 |
| Source: http://favim.com/image/339524/ |
In ID circles there has been continuous discussion about the value of ADDIE, about whether it is a model or a framework and generally whether it is useful when designing learning. I see ADDIE as a framework or scaffolding which helps support the design and development of teaching and learning. It is presented in a linear fashion but in practical terms it is never really implemented in a linear fashion. The following link gives an interesting perspective on ADDIE. I would be interested in hearing your comments in response to the information in the link:
http://elearningroadtrip.typepad.com/elearning_roadtrip/2009/08/what-is-it-about-addie-that-makes-people-so-cranky.html
Molenda (2003) in the “In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model” articulated that ADDIE may be described as a “development process umbrella, than specific steps for creating a training program.” Boling further noted that ADDIE acts as a “mental frame of reference” that aids instructional designers with problem solving by offering a systematic framework to follow. Although, the origin of ADDIE cannot be determined it seems to have acted as the foundation of many other instructional design models such as Werner and DeSimone (2009), Kemp (1977) and Dick and Carey (1978). Due to the number of models built on the ADDIE framework it must be assumed that it has some validity and by extension is indeed useful.
ReplyDeleteADDIE has been criticized as being linear and not created from a practitioner’s perspective. It is important to note that frameworks are “not cast in stone.” A conceptual framework is useful as it provides a schema flexible enough for manipulation during application. Linear application may not be feasible based on constraints such as financial resources and time. In light of the later restriction phases may be conducted simultaneously. Nevertheless, as ADDIE emphasizes continuous formative evaluation and improvement of the planned intervention to ensure that the best training and learning programs are developed.
I agree with the article “What is it about ADDIE that makes people cranky?” when it states that ADDIE is not a learning model. It is the responsibility of the instructional designer to ensure that learning and transfer occur by designing training programs best suited to the learners’ characteristics and work environment. In order to create appropriate “learning solutions” along with the “conditions needed for intentional, sustained changes in memory and performance” the instructional designer must perform careful analysis which is the first stage of the framework. Though, not a learning model, it is valuable in creating training and education programs geared toward optimizing the learning experiencing.
Looking around at our various organizations, we can see evidence of ADDIE in the training programs developed. For instance, at Clico (Trinidad) Limited before engaging in Customer Service Training, the organization used mystery shoppers and conducted employee and customer satisfaction surveys to gather data which was then extrapolated and reviewed to justify the need for training (Analysis). From this information, the training was geared not only to frontline employees but to all employees so that both internal and external clients were treated professionally and courteously. Classroom sessions were conducted and utilized role playing exercises facilitated by an external consultant (Design, Development and Implementation). Feedback was provided at the end of each session using smile sheets (Evaluation). Boling conferred that ADDIE “is a generic description of design,” even as Clico did not intentionally follow ADDIE, its approach to developing training illustrated all the aspects of the framework. Therefore, ADDIE is intend useful and relevant to instructional designers.
The last paragraph of Roxanne's post relates exactly to what is occurring at Standard Distributors Limited currently. The organization has recently concluded its analysis of investing in a culture of change related to customer experience at all levels of the organization. Meetings, interviews and surveys were conducted with the showroom managers and their employees who interact with the customers to get an understanding of what tools, resources and policies and procedures are lacking in order to execute excellent customer experience. In addition “mystery shoppers” were utilized to evaluate the level of service experienced at all showrooms. The results of this analysis proved that there is significant improvement required in the overall customer experience at the organization.
DeleteStandard Distributors Limited is currently in the design and development phase as it seeks to transform its business model to reflect this new style where its people, services, processes and supporting technology are integrated for the purpose of providing customers with an exceptional level of service.
The training design for this venture includes a pilot program at Standard’s flagship showroom in Grand Bazaar. The intent of the pilot project is to apply the customer care model, evaluate the impact and determine whether the outcomes qualify the model as suitable for rolling out across the entire organization. The training will be conducted off-site with interactive group sessions over a period of 2 months.The pilot program is set up with two phases: the first phase comprising of an orientation for the managers of the showroom to communicate the vision and identify how they can support the success of the program and the second phase include training of management to coach the staff, training of the line staff in customer encounter management skills and establish monitoring teams to measure the levels of improvement in customer care.
Therefore, the next step is the implementation of this pilot program and the eventual roll-out across the organization. It is evident that Standard Distributors is utilizing the revised ADDIE model as it consistently evaluates the outcomes of each phase. For example, it evaluated the level of service in the analysis phase and it also plans to evaluate the pilot program's effectiveness by measuring the levels of improvement in customer care after the the training has been developed and implemented.
Thanks for kicking off this blog post Roxanne. I just want to share though that the history of ADDIE can be traced. Take a look at the timeline for ADDIE http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html
ReplyDeleteThank you for the link. I would like to recall the previous statement about the origins of ADDIE being unknown. Based on the time line ADDIE was founded by the US army for designing their training programs as early as the 1970s and was later adapted to make it applicable for instructional design in organizations by the 1980s.
ReplyDeleteLike Roxanne, I also with the article “ What is it about ADDIE that makes people so cranky” when it states that ADDIE isn’t a learning model. This model guides you through the process of creating effective educational courses and materials and while there are 1000’s of variations of this model, the concepts are the same. Generally, this model is more than just an acronym. It is a blue print for success.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, one of the contributors dismissed ADDIE by saying she could use ADDIE to build a car, but realistically, that is a good thing. What she is saying is that the instructions are so detailed that she can do it herself. Then why so cranky??
Many models have been built on this framework as identified by Roxanne however, the Hannafin /Peck Model (1987) caught my attention. This model uses three phases and its simplicity, quite like ADDIE, makes it an effective model. The lines are easy to follow when trying to work with the model. Another similarity to ADDIE is that it has constant evaluation and revision with each phase and doesn’t wait until the end of the process to look at the results like some models.
All these models are all closely related and granted, they may each have a slightly different focus, but overall, the process is close. One can see all the elements of ADDIE in any of the models mentioned and they may each add or subtract a step in the process, but it is not difficult to follow the path or to reach concrete results. They all put a strong emphasis on evaluation and to me, this is one of the most important parts of any design model. Without effective evaluation, each model is worthless.
Like the author of the article, I too believe that just as a car gets us where we’re going, so should our learning solutions. ADDIE is definitely the framework to drive this success.
Sherry
I agree with you Sherry , when you state that the framework is a drive to success. It definitely advocates this, particularly with its constant evaluation both formative and summative and I really like the mechanical metaphor utilized by the author in regards to the framework
DeleteADDIE - S. Ramgoolam
ReplyDeleteThe ADDIE model/framework is a tool used for Instructional Design that is how to make the improve people performance through learning. I believe that ADDIE is alive and still useful.
An organisation adopting any learning system does not do so in isolation but expects to earn a degree of benefits through the resolving of an issue/gap/opportunity. To focus this attention the ‘A’ is highly essential since the organisation may be expending resources in vain at non issues. This stage points to where the rest of the organisational resources would bring the greatest relevant value thus time and money spent here is resources well invested. Wood’s sarcastic observation that analysis is merely academic is fraught with hidden problems for the unwary and hurried organisation.
Ellen claims that ADDIE focus on process is the biggest problem. However, the stand-alone stages of the process allows for a multiple of cascades. I agree with Schulz, there is no hard rule that it has to be a monolithic waterfall for the entire project. Waiting for all stages to be completed will lengthen the project timeline. To be more effective, a completed or almost completed stage can be put to the test and evaluated for suitability of purpose. The revised model with its reiterative feature and quick checking suggest that that multi mini cascades is a means to improve and make it more obvious to less discerning users.
In addition, the resources applied in each stage do not have to be equal- there can be considered judgement as to resource allocation. In situations where greater benefits would be achieved by focusing on specific stages, then good business practice will highlight those stages for greater effort. This also plays to the modern trend of rapid development tools and the haste to Develop and Implement (DI) solutions. If DI is where the greatest benefits can be obtained from, then focus on DI but do not eliminate the lesser stages.
