A comparison of the effectiveness cost and efficiency of four formative evaluation conditions /

This study compared the effectiveness, cost and efficiency of four formative evaluation conditions: (a) revision based on learner data (RLD), (b) revision based on expert data (RED), (c) revision based on both learner and expert data (RBD), and (d) revision without data (RND). Two more conditions were present in the study: materials in draft (MID) and no treatment (NT). The NT condition consisted of students who were tested without exposure to the instructional materials. The instruction that was formatively evaluated was a six-page article describing the relationship between diet and cancer. The article was written by chemistry professors for an "undergraduate chemistry course for non-science students". Undergraduates (n = 187) provided the effectiveness data. They randomly received one of the four formatively evaluated versions of the article, read the article, answered questions on an objective test, and indicated their confidence with respect to their responses. Professional revisors (n = 8) provided cost data. Each revisor provided cost estimates for all formative evaluation conditions. Efficiency was provided by combining effectiveness with cost data. Effectiveness differences were found between the MID and RLD, and the MID and RBD. The mean test scores, as well as the mean confidence-weighed test scores, of both RLD and RBD were significantly higher than those of the MID. Cost differences indicated three levels of cost. RND was the least costly formative evaluation condition. RLD and RED were equivalent in cost and more costly than RND. RBD was the most costly formative evaluation condition. With respect to efficiency, RLD was recommended. RLD was the least costly condition that was significantly more effective than MID. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

Identiferoai:union.ndltd.org:LACETR/oai:collectionscanada.gc.ca:QMM.68074
Date January 1993
CreatorsBordonaro, Tino
ContributorsIsherwood, G. B. (advisor), McAlpine, L. (advisor)
PublisherMcGill University
Source SetsLibrary and Archives Canada ETDs Repository / Centre d'archives des thèses électroniques de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada
LanguageEnglish
Detected LanguageEnglish
TypeElectronic Thesis or Dissertation
Formatapplication/pdf
CoverageMaster of Arts (Faculty of Education.)
RightsAll items in eScholarship@McGill are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.
Relationalephsysno: 001394917, proquestno: AAIMM94321, Theses scanned by UMI/ProQuest.

Page generated in 0.0021 seconds