Skip to main content

A model for understanding formative evaluation in instructional design

Abstract

The model elaborated here provides a common language for analyzing and understanding the literature on formative evaluation by identifying four components: who participates, what roles can be taken, what techniques can be used, and in what situations these can occur. Premised on the design process, intentional decisions about these components must be made after establishing goals of the instruction and considering the constraints. The model was validated by analyzing 11 instructional design texts. The analysis revealed many assumptions embedded in the language that is used to talk about formative evaluation and highlighted what is emphasized and what is not addressed about the process. The model provides a decision-making template for designing an effective formative evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Andrews, D. H., & Goodson, L. A. (1980). A comparative analysis of models of instructional design.Journal of Instructional Development, 3(4), 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, E. L., & Alkin, M. C. (1973). Formative evaluation of instructional development.Audiovisual Communication Review, 21(4), 389–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B. H. (1987). Instructional systems design. In R. M. Gagné (Ed.),Instructional technology: Foundations, (pp. 85–112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordonaro, T. (1993).A comparison of the effectiveness, cost and efficiency of four formative evaluation conditions. Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University, Montreal.

  • Briggs, L. J. (1970).Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction. Pittsburgh, PA: American Institutes for Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1981).Handbook of procedures for the design of instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technologies Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cambre, M.A. (1981). Historical overview of formative evaluation of instructional media products.Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(1), 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, M. J. (1988).Toward optimizing learner feedback during instructional materials development: Exploring a methodology for the analysis of verbal data. Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University.

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1963). Course improvement through evaluation.Teacher College Record, 64, 672–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidove, E. A., & Reiser, R. A. (1991). Comparative acceptability and effectiveness of teacher-revised and designer-revised instruction.Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1990).The systematic design of instruction. (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL.: Scott, Foresman & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupont, D., & Stolovitch, H. D. (1983). The effects of a systematic revision model on revisers in terms of student outcomes.Performance and Instruction, 22(2), 33–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duy, N. (1990).Revision of instructional materials: Uniformity among four revisers and their attention to learner data. Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University, Montreal.

  • Flagg, B. N. (1990).Formative evaluation for educational technologies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992).Principles of instructional design. (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geis, G. L., & Weston, C. (1989).Update on formative evaluation: Approaches and techniques. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Society for Performance and Instruction, Denver, CO.

  • Golas, K. C. (1983). Formative evaluation effectiveness and cost.Performance and Instruction Journal, 22(5), 17–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropper, G. L. (1975).Diagnosis and revision in the development of instructional materials. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, K. L. (1981).Survey of instructional development models. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Printing Services. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 211-097).

    Google Scholar 

  • Israeloff, A. (1992).Comparison of feedback generated by experts and learners during formative evaluation. Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University, Montreal.

  • Kandaswamy, S. (1980). Evaluation of instructional materials: A synthesis of models and methods.Educational Technology, 20(6), 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandaswamy, S., Stolovitch, H., & Thiagarajan, S. (1976). Learner verification and revision: An experimental comparison of two methods.Audiovisual Communication Review, 24(3), 316–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1994).Designing effective instruction. New York, NY: Macmillan College Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1987). Evaluation. In R.L. Craig (Ed.),Training and development handbook (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komoski, P. K., & Woodward, A. (1985). The continuing need for learner verification and revision of textual material. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.),The technology of text: Vol. 2 (pp. 396–417). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational, Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, T. E. (1974).Formative instructional product evaluation: Instruments and strategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Maistre, K. (1994).The priorities established among data sources when instructional designers revise written materials. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.

  • Markle, S. M. (1978).Designs for instructional designers. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, L. (1987). The think aloud protocol: A description of its use in the formative evaluation of learning materials.Performance and Instruction Journal, 26(8), 18–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, L. (1992). Highlighting formative evaluation: An instructional design model derived from practice.Performance and Instruction Journal, 31(10), 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, L., & Weston, C. (1994). The attributes of instructional materials.Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(1), 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medley-Mark, V., & Weston, C. (1988). A comparison of student feedback obtained from three methods of formative evaluation of instructional materials.Instructional Science, 17, 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathenson, M. B., & Henderson, E. S. (1980).Using student feedback to improve learning materials. London, U.K.: Croom Helm Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham, W. J., & Baker, E. L. (1970). Systematic instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahilly, T. J. (1991).An analysis of three learner based formative evaluation conditions. Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University, Montreal.

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.)Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status, (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romiszowski, A. J. (1981).Designing instructional systems. London, UK: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design.Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In Tyler, R.W. et al.Perspectives of curriculum evaluation. (AREA monograph series on curriculum evaluation, no. 1), 39–83. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969).The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M. (1993).Planning and conducting formative evaluations. London, UK: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiagarajan, S. (1978). Instructional product verification and revision: 20 questions and 200 speculations.Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 26(2), 133–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, D. (1994).Defining characteristics of feedback generated by subject matter experts and learner specialists during formative evaluation. Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University, Montreal.

  • Wager, J. C. (1983). One-to-one and small group formative evaluation: An examination of two basic formative evaluation procedures.Performance and Instruction Journal, 22(5), 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, C. (1987). The importance of involving experts and learners in formative evaluation.Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(1), 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, C. (1991a).Separating data collection from revision: A framework for conducting formative evaluation research. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  • Weston, C. (1991b).Formative evaluation as an instructional strategy. Paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education, Quebec City, Canada.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

They are also members of the Centre for University Teaching and Learning of which Cynthia is Director. The authors wish to thank Jacob Burack, the reviewers and the editor for the insightful formative feedback that was provided on various drafts of this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weston, C., McAlpine, L. & Bordonaro, T. A model for understanding formative evaluation in instructional design. ETR&D 43, 29–48 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300454

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300454

Keywords

  • Design Process
  • Formative Evaluation
  • Educational Technology
  • Instructional Design
  • Common Language