Is ADDIE dead? pt 2

To add to the discussion already happening I'd like to suggest a newer "model". This model is the Successive Approximation Model or the SAM. Allen (2012) suggests that the model works well because it doesn’t have the traditional step-by-step requirements that the ADDIE framework has. Even though this is a major plus for the SAM it doesn’t make it a foolproof model. Nelbert (2012) states that even though the model works well for some designs, if a work is refined too early in the SAM process you could be caught in a perpetual cycle with the model. In the work titled, Leaving ADDIE for SAM, Allen (2012) suggests steps for design models that are all met by SAM:

1.  The Process Must Be Iterative

Development done in small steps with frequent early evaluation allows for changes that can be modified or reversed at a time when changes cost the least.

2.  The Process Must Support Collaboration

Project teams that collaborate effectively take advantage of the ideas, opinions, experiences, and knowledge of team members, while avoiding bureaucracy and indecision through clear role definitions, decision-making, documentation, and process flows.

3.  The Process Must Be Efficient and Effective

Recognize that no project is perfect, outline where energy and resources should be focused and produce usable projects as quickly as possible.

4.  The Process Must Be Manageable

A manageable process allows for the completion of projects on time and on budget with a product that meets established quality criteria. (Nelbert, 2012)

In essence, ADDIE is dead because it was never really alive to begin with. Calling ADDIE a model is like calling a cucumber a pickle. It kinda looks like a cucumber, and in some ways, it is a cucumber but in reality it isn’t a cucumber. It’s a pickle.

I have attached two images of the model for visual aids.

Alex

Allen, M. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model  for developing the best learning experiences. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

            Nelbert, J. (2012, Sept 19). Book review: Leaving addie for sam, by michael allen with richard             sites Learning Solutions Magazine, Retrieved from http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1012/

Is ADDIE dead?

Commonly referred to as a model, ADDIE is actually a framework or label that encompasses one of the most generic approaches to instructional design. According to the authors of Designing Effective Instruction, the stages of ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation) trace back to the instructional design model Florida State University developed for the United States armed forces in the mid-1970s: Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development (IPSID). The easiest way to describe IPSID is by its five top-level headings: Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Control (ADDIC) (Morrison, Ross, Kalman & Kemp, 2011).

Now that you have read my very brief “history” of ADDIE, lets attempt to answer question, is ADDIE dead or alive? But first, let me ask you this: was ADDIE ever alive? Search existing textbooks, dictionaries and encyclopedias for instructional design, education or training, and you will not find ADDIE in any of them (Molenda, 2003). Not being able to pinpoint exactly who created this leaves everyone to conclude that ADDIE was never a pronounced model, but a process that developed and grew in popularity overtime, through oral tradition.

Even if ADDIE is some insubstantial thing that developed overtime, I believe it is still alive. ADDIE is often used today by many developers as a framework for instructional design, because ADDIE is describe as being a good, holistic overview of the instructional design process. However, ADDIE’s simplistic nature has been criticized and expanded upon by current day designers, looking to create models that are more applicable to a real world environment (Crawford, 2004). Nonetheless, the ADDIE model is at the heart of instructional design and that is why I believe it is still alive. What do you think?

Sarah Peachey

Works Cited

Crawford, Caroline. "Non-linear Instructional Design Model: Eternal, Synergistic Design and Development." British Journal of Educational Technology 35.4 (2004): 413-20. Web. 27 Jan. 2013. <http://bit.ly/14lj3qG>.

Molenda, Michael. "In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model." Performance Improvement (2003): 1-4. Web. 27 Jan. 2013. <http://bit.ly/cihz8i>.

Morrison, Gary R., Steven M. Ross, Howard K. Kalman, and Jerrold E. Kemp. Designing Effective Instruction. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011. Print.

What is Instructional Design?

Contributed by Amanda Dudley and Kaylea Algire

After reviewing the materials for Unit One, gamification represents the emergence of highly complex, intelligent behavior.  Instructional design gets at the heart of reaching learners where they are instead of following a prescribed list of steps.  This is where gamification comes in—the topic of gamification came up several times in this week’s reading about instructional design.  According to Sims and Koszalka (2008) instructional design “means appreciating that interactions between elements in the system can lead to the emergence of highly complex, intelligent behavior” (570).  According to this TedTalk, gamification is the “process of using game thinking and game mechanics to engage audiences and solve problems.” 

The video is seventeen minutes long, but it’s worth it.  The video focuses primarily on K-12 education, but this is the environment that new Instructional Designers should be aware of in the marketplace.  What do you think this looks like in adult education?  Will the transition be towards simulations and games that incentivize learning, fun?

This TedTalk also poses the idea that because our generation’s main form of entertainment is video games, that is makes the real world seem slow and uninteresting to today’s children. Do you agree or disagree with this idea, why or why not?

Have you had any experiences, positive or negative, with gamification of traditional learning environments?