Please Don’t Do ISD Without Analysis & Design!
Much of my writing in the Instructional Design arena is about CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design – which is a much larger scope than the typical event (or non-event) attempts to address for measured results – ability to perform back on the job and move certain needles certain directions. That makes the scope of the Analysis efforts – accomplished in a facilitated 3-day meeting for a CAD level of ISD! Or for the Design effort – accomplished in a facilitated 3-day meeting for the CAD level of ISD in the PACT Processes!
But what about the client’s focused need on some singular topic or task – and not the whole job?
You gather the same data as in a typical PACT effort for MCD – Modular Curriculum Development or for IAD – Instructional Activity Development efforts. You just do it all in a single setting of a shorter duration. The duration will of course depend on scope of the targeted effort which will impact the amount of Touch Time in Analysis, and in Design, and then in Development. I have sat down with a client for a 60 minute meeting that they then decided to continue for another 60 minutes and we accomplished “all but the development” in the RADD effort that structured my approach to quickie projects. Those of smaller scope.
Get clear about, aligned with, who is being targeted and to what performance ends (this could be “practiced” how?) and what they need to know besides rote task performance (I use 17 categories of knowledge/skill to sytematically derive the needs). Then we talk about existing T&D and “other” content. Can some be used “as is” or “after modification” and some not at all” -?
One client was forced to skip analysis and design too many times and they asked me to create 2 graphs that they could use with their leadership and partner teams to broach the topic. Here is the 1st…
And here is the 2nd…
Once you have that analysis data you can conduct the 3 Design Steps…
I create Lesson Maps – at the heart of the design – and construct those “backwards” after defining a rough cut at the 3-part behavioral Learning Objectives – Terminal and Enabling – with 1st the Application Exercises. This should be driven off of the Performance Data of the Analysis Steps. This ensures authenticity in the practice and applications that the rest of the content addresses. Content such as Demonstrations. And Information.
This is how that Analysis Data is “processed” in the Design Steps. First into a flow of Lesson buckets – which is sometimes one of the arbitrary steps in Design. Then INFO-DEMO-APPO buckets – which should never be an arbitrary decision in Design. Then defined in greater detail on Instructional Activity Specifications – the final level of Design articulation in the PACT Processes. Let the Empowerment begin!
Here is a rough, first pass, version of a Lesson Map – one of several – in this particular design.
I’ve used a camera to take a picture of a chart of the client’s whiteboard that ended up looking like the one above.
The “chalk talk” went a long way to them visualizing the effort, the meetings and report reviews, and the key decisions that they would make: what those were and when they occurred, etc.
One the Design steps are done – and reviewed/approved or not – Development begins, rapidly and hopefully not overlappedly.
Copy this to your files for a Quick Reference Graphic…
I do staff development on various aspects of project planning, project management, analysis, and design BEFORE use of any authoring tool in Development. And also on how to “Pilot-Test” their performance-based content in any of the modes/media sets the client chose for their benefits.
# # #