Portfolio #1-1: Chapter 1, Using an ISD Process

As I approached the writing of this paper, it was with two personal goals in mind. As Chapter 1 provides an excellent overview of traditional positioning for successful Instructional Design, I began to want to closely correlate the information from the text to the reality I am experiencing – in searching for, interviewing for, and ideally, continuing a career path in – the world of Instructional Design. Like others of my peers, the MCTE 628 course, as well as most of the Nova MCTE courses, provides much in the way of enabling the student to connect one’s course of study with one’s work arena.

Specifically, I have postponed the actual completion of this writing until I had finalized one activity, which was my very recent interview with Hewlett Packard, in Loveland, Colorado. The position is for an Instructional Designer with the department that works with their CD-ROM R/W – Read/Rewrite storage equipment. For purposes of comparison, it was necessary for me to develop an understanding of what the term "Instructional Designer" meant to a department within the second largest computer supplier in the world. (Hewlett Packard, 1998).

Seels and Glasgow, in Chapter 1, very quickly pointed to two very important issues that I’ve personally encountered in several instructional design projects. They report that "the success of the analysis will depend on the designer’s skills in focusing the SMEs (subject matter experts) on the instructional goal and extracting the relevant information about what tasks or content must be learned in pursuit of that goal." (Seels & Glasgow, 1998, p. 10). They continue in saying that "information from the analysis phase forms the foundation for the design phase." (p. 11). The impact of this chapter, then, became a new learning experience for me, as I immediately began to explore methods that I had previously learned, and started comparing them against the rest of the chapter’s information, as well as research done for this portion of our class.

The impact of this was that I realized that every step of the ISD process must ultimately reflect back to the initial analysis process. Every step of the design, development, implementation, and evaluation will be molded by the information successfully gleaned in the analysis procedures. From the text, we see that the initial skill needed by the designer is NOT, for instance, a technical or academic skill, but a "people" skill that demands that the designer communicate on a deep level in order to help the SME define the project goals. As with many areas of technical writing, for instance, this ability to help and clarify the communications process is one very important beginning step in translating subject matter known to just a few … into a structure that is usable by many. One of the best examples I can think of is the average "user’s manual." The successful manual (and we all are familiar with the 100s that are NOT successful!) is, in itself, a miniature ISD model – whereupon persons with limited knowledge of a given base of information draw upon the expertise of someone who is an expert. The successful project lies in the realm of the writer/designer/architect, who managed to gain a more personal look into deep knowledge or expertise, and developed a frame that was useful to learners.

As students of ISD, Chapter 1 and specifically the concentrated information in Table 1.5: A Comparison of Interests and Goals of Researchers and Practitioners, and Table 1.6: Role Profiles: ISD Researcher and ISD Practitioner, (pp. 24-25), are particularly necessary in developing a foundation of theory and history. For those of us whose pathways have already included some form of instructional design, the tables help to give us a mental map of things we’ve incorporated in the workplace. They also give us a concise map for areas that could use some extra development within our work products. For example, if our design work is:

• headed for instructional material that will be CBT in nature;
• course development destined for certification purposes; or,
• training materials being designed to include scoring and assessment capabilities for various forms of standards;

… then, this very precise structure for ISD is excellent. It is my opinion that the ISD process will probably always follow the precepts that are given in the text.

In our era of new media and an almost limitless amount of knowledge that is accessible, a new "mind-set" is developing concerning, for instance, standardized instruction, with an iron-clad description of being "able to deliver instruction the same way every day." (p. 18). If we seriously ponder where learning environments are headed – down to the very setting that we, as Nova students, experience – we MUST ask if this is STILL a prime goal for instructional design?

First, it seems to me that the very character of ISD lies in the fact that its history lies OUTSIDE of the educational system. (p. 18). This, in itself, almost describes the collaborative environment of the burgeoning arena of distance or online learning environments – all of which have been heavily influenced by ISD, or at least incorporate the components that make up a successful delivery system for instruction, learning, or training.

When we begin to break down the elements of traditional ISD, for instance, one glaring commodity is always the first to surface. "What will this cost?" This is almost the battle cry of educational institutions as they face new technologies and begin to plan for creating and maintaining the best possible instructional environments. This is addressed in the cost analysis phase. The main question still remains: How may this instructional tool be delivered:

1. most cost-effectively;
2. repeatedly; and,
3. to the greatest number of learners? (p. 19).

