As majority of learning environments today incorporate modern technology and utilize some form of digital content, instructional designers have to be mindful of design and accessibility needs of the learners. 1 in 5 Americans and over 1 billion people globally identify as having a disability. These disabilities can be visual, auditory, physical, or cognitive in nature. Having any disabilities should never exclude any learner from a learning opportunity, and instructional designers can ensure that they are upholding their responsibility to be ethical and inclusive by utilizing the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to provide design and accessibility features to enable learners of all abilities equal access to their content. Additionally, designers must ensure adherence to regulations such as the Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA), the European Accessibility Act (EAA), and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), to list a few.
Disabilities and Tools
Visual disabilities – can include limited visual impairment, colorblindness, or total blindness. Tools utilized to ensure accessibility can include compatibility with screen readers, include adjustable fonts and colors, use alt text for images, and providing a magnification function.
Auditory disabilities – can be addressed by including transcripts of audio, closed-captions, and descriptive audio events
Physical disabilities – include limited mobility and may require that content be compatible with keyboard buttons only instead of a mouse or be compatible with a specialized device for specific needs. For instance, allowing the ‘tab’ button to navigate a page and its contents just like a mouse.
Cognitive disabilities – can include a wide range of impairments so it is imperative that instructional designers focus on using simplified language to avoid confusion and make the content easy to understand, be concise in delivering instruction or information, and avoid cluttered visuals that may be distracting for learners.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
UDL framework is utilized by content creators to provide design and accessibility features to enable learners of all abilities equal access to their content without a need for specialized design. An example of UDL application is the doorknob: round doorknobs present more challenges for someone with a physical disability, which can simply be being a child or an elderly person with arthritis, or even someone who’s got their hand full with grocery bags. A door lever is an upgrade that allows easier access to opening that door. To make the door opening process further accessible, we can just use automatic sliding doors, which is a great option for all people.
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)
WCAG are technical standards for web accessibility developed to make websites, digital documents, and web or mobile applications, etc. more accessible to those who may be affected by visual, auditory, physical, or cognitive disabilities.
Introduced in 1999, WCAG 1.0 included 14 guidelines, and provided a rating hierarchy of A, AA, and AAA for accessibility. In 2008, WCAG 2.0 introduced the four principles of Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust, along with a redefined rating hierarchy of A, AA, and AAA. WCAG 2.1, in 2018, updated version 2.0 to include mobile devices. WCAG isn’t a regulatory requirement, however, it is globally recognized and adopted by content developers to make digital experiences more accessible for more people.
Additional Resources
WCAG 101: Understanding the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines | WCAG
Web Accessibility Training Videos and Webinars | WCAG
(1450) Why We Need Universal Design | Michael Nesmith | TEDxBoulder - YouTube
Industrial designers have an ethical responsibility – as well as a great incentive – to incorporate UDL functionality and WCAG tools to create content that is accessible to anyone in the world regardless of any form of disability. UDL and WCAG features enable designers to produce content that can be interacted with and consumed by learners of all abilities without compromising the goal of the content.
ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) is a widely applied framework in today’s instructional design. Developed by the U.S. Army in the 1970s to develop more effective training programs, ADDIE has since been utilized across industries for a wide range of training and education purposes. ADDIE has proven to be a reliable step-by-step model of instructional design due to its application of a structured, systematic approach to create training and educational programs that are effective for both the learner and the organization.
A brief description of each phase of the ADDIE Model is provided below:
Analysis – This phase focuses on identifying the target audience, evaluation of any existing training/education resources and the learning needs, development of measurable course objectives, and adherence to any requirements of the organization or training program.
Design – Using the results of the Analysis phase, this phase develops a detailed plan of the training program, outlining the methods to address the learning needs as well as the structure of the content, delivery and assessment methods. The objectives, storyboard, or outlines for various stages of the instruction created in this phase will guide the development phase.
Development – This phase utilizes the detailed plans created in the design phase to put together instructional materials and relevant learning experiences, including lesson plans, breakdown of modules, assessments, exercises, and slides, presentations, and additional digital resources that will support the objectives of the training program.
