Juan G., Ray K., Annabel N., Pat M., Christie R. Blueprints For Instruction Group 1 Presentation Juan G., Ray K., Annabel N., Pat M., Christie R.

Introduction Instructional design models Addie Kemp Sample Lesson on the Lunar Cycle Comparison Photo From http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=teaching

The History Of The ADDIE Learning Model Mid 1980’s Early 1980’s 1975 ADDIE changes from a standard model to a more profound and dynamic model as it was utilized by the US. Army in 1984 as an “evaluation” tool. 1981 and six years later, Dr. Russell Watson (1981), Chief, Staff and Faculty Training Division of the Fort Huachuca, Arizona, presented a paper to International Congress for individualized Instruction. The ADDIE Model first appeared in 1975. It was created by the Center for Educational Technology at Florida State University for the U.S. Armed Forces

The History Of The ADDIE Learning Model (continued) While ADDIE strives to identify adequate on-the-job performance so that the learners can adequately learn to perform a certain job or task it was never meant to determine if training is the correct answer to a problem. Thus the first step when presented with a performance problem is to use a performance analysis tool. ISD basically becomes plug and play — you add other components to it on an as-needed-basis. For example, the ISD model below has Action Mapping, 4C/ID, and Prototyping plugged into it for designing a robust learning environment for training complex skills:

The ADDIE Model Our approach. (2009). Retrieved July 18, 2010, from www.learningleaf.org/approach.html

Instructional Problems The Kemp Model Planning Revision Confirmative Evaluation Instructional Problems Implementation Evaluation Instruments Learner Characteristics Task Analysis Development of Instruction Instructional Objectives Designing The Message Summative Evaluation Instructional Strategies Content Sequencing Support Services Formative Evaluation Project Management Figure 1.  The Morrison, Ross, & Kemp Model (Gustafson, Branch, & Eric Clearninghouse, 2002, p.47).

Instructional Problems Not This… Planning Revision Confirmative Evaluation Instructional Problems Implementation Evaluation Instruments Learner Characteristics START HERE! Task Analysis Development of Instruction Instructional Objectives Designing The Message Summative Evaluation Instructional Strategies Content Sequencing Support Services Formative Evaluation Project Management Figure 1.  The Morrison, Ross, & Kemp Model (Gustafson, Branch, & Eric Clearninghouse, 2002, p.47).

Instructional Problems Or This… Planning Revision Confirmative Evaluation Instructional Problems Implementation Evaluation Instruments Learner Characteristics Task Analysis Development of Instruction Instructional Objectives Designing The Message Summative Evaluation Instructional Strategies Content Sequencing Support Services Formative Evaluation Project Management Figure 1.  The Morrison, Ross, & Kemp Model (Gustafson, Branch, & Eric Clearninghouse, 2002, p.47).

Instructional Problems The Kemp Model Planning Revision Confirmative Evaluation Instructional Problems Implementation Evaluation Instruments Learner Characteristics Task Analysis Development of Instruction Instructional Objectives Designing The Message Summative Evaluation Instructional Strategies Content Sequencing Support Services Formative Evaluation Project Management Figure 1.  The Morrison, Ross, & Kemp Model (Gustafson, Branch, & Eric Clearninghouse, 2002, p.47).

Instructional Problems The Nine Elements Planning Revision Confirmative Evaluation Instructional Problems Implementation Evaluation Instruments Learner Characteristics Task Analysis Development of Instruction Instructional Objectives Designing The Message Summative Evaluation Instructional Strategies Content Sequencing Support Services Formative Evaluation Project Management Figure 1.  The Morrison, Ross, & Kemp Model (Gustafson, Branch, & Eric Clearninghouse, 2002, p.47).

Instructional Problems First Outer Oval Planning Revision Confirmative Evaluation Instructional Problems Implementation Evaluation Instruments Learner Characteristics Task Analysis Development of Instruction Instructional Objectives Designing The Message Summative Evaluation Instructional Strategies Content Sequencing Support Services Formative Evaluation Project Management Figure 1.  The Morrison, Ross, & Kemp Model (Gustafson, Branch, & Eric Clearninghouse, 2002, p.47).

Instructional Problems Outer Oval Planning Revision Confirmative Evaluation Instructional Problems Implementation Evaluation Instruments Learner Characteristics Task Analysis Development of Instruction Instructional Objectives Designing The Message Summative Evaluation Instructional Strategies Content Sequencing Support Services Formative Evaluation Project Management Figure 1.  The Morrison, Ross, & Kemp Model (Gustafson, Branch, & Eric Clearninghouse, 2002, p.47).

Instructional Problems Outer Oval Planning Revision Confirmative Evaluation Instructional Problems Implementation Evaluation Instruments Learner Characteristics Task Analysis Development of Instruction Instructional Objectives Designing The Message Summative Evaluation Instructional Strategies Content Sequencing Support Services Formative Evaluation Project Management Figure 1.  The Morrison, Ross, & Kemp Model (Gustafson, Branch, & Eric Clearninghouse, 2002, p.47).

ADDIE and Kemp Comparison There are many ID models to choose from, so what makes the Kemp Model unique? For starters, the Kemp model designs instruction from the learner’s perspective rather than the content itself. Factors such as the learner’s level of readiness, the instructional strategies that are chosen, the support services, and continual evaluation and revisions contribute to this learner centered design. There are also 3 elements in the Kemp model that are not commonly found in other ID models. The planning, project management, and selection of support services phases, focus on implementing the project instead of just designing it. The Kemp model is also a highly adaptable process, allowing ID to enter the model at any point, and omit steps that are not applicable to the specific instructional problem. And finally, The Kemp Model, lends itself perfectly to a team of people that are working together to accomplish the project since all of the phases are interrelated. Figure 1. The ADDIE steps applied to the M-R-K Model (after Morrison, Ross & Kemp 2004, p.29)

Instructional Design Examples Third Grade Science Lesson ADDIE KEMP http://michaelhanley.ie/elearningcurve/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/kemp-model-addie.jpg

Conclusion Process for Developing Instruction Addie Model: structure approach to ID Kemp Model: creative freedom Blueprint for instruction Photo From http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=teaching

Juan G., Ray K., Annabel N., Pat M., Christie R. Blueprints For Instruction Thanks for Listening! Juan G., Ray K., Annabel N., Pat M., Christie R.

References Akbulut, Y. (2007). Implications of two well-known models for instructional designers in distance education: Dick-Carey versus Morrison-Ross-Kemp.Online Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database. Clark, D. (1995). Why Instructional System Design? Retrieved April 5, 2010 from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat1.html DeSimone, R. L., Werner, J. M., Harris, D. M. (2002). Human Resource Development. Orlando, FL.: Harcourt, Inc. Dick, W., and Carey, L. (2004). The Systematic Design of Instruction. Allyn & Bacon; 6th ed. Gustafson, K., Branch, R., & ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, S. (2002). Survey of Instructional Development Models. Fourth Edition. Retrieved from ERIC database. Hanley, M. (2009, June 10). Discovering instructional design 11: The Kemp model. Message posted to http://michaelhanley.ie/elearningcurve/tag/addie. Learning Theories Knowledgebase (2010, July). ADDIE Model at Learning-Theories.com. Retrieved July 5th, 2010 from http://www.learning-theories.com/addie-model.html. Morrison, G., Ross, S., & Kemp, J. (2007). Designing effective instruction. John Wiley & Sons. Our approach. (2009). Retrieved July 18, 2010, from www.learningleaf.org/approach.html