4/16/2014

Home
Etc.

ADDIE Model

Site Map
News

About

Leadership

Training

Learning

History

Knowledge

Performance

Java

Blog

Training Materials
corporatetrainingmaterials.com
Customizable training materials to teach soft skills workshops.

Click any part of the above timeline to jump to that section or read the entire article below

Pages:
Roots of Instructional
System Design
Ludwig von Bertalanffy
General System Theory
Psychological Principles
in System Development
Robert Glaser -

ADDIE Model
ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implement,
Evaluate) is a model of the ISD family (Instructional System
Design). It has evolved several times over the years to
become iterative, dynamic, and user friendy. ISD includes
other models, such as the Dick & Carey (2004) and Kemp
(Gustafson, Branch, 1997) models.

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

1/11

4/16/2014
Instructional System
The Air Force's Five Step
Approach
Saettler's History of
Instructional Technology
George Odiorne - A
System Approach to
Training
Bela Banathy Instructional Systems
ADDIE Timeline

ADDIE Model

While the concept of ISD has been around since the early
1950s, ADDIE first appeared in 1975. It was created by the
Center for Educational Technology at Florida State University
for the U.S. Army and then quickly adapted by all the U.S.
Armed Forces (Branson, Rayner, Cox, Furman, King,
Hannum, 1975; Watson, 1981). The five phases were based
somewhat on a previous ISD model developed by the U.S.
Air Force (1970) called the Five Step Approach. It also has a
lot in common with Bela Banathy's model.

The Dick and C arey

Model of ISD
The ABC s of ISD
The Fit of ISD
ADDIE the Acronym
The Attack on ISD
A Hard Look at ISD
ISD at Warp Speed

ISD Concept Map

As defense machinery was becoming more

and more sophisticated, the educational
background of entry level soldiers was
becoming lower and lower. The potential
solution to this problem was in the form of a
'systems approach' to training. The system
selected for use by the Army was Instructional
Systems Development (ISD), developed in
1975 by Florida State University. ISD is a
comprehensive five phase process
encompassing the entire training/educational
environment. Although ISD is a systematic
step-by-step approach, it has the flexibility to
be used with both individualized and traditional
instruction. - Russell Watson, 1981

The ADDIE or ISD model consisted of 19 steps that were

considered essential to the development of educational and
training programs (Hannum, 2005). The steps were grouped
into five phases (Analysis, Design, Development, Implement,
Evaluate) to facilitate communication of the ISD model to
others. The steps, listed under their respective phases, are
shown below:

ADDIE and the

5 Rules of Zen
As noted in the main panel to
the left, ADDIE is often termed
a process model; however,
that is only true if you use it
blindly. It makes a much better
model when you use it the Zen
way as a guide for gaining
direct intuitive insight into a
problem

Analysis =
Shizen ( )

Click to open a larger chart

The military, having a large number of instructional designers

and a leader in training and learning, had a great influence in
the corporate and educational world to adapting ISD or
ADDIE like models.

Revised ADDIE Model

Six years later, Dr. Russell Watson (1981), Chief, Staff and
Faculty Training Division of the Fort Huachuca, Arizona,
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

Shizen means naturalness in

that it avoids artificial
construction. This means
analysis must be sought for
and expressed in a plain,
2/11

4/16/2014

ADDIE Model

presented a paper to International Congress for

Individualized Instruction. In it, he discusses the ADDIE
model as developed by Florida State University. His
presentation contained a slightly revised model:

Click to open a larger chart

Watson's model was based on the one developed by Florida

State University in that the five phases are the same, but the
steps within each phase have been slightly modified
(Branson, Rayner, Cox, Furman, King, Hannum, 1975).
This site uses a version that differs from the above two
versions in that the steps have been changed to more
accurately reflect the needs of today's organization. You can
learn about it here.

ADDIE Model
A model is a simplified abstract view of a complex reality or
concept. Silvern defines a model as a graphic analog
representing a real-life situation either as it is or as it should
be (AECT, 1977). This makes ADDIE a model. While it has
been pictured in several ways, the model below shows one
popular way (U.S. Army, 2011, p62):

simple, and natural manner. To

get to its natural roots,
describe the business need in
terms of the performance
desired and where they are
now. Everything between their
present state and desired
performance is the
performance gap. This gap
must be bridged by identifying
the skills and knowledge that
enable the learners to perform.
Shizen also applies to the
learners. Learning becomes
difficult when we have to learn
new concepts because we
have no relationship to them,
thus we construct artificial
backgrounds. However, when
we relate to a new concept
naturally by linking it to an
experience that is familiar to
us, then we learn much faster
and deeper. This is why we
need to capture the present
performance of the learners so
that we can create Advance
Organizers that will link the
learner's present performance
or knowledge level to the new
concepts. Learners who are
given Advance Organizers at
the beginning of a learning
process have been shown to
increase transfer of training.

