INTRODUCTION
Instructional Design is a construct referring to the step-by-step prescriptive procedure for creating instructional materials in a consistent and reliable fashion in order to facilitate learning most effectively. effectively. Meanwhile, Instructional system design (ISD) is a problem-solving process that has been applied to the creation of training since the !"#. $ccording to %ruse (&##") during the last si'ty or so years more than ## instructional design models have emerged each based on one or more learning theories. ach instructional design model is rooted in what is called the $DDI model. his fundamental model consists of the five steps found in almost all ISD models* analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation ($SD, !!+, p.").
he goal goal of instru instructi ctional onal design design is to create create succes successfu sfull learni learning ng e'peri e'perienc ences es and to engender transfer of training. ISD provides a road map to guide designers and instructors through analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation to the goal. he ISD road map (the science) provides a route to many different destinations depending on the turns (the art) one chooses to tae. $t its most basic level, instructional design focuses on three fundamental concerns* identifying the goals selecting the strategy and, evaluating success. (Moore, ates / 0rundling, &##&, p.+).
Many instructional design models, when diagrammed, appear to be linear and rigid. In practice most are .iterative, moving bacwards and forwards between the activities. (Moore, ates / 0rundling, &##&). Most are also fle'ible leaving it to the e'perienced designer to decide how much detail is re1uired at each step. his fle'ibility and imperativeness2 may e'plain why ISD has surviv survived ed and flouri flourishe shed d for so long long largel largely y unchang unchanged. ed. Most Most model model creato creators rs subs subscr crib ibee to one or more more lear learni ning ng theo theori ries es whic which h shap shapee thei theirr mode model. l. If the the crea creato torr is a behaviourist, a cognitive, or a constructivist the model will reflect reflect that theoretical belief.
hus, this report reviews on three instructional design models based o n the bacground of the models, and also e'planation of each models as well as comment of the model in relation with instructional design. he three models are* Dic and 3arey 4aterfall and, Seels and 0lasgow.
BACKGROUND OF MODELS
Dick & Carey Model
he Dic and 3arey systems approach model is one of the most influential ID system oriented models. 5ie most models, the Dic and 3arey system bears the conventional core elements of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation also nown as the $DDI model (see diagram " as attached in appendices). he model was originally published in !+6 by 4alter Dic and 5ou 3arey in their boo entitled The Systematic Design of Instruction (Dic, 4alter, 5ou 3arey, and 7ames 8. 3arey, &##9).
3hrono 3hronology logy from Dic Dic and 3arey 3arey model model began began with with 4alter lter Dic Dic was receiv received ed his under undergr gradu aduat atee from from :rin :rince ceto ton, n, then then his his :hD from from :enn :enn stat statee ;niv ;niver ersi sity ty in duc ducat atio ional nal :sychology before teaching at The >The Conditions of Learning ? published in !@9. Aowever continue with 5ou 3arey was wa s a graduate student of 4alter Dic and later was co-author with Dic to >The > The Systematic Design of Instruction? Instruction? published in !+6. Aer husband, 7ames, Boined in the effort to help write this boo due to his e'pertise in educational technology and new media technologies. $fter that, together Dic and 3arey developed a model of Instructional Design described as the >Systems $pproach Model? which was presented within >The Systematic Design of Instruction?. Instruction?. his model has simply become nown and the >Dic / 3arey Model? (Dic, 4alter, 4alter, 5ou 3arey, and 7ames 8. 3arey, &##9).
