The Analysis-Evaluation Cycle: What are the Keys to Designing Effective Diversity Instruction?

Introduction And Background

Anyone who has ever played in or listened to an orchestra is familiar with how important it is for all its instruments to be in tune. Tuning is a process based upon identifying a standard pitch and then meeting it. For all instruments, the standard is the 440-A, though the reeds and brass generally tune to a B-flat. Those not tuning to an A are usually termed B-flat instruments. To begin with, the oboe is tuned to the standard A, which establishes the foundation from which even the B-flat instruments tuning is based. Without both the A and B-flat instruments being in tune, there will still be a clash between the two.

Just as there is a standard tuning for symphony orchestras, there needs to be one for Instructional Design and Development, especially between the various phases and steps. As it is often difficult to determine which model works best, instructional designers ‘invented’ a notional model they call ADDIE (Molenda, Pershing, & Reigeluth, 2003), an acronym representing the various stages of Instructional Systems Design (ISD): Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. In reality, this ADDIE notion sprang from the Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development (IPISD) and is attributed to Robert Branson, though based in the military (U.S. Army). Instructional Design itself originated in the military in the late-1940s, and was instituted into higher learning at Wayne State and Indiana Universities in 1950. Over the years, the military model has evolved into the Instructional Systems Design/Systems Approach to Training, or ISD/SAT (Department of Defense, 2001). This document basically lays out the ISD plan as the ADDIE Model.

It is evident throughout the ISD business world that the term “instructional designer” means different things. Simply peruse the advertisements on any ‘headhunter’ website and a number of variations immerge. Some want the instructional designer to know programming, e-learning, program management, and how to clean kitchen sinks in order to effectively perform the job, while concurrently meeting the requirement of having a bachelor’s degree. Interestingly, the number of colleges and universities offering that level of degree are few and far between—most recognized College or University programs start at the Master’s degree level. In addition to degrees, there are some certification programs (Embry-Riddle, Nova Southeastern, etc.) that may advance those with a Bachelor’s degree to meet the basic requirements.

Several years ago, the term “e-learning” appeared and ransacked the literature and marketplace. Conferences were held focusing on e-learning and promising many new methods to e-learn. Regardless of the way one approaches it, e-learning is not learning. Just because a lesson is termed “e-learning” does not guarantee that learning takes place. It seems that e-learning has also become synonymous with Computer-Based Training (CBT). Electronically Delivered Learning (EDL for short), however, is not all computer-based. Filmstrips, slide-tape presentations, video snippets, and others—all run by electricity pre-date CBT. The ‘learning’ connotation is a misnomer, because none of the above guaranteed learning retention and transfer.

More recently, e-learning has become so commonplace that many people do not realize that there are other platforms that can effectively deliver the instruction. One of the areas that comes to mind is the intrapersonal-interpersonal skill interaction in small groups. We should note that it is very difficult (if not impossible) to teach and evaluate empathy and other soft skills through non-human media.

Many organizations have posited that technology is the primary choice for presenting instructional programs; it is usually the recommended choice. Using this in an effort to build a “one-size-fits-all” platform, administrators have directed strategists to use technology in the face of “good ole common sense.” This seems to polarize to Bob Kozma’s (1994) initial stand that media influences learning as opposed to Richard Clark’s (1994) media being a mere vehicle to deliver it.