Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Development
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Dick, W. (1993). Quality in training organizations.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(3), 35–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. & Carey, L.M. (1978, 1985, 1990, 1996).The systematic design of instruction. (editions 1 through 4.) New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, R. (1991).Strategic planning plus. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, D. (1987). Evaluation. In R.L. Craig (ed.),Training and development handbook, (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, M. (1990). Performance technology working the system.Training, 27(2). 42–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossett, A. (1987).Training needs assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seels, B., & Glasgow, Z. (1990).Exercises in instructional design. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1993).Instructional design. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Harris, D. (1992).Analyzing the instructional setting. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wedman, J., & Tessmer, M. (1993). Instructional designers' decisions and priorities: A survey of design practices.Performance & Instruction, 6(2). 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory.Educational Technology, 30, Nov–Dec, 5–23.

  • Zemke, R., & Kramlinger, T. (1982).Figuring things out: A trainer's guide to needs and task analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Systems at The Florida State University in Tallahassee, USA

    Walter Dick (Professor)

Authors
  1. Walter Dick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dick, W. The dick and carey model: Will it survive the decade?. ETR&D 44, 55–63 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300425

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300425

Keywords

Search

Navigation