Comparative acceptability and effectiveness of teacher-revised and designer-revised instruction

  • Eric A. Davidove
  • Robert A. Reiser

Abstract

This study examined whether instructional material revised by teachers will be more effective and adopted more readily than material revised by designers and material that is not revised. Teachers from a vocational school were randomly assigned to review one version of the material and complete an Instructional Materials Acceptance Questionnaire. Students were asked to read the chapter randomly assigned to them and complete a posttest.

Contrary to expectations, the teacher-revised material was as effective as the designer-revised material and more effective than the original material, yet it was not more acceptable to teachers. As expected, the designer-revised material was more effective than the original material. However, teachers were no more favorably disposed to the designer-revised version than to the original version. Possible reasons for these findings are described and suggestions for future research are offered.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, E. L., & Alkin, M.C. (1973). Formative evaluation of instructional development.Audio Visual Communication Review, 21(4), 389–418.Google Scholar
  2. Burkman, E. (1987). Factors affecting utilization. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional Technology: Foundations (pp. 429–455). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1977).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1985).The systematic design of instruction. Chicago: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  5. Duchastel, P. C., & Merrill, P. F. (1973). The effects of behavioral objectives on learning: A review of empirical studies.Review of Educational Research, 43, 53–69.Google Scholar
  6. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation.Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335–397.Google Scholar
  7. Gagné, R. M., & Briggs, L. J. (1979).Principles of instructional design (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  8. Goldman, H. D. (1982).Comments on self-paced instruction in ATC. Unpublished manuscript. Randolph AFB, TX: Headquarters, Air Training Command.Google Scholar
  9. Goldstein, P. (1978).Changing the American schoolbook: Law, politics, and technology. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D. C. Heath.Google Scholar
  10. Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning.Review of Educational Research, 56(2), 212–242.Google Scholar
  11. Hamilton, R. J. (1985). A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions and objectives.Review of Educational Research, 55(1), 47–85.Google Scholar
  12. Heinich, R. (1985). Instructional technology and the structure of education.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 33(1), 9–15.Google Scholar
  13. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Rethinking the quest for school improvement: Some findings from the DESSI study.Teachers College Record, 86(1), 34–54.Google Scholar
  14. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction.Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211–232.Google Scholar
  15. Livingston, L. L. (1986).The effects of instructor input on the design and implementation of military instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.Google Scholar
  16. McCombs, B. L., Back, S. M., & West, A. S. (1984).Factors critical to the implementation of self-paced instruction in Air Force technology (TP-84-23). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: AF Human Resources Laboratory.Google Scholar
  17. Mengel, N. S. (1982).The acceptability and effectiveness of materials revised using instructional design criteria. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.Google Scholar
  18. Pickle, H. B., & Abrahamson, R. L. (1981).Small business management (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Reiser, R. A. (1978). Promoting adherence to a new paradigm of instructional management.Journal of Instructional Development, 2(1), 27–28.Google Scholar
  20. Rogers, E. M. (1983).Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sulzen, R.H. (1972). The effects of empirical revision and the presentation of specific objectives to learners prior to programmed instruction upon the criterion behavior of military subjects. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles).Dissertation Abstracts International, 33(7A), p. 3409 [University Micofilm #72-33, 992]Google Scholar
  22. Zaltman, G., Florio, D. H., & Sikorski, L. A. (1977).Dynamic educational change. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric A. Davidove
    • 1
  • Robert A. Reiser
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Andersen ConsultingHartford
  2. 2.Department of Educational ResearchFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.Instructional SystemsFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations