This week we were introduced to Instructional Design (ID) models in EDU623: Designing Learning Environments. There are many models that emphasize different aspects of the design process and learning but an overview of the ADDIE model gives a good basis for the function of ID models in general. Next, I’ll give overviews of two other models I found insightful: the Heinich, Molenda, Russell and Smaldino Model and the Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model.
The ADDIE ID Model is divided into 5 steps: analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. Each step is comprised of more specific questions that need to be addressed before moving on to the next step, making the ADDIE Model a linear progression that builds on the completion of the previous step. After an analysis of the needs of the project is completed, designing the plan, including objectives and learning prerequisites, takes place. Next, the development of the actual lesson plan occurs followed by the implementation and evaluation of the project as a whole, although evaluation is an ongoing process within the ADDIE Model that is present in each step of the process (Hodell, 2011 pp. 25-26). This model clearly defines each step in the process with objectives that can be checked-off in a systematic order.
The Heinich, Molenda, Russell and Smaldino Model use the acronym ASSURE to represent analyze learners, state objectives, select media and materials, utilize media and materials, require learner participation and evaluate and revise (Gustafson & Branch, 2002 p. 43). Like the ADDIE Model, the ASSURE Model breaks up analysis and the formation of objectives into two steps, but ADDIE requires a comprehensive analysis of the entire project while ASSURE focuses solely on the learners. This makes ASSURE a more specialized classroom-oriented model rather than the more generalized ADDIE. While ADDIE has a higher degree of depth than ASSURE, both have the same basic, linear structure that incorporates evaluation and a feedback loop of revision, although evaluation is stressed more in ADDIE.
The Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model focuses on curriculum planning by first asking questions that are specific to the learner, again contrasting with the more comprehensive ADDIE Model. Next, the Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model give nine phases that focus on instructional problems, learner characteristics, task analysis, instructional objectives, content sequencing, instructional strategies, designing the message, development of instruction and evaluation instruments (Gustafson & Branch, 2002 pp. 46-49). This model breaks up steps within the ADDIE Model to make the selected phases more distinct and focus on analysis as outlined in ADDIE in more detail than the design, development, implementation and evaluation phases. The phases within the Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model are also conceptualized to be non-linear, as opposed to ADDIE, in that a teacher can start and elaborate in any order seen fit, even worked on simultaneously.
While each model has its strengths and specific audience, I feel that the Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model best fits my educational context of higher education. While the ASSURE Model would act well for designing individual lesson plans, it is basic and both the ADDIE Model and the Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model are more appropriate for designing an entire course. A visual comparison between the ADDIE and Morrison, Ross and Kemp models can be found here. While a linear approach has the value of a feeling of completion after each step, conceptualizing ID as a “continuous cycle with revision as an on-going activity associated with all the other elements” is more flexible and allows the designer to complete phases based on the needs of the specific project rather a one-size-fits-all approach (Gustafson & Branch, 2002 p. 48). The interdependent nature of the Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model is seen to be more of a real-world approach that defines the analysis process into more digestible and systematic chunks.
Having an overview of ID models over this week has been eye-opening because of the theoretical reasoning given behind each model; detailed knowledge of a theory works to strengthen the design practice. I feel that my overview of ID models’ theories this week enhances not only my understanding of ID models, but the planning and implementation of instructional design as well. With more practice designing curricula and lessons comes more chances to shape and mold different ID models into a framework that takes the educator’s strengths and delivery method into account.
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of Instructional Models.Syracuse,NY: Eric Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.
Hodell, C. (2011). ISD from the Ground Up: A No-Nonsense Approach to Instructional Design. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.