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 Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University, Montreal.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 Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University.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 Unpublished master's thesis, McGill University, Montreal.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.