Traditional I.D. models specific to curricula

All traditional I.D. models are based off ADDIE, which was developed for military training during World War II. Therefore, all these models contain some element of the following: analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate. All contain some form of flowchart, most often in a linear format. All require extensive front-end analysis and creation of specific objectives, and some form of feedback from learners, most often after instruction.
As it stands today, the ADDIE method would be most applicable in a business factory training situation. It would require a significant amount of human resources for creation and implementation, would be time-consuming in the process leading toward writing the I.D. document, and would be a "one-model-fits-all" instructional package with review and revision set up at the end of the process. A factory where a minimum competency standard (i.e. using new machinery to package toys more efficiently) would be necessary for the safety and improved output of all workers would be an excellent place to use this model, and would use a consistent sent of instructional materials (i.e. worksheets for instruction with a CRT test at the end).
The ASSURE model was created to be used by classroom teachers for writing lesson plans and follows the following format: analyze learners, state objectives, select instructional methods/ media/ materials, utilize media and materials, require learner participation, evaluate and revise. This process also requires a large front- end analysis, and the objective writing process is based firmly in behaviorism. The revision and reflection occurs at the end of the lesson and is supposed to encourage teachers to revise the lesson for "next time." This process would not be beneficial to any self-contained teacher K-5 who does not re-teach the same lesson until next year. This model does stress finding the best media fit for meeting the objectives and student instruction of the material, and it also requires learner participation through interactive activities. This model would work best in a high school hard science course taught several times throughout the day, such as physics, chemistry, or biology. These fields best lend themselves to mixed learner schema and fields of experience, student participation, and a variety of instructional materials in order to accomplish specific objectives or learning goals (i.e. hands-on dissections vs. interactive virtual dissections).
The Big 8 model of I.D. is a linear model that works in a circular way. This model is formatted to select the concept, determine objectives, choose learning activities, write out a lesson plan, choose supporting media, produce media, present final lesson plan, and evaluate. This plan includes teacher-produced media for instruction and a revision of the product (lesson plan) immediately before instruction, but still puts the emphasis on reflection at the end. Again, this process would not really benefit any self-contained teachers who would not be revisiting the lesson until the following year, and it shows little interest in the role of learners. The Big 8 model would best be used in a college course where all in the school are required to take it. It has a one-size-fits-all feel, which may be necessary in classes of 200+ students simply to manage time and size. It would require consistent instructional materials to ensure all students receive the same information required for testing. Also, this extremely linear format may work best when using teaching assistants to help instruct or assess student work: it keeps all in control of grading student work on the same page, ensuring consistency in grading.
The complete I.D. plan model takes an interactive linear approach and surrounds it with an encompassing circular revision and evaluation process. The basis of this approach involves defining the learning needs / goals / priorities / constraints, then working interactively with the following processes: topics - job tasks / purposes, learner characteristics, subject content task analysis, learning objectives, teaching / learning activities, instructional resources, support services, learning evaluation, and pretesting. The cyclical revision process rolls through four phases: formative evaluation, revision, summative evaluation, and revision. This model may work well in at-risk reading or math classrooms due to its interactivity of components and it ever-continuing evaluation and revision processes. It would use a variety of instructional materials in development and implementation, but with the overall specific learning goals (i.e. reading at grade level by 4th grade) in mind. That being said, this model does not take into account external factors that affect instruction, including divergent fields of experience, language barriers, student home life, attention or behavior issues.
Perhaps the most commonly known I.D. model is the Dick and Carey I.D. model. As the forerunner to most modern models today, this model is extremely linear with some reflection and revision built into the end of the process through the use of formative evaluation that leads to summative evaluation. The model stresses criterion-referenced testing to show mastery of a specific set of learning skills. This model also has attempted to make revisions over the years to adapt to changes in technology and instructional theory. The Dick and Carey model would be best suited to creating competency tests for areas such as basic writing skills, basic knowledge of a language (i.e. Spanish used in the workplace), or basic math skills. The model lends itself to multiple choice testing or other closed evaluation systems.