Discovering Instructional Design 11: The Kemp Model

The Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model, more commonly known as the Kemp Model defines different elements – not “step, stage, level, or sequential item” (Morrison, Ross & Kemp 2004, p.10) of an instructional design, and emphasizes the adoption of continuous implementation and evaluation through the instructional design process.

According to Morrison et al, there are nine key elements to instructional design:

1. Identify instructional problems, and specify goals for designing an instructional program.
2. Examine learner characteristics that should receive attention during planning.
3. Identify subject content, and analyze task components related to stated goals and purposes.
4. State instructional objectives for the learner.
5. Sequence content within each instructional unit for logical learning.
6. Design instructional strategies so that each learner can master the objectives.
7. Plan the instructional message and delivery.
8. Develop evaluation instruments to assess objectives.
9. Select resources to support instruction and learning activities.

These elements are independent of each other, in that they do not need to be considered in a linear fashion and there is no particular start- and end point. The oval shape of this model (see Figure 1) is constructed to convey the idea that the design and development process is an iterative cycle that needs constant planning, design, development and assessment to ensure effective instruction.

Figure 1. The Morrison-Ross-Kemp Model
[Click to enlarge]

The model is systemic and nonlinear; it encourages designers to work in all areas of ID as appropriate. The use of ovals emphasizes this flexibility visually; the graphical design communicates a continuous non-linear cycle that requires iterative planning, design, development and assessment. The inner oval (surrounding the core) illustrates that revision/formative evaluation activities can be undertaken at each stage of the development process, something that is not always built into other models, usually because of the constraints of time and money.

The outer oval includes a typical post-instruction activity (summative evaluation) and also highlights three elements usually absent from other models – namely project planning, project management, and support services. The latter are required both for the project itself while it is in development, and afterwards to support the actual instruction.

We can say that it describes a holistic approach to instructional design that considers all factors in the environment; the starting point and order in which the designer addresses them is not prescribed, though the elements in the model may form a logical design sequence when read anti-clockwise (see Figure 2).

Figure 1. The ADDIE steps applied to the M-R-K Model
(after Morrison, Ross & Kemp 2004, p.29)
[Click to enlarge]

The flexibility of this approach is reinforced by the absence of lines or arrows that would dictate a specific design sequence (see Dick and Carey's Model) as a comparison. According to Presenera (2002) the Kemp Model is designed to primarily to appeal to (classroom-based) teachers, who may not have specific instructional design experience.

The Morrison-Ross-Kemp model has three characteristics that differentiate it from some other models:

• instruction is considered from the perspective of the learner
• the model takes a general systems or even object-oriented view towards instructional development
• the model emphasizes management of the instructional design process

Using the model

Using this model the instructional designer begins by asking six questions related to the skills or knowledge to be learned: required level of learner readiness; instructional strategies and media that are be most appropriate for the content and the target population; level of learner support required; measurement of achievement; and strategies for formative and summative evaluation.

(Morrison, Ross, and Kemp, 2004, p. 4).

Because of the lack of connectivity between elements and the facility for IDs to start at any place within the model, a designer can examine the entire scope of a project - or just as effectively work on a single learning object or lesson. Using this classroom-oriented model, an individual with little instructional design skill can develop a piece of instruction using few or no additional resources and with minimal front-end analysis. Similarly, there is no requirement to conduct formative and summative evaluation on the final materials (Gustafson and Branch 2002, p.16). A more experienced designer (or one with access to more resources) can also use this model in the design of a complex and widely-distributed learning program.

___________

References:

Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (2002). What is instructional design? In R.A. Reiser & J. A. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 16-25). Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.

Kemp, J. E. (1985). The instructional design process. New York: Harper & Row.

Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. V. (2004). Design effective instruction, (4th Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons

Prestera, Gus. (2002). Instructional Design Models [Internet]. Available from: http://www.effectperformance.com/sites/prestera/html/M4/L1%20-%20ISD/M4L1P1.htm#kemp Accessed: 3rd June 2009

--

Discovering Instructional Design 10: the Dick and Carey Model

According to the Encyclopedia of Distance Learning (Boettcher et al, 2005)

Design models can be defined as the visual representations of an instructional design process, displaying the main phases and relationships. Each phase has an outcomes that feeds the subsequent phase. Currently, there are more than one hundred different ISD models.