Waterall Model
he waterfall model is a se1uential design process, design process, often used in software development processes, processes, in which progress progress is seen seen as flowing flowing steadi steadily ly downwar downwards ds (lie a waterfall). waterfall). he waterfall development model originates in the manufacturing and manufacturing and construction industries construction industries highly structured physical environments in which after-the-fact changes are prohibitively costly, if not impos impossib sible. le. Since Since no formal formal softwa software re develop developmen mentt method methodolo ologie giess e'iste e'isted d at the time, time, this this hardware oriented model was simply adapted for software development (enington, Aerbert D., !6C). &
he first formal description of the waterfall model is often cited as a !+# article by 4inston 4. =oyce, although =oyce did not use the term waterfall in this article. =oyce presented this model as an e'ample of a flawed, non-woring model (=oyce, 4inston, !+#). his, in fact, is how the term is generally used in writing about software development to describe a critical view of a commonly used software development practice (=oyce, 4inston, !+#). Seel! a"d Gla!#o$ Model
he Seels and 0lasgow Model is a product-oriented model. It is often used when the goal involves creating the learning materials themselves as part of the overall learning pacage. he Seels and 0lasgow model may seem similar to the $DDI and other models, but what differentiates it is that it is meant to be used in a proBect management environment.
$s the Aerrige article mentions his model recogniEes that instructional designers are often ased to manage a proBect or wor within as established proBect management framewor (0ustafson / ranch, &##&).
$ proBect management environment for a learning materials
proBect could consist of a team of individuals including the instructional designer, software developers, sound and video e'perts, storyboard specialists, and others. his model taes into account that a team is liely to be involved (Seels, ., / 0lasgow, F., !!6).
E%LANATIONS OF MODELS
Dick & Carey Model
he systems oriented Dic and 3arey model details an iterative process that is applicable across a range of conte't areas (see diagram 1 in model diagram part). his model is perhaps the most well nown of the systematic design models and is .the standard to which all other ID models (and alternative approaches to design and development of instruction) are compared. (0ustafson and ranch, &##&, p. 9!).
Meanwhile, according to Dic and 3arey, 3omponents such as the instructor, learners, materials, instructional activities, delivery system, and learning and performance environments C
interact with each other and wor together to bring about the desired student learning outcomes? (Dic, 4alter, 5ou 3arey, and 7ames 8. 3arey, &##9).
he Systems $pproach model is based on an instructional theory that says .there is a predictable and reliable lin between a stimulus (instructional materials) and the response that it produces in a learner (learning of the materials). (Mc0riff, &##, p.&). he model views instruction as* a systematic process in which every component (i.e. teacher, students, materials, and learning environment) is crucial to successful learning. system is technically a set of interrelated parts, all of which wor! together toward a defined goal. The parts of the system depend on each other for input and output, and the entire system uses feed"ac! to determine if its desired goal has "een reached (Dic and 3arey, !!#, p.C).
It means that, each model component is critical. Gone can be sipped. Some steps can be completed concurrently but all must be completed. ecause of its systematic and se1uenced nature, this model allows for the standardiEation of proBect design efforts maing them tas specific. It also implies a proBect management framewor to allow for planning of re1uired resources ($ndrews and 0oodson, !6#, p. ").
his model focuses the designer on the goal of the instruction by re1uiring a needs assessment and the documentation of clear and measurable learning obBectives (0ustafson and ranch, &##&, p. @). y viewing the development of instruction as a systematic process one considers the role of each component and, through formative and summative evaluation, identifies what corrections must be made to ensure the instructional goal is met.
he components for the model, stated by Dic, 3arey, and 3arey (&##) (model shown as in model diagram #) consist of nine procedural steps or linear se1uences. ach of these components is dependent upon one another indicated by direction of solid arrow lines. Dotted lines representing formative evaluations points to instructional revisions that originates from ree'amination of the instructional analysis2 validity and entry behaviors of learners. Aowever, Summative evaluation is the culminating evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction it generally is not a part of the design process (Dic and 3arey, !!#, p.@).
"
he se1uential steps for the design in Dic and 3arey Models as follows* (a) assess needs to helps identify learning goals, (b) conduct instructional analysis and analyEe learners and conte'ts, (c) write performance obBectives, (d) develop assessment instruments, (e) develop instructional strategies, (f) develop and select instructional material, (g) design and conduct formative evaluations, (h) revise instruction based from formative evaluations, (i) design and conduct summative evaluation (not a mandatory step) (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, &## 0ustafson / ranch, &##&).
