Generally, I think that the secret to building great instructional content is knowing where you're going or, in other words, defining the "future state." We've talked a lot about how the instruction is the product that fills the gap that takes an organization from the current state to the future state, but we don't talk about how the future state gets articulated. The analysis component of the ADDIE concept is the closest place to where one might define the future state of an area within the ISD process. But, I have struggled with the lack of importance placed on defining the future state in all of the IDDE coursework, because I think this is where ID or training gets a bad name. We dabbled in this area during the change module.
Additionally, this has also forced me to think about how my current job responsibilities fit together. While staff development falls into my area of responsibility here at SU, my title is director of organizational development (OD). OD encompasses numerous activities that help areas move from their current state to their future state (sound familiar?). But, they all depend on an organization's ability to define the future state.
This has all led me to wonder if the ADDIE is dated. Should change or defining the future state become an active part of this concept, especially in our current work environment where change is ubiquitous?
This will be an area of research for me for my model.
Here's my first article about IT, diffusion, change, etc.
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
No comments:
Post a Comment