Top Nav

Generation X – An Introduction to the ADDIE Model

Generation X – An Introduction to the ADDIE Model

Generation X – An Introduction to the ADDIE Model

In the early 1950s, Robert Capa, a photographer for Magnum Photos, established the term ‘Generation X’. Generation X initially defined a group of people who were growing up immediately after World War II.  Later popularized, the definition ran the gamut of wayward children to the working middle class to those of us who have lived beyond the definition.

I contend that the ‘X’ generation has long existed. Perhaps, even to the beginning of man.

From the recorded time that man picked up a rock and slew his brother, those who have used weaponry have been of the ‘X’ generation. From hunting, to defense, and in war, the weapons handler strived to hit the all-important ‘X’. More important, man has strived not to be the ‘X’.

The OODA Loop

United States Air Force Colonel John Boyd developed the OODA loop (for Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act); a concept originally applied to combat operations.

In essence, the OODA loop is a decision cycle that uses a series of factors to invade the enemy’s OODA loop in order to defeat the enemy. It is, in fact, a model of situational management in which certain tactics are employed in response to a given event.

The Force Continuum

In 1970 Kevin Parsons, Ph.D. developed the Force Continuum as a study in civilian-on-civilian use of force but later adapted the study for law-enforcement use (The Confrontational Continuum model developed by Kevin Parsons and Associates was copyrighted in 1980.). The original intent was to provide law enforcement a guide to train officers in the use of force and assess an officer’s response in which use of force option was used in a given situation. This is not a Use of Force model but a Situational Tactical Options Model. It is something that should be used by the senior Police Officer at an incident to refer to when resolving an incident.

From its conception, arguments are that the Force Continuum creates an unnecessary escalation of liability for government entities and their administrators. Some of these concerns have merit. Juries and, in some cases, judges have been persuaded by plaintiffs’ lawyers and/or expert witnesses that agencies’ force continuums, which are often contained in the use-of-force policies, were not followed by those accused of using excessive force. Also, these same “standards” are often used by internal affairs investigators during administrative and/or criminal investigations of officer misconduct which often involve allegations of using excessive force on a member of the public.

Opponents to force continuums explain that some judges have even interpreted use-of- force standards to equate to the Fourth amendment’s constitutional standard. It is widely known that officers have received inappropriate discipline, which includes the loss of a career, when a use-of-force continuum standard incorrectly substituted for the applicable legal standard(s).

For civilians, it is important to understand the Force Continuum, as it may be used for you and/or against you in courts of law.

Moving off the X

Marty Hayes, at the Firearms Academy of Seattle, is fond of telling his students that the thing to remember is that every gunfight has two targets. It is not enough to hit your own target — you need to stop the other guy from hitting his.

Moving off the X accomplishes several things;

  • It interrupts the aggressor’s OODA loop.
  • It positions us in a better responsive attitude.
  • It changes our focus from the aggressor’s weapon to a more suitable target – the body.

We can move off the X in a variety of ways:

  • Vacate the area.
  • Move up: jump.
  • Move down: crouch, dive roll, dive onto the floor.
  • Move forward into the opponent (while it works inHollywoodmovies, this may not be the best option).
  • Move behind cover.
  • Move backwards: falling, dropping back, or simply shifting the distribution of your weight.
  • Create cover by moving objects in between yourself and the threat.
  • Blinding the aggressor with the light from a flashlight or disorienting the aggressor with a strobe light.
  • Throwing objects at the aggressor while moving.

Moving the X

A point brought out in Moving off the X was to change the focus from the aggressor’s weapon to a more suitable target. Shooting a moving target and shooting while moving are two different skill sets. Place on top of this the fact that most of us were/are trained, or train ourselves, to shoot center mass, the X-ring, the “bulls-eye”, etc.

In a defensive encounter, I contend that hitting the X is whatever stops the threat.

Accuracy is the ability to hit the target intended by the shooter. Precision is the ability to repeat the shot and hit the same mark.

At the range, we may be able to clear the X-ring with the super-pistol that we carry. In a dynamic shooting situation; however, we may not have time to get the perfect sight picture and have to rely on point shooting to stop the threat. This may mean changing from a center mass shot to a head shot, a shot to the groin area, or a point on the body of an aggressor not squared off to us.

I cannot think of a time in a real world situation where using a firearm is stress-free, mattering not if you are stationed at the front line, a hostage situation as a LEO, or just a citizen who is forced to act in an encounter involving deadly force.

In every stressful situation using a firearm, shot placement is critical. You may also be dealing with mental and/or physical fatigue; you have to put down the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible. Maintaining your situational awareness, while scanning for that next possible threat, also enters the picture.

Implementation – the Common Thread: 

The common thread that runs through all of the above is the implementation of the training, knowledge, and skills that you have in order to survive a threat.

Implementation, in my opinion, is just part of a larger picture and one that I would like to introduce you to – the ADDIE model.

The ADDIE Model

The concept of the ADDIE model is not new to trainers and training program developers. The ADDIE model is a systematic instructional design model consisting of five phases: (1) Analysis, (2) Design, (3) Development, (4) Implementation, and (5) Evaluation. The ADDIE model; however, can be applied to more than just training; it can be applied to the realm of self-defense.

Analysis

During the analysis phase, the self-defense practitioner identifies problems, the goals and objectives of solving the problems, the existing knowledge of the practitioner, and any other relevant characteristics.  Analysis also considers environmental conditions, constraints, delivery options, and timelines.

This phase is the “What-if” phase. This is the time for building scenarios, what possible responses are available to you and what restrictions do you have in resolving the situation, among other considerations.

A formative evaluation of our analysis is crucial in attempting to predict an outcome. For every problem, there are multiple solutions.

Design

The Design phase is a systematic process of specifying responses and the tools necessary to support those responses.

A formative evaluation of our design is crucial in attempting to satisfy an outcome.

Development

The Development phase is the actual creation of the response system identified in the Design phase.

The Development phase may also include self-actualization and further training to achieve the responses required in a self-defense situation. Training can be anything from basic shooting skills with the weapon(s) of choice, advanced weapons and tactical training, the development of martial arts skills, etc.

Implementation

Implementation means putting a plan into action. Unfortunately, this is only going to occur when a self-defense situation exist. All of the skills, all of the planning, all of the design, and all of the development are put to the ultimate test.

Evaluation

The evaluation phase consists of (1) formative evaluation made in each phase and (2) summative evaluation. The summative evaluation consists of tests intended to evaluate your response to a given self-defense situation.

If you lived through the encounter, you passed the first test. If charges are not are filed against you, you have passed test number two.

Unfortunately, other tests may include; arrest, attempted criminal prosecution, and possible civil suits. Of which I can only hope that you are strong of character, have one or more most-excellent attorneys skilled in criminal and civil matters and expert witnesses at your disposal and on your side, among others.

If you pass all tests, revise the ADDIE as necessary.

In Conclusion:

There you have it, the introduction to the ADDIE model as it pertains to self-defense. I hope to continue articles about the ADDIE model as I move forward. I hope that you will join me.

Print Friendly

, ,

  • Anonymous

    cool deal

  • Mark

    As goofy as this will sound, I find Cowboy Action Shooting a pretty good training scenario for self-defense because the targets are at different angles and (close) distances, one must move between engaging certain targets, one must remember a specific sequence of engagement, there is time pressure and “spotters” studying your every move for misses and procedural errors while manipulating two revolvers, a rifle and a shotgun. While it’s not life-threatening, I find it challenging and suspect that dealing with one firearm and one target is in some ways, a simpler problem.