ADDIE: Acronym for what is considered the essential basic steps of all other instructional design models. (Brown & Green, 2020)
Components:
Analysis: Data gathering.
Design: Blueprint of the project including objectives, content, design plan
Development: Production (deliverables)
Implementation: Learners use the product.
Evaluation: Pilot testing during development. Which learners meet objectives during implementation. (Hodell, 2015)
Unique Features: Linear rather than iterative. Each step is step is discrete and meant to be completed prior to moving to the next stage in the process. (Allen & Merrill, 2017)
Strengths: With a focus on data and research in the initial phases and in a methodical manner, this model is able to carefully determine constraints and limitations, as well as analysis of the target learner.
This model is also general enough in framework to be used in conjunction with other models to offer the benefits of it while enhancing it with other methodologies. (Winter, 2016)
Criticisms: ADDIE is a described as discrete steps, one step completed before the next begins. If changes to prior steps are needed, such as specifications, it creates cost increases and other issues. It requires design by documentation, which can lead to interpretation misconceptions of specifications. The ADDIE process is slow. Stakeholders and users are not incorporated until the end of the process, and as a result often have difficulty picturing what the product will look like without a functional phototype in this model. (Allen & Merrill, 2017)
ADDIE is a top-down model of design with the focus on the designer(s) rather than the learners. There are criticisms that it has a lack of testing at all. (Winter, 2016)
SAM OR PEBBLE-IN-THE-POND: SAM or Successive Approximation Model is a pattern of evaluate, design and develop where each step is iterative so that each iteration includes input from collaboration to improve the output.
Merrill envisions the type of problem to solve as a pebble thrown in a pond with the ripples the iteration in instructional design process. (Brown & Green, 2020)
Components:
SAM: Evaluate, Design and Develop in an iterative cycle.
Pebble-in-the-Pond:
- Design a problem (the pebble).
- Design a progression of problems (the ripples of the pond from the pebble).
- Design instruction for component skills.
- Design instruction enhancements/extensions to the problem-solving.
- Finalize the design.
- Create assessment and evaluation. (Brown & Green, 2020)
Unique Features: Merrill’s develops content before creating the objectives because the desired outcomes can change during the design process. (Brown & Green, 2020)
The original pebble/problem leads to the ripples or extensions or applications of the problem in a progression. (Allen & Merrill, 2017)
Both are distinguished by focusing on the components of knowledge needed to achieve a learning target rather than the specific objective/target itself. Those components build to a whole.
Strengths:
SAM: The process is faster starting with less exhaustive data gathering before beginning. Prototyping is emphasized so users have something to interact with and give feedback on at each step. (Herholtz, 2020)
Pebble-in-the-Pond also utilizes functional prototyping with iterations, with similar strengths to SAM. (Allen & Merrill, 2017)
Both focus on the “how” of instruction rather than the “why” in ADDIE or the “what” of backwards design.
Criticisms: Pebble-in-the-Pond assumes the problem can be solved by instructional design. It doesn’t include summative evaluation or production phases. Analysis (data gathering) isn’t included in the model. (Allen & Merrill, 2017)
BACKWARDS DESIGN: The designer begins with the desired outcomes, and then creates the assessments, followed by the instruction, in reverse order from the typical design model. (Schneider, n.d.)
Components:
Identify Outcomes: What should the learner do or know at the end.
Determine assessment criteria: How will you prove a learner met the objective.
Plan the instruction: How will get the learner to the outcomes as determined by assessment. (Schneider, n.d.)
Unique Features: Student learning outcomes and assessments are defined before materials or methods of instruction are chosen. (Schneider, n.d.)
This process is in contrast to SAM/Pebble-in-the-Pond in that the focus remains on the end result/learning objective with steps created to meet it, while SAM/Pebble-in-the-Pond has centered the focus on the steps in sequence, with final objective written last.