0oals are clear statements of behaviors that learners are to demonstrate as a result of instruction? (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, &## p.C#) here, means that instructional goals must be created before the implementing the ID process (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, &## 0ustafson / ranch, &##&).
Second Step* Conduct instructional analysis. efore proceeding with the instruction implementation, designers must conduct the process of instructional analysis to find out prior learner2s sills, nowledge and attitudes. hey must also carefully e'amine and create step by step tas description to help learners achieve instructional goals (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, &##).
hird step* naly$e learners and conte%ts. his step aligned with the process of instructional analysis, involves the collection of information on learners2 entry behavior, characteristics, prior nowledge, sills and attitude, academic motivation, and learning preferences. $n instructional design can then proceed to the selection of an environment that can support learning. he performance conte't for learning application and sills is important for the building of instructional strategies (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, &##).
Si'th step* Develop instructional strategies. ased on information from the five preceding steps, identify the strategy that will use in teacher instruction to achieve the terminal obBective. he strategy will include sections on pre-instructional activities, presentation of information, practice and feedbac, testing, and follow-through activities. he strategy will be based on current theories of learning and results of learning research, the characteristics of the medium that will be used to deliver the instruction, content to be taught, and the characteristics of the learners who will receive the instruction. hese features are used to develop or select materials or to develop a strategy for interactive classroom instruction (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, &##).
Seventh step* Develop and select instructional material . It depends on the lessons taught and available supporting resources, instructional material such as instructorHs guides, student modules, overhead transparencies, videotapes, computer-based multimedia formats, and web pages for distance learning as well as other resource related with learning. By the end of this phase, the designer should have draft copies of materials, assessments and instructor manual. he designer can continue revising and improving lesson materials, during the evaluation process (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, &##).
ighth step* Design and conduct formative evaluations. 0ustafon and ranch (&##&) state that the process of designing and conducting of formative evaluations can help assess the value of instructional goals. he three types of formative evaluation are referred to as one-to- one evaluation, small-group evaluation, and field evaluation. ach type of evaluation provides the designer with a different type of information that can be used to improve the instruction. Similar techni1ues can be applied to the formative evaluation of e'isting materials or classroom instruction (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, &##). @
Ginth Step* evise instruction "ased from formative evaluations. =evise Instruction indicates that the data from a formative evaluation are not simply used to revise the instruction itself, but are used to ree'amine the validity of the instructional analysis and the assumptions about the entry behaviors and characteristics of learners. It is necessary to ree'amine statements of performance obBectives and test items in light of collected data. he instructional strategy is reviewed and finally all this is incorporated into revisions of the instruction to mae it a more effective instructional tool. his is final step of the design process but also functions as the first step for the interaction process (Dic, 3arey, / 3arey, &##).
enth step* Design and conduct summative. Dic, 3arey, / 3arey (&##) state the summative evaluation though is considered a culminating evaluation for e'amining instructional effectiveness is not part of the nine basic stems of the systems approach model. It is also not an integral part because the designer of instructor in not involved in this process.
he underlying approach and methods The systems approach* Dic and 3arey (!!@) pointed out the systematic characteristics of their model* . 0oal-directed* all the components in the system wor together toward a defined goal &. Interdependencies* all the components in the system depend on each other for input and output. C.
eeds ssessment * a study to determine the nature of an organiEational problem and how it can be resolved. he outcome of a needs assessment is the description of problem, causes of the problem, and the solution. . Geeds assessment becomes an increasing important component of the process &. =ossett (!6&)* Geeds assessment, a front-end analysis, is a techni1ue to understand a performance problem before trying to solve it. C. Instruction may not be the only solution to the performance problem. +
". Information gathering is important* the methods include interviews, 1uestionnaires, observations, documents, group discussions
*agne+s (#-) domains of learning . he domains include psychomotor sills, intellectual sills, verbal information, attitude and cognitive strategies &. Dic and 3arey deliberately omitted cognitive strategies from the te't* the least understood part these can be treated lie intellectual sills and taught as such.
