  Instructional design is intimately tied with learning theories (Mergel, 1998). Whether it is consciously used or a happenchance, learning theories form the basis for the development of effective instructional design. The ADDIE model (Analysis > Design > Development > Implementation > Evaluation) is a 5-step model commonly used in breaking down the process of formulating instructional design. The first phase of the ADDIE model, the analysis phase, is where the 'problems' or challenges of instructional design for a specific need/use is looked at and identified. It is usually unique to the task at hand and rarely can we employ a used analysis as needs, learners, technology, and many other variables are bound to be different and thus require its own unique approach (Clark, 1995).
“The Analyze phase is the foundation for all other phases of instructional design. During this phase, you must define the problem, identify the source of the problem and determine possible solutions” (Braxton, Bronico, Looms, 2000, p.2). The analysis phase precedes all other processes and requires an in-depth understanding of outcomes, expectations, and requirements before all else. Instructional design ‘should’ be focussed on the learner. In any environment, whether online or physical, it is an understanding of how the learner gains knowledge and finding out the most effective way will likely be the key to good instructional design.
Learning theories complement this step as it provides an existing framework to build from. Joining the ranks of tertiary teachers just 6 months ago, my crash course in hands-on instructional design began with the task of determining an instructional approach with the given syllabus. The private education industry in Malaysia is strictly governed by an accreditation body that determines and approves all teaching syllabus. With a pre-designed syllabus and learning goals (that cannot be easily modified), the instructional design demanded attention and creativity. The questions I posed myself included: - What should be my teaching focus in class? - Can I expect students to engage in ‘required’ learning outside of the set class hours? - Can I grade students on learning outcomes beyond the syllabus? - What background are the students coming from? - What are their expectations? - Can they engage in independent learning and be able to think outside of the limiting syllabus?
- What are the expected outcomes? - What is my expected role as a teacher? I felt (at that time) that my analysis was sufficiently thorough, and that as a teacher, I was in a position to exert positive changes in what I felt was a stifling learning environment. The result of the instructional design process resembled a constructivist approach (a term newly introduced to me in this course) and consisted of a study guide with learning goals for each class, readings available online, and questions for discussion and to build further understanding on.
After a semester however, the instructional design has evolved into a behaviourist model, where learning objectives are specified and quantifiable (Mergel, 1998). The reasons for this were a wrong assumption of the learner and their expectations (e.g. their concern was passing exams by studying for what will be graded), and a gross ignorance on my part of established rules and requirements of the college (e.g. lecturers are not paid to sit in class and discuss but to ‘teach’ the full hours allotted). In my situation, the instructional design had to evolve and even take on a new learning theory, even though a direction has been set and study guides printed.
A modification of the class direction and a few more printed pages effectively took the instructional approach to a different level of conduct. Lisle (1997) affirms the role of learning theories in instructional design but maintains that the process should be flexible and able to evolve with changes. We are not able to predict learning outcomes from any instructional approach and the constant flux in which learner behaviours and expectations are in, together with the changing nature of clients, educational institutions, and technology, all effectively discourages a singular approach in instructional design.
I feel that the analysis is a crucial stage in making educated assumptions about what to expect but it should not be too definitive as to prohibit any changes. The learner will be the heart of the instructional design so the result should be a learning environment that is able to grow with or adapt to the learner in achieving required learning goals (within the constraints of the ‘business’ of education). (The nature of private (and increasingly public) educational institutions that are profit driven and with the heavy costs of technology, there is an emphasis to fall within budget, and on expectations that are largely that of the client (e.g. fancy technology) and teachers (e.g. automated functions) than the learner. Education is after all a business and the need to be profitable is a very urgent one).
Also, learning goals are definitely measurable and quantifiable. When engaged in a ‘formal’ learning program (where instructional design has its most relevance), there is a predetermined expectation that the learner should aim for. The Florida Gulf Coast University recommends that ‘course learning goals and objectives should be publicly available and explicitly communicated to the learner’. It shouldn’t matter what learning theory is adopted, as long as the learner meets the required goals. ‘We must allow circumstances surrounding the learning situation to help us decide which approach to learning is most appropriate’ (Mergel, 1998).
The analysis phase is crucial for identifying boundaries that will dictate the final learning environment and approach (such as budget, and available technology) and once this has been determined, the analysis should then shift focus to the learner and the possible means in which the learning outcomes can be expedited. This involves a good understanding not just of the learner but also of the possibilities available for the learning approach such as technology, teachers’ skill and experience, and external influences such as accreditation bodies. References: Braxton, S., Bronico, K., Looms, T., 2000, ‘Instructional System Design (ISD): Using the ADIE Model’, College of Education: Penn State University, September 2000, viewed 11 August 2004, >. Clark, D., 1995, ‘Instructional System Design: Analysis Phase', viewed 11 August 2004, >. Florida Gulf Coast University, Instructional &amp; audience analysis , (section 1.1) [Online]. Available: http://www.fgcu.edu/onlinedesign/designdev.html [Accessed 2 August 2004]. Lisle, P., 1997, ‘What is Instructional Design Theory’, viewed 11 August 2004, >. Mergel, B. 1998, ‘Instructional design and learning theory’ , [Online]. Available: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm [Accessed 30 July 2004 ]. 
