id5000-wk8

Signature Assignment – Create Instructional Materials

Instructions

For your Signature Assignment, you will design instructional materials for a single-day, single-topic video resource and scripted PDF job aid with graphics. You will develop:

1. A short instructional video
2. A job aid for the video, containing screenshots and/or other graphics. This job aid will also serve as the script for the video
3. An implementation plan (see below for information to be included)

You will also need to include the following information in a separate front-end analysis summary plus a page for references.

1. What instructional need does this professional development satisfy?
2. Who are the intended learners? Be specific about the following:

   Age
   Gender
   Primary language 
   Formal education background
   Size of the learning group
   Knowledge level of learners (novices, experts, or somewhere in between)

   Do you expect learners to have knowledge coming into instruction?

   Save Time On Research and Writing

   Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.

   Get My Paper

   Geographical location of the learners (if this is important)

3. Overall, what is the task to be accomplished with the use of this job aid?

Make sure that you justify the choices and decisions that you have made with reference to resources you have used in class.

For the instructional materials (job aid), you will use VideoNote to create a short video over a procedural task of your choice. As you practiced in Week 6, you will use your PDF as a script for your video. Verbatim is best to comply with ADA.

For your Signature Assignment, you will also add graphics (screenshots, illustrations, etc.) to your PDF. You will need to include a minimum of five relevant graphics in your PDF.

When you use graphics, it is important to use resources that are copyright free. If you have the talent, please create your own. If not, please search for copyright free images and resources (e.g.,

https://www.pexels.com

).

In addition, please make sure that you include references for your content. Most professional development activities take content from an existing resource. Make certain that you cite those resources.

Finally, develop a 10-question survey, using SurveyMonkey, to gather summative information on the instructional materials. This survey should go beyond “Did you like it” types of questions (that can be ascertained in one simple question). You will need to ask questions regarding whether or not they met the goals and objectives that you created in Week 5 and whether or not they felt that the instruction was effective, met their needs, usable, etc. In addition, you can ask if they would change an aspect of instruction. Technically, you would want to find this out prior to implementation. However, sometimes, you discover information during or after instructional implementation that can be utilized for future instruction. Reminder: “Determining the Success of the Instructional Design Product and Process” (Chapter 10) from Brown & Green should be your guide.

You will provide a link to the SurveyMonkey survey (please test the link to make certain that it works) at the end of your instructional materials PDF and video, just as you would for students who needed to take your survey.

Alternative to Survey: Increasingly, institutions are using learning management systems (LMSs) and learning analytics [see Davies et al (2017) resource from this week’s readings as a guide to understanding learning analytics]. If your plan is for your materials to be used in a self-paced, fully online course that uses an LMS, you might want to choose this alternative. For the alternative assignment, you will:

• Describe the online learning environment.
• Describe the data that the LMS will gather (or that you would like it to gather).
• Describe how that data can be utilized as a form of summative evaluation.

If you select this option, you will include your learning analytics description as a separate document. Length for the alternative: 3-4 pages.

Implementation Plan:

The other part of the Signature Assignment is the implementation plan for your instructional materials. In your plan, you will include a summary of the instructional need, who your learners are, and what the task is that they will complete. You will utilize the “Deployment” section of the Neal article from T+D listed in this week’s resources. Those augmented steps are as follows:

• Develop training material (see details above).
• Describe strategic moments for the use of social media and informal learning initiatives.
• Describe the coordination of the logistics of the synchronous webinar or professor-led training.
• Describe evaluation tools to measure mastery of learning. (How will you know that your learners have learned what they should learn?)
• Create a survey for your clientele and identify lesson-learned key points.

As with any good implementation plan, you will want to include an alternative, or Plan B, for at least part of your implementation. For example, if you plan to use the Internet, plan for Internet inaccessibility (offline). It is always easier to have a plan than to try to create one on the fly. This Plan B is included in the estimate for your implementation plan.

You will need to include relevant reference material for your content and/or your methodology.

Length: 5- to 7-minute video; 2- to 3-page job aid; 3- to 4-page front-end analysis; 10-question survey; 3- to 4-page implementation plan

References: Include a minimum of 2 references for your content and pertinent references from the course resources.

For your Signature Assignment, you should demonstrate thoughtful consideration of the ideas and concepts presented in the course by providing new thoughts and insights relating directly to this topic. Your response should reflect scholarly writing and current APA standards.

Be sure to adhere to Northcentral University’s Academic Integrity Policy. View the Northcentral Academic Integrity Tutorial to refresh your knowledge of how to achieve academic integrity

Upload your document and click the Submit to Dropbox button. Although not required, you might also share your assignment in the

ID CoP

(your instructor will provide feedback through the course).

>>>I will provide all the reference papers needed for this assignment to the selected bid<<<

Chapter 10

Determining the Success of the
Instructional Design Product
and Process

Tobias is the lead instructional designer for a company that is developing training materials for
web-based software. Although his team is making progress toward completing the project, he feels
there are some issues that need to be resolved within the design and production team if the beta
version of the training is going to be released on time. He wonders whether he should conduct a
formative evaluation to determine issues that might be resolved to help improve the group’s work-
ing relationship.

Elizabeth works for a faculty development center at a university. Her university has spent signifi-
cant amounts of money over the past two years on two web-based synchronous communication and
learning tools. Elizabeth was asked to create and deliver a three-part workshop on integrating the
tools in order to increase faculty use of them. After conducting the workshop over two semesters,
she was asked to evaluate the workshop’s effectiveness.

Guiding Questions

• What information can formative and summative evaluations provide to improve the instruc-
tional design process?

• Why is it important to include various types of evaluation in the instructional design process?
• How can the success of formative and summative evaluations be judged?
• How can an instructional designer use evaluation to improve an instructional design team’s

effectiveness?

Source: Shutterstock 195817664.

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

Determining the Success of the ID Product 163

Key Terms

formative evaluation (page 163)
group processing (page 176)
program evaluators (page 171)
rapid prototyping (page 168)
summative evaluation (page 170)
usability testing (page 168)

Chapter Overview

Evaluation is a crucial part of instructional design. As we discussed in Chapter 9, evalua-
tion is a process that allows for data to be gathered that help determine the level of success
of someone or the worth of something. In instructional design, a major purpose of evalu-
ation is to help determine how successful a learner has been as a result of participating in
instruction. This type of evaluation is called “learner evaluation.” Although learner evalu-
ation is extremely important, there are two other important evaluation types: formative
and summative. These two types concentrate on the instructional design process and the
instruction developed as a result of the process. This chapter’s focus is on defining forma-
tive and summative evaluations, describing specific approaches of instructional design
experts, and how formative and summative evaluations can be designed and implemented.

Formative and

Summative Evaluation

It is a common misconception of beginning instructional designers that evaluation only
takes place at the conclusion of instruction to evaluate learners. Evaluating the learners is
only one of several types of evaluation that instructional designers must understand how
to design and implement. In reality, evaluation should also take place at various stages of
the instructional design process through the use of formative and summative evaluations.
Knowing when and how to use various evaluation types helps instructional designers
develop instructional interventions that are efficient and effective.

Formative Evaluation

Formative evaluation is used throughout the instructional design process to gather data
that can be used to provide feedback on how the process is going. It is especially useful
during the early stages of the instructional design process. The feedback allows an
instructional designer to make improvements to the instruction before it is completely
developed. This helps ensure that high-quality instruction is developed. In addition to
helping improve the instruction, data gathered through a formative evaluation can be
shared with a client to indicate how the project is progressing. Periodic communication
with your client about how the project is progressing helps make certain that project goals
and expectations will be met.

Approaches to Formative Evaluation

Instructional design experts take a variety of approaches to formative evaluation. Despite
their differences, they all have in common the goal of helping improve the instruction
that is being developed. Let us begin by looking at three different approaches to formative
evaluation.

Smith and Ragan (2004) write that formative evaluation is conducted to “determine
the weakness in the instruction so that revisions can be made to make them more effective

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

164 Determining the Effect of the Intervention

and efficient.” This helps an instructional designer know “whether the instructional mate-
rials are ‘there’ yet, or whether she needs to continue the design process” (p. 388). The
stages that Smith and Ragan advocate for formative evaluation are design reviews, expert
reviews, learner validation, and ongoing evaluation.

The first stage—the design review—is completed prior to the development of instruc-
tion. Stage two—the expert review—typically occurs after the instruction is completed but
before it is used with learners. The final two phases include the use of the actual instruc-
tion with learners who represent the intended learners.

Design reviews are conducted after various phases of the instructional design process, such
as the needs analysis, task analysis, goals and objective analysis, and learner analysis. Design
reviews help to verify the accuracy of information at each stage of the instructional design
process before instruction is developed. Smith and Ragan (2004) advocate revisiting the data
gathered during these instructional design phases to determine how accurate they are.

Expert reviews are conducted to gather information about the instruction to determine
if it is accurate and current. Various experts—such as content experts, instructional design
experts, pedagogical experts, and experts on the learners—can be used to provide various
perspectives on the instruction. The instruction provided for expert reviews is typically at
the draft stage. Smith and Ragan (2004) suggest that expert reviewer comments should be
divided into three categories: (1) revisions that need to be made immediately, (2) suggested
revisions that require additional data that can be gathered during the final two stages of
the formative evaluation, and (3) suggested revisions that should be ignored.

Learner validation includes three levels: one-on-one evaluation, small-group evalua-
tion, and field trials. The three levels are identical to those promoted by Dick, Carey, and
Carey (2011), discussed later in this chapter.

The final stage—ongoing evaluation—includes gathering data on the long-term effec-
tiveness of instruction. Smith and Ragan (2004) state that if instruction is meant to be
used multiple times, then provisions need to be made in a formative evaluation plan to
collect effectiveness data. These data, which are similar to data collected during a field
trial, provide feedback on what revisions needed to be made to instruction based on its
actual use and whether the revisions made have been effective.

Morrison, Ross, and Kemp (2007) advocate a basic model for formative evaluation
based on the work of Gooler (1980). Gooler’s approach follows these eight steps:

1 purpose
2 audience
3 issues
4 resources
5 evidence
6 data gathering techniques
7 analysis
8 reporting.

There are three main phases to this approach: planning, conducting, and reporting. Phase
one includes steps one through five, while phase two includes steps six and seven. Phase three
is the eighth and final step, reporting the results.

Phase one includes determining the evaluation purpose, the primary audience the
results will be disseminated to, the issues that need to be addressed, the resources that are
needed to address the issues, and the types of evidence that will be acceptable to address
these issues. It is extremely important to work closely with the client during phase one in
order to clearly articulate and manage expectations.

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

Determining the Success of the ID Product 165

The first step—determining the purpose or purposes of the evaluation—is done in con-
sultation with the client. The two most common purposes are to improve the instruction
that is being developed and to satisfy administration requirements of the client you are
working for. Many corporations and institutions require evaluations to be conducted.
Most state agencies are required to include an evaluation component to help ensure that
project goals are being met and to report how monies have been spent.

The audience of the evaluation is important to determine because it will establish the
types of information that need to be collected and reported. The client will be able to help
determine who the intended audience will be. Conducting an evaluation for multiple audi-
ences should be avoided because it will be difficult to satisfy varying needs within a single
report. It is best to try to narrow the audience down as much as possible.

After determining the purposes of the evaluation and the intended audience, it is time to
determine the issues that need to be addressed. The issues are generally stated as questions
that need to be answered. For example, in the case of an interactive, instructional kiosk:

• Are learners able to successfully utilize the kiosk after completing the instruction?
• What elements of the kiosk do learners find most understandable and least

understandable?

Or in the case of web-based instruction:

• What is the average time spent on the summary exercises?
• Do the learners find the web-based self-instructional materials helpful in learning the

content?

Once questions have been developed based on the evaluation issues, resources should be
identified that are needed to answer the questions. People, artifacts, and equipment are com-
mon types of resources that are often needed to address evaluation issues. It may be difficult
to actually secure all the resources needed to address the evaluation issues. If this situation
occurs, the instructional designer needs to communicate this to his or her client. Issues may
need to be adjusted if the necessary resources cannot be secured. The final step in phase one
is to identify the types of evidence that are needed to satisfy the evaluation issues.

Phase two—conducting the evaluation—includes determining the data collection tech-
niques that will be used, gathering the data, and analyzing the data. When determining the
data collection techniques to be used, Morrison et al. (2007) state: “Two key, and often
opposing, factors need to be weighed: precise measurement versus feasible or practical
measurement” (p. 310). For example, during the planning stage of a formative evaluation
of a nurse-training program, an instructional designer determined that all participants
would have specific skills evaluated by using hospital patients. However, due to logis-
tical impracticalities (e.g., amount of time required), the nurse’s skills were tested on
other nurses in the training program. An instructional designer must often make a choice
between what is ideal and what is practical when gathering data.

The various data collection techniques that can be used are the same as those presented
in Chapter 9. They include observations, questionnaires, interviews, paper-and-pencil
tests, and performance tests—to name a few. It is highly recommended to use a variety of
techniques to gather multiple sources of data. This can help to triangulate the findings.

Step seven—analyzing the data—should reflect the purpose of a formative evaluation:
to provide usable and useful information that helps the instructional designer improve
instruction. Complex statistical analyses are typically not required. Morrison et al. (2007)
recommend the following typical analysis procedures:

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

166 Determining the Effect of the Intervention

• frequency distributions
• frequency graphs or histograms
• descriptive statistics, such as percentages, means, and medians
• listing of actual comments made by respondents.

(p. 311)

The final phase—step eight—is reporting the results of the evaluation to the primary audi-
ence. This is typically done as an evaluation report, with the format of the report tailored
to the audience the report will be disseminated to. A typical evaluation report is formatted
in the following way:

1 Executive summary: an abstract that outlines the major findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.

2 Evaluation purpose:

• evaluation issues—stated as questions
• description of the instruction being evaluated.

3 Methodology used:

• participants
• instruments used to gather data.

4 Results:

• analysis
• findings.

5 Conclusions and recommendations.

It is not uncommon that, in addition to a written report, an oral report of the project will
be requested. The oral report can either be conducted one-on-one with the client or more
formally with a larger group. It is important to remember that the purpose of the evalu-
ation is to provide recommendations based on the data collected. When disseminating a
final report, be certain to highlight the conclusions and recommendations.

