Integrating Technology with ADDIE


Last week, I attended ISTE in Philadelphia and met a lot of educators who all had the same goal of bringing more technology into the classroom. One thing that stood out to me though was the large range of backgrounds among those in technology leadership positions (e.g., principals, tech coordinators, media specialists). And I didn’t meet a single one that had any formal training in instructional design and technology (not to say they weren’t there, I just didn’t run into any)–most were using ISTE and other PD avenues for gaining skills in technology integration.

I find this problematic because it has essentially resulted in the reliance on less than adequate methods (e.g., SAMR model) for technology integration. Because technology integration is really about learning, and because instructional design serves as the foundation of technology integration, I was inspired to write today’s post as an introduction to the nuts and bolts of technology integration, using ADDIE as a framework (ADDIE is really the generic basis of many different models).

So, what is technology integration really? I think of it as the use of technology to enhance learning or to help solve learning problems. The process of technology integration is metacognitive in nature–it requires an intense amount of self-awareness and self-reflection about your own teaching and learning.

ADDIE is a good place to start with planning for technology integration because it is simple and fairly easy to remember. Here is how technology integration fits into the framework of ADDIE:

Analysis. Technology integration starts with assessment and analysis.

  • What are the learning goal(s)? What do your students need to be able to do?
  • What knowledge or skills are necessary to reach the learning goal(s)? What prior knowledge do you expect them to have?
  • What type of technology (this is where you analyze different technologies’ affordances) would be best suited for the learning goal and topic?
    • Example: A visually-dependent (e.g., ThingLink) technology might be a great fit for a visually-dependent topic (e.g., art), but an inadequate fit for a more abstract concept (e.g., philosophy).
  • What are your technology limitations (e.g., access, availability, support)?

Design and Development. This is where the lesson planning takes place. Think about your teaching practices. Are they teacher-centered or student-centered? How will you use technology to achieve the learning goal(s)? Technology integration isn’t just about what technology you will use, but how you will use it. The table below is one of my favorites (pay special attention to the bottom two categories related to technology):


Taken from P.A. Ertmer et al. / Computers & Education 59 (2012) 423–435

Implementation. This is where you implement your lesson plan. Expect the need the make revisions. Good teaching is a process not a product!

  • What worked well in the lesson? What might you change?
  • How smoothly did the technology fit into the implementation process?
  • What, if any, problems did you run into with implementing the technology?


  • Based on assessments, did students achieve the learning goal(s)?
  • What features of the technology helped you achieve the learning goal(s)? How might those features help in future lessons?

ADDIE serves as the basis for a number of instructional design models (e.g., NTeQ, ASSURE) that support technology integration, which I will discuss further in future posts.


4 thoughts on “Integrating Technology with ADDIE

    • In my opinion, SAMR puts too much focus on what the technology has to offer rather than what the teacher can do with the technology. Technology integration is about how you can use technology to support or achieve a learning goal, rather than how technology itself can improve learning. In that respect, when using SAMR, a teacher might feel obligated only to use technology that fits into the upper level of the model, overlooking technologies that by the model’s definition are substitutes or augmentation. Take concept mapping software for instance. I would categorize a software like Inspiration in the lower level of the model, yet concept mapping is a fantastic technology for problem-based learning.

      On the contrary, a technology like ThingLink might be categorized in the upper level of SAMR. But if a teacher is using it as a project-based learning tool and fails to recognize the importance of bullet placement on the images (which is visual and media literacy), how well is that technology really being integrated?

      So SAMR might be on target some of the time, but it is no substitute for really learning how to integrate technology into student-centered teaching practices.

      Keep in mind my perspective comes from the an IDT background, with strong roots in problem-based learning.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s