The Third Dimension of
ADDIE:
A Cultural Embrace
by Michael Thomas, Marlon Mitchell, and Roberto Joseph
INTRODUCTION
If education is inherently a process
that involves human interaction with
the deliberate purpose of promoting
the social values, norms, and mores, of
a given society, then we can state that
the knowledge a society chooses to
convey says something about the culture of that society. In this way, we
can conceive of education as being a
process that is fundamentally sociocultural in nature.
We argue that historically many
professionals in the field of Instructional Technology have taken a culturally neutral position in the creation
of instructional products. By not directly addressing culture in the design
of instruction, many products have
been designed that inadequately address the needs of the population for
whom the instruction was designed.
Unintended consequences of this
shortcoming include the production
of ineffective instructional products,
the under use of potentially effective
products, culturally insensitive products, and products that are deemed
overtly culturally offensive by some
members of certain populations.
Theorists have recently begun to
consider that culture may play an even
greater role than being at the heart of
any educative conveyance of knowledge. A number of researchers and theorists have begun to consider that our
very perception of reality (and therefore
reality itself) is a product of socio-cultural process (e.g. Lave & Wenger,
1991; Cole, 1985; 1986, Goodenow,
40
1992; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978;
Wertsch, 1998). All knowledge, then, is
socially mediated and all socialization is
grounded in culture. Instead of earlier
cognitivist ideas of activating representative schema existing in the human
mind (Piaget, 1963), all representations
are constructed in situ (Duffy &
Jonassen, 1992). Education becomes not
a process of conveying knowledge but of
co-constructing knowledge in socio-cultural contexts. Interactivity and culture
become education and instruction and
the co-construction of reality. Although
this is still controversial, we can state
that whether or not reality itself is constructed, the role of culture is clearly relevant to the design of instruction.
The obvious implication of this notion is that the effective design of instruction would have to be grounded
in a rich understanding of culture and
its essential role in the socially mediated construction of reality.
CULTURE
A thorough understanding of how researchers have defined the construct of
culture is important to our growth and
development as instructional designers.
In this section we examine how researchers have defined culture, and how
instructional designers have treated culture within the design process.
WHAT IS CULTURE?
Early definitions of culture considered
culture to be a refinement or a flowerTechTrends
ing in the development of education
(Arnold, 1925; Williams, 1993). A
cultured person is an educated person.
These hierarchic (Alasuutari, 1995)
definitions later gave way to social
definitions that can trace their origins
to the work of Edward Tylor in the
later part of the 19th century (Tylor,
1924). In their review of over 160
definitions of culture, Kroeber and
Kluckholn (1952) later characterized
culture as, “…patterns, explicit and
implicit, of and for behavior acquired
and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of
human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential
core of culture consists of traditional
(i.e. historically derived and selected)
ideas and especially their attached
values; culture systems may, on the
one hand, be considered as products of
action, and on the other as conditioning elements of further action.”
(Kroeber and Kluckholn, 1952, p.
283). Pai & Adler (1997) have defined the construct of culture as “that
pattern of knowledge, skills, behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs, as well as
material artifacts, produced by a human society and transmitted from one
generation to another” (Pai & Adler,
1997, p. 23). Geertz’s symbolic anthropology considered culture to be a
system of interacting symbols and
meanings that continually influence
one another (Geertz, 1973, Rice,
1980; Smircich, 1983).
In recent years, instructional designers (Powell, 1997a; 1997b; Branch,
Volume 46, Issue 2
1997) have begun to provide the field
of ISD with definitions and process
guidelines for incorporating culture
into the systemic design of instruction.
Powell (1997b) defines culture as “the
sum total of ways of living, including
values, beliefs, aesthetic standards, linguistic expression, patterns of thinking,
behavioral norms, and styles of communication, which a group of people
has developed to assure its survival in a
particular physical and human environment” (p. 15). Additionally, Powell
(1997b) points out that cultures are
not static entities because of the interaction that takes place between cultures and the people who part of them.
Yon (2000) also speaks to the idea of
the elusive and the continually changing aspects of culture. We concur that
the ISD process should take into account the dynamic and interactive nature of culture. Therefore, we assert
that the process should incorporate a
systemic approach to design.
In the field of Instructional Systems Design (ISD), culture has been
addressed, yet forgotten in the analysis
phase. It is in this phase that the designer must get to know the learner in
order to design a product that will
meet his/her needs. Getting to know
the learner and their culture should
not stop at the analysis phase. Instead,
the instructional designer should continue to get to know and understand
the learner throughout the design process. It is this continual interaction
between the instructional designer
and the learner that will bring the designer closer to understanding the culture of the learners. Consequently this
will lead to the design of a more culturally enriched and sensitive product.
It is also critical that the culture of the
designer and its connection to that of
the learners be explored as static entities as well. We are all part of many
interactive and interacting cultures all
of which inform the design process.
SYSTEMATIC VS. SYSTEMIC DESIGN
Here we will briefly outline the distinction between the terms systematic
Volume 46, Issue 2
and systemic as they relate to the design of instruction. The term systematic refers to a linear, piecemeal,
orderly design process in which each
stage of the process follows a prescribed, logical order (Molenda,
Pershing, & Reigeluth, 1996). Many
theorists in this area have proposed
prescriptive models in order to maximize the effectiveness of instructional
materials (Dick & Carey, 1985;
Heinich, Molenda, Russell, Smaldino,
1999; Leshin, Pollock, Reigeluth,
1992; Seels & Glasgow, 1990; Seels &
Richey, 1994; Romiszowski, 1981;
Diamond, 1989).
A systemic design process, by contrast, is an integrated, holistic, multidirectional approach to the design of
instruction. A systemic approach to
to the systemic design of instruction.
Powell (1997a) and Knupfer (1997)
pointed out that too often learner
characteristics such as gender, race,
and ethnicity have been overlooked.
If culture is at the heart of meaning
making and cognition itself, then instructional designers should utilize a
systemic design process that is iterative as well as culturally grounded. For
a design process to be truly systemic it
must consider all components of the
system and how the components relate to one another. Therefore, without considering culture, we cannot
truly have a design process that is systemic. If a designer, for example, were
to design an instructional website for
new international students who need
help with writing research papers, she
…culture is so much a part of the construction of
knowledge that it must underpin not only the analysis
phase but all phases of the design process.
design implies that the designer is
constantly aware of the interdependence of the total instructional system, and all its components
(Molenda, Pershing, Reigeluth, 1996).
The ubiquity of the systematic approach to instructional design and the
proliferation of the models employed
for this purpose belies a general unanimity on the part of instructional design theorists and practitioners as to
what these models should be used for
and what elements they should incorporate. Indeed, many instructional
models when compared are strikingly
similar and few have been rigorously
tested (Gustafson & Powell, 1991).
Most of these models begin with some
sort of analysis of the learners for
whom the instruction is designed.
Many refer to these models as learner
centered design (Corry, Frick, &
Hanson, 1997; McKnight, Dillon &
Richardson, 1996; Mitchell, 1993).
Richey (1995) points out that the
field of instructional systems design
has been systematic; however a holistic treatment of the process is essential
TechTrends
would need to first consider the various cultures for whom she would design and how her own culture
interacts with those of the users. The
design process would not be systemic if
she were to concentrate solely on the
content. Critical to making instructional design systemic is consideration
of the various cultures of the users/
learners you are designing for.
What we argue here is that culture
is so much a part of the construction
of knowledge that it must underpin
not only the analysis phase but all
phases of the design process. The increasing welcome of diversity in our
society adds urgency to this perspective and to our growing sensitivity to
and knowledge of cultural processes.
