See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352771683

Instructional Design Models: Benefits and Challenges

Article · June 2021

CITATION READS

1 5,402

1 author:

Rupa Basu
Kamala Nehru College University of Delhi
9 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Part of postdoctoral research work View project

Part of PhD research work View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rupa Basu on 26 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sambodhi ISSN No. 2249-6661
UGC Approved Journal Vol.- 41 No. 1, January To March (2018)

Instructional Design Models: Benefits and Challenges

Rupa Basu

Associate Professor, Kamala Nehru College, University of Delhi

Introduction

Instructional design is the systematic process by which education and training programs are designed, developed,
and delivered in a consistent and reliable fashion. The terms instructional design (ID), instructional technology,
educational technology, curriculum design, and instructional systems design (ISD), are often used interchangeably.
The systems view or approach to instruction implies an analysis of how its components interact with each other and
requires coordination of all activities. The systems approach ties instruction to what the students will be able to do
after instruction that they could not do before. ISD may be also be defined as the systematic and iterative method
for creating learning experience that develop and enhance skills and knowledge.

The learning theory behind instructional design is historically and traditionally rooted in cognitive and behavioral
psychology and has been around since the 1960’s (Willis, 1995). Recently constructivism has also made inroads
into this field and is being incorporated in different stages of instructional design (Karagiorgi, Street, & Tziambazi,
2005).

A variety of systematic instructional design processes have been described over time and all descriptions include
the aspects of design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE). There are various adaptations of the
ADDIE model but it generally consists of these five phases that represent a guideline for building effective training
and performance support tools.

While ADDIE illustrates the core conceptual components of ID, there is still a need for instructional design models
for describing how to conduct the various steps that comprise the instructional design process and how to practice
ID(Gustafson & Branch, 2002).A wide variety of ID models have been created that describe how the ID process
might be carried out in different settings. Instructional design models help designers to understand the theoretical
framework better and to apply itin order to create an effective lesson or unit (Morrison, Ross, & Kemp; 2004).

In this paper ADDIE, the Dick and Carey model and the Kemp Instructional Design Model will be studied and
compared. Specifically, I will be looking at the benefits and challenges of using these models.

The ADDIE Model

While the more correct description of ADDIE model may be as a generic process that is traditionally used by
instructional designers and training developers as a starting point, ADDIE is often also used as an ID model in
itself. Out of its five components, analysis consists of analyzing the problem or goal(s), what the learners know,
need to know, and various other facets prior to creating a lesson. Design is essentially creating a pre-lesson:
specifically identifying how the lesson or objective will be taught. Development is the creation of content and any
materials the learners will be using during the lesson. This includes assessing whether the lesson meets the learning
objectives and if the content is complete and accurate as well as the creation of prototypes. Next is the
implementation stage where the lesson and objectives are presented to the learners. The final step is to evaluate
whether the objectives have been mastered suing formative and summative assessments. Any revisions that need to
be made are also be done at this time (Williams 2014).

These processes represent a dynamic, flexible guideline for building effective training tools that ensure congruence
among goals, strategies, and evaluation and result in effective instruction. ADDIE activities usually are not
completed in a linear, step-by-step manner even though, for convenience, they may sometimes be presented that
way.

Figure 1 represents one way in which the relationship among these core elements can be depicted.

31
Copyright ⓒ 2018Authors
Sambodhi ISSN No. 2249-6661
UGC Approved Journal Vol.- 41 No. 1, January To March (2018)

Figure 1

Looking for the historical roots of ADDIE Model we find that the label does not to have a single author. There is no
original, fully elaborated ADDIE Model. Rather it is more like a colloquial term used to describe a systematic
approach to instructional development, virtually synonymous with ISD. According to Molenda (2003) what is
emerging in the recent literature is a tendency to accept the ADDIE as an umbrella term, and then to go on to
more elaborate models and narrative descriptions. According to one commonly-held view, most of the current
instructional design models are spin-offs or variations of the ADDIE instructional design model.

Over the years the ADDIE model has been increasingly criticized by many. A recent call for its rejection comes
from Michael Allen (Sites 2012).He has described ADDIE as out of sync with the needs of the present times and
has urged the practitioners of instructional design to use the Rapid Development Approach. His model, called the
Successive Approximation Model, emphasizes that the instructional design should be such that the process is
iterative, supports collaboration, and is efficient, effective and manageable (Allen 2012).

At the same time the ADDIE models has many defenders too and they hold that the criticism of the models mostly
stems from an arrow view of the model as rigid and linear (Peterson 2003). To give the critics their due, it is
undeniably true that training departments often attempt to explain designs with storyboards and content outlines and
once these are approved, it becomes costly in terms of money and time to redesign them so as to meet learners’
evolving need for performance focused learning experiences. This brings rigidity to the process and may result in
instructional and training modules that are of poor quality. However the ADDIE set of criteria does have an inherent
flexibility that may be applied to create a successful, efficient and manageable process if used in a creative manner
(Riecker 2012).

Early ADDIE aspired to be an engineering model with the premise that if it was precisely followed it would
produce repeatable outcomes (Merrill, Drake, Lacy, & Pratt, 1966). The models presumed “one best way” and this
way of thinking was attractive to the bureaucratic thought that existed in those times. The current crop of instruction
designers, on the other hand, especially those focused on more social and constructivist approaches to learning,
dislike the prescriptive approach of formal ISD in general and ADDIE in particular (Vejvodová, 2009). Technology
has also provided tools to both designers and learners that profoundly change the process of instructional design and
apparently the need for a process like ADDIE. While rejection of ADDIE appears to be the political correctness in
the present times, many practicing instructional designers are of the opinion that in organizations that require formal
learning, an authentic learning design and a systematic ID model like ADDIE is indispensable.

Dick and Carey Model

One of the most popular and influential ID models is the Dick and Carey Systems Model of Instructional Design
(2001). The model was originally published in 1978 by Walter Dick and Lou Carey in their book entitled “The
Systematic Design of Instruction.” Dick and Carey have contributed significantly to the field of instructional design
by emphasizing a systems view of instruction as opposed to viewing it as a sequence of isolated steps. Instruction is
addressed as an entire system in this model. The focus is on the interrelationship between context, content, learning
and instruction. According to Dick and Carey (2001), "Components such as the instructor, learners, materials,

32
Copyright ⓒ 2018Authors
Sambodhi ISSN No. 2249-6661
UGC Approved Journal Vol.- 41 No. 1, January To March (2018)

instructional activities, delivery system, and learning and performance environments interact with each other and
work together to bring about the desired student learning outcomes". The model is depicted in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Determine what learners are expected to be able to perform at the end of

1. Identify Instructional Goals
instruction.

2. Conduct Instructional Analysis Determine what skills will be involved in order to achieve the goal.

3. Identify Entry Behaviors Identify what skills and attitudes the learners will enter the learning task with.

4.Write Performance Objectives Transform the needs and goals of the task into clear-cut objectives.

5.Develop Criterion-Referenced Identify ways to assess progress during the learning process. Assessments should
Tests reflect the performance objectives.

Develop activities to help achieve the objectives. These activities include how the
6.Develop Instructional Strategy information will be presented, how the learners will practice what is being
learned, and how learners will be tested.

7. Develop and Select

Determine what instructional materials will be used.
Instructional Materials

8. Develop and Conduct Collect data that will be used to improve instructional materials and to expand the
Formative Evaluation effectiveness of the instruction for a larger number of learners.

Use the data from the formative evaluation to make improvements and revisions
9. Revise Instruction
to the parts of the model.

