A White Paper
Instructional Systems Design
by Base Corp Learning Systems
for
SaskPower
February 2004
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 1 of 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DESCRIBE ISD WHITE PAPER ....................................................................... 3
PURPOSE ....................................................................................................... 3
RESEARCH AND WRITING TEAM ............................................................................. 3
ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................. 3
EXPECTED OUTCOMES ........................................................................................ 3
ISD DESCRIBED ............................................................................................ 4
HISTORY OF ISD .............................................................................................. 4
WHAT IS A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH? ....................................................................... 4
CRITICISMS OF A SYSTEMS APPROACH ..................................................................... 5
ADVANTAGES OF A SYSTEMS APPROACH ................................................................... 5
AN OVERVIEW OF ISD MODELS .................................................................... 7
THE DICK AND CAREY MODEL ............................................................................... 7
THE MOORE AND KEARSLEY MODEL ........................................................................ 7
MORRISON, ROSS & KEMP MODEL ......................................................................... 8
THE GENTRY MODEL .......................................................................................... 8
THE GERLASH & ELY MODEL ................................................................................ 9
THE SEELS AND GLASGOW MODEL ....................................................................... 10
WHAT THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON ...................................................................... 10
THE ADDIE MODEL ........................................................................................ 11
SOME ALTERNATIVES TO A SYSTEMS APPROACH ........................................................ 12
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ISD MODEL AT SASKPOWER ............................... 13
THE SASKPOWER ISD MODEL ............................................................................ 13
RATIONALE FOR THE SASKPOWER ISD MODEL ........................................................ 14
CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. 15
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................... 16
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 2 of 17
DESCRIBE ISD WHITE PAPER
Purpose
The purpose of the following white paper "Instructional Systems Design" is to
provide a tool that will outline the fundamental theories and practices of Instructional
Systems Design (ISD) and provide an understanding and appreciation of the
implementation of these theories and practices in a corporate training environment.
Research and Writing Team
Each member of the Base Corp Learning Systems research team is an experienced
and thoughtful academic as well as practitioner in the areas of learning and
technology. Many of our staff have Masters level educations in the area of
instructional design and are well grounded in the theories and concepts that underlie
ISD.
Assumptions
This paper assumes awareness of:
 some learning and training fundamentals in corporate learning environments,
 learning technologies for corporate training,
 current corporate training requirements,
 organizational change implications, and
 workplace culture.
Expected Outcomes
The expected outcomes of this white paper are:
 To assist learners to be able to identify and describe the main principles of
ISD.
 To provide learners with a means to identify and describe the major ISD
models
 To provide learners with a means to identify and describe the ISD model used
at SaskPower.
 To provide a rationale for the use of the SaskPower ISD model.
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 3 of 17
ISD DESCRIBED
History of ISD
The instructional systems design (ISD) model, evolved from post World War II
military research. The US military sought to design an effective and manageable
way to design training programs, which led to the first ISD models being developed
and taught in the late 1960’s by the US military and the Center for Educational
Technology at Florida State University (Krause, 2004).
Since then, ISD models have had a number of champions in the academic world,
most notably Walter Dick and Lou Carey, who wrote the authoritative work on the
subject, The Systematic Design of Instruction (1978). There are a number of other
academics who have championed ISD models, including Kearsley & Moore, Morrison,
Ross & Kemp and Gagne.
What is a Systematic Approach?
A system is defined as “A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent
elements forming a complex whole” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2003). A
systematic approach can then be seen as an approach that consists of many
interrelated, interacting or independent elements that form a process. Each part of a
system consists of inputs, outputs, processes, and feedback.
In an ISD context, this means that an input, such as a desire to design instruction, is
subjected to a process such as a needs analysis and then subjected to evaluation or
validation to get feedback. This process then results in a number of instructional
goals, which then become the input for the next part of the system, designing the
curriculum.
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 4 of 17
Criticisms of a Systems Approach
There are a number of criticisms that have arisen in regards to applying a systems
approach of instructional design. Many critics believe that the process is too focused
on individual parts and not holistic enough (Reiber, 2003). They argue that learning
is greater than the sum of its parts and that by following a very focused ISD model,
designers risk having instruction that is narrow minded and that does not give a
holistic view of the concept being taught.
Other critics argue that a systems approach is too behavior based (Reiber, 2003).
Its emphasis is on “doing” instruction rather than thinking, processing and
assimilating information. This criticism, however, may actually be of great
advantage to some organizations, depending on the type of instruction that is being
designed. Another criticism that stems from the above argument is the idea that in
ISD, the path to good learning is through refining and improving instruction (Reiber)
rather than providing meaningful learning experiences.
The final major criticism of using a systems approach is that it often emphasizes
