Comparing effectiveness of systematic and constructive instructional design model in managers training and development

Document Type : Scientific - Research

Authors

1 Mazandaran University

2 Tarbiat Moddares University

3 Allameh Tabatabae University

4 North carolina wilmington University

Abstract

Utilization of systematic instructional design models in industrial training has been a standard since the introduction of those models. However this standard has been questioned after the interdiction of constructivist instructional design model. No doubt, the application of efficient instructional design models has a determining effect on productivity of managers training and development. In the present study selecting an appropriate approach to instructional design for managers training and development in organizational context was examined. This could solve many training problems, and improve the efficiency of instructional system in those settings. Kirkpatrick's training evaluation model was used to compare the effectiveness of each program. Findings showed that managers in constructive group had more satisfaction and more positive attitude toward training. Also, training of the constructive group was found to be more effective than that of the systematic one.

Keywords

References

Coln, B & Taylor, K&Willis, J (2000). Constractivist Instiuctional Design: Creating a Multimedia Package for Teaching Critical Qualitive Research. The Qualitative Report, Vol 5, No 9.
Cooper, JH (2005). A training Programme Based on the Principles of Social Constructivism and Focused on Devel Oping People for the Future World of Work an Evaluation. submitted in partial fulfilment  of the requirement for the degree Magisters Commeric in the Faculty of Economic and Buseiness Sciences at the University of Pretoria.
Crawford, C (2004). Non-linear Instructional Design model: eternal, synergistic design and development. British Journal of Educational Technology.Vol 35, NO 4, PP 413-420.
Dick, W., & Johnson, B (2007). Evaluation in Instructional Design: The Impact of Kirkpatricks Four Level Model. In R. A. Reiser, Trend and Issues in Instructional Design. New Jersey: Parson Prentice
Gulati, V & Sivakumaran, M (2003). E-Learning in Banking. http://home.att.net /~nickols/evaluate. Htm.
Herrington, J & Oliver, R (2000). An Instructional design learning framework for authentic learning Enviorments, Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), pp 23-48.
Jonassen, D. H., McAleese, T. M. R. & Duffy, T. M. (1993). A Manifesto for a Constructivist Approach to Technology in Higher Education. In Duffy, T. M., Lowyck, J. & Jonassen, D. H. (Eds.) The design of constructivistic learning environments: Implications for instructional design and the use of technology,Heidelburg, FRG: Springer-Verlag, http://cad017.gcal. ac.uk/clti/papers/TMPaper11. html.
Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing consructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.) Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II), New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 215-239.
Kerka, S (1997). Constractivism,Workplace Learning, and Vocational Education. http://www.ericdigests.org/1998-1/learning.html.
Kirkpatrick, D (1996). Evaluation, In R. L. Craig,The ASTD Training and Development Handbook, New York: Mc Graw-Hill
Kirkpatrick, D (1998). Evaluating Training Programs; San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Lewis, P & Thornhill, A (1994). The Evaloation of Training: An Organizational Culture Approach. Journal of European Industrial Training.VOL. 18 NO. 8, PP. 25-32.
Moallem, M. (2001). Applying Constractivist and Objectivist Learning Theories in Design of A Web-Based Course: mplication for Practice. Educational Technology & Socity, vol 4, No 3, 2001, pp 113-125.
Moallem, M (2003). An Interactive Online Course: A Collaborative Design Model. ETR&D. Vol, 91, No. 4, PP 85-103.
Moor, M (1997). Connecting School-Based Learning and Work Based Learning: Perceptions of Students, Their teachers, and Their Workplace Supervisors, Disseration submitted to the graduat Facully of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Vocational and Technical Education.
Noone, L (1993). Instructional Design and workplace performance. Australian Journal of Educational Technology. Vol 9, No1, pp 12-18
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). Instructional Design Theores and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory. London: LEA.
Richey, R & Morrison, G & Foxon, M (2007). Instructional Design in Business and Industry. In Reiser, R (2007). Trend and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc, 174-184.
Seitz,R(1999).Cognetive pprenticeship.http://hagar.up.ac.za/catts/learner/peterdl.htm
Sun & Williams (2005). An Instructional Design for Constractivism Learning.
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/trinity/watdes.html.
Tennant, C & Boonkrong, M & Roberts, P (2002). The design of a training programme measurement model. Journal of European industrial Training. Vol, NO, PP 230-240.
Willis, J (1995). A recursive ,reflective instructional design model based on constructivist-interpretivist theory. Educational  Technology, 35 (6), 5-23.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics