Comparative Analysis of Instructional Models: ADDIE, SAM, and Dick & Carey

Synthesis based on the provided article: Comparative Analysis of Instructional for Designing Effective Online Courses: ADDIE, SAM, and Dick & Carey Approaches (Journal of Languages & Translation, 2025).

Executive Summary

This page compares three instructional design models—ADDIE, SAM, and Dick & Carey—for online course design across synchronous, asynchronous, and blended contexts. Drawing from a literature-driven, meta-analytic approach (2010–2023), findings indicate:

ADDIE excels in asynchronous settings due to its structured, linear workflow.
SAM performs best in synchronous environments where rapid iteration and prototyping support real-time feedback.
Dick & Carey is particularly effective for blended learning given its comprehensive systems approach and alignment of goals, assessments, and evaluation.

Bottom line: choose the model to match the delivery context and constraints; one size does not fit all.

Model Snapshots

ADDIE

Analysis → Design → Development → Implementation → Evaluation

Structured Predictable Outcome-focused

Best Asynchronous

Strength Clarity & QA

Watch Rigidity

SAM

Preparation → Iterative Design → Iterative Development

Agile Rapid Prototyping Collaborative

Best Synchronous

Strength Adaptability

Watch Depth tradeoffs

Dick & Carey

Systems approach with connected components and formative evaluation

Comprehensive Goal Alignment Evidence-driven

Best Blended

Strength Precision

Watch Complexity

Effectiveness by Learning Context

Learning Context	ADDIE	SAM	Dick & Carey
Synchronous (live)	Good	Best	Good
Asynchronous (self-paced)	Best	Good	Good
Blended (hybrid)	Good	Good	Best

Ratings reflect summarized findings from the provided article (2010–2023 synthesis).

Model Details

ADDIE

Strengths: Clear phases, rigorous documentation, strong alignment to outcomes; works well where scope is stable.
Limitations: Can be rigid/linear; slower to adapt to change; iteration primarily between phases.
Use When: Compliance, accreditation, scalable asynchronous courses, predictable timelines.

SAM

Strengths: Rapid prototyping, frequent feedback, high adaptability; ideal for fast-changing requirements.
Limitations: Less prescriptive; may under-specify deep instructional sequencing if unmanaged.
Use When: Live online training, frequent updates, innovation pilots, stakeholder co-design.

Dick & Carey

Strengths: Systems view, strong goal/assessment alignment, formative evaluation embedded.
Limitations: Complex, time-intensive; may feel heavy for small/rapid builds.
Use When: Blended programs, high-stakes objectives, multi-modal alignment across delivery modes.

Graphic Organizer: Side-by-Side Comparison

ADDIE SAM Dick & Carey

Dimension	ADDIE	SAM	Dick & Carey
Design Flow	Linear phases with checkpoints	Iterative cycles with prototypes	Systems approach with interlinked steps
Iteration Style	Phase-based revision	Rapid, continuous iteration	Structured formative evaluation
Best Fit	Asynchronous courses	Synchronous/live training	Blended/hybrid programs
Team Collaboration	Defined roles & handoffs	High-frequency co-creation	Cross-component alignment
Speed to Deploy	Moderate	Fast	Moderate–Slow (thorough)
Documentation	Heavy, phase artifacts	Light, prototype-driven	Comprehensive mapping
Risk & Change	Lower risk, slower change	Embraces change early	Manages risk via analysis

References (from the provided article)

Abernathy, D. (2019). ADDIE in action. Journal for the Advancement of Educational Research International, 13(1), 8–19.
Ali, C. A., Acquah, S., & Esia-Donkoh, K. (2021). A comparative study of SAM and ADDIE models in simulating STEM instruction. African Educational Research Journal, 9(4), 852–859.
Amiti, F. (2020). Synchronous and asynchronous E-learning. European Journal of Open Education and E-Learning Studies, 5(2).
Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2019). The essentials of instructional design. Routledge.
Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P. T., & Altman, D. G. (2023). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (v6.4).
Garrett, R., Simunich, B., Legon, R., & Fredericksen, E. E. (2021). CHLOE 6. Quality Matters.
Khalil, M. K., & Elkhider, I. A. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 147–156.
Pellas, N., Fotaris, P., Kazanidis, I., & Wells, D. (2019). Augmented reality game-based learning. Virtual Reality, 23(4), 329–346.
Sadiku, M. N., Adebo, P. O., & Musa, S. M. (2018). Online teaching and learning. IJARCSSE, 8(2), 73–75.
Sun, P. et al. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? Computers & Education, 50(4).
Plus other citations as listed in the provided article text.

Note: This page paraphrases and synthesizes the claims and summary table (synchronous/asynchronous/blended) exactly as described in the provided reference text.

Graphic Organizer: Models and Step Mapping

Start with ADDIE. Use Analyze to prepare for SAM Preparation and Dick and Carey steps 1–3. Then chunk the rest by aligning Design and Develop to SAM iterations and Dick and Carey middle steps, and finish with Implement and Evaluate.

ADDIE

Analyze
Design
Develop
Implement
Evaluate

SAM (Basic)

Preparation
Iterative Design
Iterative Development

Note: Evaluation and revision happen inside each iteration.

Dick and Carey

Identify Instructional Goals
Conduct Instructional Analysis
Analyze Learners and Contexts
Write Performance Objectives
Develop Assessment Instruments
Develop Instructional Strategy
Develop and Select Materials
Design and Conduct Formative Evaluation
Revise Instruction
Design and Conduct Summative Evaluation

Chunking Map: Use ADDIE to Orchestrate SAM and Dick and Carey

Alpha: First integrated build; major issues expected; heavy formative feedback.
Beta: Feature-complete pilot; minor issues; validate learning objectives and flow.
Gold: Release version; quality checks passed; ready for scale and summative study.

ADDIE Phase	SAM Alignment	Dick and Carey Alignment	Outcome Focus
Analyze	Preparation	1 Goals, 2 Instructional Analysis, 3 Learners & Contexts	Problem framing, constraints, audience, task analysis, success criteria
Design	Iterative Design (rapid prototyping, design sprints)	4 Objectives, 5 Assessment Instruments, 6 Instructional Strategy	Blueprint: objectives ↔ assessments ↔ strategy; low- to mid-fidelity prototypes
Develop	Iterative Development (build–test–revise loops)	7 Develop & Select Materials (with ongoing checks to 4–6)	Assets, media, activities, instructor guides; quick usability/formative checks
Implement	Deploy within iteration or pilot (continuous feedback)	Deliver materials; collect formative data during delivery	Pilot/soft launch, facilitator prep, learner access, tech readiness
Evaluate	Gate reviews: Alpha → Beta → Gold (iterative refinements)	8 Formative Evaluation, 9 Revise Instruction, 10 Summative Evaluation	Evidence of effectiveness; revisions; decision to scale and finalize