Instructional Design Models: A Complete Guide for L&D Professionals

Instructional design models are structured frameworks that guide the creation, development, and evaluation of training programs. The most widely used is the ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation), but several other frameworks, including SAM, Gagné's Nine Events, Bloom's Taxonomy, and Action Mapping, serve different contexts and project types. Choosing the right model is what separates training that changes behavior from training that simply delivers content.

This guide covers seven core instructional design models and methodologies, explains how each works, and helps learning and development (L&D) professionals select the right approach for their organization. For a broader foundation, see the complete guide to instructional design on the Lemon Learning blog.

What Is an Instructional Design Model?

An instructional design model is a repeatable process framework that instructional designers use to plan, build, and evaluate learning experiences. It defines the activities, sequence, and decision points involved in developing a training program, whether that program is delivered online, in a classroom, or through a blended format.

Instructional design models serve three main purposes:

• They provide a common language and process that all project stakeholders can follow.
• They ensure that learning objectives, content, activities, and assessments remain aligned throughout development.
• They create a basis for evaluation, making it possible to measure whether training actually achieved its goals.

Instructional design models are often distinguished from instructional design theories. A theory explains how learning happens (for example, cognitivism or constructivism). A model translates that theory into a practical design process. Most working models draw on multiple theories simultaneously.

Why Does Choosing the Right Instructional Design Framework Matter?

The right framework determines whether a training program gets built efficiently, whether it engages learners, and whether it produces measurable results. No single model fits every situation. A highly structured model like ADDIE suits large enterprise rollouts with stable requirements. An agile model like SAM (Successive Approximation Model) suits projects where requirements evolve quickly. A performance-focused framework like Action Mapping is best when the root cause of a business problem may not even require training.

Selecting the wrong framework wastes development resources and, more importantly, risks delivering training that does not transfer to on-the-job performance.

"PowerPoint guides are change management of the old world. The open rate of an email with a PowerPoint guide? Generally 5%."

That observation applies directly to instructional design: the format and framework driving your training program determines whether people engage with it at all.

The 7 Core Instructional Design Models and Methodologies

Below are the seven most influential instructional design models used in corporate training and education today. Each section covers how the model works, its key strengths, and when to use it.

1. ADDIE Model

ADDIE is the most widely recognized instructional design framework. It organizes the development process into five sequential phases that ensure every element of a training program is purposeful and aligned with learning objectives.

The five phases of the ADDIE model are:

1. Analysis: Identify the target audience, their existing knowledge, the learning gap, and the business goal the training must address.
2. Design: Determine the instructional strategy, learning objectives, content structure, assessment approach, and delivery format.
3. Development: Build the actual course materials, e-learning modules, videos, job aids, and other resources defined in the design phase.
4. Implementation: Deploy the training program to learners, ensuring the technology, logistics, and facilitators are ready.
5. Evaluation: Measure whether the training achieved its objectives and identify what should be improved for future iterations.

Strengths: ADDIE is methodical, well-documented, and widely understood. It scales well for large-scale training initiatives and makes it easy to onboard new project team members.

Limitations: Its sequential nature can be too rigid when organizational needs change mid-project. Feedback only enters the process formally during the evaluation phase, which means errors can accumulate through development before they are caught.

Best suited for: Large enterprise training rollouts, compliance programs, and any situation where requirements are stable and well-defined before development begins.

2. SAM Model (Successive Approximation Model)

The SAM model, created by e-learning designer Michael Allen, is an agile instructional design methodology designed to address the rigidity of traditional sequential models. Where ADDIE moves in a straight line, SAM moves in cycles, using rapid prototyping and continuous stakeholder feedback to refine training before it is fully built.

SAM organizes work into three repeating phases:

• Preparation phase: Gather information about the learners, the business context, existing knowledge, and constraints. Run an initial brainstorming session to align the project team on direction.
• Iterative design phase: Build quick, low-fidelity prototypes of each content area. Review them with stakeholders and subject matter experts, then refine based on feedback. Repeat until the design is validated.
• Iterative development phase: Develop full modules, collect learner feedback from early testing, and continue to revise until the program meets quality standards. Earlier phases can be revisited as new information emerges.

