|
Instructional Design Models: Comparing ADDIE, Kemp, and IPISD
|
| By Jose Escobedo, Ralph Herrera, Maria Ing, Kristi Kosina, Jose San Miguel, and Morgan Tucker |
Home | Abstract | ADDIE | Kemp | IPISD | Conclusion | Multimedia Presentation | References
The Morrison, Ross, and Kemp Design Model
What is the Kemp Model?
The Kemp Model is an instructional design model that guides instructional designers and teachers through the process of creating and maintaining learning content for students. Figure K-1, illustrated below, shows the important processes within the Kemp Model. This illustration is modified from Gustafson and Branch's (2002) Kemp Model illustration in the Survey of Instructional Development Models. The colors were added to correspond to the ADDIE paradigm, which is discussed further down in the section that compares ADDIE with the Kemp Model.
Nine Elements of the Kemp Model. The following nine elements of the Kemp Model are included in the inner section of the bubbles. This is reproduced from Gustafson and Branch's (2002) Survey of Instructional Design Models.
1. Identify instructional problems and specify goals for designing an instructional program.
2. Examine learner characteristics that will influence your instructional decisions.
3. Identify subject content and analyze task components related to stated goals and purposes.
4. Specify the instructional objectives.
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 develop the instructions.
8. Develop evaluation instruments to assess objectives.
9. Select resources to support instruction and learning activities.
Six Learner-Oriented Questions. When designing instruction, the Kemp Model asks these six questions, which are also listed in Gustafson and Branch's (2002) Survey of Instructional Design Models.
1. What level of readiness do individual students need for accomplishing the objectives?
2. What instructional strategies are most appropriate in terms of objectives and student characteristics?
3. What media or other resources are most suitable?
4. What support is needed for successful learning?
5. How is achievement of objectives determined?
6. What revisions are necessary if a tryout of the program does not match expectations?
Advantages. Several processes are advantageous in a learning environment. This particular model is student-oriented as it considers learner characteristics and instructional strategies that are designed to meet the learners' needs (Knowlton & Simms). Teachers who are also instructional designers may be tempted to use the Kemp Model because it is geared toward their audience's needs. The Kemp Model is referred to as curvilinear, or flexible, and it is centered on improving curriculum (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). The model permits continuous work and revision as lessons are created or needing to be updated. It allows instructional designers the flexibility to edit their work when changes are required. This may allow more changes to be made as they are contrived, rather than forgotten near the end of a project. Thusly, this particular model allows for continuous improvement. The planning, revision, implementation, evaluation, support services, and project management are all part of the constant cycle of revision. Also showing this model's flexibility is the inner section of the diagram with nine elements. These nine elements illustrate to the designer that they may start at any element and work on any other element at any time. For the designer who likes to jump around to various parts of the instructional design project, this model is ideal. Additionally, the Kemp Model evolves over time and is changed or developed as needed. This model is adjusted and tweaked based on new design trends and instructional strategies that improve learning. This benefits teachers who want to take advantage of a contemporary design model. As another benefit, Kranch recommends that when designing larger online instructional units, designers would benefit from this model (2008). Having the flexibility to work on any part of instruction and make targeted revisions as needed would certainly seem to help in a large instructional design environment. Though there are many advantages to this design model, there are a few disadvantages as well.
Disadvantages. The flexibility of the Kemp design model and its focus on the learners' needs through content creation does not seem to lead to many disadvantages. However, the fact that this model is very flexible might leave the instructional designer scratching their head as to where to start and how to proceed. This is especially true for the inexperienced designer who may not have a routine or general knowledge of proper design procedures. An inexperienced designer who would prefer more direction when designing lessons may want to consider a different design model that is more linear. Another disadvantage is that this kind of design may hinder instructional designers who like to work on a project to its completion. Because the Kemp model recommends a continuous cycle of work and revision, those who don't like to work on projects that are never considered finished may want to look at other design models to complete their work. The fact that this model evolves over time may be an inconvenience to those who do not keep up with current instructional design trends and changes to design models. Therefore, more work on the instructional designer's part will be needed to read and stay current on the Kemp Model's evolution. This is only a disadvantage in the sense that a designer's non-currency won't allow them to take full advantage of the fixes or updates that have been proven to benefit the Kemp design process and the educational community.
