Popular Models of Instructional Design: Which One Should You Use?

If you’ve ever designed a training programme, an online course, or even a classroom lesson plan, you’ve likely faced a common challenge: where do you start, and how do you make sure the learning actually works? That’s where instructional design models come in. These models give educators and course developers a structured pathway – from understanding learners to evaluating outcomes. But with several popular models available, choosing the right one can be confusing. Let’s break down five of the most widely used instructional design models, what makes each one unique, and when you should consider using them.

The ADDIE model: the classic five-phase framework 🔗

The ADDIE model is arguably the most well-known instructional design framework in education and corporate training. The acronym stands for five phases: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. Originally developed at Florida State University in 1975 for the U.S. military, ADDIE has since become the foundation on which most other instructional design models are built.

How the five phases work 🔗

In the Analysis phase, instructional designers identify the learning problem, define goals, assess the learners’ existing knowledge, and understand the constraints of the learning environment. This is essentially the goal-setting stage where every subsequent decision gets grounded.

The Design phase focuses on creating a blueprint for the course – defining learning objectives, selecting content delivery methods, planning assessments, and choosing media. Once the blueprint is ready, the Development phase brings it to life. This is where content is written, graphics are created, multimedia elements are produced, and technology is integrated.

During Implementation, the course is delivered to the target audience. Facilitators are trained, materials are distributed, and the learning experience is rolled out. Finally, the Evaluation phase assesses whether the instructional goals were met. This phase includes both formative evaluation (ongoing assessments during each phase) and summative evaluation (an overall review after the programme concludes).

Why ADDIE remains popular 🔗

Despite being nearly five decades old, ADDIE endures because of its simplicity and flexibility. While originally designed as a linear process, modern practitioners use it iteratively – revisiting earlier phases based on evaluation feedback. It works well for both classroom-based and online learning and provides a clear, repeatable structure that keeps teams aligned on learning objectives from start to finish. However, critics point out that it can be time-consuming, and its assumption that training needs remain constant throughout development doesn’t always hold true in fast-changing environments.

The Dick and Carey model: a systems approach to instruction 🔗

The Dick and Carey model, also known as the Systems Approach Model, was introduced by Walter Dick and Lou Carey in their 1978 book The Systematic Design of Instruction. Unlike ADDIE’s broad phases, this model takes a more granular, interconnected approach to instructional design. It views instruction as a system where every component – from learners and materials to delivery methods and assessments – must work together to produce the desired learning outcome.

The nine steps of the model 🔗

The Dick and Carey model includes nine interrelated steps:

Step 1: Identify instructional goals – Define what learners should be able to do after completing the instruction. Step 2: Conduct instructional analysis – Break down the skills, knowledge, and attitudes learners need to acquire. Step 3: Analyse learners and contexts – Study learner characteristics, preferences, and the learning environment. Step 4: Write performance objectives – Create specific, measurable objectives based on the instructional analysis. Step 5: Develop assessment instruments – Design tests and evaluations that directly measure whether learners meet the performance objectives. Step 6: Develop instructional strategy – Plan the methods, activities, and sequence for delivering instruction. Step 7: Develop and select instructional materials – Create or choose learning resources like manuals, guides, multimedia, and assessments. Step 8: Conduct formative evaluation – Test the instruction through one-on-one, small group, and field evaluations before full-scale implementation. Step 9: Revise instruction – Use data from the formative evaluation to improve the instructional programme.

What sets it apart 🔗

The defining feature of this model is its emphasis on the interrelationship between components. In ADDIE, you move through broad phases. In the Dick and Carey model, each step directly influences the others. For instance, assessments are designed before the learning content – ensuring that the tests measure exactly what learners need to demonstrate, rather than testing irrelevant details that may creep into the material. This model is especially well-suited for high-stakes training, certification programmes, and contexts where clarity, accountability, and measurable results are essential.

The ASSURE model: technology-integrated lesson planning 🔗

While ADDIE and the Dick and Carey model focus on overall instructional system design, the ASSURE model was designed specifically for classroom teachers who want to integrate technology and media into their lessons effectively. It was developed by Robert Heinich, Michael Molenda, James Russell, and Sharon Smaldino, and first introduced through their influential textbook on instructional media. The model is grounded in Robert Gagné’s events of instruction and uses a constructivist perspective to enhance the learning environment.

The six steps of ASSURE 🔗

A – Analyse learners: Before planning any lesson, teachers examine learner characteristics such as age, academic abilities, prior knowledge, learning styles, and special needs. This analysis ensures that instructional decisions are tailored to the specific group of students.

