Throughout this week, I was part of a group that tried out an instructional design model called ADDIE, where:
- A stands for Analysing the learning need
- D stands for Designing the learning activity
- D stands for Developing the resources for the learning activity
- I stands for Implementing the learning activity, by delivering it
- E stands for Evaluating the learning activity
ADDIE has a waterfall flow, where each step in the model is carried out sequentially, with little or no iteration. This was a problem for the relatively little amount of time we had to complete the exercise, as the next step in the model had to wait for previous steps to be done first. Only about 10 minutes were available in the first lesson, with most of that time being used to decide what topic to base the learning activity on. The analysis was incomplete at the end of the first session, however production of other steps had already started – in particular the design which I was responsible for. Therefore, a bit of rapid production crept in – the rapid prototype instructional design model was probably better suited for the limited time we had. While one member of the group was responsible for one step in the model, this was seen to be impractical for one person to complete a fully developed Powerpoint, for the development stage, during the limited time allowed in the second session. Therefore, all members of the group worked simultaneously on developing the Powerpoint using Google Docs – this worked out quite well for quickly developing a fully texted and illustrated instructional Powerpoint.
A short presentation on ADDIE:
I left a comment on Taha’s blog, http://codex156.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/week-five-reflections-rapid-prototype-exercise/, as I found it interesting that he used the Rapid Prototype approach for this exercise, yet didn’t think it was the best approach for the exercise. Perhaps, if there had been more time available, we could have all experience a sequential approach (ie ADDIE or OTARA) and the rapid approach, in order to get a better idea of which approach is better as an instructional design model.