ADDIE model

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

The ADDIE model is a framework used in instructional design and training and development to guide the creation of learning experiences and performance support tools. The acronym stands for five phases—Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate.[1]

Developed in the 1970s as part of the U.S. military’s Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development (IPISD), the model became a general term for systematic instructional design approaches rather than a single proprietary method.[2][3]

ADDIE is now used in both linear and iterative forms across education, government, and corporate training. Variants such as the U.S. Navy’s PADDIE+M add planning and maintenance phases to support continuous improvement.[4]

History

[edit]
ADDIE Model

The framework originated in 1975 at Florida State University for the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command as part of the Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development (IPISD). The IPISD manual listed five phases—analyze, design, develop, implement, and control—intended to standardize course development across military branches.

By the early 1980s, educators and training developers had replaced "control" with "evaluation," reflecting broader emphasis on formative and summary feedback. Although the acronym ADDIE was not used in the original documents, it entered common use later as a convenient label for the five-phase structure.

Scholars such as Kent L. Gustafson and Robert M. Branch describe ADDIE as a descriptive framework rather than a prescriptive process, adaptable to many instructional contexts.[5]

Phases

[edit]

The ADDIE process outlines a logical sequence of design and evaluation activities rather than a rigid order. Each phase informs and overlaps with the others.

Analyze

The analysis phase defines instructional goals, learner characteristics, and constraints. It identifies the gap between current and desired performance.

Design

The design phase specifies measurable learning objectives, assessment strategies, instructional methods, and media. Detailed planning ensures that instructional outcomes align with needs identified in analysis.

Develop

During development, materials and media are produced, tested, and revised. Prototypes and pilot testing provide feedback before full implementation.

Implement

This phase delivers the instruction to learners and prepares facilitators, ensuring readiness of learning environments and technologies.

Evaluate

Evaluation includes both formative feedback—conducted throughout the process—and summary evaluation after implementation. Results inform continuous improvement of the instructional product.

Variants and organizational adaptations

[edit]

Many organizations have adapted the ADDIE framework to meet their own operational needs. The U.S. Navy’s PADDIE+M model introduces a preliminary planning phase and a concluding maintenance phase. The additional steps support project management and life-cycle management of training programs.[6]

Navy Medicine and the Naval Education and Training Command continue to apply this model under current guidance such as NAVEDTRA M-142.[7] Other agencies and academic programs use expanded versions to emphasize continuous learning and digital environments.

Relationship to other models

[edit]

Researchers frequently compare ADDIE with other instructional systems design approaches, including the Dick and Carey model and the Kemp design model. Many modern frameworks retain the five core functions of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation while applying them in agile or iterative ways.

Reception and critique

[edit]

While widely adopted, the model is sometimes criticized for being overly sequential or bureaucratic. Practitioners such as Molenda (2003) and Branch (2009) note that its value lies in flexibility rather than strict linearity. Contemporary analyses describe ADDIE as a reflective framework that integrates continuous evaluation rather than a fixed series of steps.

Alternatives

[edit]

One well-known alternative is the Successive Approximation Model (SAM), developed by Michael Allen and Richard Sites. SAM emphasizes rapid prototyping and iterative collaboration as a response to perceived rigidity in ADDIE.[8] Other instructional design frameworks similarly adapt ADDIE’s principles for modern e-learning and distance education contexts.[9]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Branch, Robert Maribe (2009). Instructional Design: The ADDIE Approach. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6.
  2. ^ Branson, Robert K.; Wagner, Barry M.; Rayner, Gail T. (1977). Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development: Task V Final Report (Report). Center for Educational Technology, Florida State University.
  3. ^ Molenda, Michael (2003). "In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model". Performance Improvement. 42 (5): 34–36. doi:10.1002/pfi.4930420508.
  4. ^ NAVEDTRA 136: Integrated Learning Environment Course Development and Life-Cycle Maintenance Manual (PDF) (Report). Naval Education and Training Command. 2010.
  5. ^ Gustafson, Kent L.; Branch, Robert Maribe (2002). Survey of Instructional Development Models (Report) (4th ed.). ERIC Clearinghouse on Information & Technology.
  6. ^ BUMEDINST 1500.32B: Navy Medicine Training Policy (PDF) (Report). Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (U.S. Navy). 2024-05-30.
  7. ^ NAVEDTRA M-142: NETC Series Overview (selected volume) (PDF) (Report). Naval Education and Training Command (NETC). 2025-06-18.
  8. ^ Allen, Michael W.; Sites, Richard (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An Agile Model for Developing the Best Learning Experiences. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press. ISBN 9781562867119.
  9. ^ Spatioti, Adamantia G.; Kazanidis, Ioannis; Pange, Jenny (2022). "A Comparative Study of the ADDIE Instructional Design Model in Distance Education". Information. 13 (9): 402. doi:10.3390/info13090402.

Further reading

[edit]