The ADDIE model is a systematic instructional design model consisting of five phases:

(1) Analysis

(2) Design

(3) Development

(4) Implementation

(5) Evaluation.


  • During analysis, the designer identifies the learning problem, the goals and objectives, the audience’s needs, existing knowledge, and any other relevant characteristics.  Analysis also considers the learning environment, any constraints, the delivery options, and the timeline for the project.


  • A systematic process of specifying learning objectives. Detailed storyboards and prototypes are often made, and the look and feel, graphic design, user-interface and content are determined here.


  • The actual creation (production) of the content and learning materials based on the Design phase.


  • During implementation, the plan is put into action and a procedure for training the learner and teacher is developed.  Materials are delivered or distributed to the student group. After delivery, the effectiveness of the training materials is evaluated.


  • This phase consists of (1) formative and (2) summative evaluation. Formative evaluation is present in each stage of the ADDIE process. Summative evaluation consists of tests designed for criterion-related referenced items and providing opportunities for feedback from the users.  Revisions are made as necessary.

Rapid prototyping (continual feedback) has sometimes been cited as a way to improve the generic ADDIE model.

Formative evaluation is a type of evaluation which has the purpose of improving programs. It goes under other names such as developmental evaluation and implementation evaluation. It can be contrasted with other types of evaluation which have other purposes, in particular process evaluation and outcome evaluation. An example of this is its use in instructional design to assess ongoing projects during their construction to implement improvements. Formative evaluation can use any of the techniques which are used in other types of evaluation: surveys, interviews,
data collection and experiments (where these are used to examine the outcomes
of pilot projects).

Formative evaluation developed relatively late in the course of evaluation’s emergence as a discipline as a result of growing frustration with an exclusive emphasis on outcome evaluation as the only purpose for evaluation activity. Outcome evaluation looks at the intended or unintended positive or negative consequences of a program, policy or organization. While outcome evaluation is useful where it can be done, it is not always the best type of evaluation to undertake. For instance, in many cases it is difficult or even impossible to undertake an outcome  evaluation because of either feasibility or cost. In other cases, even where  outcome evaluation is feasible and affordable, it may be a number of years  before the results of an outcome evaluation become available. As a consequence,  attention has turned to using evaluation techniques to maximize the chances  that a program will be successful instead of waiting till the final results of  a program are available to assess its usefulness. Formative evaluation  therefore complements outcome evaluation rather than being an alternative to  it.

Formative evaluation is done with a small group of people to “test run” various  aspects of instructional materials. For example, you might ask a friend to look over your web pages to see if they are graphically pleasing, if there are  errors you’ve missed, if it has navigational problems. It’s like having someone  look over your shoulder during the development phase to help you catch things  that you miss, but a fresh set of eyes might not. At times, you might need to  have this help from a target audience. For example, if you’re designing  learning materials for third graders, you should have a third grader as part of  your Formative Evaluation.

The terms formative and summative evaluation were coined by Michael Scriven (1967)

Summative evaluation refers to the assessment of the learning and summarizes the development of learners at a particular time. After a period of work, e.g. a unit for two weeks, the learner sits for a test and then the teacher marks the test and assigns a score. The test aims to summarize learning up to that point. The test may also be used for diagnostic assessment to identify any weaknesses and then build on that using formative assessment.

Summative assessment is commonly used to refer to assessment of educational faculty by their respective supervisor. It is imposed onto the faculty member, and  uniformly applied, with the object of measuring all teachers on the same criteria to determine the level of their performance. It is meant to meet the school or district’s needs for teacher accountability and looks to provide  remediation for sub-standard performance and also provides grounds for dismissal if necessary. The evaluation usually takes the shape of a form, and consists of check lists and occasionally narratives. Areas evaluated include classroom climate, instruction, professionalism, and planning and preparation.

Summative assessment is characterized as assessment of learning and is contrasted with formative assessment, which is assessment for learning.

It provides information on the product’s efficacy (its ability to do what it was designed to do). For example, did the learners learn what they were supposed to learn after using the instructional module. In a sense, it does not bother to assess  “how they did,” but more importantly, by looking at how the learners  performed, it provides information as to whether the product teaches what it is  supposed to teach.

About these ads