The National Center for Research in Vocational Education

Instructional design and development models are sometimes criticized for being unnecessarily complex and for requiring an unrealistic amount of precision. To counter this criticism, some will argue that the complexity and precision are necessary to help ensure a quality instructional product. This article offers a solution to the problem of practicality versus precision by introducing a “layers-of-necessity” model of instructional design and development. By recognizing that instruction evolves over time rather than emerges fully developed, the model offers an alternative means of achieving quality instruction.

A Layers-of-Necessity Instructional Development Model

The success of formative evaluation techniques to improve instructional materials is well documented. Researchers have found that materials revised on the basis of one-to-one sessions are equally effective as materials revised on the basis of small group sessions, and that both are superior to the unrevised, original versions. However, there is a paucity of research comparing the types of data obtained from these two recommended approaches to formative evaluation. This study compares the quantitative and qualitative nature of the problems identified by students in three conditions. Specifically, a one-to-one active, a small group active, and a small group passive were the conditions employed. Explanations for the observed differences are attributed to and described in terms of the instructional materials themselves and differences in the procedures or conditions employed. Finally, a number of more practical issues are raised and discussed in terms of their impact on the selection of a particular method or combination of methods for the formative evaluation of instructional materials.

A comparison of student feedback obtained from three methods of formative evaluation of instructional materials

Although considered an integral step in the instructional design process, formative evaluation has not received widespread use in the design of CAI (computer-assisted instruction). One issue is the developer's uncertainty in selecting a method of formative evaluation for a CAI product. The objective of this study was to examine the differential impact of two methods of formative evaluation on the revision of courseware. This study investigated the effects of one-to-one and small group methods of formative evaluation of microcomputer courseware on learner posttest scores after using a CAI program. Subjects were seventy-two female and fourteen male undergraduate students from instructional design classes at a midwestern state university. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three groups and used either 1) the original CAI program, 2) the CAI program revised using the one-to-one method, or 3) the CAI program revised using the small group method. Results indicated a significant difference in learner post...

Formative Evaluation of Computer Courseware: An Experimental Comparison of Two Methods

/pdf/methoden-en-technieken-voor-formatieve-evaluatie-in-sociaal-1dhm7jokcp.pdf

Walter I. Thurston

Papers

Clinical approach to formative evaluation. Tight production schedules and limited budgets? try a clinical approach