Good ol’ ADDIE

I’m already familiar with ADDIE model, but I’ve never considered it through the eyes of a learner – until now. In his article, Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in the digital age? Bates (2014) provides a quick summary of the ADDIE instructional design model and explores its benefits and limitations. (If you aren’t familiar with ADDIE, it’s used to guide instructional designers through creating learning solutions. The acronym stands for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate.)

Since all of my work is in a business setting, I welcome Bates’ (2014) reference to ADDIE’s connection to corporate e-learning and training and can see how ADDIE would remain popular given its roots in behaviourism. In my experience, corporations have a strong preference for behavioural learning interventions (previous blog post).

I absolutely believe it’s important to address learner needs and characteristics when developing learning solutions, so I am surprised most of the benefits of ADDIE Bates mentions are for corporations or other entities; he doesn’t talk about any benefits for learners. In contrast, I have always thought the model does a great job of reflecting learner needs. The Analyze phase provides the foundation for all other phases, so even though the learner isn’t always mentioned explicitly, consideration for learners is still present.

One shortcoming I do find with the ADDIE model is that there is no link to performance support or follow up for learners after formal training is complete. Learners don’t stop learning once training is done, and learning transfer isn’t explicitly mentioned in ADDIE.

I’ve also found ADDIE is not entirely realistic. As Bates mentions, following ADDIE can be expensive and redundant. It’s not always possible to be as thorough as the ADDIE model requires. Budgetary requirements and time crunches often require combining steps or taking shortcuts rather than following each phase sequentially.  Depending on the size of the project, ADDIE doesn’t always make sense for my professional practice.

It is disappointing to have Bates criticize ADDIE without providing a new model for instructional designers to consider. I expected Bates to mention the Successive Approximation Model (SAM), at least in passing, because SAM seems to be replacing ADDIE in the business world. The model focuses on rapid prototyping and development, which addresses Bates concern that ADDIE is not flexible enough to address modern challenges.

References

Bates, T. (2014, September 9). Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in a digital age? [Blog post]