Compares and contrasts formative, summative, and confirmative evaluation in the instructional design process - Research Paper Example

Here, the clarity, impact and feasibility of the message and the instruction are determined. In the small group evaluation, the entire group is handed similar feedback based on grouped outcome of the successes or difficulties. This effectively addresses the instruction rather than the learners. In the field trial evaluation, the instructor uses the design and course materials already modified twice to present a full-scale instructional session. Challenges with formative evaluation are often found in feasibility matters.

Students’ capabilities, instructional environment and medium greatly impact the outcome of the stage. The motivation, independence and maturity of individual students will determine the required time to complete the stage (Smaldino, Rusell & Heinrich, 2005). Summative evaluation is beneficial because it is possible to develop consistent, standardized sets of information on each learner. It also creates a justification for wide-scale decision making in education programs. Summative evaluation uses two phases to assess the worth or merit of a program.

The inclusion of external evaluators is beneficial because it adds value to the evaluation and design of the learning process and materials. In the expert judgment phase, feasibility, content, design and congruence analysis are examined. In the field trial phase, outcome and management analysis are examined. It further looks at the impact on the students, job and organization. Essentially, the performance of the group in relation to the set objective is analyzed by the instructional designer in various ways (Gagne, Wager & Keller, 2005).

Organizational resources and needs are aligned with the program through congruence analysis; goals are identified through content analysis; sufficiency of modules of instructional strategies is evaluated through design analysis; and feasibility analysis is in relation to the materials’ utility. Summative evaluation is challenged when it comes to balancing process and product measures and preventing backwards implication; anticipating the scope of positive and negative consequences of using results of summative assessment; attending to both non-cognitive and affective features of flourishing academic programs; and the information’s timeliness (Gagne, Wager & Keller, 2005).

In confirmative evaluation, there is a follow up of the students after they are out of the program. It is beneficial because instructors get to know their competitive levels and how well they are making use of the knowledge and information they gain from their programs. This is a marriage of the other evaluations and programs in continuous improvement. Unlike the other kinds used at the designing and learning levels, confirmative evaluation comes months after implementation of the program (Morrison, Ross & Kemp, 2004).

Endurance of outcomes, efficiency and return on investments are tested. However, the challenge is that the evaluators and students are forced to commit themselves to the full scope of evaluation. Identifying and including all the stakeholders, especially decision makers and activity planners, is also a problem. Question Two Formative assessment is an ongoing measurement in educational preparation aiming at the improvement of student learning. It provides information crucial in the monitoring of an individual’