CHAPTER 2

Instructional Systems Design

Never before have so many people been tasked with creating instructional activities, materials, and programs for learners in schools, businesses, and organizations. Many have little formal training in instructional design, if any (Carliner and Driscoll, 2009). They are guided by their intuition, their observations of what they have seen others do, and their experiences as a learner. Of those who have received instruction on instructional design, an instructional systems design (ISD) model most likely guides their work. ISD models frequently divide the process into phases, such as analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. It is from this logical, commonsense series of phases that the “ADDIE” name is derived.

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN

What is it? The definition of instructional design “can revolve around numerous perspectives: process, discipline, science, and reality” (Crawford, 2004, p. 414). Piskurich defines instructional design as “simply a process for helping you create effective training in an efficient manner” and helping “you ask the right questions, make the right decisions, and produce a product that is as useful and useable as your situation requires and allows” (2000, p. 1).

These general and perhaps indeterminate definitions reflect the fact that instructional design is basically multidimensional decision making. It's a process historically viewed much like that of a building architect. The expected outcome from an instructional designer is a blueprint to guide the development of learning experiences. The designer is expected to produce specifications of a product that can be developed within time and cost budgets, and the product should achieve defined goals while meeting a variety of constraints and preferences. Although the delivered blueprint needs to be very clear, understandable, and as simple as possible, the design task can be very complex due to the number of considerations.

There are many questions to be answered, such as:

• Who is to be taught what and what are the learners’ current capabilities?
• What types of skills are to be learned?
• What delivery platforms are available?
• Are other learning experiences needed and available?
• What are the coordination opportunities and restrictions?
• Who will do the development and what are their capabilities?
• Are representative learners available for trial runs?
• Who is available to assist with content information gathering, synthesis, and organization?
• Are media resources available and sufficient?
• Will licensed materials be needed and are they affordable?
• Is there a hard deadline for delivery of the instructional product?
• What approvals are necessary?
• Who will review and approve?
• What is the availability of people who must review and approve?
• How is learning success defined and how will it be measured?
• How is project success defined and how will it be measured?

Identifying the variables that will impact decisions and collecting accurate data are two important steps to avoid going off in wrong directions. It is the awareness of this importance that places analysis as the first step in ISD and as critical input to design. Because there are many variables that define instructional needs, many tasks to assess each of those variables, and potential problems if a variable is overlooked or inaccurately measured, ISD has become more structured and formalized over the years. As Gustafson and Branch state, it is “a system of procedures for developing educational and training programs in a consistent and reliable fashion” (2001, p. 17).

There is, indeed, comfort and security in having a defined set of steps, checklists, and criteria. Were I asked to do a totally unfamiliar job, such as replace an automobile engine, I'd really want such a system of procedures.

FAMILIARITY BEGETS CREDIBILITY

The high level view of the ADDIE model of ISD, its five sequential phases of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation, makes tremendous sense as a system of procedures. It has been widely used in various adaptations. Indeed, the ADDIE acronym has become so ubiquitous in the training industry that Bichelmeyer (2005) didn't even consider defining it until the final draft of her article about its role in the industry.

In actuality however, when people refer to ADDIE, about all we know is that they divide tasks into analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation phases. Beyond that, one knows fairly little because of the wide variances in application. Reports and conference papers on how ADDIE has been modified and adapted are voluminous. It seems nearly all organizations find modification desirable if not mandatory, and even then, designers and developers regularly report much deviation from their own formalized adaptations, indicating it's not what we actually do. Iteration, in particular, is seen not as an option but a necessity; yet the basic ADDIE model is not iterative.

Faith in ADDIE has been strong, perhaps from tradition as much as any other reason, but ADDIE is far from the most up to date, effective, reliable, and proven process for building quality learning. The foundational notions of ADDIE are quite old now and address problems and opportunities that have changed dramatically and significantly over the years, and there are perhaps hundreds of thousands of developed courses that would suggest the process does not ensure many measures of quality. Widespread use, a memorable acronym, a defined process with the appeal and appearance of manageability, together with many sources of information and training on the process, are commendable attributes envied by all marketeers. Unfortunately, reliable product quality is not foremost among its credits.

Indeed, the ADDIE model is not without considerable criticism. The model has been criticized for being “too systematic, that is, too linear, too inflexible, too constraining, and even too time consuming to implement” (Kruse, 2009). Other criticisms range from the model's inability to take “advantage of digital technologies” to the model not providing an accurate representation of the “way instructional designers do their work” (Bichelmeyer, 2005, p. 4).

