Kemp Design Model - Case Study Example

An Explicit of the Kemp Design Model In the earlier period, Instructional Design Models have been developed to ensure that instruction ingeneral can be made more appealing to the learner. The comprehensive Instructional Models have 3 stages which cover analysis, strategy development and evaluation. In the analysis phase, the designers learn as much as they can about the atmosphere in which the learners experience the learning process. As such, in the strategy development phase, the designers establish the way that instructional tools are formulated for the learner’s optimal enhancement (Johnson, 1989). Finally, in the evaluation phase, the designers need to come up with tools for evaluating instructional materials to determine what kinds of modifications need to be made that will suit the learners. One of the instructional design models created was the Kemp Design Model by Morrison, Ross and Kemp (2004). It is focused on the behavior and cognitive theories in learning. For instance, Piaget stated that children are actively involved in their own cognitive development by active involvement and constantly striving to understand what they encounter, and in such encounters they form from their own guesses or hypotheses about how the world works (Arenas, 2004). Also, according to the behaviorists, learners gain a lot from practical approaches in which they find meaning in what is being presented to them. These theories are definitely in line with the Kemp Design Model since accomplishments in the classroom are determined by the way leadership is exhibited and how it fits the enthusiasm of those being led (Morrison et al., 2004). According to Morrison et al. (2004), there are nine steps in the Kemp design Model. First one involves determining problems with instruction and making objectives for formulating a program. The second step requires gaining knowledge about the characteristics of the learner that must receive focus. In the third step, the subject content is being established. Fourth step pertains to analyzing each component in a task that is in tune with the objective formulated. Meanwhile, setting up the logical sequence of instructional content is the fifth step. Next, carefully designing strategies for the learner to achieve mastery based on the objectives is called for. As for the seventh step, making plans as to how instruction should be delivered is imperative. Eighth step in the Kemp model involves creating evaluation tools in order to make an objective assessment of the goals reached. The final step is to choose among the many resources available in support of instruction and the activities that are geared for learning. The first component of the Kemp Design Model was stated earlier. However, it is a common prerequisite that before designing an instructional program, a thorough assessment of the explicit needs of the learners has to be done first. Instructional processes that will optimize the desired results under the said condition should likewise be developed. On the other hand, the second is best achieved through appraising the background of the learner. There are specific learner’s characteristics that can hinder instruction like poor visuals, reading capacity and mental ability. All these characteristics are to be considered and should be accounted for. As with the third step, it focuses on content evaluation so that effective, reliable and organized learning procedures can be given. For the fourth step, objectives are best as groundwork for helping the learners to learn. Fifth is that the sequence is built to deal with lecture-level organization, (Smith & Ragan, 1993). Each belief or concept to be studied has a distinctive set of describing attributes, or characteristics. Meanwhile, in the sixth step, the activities are easy devices rooted in the lessons that center on the learner as a particular approach. For example, illustration cues like diagrams, or models, can be useful to educate about many concepts more expediently than verbal explanations can. In the case of the seventh step, it serves to bring to the learner specific knowledge and give alternative suggestions for better comprehension of the lesson. On the other hand, the eighth step leads the learner to achievable assessment success by presenting performance needs and evaluative measures. Finally, the ninth step involves implementing strategies such as games, employment of videos, mini lectures, short discussions which can pave the way for learners to grasp the lessons effectively. Juxtapose Key features of Kemp, ADDIE and ARCS Model The Kemp Model is characterized by a holistic method to instructional design. Almost all of the factors in the educational environment are taken into account. The method is iterative and comprehensive, owing to the fact that the main focus is the learner desires and goals (Morrison et al., 2004). There is also a focus of attention on content investigation, as there would be in any instructional design and it boils down to sustaining a service which is not presented in other ID models. Kemp’s Model is also minute scale and can be applied for individual sessions with the learner. On the other hand, the ADDIE Model is an organized instructional design model that is utilized by instructional designers and training developers. It consists of five phases, specifically, Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate (ADDIE). Analysis in the ADDIE model calls for the designer to distinguish