My first job in eLearning revolved around the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model. At this job, we built custom training for pharmaceutical sales reps. Being on the development side of these training modules, I worked with instructional designers to create assets based on their storyboards. At the time, this was the only exposure I had to IDs and (embarrassingly) thought instructional design was synonymous with designing eLearning modules. After all, the company’s purpose was to develop eLearning training, and it achieved that purpose very well.
A version of the ADDIE model approach to training used by my current organization.
This brings me back to ADDIE. In that environment, ADDIE (at least how we used it) served us very well. A client would come to us with a training request, my team would ask a few questions (the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How?), we would design a storyboard, develop the training, send it off to the client, and update as necessary based on the client’s feedback and the learners’ reception. Simple, right? …and that was the extent of my relationship to ADDIE.
I think the beauty of ADDIE lies in its simplicity. You can explain it easily to clients. It can be used as a linear step-by-step. When I was onboarding at that job, a one-page pdf document was all I needed to learn the model. Looking back, I can recognize that my experience in an ADDIE-driven environment, while maybe not unique, was certainly not all that it could be. I don’t think I ever appreciated what ADDIE was capable of.
As I would come to learn, ADDIE is not a single model in and of itself, but a family of models with a common structure. It makes sense then that without embracing a more customized and detailed version of an ADDIE model, we did not understand how our deliverables could benefit from the process. After all, looking at the general ADDIE model gives users no indication of what to focus on, what questions to ask, what data points to collect, what deliverables each step should yield, how those deliverables add to the process…while it’s a nice model to reference, it does little to inspire action. No wonder I didn’t appreciate the power of models when I entered my master’s program.
During my OPWL master’s program, I was shocked and overwhelmed by how many models existed to help HPT practitioners accomplish their goals. I had always considered models to be a pretty summary or a way of presenting information rather than a systematic process to be followed. Suddenly I was inundated with dozens of models at my disposal, to help me work through issues. I’m lucky that I built a better relationship with models before I was introduced to OPWL’s very own LeaPS ID model.
LeaPS ID Model, introduced by the OPWL Masters Program at Boise State
Through the mastery of a group of professors at Boise State and their willingness to share their expertise, the LeaPS ID model offers a new approach to instructional design. Building upon and adding to many proven instructional design models, LeaPS gives more detail, insight, direction, and suggestions to beginner instructional designers. Admittedly the model is overwhelming at first glance. The graphic designer in me wants to take a stab at making the information more digestible and fluid (maybe a future post?). But the usefulness of the model itself is undeniable. I already have ideas about its application to my current organization and what it could mean for the future of our deliverables.
If you’re curious, check out the YouTube videos below for more information on the LeaPS ID Model:
What’s next:
How my current organization could benefit from the LeaPS approach