Search

Examines the revision practices of eight experienced instructional designers who were given the task of revising written instructional materials. Findings show that when the designers were provided with the commonly recommended sources of feedback data, they preferred to use their own knowledge as the primary data source for making revisions. (Author/JMV)

Presents a common language model for understanding the literature on formative evaluation in instructional design. Identifies participants, roles, techniques, and situations, and analyzes 11 instructional design texts. The model provides a decision-making template for designing an effective formative evaluation. (AEF)

Describes a list of attributes of instructional materials based on a review of instructional design literature that was validated and found reliable through a series of studies. Four categories of attributes are presented: (1) instructional design; (2) language, including semantic and syntactic structures; (3) presentation, including layout; and (4) subject matter, including knowledge structure. (Contains 10 references.) (LRW)

A review of the literature on systematic instructional design suggests that few empirically tested guidelines exist for testing and revising materials during the development stages. The revision process can broadly be based on one of two distinct strategies, internal review or developmental testing. Internal review strategies include referring once again to each of the components in the original design sequence and using additional guidelines or checklists beyond the ones provided in the original design model. Developmental testing involves testing materials and improving them on the basis of feedback from potential learners. Developmental testing-based revision strategies include: (1) indicating errors by noting nonverbal behavior of test subjects, using "frame errors," and reviewing posttest data; (2) determining the importance of errors, using criterion performance on a posttest; (3) localizing errors by asking students and by keying posttest items directly to instructional content; (4) determining causes of errors such as learner attributes, prerequisite problems, and/or defective teaching; (5) making changes by checking against original design algorithms; and (6) testing out the revision via student data, experts' opinions, and job performance analysis. Appendices include a bibliography and a summary table of the preceding developmental testing-based revision strategies. (LH)