DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

Dick, Carey and Carey Systems Approach Model

Tamica Prospere

University of the West Indies (Open Campus)

Overview

Smaldino, Lowther, Russell, and Mims (2015) define instruction as any intentional effort to

stimulate learning by the deliberate arrangement of experiences to help learners achieve a desirable

change in capability. Approaches to instruction are based on a set of strategies which are termed

instructional models. Dick, Carey and Careys model also known as the Systems Approach Model

incorporates elements from multiple learning perspectives; cognitive approaches of learning,

constructivist approaches as well as behaviourists Robert Gagnes nine events of instruction. As

explained by Dick, Carey and Carey the model incorporates an eclectic set of tools drawn from

each of these three major theoretical positions of the past fifty years and is an effective design

framework for guiding pedagogical practices within all three foundational orientations (Dick,

Carey and Carey, 2009). This multi theory approach spans the seven versions of Dick and Careys

book The Systematic Design of Instruction (from 1978 to 2008), which introduces the reader to the

Systems Approach Model. The latest editions of the book places greater emphasis on front-end

analysis and provides instructional materials for web-based learning environments.

This model involves the fundamental elements of analysis, design, development, implementation,

and evaluation and based on the system approach of designing instruction (planning, development,

implementation, and evaluation of instruction). While many traditional models of instruction

depend only on the ability of the instructor, modern approaches perceives instruction as a system

of interrelated, interdependent components. The System Approach Model consists of interacting

 DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

components to design instruction which meets instructional objectives. These components include;

the instructor, the learners, materials, instructional activities, delivery system, learning

environment and performance environment. The interrelatedness and interdependence of the

components results in a rippling effect on the overall system if any one component is changed.

Developers

Like many other models this model was based on many years or research on the learning process

by rebuttable individuals in the field of education and instructional design. The individuals

responsible for the development of the Systems Approach Model are Walter Dick, Lou Carey and

James O. Carey.

Dr. Walter Dick first studied at Princeton, where he received his

undergraduate degree in psychology. He later acquired his masters in

psychology, and his doctorate in educational psychology from Penn

State. He began his long-standing career in performance research and

instructional design at Florida State University in 1966. He was

initially employed as a researcher in the Computer-Assisted

Instruction Center but has also worked in the capacity of professor of

instructional systems, served as program leader at FSU. Apart from his work in academia, Dr. Dick

Walter has also provided his services as a consultant to many major corporations.

Dr. Lou Carey obtained her first degree from the Florida State University in 1966 where she

studied with Robert Gagne. She later obtained a PhD from FSU. Her expertise lies in the area of

Curriculum-based Assessment & Educational Program Evaluation. At the University of South

Florida, she served in the capacity of professor within the Educational Measurement and Research
 DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

department as well as Interim Chair, Childhood Education Department. She was also employed as

the director of the Office of Research Services within the College of Education at the Arizona State

University. Dr. Lou Carey has published research in journals such as: Educational and

Psychological Measurement, Academic Exchange Quarterly, and International Journal of

Educology.

James O. Carey was the associated director at the School of Library and Information Science,

University of South Florida. In this capacity, Dr. Carey taught computer applications in libraries,

instructional technology and school media management. He also served as an assistant professor

in the Department of Educational Technology at the Arizona State University.

Development of the Dick, Carey and Carey Systems Approach Model

Dr. Walter Dick presented the first public version of the model (see figure 1) in 1968 to the faculty

of the College of Education at Florida State University where he was asked to address the staff on

the topic New Directions in Learning". He explained that the paper was developed on his

experience in developing Skinnerian programmed instruction and efforts to create CAI instruction

for an IBM 1500 system (Dick, 2012).

 DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

Figure 1 Dick's New direction in learning model. (Dick, The Dick and Carey Model: Will It Survive the Decade?, 2012)

The boxes in this model simply included terms and that there was no goal identification step. Dr.

