If you are an instructional designer
or a subject matter expert (SME) asked to design instruction or produce an
instructional tool, and you turn to resources from the field of instructional
design, you will most commonly be greeted by the ADDIE model or its progeny.
Because the ADDIE model begins with the A, Analyze, this model tells you that
your first step is to objectively approach your audience and the problem. With
this beginning, the model sets in motion a process of taking apart and
examining the problem, learners and the environment in order to progress to the
rest of the process of designing, developing, implementing and evaluating.
As the field of instructional design
continues to open up to considerations of culture, it is important to consider how
this objectivist model positions its practitioners. There is an established and
growing body of literature acknowledging the need to better understand the
function, impact and implications of culture in instructional design (Damarin,
1998; Heemskerk, Brink, Volman & ten Dam, 2005; Henderson, 1996; Seufert, 2001; Willis,
2005). This body of literature
highlights the need for cultural awareness and attention to individual
differences in design, content and delivery in the areas of primary, secondary,
higher education and e-learning settings (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Ezer,
2006; McLoughlin, 2001; Powell, 1993; Vrasidas & Zembylas, 2003; Wild &
Henderson, 1997).
In order to continue to make strides
in this area, we also need to consider cultural implications of the process of instructional design and the role of its practitioners. Does the A in
ADDIE provide optimal guidance in increasingly global and constructive learning
environments? This essay will contemplate this question with attention to 1)
cultural implications of the ADDIE model’s analytical positioning, 2) the
flexibility of ADDIE in practice, and 3) a proposed modification.
Cultural implications of
an objective analytical model
The
negative impact of objective paradigms in learning environments has been
highlighted in the robust body of literature that values constructivist models
for taking culture into account in education (Huang, 2002; Jonassen, 1994).
Though still a topic for debate in instructional design, there is wide-spread
attention to the need for transitions in teacher-directed, knowledge acquisition
models of learning (Knowles, 1975; Mezirow, 2000).
There is also growing attention to how
instructional designers are positioned by the analytical focus of the ADDIE
model (Thomas, Mitchell & Joseph, 2002; Wilson, 2005). Borrowing from
cultural studies, this discussion seeks to examine the implications of
instructional designers as central analysts.
Studies and models of the roles of
instructional designers clearly indicate the central role of communication and
negotiating relationships (Rossett, 1998; Wang, 2007). Buber (1947/1970)
philosophized dual modes of communicative relationships: 1) an I-Thou dialogue, where individuals
encounter others equally in a mutual exchange of perceptions or 2) an I-It monologue, where individuals
impose perceptions on others with no mutual exchange. Buber’s dualistic model is useful in examining
the cultural implications of the A in ADDIE. The
instructional designer, initially positioned as an analyst, works from a
paradigm of I am I, and you, the problem, stakeholders, learner, environment
and solution are to be taken to pieces and examined from my perspective.
In Buber’s model, this type of I-It positioning results in a monologue,
where the analyst ends up in a conversation with him/herself about his/her own
perceptions. This analytical structure presumes objectivity and also sets up a
process that values the data gathering choices, interpretations and decisions
of the analyst.
For years now, cultural critics have
effectively highlighted the inaccuracy and damaging effects of such hegemonic
models for inquiry (Bhaba, 1994; Said, 1978), and the impact of this critique
is clearly evidenced in cultural studies of education (Giroux, 1996). With
attention to both cultural and constructivist considerations, instructors now
situate themselves in the classroom as facilitators. However, instructional
designers are only sometimes instructors, and the classroom is only one
location of the instructional design process.
The A for analyze in the ADDIE model
may poorly situate instructional designers as actors in a paradigm of
objectivity who are asked to break things apart in environments that are
increasingly collaborative and constructivist.
ADDIE in practice
It
is fair to argue that instructional designers have been positioning themselves
as collaborators and facilitators for years, just look at Thiagi (1976) and his
career crusade to “let the inmates run the asylum.” The ADDIE model, then,
could be viewed as flexible enough to encompass transitions and diverse
perspectives in the field.
In a review of the history and
emerging trends of instructional development models, Gustafson & Branch
(1997) defend the fundamentals of ADDIE and its progeny of models as broadly
applicable and accurate against claims that they are not well-suited to current
pedagogies or conditions of dynamic, constructivist and cross-cultural
environments. However, in a later collaboration, Gustafson with
Visscher-Voerman (2004) found that the activities of highly reputable designers
“indeed, do deviate from the activities and order proposed by ADDIE models” (p.
