Critique of the ISD model

In my opinion, I think the ISD model (particularly the ADDIE process) is very intuitive and worth implementing into my instructional interventions/lesson plans. The strengths of the process lies within the evaluation phase as it encourages instructional designers and educators to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention to conclude what changes need to occur. Since the model is a process, it is an ongoing cycle. One weakness is that it does not place emphasis on the importance of writing instructional goals and objectives. Ample time and attention needs to be invested in the initial planning process of setting goals in order to produce an instructional intervention that will alter the learner’s knowledge, skill, or attitude. Otherwise, the instructional intervention will be pointless and a waste of time as there will be no assurance that the learner has learned anything. The objectives should tell what the learner should be able to do as a result of the instruction and should be generated from specific, observable, and measurable information about the audience, behavior, conditions, and degree of the instructional goal. This is referred to as the “ABCD” approach.

As an instructor, I analyze my students in effort to group them into categories such as challenged students, average students, and advanced students. This helps me to establish the pace of the course. The effectiveness of my instructional intervention is most often evaluated by the students themselves as they are the individuals receiving the instruction. I also have instructors who have been teaching the subject to serve as my subject matter expert (SME) by allowing them to review my lesson plans and provide feedback.