In my research for the HP interview, I found that interesting approaches are being developed by corporations, which expand across the board from "corporate-think" to the educational arena. One HP consultant observed that information technology (IT) has been transfigured in just the space of a decade into a workgroup- and personal computing-centered function, with a focus on adding value in "real time." (Moore, 1999).

My first experience with the changing nature of instructional systems design, as well as the new tendency to incorporate training into a Web-based setting, was my recent Project Lead with Lucent Technologies. From May to October of 1998, I developed an interactive website that delivered training and informational materials to technicians worldwide. The project was derived from instructional content that previously was delivered (also via the Internet) in a scrollable PDF file. Lucent’s desire was to "excavate" this file, which was utilized by few (a long, scrolling document is difficult to control or use), and develop an interactive, task-based website. The overlying goal was to deliver technical information and instruction for equipment use, in a navigable form via the Web. The format intentionally was never laid out in a traditional ISD manner. Because of the availability of the Internet and its research capabilities, this model was never locked into "the same instruction each and every time" description. Yet, all the while, I could see the possibilities of re-constructing certain areas of the content to meet the needs for testing or evaluation. It was important for me to see that this large corporation desired to take advantage of the strengths of new media, all the while leaving standard ISD possibilities open for future expansion of the learning environment.

Further research for this writing revealed that the change to Web-based delivery has been constant for quite some time, worldwide. David Marshall and Stephen Hurley of the University of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom, in their paper, "Delivering Hypertext-based Courseware on the World-Wide-Web," state that:

"The use of computers to provide an integrated environment for teaching a variety of disciplines has received much attention in recent years. Indeed many frameworks [this writer’s substitution: models] have been developed for such purposes. The material provided by such courseware varies greatly from the provision of lecture notes and lecture support material through to integrated and interactive tutorial packages. Until recently courseware has existed as stand alone packages; however, with the advent of the World Wide Web (WWW) on the Internet and accompanying WWW (hypertext) browsers, such as Netscape … the provision of courseware has taken on a whole new dimension." (Marshall & Hurley, 1999).

Interestingly, this new dimension included one of their initial, calculated goals. A primary goal was that the courseware could be used to sustain a variety of courses, including undergraduate degree programs in computer science, physics, all branches of engineering, mathematics and electronics, as well as training courses run by computer service departments. The challenge of designing the learning materials for such a diverse group was to make the materials accessible to all classes of users, and yet maintain a high degree of "specialism." The authors translated this to mean extremely pertinent and individualized training materials. (Marshall & Hurley, 1999).

Whether the learning environment is CBT-based, or delivered via Internet/Intranet, the ISD process involved for digital settings has taken on new directives that don’t DENY traditional methods but alter them to fit new learning means and methods. The IT community (and this will include most, if not all, instructional designers) has bent over backward to accomplish one goal, which is: "The closer to the end user, the more powerful the return." (Moore, 1999). This is because when response time goes down, quality goes up and costs go down. For the new IT, the first and primary commission is to create a communications system able to bring critical information to the end user in real time.

THIS is the element that, largely, is not described in our text. This "missing link" is exactly what I am describing, in wanting to include information gleaned from an interview at HP, and what that means for instructional design, in general. In the up-to-two years that it has taken from the time of the writing of this text, to today – the preferred methods of design and delivery have changed.

It is my opinion that the line between Researcher and Practitioner is becoming hazy. The instructional designer can no longer look to descriptions found in resources such as Chapter 1 and use only those parameters. Ironically, the "Practitioner" must then become also a "Researcher," in order to maintain a fully developed set of design skills. She or he must turn to the delivery system in order to design that which will be delivered – the instructional product. In other words, one must turn to the Internet to glean further information, in order to be able to effectively construct a learning architecture that will also be Web- or Internet-based. Our text almost timidly states that "as a designer, you can progress further along your career path if you are aware of the research associated with each step." (Seels & Glasgow, 1998, p. 25). This, after stating flatly that it is important to distinguish between the two roles! I thought this was a neatly inserted "open-door" by the authors, that would encompass all-things-digital – which, even at this 1997-98 writing, had to be inescapably apparent!

