MODULE 3 UNIT 1

Instructional
design models

© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use).
Table of contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3
2. The value of instructional design models ...................................................................... 3
2.1 The relationship between models and theories.............................................................. 3
3. Prominent models ........................................................................................................ 4
3.1 Robert Gagné’s conditions of learning and the nine steps of instruction....................... 4
3.1.1 Categories of learning............................................................................................... 4
3.1.2 Nine steps or “nine events of instruction” ............................................................... 5
3.2 ADDIE ............................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Dick and Carey’s systems approach model .................................................................... 8
3.3.1 The ten stages in the systems approach model ....................................................... 8
3.4 Merrill’s component display theory (CDT) ...................................................................... 9
3.5 Backward design ........................................................................................................... 12
3.6 Successive approximation model (SAM) ....................................................................... 13
3.6.1 SAM1 ...................................................................................................................... 13
3.6.2 SAM2 ...................................................................................................................... 14
3.7 Agile approaches ........................................................................................................... 15
4. Choosing an instructional design model ..................................................................... 16
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 17
6. Bibliography............................................................................................................... 17

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 2 of 18
Learning outcomes:

LO1: Review the history and evolution of instructional design.

LO2: Articulate the differentiating characteristics of prominent instructional design models.

LO5: Choose appropriate instructional design models according to organisational constraints

and priorities.

1. Introduction
As a mechanical engineering lecturer, Estelle has spent many years explaining the theories
and models of physics, and the relationships between them, to students. In engineering,
these theories and models are beyond question; there is no factor of choice, and a change of
context may only mean that additional models apply. Her blended Instructional Design
course has just started dipping into the models that could be applied to designing
educational experiences and content, and she’s finally feeling at home on the course…

2. The value of instructional design models

In applying a systematic approach in instructional design, instructional models provide a
framework within which to define your process, while ensuring that value is not lost or
missed in the process. For example, the systematic application of a linear model that
includes a process for revising the quality and content of an e-learning course ensures that
this important step is not overlooked, and that value increases for participants as the course
progresses. Your choice of instructional design model may dictate the learning activities and
components you choose, how participants are assessed, and the degree of peer interaction.
It is therefore essential that you are able to compare the prominent design models for their
appropriateness to your context and goals. While most models are open to some degree of
flexibility, it is important to avoid changing models midway through the design or
development process, as this usually necessitates starting over with the needs analysis
(covered in Module 2).

2.1 The relationship between models and theories

In simple terms, models facilitate putting instructional theory into action (which you learnt
about in Module 1). A theory can be understood as a set of statements that is developed
through a process of continued observation and abstraction. Therefore, a theory is intended
to be a generalised statement aimed at explaining a phenomenon.

A model, on the other hand, is intended to be less abstract and more specific, so as to serve
as an actionable representation of reality that can be used in practical application.

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 3 of 18
3. Prominent models
Instructional design models have evolved over time to adapt to modern understandings of
how learning works, as well as the tools that have become available with technological
progress. Figure 1 provides a chronological overview of how the models discussed in this set
of notes span the 20th and early 21st century.

Figure 1: A simplified timeline of the evolution of instructional design.

3.1 Robert Gagné’s conditions of learning and the nine steps

of instruction
Robert Gagné was an American Educational Psychologist who developed theories while
working in training for the US military (Reiser, 2011:58). While his earlier work was based in
behaviourism, he published The Conditions of Learning in 1965, which was heavily
influenced by the information-processing view of learning and memory.

It can be said that his model combines approaches from both behaviourism and cognitivism.

3.1.1 Categories of learning

Gagné identified the following five categories of learning that can be used as a framework
for almost all types of learning and across all types of learning outcomes:

1. Intellectual skills (for example, calculating the average of a group of test scores).

2. Cognitive strategies (for example, devising a corporate plan).

3. Verbal information (for example, recalling information taught in the past).

4. Motor skills (using muscles).

5. Attitudes (applying learning to your outlook by, for example, deciding to eat better
to improve your health).

(Gagné, Briggs & Wager, 1974:44)

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 4 of 18
3.1.2 Nine steps or “nine events of instruction”
In order for learning to succeed, Gagné believed that the following nine steps must take
place in a specific order. It is, however, likely that these steps overlap at times, and some
flexibility is accepted in applying the steps (Gagné, Briggs & Wager, 1974:11-12):

1. Gain attention (for example, show the participant group studying computer network
security a diagram of an unsecure network).

2. Identify the learning objective (for example, pose a question to the participants:
"What is a truly secure network?”).

3. Recall prior learning (for example, review definitions of network elements).

4. Present stimulus (for example, provide conditions of security for specific network
elements).

5. Guide learning (for example, show example(s) of how to turn unsecure networks
into secure networks).

6. Elicit performance (for example, ask participants to redesign an unsecure network

for better security).

7. Provide feedback (for example, check the accuracy of participant work and provide
feedback for improving).

8. Assess performance (for example, provide scores and remediation).

9. Enhance retention and transfer (for example, show a selection of networks and ask
participants to identify the secure network).

(Gagné, Briggs & Wager, 1974:11-12)

Video 1 provides further examples of how Gagné’s model can be applied.

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 5 of 18
 Video 1: Explanation of Gagné's nine events of instruction by the Colorado State University Masters
Programme. (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgDcUnObLqI)

Further reading:

Read about how these strategies can be applied to e-learning specifically.

3.2 ADDIE
ADDIE is one of the most popular instructional design models used today, despite the
introduction of newer models. In fact, it’s so popular that it can be considered something of
of a generic process that can be applied easily across different contexts where project work
is concerned. Most instructional design models are variations of the ADDIE model (Forest,
2014).

ADDIE is a linear, cyclical model that moves from “Analysis” to “Evaluation”, with
“Evaluation” repeating throughout the process. Figure 2 illustrates this.

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 6 of 18
 Figure 2: ADDIE as a linear, cyclical model. (Source: Fav20, 2012)

As Figure 2 illustrates, ADDIE consists of five ordered steps:

1. Analysis (defining needs and intended outcomes).

2. Design (defining the content, structure, and components and technologies used).

3. Development (creating instructional content, including online content and

assessments).

4. Implementation (participants engaging with the instructional intervention).

5. Evaluation (revising and refining the intervention).

These steps provide a broad but sufficiently-specific framework for the instructional design
process from early needs analysis, to the completion of the learning programme. An
important aspect of ADDIE that is seldom required as explicitly in other models is the
“Evaluation” step, during which the success of the intervention is measured, and decisions
are made as to how it may be improved. While other models may encourage revision, ADDIE
does not consider the instructional design process complete without this step. Additionally,
the evaluation needs to be ongoing (i.e. continuing in successive implementations of the
intervention, and conducted after each stage in the process as illustrated in Figure 2). This
evaluation step means that ADDIE is a broadly-iterative model, requiring instructional
designers to reflect on the appropriateness of the work completed in each stage and
adjusting where necessary before proceeding to the next stage.

Recently, as the field of instructional design has continued to evolve, ADDIE has come under
some criticism. Chief criticisms include the following:

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 7 of 18
 • The model is too linear to allow for creativity and ingenuity, thereby leading to
crucial missed opportunities in the design and development stages due to its rigid
order of stages (Allen Interactions, Inc., 2017).

• The process dictates an upfront analysis process that is unrealistic for many teams,
who may instead prefer a staged or repeated analysis process that is more flexible.

• The emphasis on evaluation at the end of the process is not necessarily the most
productive for enabling timely or detailed participant feedback, and may allow a
problematic design to be used for an entire course or intervention before it is
improved.

3.3 Dick and Carey’s systems approach model

The Dick and Carey model may seem complicated, but it helps to keep in mind that its
essential function is to help instructors decide what to teach and how to teach it. The model
starts intuitively, with a needs analysis, and ends with a summative assessment. All of its ten
steps are connected, and some steps influence others, whether directly or indirectly.

Figure 3: A simple graphic representation of the Dick and Carey model. (Adapted from: Forest, 2015.)

