Analysis of Three Instructional Design Models
Instructional design models provide for a systematic approach of implementing the instructional
design process for a specific educational initiative (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp, 2004). This paper
will briefly describe the purpose and what instructional models are followed by process of three
selected models: (a) the Dick and Carey systems approach; (b) Morrison, Ross and Kemp model
(also known as the Kemp model); and (c) the Three-Phase design (3PD) model. The process
description for each model will serve as the foundation and supporting points required for
comparing and contrasting process of the models.
Dick and Carey, Kemp, and ...view middle of the document...
Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model
The Dick and Carey systems approach model is one of the most influential ID system
oriented models. Like most models, the Dick and Carey system bears the conventional core
elements of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, also known as the
ADDIE model (see Figure 1). The Dick and Carey model is more complex where the approach
based from the five core elements is broken down to additional or variety of steps with different
terminology (Brant, 2001; Gustafson & Branch, 2002a). Most importantly, Brant (2001) states
that, designers must end up with a product containing accomplished objectives and measurable
outcomes. This process used in many businesses, government including military environments as
well as performance technology and computer aided instructions reflects the fundamental design
process (Gustafson & Branch).
Dick & Carey Systems Approach Model
Figure 1. Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model showing the linear approach for design
instruction with review process. ADDIE components (indicated in red) are added for discussion
analysis (source from Dick, Carey & Carey 2001, p.2).
The components for the model stated by Dick, Carey and Carey (2001) consist of nine
procedural steps or linear sequences (see Figure 1). Each of these components is dependant upon
one another indicated by the direction of solid arrow lines. Dotted lines representing formative
evaluations points to instructional revisions that originates from reexamination of the
instructional analysis’ validity and entry behaviors of learners. The sequential steps for the
design are as follows: (a) assess needs to help identify learning goals, (b) conduct instructional
analysis and analyze learners and contexts, (c) write performance objectives, (d) develop
assessment instruments (e) develop instructional strategies (f) develop and select instructional
material (g) design and conduct formative evaluations, (h) revise instruction based from
formative evaluations, (i) design and conduct summative evaluation (not a mandatory step)
(Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001; Gustafson & Branch, 2002a).
Assess needs to help identify learning goals. The application of this first component
makes it unique from other models in that it supports the use of needs assessment procedures and
clear measurable goals. “Goals are clear statements of behaviors that learners are to demonstrate
as a result of instruction” (Dick, Carey & Carey, 2001 p.30). Instructional goals must be created
before the implementing the ID process (Dick et al; Gustafson & Branch, 2002).
Conduct instructional analysis. Before proceeding with instruction implementation,
designers must conduct the process of instructional analysis to find out prior learner’s skills,
knowledge and attitudes. They must also carefully examine and create step-by step task
description to help learners achieve instructional goals (Dick et al, 2001).
Analyze learners and contexts. This step...