Running head: MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE

Mapping SAM to ADDIE

Dana L. Payne

California State University (CSUMB) - Monterey Bay

IST 626, Advanced Instructional Design

Darryl Sink, Ed.D.

July 11, 2016

MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 2

Table of Contents

Page
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... 3

ADDIE............................................................................................................................................ 4

Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Design .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Development ............................................................................................................................... 6

Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 6

Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 7

SAM................................................................................................................................................ 7

SAM1........................................................................................................................................... 9

SAM2......................................................................................................................................... 10

SAM and ADDIE Compared ..................................................................................................... 12

Mapping SAM1 to ADDIE ...................................................................................................... 14

Mapping SAM2 to ADDIE ...................................................................................................... 14

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 17

References .................................................................................................................................... 18
MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 3

Abstract

There are many models currently in use by instructional designers and trainers to facilitate the

development of Instructional System Design (ISD) projects. The sequential Analysis, Design,

Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) model is a five-phase process developed in

the mid 1970’s with the purpose of formalizing the process of developing military inter-service

training. Many other ISD models in use today are variations of initial ADDIE models. The Successive

Approximation Model (SAM) was created in the early 2000’s as an alternative to ADDIE with the

intent of providing increased flexibility with more agile development, responsiveness, and

collaborative opportunities than offered by traditional ADDIE ISD approaches. This paper provides an

overview of ADDIE and SAM along with a comparative analysis of SAM and ADDIE ISD processes

and framework. SAM provides a modern-day alternative to the ADDIE sequential model with

significant advantages for both small (SAM1) and large (SAM2) ISD projects alike. The fact that

ADDIE and variants of ADDIE remain in use today; however, is a testament to how well structured,

thought-out and how far ahead of its time the original ADDIE model truly was.

Keywords: Instructional System Design (ISD), Analysis, Design, Development,

Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model, Successive Approximation Model

(SAM), SAM1, SAM2

MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 4

Mapping SAM to ADDIE

The sequential Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE)

model is a five-phase process developed in 1975 with the “purpose of formalizing the process of

developing military inter-service training” (Keep, 2000). The ADDIE model is traditionally used

by instructional designers and trainers in the development of Instructional System Design (ISD)

projects. Many any other ISD models in use today are variations of initial ADDIE models. “There

is no original, fully elaborated model, just an umbrella term that refers to a family of models that

share a common underlying structure” (Molenda, 2003). The Successive Approximation Model

(SAM) was created in the early 2000’s as an alternative to ADDIE with the intent of providing

increased flexibility with more agile development, responsiveness, and collaborative opportunities

than offered by traditional ADDIE ISD approaches.

Organizations have a need for effective training. Training designers have to be able to

design effective eLearning to meet those needs. This is difficult because designing

successful eLearning is part art and part science, involving the use of learning and training

theory and an understanding of the knowledge and/or skills to be taught. (Steen, 2008)

This paper provides an overview of ADDIE and SAM along with a comparative analysis of SAM

and ADDIE ISD processes and their respective framework.

ADDIE

ADDIE is a five-phase, systematic process for creating instruction. Each phase is intended

to build upon the previous phase. The ADDIE model provides an orderly process for gathering

and analyzing information related to training performance. Since its introduction in the mid-70’s,

ADDIE has become widely used within the government and private sector to guide the creation

and production of ISD projects. ADDIE is frequently employed by instructional designers,

MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 5

training specialist and instructors to plan and create instruction. Figure 1, The ADDIE Model,

provides a graphical representation of ADDIE’s five-phase, traditional and waterfall approach.

These ADDIE models provide a sequential process where progress is directed and/or flowing

from one phase to the next with each phase at or near completion prior to advancing to the next.

While the execution of each phase is sequential, some modified approaches to ADDIE may

include using results from the final Evaluation phase for iterative revisions of an ongoing project.

Figure 1. The ADDIE Model. The left figure is the traditional ADDIE model by (The ADDIE

Model, n.d.). The right figure depicts the ADDIE waterfall model (Agile Curriculum

Development, n.d.).

Analysis

This phase involves determining learner needs, expected outcomes, and characteristics of

the environment of the instruction. The Analysis Phase typically consists of four parts: the

development of instructional goals, instructional analysis, learner analysis and learning objectives.

