Relationship Between Process Improvement and Instructional Design
In Pershing’s Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles, Practices, and Potential (2006), it is evident that there are similarities and differences between PI (performance improvement and ID (instructional design). I dare say the parallelisms far exceed the variances. In the flowchart above you see the side by side comparison of the two. Allow me to share my thoughts concerning the differences and likenesses.
The differences between the PI and ID for the most part are their length. PI is more comprehensive as Pershing (2006) stated in chapter one, PI has evolved over the years since this perusing of process improvement began in the 1950’s. This evolvement meant and means today, that education changes with our times. As Pershing’s text also states, the students, and I paraphrase, are a victim, or better yet, a product of their environment. This environment dictates how the student learns, thus affecting the instructor’s pedagogy. I find it neat that there are ID elements all throughout PI. However, I laud ID for its simplicity.
A few classes ago, we were asked to solve a University of Phoenix faculty problem using the ADDIE method (which is spelled out in the above flowchart under the ID side). I found this method, which is quite simpler in content than PI, to be quite effective in developing a possible solution to the faculty problem. I feel that sometimes as humans, we like to philosophize more than come to an answer, which may be simpler or closer to our psyches than thought. The simpler ADDIE steps are methodical and analytical, encouraging critical thinking skills perhaps more quickly than if using PI.
PI and ID are like two siblings with the former being of a high maintenance caliber. At the end of the day, some teachers may prefer the extra steps of PI, and others like me who are of the simpler aptitude will gravitate towards the ADDIE steps of ID.
Reference
Pershing. 2006. Human Performance Technology Fundamentals. John Wiley & Sons,
The differences between the PI and ID for the most part are their length. PI is more comprehensive as Pershing (2006) stated in chapter one, PI has evolved over the years since this perusing of process improvement began in the 1950’s. This evolvement meant and means today, that education changes with our times. As Pershing’s text also states, the students, and I paraphrase, are a victim, or better yet, a product of their environment. This environment dictates how the student learns, thus affecting the instructor’s pedagogy. I find it neat that there are ID elements all throughout PI. However, I laud ID for its simplicity.
A few classes ago, we were asked to solve a University of Phoenix faculty problem using the ADDIE method (which is spelled out in the above flowchart under the ID side). I found this method, which is quite simpler in content than PI, to be quite effective in developing a possible solution to the faculty problem. I feel that sometimes as humans, we like to philosophize more than come to an answer, which may be simpler or closer to our psyches than thought. The simpler ADDIE steps are methodical and analytical, encouraging critical thinking skills perhaps more quickly than if using PI.
PI and ID are like two siblings with the former being of a high maintenance caliber. At the end of the day, some teachers may prefer the extra steps of PI, and others like me who are of the simpler aptitude will gravitate towards the ADDIE steps of ID.
Reference
Pershing. 2006. Human Performance Technology Fundamentals. John Wiley & Sons,