This semester I am taking a class called “Introduction to Instructional Design”. We are stepping through Dick, Carey & Carey’s textbook The Systematic Design of Instruction. The book examines the Dick and Carey model of instruction in detail. Here’s a diagram of that model (click the picture to see a larger version):

As with all models of instruction, the diagram shouldn’t be interpreted as a lock-step process. It is pretty fluid, you can go back and forth between steps as needed. The main points I take from the model is that you do constant analysis to ensure the instruction you develop is going to satisfy the instructional goal.

My degree program teaches instructional systems to people working in every sector: K-12 professionals, higher ed professionals, military folks and corporate professionals. Most of the corporate professionals develop training usually associated with HR, there aren’t many of us who do technical training. So while it’s good to have a map to ensure the effort and expense put develop training isn’t wasted, I have to wonder if this model is agile enough for a fast-moving technical education organization.

There are other instructional models that were developed specifically for technical instruction. Maybe I’ll write a post on that another day, it would be interesting to see if one has been developed to specifically fit in with Agile sprints and scrums.

We actually follow many of the steps in this model. One thing I (as a courseware developer) think we are missing is the learner and context evaluation. We use program managers to get that information to us from the managers of the students. Those managers deliver what they think the students should be able to do after consuming training, which is very important. It helps us set the correct performance objectives. But I have never been seen any learner or context analysis.

I can write courseware all day long, but if the students are starting from a different place than I thought they were, or if they can never get to training because they are too busy, does it matter how well the instruction is missing?

The biggest concern I have about the Dick & Carey model in a fast-moving technical area is that it takes alot of time to do the Analysis. The way we are learning this model, you have to be in the same room with learners to do the analysis and formative or summative evaluations. That would never fly with us, people at our company are just too busy. Not only that, but traveling all over the place do the analysis is too expensive. Besides, by the time we got back and compiled all the data, there would be a new version of software and we’d have to start all over again.

Why couldn’t I form a small community to pull all these steps together? The analysis would be there for all the stakeholders. The students could pop in and participate in guided discussions so that I have a real analysis of what it will take to get them to where their managers want them to be. We could pilot the materials in the community and get real-time feedback.

I think I know the drawbacks: people are still too busy to participate. People don’t trust online communities. Do we really need this extra step.

What do you all think? Does the Dick & Carey model move to slowly to be relevant for a fast-moving technical organization? Could it be modified and modeled in an online community? Do we really need to do so much analysis?