This paper will briefly describe and critique the purpose and what instructional models are followed by process of three selected models: (1) The Dick & Carey Model (2) Kemp Model (3) 3 PD Model. The process description and critique for each model will serve as the foundation and supporting points required for comparison and contrasting process of the models.

1. Instructional Design Models: A Mini- Lit Review
Sabri Elamin
Cape Breton University

2. Purpose of the paper
 This paper is an attempt to briefly present new knowledge based on a survey
of scholarly articles, books and other sources relevant instructional design
models. This paper provide a description, summary, and critical evaluation of
each model. The purpose of this mini-review is to offer an overview of
significant literature published on the instructional design models.
 This paper will briefly describe and critique the purpose and what
instructional models are followed by process of three selected models: (1)
The Dick & Carey Model (2) Kemp Model (3) 3 PD Model. The process
description and critique for each model will serve as the foundation and
supporting points required for comparison and contrasting process of the
models.

3. The Dick & Carey Model

4.  The model addresses
instruction as an entire system,
focusing on the
interrelationship between
context, content, learning and
instruction. According to Dick
and Carey, "Components such
as the instructor, learners,
materials, instructional
activities, delivery system, and
learning and performance
environments interact with
each other and work together
to bring about the desired
student learning outcomes".

5. Source: www.umich.edu

6. Stage 1: Identify Instructional Goals
Image Source: www.aliexpress.com

7. Stage 2. Conduct Instructional Analysis
Image source: www.itwm.fraunhofer.de

8. Stage 3. Identify Entry Behaviors and Learner Characteristics
Image source :onlinelearningconsortium.org

9. Stage 4: Write Performance Objectives
Source: www.icl-group.com

10. Stage 5. Develop Criterion-Referenced Test Items
Source : www.study.com

11. Stage 6. Develop Instructional Strategy
Source : www.frog-dog.com

12. Stage 7: Develop and Select Instructional Materials
Source: www.savoirbooks.com

13. Stage 8: Develop and Conduct Formative Evaluation
Source :www.pbisapps.org

14. Stage 9: Develop and Conduct Summative Evaluation
www.totalimprove.com

15. Kemp Model

16.  The Morrison, Ross and Kemp (also known as the Kemp) instructional design
model takes a holistic approach to instructional design.
 Virtually all factors of the learning environment are taken into
consideration.
 Its systematic and nonlinear design defines nine different components that
are contentiously implemented and evaluated.
 Kemp state, the instructional design approach that focuses on curriculum
planning stem from the learner’s perspective rather than content, making it
different from traditional design practice.

18.  its central focus of the Kemp Model is the learner needs and
goals, and is small scale, making it adaptable for individual
lessons.
 The model is particularly useful for developing instructional
programs that blend technology, pedagogy and content to deliver
effective, reliable, and efficient learning and seems to encourage
designers to work in all areas defined.
 The model focuses on resources creation, implementation and
delivery followed by evaluation and improvement (Sims & Jones
2002)

19. Three-Phase Design (3PD) Model

20.  3PD, comprised of three phases (develop functionality,
evaluate/elaborate/enhance and maintain), is not meant to
replace the accepted instructional design models, like ADDIE that
utilize five phases (assess, design, develop, implement, evaluate),
but rather to provide a development process for online teaching
and learning.
 It is seen as an instructional design model that "integrates the
three essential competency sets for unit or course development
(design, subject matter, production) in a cohesive rather than
desperate manner.

22.  3 PD model has a great appeal for the online environment,
the fluidity of online learning connects well with the
element of continuing development.
 One of the most striking differences of the model is that
the evaluation process is ongoing during both the second
and third phases of the process as opposed to more
standard Dick and Carey where evaluation and redesign
and development is performed at the end of the process.

23. Discussion and Critique
 The Dick & Cary Model is one of influential system oriented
models, like most models it bears the conventional core
elements of analysis, design, development, implementation
and evaluation.
 Brandt(2001) refer to the complexity of this model he states
that it comes from the approach based from the five core
elements in broken down to additional or variety of steps with
different terminology. He states that the designers must end
up with a product containing accomplished objective and
measurable outcomes.
 Gustafson & Branch (1997) agreed and they stated this process
used in many business, government including military
environment as well as performance technology and computer
aided instructions reflects the fundamental design process.

24. Discussion and Critique
 Based on the above descriptions, it clearly shows
the liner form for the Dick, Cary and Carey
model. That mean each process cannot function
as a stand-alone.
 Dick, Cary and Carey suggested that the
systematic approach of model is an affective and
successful approach due to its focus on learner’s
objectives and final an achievement prior to the
planning and implementation stage.

25.  They sate also there is a careful linkage between
instructional strategy and desired learning
outcomes.
 Dick, Cary and Carey also assured that the team
involved in the above design process often times
consist of the instructional designer and team of
specialist, media producer and evaluator.
 The team draws on each other’s skills to produce
the product. Instructor with specialized skill can
be a stand-alone team.

26. References
 Brandt, D. S. (2001). Information technology literacy: Task knowledge and
mental models. Library Trends, 50(1), 73-88.
 Dick, W. & Carey, L. (2005). The systematic design of instruction. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon
 Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of instructional development
models. (2nd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information &
Technology.
 Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Re-visioning models of instructional
development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 73-
89.