The (lack of) formative assessment in instructional design

Having just learned and applied the ADDIE--Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation--concept in 6430, I've noticed a peculiar circumstance: In spite of the desired effect of a learner-centered design construct, there seems very little emphasis on learner input into the process.

Where are opportunities for formative assessment from the intended learners?

The Brown/Green article that we read for our 09/22 class session mentioned that "one of the most effective methods for determining the success of your task analysis during the design and development of instruction is to ask a SME [subject matter expert] who was not part of the task analysis to look over what you created and to evaluate it for accuracy and thoroughness" (p. 116).

While I believe the SME can certainly validate the thoroughness of the ultimate product, I challenge the assertion that he/she can vouch for the effectiveness of it. In my mind, only the learner(s) can speak to that point. They will be the recipients of this product, and as the ones who actually utilize it, they will be better able to comment on its value.

In class on 09/01, we identified three values as imperative to instructional designers: efficiency, i.e., solving the problem without unnecessary steps; effectiveness, i.e., obtaining some degree of success; and appeal, i.e., motivating/drawing in the intended learner(s). To me, the learner(s) would be better able than a SME to tell the instructional designer(s) whether or not [1] the product contained any frivolous parts, [2] the product worked, and [3] the product interested them.

So why don't we consult them more often? To be fair, it seems apparent that the designer(s) could and should seek their input in the goals and/or learner assessments that typically occur as a part of the 'analysis' part of the ADDIE concept. But once the designer(s) reach the 'design' and 'development' stages, where they've generated a blue print and some deliverables, respectively, I think there should be more consultation with the target recipient group.

The Brown/Green article suggested a "summative evaluation activity" after the designer(s) implemented the instruction, but why wait until then? In the book, "How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School," the National Research Council defined formative assessment as "ongoing assessments designed to make students' thinking visible to both teachers and students" (1999, p. 24) with a particular benefit to teachers to "identify problems that need to be remedied (problems that may not be visible without the assessments)" (p. 25).

Thus, I think it might be valuable for designers to incorporate a pilot group of learners into their design construct so the resultant product emerges with more inductive, formative feedback from the learners.

Learning explored

I thought I'd visit a question from our previous class that we left rhetorical: What is learning and how does it occur?

In the 2006-2007 academic year, I took a two-part course at ISU on leadership and learning, and I unearthed some of my thoughts at that time that pertained to this loaded question. Here's what I discovered:

"I guess I have discovered that learning--effective learning--can take a significant amount of effort. I concur that learning is primarily the work of the individual mind, but I also believe that the individual mind can be easily influenced and wooed by the expectations of society. In short, I think the individual mind has the capacity to be weak and underutilized. So, if learning can be the work of the individual mind, and the individual mind can be weak and underutilized, then does it not stand to reason that learning can be weak and underutilized? That is a question I have struggled to answer. Of course, it is most likely not as simple as the syllogism suggests, but I think there is some partial truth to it. We are cognitive misers, and if this course has taught me anything, it is the effective learning takes time and effort. My guess is that we often do not learn as much as we could or should."

I guess that, for the most part, I still agree with that explanation--at least for now. From this past course, I also derived a personal, working meaning for learning as "1] thinking, processing, and reflecting on an event or circumstance; 2] applying a newfound concept or idea." Again, I still believe in this two-prong definition, but I think it may be rather terse and simplistic.