3.3.1 The ten stages in the systems approach model

Stages 1 to 5 align with the needs analysis phase of the instructional design process, as
discussed in Module 2.

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 8 of 18
 • Stage 1: Identify instructional goals (for example, define overall learning objectives).

• Stage 2: Conduct instructional analysis (for example, a broader needs analysis).

• Stage 3: Identify entry behaviours and participant characteristics (for example, the
target demographic).

• Stage 4: Write performance objectives (for example, define high-level learning

outcomes).

• Stage 5: Develop criterion-referenced test items (for example, define assessments

and benchmarks).

Stages 6 and 7 occur after the needs analysis, and are often included or described in the
needs analysis report, as discussed in Module 2.

• Stage 6: Develop instructional strategy (for example, decide on the timing, mode(s)
of delivery, and order of instruction).

• Stage 7: Develop and select instructional materials (for example, create content and
assessment components).

Stages 8 and 9 occur during the presentation of the instructional intervention.

• Stage 8: Develop and conduct formative evaluation (for example, participants

engage with ongoing assessment(s)).

• Stage 9: Develop and conduct summative evaluation (for example, participants

engage with final assessment(s)).

(Culatta, 2013)

Note that the evaluation stages, Stages 8 and 9, refer to asssessment of the participant,
rather than evaluation of the course or learning materials. The “revise instruction” step, as
illustrated in Figure 3, indicates the role of improvement to learning materials in this model,
and is typically considered as occurring in parallel with the steps involved in developing the
materials.

Further reading:

Read more about how these strategies can be applied to e-learning specifically.

3.4 Merrill’s component display theory (CDT)

Merrill’s component display theory (CDT) is a cognitivist model that is primarily designed for
use by groups of participants rather than individuals. The goal of this model is to provide

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 9 of 18
instruction that is presented in several forms or components in order for the widest variety
of participants to take part.

The model is intended to provide a framework for creating components in such a way that
each participant can achieve the outcomes of the intervention by only engaging with the
components that “work” for them. The theory suggests that for a given objective and
participant, there is a unique combination of components, also called “presentation forms”
that results in the most effective learning experience. A significant aspect of the CDT
framework is participant control (i.e. the idea that participants can select their own
instructional strategies in terms of content and presentation components). In this sense,
instruction designed according to CDT can provide a high degree of self-determination, and
personalisation (Qureshi, 2004).

CDT classifies learning along two dimensions:

1. Content (facts, concepts, procedures, and principles).

2. Performance (remembering, using, generalities).

The model also specifies four primary types of content that are used in instruction:

1. Facts

2. Concepts

3. Procedures

4. Principles

Figure 4 is an example of the kind of matrix that is typically used to implement this model,
by correlating desired levels of performance (i.e. intended outcomes) with the four main
types of content.

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 10 of 18
 Figure 4: A simple matrix used to determine types of components by correlating intended outcomes
with the four main types of content. (Adapted from Culatta, 2015.)

Using this matrix, the instructor or designer can decide on the most effective presentation
forms (i.e. components for each outcome). Merrill’s model advocates for:

• Making the outcomes explicit at the start of the lesson or intervention; and

• Designing interventions using all the available types of components to achieve the
outcomes.

According to Merrill, the possible component types (within content types) are:

• Rules;

• Examples;

• Recollection;

• Practice;

• Feedback;

• “Helps” (assistance components); and

• Mnemonics.

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 11 of 18
In recent years, Merrill has adapted CDT to have a more macro, “bigger picture” focus, by
shifting attention to course structure and syllabus design, rather than individual lesson or
short-term intervention design. In his latest thinking, Merrill also refers to “instructional
transactions” rather than presentation forms. This evolution of Merrill’s model may speak to
a growing emphasis on the experience of learning as truly interactive, rather than a process
of receiving and confirming receipt of knowledge (Qureshi, 2004).