Example of the Kemp Model
Following the Kemp Model as a guide, below is a sample lesson plan to demonstrate how an individual would use the model in their own lessons. The lesson plan includes the the nine elements outlined in figure K-1 and in the paragraph above. This example Kemp model is a lesson teaching second grade students about the solar system, its celestial bodies and its characteristics with the ultimate goal of building a three-dimen sional solar system model. Marzano's Nine Instructional Strategies for Effective Teaching and Learning (n.d.) was used as a reference for some of the instructional strategies in this example.
Table K-1. Kemp Model Example
| Instructional Problems |
Second grade students who complete this instructional unit will be able to create a solar system by: (1) identifying celestial bodies in the solar system like the sun, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, and dwarf planets, (2) comparing and contrasting inner and outer planets, and (3) building a solar system out of cheap materials. |
| Learner Characteristics |
This lesson is designed for second grade students whose ages range from seven to eight years old. Second grade students are characterized by short attention spans due to age and maturity. Students at this age will work hard to please their teacher. This age group also tends to be kinesthetic learners who have difficulty with abstract concepts. Fine motor skills are still in the development process. Second graders enjoy finding, arranging, and cataloguing objects and information. Instruction will need to vary and include hands-on activities to keep the attention of the students and allow for a higher retention rate of the information. |
|
Task Analysis
|
There are five tasks that will be competed by students. The exercises are as follows:
Students will identify celestial bodies in the solar system such as the sun, planets, moons, asteroids, comets and dwarf planets.
Students will list the order of planets in the solar system from closest to the sun to farthest away.
Students will analyze the characteristics of inner and outer planets to find comparisons and differences.
Students will explain major characteristics of each planet.
Students will use their knowledge of the planets to build a three-dimensional model of the solar system using cheap materials.
|
| Instructional Objectives |
Given a diagram of the solar system student will (1) identify and label the sun, each of the planets, moons, asteroids, comets and dwarf planets, (2) label the planets in the diagram in the correct sequence, (3) identify and characterize the inner and outer planets, (4) write the major characteristics of each planet.
Using their completed diagram as reference, students will use cheap materials to build a three-dimensional model of the solar system.
|
| Content Sequencing |
PowerPoint presentation which delivers information about celestial bodies, their locations and characteristics. Students will watch a 5 1/2 minute YouTube video about the Solar System https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzbCEF37MfU
Students will cut and paste planets on a sheet of black paper in order and color them according to their actual colors.
Students will recite the mnemonic to remember the planets in order: My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas.
Students will complete a Venn diagram comparing asteroids and comets.
Students will discuss characteristics of the planets and complete an assignment reviewing characteristics of planets.
Students will identify and match celestial bodies to their characteristics
Students will do a "Play-Doh Scale Model" activity that allows for kinesthetic and visual learning of planet size comparison and location.
Students will individually create a model of the solar system using cheap materials.
|
| Instructional Strategies |
Through the course of this lesson multiple instructional strategies will be utilized. At the beginning, the teacher will check for prior knowledge and review concepts that would have been previously learned. The presentation will allow for large group instruction and linking new information to prior knowledge. The activities in this lesson will provide opportunities for other strategies, such as compare and contrast, simulations and modeling, nonlinguistic representations and cooperative learning. Homework and practice will reinforce information and allow for re-teaching of concepts that students did not grasp. Through the process of the lesson objectives will be created and feedback will be prepared.
|
|
Designing the Message and Development of Instruction
|
Instruction will be delivered using Powerpoint and a Projector displaying minimal text information and large images of each celestial body. Information delivered will include the name, characteristics, and location, if applicable, of each celestial body that the student is required to learn about. A mnemonic device will also be taught during the presentation to allow for easier memorization of the names and position/order of the solar system plants. Students will be given a copy or outline of the PowerPoint notes with minimal blanks to fill in. Hands on activities such as coloring and sequencing planets along with simulating the size of planets using Play-Doh will be utilized. Students will also compare and contrast asteroids and comets. Class discussions will also be part of the instruction. |
| Evaluation Instruments |
There will be at least three evaluation instruments used in this lesson. First, learners will participate in formative assessment through peer/class discussions and interactive technology. Next, learners will complete homework assignments allowing for the teacher. Finally, learners will individually create a model of the solar system.