During the Analysis Phase, training goals, objectives, learning needs, learning constraints, desired

learning outcomes, target audience, and delivery environment are identified and agreed upon by

all stakeholders - along with the timeline for project completion.

MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 6

Design

This phase is intended to provide a logical, orderly means to identify, design, and evaluate

strategies intended to reach overall project goals to meet the needs of the target audience. This

phase documents instructional design strategies, involves storyboard creation along with the

design of user interfaces and experiences. Employment of various learning theories like those

advocated by behaviorist, cognitive constructivist and social constructivist, for example, are

considered when determining which learning strategies to use in designing and developing the

project. This phase also identifies the types of physical tools and technologies for use in the

Development phase of the project.

Development

The phase builds upon outcomes from the design phase. This phase includes creating

samples of initial products, developing project learning materials, conducting trials, and low level

testing with project reviews and revisions as appropriate. To maximize project effectiveness and

efficiency, it is important to obtain feedback from stakeholders and learners during this phase

before transitioning to the Implementation phase of the project.

Implementation

This phase typically consists of three aspects: Training the instructors, preparing the

learners and arranging the learning space (Gardner, 2011). When the designer/developer is not the

person instructing training, this phase is also used to familiarize instructors with the projects

training objectives, activities, types of media and assessments planned for use. Learners must

have the prerequisite tools and knowledge prior to engaging in training. If training, for example,

involves the use of computers to engage learning content, learners must first be proficient in the

basic use of computers at a predetermined level of competency. Before the conduct of training,
MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 7

instructors should validate the required functioning of essential technologies within the targeted

learning space as well as all other essential elements required for training.

Evaluation

The final phase, Evaluation, typically consists of formative and summative evaluations.

During formative evaluations instructional designers obtain feedback from learners on the

effectiveness of the instruction. These evaluations range from one-to-one, small group, to field

tests (Parchment et al., 2004). The summative evaluation is intended to determine how well the

instruction works after it is completed. The Kirkpatrick model outlines four types of outcomes to

evaluate: the learner’s reaction, learning, behavior, and results (Dick & Johnson, 2002).

Conducting formative evaluations, coupled with a summative evaluation after implementation,

provides an effective means to gauge ISD project success in terms of meeting project goals and

objectives.

SAM

SAM is an agile, iterative, non-linear process for efficiently designing effective instruction

through ISD team collaboration. Unlike the sequential ADDIE model, SAM “encourages

experimentation, changes, and new ideas as you go along, rather than trying to lock in designs and

content as early as possible” (Brusino, 2013). By iterating from early designs and prototypes,

SAM provides a process and framework for the ISD team to work closely to obtain feedback from

project sponsors and others involved in the process every step of the way.

The essence of SAM is to create the final product as early and quickly as possible in ways

that people can touch it and feel it and see it so they can practice it and say that’s not what

I was thinking or I don’t think that works well or that doesn’t represent the performance

objective. (Allen Interactions, 2012a)

MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 8

The SAM process begins with an initial meeting (referred to as a SAVVY start) to brainstorm,

sketch and prototype design ideas at the beginning of the instructional design project (Sites, n.d.).

“The Savvy Start focuses primarily on performance and will serve as the project kickoff

meeting... Your team will be rotating through design, prototype, and review throughout the Savvy

Start and the Iterative Design Phase” (Allen Interactions, n.d.). The initial evaluation (analysis

and needs assessment) transitions to design, and then moves into developing a more refined

prototype as early as possible. “This process is cycled through three times… to create highly

functional and effective products” (McCormick, 2013). SAM is intended to focus the ISD team

on the performance that they want learners to improve upon. Because of the iterative evaluation,

design and development phases, instruction can be evaluated and refined with flexibility that

permits updates and corrections from earlier prototypes.

The fundamental goal of SAM is to enable the creation of more meaningful, memorable

and motivational learning experiences. Figure 2, Design Principles of SAM, includes four

components of instructional interactivity: Context, Challenge, Activity, and Feedback (Allen

Interactions, 2012b). The context of learning must be appropriate for the target audience as well

as based upon real-world situations typically encountered by learners. Proper context assists

learners in making things meaningful. Learning experiences also need to include opportunities to

learn by making mistakes with realistic challenges that are memorable and readily transferable to

day-to-day activities.

If we want people to learn to do something, then shouldn’t they be doing something while

they are learning? Not just reading about it, not just hearing about it, not just watching.

They ought to be doing something… You need a challenge that relates an activity to a

context. (Allen Interactions, 2012b)

MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 9

Figure 2. Design Principles of SAM. This figure depicts the three Big M’s (Memorable,

Meaningful and Motivational) that the proponents of SAM, Allen Interactions, strives for in their

ISD projects (Allen Interactions, 2012a).

Learners also need to grasp the value of the instruction by experiencing consequences related to

how the training can improve the quality of their performance with real-world, relevant

challenges, activities, and feedback that includes consequences. Learners need to experience the

outcomes of their choices (Allen Interactions, 2012a).

In summary, SAM provides a framework with three, well-sequenced, iterative phases that

emphasizes collaboration and evaluation early in the process to enable more efficient and

effective ISD. SAM’s iterative evaluation sequence ensures learner needs are kept at the forefront

of design and development activities, permitting continuous process improvement from initial

prototype to final product delivery. There are two version of SAM: SAM2 and SAM1.

SAM1

SAM1 is for smaller ISD projects. SAM1 is a design loop which includes an iterative

process within three domains: Evaluate ⇒ Design ⇒ Development. Figure 3, SAM1, depicts the

sequence and interrelationship between these three phases.

MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 10

When beginning a project, Evaluate the audience and their needs; Design and then

Develop a prototype learning module. After initial development, evaluate how well the prototype

meets learner needs. Next, make changes to the prototype’s and develop those changes to create a

more refined prototypical learning module for subsequent evaluations. This process is repeated as

many times as needed to facilitate rapid prototype design, development and evaluation.

Figure 3. SAM1. This figure depicts the SAM1 ISD Model (Allen & Sites, 2012).

SAM2

SAM2 is for larger projects and, like SAM1, also includes three phases. The three phases

for SAM2 are Preparation, Iterative Design, and Iterative Development. Figure 4, SAM2, depicts

the sequencing and interrelationship between Preparation, Iterative Design, and Iterative

Development phases.

Figure 4. SAM2. This figure depicts the second of two SAM ISD models (Marx, 2015).
MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 11

Phase I, Preparation, includes analyzing the audience, gathering information, and

brainstorming required performance. Questions to address include: what has been done before,

what has worked best, who is the training for, and who is going to be responsible? “Often the

challenge is moving away from how to construct electronic delivery of existing content to how to

construct engaging, interactive learning of that content” (Allen Interactions, 2012a). Potential

participants include recent learners, their managers, other stakeholders and ISD team members to

identify activities and interaction prototypes. Phase I is intended as a very quick phase.

Phase II, Iterative Design, begins with an initial collaborative meeting that establishes the

foundation for a successful project. This phase is a Design ⇒ Prototype ⇒ Review loop that

includes Project Planning and Additional Design.

Project planning is the first step, which involves quantitative assessment of the remaining

project details affecting timeline and budget, including cost and quality management. It

also includes communications, risk, schedule, scope and resourcing issues… Additional

Design refers to the fact that… not all design elements may have been captured in

[Phase I]... and a smaller design team may have to… capture these additional design

elements. (Bloom Learning Solutions, 2014)

This phase focuses primarily on performance while the design team rotates or loops through

design, prototype and review (Sites, n.d.). This process typically iterates three times “to challenge

whether this prototype meets the objectives and whether it improves the performance and

demonstrates that performance to the learner” (Allen Interactions, 2012a). During this part of the

process, “the prototype [for example] does not have to be electronic. It could be whiteboard,

flipcharts, or black and white stick figures – simply something people can touch and feel and say I

got it” (Allen Interaction, 2013b).

MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 12

Phase III, Iterative Development, is a Development ⇒ Implementation ⇒ Evaluation loop

where the prototype from the previous phase is iteratively refined into an effective instructional

module, moving from the initial Phase III Design Proof, to Alpha, to Beta, and finally the Gold

version rollout. “The Design Proof is the product of the first iteration of this stage. It is the visual,

functional demonstration of the proposed solution that integrates samples of all components to

test and prove viability” (Bloom Learning Solutions, 2014). The Alpha is the course with as much

of the interface completed as possible, including scenarios, menus, and navigation that the

development and implementation team can click through and comment on. The Alpha could

include placeholders for media that is not quite ready for inclusion (Allen Interactions, 2012a).

“As the instructional product is being developed… continually analyze and evaluate, so that at

any point, if a change needs to occur, it can happen quickly and limit any risk of the project

moving out of budget or time” (Sites, n.d). According to Sites, the arrow pointing from the

Interactive Development Phase to the Iterative Design Phase is for inspiration. If something

happens in Phase III that makes the team realize something new and/or extraordinary could or

should be incorporated, this new activity is introduced and iteratively designed, prototyped and

reviewed in Phase II before incorporation into Phase III. The Beta is considered the first full

release candidate, but often it takes one more iteration before rollout of the final product is ready.

(Allen Interactions, 2012a).

SAM and ADDIE Compared

A general comparison of SAM to the sequential ADDIE ISD model reveals a fundamental

difference: ADDIE’s single evaluation phase versus SAM’s continuous review and evaluation

process throughout every phase. While catching “mistakes toward[s] the end of the process, as

with ADDIE, is better than not correcting them at all… there are risks. Continuous ISD project
MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 13

evaluation and correction as early as possible returns valuable rewards. Waiting to make

corrections toward[s] the end of the process invites trouble” (Allen & Sites, 2012). "Many of the

[system's] details only become known to us as we progress in the [system's] implementation.

Some of the things that we learn invalidate our design and we must backtrack" (Parnas &

Clements, 1986). Each step of the top down or waterfall ADDIE process is done in sequence. “As

advancements in technology-enabled learning become more useful, the sequential design process

of ADDIE and similar methods can no longer meet the high demands of course development”

(Robert, 2014). A non-iterative ISD model like ADDIE is not designed to backtrack. In some

respects, having to backtrack could be synonymous with starting over. Table 1, Phases of ADDIE

and SAM Compared, provides the author’s correlated mapping of phases for ADDIE, SAM1 and

SAM2.

SAM’s iterative approach requires the ISD team to continuously apply a three-step

process with the goal of efficiently producing effective training. SAM relies on design and

development happening in parallel as part of an incrementally evolving design, development and

evaluation process. “SAM focuses on learner experiences, engagements, and motivations…

[versus ADDIE’s focus on] content organization, and presentation of information” (Allen

Interactions, n.d.). SAM’s iterative process is intended to shorten design, prototype development

and review cycles within a framework that facilitates cross-functional team collaboration.

Table 1.

Phases of ADDIE and SAM Compared.

ADDIE Analysis Design Development Implementation Evaluation

SAM1 Evaluate Design Develop Evaluate (x2) Design Develop Evaluate

Preparation: Phase I Iterative Design: Phase II Iterative Development: Phase III

SAM2 Background Design Prototype Review Develop Implement Evaluate
Info Gathering SAVVY Start Project Planning Additional Design Design Proof Alpha Beta Gold
MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 14

Mapping SAM1 to ADDIE

When comparing to SAM1 to ADDIE, the high-level, rapid prototype nature of SAM1

initially seems limiting. For projects with minimal complexity; however, SAM1’s iterative

Evaluate ⇒ Design ⇒ Develop approach is appealing in that identified needs are expeditiously

prototyped into rudimentary mockup configurations; thereby enabling stakeholders and learners

to provide collaborative feedback throughout SAM’s Evaluate ⇒ Design ⇒ Develop iterative

loop process. SAM’s rapid feedback loop enables the ISD team to continuously refine the project

as it evolves from a basic concept to a fully functioning prototype. ADDIE’s formal framework

and processes can preclude efficiently and rapidly tackling smaller project. Unlike ADDIE,

SAM1 appears well-suited for smaller, less resource intensive projects.

Mapping SAM2 to ADDIE

ISD processes with ADDIE begins by analyzing existing and/or needed content. The ISD

process with SAM2 begins in the Preparation Phase (e.g. Phase I) with information gathering and

an approach called the SAVVY Start. The SAVVY start calls for brainstorming activities that

includes collaborative sessions between the ISD team, stakeholders, and learners. The primary

focus for Phase I of SAM2 (e.g. the Preparation Phase) are processes leading up to defining the

desired performance as rapidly as possible. The primary focus of ADDIE’s Analysis Phase is

development of instructional goals, instructional analysis, learner analysis, and learning

objectives. In comparison to Phase I of SAM2, the ADDIE model appears somewhat static, task

driven and likely to consume more time and resources than Phase I of SAM2.

