Design “refers to depicting a plan for the creation of an object or system” (Brown, 2018, p. 3) and is based on a “scientific, systematic and quantitative paradigm” (Sahin, 2009, p. 1464). Instructional design is used “to improve the quality of instruction and ensure effective and retentive learning” (Baturay, 2008, p. 471). Instructional design models guide instructional design development by providing a framework for developing effective, appealing, consistent, and reliable instruction (Khalil & Elkhider, 2016). They portray vital principles necessary for effective and efficient instruction (Aytekin et al., 2012; Al-Khattat et al., 2019; D’Angelo et al., n.d.; Merrill, 2002). Today, more than ever, designers consult several models, strategies, and theories about developing the final product (Dousay, 2017). There is a myriad of models to choose from; however, a design model in isolation provides little guidance on including accommodations to improve learning and transfer for today’s learners (Tessmer & Richey, 1997). Caution should be used when using one instructional design model because more activity and flexibility are needed. Rigid templates interfere with the exploration and innovation necessary for learning (Brown, 2018). This paper will begin with an overview of the ADDIE model and will compare and contrast two additional models: the ASSURE and Dick and Carey’s design models. It is important to note that one model alone will not guarantee the successful improvement of today’s 21-century K-12 learners’ learning and transfer. Rather, traditional instructional design methods need modifications to match the new learner characteristics of the 21st century (Sahin, 2009).
Five essential phases found in almost all instructional design models originate from the ADDIE model: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (Al-Khattat et al., 2012; Aytekin et al., 2012; Anderson, 2008; Baturay, 2008; Khalil & Elkhider, 2016; Soto, 2013). Although it appears the original draft of the ADDIE model does not have a single author, it was originally developed for military instruction in the mid-1970s (Molenda, 2015). It is not completely effective for today’s learners. ADDIE is an umbrella term (Molenda, 2015) with a generic and standard approach for almost all instructional models, lacking agility (Budoya et al., 2019). It is too rigid, treating students more like machines than humans with different needs and personalities (Baturay, 2008). In other words, it fails to offer modifications and is too general and simple when applied to emerging technologies of today (van Wyk et al., 2020) and complicated systems of instruction. “Information alone is not instruction!” (Merrill, 2018, para. 3), and refinement in particular circumstances, especially in virtual world environments and in the engineering process (Brown, 2018), is necessary. In K-12 education, it is more useful for designers to consider aspects of other models that offer more learner activity and flexibility.
Rather than using a traditional, militant design model like the ADDIE model, it is beneficial for K-12 21st-century designers to consult more active learning models such as the ASSURE model. The ASSURE model is similar to the ADDIE model with one fundamental difference—it uses a “systematic, organized and planned approach that progresses according to measurable and verifiable steps” (Al-Khattat et al., 2019, p. 342). The ASSURE model offers ways to improve the limitations of the ADDIE model. The ASSURE model’s six phases are: analyzing the learners phase; stating objectives phase; defining strategies phase; utilizing methods, media, and materials phase; requesting learners’ participation phase; and the evaluation and revision phase. The ASSURE model involves Merrill’s (2002) first principles of instruction to promote student learning: promoting learning using real-world problems to engage learners, prior learner knowledge activation, new knowledge demonstration, new knowledge application, and new knowledge integration into the learner’s world. Although the ASSURE model provides more designer guidance when developing courses and offers increased learner activity throughout, it may be necessary to consider an alternative model.
Developed in the late 1970s, another popular instructional design model used in education is Dick and Carey’s design model (Pappas, 2015). By focusing more on lesson planning (Kurt, 2015) and individualized learning (D’Angelo et. al., n.d.), the Dick and Carey design model improves the limitations of the ADDIE and ASSURE models. The nine components of Dick and Carey’s design model include: pinpointing the instructional goal; determining the skills necessary to perform the goal; analyzing the learners’ skills, attitudes, and learning environment; communicating criteria for successful performance; developing assessment; identifying ways to present information, providing learner practice, offering teacher feedback, and revising instruction (Baturay, 2008). This step-by-step process adds more detail and elaborates on the ADDIE and ASSURE models, especially in the analysis phase (Khalil, 2016). It offers more flexibility to respond to learners, allowing for more effective and efficient individualized instruction.
