Introduction

According to Brown & Green (2006) instructional design can be viewed as a process, discipline, science, and a reality. Basically, instructional design is "the systematic development of instructional specifications using learning and instructional theory to ensure the quality of instruction" (Brown & Green, 2006, p.7). It incorporates the analysis of learning needs and goals. In addition, it requires looking at the mode of instruction and desired learning activities. A quality instructional designer looks at the individual needs of the learner and develops attainable goals to suit those needs. Then, she aligns systematic instruction to meet those goals. Finally, instructional design requires adequate evaluation of learners, in order determine understanding of given tasks.

Several different models of instructional design exist. Here is a brief sampling of a few of these models and their basic assertions:

Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model
The systems approach model for designing instruction was created by theorists Walter Dick and Lou Carey. It is backed by the conditioning theory that a stimulus provokes a response in a learner. It asserts that an instructor must select a set of skills to be mastered, and then create appropriate conditions to learn the targeted skills. This model relies on administering formative assessments to guide instruction along the way, and revision of materials based on the results of these assessments. The model is based on the assumption that learner behaviors are predictable, so its limitation is the unpredictability of behavior. http://www.gse.pku.edu.cn/jxsj/materials2/Dick%20&%20Carey.htm

Kemp Design Model
The Kemp design model, developed by Jerold Kemp, includes nine important steps, such as: “state instructional objectives for the learner” and “develop evaluation instruments to assess objectives.” However, this design allows for some flexibility, because it does not require that the steps are done in any particular sequence. This cyclical plan allows for continual planning, assessing, and revising of the instructional design. I like this model because it is all-encompassing of the factors that surround the successful design of instruction, including: “subject analysis, learner characteristics, learning objectives, teaching activities, and resources.” http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Kemp_design_model

Iterative Design—The Spiral Model
Although the Spiral Model, designed by Barry Boehm, was originally created for developing and enhancing software programs, I thought it also applied to designing instruction for the classroom. The model has been simplified into five basic steps: define, design, demonstrate, develop, and deliver. All of these levels focus on the desired end results of the learning experience. Unlike the Systems Model Approach, it takes into consideration the “inevitable changes to the learning experience that will happen over the course of design and delivery.” http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/spiral_model.html

Understanding by Design or Backward Design
Understanding by Design (UbD) is a "framework for designing curriculum units, performance assessments, and instruction that lead your students to deep understanding of the content you teach.” Using backward design, the teacher starts with the desired student outcomes and works backward to determine classroom goals and objectives. I used this method to complete a UbD for a graduate-level technology class, and liked the idea of students constructing understanding through activities and problem-solving experiences. I also find value in developing an assessment tool and then using it to guide student learning. As the article mentions, “teaching to the test” rather than “teaching the test” is a valuable role of the teacher. http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/backward_design.html

Hannafin and Peck Design Model
The Hannafin and Peck Design Model incorporates three phases, including: a needs assessment, design, and development/implementation. In the first stage, the designer determines the goals and objectives of the lesson or unit. The second stage uses the needs analysis to develop appropriate instruction. In the third and final stage the instructor executes the plan. Throughout each phase, the teacher evaluates and revises the instruction. I appreciate the simplicity of this final model. http://adultlearnandtech.com/hannafin.htm