Strengths: SAM reduces the risk of investing significant development effort in a flawed design. Early prototypes surface problems cheaply. The iterative nature also tends to produce more learner-centered outcomes because real feedback shapes the product.

Limitations: SAM requires a project team that is comfortable with ambiguity and frequent revision cycles. Organizations accustomed to linear approval processes may find the iterative approach harder to govern.

Best suited for: Fast-paced environments, complex e-learning projects where content is evolving, or any situation where organizational needs are not fully defined at the outset.

3. Merrill's Principles of Instruction (MPI)

Proposed by educational psychologist David Merrill, Merrill's Principles of Instruction (MPI) is a theory-driven framework built on five core principles that Merrill identified as present in virtually every effective instructional design approach. It is less a step-by-step process model and more a set of design principles that can be layered on top of any process model.

The five principles are:

1. Problem-centered learning: Instruction is most effective when organized around real-world problems or tasks rather than isolated topics.
2. Activation: Effective learning builds on what learners already know. Prior relevant experience should be surfaced at the start of any learning sequence.
3. Demonstration: Concepts and skills should be demonstrated to learners, not just described. Examples, worked cases, and modeled behavior are essential.
4. Application: Learners must have the opportunity to practice what they have been taught, with corrective feedback that guides improvement.
5. Integration: Learners should be encouraged to apply new knowledge or skills in their real-world context and reflect on or share what they have learned.

Strengths: MPI is evidence-based and practically orientated. It reinforces active learning and discourages passive content consumption, which is a common failure mode in corporate e-learning.

Limitations: MPI does not prescribe a development process, so it must be used alongside a process model such as ADDIE or SAM rather than independently.

Best suited for: Improving the instructional quality of any course, regardless of which process model is being used. Particularly valuable for performance-based training where learners need to do something new, not just know something new.

4. Gagné's Nine Events of Instruction

Developed by educational psychologist Robert Gagné, Gagné's Nine Events of Instruction is a sequenced instructional framework grounded in cognitive psychology. Each event is designed to support a specific internal cognitive process that leads to durable learning.

The nine events are:

1. Gain attention: Open with a stimulus that captures learners' focus, such as a surprising fact, a short scenario, or a question.
2. Inform learners of objectives: State clearly what learners will be able to do by the end of the lesson.
3. Stimulate recall of prior learning: Connect new content to knowledge learners already hold to activate relevant cognitive schemas.
4. Present the content: Deliver new information in a clear, organized format appropriate to the learning objective.
5. Provide learning guidance: Give learners cues, examples, and strategies to help them encode and understand the new content.
6. Elicit performance: Ask learners to perform the target skill or demonstrate their understanding through practice activities.
7. Provide feedback: Give specific, informative feedback on learner performance, not just right/wrong confirmation.
8. Assess performance: Evaluate whether learners have achieved the stated objectives through a formal or informal assessment.
9. Enhance retention and transfer: Reinforce learning through spaced practice, varied examples, and activities that encourage application in real-world contexts.

Strengths: The Nine Events framework is highly prescriptive in the best sense: it ensures that no critical cognitive step is skipped during lesson design. It works across formats, including e-learning, blended learning, and instructor-led training.

Limitations: Applying all nine events to every lesson can feel formulaic when learning objectives are simple. Designers must exercise judgment about which events require more or less emphasis for a given topic.

Best suited for: Designing individual lessons or modules within a larger curriculum, particularly for new skill acquisition where cognitive load management is important.

5. Kemp Design Model

The Kemp Design Model, developed by Jerrold Kemp, is a learner-centered instructional design framework that differs from ADDIE in one important structural way: its nine elements are not arranged in a linear sequence. Designers can enter the model at any point and revisit any element at any time, guided by an ongoing process of evaluation and revision at the center of the model.

The nine elements of the Kemp model are:

• Identify instructional problems and goals.
• Examine learner characteristics.
• Identify subject content and analyze task components.
• State instructional objectives.
• Sequence content within each unit.
• Design instructional strategies.
• Plan the instructional message and delivery.
• Develop evaluation instruments.
• Select resources to support instruction and learning.

Continuous evaluation and revision run through all nine elements rather than being reserved for the end.

Strengths: The Kemp model's flexibility is its defining advantage. It accommodates changing requirements and works particularly well for learner-centered design projects where understanding the audience must inform every other decision. It also eliminates the inefficiency of completing steps that are not relevant to a particular project.

Limitations: The non-linear structure can be disorienting for teams used to sequential processes. It requires experienced designers who can manage the interdependencies between elements without the scaffold of a fixed sequence.

Best suited for: Projects with diverse learner populations, adaptive learning programs, and situations where the designer has a high degree of flexibility in how the curriculum is organized.

6. Action Mapping by Cathy Moore

Action Mapping is a visual performance-consulting approach to instructional design created by learning designer Cathy Moore. It begins not with learning content but with a measurable business goal, and works backward to identify the specific actions employees must take to achieve that goal. Only then does it ask whether training is the right solution.

The Action Mapping process follows four steps:

1. Define the measurable business goal: Identify a specific, quantifiable outcome the organization needs to achieve, such as reducing error rates or increasing sales conversion.
2. Identify the actions required: Map out the specific on-the-job behaviors that, if performed consistently, would produce that business goal.
3. Identify causes and solutions: For each required action, diagnose why people are not currently performing it. Training is only one possible solution. Process problems, unclear expectations, or missing tools may be more significant barriers.
4. Design practice activities: For the gaps that training can address, design practice activities that simulate the real-world decisions and actions learners need to develop, rather than presenting information for passive consumption.

Strengths: Action Mapping prevents the most common failure mode in corporate training: building a course that transfers no behavior because it was designed around content rather than performance. It also makes the business case for training explicit and measurable.

Limitations: Action Mapping requires access to business stakeholders and performance data to complete the first two steps properly. It is also less suited to foundational knowledge training where there is no immediate performance behavior to map.

Best suited for: Performance improvement initiatives, sales training, compliance training where behavioral change is the goal, and any project where the return on training investment needs to be demonstrable.

7. Dick and Carey Model

Developed in the 1970s by Walter Dick and Lou Carey, the Dick and Carey model is one of the most comprehensive instructional systems design (ISD) models available. It breaks the entire training development process into ten interconnected steps and places particular emphasis on the relationship between learning objectives, instructional strategy, and assessment.

The ten steps of the Dick and Carey model are:

1. Identify instructional goals: Define the terminal performance the training must produce.
2. Conduct instructional analysis: Decompose the goal into the subordinate skills and knowledge learners need to achieve it.
3. Analyze learners and context: Assess learners' backgrounds, prior knowledge, attitudes, and the environment in which they will perform.
4. Write performance objectives: Develop specific, measurable statements of what learners will be able to do, under what conditions, and to what standard.
5. Develop assessment instruments: Design evaluations that directly measure the performance described in the objectives.
6. Develop an instructional strategy: Select the sequence, instructional methods, and activities that will move learners from their current state to the objectives.
7. Develop and select instructional materials: Create or source the content, activities, and media required by the strategy.
8. Design and conduct formative evaluation: Test the instruction with representative learners and revise based on findings.
9. Revise instruction: Use formative evaluation data to make systematic improvements before full deployment.
10. Design and conduct summative evaluation: After deployment, assess the overall effectiveness of the instructional program against its original goals.

Dick and Carey Model: Strengths and Challenges

Strengths	Challenges
Tight alignment between objectives, activities, and assessments	Time and resource-intensive to implement fully
Systematic formative evaluation built into the process	Requires significant instructional design expertise
Well suited to complex, large-scale instructional systems	Too rigid for small-scale or fast-turnaround projects
Produces highly consistent and auditable training programs	Can feel overly prescriptive for simple learning objectives

Best suited for: Large-scale e-learning development, military or government training programs, and any instructional systems design project where rigorous documentation and alignment are required.

