CreateDebate


Debate Info

43
47
It's still the way forward It's had its day
Debate Score:90
Arguments:27
Total Votes:101
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 It's still the way forward (15)
 
 It's had its day (12)

Debate Creator

cliveshepher(5) pic



How relevant is the ADDIE model in 2009?

The ADDIE model provides a formal, structured framework for the development of instructional interventions. To the best of my knowledge the model has its origins in the American military, but has been promoted widely, particularly as a basis for the design and development of self-paced e-learning. ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation) has been criticised because of its rigidity, its waterfall-like flow (down but never back up) and because hardly anyone really uses it in practice. On the other hand, alternative models (or the use of no model at all) can be accused of being too fluid and potentially wasteful. So, is it time we kicked ADDIE into touch, or is the problem that we haven't been taking it seriously enough?

It's still the way forward

Side Score: 43
VS.

It's had its day

Side Score: 47
6 points

Let's be clear: ADDIE is not a model for instructional design. ADDIE is simply a framework for managing any creative project, and can be applied to almost any topic.

As for ADDIE being a waterfall and not coming back up, I disagree -- if problems are found during the evaluation phase of ADDIE, the project should go back to the 'analyze' phase to work on whatever issues were uncovered. It's a circular pattern, but many simply don't see it that way because of how ADDIE is typically presented to the public.

ADDIE is an iterative model.

Side: It's still the way forward
3 points

I'd like to add that ADDIE is more about process management, not psychology. ADDIE can be used when developing a course, but it has nothing to do with which approach to learning theory you choose to implement.

Maybe we should be asking "how relevant is ADDIE to learning theory and curricula building?"

Side: It's still the way forward
5 points

ADDIE is just a framewok for projects. Most of us think linearly, and like a linear framewok within which to work. That's just the same as us reading a book from page 1 to page 999. Same as watching a film from beginning to end. Listening to a song from the start all the way until the last note.

So ADDIE will live on, in some format or another, for as long as people think linearly.

I think some here are also attributing ADDIE to the way the training turns out. Modern ideas can suggest all they like that we 'want' or 'need' non-linear training, and for many users and many applications that is true. But much of the time, you just cannot change the need to learn about a before you can learn about b, then c, then d ... Love it or hate it, that kind of training fits right in with the ADDIE production process.

I'll be happy to never see or hear ADDIE mentioned ever again. Maybe someone will change the name, but it will still be around in 100 years :-)

Side: It's still the way forward
4 points

Strongest value of ADDIE is that it is one of the few things that most instructional designers around the world recognize as something common among us. Whether we like it or not we all know what it is, what it's supposed to help us do. Gives us something to rally around, something we can improve. Almost more symbolic than pragmatic.

Side: It's still the way forward
4 points

Interesting how we get hung up on acronyms. I don't see ADDIE as a process. I don't really see it as a framework either. It's a set of outcome variables that are common to design and problem solving disciplines.

Why variables? Because they vary by the presentation of symptoms, the people that the problem impacts, and a slew of other stuff.

YMMVADDIE. The folks on the 'it has had its day' side indicated that Evaluation being along at the end is a major contributing factor to ADDIE not living up to its potential. I agree. Plus, take a look at the last three letters. Could this be why so many solutions fall into disuse? Because ADDIE ends in DIE.

ADDIE isn't a one size fits all checklist and it's not going to fit everyone, or every situation, the same way.

The bigger question, to me, is - why would we point a finger acronym as the cause of industry failures? Isn't that like saying 'I can't walk very well because my crutch is messed up'? It shouldn't be a crutch at all. Maybe a walking stick.

A good problem solver is going to make their tools work for them, not the other way around. THIS is the crux of the problem. IF we make a better crutch, we still won't fix the walking problem.

The root cause of failure isn't ADDIE. Fail design and fail alignment is fail. Soylent green isn't ADDIE. Soylent green is people.

Side: It's still the way forward
sflowers(3) Disputed
5 points

I'll dispute my own argument. Which wasn't an argument at all. The poorly made point was:

1. ADDIE isn't the problem. Let's not attack the tools and get down to brass tacks. What IS the problem?

2. Take any process / approach model you like for soup to nuts problem solving. Now distill that to its base elements. I'd be surprised if you don't still see Analysis / Discovery, Design / Architect, Develop / Production, Implementation / Action, Evaluation / Prove. Back to #1. ADDIE isn't the problem, maybe we can redirect our attention to a root cause that's more relevant to the problem now? :)

So, in closing, I'd like to suggest that the argument whether ADDIE is relevant or not has 'had its day.' It is what it is.

