Running head: Comparing and Contrasting ADDIE with the Kemp 1

Comparing and Contrasting ADDIE with the Kemp Model

Derrall Garrison
California State University Monterey Bay

IST626 Advanced Instructional Design

Professor Farrington
May 31, 2016

Comparing and Contrasting ADDIE with the Kemp 2

Comparing and Contrasting ADDIE with the Kemp Model
Overview of ADDIE and Kemp Model
The acronym ADDIE is a structure and approach to instructional design or
instructional systems design that has become over time what Ranch and Merrill refer to
as a paradigm that refers to a family of models that share a common underlying
structure (Branch & Merrill, 2012, p. 9). In and of itself it does not give a detailed level
of guidance for creating, but represents an approach to instructional design which is
systematic and inclusive of all the elements needed for good instructional design. Each
letter of the acronym represents a phase of design, and the letters stand for analyze,
design, develop, implement, and evaluate. It is important to note that the stages are
iterative (Molenda, 2003) and can be seen in this illustration (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011,
p. 10).

One of the family of instructional models that fall under the ADDIE model is called
the Morrison, Ross, Kemp model (MRK or Kemp model), and it contains the same

Comparing and Contrasting ADDIE with the Kemp 3

iterative approach to the instructional design process. Unlike the ADDIE model which
does not have a specific type of final product or creation in mind, the Kemp model has a
focus on instructional solutions and takes the approach of instructional design from the
perspective of the learner rather than the content (Gustafson & Branch, 1997). While
we think of ADDIE as iterative, but still progressing through each of the stages, the
Kemp model allows the designer to start anywhere in the nine stages while some
stages may not be required (Forest, 2016).
The purpose of this paper is to draw comparisons and contrasts between the
stages of the ADDIE model with the Kemp model, and to show how it is a part of the
same family of instructional design models. While the ADDIE model has five steps or
phases the Kemp model has nine (see illustration below) (Morrison, Ross, Kemp, &
Kalman, 2010, p. 379)

Comparing and Contrasting ADDIE with the Kemp 4

For the Kemp model the nine steps are:
1. Identify instructional problems and specify goals for designing an instructional
program
2. Examine learner characteristics that should receive attention during planning
3. Identify subject content, and analyze task components related to stated goals
and purposes
4. State instructional objectives for the learner
5. Sequence content within each instructional unit for logical learning
6. Design instructional strategies so that each learner can master the objectives
7. Plan instructional delivery within three patterns for teaching and learning.
8. Develop evaluation instruments to assess objectives
9. Select resources to support instruction and learning activities (Gustafson &
Branch, 1997)
For the illustration above, the two outer rings represent activities which happen
throughout the instructional design process, and are used in each of the nine stages
(Kelley, 2013).
Analyze
For the ADDIE model the general thought is that this is for identifying the
problem, doing a needs analysis, and coming up with a goal (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011).
For the Kemp model, there are several steps which could be considered a part of this
first step. Overall however, as the outer rings in the model illustration show, formative
evaluation as a type of analysis is part of all the steps. Within the discrete nine steps of
Kemp the first four, steps 1 to 4, could be considered as part of analyze as well. They

Comparing and Contrasting ADDIE with the Kemp 5

involve identifying problems, looking at the learners characteristics, and then stating the
objectives. When looking at the Kemp model as a specific model, and as lesson
organizer, these steps would be ongoing as new lessons were designed. But once the
learner is better understood, or skills that are subsets of original concepts later in an
academic year are focused on, then the amount of up front work may lessen. The third
step of analyzing the tasks and their connection to the goals is closest to the ADDIE
definition of analyze (Forest, 2016).
Design. For ADDIE, design would involve beginning to make more specific the
goals as determined in the initial analysis, and being specific as to the type of learning
activity that is going to happen (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011). For the Kemp model, again
the next three steps of Kemp could be considered part of the design step. Overall
looking at the outer rings, the planning and support services would be considered
predominant as the designer is applying the information gathered. Steps 5 to 7 involve
sequencing the materials, designing accessible materials for the type of learners in the
class, and planning the correct method of delivery.
Development. For ADDIE the development step involves the content creation
for both the students and the instructors materials, as was thought up during the
design process (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011). For the outer rings in Kemp, there are
several concepts involved with development, including revision, which would involve
practical issues in creating content. There is also project management, which may
connect with moving through the concept to creating deliverables. This would also
involve step eight and nine. Step eight would be to develop the assessment tools that
will be used. Step nine would involve the selection of materials that support the

Comparing and Contrasting ADDIE with the Kemp 6

instruction, but this could also be considered a part of what would happen with the
design stage of development. This step is unique among design models as it allows for
the need for additional people to meet the needs of technology, or assistants for the
special needs of students (Forest, 2016).
Implement. For ADDIE this stage is involved with delivering the instruction to
where it was planned (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011). For Kemp, we see the implementation
is specifically mentioned in the outer ring with implementation and summative
assessment. Implied here is that implementation might take place during any of stages
of the process rather than being a culminating part of the instructional design process.
Evaluation. For ADDIE this step is for summative and formative assessment as
well as beginning the revision process that will make changes based on the collected
data (Reiser & Dempsey, 2011). For Kemp these stages of evaluation and revision are
considered part of all the steps in the instructional design process, and as such dont
need their own designation as a discrete step, since they are endemic to all phases of
the process.
Conclusion. Matching up the instructional design steps of the ADDIE process
with the Kemp model brought out the fact that the Kemp model has all the discrete parts
of the ADDIE process. The great difference seems to be that the Kemp model is an
even more flexible model, in that the instructional designer could leave out steps and
adapt the model to any given instructional design situation without being forced to follow
a sequence of actions (Akbulut, 2007).

Comparing and Contrasting ADDIE with the Kemp 7

References
Akbulut, Y. (2007). Implications of two well-known models for instructional designers in
distance education: Dick-Carey versus Morrison-Ross-Kemp. Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education, 8(2). Retrieved from
http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/tojde/article/view/5000102742/0
Branch, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2012). Characteristics of instructional design models.
Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 816.
Forest, E. (2016, February 14). Kemp Design Model. Retrieved May 30, 2016, from
http://educationaltechnology.net/kemp-design-model/
Gustafson, K. L., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Survey of Instructional Development Models.
Retrieved May 30, 2016, from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED411780
Kelley, K. (2013). Morrison, Ross and Kemp Model. Retrieved
from .">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixkjmHyTq1U>.
Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement
Advisor, 42(5), 3437.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kemp, J. E., & Kalman, H. (2010). Designing Effective
Instruction. John Wiley & Sons.
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2011). Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.