Educational Research (ISSN: 2141-5161) Vol. 3(3) pp. 277-283, March 2012
Available online@ http://www.interesjournals.org/ER
Copyright © 2012 International Research Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Effect of ‘Dick and Carey instructional model’ on the
performance of electrical/electronics technology
education students in some selected concepts in
technical colleges of northern Nigeria
Hassan Bello1 and U. O. Aliyu2
1
Vocational and Technology Education Programme, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi, Nigeria
2
Electrical Engineering Programme, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to find out the effectiveness of the Dick and Carey Instructional Model that served
as a guide to the electrical/electronics technology education teachers in designing their instructions at the
Nigeria Certificate of Education (NCE) level. It is an attempt to improve the colleges’ teachers’ ability on how
to deliver their instruction successfully. All the electricity/electronics teachers that were involved in the
study were adequately oriented on how to go about using the model prior to the commencement of the
study. The design employed was the Quasi-experimental research, the Non- equivalent Control Group
design, the instrument for data collection was Electrical/Electronics Achievement Test (EEAT II), developed
by the researcher. Some of the findings due to the four hypotheses tested at 0.05 level of significance
indicated that there was Significant differences between the mean achievement scores of the experimental
and control groups in the post-test; and this was not attributed to sex of the subjects (Male or Female) unlike
in the school proprietorship (Federal or State Colleges of Education) when post-tested. Based on these, it
was further recommended that the teachers should embark on using the guidelines proffered in the Dick and
Carey Model when designing instructions. In addition, the National Commission for Colleges of Education
(NCCE) should subsequently, considers introducing the Model as standard for guiding teachers in planning
instructional activities at N.C.E. (Tech.) level. This is to safeguard the teachers against setting complicating
instructional objectives, poor use of instructional strategies and biased assessment of students’ learning
outcome, thereby resulting to low academic performance of the students.
Keywords: Instructional Model, Theories of Teaching/learning, Gender, Schools Proprietorship.
INTRODUCTION
In teaching and learning process, the teacher is directly
involved in the implementation of the curriculum so
planned. It is the teacher who determines how the
curriculum reaches the learner and facilitates smooth
implementation. Richardson (2001) compared a teacher
to an expert in an emergency room: saying that “the
teacher must react constantly to the immediate events
in the classroom despite having a basic plan of
instruction that determines the important components of
the lesson”. The possession of sound knowledge of the
relevant psychology of learning in conjunction with that
*Corresponding Author E-mail: hassanbello2005@yahoo.com;
Tel: ±2348069383119, ±2348022610465
of the teaching-learning process in real life situation,
induce in the teacher a high capacity to deliver the
goods. Bednar et al (1995) advocates an interwoven
development of the theories of teaching with that of
learning as a necessary tool for good teacher
preparation. The desired outcome and more importantly
the relationship between the teacher and the learner
are measures of effectiveness of any instructional
process.
Research findings in the area of psychology have
helped in solving many problems concerning teaching
and learning. Through research in education numerous
learning theories and Instructional Design (ID) models
have been established. one well-known instructional
design model is The Dick and Carey Systems Approach
Model. The model was originally published in 1978 by
278 Educ. Res.
Figure 1. Dick and Carey Model (Source: Sherri Braxton's site on ID Models)
Walter Dick and Lou Carey in their book entitled ‘The
Systematic Design of Instruction’. The model is in the
form of ‘ADDIE’ (the most common model used for
creating instructional materials). This acronym stands
for the 5 phases contained in the model: Analyzing
learner characteristics, Designing and developing
learning objectives, Developing instructional materials,
Implementing the instruction, and Evaluating the
desired goals. Most of the current instructional design
models according to (Piskurich, 2006) are variations of
the ‘ADDIE’ process.
Dick and Carey made a significant contribution to the
instructional design field by addressing instruction as an
entire system, focusing on the interrelationship between
context, content, learning and instruction. According to
Dick, et al (2005) "Components such as the instructor,
learners, materials, instructional activities, delivery
system, and learning and performance environments
interact with each other and work together to bring
about the desired student learning outcomes."
