Analysis

 

Although ARCS, 4MAT, ASSURE, and 4C/ID instructional design models all have different emphases, all the parts of each model are present in each other.  For instance, Keller (1987) focused on learner motivation in creating the ARCS model, McCarthy (1987) emphasized whole brain learning through sensitivity of learning styles with 4MAT, Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino (as cited by Gustafson & Branch, 2002) encouraged integration of technology with ASSURE, and VanMerrienboer (as cited by Reisser & Dempsey, 2007) encouraged integrated and comprehensive learning as opposed to compartmentalized learning.  However, all the components align with parts in all four instructional designs.  For example, attention and relevance (ARCS) parallel meaning (4MAT), supportive information (4C/ID), and analyzing learners (ASSURE).  However, in ASSURE, analyzing learners appears to be a first step as opposed to the other three instructional designs imply learner analysis occurs dynamically throughout the processes.  Other ways the designs coordinate include confidence (ARCS) corresponding with inform and practice (4MAT), state objectives, select and use materials (ASSURE), and procedural information and learning tasks (4C/ID).  Satisfaction (ARCS), perform/ adapt (4MAT), require learner participation and evaluate (ASSURE), and Part-Task practice (4C/ID) are all parts that parallel each other as well.  Gustafson and Branch (2002) made important claims stating that all of the instructional design models have many similarities and are not that different but rather a variation of older models. 

Conclusion

All four instructional design models use best practices towards educating/training.  Developments in cognition and neuropsychology have improved instructional designs since their onset in the 1960’s (Reisser & Dempsey, 2007).  The rise in instructional technology at a rapid rate has challenged instructional designers to incorporate technology into instructional designs.  Heinich, Molenda, Russell, and Smaldino (as cited by Gustafson & Branch, 2002) and VanMerrienboer (as cited by Reisser & Dempsey, 2007) have taken on this challenge.  The ARCS and 4MAT models were designed with flexible and generic enough components that technology can naturally be incorporated.  Hopefully this synopsis will assist others in seeing a range of available instructional design models and help to choose the right one to meet their needs. 

 

For additional instructional design model visit this link:  http://www.instructionaldesign.org/index.html