June 20, 2010
June 20, 2010
June 23, 2010
15.215.1 - 15.215.21
Assessment of Instructional Systems Design
The principle behind a well-structured Instructional Systems Design is to ensure that the subject matter content is effectively integrated with the presentation format. Simply stated, the task in front of the facilitator will be to blend the content and presentation in theory as well as in practice. However, it is important to acknowledge that recent advances in modern technology provide plenty of opportunities for the instructors to experiment on innovative ideas that can lead to creative as well as effective classroom instructional strategies. To accomplish the task of assessment, the author utilizes a rubric based on Washington State University’s Critical Thinking Rubrics. While conducting assessment, the author focuses on a well-established fact that student learning is actually an interactive process that takes place in educational environment established specifically to promote and enhance knowledge in a discovery atmosphere. Furthermore, scholars are also of the opinion that educators must be able to successfully address the needs of the individual by relating their own teaching style to the learning style of the individual student. Research also points out those problems related to learning most frequently are not related to the complexity of the subject matter. Problems pertaining to learning may actually be a reflection on the level of cognitive process that is absolutely essential to master the material at the appropriate level. In this presentation, the author outlines how he has successfully designed, created and implemented instructional and learning modules that can probably help address certain important criteria specified by accreditation agencies.
Instructional Systems Design (ISD) was made popular by Walter Dick and Lou Carey whose famous quote is: “You can’t provide a solution until you know what the problem is.” In other words, first and foremost, instructors should select a few prominent assessment tasks in their courses (Dick & Carey, 1996). It is also important to observe that all course assignments need not necessarily be identified as assessment tasks. It may be adequate if an instructor can designate one or two tasks from each of the chosen courses (Fallon, 1997). Linn, Baker & Dunbar (1991) have indicated, “Assessment practices at all levels of local, state, and national education programs are in a state of rapid transition.” This means that the scholars and instructors in charge of assessment should be able to rise up to the occasion and understand the implications and importance of conducting assessment. Greenwood & Maheady (1997) have said, “The process of developing a method for assessing this continuous growth requires thoughtful planning.” Almost all leading colleges and universities have recognized this fact and continuously participating in an ongoing discussion on assessment. Therefore, one recognizes the fact that any strategic plan for continuous ongoing assessment should have a clear vision of what the university needs to assess and how the process will be implemented. In reality, the methodology used in designing a continuous assessment plan should actually direct and raise questions about the significance and effectiveness of instructional delivery techniques. Gregorc and Ward (1977) are of the opinion that instructors should have a clear understanding of what
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2010 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015