The ADDIE Model Principles

David Kibler
EDUC 636
September 12, 2014



















ADDIE is a process that allows an instructional entity to create an effective teaching
method. The process incorporates Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and
Evaluation. These properties allow the designer to develop a useful instrument to assess the
knowledge of students and employees. Originally the ADDIE method was called the
Instructional System Design (ISD) or System Approach to Training (SAT). The ADDIE model
was developed by Florida State University in 1975 for the U.S. Army. The Army used the model
to create educational curricula to support their training needs. The Addie model consists of 19
steps in the development process (Clark, 2014).
The ISD (ADDIE) method was used to identify problematic processes and to create a
methodology for training individuals to remediate the issues. The Analysis process was the first
phase of identifying the environment, process, human deficiencies, existing training course, task
of the process. The next was the Design aspect of the course development for remediating the
issues. This phase included the creation and design of educational and training goals, objectives,
tests, and tasks that would support the correct learning process of the students. This phase must
be systematic and specific to provide students with an effective, logical, and orderly training
system. This is a key strategy to provide students with quality training. The next phase in the
ISD method is the development of interactive media, training literature, instructional materials,
and lecture plans to support the learning and training process. These attributes support the
learning environment in the educational process. The Implantation process is where the
instructional plan is put to the test. The educational content is used to conduct the instruction
with the aid of the teacher. This is an important phase of the ISD model to test the content in an
instructional forum or classroom. The most important phase is the Evaluation process. This
allows the designer to determine if course content was understood and absorbed by the students
(Clark, 2014).
This evaluation process can be conducted in a summative and/or formative format. This
allows the designer to determine if the students are meeting the success criteria for the course
content. The use of assessments is a must to properly evaluate the course, students, and the
instructor (Clark, 2014).
The purpose of this paper is to compare the ADDIE model in three different applications.
The first is a general chemistry course (Shibley, Amoral, & Shank, et al., 2011), the second an
instructional design (Peterson, 2003), and the third is in the development of an online
instructional design course (Summerville, 2002). Although there are many similarities in how the
ADDIE model is implemented, there are also differences based on the individual preferences in
applying each step. Each group applies the information gleamed in different manners based on
differences in interpretation of questions and answers.
The first step in the ADDIE model is Analysis. In the general chemistry course, Shibley,
Amoral, et at. (2011) were trying to create a more consistent course for all methods of delivery.
With this they were trying to create seven specific goals for each 12 units taught. Once the
learning goals were developed, the instructors focused on identifying the objectives where the
students struggle the most. They felt that the analysis of student attitudes was also a very
important part of this step. In the instructional design by Peterson (2003), this phase focused
mainly on the target audience. The designers looked at the needs of the audience by determining
what they already knew and what they needed to know when the course ends. They focused on
the competencies to establish the foundation of the needs of the students to complete the course
work. Although both of these groups used the information provided by students, the designers in
the general chemistry course completed this at the end of this step, while the designers of the
instructional design model looked at the needs of the students at the beginning of this step. The
third course is the online instructional design. In this course, Summerville (2002) shows that the
design of the course is different in that the students are more self-motivated in completing course
requirements. The design was created on section by section based on the needs of the students.
All three models used input from the students, yet collected the input at different stages of the
step.
The next phase is Design. The design of the general chemistry course was a blended
course that allowed for online and in-class engagement activities. The percentage of face to face
course was 75% and 25% online. The instructional design course was focused on objectives, data
and student characteristics to create assessment for student learning. The design was traditional
with supplemental online information. The third course was a complete web based course based
off a traditional course. All three had components of online learning with different values of time
in the regular class setting from a small amount to total online.
The third phase is Development. In the goal of the development in the general chemistry
class was to organize the critical content into different levels. They also used various methods of
instructional technology to help engage the students (Shibley, Amoral, et at., 2011). In the
instructional design course the focus was on developing content to ensure that quality standards
were met. A formative approach was used (Peterson, 2003). The third course with an online
course based off a traditional course, was web based with three frames: contact, menu, and main.
All the information was housed here for the course. The course focused on integrating new web
based technology into the learning environment (Summerville, 2002).
The fourth phase is Implementation. The general chemistry course established
heterogeneous groups by the instructor. They utilized clickers to provide feedback on
intermediate and complex questions. They also used peer mentors. The peer mentors had already
taken the course and offered study strategies to help the students focus on task. In the second
course, the designer took an active role rather than a passive role in the delivery of the content.
Through this, the instructor analyzed and redesigned the product. Since the last course was
delivered completely online, there was little interaction between the instructor and the student.
They used media to create projects. The main objective was to learn how to use different forms
of technology to present information.
The fifth phase is Evaluation. In the general chemistry course, they found that the overall
grades improved substantially for hybrid level classes. Over 90% of students who responded felt
that blended design was helpful in being successful in the class. The instructional design course
used summative and formative evaluations throughout the course. These evaluations provided
valuable feedback to readjust the class. The evaluations provided positive feedback, possibly
showing that the ADDIE model helped the delivery to be smooth and effective. The third course
studied used fill in the blank question forms in an online environment. These evaluations showed
a positive result, but were not based on substantive information. A future study showed
evaluations were not as positive. This instructor changed the model to a WebCt model of
delivery.
Although each of these courses had similarities, there were also many differences. The
first two showed positive evaluations and could trace results to the ADDIE model. The third
course started out with positive evaluations, but these were not based on conclusive facts. When
presented again at a later date, the results were not positive. The ADDIE model is a method of
design. Each facility uses the template in different manners based on the needs of the clients.
Even though the ADDIE model is the same, the needs of each group must be addressed using
different instructional modalities.

References
Clark, D. R. (2014). Addie timeline. Retrieved from:
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html#FSU

Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of
Educational Multimedia & Hypermedia, 12(3), 227-241.

Shibley, I., Amoral, K. E., Shank, J. D., & shibley, L. R. (2011). Designing a blended course:
Using ADDIE to guide instructional design. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(6),
80-85.

Summerville, J. B. (2002). Taking ID online: Developing an online instructional design course.
Tech Trends, 46(4), 29-32.