Home | Abstract | ADDIE | Kemp | IPISD | Conclusion | Multimedia Presentation | References

Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development 

What is IPISD? 

General Characteristics.  The Interservice Procedures for Instructional System Development (IPISD) offers a structural systematic approach unlike other models, but similar to the ADDIE paradigm. Its structure was developed with the intent to improve training within the Armed Forces. In an effort to streamline training with a set of procedures and an effective assessment tool,  the U.S. Army Combat Training Board, in collaboration with three faculty members from Florida State University Center for Educational Technology (Robert K. Branson, Barry M. Wagner and Gail T.), developed the IPISD training model. The model was introduced to the rest of military services in 1975, and other countries have adopted the model to train their units.  IPISD is limited by a narrow instructional focus and a linear approach to Instructional Design (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). Like the ADDIE paradigm, the IPISD has five phases.

Major Components.

•  An Executive Summary and Model
•  A multi-volume set
•  An adjunct instructional workbook
•  Mediated workshop materials
•  A workshop directors handbook

Five phases.

• Analyze
• Design
• Develop
• Implement
• Control

Below is the diagram of the five phases found in the Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development Executive Summary (Branson, 1975).

 Figure I-1. The Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development Model.

Example of the IPISD Model

The IPISD Model was applied to a lesson plan for 2nd grade students who will be covering the Solar System and its components. Keep in mind some of the areas might not apply due to the structure of the model, as it was designed as a solution to a major problem.  The following example references Figure I-1.

Analyze 

• Analyze Job: Be able to identify the planets in the solar system through the use of group projects.

• Select tasks/functions: Be able to complete a test and work in groups of 4-5.

• Construct job performance measures:

• Analyze existing courses: N/A

• Select instructional setting: The setting for this lesson will be conducted in a 2nd grade classroom.

Design

• Develop objectives: The student will:

• define the solar system

• identify the planets in order

• demonstrate a comprehension of planets' characteristics

• describe what is an asteroid, meteoroid and a comet

• Develop tests

•  Question 1: The sun rises in what direction?

•  Question 2: List the planets in order, starting from the sun.

•  Question 3: T/F The Sun is smaller than Earth.

•  Describe entry behavior

• The student must be able to orally present for 2-3 minutes.

• The student must know why the solar system is important.

• Determine sequence & structure

• Teacher leads discussion on what exists in our galaxy.

• Teacher shows a video on the solar system.

• Students will answer key questions of what they learned about the solar system.

• Teacher will divide students into groups of 4-5.

• Students will engage in group work to:

• make a poster presentation with colorful photocopied images or drawings

• research 10 facts about an asteroid, meteoroid or comet

• Each group will designate a narrator for their poster presentation.

• Teacher uses a ten point rubric to evaluate the presentations. 

  Develop

•  Specify learning events/activities

• Students will be creating a scale model of the solar system using an assortment of hard candies 

• Specify instruction management plan & delivery system

• Teacher leads discussion and describes all the planets of the solar system

• Students will be grouped in fours or fives and will:

• create a  small scale model of the solar system

• determine the distance of a selected planet to earth

• show their scale model to the rest of the class

• Review/select existing materials

• worksheet with the names of all planets

• assortment of hard candy and cake frosting

• paper plates and wooden stir sticks

• Develop instruction 

• Step 1: Teacher will give a 15 minute lecture of the solar system with the use of a smart board, projector or a sample model.

• Step 2:  Students will be asked to explain how planets were formed and why it is important to study the solar system.

• Step 3: The teacher will divide the student into groups of 4-5 and will ask them to create their model without the assistance of photos or a textbook.

• Step 4: Students will use the paper plate as the base of their model. Cake frosting will be spread on the paper plate with the wooden sticks as it will be the glue for the candy.

• Step 5: Next, after the frosting has dried, students will label each planet.

• Step 6: Once the scale models are complete, the students will select one planet and determine the distance from earth.

• Step 7: After all groups have completed their model, they will display them on the wall around the classroom, and students will walk around and learn the distance of all planets.

• Validate instruction

• Conduct lesson with sample population

Implement

• Implement instructional management plan

• Conduct instruction

• Step 1: Discuss the solar system.

• Step 2: Discuss the planets' proximity to the earth.

•  Step 3: Divide class into groups of 4-5 to create scale models using hard candy.

• Step 4: Students research the distance of their selected planet.

• Step 5: Students will hang the models on the wall around the classroom.

• Step 6: Students will identify the distance of each planet by viewing each model.

Control

• Conduct internal evaluation

                 The rubric below will be utilized to evaluate each group:

• 5 points: each planet is labeled accordingly and different candy color to distinguish each planet; not messy

• 3 points: one planet was selected and the distance from earth was researched

• 2 point: includes less than 5 labeled planets; distance was not properly researched; messy

• Teacher will ask the following questions and uses candy to mark students who respond:

• Discuss why it is important to study the planets and how other countries can contribute in the research.

• How would the solar system be without planets?

• Space X has broken ground to build a space port in South Texas. If you were chosen to go to Mars, would you go and why?