Implementation – This phase is the culmination of the efforts during the design and development phases and puts the learning plan into action; this includes distribution of instructional materials to the facilitators and the learners and ensuring effective delivery of the training/learning and learner engagement by the facilitators.
Evaluation – This important phase serves in assessing the effectiveness of the instructional program and highlight any areas that require revision or improvement. This is done by ascertaining the successful fulfillment of the learning objectives, seeking feedback on the experience from the learners and the facilitators, and evaluation of how impactful the instruction was for the organization.
ADDIE is a proven foundational tool for instructional designers, as it offers a systematic framework and a structured approach for learning design, and aids the processes of creation, delivery, assessment, and modification. Instructional designers of all experience levels can utilize the simple yet meticulous layout to gradually create an effective learning experience that is built around the needs of the target learners, and also meets the requirements of the training program or organization. By emphasizing feedback and evaluation, ADDIE allows for constant measuring of the effectiveness of the program and ensures that the program is refined through consistent engagement and collaboration between the designers, the facilitators, and the learners.
Strengths and Limitations of ADDIE Model
Strengths – ADDIE presents a structured, step-by-step process to develop instructional materials, which enables designers to gather relevant information about the learners/organization/industry to address the learning needs effectively. Developing clear learning objectives, tailoring the learning plan to satisfy those requirements, and providing formative and summative assessments provides clarity regarding desired outcomes and areas of improvement. One of the biggest strengths of ADDIE is the flexibility it offers; the model can be applied to K-12 education, corporate training, even massive institutions like the U.S. Army, and can be customized based on the delivery method (in person or online) and the size/need of the organization and the learners.
Limitations – While structure is a strength for the ADDIE Model, it can also be perceived as somewhat of a limitation. The process has to be followed sequentially, as it is designed, to fulfill its purpose effectively and skipping steps will result in an ineffective program. Depending on the speed of the organization or industry, this process may not be able to accommodate rapidly changing environments and their needs. ADDIE phases also seem to be particularly resource and time consuming, which may not be a useful approach when developing instructional materials for a small cohort with limited resources or for time sensitive projects. Not all creative minds work the same, and while ADDIE provides flexibilities in application, there are limitations to the creative elements that may be utilized when following its phases, which may make it a challenging approach for some designers.
This instructional design is named after its creators, Walter Dick and Lou Carey, who began developing it in the 1960s and 70s. As educators and instructional designers, they were drawn to modern learning theories and wanted to develop an evolving learning design system that was inspired by Behaviorism theorists such as B.F. Skinner’s Operant Learning and Robert Gagne and his 9 Event for Instruction. The Dick and Carey model was first published in 1978 in their book titled “The Systematic Design of Instruction”, providing a framework for creation of impactful instructional materials and learning experiences. This model has evolved over time with more research, trends, and new technology and continues to be influential in academic and professional realms due to its structured approach and emphasis on establishing clear objectives and utilizing evaluation process for continued improvement.
9 steps of the Dick and Carey Model:
Identify Instructional Goals – Ascertain what knowledge the learners should have gained by the end of the learning experience.
Complete Instructional Analysis – Understand the learners’ characteristics, background, and prior knowledge, to determine the needs and tailor the instructional experience.
Identify Entry Behaviors – Analyze the learners and their behaviors, skills, attitudes to determine their starting point in relation to the subject at hand.
Write Performative Objectives – Breaking down the learning experience goals into specific, measurable objectives describing what knowledge the learners will gain.
Develop Criterion Referenced Tests – Develop assessment tools like projects, tests, and quizzes to measure progress and evaluate how well the learners are meeting the objectives.
Develop Instruction Strategy – Develop a comprehensive instructional strategy, including selection of instructional materials, methods, and activities to engage the learners with the experience.
Develop & Select Instructional Materials – Design or select specific instructional materials, content, resources, and media to support the developed instructional strategy.
Develop & Conduct Formative Evaluation – This step allows this iterative process to continue to improve through conducting formative evaluation of the instructional materials and strategy by gathering feedback from the learners and revising materials as needed.
