IDE 632 - Instructional Design & Development II
I built my foundation in instructional design and development by moving beyond theory and into intentional practice. I learned how to select, revise, and apply instructional development models with precision, not just by studying them, but by using them to solve real instructional problems. This wasn’t a course I sat through, it was one I worked through. I studied instructional systems design (ISD) in context, not in a vacuum. I analyzed how ISD operated across different environments and how its framework shaped both the process and the outcome of instructional planning. Romiszowski’s definition of ISD as “educational engineering” stayed with me. It captured the heart of the work, using scientific knowledge to solve human learning problems, and it reminded me that instructional design is as much about logic as it is about empathy. Throughout the course, I identified instructional gaps and examined the disconnect between where learning was and where it needed to be. I explored how change, evaluation, and instructional management work in tandem to close that gap. With every reading, every discussion, and every exercise, I developed and refined my own ISD model, one that grew more intentional with each iteration. The course was structured around ten core content areas, and each one grounded me in both concept and application. Every unit opened with clear objectives, guided readings, and a meaningful exercise or assessment. But what made the difference was the collaborative work. I didn’t just reflect in isolation. I tested my thinking with others. I challenged and got challenged back. And that’s where the real growth happened, at the intersection of theory, action, and feedback.
Course Overall Grade: A
Purpose and Direction
My e-portfolio on Liela Shadmani’s IDE-632 page traces the evolution of instructional systems design from concept to creation, where theory didn’t just sit in readings, it lived in the decisions I had to make. This course challenged me to confront complexity with strategy. Every artifact on this page reflects how I learned to navigate instructional gaps, manage development processes, and justify design choices grounded in real-world contexts. From modeling systems and evaluating instructional needs to constructing a fully documented ISD model, I didn’t just study the process, I lived it. I made decisions as an instructional designer, shaped by client interviews, collaborative critiques, and a relentless focus on performance improvement. This portfolio captures that shift, from analyzing what should be done, to building what must be done, with clarity, intention, and professional rigor.
Outlining The Purpose For Each Section
The Triple Lima Model
The Triple Lima Model brings clarity and structure to one of the U.S. Army’s most pressing leadership challenges, how to prepare NCOs to lead across generational lines without losing cohesion or mission focus. It’s not just another instructional theory stitched together in an academic vacuum. It’s a working solution, grounded in doctrine and sharpened by real-world friction points. The model blends the Dick and Carey Systems Approach, the ASSURE model, and Understanding by Design into one streamlined, purpose-built framework. It focuses on six essential components: setting measurable goals, breaking down instructional needs, evaluating performance, integrating relevant technology, applying adaptive strategies, and designing backwards from outcomes. These pieces don’t live in silos, they work together to build leaders who can think and act across complexity.
The Triple Lima Model Paper
The written report lays out the model with precision. It calls out the disconnects, older leaders relying on hierarchy, younger Soldiers leaning into tech and collaboration, and it doesn’t sugarcoat the fallout. Using hard data from Army research and case studies from installations like Fort Leavenworth, the report makes a case for rethinking how we design leadership training from the ground up. It details a hybrid delivery model that’s just as functional in a garrison classroom as it is in a field tent, with clear roles for instructional designers, senior mentors, facilitators, and NCO participants. The evaluation strategy isn’t tacked on at the end, it’s built in from the start, using AARs, peer reviews, and formative assessments to ensure the training hits the mark. Every element serves a function, and every risk, poor connectivity, digital illiteracy, inconsistent buy-in, has a contingency plan.
The Triple Lima Instructional Systems Design (ISD) Tutorial
The video ties everything together, stripping away jargon and showing the model in motion. It sells the urgency without the drama. This isn’t about checking boxes or pushing content. It’s about preparing leaders to lead in the kind of Army we actually have, not the one we wish we had. The visual narrative walks through the model’s logic, purpose, and usability, making the theory digestible without watering it down. In short, the three pieces, graphic, paper, and video, aren’t just different formats. They’re a unified front. Together, they deliver a model that’s academically sound, tactically relevant, and ready to be implemented by anyone serious about shaping real leadership.
Deliverables
The three deliverables, the video, the written paper, and the Triple Lima model graphic, form a tight, no-fluff package that captures both the strategic backbone and real-world utility of the instructional design. The paper does the heavy lifting, laying out the theory, structure, and operational context with evidence from doctrine, field research, and actual Army case studies. It makes the argument clear: multigenerational leadership gaps aren’t hypothetical, they’re happening now, and they’re costing readiness. The video complements the paper by translating that message into something visceral. It cuts through the academic noise and gives the viewer a straight shot of what’s broken, why it matters, and how the model fixes it. Meanwhile, the model graphic anchors both, giving a visual language to the six core components, goals, analysis, performance, tech, adaptation, and backward design. Taken together, these deliverables don’t just talk about leadership development. They map it, explain it, and show exactly how to operationalize it inside the Army’s real-world constraints.
