Section 3: Evaluation, Implementing and Managing Instructional Programs and Projects

Part 1
The first part of section 3 discusses evaluations in instructional design. There are two basic types of evaluation: Formative = evaluates the materials during the process and Summative =  evaluates after materials have been implemented. Reading chapter 10 gave me some personal anxiety thinking about the PDAS evaluation that I have to go through every year. YUCK! But now I understand the process better after reading the reasons behind using an evaluating to monitor productivity. But it’s  still stressful  to personal be evaluated and scored only on one lesson. On another note: the two models I’ve chosen to explore are The Seels & Glasgow ISD Model II and Dick and Carey’s Model.

The Seels & Glasgow model is a formative evaluation. It has three key phases it’s divided in to: needs analysis management, instructional design management and implementation and evaluation. It is a product-oriented model. This model is very user friendly and would be useful to me if I was the project manger on creating the school’s web page for example. Using this model would help assist me to evaluate if the web site was ready to be launched or distributed to learners.

 

 

The Dick and Carey’s Model is a summative type of evaluation. It has nine basic steps in an iterative cycle that evaluates the effectiveness of the instruction. The nine steps are: assess needs to identify instructional goal(s), conduct instructional analysis, analyze learners and contexts, write performance objectives, develop assessment instruments, develop instructional strategy, develop and select instruction, design and conduct formative evaluation, and revise instruction. The final process is to conduct a summative evaluation.  The best part of this model is its systems approach, its goal-directed, interdependencies, the feedback mechanism and its self-regulation. I could use the Dick and Carey Design Model after the web site was launched to determine if the expectations and goals of the stakeholders are being successfully addressed.

Part 2

Other questions that would be useful to address are: What are the biggest obstacles? What is the type environment that the learning will occur in? What does the employees feel about the new product? What issues do I want to address with the training?

Part 3

Below is a scenario I’ve created to explain how I would use Situational Leadership to establish a project and manage it during scarce resource times.  

 One day my principal came to me and told me that due to the lack of school budget this year, I had to create our professional developments (PD). The PD had to be about technology because of the grant we received in the past requires each teacher have so many hours a year.  After I think and ponder on what would be the most cost-effect PD in technology, I’ve come up with a series of PD using Google tools. Google tools are free and there are endless ways the teachers can implement the Google tools into their day to day instruction. Situational Leadership would require me to implement Google tools in 4 phases. In phase 1, I need to determine my leadership style. I need to be directive, detailed and confident on my decision-making without being to over bearing. In other words, I would need to decide what Google tools we are going to learn about  and how to implement in our PD trainings. Next is phase 2, as the teachers gain confidents in me and using Google tools, we can move on to more advance learning and setting goals. Then phase 3, as a leader I would reward those teaches using Google tools daily and encourage the teachers that are not using them. Last is phase 4, I would monitor the usage of Google tools in daily instruction; continue to communicate with the teachers and their needs and mostly MOTIVATE them continually about the importance of using Google tools in their daily instructions.