Dick et al. (2011) write: “The emphasis in formative evaluation is on the collection and
analysis of data and the revision of instruction” (p. 258). They provide three basic phases
of formative evaluation: (1) one-on-one or clinical, (2) small group, and (3) field trial. It is
important to note that the type of formative evaluation Dick et al. advocate is designed to
work specifically with self-instructional materials. Despite this, elements of their approach
can be used with other types of instruction and materials.

During phase one, the instructional designer works with individual learners to gather
data that are used to revise the instruction. The purpose of the phase is to remove obvious
errors and omissions in the instruction, gauge initial learner performance, and determine
learner reactions to the content. Dick et al. (2011) suggest that the instructional designer
work with at least three learners (with varying abilities, attitudes, and/or experiences)
who represent the target population the instruction is intended for. However, only one
learner at a time should be worked with during a one-on-one evaluation. The instructional
designer should be actively involved during this phase.

After selecting the learners who will participate in the one-on-one evaluation, the steps
to this phase are:

1 Explain to the learner that you would like his or her reactions to new instructional
materials that have been developed.

2 Give a pretest on the content.

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

Determining the Success of the ID Product 167

3 Encourage the learner to talk about the materials as he or she goes through the instruc-
tion and to be candid about what he or she likes or does not like, what makes sense,
and what does not make sense.

4 Give a post-test; discuss the results with the learner by asking him or her to explain
the responses made.

5 Note the time it takes the learner to go through the instruction.

Phase two has two primary purposes: (1) to determine how effective the changes are that
were made as a result of phase one and (2) to determine if learners can go through the
instruction without the assistance of the instructor. For this phase, eight or more learners
should be selected who are a representative sample of the entire intended group of
learners. After selecting the learners who will participate in the small-group evaluation,
the steps to this phase are:

1 Explain to the group of learners that you would like reactions to new instructional
materials that have been developed; you want them to work through the material on
their own as best they can.

2 Conduct the instruction as it is intended to be used in its final form; give a pretest if
that is part of the instruction.

3 Observe what is taking place without involvement unless the learners are unable to
continue the instruction; make note of the difficulties learners have in completing the
instruction.

4 Conduct a post-test once the instruction is finished.
5 Administer an attitude questionnaire.
6 Debrief the group of learners.

The final phase—the field-trial evaluation—is intended to help determine how effective
the changes made during the small-group evaluation are and whether the instruction is
capable of being used in its intended environment. A representative group of 30 learners
should be used for this phase. The environment chosen for the field-trial evaluation should
be similar to an environment for which the instruction is being developed.

The steps to this phase are similar to those of the small-group evaluation. The major
difference is that an instructor, not the instructional designer, should administer the
instruction. The role of the instructional designer is to observe and take notes of what
takes place. The outcome of a field-trial evaluation is to determine the attitudes of the
learners toward the instruction as well as the learners’ achievement.

In addition to these three phases, Dick et al. (2011) advise that the instruction should
be given to subject matter experts and/or instructional experts to note whether it is
accurate and current. This information—along with the data gathered during the three
phases—should provide an instructional designer with enough information to make neces-
sary revisions to the instruction being developed.

Professionals in Practice

Design and development occur in parallel—an existing course does not require the
preliminary design steps that a new course typically requires. Loosely, the format is
lecture-discussion-lab with an emphasis on avoiding PPT overkill. All courseware is first
implemented in a beta environment so that the course flow can be observed, and new labs

(continued)

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

168 Determining the Effect of the Intervention

(continued)

can be tested on live systems. It can be a stressful exercise. In some cases, “secret beta”
classes are conducted (typically by the instructional designer) in which students don’t real-
ize that what they are experiencing is new. Formative evaluation is conducted every step
of the way until a class is released—warts and all. After a beta class, student feedback is
collected via questionnaire, and post-mortems are conducted with any instructors who
were in attendance. Everything related to instruction is fair game. Here are some recent
examples:

• Are fonts in the PPT too small to be seen from the last row in the room?
• Does a lab work with one web browser but not another?
• Are numbered steps in a lab out of order?
• Should number ordering restart after each section in a lab?
• Should a PPT slide which introduces a lab include starting *and* ending pages?
• Is the lab so simple that a monkey could do it by just blindly following instructions

(remember the whole “why” issue)?

If courseware issues are too complex to fix within a short timeframe, we try to fix them
the next time around. It’s very much an iterative process.

Erik Novak
Technical Training Developer

F5 Networks

Rapid Prototyping and Usability Testing

In addition to the three approaches we described in the previous section, two additional—
and related—approaches to formative evaluation are important for instructional designers
to understand and have as part of the instructional design skill repertoire: rapid prototyp-
ing and usability testing. Both are often overlooked as formative evaluation approaches
because they are traditionally thought of as “product processes” rather than formative
evaluation processes. However, built in to each approach is formative evaluation, which
allows the instructional designer to determine how well the instructional intervention is
being designed.

As we discuss in Chapter 1, the essential idea behind rapid prototyping is to arrive at a
final product through the creation of a series of prototypes. Each prototype is evaluated
by some combination of experts and end users; each successive prototype is more like
the final product—that is, “fidelity” of the prototypes increases with each new one until
a working product is achieved. A rapid prototyping approach requires that the design
environment allow for the relatively quick and easy creation of instructional materials
(Tripp & Bichelmeyer, 1990).

Rapid prototyping suggests that each member of the design/development team is a
“co-inquirer” (Rathburn, Saito, & Goodrum, 1997) and that there is a social process of
design and development in which everyone offers feedback and criticism to each other.
With rapid prototyping, each time a new version of the product is tested, it provides a way
to critically reflect on what the final product should actually look like (Rathburn et al.,
1997). The analysis of learners’ needs and the content of the final product depend in part

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

Determining the Success of the ID Product 169

on the knowledge that is gained by actually building and trying out a prototype (Tripp &
Bichelmeyer, 1990).

Usability testing is a concept originally borrowed from engineering that has gained
popularity among software developers, multimedia producers, and instructional designers.
Usability testing is a type of formative evaluation that consists of evaluating the product
by observing it in action with potential end users. Typically, a usability test consists of
evaluators observing a user or users interacting with the product under controlled condi-
tions. The user(s) interact with the product for a specified amount of time, having been
asked to complete a set of tasks determined in advance by the evaluation team. The tasks
are based on the goals and objectives the product is designed to meet. Results of a usability
test inform the production team of the problems inherent in the design (e.g., the graphic
for a button is not well understood or the instructions are worded in a manner that is
confusing) and suggest—through observation of end users in action—ways to effectively
eliminate those problems.

Professionals in Practice

Usability testing is key. There’s no way to know whether your user interface is actually
usable, unless you test it with real users. This may sound pedantic, but you’d be amazed
how frequently this step is overlooked in user experience design. Validating design with
fellow designers, developers, managers, or any other internal people, is simply not enough
to ensure that end users will be able to interact with your UI efficiently.

Usability test early and often, WITH USERS. Test your idea, your paper prototypes,
your interactive prototype, and developed product. Early testing gives you time to fix
things before development is underway (a much less costly timeframe to make major
changes to a workflow or page layout). Later testing helps to confirm that your design
survived its translation into completed code.

Usability testing resolves arguments. Design sessions can get heated, and rival opinions
emerge, on the “right” or “best” or “most usable” solution. Users cut right through that
argument. They don’t care who designed something, or how much time you spent on a
particular design. Either they can use it or they can’t. If you have more time, you can test
multiple ideas. If you have less time, you can test and refine one design (and hope you
had a good starting point). Either way, the user is your objective third party to shut down
disagreements.

Usability testing doesn’t have to be complicated. A one-on-one qualitative usability test
can be completed with as few as five users (one at a time, that is) and will give you a high
level of confidence that you have identified key issues. Large-scale tests (100+ users) can
be done online and there are many third-party providers of systems to support this. And
don’t hesitate to invite your team to observe a test! There’s a huge difference between
you reporting the results of a user test, versus a developer or a designer, with his own
eyes, watching a user struggle with a “perfect” design.

There’s an art and a science to usability testing. Identifying and creating tasks for users
to perform is a critical part of it. “Use the website” or “Give us your opinions” are not
tasks! A good task includes a goal, such as “Send an email to the instructor that includes

(continued)
01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

170 Determining the Effect of the Intervention

(continued)

an attachment” or “Where can you find information about office hours?” that involves
observable interaction with the UI.

At Ipswitch, we build complex applications for network administrators. Our software
is data-heavy and designed to be used by people with deep technical skills. Even so, we
can’t assume that just because our users are technically savvy, they’re able to interpret
our user interfaces. What might seem blindingly simple to us (since we’ve been staring at
our designs for months on end) will be baffling to these technical adepts. So, we test. And
change our designs. And test again. And again, until we get to a point of confidence that
our user interface is acceptable to the people we are asking to use it.

Lisa Hansen
Senior Manager, User Experience

Ipswitch, Inc.

Tobias realizes, after talking separately to various members of his instructional design
team, that they need to formally engage in some group processing. There seem to
be some misconceptions regarding team member responsibilities. Although the group
processing will most likely be initially uncomfortable for everyone and it will take time
away from working on their product, Tobias believes it will help refocus the team.

Elizabeth believes that she needs to conduct a formative evaluation to determine if
the workshops had a positive impact on participants. She is specifically interested in
determining if and how faculty are using the web-based synchronous communication
and learning tools in their courses.

Designing and Conducting a Formative Evaluation

Seasoned instructional designers understand the importance of formative evaluation in
helping create efficient and effective instruction. Because of this understanding, they con-
sistently include plans for formative evaluation when beginning ID projects. The approach
to formative evaluation an instructional designer will take is dictated by the scope of the
ID project. It may not be feasible for every ID project to conduct a complete formative
evaluation by using one of the three approaches described in this chapter. A less robust
formative evaluation may need to be developed and carried out for smaller ID projects.
No matter what the scale of an ID project is, it is extremely important that some form of
formative evaluation is carried out.

Summative Evaluation

As part of the instructional design process, summative evaluation takes place after an
instructional intervention has been implemented. The major goal of a summative evalua-
tion is to gather data that allow for its effectiveness to be determined. Did the instruction
bring about the desired changes? Were the goals of the client met? These are two major
questions that summative evaluations help to answer.

The results of a summative evaluation are described in a formal report outlining the
impact of the instructional intervention. The evaluation report will typically outline who

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

Determining the Success of the ID Product 171

participated in the instructional intervention, what activities impacted them, and what
changes occurred from their participation. The evaluation report will often include the
costs and benefits of implementation, descriptions of the essential conditions necessary to
continue the program or reproduce it, and recommendations on whether the instructional
intervention should be modified, discontinued, or continued as is.

Approaches to Summative Evaluation

For the beginning instructional designer, summative evaluation can be a daunting task.
It is a complex process that takes a great deal of skill and experience to successfully
carry out. There are evaluation experts whose sole professional activity is to conduct
summative evaluations; they are typically referred to as program evaluators. A program
evaluator uses various approaches to conduct a summative evaluation. In Program evalu-
ation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th edition), Fitzpatrick, Sanders,
and Worthen (2004) describe six such approaches (see Figure 10.1). It is beyond the scope
of this book to describe the intricacies of these approaches and how to become a program
evaluator. If you wish to learn more about summative evaluation than what is presented
in this chapter, we suggest that you start by reading their book and by taking a course on
program evaluation. The knowledge and skills gained as a result will certainly help you as
an instructional designer.

Criterion Formative Evaluation Summative Evaluation

Purpose To determine value or quality To determine value or quality

Use To improve a program or
instruction

To make decisions about the
instruction’s future or adoption

Audience Program administrators and staff Program administrators and/or potential
consumer or funding agency

By Whom Primarily internal evaluators,
supported by external evaluators

External evaluators, supported by
internal evaluators in unique cases

Major Characteristics Provides feedback so program
personnel can improve it

Provides information to enable program
personnel to decide whether to continue
it, or consumers to adopt it

Design Constraints What information is needed?
When?

What evidence is needed for major
decisions?

Purpose of Data Collection Diagnostic Judgmental

Measures Sometimes Informal Valid and Reliable

Frequency of Data Collection Frequent Infrequent

Sample Size Often Small Usually Large

Questions Asked What is working? What needs to be
improved? How can it be improved

What results occur? With whom? Under
what conditions? With what cost?

Figure 10.1 Differences between formative and summative evaluation.

Source: Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines, 4th
edition. 2004. Printed and electronically adapted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

172 Determining the Effect of the Intervention

We focus our discussion of summative evaluation on four different approaches that
instructional design experts advocate. The purpose is to introduce how summative
evaluation is approached in instructional design; it is not to make you an expert.

One of the most cited approaches to summative evaluation in ID is Kirkpatrick’s
Four Levels of Evaluation. Kirkpatrick developed this model to evaluate the effective-
ness of training programs—specifically, training programs in industry. The four levels
of his model are: (1) reactions, (2) learning, (3) transfer, and (4) results. According to
Kirkpatrick (1994), evaluation should always begin with level one and then progress
through the remaining levels as time and the budget allows. However, to truly evaluate
the effectiveness of a training program, all four levels should be used.

Each of Kirkpatrick’s levels requires more time and rigor than previous levels. Data col-
lected from each level serve as a base for the next level and the evaluation that takes place
at that level. As each level is conducted, more precise measures of the effectiveness of the
training program are gathered.

Level 1—reactions—attempts to provide data on how participants reacted to the train-
ing. Did participants enjoy the training? Was the training relevant to the participants?
Kirkpatrick (1994) indicates that all training programs should at least include this mini-
mum level of evaluation in order to provide data that will help improve the training. A
typical method used to gather data at this level is an attitude survey, in which participants
indicate how satisfied they were with the training. If students indicate negative feelings
toward the training, this typically shows that little to no learning took place (however,
positive reactions do not necessarily indicate that learning took place).

Level 2—learning—is conducted to determine whether participants’ skills, knowledge,
or attitudes changed as a result of the training. Determining this is much more laborious
than Level 1 because it requires gathering data at multiple times. Typically, pretests and
post-tests are used to measure these changes.

Level 3—transfer—attempts to answer the question of whether the newly acquired
skills, knowledge, or attitudes are being used by participants in their real-world environ-
ments. In other words, have participants transferred what they learned in the training into
their everyday environments? This is often considered to be the truest measure of a train-
ing program’s effectiveness. Evaluating at this level is complicated because it is difficult
to determine when a participant will actually display what he or she learned. Therefore,
decisions will need to be made on when, how often, and how long the evaluation will take
place in order to determine if transfer has taken place.