Develop & Conduct Summative Evaluation – Once instructional program is complete, its effectiveness in accomplishing the instructional goals identified in step 1 is evaluated by assessing learners’ performance overall in meeting the objectives of the learning experience.
Like ADDIE, the Dick and Carey model is a widely used instructional design model, recognized for its structured evidence-based approach and a step-by-step process for instructional designers to implement in creation of effective learning materials and experience, and ensure the learning strategy and the materials utilized align with the objectives crafted. Additionally, this model promotes continuous evaluation of the program to enable designers to revise and improve various aspects of the process and produce better learning experiences. This model and the framework have evolved over time to incorporate elements of new research and learning technology to improve the processes outlined in its 9 listed steps and contribute toward continued development of quality instruction to meet learning goals of all educational or training programs.
Strengths – Dick and Carey Model provides a step-by-step process that is clear to understand and implement and ensures that all components of the development stages align with the learning objectives, which are designed to be specific and measurable. Formative evaluation allows designers to make modifications and improvements based on the feedback received from the learners. Summative assessments allow accurate measurement of the learners’ understanding of the provided material. This model’s flexibility allows it to be adapted to learning and training needs across industries, and its iterative approach constantly seeks to improve the process for learners.
Limitations – This models systematic approach in creation of a learning program can be time, expertise, and resource intensive, which may make it difficult to implement in certain academic situations as well as for smaller organizations operating on limited resources. Dick and Carey model also can be seen as too rigid and procedural in its structure to apply to the real-world, dynamic, ever-changing nature of learning and learning platforms utilized by diverse learners. The model also may prove to be complex, overwhelming, and too focused on formal instructional methods, particularly for designers who may not be as familiar with systems approach to instructional design, or for scenarios where learning needs may require an informal approach.
Developed by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, Understanding by Design (UbD) introduces the concept of Backward Design, and comprises of 3 specific stages used to develop learning designs. Unlike forward design methods such as ADDIE and Dick and Carey, Backward design focuses on beginning the process with the end goal in mind. This means defining what knowledge, skills, and understandings the learners need to acquire, and then building the instructional program and curriculum that includes materials, activities, and assessments that provide the desired outcome. This approach allows the learning programs to be more focused on learner-centric desired results.
Brief descriptions of the 3 Stages of UbD:
Stage 1: Identify Desired Results – This stage begins the process by defining what the learners should have learned and understood by the end of the learning program. This includes gaining clarity on desired learning outcomes and setting clear objectives, and determining what knowledge, activities, and assessments will support that goal.
Stage 2: Determine Acceptable Evidence – This stage helps determine how the learners will demonstrate their grasp on the knowledge gained by designing various performance measuring assessments – which may include, tests, activities, projects, etc. – to effectively evaluate how well the desired learning goals and outcomes are being met.
Stage 3: Plan Learning Experiences – This stage focuses on development of instructional strategy and creating learning plans that will prove effective in helping learners gain the desired knowledge. The learning plans include activities, resources, and instructional approaches that directly align with the desired outcomes and assist the learners meet the learning objectives of the program.
The 7 tenets of UbD:
Learning improves when the designers intently develop the learning strategy
UbD framework focuses the learning program and methods to deepen the learners’ understanding, knowledge, and skills
Students reveal their understanding of learning through showcasing the six facets, including the capacity to explain, interpret, apply, shift perspective, empathize, and self-assess
Effective curriculum is designed by working backward from the desired outcomes using the 3 stages of UbD
Instructors should act as coaches to affect successful transferring of understanding and to ensure learning – rather than just teaching – happens
Regularly review curriculum to align with design standards to continuously improve quality
UbD framework encourages ongoing refinement of curriculum and instruction by focusing on the learners’ performance to maximize the program effectiveness
Like ADDIE and Dick and Carey, UbD is a widely adopted learning design model utilized by a variety of industries including traditional education and professional training programs. This model offers an effective approach that focuses on desired learning outcomes, promotes development of effective program strategy, creation of evaluation methods (assessments, activities, quizzes, tasks, projects, etc.) that effectively measure alignment with learning objectives. This alignment helps learners acquire knowledge and skills that are directly applicable to their individual roles as students or professionals. UbD provides a structured approach that allows instructional designers clarity in structure to develop and implement impactful learning experience across a variety of educational or professional fields.