• Conduct external evaluation

• Ask the librarian or another teacher to sit in on lesson.

• Revise system

ADDIE's Comparison to the IPISD Model

The IPISD model and the ADDIE paradigm are similar at their core because they both illustrate “major processes that comprise the generic ISD process” (Molenda, 2003, p. 35).  In the same way, they both have five major phases of instructional design.  However, “the IPISD approach is designed specifically for military training” (Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p. 64).  Nevertheless, comparing the similarities and differences between these two systems demonstrates the need to plan instructional design.

The first phase of the IPISD model consists of conducting an analysis, whereas the ADDIE paradigm considers this the analyze phase.  The IPISD model considers the following sub steps as seen in Figure I-1:  analyze job, select task functions, construct job performance measures, analyze existing courses, and select instruction settings.  Clearly, the emphasis in IPISD is task related, whereas the ADDIE paradigm considers the following concept of "identifying the probable causes for a performance gap" (Branch, 2009, p. 23).  The sub steps as seen in Figure K-2 include: validate the performance gap, determine instructional goals, confirm the intended audience, identify required resources, determine potential delivery systems, compose a project management plan, and finally an analysis summary.  With the ADDIE paradigm, not only are the tasks considered, but also the sub steps allow for greater flexibility.

The second phase of both the IPISD model and the ADDIE paradigm consists of the design.  The IPISD considers the following sub steps as seen in Figure I-1:  develop objectives, develop tasks, describe entry behavior, and determine sequence and structure.  Simply stated, the steps in this phase consider outcomes of instruction.  Still, the ADDIE paradigm details the concept of design to "verify the desired performances and appropriate testing methods" (Branch, 2009, p. 59).  The sub steps as seen in Figure K-2 include:  conduct a task inventory, compose performance objectives, generate testing strategies, and calculate return on investment followed by a design brief.  Once again, the ADDIE paradigm shows greater flexibility especially when considering the return on investment.  It answers the question if the result of the training will create a benefit or increase in productivity.

The IPISD model and the ADDIE paradigm place develop or development as the third phase.  The IPISD model considers the following sub steps as seen in Figure I-1:  specify learning events/activities, specify instructional management plan and delivery system, review select existing materials, develop instruction, and validate instruction.  These steps are very clear and leave little room for adjustment.  However, the ADDIE paradigm considers the develop concept as "generate and validate selected learning resources" (Branch, 2009, p. 83).  Not only does this step call for resources, but it also considers measuring the resources to ensure a favorable outcome.  The following sub steps as seen in Figure K-2 include:  generate content, select or develop supporting media, develop guidance for the student, develop guidance for the teacher, conduct formative revisions, conduct a pilot test, and learning resources.  The ADDIE paradigm considers guidance for the teacher and student as an extra step in this phase, which also demonstrates a greater amount of flexibility than the IPISD model.

Again, both the IPISD model and the ADDIE paradigm consider the fourth phase as the implementation or implement stage.  The IPISD model only has two steps in this phase that can be referenced from Figure I-1, implement instructional management plan, and conduct instruction.  At this point, the instructor conducts the lesson, which is the core of lesson delivery.  In like manner, the ADDIE paradigm considers the concept of this stage as "prepare the learning environment and engage the students" (Branch, 2009, p. 133).  The sub steps of ADDIE as seen in Figure K-2 include: prepare the teacher and prepare the student.  Within these sub steps, the teacher receives additional instructional delivery guidance, while the student receives a clear understanding of the expectations during instruction.

The IPISD model considers the fifth phase as evaluation and control.  This stage consists of three sub steps as seen in Figure I-1, including:  conduct internal evaluation, conduct external evaluation, and revise the system.  Here, the emphasis “is on quality control and continued relevance of the training over an extended period of time” (Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p. 65) which serves to ensure the training made an impact.  Meanwhile, the ADDIE paradigm considers this the evaluate phase with a concept "to assess the quality of the instructional products and processes, both before and after implementation" (Branch, 2009, 151).  The sub steps of ADDIE as seen in Figure K-2 include:  determine evaluation criteria, select evaluation tools, and conduct evaluations followed by an evaluation plan.  The ADDIE does allow for an evaluation of the instruction, it considers their effectiveness as a central measurement tool. 

This comparison of the IPISD model and the ADDIE paradigm clearly establishes both processes as plans to prepare, conduct, and evaluate training sessions.  “Use of the IPISD model requires a commitment of substantial resources on a long-term basis primarily by the military, the government, and a few large corporations having major job training programs” (Gustafson & Branch, 1997, p. 65).  However, the ADDIE paradigm “can be applied when instruction is an appropriate response to a performance discrepancy” (Branch, 2009, p. 1).  Determining whether to use the IPISD model or the ADDIE paradigm depends on the need of the situation.

References

Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models (3rd. ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.

Gustafson, K. L, & Branch, R.  M. (2002). Survey of Instructional Development Models (4th ed., pp. 46-49). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.

Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE Model. Performance Improvement 42(5), 34-36.