PROCESS SELECTION

There is more to the relationship between effective design and process than just efficiency. Processes can affect quality, creativity, and accuracy just as much as they do efficiency and timeliness. When we select a process, we are also selecting the type of product we want. For example, does the process promote experimentation with ideas and media or look to theoretical analysis for guidance? Experimentation with learner involvement early in the process can generate ideas before costly development work is undertaken. Does the process emphasize making the learning experience engaging and enduring through practice, or does the process emphasize content coverage and thoroughness? Addressing the learning experience to make it a meaningful and memorable one can determine what content does and doesn't belong, whereas emphasis on content thoroughness almost inevitably leads to boring, burdensome, and ineffective presentations for passive absorption by the learner.

When we select a process, we are also selecting the type of product we want.

Definition and sequence of tasks or events delineate a process. The five-stage ADDIE process offers a linear approach—completing one stage before moving on to the next (Crawford, 2004; Molenda, Reiguluth, and Nelson, 2003), although common adaptations loosen the linearity of the prerequisite chain in various ways. Changes make a big difference, of course, and a changed process must be renamed and considered a different process. Not having done so has led to much of the confusion about what ADDIE is and isn't. It isn't helpful to suggest a named process is anything we're doing today. Processes need a crisp definition in order to be understood, evaluated, selected, and applied.

WHAT WAS ADDIE ORIGINALLY?

To further complicate the usefulness of adapted ADDIE models, there is no clear agreement on what the base model is. Molenda states when authors proffer adaptations and narrative descriptions based on the ADDIE model they “are essentially creating and disseminating their own models as there does not appear to be an original, authoritative version of the ADDIE model to be revealed and interpreted” (2003, p. 36).

While the origins of this model are unclear, the underlying process has its origins in the U.S. armed forces (Molenda, 2003). The intent was to develop a system for the design of instruction that would be more “effective, efficient, and relevant than less rigorous approaches to planning instruction” (Gustafson and Branch, 2002). Figure 2-1 is a diagram of the early systems model that served as the predecessor to current ISD models and eventually ADDIE.

Figure 2-1. Early Version of ADDIE: Five Phases of ISD

Source: 2011, Clark, D.; adapted from Branson, Rayner, Cox, Furman, King, Hannum, 1975.

Figure courtesy of Donald Clark.

Graphic representation of a model with so many major steps is quite helpful to gain a quick, overview notion. Reading through the uniform size boxes, however, one immediately recognizes that the magnitude of each step is not represented by the size of the box. That is, the varying levels of time and effort needed to complete steps are not represented. Nor is the complex relationship among the steps. Indeed, were one to connect steps that have relationships to each other, the diagram would be so encumbered with lines that it would be impossible to read.

In what we understand to be the foundational notion of ADDIE, dependency relationships are implied by the sequence. That is, specifying learning events (Step 1, Phase III) is dependent on developing objectives (Step 1, Phase II), but determining sequence and structure (Step 4, Phase II) is not dependent on reviewing existing materials (Step 3, Phase III). Practicalities, however, might suggest otherwise.

This model is classified today as a waterfall process—that is, all steps in one phase are completed in sequence before moving on to the next phase. The waterfall concept, so called because water does not flow backward or uphill, is illustrated in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2. ADDIE as a Waterfall Process

What we know today, from many years of experience, is that there is a vital experimental and exploratory exercise that needs to be undertaken in the process of instructional design. Although we have much research on human learning, brain function, perception, and communication of information to guide us, the undertaking of instructional product design is very complex. There are too many variances in each project to make success with them as simple as applying our knowledge. We need to use our knowledge to formulate our best guess, our first “approximation” of an ideal design, and then find ways to evaluate it. We need to take quicker, smaller steps so that we can receive the additional guidance of evaluation before we have spent all our project's time and resources on only one guess.

Evaluation to catch mistakes toward the end of the process, as with ADDIE, is better than not correcting them at all. But there are risks. Continuous evaluation and correction as early as possible returns valuable rewards.

Waiting to make corrections toward the end of the process invites trouble.

LEARNING TO ADAPT

In an effort to address the limitations of the linear waterfall approach of the early ADDIE models, some have proposed an ADDIE model that is iterative or cyclical. Figure 2-3 is a diagram of a modification of the ADDIE model, modified to support iteration and provide greater flexibility.