Side: It's had its day

I think it's still the way forward and I'll explain. In today's market you have to respond quickly to your customer's needs. So you put something out there and improve on it later. This doesn't mean, however, that when the model is applied that there is no turning back. In practice, once you realize that it isn't going to work, you back up, re-work it and continue forward.

Side: It's still the way forward
2 points

ADDIE is a framework as someone correctly pointed out on which later ID models are built. All design work is based on the ADDIE framework. Thus, it can never outlive its use. But at the same time, it will be a crunched rather than replaced. Analysis has been chunked out by professionals as an independent phase stand alone of design. If these two are chunked out, development takes place elsewhere and implementation and evalauation are again two separate phases.

Side: Its the basic framework
2 points

I vote for Dick & Carey! (I am only half-joking)

What I find interesting is how people get attached to a specific process model and they don't let it go. Where I went to school, it was Dick and Carey, and ADDIE is seen as too simplistic, and a model that does not work as well. We've also covered ASSURE.

Honestly, It's just a model. It's not like we're debating cognitive theory that describes and defines everything about creating instruction. ADDIE does have a future not because it's a common language that people know, but because it's a model that can help you start thinking about how to implement instruction. You may start with ADDIE, but your workflow might lead you to use HomeGrownModel more than ADDIE, ASSURE, Dick & the gang.

Side: It's still the way forward
2 points

It really depends who you're having the conversation with. ADDIE isn't perfect, but it enables us to have simple, clear conversations. As designers, we can get hung up on worrying that ADDIE is too suggestive of a linear approach and that the "e"s in the wrong place. We can replace it with other, new, possibly more complex models which are more accurate descriptions of today's processes. But then we risk leaving our stakeholders way behind. Better keep it simple, keep our people with us, while ensuring those actually doing the work, understand the limitations of the model.

Side: It's still the way forward
2 points

In 2003 Michael Molenda tried to track down the source of ADDIE (http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/In%20Search%20of%20Elusive%20ADDIE.pdf) and couldn't which in a way isn't surprising because when you tell other design people about ADDIE they all agree that it is describes their general approach.

Any simplistic model like this breaks down quickly in practice -- Even more involved models show their limits. A few years ago in response to a review of their new book in ETR&D;, Walter Dick explained that the "Dick and Carey" model was intended to be used to teach about Instructional Design. In that way it is a 'model' to help new designers through the process and to find their own ways as they gain experience.

As Molenda wrote in 2003 "What everyone agrees on is that ADDIE is an acronym referring to the major processes that

comprise the generic ISD process ... I think there is a widely shared understanding that when used in ISD models, these processes

are considered to be sequential but also iterative".

Simple, generic, sequential and iterative. Sounds like a perfect model to use when teaching others about Instructional Design.

Side: Its the basic framework
2 points

ADDIE is a logical series of steps (not really a framework). However, it is still useful (and applicable to designing of training/learning programs) because it provides IDs (especially those fresh to the field or "accidental ones"--sincere apologies to Dr. Karl Kapp here) a logical starting point. We still have accidental IDs and I have personally found it useful when training them to refer to ADDIE as a "process" and then go through each phase of the process. This helps them to understand how to approach a training development.

Mapping each phase of the ADDIE process to one or more ID/Learning Theories make it easy for the newbies to grasp the overall process and also helps them to remember when to apply which theory.

However, where we all tend to slip up with ADDIE is the linear nature of the process. The Waterfall approach often becomes the downfall. This is where ADDIE needs to be supported with the "quick and dirty" and Successive Approximation Method.

I feel instead of blaming ADDIE, we need to recognize that no theory, model, framework or process can work in isolation. It has to be a blend of many. We just have to take the best of each depending on the context, content, need and goals of the said training program.

Side: It's still the way forward
1 point

ADDIE was never meant to be a linear process. It is a spiral. It is consultative, collaborative and iterative. Even if you know it by another name it is the means by which you arrive at a cocktail of solutions to solve performance problems where the preferred solution appears to lean towards training. Without it an analyst/designer cannot know what your are designing, for whom and what else they must do in order to be seen to succeed at the task for which they appear to need training. ADDIE is the antidote to too much training, too little training; training that is too soon or too late. It ensures the right method and media are used. It is the only protection against solutioneering. It is a shield against over-zealous techophiles who see e-learning as the answer to everything. The accusation of "paralysis through analysis" has been levelled since the 1970s, but no-one seems to be able to come up with a real example of it. If the wrong sort of analysis was done; if it was done inexpertly if it was over-documented or if it led to false conclusions, then that is the fault of the exponent and not the process.

