How the ADDIE framework can add context and continuity to course design

In this blog post, I review Peterson’s (2003) discussion of the ADDIE approach to instructional/course design because I think it provides a useful framework for developing effective instructional programs, especially for novice course designers. In the article, Peterson (2003) describes how the ADDIE framework (the acronym stands for Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) was used to teach a graduate course in instructional design at Waynesburg College in Pennsylvania. As the author notes, the ADDIE concept “provides educators with useful, clearly defined stages for effective implementation of instruction” (Peterson, 2003, p. 227), adding that it leads to learner-centered pedagogy.

I particularly liked the author’s step-by-step breakdown of the ADDIE process.

1. Analysis

The analysis phase focusses on understanding the target audience for instruction, including their characteristics, prior knowledge, and needs. The instructional designer can perform a competency or skills “gap analysis” by investigating what the intended students already know versus what they need to know (e.g. in order to perform a specific job, or to graduate). This phase also includes analysis of any existing course material, including syllabi from other institutions offering a similar course, and review of pertinent textbooks and journal articles.

2. Design

Work in this phase involves determining the specific learning objectives for the course (or program/product), the best methods and media for attaining these objectives, and how accomplishment will be measured. The design phase must incorporate information gathered during the analysis stage. For example, assessment activities and exercises selected in the design phase must be diverse enough to resonate with the various learning orientations discovered during analysis. This link between assessment and design is important because “if goals, objectives, and assessments do not align, learners may find themselves losing interest in the course or program” (Peterson, 2003, p. 230).

3. Development

This refers to the “production” of the tangibles required to deliver the course or learning experience. For my individual project, this would refer to the drafting of the entire syllabus and course outline and creation of any other material or products needed to deliver core course information. According to Peterson (2003), this phase must also include evaluation, because “designers are to determine if the students or audience will learn from the product and how it can be improved before implementation” (p. 231).

4. Implementation

This is the deployment and delivery phase. The author however emphasizes that “no product, course, or program can be effective without conducting an evaluation and necessary revisions throughout the implementation phase” (Peterson, 2013, p. 231). This means that the course designer/instructor must remain open to revising aspects of the course, sometimes even while it’s in progress (I assume this will be more likely if it’s a course been taught for the first time).

5. Evaluation

This refers to the “summative evaluation” that takes place at the end of the course, in addition to, and separate from, the “formative evaluation” that takes place in the development phase. Summative evaluation asks questions such as:

- Has the problem been solved?
- Have the objectives been met?
- Has the course had the intended impact?
- What changes are required for future delivery?

References

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