Each of us involved in instructional design will eventually participate in both roles. If, in the first 40 years of the discipline of instructional systems design, (p. 25) the processes were divided into two roles, I strongly feel that the next 40 years (or less!) will bring the processes closer to a more holistic approach – just as the collaborative setting of learning is becoming more holistic. Sheer availability will provide much in the way of allowing the practitioner to assume more responsibility for researching both content and means for more effectively reaching design goals.

The authors’ concern for stagnation of this field (p. 25) due to less theoretical progress (the researcher’s undertaking), seems, to me, quite invalid – given new IT’s unfathomable possibilities! What I have observed in this past year of involvement in ID projects is that more final products will be Internet-based. Designers are being called upon to be personally informed concerning the research leading up to the final product, as well as knowledgeable in the actual design of the product. To effectively design the instructional environment, the designer must be familiar with not just the content and the architecture he/she is creating, but also the architecture of the delivery system. All of these must be taken into account. All of these must be nurtured as skills within ONE designer. This will strengthen the individual as well as a team effort.

My concern – and reason for wanting to include my reactions to the Hewlett Packard interview – is that the goals for learning, learning environments, and thus, Instructional Design, are changing as rapidly as the technologies that are driving them. As quickly as a conclusive textbook can be copyrighted and distributed, it has many portions that are no longer up-to-date. Tables 1.5 and 1.6 provide much information concerning the generic ISD Model and the roles of researcher and practitioner as "specialties" of the Instructional Designer. In the past year, I have worked with two instructional design projects. It is my experience that the current requirements are leaning heavily toward Web-based instruction and training. This incorporates a broad view of "Internet" environments such as a company’s Intranet, as well as password-protected Internet-deployed training sites. For this very reason, I anticipated that my interview (01/22/99) with Hewlett Packard would confirm many of my observations of the past year.

Traditional ISD will, and must, change. This change, in my opinion, will begin with the role description for the instructional designer. (pp. 23-24).

We are entering an era where it is no longer feasible to treat the learner as if the only thing expected is a verbatim delivery of "things learned." It is not just "required behavior" that will propel the future of technology, education, and commerce. Higher skills of deep thinking will be required. In Marshall and Hurley’s paper on Web-based courseware, they described their use of the "ASSURE" model for ISD. This was developed by Heinich, Molinda and Russels: Analyze Learners, State Objectives, Select Media and Materials, Utilize Media and Materials, Require Learner Participation, Evaluate and Revise. They also utilized Gagné's sequence of Instructional Events (based on the hypothesized sequence of internal stages of information processing acquired from studies of cognitive processes). For me, the most important statement these authors made was that they didn’t intend to provide a prescriptive design model. Instead, they attempted to provide a framework based on well-grounded instructional strategies within which it would be possible for individual course designers to develop an exchange about design strategies. The tools provide a common ground for collaboration. (Marshall & Hurley, 1999).

In my opinion, if I have glaringly misinterpreted the scope of events of the past year or so – then, companies such as Hewlett Packard and Lucent Technologies would be widely developing training content in much more traditional ISD manners. They are not doing that. As with many other instances, those of us in the broad arena of education MUST look to the business world while developing the tools of education. This is the only manner in which we can train young learners to participate in the real time world they will soon inherit.

Hewlett Packard. (1998). HP press release - IDG Books Worldwide to publish new "Hewlett-Packard Press" series. Modified: July 23, 1998. Original press release: Foster City, CA, June 15, 1998. [Online]. Available: http://www.hp.com/pressrel/jun98/15jun98p.htm

Marshall, David, and Hurley, Stephen. (1999). Delivering Hypertext-based Courseware on the World-Wide-Web. Abstract and paper. Accessed: Jan. 1999. [Online]. Available: http://medoc.springer.de:8000/jucs_2_12/delivering_hypertext_based_courseware/html/paper.html

Moore, Geoffrey A. (1999). Lessons from IT: patient-centered, provider-focused systems. Hewlett Packard Web Journal: HP in Healthcare. Modified: Jan. 14, 1999. [Online]. Available: http://www.hp.com/mpg/moore3.html [http://www.hp.com/mpg/news/]

Seels, Barbara, and Glasgow, Zita. Making Instructional Design Decisions. Ed.: Debra Stollenwerk. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1998.

 .