The current mammoth increase in knowledge makes it challenging to include all information which faculty members label as necessary in any course — particularly in science. Thus, the project was designed to enable students to learn some important concepts independently of lecture and laboratory activities, and time saved could then be reallocated to other information which had not previously been included in the course. This article describes the evaluation process used to gather formative data about the units being developed, and makes recommendations for similar future projects. Information and data used for summative evaluation will be presented in a subsequent article.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HavelockR. G., The Change Agent's Guide to Innovation in Education, Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973.
2.
BedientD.GaroianG. S., and EnglertD. C., Self-Instructional Materials for Underprepared Science Students, Improving College and University Teaching, 32, pp. 128–134, 1984.
3.
BedientD. and GreathouseL., Individualized Typewriting Instruction: Its Impact on Teachers and Learners, Journal of Studies in Technical Careers, 1, pp. 300–309, 1979.
4.
GreathouseL. and BedientD., An Examination of the Difficulties Attributed to Individualized Instruction, Journal of Studies in Technical Careers, 2, pp. 724–732, 1980.
5.
DiamondR. M., Instructional Development for Individualized Learning in Higher Education, Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975.
6.
BriggsL. J., Assessing Learner Performance, in Instructional Design Principles and Applications, BriggsL. J. (ed.), Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 149–175, 1977.
7.
KempJ. E., Instructional Design, Lear Siegler, Belmont, California, 1971.