(p.164)

The most commonly known models include:

• The Dick and Carey Model
• The Kemp Model
• The iCARE Model
• The ASSURE Model

I will be looking at these models over the next few posts, beginning today with the Dick and Carey Model.

In discussing the Dick and Carey Model, Boettcher et al describe Walter Dick and Lou Carey as the "torchbearers" (p.164) of the Systems Approach, as outline in the former's "authoritative" text The Systematic Design of Instruction.

The Encyclopedia asserts that the Dick and Carey model is "very popular" in current ISD development. This model is based upon the Behaviorist assumption that there is a predictable link between a stimulus and the response that it elicits in the learner. It describes the phases of instruction (see Figure 1) as an iterative process that starts by identifying instructional goals and concludes with evaluation.

The Dick and Carey method is to break instruction down into smaller components or granular objectives that collectively constitute the competency to be acquired. Next, the stimulus and strategy for its presentation that builds each sub-skill are defined. The steps in the model are shown in the Figure 1, and described briefly below.

Figure 1 The Dick and Carey Model
[Click to enlarge]

Phases in the Dick and Carey method:

1. Determine the instructional goal
2. Analyze the instructional goal
3. Analyze the learners and contexts
4. Write performance objectives
5. Develop assessment instruments
6. Develop instructional strategy
7. Design and conduct formative evaluation
8. Revise instruction
9. Undertake summative evaluation

Phases 1 and 2 align very closely with Robert Mager’s approach (1988). He suggests a five-step process in the translation of a vague instructional goal to a set of rigorously defined desired performances, which the author elucidates in a very practical manner:

1. Write down the goal using whatever abstract terms express the intent and be sure the statement is written in terms of outcomes rather than process. For example, “Have a favorable attitude to…” rather than “Develop a favorable attitude to…”.
   
2. Think about achieving the goal in terms of people performance. What would people have to do or say or stop doing and saying before you would be willing to say that they represent the goal? List as many performances as you can think of.
   
3. Sort the list. Many of the items will be ‘fuzzy’ and not describe anything about performance per se. As SMEs to undertake steps 1 and 2 again. Continue until there is a list of performances that collectively represent the goal – until it can be said that if someone did these things and did not do these other things that would represent the goal.
   
4. Expand the words and phrases on the list into complete sentences that tell when or how often the performance is expected to occur. This will help to establish limits around the expected performance. It will enable the instructional designer to say “how much" performance is satisfactory to undertake the task successfully. For example, a goal analysis on security consciousness might include the item ‘no unattended documents’. When expanded into a complete sentence it may read “Employee always locks sensitive documents in safe before leaving room.”
   
5. Test for completeness. Review the performances on your list and ask:

If someone did these things would I be willing to say that he or she is _____________”.

(Mager, R. Making Instruction Work. 1988, pp 45-46)

If this is the case, the goal analysis is finished. If not, return to step 2 and add the missing performances.
___________

References:

Boettcher, J. V., Justice, L., Schenk. K., Rogers P. L., & Berg, G. A (2005). Encyclopedia of Distance Learning. Idea Group Reference

Carey, L. and Dick, W. (2004). The Systematic Design of Instruction (6th Ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Mager, R. (1988). Making Instruction Work. Belmont , CA: Lake Publishing Co.

Discovering Instructional Design 9: Implementation and Improvement

Over the last few weeks we have been discovering Instructional Design (ID) - the practice of maximizing the effectiveness, efficiency and accessibility of instruction and other learning experiences. The ID process can be said to have a number of steps:

1. Determine the current state and needs of the learner
2. Define the end goal of instruction
3. Develop a learning intervention to assist in the acquisition of new skills, knowledge or expertise.

Once these stages have been undertaken, the learning materials need to implemented and improved, or evaluated, and that’s what we’re going to investigate today.

IMPLEMENTATION

The implementation phase of the instructional design process is when the instruction as designed is actually delivered. Materials are collected, the environment is arranged, and the course is prepared for delivery.

