ISD Analysis and Recommendations

Dear Director of Professional Development,

After a thorough review of professional development and training procedures for our staff, I have
completed an analysis and I am writing to share my recommendations.

The current professional development program clearly incorporates elements of traditional

instructional design, and the goal of this analysis is to reach a conclusion about whether to
continue using the ISD model to develop training for our organization.

There exist some drawbacks to using the ISD model, some of which have been expressed by
various staff members. First, the traditional ADDIE structure of ISD (Analysis, Development,
Design, Implementation, Evaluation) often requires complex tasks to be segmented into smaller
component tasks. This fragmentation can make it difficult for learners to gain broader, more
complex skills that require synthesis of the component tasks that they have learned. (Reiser and
Dempsey, 2011)

Second, the ISD process takes time and resources. By definition, it is a multi-step process, and to
do it properly requires an investment of hours and, in most cases, financial resources to
compensate staff. (Sims and Jones, 2002)

The drawbacks to using ISD, however, are often offset by the benefits that have been
consistently demonstrated in varied scenarios. First of all, it is true that the process has multiple
steps and requires time and money, but good instructional design can end up saving time and
money in the long run. An instructional design program that meets its objectives will result in a
more efficient, better-trained team that understands the goals of the organization and knows how
to achieve them.

Secondly, an instructional design process that is implemented properly and well-documented

will provide tangible evidence of whether the organization is meeting its objectives.

My recommendation is that the organization continue its use of ISD, with some adjustments that
will improve the process. First, I believe that the organization should explicitly document and
detail all of the steps of the ADDIE model - analysis, development, design, implementation,
evaluation.

Secondly, I recommend that the organization add a supplementary model to its instructional
design, which is sometimes called pebble-in-the-pond instructional design. (Reiser and
Dempsey, 2011) This model uses a task-centric framework by specifying a whole task that the
learner needs to complete subsequent to instruction. Below is a diagram of this model, along
with brief explanation of each ripple, or step, of the model.
 1. Specify the whole task that learners should be able to perform
2. Identify a progression of tasks of increasing complexity that will indicate mastery of the
desired skill.
3. Identify the skill components needed to perform each task of the progression.
4. Decide on an instructional strategy that will enable learners to complete the task
progression.
5. Develop the interface.
6. Evaluate the process.

It should be emphasized that this model does not replace the ADDIE model, but will supplement
it.

I remain at your disposal to consult and advise as needed.

Best,

Kelleth Chinn

References:
Reiser and Dempsey, 2011, Trends and Issues in Instructional Technology
Sims and Jones, 2002, Continuous Improvement Through Shared Understanding:
Reconceptualising Online Learning