In preparation for my upcoming end of MA development project I have been brushing up on my eLearning theory. Having been introduced to the ADDIE framework (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) for instructional design during semester 1 of the MA, I have been refamiliarizing myself with the steps involved in the process, and brainstorming ways in which I can develop my proposed eLearning course in alignment with the ADDIE methodology. However, while exploring applications of the tried and trusted ADDIE model in the eLearning space, an unfamiliar and shiny sounding acronym consistently popped up in industry literature, SAM.
The Successive Approximation Model is an approach to eLearning development I was previously unacquainted with. I was curious to explore this model given its prevalence in the articles I was reading, but also apprehensive. My previous projects have predominantly been informed by the ADDIE model and it has served me well, and with limited time between now and the design phase of the development project I was wary of overcomplicating my approach. However, in the interest of professional development and staying up to date with the latest trends, I decided to undertake a deep dive.
While the ADDIE approach adheres to a linear process, where each stage must be completed before progressing to the next, I found that the SAM framework is classified as a more agile and fluid approach and is commonly associated with the term ‘rapid eLearning development’. The SAM approach to eLearning encourages rapid development over perfection. Instead of focusing on one perfect solution, SAM utilizes feedback to test and adjust quickly. The methodology involves developing small, functioning prototypes that are consistently reviewed to provide instant feedback. This feedback is then reviewed, and the prototype is refined and adjusted accordingly.
Having solely planned my eLearning design approach on the ADDIE model previously, this introduction to SAM certainly provided me with food for thought. SAM certainly appeared to offer some benefits that ADDIE did not, such as the ability to identify shortcomings early in the design phase and the opportunity to tweak the prototype accordingly, as well as greater collaboration and involvement from stakeholders to ensure the project remains on the correct path. However, after further exploration it became clear to me, that these perceived ‘benefits’ were highly context and project dependent. SAM appears to abide by the fail fast but fail early mantra, while ADDIE assumes a more long-term perspective and focuses on perfecting a project over a longer timeline, ultimately producing a single, carefully curated solution. On the basis of my (ongoing) reading it appears that projects with clear objectives and a defined scope may be more suited to the ADDIE approach, while more complex projects that require greater collaboration with subject matter experts may be more suited to the SAM approach.
My initial fear of overcomplicating things transpired to thankfully be unfounded. I have learned that both approaches to eLearning design can effectively complement, and not compete, with one another. Importantly for me also, is that the deep dive that begun with a sense of apprehension has resulted in the addition of a further string to my bow, and the acquisition of a fresh approach to consider during the design of my next eLearning project.
Image 1 source: EDUCBA. (2021). Addie vs Sam | Learn the Key Differences and Comparisons. [online] Available at: https://www.educba.com/addie-vs-sam/.
Image 2 source: www.sketchbubble.com. (n.d.). Addie vs Agile. [online] Available at: https://www.sketchbubble.com/en/presentation-addie-vs-agile.html [Accessed 14 Mar. 2023].
Comments