A generic instructional design process organised in five phases: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation. Not language-specific in origin, but widely adopted in ELT materials development, teacher training, and online course production.
ADDIE descends from the Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development (IPISD), produced by the Center for Educational Technology at Florida State University for the U.S. Army in 1975 and reported in Branson et al.'s five-volume Interservice Procedures for Instructional Systems Development (Florida State University, 1975). The original IPISD diagram contained the five phases that the ADDIE acronym later abbreviated. The mnemonic itself spread through the U.S. military training community in the 1980s rather than appearing in the 1975 source.
Treatments since the 1990s emphasise iteration over linearity. Evaluation runs through every phase rather than only closing the cycle, and rapid-prototyping variants compress design and development.
Coursebook publishers, exam boards, and online platforms use ADDIE-style frameworks to manage product development. The Analysis phase aligns with target-situation profiling for ESP and EAP courses. Design parallels Backward Design when outcomes are specified before content. Evaluation maps onto Materials Evaluation and pilot studies. The framework is process-only and prescribes nothing about second-language acquisition, syllabus type, or methodology, so it sits comfortably alongside any curriculum approach.
The model is content-neutral and method-neutral, which is also its weakness: it offers no guidance on what makes language learning effective. Rigid waterfall implementations slow development and absorb early decisions that pilot data later contradict. Critics argue the linear depiction misrepresents how experienced designers actually work, prompting iterative reformulations such as SAM (Successive Approximation Model) and rapid-prototyping cycles.