The Learning Circuits Blog’s Big Question for November is: Are ISD/ADDIE/HPT relevant in a world of rapid elearning, faster time-to-performance, and informal learning?
To begin with, I would like to leave informal learning out of the discussion. My argument is that informal learning is completely different from learning, and this is a point I would address in a different forum on a different day.
Just consider ADDIE. Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation. Look at these five words independent of their combined acronymic representation: would you skip any of these in any elearning (or for that matter learning) creation process?
So what is the problem with ADDIE? Why would a question like “Is it relevant?” even come up. I reckon it is because of the way ADDIE is usually represented – as a linear flow chart, starting with analysis and ending with evaluation. (David Merrill did propose the “Pebble in the Pond” model, emanating from the center with “Problems,” and moving in concentric circles outward with “Analysis,” “Strategy,” “Design,” and “Production,” but that is no less linear an approach as ADDIE.) And in a self-fulfilling manner, elearning practitioners also perhaps started approaching ADDIE in a sequential manner, thus leading to (probably justified) allegations of rigidity. Sadly, ADDIE became a mechanized process, a series of steps to be taken; not a tool for thinking and exploration, as it was originally conceived to be. It came to be adopted as a “what to” series of steps; not a “how to” set of questions. To twist an old adage, if too many bad craftsmen use a tool, the tool becomes bad.
On the other hand, expressions like rapid elearning seem to suggest a disproportionately high degree of emphasis on implementation, and quick implementation at that. Which suggests the other elements are less important. Are they really?
What we perhaps need is a freeing up of the individual letters of ADDIE. Of course, the five steps need to be followed, but surely they don’t need to be sequential? People have argued that Evaluation is a step that happens right through, but I argue that each of the five happen right through the process of creating elearning. In other words, there is no set sequence to ADDIE – it could be ADIEADIDE, in one instance, DAIEDIE in another, and a different combination in a third – the composition being dictated by the business need, the nature of the team working on it, the dynamic nature of the content, or any other parameter you decide to use.
So my argument: A, D, D, I, and E are relevant. ADDIE may not be.
The problem with ADDIE as a design process is that it not iterative. Evaluation, the last stage, only talks about evaluating the course.
ReplyDeleteADDIE has been misused by several elearning companies. It has become an extremely rigid process. It is a very content-centered approach.
The design process should be iterative. You should continuously update every aspect as you gain more insight into the learner's profile, the content, the effectiveness of strategies chosen, and so on.
You are absolutely right, Archana. ADDIE has been interpreted as a rigid non-iterative process. The problem is not so much with the model as with the way it has been used (or misused).
ReplyDeleteHey Geetha, this is a valid point, most of the learning solutions take ADDIE as a linear approach and miss out on the true value of this model.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the big question is concerned, whatever be the approach - Rapid Learning, faster time to market, reduced cost, small pieces of content, the backbone will always need to a systematic non linear iterative approach to make the learning relevant and most importantly learner centric.