THE THIRD DIMENSION
It may be argued that culture is adequately addressed in existing ADDIE
(Analysis, Design, Development,
Implementation, Evaluation) model
structures or in other structures instructional designers have discussed in
41
Figure 1. Linear Model
Analyze
Design
Develop
➔
➔
the past. The ASSURE (Analyze
learners, State objectives, Select
methods, media, and materials, Utilize
media and materials, Require learner
participation and Evaluate and revise)
model of Heinich, Molenda, Russell,
& Smaldino (1999), for example, addresses culture in the initial phase,
(Analyze Learners) and in the final
phases (Require learner participation
and Evaluate and revise). However,
the notion of culture is not considered
as being meaning making and is not
treated as a dynamic, omnipresent entity. Others have attempted to show
how culture can be accounted for by
way of existing ADDIE model components. Branch (1997), for example,
pointed out that Gagné’s nine events
➔
of instruction (Gagné, 1985) “have
the potential to promote knowledge
exchanges from cultural perspectives.”
For Branch, culture is adequately addressed in this way. However, newer
notions of culture invite further investigation of this treatment.
We have argued that culture is central to meaning making and cognition
in general and that instructional designers must, therefore, incorporate
culture into the systemic design of instruction.
The ADDIE model began as a twodimensional model that was mono-directional and linear (Tracey, Flynn, &
Legere, 1966; Briggs, 1977; Shrock,
1991) (see Figure 1). Ritchie and
Hoffman (1996) attempted to address
Figure 2. Iterative Model
Analyze
Evaluate
Implement
42
Implement
Design
Develop
TechTrends
Evaluate
➔
the rigidity of the ADDIE model by introducing an iterative approach. This
change enabled the model to enter
into a state of continuous development
allowing it to meet the demands of an
unstable environment. It then began to
be considered bi-directional, iterative
and two-dimensional (see Figure 2).
We propose adding another dimension: culture to the ADDIE model
(see Figure 3), making it not only iterative and multi-directional but also
three dimensional. The third dimension of the ADDIE model would consist of three parameters: intention,
interaction, and introspection. Using
the ADDIE model as a basic guide,
each of the five phases of the ADDIE
model can be viewed in terms of these
three parameters. In order to understand this third dimension of culture
and how it corresponds with the
ADDIE model, it is necessary for instructional designers to understand
the three I’s: Intention, Interaction
and Introspection.
Intention
Jonassen, Peck, and Wilson (1999)
in their five attributes of meaningful
learning identify reflection as part of
the intentional attribute of learning.
Although it may seem obvious that
instructional designers intend to make
culturally sensitive products, this is
not always the case. Too often the intention is not to make a product that
is culturally sensitive or culturally appropriate but culturally neutral. This
is often done in an attempt to avoid
cultural bias but also occurs as an unhappy consequence of cultural neglect
or arrogance. If culture is at the heart
of our thoughts and worldview, it is an
inescapable element in all that we do,
say, feel, wish, and design. Therefore,
Volume 46, Issue 2
nothing is free of Figure 3. Three Dimensional Model
culture or cultural
bias.
Our
goal
should not be to
flee from the notion
of culture but to
embrace it fully. In
every phase of the
ADDIE process, we
must question our
intention to carry
out analysis, design,
development,
implementation
and evaluation in a
manner that is culturally sensitive and
grounded in the notion that culture in
inescapable and we
must also seek out
evidence that the
integrity of our intentions
remain
clear. Clients and
stakeholders
also
influence the intentions of designers
and should, therefore, be carefully
considered.
We
must also consider
that there are consequences to what
we do. Just as the
field of testing has
embraced an expanded notion of va- tiating meaning through interaction.
lidity in testing to include the conse- Interaction
quences of testing (Messick, 1989),
Brent Wilson (1995) states, “A key
the field of instructional design must element in effective ID is the nature
consider that products create conse- of the design team” (p.7). Traditionquences and emerge from processes ally the design team was composed of
that are manifestations of very human the designer and subject matter expert
actions and intentions. Knupfer (SME) working as separate distinct
(1997) in discussing the serious prob- entities. This paradigm of design has
lem of gender inequity in instructional become outdated and therefore is not
design points out that “Inequalities as responsive to the diverse needs of
that result from the practice of in- culture. We argue that this approach
structional design often go unrecog- should be replaced with a more
nized because they emerge not just as constructivist approach whereby the
a result of what has been done, but designer, SME, and end user particialso as a result of what has been left pate collaboratively in the design of
undone” (p.32). Intention is critical instruction thus facilitating the meldto action. It is that intention that ing of culture into the end product. If
must be conveyed when socially nego- culture and thought spring from huVolume 46, Issue 2
TechTrends
man interaction and socialization,
then any knowledge of culture must
be grounded in interaction. Instructional designers must interact with the
people for whom they design. If this is
not possible, then the designer must
seek out those who do have this experience and make use of their expertise.
Users, to the greatest extent possible,
must be designers. The more interaction with the culture designers have,
the more we can hope to understand
who we are designing for, and the
more culturally appropriate and sensitive our products are likely to be. This
must also be considered in all five
phases of the ADDIE model.
Introspection
Introspection is the reflective prac43
tice of one’s own thoughts, feelings and
actions. Although many have extolled
the importance of introspection in
learning, it is also essential for the instructional designer. As people interact, cultures interact. As designers who
not only interact with other cultures
but design for and with other cultures,
we must consider our own thoughts,
beliefs, attitudes, desires, and feelings
toward these cultures. There should be
mechanisms in place throughout the
ISD process for introspection and conversation on these matters.
Henderson (1996) asserts “instructional design cannot and does not exist
outside of a consideration of culture”
(p. 86). The designer’s world view cannot be divorced from his societal context; therefore, it becomes critically
important that the designer becomes
introspective in his approach when designing instruction. Henderson proposes a multiple cultural model of
instructional design to address the limitations of other ID models. Henderson
asserts that this model is extraordinarily culturally sensitive and that it is
supported by the participation of the
end user in the development phase.
We argue that introspection should
not only be treated in the development
phase, but injected seamlessly throughout the entire ID process. If our cultural biases are indeed omnipresent,
what are they? How do our biases affect
the products we create? For each stage
of the ADDIE process, these and similar questions must be addressed.
CONCLUSION
As culture is at the heart of meaning
making, it warrants exacting attention
in the systemic design process. As
Gustafson & Powell (1991) point out,
too often models are not tested for validity and reliability. It is for this reason that we emphasize that research
must critically evaluate this expanded
ADDIE model.
As technology enables us to increase our interaction with the peoples
of the world, we are enriched by the incessant shifts in our own cultural para44
digms. Attention to this cultural dynamism and incessant interplay leads to
both improved designs and improved
designers. As instructional designers,
we must be able to critically analyze
our learner’s cultures and allow it to
strengthen the instructional design
process. In this way we address our
ethical commitment to creating culturally sensitive products.
REFERENCES
Alasuutari, P. (1995). Researching
culture: Qualitative method and cultural studies. London: Sage.
Arnold, M. (1925). Culture and anarchy. New York: MacMillan.
Branch, R. (1997). Educational technology frameworks that facilitate culturally
pluralistic instruction. Educational Technology, 37(2), 38-41.
Branson, R. (1975). Interservice procedures
for instructional systems development: Executive summary and model. Tallahassee,
FL: Center for Educational Technology,
Florida State University. (National
Technical Information Service, 5285
Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.
Document Nos. AD-A019 486 to ADA019 490)
Briggs, L. (Ed.) (1977). Instructional design:
Principles and applications. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture
and cognition create each other. In
J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 146-161). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology:
A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Corry, M., Frick, T., and Hansen, L.
(1997). User-centered design and usability testing of a web site: An illustrative case study. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 45(4), 65-76.
Diamond, R. M. (1989). Designing &
improving courses and curricula in
higher education: A systemic approach.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1985). The systemic
TechTrends
design of instruction (2nd ed.). Glenview,
Il: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Duffy, T. & Jonassen, D. (1992).
Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy &
D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and
the technology of instruction: A conversation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed: New revised 20th anniversary
edition. New York, NY: Continuum.
Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of
learning and theory of instruction. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture.
In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation of
cultures. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening
the links between educational psychology and the study of social contexts.
Educational Psychologist, 27(2), 177-196.
Gustafson, K. & Powell, G. (1991). Survey of instructional development models
(2nd ed.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., &
Smaldino, S. (1999). Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning (6th
ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.
Henderson, L. (1996) Instructional
design of interactive multimedia.
Educational Technology Research and
Development, 44(4), 85-104
Jonassen, D. , Peck, K. & Wilson, B.
(1999). Learning with technology A
constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.
Knupfer, N. N. (1997). Gendered by design. Educational Technology, 37(2), 31-37.
Kroeber, A. & Kluckholn, C. (1952).
Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Peabody Museum Papers, 47(1), 180-190.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated
learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tracey, W., Flynn, E. & Legere, C.
(1966). The development of instructional
systems. Ft. Devens, MA: U.S. Army
Security Agency Training Center.
Leshin, C., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C.
(1992). Instructional design strategies
Volume 46, Issue 2
and tactics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Educational Technology Publications.
McKnight, C., Dillon, A., &
Richardson, J. (1996). User-centered
design of hypertext/hypermedia for
education. In D. Jonassen (Ed.).
Handbook of Research for Educational
Communications and Technology (pp.
622-633). New York: Macmillan.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.
Linn (Ed.) Educational Measurement.
New York, NY: Macmillian. 13-103.
Mitchell, C. (1993). Redefining Designing.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Molenda, M., Pershing, J. &
Reigeluth, C. (1996). Designing instructional systems. In R. Craig
(Ed.), The ASTD training and development handbook (4th ed.) (pp.266293). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pai, Y. & Adler, S. (1997). Cultural
foundations of education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in
children. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Powell, G. (1997a). On being a culturally sensitive instructional designer and educator. Educational
Technology, 37(2), 6-14.
Powell, G. (1997b). Understanding
the language of diversity. Educational
Technology, 37(2), 15-16.
Rice, K. (1980). Geertz and culture.
Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press.
Richey, R. (1995). Trends in Instructional
Design: Emerging Theory-Based Models.
Performance Quarterly, 8(3), pp.96-110.
Retrieved May 24, 2001, from http://
www.ittheory.com/idtrends.htm
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in
thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Romiszowski, A. (1981). Designing instructional systems: Decision making in
course planning and curriculum design.
London: Kogan Page Ltd.
Seels, B & Glasgow, Z. (1990). Exercises in instructional design. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Co.
Seels, B. & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and
domains of the field. Washington DC:
Association for Educational ComVolume 46, Issue 2
munications & Technology.
Shrock, S. (1991). A brief history of
instructional development. In G.
Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: past, present and future (pp. 1118).
Englewood, CO: Libraries
Unlimited, Inc.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28,
339-358.
Tylor, E. (1924). Primitive culture. 2nd
edition. New York: Brentano’s.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society:
The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as Action. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Williams, R. (1993). Culture is Ordinary. In A. Gray Ann & J.
McGuigan, (Eds.), Studying Culture:
An introductory reader (pp. 5-14).
London: Edward Arnold.
Wilson, B. (1995). Situated instructional design: Blurring the distinctions
between theory and practice, design
and implementation, curriculum and
instruction. In M. Simonson (Ed.),
Proceedings of selected research and development presentations. Washington D.
C.: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Yon, D. (2000). Elusive culture: Schooling, race, and identity in global times.
Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Michael K. Thomas is a doctoral
candidate at Indiana University in
Instructional Systems Technology and
Language Education. His research
interests include culture, identity
development, and meaning making in
technology rich environments.
Marlon Mitchell is a doctoral candidate
at Indiana University in Instructional
Systems Technology. His research
interests are in the areas of Educational
Gerontology, Instructional Design, and
the Digital Divide.
Roberto Joseph is a doctoral candidate
at Indiana University in Instructional
Systems Technology. His research
interests include Systemic Change and
the Digital Divide.
TechTrends
45