In fact the experimental research in the field has consistently produced inconsistent and conflicting results.  Few findings are ever replicated except in tightly controlled contexts.  Once the contexts are changed the outcomes are changed. Thus when the research moves from the laboratory to the real world of teaching and learning, most effects are lost. What effects that do persist, typically contribute so little to the variance in performance that they can hardly be considered powerful laws that should guide our design.

The ADDIE framework should be considered a valuable tool in instructional design without adding the constraints of treating it as a scientific process as that misrepresents it as an established science that one cannot deviate from.  This tends to make the process rigid and inflexible.  Diane Gayeski argues that the ISD model should never have been conceived as something carved in stone (Gordon & Zemke 2000) (Wilson, Brent, 1995).

Charge 3: “Used as directed, it produces bad solutions”

ISD doesn’t necessarily produce bad solutions as Gordon & Zemke’s article states – just different solutions.  We have seen that ISD was created to provide a scientific process for Instructional Design.  This focus on the process rather than the product leads to products that don’t meet the original purpose.  It also leads to an inward focus on the process that often prevents the outward application of the knowledge in the working environment or the environment from which the need arose (Wilson & Ryder 1996). 

The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing Minimalist Instruction for Practical Computer Skill , (Carroll 1990) exposes fundamental flaws in the standard systems approach to instruction (a la Gagné):

"The mechanism and the self-asserted generality of the systems approach are attractive in a perverse way to educators and instructional designers, who characteristically worry about being too intuitive and not scientific enough. The plodding discipline of decomposing objectives and grinding out lesson sequences seems like 'hard' science and engineering practice. Unfortunately, the systems approach is as thin as it is mechanical and general. It is related only superficially to any serious understanding of human learning (it draws most heavily and directly on stimulus-response models of animal conditioning; Skinner 1954, 1958). It produces predictable training design outcomes but at best only mediocre success." (p. 3)

The ADDIE orientation of ISD produces a narrowing of the field of focus in judging what may be part of the real problem. Because much of ISD comes from behavioral psychology, and is oriented at “observable, measurable phenomena”, it ignores the affective domain completely, and is not forward oriented.  Instruction should acknowledge the evolving nature of knowledge and encourage students to seek improved understanding.  ID should recognize multiple goals, styles and perspectives typifying the postmodern approach to instruction (Collins 1991)

Often instruction is created and designed conforming to the lowest common denominator.  This cookie-cutter approach is contrary to how we know adults learn.  Once they have accessed instruction, if the learner is above the material there needs to be a mechanism for moving the learner along quickly and effectively.  As Diane Gayeski (Gordon & Zemke 2000)and Gustafson concurs, (Gustafson and Branch, 1997) states “the ISD model takes a let’s clone the best practice and then rigidly follow it path that makes questioning a practice very difficult.  There will be times when you want to have strict compliance with a task – but other times you will expect the learner to adapt his/her knowledge and practice to the situation and context of the learning environment.  Fred Nickols (Gordon & Zemke 2000) characterizes this as the change from pre-figured work to configured work. This approach goes from the follow the directions routine to a more problem solving, search for the information as you go type of learning. 

Charge 4: “It clings to the wrong world view”

The fourth charge that ISD clings to the wrong worldview reflects a global paradigm shift not only within the field of education, but also in the business world.  The shift, in the world of education has been from behaviourism, through cognitivism, to constructivism and postmodernism.  The ISD process has long been wedded to the behaviourist theory and as Gustafson states, we need to look at the ID process from a different focus (Gustafson & Branch 1997):   

The ID process is philosophically inconsistent with recent thinking about human learning and that interesting, interactive and exploratory environments require a different way of conceptualizing the development process.

Except for certain types of technical or procedural tasks, behaviouristic principles decontextualize and oversimplify learning.

 The world outside of education has also shifted from a static , simple traditional world of work to one that is uncertain, indeterminate, and unpredictable.  Fred Nickols points out that work is no longer “pre-figured, it is configured,” dynamic and requires problem solving as work evolves.  Students are no longer just young adults; we are now seeing students as life-long learners.  This means that ISD has to deal with a wider variety of students, a wider variety of learning contexts and a wider range of delivery methods.