SAM2’s Iterative Design Phase (e.g. Phase II) provides multiple opportunities for the ISD

team to rough-out basic prototypes, rapidly evolve concepts, and iterate with increasingly refined

prototypes and concepts via collaborative engagement opportunities with stakeholders and
MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 15

learners. Since minimal time and resources are invested towards developing Phase II prototypes

(as compared to ADDIE’s Design and Development Phases), the SAM2 ISD team spends most of

its resources in Phase II iterating through the Design, (basic) Prototype, and Review loops. By the

end of the third Design ⇒ Prototype ⇒ Review loop, the goal is to enter the Iterative

Development Phase to begin work on the Design Proof.

ADDIE’s Design and Development Phases provide a logical, orderly means to identify,

develop, and evaluate strategies to reach overall project goals (e.g. the Design Phase) and then set

about creating samples of initial products, developing project learning materials, and conducting

trials and low level testing with project reviews and revisions as appropriate (e.g. the

Development Phase). The functional elements of SAM2’s Iterative Design Phase appears to

correlate well with the major tenets of ADDIE’s phases for Design and Development. The

advantage of SAM2 over ADDIE includes benefits gained by iterating Design, Prototype and

Review processes multiple times. Each SAM2 review loop is intended to progressively flesh out

the prototype designs and concepts necessary to enable successful achievement of performance

goals and objectives during the next phase. Whereas the sequential ADDIE model provides only

one iteration to move from Design through Development to Implementation, SAM2 (and SAM1)

prescribes three progressively refined iterations before advancing to the next phase and building

the Design Proof.

ADDIE’s Implementation Phase includes instructor training, preparing learners and

arranging the learning space. This phase appears well correlated with SAM2’s Iterative

Development Phase (e.g. Phase III): Develop ⇒ Implement process. The ADDIE sequential model;

however, lacks SAM2’s iterative Develop ⇒ Implement ⇒ Evaluate loop. This loop provides

stakeholders and learners a means to collaboratively evaluate products after implementation of the
MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 16

Design Proof, Alpha, Beta and Gold product releases. With the ADDIE model, stakeholders and

learners typically have only one substantive opportunity to conduct evaluations. The conduct of

multiple, collaborative evaluations is a significant advantage of SAM2 over ADDIE. SAM2 also

provides a pathway for introducing new additions after the start of the Iterative Development Phase.

The red circles in Figure 5, Pathway for late-breaking innovations and/or significant design changes,

highlights the pathway for introducing new additions and/or changes to the design after starting the

Iterative Development Phase (e.g. Phase III).

ADDIE Analysis Design Development Implementation Evaluation

SAM1 Evaluate Design Develop Evaluate (x2) Design Develop Evaluate

Preparation: Phase I Iterative Design: Phase II Iterative Development: Phase III

SAM2 Background Design Prototype Review Develop Implement Evaluate
Info Gathering SAVVY Start Project Planning Additional Design Design Proof Alpha Beta Gold

Figure 5. Pathway for late-breaking innovations and/or significant design changes.

SAM2 developers created this pathway provide the ISD team a means for incorporating design

additions and/or changes after the start of the Iterative Development Phase (e.g. Phase III). As a

result, the ISD team can work through and mature late-breaking additions and/or changes within the

Iterative Design Phase (e.g. the Design ⇒ Prototype ⇒ Review loop) prior to integrating changes

into the Iterative Development Phase (e.g. the Develop ⇒ Prototype ⇒ Evaluate loop). SAM2’s

Iterative Design and Development Phases are intended provide flexibility with multiple,
MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 17

collaborative opportunities involving interactions between stakeholders, learners and the ISD team.

Unlike SAM2, the sequential ADDIE model does not have the flexibility to iterate ADDIE’s Design

⇒ Development ⇒ Implementation processes, nor incorporate late breaking innovations

and/or late-breaking design changes once the Implementation Phase has begun.

Conclusions

While many may view ADDIE as too linear, too time consuming, and/or too resource

intensive, comparing ADDIE to models evolved from ADDIE hardly seems fair. The ADDIE

sequential model was first introduced in the mid 1970’s. The SAM concept evolved in the 2000’s

and gained increasing notoriety after Michael Allen and Richard Sites’ published their book in

2012: Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model for developing the best learning experiences.

Comparing the ADDIE sequential model to SAM is perhaps analogous to comparing Microsoft’s

(MS) initial 1981 Disk Operating System (MS DOS) to Version 10 of MS Windows, 2012.

Just as ISD teams have long-since moved on from MS DOS, it seems logical for these teams

to advance to models offering increased flexibility with more agile development, responsiveness,

and collaborative opportunities than offered by more traditional ADDIE ISD approaches. SAM

provides a modern-day alternative to the ADDIE sequential model with significant advantages for

both small (SAM1) and large (SAM2) ISD projects alike. The fact that ADDIE and variants of

ADDIE remain in use today; however, is a testament to how well structured, thought-out and how

far ahead of its time the original ADDIE model truly was.
MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 18

References

Agile Curriculum Development. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2016, from

http://www.mhwilleke.com/agile-curriculum-development

Allen, M., & Sites, R. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model for developing the best

learning experiences. American Society for Training and Development.

Allen Interactions. (n.d.). Agile eLearning Development with SAM | Allen Interactions. Retrieved

July 10, 2016, from http://www.alleninteractions.com/sam-process

Allen Interactions. (2012a, November 28). Meet SAM: An Agile Process for Developing the Best

Learning Experiences. Retrieved July 10, 2016, from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uogB9Kjl9s

Allen Interactions. (2012b, December 04). A New Agile Model: Leaving ADDIE for SAM.

Retrieved July 10, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_xIJzp9Eg4

Bloom Learning Solutions. (2014, July 07). What you need to know about Agile instructional

design. Retrieved July 10, 2016, from http://www.bloomlearningsolutions.co.nz/what-you-

need-to-know-about-agile-instructional-design/

Brusino, J. (2013, September 8). Michael W. Allen. Retrieved July 10, 2016, from

https://www.td.org/Publications/Magazines/TD/TD-Archive/2013/09/Long-View-Michael-

Allen

Dick, W., & Johnson, R. B. (2002). Evaluation in instructional design: The impact of

Kirkpatrick’s four-level model. Trends and issues in instructional design and technology,

145-153.

Gardner, J. C. (2011). Learning Motivation in Technology-Rich Training. George Washington

University, Washington, DC.

MAPPING SAM TO ADDIE 19

Keep, E., & Rainbird, H. (2000). Towards the learning organization?.

Marx, S. (2015). Iterative e-Learning Development with SAM. Retrieved July 10, 2016, from

https://ilite.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/iterative-e-learning-development-with-sam/

McCormick, A. (2013, July 3). Do we really need to leave ADDIE for SAM? - Metrix Group.

Retrieved July 10, 2016, from http://www.metrixgroup.com/blog/do-we-really-need-to-

leave-addie-for-sam/

Molenda, M. (2003). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance improvement, 42(5),

34-37.

Parchment, T., Tyler, J., Tripathy, M., Finn, B., Wongtan, N., & Briggs, J. (2004). Formative

Evaluation.

Parnas, D., & Clements, P. (1986, February). A Rational Design Process: How and Why to Fake

it. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, (2), 251-257.

doi:10.1109/TSE.1986.6312940

Robert. (2014, October 10). ADDIE to SAM to Scrum...and beyond: Agile development in

corporate learning. Retrieved July 10, 2016, from

http://principledtechnologies.com/insights/ptlearningblog/2014/10/10/addie-to-sam-to-

scrumand-beyond-agile-development-in-corporate-learning/

Sites, R. Ed.D. (n.d.). Agile eLearning Development with SAM | Allen Interactions. Retrieved

July 11, 2016, from http://www.alleninteractions.com/sam-process

Steen, H. (2008, December 4). JOLT - Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Retrieved July

10, 2016, from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no4/steen_1208.htm

The ADDIE Model. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2016, from http://dipti-13.deviantart.com/art/THE-

ADDIE-MODEL-550049980