Advertisement

Toward a Model for Evaluating Automated Instructional Design Systems

  • Begoña Gros
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 140)

Abstract

The main purpose of this chapter is to discuss the problem of evaluating automated instructional design (AID) systems. To do this, first I will review the situation of the courseware evaluation in Computer Assisted Learning systems. Secondly, I will discuss the main variables in order to evaluate the pedagogical model on which AID systems are supported, and, finally, I will suggest a general model for evaluating AID systems, focussing on the distinction between three different levels of evaluation: object-oriented evaluation, user-oriented evaluation and context-oriented evaluation.

Keywords

evaluation of courseware evaluation of automated instructional design systems models of evaluation methodologies for evaluating theories of instruction instructional designers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cole, M. (1992). Computers and the organization of new forms of educational activity: A socio-historical perspective. Golem, No. 2, 6–13.Google Scholar
  2. De Corte, E. (1991). Bridging the gap between research and educational practice: The case of mathematics. Paper presented at the Fourth European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction.Google Scholar
  3. Elen, J. (1992). Toward prescriptions in instructional design: A theoretical and empirical approach. Dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
  4. Goodyear, P. (1994). Foundations for courseware engineering. In R. D. Tennyson (Ed.), Automating instructional design, development and delivery (pp. 7–28). NATO ASI Series F, Vol. 119. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gros, B., & Spector, J. M. The evaluation of automated instructional design systems: An unsolved problem. Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  6. Gros, B., & Rodríguez Illera, J. L. (1994). Pedagogical criteria in order to evaluate the automation of instructional design. In R. D. Tennyson (Ed.), Automatic instructional design, development and delivery. NATO ASI Series F, Vol. 119. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Hutchings, G. A. et al., (1992). Authoring and evaluation of hypermedia for education. Computer Education, 18, 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. vanMerriënboer, J. et al., (1992). Training for reflective expertise: A four component instructional design model for complex cognitive skills. Educational Technology Research and Development, 2, 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. (1990a). Limitations of first generation instructional design. Educational Technology, 30(1), 7–11.Google Scholar
  10. Merrill, M. D., Li, Z., & Jones, M. (1990b). The second generation instructional design research program. Educational Technology, 30(3), 26–31.Google Scholar
  11. Merrill, M. D. (1991). Constructivism and instructional design. Educational Technology, 31(5), 45–52.Google Scholar
  12. Muraida, D. (1994). Evaluating an automated instructional development system. In R. D. Tennyson (Ed.), Automating instructional design, development and delivery (pp. 129–138). NATO ASI Series F, Vol. 119. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nielsen, J. (1990). Evaluating hypertext usability. In D. H. Jonassen & H. Mandl (Eds.), Designing hypermedia for learning (pp. 147–168). NATO ASI Series F, Vol. 67. Berlin: Springer. Scott, T. (1992). Computers and education: A cultural constructivist perspective. In G.Grant (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, (pp. 191-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Spector, M. J., & Muraida, D. (1991). Evaluating instructional transaction theory. Educational Technology, 31(10), 29–32.Google Scholar
  15. Tennyson, R. D. (1990a). Cognitive learning theory linked to instructional theory. Journal of Structural Learning, 10, 13–22.Google Scholar
  16. Tennyson, R. D. (1990b). Integrated instructional design theory: Advancements from cognitive science and instructional technology. Educational Technology, 30(3), 16–19.Google Scholar
  17. Tennyson, R. D. (1992). An educational learning theory for instructional design. Educational Technology, 32(5), 36–41.Google Scholar
  18. Tennyson, R. D. (1994). Knowledge base for automated instructional system development. In R. D. Tennyson (Ed.), Automating instructional design, development and delivery (pp. 29–60). NATO ASI Series F, Vol. 119. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Begoña Gros
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Theory and History of EducationUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations