User:Tcprospere

= Dick, Carey and Carey Model =

Overview
Smaldino, Lowther, Russell, and Mims (2015) define instruction as “any intentional effort to stimulate learning by the deliberate arrangement of experiences to help learners achieve a desirable change in capability ”. Approaches to instruction are based on a set of strategies which are termed instructional models. Dick, Carey and Carey’s model also known as the Systems Approach Model incorporates elements from multiple learning perspectives; cognitive approaches of learning, constructivist approaches as well as behaviourists Robert Gagne’s nine events of instruction. As explained by Dick, Carey and Carey “the model incorporates an eclectic set of tools drawn from each of these three major theoretical positions of the past fifty years and is an effective design framework for guiding pedagogical practices within all three foundational orientations”. This multi theory approach spans the seven versions of Dick and Carey’s book The Systematic Design of Instruction (from 1978 to 2008), which introduces the reader to the Systems Approach Model. The latest editions of the book places greater emphasis on front-end analysis and provides instructional materials for web-based learning environments.

This model involves the fundamental elements of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation and based on the system approach of designing instruction (planning, development, implementation, and evaluation of instruction). While many traditional models of instruction depend only on the ability of the instructor, modern approaches perceives instruction as a system of interrelated, interdependent components. The System Approach Model consists of interacting components to design instruction which meets instructional objectives. These components include; the instructor, the learners, materials, instructional activities, delivery system, learning environment and performance environment. The interrelatedness and interdependence of the components results in a rippling effect on the overall system if any one component is changed.

Developers
Like many other models this model was based on many years or research on the learning process by rebuttable individuals in the field of education and instructional design. The individuals responsible for the development of the Systems Approach Model are Walter Dick, Lou Carey and James O. Carey.

Dr. Walter Dick first studied at Princeton, where he received his undergraduate degree in psychology. He later acquired his master’s in psychology, and his doctorate in educational psychology from Penn State. He began his long-standing career in performance research and instructional design at Florida State University in 1966. He was initially employed as a researcher in the Computer-Assisted Instruction Center but has also worked in the capacity of professor of instructional systems, served as program leader at FSU. Apart from his work in academia, Dr. Dick Walter has also provided his services as a consultant to many major corporations.

Dr. Lou Carey obtained her first degree from the Florida State University in 1966 where she studied with Robert Gagne. She later obtained a PhD from FSU. Her expertise lies in the area of Curriculum-based Assessment & Educational Program Evaluation. At the University of South Florida, she served in the capacity of professor within the Educational Measurement and Research department as well as Interim Chair, Childhood Education Department. She was also employed as the director of the Office of Research Services within the College of Education at the Arizona State University. Dr. Lou Carey has published research in journals such as: Educational and Psychological Measurement, Academic Exchange Quarterly, and International Journal of Educology.

James O. Carey was the associated director at the School of Library and Information Science, University of South Florida. In this capacity, Dr. Carey taught computer applications in libraries, instructional technology and school media management. He also served as an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Technology at the Arizona State University.

Development of the Dick, Carey and Carey Systems Approach Model
Dr. Walter Dick presented the first public version of the model (see figure 1) in 1968 to the faculty of the College of Education at Florida State University where he was asked to address the staff on the topic “New Directions in Learning". He explained that the paper was developed on his experience in developing Skinnerian programmed instruction and efforts to create CAI instruction for an IBM 1500 system.

The boxes in this model simply included terms and that there was no goal identification step. Dr. Walter Dick explained that it was “assumed that the user would know what the goal was, and would simply proceed to a task analysis and identification of entry behaviors and knowledge”. The model, which was based on behavioural objectives was rejected by the audience

In the 1970’s Dr. Walter Dick turned his decided to focus on the design of instruction rather than the delivery of instruction. In 1978, he and Lou Carey published the first edition of book The Systematic Design of Instruction. The first publication was a 200-page book detailing all that they knew about designing instruction. This version included a goal identification step, merging of some steps and verbs in all the boxes to denote the designer’s action in each step. This model remained unchanged throughout the first three editions of the book.

The model was modified yet again in 1996 to reflect the advent of new concepts and procedures. These included performance technology, context analysis, multi-level evaluation models, and total quality management. Furthermore, it considered the context in which learners learned and apply the skills being taught. Other changes included the modification of the first box to state that a needs assessment has to be conducted and relabeling of a box from "Identify Entry Behaviors and Characteristics" to "Analyze Learners and Contexts”.

