This Week You Learned About The Addie Model Of Instruction

1this Week You Learned About The Addie Model Of Instructional Design

This week you learned about the ADDIE model of instructional design. What step in the ADDIE process do you think is the most important and why? The training process model ADDIE is so ancient the details of its origin are obscured in the mists of time. It has become the basis for many other training process models. Name and describe another model based on ADDIE. If you have experience with a model derived from ADDIE, share your impression of its value or limitations. Try not to repeat a model already discussed by a classmate.

Paper For Above instruction

The ADDIE model of instructional design is a systematic framework that guides the development of effective training and educational programs. Comprising five phases—Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation—the model is widely used in instructional design due to its structured approach that ensures instructional goals align with learners' needs and organizational objectives (Molenda, 2003). Among these phases, the Evaluation stage is often regarded as the most critical because it provides the feedback necessary to assess the effectiveness of the instruction and informs continuous improvement (Richey et al., 2011). Without thorough evaluation, instructional designers lack insight into whether learning objectives have been met, which could lead to ineffective training sessions or missed opportunities for refinement. Therefore, evaluation acts as the quality control measure, ensuring that instructional products are effective, efficient, and aligned with desired outcomes. For instance, formative evaluation during each phase helps identify issues early, while summative evaluation at the end measures overall success, making evaluation vital for accountability and ongoing enhancement (Dick, Carey, & Carey, 2015).

A well-known model derived from the ADDIE framework is the SAM (Successive Approximation Model). SAM simplifies the traditional ADDIE process into iterative cycles of design, development, and evaluation, emphasizing rapid prototyping and frequent stakeholder involvement (Allen, 2013). The model consists of two main phases: Prepare and Iterate, allowing designers to develop prototypes quickly, gather feedback, and refine the instructional product iteratively. This approach fosters flexibility and responsiveness, enabling designers to adapt to changing needs and unforeseen challenges during development. Compared to the linear progression of ADDIE, SAM offers advantages such as decreased development time and increased stakeholder engagement, which can lead to more relevant and engaging learning experiences (Clark & Mayer, 2016). However, a limitation of SAM is that its iterative nature demands significant time investment for frequent reviews and revisions, which may not be feasible in environments with strict deadlines or limited resources.

In my experience, models based on ADDIE, including SAM, are valuable because they promote systematic development and stakeholder collaboration. The iterative aspect of SAM especially enhances the quality of instructional design by allowing continuous feedback and refinement. Nevertheless, these models may face challenges such as scope creep, where continuous revisions extend project timelines beyond initial estimates, and the need for skilled facilitators to manage the iterative process effectively. Despite these limitations, integrating ADDIE principles into rapid prototyping models like SAM can significantly improve the design and delivery of instruction (Seels & Richey, 1994).

In conclusion, the most vital step within the ADDIE model is arguably Evaluation because it ensures that instructional aims are achieved and provides a foundation for ongoing improvement. Alternative models like SAM build upon ADDIE’s principles, emphasizing agility and stakeholder involvement to adapt to dynamic learning environments. Although limitations exist, such as resource demands, these models contribute substantially to creating effective, engaging, and responsive instructional experiences by combining systematic planning with flexibility.

References

• Allen, M. W. (2013). Michael Allen’s Guide to e-Learning: Building Interactive, Fun, and Effective Learning Programs for Any Company. John Wiley & Sons.
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. Wiley.
• Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The Systematic Design of Instruction. Pearson.
• Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. ET_Papers.
• Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Ferrea, J. (2011). Design and Development of Instructional Systems. Springer.
• Seels, B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional Technology: The Definition and Domains of the Field. Educational Technology Research and Development.