 |
| Source: ADDIE Must Die!
http://bit.ly/1QF0ILI |
I haven't posted for quite some time but have been looking at some of your posts on the topic " Is ADDIE Worthless" and as I reflected on some of the contributions I started searching online for other discussions and blog postings on the topic. I came across this interesting one by Eric Lodor which asks the question Is ADDIE Dead?
You should also take a read of the blog by David Grebow and Sue Fry ADDIE Must Die!
Share your insights on the views of these authors as they relate to the topic Is ADDIE Worthless? You should also see to what extent what is being said is reflected in your experience developing a training intervention using ADDIE.
Anfernel's post was lost. This is what she had to say on whether ADDIE is worthless...
ReplyDeleteAnfernel Henry
Similar to previous posts, I also believe ADDIE is not worthless. Though often referred to as a model, I agree with many writers that believe it is more of a framework as it cannot be used to explain or represent something else as the case with models, but it gives an overall picture.
This five step approach- Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate- has been or is used by many instructional designers in developing training programs in organizations and teaching. Its systematic process is beneficial for developing large and complex designs, subsequently, it is commonly referred to as linear. With its linearity, it acts as a guide, in other words, it allows designers to easily track the progress. Moreover, though the model illustrate evaluation at the end of the process, it is done at each step providing the flexibility to redesign if the situation warrants it to ensure desired outcomes are achieved. Researchers also pointed out that it lends itself to consistency which is favored by some designers when developing their programs.
An example of its common use can be seen within my organization in developing a recent Pension Training program. Through analysis, the designers determined the need for this specific training because of importance to two departments within the company. The Design, Develop and Implementation phases were however executed by an external subject matter expert, whilst evaluation was done internally and externally by the organization and agency to gauge its effectiveness.
In spite of its usefulness, ADDIE has garnered criticisms from other researchers and intellects alike. This brought about new Instructional Design such as Kemp, Dick and Carey's and Assure. Though highlighted earlier as a benefit, researchers such as Hokanson believe that the linear process leave little encouragement for innovation of designers. Other researchers believe it does not address the interaction between instructors and students during delivery which forms an important aspect of training, as well as it does not consider the volatile, complex and changing environment.
In my view, though ADDIE has received much criticism, it remains the foundation for many contemporary models as identified before.It may also be criticized for is linearity, however, this is the case with models that follow. In essence, ADDIE remains relevant and useful for most designers today.
References:
"Is the ADDIE Model Appropriate for teaching in a Digital age?" http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/09/09/is-the-addie-model-appropriate-for-teaching-in-a-digital-age/
"Creativity in the Training and Practice of Instructional Designers: the Design/Creativity Loops Model" http://hokanson.design.umn.edu/publications/2011ClintonHokanson%20CreativityLoops.pdf
Robbie's post also went missing!! Here is what he had to say...
ReplyDeleteRobby Seepaul has left a new comment on your post "Is ADDIE worthless?":
The ADDIE model is a generic instructional design model utilized to provide a descriptive guideline for building effective training and performance support the needs of an organization. The model explains and standardizes performance gaps in an organization thus allowing identification and implementation of instructional design best practices in Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). According to Baraka Manjale Ngussa (2014) cited the ADDIE model is not influenced by gender, education level and trainers’ area of specialization in teaching-learning transaction. An additional advantage of the ADDIE model is it facilitates benchmarking of instructional design hence providing iterative feedback resulting in refinement of the learning product meeting the organization's needs and standards.
According to Gordon and Zemke (2000) posited that the ADDIE model is ineffective and inefficient as it does not necessarily lead to the best instructional solutions, nor provides solutions in a timely or efficient manner. This in effective poses the disadvantage of the model being counter-productive and costly. Furthermore, with the onset of the digital age, the ADDIE model allow for less-linear approaches to innovative instructional design (Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1991). Other factors affecting the model’s effectiveness are the trainer’s proficiency in performing with no usage of predictor to measure subsequent training performance, relatively poor standardization across trainers, facilities, times, and trainees and curriculum and training plans becoming irrelevant to employee's work assignments as a function of time.
