Sometimes a perceived advantage can be a disadvantage. In the story of David and Goliath, Goliath is an undefeated fearless giant war hero for the Philistines, who is defeated by a small agile Israeli boy, David.  This story is often told to encourage readers not to discount the underdog. In the case of instructional design, the Goliath is ADDIE – a long-established training program that is respected around the world. In comparison, microlearning is a new model that lacks the robust reputation and history of ADDIE. In this paper, I will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each model to demonstrate that sometimes a perceived disadvantage can be an advantage in a different context. This paper will discuss the background of each model, analyze strengths and weaknesses, and finally possible future application of these models.

ADDIE (analysis, design, develop, implement, and evaluate), originally called instructional system design (ISD), was developed by the US military in the 1940s as a training platform for new recruits. Later, in the 1970s, Florida State University’s Centre for Educational Technology further adapted this system engineering approach to solve workplace issues (Allen, 2006; Bates, 2015). Thus, by the 1980s, ADDIE became widespread, with over 100 different variations and often involving a complex team of experts (media, programming, designer, and instructors) to cope with advanced technologies and organizational demands (Allen, 2006; Giacomo & Breman, 2021). This model focuses on behavioral modification to meet performance outcomes (e.g., critical thinking skills) making it too narrowed in the current organizational context (Bates, 2015).

In contrast, microlearning is an emerging model that Hug (2007, as cited in Swertz & Meder, 2006) referred as “social-technical” (p. 56) and “web didactic” (p. 56). The microlearning model is a combination of diverse media and technologies, learning designs (problem-based learning and task-orientated learning), learning theories (constructivism and expansive learning), and systems (organizational, social, and cultural) (Dolasinski & Reynolds, 2020).  The microlearning is delivered in short bursts focused on skill development, increased competencies, or workplace upskilling (Hug, 2007).  Microlearning is considered pragmatic and innovative because it meets the learners’ needs in the current environment of rapid knowledge acquisition and views the user as the “prosumer” (Buchem & Hamelmann, 2010, p. 3). This model promotes exploration, creation, innovation, and production of learning from a learner-centred approach, which makes it more appealing to younger learners (Buchem & Hamelmann, 2010).

Both models have advantages and disadvantages related to their application in organizational contexts, resource load, and learning outcomes. ADDIE is considered credible, cost-efficient, in-depth, yet rigid. While microlearning is emerging, cost-effective, adaptable, yet inconsistent.

ADDIE is a universal, and popular framework for creating training programs in organizations.  ADDIE’s most valued contribution to learning design is its reliable and smart systemized process to design creative training modules that can address workplace performance gaps (Mayfield, 2011).  However, its predictive and systematic process has been generating the same classification of learning design tasks and learning outcomes for decades, questioning its relevance in contemporary workplaces (Giacumo & Breman, 2021). Specifically, the evaluation methods used during the analysis phase are too generic to create the knowledge necessary for developing customized learning, especially for less experienced instructors (Rafiq et al., 2019). Conversely, microlearning is more nuanced and able to adapt to suit individual work settings (e.g., shift work). However, it lacks standardization and according to Hug (2007), its versatility may muddle its significance. “If everything is microlearning, nothing of it is to be considered of special importance” (Hug, 2007, p. 18). Time will tell if microlearning can establish itself as well as ADDIE.

ADDIE is cost-efficient, when a large number of structured training content is produced (Bates, 2015).  However, the fervent use of ADDIE may have led to unnecessary larger and complex design projects involving specialists (e.g., faculty, instructional designers, editors), over time increasing the cost (Bates, 2015). Dolasinski and Reynolds (2020) argued that microlearning is cost-effective both in the content design and delivery.  A single instructional designer can develop chunks of content with minimal resources while learners absorb lessons on their own personal learning space (mobile, laptop).  Although, the design expenditure can increase when combined with another learning model that requires programming expertise, such as Mobile microlearning to engage learners on-the-go, on a case-by-case basis, microlearning is more cost-effective, especially for small organizations (Kamilali & Sofianopoulou, 2015).

ADDIE has an integral learner assessment and evaluation process. Unfortunately, since this model is standardized and broad, it often fails to acknowledge individual learner needs by prioritizing behavioral change over context or culture (Heaster-Ekholm, 2020). In contrast, microlearning is learner-centric and based on individual feedback and needs (De Gagne et al., 2019).  ADDIE programs are easier to evaluate and extract generalizable data, but may not capture individual nuances (Bates, 2015). Conversely, collective learner outcomes are hard to measure with microlearning, but feedback from individual learners is contextual.

Beyond ignoring individual differences, ADDIE is also criticized for its inflexibility. With the constant flex of the digital age, by the time an ADDIE program has been developed, the needs of the organization may have changed. Buchem and Hamelmann (2010) and Bates (2015) pointed out that new generations of workers, especially those born after the 1980s, do not engage in ADDIE type of training because of their limited attention span, their career interest, and the current fast-paced digital environment.

Despite their limitations, there is an opportunity to combine the best of ADDIE and microlearning.  Dolasinski and Reynolds (2020) illustrated this point when proposing their hybrid learning model for the hospitality industry with an adapted microlearning from ADDIE, but without its restrictions. Their discussion included the integration of the job performance process with microlearning to meet the needs of the hospitality competitive environment that is differentiated by quality service and guest experience.  More specifically to microlearning, I see this model as a better fit than ADDIE with small businesses because it is cost-effective and flexible (Messier, 2021).

In the end, the David and Goliath of instructional design in organizations have the potential to team up as per Dolasinski and Reynolds’ (2020) study.  Eventually, further research in various industries will prove the effectiveness of the microlearning model, an adapted ADDIE or a hybrid learning model, attesting that one model’s disadvantage can be an advantage in a different context.

References

Allen, W. C. (2006). Overview and evolution of the ADDIE training system. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8(4), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422306292942

Bates, T. (2015). Chapter 4.3 The ADDIE Model. In Teaching in the digital age. BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/

Buchem, I., & Hamelmann, H. (2010). Microlearning: a strategy for ongoing professional development (341323117). ResearchGate.       https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341323117_Microlearning_a_strategy_for_ongoing_professional_development

De Gagne, J.C., Park, H.K., Hall, K., Woodward, A., Yamane, S., & Kim, S.S. (2019). Microlearning in health professions education: Scoping review. JMIR Med Educ, 5(2). https://mededu.jmir.org/2019/2/e13997

Dolasinski, M. J., & Reynolds, J. (2020). Microlearning: A new learning model. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 44(3), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020901579

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. http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/viewarticle.php?id=2882

Hug, T. (2007). Didactics of microlearning. Waxmann Verlag.

Kamilali, D., & Sofianopoulou, C. (2015). Microlearning as Innovative Pedagogy for Mobile Learning in MOOCs(ED562442). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562442

Mayfield, M. (2011). Creating training and development programs: using the ADDIE method. Emerald insight, 25(3), 19-22. https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1108/14777281111125363

Messier, S. (2021, November 21).  To train, or not to train [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0225/

Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best.  Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12(3), 227-241.   https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/2074/.

Rafiq, K. R. M., Hashim, H., Yunus, M. Md., & Pazilah, F. N. (2019).  Developing a MOOC for communicative English: A battle of instructional designs. International Journal of Innovation, Creative and Change, 7(7), 29-39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337414726_Developing_a_MOOC_for_Communicative_English_A_Battle_of_Instructional_Designs/stats