/ager (#0) model for o"'ectives* three maBor components* descriptions of the sill or behavior, descriptions of the conditions that the behavior is performed, and description of the criteria that will be used to evaluate learner performance.
esier and *agne+s (#-1) /edia Selection* it is necessary to select a medium for a cluster of similar obBectives in the same domain, and attempt to mi' compatible media for a various obBectives. he factors in media selections include . he proBected availability of various media &. he ability of the teacher and the students to manage the media C. he ability of the designer or an available e'pert to produce the materials in a particular media format ".
Waterall Model
he 4aterfall Model was first :rocess Model to be introduced. It is also referred to as a software development life cycle (SD53) model (see diagram 2 in model diagram part). It is very simple to understand and use. In a waterfall model, each phase must be completed before the 6
ne't phase can begin and there is no overlapping in the phases. 4aterfall model is the earliest SD53 approach that was used for software development. he waterfall Model illustrates the software development process in a linear se1uential flow hence it is also referred to as a linearse1uential life cycle model. his means that any phase on the development process begins only has if the previous phase is complete. In waterfall model phases do not overlap.
ssentially, the 4aterfall model comprises si' phases* re1uirement and analysis, design, implementation, testing, deployment and maintenance (oussef assil, &#). etween all phases the documents have to pass a 1uality chec, this approach is referred to as a stage-gate model. $ccording to %ai :etersen et. al. (&##!) e'plains that the different phases and provide a selection of checlist-items to show what type of 1uality checs are made in order to decide whether the software artifact developed in a specific development phase can be passed on to the adBacent phase (%ai :etersen et. al., &##!).
Second :hase* System Design. It is the process of planning and problem solving for a software solution. It implicates software developers and designers to define the plan for a solution which includes algorithm design, software architecture design, database conceptual schema and logical diagram design,
!
concept design, graphical user interface design, and data structure definition (oussef assil, &#). . hird :hase* Implementation. It refers to the realiEation of business re1uirements and design specifications into a concrete e'ecutable program, database, website, or software component through programming and deployment. his phase is where the real code is written and compiled into an operational application, and where the database and te't files are created. In other words, it is the process of converting the whole re1uirements and blueprints into a production environment (oussef assil, &#).
Si'th :hases* /aintenance. It is the process of modifying a software solution after delivery and deployment to refine output, correct errors, and improve performance and 1uality. $dditional maintenance activities can be performed in this phase including adapting software to its environment, accommodating new user re1uirements, and increasing software reliability (8H=eilly Media, &##9; oussef assil, &#).
Seel! a"d Gla!#o$ Model
he Instructional systems design (ISD) process presented in the Seels and 0lasgow is based on the assumption that design happens in a conte't of proBect management (see diagram 3 in model diagram part). $ proBect management plan is formulated and revised as necessary. his plan establishes roles, tass, timelines, budget, and supervisory procedures. he steps are undertaen within the parameters of a proBect manage ment plan divided into three phases*
a. Geeds analysis management b. Instructional design management c. Implementation and evaluation management
Diffusion, or promoting the adoption and maintenance of the proBect, is an ongoing process. Members of the design team may change depending on the p hase in process. ach of the components of this model will be discuss separately (Seels, ., / 0lasgow, F., !!6). he first phase of the proBect management is to find the solution using needs analysis. his phase encompasses all of the decisions prompted by the 1uestions associated with conducting needs analysis and formulating a management plan. he second phase of the proBect management includes all the steps related to design, development, and formative evaluation. hese steps are doe in order or, in some cases, concurrently, but the process is iterative. he steps can be returned to again and again, and decisions changed or adBusted as current data warrants. he designer can proceed to the ne't step
before a step is finished and then return when ready. ach decision is followed by data collection and interaction with other members of the team. 3onse1uently, changes are made as problems are revealed. here is fle'ibility to do tas analysis at the same time instructional strategy decisions are considered and to do tas analysis, instructional analysis, and writing obBectives and tests concurrently. Similarly, obBectives and assessment strategies can be evaluated formatively as they developed (Seels, ., / 0lasgow, F., !!6). he third phase of proBect management, implementation and evaluation management, involves transferring the program or product to a real life setting for continued use.
raining materials and programs must be prepared raining must be conducted and evaluated
III.
