Dick and Carey Model
Overview
The Dick and Carey Model is a systematic approach to instructional design developed by Walter Dick, Lou Carey, and James Carey in 1978 (Dick et al., 2015). This model breaks down the instructional design process into ten interconnected steps, emphasizing a systems approach to education and training. It was created to provide a more comprehensive and iterative framework than earlier instructional design models, focusing on the interrelationship between context, content, learning, and instruction (Morrison et al., 2019).
The model has been widely adopted in various educational and training contexts, including K-12 education, higher education, corporate training, and military instruction (Gustafson & Branch, 2002).
1996 | ©Dick and Carey
Its systematic nature makes it particularly useful for developing complex, large-scale instructional programs. When compared to the ADDIE Model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation), the Dick and Carey Model offers a more detailed and prescriptive approach. While ADDIE provides a general framework, the Dick and Carey Model breaks down each phase into specific steps, emphasizing the importance of formative evaluation and revision throughout the process (Kidd & Song, 2008). This makes it more time-consuming and thorough, especially for instructional designers dealing with intricate learning objectives or diverse learner populations.
In my experience, this should be at the top of the list since many curriculum developers do not focus on alignment in competency education. This model's focus on clear performance objectives provides a more systematic approach to addressing the issue in higher education and professional training settings (Voorhees, 2001).
A brief explanation of the ten steps:
Implications
The Dick and Carey Model remains relevant in modern instructional design, offering a systematic approach that aligns well with technology-enhanced learning, personalized instruction, and data-driven decision-making. Its emphasis on learner analysis and clear objectives supports trends in adaptive learning and competency-based education. The model's iterative nature complements agile design practices and continuous improvement in rapidly evolving fields. However, its detailed approach may challenge rapid development needs in some contexts. Modern instructional designers often adapt the model, integrating it with contemporary approaches like Learning Experience Design (LXD) and microlearning strategies. This flexibility allows the model to continue informing instructional design practices while meeting the diverse and changing needs of digital-age learners across various educational and training contexts.
Strengths and Limitations
The Dick and Carey Model, despite being developed in the late 1970s, continues to have significant implications for instructional design in the modern era. Its emphasis on learner analysis and clear objectives supports trends in adaptive learning and personalized instruction, while its iterative nature complements agile design practices. The model's structured approach to assessment and evaluation is valuable in competency-based education and supports the integration of learning analytics. However, the model also presents limitations, especially in adult learning and rapidly evolving competency-based contexts. Its rigid, linear structure may not fully accommodate the self-directed nature of adult learners or the need for flexibility in emerging learning situations. In addition, the time-intensive process can be challenging in professional development settings where rapid skill acquisition is often required. While the Dick and Carey Model provides a comprehensive framework, it appears that modern instructional designers would need to adapt it, integrating principles of andragogy and more flexible assessment methods to address these limitations.
Below are key considerations regarding the strengths and limitations of the model:
Strengths | |
---|---|
Adaptability to Technology-Enhanced Learning | The model's systematic approach aligns well with the development of online and blended learning environments. Its emphasis on clear objectives and assessment can be particularly useful when designing online courses or digital learning experiences (Carey & Carey, 2014). |
Emphasis on Learner Analysis | This step can inform the creation of adaptive learning paths and differentiated instruction strategies (Ibid). |
Iterative Design Process | This approach supports the continuous improvement of instructional materials, which is crucial in rapidly evolving fields (Ibid). |
Support for Microlearning | The detailed task analysis in the model can be adapted to support the design of microlearning units, a growing trend in corporate training and professional development (Thalheimer, 2017). |
Integration with Learning Experience Design (LXD) | The model's comprehensive approach can be integrated with modern LXD practices, which emphasize not just content delivery but the overall learning experience (Plaut, 2014). |
Support for Competency-Based Education | In my experience, this should be at the top of the list since many curriculum developers do not focus on alignment in competency education. This model's focus on clear performance objectives provides a more systematic approach to addressing the issue in higher education and professional training settings (Voorhees, 2001). |
Limitations | |
---|---|
Challenges in Rapid Development | While thorough, the model's detailed steps may pose challenges in environments requiring rapid development of instructional materials. Instructional designers may need to adapt the model for more agile processes (Allen, 2012). |
Rigidity in Structure | While iterative, the model's linear, step-by-step approach may not always align with a the more flexible, self-directed nature of adult learning. |
Limited Emphasis on Self-Direction | The model doesn't explicitly account for the self-directed nature of many adult learners. It may not fully capitalize on adults' life experiences and readiness to learn, which are key principles of andragogy (Merriam & Bierema, 2013). |
Time-Intensive Process | The detailed nature of the model can be time-consuming, which may not suit the often time-constrained nature of adult learning environments. The emphasis on pre-planning appears especially time consuming. |
References
Kidd, T. T., & Song, H. (2008). Handbook of research on instructional systems and technology. IGI Global.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2014). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson.
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). Survey of instructional development models (4th ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.
Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. J., Morrison, J. R., & Kalman, H. K. (2019). Designing effective instruction (8th ed.). Wiley.
Plaut, A. (2014). Learning experience design: A better title than instructional design? Retrieved from: This is Learning Experience Design - YouTube
Thalheimer, W. (2017). Does eLearning work? What the scientific research says! Work-Learning Research, Inc.
Voorhees, R. A. (2001). Competency‐Based learning models: A necessary future. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2001(110), 5-13.