According to the Allen interactions website of interactive design, instructional design has been described as, “The process by which instruction is improved through the analysis of learning needs and systematic development of learning materials. Instructional designers often use technology and multimedia as tools to enhance instruction.”
It is within this picture that the ADDIE model is viewed. The Florida State University is stated to have developed the ADDIE model 1975 in some literature, and though it is further confirmed by many others that the time around which the model came into existence was that period, the mid-70s dedicated research by Michael Molenda of the Indiana University in his report, “In Search of the Elusive ADDIE model” (2003)claims that, rather, as a matter of fact, ADDIE model “is merely a colloquial term used to describe a systematic approach of instructional development.” He asserts that the model does not have a particular developer and just evolved informally as it is an overall term covering a number of models which have procedural frameworks that are similar.
For the final model to come up, though, there are a number of stages through which the instructional design models went before they were finally recognized as such. The basic principles of ISD originated from the model which was used by the US army and developed by the Florida State University in the mid-70s and after successive improvements came to be called the IPISD (Branson, 1978). According to the findings of Molenda, although the principles used in ADDIE were already established long ago, it was referred to as the ISD model and not ADDIE in particular. The frequency with which instructional designers used the ADDIE procedure, as it was common in all the other ISDs, finally led them to start referring to ISD models generally as ADDIE models. (Molenda,2003).
ADDIE refers to the main procedures comprising the broad process of ISD employed by the developers of training and instructional designers. It has five main stages, i.e., Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. (Molenda,2003). The steps are sequential, and the results of one step are transferred to the next. During analysis, the designer gets to know what the learning problem is, the learning surrounding, what is already known and the specific requirements of the target audience, and also the timeline for delivery. At the design stage, learning goals are set, prototypes, and the contents are also developed here (Learning Theories, 2008). These are systematically followed with the development, implementation, and finally, the Evaluation.
Instructional design is also the methodological procedure that is used to produce regular and dependable teaching and educational programs; it is iterative and ingenious (Reiser and Dempsey, 2007). Simply put, it helps to establish the best ways of teaching different courses. ADDIE model, when used, due to its detailed nature, gets the learners to really get involved in the learning process. The main objective is to help the students get the best and fully realize their potential, and also meet the set standards of the curriculum through evaluations of the student’s needs, employing the best techniques with basis on proven theories. There are a number of theories of learning integrated with the ADDIE model. Behaviorism is rooted in the stimulus-response theory that …” a stimulus will cause a response either by pairing a response with a reflective trigger…; or rewarding a response in the presence of a stimulus….” Skinner’s operant conditioning applies to voluntary behavior, and its effect on ISD is due to the fact that behavior, i.e., learning, can be affected by altering some aspects of the environment. This is further entrenched by Skinner’s view on programmed instruction which has pre-set behavioral goals, guidelines, dynamic responses of the learner to set queries, self-assessment, and instant opinions with regard to particular responses. Skinner concludes that in such as case, the trainer can be rendered unnecessary with programmed learning materials. This is to the effect that the results attained in learning with the ADDIE model will be determined by the objectives set. Behaviorists are of the view that learning is an action that can be observed, can be repeated and results in behavior change (Reiser and Dempsey, 2007). Behaviorism has affected different educational sectors, e.g., systems approach and in ISD, the objectives of behaviorism are the task of learning, divided into unique tasks by analysis (Outsource2India Instructional Design, 2008). In this way, the learning can be controlled by the trainer by subjecting him/her to the objectives set by the instruction designer.
In philosophy, constructivism views knowledge as the product of experience mediated by an individual’s past understanding and the experiences of other people. Unlike the objectivists who agreed with a static reality that does not rely on human cognition, the constructivists state that we can only get to know a reality that corresponds to human thought. According to Duffy and Cunningham in their chapter on Constructivism and its implications for the design and delivery of Instruction, constructivism describes learning as “an active process of constructing rather than acquiring knowledge” and also that “instruction is a process of supporting that construction rather than communicating knowledge.”(Duffy and Cunningham). In Bruner’s view, constructivism is a theory of learning postulating that the experiences gained by an individual in the process of developing their own knowledge enable learners to develop a more comprehensive stable understanding of the issues by establishing their personal guidelines and frameworks for synthesizing the experiences. (Overbaugh, 2004).
