Instructional design (ID) is one of the approaches to the process of acquiring knowledge and skills that makes it more efficient and effective. Therefore, there are many different ID models suitable for different needs and requirements. The Layers of Negotiation ID Model and the Kemp Model of ID are among them. This paper explores both models, presents their peculiarities, compares and contrasts them to show the similarities and differences.
The paper is organized as follows: Introduction provides the overview of the paper’s contents and its organization structure; The Layers of Negotiation ID Model section explores the first model, describes it and presents; Kemp Model of ID section explores the second model, describes it and presents; Comparison section compares and contrasts both models.
The Layers of Negotiation ID Model
This ID model was constructed by Catherine Cennamo, Sandra Abell, and Mi-Lee Chung. They were creating a series of interactive videodiscs that were based on particular cases. There videodiscs were supposed to be used in the educational programs by constructivist teachers (Willis, 2009). The authors proposed the following five basic actions for this model: embracement of the design process complexity; provision of social negotiations as an integral part of the designing materials process; examination of the information relevant to the instruction design process at multiply times and from multiply perspectives; training of reflexivity in the process of design; and emphasis of the client-centered design (Willis, 2009).
Figure 1 represents it (Willis, 2009):
Figure 1. The Layers of Negotiation ID Model
Kemp Model of ID
The model of Jerold Kemp has nine different components of an instructional design and at the same time adopts a model of continuous implementation/evaluation (Kemp, 1985). Kemp tends to adopt a wider view; he presents the oval shape of his model and he tries to say by this that the design and development process is a continuous cycle. It requires constant planning, design, development and assessment in order to assure effective instruction.
The model represents systemic and nonlinear approach. It seems to encourage designers to work appropriately in all areas (Kemp, 1985). The model is very good for the process of development of instructional programs that include technology, pedagogy and content aimed to deliver effective, inclusive (reliable) and effective learning.
As it has already been mentioned, Kemp identifies nine key elements: “Identify instructional problems, and specify goals for designing an instructional program; Examine learner characteristics that should receive attention during planning; Identify subject content, and analyze task components related to stated goals and purposes; State instructional objectives for the learner; Sequence content within each instructional unit for logical learning; Design instructional strategies so that each learner can master the objectives; Plan the instructional message and delivery; Develop evaluation instruments to assess objectives; Select resources to support instruction and learning activities” (Kemp, 1985).
Figure 2 presents the model (Kemp, 1985):
Figure 2. Kemp Model of ID
Unlike the second model, the Layer of Negotiation ID model is process based more than procedure based. It is also more question driven than task driven, comparing to Kemp Model of ID. In addition, it …