improving and assessing instructional effectiveness

Improving and Assessing Instructional Effectiveness

Theodore FrickDepartment of Instructional Systems Technology

School of EducationIndiana University Bloomington

Invited Lecture to IUB Medical Sciences FacultyOctober 14, 2002

October 14, 2002Improving and Assessing Instructional

Effectiveness -- Ted Frick 2

Overview

Confounding of instructional effectiveness by other factors

Types of knowledge about educationType 2, 3 and 4 examplesRecommendations

The Logic of Effectiveness

Before instruction After instruction Conclusion

1. Student nonmastery Student mastery Instruction appears to be effective enough, but …

2. Student nonmastery Student nonmastery Instruction apparently was not effective enough

3. Student mastery Student mastery Can't tell if instruction is effective, since student had achieved the goal before instruction began

4. Student mastery Student nonmastery ??? Something wrong with the content - factual errors, incorrect procedures, bad models ??? Bad luck ???

Confounding Factors

1. Learning occurs without intentional instruction.

2. Learning occurs despite poor instruction.

3. We’re not the only teachers a student has.

4. Results of instruction may occur LONG afterwards.

Conflation of Research Methods and Outcomes

In addition to the confounding problem in determining effectiveness of instruction, there has been a lot of debate in education about inquiry methods – e.g., quantitative vs. qualitative.

Continuing problem of bridging research and practice in education

Consider this Debate

Imagine for a moment three carpenters arguing about which tool is best.

Quanta: "Hammers and nails are clearly superior." Qualia: "I disagree. Screwdrivers and screws are

much more effective." Performa: "You're both wrong. Saws are best for

cutting wood." Quanta: "Who said anything about cutting wood? I

thought we were talking about fastening wood together."

Qualia: "Right. Who needs saws?" Performa: "I do. I need to cut this board in half."

Premise

The kind of knowledge about education that we create through disciplined inquiry determines what research methods are appropriate and useful.

Types of Educology: Knowledge about Education

Methodology of Theory Building (Elizabeth Steiner, 1988) (link)

Non-axiological knowledge – what isAxiological knowledge – pertaining to values:

Instrumental value: good for – what is effective Intrinsic value: good in itself – what is worthwhile

The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles (Lee Cronbach, et al., 1972)

Six Types of Knowledge (Frick)

Purpose of Inquiry

Scope of KnowledgeUnique Generalizable

What is? 1 2

What is effective? 3 4

What is worthwhile? 5 6

See Frick: R690 Syllabus for further details

Purpose of Inquiry

What is? 1 2

Example: Type 1 Knowledge Claim

‘Elizabeth Steiner is an educational philosopher.’

Purpose of Inquiry

What is? 1 2

Example: Type 2 Knowledge Claim ‘Students who spend more time engaged successfully in arithmetic and reading tasks score more highly on achievement tests in those content areas.’ (Fisher, et al., 1976)

Purpose of Inquiry

What is? 1 2

Example: Type 3 Knowledge Claim ‘The DISTAR program for teaching arithmetic and reading to elementary students works.’

Purpose of Inquiry

What is? 1 2

What is worthwhile? 5 6Example: Type 4 Knowledge Claim ‘Instruction is most effective when it is problem-based, activates prior learner knowledge, demonstrates what is to be learned, provides opportunities for guided practice, and encourages integration with everyday life.’ (Merrill, 2001)

Purpose of Inquiry

What is? 1 2

‘The corporal punishment policy in Houston schools is a bad policy.’

Purpose of Inquiry

What is? 1 2

‘Teachers and students should respect each other.’

Do not confuse ends and means

The kind of knowledge about education that we create through disciplined inquiry determines what research methods are appropriate and useful. Outcome of research is knowledge. Inquiry methods are a means to that end. Criteria for evaluating adequacy of research

methodology are NOT the same for each knowledge type – e.g.,

criteria for statistical inference to a broad population do not apply to Types 1, 3, and 5;

effectiveness not of concern in Types 1, 2, 5, and 6, but main concern in 3 and 4.

For today…

Focus on a few examples of Types 2, 3 and 4 knowledge of educationType 2: Academic learning time researchType 3 outcomes: Program/product

evaluation – Kirkpatrick’s 4 levels (1959)Type 4 process: Effective Web Instruction –

Frick & Boling (2002)Type 4: Principles of 5-Star Instruction –

David Merrill (2001)

Purpose of Inquiry

What is? 1 2

Type 2 Example: Relationship of academic learning time and student achievement

Type 2: Academic Learning Time

Allocated Time

Engaged Time

Task Success

ALT is positively correlated with academic achievement in the same content areas (Fisher, et al., 1976; Rieth & Frick, 1983; Berliner; 1985).

Purpose of Inquiry

What is? 1 2

Type 3: Evaluation of a particular instructional program or product

Type 3: Program/Product Evaluation – Kirkpatrick’s Levels

Techniques for Evaluating Training Programs -- Donald Kirkpatrick (1959)

1. Reaction (satisfaction)

2. Learning (achievement)

3. Behavior (transfer to real context)

4. Results (impact on organization/context)

More on Kirkpatrick’s levels from Encyclopedia of Educational Technology

Purpose of Inquiry

What is? 1 2

Type 4 Example: how to create effective instructional products – design theory

Type 4: Effective Web Instruction: An Inquiry-Based Process – Frick & Boling

Type 4: First Principles of Instruction – David Merrill

Problem

Activation

DemonstrationApplication

Integration

Type 4: First Principles of Instruction (cont’d)

“Learning is facilitated when:1. Learners are engaged in solving real-world

problems.

2. Existing knowledge is activated as a foundation for new knowledge.

3. New knowledge is demonstrated to the learner.

4. New knowledge is applied by the learner.

5. New knowledge is integrated into the learner’s world.” (Merrill, 2001, p. 2)

Does your instruction rate 5 stars? A rating scale

Purpose of Inquiry

What is? 1 2

Type 3: Indiana University physician education program

Recommendations

In physician education, focus on Type 3 knowledge:Apply Merrill’s 5 principles as criteria for

design. See video (requires RealPlayer).

Use Kirkpatrick’s 4 levels of evaluation for your programs at IU.

Questions?

This presentation is available at:

http://www.indiana.edu/~tedfrick/improveinstruction.ppt

Contact: frick@indiana.edu

improving and assessing instructional effectiveness

Documents

assessing the effectiveness of deradicalization

effectiveness of instructional design to contextualize

assessing the effectiveness of complementary alternative

assessing the effectiveness of malawi’s forestry

assessing learning in instructional design

assessing effectiveness of information presentation using

assessing instructional strategies at barbados community...

assessing the effectiveness of tennessee's pre

assessing teacher effectiveness

keynote designing assessment, assessing instructional design

the effectiveness of instructional coaching in …

assessing commercial effectiveness of patents

assessing flagship store effectiveness updating …

assessing the effectiveness of a mathematics- focused...

instructional objectives: the foundation of instructional...

assessing teaching presence in instructional cmc

chapter eleven assessing ad message effectiveness

assessing the effectiveness of library service

gauging effectiveness of instructional grants

assessing laboratory ventilation effectiveness