According to Vygotsky’s social constructivism or the social development theory, which implies that society occupies a central place in the development of cognition, this is due to the belief that the community greatly helps in helping us understand meanings of issues.
Cognitivism asserts that learning is meant to solve problems and come up with hypothetical reasoning; by assimilating others and getting more new experiences through getting solutions for challenges and through equilibration, a learner’s intelligence increases (Driscoll, 2005). The rate and quantity of learning are dependent on the maturity of the learner and the new opportunities presented for learning. This gives the cognition instruction designer power to guide the learner by controlling the learning experiences and tasks for improving reasoning skills which are dependent on the particular set objectives and goals. When learners use the ADDIE model, it is found that its stages are dedicated to aiding the learners to attain the set performance results. The objective when training the learners is to ensure that they become relatively more effective in the tasks they perform. With the application of the highly methodological procedure in the development of instructions on the basis of particular, assessable objectives, the learners are able to have a particular and clear bearing in the process of instruction development, and when they finally realize the set objectives, the learners get a sense of achievement.
The trainers usually are charged with the task of transferring the instructional knowledge contents to the learners; it is also their responsibility to build up the contents for the learners. In this respect, it is imperative that they understand the intricacies of the functioning of the ADDIE model so as to have the capacity to create a comprehensive content of instruction. Due to the familiarity developed with the terms used by the instructional designers, the trainer becomes able to present, to the instructional designers, effectual pointers and opinions that can be used in advancing the features of the particular content of instruction the trainer is using.
The other instructional design models have more and cumbersome steps, but ADDIE has sort of compacted them into a comprehensive frame of five major steps (personal communication 2004). This makes it easier for the designers to use.
In spite of the widespread benefits of the ADDIE model, it still has some inherent limitations in the forms of criticisms from those who have had an experience with it. Gordon and Zemke suggest that the model is “ineffective and inefficient.” The implication of this is that its use does not guarantee the best results in terms of instructional solutions. This is in addition to the fact that it is one hell of a time consumer. According to Trip and Bichelmeyer, its efficiency with financial resources is also not favorable as its seen as expensive. Since the model has a rigid linear approach, it is also not viewed favorably technology-wise since its incapable of utilizing digital technology, which employs a less linear approach to instructional design. To cap it up, it was criticized by Rowland as not show the main tasks involved in instructional design (1993).
Due to its comprehensive and detailed requirements, when used in teams, many may only be able to little and not succeed in satisfying the important elements. It has been found that the ADDIE model does not take into account some vital political facts. In this regard, some good opportunities are missed, needed resources may not be provided, and as support is not provided, the set goals may shift (Allen Interactions, 2007 ). The other problem with this ADDIE model is that the detailed nature of its steps stifles creativity and renders it nonsensical. This is on top of the fact that in the process of the ADDIE model, there is no provision for addressing any problems or suggestions which may come through. This situation exists because the objectives for this model are to follow the set criteria in terms of time, cost and this does not allow for the identification of any inherent changes in the behavior of the learners (Allen Interactions, 2007).
Despite the criticism which has been directed at the ADDIE model, I still feel that the advantages that it has brought to the field of instructional design still far outweigh the demerits. To a big extent, it is more of a guideline that has hugely contributed to the unique development of the IDS field and, as such, becomes the central part of the whole procedure.
References
Barbara A. Bichelmeyer. The ADDIE Model” – A Metaphor for the Lack of Clarity in the field of IDT. Indiana University. 2008. Web.
B. F. Skinner – Behaviorism and Programmed Instruction – 1940s.
Branson, R. K. (1978). The Interservice Procedures For Instructional Systems Development. Educational Technology, 11-14.
Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of Meaning Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Pearson.
Gagne, R. M. (1965). The Conditions of Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The Attack on ISD. Training, 43-53.
Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000). The Attack on ISD. Training, 43-53. 2008. Web.
ADDIE Model. 2008. Web.
Martin Ryder. Handbook of Research on Technoethics. 2008. Web.
Michael Molenda. In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. Indiana University. 2003.
Rapid Interactive Design for E-Learning Certificate Program 2007 Allen Interactions. Web.
Reiser, R., & Dempsey, J. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Richard Overbaugh. An Overview of Jerome Brunner His Theory of Constructivism. 2004. Web.
Skinner, B.F. (1974) About Behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.