The Successive Approximation Model (SAM) in eLearning Development: A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction

In the rapidly evolving field of instructional design and eLearning development, methodologies that promote flexibility, efficiency, and effectiveness are increasingly sought after. The Successive Approximation Model (SAM), introduced by Michael Allen in 2012, has emerged as a popular alternative to traditional linear models such as ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) [1]. This article comprehensively examines SAM, its benefits in eLearning development, and its practical applications in various industries. SAM-2 was introduced in 2021.

?

?Understanding the Successive Approximation Model

?

The Successive Approximation Model is an agile instructional design approach emphasizing iterative development, collaboration, and efficiency. Unlike linear models, SAM is characterized by its cyclical nature, allowing for continuous refinement and improvement throughout development [1].

?

Key Phases of SAM

?

Preparation Phase:

?

Like ADDIE’s Analysis phase, and crucial to any instructional design project, the preparation phase is about gathering information about the project, such as:

?

1.????? Conducting surveys or interviews with learners

2.????? Identifying pre-existing knowledge and skills

3.????? Outlining desired learning outcomes

4.????? Collecting existing resources

And more. This phase is intended to be much quicker than ADDIE’s Analysis phase and may skip time-consuming tasks such as gap analyses or broader strategy discussions.

?

Iterative Design Phase:

?

The iterative design phase begins with the all-important “Savvy Start,” one of the hallmarks of the SAM approach. The Savvy Start is a brainstorming session in which every project member, including learning designers, graphic designers, project managers, and even SMEs and learners, participates.

?

The purpose of this brainstorming session is to produce a minimum of three rough prototypes of the final project, with the focus strongly on possibility over perfection and breadth over depth. Each prototype should only be as functional as necessary to show how it could be developed further.

?

These prototypes might look like rough sketches, storyboards, or maps and are typically not interactive. Instructional design guru Devlin Peck describes this process as promoting “divergent thinking” and encourages teams to consider “Why shouldn’t we do this?” for every prototype.

?

Iterative Development Phase:

?

The final phase of the SAM approach is iterative development, in which the team develops several fully functional solutions, each better than the one before. Allen splits these developments into three categories:

?

Alpha: the first and roughest, but still fully functional solution.

Beta: a second, improved iteration of the solution.

Gold: the final version of the solution.

Like the Iterative Design phase, the Iterative Development phase is cyclical. It involves multiple repetitions of evaluation, development, and implementation and possibly even a return to the iterative design phase. As such, there may be more than one Alpha, Beta, or even Gold version of the project.

?

Degree of Completeness in SAM Cycles

?

A crucial aspect of the SAM model is the concept of "successive approximation," where each iteration brings the project closer to completion. The degree of completeness increases with each iteration, allowing for continuous refinement and improvement [2]. Let's explore each cycle in detail:

?

First Cycle - DESIGN PROOF (Approximate 30% Complete):

?

Design Phase:

?

·???????? Focus on creating a basic structure and outline of the eLearning course.

·???????? Establish learning objectives and overall content strategy.

·???????? Determine the general flow and structure of the course.

?

Prototype:

?

·???????? Typically, a rough sketch, wireframe, or storyboard.

·???????? May include basic visual concepts or layout ideas.

·???????? Often non-interactive at this stage.

?

Review:

?

·???????? Concentrate on the overall direction and significant elements.

·???????? Gather feedback on the general approach and structure.

·???????? Identify any significant gaps or misalignments with project goals.

?

Second Cycle - ALPHA (Approximate 60% Complete):

?

Design Phase:

?

·???????? Incorporate feedback from the first cycle to refine the design.

·???????? Develop more detailed content outlines and scripts.

·???????? Begin creating actual course assets (e.g., graphics, animations).

?

Prototype:

?

·???????? More refined, with some functional elements.

·???????? May include sample interactions or basic navigation.

·???????? Preliminary visual design elements are incorporated.

?

Review:

?

·???????? Delve into specific content areas and functionality.

·???????? Test fundamental interactions and navigation.

·???????? Gather feedback on visual design and user experience.

?

Third Cycle - BETA (Approximate 85% Complete):

?

Design Phase:

?

·???????? Finalize most design elements.

·???????? Complete content development, including all media assets.

·???????? Implement full interactivity and navigation.

?

Prototype:

?

·???????? Highly functional, closely resembling the final product.

·???????? All significant features and content are in place.

