Brief History of ADDIE: Part 1

Brief History of ADDIE: Part 1

Illustration of the ADDIE model
The Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model was developed in the 1970s, for the Army by the Center for Educational Technology at Florida State University. The Army was looking for a systematic approach to training during this period, and thus commissioned the Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development (IPISD) for the military. The core concepts of IPISD revolved around the five phases that would later become known as ADDIE.

After the formalization of the ADDIE model, it became evident that the systematic approach had applications beyond military training. During the 1980s and 1990s, the structured ADDIE process as we know it was began being integrated into industry, universities and K-12 education. This integration was not necessarily uniform across all organizations. The adoption was driven by local initiatives, state policies, and the growth of instructional technology and design as a discipline.

The rise of e-learning and online education in the 1990’s and 2000’s brought renewed focus on systematic instructional design. As military organizations, industry, universities and colleges started to create or expand their online course offerings, the principles of ADDIE became even more relevant.

The ADDIE model has continued to influence curriculum development adapting and evolving with technological and pedagogical advancements. Various iterations or modifications of the ADDIE model have been developed to better suit the specific needs of different educational contexts.

The original IPISD reports are available on the Defense Technical Information Center. We have provided links below to the PDF copies maintained at their website.


IPISD. Executive Summary and Model

The report is a five-volume set of procedures developed for the preparation of a curriculum when interservice training is called for. The procedures address five major phases, which are analyze, design, develop, implement, and control. The procedures begin with methodology for conducting a job analysis for the curriculum subject area for which the instruction is to be developed and go through 18 additional steps suitable for the empirical development of interservice training. This volume contains a summary and model.

IPISD. Phase 1. Analysis

The analysis phase of interservice training curriculum development includes the establishment of job performance standards, task discrimination to separate important ones from the unimportant ones, construction of tests to determine ability to perform tasks, examination of existing courses for effectiveness, and selection of an optimum instructional setting for a given task.

IPISD. Phase 2. Design

The design phase of interservice training curriculum development involves the selection of tasks with regard to learning objectives, bridging the gap between performing a task and learning how to perform it, development of tests to screen personnel and to determine how much was learned, finding the ability levels of trainees, and setting of course sequences according to learning objectives.

IPISD. Phase 3. Develop

The volume outlines important procedures in developing interservice training effectiveness. Elements emphasized are setting guidelines for learning objectives, obtaining instructional cost effectiveness by mixing media, using existing proven materials or devising new ones, evaluating existing materials for appropriateness, developing new instruction where necessary, and validating all instructional materials.

IPISD. Phase 4 and 5. Implementation and Control

The implementation phase of interservice training involves providing guidelines for classroom management, designing teaching methods which include self-paced instruction, determining whether the instructional effort has accomplished the intended aims and providing good data upon which to base training decisions, external evaluation to find how well trained students are doing their jobs after course completion and job placement, and setting up a system for revising the training methodology in case of doctrine changes or discovery of instruction deficiencies.


References

  • Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., & King, F. J. (1975). Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development. Executive Summary and Model [Final report, 25 Jun 1973-31 Dec 1975]. FLORIDA STATE UNIV TALLAHASSEE CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY. Defense Technical Information Center. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA019486.pdf
  • Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., & King, F. J. (1975). Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development. Phase 1. Analyze [Final report, 25 Jun 1973-31 Dec 1975] (ADA019487). FLORIDA STATE UNIV TALLAHASSEE CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY. Defense Technical Information Center. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA019487.pdf
  • Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., & King, F. J. (1975). Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development. Phase 2. Design [Final report, 25 Jun 1973-31 Dec 1975] (ADA019488). FLORIDA STATE UNIV TALLAHASSEE CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY. Defense Technical Information Center. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA019488.pdf
  • Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., & King, F. J. (1975). Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development. Phase 3. Develop [Final report, 25 Jun 1973-31 Dec 1975] (ADA019489). FLORIDA STATE UNIV TALLAHASSEE CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY. Defense Technical Information Center. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA019489.pdf
  • Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., & King, F. J. (1975). Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development. Phase 4 and 5. Implement and Control [Final report, 25 Jun 1973-31 Dec 1975] (ADA019490). FLORIDA STATE UNIV TALLAHASSEE CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY. Defense Technical Information Center. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA019490.pdf