More Related Content

Similar to Comparing Instructional Design Models(20)


More from Michael M Grant(20)


Comparing Instructional Design Models

  1. Image from Michael M. Grant 2013 Comparing Instructional Design Models Designing Interactive Learning Environments
  2. from Image from
  3. Elements of ID Models Classroom Selected Characteristics Orientation Product Orientation System Orientation Typical output One or a few hours Self-instructional or Course or entire of instruction instructor-delivered curriculum package Resources committed to Very low High High development Team or Individual Individual Usually a team Team ID skill/experience Low High High/very high Emphasis on development Select Develop Develop or selection Amount of analysis Low Low to medium Very high Technological complexity Low Medium to high Medium to high Amount of revision Low to medium Very high Medium to high Amount of distribution None High Medium to high from Branch & Gustafson (1997)
  4. Image from Selected ID Models
  5. Dick & Carey ¤ Now, (Walt) Dick, (Lou) Carey & (James) Carey ¤ Systems orientation ¤ Widespread use in corporate & military Image from
  6. Images from &
  7. A voice from the field… Dr. Walter Dick
  8. “ Dr. Walter Dick — I would say that they should remain novices for as short a period of time as possible — by taking every opportunity to practice design in many different settings. Be confident and respectful with your client and subject- matter expert. Image from
  9. ASSURE ¤  Heinich, Molenda, Russell & Smaldino ¤  Now, Smaldino, Lowther, Russell (2008) ¤  Classroom orientation ¤  Note the selection of materials instead of development Image from
  10. A — Analyze learners S — State standards & objectives S — Select strategies, technology, media & materials U — Utilize technology, media & materials R — Require learner participation E — Evaluate & revise Images from, &
  11. A voice from the field… Dr. Sharon Smaldino
  12. “ Dr. Sharon Smaldino — To ASSURE good learning, I believe it is not one single thing that a teacher or designer should consider, but I do believe that there are areas of emphasis. First, ASSURE starts with looking at the learner in detail. Nothing you plan or design is effective unless you have taken the time to look at the learners. In Illinois, for example, it is now state law that ALL teachers must assess their students' knowledge and skills prior to instruction to ensure that they differentiate instruction. That means that by understanding where the learners are at the start of instruction, a teacher will make every effort to assist all learners to be successful in their learning endeavors. This new direction supports my position about knowing the learner. I feel that knowing as much as possible about your learners is critical to design and implementation of instruction. Image from
  13. “ Dr. Sharon Smaldino — Second, the second letter in ASSURE, S, refers to knowing the intended outcomes or expectations. No instruction should begin without everyone having a clear understanding of what is supposed to happen in the instruction. This does not preclude the possibility of additional learning taking place, but without a road map, some of your learners may well be "lost." And, especially in the schools today, as we edge closer to the 100% of all students meeting or exceeding expectations, I believe that students need to know what is expected of them. I do believe that there is more than one "right way" to achieve those expectations and more than one "right medium" to use, because it's not a one-size fits all world. BUT, as NCLB is still a mandate, we need to find ways to make it possible for our diverse learning population fit into the "mold" that has been outlined for us. Learners need to know what they are to do. Image from
  14. “ Dr. Sharon Smaldino — And, I add that you cannot assess learning without knowing what was expected. NOW, because I opened that can of worms, let me quickly state that assessment can be formative and summative and can take multiple formats. But, that is another cup of tea for sure. Image from
  15. “ Dr. Sharon Smaldino — My final area of importance in the design and implementation process to ASSURE good learning is the reflection component of evaluation. Once you have completed the design and instruction and gathered the data about the outcomes and impressions from your learners, you need to take the time to consider what went well and what could be changed in that particular instructional event. This information will help you re-design that instructional event for future opportunities. But, this information also guides you on how to better address your learners in instruction beyond this particular instructional event. We often do not put enough emphasis on reflection as teachers and designers, but I do consider that it is not time wasted. Oh, my goodness, it appears I've nearly written the chapter on the ASSURE model. I will close with the idea that it's not about the technology and media. It's about the learners and the important decisions we make as designers and instructors to ensure successful learning opportunities. Image from
  16. Smith & Ragan ¤  Patricia Smith & Tim Ragan ¤  Systems orientation ¤  Emphasis on cognitive psychology and instructional strategies Image from
  17. ¤ Analyzing the learning context ¤ Analyzing the learners ¤ Analyzing the learning task ¤ Assessing learner performance ¤ Develop instructional strategies ¤ Produce instruction ¤ Conduct evaluations ¤ Revise instruction Image © Tillman Ragan at &
  18. Morrison, Ross & Kemp ¤  Classroom orientation ¤  It has been modified over time Images from
  19. Images from,, tq_09/3kemp.php &
  20. A voice from the field… Dr. Gary Morrison
  21. “ Dr. Gary Morrison — I think there are two things that are taken for granted by designers (the first of which I just observed yesterday in an email). First, you must define the instructional problem. I have seen designers jump in when management has stated there is a problem without a) confirming the problem exists or b) at least doing a goal analysis to obtain agreement on the outcomes which can also disrupt the plans. For example, I observed a case yesterday where the company was pushing very frequent training to their financial advisors and the advisors were resisting the training. The rationale I received was that the products are continually changing. I am not sure any type of analysis was done. It appears they were doing training because training was probably needed. In reality, a job aid or simply a bulletin might have been more effective and time and resource smart. Part of the problem may have been related the second issue. Image from