Design =
Shibui/Shibumi
( )

deco by Ohad
Shibui is coolness and beauty
through a clear design and
nothing more. Think of design
as minimalist that articulates
brevity. If you decorate or carry
it beyond what it was meant to
be, then it becomes gauche
rather than deco. Think lean by
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

3/11

4/16/2014

ADDIE Model

identify the minimal steps and

activities that will enable the
learners to master the
performance rather than
overdoing it by including every
possibility. To help transform
the learning from an activity to
ID (Instruction Design) models differ from ISD models in that a process and reduce the
ISD models have a broad scope and typically divide the
complexity of training;
instruction design process into five phases (van Merrinboer, determine the support, such as
1997). Note that some ISD models, such as the Dick & Carey tools and performance aids,
ISD model, may not use the same terms, but will have the
they will need to enable their
same concepts.
performance in the workplace.
ADDIE has often been called a process model; however, this
is only true if you blindly follow it (DeSimone, Werner, Harris,
2002). A much better way to use ADDIE is to think of it as a
guide for gaining direct intuitive insight into a problem, for an
example, see the right sidebar, ADDIE and the 5 Rules of
Zen.

Analysis
Design (sometime combined with Development)
Development or Production

Development =
Fukinsei ( )

Implementation or Delivery
Evaluation

ID models are less broadly focused in nature, thus they

normally go into much more detail, especially in the design
portion. ID models are normally employed in conjunction with
ISD models as explained in the section, Extending ADDIE.

The Dynamics of ADDIE

When the ADDIE model first appeared in 1975, it was strictly
a linear or waterfall model. For example, in October 1981,
Russell Watson presented a paper and wrote,

The five phases of ISD are analysis, design,

development, implementation, and evaluation
and control. The first four are sequential in
nature, but the evaluation and control phase is
a continuous process that is conducted in
conjunction with all of the others.

He included this diagram with the paper:

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

enso circle by Vibhav

Fukinsei means asymmetry or
irregularity. Controlling
balance through the use of
irregularity and asymmetry is a
central belief in Zen
aesthetics. For example, the
enso or Zen circle is often
incomplete to symbolize the
asymmetry. Too often we try so
hard to create the perfect
learning platform by filling in all
the blanks that it fails to draw
the learners in we tend to
be drawn in more when we can
fill in some of the blanks on our
own. Designers also tend to
carry it to the extreme by
adding too much content it
overwhelms the learners with
too much information. Thus we
need to strive for some
incompleteness, irregularity,
and/or asymmetry in order to
draw the soon-to-be
performers into the learning
process.
4/11

4/16/2014

ADDIE Model

Fukinsei design also implies a

deductive approach. That is,
rather than being presented
with a complete set of
concepts, rules, and
strategies, that explicitly
instructs the learners, they
must explore and experiment
with the task to infer and learn
the rules, principles, and
strategies for effective
performance (discovery or
experimental learning). This
approach has been shown to
build Adaptive Expertise
becoming more adaptable in
order to solve unstructured and
ill-defined problems. Also
closely related to this is Errorbased Learning to allow for
more control processing.

However, by 1984 the model evolved into a more dynamic

nature for the other phases of the model. This was lead by the
U.S. Armed Forces. For example, one U.S. Army (1984)
training manual reads,

As the model shows, all parts are interrelated.

Changes, which occur during one step of the
model, affect other steps. In the ISD process,
nothing is done in isolation, nor is all done in a
linear fashion; activities of various phases may
be accomplished concurrently.

