Educational planning is essential for achieving desired organizational change by cultivating and enhancing the competence and potential of all active members who improve human performance. Instructional designers utilize specific models as guidance and frameworks for implementing training and learning initiatives that address learner needs and facilitate achieving expected outcomes. Hence, analyzing existing development models is critical for ensuring the selection of appropriate and relevant training measures that enhance human performance in organizations.
Training and Development Models
Development models are crucial in any learning environment to help instructors achieve training goals of enhancing the trainees’ knowledge and skills. Instructional design models facilitate effective development and elevate the learning experience for trainees in corporate environments, empowering them with knowledge and skills to enhance performance (Rothwell et al., 2018). Despite slight differences, instructional models share common elements including well-defined goals and objectives, measurable outcomes, assessment of needs, real-life behaviors and problems. Additionally, these models incorporate instructional strategies and materials as part of the educational development curriculum to impart learners with the skills and knowledge necessary for better performance (Rothwell & Cookson, 1998). The analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE) model is a significant instructional design for promoting the effectiveness of training programs (Kurt, 2018). This sequential training model outlines five primary phases for developing learning courses and materials and is the most popular in business and organizational environments (Apostolopoulos, 2021). The analysis is the first and one of the essential phases in the ADDIE model, where instructors identify knowledge gaps, define the training context, clarify the purpose, and set instructional goals and objectives (UWB, n.d.). Likewise, Dick and Carey’s approach reinforces the core standard elements of the ADDIE model but divides them into additional procedural steps with varying terminology (Azizah, 2017). Moreover, this model breaks down the components in the analysis phase into further sections. The first three steps, outlining needs assessment, performing instructional analysis, and context analysis, encompass the first stage in the ADDIE model.
Since most other educational development models are based on ADDIE, course designers sometimes refer to this tool as an instructional system design (ISD). In contrast to the five-phase approach toward training and development, the critical event and Dick and Carey models are more detailed and add more depth and structure to achieving educational objectives (World of Work, n.d.). The Dick and Carey model also guides instructional designers through a series of ten stages in the development of training curricula aimed toward the accomplishment of specific learning outcomes. This model adopts a systems approach that considers various essential components, including learners or audience, instructions, materials, delivery mode and style, instructional activities, content, and learning environment (Birgili, 2019). Moreover, Chaparro et al. (2023) assert that these different elements should be harmonious to ensure their collaboration leads to positive training objectives and desired outcomes (Chaparro et al., 2023). However, unlike the ADDIE framework, Dick and Carey’s model puts more emphasis on design rather than implementation and encourages continuous revision of instructions to improve outcomes (World of Work, 2019). Similar to the Dick and Carey framework, Nadler’s critical event model (CEM) also adopts a systems approach toward holistic educational development initiatives. This process entails recognizing and incorporating internal and external factors which impact an organization as a system and their influence on the training initiative (Rothwell & Cookson, 1998).
Additionally, Nadler’s design presents nine stages or phases that ensure the achievement of training objectives. The CEM and Dick and Carey’s models view the whole instructional environment as a system whose coordination results in good outcomes rather than a sum of isolated parts (Birgili, 2019). Therefore, integrating different components makes these two models more comprehensive than ADDIE.
Nadler’s critical events model is relevant in planning due to effective responsiveness to training and organization needs. Notably, the CEM model prioritizes continuous evaluation of each step to obtain relevant feedback, which facilitates the establishment of corrective adjustments to ensure the optimum realization of development goals (Netshikhophani, 2013). The CEM approach allows designers to repeat an event or move to the next one to accomplish objectives effectively. Although these three models prioritize evaluation, Nadler’s framework posits the need to incorporate assessment and feedback collection at any step during development to maximize effectiveness (Rothwell & Cookson, 1998). Thus, evaluation and feedback are central to all critical events (Procknow, 2020).
Similarly, a striking feature of Dick and Carey’s model is the emphasis on revision of instructions across different stages by reexamining validity of instructional analysis and entry behavior of the target population. However, since CEM adopts a holistic approach by addressing internal and external factors, Nadler posits the importance of addressing individual and organizational needs (Rothwell & Cookson, 1998). For instance, according to Netshikhophani (2013), instructors may determine changes in products, services, or policies to generate training and development needs. The implementation phase of the ADDLER model is similar to the last stage of the critical events model, focusing on the presentation of outcomes, which entails a combination of all preparations from step one to ensure training takes place effectively. On the contrary, Dick and Carey’s model has insufficient detail about the implementation of learning initiatives in an organization. Both the CEM and Dick and Carey model support formative and summative evaluation which take place throughout the training process and after the fact, respectively (Procknow, 2020). Therefore, these three development models share the theme of achieving desired outcomes despite slight component variances.
Conclusion
Organizational performance improvement requires effective planning and implementation of training programs to equip employees with relevant skills and expertise that promote competency in roles. ADDIE, critical events, and Dick and Carey’s development models consist of steps or sequences whose systemic application may result in the accomplishment of objectives and desired outcomes. Moreover, the models provide designers with a straightforward, easy-to-follow, and reliable process for designing training initiatives to enhance performance in the workplace. Therefore, program managers should use appropriate and relevant educational development models to inform effective planning and execution of training initiatives to meet varying individual and organizational needs.
References
Apostolopoulos, A. (2021, April 26). ADDIE training model: What is it and how to use it in e-learning? https://www.talentlms.com/blog/addie-training-model-definition-stages/
Azizah, N. (2017). Comparative Theory on Three Instructional Design Models: Dick and Carey, Kemp, and Three-Phase Design Models. Comparative Theory on Three Instructional Design Models: Dick and Carey, Kemp, and Three-Phase Design models, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/wkv6c
Birgili, B. (2019). Comparative reflection on best known instructional design models: notes from the field. Current Issues in Emerging E-learning, 6(1). https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=cieehttps://scholarworks.umb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=ciee
Chaparro, R., Reaves, M., Jagger, C. B., & Bunch, J. C. (2023, April 17). Instructional design using the Dick and Carey systems approach. IFAS Extension. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-wc294-2018
Kurt, S. (2018, December 16). ADDIE model: Instructional design. Educational Technology. https://educationaltechnology.net/the-addie-model-instructional-design/
Netshikhophani, A. F. (2012). A conceptual training and development framework for public educators in the Limpopo Department of Education (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria). https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/24223/Complete.pdf?sequence=9
Procknow, G. (2020). Breeding hate: A case study of training for ethnic cleansing in war‐torn Yugoslavia. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 32(3), 54–75. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg-Procknow/publication/343886445_Breeding_hate_A_case_study_of_training_for_ethnic_cleansing_in_war-torn_Yugoslavia/links/643fd1cf1b8d044c6335a6b1/Breeding-hate-A-case-study-of-training-for-ethnic-cleansing-in-war-torn-Yugoslavia.pdf
Rothwell W., & Cookson, P. (1998). Beyond Instruction: Comprehensive Program Planning for Business andEducation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. (2018). Human Performance Improvement: Building Practitioner Performance (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: Routledge
World of Work (2019). The Dick and Carey Instructional Design Model. https://worldofwork.io/2019/08/dick-carey-instructional-design-model/
write