Strengths & Limitations of Understanding by Design (UbD) Model
Strengths – This design model emphasizes focus on the desired learning outcomes, working backward from the goals and being intentional about planning the instructional materials. Starting with clear goals helps plan the strategy, activities, and assessments that the learners need to achieve. The backward nature of this approach also allows the assessments to be created specifically to measure learners’ knowledge and is a more accurate evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. The clarity UbD provides also creates a better learning experience for students/learners and teachers/trainers.
Limitations – UbD may prove to be a complex and challenging approach for those new to the field of instructional design, or those more accustomed to traditional approaches like ADDIE and Dick and Carey, as it requires a solid grasp of how to develop specific and measurable learning goals and create specific assessments/activities to accurate evaluate the results. This model may require additional training and experience to achieve effective results. UbD may also be resource intensive, particularly in the early stage of developing learning goals, as the entire program hinges on this. It would be difficult to design specific assessments aligned with the learning goals when working with limited time and tight schedules.
Traditional instructional design models like ADDIE and Dick and Carey, while popular and effective, often present process rigidity and tend to take time to implement. Rapid Instructional Design (RID), on the other hand, is a more streamlined instructional design model that offers a flexible and adaptive system for creating instructional materials quickly and efficiently in response to changing, time-sensitive learning needs. As educational/training technology has evolved significantly in the last two decades, RID’s quick, iterative approach has proven to be effective, and its utilization has rapidly grown. Also known as Rapid Prototyping or Rapid eLearning, RID is not particularly a true design model, but rather is a ‘just in time’ approach to developing effective instructional materials and efficiently delivering it to the target audience when the need for learning is immediate and time sensitive.
Brief description of typical stages of RID:
Analysis and Needs Assessment – The focus of this stage is collaboration with stakeholders and subject matter experts to identify learning needs, instructional goals, target audience characteristics, and review of resources already available for utilization. The priority here is the key knowledge and skills the learners need.
Design and Planning – During this stage, the instructional designers will create a detailed design plan outlining the structure, develop instructional strategies to be utilized, determine learning content, format, and delivery, as well as assessments that align with learning objectives. The goal here is simplicity while ensuring learner engagement and impactful interactions.
Content Development – In this stage, the designers collaborate with stakeholders to quickly and effectively produce the instructional materials for the learner program for initial testing. This includes production of relevant content that engages learners, and may include videos, simulations, eLearning modules, or microlearning components. Existing content can also be repurposed for time efficiency.
Prototype and Testing – During this stage, designers develop small-scale version, or a prototype, of the instructional materials to gather feedback from stakeholders and learners, and incorporate quick adjustments based on the input received. This real-world testing approach ensures that the program design meets the needs of the learners and organizations.
Deployment and Iteration – The primary focus of this stage is improvement through rapid deployment of the learning materials, collection of feedback, and monitoring learner progress to gauge program effectiveness and make iterative improvements to ensure the instructional materials and strategy are responsive and able to deliver desired learning outcomes.
Evaluation and Maintenance – In this stage, the designers focus on assessing the effectiveness of the instructional materials through pre-defined criteria and learner performance and update the content to ensure it remains current and aligned with evolving requirements.
Implications of Rapid Instructional Design Model for Instructional Design
Technology has significantly changed the landscape of education and training, allowing learning to take place in a fast pace and through a variety of mediums, and with that comes the evolution of thought to satisfy theses changing needs. The Rapid Instructional Design approach provides an alternative to the traditional systems like ADDIE and Dick and Carey, and promotes speed, flexibility, efficiency, and continuous evaluation and improvement. RID enables instructional designers to utilize emerging technologies and rapidly incorporate changes in learner needs to rapidly produce content that is impactful and relevant to the leaning objectives. RID saves time and reduces costs by collaborating with stakeholders to develop fast prototypes and by repurposing existing resources, making it adaptable and innovative, while ensuring alignment with the learning program objectives and goals. RID’s continuous evaluation method allows it to be iterative and ensures learning material and strategies are up-to-date and tailored to the learner and the organization needs.
