INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN (ID): FOR TEACHERS AND ADDIE, WHAT DO WE NEED TO KNOW?

As we are learning about Instructional Design (ID), teachers have been using this method for a long time to develop tasks or assessments for their learners. Being widely used means the form will keep evolving from time to time to find the most suitable methods that are useful in the classroom. Without further ado, today we will discuss Instructional Design for Teachers (ID4T) written by Alison A. Carr-Chellman and ADDIE, another Instructional Design model that is quite famous among designers. Despite having limited knowledge about the whole concept of ID4T, the model has projected its method in nine (9) steps. Meanwhile, for ADDIE, from the name itself its coined the steps for the technique. Starting with Analyse, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate. When we discuss two things that pursue the same results, both models will have similarities and differences. Let's erase the question of "Which one is better?" in our head and get ahead of discovering the beauty of these two models. 

Having nine steps in ID4T rather than five steps in ADDIE is one of the significant differences for both methods. Despite the differences in the number of steps, the first three steps in ID4T are the same as the Design step in ADDIE, which is to set the learning goals, write learning objectives, and write matched test items. All of the steps in ID4T project the same idea of Design in ADDIE, which is to define specific learning objectives to be measured that include the strategies to breach from the content to the learners and testing the feedback whether it meets the learning objectives. Testing also means it gives feedback for the developer and the teachers to work on the parts that need further fixing. Doing this will lead to massive progress for both models before they reach the last step, the Evaluation step, which is the other similarity for both models. In ID4T and ADDIE, evaluation is so crucial. This step is needed to improve and revise the instruction that might have been wrong from the beginning. The truth is a mistake could be made, as teachers are learners as well, and this way, this is how teachers learn to be better at teaching.

The ideas are pretty similar between Develop and Implement for ADDIE and the remaining steps in ID4T. Both models establish their materials using social media, gamification, or anything available for learning by specifying the learning activities. Using the selected media that has been mentioned, the pilot test can be performed. Proving the stability of the media used will lead to improvement for the future.

Skipping from Analyse right to Design in ADDIE is the significant difference between these two models. Analyse in ADDIE means to know the background, the condition, and the overall state of the learners before designing the right task. It also focuses on understanding existing knowledge, skills, experience, and many more learners' characteristics. Then, teachers could develop a task that is most suitable for them after considering things mentioned earlier. However, for ID4T, the writer disagrees with the idea of analysing because, as the writer said, analysing should be dismissed as it can be redundant, and it doesn't go for the right thing when teaching in the actual class. Although the idea of Analyse in ADDIE is not used in ID4T, the model still identifies the essential characteristics of learners.

There is no right or wrong in delivering your ideas in class as a teacher. Anything that suits you best is the only way to go. Having your learners' feedback and reaction throughout the class is the most transparent form of success in delivering your knowledge to them.