MEMO

TO: Steve Smith, Director of Faculty Development Department

FROM: Cong Li
DATE: August 31, 2018
SUBJECT: Continue Using the ISD Model

Dear Mr. Smith,

From our last Quarterly Newsletter, I learned that the Faculty Development Department has
some concerns about continuing using the ISD model to conduct new faculty development
training sessions. As a foreign language instructor that benefits tremendously from the ISD
model, I would recommend that you weigh the pros and cons of the ISD model. Please also take
into consideration faculty feedback based on their previous experience with using the ISD model.

The biggest attract against the ISD model is the length of its process. As Gordon and Zemke
(2000) pointed out that the speed of designing instructions following the ISD model cannot catch
up with the ever-changing environment. Due to the various steps in the ISD model, from
conducting the initial needs assessment to delivering the final product, the content of the final
training product will become obsolete when it is finally delivered. Even though this argument
has its merits and is based on practicality, we also need to look at the characteristics of the
system that the ISD model employs. Branch (1996) defined instructional design as a system of
procedures for developing education and training materials in a consistent and reliable fashion.
The systematic feature of the ISD model ensures the quality of the training itself as well as the
measurable outcome. Even though a great instructional design is time-consuming, it provides its
audience with the efficient instruction that produces the effective performance.

Another criticism again the ISD model is the instructional design process being linear. Gordon
and Zemke (2000) criticized that the ISD model focuses on the training itself and carries out in a
step-by-step manner, instead of solving real problems. Most of the ISD models are portrayed as
starting from analysis, then proceed to design, development, implementation, and evaluation.
This could not be further from the truth. In fact, instructional design in real life is empirical,
iterative, and self-correcting (Reiser & Dempsey, 2017). When the result of the needs analysis
doesn’t match the original objectives, there will be no design or development. During the
development phase, the formative evaluation will either confirm the development is on the right
track or revision is required.

I hope you will consider my suggestions and I look forward to further discussing how to use the
ISD model more efficiently and effectively.

Regards,

Cong Li
 REFERENCE:
Branch, R. (1996). Instructional design as a response to the complexities of instruction. In
N. Venkataiah(Ed.), Educational technology (pp.21-49). New Delhi: S.B. Nangia for
APH Publishing Corporation.
Gordon, J., Zemke, R. (2000). The Attack on ISD. Training Magazine, Vol. 37, Iss. 4, pg. 46

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2017). Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology. Boston: Pearson Education.