Introduction
The Dick and Carey Model is one of the most widely recognized systematic approaches to instructional design. First introduced in 1978 by Walter Dick and Lou Carey, the model formalized the idea that instruction is a system—a set of interrelated components working together to bring about learning. Rather than focusing on the teacher or trainer as the central actor, it shifts attention to the design process itself, providing a clear, step-by-step framework for developing instruction that is both aligned and effective.
This model has been widely adopted in education, military training, government initiatives, and corporate learning environments—particularly for large-scale programs where consistency, planning, and accountability are critical. While newer models have emerged in recent decades, the Dick and Carey Model remains a foundational framework in the field of instructional systems design (ISD), and its principles continue to underpin many formal training programs in use today.
What Is the Dick and Carey Model?
The Dick and Carey Model is a comprehensive instructional design system that breaks down the process of designing instruction into ten interrelated steps. It assumes that effective instruction arises from clear goals, systematic analysis, aligned assessment, and iterative refinement.
The model does not attempt to explain how learning happens inside the mind. Instead, it focuses on how instruction should be planned and constructed to make learning outcomes more likely. The model’s approach is pragmatic and engineering-oriented: treat instructional design as a process of creating tightly aligned instructional components that, when executed, lead to reliable learner performance.
Although the ten steps are typically represented linearly, the process is intended to be iterative. Instructional designers are encouraged to revisit earlier steps as they gain new information, encounter challenges, or receive feedback.
How Does It Work in Practice?
The Dick and Carey Model provides a systematic path from need identification to post-implementation evaluation. It is particularly effective in settings where precision, accountability, and consistency matter. Instructional designers apply the model by:
Conducting front-end analyses to define goals and break them into teachable parts
Writing detailed performance objectives that describe the exact behaviors learners must demonstrate
Designing assessments first, ensuring that every objective is measurable and testable
Creating instructional strategies and materials that directly support those objectives
Piloting the instruction with representative learners, gathering data, and making targeted revisions
The model is often used in modified form. For example, instructional teams may collapse some steps or use agile development cycles, while still grounding their approach in the logic of Dick and Carey.
When Is It Most Useful?
The Dick and Carey Model is most useful in instructional contexts where:
Clear performance goals can be defined in advance
Consistency across learners is required
High stakes demand verifiable training effectiveness
Instruction must be scalable across teams, geographies, or roles
Design decisions need to be justified to stakeholders or regulators
For example, designing a course on pharmaceutical sales compliance for hundreds of sales representatives across multiple countries would benefit from this model. Each component—from the learning objectives to the final assessments—can be traced back to regulatory requirements, allowing for both rigor and auditability.
Similarly, a new onboarding program for data privacy practices could use this model to ensure each employee learns exactly what’s required of them and can demonstrate their understanding in controlled ways.
When Is It Not Useful?
The model is less useful in contexts where:
Learning goals are exploratory, evolving, or ill-defined
The focus is on informal learning, discussion, or co-creation of knowledge
Instruction is meant to spark reflection or personal growth rather than performance
Speed of delivery is prioritized over methodological rigor
For example, if the goal is to encourage new managers to explore their leadership style through coaching and discussion, the Dick and Carey Model may be unnecessarily rigid. Likewise, in rapid design environments where needs shift quickly, the ten-step process may feel too heavy unless adapted thoughtfully.
Additionally, some instructional designers find that the model doesn’t explicitly address affective or motivational aspects of learning. It assumes that if instruction is well-aligned, outcomes will follow—but motivation, identity, and engagement are often critical parts of real-world learning that the model does not directly address.
Theoretical Foundations
The Dick and Carey Model is grounded in the objectivist tradition and incorporates principles from both behaviorist and cognitivist psychology. Key foundations include:
Task analysis and behavioral objectives (Gagné, Mager) – Instruction begins by identifying specific behaviors that must be learned and decomposing them into teachable units.
Alignment theory – Instructional goals, methods, and assessments must be tightly aligned to ensure coherence and instructional validity.
Information processing theory – The sequencing and structuring of content reflects assumptions about how learners acquire, store, and retrieve information.
Systems theory – Instruction is treated as a system with interrelated components, all of which must function cohesively to produce the desired learning outcome.
These foundations support the model’s logic: define what learners need to do, build instruction to support that, and validate effectiveness through data.
Design Considerations
To implement the Dick and Carey Model effectively, instructional designers should consider the following:
Front-end analysis is non-negotiable – Skipping analysis undermines alignment.
Objectives drive everything – Well-written performance objectives ensure clarity and consistency.
Assessment comes early – Designing assessments before developing content ensures instructional alignment.
Documentation is essential – Traceability of decisions is critical, especially in regulated or high-accountability contexts.
Iteration is expected – The model is not a strict waterfall; feedback loops are integral.
In resource-constrained environments, teams may need to streamline or compress stages. However, the underlying logic should remain intact. Even when implemented in lightweight form, the model promotes clarity and alignment—two pillars of instructional effectiveness.
Notable Contributors
Walter Dick – A leading figure in instructional systems development, Dick was instrumental in formalizing systematic approaches to instructional design in education and corporate settings.
Lou Carey – Co-developer of the model and co-author of multiple editions of the foundational textbook The Systematic Design of Instruction, Carey brought a practical, education-focused lens to the framework.
Their work together helped codify a generation of best practices in instructional design and remains a reference point for ISD professionals around the world.
Conclusion
The Dick and Carey Model remains a cornerstone of instructional design. It treats instruction as a system—a set of aligned, interdependent components that must work together for learning to occur. By providing a detailed roadmap for instructional development, it enables designers to build programs that are coherent, scalable, and measurable.
For L&D professionals working in regulated, high-stakes, or large-scale environments, the model offers more than a workflow. It provides discipline in decision-making, a shared vocabulary for collaboration, and a clear structure for continuous improvement. Even when all ten steps aren’t followed to the letter, the mindset of the model—analyze, align, test, revise—is timeless.