An Axiomatic Approach to Instructional System Design Based on Dick and Carey Model
Asghari, H., & Fatemi, O. (2016). An Axiomatic Approach to Instructional System Design Based on Dick and Carey Model. Proceedings Of The European Conference On E-Learning, 33-40.
Authors of this paper investigated an axiomatic approach to Instructional Design based on Dick and Carney model but they also referred to Addie model quite frequently. This case study was conducted while or after (this is not clear) designing the online course on Intellectual Property. The study gives a good overview of Dick and Carney model by breaking the model down into basic elements and examining each of them. The short definition of the Instructional Design (“a process by which instruction is improved through the analysis of learning needs and systematic development of learning materials”) is followed by the overview of the ADDIE model. Authors propose their own conceptual model of Instructional Design (based on ADDIE model) aiming to incorporate elements of various learning theories, more than one Instructional Design model and system elements. The focus keep shifting between Addie and D&C model but the conceptual model proposed by authors includes more than just these two models. Choosing from over one hundred existing models, authors list only seven of them but they don’t disclose the rationale behind choosing these particular examples among the most significant ID models. Acknowledgement of the D&C as a system model naturally leads to linking the upper part of the model with the critical areas of the Instructional Design system (such as content and delivery platform), breaking them further down into three fields namely: Create, Offer (Media), Access. Authors notice some shortcomings of the Addie model e.g. the exclusion of certain aspects of project management (discussed in the article here) like cost of the project or time management. They also acknowledge that some roles (e.g. instructor, Instr. Designer, subject matter expert, computer expert) can be performed by the same person. Authors explain that an axiomatic approach was applied to reach two significant benefits namely: establishing weaknesses and strengths of traditional models and incorporating additional information further improving the model.
The D&C model was considered as a good match to skills-based training that was being developed, but it is not clear why authors think that the development phase is more important than design for these type of courses. Authors started the development if Instructional System Design with the assessment of the target community conducting need assessment using surveys and questionnaires. Following that Authors list all the stages of course development, findings made and the implications of these findings and decisions made.
What resonated with me was a possibility to see an example of practical application of instructional design model principles, including decision-making and implications of these decisions. While it was not always made clear by authors why they choose certain models or approaches at various stages of instructional system design, it clearly showed that there is no single best model, and it is possible to take from more than one model if necessary. It also helped me understand different activities at each of the stages of the instructional design, that in this case was broken as follows: Need assessment, Learner Analysis, Identification of instructional Goals and Designing the evaluation tools.
