Career Inquiry
What are the best design processes for instructional designers? Kirk Lunsford University of Colorado Denver April 15, 2018
Introduction The ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation) model may be considered a benchmark for instructional designers to uphold as the standard. However like any process, I’m skeptical of the application in the profession. Sure enough, a quick search for instructional design jobs will reveal many postings may mention “knowledge of ADDIE” as a requirement for the position. Although this is not enough to convince me of it’s worth. From my own experience, there is not one set model or process that meets the needs of the complex situations that may be encountered. I’ve often questioned if there are other approaches that should be taught or learnt by design professionals in many disciplines. I believe something can be learned by understanding design methods from a multi-design disciplinary approach. To understand this idea better i’ve conducted some research through inquiry about various design processes from multiple disciplines. What I discovered may lead to better understanding of the practices of my own organization and how we might propose solutions to improve our work through a myriad of approaches. As a designer who has traversed multiple design fields and currently works in a cross-over type of design position, I am already familiar with several different approaches. However the right or best process always seems to escape my grasp in day to day and long term applications. I would guess this is due to ever changing circumstances.
Instructional Design ADDIE In the search to better understand the source of ADDIE, and the reason it has become so popular for instructional design, I discovered the answers remain elusive. It turns out I’m not the only instructional designer who is also concerned by this. My research lead me to an article by Michael Molenda, “In Search of The Elusive ADDIE Model.” Michael M. concluded ADDIE is a “colloquial term” for instruction design to describe a systematic approach (Molenda 2015, p. 40). There is not one clear source or
author of this system. According to Michael, ADDIE is considered a sequential process, but it may be iterative (Molenda 2015, p. 41). See figure 1. Source : Grafinger, 1988. Michael M. considers ADDIE an “umbrella term” in more recent use and literature. Where the users of ADDIE may choose to add their own narratives and descriptors to suit their purposes (Molenda 2015, p. 41). This does not suggest ADDIE is without purpose or out dated. It simply means when applied in the most literal and sequential sense, it lacks the ability to properly represent what actually happens in the process. It’s more likely experts devise plans using ADDIE but use their own methods, “mental schemas,” and principles to solve problems. York & Ertmer refer to “frame of reference,” which would include relying on experiential knowledge and wisdom from past projects (York & Ertmer 2016, p. 172). In the York & Ertmer study that surveyed 73 designers about the ADDIE process, it was discovered implementation, and evaluation lacked the most detail or input regarding guiding principles. It was hypothesized it’s possible designers may deliver content to clients to implement or those surveyed failed to provide principles for implementation after doing so for the previous parts of the process. Implementation was the “most often omitted step,” according to York & Ertmer. Perhaps due to lack of funding, time, and support to perform pilot testing. The York and Ertmer study revealed some other principles not related to ADDIE that are highly leveraged in the process. Communication, client relations, and project management were also important to acknowledge. (York & Ertmer 2016, p. 181-182). This suggests the importance of looking beyond ADDIE and traditional design instruction to prepare novice designers for successful work. It assumes a combination of models and skills, guiding principles, and frames of reference to successfully perform work and solve problems.
What can be learned from other design disciplines? With the abundant use of ADDIE in the instructional design discipline, it’s likely over used and interpreted in more rigid formats. This concern is addressed in a journal article by Brown & Green by admitting the limitations of ADDIE as a rigid model for novices whilst looking to other design disciplines for inspiration. The inquiry in this research asked nearly the same questions I’ve been asking for some time about established design processes: “• How is the design process in general defined?” “• How do other fields approach the design process?” “• How do other fields foster experimentation and innovation?” (Brown & Green 2017, pg. 3).
Brown & Green describe a more holistic view of design processes from sampling literature in several other design disciplines such as automotive design, architecture, engineering, fashion, and the performing arts. Design thinking, which mostly applies to an industrial design approach, refers to the process of thinking to make consumer products in order to better suit the needs of the consumer through cognitive means. Design thinking may be considered a human-centered approach with five elements: “empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test.” Designers are encouraged to interact with the end user to develop empathy in order to devise unique solutions to problems (Brown & Green 2017, p. 4-5).
Source: http://trydesignlab.com/resources/
Another study by Yilmaz & Daly looks at feedbacks given to students from several different design disciplines to reveal how feedback across disciplines are similar. The study looks at industrial design, dance choreography, and mechanical engineering. The goal of this study is to review how feedback across disciplines at different points in the process created divergent or convergent thinking. To a similar degree all of the disciplines studied may follow “design thinking pathways,” of ideation and iteration based on feedback as this concept is illustrated in figure 1 from Design process models (Yilmaz & Daly, 2016).
Figure 1 Design process models (Cross, 1994; Moore, 2009). (Yilmaz & Daly, 2016 p. 142)
Yimaz & Daly suggest divergence throughout the design process to encourage students to take more risks. Some of these may result in design failures, however, instructors allowing for failure to take place may yield more innovation (Yilmaz & Daly, 2016). Although the study focuses on student and instructor interactions regarding feedback and iteration, this may also be applied to designer & client relations assuming feedback is a part of the process. The client may not be cognizant of their actions in the process leading to a solution as divergent or convergent. However the designer should be aware of this and guide the client to the appropriate path which ultimately leads to convergence. It’s good exercises for students in various design disciplines to be cognizant of their efforts to iterate, and diverge or converge, when necessary as this is common for many practicing professional designers.
Conclusion The search for the elusive answer to my inquiry regarding the right and best processes seems to be an ever evolving target. There may be no right answer other than to use experience to determine the best path for the given problem. I can only imagine as problems become more complex disciplines will overlap to a greater extent. Additionally, with emerging technologies it’s likely new expectations for design processes and models will emerge. For the time being, it’s suitable to be flexible, adaptable, and knowledgeable about processes in multiple disciplines to borrow ideas as needed to solve problems. Solving complex problems inherently involves risk. Understanding various mental schemas to plan processes along with divergent and convergent thinking may lead to more innovative solutions.
References Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2017). Beyond teaching instructional design models: Exploring the design process to advance professional development and expertise. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, , 1-11. 10.1007/s12528-017-9164-y Molenda, M. (2015). In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Performance Improvement, 54(2), 40-42. 10.1002/pfi.21461
Yilmaz, S., & Daly, S. R. (2016). Feedback in concept development: Comparing design disciplines. Design Studies, 45, 137-158. 10.1016/j.destud.2015.12.008 York, P., Cindy S, & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Examining instructional design principles applied by experienced designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(2), 169-192. 10.1002/piq.21220