Is ADDIE worthless? Even though the model has many benefits and disadvantages there is unanimous desirability of the model to be widely used as instructional design model from a practitioner’s perspective. An integral aspect to the model’s effectiveness is the use of pilot testing. Pilot testing allows the training design to better meet an organisation fit and demonstrates the teaching-learning transaction validity and reliability which yields provision of data for budgeting and planning. Additionally, it is critical in pilot testing phase testing the model effectiveness that highest priority of the practical application of the ADDIE model is done evaluation phase instead of the implementation phase where it is nominally assessed. In summary, The ADDIE is not worthless as it but depends how well each phase of the model is assessed and evaluated. A finding by Baraka Manjale Ngussa (2014) stated that the intensity of applying ADDIE model diminishes as years of teaching experience increase until when teachers reach the experience of 10 years and above. Is ADDIE worthless or its effectiveness is limited a practitioner’s perspective?
Despite the criticisms of ADDIE such as its linear approach, I believe that the model is still beneficial and applicable to today’s rapidly changing environment. Like a number of persons who rebuke the critics of the model, I believe that some of the disadvantages experienced using the model may be as a result of a number of factors other than the model itself. This may include a lack of effective internal and external organisational analysis, inappropriate design, poor development and implementation. Chevalier (2011) supports this view by highlighting that improper application of the A-D-D-I-E steps in the instructional design process is a key factor for ineffectiveness of the model. He claims that training departments often act as training “order-takers” as opposed to performance improvers through:
ReplyDelete1. Inadequate analysis and making assumptions that training is the only solution
2. Limiting designs, if done at all, to only training solutions
3. Limiting implementation to “stand-alone” training where transference is limited because the work environment was not taken into account
4. Evaluating only Kirkpatrick’s Levels 1 (reaction) and 2 (learning). Levels 3 (behavior change) and 4 (impact on a desired business outcome) are seldom, if ever, addressed.
This behavior can reduce benefits of ADDIE, as with any other training model. ADDIE is a guide to training instructional design and therefore, model users should take cognizance of the particular context and environment in which the ADDIE is being applied for it to be successful.
References
Chevalier, Roger D. 2011. "When did ADDIE become addie?." Performance Improvement 50, no. 6: 10-14. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 19, 2015).
Jenile you have made a good point about the misuse of ARDDIE but you didn't respond to the criticism of it being linear. Is it? and if it is does this impact its utility? I get you are saying it doesn't but you should say this explicitly. Also what about it is useful and advantageous? You haven't given that part of the argument.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify based on your post Dr Dianne. Yes i do agree that ArDDIE is linear in its approach to instructional systems design which can negatively influence the time and costs associated with utilizing this model. However, despite these criticisms, i do not believe that the value of ADDIE should be discounted. Its linear and systematic approach can allow designers to easily track the progress of training programs being developed, particularly for larger and more complex projects as mentioned in an earlier post by Anfernel. Also, ArDDIE has other advantages such as the fact that the evaluation phase is ongoing throughout the design process where each of its phases can be modified to suit user needs which can increase its flexibility. Therefore, despite the criticisms of the model as highlighted earlier, i still believe that proper analysis, design and implementation, inclusive of a holistic approach to evaluation can significantly reduce the limitations of ADDIE as purported by Chevalier (2011).
DeleteChevalier, Roger D. 2011. "When did ADDIE become addie?." Performance Improvement 50, no. 6: 10-14. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed October 19, 2015).
Addie Model. 2015. Training and Industry http://www.trainingindustry.com /wiki/entries/addie-model.aspx
Great response Jenile. Add this to your previous post and you have very convincing arguments for Arddie having worth.