Organisational context should be considered when doing ID. The TTCAA is in the safety business and there are compulsory international standards to be adhered to. The concern for lives means that a selected solution must be rigorously scrutinised through all its developmental stages to ensure that it addresses the issue and provides real benefits. The TTCAA as any other organisation in the safety business cannot hurriedly implement a solution only to have it fail in operation or to have major long term defects. The loss of public trust and to organisational image is greater than purely economic concerns.
ADDIE - Denis Jones
ReplyDeleteADDIE is a framework which is used to design and develop training and development initiatives by instructional designers. I certainly believe in the framework based on my readings.
The readings of the ‘blogs’ posted in “what it is about ADDIE that makes people so cranky” did not surprise me and made me a bit cranky, when those comments are genuinely based on where the designers sit and the situation which confronts him/her and not really the application of the model which causes the issues. I read of constraints, short notice and as much as 60% of users not in possession of a formal education in instructional system design.
I would like to liken those with gripe as trying to move a vehicle from the traffic lights after coming to a complete stop and putting the gear lever in fifth gear with a manual transmission. Gentlemen we all know this spells problem if you don’t have the experience, and signals what many users of the ADDIE undergo, the attitude of –hast to commit to an initiative, just to get on with it or lack of time.
The designers of a manual transmission have laid out the manner in which it should be used and so too is the ADDIE frame work. Dick, Carey and Carey (2008) postulated the most critical event in the entire process is conducting good analysis and if an individual needs to move a vehicle from dead stop he should begin with first gear.
Instructional designers must consider the analysis phase (first gear) and its importance as this is the phase which determines whether the intervention should be training or not. The analysis phase further takes into consideration the characteristics of the learners, and the context in which the skills are eventually used Dick (2008).
In concluding, my understanding of the crank of some of the bloggers is that they often time begin at the design phase and not at the analysis phase.
A model can be defined as "a simplified abstract view of a complex reality or concept" While Silvern defines a model as a “graphic analog representing a real-life situation either as it is or as it should be” (AECT, 1977). Thus, it is clear that some theorists perceive ADDIE as a model. However, I tend to disagree with the position that the ADDIE can be seen as a model and I tend to hold the view that its a Framework.
ReplyDeleteThe article clearly supports the point that the ADDIE is not a learning model, after constant aggravations. I agree with the writer of the article it is not a learning model, but it is a learning framework. The ADDIE framework has instigated the development of a great number of models, some which have been sighted by my colleagues, but I strongly believe it cannot be a model.
Then again what is wrong with it not being a model, when reality sets in one must realize that the environment which organizations operate in ,is and shall never be static, thus having a model is great,but having a framework is much better, it allows preference for the unknown, it gives flexibility when flexibility is needed and provides a process and not a linear solution. I prefer the ADDIE as a framework, it allows the user to be innovative but with a blueprint to use. Also, it can be described as a learning framework because when it is analysed closely, it offers all techniques of learning and it is most definitely adaptable, think about why has it managed to last through decades, my taught is that like the car analogy the ADDIE framework can be described like the bare element fire, we discovered it, we adopted it and we adopted it to develop technology and other products ,that what I see the ADDIE as a bare element which aids instructors to develop unique and dynamic IDS for their unique situations
For me ADDIE is very useful, I don’t necessarily see it as a process really, but a framework for thinking, coaching instructional designers, and managing learning projects. Many instructional designers these days are not formally trained in Instructional Design and initially think of it as instructional “writing” more than the holistic and systemic approach at the heart of ADDIE. While many argue that it has been watered down too much, I think that it is this simplicity that helps in keeping ADDIE alive.
ReplyDeleteADDIE phases are also a useful way to think about organization design and structure of a learning function. They are the major processes that need to be managed and measured by most learning functions. In the end ADDIE (and its more current modifications) is probably most valuable because it makes the work of learning design visible. This is an essential feature of productive knowledge work of all kinds. Almost every learning/training group uses ADDIE as a start point to design a customized process that can be communicated, executed, measured and repeated with some level of consistency. Equally important in knowledge work is the discipline of continually improving processes and breaking through to better ways of working. This has resulted in the many innovations and improvement to the ADDIE process since its inception.