For some courses, (particularly in e-learning environments) a pre-test is made available. This can determine whether the learner can already perform some of the objectives (or larger units of instruction). If that is the case, certain modules or part of the curriculum can be skipped. A pre-test can also determine whether a learner is undertakes an individualized learning path - a basic form of adaptive learning design.

When designing a new course or learning program, the design and materials should be tested during a pilot course. The pilot enables the instructional designer and trainers to have an opportunity to review and revise the course before it is fully implemented. The instructor who actually delivers the training must be knowledgeable and skilled in the competency-based training approach used by the instructional designer when designing the course.

IMPROVEMENT PHASE

A common useful way and comprehensive way of looking at improvement is in terms of the Kirkpatrick model:

Donald L Kirkpatrick first published his ideas on evaluating learning in 1959 in a series of articles in the US Training and Development Journal. The articles were subsequently included in his book Evaluating Training Programs (originally published in 1975; I have the 2006 edition).

In this text he outlined and further developed his theories on evaluating culminating in the Four-Level Model, arguably the most widely used and popular approach for the evaluation of training and learning. Kirkpatrick's Four-level model is now considered an industry standard across the HR and training communities (see Table 1).

Table 1 Kirkpatrick's Four-level Model

Kirkpatrick’s Model	Learning Effect
Level 1: Reactions.	Evaluate participants' satisfaction with the learning intervention.
Level 2: Learning and Level 3: Behavior.	What do participants know they didn't know before? How are they using knowledge in their jobs? What is the learning and performance effect of the intervention?
Level 4: Organization-level benefits.	Has the development of higher levels of domain knowledge improved organizational productivity?

According to the model, evaluation should always begin with Level One, and as time and budget allows, should move sequentially through Levels Two, Three, and Four. Information from each prior level serves as a base for the next level's evaluation. Each successive level represents a more precise measure of the effectiveness of the training program, however, each level also requires a more rigorous and time-consuming analysis.

Kirkpatrick's model aside, the course materials, objectives, delivery, test items, audience profile – all of the instructional components in fact – need to be evaluated. Assessing these elements regularly is especially important for repeating courses or asynchronous courseware. As an example, if substantial majority (70% or 80% of the learners) fail a criterion test item, it would be reasonable to look again at the design of the related piece of instruction.

_________

References:

Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, P. (2006) Evaluating Training Programs. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

--

Discovering Instructional Design 8: Developing Material for Learning Programs

Continuing this series on instructional design. Today, I'm going to outline some guidelines for developing the material for a learning program.

Now read on…

Criterion Tests
These are instruments to enable learners and instructors alike to determine whether the learner is ready to move to the next unit of instruction, hence the term criterion-referenced assessment. They are not intended to determine how well a student performed in comparison with other students or norm-referenced assessment, or grading on the curve.

Practices
The description should list tools and equipment needed, and environmental requirement if relevant. The instructional designer is typically guided by the conditions specified in the objective.

Content derivation
When objectives, criterion tests, practices and audience are all defined, the relevant content can be produced. Key learning points are listed along with examples, questions and illustrations. Often the instructional designer will undertake a “mapping” exercise to a particular textbook, for example a Microsoft Office User Specialist-certified publication can be used if the course if training office productivity skills on the PC. The example in Table 1 is a (modified) extract of a specification of a time management e-learning product.

Table 1 A Sample Mapping

Topic Time flies – where?
Taxonomy level	Objective/ assessment	Mapping
Evaluation	Assess your use of the resource of time	Time as a precious resource: page 9, right Self-assessment and indicators of bad time management 10-22 Time log: 45-65
Key concepts You want to achieve your goals. To do so you need to match the time available for those goals Time is a precious resource. Assess how well you are using that precious resource: Calculate how much of that resource was wasted today. Calculate how much of that resource is available to you to pursue your goals (proactive time) when you take away legitimate interruptions (reactive time) and necessary but low-level work (maintenance). If you use time badly, you won't achieve; if you use it well there are many benefits, especially achieving your goals
Presentation guidelines
…

Delivery System Selection
This determines the combination of media, resources, job aids, and classroom exercises needed for both instruction and practice.

--