Nature itself is full

of beauty and
harmonious
relationships that are
asymmetrical yet
balanced.
This is a dynamic

The manual contains the following model that shows its

evolving dynamic nature:

beauty that attracts

and engages.
- Garr Reynolds

Implement =
Kanso ( )

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

5/11

4/16/2014

ADDIE Model

The U.S. Army is perhaps one of the most disciplined and

structured organizations in the world; however, even they
could not design training in such a linear manner, thus they
evolved it into a more dynamic nature. Since the original
ADDIE model was designed in an university, they took take a
summative approach in order to evaluate the validity of the
learning/training theory that was to be designed into the
learning process. However, Instructional Designers who work
in most organizations are far more concerned with actually
producing an effective learning learning process to meet the
need's of the business, thus they take a more formative
approach in order to refine goals and evolve strategies
during the entire ISD process.
In addition Merrinboer wrote in 1997 (p3):

Kanso means simplicity by

eliminating the unneeded
things (clutter) to find the clear
structure. Clear structure does
not necessarily mean a linear
list, but rather a choice of
options. However, when it
comes to practicing the skills,
ensure it includes whole-task
practice that will help to carry
performance to the workplace.
A Kanso style choice of
options is also critical as
providing learner control has
been shown to also build
Adaptive Expertise.

Evaluation =
Seijaku ( )

The phases may be listed in a linear order, but

in fact are highly interrelated and typically not
performed in a linear but in an iterative and
cyclic fashion.

In addition to evolving to a more dynamic structure, the last

phase was changed from Evaluation & Control to simply
Evaluation (Hannum, 2005). Thus, the model becomes
ADDIE and not ADDIEC.

ADDIE The Acronym

Seijaku is tranquility or an
energized calm. An effective
learning platform should bring
While the ADDIE model has been around since 1975, it was
a sense of peace to the
generally known as SAT (System Approach to Training) or
ISD (Instructional System Design). The earliest reference that organization by eliminating the
gap between the present
I have been able to locate that uses the acronym of ADDIE
performance and the desired
is a paper by Michael Schlegel (1995), in A Handbook of
performance identified in the
Instructional and Training Program Design.
analysis phase. The use of
iterations will allow you to
Schlegel writes:
quickly lower the unintentional
noise and disturbance.
This paper will utilize the generic Design
Continue iterating until the
Model of Analyze, Design, Development,
disturbance has been
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

6/11

4/16/2014

ADDIE Model

Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) is

utilized, and provide detailed job aids in the
form of rating sheets and checklists for each of
the four major steps.

Extending ADDIE
The broad scope and heuristic method of ISD has often been
criticized by others because it tells learning designers what
to do, but not how to do it. Yet it is this broad and sketchy
nature of ISD that gives it such great robustness. Merrinboer
(1997, p3) notes that other ID and learning models can be
used in conjunction with ISD.

transformed into the desired

state of tranquility.
Seijaku should also be carried
one step farther having the
learners participate by
monitoring and evaluating in
order to help them increase
their metacognitive skills.

Thus, ISD becomes a plug and play model you add other
components to it on an as-needed-basis. For example, the
ISD model below has Action Mapping, 4C/ID, and
Prototyping plugged into it for designing a robust learning
environment for training complex skills:

Click to open a larger chart

ADDIE Shortcomings
While ADDIE strives to identify adequate on-the-job
performance so that the learners can adequately learn to
perform a certain job or task (Branson, Rayner, Cox, Furman,
Hannum, 1975), it was never meant to determine if training is
the correct answer to a problem. Thus the first step when
presented with a performance problem is to use a
performance analysis tool.
One such tool is the Performance Analysis Quadrant (PAQ)
for identifying the root causes of such problems. By
discovering the answer to two questions, Does the employee
have adequate job knowledge? and does the employee
have the proper attitude (desire) to perform the job? and
assigning a numerical rating between 1 and 10 for each
answer, will place the employee in 1 of 4 performance
quadrants: Performance Analysis Quadrant (PAQ):

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

7/11

4/16/2014

ADDIE Model

Quadrant A (Motivation): If the employee has sufficient job knowledge but

has an improper attitude, this may be classed as motivational problem.
The consequences (rewards) of the person's behavior will have to be
adjusted. This is not always bad as the employee just might not realize
the consequence of his or her actions.
Quadrant B (Resource/Process/Environment): If the employee has both
job knowledge and a favorable attitude, but performance is unsatisfactory,
then the problem may be out of control of the employee. i.e. lack of
resources or time, task needs process improvement, the work station is
not ergonomically designed, etc.
Quadrant C (Selection): If the employee lacks both job knowledge and a
favorable attitude, that person may be improperly placed in the position.
This may imply a problem with employee selection or promotion, and
suggest that a transfer or discharge be considered.
Quadrant D (Training and or C oaching): If the employee desires to
perform, but lacks the requisite job knowledge or skills, then some type of
learning solution is required, such as training or coaching.