According to Michael Schlegel (1995), in A Handbook of Instructional and Training Program Design, ADDIE as it is known today is an acronym for Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation. Although its existence can be dated since 1975, it was known as System Approach to Training or Instructional System Design. Like the author of the post “What is it about ADDIE that makes people so cranky”, Ellen Walker, I am not sure either about the answer to that question. I believe that it is a framework from which organizations can design, develop and implement its training initiatives. Although the way it is stated may make it seem linear, it does not necessarily follow that pattern.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in my response to Roxanne’s post earlier, in my organization, Standard Distributors Limited, we are currently embarking on a customer service training initiative which involves elements of a revised ADDIE. The analysis phase has already been completed through mystery shopping to identify gaps in customer service experience with the line staff, as well as interviews with the staff to get feedback about what tools and resources are required for their success of implementing the change. The analysis phase was evaluated to gain an understanding of what the gaps to learning and identify training needs. Likewise, the design and development phase are currently being explored through a pilot test program. The organization will evaluate the success of the pilot training in one of its busiest locations over a period of 2 months to validate the transfer of learning before implementing throughout the organization. The key to ADDIE, I believe is to use it as a guide to developing the training intervention. By constantly reviewing its effectiveness or evaluating at each phase it will help the instructional designer to understand whether the training is being retained and sustainable or what may be needed to change to improve it.
Andrea Taylor-Hanna
ReplyDeleteI like the quote, Addie is a project management tool. because the more I understand the Addie process the more I appreciate how complex it is to produce relevant and useful training material.
The skills required for instructional design are broad, from the ability to assess what is needed, a full knowledge/understanding of the content and an appreciation of how people learn, to name a few. All of this must be embodied in the instructional material produced. Instruction design is art as well as science and it is easy to see why the application of Addie cannot be linear.
As critical as Addie is to the comprehensive design of instructional material one must be careful not to get lost in the process and miss the bigger picture of what we were solving for in the first place.
I like you final point about not missing the big picture. Sometimes we get so caught up in process and trying to get it right we forget our original goal which was either training, education or development and ADDIE can work in each of those areas. That's why its so crucial to be clear on our needs and goals!
ReplyDeleteRenee Thomas
ReplyDeleteI think ADDIE can be used as a blueprint in our process of instructional design and we should not entirely discredit its purpose and use. Whilst I agree that the ADDIE model is linear it still provides a map with logical and consistent steps for us to follow. Moreover as one of school of thought so aptly put it, " The ADDIE instructional design model forms a road map for the entire training project"..
What is interesting is that when embarking on instructional design, we approach this exercise with so many ideas as to what would prove to be the most effective method. Thus the ADDIE provides us with a framework to flesh out these ideas and to really narrow in on the main objective and what we hope to achieve.
Whilst ADDIE has proven to be a beneficial tool in instructional design, one must always remain open-minded and not get so lost in the process that his/her original objectives are forgotten.
First of all I don't think that ADDIE is worthless.
ReplyDeleteIt is a framework that can be used by organisations to critically and strategically plan and implement how they design their Training and Development Plans to suit the needs of their organisation through learning and serve as a guideline for building effective training programmes.
In looking at my organisation, I can see that there is a lack of a proper Training and Development Plan that strategically focus on training needs of our staff. There is however, evidence of training and development with learning taking place at TVITT for both our instructing and student population. But, there is a misalignment with the education and development of our non technical staff.
Although there may be other instructional design frameworks, I can see this ADDIE framework being adapted to suit the strategic traning needs that TVITT requires in order to fulfill its mandate of creating competitive industries through learning and development.
It will give the company and the instructional designers the tools necessary to place all the elements and pieces of the TVITT puzzle together to form one overarching plan that will strategically move the company forward and achieve its mandate for sustainable competitive advantage.
The downsides to this model is that it may be too focused and "linear" in its approach and has been criticized due to its flowchart format, leaving the impression that it is mechanistic and linear in its approach. Another critism is that it is too time consuming and may not capture all of the key factors such as technology and environmental factors that will impact the efficiency of the Instructional Design Plan.
The ADDIE model therefore, should be seen more than a framework and blueprint as than a "model". Whilst ADDIE has proven to be a beneficial tool in instructional design, designing and rolling out a successful training program will involve a variety of people co-ordinating their efforts to achieve the desired outcome. It must be used, adapted and flexible enough to accomodate the changes in both the internal and external environment. With proper management and planning, more can and will be achieved.
I believe that ADDIE is alive and still useful.
- Fayola De Si
Fayola I like your final point and Renee's point about not forgetting the goal. We must not get so caught up in process and structure that we forget why we are conducting the training in the first place ( Renee's point) and we need to be flexible ( Fayola's point). Although we are focussing on ADDIE in this course keep in mind there are other frameworks and as you operate in the real world , feel free to look at all your options.
DeleteFlorance Kerr : ‘Is ADDIE worthless?’
ReplyDeleteThe ADDIE model is indeed a process. A process that is tailored to provide a systematic, linear workflow that is used for training developers and instructional designers. I am in agreement that ADDIE is not a learning model but a model to arrive with a solution to be invented. The five steps (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation) is dynamic and be can be used for any given situation. In my view, ADDIE has a number of pros and cons, however credit should be given to ADDIE for creating the foundation for other models for example - Temp, ASSURE and Dick and Karey. These models were only introduced and reinvented due to the gaps ADDIE produced for users which states ADDIE was not ‘perfect’.
Supporters argue that using this type of model can save time and money by catching problems while they are still in the early stages and it is easy to fix. The process therefore, is responsible for acknowledging risk and managing its impact in the long term. Using the model requires one to depend on clarity and completeness of the process. Overall, the model is easy to understand, it is organized and clearly defined. On the flipside, one can see the ADDIE model structure not practical for developing courses because it is too sequential. The model represents a continuous procedure and perhaps limits the ability to understand when it is actually complete. For instance my very own experience using the model has led me to a number of problems when the analysis step was applied at my department. The findings showed that the introduction of the New Vendor Management Process lead to reviewing the roles and functions of the employees, setting new performance measures and it even affected our customers and suppliers in actually doing business with the company. A number of red flags were raised that resulted in revisiting the project. As such, it just opens a path to another problem. User may even find the model to slow and it prevents creative thinking because of the logical steps to follow.
In conclusion, the model has its pros and cons. ADDIE you are not worthless! The more I read and apply ADDIE I have a greater appreciation for the applied steps but yet annoyed of how tedious and time consuming it can be. It never ends! It provides structure and guidance for design and serves as a valuable checklist for developers essentially for new projects. For others, it is to linear and validity and reliability can be skewed because ADDIE can produce many findings and it is continuous. The model is not perfect, but is the stepping stone for others to build upon.
Florence its excellent that you started the ball rolling with your comments and while all that you are saying is valid I do have to ask where is your supporting evidence? This could well be your views only, although I know they are not but you do need to support your arguments be referring to the literature. I think it would also be useful for everyone to read the blog post by Tony Bates http://bit.ly/1jXaVcd Looking forward to hearing other "supported" views.
DeleteADDIE is a cycle which simply means that it is flexible enough to allow anyone, at anytime to revisit a step, and refine it. ADDIE, is one of the most recognized and used Instructional system design (ISD). It is consistent and can be used in a wide range of fields. Even though arguments have been raised against the worth of ADDIE there are also arguments to support that ADDIE has much worth.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bates (2014) ADDIE has limitations when applied to courses with small student numbers. When using a traditional design, it can result in the project becoming very expensive and probably redundant. The other criticism looks at the fact that ADDIE focuses a great deal on design and development but less attention is stressed on interaction between instructors and students during delivery. Even though the stages of the ADDIE are described in much detail, one can find that the framework does not allow for decision making. An example is that it does not allow proper guidelines for choosing between different technologies or what assessment strategies to use.
Even though it has been argued that ADDIE has the above mentioned drawbacks, these do not negate the fact that ADDIE has much worth. ADDIE’s success is pivoted on the fact that it is greatly related to good quality design with clear learning objectives, carefully structured content and assessment which are attached strongly to needed learning outcomes. The ADDIE model is linear in nature which is the basis for its criticisms however it is the basis for almost all the other models which came after.