|
Resources
|
Multiple resources will be needed in order to complete this lesson. The teacher will need access to a computer with internet access and it also needs to be connected to a projector and a document camera. Students will need multiple resources in order to complete the activities that will be assigned by the teacher. Resources or supplies include glue, scissors, colored pencils, Play-Doh, construction paper, and pencils. A variety of materials will also be needed in order for students to complete the solar system model. These materials may include items such as foam balls, foil, pipe cleaners, paint, and cardboard.
|
| Continuous Processes |
Three areas are continuous process in this lesson; planning, revising, and evaluation. As each step in the model is completed planning and evaluation of the material is completed and followed by revising. This is a continuous process to continually improve the materials and subject matter in order to create a more throughout and engaging lesson. There are three types of evaluation that may occur throughout the process: confirmative, formative and summative. In following this continuous process this lesson should continuously be changing and improving.
|
ADDIE's Comparison to the Kemp Model
Similarities. The ADDIE paradigm is a framework for design models, so the Kemp Model includes all elements of ADDIE. Figure K-1 above illustrates the similarities between the ADDIE paradigm and the Kemp Model. Figure K-2 below shows the 21-step process of the ADDIE paradigm, which is a modified version of the standard ADDIE diagram, as pictured in Gustafson and Branch's (2002) Survey of Instructional Development Models and Branch's (2009) 21-Step version in the Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. Of the nine elements, or the bubbles of the inner part, of Figure K-1, the Analyze phase of ADDIE corresponds to "Instructional Problems" and "Learner Characteristics." The Design Phase includes "Task Analysis," "Instructional Objectives," "Content Sequencing," "Instructional Strategies," and "Designing the Message." The Development phase is similar to "Development of Instruction." "Evaluation Instruments" resembles the Evaluation phase. The inner ring of Figure K-1 coincides with the evaluation and revision portions of ADDIE. "Formative Evaluation" and "Revision" mirror of the Develop phase. "Revision," "Summative Evaluation," and "Confirmative Evaluation" conform to the Evaluation phase. The outer ring illustrates other portions of the Kemp design model with colors that correspond to various ADDIE phases. "Planning" is considered part of both the Analyze and Design phase. "Implementation" matches up with the Implement phase. Finally, "Support Services" and "Project Management" are utilized throughout all phases of the ADDIE paradigm.
Differences. While both the Evaluate phase of ADDIE and the evaluation sections of Kemp are similar in that they are both continuous, they differ in the other aspects. The main difference between ADDIE and the Kemp model is the moving parts within each. ADDIE has five phases, whereas the Kemp model has nine elements and two continuous rings. The Analyze, Design, Develop, and Implement phases of ADDIE loop in a singular direction, while the nine elements of the Kemp model can be started and completed in any order. Also, the Kemp model can be updated to reflect current instructional design trends as needed, while the ADDIE paradigm remains a more simplified and stagnant standard. The Kemp model allows more flexibility than the ADDIE paradigm in this respect. The Kemp model also specifically mentions Support Services and Project Management in its design model and the ADDIE paradigm diagram does not. This may give instructional designers more direction for such activities that the ADDIE paradigm does not elaborate on beyond a passing mention in textbooks like Robert Branch's (2009) Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. Overall, if instructional designers are looking for more flexibility in when and how they design their instructional projects, then the Kemp model may offer them more guidance than the ADDIE paradigm.
References
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. New York: Springer.
Developmental Characteristics of Second Graders. (2007, December 7). Retrieved October 5, 2014, from http://www.glendale.k12.wi.us/2_char.aspx
Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. (2002). Survey of Instructional Development Models (4th ed., pp. 46-49). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology.
Knowlton, D. S., & Simms, J. (2009). Generative Strategies and Computer-Based Instruction for Teaching Adult Students. Techtrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 53(3), 54-60.
Kranch, D. A. (2008). Getting It Right Gradually: An Iterative Method for Online Instruction Development. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(1), 29-34.
Marzano. (n.d.). Marzano's Nine Instructional Strategies for Effective Teaching and Learning. Retrieved October 8, 2014, fro m http://www.ntuaft.com/TISE/Research-Based Instructional Strategies/marzanos 9 strategies.pdf
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.