Reflecting on ADDIE

 

Instructional planning is a method to help teachers systematically design instruction. Numerous instructional planning models have been developed (e.g., Dick & Reiser, 1989; Dick & Carey, 1996; Seels and Glasgow, 1990) with the goal of improving teacher instruction. A systematic approach, which is the focus of this paper, has been shown to be beneficial because it results in effective instruction (Reiser & Dick, 1996). According to Reiser & Dick (1996), a systematic approach to instructional planning consists of the six following phases: goals, objectives, instructional activities, assessment, revision, and implementation. Four key principles underlie these six instructional planning phases: 1) identifying goals and objectives that students will be expected to attain; 2) planning instructional activities that correspond with the objectives; 3) developing an assessment instrument to measure attainment of objectives; and, 4) revising instruction based on student performance and attitudes.

 

Even though it is widely believed that instructional-planning skills are critical for instructional effectiveness in the classroom, there is no strong evidence that teachers (or even superior teachers) actually use these processes (Martin, 1990; Young, Reiser, & Dick, 1998). Research evidence suggests that teachers typically do not follow procedures acquired in preservice teacher education programs (Kagan & Tippins, 1992; Reynolds, 1993). However, experienced teachers believe in the value of instructional planning and that it should be taught to novice teachers (Neale, Pace & Case, 1983). Along this line, preservice teachers taught to use systematic instructional planning express more enthusiasm in using these skills in the future (Reiser, 1994).

Michael Streibel (1991, p. 12) well articulated what I had felt as I tried to reconcile instructional design as it was written and talked about versus how I had actually done it:

"I first encountered the problematic relationship between plans and situated actions when, after years of trying to follow Gagné's theory of instructional design, I repeatedly found myself, as an instructional designer, making ad hoc decisions throughout the design and development process. At first, I attributed this discrepancy to my own inexperience as an instructional designer. Later, when I became more experienced, I attributed it to the incompleteness of instructional design theories. Theories were, after all, only robust and mature at the end of a long developmental process, and instructional design theories had a very short history. Lately, however, I have begun to believe that the discrepancy between instructional design theories and instructional design practice will never be resolved because instructional design practice will always be a form of situated activity (i.e. depend on the specific, concrete, and unique circumstances of the project I am working on)."