It should be noted that although other models may be different, they still incorporate the basic concept of the ADDIE model which is Analysis, Design, Development Implementation and Evaluation
References
"Strengths in the Addie Model." Share and Discover Knowledge on LinkedIn SlideShare. Accessed October 18, 2015. Http://www.slideshare.net/albertrodriguez5150/strengths-in-the-addie-mode'''
Is the ADDIE Model Appropriate for Teaching in a Digital Age? | Tony Bates." Tony Bates |. Accessed October 18, 2015. http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/09/09/is-the-addie-model-appropriate-for-teaching-in-a-digital-age/.
Ann De Suza
DeleteAnn good arguments for ARDDIE. Do you think its a model or a framework? Does it matter how we clarify it? Read the post I made following this one about the death of ADDIE and in particular the linked articles in those quotes and let me know whether it has changed your perspective on ARDDIE
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreg Kearsley and Richard Culatta defined Instructional Design as an analysis of learning needs and systematic development of instruction. There are several instructional design models that have existed over the years. However, all these models were birthed from the ADDIE Model. Some of the models that have been birthed out of the ADDIE Model are:
ReplyDeletePADDIE - P stands for planning
ARDDIE - R stands for research
Dick and Carey and the KEMP models
The ADDIE model is a generic process instructional design tool that is used to assist in developing a training plan intervention. There are five (5) phases to the model: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation. Each phase is linked to the other and as such, each phase must be completed before moving on.
The ADDIE model has the following attributes:
1. Linear Development
2. Structured
3. Simple to follow
4. Generic step by step process
5. Does not allow much analyzing.
The ADDIE Model is specifically used for technology based teaching and Corporate e-learning and training.
While we see that there are several models that are available to use and can provide a greater level of analysis and feedback, I don't believe that the ADDIE Model is Worthless.
Like everything else when something is first introduced it has to be tested and tried and then improvements are made to enhance its abilities. Similarly, the ADDIE model was developed as a systematic process to guide the development of a training model and thereafter other models were introduced with improvements to the ADDIE model to make it more effective.
The ADDIE model is still effective and relevant to date and will continue to be used as a significant instructional design tool.
Respectfully
Rowena Williams
Further to my earlier post. I would continue to say that ADDIE is not Worthless.
DeleteIn an article published by Educational Technology Journal, it was highlighted that ADDIE is a model that can be applied at any point in a project and it won't affect the value and it would ensure that the project is completed in a structured manner.
A further review on people's view of ADDIE, I have seen that many people felt that ADDIE was somewhat time consuming as in the earlier years of it 's existence users of the model were required to complete one step before move on to the other.
Over the years, the model was revised by several practitioners who have now made the model more interactive and dynamic. The model now allows the user to have continuity in the process.
While I understand that several other Instructional Designs are available for consideration, I would emphasize that these models were birthed from the ADDIE model which therefore cannot be discounted.
In this regard, I maintain that ADDIE is a model that is worthy of being used if necessary in the development of training and development plans for organizations.
Rowena you have defined ADDIE but you need to say more using support, about why ADDIE is or is not worthless according to your views.
ReplyDeleteSadiki James
ReplyDeleteIs ADDIE worthless?
In the Training and Development arena there are many different models one may choose to utilize in order to analyze, develop, design, implement and evaluate. One such model is the ADDIE model; this model can be seen as the cornerstone to Training and development. This is so as the model has been described as “extremely valuable for large and complex teaching designs” (Bates, 2014).
ADDIE can be seen as a Descriptive model in that it provides clear guidelines in regards to design, learning objectives, content, media and assessment. Therefore most complex and successful training plans have been built and designed upon the backbone of ADDIE. Being successful with ADDIE can simply mean following the steps in its sequence i.e. each stage is reliant upon the results of the other for example the Design stage relies on the fact that the analysis stage was done and completed accurately, this however has been described by Boulet as a downfall of the model as “The main problem with ADDIE is that it is a cascading model where each phase depends on the results of the preceding phase, assuming that the deliverable of the preceding phase are complete and accurate(2014).
Even though the model may be seen to have some drawbacks there is the belief that the model is not worthless because when compared to other Instructional System Design models we can see they have similarities for example the ASSURE model. The Assure Model even though it has a different meaning the elements of the model takes into consideration the same elements as the ADDIE however with some additions (Smaldino, 2013).
