Models in Instructional Evalution

graphic taken from the website Adult Learning and Tech

The Hannafin Peck model begins with a needs assessment. Once a need is established, instruction is designed then developed and implemented. I like several components in the Hannafin Peck model. First and foremost, it’s simple and practical. Secondly, at the completion of each phase, the model goes back through evaluation and revision before moving on to a different phase. There is no “end” to this model; it is open to change at all venues--it’s “alive”.

I find merit to this model because as good teachers, aren’t we constantly evaluating the design and implementation of a instruction? “Monitor and adjust”, isn’t that what we do on a daily basis?

Another interesting model is the one proposed by Braden. Within each step of this model, formative evaluation is a sub-step that occurs before moving on to the next step. If an flaw is found, then evaluation of the process occurs to determine where the breakdown occurred, known as front to back evaluation. This front to back evaluation, according to Braden, allows his evaluation model to be self-correcting.

The formative assessment at the end of each step, sometimes forgotten by educators, would be of great value when evaluating instruction. Formative evaluation at the end of each step would take some of the “mystery” out of the “Where did I go wrong?” feeling that most educators have experienced at one time or another. If evaluation only occurs at the end of instruction, then it’s hard to pinpoint exactly where the flaw(s) occurred, making them much harder to correct.