As Gustafson notes (Gustafson & Branch 1997), historically, instructional development has always been contextualized, however, the range of contexts in which ID is practiced has increased significantly during the past decade.

Despite these arguments supporting the charges, the ID process remains relevant.  The ISD model needs to realign to address these concerns and accommodate different perspectives and new theories.  This new model needs to be grounded in a new theoretical base to ensure relevant practice.

The greater the compatibility between an ID model and its contextual theoretical and philosophical origins, the greater the potential to generate effective instruction.  (Gustafson & Branch 1997)

Learning Theories and Their Relevance to ISD

The foundations of traditional ISD is embedded within the behaviorist movement (Gustafson & Branch 1997).  Behaviorism looks at learning in a traditional teacher-centred classroom, where teaching occurs based on prescribed objectives and learning is measured by determining whether or not the learner has achieved the desired behaviour. 

Several learning theories have emerged since behaviourism, such as situated cognition, constructivism, and postmodernism, and are suggesting that revisions to ISD are necessary.  The epistemological shift to learning-centred brings with it a shift in thinking about a new concept of classroom.  ISD designers need to visualize a type of learning environment that is capable of instruction about anything, anywhere, anytime.  ISD models and processes have to switch from prescriptive and prefigured instruction to descriptive and configured learning.

Constructivism is clearly been identified as the latest learning theory to be incorporated into ISD.  Currently, instructional designers are adapting more flexible models and tools and more comprehensive ways of thinking about learning and instruction in order to meet the demands of a changing market.

 Constructivists are not “systems builders” in the grand tradition of Newton, Hegel, Skinner, or Freud.  Instead, constructivists tend to see knowledge as connected to practice and as context-dependent.  (Wilson, 1995)

The ideal of constructivism is that knowledge is constructed from experience.  The learner builds his or her own personal interpretation of learning through an active process of collaboration, negotiation and exposure to multiple perspectives.  Learners are encouraged to participate in establishing goals, tasks, and methods of instruction and assessment.   Constructivists see the “whole” problem not just a piece of it and try to incorporate as many perspectives as possible to create solutions to a particular problem.  This theory speaks to the claim that ISD produces the wrong solutions – Constructivists would argue that ISD should have many different solutions as learning is interpretive – not one solution fits all needs. 

Deciding upon a design solution and making decisions within that framework can be considered a highly situated activity.  The success of a given implementation will depend more on the local variables than on the general variables contained in the ID model chosen to guide design.  A situated view of instructional design would lead to a different process than the traditional ADDIE, allowing for feedback and input from all learners as they examine and discuss what their expectations an outcomes would be within an established framework of goals, conventions and practices.  (Wilson, 1995)

Any learning model that is forced upon a specific situation and made to fit could produce negative consequences, as the complexities of some situations cannot be reduced to a simple form of design model.    Designers need to adapt rather than apply the learning theory to the present environment of the client or learner to achieve the best solution for that particular situation.  The traditional ADDIE model, developed to create instruction in a teacher-led classroom, is an example of this.  The ADDIE model without any changes cannot address the needs of adult learners in its present form without considering the characteristics of adults and how they learn.   

Both Situated Cognition and Constructivism are theories that recognize and support the characteristics of adult learners and must be considered in any effective instructional design. (Malcolm Knowles, 1980) lists the characteristics of adult learners as follows:

1.      Independent self-concept – Adults need to be self-directed.  The instructor must therefore, look upon the class as a process of mutual inquiry rather than merely present information and evaluate the student’s conformity to it.

2.      Broad Base of Experience – Adults have had many experiences that they can use while learning new things.  Instructors should be prepared to use the experience adults have to enrich the learning in the class.  

3.      Immediate Time Orientation – Learners of all ages want to know why they should learn something.  Adult learners are usually even more concerned about knowing why they should bother to learn something.

4.      Subsidiary Social Role – Most adults have several other important social roles which may interfere from time to time with their role as students.

5.      Physiological Changes

6.      Unique Development Tasks

7.      Intelligence

It is critical that instructional designers build relevance into course and program content to ensure that the learner not only understands the instruction but also can apply it in his or her everyday situation.  As Bransford and Vye, 1989 stated:  People make sense out of their world by taking in information from the environment and assimilating it into their pre-existing schemas and understandings.  Applying constructivism to instructional design helps to personalize the design process and will help to ensure the product or learning is relevant to the client.

Postmodernist views on instructional design also differ widely from the traditional view of instructional design.  The field of instructional design – evolving from behavioural psychology, and systems technology - view the world through a scientific lens; postmodernists on the other hand, see things through a humanities type of lens. 

The postmodernism theory is largely a response to our modern age and the changes that have occurred.  Whereas modernity trusted science to lead us down the road of progress, postmodernism questioned whether science alone could really get us there.  Whereas modernity happily created inventions and technologies to improve our lives, postmodernism took a second look and wondered whether our lives were really better for all the gadgets and toys.  (Wilson, 1997)

The goal of postmodernist theory is to create, appreciate and interpret meanings from learning rather than the prediction and control orientation of the traditional ADDIE model of design.  Learners are encouraged to participate in considering concepts, setting goals and celebrating the dynamics of learning. 

Traditional ID is sometimes criticized for being overly proceduralized and rigid.  Combining one or several of these emergent learning theories would ensure that design conforms to the needs of the learner.  As Wilson (Wilson & Ryder 1996) states: Are we in the business of designing instruction or are we in the business of supporting valuable learning, wherever it may happen?

Principles of a New ISD Rapid Prototype Model

After detailed analysis of the charges against ISD in Gordon & Zemke’s article, we determined what key principles were necessary to improve upon the traditional ADDIE model.  We need a model that uses a systematic approach for an ID process and it needs to be a conceptual and communication tool used to visualize, direct and manage the ISD process.

The principles that need to be included in a more dynamic, responsive, rapid model include:

§         Flexibility.  Any ISD model that will successfully meet the needs of business and education today must adhere to time constraints, resource constraints, and be individually-focused within an audience in order to achieve flexibility.

§         Adaptive to change.  The ISD model needs to be responsive to new theories, new processes, emerging trends, from both the educational and the real world perspective in order to evolve and bridge theory to practical usage.

§         Parallel processing.  ISD needs to implement simultaneous processes within and between each phase to create a rapid prototype model.

§         Continuous feedback and evaluation.  Throughout the ISD process, continuous relevant feedback has to occur to shape the process to ensure the product meets the needs of the audience.

§         Outcomes-based.  The ISD process needs to be focused on the ball – the problem to be solved and its solution.

§         Contextualized learning.  The ISD process needs to be situated within an appropriate environment for the intended learner.

The Roadent Model

The model that we propose is not a new creation, rather it draws on the effective steps of the ADDIE model, and incorporates the principles we determined necessary to improve upon the ADDIE model.  Our model is grounded in constructivist theory whereby knowledge is dynamic and meaning is constructed (Wilson, et al. 1995) and is situated both from a situated-cognitive view of learning as well as adapting to particular situations that is lacking from traditional ID models (Wilson 1995).

Analysis

The analysis stage approach will have aspects of a SWAT team approach, a rapid critical focus on the training goal.  What resources do we have?, who are the learners? and what is the learning environment?  Design teams are formed, the training goal identified and analyzed, and delivery and media analysis decisions are made.  As the first phase of ID it is imperative that the analysis be completed quickly and efficiently so that the next steps can proceed.

As part of the multi-streaming approach, a design team will analyze the training request based on Branson's  (Branson 1991) seven ways to improve or establish job performance:

Ø      Management
Ø      Personnel Selection
Ø      Personnel Development
Ø      Job Performance Aids
Ø      Training
Ø      Job Design
Ø      Automation

 These “seven ways” to improve job performance can be interpreted as approaches to problem definition and, by extension, approaches to delivering a solution.  

Design

To start the design process off, we plan to use a part of the Program Logic model (Schmitz & Parsons 1999) to help create learning outcomes, to identify the activities that need to be done in order to achieve the outcomes, and outcomes measurement.  Here we  assess the benefits or changes that occur and how those changes are linked to specific program objectives.  Following this process in the design stage will communicate the relationships between activities so that the design team remains focused on achieving the outcomes. The design team will also initiate the design of the assessment and tools, thereby building in an evaluation component that can be used throughout each stage of the process.

