Advertisement

Long-term instructional development: A 20-year ID and implementation project

  • Howard Sullivan
  • Kay Ice
  • Fred Niedermeyer
Development
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

This article describes the development and implementation in the schools over a 20-year period of the Energy Source Program, a comprehensive K-12 energy education curriculum. The program was developed beginning in 1980 using state-of-the-art development procedures for that time and has been used to date by more than 12 million American students to learn about energy and energy issues. End-of-unit posttest scores for the elementary and high school units averaged above 80% for their field tests. Data obtained from a large sample during the first three years of installation of the program in the schools indicated that posttest scores remained at a level during installation similar to that during the field-test phase. A study conducted in the early 1990s by an independent research organization to assess the program's long-term effects revealed that grade 6 students who had used one or more units from the program had significantly greater energy knowledge and better energy conservation habits than students who had not used any units. A set of 10 guidelines are offered for long-term instructional development and implementation projects.

Keywords

High School Field Test Energy Conservation Educational Technology Research Organization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bloom, B.S., Englehardt, M.D., Faust, E.J., Hill, W.H., & Krathwohl, D.R. (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I, the cognitive domain. New York: Longmans-Green.Google Scholar
  2. Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1978).The systematic design of instruction. Glenville, IL: Scott-Foresman.Google Scholar
  3. Duffy, T., & Cunningham, D. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. Jonassen (Ed.)Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology, (pp. 170–198). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Energy: Knowledge and attitudes. (1978). Denver: National Assessment of Educational Progress, Education Commission of the States.Google Scholar
  5. Hanson, R.A. (1993). Long-term effects of the Energy Source Education Program.Studies in Educational Evaluation, 19(4), 363–382.Google Scholar
  6. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm?Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Monthly Energy Review. (1983, December). U.S. city average retail price for motor gasoline,2, 88.Google Scholar
  8. Richey, R.C. (1997). Research on Instructional Development.Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(3), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Sullivan, H. (1971). Developing effective objectives-based instruction.Educational Technology, XI(7), 55–57.Google Scholar
  10. Sullivan, H. (1984). Instructional development through a national industry-educational partnership.Journal of Instructional Development, 7(4), 17–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© the Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Howard Sullivan
    • 1
  • Kay Ice
  • Fred Niedermeyer
  1. 1.Educational Technology Program at Arizona State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations