This paper examines the negative impacts and limitations of the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) instructional design model, with particular attention to its application in medical and professional education. The paper critiques ADDIE's linear, step-by-step structure as overly rigid and poorly suited to dynamic, real-world learning environments. It further argues that the model's behaviorist roots conflict with contemporary learning theories such as constructivism, situated cognition, and postmodernism. The paper reviews alternative design principles—including flexibility, adaptiveness, and continuous evaluation—and concludes that a revised or integrated instructional design model is needed to better serve today's diverse learners.
The ADDIE model is a problem-solving process that has emerged over the last 30 years as the key framework used to design, develop, and implement training for medical students. Instructional design is the systematic approach to the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of learning materials and activities. Instructional design aims for a learner-centered rather than the traditional teacher-centered approach to instruction, so that effective learning can take place. This means that every component of the instruction is governed by the learning outcomes, which have been determined after a thorough analysis of the learners' needs.
Each phase of the model serves a distinct purpose. Analysis is the process of defining what is to be learned. Design is the process of specifying how it is to be learned. Development is the process of authoring and producing the materials. Implementation is the process of installing the project in a real-world context. Finally, Evaluation is the process of determining the adequacy of the instruction.
The ADDIE model has been criticized by some as being too systematic, or linear, to implement effectively. This is because each step in the model must be completed before the next step can begin. The outputs of the first step become the inputs of the second step. If an initial needs analysis takes one month longer than scheduled, the design process is placed on hold until the analysis is complete. Likewise, if the design step requires many modifications, the development step is further delayed. This sequential dependency contributes to the slowness of the traditional ADDIE model. Unfortunately, if one step is missed or incomplete, the rest of the process suffers.
Another aspect of this criticism concerns the rigidity of the model. Users can make the mistake of treating every step and every sub-stage of the process as mandatory regardless of the situation. As an alternative to this "linear" approach, some researchers have suggested the use of a more systemic design model that emphasizes a holistic approach to the development of training. Instead of developing instruction in sequential phases, the entire development team works together from the start and then revises accordingly. Despite these advantages, there are also practical challenges with a purely systemic design approach in the management of resources. In most cases, training programs must be developed under a fixed and limited budget and schedule.
Another problem with the ADDIE model is that it was created as a process that, when used appropriately, would produce predictable and reliable results. However, once contexts are changed, outcomes change as well. When research moves from the laboratory to the real world of teaching and learning, many effects are diminished or lost entirely. The ADDIE model should therefore be considered a valuable tool in instructional design without adding the constraints of treating it as a strict scientific process. Treating it as such tends to make the model rigid and inflexible.
An additional issue with the ADDIE model is the negative effect it can have in educational and professional settings. The shift in educational philosophy has moved from behaviorism, through cognitivism, to constructivism. This means the model is philosophically inconsistent with recent thinking about human learning, and that interactive and exploratory learning environments require a different way of conceptualizing the development process. The behaviorist principles embedded in ADDIE tend to decontextualize and oversimplify learning. Furthermore, the world outside of education has changed from a static and predictable environment to one that is uncertain, indeterminate, and complex.
Medical students are no longer viewed simply as young adults — they are now recognized as life-long learners. This means the ADDIE model must deal with a wider variety of students, a broader range of learning contexts, and a greater diversity of delivery methods. Despite the difficulties these realities pose for the ADDIE model, the process remains relevant. The model needs to address these concerns and accommodate different perspectives and emerging theories in order to stay viable.
"Behaviorism, constructivism, and situated cognition introduced"
"Flexible, learner-built knowledge as design alternative"
"Six reform principles to improve instructional design"
An instructional design model that successfully meets the needs of business and education today must adhere to time and resource constraints while remaining individually focused within its target audience in order to achieve flexibility. It must also be adaptive — responsive to new theories, new processes, and emerging trends. It needs to implement simultaneous processes within and across each phase. Throughout the instructional systems design (ISD) process, continuous and relevant feedback must occur to shape the process and ensure the final product meets the needs of the audience. The model needs to remain focused on the problem to be solved and its solution. Finally, the instructional design process must be situated within a suitable environment for the intended student.
Medical students are not given enough — or sometimes any — opportunities to take business classes in medical school. This is partly a consequence of the limitations of the ADDIE model and its impact on curriculum design. Although the ADDIE model is the most widely used instructional design framework, its step-by-step system for evaluating student needs, designing and developing training materials, and evaluating training effectiveness requires improvement. Research has revealed that the ADDIE model needs to be revised or even substituted with a new process to eliminate the problems faced by students and designers using it. Perhaps in the future, an integrated model consisting of a mixture of several approaches discussed above will be implemented and will lead the way toward a reformation of instructional design systems.
Kruse, K. (2004). Introduction to instructional design and the ADDIE model. Retrieved January 19, 2005, from e-Learning Guru Web site:
Exomedia. (2005). ADDIE model. Retrieved January 19, 2005, from Exomedia Communicate at Will Web site:
McGriff, S. (2000). Instructional system design (ISD): Using the ADDIE model. Retrieved January 19, 2005, from Instructional Systems, College of Education, Web site:
Reinhart, J. (2000). Creating a pre-service teachers' virtual space. Retrieved January 19, 2005, from The Journal Online Technologies Horizons in Education Web site:
Weingardt, K. R. (2004). The role of instructional design and technology in the dissemination of empirically supported, manual-based therapies. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 7(N3), 1–2.
You’re 60% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.