The Dick and Carey model was based on the idea
that there is a predictable and reliable link between a
stimulus (instructional materials) and the response that
it produces in a learner (learning of the materials). The
model also insists that designer needs to identify the
sub-skills the student must master to permit the
intended behaviour to be learned and then select the
stimulus and strategy for its presentation that builds
each sub-skill. This is a theory borrowed from
behaviourist, cognitivist, and constructivist schools. The
work of Dick and Carey were influenced by Robert
Gagne’s conditions of learning (Gagne, 1977). A
system, according to Dick and Carey (2004), is
technically a set of interrelated parts, all of which work
together toward a defined goal. The model is called
systems approach because it contains components that
are related to each other. Each component has an input
and an output as indicated in figure 1. Dick and Carey
(1996) listed the following reasons for advocating a
systems approach:
1. The focus is on what the learner is required to
know/do by the end of the course.
2. Each component in the system is linked carefully to
the other.
3. This process is empirical and replicable.
Dick and Carey (1996) in their Instructional System
Design (ISD) refer to a set of procedures and
techniques that an instructional designer should employ
to design, develop, evaluate, and revise instruction. The
Elements of the model consists of ten major
components (nine basic steps in an iterative cycle and a
culminating evaluation of the effectiveness of the
instruction) as follows:
1. Determine Instructional Goal – what do you want
learners to be able to do after the instruction is
completed?
2. Analyze the Instructional Goal – a step-by-step
determination of what people are doing when they
perform the goal and what entry behaviours are needed
3. Analyze Learners and Contexts – context in which
the skills will be learned and the context in which the
skills will be used
4. Write Performance Objectives – specific behaviour
skills to be learned, the conditions under which they
must be performed and the criteria for successful
performance
5. Develop Assessment Instruments – based on the
stated objectives
6. Develop Instructional Strategy – identify strategy to
achieve the terminal objective; emphasis on
presentation of information, practice and feedback,
testing
7. Develop and Select Instruction – using the stated
strategy produce instructional materials
8. Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation – testing
of instructional materials in one-to-one, small groups or
Bello and Aliyu 279
field evaluations so that the materials can be evaluated
with learners and revised prior to distribution
9. Revise Instruction – data from the formative
evaluation are summarized and interpreted to attempt
to identify difficulties experience by learners in
achieving the objectives and to relate these difficulties
to specific deficiencies in the materials
Summative Evaluation – independent evaluation to
judge the worth of the instruction.
The model was mainly designed for a classroom
setting in educational institutions. At such, Dick and
Carey (1996) pointed out the systematic characteristics
of
their
model
as
being:
Goal-directed,
Interdependencies of all the components in the system,
Feedback mechanism to determine whether stated goal
is met and Self-regulating i.e., modifying goals until the
desired goal is reached. Based on these advantages,
Gustafson and Branch (1997) recommended Dick and
Carey's (1996) Model as “The most widely adopted
introductory text related to the ID process”. Thus, their
model is known almost’. Similarly, Januszewski (2008)
reported that the ‘process is beneficial to any
person/group that is responsible for developing some
‘product’ and/or ‘deliverable’ for another person/group’.
The tertiary institutions offering technological courses
that are within the scope of this study are the Colleges
of Education offering technical courses such as
automobile, woodwork, metalwork, building and
electrical/electronics technology education within the
study area. Some of these technical colleges were
established by federal government while some by the
states government. The main programme offered by
both the male and female students in these institutions
is the three year NCE courses for teachers of basic
technology at the junior secondary school level.
Statement of the problem
In the content area of electrical/electronics technology
education at colleges of education level, some concepts
appear to be difficult for the students to grasp. The
problem of grasping sometimes is not limited to the
students alone but also to some teachers handling the
courses. The resultant effect is continued drop in the
percentage of students who pass the examination and
or acquiring a certificate in the area (Aina, 1992). This
also posed a problem as to whether the initial training of
the teachers themselves (in terms of the knowledge of
subject matter and pedagogy) is adequate or not. On
the other hand, Lecture method has become the
traditional method of teaching predominantly used in
Nigeria’s institutions of higher learning (UNICEF, 2001)
without it being associated with other (s) as may be
required. In an attempt to reduce teaching difficulty, this
study therefore, is intended to adapt the steps proffered
in the Dick and Carey instructional model to serve as a
guide to teachers when designing instruction. This is
with a view to provide them with a framework for
thorough planning, developing and adapting instruction
based on learners’ needs and content requirements.
Purposes of the study
1. Try–out the Dick and Carey model by using it to
teach a group of students the difficult
concepts
in
order to determine its effectiveness.
2. Find out whether there is difference in performance
between the group of students taught under
guidance of the model and those without in the posttest.
3. Compare the performance of the subjects based on
gender.
4. Compare the performance of the subjects based on
school’s proprietorship
Base on these purposes, four null hypotheses were
tested at 0.05 level of significance.
METHODOLOGY
This study was a Quasi-experimental research, the
Non-equivalent Control Group Design, which is
diagrammed in Table 1
This type of design has a great deal of currency in
researches on teaching. This is because it is natural to
use existing classrooms in a given school for a study
and a lot simpler than to start creating classrooms
groups through random selection and random
assignment (Campbell and Julian, 1963; Gibbons and
Herman, 1997). The design involves an experimental
group (G1) and a control group (G2) both given a pretest (Y11 and Y21) and a post test (Y12 and Y22)
respectively, in which the control group and
experimental group do not have pre-experimental
sampling equivalence (Sambo, 2005). Intact classes in
all the colleges of education selected for the study were
used. The independent variable was the Dick and
Carey instructional model, while the dependent variable
was the students’ performance in the post-test. The
experimental groups were exposed to the influence of
the model (X); the control groups were not.
Observations were then made to determine the
differences that occur in the experimental as contrasted
with the control group.
The area for this study was the 19 states of the
northern part of Nigeria. The population for the study
comprised of the 71 teachers and the 351 students in
all the 20 NCE electrical/electronics technology
education awarding Colleges of Education duly
accredited by NCCE. Northern Nigeria having 19 States
was thought of as divided into 19 clusters. The
researcher then selected eight (8) clusters at random
from the 19 clusters. From each of these eight clusters
one College of Education was selected at random.
Intact (electrical/electronics) classes were then con-
280 Educ. Res.
Table1. Quasi-experimental Design
Pre-test
Experiment G1: Y11
Control
G2: Y21
Treatment
X
post test
Y12
Y22
Table 2: Reliability Index result
Test statistic
Possible values
Desired values
Item difficulty
Index (P)
Item
Discrimination
Index (D)
Reliability
Index (r)
[0, 1]
≥ 0.3
pilot group (N = 60)
Average 0.47
[-1, 1]
≥ 0.3
Average 0.34
[0, 1]
≥ 0.8
0.89 & 0.91
sidered for the experiment in all the selected colleges.
The total number of subjects that constituted the
sample for this study was therefore; the 37
electrical/electronics technology education teachers and
the 198 final year students from the eight clusters.
Simple random sampling technique was also used in
placing the Colleges of Education into experimental or
control group. After the conduct of the experiment, the
pre-test and the post-test scores obtained from the four
experimental groups were put together and treated as
one group (G1). Also the scores of the four control
groups obtained were put together and treated as one
group called (G2).
The instruments used for this study consisted of the
Dick and Carey Instructional Model and a 60-items
Electricity/Electronics Achievement Test (EEAT II)
developed by the researcher based on the concepts in
the content area of the NCE (electricity/electronics
technology education) curriculum. The test instrument is
an objective test that contained test items like multiple
choices, true or false and fill in the blanks spaces. The
same test instrument served as pre-test and post-test.
Response of students to the Learning Difficulty Opinion
Questionnaire (SLDOQ) initially administered by the
researcher showed that students experienced some
difficulties in understanding many of the concepts in the
curriculum.
Pilot study was also carried out basically to try-out
the test instrument in order to ascertain its reliability.
For the purpose of this, intact classes of the
electricity/ele
ctronics
technology
education
departments were also considered, i.e., 44-students
from Hassan Usman Katsina Polytechnic, Katsina, 05students from College of Education, Azare, Bauchi
State and 11-students from Ramat polytechnic
maiduguri, Borno State that were at the 300 level of the
N.C.E. Programme constituted the pilot group of 60
students. With the cooperation and assistance given by
the teachers from the respective departments, EEAT II
was administered at different interval of time due to the
schools location. Using the data from the group of 60
students, the researcher performed three statistical
tests, two of which were focusing on the individual test
items (difficulty and discrimination index) and the later
(reliability index) focusing on the test as a whole as
shown in table 2.
Eventually, the Data for this study were collected by
administering the EEAT II at the pre-test and the posttest stages. These were however accomplished by the
volunteered electricity/electronics technology education
teachers from the Colleges of Education involved in the
study. In each of these institutions, the teachers were
given induction training on how to go about using the
Instructional Model in preparing their instructional
content, thus:
(a) The teachers were requested to read trough the
steps and subsequently the
task
specifications
proffered in the model before commencement of the
instructional design.
(b) The teachers were encouraged to be objective
and critical as possible in following all the steps
specified in the model.
(c) The teachers were asked to complete all the
activities prescribed by the model when planning for the
instruction.
(d) When all teaching had ended, the post-test was
then administered to the students.
This covered a period of twelve weeks for the group
taught under guidance of the Dick and Carey
instructional model and the group taught using the
traditional lecture method. Each week comprised of two
periods of 60 minutes. The same test instrument served
as both the pre-test and the post-test to enable the
researcher find out the gain in knowledge by the
subjects in the groups. For the Data Analysis, the data
obtained from the pre-test and post-test administered
were used to test the null hypotheses using student t-
Bello and Aliyu 281
Table 3. Comparison of the Mean Scores of the Experimental and Control
Group in the Pre-test
Group Mean
Exp
13.42
Control 12.23
S.D N df
4.79 100 196
4.62 98
S.E
0.67
t-cal* t-crit** Decision
1.78 1.97
accepted
Table 4. Comparison of the Mean Scores of Experimental and Control Group in
the Post-test
Group Mean S. D N
df
S.E
Exp
41.61 6.32 98 191 0.90
Control 30.85 6.17 95
t-cal*
11.96
t-crit
1.97
**
Decision
rejected
Table 5. Comparison of the Mean Scores of Male and Female Subjects in
Experimental Group in the Post-test
Subject Mean S.D N df
Male 42.31 2.97 29 56
Female 39.07
7.38 29
S.E
2.22
test, based on the decision that ‘If the calculated t-ratio
is greater than the critical or table value, null (Ho)
hypothesis is rejected in favour of the alternative (Ha)’.
t-cal*
1.46
t-crit**
2.0086
Decision
accepted
acquisition of knowledge among the subjects than the
use of the Conventional Lecture Method.
Hypothesis 3
RESULTS
Hypothesis 1
There is no significant difference in the mean
achievement scores of both the experimental and
control group in the pre-test.
From Table 3, the t-calculated value (1.78) is less than
the t-critical value (1.97); the null hypothesis is therefore
accepted that there was no significant difference
between the experimental and control groups on the
pre-test.
There is no significant difference in the mean
achievement scores of male and female subjects in
experimental group in post-test.
From Table 5, the calculated t-value (1.46) is less than
the critical t-value (2.0086). The null hypothesis was
accepted at 0.05 levels of significance. That there was
no significant difference between the mean scores of
male and female subjects in the experimental group
when post-tested. Any differences observed are such
that they could have arisen from sampling errors.
Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 2
There is no significant difference in the mean
achievement scores of both experimental and
control groups in the post-test.
There is no significant difference in the mean
achievement scores of subjects in Federal and
State Colleges of Education in experimental group
in post-test.
Referring to Table 4, the calculated t-value is (11.96)
while the critical or table t- value is (1.97).The
calculated t-ratio exceeds the critical t-ratio; the null
hypothesis was therefore rejected in favour of the
alternative hypothesis. Significant difference was found
in favour of those thought using the Instructional Model.
In other words, the use of the Dick and Carey Model
has proved to be more effective in facilitating the
Table 6 indicated the Comparison of the mean scores
of subjects in Federal and State Colleges of Education
in the experimental group on the post-test. The tcalculated (6.08) is higher than the t-critical (1.99). The
null hypothesis was therefore rejected at 0.05 levels of
significance in favour of the alternative hypothesis.
Hence, we concluded that subjects from Federal
Colleges of Education performed better than those in
282 Educ. Res.
Table 6. Comparison of the Mean Scores of Subjects in Federal and State
Colleges of Education in the Experimental Group in the Post-test
Colleges Mean S.D N
df
Federal 48.34 2.94 38 74
State
36.47 2.42 38
S.E
1.95
the State Colleges of Education in experimental group
in the post-test.
Findings of the Study
Based on the data analysis presented, the followings
are the principal Findings of the study:
1. There was no significant difference in the mean
achievement scores of both the experimental and
control groups in the pre-test.
2. Significant difference in the mean achievement
score was found in favour of the experimental group
(i.e. those taught using the instructional model).
3. There was no significant difference in the mean
achievement scores attributed to gender in the
experimental group when post-tested.
4. There was significant difference in the mean
achievement scores of subjects from Federal Colleges
of Education compared to subjects from State Colleges
of Education in the experimental group when posttested.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The result of the analysis of the null hypothesis which
stated that ‘There would be no significant difference
between the mean achievement scores of experimental
and control groups on the post-test' revealed that the
experimental group performed significantly better than
the control group. This significant difference in the
mean achievement scores between the experimental
and control groups may be attributable to the treatment
that exists between the two different groups leading to
better retention of facts among the subjects in the
experimental group. This may well be an indication that
the sequential stages of proper instructional designing
and presentation provided in the Dick and Carey model
have offered a better understanding of the difficult
concepts by the learners. The better performance of the
experimental group over the control group also enjoyed
the effort of the teachers through judicious utilization of
the model in designing lessons. The finding that the
Dick and Carey instructional model assists retention of
knowledge, as a possible outcome of better initial
learning among the experimental group, derives support
from the works of: Bruner (Undated) who stated that
‘concepts are better learnt through learners’
participations in problem solving’, and also that of Seels
and Glasgow (1990), Anglin (1991), Smith and Ragam
t-cal*
6.08
t-crit**
1.99
Decision
rejected
(1993), Genry (1994) and Kemp et al (1996) among
others.
At the end of the treatment, transition in average
scores between the experimental and the control
groups in the pre-test and post-test were found to be
from 37.15% to 64.73% (experimental groups) and from
37.32% to 49.25% (control groups) respectively. This
however, signified that the traditional classroom
instructional strategies readily practiced by teachers in
the control groups did not offer significant change in the
mean performance of the subjects when compared to
the experimental groups. This could be as a result of
setting complicating instructional objectives, poor use of
instructional strategies and biased assessment of
students’ learning outcome, thereby resulting to low
academic performance of the students. Proper use of
all these stages were clearly suggested by Gagne
(1977), and Kemp, et al (1996) and were adequately
emphasized in the ‘Dick and Carey’ model.
The result of the analysis of the third hypothesis
showed that there was no significant difference in the
mean achievement scores attributable to gender/sex
(Male or Female) in the experimental and control
groups. This implies that when appropriate stages of
delivering instruction are employed and relevant
instructional materials were used, the learners could
actually acquire the best in whatever lesson or course
of study irrespective of sex difference.
The finding of this study regarding academic
performance base on gender is in agreement with that
of Zoango (1971), Brown (1978), Watercraft (1984),
Okeke (1986) and Inomesia (1987) in Uzoagulu (1997)
who found that there were no significant difference
between the achievement of male and female subjects
in science. Therefore, the finding that both male and
female subjects in this study performed evenly is not
misleading. Sex appears to be no determinant of
achievement in the technical colleges. It was clear from
the result that most of the females were as competent
as most males. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to
provide a different teaching strategy for any of the
sexes. One factor which is said to distinguish males
from females in their achievement is the presence of
mathematics. Even then, Maccoby in Uzoagulu (1997)
has noted that between the ages of 7, 11, and 12,
males and females perform about equally in skills
connected with computation.
