Blended Unified Design (BUD)

Introduction

BUD incarnated in hopes to gain recognition as an ingenious and unique design framework within the ID literature as it is adopted and implemented in the process of creating effective, engaging, and authentic instruction for today’s digital learners. The model is a brand new, tech-savvy ID guide that can be applied not only in the field of ESL, but across disciplines, as well. All areas of second language acquisition and instruction can greatly benefit from this innovative instructional framework, for it paves the way for successful design, delivery, execution, and evaluation of a vast array of instructional products in any given field (see BUD designed both for adult ESL students and instructors in figures 1 & 2). What empowers the model is that students’ learning objectives are initially determined with a solid analysis phase conducted prior to the design of an instructional unit, module, or a training program. Especially the analysis and evaluation stages of BUD draws on a highly popular ID model, ADDIE, which is rather a generic framework modified from its predecessors (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp, 2011). Before completing its life cycle with the following phases (i.e., design, development, implementation, and evaluation), BUD attaches special emphasis on these two design phases in particular, which considerably help differentiate the model from ADDIE. It is undoubtedly that ADDIE is a solid design guide to an array of other preceding and current ID models in the field (Reiser & Dempsey, 2007).

Figure 1.

Blended Unified Design (BUD) for adult ESL learners

Figure 2.

Blended Unified Design (BUD) for ESL teachers

Morrison et al. (2011) contended that ADDIE evolved from the “major stages in the generic ISD process: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation” (p. 13). However, contrary to common perception, it should be particularly noted that ADDIE is not merely a random model to be overlooked. It is a well-known fact that the five essential elements ADDIE consists of have been modified from other models over the course of time due to the changing learning styles (Bloom, 1968), needs, and demands of today’s learners directing their own learning in the digital age, and with the approaches to learning that have had to adjust to such transformation in education. Nevertheless, it is a modified, albeit a reliable guide to those who desire to bring to life authentic educational products with the sole purpose of enhancing their learners’ academic performances in the classroom on a micro-level and improving their educational programs system wide on a macro-level.

With the above remarks, the aim was not to encourage the reader on the utility of ADDIE or promote the benefits of referring to it as the sole guide to effective instruction. On the contrary, the purpose with this paper is first to elaborate on and justify the reason why BUD was immensely inspired by the underlying principles of ADDIE, and second, what specific design phases (i.e., analysis and assessment) distinguish BUD from a seemingly generic ID framework. BUD can be differentiated from ADDIE and other such prominent ID frameworks, for it emerged as an original and innovative model in the field. There should arise no contradiction in the reasons why BUD was influenced by ADDIE and four critical theories of learning and instruction that stand out among others. In fact, what gives BUD its strength is the assumption that majority of “instructional design practices have been greatly influenced by a variety of different theories of learning and instruction” (Reiser & Dempsey, 2007, p. 36), as well as ID frameworks. BUD was no exception to the rule. However, it would also be plausible to stress at this point that BUD did not breed from ADDIE, nor is it an offspring of its predecessor, because of the extremely powerful existence of educational technologies embedded in the model. After all, constant address to digital technologies is what makes BUD unique within the literature.