Instructional Model Comparison 1
Jeff Steele
Dr. Kevin Pyatt
EDUC 533: Instructional Systems Design
July 6, 2009
Instructional Model Comparison
Like many higher education instructors, I entered the profession adequately knowledgeable in my trade, but woefully lacked experience or training as an educator. I did not understand that much thought and research has gone into studying the various ways that individuals learn. Studying various instructional design models and instructional strategies has opened my eyes to exploring the many possibilities available to strengthen my skills as an educator.
Models vs. Instructional Strategies
Although they work in tandem, there is a difference between an instructional system design (ISD) model and an instructional strategy. The instructional design model should be viewed as blueprint, whereas instructional strategy is designed to work within that blueprint.
Working within a blueprint, however, requires that a design be flexible and adaptable to make sure that the intended outcomes are reached.
An instructional system designs model analyzes the needs of the learner in relation to the goals, or outcomes, of instruction. There are a wide variety of theories available to the educator to use as a guide in approaching course planning, lesson plans, or even individual instruction.
Most of these are based on the ADDIE ( A nalysis, D esign, D evelopment, I mplementation, and
E valuation) model, one of the most basic instructional systems designs. ISDs are designed to maximize the effectiveness of the student’s learning experience, based on objectives and

Instructional Model Comparison 2 outcomes (Wikipedia). For this comparison project, I have chosen two unique models: Wiggins and McTighe’s Backwards Design Model, and Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino’s
ASSURE model.
Instructional strategies, on the other hand, consist of plans and activities designed to provide knowledge and enhance the skills of the students. These are outcomes based strategies determined by student needs. They are much less broad in scope, working primarily within the confines of the ISD. Their primary purpose is to provide a basis for the delivery of instruction
(Saskatoon Public Schools). For a comparison, we will analyze the similarities and differences between problem-based learning and role-playing .
Model Comparison: Backwards Design vs. ASSURE
Backward Design Stages
Stage 1: Identify Desired Results
What “enduring” understandings are desired?
What should students know, understand, and be able to
do?
What is worth understanding?
Stage 2: Determine Acceptable
Evidence of Learning
How will we know if students have achieved the desired results and met the standards? What will we accept as evidence of student understanding and proficiency?
Stage 3: Design Learning Experiences
& Instruction



Action steps to refocus the conversation and re-vision an ELA program.
__Set the vision. Focus on the big ideas.
__Create a shared vision.
__Departmental activities to focus on:
__Enduring Understandings
__Standards (national, state, district)
__Essential Questions
__Determine how students demonstrate
their knowledge.
__Focus on assessment before designing
the learning activities.
__Expand the assessment continuum.
__Plan instructional activities.
__Share best practice.
__Build in collaboration.
__Ensure success for all learners.

Instructional Model Comparison 3
In the Backward Design model, Wiggins and McTighe have developed an interesting approach that essentially works from back to front. The assessment stage, typically one of the last stages in many models, is the starting point. In short, learning experiences should be planned with the final assessment in mind. (ARPS)
In contrast, the ASSURE model instructs the educator to:
A nalyze learners
S tate objectives
S
U elect instructional methods, media, and materials tilize media and materials
R equire learner participation
E valuate and revise
ASSURE is designed to for instructors to design and develop the most appropriate learning environment for their student, via lesson plans. In addition, the ASSURE model incorporates
Robert Gagne’s events of instruction to assure effective use of media in instruction. (Heinich)

Instructional Model Comparison 4
D
D
I
In this model, the initial analysis is of the desired end results, as opposed to the “problem” requiring a solution
Design is the final step, or step 3, in backwards design
Development is part of stage 3, designed to ensure success for all learners
Implementation is not directly addressed in this
Both begin with Analysis as the first step
Design in the third of 6 steps, whereas the instructional methods, media and material are selected
This method does not imply this step directly, but one could easily place it in the “select” category
Implementation would be categorized in the
“Utilize” section of this model
E Evaluation of results is addressed in stage 2, while desired results are addressed in stage 1 in this model
As with ADDIE, evaluation is the final step
(along with revision), in this model
As demonstrated by the above graph, both models have very similar characteristics to the
ADDIE model, but are also unique from each other, in that each begins at the opposite end of the
ADDIE spectrum. The side by side comparison also demonstrates that the ASSURE model is much more in line with all the steps of ADDIE, whereas the Backwards Design model does not directly address implementation. According to the ADDIE model, implementation can take place in the form of field-testing (during the initial design of the course), or in the launching of the course (post-design stage). In addition, according to ADDIE, evaluation consists of five steps that assess materials, process, learner reactions, learner achievements, and instructional consequences (Gagne, Wager, Golas, & Keller, 2005). The Backwards Design model only addresses the learner achievement element of evaluation.
In my opinion, the Backward Design model would be the least successful in addressing most instructional problems. By its very nature, it is designed to promote “teaching to the test”
(certainly a hot-button topic in today’s educational climate!) (Instructional Design.org).To be