The main goal of instructional design is to provide learners with effective, appealing, consistent, and reliable instruction to encourage personal transformation (Khalil & Elkhider, 2016). In today’s 21-century K-12 classroom, analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation is not enough. Today’s 21-century learners have individual circumstances and unique needs. Course design cannot be frontloaded—adjustments, modifications, and accommodations to improve learning and transfer must be made throughout delivery. To achieve learning goals, instructional designers must be flexible—by using alternative models, strategies, and theories. Traditional instructional design methods like the ADDIE model fail to offer modifications to align with new learner characteristics of the 21st century (Sahin, 2009). The ADDIE model is useful to begin the design process but is limited once instructors meet the learners. Additional design models like the ASSURE and Dick and Carey’s design models are more useful because they offer more activity and flexibility.
References
Al-Khattat, S. H. K., Habeeb, R. R., & Mohammed, A. R. (2019). An ASSURE-model instructional design based on active learning strategies and their effect for 1st intermediate student’s higher-order thinking skills in teaching science textbook. Psilhologija. 52(5), 339-349. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338955686
Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. (2nd ed). AU Press. https://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00011700/00001
Aytekin, I., AbdulAziz, F., Barakat, H., Saadany, A., & Abdurrahman, M. (2012). Effectiveness of instructional design model (Isman – 2011) in developing the planning teaching skills of teachers college students’ at King Saud University. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(1), 71-78. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ976571
Baturay, M. H. (2008). Characteristics of basic instructional design models. Ekev Akademy Journal, 2(34), 471-482. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=0b1277b4-7f1e-4d92-a6fc-036dedd35a3c%40sdc-v-sessmgr02
Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2018). Beyond teaching instructional design models: Exploring the design process to advance professional development and expertise. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(1), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9164-y
Budoya, C. M., Kissake, M. M., & Mtebe, J. S. (2019). Instructional design enabled agile method using ADDIE model and feature driven development process. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology. 15(1), 20. University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1214264.pdf
D’Angelo, T., Bunch, J. C., & Thoron, A. (n.d.). Instructional Design Using the Dick and Carey Systems Approach. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/WC/WC29400.pdf
Dousay, T. A. (2017). Chapter 22. Instructional design models. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations
Khalil, M. K., & Elkhider, I. A. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for effective instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2015
Kurt, S. (2015, November 23). Dick and Carey Instructional Model. Educational Technology. https://educationaltechnology.net/dick-and-carey-instructional-model/
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59. https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/BF02505024
Merrill, M. D. (2018). Chapter 21. Using the first principles of instruction to make instruction effective, efficient, and engaging. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology. EdTech Books. https://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/using_the_first_principles_of_instruction
Molenda, M. (2015). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement. 54(2). 40-43. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251405713_In_search_of_the_elusive_ADDIE_model
Obizoba, C. (2015). Instructional design models—framework for innovative teaching and learning methodologies. International Journal of Higher Education Management. 2(1), 40-51. https://ijhem.com/cdn/article_file/i-3_c-22.pdf
Pappas, Christopher (2015, November 24). 9 Steps to apply the Dick and Carey Model in eLearning. https://elearningindustry.com/9-steps-to-apply-the-dick-and-carey-model-in-elearning
Sahin, M. C. (2009). Instructional design principles for 21st-century learning skills. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1464–1468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.258
Soto, V. J. (2013). Which instructional design models are educators using to design virtual world instruction?. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. 9(3), 364-375. https://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no3/soto_0913.pdf
Tessmer, M. & Richey, R.C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional design. Educational Technologyesearch and Development. 45, 85–115 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299526
Van Wyk, N., A. Johnston, K., Moeller, K., & Haas, F. (2020). Developing an IT course for emerging technologies using a framework – An example of an IoT course V1.0. In M. Jones (Ed.), Proceedings of In SITE 2020: Informing Science and Information Technology Education Conference, 15-45. Informing Science Institute. https://doi.org/10.28945/4521
Attribution: Photo by Jo Szczepanska on Unsplash