Overturning the ADDIE Model

Part 2

Does the ADDIE Model Guide Us to Show Our Impact?

My first professional assignment was to evaluate a new course. The group I was joining was diligent in following the ADDIE model, including the “E.” I performed the evaluation. It was difficult and unfulfilling. It seemed to me that the “A” didn’t connect to the “E” very well at all.

The course trained employees to operate a new, highly advanced copier being installed in a business center. The analysis had focused on what was needed to operate the copier. To evaluate the impact of training, I needed past operational metrics, the expected outcomes of the copier installation, and access to metrics being produced once the copier was operational—all metrics no one had thought to gather.

The learning team followed ADDIE, but leaving most of the “E” to be completed at the end of the process increased the difficulty of the evaluation. I was tempted to limit the evaluation to the Reaction and Learning levels and forego measuring our impact on operations—which, it turns out, is what most people in the industry do.

In trying to correct its perceived flaws, several variants of ADDIE have been proposed. That’s a good thing. Each variant provides us a chance to improve our process.

But are these variants making a difference? We’re only evaluating about 20% of the learning programs for impact, and then we’re complaining that we’re not getting either the respect or the resources we believe we deserve. You command respect by showing you deserve it. So, how can we prove we deserve it?

Too many of us, when we think ADDIE, believe evaluating at the Reaction and Learning levels is all we’re really required to do, without a specific mandate for more from senior leadership. At best, Reaction and Learning levels indicate the possibility of impact, not proof of any actual impact. They won’t earn us the respect we want.

Let’s continue this conversation in the next post with a focus on the “E.”