Note: The four quadrants are based on Jones' (1993)

description of the four factors that affects job performance.
This model shows a performance analysis being used when
first presented with a performance problem, the ADDIE or
ISD model, an ID model plugged into the ADDIE model to
give it further design capabilities, the learning solution, which
in turns helps to create the desired performance:

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

8/11

4/16/2014

ADDIE Model

Click the area of the model that you want to learn

more about
Other shortcomings have been leveled at ADDIE, but they
seem to be mostly baseless. For example:
1.

ADDIE does not lead to the best instructional solutions,

nor does it provide solutions in a timely or efficient
manner. Reality - This is only true if you do not
understand it, use it blindly, and/or fail to plug in other ID
models that best fit the problem & solution.

2.

ADDIE doesn't take advantage of digital technologies

that allow for less-linear approach, such as rapid
prototyping. Reality - As noted above, both van
Merrinboer and the U. S. Army point out that it is
indeed quite interactive.

3.

The ADDIE method is not really the way instructional

designers do their work. Reality - ADDIE came about as
the Vietnam war was ending, since then the U.S. Armed
Forces have been using it quite successfully.

4.

No original ADDIE model exists. Reality - As this site

shows, there is a real ADDIE model.

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

9/11

4/16/2014

ADDIE Model

Next Steps
Return to the History of Instructional System Design
Instructional Design Toolkit
ISD Concept Map

References
AECT, (1977). Educational technology: Definition and
glossary (Vol 1). Washington DD: Association for
Educational Communications and Technology. p. 168
Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., King,
F. J., Hannum, W. H. (1975). Interservice procedures for
instructional systems development. (5 vols.) (TRADOC Pam
350-30 NAVEDTRA 106A). Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Army
Training and Doctrine Command, August 1975. (NTIS No.
ADA 019 486 through ADA 019 490).
Branson, R. K. (principal investigator), Rayner, G. T., (1975).
Interservice procedures for instructional systems
development: Executive summary and model. Tallahassee,
FL: Center for Educational Technology, Florida State
University. (National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161. Document Nos. AD-A019
486 to AD-A019490)
DeSimone, R. L., Werner, J. M., Harris, D. M. (2002). Human
Resource Development. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.
Dick, W., and Carey, L. (2014). The Systematic Design of
Instruction. Pearson Education, 8th ed.
Gustafson, K., & Branch, R. M. (1997). Instructional design
models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information
and Technology.
Hannum, W. H. (2005). Instructional systems development: A
thirty year retrospective. Educational Technology, 45(4), 521.
Jones, B. (1993). The four domains affecting job
performance. Internal Document, Delta Air Lines. Atlanta,
GA. As found in, Mancuso, V. (1995). Moving from Theory to
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

10/11

4/16/2014

ADDIE Model

Practice: Integrating Human Factors into an Organization.

Seattle WA: Annual Flight Safety Foundation Conference.
Retrieved Aug 17, 2011 from http://www.crmdevel.org/ftp/mancuso.pdf
Schlegel, M. J. (1995). A Handbook of Instructional and
Training Program Design. ERIC Document Reproduction
Service ED383281.
U.S. Air Force (1970). (Instructional System Development
(ISD). AFM 50-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Army Field Artillery School (1984). A System Approach
To Training. ST - 5K061FD92. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Army (2011). Army Learning Policy and Systems.
TRADOC Reg. 350-70. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
van Merrinboer, J. J. G. (1997). Training Complex
Cognitive Skills: A Four-Component Instructional Design
Model for Technical Training. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Educational Technology Publications.
Watson, Russell (October 1981). Instructional System
Development. In a paper presented to the International
Congress for Individualized Instruction. EDRS publication ED
209 239.

Notes
Search
Up d a te d A p ri l 1 0 , 2 0 1 4 . Cre a te d Ju l y 1 3 , 1 9 9 5 .

Fi n d o u t m o re a b o u t m e (co p yri g h t, A P A fo rm a tti n g , e tc).~ A B i g Do g , L i ttl e Do g a n d K n o wl e d g e Ju m p P ro d u cti o n ~ E m a i l m e a t d o n cl a rk@n wl i n k.co m

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/addie.html

11/11