the learning problems, goals and objectives, the audience’s needs, existing knowledge, and other pertinent characteristics. Visualization and brainstorming is important in the Analysis phase. Design then, is a systematic method of identifying learning objectives. As such, storyboards, and prototypes are mostly created at the look and feel graphic design, user-interface and content is established. It also deals with learning objectives, assessment instruments, exercises, subject matter analysis, and lesson planning and media selection. Meanwhile, Development is realized through the definite construction and content and learning resources with regards to the design phase. The development part is where the designers construct and convey the content that were constructed in the design phase. Programmers exert an effort to develop and/or put together technologies. Testers carry out debugging practice. On the other hand, during Implementation, the plan is put into action and process for training the learner and teacher is widened. During the Implementation phase, a method for training the facilitators and the learners is enhanced. The facilitators preparation should cover the program curriculum, learning product, method of distribution, and testing method. Finally, Evaluation is a phase that includes formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluation is evident in each phase of the ADDIE method. Meanwhile, summative evaluation is designed for unambiguous criterion-related referenced items and presented opportunities for feedback from the users. As such, summative evaluation is the process of evaluating the effectiveness and purpose of the product and provides analysis and feedback on behalf of the goals of the stakeholders. Basically, ADDIE Model is a dynamic and adaptable guideline for constructing desirable training and performance tools as well as to develop materials which can support the learning method of the specific task. On the other hand, the ARCS Model, also categorize developing the learner as its major concern, but it involves motivation in the development of the learner as its main tasks. This is shown in the last phase of the model known as satisfaction is based upon motivation. Likewise, the Kemp Model takes on a larger view in the design method and it expresses developing instructional plans that goes with machinery, pedagogy in order to deliver effective and effective learning. This model is structured and seems to inspire designers to work in all systems of the learning environment. Discussion of the Strengths/Advantages of the Kemp Model The Kemp Model is more suited in the development of instructional design. It is centered on the behaviorist and cognitivist learning procedure which can contribute to the learner’s overall positive feelings about the course and the teacher (Gustafson & Branch, 1987). This design is advantageous to the learner in creating a definite learning task. It increases the natural consequences for use of the content, replication, tasks, real-life pursuit. Kemp adopts a wide outlook; the oval shape of his model conveys that the devise and development procedure is a long term cycle that requires constant planning, design, development and assessment to insure effective instruction. The model is systematic and nonlinear and seems to encourage designers to work in all areas as appropriate to the learning process. In addition, the Kemp Model can be used effectively to enhance existing instructional process. It is useful for widening instructional methods that blend with technology, pedagogy and delivery of the content of instruction and reliable learning method. The immediate feel of the Kemp Model, such as the iterative process and the particularly focus on the learners’ needs and goals, are the strengths of this model. Kemp Model is also small scale and can be used for individual lessons. Discussion of the Weaknesses/Disadvantages of the Kemp Model Even though the Kemp model is beneficial in the learning procedure, it has also its weaknesses. In using the Kemp Model, the designer is most likely to get bound with the next step without defining or assessing what the real needs of the learners are. Likewise, if you look at what is known about learner analysis and how the analysis is treated in the strategy design, a weakness seems obvious. Thus, learner analysis may not be as exciting as a needs assessment or task analysis. A learner analysis should still be done even though it may limit what facilitators can do. To look at it in a positive way, it can create some great challenges for creative designs to address the instructional problem (Gustafson & Branch, 1997). It has also been found that learning styles have no research foundation and do not have a role in the design instruction. References Arenas, A.C., Introduction to Psychology: Understanding Human Behavior, Rex Printing, Company, Inc. Quezon City, 2004 Gustafson, K., & Branch, R.M. (1997). Instructional Design Models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinhouse on Information Technology. Johnson, K., Instructional Design: A new alternative for effective education/training, Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2-10. Macmillian Publishing Company, New York, 1989 Morrison, G.R., Ross, S.M., & Kemp, J.E. Designing Effective Instruction (4th Ed.). Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2004 Smith, P.L., Ragan, T.J., Instructional Design, Macmillian Publishing Company, New York, 1993 Read More