10. Develop and Conduct

Analyze the quality of the system as a whole.
Summative Evaluation

Comparison of ADDIE and Dick and Carey Models

Although their terminology does not align exactly with ADDIE and the number of elements is different, the five
elements of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation are all present in the Dick and Carey
model. The model breaks the 5 phases of the ADDIE Model into 10 smaller components. Analysis of goals,
instruction, and entry behaviors takes place at the beginning of the Dick and Carey Model. Then, there is the design
and development of criterion-referenced tests, instructional strategies, and materials. Once implementation is
complete, there is a formative and summative evaluation at the end of the model. Thus, there are several differences
between the stages in these two models. ADDIE model includes objective construction in the “Analysis” stage
along with the analysis of the learner characteristics and context. The Dick and Carey Model, on the other hand,
provide an entirely additional stage to write objectives.

33
Copyright ⓒ 2018Authors
Sambodhi ISSN No. 2249-6661
UGC Approved Journal Vol.- 41 No. 1, January To March (2018)

Similarly, for determining the entry-level behaviors of the learners, Dick and Carey differs from ADDIE model by
analyzing entry-level behaviors in the “Analysis” stage rather than in the “Design” stage (Stephanie 2011).
Additionally, ADDIE emphasizes the two different kinds of evaluation, formative and summative, in one stage,
though both occur concurrently as well as post-delivery. The Dick and Carey model on the other hand divide them
as two separate processes. It includes a summative evaluation at the end of the model, but it also includes formative
evaluations at each stage which may or may not redirect the model for revision. The process of formatively
evaluating each stage in the Dick and Carey model is possibly the critical difference between the two models. This
process also determines the creation of materials, assessments and, objectives and can inflate the cost involved in
many aspects such as time frame, resources, learning objectives and finances.

Because of these reasons, it has been suggested that Dick & Carey’s model may be more suited to complex learning
initiatives that may be required on account of greater diversity in the learners or a more intellectually demanding
and specialized subject matter(Stephanie 2011). By that logic, the Dick and Carey model may also be more suited to
non-corporate applications and formal educational setting where the time-frame may be broader and the topic for
learning is more expansive. This would also allow the instruction to incorporate a constructivism focus if it is
deemed suitable in the assessment process (Chang, 2006). This model is undoubtedly more flexible than ADDIE, it
is also a more in-depth process that can also enable allow greater personalization of the learning design (Clark,
2004).

Kemp Instructional Design Model

The Jerold Kemp Instructional Design model is a method that draws from a number of disciplines and approaches
to instructional design (Morrison et al., 2010). Also known as the Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model, this
instructional design framework outlines nine circular non-linear stages. The oval shape of his model (as shown in
Figure 3) conveys that the design and development process is a continuous cycle that requires constant planning,
design, development and assessment for effective instruction(Hanley 2009). Some stages may not even be required
at all depending on the process and design. In this model, the instructional design process is a continuous cycle with
revision as an ongoing activity associated with all of the elements in the framework. The Kemp model approaches
instruction and design from the perspective of the learner. The overall needs, goals, priorities, and constraints of the
learner are considered to determine the instructional solutions (Giles, 2013).

Elements of the Kemp Model

Element Description
Identify the instructional problems and determine the goals for the program you will be
Instructional Problems
designing.
Explore the characteristics and needs of learners. Identify the characteristics that will
Learners Characteristics
influence and guide the planning process.
One of the most important stages of the design process. Use this stage to understand
Task Analysis what knowledge and procedures you need to include in the instruction to help the
learner master the learning objectives.
Identify the instructional and learning objectives. Specify exactly what the learner must
Instructional Objectives
learn and master. The objectives offer a sort of map for designing the instruction.
Arrange content in a logical order for effective learning. The order in which the
Content Sequencing information is presented plays an important role in helping the learner understand and
learn the information.
This is considered the creative step. This stage involves designing creative and
Instructional Strategies innovative strategies to present the information, and help learners reach the stated
learning objectives.
Plan and design the instructional message and decide how it is to be conveyed. The
Designing the Message message is the pattern of words and pictures used to communicate with learners, and
the process is the act of arranging the words and pictures.
Instructional Delivery Design and/or select resources and materials to support instructional activities.
Develop evaluation instruments that will be used to assess and evaluate learner’s
Evaluation Instruments
mastery of the learning objectives (both summative and formative).