Video 2: David Merrill speaks about his approach to instructional design, and the relevance of CDT
today. (Source: https://youtu.be/i_TKaO2-jXA)

3.5 Backward design

The backward design model was proposed by Wiggins and McTighe around 2000, and
suggests that learning experiences should be planned with the final assessment in mind;
specifically, that the design of the intervention should be shaped by the measurable
performance against the intended goals, standards, and outcomes. The curriculum should
be designed to provide evidence of partial achievement of the intended outcomes before
the summative assessment is completed. Consider how this approach is similar to the
concept of scaffolding discussed in Module 2. Backward design is most applicable when a
known final test or assessment is required, in order to prepare participants to perform
sufficiently in the assessment.

The design process involves teachers planning in three stages, each focusing on a specific
question:

1. Identifying desired results: What is worthy and requiring of understanding?

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 12 of 18
 2. Determining acceptable evidence of learning: What can be considered sufficient
evidence of understanding?

3. Designing learning experience(s) and instruction: What learning experiences and

teaching would promote understanding, interest, and excellence?

(Tasmanian Department of Education, 2004)

The chief criticism of the backwards design model is that is appears to promote "teaching to
the test" (i.e. only teaching what will be assessed and therefore providing an incomplete and
potentially oversimplified learning experience). It should, therefore, be applied with care,
and with due emphasis on Step 3, in which instructors and designers decide on learning and
teaching experiences that stimulate participant interest beyond the scope of the
assessment, and also empower participants to continue their learning beyond the scope of
the intervention.

3.6 Successive approximation model (SAM)

The successive approximation model (SAM) is a fully-iterative design model – much more so
than ADDIE, partly due to it advocating a non-linear approach. It is often considered an
accessible alternative to ADDIE, as it uses similar stages, but without the rigid step-by-step
requirements. The SAM was designed by Allen Interactions Inc., an industrial design
company that promotes agile development of instructional materials.

Unlike ADDIE’s five sequential steps, the SAM is a more cyclical process that can be scaled
from basic (SAM1) to extended (SAM2), to suit specific contexts and needs.

3.6.1 SAM1
According to Allen Interactions Inc. (2017), the default SAM process is SAM1, and has three
non-linear stages – analysis, design, and development.

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 13 of 18
 Figure 2: The SAM1 process advocates moving through its three stages in a non-linear fashion, and
repeating stages where necessary (Adapted from: McCormick, 2013.)

The concepts of these stages are familiar to instructional designers who have worked with
older linear models, but “Analysis” here is considered the same as “Evaluation” (i.e. analysis
may be repeated during the instructional design process in order to conduct timely
evaluation of the work done so far). The focus of this approach is to take advantage of the
concept of rapid prototyping, by creating early versions of the end product quickly in order
to get feedback from relevant stakeholders, and arrive at a usable product more quickly.
SAM1 is typically encouraged for smaller projects, or those that do not require unusual or
complicated technology.

3.6.2 SAM2
SAM2, an extended version of SAM1, consists of eight iterative instructional design steps
spread across three project phases:

1. Preparation, which consists of the following two steps:

1) Gathering information.

2) A brainstorming and prototyping meeting Allen Interactions Inc. refers to as

a “Savvy Start”.

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 14 of 18
 2. Iterative design, in which an initial prototype is developed, evaluated, and revised as
necessary.

3. Iterative development, in which a design proof is developed, implemented, and

evaluated, followed by alpha and beta cycles until the final, end-user-ready iteration
is rolled out.

(Allen Interactions Inc., 2017)

Figure 3: The SAM2 process. (Adapted from: Allen Interactions Inc., 2017.)

Both SAM models emphasise using an iterative approach to creating the end product, while
continually analysing and refining work as it is produced, rather than at the end of the
production cycle. In this way, it can be said to be a more direct implementation of the agile
approach than most other models.

3.7 Agile approaches

The agile approach gained popularity in the software development environment, and
encourages designing and developing a minimum viable product (MVP) in order to get useful
and timely feedback as soon as possible, and then proceeding to further iterations of the
product by implementing feedback and evaluation. The agile approach therefore promotes
collaboration, and a multidisciplinary approach, as opposed to a siloed approach. It has
found acceptance with many instructional designers, as it speaks to the realities of quick
turnaround times and high demand for personalised learning products. Read more about
what an agile approach has to offer instructional designers.