Strengths: Emphasis is placed on the “big ideas” or larger takeaways learners should know. These can be state standards or other specific targets. This is encouraged to be done at the unit or larger level, so it ideally creates a cohesive plan for achieving the targeted learning objective, reducing or eliminating activities and exercises unrelated to the specific learning target. (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005)
This model allows curriculum mapping of many smaller interrelated targets within the larger overreaching learning goal or objective as the focus of the design, in a cohesive plan or design. (Juliani, A.J., 2021)
Criticisms: Overemphasis or emphasis on wrong learning target underemphasizes journey of learning or learning not recognized as the target. (Schneider, n.d.)
Design Thinking Examples:
ADDIE: Our school has experienced a doubling in student enrollment in the past two years. The new students are displaying different characteristics and priorities than our prior population. Historically, we have attracted homeschooling families looking for occasional classes and some light oversight and record keeping by a credentialed teacher. The new students within the last two years are requested many more classes by our staff, more intensive involvement in oversight, planning, and records. We are having issues with large class sizes, need of more classes, and training of staff for this new population.
If we start with a problem of what changes we need to make to better position ourselves to meet the needs of this new student population, we can approach this with the ADDIE model. The focus should be heavily on data gathering and analysis including interviews and other means of understanding. We can then move into design and development, followed by implementation and evaluation.
Given it requires changes to our school structure as a whole, something that should see changes only carefully and cautiously, the ADDIE model with a more cautious analysis, development and design is appropriate as opposed to SAM or other iterative prototyping methodologies. We obviously do not want to make a series of changes and revisions, which would prove chaotic and stressful to our learner population.
SAM/Pebble-in-the-Pond: We have a problem where student users (children) are unable to recall passwords, requiring frequent IT administration password resets. Using this model may lead to ripples of related issues to the problems, such as perhaps lack of student understanding in general about passwords, logins, and broader technical knowledge. The password and login problem might be just one step in the set of larger related problems. The learning outcome may or may not be as simple as students memorizing the password. The use of this model allows for that appropriate learning target to evolve during the process, while the single problem gives an entry point to begin the design process.
Backwards Design: As a math teacher, I have a set of essential common core standards to cover each year for each level of mathematics. These standards fit in the vertical alignment of math learning a student is engaged in from the earliest years up to higher level math. Utilizing backwards design can help me map out a plan where I first set my objective as the standards to be covered, the smaller objectives of individual standards within the larger one, and the entire project of my design within the larger overreaching design of math learning as a continuum across years. By starting with the ultimate goals in mind, we can establish a suitable framework for the overall goals, down to yearly goals, down to semester goals and down to units, all planned from the ultimate final learning objectives.
References:
Allen, M.W., & Merrill, M.D. (2017). Chapter 4: SAM and Pebble-in-the-Pond: Two Alternatives to the ADDIE Model. Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology, 2017, 31-41.
Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2020). The Essentials of Instructional Design: Connecting Fundamental Principles with Process and Practice. Routledge.
Herholtz, K. (2020, March 6). Rapid Instructional Design with SAM. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/sam-successive-approximation-model-for-rapid-instructional-design
Hodell, C. (2015, January 13). All About ADDIE. ATD. https://www.td.org/newsletters/atd-links/all-about-addie
Juliani, A.J. (Host.) (2021, January 10). Jay McTighe: Everything You Need to Know About Backward Design and Curriculum Mapping 3.0 [Audio podcast episode]. In The Backwards Podcast. https://scratchyouritch.libsyn.com/1-jay-mctighe-everything-you-need-to-know-about-backward-design-and-curriculum-mapping-30
Schneider, J. Backward Design—Learning Theories. (n.d.). Learning Theories. Retrieved September 20, 2021, from https://www.learning-theories.com/backward-design.html
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. ACSD.
Winter, T. (2016, March 1). Praise & Criticism: ADDIE Model. Human Performance and Technology. https://blog.dtssydney.com/praise-criticism-addie-model