Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 55–63 | Cite as

The dick and carey model: Will it survive the decade?

  • Walter Dick


Many instructional designers and numerous organizations have adapted the Dick and Carey model for use in their training functions. This article reviews the changes that have occurred to the model in the 20 years since its original publication, and identifies various influences that may determine whether it will continue to be useful in the years ahead. Consideration is given to alternative instructional design textbooks and the potential decline in interest in instructional design within academic programs. The influence of constructivist theory on the 1996 version of the Dick and Carey model is described, and the long term impact of constructivist and objectivist models on public education and business and industry is assessed.


Educational Technology Dick Instructional Design Public Education Objectivist Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Dick, W. (1993). Quality in training organizations.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(3), 35–47.Google Scholar
  2. Dick, W. & Carey, L.M. (1978, 1985, 1990, 1996).The systematic design of instruction. (editions 1 through 4.) New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  3. Kaufman, R. (1991).Strategic planning plus. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Kirkpatrick, D. (1987). Evaluation. In R.L. Craig (ed.),Training and development handbook, (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Rosenberg, M. (1990). Performance technology working the system.Training, 27(2). 42–48.Google Scholar
  6. Rossett, A. (1987).Training needs assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1990).Exercises in instructional design. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  8. Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1993).Instructional design. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Tessmer, M., & Harris, D. (1992).Analyzing the instructional setting. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  10. Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers' decisions and priorities: A survey of design practices.Performance & Instruction, 6(2). 43–57.Google Scholar
  11. Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory.Educational Technology, 30, Nov–Dec, 5–23.Google Scholar
  12. Zemke, R., & Kramlinger, T. (1982).Figuring things out: A trainer's guide to needs and task analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter Dick
    • 1
  1. 1.Instructional Systems at The Florida State University in TallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations