Amanda Reid
Assignment 2: Developing a Customized ISD Model
ITED-501 Texas A&M University-Texarkana
Due: Monday 28 September 2009
Reid, Amanda
Page 1 of 8
Learning or the transfer of knowledge takes place in a variety of settings. The majority of the
United States population has had the opportunity to attend school and has obtained specific training for
employment. Even though the setting differs among academia and business training settings they both
share the common variable of having the need to design their materials and methods for transferring
knowledge to their attendees. Many use a process called instructional design. Instructional design is a
systematic process that is creative, active, and interactive that is used to develop education and training
programs in a consistent and reliable fashion (Reiser & Dempsey, 2007). In other words, this is simply a
system or model composed of different elements that work together to design or create a
learning/training program. Even though there are several different theories on the most affective
instructional design model most include the core elements or phases of analysis, design, development,
implementation, and evaluation (Reiser & Dempsey, 2007). A popular model that includes all of these
core elements is called the ADDIE ISD model. These core elements should be present in an instructional
design system to be the most effective in either setting. The makeup of what is included within the core
elements varies from model to model. The model’s elements should be structured to allow for the best
instructional design for their programs needs. Due to needs being different the instructional design
models will be unique.
My future employer, The United States Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), provides the
United States Army with training for the troops and the civilian that support the troops. TRADOC’s
mission is to develop the soldier and civilian leaders by designing, developing and integrating concepts
and doctrine to build a campaign-capable expeditionary Army in support of joint war fighting (Army U.
S., 2009). This simply means to prepare the Army’s soldier and civilian for war. To complete this mission
TRADOC uses an instructional design model, The Army’s Systems Approach to Training, which includes
the five core elements listed previously. The following describes my personal instruction design model
Reid, Amanda
Page 2 of 8
based on the Army’s already set model and the ADDIE model. The personal model is formed around
what I foresee myself using along side of the Army’s model to produce the best training programs
possible.
MacAllister (2004) states that the Army’s System Approach to Training process is flexible,
efficient, and effective system engineering approach to developing training and education to the solider
and civilian. The Army’s System Approach was adopted by the Department of defense in the mid
1970’s. The army recognized a need to design training differently and contracted Florida State University
to develop the instructional design model which was then implemented in all the services of the
Department of Defense (MacAllister, 2004). This model is now required to be used by all commands and
agencies within the Department of Defense when developing training. The regulations for Army training
and education can be found in Army Regulation 350-1 and TRADOC Regulation 350-70. The following
will discuss the five different phases of the Army’s System Approach that I will be required to use as
member of the TRADOC command and how it relates to my personal idea of an ISD model.
The Army’s System Approach involves five related phases; analysis, design, development,
implementation, and evaluation or control (Army D. o. D., 2008). The Army Regulation does not require
the phases to be completed in the listed order, but when creating new training materials and programs
the first stage is evaluation, then followed by analysis, design, development, and lastly implementation
(Army D. o. D., 2008). The Army’s evaluation phase when creating new training involves reviewing the
reasons behind creating training and if there is a real need for the training. After the initial evaluation,
evaluations found in and after all phases to ensure that all training is effective in producing well trained
soldiers and civilians (Army D. o. D., 2008). This phase of the Army’s System Approach is also used as a
follow up to get an assessment of how well the training prepared learners to preform their assigned
duties after having a period of time to apply the knowledge used on the job (Army D. o. d.2004). This
Reid, Amanda
Page 3 of 8
follow up can be completed by using surveys, interviews, tests, observations, and by many other
methods of evaluation. Overall the Army’s System Approach evaluation phase is included to ensure
training is producing qualified workers to the best of its ability. The Army ISD model follows a slightly
different format by implementing the evaluation phase first. The initial phase in my personal model is
the analysis phase. In this phase the need for the training is assessed. The designers also assess the
audience, the job/task, and the content that the training will require. This gives the designers a good
idea of why they have be given the task to design training.
The second or next phase of the Army’s instructional design model is the analysis phase. As
states previously this is the first stage in my personal model. Dempsey and Reiser state that this phase
includes conducting a needs assessment and stating a goal (2007). The model designed for use within all
Department of Defense training uses this phase as a time to analyze the need for training more indepth
than the evaluation stage, to analyze the mission set for the training, and to analyze the job task that
the training will help improve (Army D. o.d, 2008). The facts gathered during the previous phase are
used to make informed training development decisions, and allows Instructional Systems specialist to
move into the next phase of design (Army D. o.d, 2004). Even though the Army completes this stage
second it is very similar the the first stage the ADDIE model and my personal model.
Design in my opinion is one of the most important phases of the model. During this phase, the
second phase of my personal model, is when the foundation of the training is developed. Within the
Army’s Systems Approach design uses the information collected in the evaluation and analysis, if
building new training, to help the training program to take shape and to help develop learning
objectives (Overview of the systematic approach to training, 2004). This compares with my personal
model by using the information found in the analysis phase to help create the objectives of the training.