Support systems and materials must be provided.
IJ.
Instruction must be evaluated summative
J. JI. JII.
he proBect must be disseminated he ideas must be diffused Instructors and learners must be trained to use new technology (Seels, ., / 0lasgow, F., !!6)..
Diffusion, which means persuading others to adopt and maintain the innovation, is an ongoing process. he strategies that lead to diffusion are most effective if used during all the phases of a proBect. In the Seels / 0lasgow ISD Model. 0enerally the steps are done in order, at least for the initial attempt at outputs from a step. Aowever, it is not necessary to complete a step before proceeding, and the order can be changed so that steps can be performed concurrently. he order of steps can be modified to allow decisions about tass and se1uencing to be made in conBunction with each other. Aowever, if the steps of the Seels / 0lasgow are assumed as the Diagram , then he flow would be as follows *
&
I.
II. III.
:lan for diffusion and proBect management. hrough tas analysis collect more information on performance atandards and sills and on attitudinal re1uirements. hen do an instructional analysis to determine the prere1uisites.
IJ.
4rite behavioural obBectives and criterion referenced tests to match those obBectives.
J.
Determine the instructional strategy or components of instruction, such as presentation or practice condition. Select delivery systems that will allow you to meet these conditions.
JI.
Aelp plan for production. Monitor materials development to assure proBect integrity.
JII.
:lan a formative evaluation strategy. :repare to collect data. =evie as feasible and reevaluate.
JIII. IK.
:lan for implementation and maintenance of the instruction 3onduct summative evaluation. =evise goals if necessary. $dBust design accordingly.
K.
Disseminate the innovation (Seels, ., / 0lasgow, F., !!6).
MODEL DIAGRAM
C
Dick a"d Carey Model Dia#ra'
Dia#ra' (* Dic $nd 3arey ISD Model, adapted from Dic and 3arey, !!#.
Waterall Model Dia#ra'
Dia#ra' )* 4aterfall ISD model, adapted from =oyce, 4inston (!+#).
"
Seel! a"d Gla!#o$ Model Dia#ra'
Dia#ra' ** he Seels / 0lasgow ISD Model (!!+)
DISCUSSION +COMMENTS,
a,
Dick & Carey Model
ach process cannot function as a stand-alone. Dic and 3arey claims to say that the systematic approach of the model is an effective and successful approach because of its focus on learners2 obBective and final achievement prior to the planning and implementation stage. Ge't, there is a careful linage between instructional strategy (targeted sills and nowledge) and desired learning outcomes (appropriate conditions must be supplied by instruction). he final and most important reason is the replicable and pragmatic design process where the product is usable for many learners and different occasions time and effort revising the design product during the evaluation and revision process is recommended.
9
-, Waterall Model
Ad.a"ta#e!
he waterfall model, as described above, offers numerous advantages for software developers.
Critici!'!
Despite the seemingly obvious advantages, the waterfall model has come in for a fair share of criticism in recent times. he most prominent criticism revolves around the fact that very often, customers donHt really now what they want up-front rather, what they want emerges out of repeated two-way interactions over the course of the proBect. In this situation, the waterfall model, with its emphasis on up-front re1uirements capture and design, is seen as somewhat unrealistic and unsuitable for the vagaries of the real world.
@
8ften, designs that loo feasible on paper turn out to be e'pensive or difficult in practice, re1uiring a re-design and hence destroying the clear distinctions between phases of the traditional waterfall model. Some criticisms also centre on the fact that the waterfall model implies a clear division of labour between, say, designers, programmers and testers in reality, such a division of labour in most software firms is neither realistic nor efficient.
C/!to'er "eed!
