Ellen Wagner is a learning industry analyst with a passion for sustaining innovation and accelerating enterprise adoption of technologies for education, training and performance support. This is her blog.
I closed my last post by saying that, when I envision my ideal instructional designer, my ID looks a lot like a decathlete. As part of this visioning exercise I had planned to think of the top ten events designed to demonstrate the levels of excellence of what I think the quintessentially excellent ID should achieve. My reason for this is simple - If we want to ensure that ID as we the practice defines it will be relevant in the RIA-driven, cloud enabled, UGC-powered, multi-dimensional learning metaverse then we're gonna have to know what to do, and we're gonna have to show that we know what to do.
I'm not using the ADDIE model to frame my thinking. Not that there's anything wrong with good old ADDIE. It was always intended as a way to teach people about the processes that instructional designers use in their work. With all due respect to those who use it, it serves as a reference model for newbies. Looking forward, it is going to take thinking differently about what we do if we ever hope to get different results than the ones we've always had.
ADDIE is used something like this - "First, you analyze the situation. Then you figure out how to design your idea, then you produce (develop) it all of the things you need for your idea to work, then you implement it, and finally you evaluate it to see if it did what you wanted". These are not a bad things to think about, especially if you have to start planning for a class project, or a grant proposal or a beginning brainstorming session where you don't have to worry about external constraints. If one is trying trying to put instructional design to work in a "business" setting - and my that, I mean any kind of situation where there are stakeholders to be served through your efforts - then there are a a lot of other things you need to be thinking about BEFORE you start planning an intervention, as well as after you put it in place. ADDIE ends up being one of a number of process models linked together over an extended learning value chain.
And that really is the place that ADDIE is insufficient. It's simply one link in a much longer chain. Practitioners need to know that there is much that comes before, and much that will come after, that has more to do with the ultimate life or death of an idea-as-solution than will the instructional design. If ADDIE falls short, it's because we expect it to do more than it was ever intended to do.
So maybe, before we jump from ADDIE to the TOP 10 ID COMPETENCIES OF ALL TIME and start getting too focused on what the ultimate performances of our practice should be, that maybe we can start at the baseline requirements one must meet to metaphorically qualify for the events. Pre-ADDIE stuff that anyone who has held down a few ID (and related) jobs can tell you. Some things that every single one of us should be able to do. Then maybe with each level of competition - e.g. whatever analogy we can come up with for regionals, sections, divisions, leagues, etc - we can start raising the metaphoric bar for the performances we expect.
I started making a list of all the things I think a competent ID should be able to do, and I have to tell you that my list looks very little like ADDIE.
More on that in my next post.