Walter Dick explained that it was assumed that the user would know what the goal was, and

would simply proceed to a task analysis and identification of entry behaviors and knowledge

(Dick, The Dick and Carey Model: Will It Survive the Decade?, 2012). The model, which was

based on behavioural objectives was rejected by the audience

In the 1970s Dr. Walter Dick turned his decided to focus on the design of instruction rather than

the delivery of instruction. In 1978, he and Lou Carey published the first edition of book The

Systematic Design of Instruction. The first publication was a 200-page book detailing all that they

knew about designing instruction. Their efforts resulted in the model presented in figure 2. This

version included a goal identification step, merging of some steps and verbs in all the boxes to

denote the designers action in each step. This model remained unchanged throughout the first

three editions of the book.

 DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

Figure 2 Systems Approach Model for Designing Instruction 1978, 1985, 1990. (Dick, The Dick and Carey Model: Will It

Survive the Decade?, 2012)

The model was modified yet again in 1996 to reflect the advent of new concepts and procedures.

These included performance technology, context analysis, multi-level evaluation models, and total

quality management. Furthermore, it considered the context in which learners learned and apply

the skills being taught. Other changes included the modification of the first box to state that a

needs assessment has to be conducted and relabeling of a box from "Identify Entry Behaviors and

Characteristics" to "Analyze Learners and Contexts.

 DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

Figure 3 Dick and Carey's System Approach Model for Designing Instruction 1996. (Dick, The Dick and Carey Model: Will It
Survive the Decade?, 2012)

The latest version of the model as seen in figure 4, uses solid lines to indicate the components

which are dependent on one another. The dotted lines represent feedback lines. This model is

presented in the latest edition of The Systematic Design of Instruction, written by Walters Dick

with Lou and Jim Carey.

Figure 4 Dick, Carey and Carey's Systems Approach Model. (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2015)
 DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

Steps of the Systems Approach Model

The model Systems Approach model consist of ten (10) steps; nine basic steps in a repetitive

cycle and a concluding evaluation of the effectiveness of the instruction. These steps

1. Identify Instructional Goals: Determine what new information and skills learners need to

master after completing instruction.

2. Conduct Instructional Analysis: Determine what people do to perform the goals and

determine the necessary skills to master the goal, including the entry skills.

3. Analyze Learners and Contexts: Determine learners characteristics (i.e., current skills,

preferences, and attitudes) as well as the context in which they learn and use the skills.

4. Write Performance Objectives: Based on the skills identified in the instructional analysis,

formulate specific statements of what learners will be able to do upon completing

instruction.

5. Develop Assessment Instruments: Based on the objectives, develop assessments to

measure learners abilities to perform the objectives.

6. Develop Instructional Strategy: Based on the preceding steps, identify theorectically

based strategies to achieve the goal. The strategies emphasize components to foster student

learning: pre-instructional activities (i.e. simulating motivation and focusing attention),

presentation of content with examples and deomonstrations, active learner participation

and practice feedback, and follow-through activities to assess learning and relate acquires

skills to real-world applications.

7. Develop and Select Instructional Materials: Develop materials based on instructional

strategy (e.g., instructors guides, presentations, video and audio podcasts, computer-based
 DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

multimedia). New materials are developed and existing materials are selected based on

defined criteria.

8. Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation of Instruction: After drafting instruction,

conduct a series of evaluations to collect data that help identify problems with instruction,

revise it, and improve it. Conduct three types if formative evaluation to collect data to

improve instruction: one-to-one, small group, and field trial.

9. Revise Instruction: Based on formative evaluation data, revise instruction and

instructional strategies. Evaluation data also serves to reexamining the validity of the

instructional analysis and the assumptions of the entry skills and characteristics of the

learners performance objectives and test items.

10. Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation: This is the final evaluation of the

effectiveness of instruction. This step is not considered part of the instructional design

process itself because an independent external evaluator conducts it after instruction has

been formatively evaluated and sufficiently revised to meet standards of the designer.

(Dick, Carey and Carey 2015 as cited in Pedersen & Shelton, 2017, p. 261- 262).

Dick, et al (2015) explains that the steps are non-linear and instead each step in the process is

continuously reassessed based on information collected from the previous step. That is, if the

desired goal from the previous step has not been reached the system is modified until the goal has

been achieved. It is this relationship between components which makes this model successful.

Systems Approach Model and Learner Analysis

When conducting learner analysis Dick, Carey and Carey (2015) focuses eight specific areas;

1. Entry skills,
 DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

2. Prior knowledge,

3. Attitude towards content and delivery system,

4. Academic motivation,

5. Educational and ability levels,

6. General learning preferences,

7. Attitude toward the organization providing the instruction, and

8. Group characteristics.

Analysis of the System Approach Model

Dr. Dick Walter, in his analysis of the model identified two limitations. The first being that the

model is not a complete instructional design model (Dick, The Dick and Carey Model: Will It

Survive the Decade?, 2012). This is so, as it does not include total performance systems analysis,

procedures for implementing and maintaining instruction as does other models.

Secondly, it was stated in his review of the model that some researchers indicated that

practitioners do not necessarily follow all of the steps in the model in sequence, and sometimes

ignore some of the steps (Wedman & Tessmer, 1993 cited in Dick, 2012). This is especially true

for teachers. It is expected that teachers may not be able to use all steps in this process to plan all

their daily lessons because of the amount of detail required to complete. However, Dick, Carey

and Carey (2015) posits that even teachers who use this process to only complete a small amount

of instruction can reap the benefits of this model. It is also advised that teachers select steps or

parts of steps as appropriate to their instructional planning needs.

Akbulut (2007) in his comparison of the Systems Approach Model to another instructional design

model stated that although the Systems Approach model considers all components necessary for
 DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

good instruction and is good systematic approach to curriculum and program design, it was too

rigid. This he stated made adapting the model to multiple team members and different types of

resources difficult. He went on to suggest that the rigidity of the model would hamper the

instructional design professions creative expression skills.

Related Publications

Design Models and Learning Theories for Adults.

Instructional Design Models

Systems Approach Model for Designing Instruction (Dick & Carey)

 DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

References

Akbulut, Y. (2007). Implications of Two Well-Known Models for Instructional Designers in

Distance Education: Dick-Carey versus Morrison-Ross-Kemp. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496543.pdf
Dick, W. (2012, June 20). The Dick and Carey Model: Will It Survive the Decade? Retrieved
from Springer: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30221035?origin=JSTOR-
pdf&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction, 8th edition.
Boston: Pearson.
Pedersen, K & Shelton, K. (2017). Handbook of Research on Building, Growing, and Sustaining
Quality E-Learning. PA: IGI Global
Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., Russell, J. D., & Mims C. D. (2015). Instructional Technology
and Media for Learning (9th ed.). NJ: Pearson.
Stefaniak, J. (2017). Advancing Medical Education Through Strategic Instructional Design.
Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
 DICK, CAREY AND CAREY SYSTEM APPROACH MODEL

EDID6503- Assignment 2

Reflection

I first came across the Dick, Carey and Carey model while completing Assignment 1 of this course.

As an instructional design student, the model appealed to me. However, at that point I was merely

trying to determine how the model fit into instructional design and instructional theories.

Therefore, I decided to closer examine the model for Assignment 2.

Throughout my research, what appealed to me the most was the simplicity of the initial model

from which the Systems Approach Model stemmed. It appeared to be something that I could have

thought of as a novice in this field. However, I do not think I would have the tenacity to continually

modify the approach over 30 years. Instructional models and systems are really based on years of

extensive research.

Assignment 2 required me to put into use all my research and academic writing skills. It seemed

to be an endless cycle of searching for credible articles online and books, analyzing, organizing

information, editing, and proofreading. Most of the information I came across, especially through

online sources, was repetitive as every website seem to be regurgitating the same information.

Finding new information became very frustrating. It was an added task to find information on

the developers of the model as they had little presence on the internet. This was surprising as the

Systems Approach Model was mentioned in almost every article on instructional models which I

came across and there were eight editions of their book. However, only a few lines could be found

on the authors.