To address the need to speed up the design process, the new ISD model will use the concept of parallel processing or multi-streaming throughout each ADDIE step. As the set of defining issues creating the perceived “problem” is identified, a set of solutions for each defined issue may be proposed. As each of the above areas are reviewed, if an aspect of the perceived problem is identified, that aspect becomes a discrete “process stream” or “track”, and the problem is further investigated in parallel with other, related aspects.  

Within each stream or track, as the problem diagnosis is achieved (issues defined), potential solutions (prescriptions or remedies) for each aspect of the “problem” are identified. As part of this diagnostic process, each discrete problem is evaluated to determine if a possible solution lies within one of the seven approaches discussed above.  Each discrete set of proposed solutions within the domains of Management, Personnel Selection, Personnel Development, Job Performance Aids, Training, Job Design, or Automation can be then developed to a general recommendation level, and combined with other aspects to present a holistic approach to solving the real problem (Branson, 1991).

This will allow for quick turnaround and response to a proposed design solution between the design teams, the client and the learners.  The teams, while working in parallel, will need to communication closely and an overall guiding team will help coordinate the whole process.

Tessmer & Wedman’s (cited in Greer 1998) model – the Layers-of-Necessity model, provides a useful approach that allows the design teams to determine the level of complexity of the problem, and then decide on the activities needed (depth and breadth) within each step.  Essential information is gathered for a layer and if time and resources allow, successive layering will include more details.  A useful tool for this is first deciding on what information in each step is needed and how critical the information is – Must, Should, and Could know or do. This model is useful when time and resources are at a premium.  It allows the designer to focus on the critical basic activities and layer more on top as time and resources permit. Each successive layer builds on the previous one in more depth. 

This model also incorporates evaluation and assessment throughout each stage.  The design process needs to receive constant feedback from testing to ensure that the stated outcomes and the activities to get there are the correct ones.  As the instructional designer/s go through each step of the ADDIE model, they will check each assumption and each activity.

Based on the analysis and design information the team will begin the development of the training.

Development

This phase uses the information from the seven fold path this time to fine tune the design to meet the workplace needs of the user community.  This brings the design concept to a working prototype, using technology that is available to deliver the training.  The development considers the limitations of the community and the factors that may hinder a learner’s progress (access to equipment, availability of services, etc. Again the principles of layering would occur as resource and time limitations are considered.  The training developed could be “rapid response” to ensure that essential needs are met with the goal of adding further training as identified and as time permitted. This phase would also include formative evaluation that would be communicated to the guiding design team overseeing the project.  Any gaps in the development could be identified and the design team would work towards fitting new information into the working prototype.  This rapid response format requires the working prototype to be less expensive than some prototypes, but it also allows for more changes to be considered before the development is complete.  It is the parallel – processing of design and development that is critical in a rapid prototype model of ISD.  This is where much time is lost creating the perfect prototype rather than developing a model that will fit the need and modify as necessary.

Implementation

This is the phase that is the “trial run” – either as a pilot project or a full-scale training initiative.  It is here that the design and development blend and any unforeseen problems may come into existence. At this stage, strategies to ensure learner success will be incorporated as well as input (formative evaluation) from all who will be participating in the pilot project.  Any feedback will be screened to see if it is relevant. This is the phase that is the “trial run” – either as a pilot project or a full-scale training initiative.  It is here that the design and development blend and any unforeseen problems may come into existence. At this stage, strategies to ensure learner success will be incorporated as well as input (formative evaluation) from all who will be participating in the pilot project.  Any feedback will be screened to see if it is relevant and whether or not it can be incorporated in this project or considered for the next.  This phase is likely to be the most costly of all as the success of the participants will decide if the project continues or needs to be redesigned.

