Critique and Instructional Design Model

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Instruction design model is a systematic goal based mode of instruction delivery. It is systematic since the system follows specific steps to achieve the intended goals. The design involves activities, objectives, presentations, materials, feedback, and guidance. The goal of each and every design is to ensure effective, efficient and quality delivery of instructions to the intended groups.

There are numerous instruction design models, consequently, their uses depends on the course needs. Despite their differences, instruction designs goal are to maximize development of learners knowledge. This paper analyses ADDIE instruction design model.

The increasing demand of information in all the fields including learning and entertainment has brought with it the need of content. The value of information content has been identified as vital tool in instruction delivery in any setting.

The mode of instruction delivery is vital for societal and economic development. As a result, selection of any mode of instruction delivery hence needs to be critically considered to meet the intended function (Elizabeth & Donald, 2010).

ADDIE Instruction Design Model

ADDIE is the most used and common Instruction System Development (ISD). The acronym, stand for Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, Evaluate. The model follows the classic ‘waterfall’. The stage marks the major training and development progression in application of ADDIE. All these stages are the roadmap of instruction delivery. ADDIE application has been successfully achieved SAS online trainings among other fields of trainings.

ADDIE Analysis

Just like in marketing, ADDIE instruction design follows a systematic analysis to achieve its goals. The first step in the analysis involves creation of goals and objectives. The trainers need to precisely identify goals to be achieved then draw their objectives. This involves understanding the trainee group and what there are expected to achieve. The learners’ development stage needs to be assessed for appropriate selection of teaching materials.

Analysis is the first step in quality development and assurance. The assessment of the learners is vital to enable the teacher devise a mode that will make the subject interesting and easy to learn. Analyses also ensure that there is a complete coverage of the training needs without assumptions and neglects. It hence reduces chances of redundancy, inaccuracy and incomplete content coverage (Mehlenbacher, 2010).

ADDIE Instruction Design

This is the next stage after the instructor and the student come to agreement over the set learning goals and objectives. It is a projection of a complete course. After completion of this phase, the tutor or trainer presents an instruction paper covering the whole design. The design is description course content rather than the course content itself. It acts as a blue print or a soft where of the content (Gradowski, Snavely, & Dempsey, 1998).

Instruction design starts by creating instructional strategy; this is a baseline that guides the trainer. It allows the trainer to know what the learner is expected to go through, the course materials that are needed and the how the course will be administered. It involves designing content format, their content and how they will be delivered. The major parts of the design phase are planning of the strategy, course formatting and designing instruction document or manual (Mehlenbacher, 2010).

ADDIE Development

Development involves putting information gathered during analysis and design phase to actionable task. It aimed at ensuring smooth running of the course. It is during this phase that problems created in the first two phases can be identified. Issues like unrealistic targets, missed results and materials inefficiency are identified at this phase. Bodies such as SAS have achieved this phase through, firstly, creating a prototype. The prototypes allow them to have knowledge on the real picture of the course.

Prototypes are followed by creation and development of course materials that meets the required goals. Finally, table top reviews and pilot test carried out on the course to check on their ability to meet the desired goals (Mehlenbacher, 2010).

EDDIE Implementation and Evaluation

Implementation phase is where the trainer put his developed IDDIE into practice. It is the actionable stage where the trainee actually goes through the course. The time span of courses normally varies as per the content required by the trainee. Moat specialists implement their course based on topic and content as set during design.

Implementation is followed by evaluation. Evaluations are assessment provided by a specialist to check the extent the design has met its target. In case some goals are not met, the whole system is reassessed and corrective measures put into action. Evaluation needs critical thinking as well as specialized with a lot of knowledge on the course (Gradowski, Snavely, & Dempsey, 1998).

ADDIE Critiques

Many scholars have criticized ADDIE instruction design model for being more a virtual machinery than a real functioning tool in the world. Normally, there is a lot of interplay between setting realistic objectives, effectively designed presentations, and developing interactive activities.

As a result the system is full of forward and backward constant adjustments. The real system is cyclic in nature rather than a linear presentation shown by EDDIE build. Poor mental interpretation has been developed among many specialists to take the system as a linear method rather than a highly integrated cyclic system. The result is that practical application of the system has never been easy (Elizabeth & Donald, 2010).

EDDIE system gives little metacognitive to the specialists as they tend over rely on the course structure rather complete environmental scan. While IDDIE can be suitable for a given course or individual, it might not be suitable for another person. The system also ignores to create realization that there is variation in learning in different states that some materials of education might not be accepted in other education systems (Magliaro & Shambaugh, 2006).

EDDIE identifies evaluation as a vital tool and normally presented as a center piece. Consequently, evaluation is drawn as an ongoing and integral component. However, EDDIE only states evaluation but fail to critically define it. It is clearly that when all the phases are completed, the result will not be viable without evaluation.

Hence, evaluation should not be put as a stage in the block rather but a comprehensive system covering each and every phase. Cognitive Design Model has been identified as most appropriate model countering the procedural system of EDDIE.

Finally, critics have been put upon the bias nature of EDDIE model. Specialists have no equal knowledge over the courses, as a result, some might have limited knowledge on how to design and develop the course. On the other hand, a trainer might fail to contact the experts on the course delivery system. Additionally, Managing trainees’ attitude towards the course is not addressed (Gradowski, Snavely, & Dempsey, 1998).

Conclusion

A good course design need to be cognitive oriented over the course itself and the participants. It should have a trainer who fully, understands the material requirements, design system, mode of delivery and how it should be evaluated. While EDDIE is a good instruction model it also suffers from several limitations that makes it fail in some cases.

References

Elizabeth, A., & Donald J. (2010). The New Literacies: Multiple Perspectives on Research and Practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Gradowski, G., Snavely, L., & Dempsey, P. (1998). Designs for active learning: A sourcebook of classroom strategies for information education. Chicago: The Association.

Magliaro, S., & Shambaugh, N. (2006). Instructional design: A systematic approach for reflective practice. Boston, MA: Pearson, Inc.

Mehlenbacher, B. (2010). Instruction and technology: Designs for everyday learning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Click Here To Order Now!