I asked a rather pointed set of questions when closing my last blog posting about the role of instructional designers in the emerging new world order of technology mediated learning, education and training.
Are IDs really still as relevant as we want to think we are? Especially as all kinds of new media like games and mobile are purported to be the future of elearning, and as IDs aren't necessarily finding themselves working on the cutting edge of Web 2.0, mobility, games, video, and rich internet applications in their learning, training and performance improvement endeavors.
There IS a relatively straightforward answer to the questions. Yes, IDs CAN still be as relevant as we've always been. But we need to figure out better ways of developing essential skills relevant for the kinds of jobs most of us get hired to do when we finish our academic programs in today's marketplace.
We have to understand that our knowledge of learning and instructional design principles can be amazingly effective secret weapons when designing and developing new media interventions, but that we have to be skilled enough on the media development side that the learning "value-add" is obvious and self-evident. Knowing a bit about the different theories describing schools of thought around human cognition really isn't enough to create experiences that leverage theoretical constructs in a meaningful way. Knowing a bit about how a multimedia presentation is supposed to be produced probably won't be enough to empower someone to actually design and produce multimedia assets that can be integrated into an LMS, distributed in the context of an online learning experience or used in a professional setting.
If you can't actually perform the tasks that are outlined in the ADDIE model, you may not be ready for prime time. If you can't think beyond ADDIE, you may not have a shot at seeing where our practice is coming from.
There is just way too much very interesting stuff emerging in the worlds of Web 2.0 games, video and rich internet applications for IDs to miss this next wave of innovation and adventure. I wonder who among us will be invited along for the ride.
ADDIE has been around for at least 25 years. It's certainly not the only model around, not by any means. But ADDIE has been the most popular for a really simple reason - it's the model used in the very popular textbook that is used for "Intro to Ed Tech" programs in colleges of Education. ADDIE is a media independent process model.
Process models are like checklist, noting steps one must follow to get something done. Process models don't necessarily make it easier for people to figure out HOW to do the steps.
But I'm not sure why ADDIE and Web 2.0 would be incompatible. Analysis simply defines the problem/ opportunity/audience - design provides for creating a specification - development provides for construction of tools, assets, solutions - Implementation meansnringing a solution on line - evaluation means figuring out if the intervention was worth the investment.
With all due respect to Rapid development, if a designer can't answer those simple 5 question then I have to wonder what they heck they think they are rapdily developing.....
Posted by: edwsonoma | April 08, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Isn't ADDIE supposed to be a process, and is supposed to be media-agnostic? I am not an ID, but I do see a ADDIE v Web 2.0 as if they are non-compatible.
The other question to ask, is why have no one come up with something different from ADDIE? It has been a few years since ADDIE was initiated. Surely, there must have been other ways to approach content generation over the years.
Forget Web 2.0, I hear the rapid v ADDIE argument also.
Posted by: Tridib | March 31, 2009 at 11:44 PM