Thursday, September 15, 2016

Section 3: Evaluating, Implementing and Managing Instructional Programs & Projects

1. Evaluation Model:



After reading chapter 10 and comparing all the different models, I found the Kirkpatrick Model for Instructional Design to be the one that would best fit my needs.  The first 2 steps are basic enough that individuals would easily be able to perform them without much trouble. Step one is found in most training I’ve ever done and step 2 is occasionally present.  Both are great ways to gauge the immediate response and learning acquired.  However I like that this model continues on with follow up.  Step 3 of the evaluation determines if the information taught was able to be put to good use and if not, what might be lacking from the training to help individuals be able to implement it.  Finally step 4 the results or the outcome shows us if the desired goal or need was meet.  If not the instructional design/ training program will need to be tweaked to meet the needs and then again reassessed using this model. 
I did like the step in the U-FE model that stated,” Identify the “primary intended users” and develop a working relationship with them.”1  I think that’s something that would be useful and was lacking from the model I selected. 

2.  Situational Leadership Project:



Assuming I’m in my current role of being a teacher, my team would include, our two campus instructional coaches for curriculum insight, several grade level representatives (to carry info back to their team) at least one member of the admin team, and a technology specialist. 

I would use situational leadership to help guide my actions through this project: “(1) the amount of guidance and direction a leader gives; (2) the amount of socioemotional support a leader provides; and (3) the readiness level followers exhibit in performing a specific task, function, or objective.”1


After seeing how familiar the team is with the overall topic, based on questioning, I would more than likely start with phase one (directive) just to set the baseline for everything we will be working with and using.  We would then move on to them exploring the tasks and items we will be passing along to the entire staff (phase 2).  During this phase I would simply be clarifying anything they were questioning.  Next, I would provide support necessary (phase three) for carrying out the trainings either in grade level meetings or as a whole staff at meeting.  Finally after the project has been rolled out I would make sure that the team is checking on staff members and question if the staff as a whole is able to put our training into practice (phase 4).


1. Reiser, Robert V.; Dempsey, John V.. Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd Edition) (Page 102). Pearson HE, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
2. http://wwwatanabe.blogspot.com/2014/08/harnessing-powerful-ideas-leading-one.html
3. Situational Leadership: Bringing Out the Best in Your Potential Leaders - ACT One International Corp. (2016). Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http://www.aoic.ca/situational-leadership-bringing-out-the-best-in-your-potential-leaders/

2 comments:

  1. Reading your post is like someone got in my brain! We have the same theories when it comes to training and evaluations. You had great graphics for both sections too. I think the relationship aspect of the U-FE model is very important too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I can recall quite a few lessons that I thought were the "gold standard" during class because my students were fully engaged and enjoying the activities. However, when it came time for them to prove what they learned, they all fell on their face. I think the follow up is critical in the evaluation model, without it, we are just spinning our wheels aren't we?

    ReplyDelete