Up until this point, my instructional design courses have emphasized the use of the ADDIE instructional model when constructing projects — Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. ADDIE holds the title of either gold standard or common currency, depending upon who you listen to. But now that my course work has progressed into the last two semesters of my master’s program, alternative instructional design models are surfacing. One such option is the Morrison-Ross-Kemp model, oftentimes simply known as the Kemp instructional design model.
Not new, not old, but definitely different…
The Kemp model breaks away from the rigidity of ADDIE and “corresponds with a more flexible ID process” (Akbulut, 2007, p. 64). It consists of nine interdependent steps and seeks to approach instruction from the vantage point of the learner:
- identifying instructional design problems and specifying relevant goals,
- examining learner characteristics,
- identifying subject content and analyzing task components that are related to instructional goals,
- stating instructional objectives for the learners,
- sequencing content within each unit to sustain logical learning,
- designing instructional strategies for each learner to master the objectives,
- planning instructional delivery,
- developing evaluation instruments, and
- selecting resources to support learning activities. (Akbulut, 2007, p. 64)
This strategy of focusing upon the learner results in a more fluid, flexible model than ADDIE. Rather than proceeding from step to step, the Kemp model may be more conducive to letting the creative juices flow. An instructional designer may find him or herself laying down the foundation for instructional delivery while identifying the goals. Similarly, the initial uncovering of learner characteristics may immediately prompt the creation of evaluation instruments. In this manner, the two models may mirror each other in many of their steps, but the unencumbered stream of the Kemp model sets it apart.
Instructional design models vs. instructional theory models
Setting these differences aside, one can easily acknowledge that both the Kemp model and ADDIE seek to create effective lessons and instruction from the application of sound instructional theory. And whereas instructional design models describe a technique for preparation, the instructional theory model instills the actual flavor.
Instructional theory models ascribe to different explanations for how people learn. They range from strict behaviorism to the more modern social constructivism. If learning activities are chosen to support a particular instructional theory, then it really does not matter which ID model was used to produce the final product. Behaviorism will dictate the use of repetitive drills, and social constructivism will necessitate reflection, discourse, and creation. Since most ID models can accommodate the various learning theories driven by the client, maturing instructional designers may gravitate to the ID model that he or she finds most effective and comfortable. The client may not understand or even care what process was used to create the end product, as long as it meets the prescribed needs.
So which ID model do I gravitate toward?
Although the Kemp model is new to me, I surprisingly saw many of my habits described in its intertwined steps. My professional role as a high school teacher has required me to create and implement instructional opportunities for my students on a daily basis. Because my analysis, design, and development are almost always temporally concurrent with implementation and evaluation, I rarely find ADDIE to be a practical model. I simply am not afforded the time necessary to “build” an entire course in advance. Instead, K-12 teachers are encouraged to keep their plans fluid, flexible, and “not too far ahead.” It has been ingrained in me by my administrators that if I am planning more than two or three weeks ahead, then I will lose sight of the needs of my students. The Kemp model therefore resonates with me because it continues to revisit the learners’ needs and allows for creative instructional design on the fly.
Reference
Akbulut, Y . (2007). Implications of Two Well-Known Models For Instructional Designers In Distance Education: Dick-Carey Versus Morrison-Ross-Kemp . Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2) , 62-68 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/tojde/issue/16920/176576
Grrowing Ideas 