The latest version of the model, uses solid lines to indicate the components which are dependent on one another. The dotted lines represent feedback lines. This model is presented in the latest edition of The Systematic Design of Instruction, written by Walters Dick with Lou and Jim Carey.

Steps of the Systems Approach Model
The model System’s Approach model consist of ten (10) steps; nine basic steps in a repetitive cycle and a concluding evaluation of the effectiveness of the instruction. These steps

1.    Identify Instructional Goals: Determine what new information and skills learners need to master after completing instruction.

2.    Conduct Instructional Analysis: Determine what people do to perform the goals and determine the necessary skills to master the goal, including the entry skills.

3.    Analyze Learners and Contexts: Determine learner’s characteristics (i.e., current skills, preferences, and attitudes) as well as the context in which they learn and use the skills.

4.    Write Performance Objectives: Based on the skills identified in the instructional analysis, formulate specific statements of what learners will be able to do upon completing instruction.

5.    Develop Assessment Instruments: Based on the objectives, develop assessments to measure learner’s abilities to perform the objectives.

6.    Develop Instructional Strategy: Based on the preceding steps, identify theorectically based strategies to achieve the goal. The strategies emphasize components to foster student learning: pre-instructional activities (i.e. simulating motivation and focusing attention), presentation of content with examples and deomonstrations, active learner participation and practice feedback, and follow-through activities to assess learning and relate acquires skills to real-world applications.

7.    Develop and Select Instructional Materials: Develop materials based on instructional strategy (e.g., instructor’s guides, presentations, video and audio podcasts, computer-based multimedia). New materials are developed and existing materials are selected based on defined criteria.

8.    Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation of Instruction: After drafting instruction, conduct a series of evaluations to collect data that help identify problems with instruction, revise it, and improve it. Conduct three types if formative evaluation to collect data to improve instruction: one-to-one, small group, and field trial.

9.    Revise Instruction: Based on formative evaluation data, revise instruction and instructional strategies. Evaluation data also serves to reexamining “the validity of the instructional analysis and the assumptions of the entry skills and characteristics of the learners… performance objectives and test items”.

10.  Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation: This is the final evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction. This step is not considered part of the instructional design process itself because an independent external evaluator conducts it after instruction has been formatively evaluated and sufficiently revised to meet standards of the designer.

Dick, et al (2015) explains that the steps are non-linear and instead each step in the process is continuously reassessed based on information collected from the previous step. That is, if the desired goal from the previous step has not been reached the system is modified until the goal has been achieved. It is this relationship between components which makes this model successful.

Systems Approach Model and Learner Analysis
When conducting learner analysis Dick, Carey and Carey (2015) focuses eight specific areas;

1.    Entry skills,

2.    Prior knowledge,

3.    Attitude towards content and delivery system,

4.    Academic motivation,

5.    Educational and ability levels,

6.    General learning preferences,

7.    Attitude toward the organization providing the instruction, and

8.    Group characteristics.

Analysis of the System Approach Model
Dr. Dick Walter, in his analysis of the model identified two limitations. The first being that the model is not a complete instructional design model. This is so, as it does not include “total performance systems analysis, procedures for implementing and maintaining instruction” as does other models.

Secondly, it was stated in his review of the model that some researchers indicated “that practitioners do not necessarily follow all of the steps in the model in sequence, and sometimes ignore some of the steps” (Wedman & Tessmer, 1993 cited in Dick, 2012). This is especially true for teachers. It is expected that teachers may not be able to use all steps in this process to plan all their daily lessons because of the amount of detail required to complete. However, Dick, Carey and Carey (2015) posits that even teachers who use this process to only complete a small amount of instruction can reap the benefits of this model. It is also advised that teachers select steps or parts of steps as appropriate to their instructional planning needs.

Akbulut (2007) in his comparison of the Systems Approach Model to another instructional design model stated that although the Systems Approach model considers all components necessary for good instruction and is good systematic approach to curriculum and program design, it was too rigid. This he stated made adapting the model to multiple team members and different types of resources difficult. He went on to suggest that the rigidity of the model would hamper the instructional design professions’ “creative expression skills”.

Related Publications
Design Models and Learning Theories for Adults.

Instructional Design Models

Systems Approach Model for Designing Instruction