Instructional Design Models Compared: A Decision Framework

No single instructional design methodology is universally superior. The right choice depends on project scale, timeline, learner diversity, and whether the primary goal is knowledge transfer or behavioral change. The table below summarizes when each model is most appropriate.

Instructional design model selection guide

Model	Primary Strength	Best Project Type	Flexibility
ADDIE	Structured, scalable process	Large enterprise rollouts, compliance	Low
SAM	Iterative, agile development	Fast-paced or evolving projects	High
Merrill's MPI	Evidence-based instructional quality	Any project needing stronger engagement	High (principles, not process)
Gagné's Nine Events	Cognitive sequencing per lesson	Individual lesson or module design	Medium
Kemp Model	Learner-centered flexibility	Diverse audiences, adaptive learning	High
Action Mapping	Business-goal alignment	Performance improvement, behavior change	Medium
Dick and Carey	Rigorous systems approach	Complex, large-scale ISD projects	Low

ADDIE vs SAM: Key Differences

ADDIE and SAM are the two most discussed instructional design models in corporate L&D, and they represent opposing philosophies about how training should be built.

ADDIE is a waterfall model: each phase must be substantially complete before the next begins. This gives projects a clear structure and makes governance straightforward, but it also means that a design flaw discovered during development requires backtracking through completed phases.

SAM is an agile model: it compresses analysis, design, and development into short iterative cycles. Prototypes are built early and reviewed frequently, so problems surface when they are cheap to fix rather than after significant development effort has been invested.

ADDIE vs SAM instructional design model comparison

Dimension	ADDIE	SAM
Structure	Sequential, linear	Iterative, cyclical
Feedback timing	Primarily at evaluation phase	Continuous throughout development
Risk profile	Higher risk of late-stage redesign	Lower risk; errors caught early
Best for	Stable, well-defined requirements	Evolving or complex projects
Team experience needed	Moderate	Higher (comfortable with iteration)
Governance fit	High (clear phase gates)	Moderate (requires agile mindset)

In practice, many organizations use a hybrid: ADDIE's phase structure for project governance combined with SAM-style rapid prototyping within the design and development phases.

Instructional Design Models in Education vs. Corporate Training

Instructional design models originated largely in academic and military contexts. ADDIE, for example, was developed for the United States military before being adopted widely in higher education and corporate training. The Dick and Carey model similarly has roots in educational psychology research.

In formal education, instructional design models tend to be applied over longer timelines, with more emphasis on theoretical alignment and curriculum coherence across an entire program of study. Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, developed by Benjamin Bloom and colleagues in 1956, remains a foundational tool in educational settings for classifying learning objectives across cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains.

In corporate training, the emphasis shifts toward speed, measurable performance outcomes, and return on investment. Models like Action Mapping and SAM have gained significant traction in corporate L&D precisely because they prioritize demonstrable business results and rapid deployment. Lemon Learning's learning and development solutions are designed to support exactly this kind of performance-focused training delivery at scale.

Despite these differences, the core challenge is the same in both contexts: ensuring that instruction is aligned with objectives, that learners are engaged, and that learning transfers beyond the training environment.

Bloom's Taxonomy and Its Role in Instructional Design

Bloom's Taxonomy is not a full instructional design model in the process sense, but it is used within virtually every instructional design framework to write learning objectives and select appropriate instructional activities and assessments.

The revised Bloom's Taxonomy, updated by Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl in 2001, organizes cognitive learning into six hierarchical levels:

1. Remember: Recall facts and basic concepts.
2. Understand: Explain ideas or concepts in one's own words.
3. Apply: Use information in new situations.
4. Analyze: Draw connections among ideas and break down information into component parts.
5. Evaluate: Justify a decision or course of action using criteria and evidence.
6. Create: Produce new or original work by combining elements in a novel way.

When instructional designers write learning objectives using Bloom's Taxonomy, they ensure that the verbs used in the objective correspond to the level of cognitive complexity the training is targeting. An objective at the "Apply" level demands different activities and assessments than one at the "Remember" level, and the instructional strategy must match.

