I have been working in the field of web development for the last 12 years, but the field of Instructional Design (ID) is completely new to me. But I’m surprised at the degree to which the two fields have developed independently, despite the fact that their is significant overlap in their technology and methods.
A telling example is the ADDIE model which stands for analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. What’s interesting is that Tony Bates (2014) considers that the model is too restrictive. Where I disagree with Bates is that the ADDIE model does not define scope. Rather, it’s a process that is inherent in any design process. The build phase must be preceded by a design phase, and a design phase should be preceded by a research phase. The fact that specifications dictated by the design may need to be revisited doesn’t mean that the model is too strict. Rather, it means that the interpretation of how the model is implemented may in some cases be limited.
This mirrors a consideration in web development that led to the Agile approach. The concern is that the underlying technology evolves so quickly, and is of a degree of complexity that some consider it unwise to determine specifications with too high a level of detail at the outset. Agile therefore proposes that development takes place iteratively, with open-ended scope, to allow the specifications to be determined and adjusted over time.
A similar approach is mentioned in Thomas (2010), called Rapid Prototyping, which “focuses on continual or formative feedback” (p. 191). Thomas (2010) cites Winn (1997), who maintained that “the activities of the instructional designer need to take place at the time the student is working with the instructional material.” Winn (1997) adds that Instructional Design decisions should be made ready to adapt to the student’s involvement in the learning process. This design approach, noted Thomas (201), has at time been proposed as a way to improve the generic ADDIE model, with the intent of creating instruction for a specific lesson, as opposed to an entire curriculum.
Bates, T. (2014, September 9). [Blog post]
Thomas, P. Y. (2010). . In Towards developing a web-based blended learning environment at the University of Botswana. (Doctoral dissertation).
Great post David! I was intrigued by your application of agile project management to instructional design. It is a great example of how we can look at building relevant courses in a rapidly changing environment. I do, however, think that kind of approach would mean major changes in how many institutions currently approach instructional design. At my institution, program and course design are always complete before the course is delivered and the professor (who may or may not be the course designer) has little flexibility to make changes. Moving to a more agile instructional design process would mean that the professor would have to be more involved in the development throughout and after the course. One concern I have with a more agile approach is how to guarantee the quality and relevance of courses. Mapping out our courses and programs ahead of time ensures that they meet all the pre-defined objectives. It also ensures that any laddering, and overlap between courses can be more easily managed. Do you have any suggestions or wisdom from the design world to address these quality concerns?
Excellent observations Jessica. And thanks for responding! I think the key is recognizing the role of analysis and testing. ADDIE should be a cycle. ADDIE ends with “evaluation,” which presumably would be based on real-world testing, which should take the cycle back to the beginning, providing data that is analyzed to improve the product, adjust design, and then implement adjustments. As in all projects though, there are external constraints like time, budget and cost. It sounds like it would be an interesting opportunity in your situation to implement some degree of an agile approach. I think it would be a matter of setting up a plan of how to proceed, which would include considerations for toterable costs, available resources, and then of course weighed against the potential benefits.