70) and go on to examine how these activities fit into different design
paradigms. As Wilson
(2007) acknowledges, the rules and theories of instructional design and
technology (IDT) must be examined in different settings because “the knowledge
and skills required for effective practice tend to be extremely sensitive to
local conditions” (p. 342). A collection
of studies edited by Armstrong (2004) illustrates the sensitivity of the
process of IDT to environments and systems by presenting cases in a variety of
situations and discussing implications for instructional designers. In this
collection, scholars and practitioners reflect on the use of ADDIE across
sectors and across borders and suggest expanding the ADDIE model.
As a model, ADDIE prescribes a course
of action and a way of conceptualizing design, and its purpose is to provide
guidance for instructional designers. If this is the case, shouldn’t this model
accurately describe transitions in the field that have been prompted by
attention to culture and constructivism?
The ADDIE model has been changed
before. Even though it is considered the basis for most instructional design
models, the exact origin of the acronym ADDIE, is unknown (Molenda, 2003). In
tracing the model back to a closely matching model used by the military,
Molenda (2003) finds the acronym to be ADDIC, where the C stands for control.
In its evolution, then, ADDIE has already been modified to acknowledge how one
component, such as control, might be subsumed into implementation. The ADDIE
model might be modified again to subsume analysis into a more encompassing and
essential first step in participating in the creation of opportunities for
learning: to engage. The term “analyze”
might be better replaced with “engage” in order to set a tone that is inclusive
of all participants and more reflective of what is happening in the field of
instructional design and technology.
EDDIE: The first step is
to engage
Isn’t analysis still centrally
important? It’s
difficult to imagine project management or even thought processes without
analysis; arguably, analysis is an underlying part of every stage of the design
process. By replacing analysis with engage, the EDDIE model acknowledges the
crucial importance of dialogue and the inclusion of a variety of
perspectives in analyzing and solving instructional design problems.
If not analyze first, why engage? The term engage could set a tone for
the design process that prioritizes entering into mutual exchanges. The crucial
role of relationships in the design process is highlighted by works influential
to the field of instructional design (Rogers, 1995; Rossett, 1998), but not
reflected in its fundamental model. The image posted above shows the role of the designer in
constructive engagement the problem, stakeholders, learner, environment and
solution.
Is this just a matter of semantics? In part, but it is a matter of
semantics under a cultural lens that acknowledges the importance and
implications of language and semiotics (Barthes, 1957/1972). ADDIE, as an
acronym, is well-suited for internet information retrieval and quick
assimilation into the practice of instructional designers or subject matter
experts who will never take on an in-depth study of the field. With this
acronym so well-designed for access and memorization, there are far-reaching
implications of how it positions its practitioners in the instructional design
process.
Should we just do away with models all
together?
The
roots of instructional design cling to the soil of the military-industrial
complex and its call for more effective, efficient and productive processes for
uniform training. Though still of legitimate concern in today’s learning environments
that reflect the transitional growth from industrial to knowledge based
economies, calls for effectiveness, efficiency and productivity are now
accompanied by calls for equity, sustainability and innovation.
Petrina (2004) argues that the models
proposed by instructional designers are lacking because “universal formulas”
could only work in apolitical environments which arguably, do not exist.
However, a model for the process of instructional design that incorporates the
political, by positioning the designer to engage rather than analyze the
environment and diversity of voices, may work towards more equitable,
sustainable and innovative approaches and outcomes. EDDIE, as a model of
inclusion, prompts practitioners to position themselves as engaged participants
in a process that can make room for both objectivist and constructivist
approaches, depending on the circumstances. This blended and balanced approach
is advocated by a growing number of scholars and practitioners in instructional
design (Christensen, 2008; Wilson, 2005).
Conclusion
If you are an instructional designer
or a subject matter expert (SME) asked to design instruction or produce an
instructional tool, and you turn to resources from the field of instructional
design, how might your process and results differ if you were met with the EDDIE
model for guidance? Studies gathering evidence from the literature about how
current practices reflect constructive engagement and studies designed to test
the EDDIE model would provide useful guidance in answering this question. This
discussion provides a framework for further research considering the role of
instructional designers in the transitioning environment of globalized
instructional design.
References
Armstrong, AM (2004). Instructional
Design in the Real World: A View from the Trenches. Hershey, PA:
IRM Press.
Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. (A.
Lavers, Trans.) Canada:
Harper Collins. (Original work published 1957).
