This study was designed to examine the following questions: (a) What aptitude level(s) of learners provide(s) optimal feedback for formatively evaluating instructional materials; and (b) At what stage(s) of the formative evaluation process (one-to-one or small group, or combination of both) is the most useful data provided for revision purposes? / The procedures for conducting this study were undertaken in two stages. The first stage consisted of conducting a series of independent formative evaluations of an instructional product. Three different groupings of ninth-grade mathematics students (high aptitude, mixed aptitude, and low aptitude) and three different formative evaluation techniques (one-to-one, small group, and a combination of the two) were employed. Theory-based principles and research-based guidelines for materials design were used to identify the revisions called for by the formative data. The second stage of the study consisted of (a) comparing the feedback and revision decisions that resulted from the various formative evaluation techniques employed, and (b) examining the instructional effectiveness of the resulting instructional products. Instructional effectiveness was measured by posttest scores, along with attitude and instructional time data. / Results indicated that high aptitude students were more adept at pinpointing inaccuracies in the module and were able to provide their own events of instruction for those that might be missing. Low aptitude students identified the more basic problems (e.g., vocabulary) within the module, but did not provide many other suggestions for revisions. Students in the mixed aptitude group offered a greater variety of types of feedback than any one aptitude group alone. / Results also indicated that students who received materials revised according to the feedback from the mixed aptitude group scored significantly higher on the posttest than did students who received materials revised according to feedback from either the high aptitude group or the low aptitude group. The materials revised according to feedback from the mixed aptitude group received the most favorable attitude rating. No practical differences were found in student completion times. / Results also indicated that the materials revised according to feedback from the one-to-one sessions with the mixed aptitude group were as effective as materials revised according to feedback from a combination of one-to-one and small group sessions. Both sets of materials were more effective than the original materials. The materials revised according to feedback from one-to-one sessions with the mixed aptitude group were also more effective than materials revised according to feedback from a small group session alone. / These findings indicate that formative evaluation using both one-to-one and small group stages does not necessarily lead to the production of more effective instructional materials than using the one-to-one stage with a heterogeneous aptitude group. These findings also indicate that using a heterogeneous aptitude group during the one-to-one formative evaluation stage provides better revision data than using a homogeneous group. Replications of this study, investigating other learner characteristics or successive stages of one-to-one formative evaluation may suggest ways to further improve the evaluation process. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 41-10, Section: A, page: 4375. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1980.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_74326 |
| Contributors | WAGER, JANE COOMBS., Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text |
| Format | 156 p. |
| Rights | On campus use only. |
| Relation | Dissertation Abstracts International |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds