LRNT 524 Assignment 1: Critique of Design Models

Assignment 1: Critique of Design Models

This paper will provide a critical evaluation of two well-known instructional design models: the Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) model and the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) model. Through a concise examination of the origins, applications, and strengths and weaknesses of each model, it will be possible to see the value of these two different models and how they may be useful in a variety of technologically-focused educational contexts. 

The ADDIE Model

The Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) model is a well-known and frequently used model in the field of instructional design. There appears to be some uncertainty surrounding the specific origins of the ADDIE model. According to Bates (2015), ADDIE originated from system design during the Second World War, which was used to manage the tremendously complex Normandy landing operations. Molenda (2015) chronicled his efforts to unearth the origins of ADDIE and found that the underlying concepts can be traced back to the model developed for the American Armed forces in the mid-1970s. Regardless of the uncertainty of ADDIE’s origins, this model has become an instructional design standard. As Dousay (2017) argued, ADDIE’s Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate steps form the underlying process, whereas “a model is defined as a specific instance of a process that can be imitated or emulated” (para. 6). Thus, many adaptations of ADDIE can be found in the field of instructional design. 

ADDIE’s five steps are often used in a cyclical process in order to create learning materials, and can be used to design both traditional and online learning experiences (Shelton & Saltzman, 2006). Heaster-Ekholm (2020) argued that ADDIE’s content-centered nature, which focuses on the content to be learned, fits well with the objectivist view of learning. Bates (2015) described how ADDIE’s steps are utilized to design a learning experience starting with analyzing the learning environment, designing the learning objectives, materials and technology to be used, developing content, implementing course delivery, and finally, evaluating the course by collecting feedback and data. Each of these steps supports the notion that ADDIE is content-centred and objectivist in nature. Stefaniak and Xu (2020) pointed out that ADDIE is useful in a number of technology-mediated contexts including corporate e-learning and training, K-12 settings, and distance learning in higher education. 

A significant strength of the ADDIE model is that it is a useful tool for novice instructional designers or those struggling to transition from a traditional learning environment to a digital environment because it provides “a basic path for developing and teaching an online course” (Stefaniak & Xu, 2020, p. 24). ADDIE’s foundational place in the field of instructional design has made it a go-to model for designers in a number of industries. However, the ADDIE model is not free of weaknesses. Bates (2015) argued that ADDIE requires a significant amount of time and effort in the early phases of the cycle, but lacks adequate attention to the learner instructor interactions that occur in the delivery phase, which is also a criticism of those who subscribe to constructivism. Furthermore, although ADDIE’s steps allow for context-specific adaptations, the absence of details and guidelines makes it difficult to address learner diversity when utilizing the ADDIE model (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020).

Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) model emerged many years after ADDIE’s inception. The term Universal Design (UD) was originally applied to architectural projects in response to the passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 (Pisha & Coyne, 2001). UD aimed to improve accessibility for individuals with disabilities in public spaces with minimal additional cost. Many publicly accessible spaces in contemporary society feature elements of UD such as wheelchair ramps, sloped sidewalk corners, visual symbols and audible signals to indicate when it is safe to cross a road, and more. In 1984, a group of education researchers founded the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) with the aim of exploring how technology could be used to improve the educational experiences of students with disabilities (CAST, n.d.-a). Their work culminated in the creation of the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach, which has been revised to reflect the latest research in the field of education. (CAST, n.d.-b). 

Heaster-Ekholm (2020) outlined the three core principles of UDL: multiple means of engagement to target the areas of the brain responsible for learner inspiration and motivation, multiple means of representation to target the areas of the brain that make sense of what the learner can see, read, and hear, and multiple means of action and expression to target the areas of the brain that organize and communicate responses. UDL was influenced heavily by Vygotsky’s work in scaffolding and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (MCGuire-Schwartz & Arndt, 2007) and thus is learner-centred and constructivist in nature. Numerous researchers have noted that UDL is often applied to K-12 settings to address the diverse needs of younger learners (Coffman & Draper, 2021, MCGuire-Schwartz & Arndt, 2007). However, Rogers-Shaw et al., (2018) argued that although adult learners are increasingly exhibiting the same diversity and complexity, “the field of adult education, especially as it is lived out in the online context, has been ineffective in generating the widespread use of methods developed with epistemological diversity in mind” (p. 23), and further argued that UDL can be useful for addressing learner diversity in the field of adult education. 

A notable strength of UDL is its intentionality in addressing the cognitive, intellectual, cultural, and many other diverse needs of learners. Heaster-Ekholm (2020) compared the uniqueness of learners’ brains to the uniqueness of their fingerprints, and argued that UDL permits a shift from one-size-fits-all model of education to one that provides “ample means to engage with, represent, and demonstrate their knowledge” (p. 58). However, educational policies, implementation processes, and a priority focus on access, process, outcomes, or measurement “have led to increasing ambiguity in determining what UDL actually is, should be, and how it could be recognized in practice” (Hollingshead et al., 2020, p. 2). This ambiguity could potentially lead to inconsistencies in how UDL is taught to, and applied by, new instructional designers. 

While ADDIE and UDL differ in many ways, both can be effectively utilized by instructional designers to create rich and meaningful learning experiences in a variety of contexts. As technological innovation occurs at a rapidly increasing pace, the field of instructional design will undoubtedly continue to evolve as well. It would be advantageous for designers to have a thorough understanding of the history and development of instructional design to inform the selection of appropriate instructional design models. 

References

Bates, T. (2015). Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning:. BCcampus. 

CAST. (n.d.-a). Timeline of innovation. https://www.cast.org/impact/timeline-innovation 

CAST. (n.d.-b). The UDL Guidelines. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/?utm_source=castsite&lutm_medium=web&utm_campaign=none&utm_content=aboutudl 

Coffman, S., & Draper, C. (2021). Universal design for learning in higher education: a concept analysis. Teaching and Learning in Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2021.07.009  

Dousay. T. A. (2017). Chapter 22. Instructional Design Models. In R. West (Ed.), Foundations of Learning and Instructional Design Technology (1st ed.).

Heaster-Ekholm, K. L. (2020). Popular Instructional Design Models: Their Theoretical Roots and Cultural Considerations. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 16(3), 50–65.

Hollingshead, A., Lowrey, K. A., & Howery, K. (2020). Universal design for learning: when policy changes before evidence. Educational Policy, (20200819). https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820951120 

MCGuire-Schwartz, M. E., & Arndt, J. S. (2007). Transforming universal design for learning in early childhood teacher education from college classroom to early childhood classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28(2), 127–139.

Molenda, M. (2015). In search of the elusive addie model. Performance Improvement, 54(2), 40–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21461 

Pisha, B., & Coyne, P. (2001). Smart from the start: The promise of universal design for learning. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250102200402 

Rogers-Shaw, C., Carr-Chellman, D. J., & Choi, J. (2018). Universal design for learning: guidelines for accessible online instruction. Adult Learning, 29(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159517735530

Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2006). Using the ADDIE model for teaching online. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 2(3), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2006070102 

Stefaniak, J., & Xu, M. (2020). An examination of the systemic reach of instructional design models: a systematic review. Techtrends : Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning a Publication of the Association for Educational Communications & Technology, 64(5), 710–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00539-8