Dick and Carey Model

Dick and Carey Model

Overview

The Dick and Carey Model is a systematic approach to instructional design that treats teaching and learning as interconnected systems. Unlike more general frameworks, it breaks the process into highly specific steps that ensure instruction is directly tied to measurable goals and learner outcomes. The strength of the model is its precision: every step builds on the previous one, creating a clear chain from identifying goals to evaluating results. Here's a breakdown of each step:

1. Identify Instructional Goals:

This is the starting point where you define what learners should be able to do by the end of instruction. Goals are expressed in terms of performance, not just knowledge. For example, instead of saying "understand phishing" a proper instructional goal would be "Learners will identify and avoid phishing emails in real-world contexts". This step sets the target for all the work that follows.

2. Conduct Instructional Analysis

Here, the big instructional goal is broken down into smaller, teachable components. Designers map out the knowledge, skills, and procedures learners must master to achieve the goal. For instance, to recognize phishing, learners would need to (1) analyze email structure, (2) identify suspicious links, and (3) know how to verify a sender. The analysis creates a roadmap of prerequisite skills and sub-skills.

3. Analyze Learners and Contexts

This step focuses on who the learners are and the settings in which learning and performance will occur. It includes examining entry behaviors, prior knowledge, attitudes, motivation, and demographic factors. It also considers the learning environment (online, classroom, blended) and the context where learners will apply their new skills. This ensures instruction is realistic and relevant.

4. Write Performance Objectives

Performance objectives are written statements that describe exactly what learners should be able to do after instruction, under what conditions, and how well. These objectives are often based on Bloom's Taxonomy and follow the format of condition, behavior, and criterion. For example: "Given a sample email, learners will correctly identify at least three signs of phishing with 90% accuracy".

5. Develop Assessment Instruments

Assessments are created to measure whether learners meet the performance objectives. Both formative and summative assessments are considered. Continuing with the phishing example, an assessment might provide real or simulated emails for learners to evaluate, ensuring the test reflects authentic performance, not just recall of facts.

6. Develop Instructional Strategy

This step outlines how the instruction will be delivered, including sequencing, activities, feedback, and motivational strategies. The plan must be tied directly to the performance objectives. For phishing, a strategy might include worked examples, guided practice identifying suspicious emails, and gradually more complex scenarios with immediate feedback.

7. Develop and Select Instructional Materials

Here, the actual learning resources are created or adapted. This includes lesson content, visuals, videos, interactive activities, and instructor guides. Materials must align with the instructional strategy and performance objectives. At this stage, prototypes and drafts are tested for clarity and effectiveness before full rollout.

8. Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation

Formative evaluation is carried out during development to test the instruction with 1:1 evaluations or a small groups of learners. Feedback is gathered to identify confusing instructions, unclear content, or technical issues. For example, if learners consistently misinterpret a phishing example, the material can be revised before wide implementation.

9. Revise Instruction

Based on formative evaluation, revisions are made to improve instruction. This step highlights the model's iterative nature—feedback leads directly to changes in content, strategy, or assessments to ensure the final version is effective.

10. Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation

The final step is summative evaluation, which examines the overall effectiveness of the instruction after implementation. It looks at learner achievement, transfer of skills, and impact in the real context. Summative evaluation might ask: Did learners actually apply phishing-avoidance strategies in their workplace? Did the training reduce security incidents? This step validates whether the instruction met its goals.

The Dick and Carey Model is thorough and structured, ensuring no part of instructional design is left to chance. By moving from broad goals to detailed objectives, aligning assessments with real-world performance, and building in evaluation and revision, the model makes instructional design a precise and evidence-driven process.

“The Dick and Carey Model turns instructional design into a systematic chain of connected steps, ensuring that goals, assessments, strategies, and materials work together to produce measurable learning outcomes.”

Implications of the Dick and Carey Model for Instructional Design

The Dick and Carey model has important implications for how instructional design is practiced because it treats learning as a system in which all parts must work together. By breaking the process into detailed steps, it ensures that instruction is purposeful, measurable, and closely aligned with learner performance outcomes.

1. Alignment Between Goals, Instruction, and Assessment

One major implication is the emphasis on alignment. Because the model requires performance objectives to be directly connected to assessments and instructional strategies, it prevents common mismatches where learners are taught one thing but tested on another. This systematic connection increases both fairness and effectiveness in learning.

2. Precision in Defining Learning Outcomes

The step of writing performance objectives pushes instructional designers to be specific about what learners should do, under what conditions, and to what standard. This level of detail leads to measurable outcomes and makes evaluation more meaningful. It also elevates the designer's role from content developer to performance engineer.

3. Data-Driven Revision and Continuous Improvement

The built-in stages of formative evaluation and revision imply that instruction is never "finished" after first design. Feedback loops are integral to the process, reinforcing the idea that effective instruction is refined through evidence and learner response rather than assumption.

4. System Thinking in Instructional Design

The model emphasizes interdependence between goals, learner analysis, content, and assessments. This systems perspective means that if one part of the process changes—such as learner needs or organizational context—other parts must adapt too. Instruction is therefore seen as dynamic and responsive rather than static.

5. Accountability and Evidence of Effectiveness

Finally, the inclusion of summative evaluation ensures that instructional design is held accountable not just for delivery, but for actual outcomes. This has broader implications for organizations, as designers can demonstrate return on investment through improved learner performance and measurable organizational results.

“By making every step explicit and connected, the Dick and Carey Model transforms instructional design into a process of alignment, accountability, and continuous improvement.”

1. Strengths and Limitations of the Dick and Carey Model for the Web Basics Minicourse

Strengths

• Systematic Alignment: Every step in the model ensures that goals, objectives, instruction, and assessments are directly linked. For Web Basics, this means objectives like "Learners will identify signs of a secure website" would be directly tied to scenario-based assessments where learners practice evaluating sample sites.
• Detailed Analysis: The model's emphasis on instructional analysis and learner/context analysis helps ensure the minicourse truly addresses gaps in digital literacy rather than assuming what learners need. For example, identifying that many learners confuse cookies with malware would shape a targeted lesson on web privacy.
• Built-In Evaluation and Revision: Formative evaluation during development provides early feedback. A prototype module on phishing could be tested with a small group, and revisions made if learners misinterpret examples.
• Evidence-Based Outcomes: Summative evaluation (e.g., tracking whether learners apply safer browsing practices after completing the course) provides measurable evidence of impact, strengthening the credibility of the course.

Limitations

• Complexity for Small-Scale Courses: The Dick and Carey model is highly detailed, and the amount of analysis and documentation may feel excessive for a short minicourse like Web Basics.
• Time-Intensive: The model's sequential steps can slow down development. For a topic like web safety, where threats change rapidly, this may limit responsiveness.
• Rigid Structure: While it is systematic, the linear nature may challenge the need for more agile, iterative approaches. For example, it may be necessary to adjust objectives mid-development when pilot testing reveals unexpected learner needs.

2. How the Model Supports or Challenges the Design of Web Basics

Supports:

• The model ensures clarity and alignment, so the minicourse won't drift into superficial coverage but instead focuses on concrete performance outcomes.
• Its structured analysis of learners and contexts helps adapt the minicourse to adults with varied backgrounds (some comfortable with technology, others anxious about digital risks).
• The built-in formative evaluation supports continuous refinement, ensuring the minicourse communicates complex terms (like "HTTPS" or "two-factor authentication") in ways learners understand.

Challenges:

• The level of detail required at each step may extend development timelines unnecessarily for a short course. For instance, writing full-scale performance objectives and extensive design documents could feel disproportionate for a minicourse with only a few modules.
• The model's sequential approach doesn't naturally accommodate quick iterations. If new phishing techniques emerge, the course may need updating faster than the model's cycle comfortably allows.

3. Examples from the Web Basics Minicourse

• Instructional Analysis: Breaking down the goal "Practice safe browsing" into sub-skills: identifying secure sites, recognizing phishing, understanding cookies, and enabling multi-factor authentication.
• Learner Analysis: Adult learners with functional internet use but limited conceptual understanding. Some may know how to "click the padlock" but not what it means.
• Performance Objectives: "Given a set of sample emails, learners will correctly identify at least three signs of phishing with 90% accuracy."
• Assessment Instruments: Scenario-based tasks where learners must decide whether to trust or avoid a website based on indicators.
• Formative Evaluation: Pilot testing a phishing module with 5-10 learners, revising unclear examples before full launch.
• Summative Evaluation: Post-course surveys and follow-ups to check if learners actually change browsing behavior, such as avoiding unsafe sites or enabling two-factor authentication.

“For the Web Basics minicourse, the Dick and Carey Model provides the precision and alignment needed to address real knowledge gaps, but its detail-heavy process may challenge the flexibility and speed required for a small, fast-moving learning experience.”