The ISD model at the time looked similar to this:
Six years later, Dr. Russell Watson, Chief, Staff and Faculty Training Division of the Fort Huachuca, Arizona, presented a paper to International Congress for Individualized Instruction. In it, he discusses the U.S. Army's SAT model as developed by Florida State University. However, he uses a slightly different model in which the five basic phases are still the same, but the steps within each phase have been slightly modified:
In the paper, Watson wrote, “As defense machinery was becoming more and more sophisticated, the educational background of entry level soldiers was becoming lower and lower. The potential solution to this problem was in the form of a "systems approach" to training. The system selected for use by the Army was Instructional Systems Development (ISD), developed in 1975 by Florida State University. ISD is a comprehensive five phase process encompassing the entire training/educational environment. Although ISD is a systematic step-by-step approach, it has the flexibility to be used with both individualized and traditional instruction. It is however, specifically orientated towards the use of behavioral/performance objectives and criterion-referenced tests.” (1981)
From Waterfall to Dynamic
When the model was first introduced, it was strictly a waterfall method in that except for Evaluation, which is performed throughout the entire process, the other steps were performed in linear order.However, by 1984 (U.S. Army Field Artillery School), the model evolved into a more dynamic nature in that you could go back to the other phases as needed. Models similar to this, such as in the Field Artillery School manual began using diagrams such as this:
This diagram not only highlights the importance of evaluation and feedback throughout the entire training program, but also shows it as an iterative flow of activities (dynamic) through the use of solid and dashed arrows going in opposite directions between the phases.
This means it becomes more formative in the evaluation part in that it is used to refine goals and evolve strategies for achieving goals throughout the entire duration of the ISD process. This formative evaluation is used to produced skilled and knowledgeable performers by improving the learning program while it is still fluid.
This differs from the waterfall method in that you never back up because in reality, the goal is to prove the initial design of the learning program. This method is more valuable to researchers who are trying to validate their initial theory or determine the impact of an educational practice so that future efforts may be improved or modified.
Thus formative evaluations intend to foster development and improvement within ongoing activities (person, product, program, etc.), while summative evaluations are used to assess whether the results of the object being evaluated (program, intervention, person, etc.) met stated goals.
Reference
Watson, Russell (October 1981). Instructional System Development. In a paper presented to the International Congress for Individualized Instruction. EDRS publication ED 209 239. Branson, R. K. (principal investigator) (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development: Executive summary and model. Tallahassee, FL: Center for Educational Technology, Florida State University. (National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. Document Nos. AD-A019 486 to AD-A019490)Branson, R.K., Rayner, G.T., Cox, J.L., Furman, J.P., King, F.J., Hannum, W.H. Interservice procedures for instructional systems development. (5 vols.) (TRADOC Pam 350-30 NAVEDTRA 106A). Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, August 1975. (NTIS No. ADA 019 486 through ADA 019 490):
- Executive Summary and Model - ADA 019 486
- Phase I: Analyze - ADA 019 487
- Phase II: Design - ADA 019 488
- Phase III: Develop - ADA 019 489
- Phase IV & V: Implement and Control - ADA 019 490