent of the Second World War witnessed
the emergence of instructional techniques that were geared toward the rapid
training of thousands of military and civilian personnel. These needs created
a variety of teaching machines and mediated training modules. The 1950s witnessed
the emergence of models for measuring behavioral outcomes inspired by Bloom’s
taxonomy. In the 1960s, Robert Gagné sought to differentiate instructional
approaches used to promote psychomotor skills, verbal skills, reasoning skills,
and attitudinal dispositions. While numerous other instructional
design models
were introduced in the 1970s and 1980s in conjunction with innovations in
instructional technology, their proliferation confirms the notion that ISD
consists of the five distinct iterative processes shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1 The Generic Instructional Design
Model
Needs Analysis
Generally the needs analysis component of the system
design
process serves to accomplish a number of goals. It establishes key
long-term ingredients for the participants in the whole design process. It
describes the criteria for the intended instructional environment. It also
establishes the requirements, measurable goals, timelines, and even potential
roadblocks learners can anticipate in the whole instructional process. During
this phase, the designer will analyze instructional goals, the instruction
itself, and the
context in which
learning will take place.
Goal Analysis: This initial step in the needs analysis
phase is analogous to determining one’s destination if given a map and the
task of going to some specific destination. At this stage, one defines what
the instructor wants his or her learners to know, and what students should
be able to do when they have completed the instruction. Dick, Carey & Carey
(2004) suggest that instructional goal statements may be derived from a combination
of the following:
-
List of goals
-
Description of long-term behaviors
-
Needs
assessment and strategic plan
-
Practical experience in the subject matter
-
Someone who has delivered similar instruction
After identifying the instructional goal, it is imperative
not only for the designer to determine who the learners are in terms of their
characteristics, but what they will be able to do when they demonstrate
knowledge,
skills, abilities, or attitudes that relate to the instructional goal. This
should be translated into
performance indicators that will serve as proof
that the desired learning destination has been reached.
Instructional Analysis: Once the instructor/designer
has a clear conception of what he or she wants the target audience to know
and be able to do, he or she needs to identify the specific skills, knowledge,
abilities, and attitudes necessary to achieve the learning goals. Again, using
the road map analogy, one must ask “How will we get from our initial destination
to the intermediate locations before we get to the final destination? What
are the logistics involved in the whole trip?” The results of this analysis
will prescribe the subordinate skills and knowledge that must be created to
ensure that the desired learner performance is achieved.=
Learner and Context Analysis: Typically
in educational settings, teachers often assume that they “know” all the characteristics
that make up the profile of their student population at least well enough
to
design instruction without verifying whether their hunches
are valid and reliable (Hirumi, 2002). In a traditional instructor-led, teacher-centered
course, this may be the case, but for teachers attempting to apply more student-centered
techniques, it is often necessary to gather data about each individual student
to address individual student needs and interests. In business and industry,
the instructional designer often does not know much about the target audience.
Therefore, learner and
context analysis is critical for defining entry-level
and prerequisite skills and knowledge, for identifying
learning styles, for
discerning learning
motivation, and for revealing physical/social aspects
of the site where
learning will take place. Insights from learner and context
analysis are valuable for selecting and customizing instructional strategies
as well as
assessment methods.
Design Specifications
Traditionally in instructional
design, the design specifications
phase spells out at least three very important ingredients of the whole process.
These include the relationship between the final product and the target learners,
the
performance criteria by which successful learners will be assessed, and
how that assessment will take place.
Performance Objectives: There is compelling
evidence
in the education literature that suggests that students perform better if
they have a clear understanding of what they are expected to learn (Bassoppo-Moyo,
1998). Taking the road map analogy one step further, fuzzy directions to the
final destination will increase the probability of one getting lost. In instructional
design, performance objectives take the place of a clearly labeled
set of directions that point toward some predefined destination.
Writing performance objectives is therefore both an art
and a science, and invariably it is the
process that determines whether the
goals or vision of the activity have been met. Since the 1960s, thousands
of educators have been trained in the writing of what was termed “behavioral”
objectives. However, as noted by Dick, et al. (2004), two major difficulties
emerged from this approach.