Strengths & Limitations of the Rapid Instructional Design
Strengths – RID is a results-driven approach to instructional design due to its flexibility, efficiency, adaptability, iterative nature and improvement, collaboration with stakeholders, learner feedback and engagement, and rapid prototyping with integration of existing resources and innovative strategies. RID Designers are able to capitalize on new and existing resources to quickly produce relevant instructional strategies and materials to gather feedback and make continuous modifications to align with the learning goals. These strengths make RID a cost-effective, practical, and impactful approach for today’s dynamic learning environments.
Limitations – RID’s emphasis on rapid results leave potential quality control impacts, including overly simple designs and instructional materials that lack depth, and inconsistent results and quality due to the combination of prioritizing speed and incorporating feedback through constant collaboration, evaluation and modification. This approach tends to have a short-term focus and prioritizes immediate needs possibly at the expense of long-term learning goals, which may overlook specific learner needs, provide insufficient assessments and limited interactivity, and adversely affect learners or the organization in achieving desired outcomes. RID may not prove an effective approach for long term programs with rigorous curriculum aspirations and more traditional learning environments.
Developed in the early 2000s by Michael Allen, SAM is an instructional design framework that emphasizes an iterative process instead of a linear, somewhat rigid approach provided by design models like ADDIE and Dick and Carey. This allows instructional designers to constantly improve and refine the learning experiences they create through continuous feedback and revisions. SAM is a response to the growing need for flexible, adaptive, and agile design processes, and works well in fast-paced environments that utilize e-learning and multimedia learning programs, and where the learner or organization needs are constantly evolving. The three phases of SAM, listed below, allow this design model to help develop high quality learning experiences that align closely with the desired learning outcomes.
Brief descriptions of the three iterative phases of SAM:
Preparation – The focus of this initial phase is to conduct learner analysis to better understanding the learners, their characteristics, and their prior knowledge, identifying the content requirements of the learning program, and developing clear and measurable learning outcomes to meet the needs of the organization to ensure alignment. Input from stakeholders can refine the objectives as the development plan progresses. The developers will create learner profiles, defile the learning objectives, and create a strategic plan outlining timelines, resources available, and tasks for developers and trainers.
Iterative Design – In this phase, instructional designers create a rough prototype or an “Alpha” version of the instructional materials to visualize the design and share with stakeholders, subject matter experts (SMEs) and potential learners to gather feedback in order to review, revise, and improve the content, activities, and assessments. The cyclical nature of this phase allows the designers develop multiple iterations of prototypes based on the feedback received, resulting in better alignment with the desired learning outcomes of the program.
Iterative Development – During the final phase, the instructional materials are refined, improved, and expanded upon based on the feedback received during the previous phase to ensure that the final product created meets the quality standards and needs of the program. The designers conduct user testing to identify any remaining areas of improvements or issues previously missed to complete the build process. Formative and summative assessments are conducted to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. The development phase is also iterative and can result in further refinements even after the initial implementation of the final instructional materials.
Implications of SAM for Instructional Design
The Successive Approximation Model (SAM) has significant implications for instructional design by emphasizing an iterative, flexible approach that is learner-centric and is built in collaboration with the stakeholders and SMEs. Through continuous feedback and adaptation through its phases, this model enhances the quality, relevancy, and effectiveness of the instructional materials produced. Rapid prototyping allows designers to develop multiple iterations of materials and promotes creation of engaging and practical learning experiences and align with the desired outcomes. SAM also provides immense flexibility and adaptability for fast-paced, dynamic environments the require continuous modifications of instructional materials and incorporation of modern technology and platforms.
Strengths & Limitations of SAM
Strengths – SAM’s iterative nature enables designers to perform continuous cycles of design, development, testing and refinement, which allows for constant feedback and improvements, ensuring the final product meets the desired results. By emphasizing a culture of collaboration with the designers, SMEs, and learners, particularly through the Savvy Start phase, SAM promotes effective communication to produce desired results. SAM provides adaptability to ensure quick adjustments during the design and development phases, making it idea for constantly evolving environments. This model enhances the overall learning experience by including the learners in the feedback process, and by learning their characteristics and preferences.