Level 4—results—attempts to evaluate a training program’s effectiveness in business
measures, such as increased sales, improved product quality, fewer on-the-job accidents,
and so forth. Evaluation at this level must be long term in nature in order to determine
trends that have taken place. Data that help support the effectiveness of training at this
level are often gathered through methods such as interviews with managers, focus group
meetings with customers, and post-training surveys. Smith and Ragan (1999) write:

Within the context of instructional design, the purpose of summative evaluation is to
collect, analyze, and summarize data to present to decision makers in the client orga-
nization so that they can make a judgment regarding the effectiveness, and perhaps
appeal and efficiency, of the instruction.

(p. 352)

The judgment that is being made is whether the use of the instruction should be continued.
The specific question being asked is, “Does the instruction adequately solve the ‘problem’
that was identified in the needs assessment and that resulted in the development of the

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

Determining the Success of the ID Product 173

instructional materials?” (p. 353). They provide an eight-step process for conducting a
summative evaluation:

1 Determine the goals of evaluation: Identify the questions that should be answered.
The questions should be developed in consultation with the client. Typically, more
questions will be developed than can be answered during the course of the evaluation.
It is important to come to an agreement on the exact questions that are feasible to
answer given the available resources.

2 Select indicators of success: Where will data be gathered? What needs to be looked at
in order to answer the evaluation questions? Again, in consultation with the client,
these issues need to be addressed and agreed on.

3 Select the orientation of evaluation: Will the evaluation be objective or subjective? An
objective orientation focuses on answering the evaluation questions based on data
collected through quantitative methods (e.g., questionnaires, paper-and-pencil tests, per-
formance tests). The advantage of this orientation is that results are generally replicable.
A subjective orientation is based on the perspective of the individual conducting the
evaluation. Qualitative methods (e.g., interviews and observations) are used to gather
data that describe the impact of the instructional intervention. The advantage of this ori-
entation is that a rich description is provided that describes the impact the instructional
intervention has had. The downside to this orientation is that the results can be influ-
enced by the biases of the evaluator. Most summative evaluations do not strictly follow
one or the other orientation; typically, a combination of the two orientations is used.

4 Select design of evaluation: Determine how the data will be collected, when they will
be collected, and under what conditions.

5 Design or select evaluation measures: Decide what measures will be looked at to
determine effectiveness of the instructional intervention. Learning transfer, learning
outcomes, attitudes, level of implementation, and costs are all measures that can be
used to determine effectiveness.

6 Collect data.
7 Analyze data.
8 Report results: A summative evaluation report should include the following sections:

summary, background information, description of the evaluation study, results, and
conclusion and recommendations. The background information will come from the
analyses conducted early on in the ID process (e.g., needs, learner). The description of
the evaluation study includes the purpose of the evaluation, the evaluation design, and
the outcome measures. The results will include a discussion on how well the outcomes
were met.

The approach taken by Morrison et al. is similar in many ways to the approach described
by Smith and Ragan. Morrison et al. (2007) write: “A summative evaluation permits a
designer or instructor to reach unbiased objective answers to evaluation questions con-
cerning expected program outcomes and to then decide whether the program is achieving
those outcomes” (p. 318). A summative evaluation can help examine the following issues:

• Effectiveness of learner or trainee learning.
• Efficiency of learner or trainee learning.
• Cost of program development and continuing expenses in relation to effectiveness

and efficiency.
• Attitudes and reactions to the program by learners, instructors, and staff.
• Long-term benefits of the instructional program.

(p. 320)

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

174 Determining the Effect of the Intervention

These issues fall within three major areas: program effectiveness, program efficiency,
and program costs. A program is referring to the instructional intervention that has been
designed and implemented. Evaluating program effectiveness is the major issue that is
dealt with by a summative evaluation. The program effectiveness helps answer this ques-
tion: “How successful have learners been in meeting the learning objectives?” Specifically,
what is being determined is whether change has taken place with the learners. For exam-
ple, are employees able to do their jobs more efficiently and effectively after participating
in an instructional intervention?

Morrison et al. (2007) list the major steps of a summative evaluation process as:

1 Specifying program objectives: Revisit the instructional goals and objectives of the
instructional intervention that was developed.

2 Determining the evaluation design for each objective: How will data be collected that
will help determine if the learning goals and objectives have been met? Determine
what types of data are needed.

3 Developing data collection instruments and procedures for each objective: Appropriate
data collection instruments and procedures were discussed earlier in this chapter.
Pretests, post-tests, questionnaires, and observations are all examples of data collec-
tion instruments or procedures.

4 Carrying out the evaluation: It is advised that data are collected from the beginning
stages of the project. This will ensure that the necessary data are collected, especially
data regarding costs and time involvement. Data collection may need to be scheduled.

5 Analyzing the results from each instrument.
6 Interpreting the results.
7 Disseminating the results and conclusions: Develop a summative evaluation report

(refer to the previous section on Smith and Ragan (1999) to see how an evaluation
report can be formatted). Individual discussions and group presentations are often
useful (and required by the client) to disseminate evaluation findings.

Dick et al. (2011) advocate a very different approach from the two previous approaches
we described. Despite the different look and how it is conducted, the fundamental goal is
the same as the other two approaches: to determine the effectiveness of the instructional
intervention. Dick et al. (2011) define summative evaluation as “the design of evaluation
studies and the collection of data to verify the effectiveness of instructional materials with
target learners” (p. 320). Its major purpose is to decide whether currently used instruc-
tional materials should continue to be used or whether new instructional materials need
to be adopted that have the potential to meet the instructional needs of an organization.

They state that a summative evaluation has two main phases: an expert judgment and
a field trial. The purpose of the expert judgment phase is to determine whether instruction
that is currently being used or instruction that is being considered for use has the potential
to meet the instructional needs of an organization. The field-trial phase has the purpose
of documenting the effectiveness of “promising instruction” given to learners from the
intended target group given in the actual setting. There is a series of steps that takes place
during each phase that helps reach these purposes.

Professionals in Practice

Once I have built all of my instructional media and developed the course, the implementa-
tion piece is simply to run it. According to the ADDIE model, evaluation comes at the end.

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

Determining the Success of the ID Product 175

I disagree. For me the evaluation piece is constant and necessary. Your users are always
very quick at letting you know what is working and what is not. You may find that you
need to make changes to both content and design long before any assessment is given or
the course is completed. This is a good thing! By making your evaluation constant, you
are making your course instructionally sound and solid now and not later, giving current
users the best experience.

Kara Andrew
Manager, Instructional Design
University Extended Education

California State University, Fullerton

Designing and Conducting a Summative Evaluation

In an ideal situation, the instructional designer would be directly involved in designing the
summative evaluation but would not be responsible for conducting it. The evaluation would
be conducted by an evaluator outside of the organization that contracted the ID project.
Having the instructional designer responsible for designing and conducting the summative
evaluation is often seen as a conflict of interest because the instructional designer is biased
and has a tremendous stake in the project’s success. However, this is not to imply that an
instructional designer cannot be unbiased; it only complicates the situation.