Side: It's still the way forward
1 point

ADDIE is more a process than a model. It is more about the what than the how.

In fact ADDIE simply tells what we have to do to create learning (or any other) content. How we do it will depend on time, resources and objectives.

While some will use it as a linear process, most will use it as an iterative process where they continually come back to previous stages to validate their work.

I think addie is still valid as long as we do not see it as a rigid linear model.

Side: Its the basic framework
1 point

Of course guns kill people, but that doesn't mean that they should be banned. Knives kill people, cars kill people, Big Macs kill people, but should they be banned as well?

First of all, it would be impossible to ban guns and expect that they would all be taken off the street. They are too prolific in America now and there's no turning back.jaktfilmerSecond, guns serve a great purpose in many cases, people just need to be educated on proper gun safety. Additionally, we should do more to ensure the people who are getting guns are capable of handling them and are not likely to go kill someone with it.

Supporting Evidence: jaktfilmer (www.settern.se)
Side: It's still the way forward
7 points

ADDIE is as relevant in 2009 as it ever was. And it wasn't ever all that relevant.

Let's be honest, ADDIE is a crutch, a path for IDs to follow, and acronym that we can throw out there to non IDs to make it sound like we know what we're doing. But its really not much of a model; its just common sense. It might tell you what do to, but it doesn't tell you how to do it. The how is what differentiates effective learning design from crap.

Ask 10 IDs to follow ADDIE to design learning and you'll likely get 10 completely different outcomes, even if they all follow the ADDIE process. Some might be great, some might be horrible, but they all were created using the same model. Whoop-di-do! ADDIE, in the end, tells us nothing about good design.

Can we all just move beyond ADDIE and move on to how we design more effective learning experiences?

Side: It's had its day
foveros Disputed
4 points

I think the problem here is that people tend to confuse a theory, with a model. ADDIE is a model for getting things done, it's a model for a process. It's not a cognitive theory that can be proven or disproven. ADDIE is recursive. At the evaluation stage of things you can go back to analysis if the results are not what you intended them to be.

10 different IDs following ADDIE might give you 10 different results because ADDIE is a model, not a theory. It's like saying that you know how to drive - driving might get you down town, or across the border into Canada. Two different results, but the application of SGBL (steering,Gas, breaks lights) got you there. If you get to your location and you see on your GPS that you are not where you need to be, you can go back to steering and throttling to where you need to be. This analogy has had its time I think ;-)

Side: It's still the way forward
6 points

I've put this on one side of the debate, but the problem is too polarised.

1. It depends on the output - you don't want too lose a process around specific procedures, tasks etc. ADDIE's fine for something, less so for others

2. ADDIE has a big weakness - evaluation is at the end, a Kirkpatrick obsession (based on its behaviourist origins), when it is sometimes better placed earlier in the sequence

3. If development costs are expensive or have to be purchased within a tight timeframe, ADDIE is useful. You can't have freelancres wating around for repeated iterations. It may not be practical as they're opff doing other things.

An observation - rapid development companies like KINEO actually recruit heavily from companies that train people in an ADDIE context. In other words, understanding ADDIE is a good prerequisite for other processes. My own view is that ADDIE remains as the base process in these contexts, masked by marketing messages to the contrary.

Side: It's had its day
5 points

It's more nuanced than pass/fail. ADDIE is useful if it's your FIRST port of call. And useless if it's your last.

The difficulty of writing requirements is only now becoming clear. And by 'clear', I mean that there are a generation of people who have actually experienced this. Complexity is no longer an abstract concept for anybody.

The advantages of speed are also becoming clear. Once, it seemed sensible to design then develop then implement. Ready, aim, fire. I'm not sure this is the case for the majority of activities now - DDI are often more effective when concurrent.

Sure, you can argue that ADDIE was 'meant' to be iterative, rapid and all the adjectives that the anti-ADDIE people would like their models to be. But this seems like the Sun Priest who argues that the harvest didn't come because the wrong type of knife was used during the sacrifice.

It's a useful mnemonic. Great for novices. A foundation for communication among professionals. But let's move on to something more interesting.

Side: It's had its day
4 points

If there was an "I'm on the line", I'd be right on that line. I agree with both sides. Call me a waffler.

I remember sitting in a client meeting 5ish years ago and saying we did ADDIE. Nods of agreement and smiles of approval. It's a unifying force, for sure. A common language.

But did we really do it? Ahh...no. Usually gets lost somewhere around the evaluation stage. "On to the next project!"

In today's rapid paced, high stakes, glamorous eLearning world I say, let's move on.