First, without an overall systematic design
process, instructors
found it difficult to define objectives. With little or no training on analysis
techniques, e.g., instructional, content, and task analyses, instructors often
reverted to textbooks to identify topics for which to write objectives. As
a result, most designers and instructors tended to focus on performance objectives
that were more drill-and-practice oriented. Second, without an overall systematic
design process, instructors did not know what to do with the objectives once
they were written. Instructors often listed objectives as a part of instruction,
but did little else to align instruction or
assessment with the objectives.
Furthermore, educators have raised some objections to the use of behavioral
objectives as the standard measures of
performance. There now exists the argument
that behavioral objectives reduce instruction to such small discrete components
that learners lose the “trees from the forest”; that they limit class discussions
and student learning; and that they cannot be written for some areas such
as humanities or even for complex skills (Hirumi, 2002).
Performance Indicators: Performance indicators are
the guideposts or milestones showing what needs to be achieved. They are an
important component of our road map to our instruction and in principle they
should be easy to distinguish among indicators for inputs, outputs, intermediate
outcomes, and end outcomes. In
practice, these four concepts represent a continuum
for which indicators can blend into one another and form a continuum of activities
that are interlocking (Zook, 2002). A simplified description of the process
of training nurses at the community level illustrates the point. Community
college nurses represent a final output from junior college and an input to
colleges and universities as well as an input to employers who hire them directly.
Materials Development
The materials development phase is an important link
between the designer/instructor and the learners. It is at this stage that
a designer is judged on whether he or she is able to connect with the target
audience. Through a creative approach, and interesting and relevant materials,
the instructional designer must articulate the instruction to the learner.
The designer should be able to determine the course level (basic, intermediate,
or advanced) and determine the
learning styles and characteristics of her
target audience.
It is equally important that the instructor/designer create
measurement instruments that are valid and reliable in order to gauge or assess
the learning
outcome(s). The instruments should reflect what the learners
should be able to accomplish through performance-driven criteria.
Hirumi (2002) and Oosterhof (2001) suggest that
criterion-referenced
(a.k.a. outcome-referenced) assessments be designed to measure an explicit
set of
learning outcomes. Traditionally, these tests have included multiple
choice, true-or-false, fill-in-the-blank and short answer test items. These
tests have become pervasive because they can be mass-produced, administered
and scored with a certain degree of expediency. They can also provide a relatively precise outcome-based method for determining
whether learners have achieved specific
learning goals. However, over the
past decade, there has been a movement in education toward the use of
performance,
or portfolio assessments.
The method of portfolio
assessment differs from traditional
paper-and-pencil exams in two key respects. First, unlike traditional measures
which tend to evaluate students’ possession of
knowledge, portfolio assessments
judge students ability to apply knowledge in real life circumstances. Second,
portfolio assessments are used as an integral part of learning. Such assessments
tell students and their instructors how well they are developing their skills
and knowledge in an incremental fashion. Thus, portfolio assessments serve
as diagnostic tools that provide students with profiles of their emerging
skills to help them become increasingly independent learners. It is important
to note that performance assessment techniques are not advocated as more appropriate
than traditional, criterion-referenced assessments, but are offered as an
alternative to assessing student learning and performance. Generally,
research
suggests a multi-faceted approach to the assessment of
learning outcomes in
order to increase the
reliability and
validity
of the overall learner
evaluation
process. It is critical that the stated objectives correspond with the evaluation
plan or strategies.
Course Implementation
Typically the implementation process seeks to determine
the degree of success to which the goals of the instruction can be established.
It is also at this stage that developmental testing and expert review often
takes place during which the merit and worth of the instruction can be established.
A wide range of strategies are generally employed during which the instruction
is judged to determine whether it is performing to its standards. Some of
the questions answered here would relate to the final goals of the instruction.
These would include establishing what is working now at this stage of the
process, and asking what might be improved, obstacles or challenges that exist,
and what improvements might be made using a number of different perspectives.
These would include applying different instructional strategies.
Instructional Strategy: Instruction is a deliberate
arrangement of events to facilitate a learner’s acquisition of some outcome-based
performance
objective
(Driscoll, 2004). Research on training and instruction indicates that
students who actively participate in the
learning process are
likely to perform better and remember more than students who remain passive
(Hirumi, 2002). The problem is that many current forms of instruction are
based solely on prior experience, trial-and-error, opinions, fads and/or political
agendas. They often fail to take into account what we know about
learning
and instruction. It is argued that instruction should be designed based on
a combination of prior experience, learning
theory, and research (Gagné &
Dick, 1983). Events of instruction play a major role in developing instructional
strategies by advocating a systematic approach to creating the learning environment.