Bhaba, H. (1994) The Location of Culture. New
York: Routledge.
Bonk, C.J. & Cunnighmam, D.J.
(1998) Searching for learner-centered, constructivist, and sociocultural
components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C.J. Bonk & K.
S. King (Eds.) Electronic Collaborators: Learner-centered technologies for
Literacy, Apprenticeship and Discourse. New Jersey:
Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Britza, J.J., Lorc, P.J., Coetzee,
I.E.M., & Bestere, B.C. (2006). Africa as
a knowledge society: A reality check. The
International Information & Library Review 38, 25-40.
Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou. (W. Kaufmann, Trans.) New York: Charles Scribners Sons. (Original work published 1947).
Christensen, T. (2008) The role of
theory in instructional design: Some views of an ID practitioner. Performance Improvement 47(4), 25-32.
Dahlman, C. & Utz, A. (2005). India and the knowledge economy: Leveraging
strengths and opportunities. Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank.
Damarin, S.K. (1998). Technology and
multicultural education: The question of convergence. Theory into Practice 37(1), 11-19.
Ezer, J. (2006). Gandhi's third
assassination: Information and communications technology education in India.
Information Technology for Development
(12)3, 201-212.
Giroux, H.A. (1996). Is there a place
for cultural studies in colleges of education? In H.A. Giroux, C. Lankshear, P.
McLaren and M. Peters (Eds.), Counternarratives:
Cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces. New York: Routledge, 41-58.
Gustafson, K. & Branch, R.M.
(1997). Revisioning models of instructional development. Educational Technology Research and Development 45(1), 73-89.
Heemskerk, I.,
Brink, A., Volman, M. & ten Dam, G. (2005). Inclusiveness and ICT
education: a focus on gender, ethnicity and social class. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 21, 1-16.
Henderson, L. (1996) Instructional design of
interactive multimedia: A cultural critique. Educational Technology Research
& Development 44(4). 85-104.
Huang, H.M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult
learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational
Technology 33(1), 27-37.
Jonnassen, D.H. (1994). Objectivism vs.
constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational
Technology Research and Development 39(3), 5-14.
Knowles, M.S. (1975). Self-directed
learning. New York:
Association Press.
McLoughlin, C. (2001). Inclusivity and
alignment: Principles of pedagogy, task and assessment design for effective
cross-cultural online learning. Distance
Education, 22(1), 7-29. Retrieved
April 21, 2008, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 87516871).
Mezirow, J. & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical
perspectives on a theory in progress. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Molenda, M. (2003). In
search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance
Improvement (42)5. 34-36.
Petrina,
S. (2004). The politics of curriculum and instructional design/theory/form:
Critical problems, projects, units and modules. Interchange 35(1), 81-126.
Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. NewYork: Free
Press.
Rossett,
A. (1998). First Things Fast: A handbook
for performance analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Seufert, S. (2001). Cultural
perspectives. In H.H. Alderberger, B. Collis, & J.M. Pawlowski (Eds.) Handbook of Information Technologies for
Education and Training. Berlin
et. al: Springer.
Thiagarajan,
S. (1976). Help I am trapped inside an ID model! National Society for Performance Improvement Journal, 10-11.
Thomas,
M., Mitchell, M. & Joseph, R. (2002). The third dimension of ADDIE: A
cultural embrace. Tech Trends, 46(2), 40-45.
Visscher-Voerman, I. & Gustafson,
K.L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training
design. Educational Technology Research and Development 52(2), 69-89.
Vrasidas, C., & Zembylas, M.
(2003). The nature of technology-mediated interaction in globalized distance
education. International Journal of
Training and Development, 7(4), 271-286.
Wang, C. X.
(2007) Exploring instructional technology consulting in two different culture
settings. Special Issue of International
Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning 1(1/2), 47-68.
Wild, M., & Henderson, L. (1997).
Contextualizing learning in the World Wide Web: Accounting for the impact of
culture. Education and Information Technologies 2, 179-192.
Willis, J. (2005). Culture, context,
and the diffusion of technology in education. International Journal of
Technology in Teaching and Learning 1(1), 9-18.
Wilson, B.G. (2005) Broadening our
foundation for instructional design: Four pillars of practice. Educational Technology 45(2), 10-15.
Wilson, B. (2007). Two roads
diverging. In R.A. Reiser & J.V. Dempsey (Eds.) Trends and Issues in
Instructional Design and Technology 2nd ed. New Jersey: Pearson.
