ADDIE APPROACH TO PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

ADDIE approach to program development

ADDIE approach to program development

Introduction

The ADDIE instructional design process (i.e., Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) is a common approach widely used in the development of instructional courses and training programs. This approach provides educators with useful, clearly defined stages for the effective implementation of instruction. Consisting of five phases, the ADDIE framework was used in two ways in the development of an instructional design course for Master's level students. First, the ADDIE framework was used in the planning of the instructional design course. Subsequently, the framework proved useful as a scaffold for students developing multimedia projects as their culminating requirement for the course. Using the ADDIE model throughout the course placed an emphasis on the learner rather than a teacher-centered approach. The analysis of the learners became a crucial aspect in the design of the course and was an essential piece for the learners as they designed their individual multimedia projects. The ADDIE framework brought the instructional design course and projects to life by providing a process that actively engaged developers in problem solving.( Burns, 2001)

ADDIE came about with the development of the Cold War after World War II as the United States military struggled with itself to find a way to create more effective training programs for increasingly complex subjects. The result of this struggle for increased effectiveness bore fruit in the form of Instructional Systems Design which in turn, led to the design models that are in use today. You will often hear ADDIE referred to as Instructional Systems Design (ISD), Instructional Systems Design & Development (ISDD), Systems Approach to Training (SAT) or Instructional Design (ID). Most of the current instructional design models you will find in the workplace today are variations or spin-offs of the original ADDIE model.

If we agree with Covey that being proactive is one of the habits that highly successful people practice, then it would make sense that an organization as an entity would be more successful if it were proactive versus reactive. Of course, a proactive company mindset would have to come from the leaders first, and then be reinforced in the organization's culture so that all employees value and exhibit proactivity. It is truly unfortunate, however, that this habit is so often overlooked by the people in leadership roles, and companies end up merely existing in a reactive mode, worrying only about the day-to-day operations instead of focusing on the future of the company.

When an organization functions from a reactive paradigm, employee training is usually neglected or addressed in a haphazard fashion. This makes sense since the short-term training picture involves time away from work stations and a monetary investment. Training is seen as an annoyance or a necessary evil in reactive organizations. Only those who value the long-term, positive impact of offering training to employees will take the time and energy needed to design and implement training to improve knowledge, skills and attitudes.

Who are the people who would be in charge of ...