IDE 631 - Instructional Design & Development
This course tackled the foundational elements of instructional design through a grounded, hands-on approach that paired theory with practice. We didn’t just study learning outcomes and instructional objectives, we applied them, shaping real strategies to meet real needs. The focus rested on developing a clear instructional design rationale, and by “clear,” it meant sharp, evidence-based, and logically sound.
We worked through the full instructional systems design process, not as a set of steps to memorize but as a framework to think critically and act deliberately. From needs assessment and planning, to development, testing, implementation, and evaluation, every phase was treated as part of a living system, one that supported learning and sharpened performance. As our projects expanded in scope and complexity, it became increasingly obvious: without structured, intentional design practices, chaos took the wheel.
This course offered more than a review. It was an invitation to engage in the real work of design, mapping out what instruction should accomplish, why it matters, and how to make it effective. We didn’t just check boxes. We explored what it meant to design with purpose. Along the way, we examined common instructional challenges, studied the role of systems thinking in instructional solutions, and tied theory directly to application.
Positioned as the first of two courses in the design and development sequence for the IDD&E graduate core, this class laid the groundwork for IDE 632, where the focus shifts to building instruction. While the courses could be taken in any order, pairing this one with IDE 621 (Principles of Instruction and Learning) gave us the conceptual foundation to make our design choices not just logical, but impactful.
Course Overall Grade: A
Purpose and Direction
My e-portfolio on Liela Shadmani’s IDE-631 page captures the shift from theory to structured application, where instructional design was no longer abstract, it became a problem-solving tool. Through hands-on analysis, blueprinting, and project-based planning, each artifact reflected my growing ability to approach human performance problems with clarity, strategy, and systems thinking.
Outlining The Purpose For Each Section
Written Report
In our final project for IDE 631, we designed an instructional solution to address a clear performance gap among junior enlisted female Soldiers struggling with the Standing Power Throw (SPT) event of the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT). I served as the subject matter expert, bringing content knowledge and leading the implementation plan to ensure relevance, practicality, and integration into the Army’s existing Learning Management System (LMS). We discovered through analysis that the 15% failure rate in this demographic stemmed from three key areas, biomechanics, lack of explosive power development, and inadequate understanding of how nutrition and hydration affect physical performance. We addressed these areas by creating an asynchronous learning module that combined video demonstrations, cognitive and psychomotor assessments, peer critiques, and optional virtual coaching. The module offered a 30-minute instructional breakdown on SPT mechanics and a 90-minute in-depth exploration of biomechanics and form, reinforced with assessments, tracking tools, and feedback loops. Our design emphasized self-paced learning while also ensuring accountability through leadership oversight and LMS progress tracking. We built out formative and summative evaluation plans to measure satisfaction, knowledge transfer, performance outcomes, and long-term impact. Ultimately, this project demonstrated how intentional instructional design, grounded in performance analysis and structured around real-world constraints, could build Soldier readiness while improving confidence, skill, and operational effectiveness.
Video Presentation
The video presentation, titled "Standing Power Throw Instructional Design Project", outlines a targeted instructional solution developed for IDE 631 to address a critical performance issue in the U.S. Army. Specifically, the project focuses on junior enlisted female Soldiers aged 18–24 who were failing to meet the minimum score in the Standing Power Throw (SPT) event of the Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT).
The presentation walks through the performance gap, highlighting deficiencies in biomechanics, explosive power, and nutrition knowledge, and presents a structured, asynchronous training module delivered via the Army’s Learning Management System (LMS). The module includes:
-
A 30-minute instructional overview and a 90-minute biomechanics deep dive
-
Video demonstrations, simulations, and peer critiques
-
Optional virtual coaching sessions with personalized feedback
The presentation emphasizes how each design component ties back to instructional goals and measurable outcomes. It also introduces tools like digital logbooks, leaderboards, and performance tracking to encourage accountability and competition. Finally, it details an implementation plan involving squad leaders through company commanders, alongside a formative and summative evaluation strategy to assess effectiveness and long-term impact.
In short, the presentation captures how instructional design can directly support operational readiness and Soldier development by blending technical precision with human performance science.
Deliverables
IDE 631 wasn’t just about learning how to design instruction, it was about solving real problems that impact real people in the military, right now. Our final project wasn’t theoretical. It was tactical. Focused on closing a persistent performance gap among junior enlisted female Soldiers failing the Standing Power Throw event of the Army Combat Fitness Test, our deliverables brought together data, biomechanics, strength programming, and behavior-based nutrition to build a fully asynchronous learning module tailored to their needs.
From the instructional design report to the digital storyboard and narrated presentation, each piece of this project was built to perform under pressure. We integrated video analysis, peer critique, cognitive and psychomotor assessments, and a full implementation plan through the Army’s Learning Management System. We didn’t just create content. We designed a system of readiness—one that teaches, motivates, and holds the learner accountable. This course made clear: instructional design isn’t about delivering information. It’s about delivering outcomes that matter.