How Instructional Design Models Support Digital Learning and Technology Integration

Modern instructional design does not happen in isolation from technology. Learning Management Systems (LMSs), digital adoption platforms, authoring tools, and AI-assisted content generation tools all shape how instructional design models are applied in practice.

Several important considerations arise when applying instructional design frameworks in digital contexts:

• Rapid content updates: Digital learning environments change quickly. Agile models like SAM handle content updates more gracefully than sequential models because iteration is built into the process.
• Learner analytics: Digital platforms provide behavioral data that can inform the evaluation phase of any model, making it possible to measure learning transfer more precisely than was possible with traditional instructor-led training.
• Just-in-time performance support: Action Mapping and similar performance-focused frameworks align naturally with just-in-time support tools, where the goal is not to transfer all knowledge in advance but to make the right information available at the moment of need.
• Personalization: The Kemp model's learner-centered flexibility maps well onto adaptive learning technologies that adjust content based on individual learner performance.

Understanding how these frameworks apply to real software training challenges is explored further in the article on why software training often fails to produce results.

New and Emerging Instructional Design Approaches

The instructional design field continues to evolve. Several newer approaches are gaining traction alongside the established models described above.

Design Thinking applied to learning: Some organizations are adapting the Design Thinking process, originally developed at IDEO and Stanford's d.school, to instructional design. This approach emphasizes deep empathy with learners, rapid prototyping, and iterative testing. It overlaps significantly with SAM in its agile orientation but adds an explicit human-centered research phase before design begins.

Backward Design (Understanding by Design): Developed by Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins, this approach starts with the desired learning outcomes and assessment evidence before determining what instructional activities will produce those outcomes. It is widely used in K-12 and higher education settings and increasingly referenced in corporate learning contexts where outcome definition is a challenge.

Connectivism: Proposed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes in 2005, connectivism describes learning as the process of forming connections between different nodes of information, including people, databases, and digital resources. While primarily a learning theory rather than a design model, it informs instructional design approaches that emphasize networked learning, social learning, and continuous informal skill development.

These approaches do not replace the established models but complement them, offering designers additional tools for specific challenges.

Mastering Instructional Design: Selecting and Applying the Right Model

Effective instructional design requires more than familiarity with individual models. It requires the judgment to select the right framework for the context, the skill to apply it rigorously, and the flexibility to adapt when circumstances change.

A few practical principles guide that judgment:

• Start with the goal, not the content: Action Mapping's insistence on defining the measurable business goal first is sound advice regardless of which model you ultimately follow. If you cannot articulate what success looks like, no design framework will save the project.
• Match model complexity to project complexity: The Dick and Carey model is powerful but expensive to execute. For a short microlearning series, Gagné's Nine Events applied at the lesson level may be more appropriate.
• Use Bloom's Taxonomy to anchor your objectives: Clear, leveled learning objectives written with Bloom's verbs will make every
  FAQ

  Frequently asked questions

  What is an instructional design model?+

  An instructional design model is a structured framework that guides the creation, development, and evaluation of training programs and learning experiences. It provides a repeatable process that helps instructional designers align content, activities, and assessments with defined learning objectives and business goals.

  What are the main types of instructional design models?+

  The most widely recognized instructional design models include the ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation), the SAM (Successive Approximation Model), Bloom's Taxonomy, Gagné's Nine Events of Instruction, the Dick and Carey model, the Kemp Design Model, Merrill's Principles of Instruction, and Action Mapping by Cathy Moore. Each serves different project types and organizational contexts.

  What is the most popular instructional design model?+

  ADDIE remains the most widely used instructional design model across corporate and academic settings. Its five sequential phases provide a clear, methodical structure that suits large-scale training projects. However, agile alternatives such as the SAM model are increasingly adopted for fast-paced environments that require iterative development and rapid prototyping.

  What has replaced ADDIE?+

  No single model has fully replaced ADDIE, but the SAM (Successive Approximation Model), created by Michael Allen, is the most cited agile alternative. SAM addresses ADDIE's rigidity by introducing iterative prototyping and continuous feedback loops. Action Mapping by Cathy Moore is another popular alternative that prioritizes measurable business outcomes over traditional content-delivery approaches.