DeleteDesire D. Bonnett
ReplyDeleteFor persons wishing to gain some level of understanding of the dynamic is training in the workplace, it seems that the ADDIE model is a good place to begin. The ADDIE Instructional System Design (ISD) model seeks to not simply aid in design and implementation, but the evaluation of training programs and their progress as well. The process - Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation – in theory, takes place in linear fashion and has been criticised as a result. It was van Merriёnboer (1997) who stated that although ADDIE is linear in nature, its elements are interrelated. This connection allows for tasks to be performed in an interactive manner. The flexibility of the model therefore is one of its better characteristics. Understanding the key concepts of the model is important, as this could mean the difference between success and failure of a training program. Carrying out an analysis may be tedious, but doing is likely to yield a better result than simply designing and implementing a program based on a feeling that a particular type of training is necessary for employees. Since the elements of ADDIE are interconnected, it may not be necessary to follow each phase in the order of the acronym. Analysis and design may be followed by evaluation if there are issues which need to be addressed prior to implementation. Additional evaluation will take place in an effort to ensure that the system is performing in a satisfactory manner.
An issue that appears to be a recurring theme in the articles provided is the fact that the model may be in need of updating. The development of this new model as suggested by one of the authors would ideally include some way of incorporating new technology into the ways in which information is disseminated. Ensuring that there are relevant ways of introducing learning methods would aid in reaching a wider audience.
The following critiques have been levelled against ADDIE with responses to each accusation:
ADDIE does not provide instructional solutions in a timely or efficient manner – this is true if the user fails to understand and implement other models which may be a better fit for a given situation.
ADDIE does not take advantage of digital technologies that would allow for a less linear approach – van Merriënboer’s research indicates that the US Armed Forces supported the model because of its agile and interactive qualities.
Perhaps it is time to formalise ADDIE, rather than work with a systems that has been critiqued for its lack of evidence. The fact that the model, which was created for the Center for Educational Technology, has existed since 1975 and was eventually adapted to fit the needs of the US Armed Forces (Branson et al. 1975, Watson, 1981) is an indication of the resilience of the concept. Rather than taking the time to discredit the model, its framework ought to be reconsidered if anything and improved upon, rather than killed off as the articles suggest.
References
van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1997). Training Complex Cognitive Skills: A Four-Component Instructional Design Model for Technical Training. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications
Fry, Sue; Grebow, David (2012). ADDIE Must Die.
https://knowledgestarblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/addie-must-die/
Desire you have addressed the criticisms and made a case for why you see Arddie as having worth. You can also review what others have written to see whether there is anything you may have missed.
DeleteDionne Fournillier
ReplyDeleteThe ADDIE model has stood the test of time through much criticism about its linear approach to instructional design. The skeptics and the naysayers have deemed the process slow and archaic for the modern world of business. However, the model is still one of the most commonly and widely used as it provides a great deal of flexibility and is easy to follow. It is even safe to say that most instructional design models are based in one way or another on the ADDIE model. The starting point for moving from training to improving workplace performance is adherence to the ADDIE model (Chevalier2011). Though theories provide the foundation for solid learning design, instructional design methods provide the framework. The linearity of the model affords instructional designers the opportunity to go back and tweak or strengthen individual phases of the model as they see fit as being systematic prevents unnecessary mistakes. This in turn would cause a ripple effect as the other phases would also be affected.
ADDIE isn’t dead just evolving and much of the modern day literature tells just how this has occurred. I stumbled upon a blog post by Jay Lambert, where he believed that ADDIE has now evolved into DADDIE. The first D now representing ‘Define’. Mr. Lambert purports that we ought to stop looking at training as a single point in time and rather view learning as never-ending. He believes that once Evaluation phase has reached its completion, that data should go right back into Define and further Analysis. This fosters continuous improvement of learning initiatives which can now be used to address the next most critical need of the organization.
I also turned my attention to a book review for the book entitled Leaving ADDIE for SAM by Micheal Allen with Richard Sites. The author believes the ADDIE model creates programmes which produce dismal results at its best. He purported the Successive Approximation Model (SAM) would challenge instructional designers to think about the limitations and challenges of such a linear process. The SAM process cycles through three iterations, evaluation/analysis, design, and development which affords teams the ability to create and refine prototypes along the way. Ideas and assumptions are discussed and tested early, thus allowing for relatively quick development of a usable product after only a couple of iterations. It is clear to see that ADDIE is alive and well as almost every model that surfaces to denounce its relevance draws upon some element of the model in justifying its own existence.
