Editing Instructional design (section)

==Models==

===ADDIE model===
{{main|ADDIE model}}
[[File:ADDIE Model of Design.jpg|thumb|The ADDIE model.]]
Perhaps the most common model used for creating instructional materials is the [[ADDIE Model]]. This acronym stands for the five phases contained in the model: Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate.

The ADDIE model was initially developed by Florida State University to explain "the processes involved in the formulation of an instructional systems development (ISD) program for military interservice training that will adequately train individuals to do a particular job, and which can also be applied to any interservice curriculum development activity."<ref name="ADDIE">Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., King, F. J., Hannum, W. H. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development. (5 vols.) (TRADOC Pam 350-30 NAVEDTRA 106A). Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, August 1975. (NTIS No. ADA 019 486 through ADA 019 490).</ref> The model originally contained several steps under its five original phases (Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and [Evaluation and] Control),<ref name="ADDIE" /> whose completion was expected before movement to the next phase could occur. Over the years, the steps were revised and eventually the model itself became more dynamic and interactive than its original hierarchical rendition, until its most popular version appeared in the mid-80s, as we understand it today.

Connecting all phases of the model are external and reciprocal revision opportunities. As in the internal Evaluation phase, revisions should and can be made throughout the entire process.

Most of the current instructional design models are variations of the ADDIE model.<ref name="Piskurich, G.M. 2006">Piskurich, G.M. (2006). Rapid Instructional Design: Learning ID fast and right.</ref>

=== Rapid prototyping ===
{{Vague|reason=Who?|date=April 2025|text=Proponents}} suggest that through an iterative process the verification of the design documents saves time and money by catching problems while they are still easy to fix. This approach is not novel to the design of instruction, but appears in many design-related domains including software design, architecture, transportation planning, product development, message design, user experience design, etc.<ref name="Piskurich, G.M. 2006" /><ref name="Saettler 1990">{{cite book |author=Saettler, P. |year=1990 |title=The evolution of American educational technology}}</ref><ref name="Stolovitch Keeps 1999">{{cite book |author=Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E. |title= Handbook of human performance technology |year=1999}}</ref> In fact, some proponents of design prototyping assert that a sophisticated understanding of a problem is incomplete without creating and evaluating some type of prototype, regardless of the analysis rigor that may have been applied up front.<ref>Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2005). The ten faces of innovation: IDEO's strategies for beating the devil's advocate & driving creativity throughout your organization. New York: Doubleday.</ref> In other words, up-front analysis is rarely sufficient to allow one to confidently select an instructional model. For this reason many traditional methods of instructional design are beginning to be seen as incomplete, naive, and even counter-productive.<ref>Hokanson, B., & Miller, C. (2009). Role-based design: A contemporary framework for innovation and creativity in instructional design. Educational Technology, 49(2), 21–28.</ref>

===Dick and Carey===
Another well-known instructional design model is the Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model.<ref name=DickCarey2005>{{cite book |last1=Dick |first1=Walter |first2=Lou |last2=Carey |first3=James O. |last3=Carey |year=2005 |title=The Systematic Design of Instruction |edition=6th |orig-year=1978 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sYQCAAAACAAJ&q=the+systematic+design+of+instruction |pages=1–12 |publisher=Allyn & Bacon |isbn=0-205-41274-2 }}{{Dead link|date=September 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> The model was originally published in 1978 by Walter Dick and Lou Carey in their book entitled ''The Systematic Design of Instruction''.

[[File:Dick Carey.png|thumb|Systems Approach Model]]

Dick and Carey made a significant contribution to the instructional design field by championing a systems view of instruction, in contrast to defining instruction as the sum of isolated parts. The model addresses instruction as an entire system, focusing on the interrelationship between context, content, learning and instruction.<ref name="Forest">{{cite web|title=Dick and Carey Instructional Model|url=http://educationaltechnology.net/dick-and-carey-instructional-model/|author=Ed Forest|date=23 November 2015 |url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151124215130/http://educationaltechnology.net/dick-and-carey-instructional-model/|archive-date=2015-11-24}}</ref> According to Dick and Carey, "Components such as the instructor, learners, materials, instructional activities, delivery system, and learning and performance environments interact with each other and work together to bring about the desired student learning outcomes".<ref name=DickCarey2005/> The components of the Systems Approach Model, also known as the Dick and Carey Model, are as follows:
* Identify Instructional Goal(s): A goal statement describes a skill, knowledge or attitude (SKA) that a learner will be expected to acquire
* Conduct instructional Analysis: Identify what a learner must recall and identify what learner must be able to do to perform particular task
* Analyze Learners and Contexts: Identify general characteristics of the target audience, including prior skills, prior experience, and basic demographics; identify characteristics directly related to the skill to be taught; and perform analysis of the performance and learning settings.
* Write Performance Objectives: Objectives consists of a description of the behavior, the condition and criteria. The component of an objective that describes the criteria will be used to judge the learner's performance.
* Develop Assessment Instruments: Purpose of entry behavior testing, purpose of pretesting, purpose of post-testing, purpose of practice items/practice problems
* Develop Instructional Strategy: Pre-instructional activities, content presentation, Learner participation, assessment
* Develop and Select Instructional Materials
* Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation of Instruction: Designers try to identify areas of the instructional materials that need improvement.
* Revise Instruction: To identify poor test items and to identify poor instruction
* Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation

With this model, components are executed iteratively and in parallel, rather than linearly.<ref name=DickCarey2005/>

===Guaranteed learning===
The instructional design model, Guaranteed Learning, was formerly known as the Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS).<ref name="Esseff & Esseff 1998">{{cite book |author1=Esseff, Peter J. |author2=Esseff, Mary Sullivan |year=1998 |title=Instructional Development Learning System (IDLS) |edition=8th |orig-year=1970 |url=http://esf-protrainer.com/Materials.html |pages=1–12 |publisher=ESF Press |isbn=1-58283-037-1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081119152404/http://www.esf-protrainer.com/Materials.html |archive-date=2008-11-19 }}</ref> The model was originally published in 1970 by Peter J. Esseff, PhD and Mary Sullivan Esseff, PhD in their book entitled ''IDLS—Pro Trainer 1: How to Design, Develop, and Validate Instructional Materials''.<ref>[http://esf-protrainer.com/Materials.html ESF, Inc. – Train-the-Trainer – ESF ProTrainer Materials – 813.814.1192] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081119152404/http://www.esf-protrainer.com/Materials.html |date=2008-11-19 }}. ESF-ProTrainer.com (2007-11-06). Retrieved on 2011-10-07.</ref>

Peter (1968) & Mary (1972) Esseff both received their doctorates in Educational Technology from the Catholic University of America under the mentorship of Gabriel Ofiesh, a founding father of the Military Model mentioned above. Esseff and Esseff synthesized existing theories to develop their approach to systematic design, "Guaranteed Learning" aka "Instructional Development Learning System" (IDLS). In 2015, the Drs. Esseffs created an eLearning course to enable participants to take the GL course online under the direction of Esseff.

The components of the Guaranteed Learning Model are the following:
* Design a task analysis
* Develop criterion tests and performance measures
* Develop interactive instructional materials
* Validate the interactive instructional materials
* Create simulations or performance activities (Case Studies, Role Plays, and Demonstrations)

===Other===
Other useful instructional design models include: the Smith/Ragan Model,<ref>Smith, P. L. & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design (3rd Ed.). Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons.</ref> the Morrison/Ross/Kemp Model<ref>Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2001). Designing effective instruction, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley.</ref> and the OAR Model of instructional design in higher education,<ref>Joeckel, G., Jeon, T., Gardner, J. (2010). Instructional Challenges In Higher Education: Online Courses Delivered Through A Learning Management System By Subject Matter Experts. In Song, H. (Ed.) Distance Learning Technology, Current Instruction, and the Future of Education: Applications of Today, Practices of Tomorrow. ([http://www.fact.usu.edu/files/uploads/Chapter_Final.pdf link to article] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503015755/http://www.fact.usu.edu/files/uploads/Chapter_Final.pdf |date=2012-05-03 }})</ref> as well as, Wiggins' theory of [[Understanding by Design#Backward design|backward design]].

Learning theories also play an important role in the design of instructional materials. Theories such as [[behaviorism]], [[constructivism (learning theory)|constructivism]], [[Social learning theory|social learning]], and [[cognitivism (psychology)|cognitivism]] help shape and define the outcome of instructional materials.

====Motivational design====
[[Motivation]] is defined as an internal drive that activates behavior and gives it direction. The term motivation theory is concerned with the process that describes why and how human behavior is activated and directed.
Motivation concepts include [[intrinsic motivation]] and [[extrinsic motivation]].

[[John M. Keller]]<ref>{{cite web|last=Keller|first=John|title=arcsmodel.com|url=http://www.arcsmodel.com/home.htm|publisher=John M. Keller|access-date=April 1, 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120530000410/http://www.arcsmodel.com/home.htm|archive-date=May 30, 2012}}</ref> 
has devoted his career to researching and understanding motivation in instructional systems. These decades of work constitute a major contribution to the instructional design field. First, by applying motivation theories systematically to design theory. Second, in developing a unique problem-solving process he calls the [[ARCS model]].

Although Keller's ARCS model currently dominates instructional design with respect to learner motivation, in 2006 Hardré and Miller<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hardré|first=Patricia|author2=Miller, Raymond B.|title=Toward a current, comprehensive, integrative, and flexible model of motivation for instructional design|journal=Performance Improvement Quarterly|year=2006|volume=19|issue=3}}</ref> proposed a need for a new design model that includes current research in human motivation, a comprehensive treatment of motivation, integrates various fields of psychology and provides designers the flexibility to be applied to a myriad of situations.

Hardré<ref name="Hardré 2009">{{cite journal|last=Hardré|first=Patricia|title=The motivating opportunities model for Performance SUCCESS: Design, Development, and Instructional Implications|journal=Performance Improvement Quarterly|year=2009|volume=22|issue=1|pages=5–26|doi=10.1002/piq.20043}}</ref> proposes an alternate model for designers called the Motivating Opportunities Model or MOM. Hardré's model incorporates cognitive, needs, and affective theories as well as social elements of learning to address learner motivation. MOM has seven key components spelling the acronym 'SUCCESS' – Situational, Utilization, Competence, Content, Emotional, Social, and Systemic.<ref name="Hardré 2009"/>