S – State objectives: Learning objectives are clearly defined so that both the teacher and students know exactly what is expected by the end of the lesson. Objectives should be specific, measurable, and aligned with curriculum standards.

S – Select methods, media, and materials: Teachers choose instructional strategies and supporting resources – textbooks, videos, interactive software, simulations, or online tools – that best suit the objectives and the learners’ needs.

U – Utilise media and materials: This step involves preparing and deploying the selected media and materials during the lesson. The focus is on making sure everything is ready and used effectively to enhance learning outcomes.

R – Require learner participation: The ASSURE model places strong emphasis on active engagement. Learners should not be passive recipients of information; they must interact with the content through discussions, activities, projects, or hands-on exercises.

E – Evaluate and revise: After the lesson, teachers assess whether learners achieved the stated objectives and reflect on the effectiveness of the strategies and media used. Feedback is collected, and improvements are made for future instruction.

When to use the ASSURE model 🔗

The ASSURE model is particularly useful for teachers working in multimedia-rich environments – classrooms equipped with interactive whiteboards, tablets, learning management systems, or other digital tools. Unlike broader models, ASSURE was specifically modified for use by teachers in regular classrooms, making it practical for day-to-day lesson planning without requiring deep expertise in instructional design theory. It can be considered a media-focused evolution of the ADDIE framework.

The ARCS model: designing for learner motivation 🔗

Most instructional design models focus on structuring content, selecting delivery methods, and evaluating outcomes. But they often overlook a critical factor: learner motivation. The ARCS model, developed by Professor John Keller at Florida State University in the mid-1970s, was the first instructional design framework to place learner motivation at the centre of the design process.

The four components of ARCS 🔗

Attention: Before learning can happen, the learner must be engaged. Keller identified two primary strategies for gaining attention – perceptual arousal (using surprise, novelty, or unexpected changes to spark curiosity) and inquiry arousal (posing challenging questions or problems that stimulate deeper thinking). Variation in instructional methods is also key; even the most effective techniques lose their impact if used repeatedly without change.

Relevance: Content must feel meaningful and connected to the learner’s life, goals, or prior experiences. Strategies for building relevance include linking new information to what learners already know, explaining how the skills will be useful in real-world situations, and matching learning goals to the personal motives of learners. When learners can see a clear connection between the course and their own needs, motivation increases significantly.

Confidence: Learners need to believe they can succeed. If tasks feel too difficult or success feels out of reach, motivation drops. The ARCS model recommends building confidence through incremental challenges – starting with achievable tasks and gradually increasing complexity – while providing positive feedback and clear expectations along the way.

Satisfaction: The final component ensures that learners feel rewarded for their efforts. This could come from intrinsic rewards (the personal satisfaction of mastering a new skill) or extrinsic rewards (grades, certificates, or recognition). When learners feel that the outcome was worth the effort, they’re more likely to remain engaged in future learning.

Why ARCS matters 🔗

Research has consistently shown that motivation explains a significant portion of the variation in student achievement. The ARCS model has been successfully applied in diverse educational settings – from kindergarten classrooms to corporate training, and from face-to-face instruction to fully online learning environments. It’s not a standalone instructional design model in the traditional sense; instead, it’s best used as a complementary framework alongside models like ADDIE or Dick and Carey, adding a motivational layer to structurally sound instruction.

The cognitive apprenticeship model: learning by watching and doing 🔗

The Cognitive Apprenticeship model takes a fundamentally different approach from the other models discussed here. Instead of focusing on systematic planning or motivational design, it focuses on how knowledge is transferred from an expert to a novice through observation, guided practice, and gradual independence. The model was introduced in 1989 by Allan Collins, John Seely Brown, and Susan Newman and draws heavily from traditional apprenticeship methods while adapting them for cognitive (thinking-based) skills.

Why traditional apprenticeship needed an update 🔗

In traditional apprenticeship – a carpenter training a helper, or a tailor teaching an assistant – the learning process is visible. The apprentice watches the master work, helps out, and gradually takes on more responsibility. But in academic settings, the skills being taught (reading comprehension, problem-solving, critical thinking) are invisible. You can’t watch someone “think.” The cognitive apprenticeship model was developed to make these invisible thinking processes visible, so that students can observe, practise, and eventually master them.

The six teaching methods 🔗

Collins, Brown, and Newman proposed six core methods within the cognitive apprenticeship framework:

Modelling: The expert demonstrates the task, including the thought processes involved. For example, a maths teacher doesn’t just solve a problem on the board – they think aloud, explaining each decision and strategy as they work through it.

Coaching: While the learner attempts the task, the expert provides hints, feedback, and corrective guidance. Coaching operates within what Vygotsky called the Zone of Proximal Development – the gap between what a learner can do alone and what they can do with help.

Scaffolding: The expert provides support structures – templates, checklists, step-by-step guides – that help the learner perform the task. As the learner gains competence, these supports are gradually removed (a process often called “fading”).

Articulation: Learners are encouraged to verbalise their thinking and reasoning. This could involve explaining their problem-solving approach to peers, answering targeted questions from the instructor, or thinking aloud while working through a task.

Reflection: Learners compare their own processes and strategies with those of the expert or other students. This comparison helps them identify gaps in their understanding and refine their approach. Techniques like replaying recorded performances or conducting post-task reviews can support this step.

Exploration: The final method pushes learners toward independence. They are encouraged to set their own goals, define problems, and find solutions without direct guidance – applying everything they’ve learned in new contexts.

Where it works best 🔗

The cognitive apprenticeship model is especially effective for teaching complex cognitive skills that require practice-based learning – subjects like writing, scientific inquiry, medical diagnosis, and programming. It’s built on the principle of situated cognition, meaning that learning is most effective when it happens in the context where the skill will actually be used. However, it’s not a step-by-step design framework like ADDIE; it’s more of an instructional paradigm that guides how teaching and learning should be structured within a domain.

Comparing the five models: a quick overview 🔗

Each of these models addresses a different aspect of the instructional design challenge. The ADDIE model provides a broad, flexible framework for designing any type of learning experience from start to finish. The Dick and Carey model offers a more detailed, systems-based approach where every component is tightly connected – ideal for large-scale or high-stakes programmes. The ASSURE model is tailored for classroom teachers who need a practical way to integrate technology and media into daily lessons. The ARCS model fills the motivation gap that other models often overlook, ensuring learners stay engaged throughout the experience. And the Cognitive Apprenticeship model shifts the focus from content delivery to knowledge transfer through expert-guided practice.

In practice, many instructional designers don’t rely on a single model. They combine elements from multiple frameworks depending on the context, the audience, and the goals of the programme. For instance, you might use ADDIE as your overall project structure, apply ARCS principles to keep learners motivated, and borrow cognitive apprenticeship techniques for skill-based modules.

How to choose the right model 🔗

Selecting the right model depends on several factors. If you need a comprehensive, phase-by-phase approach to building a new training programme from scratch, ADDIE is a reliable starting point. If your project demands tight alignment between goals, assessments, and materials – especially in regulated or certification-oriented environments – the Dick and Carey model’s systems approach provides that rigour. If you’re a classroom teacher planning technology-enhanced lessons, the ASSURE model offers a practical, accessible process. If your primary concern is that learners lack motivation or engagement, the ARCS model gives you targeted strategies to address that. And if you’re teaching complex, practice-based skills where learners need to observe expert thinking and gradually build independence, the Cognitive Apprenticeship model is your best fit.

The key takeaway is that no single model is universally “the best.” The best model is the one that fits your learners, your content, your constraints, and your goals. Understanding these five frameworks gives you a versatile toolkit to design learning experiences that are structured, engaging, and effective.

What do you think? Which of these instructional design models aligns best with the kind of courses or training you design? And do you think it’s better to stick with one model consistently, or mix and match depending on the project?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADDIE_model
2. https://www.aihr.com/blog/addie-model/
3. https://www.d2l.com/blog/what-is-the-addie-model-of-instructional-design/
4. https://psu.pb.unizin.org/idhandbook/chapter/dick-carey/
5. https://trainingindustry.com/wiki/content-development/the-dick-and-carey-model/
6. https://elearningindustry.com/an-in-depth-analysis-of-the-dick-and-carey-model
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Heinich
8. https://elearning.adobe.com/2025/05/instructional-design-model-assure/
9. https://distancelearning.institute/instructional-design/assure-model-instructional-design-guide/
10. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/kellers-arcs-model
11. https://elearningindustry.com/arcs-model-of-motivation
12. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10494820.2023.2240867
13. https://www.aft.org/ae/winter1991/collins_brown_holum
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_apprenticeship
15. https://www.isls.org/research-topics/cognitive-apprenticeship/