Instructional Design Models
Date: Similarities and Differences of Major Instructional Design Models
Models provide structure to the Instructional Design issue and hence guide the designer. Instructional Design models bring focus in the planning process, which helps the outcomes to be relevant to the educational needs being addressed by the complete design.
ADDIE gives a general and straightforward framework for creating teaching material. The dick and Carey model gives insight into the details of the ID process, while the Kemp model is applicable in situations involving numerous learners with varied resources. This Instructional Design focuses on the learner instead of the teacher to ensure that the learning process is effective. As a result, all aspects of the learning syllabus are governed by the students, results or value added to learners. This helps determine if they are fulfilling the intended objectives. It is an effective guideline though the steps may overlap on occasions hence causing the designer to go back and revise the product. The main differentiating factor in this model is its flexibility, which allows users to personalize it by adding their own guidelines.
The Dick & Carey model
The Dick & Carey model is based on the division of learning in to small instruction components of required skills. It then provides a framework for testing the extent to which learners gain these skills. It takes in to account the possibility of a disconnect between instruction given and the needs fulfilled. The thought processes of learners that facilitate learning are used as the criteria to form instructional strategy and select relevant learning material. The effectiveness of the design is tested in the field before being applied in a wider setting. This model is rigid as compared to other models and can be tiresome to designers due to the detail involved.
The Robert Gagne Model
Gagne’s instructional model uses a learning outcome approach to create learning programs. Different outcomes based on the difference in the thought processes that result when individuals are given various mental stimuli. A set of nine learning events provide different stimuli depending on an instructor’s desired goals. It has several key differences to other models as it plans for the retention of learning material by learners. It advises instructors to do this by ensuring that learners practically apply skills learnt. Another key difference is the inclusion of learners in the planning process by methods like sharing course content early in the instruction process. Like all the other models, it emphasizes on the vitality of reviewing learning outcomes and learning media to improve instructional design.
Morrison, Ross and Kemp model
The Morrison, Ross and Kemp model approaches instructional design from the perspective of a continuous planning, development and appraisal cycle, which is meant to meet learner’s needs effectively. When simplified, the Kemp model involves the identification of learning problems and goals before starting the design process. The selection of learning materials in the classroom is another key feature of this model. This is similar to the Dick and Francis model that also guides designers to examine the relevance of the instructional material/ media in relation to the learners’ needs.
Rapid prototyping Instructional Design model
Like the Morrison, Ross and Kemp model, rapid prototyping conceptualizes instructional design as a cycle. However, unlike other models it is driven by continuous learner evaluation and subsequent improvement based on this feedback. It also does not focus as much on planning as the other models s a basic framework of a design is implemented soon after conceptualization. It is faster to implement than other models and the onus of evaluation is placed more on the user than the designer.
All five models are similar in that they call for designers to evaluate the effectiveness of their design in relation to learning. All models except for the rapid prototype also focus on analyzing the situation, strategizing and evaluating the outcome.