Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

The Great ADDIE Debate

27 March 2010 by Clark 6 Comments

At the eLearning Guild’s Learning Solutions conference this week, Jean Marripodi convinced Steve Acheson and myself to host a debate on the viability of ADDIE in her ID Zone.   While both of us can see both sides of ADDIE, Steve uses it, so I was left to take the contrary (aligning well to my ‘genial malcontent’ nature).

This was not a serious debate, in the model of the Oxford Debating Society or anything, but instead we’d agreed that we were going to go for controversy and fun in equal measures.   This was about making an entertaining and informative event, not a scientific exploration.   And in that, I think we succeeded (you can review the tweet stream from attendees and some subsequent conversation).   Rather than recap the debate (Gina Minks has a short piece in her overall summary of the day), I’ll recap the points:

The pros:

  • ADDIE provides structured guidance for design
  • ADDIE includes a focus on implementation and evaluation
  • ADDIE serves as a valuable checklist to complement our idiosyncratic design habits

The cons:

  • ADDIE is inherently a waterfall model, and needs patching to accommodate iterative development and rapid prototyping
  • People use ADDIE too much as a crutch for design without taking responsibility for using it appropriately
  • It assumes courses

The pragmatics:

Steve showed how he does take responsibility, putting evaluation in the middle and using it more flexibly. He uses Dick & Carey’s model to start with, ensuring that a course is the right solution.   The fact that the initial ‘course, job aid, other problem’ analysis is not included, however, is a concern.

It also came out that having a process is a powerful argument against those who might try to press unreasonable production constraints on you.   If a VP wants it done in an unreasonable time frame, or doesn’t want to allow you to question the analysis that a course is needed, you have a push back (“it’s in our process”), particularly in a process organization.   You do want a process.

The Alternatives:

The obvious question came up about what would be used in place of ADDIE.   I believe that ADDIE as a checklist would be a nice accompaniment to both a more encompassing   and a more learning-centric approach.   For the former, I showed the HPT model as a representation of a design approach considering courses as part of a larger picture.   For the latter, I suggested that a focus on learning experience design would be appropriate.

Using an HPT-like approach first, to ensure that a course is the right solution, is necessary.   Then, I’d focus on working backwards from the needed change (Michael Allen talked about using sketches as lightweight prototypes at the conference, and first drawing the last activity the user engaged in) thinking about creating a learning experience that develops the learner’s capability.   Finally, I’d be inclined to use ADDIE as a checklist to ensure all the important components are considered, once I’d drafted an initial design (or several).   ADDIE certainly may be useful in taking that design forward, through development, implementation and evaluation.

Summary

I think ADDIE falls apart most in the initial analysis, not being broad enough, and in the design process: e.g. most ID processes neglect the emotional side of the equation, despite the availability of Keller’s ARCS model (which wasn’t even in the TIP database!).   Good users, like Steve, take responsibility for reframing it practically, but I’m not confident that even a majority of ADDIE use is so enabled.   Consequently, I worry that ADDIE is more detrimental than good.   It ensures the minimum, but it essentially prevents inspiration.

I’m willing to be wrong, but I’ve been looking at the debate on both sides for a long time.   While I know that PowerPoint doesn’t kill people, people kill people, and the same is true of ADDIE, the continued reliance on it is problematic.   We probably need a replacement, one that starts with a broader analysis, and then provides guidance across job aid development, course development and more, that has at core iterative and situated design, informed by the recognition of the emotional nature of human use.   Anyone have one to hand?   Thoughts on the above?

Comments

  1. dr2 says

    28 March 2010 at 9:02 AM

    I was taught to use an HPT approach as part of ADDIE (with evaluation at each stage) and to consider affective domains when designing objectives (part of addressing motivational issues). My thought is that ADDIE is being misapplied (i.e., the analysis phase at least) when it doesn’t take into account the broader picture of whether courses are even necessary. I don’t see that ADDIE excludes learning experience design.

    The argument that ADDIE implies a linear approach and needs to be modified to accommodate rapid prototyping seems to me a strange one (in practice, necessity may require that you do some stages in parallel or in a much shortened manner than ideal but that’s just life in the biz world). I’m just curious where in the original literature, ADDIE came to be described as a linear model…the mnemonic itself is linear but as for the theory…I bet if you could find an original article describing ADDIE, you wouldn’t see that suggestion.

    So I guess I don’t see a need for a replacement just a better understanding that ADDIE is more fluid than people are saying and like any model can be integrated with other models.

  2. Stephen J. Gill says

    29 March 2010 at 7:04 AM

    I weighed in on this debate in a blog post last September: http://stephenjgill.typepad.com/performance_improvement_b/2009/09/addie-is-alive.html Essentially, I agree with you, Clark, that ADDIE can be a useful checklist once you have decided that a training course is the solution, but not until then. I’ve seen too many cases where trainers and instructional designers have jumped to ADDIE before they have clarified the business goals and organizational learning needs. I like to start with a broader model (i.e. Success Map) that requires alignment among the organization’s strategic goals, short-term goals, unit or team performance to achieve those goals, intended on-the-job behaviors, and the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs employees need in order to achieve strategic business goals.

  3. Allison Rossett says

    29 March 2010 at 6:31 PM

    Wonderful things have been written on this subject by the late great Ron Zemke.

    ADDIE or ISD is no one thing in practice. There are almost as many iterations as there are practitioners.

    Some see ISD as procedural, rigorous, characterized by one box each for analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation, with arrows linking the boxes and dependable steps directing what to do and in what order. Others see it differently. They emphasize what goes on within the boxes, inclining towards a more heuristic approach (Clark’s checklists), with rules of thumb considered as the process moves forward. In the former, instructional design is a favorite recipe. In the latter, it’s about continuous tasting, guided by a mental model derived from the literature, data, and past successes.

    Here is what gives ADDIE its addie-ness:

    • There is purpose and defined process. Even though everybody does not see it the same way, most agree that data enlightens decision and output from one phase serves as input for subsequent actions and decisions.
    • Theory drives practice. There are reasons for the decisions that are made, and those decisions are based on the literature and best practices regarding learning, communications, technology and culture. Today we look at web usability studies and examples to guide decisions about interfaces for online learning.
    • Data direct decisions. Instructional designers make decisions based on data from many sources, including clients, job incumbents, the literature, work products, and error rates. Data focus the instructional designer’s attention, and educates the customer.
    • Causes count. Once the mission is defined, instructional designers want to know why? Why are appraisal forms flawed? Is it that they don’t know how or that they don’t think it’s worth doing or that doing it results in a hassle? Why does the group in Belgium do it, when the group in Boston doesn’t? Solutions are systems and are born of information about causes and drivers.
    • Instruction is good, but not sufficient. Wise instructional designers ask questions about causes in order to use instructional resources where they can do the most good. Instruction is only one thing we can do to develop and enhance performance.
    • Outcomes are king. While there is disagreement from constructivists about how very royal outcomes are, most instructional designers subscribe to the importance of defining what participants will be able to do as a result of the learning experiences.

  4. Hanno Jarvet says

    16 April 2010 at 8:32 AM

    Thank you very much for an insightful summary. As you know there is a similar debate within the IT world between the old waterfall model (defined methods) and the agile model (empirical methods). PMI in one corner and the Agile Alliance in the other. It is very interesting to observe how the two similar conversations are held in both camps.

Trackbacks

  1. March 2010 Informal Learning Hotlist says:
    3 April 2010 at 1:01 AM

    […] The Great ADDIE Debate- Learnlets, March 27, 2010 […]

  2. Harold Jarche » HPT and ISD says:
    15 April 2010 at 9:17 AM

    […] Quinn discussed the Great ADDIE Debate and summarized the alternatives to exclusively using ADDIE (analysis, design, development, […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

Blogroll

  • Charles Jennings
  • Christy Tucker
  • Connie Malamed
  • Dave's Whiteboard
  • Donald Clark's Plan B
  • Donald Taylor
  • Harold Jarche
  • Julie Dirksen
  • Kevin Thorn
  • Mark Britz
  • Mirjam Neelen & Paul Kirschner
  • Stephen Downes' Half an Hour

License

Previous Posts

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.