Figure 2-3. A Modification of ADDIE

This diagram is one of many modified ADDIE models. Others differ in the arrangement of the model phases, use and placement of double-headed arrows, and so on. These modifications, while desirable in many instances, muddle the definition of ADDIE. Although any process that contains analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation could be called an ADDIE process, what process wouldn't involve these tasks? Nearly all do, need to, and should, but the specific sequences, criteria, and interdependencies are critical to the definition of a process. It is meaningless to call a process ADDIE if very different processes are called by the same name. Unfortunately, we're in such a state today, and it's unclear what people are really saying when they report use of ADDIE.

THE BEST MODEL

While there would be advantages to having a global, standard, highly effective ISD model, the best model today is the model that works well for an organization—one that assures each project will be completed within its constraints and will achieve desired performance outcomes to the fullest extent possible. Adaptation of models should be continuous as needs evolve and new best practices are recognized. But what might the foundation model be? Where should a team start?

Ideally, the numerous “new” versions of the ADDIE model could be seen as helpful efforts to move us closer to an effective model for creating engaging and effective learning. Unfortunately, it seems that many adaptations have been made because of challenges faced in implementing ADDIE (of which there are many) rather than to reach out directly for an improved process for quality learning design and development.

Adaptation of a familiar design approach is an understandable response by professionals in our field who need a realistic representation of their endeavors—a way to organize and communicate about what is happening. The more specific a model, the narrower its applicability. The more general a model, the more vague its clarity and utility.

“It appears that even instructional design models with some amount of utility must often be modified or adapted (even radically) by designers to render them applicable in context” (Yanchar, South, Williams, Wilson, 2007, pg. 1). The need to match the process to the environment in which the instruction is being developed demonstrates the inherent weakness of traditional design models for present-day design and development activities.

Suggesting that modified ADDIE processes allow teams to convey design options, evaluate approaches, and share ideas among the five phases of the model is too often just a theoretical notion and diversion from real and important process issues. Altering the sequence or connections of the five components of the ADDIE model may be a pointless task. Merrill asserts that the struggle for people offering adaptations of the ADDIE model components may derive from “the fact [that] their detailed implementation in various incarnations of ISD do not represent the most efficient or effective method for designing instruction” (2002, p. 39).

Experience in the complex work of instructional product development quite naturally gives rise to defined subtasks and procedures that become comfortable and routine. There is often a desire to “fix” the process while simultaneously clinging to the familiar aspects of it, whether they are truly productive or not. Focus turns to solving problems with the management of the process rather than to defining and sequencing tasks essential to creating great learning experiences. Spoken signs of clinging to the familiar at the sacrifice of producing great learning products include:

• I have a form for subject matter experts to fill out, so I have on record what learners need to know. If it's wrong, it's wrong. I'm not a subject matter expert.
• I organize information into chunks readable in 15 minutes or less. I count the chunks, multiply by our average development time, and get the project timetable.
• Since people always want to make changes, I give them three “change for free” cards. Once they've used them up, no more changes. Don't even bring it up.
• Our modules never cover more than three objectives, and our quizzes always fit on a single page. It helps our designers to have defined spaces to write for.
• We figure each new project will require about three new templates in addition to our standard collection. After producing so many courses, we now have a fixed price for engineering new templates. So it's pretty easy to determine project costs now.

While the basic concepts of the ADDIE model are essential to any effective design process, the approaches designers use are “far more varied and selective” and the processes are “much more heterogeneous and diverse than these ADDIE models suggest” (Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson, 2004, p. 70, 72). Simply, these ADDIE models do not “address the complexity associated with instructional design” (Crawford, 2004, p. 418).

It seems then that it may be time to leave ADDIE behind. We've dragged it along with us for so many years in an adherence to the roots of ISD. We know its strengths and weaknesses, but we've adapted it and have the comfort of familiarity. Still, the results are not all they could be.

We want to stress once again, if the process you use meets your requirements and produces the quality product you want, you have the right process for you. We have seen ADDIE serve some organizations well. Typically, however, ADDIE appears to fall short. While ADDIE must be appreciated for what it's done in the past, let it no longer be the source of the boring and outdated instructional products it so often leads to. Let it no longer dictate a process that's simply too slow, laborious, and ineffectual. It's time to move on. Surely we can get comfortable with a new process once again.