Dick and Carey Model

Introduction

The Dick and Carey Model stands as a recognized systematic framework for instructional design, introduced in 1978 by Walter Dick and Lou Carey. This approach conceptualizes instruction as an interconnected system where multiple elements collaborate to facilitate learning. Rather than positioning the instructor centrally, the model emphasizes the design methodology itself, delivering a methodical progression for constructing instruction that achieves both coherence and measurable results.

The framework has achieved widespread adoption across educational institutions, military operations, governmental programs, and organizational training initiatives—particularly in contexts demanding standardization, strategic planning, and measurable accountability. Though contemporary models have emerged, the Dick and Carey framework persists as a fundamental reference point in instructional systems design (ISD), underpinning numerous formal training programs currently in operation.

What Is the Dick and Carey Model?

The Dick and Carey Model represents a thorough instructional design methodology comprising ten integrated phases. It operates from the premise that successful instruction originates from explicit objectives, methodical evaluation, synchronized elements, and ongoing improvement cycles.

The model doesn’t attempt to clarify internal cognitive mechanisms. Instead, it concentrates on organizing instruction to optimize learning outcomes. The methodology adopts a practical, engineering-centered stance: view instructional design as methodically constructing harmonized instructional components that, when properly executed, produce consistent learner achievement.

Although presented sequentially, the ten phases function iteratively. Designers revisit prior stages upon encountering new insights, obstacles, or feedback.

How Does It Work in Practice?

The Dick and Carey Model establishes a methodical route from identifying requirements through post-delivery assessment. Its utility is particularly pronounced in environments prioritizing rigor, measurability, and uniformity. Practitioners implement the model by:

• Executing comprehensive preliminary investigations to establish objectives and decompose them into teachable elements
• Formulating detailed performance expectations detailing specific behaviors learners must exhibit
• Building evaluation instruments initially, verifying that every goal is quantifiable and assessable
• Formulating instructional approaches and resources directly aligned to those targets
• Testing instruction with appropriate learner samples, accumulating evidence, and implementing precise modifications

The model often operates in adapted configurations. Teams may streamline certain phases or adopt iterative development approaches while sustaining the underlying analytical structure.

When Is It Most Useful?

The Dick and Carey Model proves advantageous when:

• Performance objectives can be established beforehand
• Consistency across diverse learners is essential
• Significant consequences necessitate demonstrable training results
• Programs must expand to multiple populations, locations, or positions
• Design rationales require articulation to decision-makers or regulatory bodies

A pharmaceutical sales compliance course serving hundreds of representatives internationally exemplifies appropriate application. Each aspect—from learning targets to final evaluations—connects directly to regulatory mandates, enabling both methodological strength and regulatory alignment.

Similarly, a fresh employee orientation regarding information security could leverage this model to guarantee each participant acquires precisely mandated competencies demonstrable through structured assessments.

When Is It Not Useful?

The model functions less effectively when:

• Learning objectives remain uncertain, emerging, or ambiguous
• Programming emphasizes collaborative dialogue, experimentation, or collective knowledge generation
• Instruction targets personal reflection or individual development instead of performance
• Implementation velocity supersedes systematic thoroughness

For instance, cultivating exploratory leadership conversations through mentoring and dialogue would make this model unnecessarily constraining. Likewise, circumstances demanding accelerated execution where priorities shift quickly would find the ten-phase structure unwieldy unless substantially modified.

Moreover, certain practitioners identify that the model doesn’t explicitly encompass emotional or inspirational dimensions of instruction. It presumes well-coordinated components automatically yield achievement—yet engagement, conviction, and identity typically represent crucial real-world factors the model doesn’t directly incorporate.

Theoretical Foundations

The Dick and Carey Model originates from objectivist traditions and integrates concepts from behavioral and cognitive psychology. Essential theoretical anchors include:

• Task decomposition and behavioral specificity (Gagné, Mager) – Learning commences by pinpointing particular skills requiring instruction and fragmenting them into manageable segments.
• Coherence across elements – Instructional intentions, approaches, and evaluation mechanisms must harmonize tightly for structural soundness.
• Information acquisition theory – Material sequencing reflects presumptions regarding learner knowledge absorption and retrieval.
• Systemic frameworks – Instruction functions as organized entities with synchronized components functioning collectively toward intended achievement.

These theoretical underpinnings reinforce the model’s structure: specify learner requirements, construct supportive instruction, and verify effectiveness empirically.

Design Considerations

Executing the Dick and Carey Model proficiently demands reflection on:

• Preliminary investigation proves indispensable – Abbreviated analysis compromises synchronization.
• Goals establish direction – Precisely articulated performance expectations guarantee intelligibility and standardization.
• Measurement precedes instruction – Early evaluation architecture guarantees instructional coherence.
• Record-keeping proves critical – Documented decision justification matters significantly in controlled or high-responsibility situations.
• Reiteration is inherent – The methodology isn’t a rigid progression; integrated feedback mechanisms operate intrinsically.

In situations with constrained financing, organizations might need to compress or abbreviate phases. Nevertheless, foundational reasoning must persist. Even implementing streamlined versions, the model cultivates lucidity and coordination—fundamental components of instructional success.

Notable Contributors

• Walter Dick – Pioneering ISD specialist instrumental in standardizing systematic design approaches in learning and workplace contexts.
• Lou Carey – Framework co-author and contributor to The Systematic Design of Instruction textbooks, providing practical, education-centered perspectives to the structure.

Their collaborative effort institutionalized instructional design methodology and continues as a touchstone reference for ISD practitioners internationally.

Conclusion

The Dick and Carey Model endures as foundational in instructional design. It treats instruction as coordinated elements that must function together productively. By delivering a methodical blueprint for instructional creation, it facilitates building programs achieving coherence, expandability, and quantifiability.

For workplace learning specialists operating in regulated, consequential, or extensive contexts, the model transcends mere operational procedure. It cultivates analytical rigor, facilitates professional dialogue, and structures enhancement processes. Despite not adhering strictly to each of the ten phases, embracing the underlying perspective—investigate, synchronize, assess, refine—proves perpetually applicable.