Media Selection: Selecting media and materials is
crucial in the whole instructional design process. There is an increasing
variety of different media available to support the delivery of instruction.
They include, but are not limited to, a live instructor, print, audio-visual
media, computer-based interactive systems, Internet and World Wide Web resources.
In selecting media, the question is not which is
the best technology, rather, what combination of media are most appropriate
considering learner and instructor characteristics, the instructional goals,
environment, instructional strategy, and the availability of resources (Hirumi,
2002). In addition, it is important not to use media simply because of its
availability but rather each medium should serve a specific purpose.
Evaluation
Generally,
evaluation links the lesson objectives to
the actual outcomes. It is a way of determining the extent to which the instructional
design process has been a success, and this phase can be accomplished in a
number of ways.
Formative Evaluation: It is often the case that
teachers and trainers frequently produce, distribute, and implement the initial
draft of their instruction. In such instances, many problems often occur and
either the instructor is blamed for poor teaching or learners are blamed for
insufficient studying when, in fact, the instructional materials were not
well developed. In the 1960s, the problem of untested instructional materials
was accentuated with the advent of large curriculum projects (Hirumi, 2002).
At that time, “evaluation” was defined as the determination of instructional
effectiveness as compared to other products, and studies revealed relatively
low student achievement with the new curriculum materials. Cronback and Scriven
(as cited by Dick, et al., 2004) concluded that designers needed to expand
their
concept of
evaluation, and they proposed that instructional developers
conduct what is now known as “formative evaluations” or the collection of data
during the development of instruction to improve its effectiveness.
Evaluation Plan & Instrument: Dick,
et al. (2004), suggest that a
summative
evaluation be in place which has to
be conducted in two phases: expert review, and field trials. Expert judgments
or reviews are designed to determine whether currently used instruction or
other instructional programs or materials meet content, structure, and organizational
needs. Field evaluations should also be conducted to document the effectiveness
of instruction with the target populations in its intended setting. Field
trials can also consist of two components:
outcome analysis and management
analysis (Dick, et al., 2004).
Outcome analysis is conducted to determine the impact of
instruction on learners, on the job (transfer), and on the organization (need
resolution). Management analysis is conducted to determine instructor and
supervisor attitudes related to learner
performance, implementation feasibility
and costs. An alternative view of summative evaluation posits four levels
of training evaluation: reactions,
learning, behavior and impact (Dick et
al., 2004). Reactions refer to learner attitudes toward instruction and learning
measures students’ acquisition of specified skills and
knowledge. Behaviors
examine the extent to which skills and knowledge learned during training are
applied in the performance
context. Impact refers to the effect the behaviors
have on the organization.
Peer Review: Hirumi (2002) observes that there exist
significant differences between a novice and an expert in that an expert can
analyze his or her own work, or the work of others, and accurately judge its
quality while a novice cannot. Peer evaluation is designed to help learners
develop their expertise, as well as to expose them to alternative examples
of how others apply the systematic design process. It also helps target learners
who need to improve their own work as well as create a good working rapport
when working with others.
Concluding Thoughts
There are a number of historical assumptions underlying
the
process of instructional
design. They all, however, illustrate that for
those involved in developing instruction, there are distinct and added advantages
in using the instructional design process. Generally these advantages include
focusing on the
learning outcomes or performance behaviors, and ensuring that
instruction is efficient and effective. The ISD process also facilitates congruence
among
performance objectives, instructional activities, and
assessment of
learning outcomes.
References
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom
assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Anglin, G. (1991). Instructional technology, Past, present and future. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Bassoppo-Moyo, T. C. (1998). The effects of preinstructional
activities in enhancing learner recall and conceptual learning of prose materials
for preservice teachers in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24 (3), 1-14.
Dick, W. O., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2004). The systematic
design of instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Driscoll, M. P. (2004). Psychology of learning for instruction.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gagné, R. M., & Dick, W. (1983). Instructional psychology.
Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 261-295.
Hirumi, A. (2002). The design and sequencing of e-learning:
A grounded approach. International Journal on E-learning,
1 (1), 19-27.
Oosterhof, A. (2000). Classroom applications of educational
measurement. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.