Systems Approach Model

Systems Approach Model Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model is a widely known and highly regard instructional design model. Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model views the leaner, instructor, instructional material , and the learning environment as interrelated parts necessary to achieve the desired goal.

The System Approach Model is made of the following interacting components: identify instructional goals, conduct instructional analysis, analyze learners and context, write performance objectives, develop assessment instruments, develop an instructional strategy, develop and select instructional material, design and conduct formative evaluation of instruction, revise instruction, and design and conduct summative evaluation. Identifying instructional goals is the first step in the model. This step lays the foundation for the systematic process to build on.

During this stage the outcomes of the training are defined. The learned skills and behaviors that are desired as a result of the training are identified and express as goals. Once the instructional goals are clearly define the process moves to the instructional analysis. Here the behaviors that should be demonstrated as evidence of the learning goal was mastered are identified. Entry skills, skills knowledge, and attitudes, that required for the learner to successfully receive the training information are also identified during this stage.

Analyzing the learners and contexts is another analysis to be preformed parallel to the instructional analysis. During this analysis the learners characteristics like current skill levels and attitudes are identified. The learning environment and environment that the skills will be demonstrated in after the instruction are also determined at this stage. Next, using the information from the instructional, learner, and context analysis performance objectives can be written. The performance objectives are statements of what skills should result from the training and criteria for successful performance.

Building off the performance objects is the step of developing successful instruments. Here assessment tools are developed that will measure the learners ability to demonstrate the learned skills. When developing assessment tools it is important to develop measurements that relate to the skills defined in the written objectives. The next step is developing and instructional strategy. This step is based on the accumulative information from the steps in this design process thus far.

The strategy will focus on promoting motivation for the learning, how the content will be presented, participation and assessment, follow through. Using the instruction strategy as a guide the next step in the process is to develop or select instructional material. In this step criteria for selecting material is also determined. Following this step is the designing and conducting formative evaluation of the instruction. I this step data is collected and used as a tool for identifying problems or improvements that can be made to the instruction. The final step is the revision stage.

The data collected from the formative evaluation step is summarized and evaluated to identify difficulties experienced in the instruction, examine the strength of the instructional analysis, and review the instructional strategy. All this information is put into any necessary revisions. It is important to note that the revisions are not limited to being preformed during this actual revision step. Although not an actual step in the design process, designing and conducting summative evaluation is important to the process because it is the culminating evaluation of the overall success of the instructions.

Dick and Carey’s Systems Approach Model relates to Raymond Noe’s training design process in the fact that both encompasses many of the same components. Noe’s process begins with a needs assessment focusing on the organization, personal, and task analysis. Dick and Carey’s process includes a needs assessment and many of the components associated with the needs assessment analysis as part of the first step of identifying instructional goals. Both models then move along almost sequentially their respective stages. One major difference is the stage for identifying goals/outcomes.

Noe’s process does not identify outcomes until the fifth stage where as the System Approach Model using goal identification as the building block for the entire process. The systems approach model starts with clearly identified goals and builds an interrelated process from that foundation. It is this focus on desired outcomes and the interconnected components that make the systems approach model so an effective for instruction. The model is adaptable to most any form of instruction therefore effective in apply to any learning group and can be used be adapted by any type of instructor both in-house or outsourced.

The systems approach model can be especially beneficial to companies that outsource their training efforts. A company can take an active role in defining instructional goals thereby setting the outsourced instructional designer on a clear path for designing an effective process. The evaluations and revisions are also beneficial as it gives management and the outsourced designer tools for identifying issues and/or areas of improvement. I believe that the most critical step in training efforts is identifying instructional goals.

The systems approach model shows that this vital step shapes the entire design process and outcome. By identifying the desire results of the instruction the instructional design can follow a clear direction making the entire process more efficient and effective. The model is all encompassing by focuses on analysis, design, development, and evaluation. . The model is linear in it’s interconnected step design but has the flexibility of allowing evaluation and revision throughout the entire design process. I see the System Approach Model as an efficient and effective design process.