As we mentioned, conducting a successful summative evaluation is a complex process
that takes a great deal of skill and experience. If at all possible, we advise that begin-
ning instructional designers do not take on the role of primary evaluator for a summative
evaluation. However, the reality is that, as an instructional designer, you will be required to
conduct a summative evaluation. If this is the case, it is important to plan for a summative
evaluation at the beginning stages of an ID project. Discuss with the client what the expec-
tations are for the summative evaluation. Especially important to discuss are the summative
evaluation goals. Although these may change once the summative evaluation is formally
developed, the goals will help an instructional designer know what the client expectations
are for the ID project. In addition, planning in advance will allow for data to be gathered
through the formative evaluation that can be used in the summative evaluation.

The evaluation goals will dictate the remaining steps that are to be taken in the
summative evaluation. A process, such as the one advocated by Smith and Ragan, can
be used as a guiding model for a beginning instructional designer. As with successful
ID projects, continual and consistent communication with the client is a key element
in determining the level of success an instructional designer will have in conducting a
summative evaluation.

Group Processing: Evaluating the Instructional
Design Team

It is rare for an instructional designer to work alone. Most projects require that instruc-
tional designers work in teams that often consist of individuals with various roles, such
as subject matter expert, programmer, graphic artist, content editor, web developer, or
media developer—to name a few. In addition to working with these individuals on a team,
the instructional designer is often called on to be the project manager and manage the
team. Being the project manager requires that the instructional designer is able to manage
all aspects of the ID process, including how the team works together.

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

176 Determining the Effect of the Intervention

Although project management is formally dealt with in Chapter 11, one aspect we will
focus on now deals with evaluating how well a team is working together. A technique that
can be used to accomplish this is group processing. Group processing can be considered a
type of formative evaluation. Group processing refers to the reflections that group mem-
bers have on their work and interactions with team members. The reflections help the
team focus on improving the working relationship of the group to ensure that the team
effectively meets project goals. It allows team members to voice concerns, share successes,
and provide feedback that will help the team to complete projects successfully.

Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1998) have written much about group processing.
Although their work focuses on teams in a classroom environment, what they have writ-
ten is appropriate for instructional design teams. We have often used group processing in
the instructional design projects we have worked on. It has allowed us to form positive
working relationships within our teams. According to Johnson et al. (1998), group
processing helps:

• improve the quality of how the team approaches tasks;
• increase individual accountability of team members by focusing attention on the tasks

a team member must complete;
• the team to learn from each other by spending time discussing the tasks individuals are

completing;
• eliminate problems that may be occurring.

Group processing is a time when team members can share information. Four different
parts of processing should be included: feedback, reflection, goal improvement, and
celebration. Feedback should be given to team members about how well they are com-
pleting their tasks and how well the team is working together. Team members should
then have time to reflect on the feedback they have received. If improvement needs to be
made on how the team is working together, then the team should discuss ways to improve
and come up with a plan of action. Additionally, the team members should help each
other and set goals for improving the quality of their work. Finally, the team should cel-
ebrate the hard work of the team members and the team’s success (Johnson et al., 1998).

Tobias decided to approach group processing with his team by using a multipronged
approach. The initial phase was carried out during a weekly team meeting, where
Tobias described the situation as he currently saw it. He allowed team members to
voice concerns about how the project was progressing and how the team was work-
ing together. The second phase consisted of individual meetings with team members,
where Tobias provided direct feedback to each member on his or her work and the
contributions each was making. During these meetings, Tobias clarified team member
duties and expectations. The third phase took place at a team meeting. He clarified
to the group the various team member roles and expectations. Tobias also provided
a time for praises and wishes. The praises included successes of the team and team
members. The wishes consisted of constructive criticism of how the team needed to
progress and what was expected for the team during the upcoming week.

Elizabeth settled on Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation as a framework to guide
her evaluation. This framework would allow Elizabeth to gather data on multiple
levels to provide a holistic picture of how effective her workshops were in influencing
participants to use the synchronous tools in their courses. Elizabeth hoped to answer
the following questions as part of the evaluation:

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

Determining the Success of the ID Product 177

• Did the workshops Elizabeth conducted provide faculty with the incentives,
knowledge, and skills faculty needed?

• Did faculty members take what they learned and apply it to their own courses?
• If so, did the use of these tools positively influence the teaching and learning pro-

cesses in the courses?

The data gathered from the evaluation will allow Elizabeth to determine the success
of her workshops. She will be able to use the data to improve her workshops.

Product and Process Evaluation and the Instructional
Design Process

Determining the success of the instructional design product and process is a significant
task that can help lead to an improved ID product and process. Although there are various
approaches to conducting an evaluation, the questions an instructional designer will need
to answer before beginning an evaluation are the same. These are:

• What is the goal of the evaluation?
• Who is asking for the evaluation?
• What type of evaluation is needed?
• When does the evaluation need to take place?
• What are the questions that need to be answered?
• What types of data need to be gathered?
• Do the data currently exist?
• What instruments are needed to gather the data?
• How will the data be gathered?
• How will the data be analyzed?
• How will the data be reported?
• How will the results be used to improve the instructional design product or process

or both?

Summary

Sustained and varied evaluation is a crucial element of the instructional design process.
Evaluation provides information that allows decisions to be made about learners, instruc-
tion, and the ID process. Formative, summative, and learner evaluations are three types of
evaluation that instructional designers commonly employ.

Formative evaluation is used throughout the ID process to gather data that can be
used to provide feedback on how the process is going. Typically, formative evaluation is
used to provide feedback on the instruction being developed. Feedback obtained during
a formative evaluation can help instructional designers make changes to the instruction
that makes it more efficient and effective. Formative evaluation should be built into an ID
project from the beginning stages.

Although ID experts conduct formative evaluation for a common reason, the approaches
they take are different. We described three approaches to formative evaluation. Dick et al.
(2011) advocate three basic phases of formative evaluation: (1) one-on-one or clinical,
(2) small group, and (3) field trial. Smith and Ragan (1999) provide a four-step approach to
formative evaluation: design reviews, expert reviews, learner validation, and ongoing eval-
uation. Morrison et al. (2007) recommend Gooler’s (1980) eight-step process: purpose,
audience, issues, resources, evidence, data gathering techniques, analysis, and reporting.

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

178 Determining the Effect of the Intervention

Summative evaluation takes place after an instructional intervention has been imple-
mented. The major goal of a summative evaluation is to gather data that allow for its
effectiveness to be determined. Two main questions are to be answered: “Did the instruc-
tion bring about the desired changes?” and “Were the client’s goals met?”

It is often considered a conflict of interest to have the instructional designer conduct
a summative evaluation on an ID project he or she has worked on. If at all possible, an
instructional designer should not be the primary evaluator. He or she should act in a sup-
porting role by helping design the evaluation and provide necessary data. However, reality
dictates that instructional designers are asked to conduct summative evaluations on proj-
ects they have worked on. To ensure success of a formative evaluation, the instructional
designer should meet with the client early on in the ID project to discuss expectations of
the evaluation, especially the evaluation goals. A process such as the one advocated by
Smith and Ragan is a good model to be used by a beginning instructional designer.

An additional type of formative evaluation called “group processing” should be included
as part of the instructional design process. Group processing allows for instructional design
team members to regularly reflect on and communicate how well the team is working to meet
project goals. It consists of four areas: feedback, reflection, goal improvement, and celebra-
tion. Group processing helps to build healthy and productive instructional design teams.

