Testing and Revising a Design
Every freshly made course or lesson is unique. It carries the fingerprint of its designer’s design decision-making. The last convolutions in the print come from decisions made as you test-and-revise (activity 4.3) a thought-up, worked-out design. The test is made with the help of a small group of learners, chosen at random but representative of the student population for whom the course or lesson was designed.
Every freshly made course or lesson is unique. It carries the fingerprint of its designer’s design decision-making. The last convolutions in the print come from decisions made as you test-and-revise (activity 4.3) a thought-up, worked-out design. The test is made with the help of a small group of learners, chosen at random but representative of the student population for whom the course or lesson was designed. In the programme writing practice that I knew in New York in the ’60s and ’70s, it was the custom to use eight learners in a try-out. Such a ‘jury of eight’ were able to pick up most of the design mistakes that had been made in preparing self-study programmed learning systems. The eight usually represented a heterogeneous population of several hundred users. Habit, and previous good results, would make me choose eight for testing the design of a new course or lesson today. Practicality might, of course, make one settle for a smaller group of three or four or even two.
4.2 Testing for the unexpected
4.3.1 The missing imperatives
4.3.2 The missing overview
4.3.3 The impracticality of a design
4.3.4 The-missing-melody
4.3.5 The non-integration problem
4.3.6 Some minor but critical faults
4.3.7 An always avoidable fault
4.3.8 A fundamental fault
Every freshly made course or lesson is unique. It carries the fingerprint of its designer’s design decision-making. The last convolutions in the print come from decisions made as you test-and-revise (activity 4.3) a thought-up, worked-out design. The test is made with the help of a small group of learners, chosen at random but representative of the student population for whom the course or lesson was designed.
In the programme writing practice that I knew in New York in the ’60s and ’70s, it was the custom to use eight learners in a try-out. Such a ‘jury of eight’ were able to pick up most of the design mistakes that had been made in preparing self-study programmed learning systems. The eight usually represented a heterogeneous population of several hundred users. Habit, and previous good results, would make me choose eight for testing the design of a new course or lesson today. Practicality might, of course, make one settle for a smaller group of three or four or even two.4.2 Testing for the unexpected
4.3.1 The missing imperatives
4.3.2 The missing overview
4.3.3 The impracticality of a design
4.3.4 The-missing-melody
4.3.5 The non-integration problem
4.3.6 Some minor but critical faults
4.3.7 An always avoidable fault
4.3.8 A fundamental fault