The result of hypothesis 4 of the study indicated that
there was significant difference in the mean
achievement scores between subjects from Federal
Bello and Aliyu 283
Colleges of Education compared to those from State’s
owned Colleges of Education in the experimental
groups when post-tested. There was a variation of
performance observed between the scores obtained
from the Federal Colleges of Education compared to
the scores obtained from the State colleges of
Education (µFM = 48.34 and µSM = 36.47) respectively.
This could be attributed to lack of adequate provision of
instructional facilities in most state’s own schools as
clearly pointed out in Aina (1992) and Makoju (1998)
who reported that there is acute shortage of
infrastructures and physical facilities in most technical
teacher training institutions in the country, coupled with
the inability of some teachers to improvise as at when
due. This also is an indication of the fact that teaching
and learning could be more result oriented if adequate
instructional materials are put in place, proper
instructional strategies are followed and the learners
are adequately participating in the processing of the
knowledge.
CONCLUSION
The poor performance of the students in the Colleges of
Education examinations was an indication of the fact
that they were poorly taught, and also that difficulty
exists in learning the subjects among the students. The
Dick and Carey Model proved more efficient than the
traditional lecture method readily adopted by most
teachers at the higher institutions of learning.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations were proffered based
on the findings of this study:1. While designing instruction using the Dick and
Carey Model, care should be taken by teachers to
select a type of multimedia that is relevant to the
learning objectives, otherwise, the technology - not the
pedagogy - would drive the course delivery.
2. Electricity/Electronics
technology
education
teachers should subject the Dick and Carey Model into
use by further trying it out at various institutions of
learning, as this will ascertain its usefulness in
developing instructions based on content and learners’
requirement.
3. NCCE should consider the adoption of the Dick
and Carey model as the proper means of designing
instructions across all the N.C.E. awarding Institutions
in the Country.
REFERENCES
Aina O (1992). Vocational and Technical Teacher Training in
Nigeria.Centre for International Technical Education: Huddershield,
U.K.
Anglin G (1991). Instructional technology: Past, present and future.
Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.
Bednar AK, Cunningham D, Duffy TM, Perry JP (1995). Theory into
practice: How do we link? In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional
technology: Past, present and
future. (2nd Ed., pp. 100111). Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Campbell DT, Julian CS (1963). Experimental and QuasiExperimental Designs for Research: Houghton Mifflin Company
Boston, USA
th
Dick W, Carey L (1996). The systematic design of instruction. (4
ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Dick W, Carey L, James O (2005) [1978]. The Systematic Design of
Instruction (6th ed.). Allyn Bacon. pp. 1–12.
Carey WO, Carey L (2004)Systematic Design of Instruction.
Boston,MA:Allyn and Bacon.
nd
Gagne RM (1977). The conditions of learning. (4 ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
Genry C (1994). Introduction to instructional development. Belmont,
California: Wad publishing Co.
Gibbons B, Herman J (1997). True and quasi-experimental designs.
Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 5 (14).
rd
Gustafson KL, Branch RM (1997). Survey of IDM, (3 . Ed). Syracuse,
NY:Information Resources Publications, Syracuce University.
Januszewski A, Molenda M (2008). Educational Technology: A
definition with commentary. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kemp J, Morrison G, Ross S (1996). Designing effective instruction.
Upper Saddle New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Makoju EJ (1998). Strategies for improving practical content of
technology subjects: Albany Delna, press.
Piskurich GM (2006). Rapid Instructional Design: Learning ID fast and
right.
th
Richardson V (2001). Handbook of Research on Teaching (4 Ed.):
American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.
Sambo AA (2005). Research Methods in Education. Stirling-Horden
Publishers (Nig.) Ltd. Lagos, Ibadan, Bennin City, Jattu-Uzairue.
Seels B, Glasgow Z (1998). Making instructional design decisions.
Columbus, Ohio: Publishing Company.
Smith P, Ragan T (1993). Instructional design. Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Pren Hall, Inc.
United Nation International Children Education Fund (UNICEF), 2001.
Children
and Women’s Rights in Nigeria: A Wake-up Call.
Situation Assessment
and Analysis. National Planning
Commission, Abuja and UNICEF Nigeria
Uzoagulu AE (1997). Interpretation of Research Results. In A.E. Eze
et al (eds) Foundations of Research in Education. Enugu: Rejoint
Communication Ltd.