This is a major element of creating quality training. These objectives should be statements that clearly
Reid, Amanda
Page 4 of 8
define when, what, and how well the learner must perform during training. The objectives are what
the learner should gain or be able to do upon completion the training. Instructional designers must
consider how to motivate the learners to meet the learning objectives. After analyzing the learners the
designers can now set forth a plan to help ensure motivation will occur. Also in this phase evaluation
instruments are produced that meet the needs of the the learning objectives. After the design of the
learning objectives the phase of development can begin.
When creating new training the following phase of development can commence once the
learning objectives have been stated. The idea of this phase is to prepare student and instructor
materials to meet the needs of the objectives set in the design phase. According to the Army Regulation
350-1 (2008), this phase entails writing, producing, validating, reproducing training material, training
the instructors, preparing the learning environment, and locating any additional resources needed . This
is also true for my personal isd model. During this phase the training is being to take form by forming
materials for both student and instructor. Once the materials are designed it is key to train the
instructor on how to use these materials in the learning environment set for them. It is very important
that all measures taken during this phase meet the needs of the learning objectives created previously.
Once the learning materials have been produced to meet the objectives it is now time to
implement the use of the materials. During this phase of both models learners are now present
receiving the training. Within the Department of Defense according to the Army Regulations the course
is scheduled during this phase along with distributing materials, completing the actual training,
administering exams, and following up with the student (Army D. o. D., 2008). I find scheduling to be a
key role in implementing the training. Scheduling allows for students to have the opportunity to take
part in the learning by setting when and where the instruction will take place. The actual presentation of
the training will take place and evaluation of the learning objectives will be assessed. Results from the
Reid, Amanda
Page 5 of 8
assessments will provide rapid feedback for the student and instructor. My personal isd model will allow
for further evaluation.
Unlike the Army’s ISD model, my personal model includes the evaluation phase as the final stage
of the training. During this stage the outcomes of the training program are evaluated This entails
reviewing how the students are using the training. Questions could be asked about how the training is
helping employees better complete their assigned task or how is the training benefiting the company.
This evaluation can change from setting to setting, but the main goal is to review the training to make
any changes that will allow for improvement in the program.
In summary, the Army’s Systems Approach to training closely follows many other instructional
design models, including my personal idea of what an ISD model should include. Both are composed of
the five phases of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The implemention of
the fives phases vary somewhat, but overall my personal IDS follows the same idea as the one required
by the Army. The organization that I will be supporting in the near future, TRADOC, is the main force for
producing training to meet the needs of the Department of Defense. The way the organization functions
is regulated by Army Regulation 350-1 Army Training and Leader Development. On the following page a
visual display of my personal ISD model, Amanda’s Model, is displayed.
Reid, Amanda
Page 6 of 8
Amanda’s ISD Model-Modeled around the Army’s Systems Approach to Training ISD and ADDIE ISD
Models
Analysis
Design
Development
Implementation
Evaluation
-Is there a need for -What is the main
-What materials -Is there a
-What were the
the program?
mode of learning?
will be needed ? schedule in place outcomes of the
for the training?
training?
-What
-What is the
-How will the
characteristics are
structure of the
material become -Do the students -How are the
needed from the
training/instruction? available to both have access to
students
audience/learner?
instructor and
the materials?
implementing or
-What is the focal
student?
using the skills
-What Job/task is
point of training
-Instructor will
gained from the
the training going
activities?
-What needs to
deliver the
training?
to improve?
be done to
instruction to
-What learning
ensure
students.
-Does the training
-What content
objectives will be
instructor is
need to be
needs to be
evaluated?
knowledgeable
-What did the
redesigned to
included in the
on the
students gain?
better meet the
instruction?
-How will the
instruction?
Complete
needs of the
objectives be
evaluations to
job/task?
evaluated?
-Is the learning
measure if the
environment
learning
-How will the
prepared and
objectives were
instruction motivate
well equipped
met.
learners to include
for learning to
themselves in the
take place?
-Provide initial
learning process?
feedback for
students.
-Need
-Learner
Characteristics
-Job/task skills
needed
-Content to
produce skills
Reid, Amanda
Page 7 of 8
-Mode of learning
-Structure
-Focal Point
-Objectives
-Evaluation tools
-Learner motivation
Basic Overview
-Materials
-Instructor
Training
-Environment
-Time/Place for
training
-Material Access
-Complete
Instruction
-Test/Evaluation
-Initial feedback
-Outcomes
-Skill
implementation
-Training
redesign
-
Works Cited
Army, Department of Defense. (2008, August 3). Army Training and Leader Development. Retrieved
September 24, 2009, from Offical Department of the Army Publications and Forms:
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r350_1.pdf
U.S. Army (2009, September 1). U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Retrieved September 24,
2009, from www.usarmy.mil/tradoc: http://www.tradoc.army.mil/about.htm
MacAllister, D. E. (2004). The army's systems approach to training. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine
Command.
Army, Department of Defense(2004, October 4)Overview of the systematic approach to training.
Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Acquisition Community Connection:
https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=31224&lang=en-US
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology.
Columbus: Ohio.
Reid, Amanda
Page 8 of 8