34
Copyright ⓒ 2018Authors
Sambodhi ISSN No. 2249-6661
UGC Approved Journal Vol.- 41 No. 1, January To March (2018)

Figure: 3

Comparison between Dick and Carey model and Kemp Model

In has been said that the process in Dick and Carey Model is rigid and cumbersome for the real-life instructional
design situations compared to the Kemp model (UK Essays 2013). The former follows a behaviorist approach and
in prescribing an ID sequence where instruction is broken into small components it assumes that there is a
predictable relation between instructional materials and the learning of the material. The designers identify sub-
skills that should be mastered in order for learners to acquire the intended behaviors. However, whether the
behaviors are as predictable as suggested by the Dick and Carey model has been questioned (Akbulut, 2007).

Gustafson and Branch (2002) classify the Kemp model as a classroom orientated ID model and the Dick and
Carey model as a system orientated ID model. The classroom focus involves teachers in deciding appropriate
content, strategies, media usage and evaluation i.e. for instructional solutions to learning problems. It can lead to
an output of one or few hours of instruction, whereas systems-oriented models like Dick and Carey lead to an
output of a whole course or curriculum.

It has also been said that the Dick and Carey model is a rectilinear ID model which fails to recognize complexities
of the design process. On the other hand, the Kemp model is a curvilinear ID model which communicates more
interaction between the components of the model. The latter therefore corresponds with a more flexible ID
process. Kemp model does not claim that all nine elements are required for all instructional design process
whereas the Dick and Carey model claims that each component is critical and none should be skipped. In this
respect Kemp model seems to represent an adaptive model (Morrison et al. 2010). Kemp model is also less
prescriptive. Even though the Dick and Carey model provides a systematic approach to curriculum and program
design, the rigidity suggested by the model could make it hard to adapt to multiple team members and different
types of resources.

People who are new to instructional design might favor the DC model, since to begin with, it is easier to follow a
prescriptive process in terms of the order of the steps to be followed. Experienced designers on the other hand may
favor the Kemp model since it allows more creativity and helps the designers to start the design process from any
step the context requires (Akbulut, 2007) .

Conclusion

We may conclude by saying that no model can be claimed to be absolutely superior to the others and any one of
the models reviewed here might be used by instructors for different curricula and subject matters. The
intellectual level of the students and their learning abilities and experience levels of the designers may also
determine the choice of the ID model. The resources available in terms of time and money are also critical
factors in this decision. Since 1995, there has been a considerable increase in delivering instruction at a distance
but distance learning practices cannot be on-line replicas of the instruction delivered in classrooms (Reiser,

35
Copyright ⓒ 2018Authors
 Sambodhi ISSN No. 2249-6661
UGC Approved Journal Vol.- 41 No. 1, January To March (2018)

2002). In such situations, students may feel isolated and the educational experience could become passive and
alienating. Activities must be carefully designed on the basis of grounded learning theory along with appropriate
instructional principles so as to create an effective online instruction module. The Kemp model may be more
suited for large instructional design projects where there will be a number of team members contributing to the
various stages and elements simultaneously (Giles, 2013). The model is also said to be particularly useful for
developing instructional programs that blend Technology, pedagogy and content to deliver effective and efficient
learning in large online instructional modules (Kranch, 2008).

