A CASE STUDY FOR THE SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR DEVELOPING CURRICULA: "DON'T THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER"

Acquisition Review Quarterly, Fall, 1998 by Dr. Anthony A. Scafati

Instructional systems design (ISD) is a systematic model used to plan, design, develop, and evaluate training. The Defense Acquisition University consortium uses ISD to develop and revise curriculum. If we agree that all learning manifests itself by observable behaviors, then we can measure the progress and effectiveness of training. The author urges that ISD is especially effective in developing learning experiences that meet the needs of acquisition community. It does not hamper "academic freedom," but instead provides consistency and performance standards--both necessary for the move to distance learning and computer-based instruction.

Ruth Colvin Clark (1989, P. 3) defines instructional systems design (ISD) as a "...systematic model used to plan, design, develop, and evaluate training." There are many ISD models in existence today, but all have a variation of the following characteristics. They incorporate:

* a needs analysis;

* a task analysis;

* a definition of learning objectives;

* the development of an assessment plan;

* the development of learning material;

* a plan to try out with revision (pilot); and

* the implementation of the final product (Clark, 1989).

The systems approach models are the result of more than 25 years of research in the learning process (Dick & Carey, 1990). It is used throughout industry and government and in academia. It is not the only way to develop curriculum, but it is a proven and effective model. The Defense Acquisition University (DAU) and, consequently, the DAU consortium schools, use their version of ISD to develop and revise their curriculum. The latest guidance concerning the DAU methodology is found in the "Defense Acquisition Guide for Curriculum Development, Delivery, and Evaluation" (November, 1997), which can be found on the DAU Home Page (http:\\www.acq.osd.mill/dau).

The systems approach to designing curriculum has many names: Instructional Systems Design (MilStd 1379D)--the old military standard, The Critical Events Model (Nadler, 1982), Systematic Design of Instruction (Dick & Carey, 1990), the DAU Guide for Curriculum Development, Delivery, and Evaluations (November, 1997), and a host of others. They all are based on a common belief that all learning manifests itself by observable behaviors in the psychomotor, cognitive, or affective domains. And if there is any credence to the metaphor that learning is a journey, then with ISD we can describe the end state and measure our progress and effectiveness in getting there. If we don't take the time to determine precisely where we are going, we will not be able to determine the effectiveness of our process. And as the saying goes, "Any road will do if you don't know where you are going."

The ISD model is especially effective in developing learning experiences that meet the needs of a well-defined target audience and other stakeholders (such as our Functional Boards). It can do so while maintaining currency and consistency in a rapidly changing environment, such as acquisition reform.

For the past year, the Defense Systems Management College (DSMC), as well as the other DAU Consortium Schools, has performed in a yeoman fashion the reengineering of all of its major courses.

The process the schools employed was the DAU ISD model. During this process, the schools experienced a considerable amount of oversight from the Functional Boards and DAU. For many in the consortium schools, this has been a traumatic experience. ISD in the best of circumstances is a labor-intensive process requiring between 60 to 100 hours of development time for every hour in the classroom. This development overhead rapidly increases as we move to the technologybased education (TBE) delivery media.

For the novice, the gains in quality learning by using this process are not immediately apparent. It is especially difficult to see the worth of this effort when the immediate results of the first offering are not showing the gains in student satisfaction that was and should be expected. Never fear; ISD is an iterative process and is expected to be less than perfect on the first offering. The truth be known, it is never finished. The final step in the ISD process is to evaluate the process (note that I did not say "the student") and change the process when indicated. If you make a conscious decision to forego the "try out with revision" step (also known as a pilot), then you can expect even greater discrepancies.

ISD, as an engineering process, appears to have little flexibility. Some may view the process as a loss of academic freedom. Academic freedom, as defined by Brubacher & Rudy (1976, p. 308) is... "the right of a professor to follow an argument whither so ever it may lead either in his research or in his teaching...." Another definition, espoused by Webster II (1984, p. 69), is "...without interference, as from school or public officials." These definitions are the quintessential essence of higher education ,where ideas are allowed to be discussed and aired without fear of retribution by higher authority. Academic freedom at its core assures First Amendment rights and fosters research, creativity, and learning by allowing the full range of the exploration of ideas. Neither Webster's nor Brubacher & Rudy's definition of academic freedom, however, exempts a professor from meeting the specific and implicit objectives of the course or lesson, as articulated in the performance outcomes and the terminal learning ob jectives (TLOs). It is an institution's prerogative to determine objectives. One implicitly agrees to follow this direction when hired.