·???????? Full visual design is implemented.

?

Review:

?

·???????? Focus on fine-tuning and identifying any remaining issues.

·???????? Conduct thorough testing of all interactions and functionalities.

·???????? Gather feedback from a broader group of stakeholders or test users.

?

?

Final Cycle - GOLD (100% Complete):

?

Design Phase:

?

·???????? Apply final touches based on beta feedback.

·???????? Optimize performance and ensure cross-platform compatibility.

·???????? Conduct final quality assurance checks.

?

Prototype:

?

·???????? Evolves into the final product.

·???????? All content, interactions, and features are fully implemented and polished.

?

Review:

?

·???????? Final review to ensure all objectives are met.

·???????? Verify that all feedback from previous cycles has been addressed.

·???????? Confirm the product is ready for launch.

?

This incremental approach allows for continuous improvement and refinement, with each cycle building upon the work of the previous one. The iterative nature of SAM allows for greater flexibility and responsiveness to changing requirements or new insights gained during the development process.

?

SAM vs. ADDIE Instructional Design Approaches

?

The SAM approach is often compared to the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation) model, a decades-old staple in instructional design. While both approaches aim to create practical learning experiences, they differ significantly in their methodology and application [1].

Key Differences:

?

Structure:

?

·???????? ADDIE: Linear or "waterfall" approach. Each phase must be completed before moving to the next.

·???????? SAM is an iterative or "agile" approach. Phases are revisited and repeated in cycles until the desired outcome is achieved.

?

Flexibility:

?

·???????? ADDIE: More rigid, with less room for changes once a phase is completed.

·???????? SAM: Highly flexible, allowing adjustments and improvements throughout the process.

?

Speed of Development:

?

·???????? ADDIE: This can be slower, especially for complex projects, due to its linear nature.

·???????? SAM: Often faster, as it allows for rapid prototyping and concurrently developing different elements.

?

Stakeholder Involvement:

?

·???????? ADDIE: Stakeholders are typically involved at specific points, often at the end of each phase.

·???????? SAM: Encourages continuous stakeholder involvement throughout the process, especially during the "Savvy Start" and review stages.

?

Risk Management:

?

·???????? ADDIE: Risks may not be identified until later, potentially leading to costly changes.

·???????? SAM: Risks are identified and addressed early and throughout the process, reducing the likelihood of significant issues later.

?

Prototyping:

?

ADDIE: Prototyping typically occurs later in the process, after detailed design and development.

SAM: Emphasizes early and frequent prototyping, starting with rough concepts in the first cycle.

?

When to Use Each Approach:

?

ADDIE may be more suitable for:

?

·???????? Large-scale projects with clearly defined and stable requirements.

·???????? Organizations with strict approval processes require sign-offs at each stage.

·???????? Projects using traditional technologies that are less adaptable to rapid changes.

·???????? Situations where extensive upfront analysis and planning are crucial.

?

SAM may be more effective for:

?

·???????? Projects with evolving or less specific requirements.

·???????? Teams working in dynamic environments where rapid adaptation is necessary.

·???????? Organizations open to using newer, more flexible technologies.

·???????? Situations where early stakeholder feedback and buy-in are critical.

?

Hybrid Approaches:

?

Many instructional designers now use hybrid approaches, combining elements of both ADDIE and SAM. This allows them to leverage the strengths of each model based on the specific needs of the project and organization.

For example, a team might start a project with ADDIE's thorough analysis phase and then transition to SAM's iterative cycles for design and development. This hybrid approach can provide a solid foundation while maintaining the flexibility to adapt to changing needs or new insights during development.

In conclusion, while SAM offers significant advantages in terms of flexibility and rapid development, the choice between SAM and ADDIE (or a hybrid approach) should be based on the project's specific needs, the organization's culture, and the available resources. Understanding the strengths and limitations of each model allows instructional designers to make informed decisions and create more effective learning experiences.

?

?References

?

[1] Allen, M. W., & Sites, R. (2012). Leaving ADDIE for SAM: An agile model for developing the best learning experiences. American Society for Training and Development.

?

[2] Rimmer, T. (2016). An introduction to SAM for instructional designers. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/introduction-sam-for-instructional-designers

?

[3] Brandon Hall Group. (2017). The True Cost of Not Providing Employee Training. Brandon Hall Group Research.

?

[4] Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.

?

[5] Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2013). Designing effective instruction (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.