covering instructional content rather than making meaning (Reiber, 2003). Critics
argue that using an ISD model makes designers prone to “cathedral building,” that
is, cramming in more instructional content that can be meaningful to learners simply
because there is such a large amount of instructional material to cover.
Advantages of a Systems Approach
Those who advocate a systems approach argue that there are a number of reasons
that learning is most effective when a systems model is applied.
The primary benefit of using an ISD model is that the logical progression of steps
allows the instructional design process to be more effective and efficient for
companies (Molenda, 2003). Each part of the system is followed precisely so that its
output results in the input of the subsequent part of the system, resulting in a
smooth flow of information throughout the entire process.
Another advantage of the ISD model is that it does not emphasize any component
over another (Dick & Carey, 1990). It can be compared to Ford’s division of labor
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 5 of 17
concepts; each part of the system, though independent of the others, is integral to
the system and the successful achievement of the goal.
Other advocates point out that learning itself is a systems model, with the learners,
teachers, instructional content and learning environment as the main components
that interact to achieve their goal of learning (Dick & Carey, 1990). These elements
are then evaluated, students are given feedback, and the process begins again with
different content. They argue that since learning itself is a system, it is most logical
to design instruction in the same way.
Another advantage of ISD models of design is that they tend to produce instruction
that is very focused with a strongly developed progression between each item that is
taught (Dick & Carey, 1990). In other words, “Instruction does not consist of a range
of activities, only some of which may be related to what is to be learned” (p. 7).
Some critics feel this is a drawback of the model, while others feel this specificity can
be beneficial to many learners.
Perhaps the most important advantage of the ISD model for a corporate environment
is the fact that it is an empirical and replicable process (Dick & Carey, 1990).
Instruction is developed in a way that produces modular units that can be delivered
over and over again. It is also relatively easy to modify and apply these instructional
modules based on the specific needs of the individual institution or organization.
Finally, the ISD model of instruction is beneficial because it allows for objectives
based learning. This means that an ISD model allows instructional designers to
focus on goals (what the learner needs to know) and all subsequent steps in the
process are performed to support that goal. There is a substantial body of research
to support objectives based learning as an effective method of teaching.
These arguments for the effectiveness of a systems based model of instructional
design are compelling, however, perhaps the most impressive argument for the use
of this type of system is the fact that practice has proven its effectiveness time and
time again. Since the initial development of ISD in the late 1960’s there have been
literally hundreds of individual models established and applied in a wide variety of
learning environments, and even today, the various ISD models are still taught and
implemented on a regular basis.
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 6 of 17
AN OVERVIEW OF ISD MODELS
The Dick and Carey Model
Developed by Walter Dick and Lou Carey (1978), this model is widely accepted as
the most popular ISD model today. Their 9 step model is shown below:
The Moore and Kearsley Model
Greg Kearsley and Michael Moore (1996) designed the Systems Model for Distance
Education. This model is widely used when designing distance education and/or
computer based instruction.
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 7 of 17
Morrison, Ross & Kemp Model
The Morrison, Ross and Kemp model (2001) is an evolution of the original Jarrod
Kemp model. The center circle outlines a set of sequential tasks that begin with the
identification of an instructional problem. The two circles surrounding these
elements are tasks that the authors believe should be ongoing in the ISD process.
The Gentry Model
The Gentry ISD model (1994) outlines both a development process (on the left) and
components that support those processes (on the right). Gentry proposes that
supporting components should shape the developmental components through
effective and frequent communication. This model is unique in that it leans more
towards a business perspective than a strictly pedagogical one.
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 8 of 17
The Gerlash & Ely Model
The Gerlash and Ely model (1980) is a fairly simple systems flowchart that outlines a
sequential process of ISD design. It emphasizes the importance of having
interrelated instructional content and objectives, determining entry competencies,
and using feedback to revise the entire process.
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 9 of 17
The Seels and Glasgow Model
This model outlines a number of clustered components that make up ISD. Note that
the clusters and directional arrows mean that implementation maintenance and
summative evaluation only influence the material development and formative
evaluation cluster (Seels & Glasgow, 1998). This model is unique in that it proposes
that all steps that come before this do not need to be revised based on either
formative or summative evaluation.
What They All Have in Common
Each of these instructional design models was based on the same general ISD
model: ADDIE. ADDIE is an acronym for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement and
Evaluate. The ADDIE model is used almost synonymously with ISD and has evolved
from the main concept areas from the original ISD model created by Florida State
University and the US military.
Though the acronym ADDIE implies that these steps are sequential, that is not
entirely true. In most ADDIE based ISD models, the Evaluation component is
ongoing throughout the entire process. Formative evaluation and validation is
performed during the analyze, design, develop and implementation phases, while
summative evaluation is gathered at the end of the project. Therefore, rather than
looking like this:
The ADDIE model actually more closely resembles this:
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 10 of 17
The ADDIE Model
Each of the five components of the ADDIE model has a specific defined purpose that
drives the ISD process. Donald Clark (1995) has written extensively on ADDIE and
has elaborated on the components contained within each of the five processes:
Analyze
Analyze the current state of the system and describe the goals you wish to achieve in
order to fulfill the needs of the system. This is usually accomplished by:






Analyzing the system to understand it completely.
Identifying all the tasks associated with each job within the system.
Selecting which tasks need to be trained.
Identifying performance measures for the tasks to be trained.
Choosing instructional settings.
Estimating costs for the training process.
Design
Design a model or methodology to achieve the goals identified. Steps in this process
often involve:





Developing learning objectives for the tasks.
Listing the learning steps that will need to be taught to perform the task.
Developing performance assessment tools to measure competency.
Identifying required entry knowledge or behaviors.
Sequencing the learning objectives (based on level of ease and/or
prerequisite knowledge).
Develop
Develop courseware based on the perceived need and identified model or
methodology. Do this by:
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 11 of 17






Listing activities that will allow learners to understand the task.
Selecting a delivery method.
Reviewing existing materials.
Developing the courseware.
Compiling the courseware into a training program.
Validating the training program.
Implement
Implement the courseware in a training environment.


Create or implement a management plan for the training.
Conduct the training.
Evaluate
Evaluate the instructional materials and resources throughout the ISD process to
ensure that it is meeting the identified goals. This is best accomplished by:



Reviewing and validating at each of the previous stages.
Doing an external summative evaluation
Revising the instructional content based on the evaluations.
Some Alternatives to a Systems Approach
Though systems approaches have been widely used recently in ISD design, there are
other approaches that an instructional designer can employ. These approaches
include:
Elaboration Theory
When an instructor starts with one “snapshot” of content and then slowly begins to
address detail bit by bit. It is essentially a method of looking at instruction from a
holistic perspective and then addressing details bit by bit (whether or not they are
related details or not).
Rapid Prototyping
Rapid prototyping is a method that has very little planning. In essence, the
instructional designer simply creates what they think is the best instruction for an
instructional need and the implementation and evaluation phases highlight errors to
be corrected.
Constructivism
Constructivists believe that there is no such thing as a “blank slate”. When using
this method, instructional designers may employ an ISD approach, but then spend a
great deal of time linking the instructional cotent to students’ prior knowledge.
Constructivism is all about linking, both in terms of content, and instructional design.
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 12 of 17
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ISD MODEL AT SASKPOWER
The SaskPower ISD Model
The IDS model applied as SaskPower stems directly from the ADDIE model. The five
core components – analyze, design, develop, implement and evaluation – are
addressed in sequence through a detailed process that has been tailored to the
specific needs of SaskPower.
Get picture from Dave Braun (pg. 2 of SaskPower “Systems Approach to Training
Planning Worksheet” called “The Training Cycle”)
Like many of the other ISD models, the SaskPower model emphasizes a process of
inputs and outputs that directly influence each other. Refer to the “Systems
Approach to Training Planning Worksheet” (Braun, 2002) for more detail on this
model.
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 13 of 17
Rationale for the SASKPower ISD Model
The SaskPower ISD model is a holistic approach to ISD planning. There are a
number of advantages to the model that make it a sound tool for use in ISD
projects:
1. The model is based on the extensively researched Addie Model. This model has
also stood the test of time in terms of useful and practical application.
2. The model is still customized to SaskPower. It is tailored to the specific needs of
SaskPower and as such, makes it a more relevant and practical model.
3. The model is easy to apply. The flowchart and linear structure give a logical
progression through the ISD steps, and there are not too many components to
make it overwhelming.
4. The model was designed with SaskPower’s fundamental beliefs about ISD in
mind. It is relevant and applicable to other important ISD concepts such as
competency-based learning and change management theories.
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 14 of 17
CONCLUSION
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 15 of 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Heritage Dictionary (2000). Dictionary of the English language. Retrieved
Monday, February 9, 2004 from http://www.dictionary.com
Braun, D. (2002). Systems Approach to Training Planning Worksheet.
Clark, D. (1995). Instructional Systems Design. Retrieved Monday, February 9, 2004
from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat1.html
Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1990). The systematic design of instruction. (3rd ed.).
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Gentry, C. G. (1994). Introduction to instructional development: Process and
technique. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Gerlach, V. & Ely, D.P (1980). Teaching & media: A systematic approach. (2nd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Incorporated.
Krause, K. (2004). Introduction to instructional design and the ADDIE model.
Retrieved Monday, February 9, 2004 from http://www.elearningguru.com/articles/art2_1.htm
Molenda, M. (2003). The ADDIE model. Retrieved Monday, February 9, 2004 from
http://www.indiana.edu/~mmweb98/The%20ADDIE%20Model3_Web.doc
Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. New York:
Wadsworth Publishing.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E. (2001). Designing effective instruction. (3rd
ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Reiber, L. (2003). Instructional design. Retrieved Monday, February 9, 2004 from
http://www.arches.uga.edu/%7Elrieber/edit6170/ppt/alternatives-sum03.ppt
Rothwell, W. & Kazanas, H. (1992). Mastering the instructional design process. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Seels, B. and Glasgow, Z. (1998). Making instructional design decisions, second
edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 16 of 17
AUTHORS
Base Corp Learning Systems
Ken Flesher, M.Ed.
780.732-2273 (x. 226)
kflesher@basecorp.com
Kim Peacock, B.Ed.
780.732-2273
kpeacock@basecorp.com
Base Corp Learning Systems
Page 17 of 17