A — Analyze learners
S — State standards & objectives
S — Select strategies, technology, media & materials
U — Utilize technology, media & materials
R — Require learner participation
E — Evaluate & revise
This model when analyzed the A- analyze is in alignment with the ‘A’ in ADDIE
The ‘S’s are in alignment with the Design level of the model
The U with Development
R with Implementation and the E sticks to evaluation the model seeks to develop the ADDIE model further in a different perspective.
References
http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/assure.html
http://www.instructionaldesign.org/models/addie.html
http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/09/09/is-the-addie-model-appropriate-for-teaching-in-a-digital-age/?__scoop_post=4053298893&__scoop_topic=3640672#__scoop_post=4053298893&__scoop_topic=3640672
Sadiki and Rowena you need to refer to the criticisms of ARDDIE when you argue for its worth. What are the detractors saying and what are your counter arguments? Go beyond the obvious and actually interrogate the literature.
ReplyDeleteIs Addie worthless (for Instructional Designers)? - Leah Scott
ReplyDelete“A solution is only as good as the level to which you define the problem.”
In this Digital Information Age, is ADDIE still relevant when it comes to instructional design? Yes, we know as a process model it can be used for anything under the sun, but should that include Instructional Design?
Based on the blogs/posts recommended with their various comments, I’ve come to the conclusion that ADDIE is to Instructional Design as Kirkpatrick is to Evaluation (criticized for its structure but is the foundation upon which many other models have been built).
One of the main critiques of ADDIE is that it is not a learning model but a process model. So what? Can an Instructional Designer only use learning models? As pointed out in prior comments, ADDIE is the framework but other specific learning models can be used within each element of ADDIE. Even mini-ADDIEs can be used in each element of ADDIE. Unlike certain models, however, ADDIE does not spoon feed Instructional Designers. Tony Bates states that this lack of guidance on how to make decisions within the framework is one cause for criticism. But shouldn’t Instructional Designers be given enough space to make decisions based on the context/environment of their training systems than simply being told what to do for each step? The guidance so desperately desired should be derived from learning models throughout the ADDIE framework and not from the framework itself. Besides this, according to the main post, “Instructional Designers are not designing learning but learning solutions” (resources, experience, links, structured documents, multimedia and more). ADDIE should be used as the framework for putting the training structure together but the individual learning models should be what is used for designing learning itself.
cont'd...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete...cont'd (part 2) - Leah Scott
DeleteAnother complaint from a previous comment highlighted the impracticability of using ADDIE when all clients really want you to focus on is ‘DDI’. Clients usually insist that they have the Analysis phase covered and based on that they bring Instructional Designers into the mix to design, develop and implement. And because of time constraints in a pressurized environment, an extended process of iterative evaluation is not possible or acceptable. This is a fair comment given that you may have to pick your battles especially if your business cannot afford for you to argue with or refuse your clients. However, isn’t it also the responsibility of the educated Instructional Designer to sell the value of doing a complete analysis to the client? Selling the entire ADDIE framework with all its appropriate learning models relevant for the specific training and organizational environment is the expertise that your clients pay for even if they may not realize it. What happens when you give in and enforce a DDI process and later the problem fails to be solved? Your expertise will be questioned and people will not say you were just doing what you were told to do. By at least sharing all the ways applying the entire ADDIE framework will tangibly contribute to organizational learning and organizational strategy fulfillment, Instructional Designers would have acted responsibly towards their client. Even if they may still insist on having their way at least you would have provided the larger picture.
Lastly, concerning the criticism that ADDIE is linear, not innovative and is too inflexible for the digital age, this question is posed: isn’t there a principle of process despite whatever age it is? In other words, for a digital or non-digital age, certain principles will always remain the same. You cannot evaluate first then analyze later. You cannot develop before designing. ADDIE provides a principled framework for starting and completing a process for anything regardless of what it is. This cannot change. What will change is how Instructional Designers in the digital information age decide to use it to create a successful training solution. It is never ADDIE alone that will solve the problem and provide all the answers (since it is designed to be used in tandem with other models) but it is a fantastic blueprint to stand upon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete