Context analysis in instructional design focuses on examining the environment where learners engage with content, identifying their needs, and ensuring that the design aligns with those factors. In this reflection, I’ll explore two well-established models of context analysis: the Smith and Ragan model, and the Dick, Carey, and Carey model.

These models offer distinct approaches to analyzing context before starting the design process. My aim here is to compare their processes, discuss their unique features, and consider how their strengths can be combined to enhance instructional design practices. Let’s see how these models offer valuable insights into effective design.

Models and Processes of Context Analysis in Instructional Design

The Dick, Carey, and Carey Model

The Dick and Carey systems approach aids instructional designers in creating curricula by following a sequence of nine interconnected steps focused on a specific instructional objective (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2005). This approach takes into account various elements, including the instructor, learners, materials, instructional activities, delivery systems, and the environments where learning and performance occur. In contrast to traditional models, the Dick and Carey approach is represented as a curvilinear flow with one-way arrows, emphasizing a more streamlined and practical method for instructional design (Branch, 1996).

Figure 1: The Dick and Carey Systems Approach Model (Dick et. al., 2005)

This model aims to create a comprehensive learning experience. It considers how learners need to acquire and engage with the material, and how it aligns with their broader learning environment. One instance that stands out for this scenario is when I attended a seminar-workshop on Curriculum mapping and applied them in a classroom setting, where Dick, Carey, and Carey’s Model might be particularly effective. As a teacher, I primarily played the role of a curriculum implementer. This model offers a broader perspective that becomes clearer when considering the curriculum focusing on delivering designed content to students.

The Dick, Carey, and Carey Model breaks down the instructional design process into nine clear stages:

1. Identifying Instructional Goals: What knowledge, skills, or attitudes should learners acquire to address real-world needs? This stage focuses on setting clear, outcome-based goals that align with institutional objectives.
2. Conducting Instructional Analysis: What are the essential steps and skills learners must master to achieve the set goals? This phase breaks down the learning process into critical components, revealing what learners need to know and do.
3. Analyzing Learners and Contexts: Who are the learners, and what is their current level of knowledge, skills, and attitudes? This stage examines the learners’ profiles and the conditions under which they will learn ensuring the design fits both the audience and the learning environment.
4. Writing Performance Objectives: How can we define success for our learners? This stage involves setting specific, measurable objectives that guide the entire instructional design process outlining what learners should be able to demonstrate after the instruction.
5. Developing Assessment Instruments: How do we measure whether learners have achieved the desired outcomes? This phase focuses on creating assessments that accurately reflect learners’ mastery of the objectives ensuring alignment between what is taught and tested.
6. Developing Instructional Strategies: What is the best way to facilitate learning and engagement? This stage designs a plan for delivering content incorporating methods and techniques that promote effective learning experiences.
7. Developing and Selecting Instructional Materials: Which resources will best support the instructional strategies? This phase involves curating or creating materials that align with the instructional plan ensuring they meet the needs of both the learners and the objectives.
8. Designing and Conducting Formative Evaluation: How can we improve the instruction before it is fully implemented? This stage emphasizes gathering feedback during the development process allowing for adjustments and enhancements to optimize learning outcomes.
9. Designing and Conducting Summative Evaluation: Did the instructional design achieve its goals? This final phase assesses the instruction’s overall effectiveness, determining whether it met the performance objectives and contributed to learners’ success.

Each stage serves a distinct purpose, creating a structured approach to designing a comprehensive curriculum. These questions help design content that is directly applicable to learners’ real-world contexts.

The Smith and Ragan Model

The Smith and Ragan Instructional Design Model emphasizes a comprehensive context analysis, focusing on the specific needs, characteristics, and environment of learners. Smith and Ragan (2005) argue that instead of strictly adhering to a single instructional design model, designers should build a mental framework rooted in solid theoretical principles. This approach encourages flexibility. The authors explain that the processes involved in creating instruction often happen simultaneously. The various steps within each phase are typically interwoven, meaning that modifications in one step can lead to adjustments in others by the designer or design team, drawing from different models and adapting them to specific learning contexts. Smith and Ragan utilized a wide array of literature and strategies. They credit Robert M. Gagné, M.D. Merril, and C.M. Reigeluth for their work in learning theory and significant contributions to the development of instructional theory. (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p. 21).

They are organized the processes as follows: (1) Analysis and assessment, (2) Instructional strategies, and (3) Implementation, management, and evaluation.

Figure 2: Smith and Ragan Model (Smith and Ragan 2005)

The analysis and assessment stage takes place before creating instructional materials and includes four main parts: examining the context, understanding the learners, analyzing the tasks, and planning how to evaluate learning. To save time, designers sometimes neglect or skip this initial analysis. However, Smith and Ragan suggest that dedicating time to this early analysis can lead to savings in time, and costs, and reduce frustration in the long run.

The instructional strategies stage includes a designer’s organizational strategies
and should answer the following three questions: (1) what content is needed? (2) how should
the content be presented? (3) how should it be sequenced? Delivery strategies provide detailed examples and suggestions for developing knowledge-specific delivery of instruction. It answers questions: (1) What instructional medium will be used (2) How learners be grouped? Management strategy is about the scheduling and allocation of resources.

The Implementation, management, and Evaluation Stage The Smith and Ragan model emphasizes the interconnectedness of the implementation, management, and evaluation phases, contrary to the perception of them being separate. Implementation involves executing designs in their intended context. Smith and Ragan outline the importance of early conversations about key concepts in implementation, specifically diffusion, dissemination, adoption, and the role of stakeholders. Management of Instruction outlines the role of project managers in facilitating design teams while balancing project constraints—quality, cost, time, and scope. Evaluation is vital during and after development to assess whether instructional strategies effectively achieve desired learning outcomes. Formative evaluation helps identify instructional flaws and is essential for refining materials before implementation. It should involve iterations of testing with target audiences, progressing from one-on-one evaluations to small-group trials and then field trials with larger samples. The summative evaluation assesses the overall effectiveness after project completion, guiding improvements by answering specific questions related to learner outcomes and the efficiency of the instruction.

In order to understand Both models better, here’s a Venn diagram to compare and contrast their features:

Figure 3: Venn diagram to compare and contrast both models

Smith and Ragan’s Model emphasizes flexibility in instructional design. Think of this model as a customizable toolkit—it’s adaptable, allowing designers to incorporate elements from various models to fit specific learning contexts (Smith & Ragan, 2005). This model focuses on context analysis, encouraging designers to adjust their strategies based on the learners and the learning environment. It also leans on theory, offering detailed and prescriptive guidelines to create adaptive learning experiences.

Dick and Carey’s Model operates like a well-oiled machine, using structured systems approach to guide curriculum development. Its strength lies in how it integrates all components of instruction—from learners to materials and delivery methods. This model excels in large-scale, standardized training programs where you need everything to align seamlessly.

If you look at the middle section where the circles overlap, you’ll notice that both models share several core features. Both emphasize the importance of context analysis, considering the learning environment and learner characteristics. They also focus on goal-oriented design, ensuring that instructional strategies align with the desired learning outcomes. And while each model has its structured phases, they allow room for adaptation to suit different instructional needs, though Smith and Ragan lean more towards flexibility, whereas Dick and Carey emphasize a clear, step-by-step approach.

How to apply both models in instructional design

We can create a robust and flexible program using Smith and Ragan model with the Dick and Carey model for compliance training in a regulated industry. We start with Dick and Carey’s structured framework to cover all necessary compliance requirements, to make sure that each module addresses key policies, safety protocols, and legal guidelines. Clear objectives guide the training and help learners navigate through specific compliance areas with measurable outcomes. Meanwhile, incorporating the adaptability of the Smith and Ragan model adds an engaging layer to the content. Here, we integrate real-world scenarios and case studies that align with industry regulations, which makes the material more relatable and easier to grasp. Using this hybrid approach allows for real-time updates whenever new compliance standards emerge to make sure that the training stays current. Applying this blended strategy can help create more effective training programs that are both consistent and responsive to diverse learning environments.

Another example is when designing professional development workshops for educators. Dick and Carey model’s focuses on structured evaluation to measure the effectiveness of each workshop session. We can gather feedback through assessments and surveys to check what worked and what needs improvement. Then, bring in the flexibility of the Smith and Ragan model to adjust future sessions based on participants’ insights. This adaptability ensures the content remains applicable to the unique challenges educators face in their classrooms. Using this combined approach can help create a continuous feedback loop to improve workshop quality and address the evolving needs of teachers for fruitful professional growth.

Final Thought

Dick and Carey and Smith and Ragan models offered some valuable insights into instructional design. which model fits best? It depends on what you’re designing for. If you need a flexible, theory-based approach that adapts to varied learning contexts, Smith and Ragan might be the way to go. But if you’re aiming for a systematic and structured framework that’s easier to scale, Dick and Carey could be your best choice.

There isn’t a universal solution or generic model when it comes to designing effective learning solutions. Knowing when to apply a structured method versus when to stay flexible is essential. This knowledge opens up new possibilities for creating content that not only meets learning objectives but also adapts to the unique needs of the audience.

References:

Chaparro, R., Reaves, M., Jagger, C. B., Bunch, J. C. (2023). Instructional design using Dick and Carey
systems approach. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/WC294

Christopher, A. (2011). The Smith & Ragan model. Model Resource.
http://www.angelachristopher.net/uploads/8/3/2/4/832462/model_resourceassignment.pdf

Franklin, D. (2011). Needs assessment: Materials based on Smith & Ragan (2007), Instructional
Analysis: Analyzing the Learning Context [PowerPoint slides]. Slideplayer.
https://slideplayer.com/slide/7342491/

Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. (2016). Module 3: Analysis (P3: Learner and Context Analysis).
https://amandaszapkiw.com/elearning/principles-of-design/module-3
3/Module_3_Instructional_Unit_P3(PDF).pdf