Limitations – The iterative approach of SAM, and reliance on collaboration and feedback during the design and development phases can potentially be time and resource-intensive, and may not be a good fit in all environments. The constant change may introduce some unnecessary complexity and delays in making decisions, particularly for simple, straight forward projects. The frequent modifications can also lead to some undesired deviations and unintentional misalignment with the program objectives, which can adversely impact project timelines and budgets. SAM may also prove to be rather a complex approach for designers new to the field, requiring additional training and experience, as this model does require its users to maintain a solid grasp of all its phases and requires fast adjustments.
Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) – CLOs, also known as terminal or course goals, are broad statements that describe what knowledge, skills, etc. the learners are expected to achieve, and what they should be able to do by the end of the learning experience. CLOs are focused on the overall skills and competencies that learners should acquire, which reflects the learning experience’s goals. CLOs are fundamental to instructional design, formulated to be in alignment with the learning program goals, and may include high-level skills such as critical thinking, complex problem solving, and ability to practically apply knowledge gained in real-world situations.
CLOs Examples:
Participants will create a comprehensive digital marketing plan, including social media strategies, creation of showcasing content, and performance metrics for the project.
Learners will conduct a solubility experiment with sodium chloride, set desired metrics, collect data, and present findings in a presentation.
Learning Objectives (LOs) – Learning (or enabling) objectives are essential in instructional design, providing specific and measurable statements that outline what learners should achieve during a course, module, or lesson. LOs detail the specific knowledge, skills, and expertise the learners should gain after completing a specific activities, unit, or assessment. LOs enable the designers to create effective learning experiences by breaking down the Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) into smaller manageable steps. Depending on the program structure, LOs are often referred to as Module Learning Objectives (MLOs), Unit Learning Outcomes (ULOs), Weekly Learning Objectives (WLOs), or Lesson Learning Objectives (LLOs).
LOs Examples:
By the end of this module, participants will analyze current trends in the industry and create a comparison matrix of competitors’ marketing strategies to help form their digital marketing plan.
By the end of this lesson, learners will be able to describe the concept of solubility and identify the factors that affect the solubility of sodium chloride in water.
Key differences between CLOs and LOs
Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) provide an overarching framework for what the learning experience desires to achieve overall, whereas Learning Objectives (LOs) provide a breakdown of those CLOs into specific, measurable, and actionable components and apply to individual modules, lesson, or units. The major differences between the two are that CLOs set broad, general goals for the entire learning experience and focus on overall skills and competencies gained at the end of the experience; LOs, on the other hand, set narrow, more specific and defined knowledge goals through specific tasks, activities, quizzes, for individual units within the learning experience. Both CLOs and LOs are essential in development of well-designed learning experiences.
Overview of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Named for its developer, Benjamin Bloom, Bloom’s taxonomy was created in 1950s and has since been revised by cognitive psychologists in 2001. This is a crucial framework for instructional designers for categorizing learning goals, and primarily focuses on the cognitive domain. Bloom’s Taxonomy has had a significant impact on curriculum design, development of assessments, and learning strategies, enabling designers and educators/trainers to promote higher-order thinking and deeper understanding for the learners. It classifies learning objectives into a hierarchical structure, which includes six levels discussed below.
Brief description of each level of Bloom’s Taxonomy
Remembering – This level involves recalling basic facts, terms, or concepts, allowing learners to develop a foundational understanding necessary for further learning.
Understanding – At this level, learners grasp the meaning of information learned, allowing them to show comprehension and ability to explain or summarize in their own words.
Applying – This level requires the learners to utilize their knowledge in practical situations, such as completing tasks or solving problems by implementing the concepts they have learned.
Analyzing – This level promotes critical thinking in learners as they break down the information into its smaller components, and identify pattern and relationships to better understand the material.
Evaluation – At this level, learners critique and appraise the information and make judgements based on the established criteria, and defend their viewpoints.
Creating – This is the highest level in Bloom’s Taxonomy, and empowers the learners to generate new ideas, products, or solutions, and encourages them to innovate and design knowledge.