A comprehensive list of instructional design models:

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 15 of 18
The models discussed in these notes are those that are most prominent and influential in
the instructional design industry, and are most widely-applicable.

There are, however, several other models that contribute to the evolution of instructional
design. Access a comprehensive list of the documented instructional design models in this
resource.

4. Choosing an instructional design model

As covered in Section 2, it’s important to choose an appropriate instructional design model
early in the process, ideally before any work has begun, in order to prevent changing models
and wasting time and resources.

The following checklist should serve as a starting point for deciding on the instructional
design model that is appropriate to your specific context and project. Before starting a new
project, answer the questions in the provided checklist. It is recommended that you run
through this checklist again after deciding on a specific model, in order to determine any
incongruities or incorrect assumptions before starting the instructional design process. Note
how this checklist bears some similarity to the needs analysis questions suggested in Module
2. It is recommended that you decide on an instructional design model after the needs
analysis process.

Is the turnaround time, short, average, or long?

What people resources are available to complete the project?

Who are the stakeholders in the project?

What are the intended outcomes of the intervention?

What level of sophistication is required in the design (for example, are the intended
outcomes low level or highly applied)?

What technology would be required in order to deliver the instructional intervention

(for example, an LMS)?

What technology would be required to design or develop the instructional

intervention (for example, video or authoring software)?

What are the assessment needs of the project?

What are the priorities of the organisation?

How does the structure of the organisation influence the project?

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 16 of 18
Even broadly-applicable models like ADDIE are not always appropriate to a specific context.
It is important to be able to determine the suitability of an instructional design model for
your own context. Writing for eLearning Industry, Christopher Pappas provides some
guidance for choosing the instructional model best suited to e-learning courses in particular,
as well as useful advice that is applicable in various contexts.

5. Conclusion
This set of notes introduced the prominent instructional design models that have influenced
the field in the 20th and 21st centuries, and highlighted their unique characteristics to help
you articulate the differences between them, and how these different instructional design
models can be used to create interventions that make sense for your context and needs.

6. Bibliography
Allen Interactions Inc. 2017. Iterative elearning development with SAM. Available:
http://www.alleninteractions.com/sam-process [2017, January 25].

Culatta, R. 2013. Dick and Carey model. Available:

http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/dick_carey_model.html [2016,
December 22].

Culatta, R. 2015. Component display theory (David Merrill). Available:

http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/component-display.html [2017,
January 25].

Fav20. 2012. Addie model of design. Available:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ADDIE_Model_of_Design.jpg [2017,
January 25].

Forest, E. 2014. The ADDIE model: instructional design. Available:

http://educationaltechnology.net/the-addie-model-instructional-design/ [2016,
December 22].

Forest, E. 2015. Dick and Carey Instructional Model. Available:

http://educationaltechnology.net/dick-and-carey-instructional-model/ [2017,
January 25].

Gagné, R.M, Briggs, L.,. & Wager, W.W. 1974. Principles of instructional design. 4th ed. New
York, Harcourt Brace.

McCormick, A. 2013. Do we really need to leave ADDIE for SAM? Available:

http://www.metrixgroup.com/blog/do-we-really-need-to-leave-addie-for-sam/
[2017, January 25].

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 17 of 18
Merrill, D. 1983. Component Display Theory. Instructional Design Theories and Models: An
Overview of their Current States. C. M. Reigeluth, Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Reiser, R.A. 2001. “A history of instructional design and technology: Part II: A history of
instructional design.” Educational Technology Research and Development. 49(2):57-
67.

Tasmanian Department of Education. 2004. Principles of backward design. Available:

https://www.wku.edu/library/dlps/infolit/documents/designing_lesson_plans_using
_backward_design.pdf [2016, December 22].

Qureshi, E. 2004. Instructional design models. Available:

http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/edfac/morton/instructional_design.htm [2016,
December 22].

Tel: +27 21 447 7565 | Fax: +27 21 447 8344

Website: www.getsmarter.com | Email: [email protected]
© 2017 Wits / GetSmarter All Rights Reserved (not authorised for commercial use)
Page 18 of 18