You may not know what an instructional designer is, but there are lots of us out there. You may have worked with one before, or you might even be one. We are known for being a sort of technology multi-tool; most of the people we work with come to assume that we have a magical solution for many problems just waiting on our utility belts that can be handed out to anyone in need. Some of the time, this is indeed true. They are called “Best practices” for a reason. They become that way because they have repeatedly worked to solve common instructional problems effectively. However, just as often, we are given problems that might not have an immediately obvious solution, or might have several possibilities that need to be evaluated for their efficacy in a given situation.

In situations like these, we must move beyond the technology at play and focus on what is really important: designing activities and assessments that are functional, that are useful to and tailored to the learner, and that accomplish the goal set out beforehand. In these times, we turn to instructional design models to provide a framework for our thought process as we design something new.

This article will give you a background on four of the classic methodologies, and then highlight some similarities and differences between them. Finally, I’ll provide a “cheat sheet” to help you keep them straight and to simplify the design process for you, should you undertake it yourself, or at least you will be able to “talk shop” with your friendly neighborhood instructional designer.

Classics of Instructional Design Theory

The ADDIE model

This is the big one, the model that gets thrown around the most. And for good reason. It’s simple, effective, and easy to remember. It is a linear process with five stages: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. As the acronym implies, it moves through the process of analyzing a problem, designing and developing a proposed solution, putting it into practice, and then evaluating the results of the implementation.

Backward Design

Wiggins and McTighe came up with the idea of backward design, which suggests that the final outcomes should be in mind before planning the rest of a learning experience. In effect, instructors design a learning experience with the end result in mind and then work backward to develop instructional materials focused on attaining it.

Criterion Referenced Instruction

The Criterion Referenced Instruction (CRI) framework developed by Robert Mager provides a set of four steps to design and deliver assessments. It puts the production phase last, after all other meaningful objectives and outcomes are analyzed. It is particularly useful in the development of self-paced training.

Dick and Carey model

The model developed by Dick and Carey includes a 9-stage process for continuous development, improvement and analysis of learning objectives, materials and activities. This model is unique in that it builds evaluation and revision into every step of the process. It is a non-linear model, so it also should be shown in a diagram:

The nine stages in order are:

All these methods have some similarities, after seeing them one after another. All of them have as a goal to create learning outcomes that meet predetermined learning objectives. All of them provide some mechanism for developing instruction, testing and implementing the instruction, and then evaluating the end results. Now here are two secrets of instructional design theory as practiced by instructional designers:

1. Do we all use a particular model all the time? No, we don’t.
2. Is there one model that is the “best”? No, because at their most basic level, they are really all the same.

As you’ve been reading, you may have noticed that much of this looks familiar. Anyone who has ever been in a lab science class remembers the Scientific Method, which looks something like this:

In fact, although this is not often acknowledged, the principles of the Scientific Method are present in the progression of all of these instructional design models. To answer the questions above now, we don’t use a particular model specifically because they all boil down to the same process.  It is useful to study these models when learning about instructional design, because they acquaint the designer with important strategies for systematically designing, testing and deploying.

But I never say to myself, “Hmm.  I think I’m going to use the Dick and Carey model to design a solution to this assignment from Professor X.” Once you know the strategy, it is ingrained to the point that we don’t choose one, we just do it. It’s also a matter of personal preference as to which model we like the most, but as demonstrated above, they all sort of blend together once you look at them from a higher level.

Click here to view the image full size

All of these methods have at their core the same outcomes and objectives, and as you can see, the alignment of stages is quite similar. This is one of the real secrets I have found when thinking about instructional design in general: it’s really just the scientific method applied to education. The one exception here is the theory of Backward Design, which does follow the same steps, but stops short of the actual implementation and evaluation stages. (And presumably, if one were to add a couple more steps to the process, it would include those steps.) Without a formal, exacting, and dare I say, scientific, process for analyzing instructional problems, developing solutions and evaluating the results, it’s all just a shot in the dark, crossing fingers and hoping for desirable outcomes rather than planning for and ensuring they will happen.

Instructional design theories and methodologies help us do what we do every day, and helps us ensure a consistent standard in our work. Hopefully this information will prove useful to you as you forge ahead with your own design projects. It really pays to take a scientific approach!