Talk:ADDIE Model

Addie *Model?
"ADDIE" is not an instructional design model. Rather, it is a process that illustrates how many established ID models function. This really should be changed as it is incorrect to confuse the meaning of the word "model" and what a true model represents. The confusion is common place among students new to ID. The comparison would be to outline the basic steps for investing money and calling it an investment model. The fact is that the basic steps are far too generic and vague to be of any use to someone who is actually trying to invest his/her money. Instead, an investment model would be needed to give specific guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.151.133 (talk) March 6, 2009


 * A search for "ADDIE model" on Google Scholar turns up over 800 hits. I think it's pretty common to call it a model. However, if you have a reliable source that you'd like to cite arguing that it's too generic to be a model, I think that perspective could be included in the text of the article for balance. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Google scholar is not evidence of anything. On page 13 of the book, "Effective Instruction" by Morrison, Ross, Kalman, and Kemp (6th Edition, Copyright 2011 -- came out Feb. 2010), they talk about "the ADDIE model." A little snippet: "As it turns out, there is no such thing as the ADDIE Model or even an ADDIE model." They go on to note that an extensive survey of literature and other sources reveals that the ADDIE model "is merely a colloquial label for a systematic approach to instructional development, virtually synonymous with instructional systems development (ISD)." And, the PDF linked at the bottom of this Article notes the same thing (a second source for you). I agree with the first comment that we're doing a disservice to call this a model here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayhawksean (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia; we're not in the business of proving whether anything is true or not. We're simply reporting what others have said. You're right that the Google Scholar example isn't sufficient evidence if we were trying to prove that it is a model. But that isn't what we're doing. Hundreds of scholarly references using the phrase "ADDIE model" is evidence that many people do consider it a model and do call it that. It seems safe to say that the assertion that ADDIE is a model is the majority viewpoint and commonplace in the instructional design field. The minority view which you cited should be included in the article, but the minority shouldn't determine the article title.
 * What if we add a section called "Critiques of ADDIE" which included the quote from "Designing Effective Instruction"? Certainly there are plenty of sources criticizing the various weaknesses of ADDIE. That would add some balance to the article. What do you think? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would recommend referring to the ADDIE concept as a Methodology rather than a model. --Jeffrey T Craver 19:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craverj (talk • contribs)

What would be handy is a section on ADDIE's history. When was ADDIE created? What has happen since then? Are there some well known case studies? wcrosbie (talk), Melbourne, Australia 03:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Model, process or methodology? As WeisheitSuchen wrote, the task is to provide relevant information and back it up with a reliable source. The article currently says ADDIE is a generic process, but cites no (in line) sources. Later it says "[ADDIE] is an Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model," and with (implicit) relations to instructional theories.

I am attempting to help by adding references to the page but have run into some challenges using the ref name function(?). Adding notes here as I am not sure I will be able to fix my refs before a break of a few days. Will return to this work then - but would also welcome suggestions in the meantime as to what I'm doing wrong. Hstaffo77 (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Rapid Prototyping
A quick look at the link seems to suggest that the inclusion of Rapid Prototyping in this article ("Rapid prototyping is another common alternative") is unrelated to the topic and may be a stealthy act of vandalism. I'll let somebody else decide whether or not to remove it, but it deserves attention. 24.229.74.212 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)