3 Responses

1. The Training Cycle
   Hi Lisa,

   The training life cycle should be broken down into what works and what does not work (in stages) and should be constantly evaluated, to promote a continuous improvement. However, it depends entirely on the context of what you are trying to achieve. For the complete ISD model please see below. The evaluation process (in the design stages) should not be confused with the four level evaluation, which is used to effectively measure the overall effectiveness of the training programme.

   Without going into great detail, the training cycle is made up of five parts, or phases.

   1. Analysis – this is where a TNA is performed
   2. Design – design the training framework (model)
   3. Development – develop the framework into a training product (courseware)
   4. Implement – deliver the training
   5. Evaluation – in each stage of the process, evaluation and audit trails are necessary

   Imagine this process as a recurring loop, or cycle. After each stage in the training cycle, as mentioned above, an evaluation must be performed. So in reality the model should actually look like this:

   1. Analysis
   Evaluation
   2. Design
   Evaluation
   3. Development
   Evaluation
   4. Implement
   Evaluation
   5. Evaluation (overall)

   It should be apparent that each phase of the cycle is as important as the previous one. Therefore, all phases are equally important, as any change in one phase would have an overall effect to the outcome.

   In conclusion, all stages of the training cycle can be, and should be, improved.

   I hope this helps.

   Best regards,

   Clive

2. Add Revision Stage to Cycle
   I will assume that by “The Training Cycle” you mean the ISD Cycle discussed earlier.

   That Cycle obviously works, but since you asked for an improvement, I would like to suggest what I consider a worthwhile addition to the venerable ISD/ADDIE model, that is, a separate Stage 6: “Revision”, following the Evaluation Stage.

   Further, the model would function best if this Revision Stage were looped back not necessarily to the beginning (i.e. not necessarily to the Analysis Stage), but looped back to whatever stage in the cycle has been determined in the Evaluation Stage to be in need of revision.

   For example, if the Evaluation determines that there is a problem in Development, then there is no need to loop back to and repeat #1 Analysis and #2 Design, but to only loop back to and Revise the flaw in #3 Development, and thence continue through the cycle directly to #4 implementation, etc., etc.

   I find that Revision deserves its separate Stage for several reasons, including that in practice it is usually implemented as a distinct end process, and is one for which both time and funds are better accountable when separately allocated.

   Regards,

3. Revision Stage
   Hi James,

   Without appearing to be rude or pedantic, there is not requirement for a ‘revision’ stage, as the evaluation process at each stage fulfils this purpose. As each stage of the ISD model is completed, it must be evaluated, and any remedial action should be taken. It is an iterative process throughout the training cycle.

   Regards,

   Clive