References:
•Chevalier, Roger D.
Performance Improvement. Jul2011, Vol. 50 Issue 6, p10-14. 5p
•Gallagher, Jade
Training & Development (1839-8561). Apr2012, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p24-25. 2p
•Valiathan, Purnima
Training Journal. Mar2010, p74-74. 1p
•http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1012/book-review-leaving-addie-for-sam-by-michael-allen-with-richard-sites
•http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1012/book-review-leaving-addie-for-sam-by-michael-allen-with-richard-sites
Good bringing in additional support for your arguments. I like especially your reference to SAM. You could have added some of your own perspective on SAM as opposed to ARDDIE to give your response that additional punch!
DeleteGiven the origins and the original use of ADDIE in a military setting, over the years organisations adapted its principle and made it applicable to their context. In 2008 Ruark stressed on the importance of research as he explained that research gives us accountability.ADDIE evolved to add "R" for Research which went hand in hand with the "A" Analysis aspect of A(R)DDIE. I am totally not disagreeing with comments made about ADDIE and its linear approach which one disadvantage to this approach can be the great amount of time taken at each step i am standing by the model and saying that it is necessary that this linear approach is used. Because each step relies on the other before it can begin this ensures great validity, reliability and credibility of the process and rationale for what takes place at the next step. It creates a seamless flow taking into consideration that every aspect of the model is critical and depends on each other for success - (A) Analysis (D) Design (D) Development (I) Implementation (E) Evaluation . As with most models or frameworks that we use there will be pros and cons and it is important to determine if the use of the model for your context shows up more cons than pros before you proceed. So with this being stated I am of the belief that ADDIE isn't entirely worthless and in some cases and contexts it may seem less worthy than others.
ReplyDeleteAddison I think there is so much more you can add to your argument for ARDDIE. Review some of the posts by your classmates and see some of the additional points being made.
DeleteDMS posted earlier today and it was lost so I am re-posting on her behalf now:
ReplyDelete__________
Based on what was written in the two articles, one may assume that both writer's are questioning the legitimacy and relevance of the ADDIE model in the context of today's instructional design environment.
As recent as July 2015, Justin Ferriman, CEO of LearnDash, cited the ATD's info-graphic titled "Skills, Challenges and Trends in Instructional Design" in which ADDIE was highlighted as "...One of the top 3 most often used design models...". Whilst, it is believed in several schools of thought that ADDIE may not be applicable today, one may assume that an internationally recognized organization such as the ATD would have conducted some level of research prior to publishing this info-graphic, and as such, the the organization would have done so based on reliable and valid data, vis a vis, empirical data.
Additionally, Bates 2014 articulated that the ADDIE model offers practitioners the opportunity to use a framework that it is a model that facilitates "...design principles to be identified and implemented on a systematic and thorough basis...". Also, Bates 2014 suggested that the ADDIE model can be used simultaneously to develop many courses that are of a high quality, most of which are e-learning oriented.
Likewise, information found on the Big Dog and Little Dog's Juxtaposition Performance website, indicated that ADDIE "...provides a means for sound decision making in order to determine the who, what, when, where, why, and how of a learning program."
Consequently, it is believed that several factors should be considered when selecting a model or framework to conduct instructional design, including but not limited to objective of the training, audience, content to be delivered, time frame for delivery, type of training (e.g. academic, technical, professional), resources available, provisions for various learning styles (e.g. Kolb's), training media to be used etc. Thus, there are various options available to practitioners and as such, these individuals are not constrained to using ADDIE. Of equal importance is conducting relevant research to keep abreast of developments in the field of instructional design and training and development.
Further to this and and similar to other models or frameworks developed over time, there have been changes to ADDIE such as the insertion of 'R' for research and a 'P' for planning. Consequently, this illustrates that amendments to the model are being made based on the recognition of the need for same thereby championing efforts to keep the model aligned to changes in the field of instructional design.
Ferriman, Justin. "Skills Instructional Designers Should Have." LearnDash. July 1, 2015. Accessed June 15, 2016. http://www.learndash.com/skills-instructional-designers-should-have/.
"Is the ADDIE Model Appropriate for Teaching in a Digital Age?" Tony Bates. Accessed June 15, 2016. http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/09/09/is-the-addie-model-appropriate-for-teaching-in-a-digital-age/.
"Why Instructional System Design and ADDIE." Colocation | Broadband Wireless | Dedicated Servers | Web Design & Development | DSL | Web Hosting | Infinity Internet. Accessed June 15, 2016. http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat1.html.
Kesha made the following post which I am not seeing here...
DeleteADDIE is not dead!
Although various writers and scholars have arguments for the ADDIE model not being relevant in this society I tend to disagree.
The ADDIE model like alot of models have been tailored and customized to suit the needs of each organisation.
ADDIE was born out of the Second World War and was developed from a systems design. The Open University in the United Kingdom heavily used ADDIE to manage the design of complex multi-media distance education courses. When the OU opened in 1971 with an initial intake of 20,000, it used radio, television, specially designed printed modules, text books, reproduced research articles in the form of selected readings that were mailed to students, and regional study groups, with teams of often 20 academics, media producers and technology support staff developing courses, and with delivery and learner support provided by an army of regional tutors and senior counsellors. Creating and delivering its first courses without systematic instructional design model would have been impossible, and in 2014, with over 200,000 students, the OU still employs a strong instructional design model based on ADDIE.
In today’s society distance education courses are becoming increasingly developed as online courses, but the ADDIE model continued, and is now being used by instructional designers in many institutions for the re-design of large lecture classes, hybrid learning, and for fully online courses.
Additionally, when one chooses an approach, framework or model in any situation one must weigh out the positives and negatives in order to choose the right fit. If the positives outweigh the negatives, then you choose that model since all models have their strengths and weaknesses. I am also of the belief that ADDIE being linear and systematic is important because it shows that each step builds on the other, and this can aid in validity as well as the credibility of the design chosen.
ADDIE although it was created or developed in the “traditional society” its relevance is still important in the modern world. Customising, tailoring and using the model to fit the needs of the organisation must be done because each organisation and its employees are different and require different needs, therefore no one model can work for all. ADDIE is important and crucial in instructional design and is here to stay even though continuous changes and development occurs; it builds on it, only making it better and workable to the organisation and its employees.
References:
"Is the ADDIE Model Appropriate for Teaching in a Digital Age?" Tony Bates. Accessed June 15, 2016. http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/09/09/is-the-addie-model-appropriate-for-teaching-in-a-digital-age/.
kesha it would be good for you to reflect on how you used the positives of ADDIE in your own planning for the development of a training programme!
DeleteThe ADDIE model created design or tailored training for effective learning. The ADDIE is an acronym; each letter represents a different phase in the design for learning. This acronym stands for: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation
ReplyDeleteADDIE is constructed in a sequential order, each phase is critical and it heavily dependent on each other. It is a continuous process of improvements and iterations and was designed to be flexible.
Some advantages and disadvantages of ADDIE:
1. commonly used and widely accepted model
2. proven to be effective for human learning
3. foundation for other learning models
4. easy to measure time and cost
Disadvantages of ADDIE:
1. rigid linear process that must be followed in order
2. time-consuming and costly
3. inflexible to adapt to unforeseen project changes
4. does not allow for iterative design
ADDIE is one of the most commonly used learning models. It is important because it provides a proven method for designing clear and effective training programs.
Many modern learning professionals claim that the ADDIE model is outdated due to its rigidity and linear process. Outdated or not, ADDIE is still one of the most popular learning models in corporate and higher education.
While the model was originally developed to be hierarchical, today it is often used with a continuous iterative approach. That means that the five phases are first followed in order. Once complete, the model can re-start from the analysis phase to continue improving the end product.
ADDIE is not a worthless model, it deems to be very effective, efficient and constructive. The ADDIE model will continue for a very long time. Changes in the economy, ADDIE will stand strong.
Thanks for commenting Celia. I note you said the model is "outdated". If you think it is not worthless do you still think it is outdated? Do you know of any adjustments people are making as they use it now? What would make it more current for you?
ReplyDelete