Side: It's had its day
4 points

The problem isn't ADDIE, in and of itself. The problem is that Instructional Designers tend to look at every challenge that comes across their desktop as a challenge to be designed for, and the only workflow model they use to design for a "solution" is ADDIE. ADDIE is the hammer. Through it everything is treated like a nail. The process is a tool, by itself. To summon my inner Mark Oehlert,the tools have inherent properties that help limit the possible outcomes of their use.

This is important because if we believe that we're living in accelerated times, where work and learning are happening at the same time (which I've blogged about recently), then the method by which we derive solutions, being linear, tends to produce linear, not atomic, learning and training solutions.

If you want to teach for the moment of need, you're going to need a new workflow to design for it.

Side: It's had its day
4 points

As a model, it can act as a base standard, a way in to the 'profession' as a magic password but that doesn't mean in real practice we practice it. It can make sense for projects which have big budget, large team, large audience and numerous stakeholders who want obvious, visible and regular sign-off but the projects I get involved with now are not like that. They have much shorter shelf lives and are rapid in character.

As a thought process, the components are sound but the raw definition is unexciting and clashes with my idea of creative iteration which naturally happens during development. You do need to be clear about the what, why and who at the start but you have to keep checking back and evaluate throughout - dangerous if you wait until the end.

As experienced learning professionals, we should be able to select from our own personal toolbox equipped with our knowledge, lessons learned, trust gained and make appropriate choices. Don't feel obliged to follow traditional models if you don't need to but make sure you do know where you are headed!

Side: It's had its day
3 points

ADDIE is a linear model in a networked world.

Sure, it provides some structure, but so did the waterfall model for software development (requirements -> design -> implementation -> verification -> maintenance). Object oriented programming replaced the waterfall model in the 1980s (who develops software using waterfall today?). Since then approaches such as extreme programming and UML have emerged and supplanted OOP.

Why? because they fit better in a world where change is the new 'normal'. ADDIE may have worked for very stable industrial-type environments and in the military when change was rare and slow, but it doesn't where the imperatives are innovation, responsiveness, and speed to competence.

ADDIE is one reason why learning/training has had difficulty being seen as a strategic business component in organisations - ADDIE makes the whole process of developing learning solutions for business problems too slow and projects simply can't deliver to demanding timelines.

Apart from the above, I've always had a big problem with the 'E' being at the end of the process. Surely you need to decide the evaluation model to be used for any learning event/process before you start the design. Otherwise how do you scope and define the design? And surely the 'DDI' processes need to be iterative - design->develop->test->refine the design->redevelop->test->refine the design etc. etc.

So maybe it should have never been called ADDIE in the first place, but EDDIDDIDDIDDIDDIDDIDDI......

Side: It's had its day
2 points

Agree with Donald Clark's view that the positions are too polarised.

Process and methodology certainly add value but when applied too rigidly can lead to designs that fail to engage its audience and so fail to create a true learning experience.

It's important to take time to really understand your audience, the subject being trained and the performance outcomes required. This will then drive the appropriate development methodology.

ADDIE and other methodologies work as guidelines, not as strict processes.

Side: It's had its day
2 points

I accept that without any framework the process would be prone to failure and as others have said ADDIE is something that everyone recognises. But to me it is now nothing more than a mnemonic. I learnt years ago that the five letters were in the wrong order (the E should come much earlier and possibly in several places) and therefore the process doesn't actually work in this order. It also implies that these stages are equal in importance or scope and that's not true either.

It has been very useful over the years to give yourself a reminder that you need to attend to all the elements at some point during the process but beyond that I think it has had its day.

Side: It's had its day
1 point

The ADDIE model has seen it's day. It's length and one dimensional process for development does fit with the fast paced, modulated development that occurs today. It has been well recognized in the field for so long that when you ask people why we use it..."well we have always used it." That is a scary argument.

One of the problems that I see with the ADDIE model is that the Evaluation piece does not happen until the end. At the end it is already to late. We need to move on to a new model for design. One that allows for continual feedback throughout the development process. I envision a process similar to computer programing where the process is more modular rather than linear.

Side: It's had its day
0 points

ADDIE is simply the same as a whole other host of limited models that attempt to encapsulate complex processes in a tidy format. It's a useful teaching device in the same way as Maslow's hierarchy of needs is used when discussing the psychology of motivation: to introduce a concept and them supplant it with something more sophisticated because thinking and research have moved on.

ADDIE's already been replaced. It's just that what's replaced it is a range of different instructional models that don't yet have a pithy acronym or name. Some of us just happen to still call them ADDIE.

Side: It's had its day