Module 2: Comparison of ID Models

ADDIE Model
1. Generalized and Universal a. This is a more generalized and a universal type of model with or without an e-learning perspective. b. Even though this method can be used for all the three types of training methods Class Room, Products and System based ADDIE model is more popular for Class Room and Product based Training methods rather than system based. 2. Instructions are consolidated a. Instruction sets remain consolidated and in a block but not broken down into smaller components. This would not result in clarity and understanding of each stage. For eg., Analysis stage is defined for its purpose but not divided into sub stages of Writing performance objectives Analysis of Learners and Contexts behavior and cognitive 3. Instructions are measured but not to the level of knowledge and skills. This Model is aimed at evaluating, through formative and summative methods, the impact of design, development and implementation which are more operational.

Dick & Carey Model

1. Detailed and with an e-Learning perspective a. Focused and directed towards a more detailed analysis and design of curriculum from an e-learning perspective. b. Mainly useful for system based and product based training types as this models inherent distribution and applications suits more so towards system based both computer based and web based training 2. Instructions are broken down a. Instructions are broken down into smaller components. This would enable better and clearer designing and execution for a better fulfillment of learner objectives b. Understanding each process step and execution becomes easy necessary for process and operations perspective in implementing this style.

3. Measurable knowledge and skills. At each stage the instructions are measured with the implicit impact on knowledge and skills of the learner which directly transform into measuring cognitive and behavior patterns of learner vis--vis context of instructions

Module II DETOnline

Differences in ID Models

Saravana Kumar

Similarities in ID Models
1. Essential Learning Outcomes and Objectives Both the models ensure that they are aimed towards achieving a detailed and categorical learning outcome and objective. Models take care in defining and analyzing learning outcomes as an integral part and step of the process. Course outcomes are measured and are linked to program or external standards, performance standards, learning objectives, activities and assessment tasks are clearly identified as a part of the model. Their usage, timing and approach might differ; however, the end result of achieving the learning outcome remains a constant factor in both the models. 2. Both the models primarily aim towards developing Motor, Verbal and Intellectual domains of learning, as defined by Gagn. The other domains of learning cognitive and attitude are not covered by both these ID Models. This is a unique similarity among both the models from a learning perspective. These domains are directed toward self-management of learning and thinking and are different from intellectual skills and motor skills but curiously enough they share with them the property of deriving their learned organization from stimuli that arise within the learner. For this reason, they also require a kind of practice. It is notable, therefore, that thinking strategies are not learned all at once, as intellectual skills may be. Instead, they exhibit continued refinement as the learner continues to encounter situations in which he has to learn, to remember, to solve problems, and to define problems for himself. Intellectual skills and their learning is obviously different from the other categories. They are not learned by practice. They are by no means dependably affected by a meaningful verbal context, as the most effective ways of changing attitudes would appear to be by means of the human model, and the reinforcement. In any case, the apparent requirement for involvement of a human person in the process of modifying attitudes makes this kind of learning highly distinctive and different in many respects from the other varieties

3. Formative and Summative Evaluation Both formative and summative evaluation is collected and accounted in both the models. Whilst one model accounts formative evaluation at each stage of the model, the other adopts this evaluation at the end of the model. Approach towards evaluation remains a common factor among both the models

Module II DETOnline

Differences in ID Models

Saravana Kumar

Module 2a: Comparison of ID Models ADDIE - Gerlach & Ely Models

ADDIE Model
1. Divided into parts Instructional Goals a. Each Instructional goal is divided into a block and is explicitly defined. 2. Level of Expertise a. This model is designed assuming an expertly level of the user imparting instructions. The blocks are defined in a very high level, almost euphemistic. Though the model seem simple and consist only 5 blocks, instructions at each block are defined at high level.

Gerlach & Ely Model

1. Divided into parts Instructional Goals a. Even though this model is divided into parts, according to each instruction, stage of Implementation which is explicitly defined in ADDIE model is missed / given lesser importance 2. Level of Expertise a. This model is suitable for all levels of expertise to use. Whether the teacher is a novice, intermediate, or expert at using instructional design models, a noteworthy product will be produced with ease. The model is stepby-step, which adds to its simplicity..

3. Instructions are measured but not to the level of knowledge and skills. This Model is aimed at evaluating, through formative and summative methods, the impact of design, development and implementation which are more operational.

3. Measurable knowledge. At each stage the instructions are measured with the implicit impact on knowledge the learner which directly transform into measuring intellectual patterns of learner vis--vis context of instructions 1

Teaching & Media A systematic Approach. Critical Article by Sarah Grabowski

Module II BCID

Differences in ID Models

Saravana Kumar

Similarities in ID Models
1. Prescriptive Models Both the models ensure that they are designed to be prescriptive in their orientation and are mainly prescribed for class room teaching. Both the models are those that are explicitly or implicitly designed as roadmaps for schoolteachers. The instructional events are generally occurring in classrooms. Relative to product and system oriented models, classroom models generate one or only a few hours of instruction, commit lower resources to development, require lower instructional design skills, and put more emphasis on arrangement and selection of instructional resources. 2. Sequential Models When one decision is changed, the other decisions in the group will also be affected. This will then affect the completion of the desired outcome, the objectives. This model can also be considered to be generally linear, with several steps occurring simultaneously. Being linear model, their approach and response to non teacher based learning ie., Products and Systems Learning, is minimal and might yield inaccurate results. But by being procedural, their application to class room based learning is very effective.

3. Systematic Approach Vs Systems Approach Both the models adopt a systematic approach towards instructions rather than systems approach. Systems approach is based on the premise that any organization of people, things, or people and things is a system made up of elements. Each element has its functions and goals. However, due to the fact that teachers were not provided with enough time, money or resources to handle this complex approach, the authors adapted a more practical way called the systematic approach to create the model. They synthesized several features from the systems approach and integrated them into a step-by-step model comprising most necessary elements contributing to instruction. The authors described it as a systemic planning for instruction. Students are the focus of the systematic instructional planning. They are more concerned about their motives, individual needs and learning pace. The role of the teacher, however, is no more a giver of information; instead, is a coordinator of learning resources. They call upon the spectrum of resources available to provide the conditions which will help pupils to reach their objectives 2

Courtesy: Gerach & Ely - A Class room instruction development model by Kuan Chung Chen, 2004

Module II BCID

Differences in ID Models

Saravana Kumar

Module II BCID

Differences in ID Models

Saravana Kumar