Is ADDIE still a relevant learning design model? (Photo credit to Pixabay user kreatikar. CC0 1.0- Public Domain)
It’s our first week in LRNT524 – Innovation, Design, and Learning Environments in the RRU MALAT Program. Our first task is to review some readings on the ADDIE design model in the context of designing learning. Bates (2014) describes ADDIE thoroughly, breaking down the steps of Analysis, Design, Develop, Implement and Evaluate. ADDIE seems thorough, and aside from being noted by Bates (2014) as perhaps lacking an initial preparatory step, the model has appeared to be a sound foundation for design for many years.
Bates states that ADDIE “…is a design model used by many professional instructional designers for technology-based teaching” (2014, para 8). Right there I feel internal conflict. Am I using ADDIE to design instruction or to design learning? This concern resonates through some known critiques of ADDIE, particularly on the Constructivist front, where social effects on learning are always in our consciousness. Through Constructivist thinking, learners create meaning as they internally reflect, measure information against their current thinking and cognitively process those thoughts. (Bates, 2015). A focus on instruction and content delivery will not likely support this higher level, social thinking process.
In the ADDIE model, learners appear to be considered on the front end through the Analysis stage. This is where we would observe their characteristics and consider any of their prior knowledge (Bates, 2104). I question whether this all we need to know about our learners. What about design empathy? Current design-thinking models like Stanford’s d.school model (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016) begin their design process with deep empathy and immersion in the perspective of the end-user, with constant feedback from users on prototypes during creation cycles. ADDIE considers our learners again in the back-end evaluation stage but this is far too late in the process to make redirections in design. Bates describes ADDIE as linear in nature and as being best for large, complex projects (2014). For me, ADDIE’s linear flow feels ‘heavy’ and almost inconsiderate through the lens of learner-centered thinking, much like trying to turn a cruise ship away from a storm, while the sailboat next to you is able to redirect almost immediately.
According to Bates (2014) ADDIE’s history has roots in the second world war and has been used by the UK’s Open University since 1971. ADDIE has a proven track record of successes within learning design; however, consideration in learning design model may also benefit from an iterative process. Thomas (2010) supports that both learning and instructional design are experiencing a shift from instructivist to constructivist pedagogies, yet he also reminds us that one single learning theory in our design is not likely sufficient. Thomas (2010) offers that 21st century learning design will require models that allow focus on acquisition, evaluation, and synthesis of knowledge through collaborative practices and in broad social contexts. Our teaching experiences, knowledge of learning theory, and current awareness of digital learning environments can be used to inform our choices in learning design, while a focus on design theory will allow us the empathy to maximize learner experience and engagement. Perhaps it is time to consider ADDIE version 2.0.
Christy
References:
Bates, T. (2014, September 9). [Blog post]
Bates, A. W. (2015). . BC Campus.
Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). A virtual crash course in design thinking.
Thomas, P. Y. (2010).. In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment at the University of Botswana. (Doctoral dissertation).
November 18, 2018
Thank you for your well-rounded perspectives regarding ADDIE as seen by Bates. I’m wondering in which ways did you find ADDIE lacking an initial preparatory step? It seems to me that the “A” phase (Analysis) is extremely thorough (or is supposed to be) in order to inform the “D” (Design) and “I” (Implement). I know this is what Bates implied as well but he contradicts further in his analysis by noting that ADDIE considers learners prior knowledge, the learning context, learner profiles, etc. He also states that “it does not provide guidance on how to make decisions within that framework” (Bates, 2014, p.3). What I mean by this is that if you had learners with particular needs in your courses and wanted to provide them with different prompts to facilitate their learning process, you’d adjust your teaching style accordingly as per a learning theory. This is to say that the ADDIE model is a process framework, it’s not dictating how facilitation is to be conducted. For example, I would suggest using “Gagne’s nine events of instruction” (Thomas, 2010, p. 193) to inform your facilitation strategy.
References
Bates, T. (2014, September 9). Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in a digital age? [Blog post]
Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and instructional systems design. In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment at the University of Botswana. (Doctoral dissertation).
November 18, 2018
Hi Dino. Thanks for the comments and questions.
You are asking how I feel that ADDIE is lacking a preparatory step. Comments by Bates (2014) had me thinking about a more comprehensive preparatory step after his mention of a PADDIE being a variation of the ADDIE design model. In the analysis phase, the infographic on Bates’ article (2014) supports that the learner profile is developed, learner spaces and devices are identified, learning resources are researched, and delivery and assessment strategies are determined. My desire for a more thorough consideration in preparation comes from something beyond just analysis. My thoughts are that there should be a process of empathizing with the intended learners such as in Stanford’s d.school design thinking model (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016). In this step, I would encourage observation of learners in similar learning environments, interactions or interviews with those learners, and an immersion as the learning designer so that I am experiencing what they are experiencing. Stanford’s d.school supports that this allows a fresh perspective for the designer and the ability to see which users you are truly designing for. This process would then support my choice to design the most appropriate, supportive, and perhaps creative learning environment possible for my users.
I have sifted through Thomas’ work on learning and instructional systems design and read through Gagne’s Nine events of instruction. I found those events not to be supportive of a redirection in design cycle or a facilitation strategy but yet another method of designing instruction – not designing learning. Gagne’s events are thorough, yet prescriptive. I would welcome your ideas on how his framework could inform you in learning facilitation
The closest model I have found that I might use for facilitation are the seven learning design principles of Community of Inquiry (Thomas, 2010). These seven principles include establishing open communication and trust, critical reflection and discourse, collaborative communication, and supporting increased learner responsibility among other strategies to increase social presence in learning.
Christy
References:
Bates, T. (2014, September 9). Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in a digital age? [Blog post]
Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). A virtual crash course in design thinking.
Thomas, P. Y. (2010). Learning and instructional systems design. In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment at the University of Botswana. (Doctoral dissertation).