Connecting Process to Practice Activities

1 How would you describe to your client the differences between learner, formative,
and summative evaluations?

2 What decisions are being made with each type of evaluation?
3 What are the major issues associated with conducting an evaluation on an instruc-

tional design product?
4 What are the major issues associated with conducting an evaluation on the instruc-

tional design process that an instructional design team has gone through (or is
currently going through)?

5 Consider Elizabeth’s scenario. What issues do you see with the approach she advo-
cated? Explain.

6 Could Tobias have taken a different approach to examining the situation with his
instructional design team? Explain the approach.

7 Your client asks you to justify why you have suggested multiple evaluations through-
out the instructional design process. What do you tell your client?

8 You have been contracted by a large law firm (approximately 50 employees) to design
its intranet. The firm would like the following initial functionalities built into the
intranet: client billing, document uploading and retrieval, and a calendar of firm
events (e.g., court and deposition dates and times, scheduled vacations). As part of
the contract, you have been asked to provide training to the paralegals and legal sec-
retaries working at the firm. What type of evaluation(s) do you include in your plan?
What do you anticipate using, and how do you communicate this to your client?

9 You are the lead instructional designer on a project team that has six members. Why
is it important to include group processing as part of this instructional design project?
Describe how you would incorporate group processing.

Recommended Reading

Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and
practical guidelines (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

Determining the Success of the ID Product 179

Rathburn, G. A., Saito, R. S., & Goodrum, D. A. (1997). Reconceiving ISD: Three perspec-

tives on rapid prototyping as a paradigm shift. In Proceedings of Selected Research and
Development Presentations at the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 291–296). Washington, DC: AECT.

Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design strat-
egy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.

References

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2011). The systematic design of instruction. New York: Pearson.
Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and

practical guidelines (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Gooler, D. (1980). Formative evaluation strategies for major instructional projects. Journal of

Instructional Development, 3(3), 7–11.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler.
Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., & Kemp, J. E. (2007). Designing effective instruction (5th ed.). New

York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rathburn, G. A., Saito, R. S., & Goodrum, D. A. (1997). Reconceiving ISD: Three perspec-

tives on rapid prototyping as a paradigm shift. In Proceedings of Selected Research and
Development Presentations at the 1997 National Convention of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 291–296). Washington, DC: AECT.

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (1999). Instructional design. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2004). Instructional design (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &

Sons.
Tripp, S. D., & Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design

strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31–44.

01/27/2020 – RS0000000000000000000002052606 (May Katitar-Thompson) – The
Essentials of Instructional Design

Running Head: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 8

Professional Development

What is the task that individuals should be able to accomplish or perform?

In any institutional setting, there exists a theoretical flame work that is represented by the school system composed of different ranks. It is for this reason that professionalism is a significant ingredient in the administration of the institution. Each person is required to stretch beyond his or her limits in order to achieve the anticipated objectives. Even though professional development is primarily focused on the theory part, it is absolutely clear that they are the significant advisers responsible for linking all the stakeholders in the institution (Turner, J, 2004). High-quality delivery of services. In accordance with Cheng, is a factor of professionalism? The more the teachers are skilled, the better the services and the brighter the future. As Gallagher explained, improving the schools can only be done by enhancing the skills as well as the abilities that the teachers possess.

Professional development is a crucial sector not only in the lives of the stakeholders but also to the economy as a whole. It is the knowledge that is gained and passed down from the instructors to the students that are used to run the day to day life of tomorrow. I agree with researchers that the most significant impact in student learning, as well as achievement, is the teachers around them (Turner, J, 2004). The nation’s future in the hands of distinct professionals, and this arises the question of what is expected from these professionals. As a matter of fact, although there are many requirements to gain professional knowledge, the primary task is to lay down a strong foundation of careers (Turner, J, 2004). Jobs are in many fields ranging from management, teaching, accounting, leadership, and on and on. Therefore, the most crucial task of individuals is to pass professional knowledge from one group to the other clearly.

For competent professional development, in the long run, it is required that every stakeholder should participate to ensure that the project runs to completion. The teachers are expected to deliver qualitative and quantitative data that will enable the learners to understand the key concepts within the given time period. On the other hand, the learners are expected to ensure that they avail themselves to the respected venues of learning (Turner, J, 2004). Apart from education and delivering information, following up is another crucial task that is necessary for professional development. Following up, people ensure that they act in accordance with the set principles and also are in line with the laws of the state (Turner, J, 2004). In addition to this compliance, they also ensure that the environment is conducive for offering the necessary information to the target group. Nevertheless, this can only be accomplished through joint efforts by the community, schools, and teachers, as well as the government.

What are the critical components of this task?

The critical components of professional development tasks are the teachers, institutions, and the roles that are expected to be performed in the face of professional development. The primary functions that are performed at this stage are:

a) Stating professional activities and features. This is where a sophomore illustrates his or her passion after graduating in a particular field. This is the specialization in the areas that one is best at and joining the respective memberships (Cheng, Y. C, 1996). There are four developmental ranks at this stage, which include: instructional, organizational, career, and discipline development.

b) They are assessing the knowledge as well as the skills. This entails identifying the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the course that the students have acquired in the long run (Cheng, Y. C, 1996). In short, the students look for those areas that they can primarily add more knowledge as well as gain more skills.

c) Set goals. Goals include both professional as well as individual objectives. This is done by reflecting at the past as well as the future of careers, and the individuals involved ensure that the short-term goals, as well as the long-term goals, are considered.

d) It is creating an action plan. This entails the direction and the anticipated position within a given period of time (Cheng, Y. C, 1996). An action plan also involves the skills as well as the knowledge that is required to develop new skills as well as the timeline that is necessary to achieve the desired goals.

e) I am documenting the development. This is the output that is produced after it has undergone some series of advisors and reflecting on personal statements. It also entails revisiting personal goals regularly to ensure that the skills, as well as the knowledge required to get the anticipated outcome, is gained.

What is the sequence through which a task is accomplished and performed and should be learned and taught?

For any task to be learned and taught, there is a timeline that needs to be followed, and the desired actions have done to ensure that the course is effectively mastered. The principles that lie behind the collection, as well as the gathering of the required tasks, are essential in the literary assessment of learners. However, the sequence of learning these tasks varies according to the geographical region as well as the core values of the underlying state (Eisner, E, 1991). Every job requires ample time for active constituents to be learned. This is done by allocating the necessary time needed for each task. The figure below illustrates the time that is required for each job as well as the collection of data. Owing to the massive technological, economic, and political as well as social changed to the world, there are multiple changes that are required in the learning sequence.

Unlike the earlier years where there were few competing firms, today, there are thousands of firms that compete in the same industry. It is for this reason that every entity needs to ensure that they are in line with the latest learning lessons. Earlier on, there were very few components that required to be learned, and there were also limited opportunities where people would work to ensure that they earned their living. The mode of learning is divided into phases that are required to provide that, at most, every concept is not only taught but also understood. These phases include:

1. Stage 1: Collection of baseline data. This is the phase that involves the collection of baseline data with the aim of gathering the necessary data that will be used in the study schedule. The students familiarize themselves with the required information and also understand what is required of them.

2. Phase 2: Collaboratively doing the required tests in the long term. This phase occurs in the second, third, and fourth years of study, where the students dig deeper into the required subjects. It is concerned with carrying out the required tasks, doing various research, and also coming up with the desired conclusions.

3. Phase 3: Insight into professional knowledge. There are multiple avenues that require the desired conclusions. There are numerous scenarios that aim at expanding the understanding of the students so that they can further their knowledge.

