The Unpositives of the Dick and Carey Model - Research Paper Example

The step provides the strategies that enhance instructions. The instructions then undergo the revision through the findings from the influential evaluation. This phase ensures validation of the attained instructions since the objectives undergo respective changes in relation to the finding. Finally, design and carry out summative evaluation - at this point the evaluation that is carried out bases its judgment on the finest instruction (Woolf & International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2008).

Secondly, the method holds the notion that learning involves predictability and reliability. Thirdly, the model does not give room for mistakes and adopts a rigid strategy. Finally, the steps involved appear too long and hence can result in the situation of the lost track (Woolf & International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2008).

Walter Dick and Lou Carey facilitated the systematic process to assist in instruction delivery. The theory comprises behaviorist, cognitive, and constructive instructions. The authors tend to attain most of their ideas from Robert Gagne’s conditions employed in learning. The theories based their operations on the relationship that thrives between instruction pieces of equipment learning being parallel to the stimulus-response, identification of the skills that require mastering, and the decision that determines if the attainment of the sub-skill can result in the required behavior. The method involves some disadvantages that hinder the effectiveness of the instruction process (Woolf & International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2008).

The methodology, when looked at closely, displays some suggestions. Firstly, the design involves the reduction model which disintegrates the components into simpler components.  This implies that the teacher requires adopting a careful method of delivering the components to avoid losing track. Secondly, the tutor requires adopting the proper learning conditions. The wrong use of conditioning learning can sometimes result in poor understanding from the pupils’ side. Thirdly, there appears the need for the application of an instructional system design: the system design requires adopting the system that facilitates instruction designing. Fourthly, the tutor requires implementing an extensive range of ideas including K12, business, administration, beginner, and expert (Woolf & International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2008).

The model summarizes the methodology plan and development process. The authors view a system as, in principle, a combination of parts that rely on each other to facilitate the intended goal. The model acquired the name ‘system approach’ since it comprises components that relate to one another. The components have input and output. This means that a wrong input definitely results in negative input. Dick and Carey view that the model uses the system approach with credible reasoning (Woolf & International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2008).

The systematic approach implies that the moment the teacher messes up the strategy, the whole procedure of learning ends up messed up. The results might imply that the teacher lost track of what the learner was required to learn. The components of the system though closely linked together might result in the wrong output since the input in the first place was wrong. The process involved in the system is practicable and can be replicated.

The step that takes place in the ISD utilizes a set of procedures and techniques that the instructional designers require to adopt in planning, expanding, and assessing instructions (Woolf & International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2008).

The steps adopted include the identification of the instructional goals; at this juncture, the instructor should identify the syllabus coverage as the course culminates. The goals require taking into consideration the needs considerations and the requirements of the learner. The instructors are required to identify the steps and sub-steps that will facilitate the attainment of the goals by the learner. Instructional analysis scrutinizes the skills, know-how, and attitudes that the learner's exhibit and the ones they are supposed to hold prior to the instruction session. These skills can also be termed entry behaviors. The learner and the contexts that facilitate their learning are scrutinized in parallel in the course of instruction analysis. The learners’ skills at the beginning of the instructions, preferences, and attitudes become evident at this stage. The instruction situation where the new skills apply undergoes some analysis. The information attained at this stage becomes vital as it determines the strategy to be adopted in the course of the instruction (Woolf & International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2008).

The performance objectives, the results achieved during the analysis of entry behaviors, prior skills, and instruction analysis form the basis for determining the learning objectives. Skills, goals, learning environment, and methods that will ensure successful performance are involved when framing objectives. At this point, the instructor needs to develop the instruments enabling assessment. The assessment requires determining the learner’s progress during the course.  The assessment undergoes framing to depict the behaviors’ that became evident in the objectives. Come up with an instructional strategy via the information realized from the preceding steps. Instructional planners require coming up with an instructional strategy that covers pre-instructional activities, the information required to feature the presentation, practice, and feedback to the learners, and finally, the testing and activities that facilitate follow-up. The strategy is built from the prevailing learning theories and research, the content that the learners need to explore, the features depicted by the learners, and the medium which the instruction adopts for delivery (Woolf & International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2008).