References

1. Akbulut, Y. (2007). Implications of Two Well-known Models for Instructional Designers in Distance
Education: Dick- Carey Versus Morrison-Ros-KEMP. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2) p1-
7. Retrieved from https://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde26/pdf/article_5.pdf
2. Allen, M. (2012 September 26). Re: Leaving ADDIE for SAM: A Conversation with Authors. [Slideshare].
Retrieved from: http://www.slideshare.net/alleninteractions/leaving-addie-for-sam
3. Chang, S. (2006). The Systematic Design of Instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development.
Vol. 54 (4), p417-420.
4. Clark, D. (2004). The Dick and Carey Model-1978. Referenced
at:http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/carey.html
5. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2001). The systematic design of instruction. New York, NY: Longman.
6. Essays, UK. (November 2013). Critical Analysis Of Instructional Design Models Education Essay. Retrieved
from http://www.ukessays.com/essays/education/critical-analysis-of-instructional-design-models-education-
essay.php?cref=1
7. Giles, M. (2013). Re: The Kemp ID Model. [Slideshare]. Retrieved from
8. http://www.slideshare.net/lindamgiles/kemp-id-modelpresmgiles-16411696
9. Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. (2002). What is instructional design. … and Issues in Instructional Design and …,
Chapter 2. Retrieved from: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~etc-c/etc667/2006/readings/gustafson1a.pdf
10. Hanley, M. (2009 June 10). Re: Discovering Instructional Design 11: The Kemp Model. [Web log comment].
Retrieved from:http://elearningcurve.edublogs.org/2009/06/10/discovering-instructional-design-11-the-kemp-
model/
11. Karagiorgi, Y., &Symeou, L. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design : Potential and
Limitations Constructivism – An overview of the learning theory. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1),
17–27. Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_1/5.pdf
12. Kranch, D. A. (2008). Getting It Right Gradually: An Iterative Method for Online Instruction Development.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9 (1).
13. Merrill, M. D., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., & Pratt, J. (1966). Reclaiming Instructional Design. Educational
Technology, 36 (5), 5–7. Retrieved from http://mdavidmerrill.com/Papers/Reclaiming.PDF
14. Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 44(3), 55–63.
Retrieved from
http://iptde.boisestate.edu/FileDepository.nsf/bf25ab0f47ba5dd785256499006b15a4/693b43c6386707fc87257
8150059c1f3/$FILE/Molenda_03.pdf
15. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. (2010). Designing effective instruction. John Wiley &
Sons.
16. Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to Life: Instructional Design at Its Best. Journal of Educational
Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227-241. Norfolk, VA: AACE. Retrieved from:
http://www.editlib.org/p/2074/
17. Reiser, R.A. (2002). A history of instructional design and technology. In R.A. Reiser & J.A. Dempsey (Eds.),
Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 26-53). Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
18. Riecker, T. (2012 November 23). Re: The Death of ADDIE? [Web log comment]. Retrieved
from:http://triecker.wordpress.com/?s=addie
19. Sites, R. (1012, May 8). Re: Its an ICE Time to Leave ADDIE Behind [Web log comment]. Retrieved
fromhttp://info.alleninteractions.com/bid/86482/It-s-an-ICE-Time-to-Leave-ADDIE-Behind
20. Stephanie (2011, March 9). Re: Comparison: ADDIE and Dick and Carey. [Web log comment]. Retrieved
fromhttp://dovetail.blog.com/2011/03/09/comparison-addie-and-dick-carey/
21. Vejvodová, J. (2009). The ADDIE Model: Dead or Alive. In 10th International Conference Virtual University:
…. Retrieved from http://virtuni.eas.sk/rocnik/2009/pdf/paper_127.pdf
22. Williams, A. (2014 October 30) RE: Comparison of ADDIE. [Web log comment]. Retrieved
from:http://amwilliams.wikispaces.com/
23. Willis, J. (1995). A Recursive, Reflective Instructional Design Model Based on Constructivist-Interpretivist
Theory. Educational Technology, (Nov-Dec). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ515158.

36
Copyright ⓒ 2018Authors

View publication stats