How can you determine whether the individual is able to accomplish the task?

Determining whether an individual is accomplished for the task is not a complicated process. The first method that can be used to assess the efficiency of a person is through analysing the years and the disciplines of study (Eisner, E, 1991). If there exists no correlation between the subjects studied and the task in question, then the person is not qualified for the job. In addition to academic qualifications, integrity, as well as the willingness to work, is required to ensure that the task will be efficiently done. Finally, the minimum requirements set for the job can also be used to determine the qualifications of a person.

In the 21st century, there is an increased demand for skills that are technologically oriented in the marketplace. For the last two decades, there has been increased use of artificial intelligence in the production of goods and services. The more the use of technology, the more the demand for these skills. It is in this era that there has been the rise of technology companies has been witnessed. More and more companies have risen, and leverage is be9ng used more than ever today. Although there are some of the tasks which cannot be automated, it is clear that the demand for the relevant skills is increasing on a daily basis. Skills can thus be used as avenues for determining the qualification of a person for a specific job.

References

Abadiano, H. L. & Turner, J. (2004). Professional staff development: What works? The NERA Journal, 40(2), 87-91.

Cheng, Y. C. (1996). The relation between teachers’ professionalism and job attitudes, educational outcomes, and organizational factors. The Journal of Educational Research, 89 (3), 163-171.

Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Running Head: INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS 1

INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN MODELS 7

Instructional Design Models

Introduction to Instructional Design Models

Instructional design models are used in e-learning where various sources are applied to the benefit of the user. It is often regarded as a framework where instructional materials are often developed. It’s an online tool used by instructional designers to give both meanings as well as structure to the reading material (Karger & Stoesz, 1998). It is common that any learning course is usually broad and requires breaking down the entire process into stages that are separately handled to create efficiency. The main goal of instructional design models is to see to it that the anticipated learning objectives, as well as the desired expectations, are met to the letter.

Reasons for using instructional design models

The core factor as to why instructional design models are used is to promote a systematic learning process and also save on the time used to reach the desired goals. Since they are mostly used in online courses, most of the users are from different regions in ten worlds and have different needs and capabilities (Karger & Stoesz, 1998). Online learning is efficient in that it does not limit people on common grounds like religion, race, geographical location or any other variable. The first step as to why instructional design models are required is the concept of whether there is a need to develop the training. Once this question is answered, then the need for such a model arises immediately (Karger & Stoesz, 1998). The other variable to be considered is the amount of content that is desired to achieve the desired objectives. In all sectors, models save the money used for expenditure and also helps in filling in the content gaps in between. Some of the examples of instructional models include ADDIE, SAM, Dick and Carey, Kemp design model, ASSURE and also Instructional Design System.

1. ADDIE

ADDIE was the first instructional design model to be used in many areas since the instructional models began. However, there are many concerns as to the efficiency of the model, owing to the fact that there are many changes that have occurred in the past five decades (Faryadi, 2007). Every decade witnesses a new chapter of a technological revolution which turns most of the old things obsolete. ADDIE is an acronym for Analysis, Develop, Design, Implement as well as Evaluate. Each process is a stage with different tasks to achieve the desired outcomes. Here is a description of each of the steps:

Variable 1: Analysis

Analysis answers the question of why the training is required in the first place. This follows after comprehensive data has been collected and evaluated. However. To remain on the right track, the designers must also understand the expectations as well as the needs of the firm in question. This phase drives the development as well as the design of the entire process.

Variable 2: Design

This is the stage where the instructional designers chose the instructional strategy which to follow after which they put down the desired objectives (Faryadi, 2007). To finalize the process, they have distinct delivery methods and also appropriate media to accomplish their relevant tasks.

Variable 3: Development

This entails developing all the necessary elements of the course material. This is done following the design phase of the model

Variable 4: Implementation

This stage involves rolling out the course, delivering it to the relevant learners and also monitoring the effects of the course.

Variable 5: Evaluation

The course provides the anticipated results. Instructional designers work with the clients and come up with the effects of the course.

2. Merrill’s Principles of Instruction (MPI)

This principle of instruction was developed by David Merril in 2002, and it is comprised of five learning principles which include:

a) Activation principle

b) Integration principle

c) Task-centred principle

d) Application framework

e) Demonstration framework

3. Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction

This model is based on the behavioural model of learning that is composed of multiple framework events that enable instructional designers to follow distinct learning situations (Thompson, 2001). It is the most common eLearning framework that is necessary for administering practical learning objectives. These nine steps include:

1) Gaining the attention of students.

2) We are informing the students about the underlying objectives.

3) I am stimulating the recall of previous learning objectives.

4) I am presenting the content.

5) I am providing learners with guidance.

6) We are assessing the overall performance.

7) Elicit performance.

8) I am providing the necessary feedback.

9) I am enhancing job promotion as well as retention.

4. Bloom’s Taxonomy

This model was advanced by Benjamin Bloom with the aim of organizing the distinct levels of cognitive learning in the long run. A more detailed version, Revised Taxonomy, was developed by Anderson alongside his friend Krathwohl in 2001 (Thompson, 2001). The following is a description of the model.

5. Situated Cognition theory

It was initially published in 1989 where the core principles are still practised until today. The core element of the law is that no one is capable of separating doing from knowing. Its area of emphasis is that no one is in a position to do what they do not understand. Every learning curve is based on a particular concept that is often shown in action (Thompson, 2001). Learning is also described as a social endeavour which provides a common platform for knowledge expansion as well as wisdom gathering. This is often done through numerous discussions as well as problem-solving characteristics that are applicable in the long run.

6. Sociocultural Learning Theory

The initial script that described this theory was published in the 1930s, but it took longer to become popular because of the political turmoil under Starlin by then. There were also challenges in translating the original script to other scripts in different languages (Lantolf, 2017). Social, cultural learning theory centres around three core variables which include communication, the zone of proximal development and also culture.

7. Individualized construction

This is more focused on how people gain knowledge and also how people respond to their external environment. Although it is meant for those who can grasp aspects quickly, it also allows those who are slow in the process to move at their own pace (Lantolf, 2017). In addition to these adjustments, it also includes the learners who have distinct learning preferences and with different response to the learning curve. The critical principles focused on are:

a) Autonomous completion of work by the learners. This gives them the opportunity to focus on individual strengths as well as opportunities.

b) Written learning materials which are preferred over numerous presentations.

c) I am supporting the learners as well as adding an entirely new level of social interactivity as well as experience.

d) I am assessing the learners after they have learned a particular lesson to gauge their learning progress in the long run.

8. The SAM Model

This gives the researcher the room to make the desired changes through performing well-distributed tasks over a long period of time. The researchers are also in a position to perform multiple iterations (Lantolf, 2017). It has three processes that ensure that the changes are well distributed and that the eLearning project moves to completion. The stages in this model are:

a) Presentation phase where enough information regarding the project is collected.

b) Iterative design where the project designs are formulated.

c) Iterative development where the research design is not only created, but also reviewed.

References

Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (1998). American social welfare policy: a pluralist approach. New York: Longman.

Faryadi, Q. (2007). Instructional Design Models What a Revolution! Place of publication not identified: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse.

Lantolf, J. P. (2017). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thompson, L. (2001). Addie. Waterville, Me.: Five Star.