ADDIE, and the Systems Approach: a Critical Analysis

In yesterday's post I looked at a systems approach to instructional design and development, and suggested that this approach was an emergent property of the process whereby instructor-led courseware developers in the 1990's attempted to apply previously-effective training development techniques to the new domain of e-learning.

As an example, I looked at the ADDIE design appraoch and suggested that it could be characterized as a set of heuristics (or conceptual framework) to enable learning professionals to output content commensurate with the systems approach.

Now read on...

In this context, we can say that ADDIE will only deliver results consistent with the expertise of the content designer, as it relies on their (the designers') skills and experience in transferring information and knowledge to "deliver" learning to the recipient. In E-Learning Strategies: how to get implementation and delivery right first time, Don Morrison remarks that

...like many ISD models it fails to give clear guidance about what makes good learning content. You can follow ADDIE to the letter and still deliver mediocre content.

(2004, p.255)

It can be said that ADDIE (and similar systems' approaches to learning content development) are closer in philosophy and practice to a project management methodology than a pedagogy. In this respect they can be a useful approach when developing "one-shot" training content in environments where repetitive worker activities are the norm.

Take this scenario as an example:

1. Production workers have just started using the new WidgetMaker 300-0 tool: it can create 3o widgets per hour.
2. As it's operating principles are very similar to the the older WM 299-8 (20 widgets per hour) model, the organization decides that workers only need a 2-day familiarization course before beginning production with the new tool.
3. A new production target (30 WPH) is set for workers to reflect the increased efficiency of the tool.
4. After three months, production is still 5WPH short of target. It turns out that workers are using the old production process on the new machine, and with the expectation of attaining 30WPH are actually working harder than ever, but are still 50% short of the difference between the new and old hourly production rate. Much disgruntlement all round.
5. It seems that there's an extra gadget on the handle of the WM300-0 that nobody noticed because of the cursory nature of the 2-day familiarization course.
   
6. Time for some training...

Table 1 Systems Approach Methodology applied to learning intervention

ISD Process Phase	Systems Inputs
	People
Analyze	Organization sees deficiency in workers skill-base or competency set (causes lower productivity from the new widget-making tool, the WidgetMaker 300-0, than had been planned)
	Material
Design / Develop	Two-day delta training developed
	Technology
Implement	Training on new process delivered to learners
	Time
Implement	ILT / WBT course delivered (Learners taken out of productive work to take training)
Evaluate	Workers complete certification on tool
	Outputs
Outputs	Workers' productivity increased	Delta training integrated into updated operators' training program

As this example illustrates, treating learning like a project leads to "training outcomes" equivalent to project deliverables. While these training deliverables may have value in and of themselves, they have limited value for workers in the longer term. We could even say that the outputs are valid; workers have increased productivity and the next training course will have extra content to address the issue of lack of competency on the WidgetMaker 300-0. The efficiency of the system has been improved, and future trainees on the WidgetMaker 300-0 will not experience the productivity "hit" experienced by their colleagues. From a project perspective, it makes sense to fold the delta training into the course for the tool.

• There are a number of negative consequence associated this approach
• The delta training no longer exists as a discrete knowledge asset for the organization
• Over time, specific knowledge of that particular learning intervention will be lost, half hidden among the overall learning goals of the WidgetMaker 300-0. Useless in effect, should another learner require remediation on that particular aspect of the tool
• Without this discrete knowledge resource at workers' disposal, the only way to remediate their specific deficiencies on the tool is to require them to re-take the complete How to use the WidgetMaker 300-0 course. Again.

Our field of educational communications is founded on the premise that communicating content to students will result in learning. In educational communications, information or intelligence (in many different forms) is encoded visually or verbally in the symbols systems employed by each technology. During the "instructional" process, learners perceive the messages encoded in the medium and sometimes "interact" with the technology. Interaction is normally operationalized in terms of student input to the technology, which triggers some form of answer judging and response from the technology in the form of some previously encoded (canned) message. Technologies as conveyors of information have been used for centuries to "teach" students by presenting prescribed information to them which they are obligated to "learn."

(Jonassen, 2001)

Rather, Jonassen argues technology (and in particular so-called Read/Write Web technology) should enable learners to develop their skills in a constructivist learning environment (or CLE).

As a quick reminder, here's the Cliff Notes version of Constructivism:

• We construct our own understanding of the world we live in
• Knowledge not received from outside, but by fitting new information together with what we already know we construct knowledge in our head
• Learning is the process of adjusting our mental models to accommodate new experiences
• Constructivist theorists support that people learn best when they actively construct their own understanding

With this in mind (no pun intended. Well... maybe), we'll be looking at CLEs tomorrow.

____________________________

References:

Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]

Morrison, D. (2004) E-Learning Strategies: how to get implementation and delivery right first time Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

--