ADDIE – Instructional Design

Model Report
History
ADDIE was first formed by the Center for educational Technology at
Florida State University in 1975 (Branson et al., 1981). In the early 80’s,
Dr. Russell Watson (1981), Chief, Staff and Faculty Training Division of the
Fort Huachuca, Arizona, introduced a paper to International Congress for
Individualized Instruction. He examined ADDIE as created by Florida State
University and off ered a revised model to some extent. The steps within the
phases changed, whereas the phases stayed untouched (Branson, 1975).
In the Mid 80’s, The ADDIE model changed from being in a waterfall format
to a little more dynamic format when the evaluation process was to be
referred to after each stage (U.S. Army, 1984). Furthermore, the phase of
Evaluation and Control was shortened to just Evaluation (Hannum, 2005).
The ADDIE model finally became known to be this acronym in 1995 as it was
formerly known as the System Approach to Training Michael Schlegel (1995).
After a few years, Merriënboer (1997) notes that other models or tools such
as PAQ (Performance analysis quadrant) for classifying the core source of
the problem. Finally, in the 2000’s ADDIE is sometimes used as a guideline
rather than a linear approach to accommodate for diff erent situations
(DeSimone, 2002). Many models or approaches have been developed which
are inspired from ADDIE.

Setting Used
According to Bates, (2015), ADDIE is frequently used for training and
company e-learning. Therefore, it is safe to say that the setting has shifted
from being primarily military to a corporate and online setting. In
companies, a performance or knowledge gap is determined which
constitutes a need. This need is commonly addressed by an instructional
designer using ADDIE or a similar model inspired by ADDIE (Branch, 2010).

Strengths and Weaknesses

As mentioned by Bates, (2015), there are many benefits to using ADDIE as
an instructional model. Namely; stimulates decent quality design, supports
establish straightforward learning objectives, logically organized content,
measured workloads, integrating meaningful media and appropriate learning
activities.
On the other hand, he also mentioned various drawbacks such as: Not
Learner centered and argued to be more Behaviorist than Constructivist. It
demonstrates what the instructional designer should do but not how to do it,
it is an inflexible linear approach when used as is, It is expensive due to the
need for high division of labor and also time consuming.

Instructional Example
An energy company has a new software for solar panel technicians. The
Instructional designers were asked to train the employees on how to use this
new software.
During the Analysis phase, the instructional designer will Analyze the
Learners, needs, tasks, constraints and other areas that need analysis.
Basically, the instructional problem is that new software needs to be learnt.
The Learners are solar panel installation techs. The information about them
will be gathered by giving them surveys and an assessment to determine
prior knowledge. The constraints are that they only have access to company
resources to develop the course.
The design phase compromises specifying the Objective: Techs will be able
to use the software, Specify content to be delivered by sitting with the SME,
then they decided to use an online audiovisual course with graphics, the
tools they will use are Adobe Illustrator and Adobe Premiere, the interface
will be storyline, they will create a storyboard of the course, they will
prototype the course and all will be completed using the company resources.
Then comes the Development stage, where The Instructional designer will
create the storyboard, the graphic designer will create the needed
audiovisual aspects and the developer will take the graphic designers work
and use the storyboard as a guide with navigation in line with the
storyboard.
At the Implementation stage, the developer integrates the course onto the
LMS, pilot on a small scale, change the needed, then the technicians are
asked to complete the course.
Lastly, during evaluation (Evaluation is done at every stage as well), The
Instructional designer will give the techs a questionnaire, the instructional
designer will give the techs’ manager a feedback form to see whether the
course met the set objective, the instructional designer will evaluate the
course and a report is done of any changes needed for future references.

References:
 Bates, T. (2015) Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Designing Teaching
and Learning Vancouver BC: Tony Bates Associates Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-9952692-0-
0.
 Branch, R. (2010). Instructional Design: The ADDIE approach. Athens: Springer
 Branson, R.K., Rayner, G.T., Cox, J.L., Furman, J.P., King, F.J., Hannum, W.H.
(1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development:
Executive summary and model. (Vols. 1-5) TRADOC Pam 350-30, Ft. Monroe, VA:
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.
 DeSimone, R.L., Werner, J.M., Harris, D M. (2002).  Human Resource
Development. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.
 Schlegel, M.J. (1995). A Handbook of Instructional and Training Program
Design. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED383281.
 U.S. Army Field Artillery School (1984).  A System Approach To Training. ST -
5K061FD92. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce.
 van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (1997).  Training Complex Cognitive Skills: A Four-
Component Instructional Design Model for Technical Training. Englewood Cliff s,
New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
 Watson, R. (October 1981). Instructional System Development. Paper presented
to the International Congress for Individualized Instruction. EDRS publication ED
209 239.