  22. “ Dr. Gary Morrison — Second, when I asked me students at the end of the design class which step of the process had little impact on their design and they might skip in future projects, it is almost always the learner analysis step. If you look at what we know about learner analysis and then how we treat the analysis in the strategy design it is weak. We have found that learning styles have no research foundation and do not have a role in the design of instruction. The aptitude-treatment interaction studies of the past century produced no useful heuristics. Basically, learner (and environmental analysis) tend to limit our designs. Thus, learner analysis has not worked out the way we thought it would, or at least the way my professors projected in the 1970’s. Image from
  23. “ Dr. Gary Morrison — Today, the learner analysis limits our design such as two hours of instruction starting one hour before work rather than 40 hours of instruction in one week. Or, not all students have access to that application or a laptop computer. Then, there are specific learner characteristics that can limit instruction such as eye sight, reading level, and prior knowledge (e.g., students with all levels of background knowledge). All these characteristics are important and must be accounted for when we design instruction. I have seen too many examples of inappropriate designs that failed to account for the learner. Image from
  24. “ Dr. Gary Morrison — One of the classics stories of bad learner analysis was from a federal grant some 40 years ago. The design team created audio tapes for teachers of the deaf. Once they tried to implement the materials, they learned that a large number of the teachers were also deaf. Thus, learner analysis may not be as exciting as say a needs assessment or task analysis, we must still do a learner analysis even though it may limit what we can do, or to look at it in a positive way, it can create some great challenges for creative designs to address the instructional problem. Image from
  25. A voice from the field… Dr. Steve Ross
  26. “ Dr. Steve Ross — The most significant implication, in my view, is that instructional design is not a linear or predefined process, but rather, is dynamic and variable due to unique features of the design task and context.  For example, although learning  and instructional theories may suggest reliance on particular design methods or components, the success of the particular project will likely necessitate variations due to available resources, user characteristics, client preferences, policy changes, and other situational conditions that are predetermined or, often, unexpected.  So, an effective designer must not only be expert in the field, but needs to be creative, flexible, and sensitive to the unique aspects and requirements of each project.   So, it’s certainly good to have a textbook like MRK at hand (and please spread that word around!), but a “textbook” approach, by itself, is likely to be limited in the real world. Image from
  27. ADDIE ¤  Been around a long time ¤  Beyond just instructional design — design process in general ¤  Model or framework? Image from
  28. Image from,, &
  29. A voice from the field… Dr. Robert M. Branch
  30. “ Dr. Rob M. Branch— For what it is worth … designers should not overlook the the need to practice all five phases of ADDIE concurrently for most of the instructional design process. Image from
  31. Concurrent Design Image from
  32. Rapid Prototyping ¤  Originated in ¤  Types of prototypes manufacturing §  Look-and-feel: colors, effects, gross screen layouts ¤  ID hijacked from §  Media: use of sound effects, software development narration, 3D illustrations, video, etc. ¤  Focused on development primarily §  Navigation: move through sections, access support (glossary, calculator, etc.) §  Interactivity: content, activities, feedback
  33. Design (product Process specs & treatment) Develop Review prototype
  34. from Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990)
  35. A common confusion … t yp i n g ¤ R ap id p roto shoul d n ot b e d with c o nf use rapid e le a r n i n g m e nt! deve l op
  36. DACUM ¤  Developing A CurriculUM 1.  Written description of the ¤  Began in Canada occupation ¤  A single sheet profile is 2.  Identify general areas of used to present the skills competence of an entire occupation (Finch & Crunkilton, 1993) 3.  Identify specific skills ¤  Creates the task analysis 4.  Structure skills into learning ¤  Typically, uses a sequence committee of 10-12 experts 5.  Establish levels of competence for each skills
  37. Image from
  38. Image from The_Temple_of_Apollo_at_Delphi.jpg Delphi Technique Ruins of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Greece
  39. Delphi Technique ¤  Developed by the RAND 1.  Initial questionnaire requests Corporation list of content each expert feels should be included ¤  Enables experts to speculate individually 2.  All lists are compiled, sent then reach consensus back out and each experts collectively regarding rates each item. the content needed 3.  The ratings are analyzed, ¤  Uses successive rounds ranked and sent back out. 4.  Repeat. Image from feuillu at
  40. Image © 2006 AEAP, Cornell University from
  41. References & Acknolwedgements ¤  Finch, C.R., & Crunkilton, J.R. (1997). Curriculum development in vocational and technical education (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. ¤  Gustafson, K.L., & Branch, R.M. (1997). Survey of instructional development models (3rd ed.). Syracuse, N.Y.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology. ¤  Tripp, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strategy [image]. Educational Technology Research & Development, 38(1), 31-44. ¤  Special thanks to Drs. Rob Branch, Gary Morrison, and Sharon Smaldino for contributing to this presentation.
  42. Michael M. Grant 2013