4hile the model does have critics, it still remains useful for certain types of proBects and can, when properly implemented, produce significant cost and time savings. 4hether you should use it or not depends largely on how well you believe you understand your customerHs needs, and how much volatility you e'pect in those needs as the proBect progresses. ItHs worth noting that for more volatile proBects, other framewors e'ists for thining about proBect management, notably the so-called spiral model.
c, Seel! a"d Gla!#o$ Model
his model is based on the constructivist theory. >3ollaborating 8nline* 5earning ogether in 3ommunity? by :alloff and :ratt emphasiEes that constructivist theory and online collaboration wal hand in hand. hey tal about how people, shared sense of purpose, guidelines, technology, collaborative learning, and reflective practices (:alloff and :ratt, pg. 6) are some considerations for building an online community. he Seels and 0lasgow model is rooted in this type of approach of forming the learning environment through the learning materials or end-product. 4e can say that this model successfully aligns to the systems philosophy epitomiEed in $DDI 1uite will, while acnowledging the needs and limitations of the practical application of instructional design
AENDICES +
Dia#ra' 01 $DDI model
REFERENCE
6
enington, Aerbert D. ( 8ctober !6C). :roduction of 5arge 3omputer :rograms. I444 nnals of the 5istory of Computing (I ducational $ctivities Department) 2 (")* C9#LC@. doi*#.#!M$A3.!6C.##&. =etrieved &#-#C-&. ra'ton, S., ronico, %., 5ooms, . (n.d.). Instructional Design /ethodologies and Techni2ues. =etrieved May !, &##&, from 0eorge 4ashington ;niversity, 3omputer Science Department 4eb site* http*www.student.seas.gwu.eduNtloomsISDisdOhomepage.html. 3hen, I. (&##+) Instructional Design Methodologies. In* %idd, . / Song, A. (ds.). 5and"oo! of esearch on Instructional Systems and Technology. I0I 0lobal Dic, 4alter, and 3arey, 5ou. (!!#). The systematic design of instruction. 0lenview, Illinois* Scott,
on
Information
and
echnology.
pages
"-""
0agnP, =obert M. (!++). The Conditions of Learning, 1rd ed. Gew or* Aolt, =inehart, and 4inston. 0ustafson, %. and ranch, =. (!!+) =evisioning Models of Instructional Development. 4ducational Technology, esearch and Development, "9 (C), +C-6!. Aannafin, Michael 7. / :ec, %yle 5. (!66). The Design, Development, 6 4valuation of Instructional Software. Gew or* Macmillan :ublishing 3ompany.
%ai :etersen 3laes 4ohlin, and DeBan aca (&## !) The &aterfall /odel in Large7Scale Development. <. omarius et al. (ds.)* :=8<S &##!, 5GI: C&, pp. C6@L "##, &##!. %ruse, %evin. (&##"). Introduction to instructional design and the DDI4 model Qon-lineR. $vailable* http*www.e-learningguru.comarticlesart&O.htm. !
=oyce, 4inston (!+#), /anaging the Development of Large Software Systems8 , :roceedings of I 4S38G )3 ($ugust)* L! Moore, Dermot, ates, $nnemarie, and 0rundling, 7ean. (&##&). Instructional design. In Mishra, $run %. and artram, 7ohn (d.) S!ills development through distance education QonlineR. $vailable* http*www.col.orgsills . Mc3onnell, =apid Development* aming 4ild Software Schedules (!!@), pp. "C-"+, describes three modified waterfalls* Sashimi (4aterfall with 8verlapping :hases). =eiser, =.$., / 0agne, 3. =. M. (!6C). Selecting media for instruction. nglewood 3liffs, G7* ducational echnology :ublications. Seels, . / 0lasgow, F. (!!#). 4%ercises in instructional Technology. 3olumbus 8A* Merrill :ublishing 3o. Seels, ., / 0lasgow, F. (!!6). /a!ing Instructional Design Decisions. (&nd ed.) ;pper Saddle =iver, G7* Merrill. oussef assil, (&#). Simulation /odel for the &aterfall Software Development Life Cycle . International 7ournal of ngineering / echnology (i7), ISSG* &#"!-C""", Jol. &, Go. 9, &#&.
&#
