What Fate Awaits the Models (ISD, ADDIE, HPT) of Traditional Training?
This month’s Big Question on Learning Circuits Blog is:
Are ISD, ADDIE and HPT relevant in a world of rapid elearning, faster time to performance, and informal learning?
In a world where products, targets and strategies adjust constantly the application of these models (ISD, ADDIE, HPT) will be greatly diminished. As the roles of knowledge workers expand and require them to use information that changes quickly it will be more important for the workforce to have easy access to information rather than them be required to retain it as the result of a well-designed course.
I use the term ‘greatly diminished’ because I don’t feel the models will become obsolete or completely irrelevant. The in-depth analysis and often time consuming design and development associated with these approaches can still be leveraged for content that is not likely to change. For an organization to invest the time, money and resources required for formal training it must be for something that will prove relevant for a long period of time. For topics that meet this criteria, there will still be relevance for the models of traditional training.
For all other learning required by employees (what Jay Cross and many others consider to be 80%) a new approach to learning is required. The models used by learning professionals will need to expand to include cultivating communities of practice, managing knowledge, facilitating open-ended dialogue, creating performance support tools and embedding their deliverables seamlessly into the workflow of their workforce.
The models listed in this month’s Big Question were designed for a type of training that was relevant for the needs of an environment different from today’s. As times have changed our approach as learning professionals must as well so that they provide the learners what they need for success.
Jacob:
Great to hear from you. It seems to me that you and others are making an assumption that ADDIE or the other instructional design models require a minimal “chunk size” for each component and that model necessarily results in a product of similar size.
It’s my contention that it’s not the models that need to expand, it’s us. If a needs analysis is done and the design work calls for the creation of a CoP, with a short elearning component, then workflow tutorials, this doesn’t change anything in the ADDIE model. the CoP, elearning and tutorials are merely tools used in the delivery of the solution to filling the gap defined in the needs analysis.
While the model stays pretty intact, the demands on the knowledge, skills and attitudes of the course developers is monumental.
Hi Dave – thanks for the note.
I agree with what you’ve said in regard to the ADDIE model and actually struggled with that when writing my post. Mainly because ADDIE is a model that could generalize to nearly any project, not just things learning and development related.
You’re absolutely right that the steps of ADDIE could be useful for creating a learning environment using CoPs, workflow learning etc. They could also be used creating software, on a construction site or most types of projects.
For models that are more specific to traditional training (i.e. ISD) I think that their relevance to learning and development in the future will be diminished.