Instructional Model Comparison 5 fair, however, if “teaching to the test” is the desired outcome, than this approach would have a definite advantage. As with any of the ISD models, choosing which one to use is ultimately rooted in one’s beliefs in the role of the educator in relation to the desired outcomes of the institution.
Strategy Comparison: Problem-based learning vs. Role-playing
Developed by McMasters University, problem based learning (PBL) is a theory rooted in both curriculum and process. The curriculum consists of carefully designed problems that demand the learner acquire and utilize a higher-level of knowledge and problem solving strategies. This approach is designed to prepare students to resolve problems or meet challenges that will be encountered throughout their lives and careers (MCLI). The steps involved in problem-based learning are illustrated as follows:

Instructional Model Comparison 6
Web-based role playing is based on the concept that people choose to learn because it will help them achieve a goal. It is based on the principles of dynamic goal-based learning, and requires hands-on learning within the context of an educational setting where students are allowed the opportunity to acquire the intended learning outcomes by making mistakes in safe environments. The four essential ingredients of this learning and teaching design are goal-based learning, role-play, online web-based communication and collaboration, and the traditional lectures and tutorials (Ip, Linser, & Naidu).
In problem-based learning, the traditional teacher and student roles change. The students assume increasing responsibility for their learning, giving them more motivation and more feelings of accomplishment, setting the pattern for them to become successful lifelong learners. The faculty, in turn, become resources, tutors, and evaluators, guiding the students in their problem solving efforts.
The problem is meant to engage the student as an active participant in the learning process. The problem serves as a focal point for knowledge acquisition and application and drives the instruction. PBL problems are not simple exercises to illuminate one particular concept. Since the problems have more than one correct solution, students are not judged on how well their answers match an expert's, but on the viability of the solution.
The lecturer or tutor, acting as creator or moderator, sets up a participant list, groups the participants into different Worlds and then, assigns participants
(either in small groups or as individuals) different roles.
Participants play the simulation as the assigned roles. The real identity of each participant can remain anonymous throughout the simulation.
Playing a role with numerous possibilities and alternative worlds can equate to playing to "have fun". Incorporates the use of the world-wide web.

Instructional Model Comparison 7
Students involved in problembased learning acquire knowledge and become proficient in problem solving, self-directed learning, and team participation. Studies show that PBL prepares students as well as traditional methods. PBL students do as well as their counterparts from traditional classrooms on national exams, but are in fact better practitioners of their professions.
Firstly, it has brought students to the center of the learning process rather than putting them in passive and receptive role. Secondly, it has transformed the way students and teachers carry out research by emphasizing communication and collaboration rather than individual activity. Thirdly it has allowed for flexibility in the delivery of material in terms of the number of participants, the timing and spatial location of the teaching and learning process. And fourthly, it has taught everyone new skills and competencies, not only about teaching and learning but communication and collaboration.
Sources: (Ip, Linser, & Naidu); (MCLI)
As demonstrated, both of these goal-oriented strategies incorporate a student-based learning environment which encourages a higher order level of cognitive skills as well as provides a fun and safe learning environment. In addition, both models both encourage and require a higher level of cooperation among the participants.
Conclusion
An educator has a large variety of models and strategies to explore and implement in the classroom setting. Although each model and strategy may have a unique approach or provision, they all share one hope in common: to provide the necessary framework to improve the learning process. As an educator, I believe it is important to not look to any one model or instructional strategy, but rather, to find something in each one that I can apply to my particular environment.

Instructional Model Comparison 8
ARPS. (n.d.). Backwards Design 101.
Retrieved June 30, 2009, from arps.org: http://www.arps.org/users/ms/coaches/backward%20design%20101.htm
Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. M., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design.
Belmont: Wadsworth.
Heinich, M. R. (n.d.). unca.edu.
Retrieved June 30, 2009, from The ASSURE model: http://www.unca.edu/education/edtech/techcourse/assure.htm
Instructional Design.org. (n.d.). Backward Design . Retrieved June 30, 2009, from instructionaldesign.org: http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/backward_design.html
Ip, A., Linser, R., & Naidu, S. (n.d.). Simulated Worlds: Rapid Generation of Web-Based Role
Play.
Retrieved June 30, 2009, from ausweb.scu.edu: http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw01/papers/refereed/ip/paper.html
MCLI. (n.d.). Problem-based Learning . Retrieved June 30, 2009, from Maricopa Center for
Learning and Instruction: http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/pbl/info.html
Saskatoon Public Schools. (n.d.). Instructional Strategies Online . Retrieved June 30, 2009, from spsd.ska.ca: http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/de/pd/instr/index.html
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Instructional Systems Design . Retrieved June 30, 2009, from Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instructional_design