Evaluation

 In the ADDIE model, evaluation is generally done in a summative manner, well after the initial implementation in order to give the involved parties a chance to “get used to” the new process, procedure, or product. In order to shorten development cycle time for product development, this model uses a formative rather than summative evaluation process. The formative approach to evaluation is a better fit with the parallel multi-stream development process. It can be applied to determine immediate long-term impact, and will allow for adjustment on the fly or fine tuning of the solutions to meet workplace needs in a timely manner. It also ensures input from the learner, designers and others involved in the whole design process. The training that is created through this process will be quick, responsive and more relevant to the learner as the process has been inclusive – rather than exclusive.  

Conclusion

The Rodent model, as suggested is not a breakthrough in instructional design, but rather it addresses the areas that have been problematic in the traditional ADDIE.  Inflexible, slow, clumsy, linear, rigid are all descriptions attributed to ADDIE that instructional designers have tried to overcome incorporating a variety of theories, systems, and models.  When we began our search for the perfect model we recognized as many professional instructional designers and theorists, that there are many alternatives and many solutions.  In the words of David Jonassen (1996):

Real instructional design problems are situated in and emergent from specific contexts and, for most instructional design problems, there are many alternative solutions, each one of which may work as well as any other.  As a field, we have always sought a single set of generalized rules or principles for describing, predicting, and solving most design problems. Perhaps it is time to admit that we have been following the wrong purpose.  And rather than drawing conceptual lines in the sand, we should be examining the whole beach.

Where Could the Roadent Model be Used?

We decided to see if our model fit in a current situation requiring a rapid development approach.  We applied our model to two training examples to show how Roadent model would be used.  

Click here to see an example of how the Roadent model  would work in practice with the Community Assistance Team program, and for an Office Administration program at a local community college

References

            Branson, R. K. (1991). Instructional Systems Development in the Military and Industry. L. Briggs, K. Gustafson & H. & Tillman (Eds.),  (Chap. 14). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.

            Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg Funnel. In The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing Minimalist Instruction for Practical Computer Skill. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

            Collins, A.  (1991, September)  The role of computer technology in restructuring schools.  Phi Delta Kappan, 28 – 36.

            Gordon, J., & Zemke, R. (2000, April). The Attack on ISD. Training, 43-53. Available:
http://www.trainingsupersite.com/publications/archive/training/2000/004/004cv.htm

            Greer, L. (1998, 23/April). A Quest to Understanding the Layers of Necessity ID Model. Available: http://www.uwf.edu/krasmuss/studentprojects/lgreer/?ti2Xdw=www.uwf.edu/~krasmuss/studentprojects/lgreer/ (Accessed 28/11/2000).

            Gustafson, K. L., Branch. (1997). Revisioning Models of Instructional Development. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 45(3), 73-89.

            Jonassen, D. (1996). There is No Need to Reclaim the Field of ID: It's Just Growing! Available: http://www.ed.psu.edu/insys/who/jonassen/Reply.html(Accessed 20/11/2000).

            Merrill, D. M., Drake, L., Lacy, M. J., & Pratt, J. (1996). Reclaiming the Discipline of Instructrional Design. Available: http://itech1.coe.uga.edu/itforum/extra2/extra2.html (Accessed 11/28/2000).

             Rowland, G.  (1993) Designing and instructional design.  Educational Technology Research and Development.

            Schmitz, C. C., & Parsons, B. A. (1999, 10/11/2000). Everything You Wanted to Know About Logic models But Were Afraid to Ask. Available: http://www.insites.org/documents/logmod.htm.

            Wilson, B. (1995). SITUATED INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN: Blurring the Distinctions between learning and practise, design and implementation, curriculum and instruction. Available: http://ceo.cudenver.edu/~brent_wilson/SitCog.html (Accessed 03/12/2000).

            Wilson, B., & Ryder, M. (1996, 01/06). Dynamic Learning Communities: An Alternative to Designed Instructional Systems. Available: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/dlc.html (Accessed 15/11/2000).

            Wilson, B., Teslow, J., & Osman-Jouchoux, R. (1995). The Impact of Constructivism (and Postmodernism) on ID Fundamentals. In Instructional Design Fundamentals: A Review and Reconsideration [Online]. Available: http://ouray.cudenver.edu/~jlteslow/idfund.html (Accessed 27/11/00).