Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Formative evaluation of instructional development

  • Articles
  • ERIC/AVCR Annual Review Paper
  • Published:
AV communication review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

In this paper we have tried to describe the research pertinent to the activity of formative evaluation. While the number of good examples of formative evaluation is expanding, the level of research into the process is relatively limited. Perhaps a compromise to the difficult task of accumulating research data on formative evaluation might be suggested. When formative evaluation activities have been successful in terms of program effects and staff satisfaction, then detailed technical reports might be made available to the evaluation public. Formative evaluation might improve as a consequence of the technology developed in the course of finding solutions to development data problems. Both the increase in technology as a result of dissemination of successful procedures and the pursuit of experimental research on the process of evaluation might ultimately remove formative evaluation recommendations from the realm of seers and clairvoyants and thrust it closer to, if not into, the domain of scientific application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abedor, A. J. Second draft technology: Development and field test of a model for formative evaluation of self-instructional multimedia learning systems.Viewpoints, 1972,48(4), 9–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkin, M. C. Evaluation theory development.Evaluation Comment, 1969, 2(1), 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkin, M. C. Evaluation and decision making.Planning &Changing, 1973,3(4), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. D., & Faust, G. W. The effects of strong formal prompts in programmed instruction.American Educational Research Journal, 1967,4(4), 345–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, E. L. Generalizability of rules for empirical revision.AV Communication Review, 1970,18(3), 300–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, E. L. The technology of instructional development. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.),Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, E., & Quellmalz, E.Research-based techniques for instructional design. Los Angeles: National Center for Educational Research and Development, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R. L., Schutz, R. E., & Sullivan, H. J. Internal control procedures in the development of instructional materials.Technical reports: Research on procedures for the development of instructional materials. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratories, Aerospace Medical Division, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banathy, B. H.Instructional systems. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon Publishers, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bank, A. The effect of evaluating instructional products on user test performance, attitude, and revision judgment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1972.

  • Bogatz, G., & Kurfman, D. Intra-urban unit: ETS evaluation report limited field trials, high school geography project. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, W. R., & Hood, P. The twenty-seven steps in the development program. Berkeley, Calif.: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branson, R. K. Formative evaluation procedures used in designing a multimedia physics course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, February 1971.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Christal, R. D.JAN: A technique for analyzing individual and group judgment. Lackland Air Force Base, Texas 6570th Personnel Research Laboratory, Aerospace Medical Division, February 1963 (PRL-TDR-63-12).

  • Cronbach, L. Evaluation for course improvement.Teachers College Record, 1963, 64(8), 672–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, N. A. Automatic tutoring by intrinsic programming. In A. A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.),Teaching machines and programmed learning: A source book. Washington, D.C.: Association for Educational Communications and Technology (formerly Department of Audiovisual Instruction, National Education Association), 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dick, W. A methodology for the formative evaluation of instructional materials.Journal of Educational Measurement, 1968, 5(2), 99–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonston, L. P., Kunetka, J. W., & Newman, M. A. Undertaking program comparisons in curriculum evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, February 1973.

  • Finn, J. D. The testing of public relations audio-visual materials.PR: The Quarterly Review of Public Relations,1(10), 1956.

  • Fleming, M. What is a good film?Journal of the University Film Producers Association, 1963,15, 8–9, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., & Paradise, N. E. Abilities and learning sets in knowledge acquisition.Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 1961,75(14), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, T. F. Mathetics: The technology of education.Journal of Mathematics, 1962,1(1), 7–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions.American Psychologist, 1963, 18(8), 519–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R. Psychological bases for instructional design.AV Communication Review, 1966, 14(4), 433–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grobman, H.Evaluation activities of curriculum projects: A starting point. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 2. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropper, G. L., & Lumsdaine, A. A.The use of student response to improve televised instruction: An overview. Studies in televised instruction. Pittsburgh: American Institutes for Research, 1961.

  • Hively, W., Maxwell, G., Rabehl, G., Sension, D., & Lundin, S.Domain-referenced curriculum evaluation: A technical handbook and a case study from the MINNEMAST project CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation, No. 1. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hively, W., Patterson, H. L., & Page, S. H. A “universe-defined” system of arithmetic achievement tests.Journal of Educational Measurement, 1968,5(4), 275–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, P. D., & Johnson, J. N. The development and evaluation of a television workshop in human relations. Berkeley, Calif.: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, April 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D.Experiments on mass communication. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husek, T. R., & Sirotnik, K. Matrix sampling.Evaluation Comment, 1968,1(3), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T. J. A macro view of process evaluation: Evaluation in the context of product and program development in laboratory and research and development centers.Viewpoints, 1972,48(4), 79–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, R. A. The system approach to programming. In G. D. Ofiesh & W. C. Meierhenry (Eds.),Trends in programmed instruction. Washington, D.C.: Association for Educational Communications and Technology (formerly Department of Audiovisual Instruction, National Education Association) and National Society for Programmed Instruction, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, I. L. A formative development of a unit on proof for use in the elementary school (Parts 1, 2, 3). Madison: Wisconsin University Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, January 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komoski, P. K. The editor’s guide to this issue. (Editorial)Programmed Instruction, 1965, 5(1).

  • Komoski, P. K. Statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor. InHearings: To establish a national institute of education, 92nd Congress, First Session. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, J. A., & Reynolds, L. J. Debugging product and testing errors: Procedures for the formative evaluation of an individualized mathematics curriculum.Viewpoints, 1972, 48(4), 45–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindvall, C. M., & Cox, R. C.Evaluation as a tool in curriculum development: The IPI evaluation program. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 5. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locatis, C., & Smith, F. Guidelines for developing instructional products.Educational Technology, 1972, 22(4), 54–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. F.Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon Publishers, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mager, R. F., & Beach, K. M.Developing vocational instruction. Palo Alto, Calif.: Fearon Publishers, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. M. Empirical testing of programs. In P. C. Lange (Ed.),Programmed instruction, The Sixty-sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: NSSE, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. R. The use of formative evaluation procedures in the development of a mathematics laboratory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 1972.

  • Millman, J. Passing scores and test lengths for domain-referenced measures.Review of Educational Research, 1973,43(2), 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niedermeyer, F. C., & Ellis, P. A.The development of a tutorial program for kindergarten reading instruction. Inglewood, Calif.: Southwest Regional Laboratory, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nimnicht, G. P. A revision of the basic program plan of education at age three. Berkeley, Calif.: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, August 1970.

  • Provus, M.Discrepancy evaluation for educational program improvement and assessment. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan Publishing, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahmlow, H. F. Use of student performance data for improvement of individualized instructional materials. InProceedings of a symposium. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, G. T. An empirical study of a methodology for the revision of systematically designed educational materials. Tallahassee, Fla.: Computer-Assisted Instruction Center, March 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robeck, M. D. A study of the revision process in programmed instruction. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1965.

  • Robinson, T. J. Replicable training in revision techniques. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1972.

  • Rosen, M.J. An experimental design for comparing the effects of instructional media programming procedures: Subjective vs. objective revision procedures. Final report. Palo Alto, Calif.: American Institutes for Research in Behavioral Sciences, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rummler, G. A., Brethower, D. M., Markle, D. G., Schrader, A. W., & Smith, D. E. P.Programmed learning: A practicum. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schutz, R. E. The nature of educational development.Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1970,3(2), 39–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M.The methodology of evaluation. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, No. 1. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation.Evaluation Comment, 1972,3(4), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedlik, J. M.Systems techniques for pretesting mediated instructional materials. Los Angeles: Education and Training Consultants, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker, D. M. Evaluating the effectiveness of competing instructional programs.Educational Researcher, 1972,1(5), 5–8, 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silberman, H., Coulson, J., Melaragno, R., & Newmark, G.Use of exploratory research and individual tutoring techniques for the development of programming methods and theory. Final report, NDEA Project 7-14-000-181. Santa Monica, Calif.: Systems Development Corporation, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. The countenance of educational evaluation.Teachers College Record, 1967,68(7), 523–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. Responsive evaluation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, 1972.

  • Stowe, R. A.Case studies in instructional development. Bloomington, Ind.: Laboratory for Educational Development, Indiana University, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stufflebeam, D. L., Foley, W. J., Gephart, W. J., Guba, E. G., Hammond, R. L., Merriman, H. O., & Provus, M. M.Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, Ill.: F. E. Peacock, Publishers, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, H. J. Developing effective objectives-based instruction.Educational Technology, 1971,11(7), 55–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sulzen, R. H. The effects of empirical revision and the presentation of specific objectives to learners prior to programmed instruction upon the criterion behavior of military subjects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1972.

  • VanderMeer, A. W.An investigation of the improvement of educational filmstrips and the derivation of principles relating to the effectiveness of these media. Study no. 2. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanderMeer, A. W., & Montgomery, R. E.An investigation of the improvement of educational filmstrips and a derivation of principles relating to the effectiveness of these media: Study no. 3. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanderMeer, A. W., & Thorne, H. E.An investigation of the improvement of educational filmstrips and a derivation of principles relating to the effectiveness of these media: Study no. 1. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanderMeer, A. W., Morrison, J., & Smith, P.An investigation of the improvement of educational motion pictures and a derivation of principles relating to the effectiveness of these media. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania, 1965.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for the Study Evaluation, Marvin

    Eva L. Baker (Research Associate, Associate Professor) & Marvin C. Alkin (Director,Professor)

  2. UCLA, Graduate School of Education, 90024, Los Angeles

    Eva L. Baker (Research Associate, Associate Professor) & Marvin C. Alkin (Director,Professor)

Authors
  1. Eva L. Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marvin C. Alkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This article is the second ERIC/AVCR Annual Review Paper, preparation of which was supported by the ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) Clearinghouse on Media and Technology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. The authors acknowledge with appreciation the assistance of Laura Spooner and Bea Kass.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baker, E.L., Alkin, M.C. Formative evaluation of instructional development. AVCR 21, 389–418 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02769865

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02769865

Keywords

Search

Navigation