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.
I like were you are going here Peaches, ADDIE is much more of a framework. As for it being alive or dead, I think it is very much alive, but stagnant. When developing training programs, facilitations or any method of instruction, ADDIE is not the first thing people jump to as a model to follow. Most people look at other artifacts such as Kirkpatrick and Gagne's 9 Levels of Instruction to create a product that hits all of the steps of learning. It is many times that it is not until something is complete that you realized that ADDIE was involved throughout the entire process. When you stimulate recall in Gagne's 9, you are analyzing what needs to be taught and what you have already learned to be able to incorporate it into your lesson. When you design a training program, you want to make sure you hit all the 4 levels of Kirkpatrick or pick which layers are mist important. when you develop the training program, you simply put everything you have found into the correct format, and then present what you have found and then evaluate the participants and see what has been learned of Gagne's 9. It is woven throughout everything we do, so in that form, it will never be dead, yet not alive and realized in everyday instructional creation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe ADDIE is very much alive in it's own right. Like Sarah and Chad both mentioned already, I too view it as operating as more of a framework. For example, in the articles by Ryan Watkins we just reviewed for our critique assignment, he references ADDIE in correlation to his performance improvement framework. There is also a strong correlation between ADDIE and Gagne's Nine Events of Instruction, where all of ADDIE's steps are followed, just in a much more detailed and applicable outline. The arguments against ADDIE I have stumbled upon essentially state ADDIE is too rigid in it's linear progression; resulting in an undesirably slow process. This is why I view ADDIE more as a framework than a model. The conceptual premise of ADDIE can serve as a blueprint for instructional design, performance improvement and much more in education and business. It's not necessarily meant to be followed step by step in every case, however, I view it as an optimal starting place.
ReplyDeleteReflecting on this post made me think that the Addie model sounds more like folklore than a valid framework; however, I agree with the previous posts that the Addie model is very much alive. Various course readings address and use the Addie model as a foundation for instructional design and training development. Although, as Sarah mentions, the Addie model is a bit dated and comes from a specific learning environment, it is applicable in training development and instructional design. The Addie model presents a simple plan on how to create training and design instruction. It was mentioned in class that the Addie model is more of a framework rather than a design. I am in agreement with this statement. Analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation certainly are sound steps when looking at design and development. The Addie model lives! On a side note, I noticed that one of my classmates from high school named her daughter Addie. Could this be popular new name for the millennial generation?
ReplyDeleteI definitely believe that ADDIE is still alive because even if there are more advanced versions of it today, many instructional design models are based on the simplistic principles of ADDIE, so at least in some form, it is still widely used. As Chad and Lauren mentioned, particularly as someone who chooses to use Gagne's 9 Events of Instruction when designing instruction myself, the ADDIE process is definitely influential in how I conduct the needs assessment in analyzing the root of the problem, and assists when designing whatever form of instruction I am going to implement to solve the problem.
ReplyDeleteAnd on Shana's final note, I have also noticed a trend of ladies I now naming their children Addie or other similar names, like Addaley. :)
From my personal experiences, I don't think any one person can determine whether or not A.D.D.I.E is alive or dead. From what I have learned thus far, I have come to the conclusion that frameworks including A.D.D.I.E are to be used on a situational basis. That being said, I personally think that using the A.D.D.I.E framework is a great starting place for those who are just getting their feet wet with creating instructional design. It may have been the way I was taught during my undergraduate years, but I have found that A.D.D.I.E is extremely applicable to several situations. Might there be better frameworks to use? Yes, but for a designer who has no idea where to start, I'd say that A.D.D.I.E could be very useful, and if it were indefinitely dead, that wouldn't be the case.
ReplyDeleteIf you CAREFULLY read Hannum's retrospective on ISD (assigned last week), you will see that ADDIE and ISD are one and the same. See below:
ReplyDelete"At some time during the last 30 years, someone used the first letter of each phone to coin the acronym ‘ADDIE’ to refer to the ISD model (Molenda, 2003). Molenda was not able to identify the origin of the term ‘ADDIE’ and to this day I still don’t know the origin of this term, but it did not emerge from the original ISD design team. Now it is much more common to hear people speak and write about the ADDIE model than the ISD model. Along with this, it’s much more common to see the model represented as five steps, what we had called five phases, rather than the original 19 steps in the ISD model. Interestingly, the five-step ISD model, that is, the widely known ADDIE model, predates the ISD model developed for the Join Chiefs of Staff by Florida State University. The Air Force had previously developed an ISD model with essentially these five steps and published this as AFM 50-2 in 1970. This work within the Air Force, as well as similar work with the Army, Navy, and Marines, informed our work as we were creating the ISD model for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
As Zemke and Rossett (2002) suggest, technology has had an undeniable influence on training, but it has not rendered ISD obsolete. In order for organizations to offer quality technology-based training, an ISD process remains essential. If anything, technology has made attention to an ISD process more important, since when providing training through some technology, there often is not a highly-skilled instructor on the spot interacting with learners to correct any problems in the training design… Rather than eliminating the need for ISD, in many ways technology has made ISD even more essential."
I agree with you Sarah that ADDIE is still alive and is more of an idea, or base, than concrete steps a person or company must follow. You bring up a great point that if you look through old textbooks or encyclopedias you won’t find the ADDIE model in any of them; however, I’m sure that if you search enough you will see the same ideas the model stresses, but they might not be clearly stated. Like others above me have mentioned, the ADDIE model seems a bit dated, but I think it is still a good place to start. I’m new to instructional design, so if I encounter a situation that requires it, I will probably be looking to the ADDIE model for guidance to provide me with a framework.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Sarah that ADDIE is still alive and is more of an idea, or base, than concrete steps a person or company must follow. You bring up a great point that if you look through old textbooks or encyclopedias you won’t find the ADDIE model in any of them; however, I’m sure that if you search enough you will see the same ideas the model stresses, but they might not be clearly stated. Like others above me have mentioned, the ADDIE model seems a bit dated, but I think it is still a good place to start. I’m new to instructional design, so if I encounter a situation that requires it, I will probably be looking to the ADDIE model for guidance to provide me with a framework.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the concept that ADDIE is a framework. I believe the confusion comes into play because ADDIE was never specifically defined. To me, it seems as though ADDIE is the basis for a lot of Intructional Design models. When I look to solve a problem or re-evaluate something, I start off with ADDIE and then I incorporate other concepts to help support my area of focus. I believe these other models are simply a derrivative of ADDIE becasue they all share common things. ADDIE to me serves as the basis for what you need whereas defined models tend to take these concepts and go more into depth with them. With that being said, I think ADDIE is very much alive but often times goes unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteWhile “In search of the elusive ADDIE model,” a professor at Indiana University states, “I am satisfied at this point to conclude that the ADDIE Model is merely a colloquial term used to describe a systematic approach to instructional development, virtually synonymous with instructional systems development (ISD)” (Molenda, 2003, p. 1). As Dr. Wilcox stated, ADDIE and ISD are one in the same. Instructional systems development requires a systematic process to effectively create instruction and ADDIE is a systematic approach to instruction. Molenda (2003) suggests everyone can agree that ADDIE is an acronym of the processes that comprise the generic ISD process: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. I agree with a lot of the comments on this topic. ADDIE is still alive and will continue to be alive as long as instructional systems design is alive. Whether ADDIE is called a model, framework, colloquial term, term or even an acronym, ADDIE continues to provide the systematic approach that instructional systems design requires. Molenda (2003) concludes, “What is emerging in the recent literature is a tendency to accept the ADDIE term as an umbrella term, and then to go on to elaborate more fully fleshed out models and narrative descriptions” (p. 3).
ReplyDeleteMolenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, May/June 2003, 1-3.
This website also provides a great overview of ADDIE as a systematic approach to ISD: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/sat.html.
From my perspective, I agree that ADDIE model is kind of a framework for any other models. Also, ADDIE is still alive, since those advanced kinds of models are based on the principles of ADDIE. Maybe ADDIE model is not the simplest one for designing instruction, but I agree with Amanda that it is essential for conducting the needs assessment. It provides me, as a new one in this field, more clear idea about the root of the problem and how to do in the instructional design step by step.
ReplyDeleteADDIE's methods are learning theory-based blueprints for creating a successful training tool. ADDIE is very much alive, but is it well? I noted Hannum and Morrison's (Ch 15) shared concern that in the current environment where technology and media reign, learning theory is often ignored or given too little attention in the rush to produce compelling (yet instructionally ineffective) results. Instructional designers now more than ever need to be informed and guided by learning theory, or risk being reduced to technologists and caught out when the product fails to deliver results. ADDIE allows the agility to coherently address a variety of audiences and learning needs, as well as the space for creative design work that incorporates technology and media as appropriate to the learning objectives.
ReplyDeleteJust want to say your article is astounding. The clarity in your post is simply spectacular and I can assume you are an expert on this field. Thanks a million and please keep up the fabulous work.Instructional Design ADDIE
ReplyDelete