Evaluation Summary

Seems ages since I posted a blog entry but like everybody else.... I have been busy obtaining and sorting my feedback for my evaluation study. I managed to obtain 22 student questionnaires, 6 course facilitator questionnaires, 3 student observations and 3 interviews with programme management, all of which took about 14 days. Below is a summary of the findings:


Evaluation Summary
The following is a summary of an effectiveness evaluation carried out over a period of 14 days.
The rationale behind the evaluation was to identify and compare students’ reaction to online learning within a blended learning environment. The overarching questions were directed towards two specific areas namely: whether the structure of the online learning adequate to encourage self direction for a new user and the knowledge learned is transferable to real life situations and secondly, whether or not sufficient confidence is gained by the students on completion to contemplate higher level learning using this method.

The focus of the evaluation was a unit standard which is currently delivered within my working environment as part of the National Certificate in Computing Level 2. The evaluation sought to employ triangulation of data by obtaining feedback using questionnaires completed by students and classroom facilitators; observations carried out on students new to online learning as well as interviews with members of programme management in order to seek their views on the level and type of support given to students completing this unit.


Evaluation Survey
I was able to obtain sufficient numbers as per the survey sample outlined in my evaluation plan and was particularly pleased by the response of past students to the survey which was far more than I had anticipated, thus giving a more even mix of current and past students completing the survey. In total I received 22 completed student questionnaires. A short questionnaire was also completed by 6 classroom facilitators who gave their views regarding student support and use of online learning tools. The observations also went well with the availability of three students new to online learning and who attended the classroom during the period of the study for guidance with this module. Interviews were conducted with three members of the programme management team who have direct contact with the students, namely the Programme Leader, Student Support Adviser and Course Assessor.


The overall results of the student survey revealed the following:


The questionnaire handed to the students covered four areas; reaction, navigation, interaction and course outcome. Observation of the three students also sought to assess their initial reaction to the module and identify any problems vis-à-vis navigation and interaction with the course content. Six classroom facilitators from six different classrooms also completed a short questionnaire which focused on the level and type of support given to students when completing this unit.


Reaction
Once they had identified there was an online learning requirement for this unit, the majority of students managed quite well to complete the module. Initial guidance seemed to be lacking a little within the course content which was evidenced by the three interviews and facilitator questionnaires, indicating that most of the support was given at the outset. All six facilitators stated that they gave initial guidance on how to access the module and find the course material. All except one of the facilitators stated that once the students had become familiar with this style of learning, the level of support given by them was not any greater than for other modules.


Navigation
Only 1 student indicated that they had difficulty locating the course material and this small number is probably due in part to the amount of guidance given by the classroom facilitators prior to commencement of the module. Both the Programme Leader and Student Support Adviser mentioned in interview that despite the fact that students are told where to find it and there is a designated button located on the site, students who chose to study at home often needed step by step guidance over the telephone to help them find the module. 22% of the students experienced navigation problems involving following instructions and moving between the different sections of the course materials. One student summed up the experience of navigation as “a challenge”. However 17 (77%) of the 22 students surveyed rated the overall navigation features of this module as easy. The observations revealed a number of navigation problems; in particular as there was no ‘home’ button provided on the site to return to the content list, students often lost their way or found themselves going into the same link twice.


Interaction
Students appeared to be happy to complete the online quizzes and the majority of students considered that the course material provided sufficient knowledge to enable them to answer the questions. They liked the self assessment facility but as the solutions were not available online, feedback on incorrect answers was not as instant and this was echoed with comments in both the questionnaire and the observations.

Some 15 (68%) students of the 22 surveyed made use of the discussion board. Of these, 9 indicated that they found it useful whereas 6 maintained that it did not aid their learning. Some negative comments were received regarding the discussion board and these all centred around the content structure of the discussion board rather than its use as a vehicle for learning. On a positive note, all of these 15 students found the feedback from the tutor useful and only 3 would not consider using the discussion board again. Of the 7 students who did not use the discussion board, the main reasons appeared to be either lack of confidence or that it appeared to be a non-essential part of the course. This was further backed up by the course assessor who stated when compared with other online tools which are more results focused, the abstract nature of the discussion board within this module did not invoke a huge student input and consequently did little to promote student to student interaction.

Course Outcome
There was a very positive result for this section with an overwhelming 21/22 students stating that they have been able to apply the skills and knowledge learned from this module to everyday use. The survey was further broken down into areas of use and students asked to tick as many as applied, the results of which are as follows:


Home
44%
Workplace
31%
Education
15%
Community/Voluntary Work
8%
Other
3%

19 of the students indicated that they would be happy to use online learning for further study at tertiary level and 18 showed a preference for online learning over other methods. This is a positive result confirming in this survey at least, that this module does provide students with sufficient confidence to consider further online learning. Moreover, students completing this unit can acquire transferable knowledge and skills that can be applied to everyday use.
Only one student indicated on the questionnaire that they had not been able to apply the knowledge learned from this module to everyday use. However, a comment from this same student clarified the answer by admitting that they already had extensive internet skills and knowledge and consequently did not feel that they had learned a great deal.

To summarise – overall I feel that the response received has been very positive and the online learning module does appear to be effective in its structure, providing students with a pedagogical direction towards student centric learning and transferable knowledge. The fact that a large portion of the students surveyed indicated that they would consider online learning in the future, also indicates that the module also appears effective in providing sufficient knowledge, confidence and skills to promotes staircasing to a higher level.

I have listed below an initial analysis of the study and would welcome any comments and feedback on the style of presentation and how it could perhaps be improved.


Student Questionnaire

Interview Results

Observations

Facilitator Questionnaires



Thanks very much



Hilary

Evaluation Presentation

I have had a very frustrating Sunday afternoon trying to get my presentation onto MyPlick. Firstly, I had a lot of trouble getting the audio recorded - not all of the free downloads seemed to work. I then had several attempts to record the audio as I kept losing it somehow. I then had a problem uploading to MyPlick but eventually got that sorted (and Gordon made it sound so simple)! Unlike Yvonne, I couldn't find a way to edit out all the errs and urms, so they are still there I'm afraid. Also, for some reason the quality of the recording is extremely poor and I think this can only be attributable to the equipment I am using. My voice is very muffled in places and tends to go up and down, so sounds worse than normal. No amount of adjustment seemed to correct it. Apologies for this and will put it down to experience and hope to do better 'next time'. I haven't been put off though - I think it was a good challenge for me.

The link is below and once more apologies for the quality.

Hilary's presentation

Evaluation Plan

After some guidance from Bronwyn (thanks again for that) I have now re-written my original evaluation plan draft towards an effectiveness evaluation instead of an impact evaluation. This type of evaluation matches more closely what I wish to measure against which is; whether or not students first time experience with online learning via a particular Unit Standard equips them with sufficient knowledge, skills and confidence to consider higher level learning using this method.

I hope to post my summary soon. All comments appreciated.

Thanks

Here is the plan

Evaluation Plan Update

Hi Guys

I realise that I have been a bit quiet recently but I have been trying to get my evaluation plan on a proper track. Unlike Rika I haven't hit any technical hitches (not recently anyway). Basically what I thought was an impact evaluation is more an effectiveness evaluation and as such, I am wishing to tie the loose ends up so that my (almost) final plan will reflect what I am doing. Hope that makes sense and I look forward to sharing my plan with you soon. Thank you for all your help so far.

Hilary

Weeks 7 & 8 Evaluation Plan

Here is my draft evaluation plan. I have published in Google Docs, so I hope the link works.


http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d9k9zcq_2dd7ckvkm

Evaluation Project Thoughts

I have had to rethink my original ideas for my project due to restrictions within the area I work. So I have had another ‘head scratching’ session and picked something else that will be more suitable and not create the same barriers.


For my project, I will focus on impact evaluation of an on-line module that we provide within a blended learning course. This module is often a first time experience with online learning for many of our students and as such, is quite often met with little enthusiasm. I made reference in my previous blog to a model used by Phillips (2005) which illustrates a development cycle into which various stages of evaluation fit, namely: Design, Production, Implementation and Maintenance. I wish to look at the third phase of evaluation and identify whether students are able to apply what they are learning and in particular whether or not they are motivated to look at further study using the same methodology.


I feel that my previous thoughts regarding paradigm and models are still appropriate to my new project, namely Eclectic-Mixed Methods-Pragmatic Paradigm and utilising either Stake’s Responsive or Multiple Methods evaluation models. However, I have had to revisit the guidelines I will use as the previous ones posted, do not appear appropriate. I have therefore selected the following which I have adjusted to suit my ideas (as suggested by Bronwyn- thanks).


TD3 Does the e-learning encourage a realistic progression towards self direction? Does it recognise varied starting points in confidence and motivation?


SD5 Do students acquire the learning skills that promote staircasing to higher learning?
S08 Do students get guidance on study skills for the e-learning environment?


S010 Do students get an explanation of any differences to the e-learning modules compared to a more familiar approach?


I feel that all of the above guidelines follow a similar pattern and I will probably look at paring them down to perhaps two when I have formulated my plan a little further.

Week 5 & 6 Evaluation Methods

Although not clearly determined yet, my evaluation project will most likely focus on methodology within an existing structure and as such, I have been looking at articles that encompass summative evaluation with monitoring or integrative evaluation. I am not sure at this stage, that formative evaluation is relevant but am open-minded to methods under this category if further development could be considered practicable within my area.

I found the article by Rob Phillips – “We can’t evaluate e-learning if we don’t know what we mean by evaluating e-learning” raised several interesting points.

In particular, Phillips states that in order to study the effectiveness of e-learning products, a mixture of evaluation and research needs to be employed. This to me would concur with the multiple methods model associated with the eclectic mixed methods-pragmatic paradigm. In this article, Phillips illustrates a model derived from work by Alexander & Hedberg (1994) and Reeves and Hedberg (2002) and proposed by Bain (1999) which identifies the various stages of evaluation process from analysis and design evaluation (front-end analysis) to institutionalisation (monitoring or integrative evaluation). In order to gain meaningful evaluation results within an e-learning environment , it would appear that a variety of techniques need to be employed, depending on whether focus is on qualitative or quantitative data in order to meet the needs of the research. Phillips refers to three independent studies carried out to research students’ use of e-learning, each using one of the recognised educational paradigms: analytic-empirical-positivist-quantitative, constructivist-heremeneutic-interpretivist-qualative and critical theory-neomarxist-postmodern-praxis. The findings provided relevant insights, but each had weaknesses which Phillips suggests could have been addressed by the use of a mixed methods approach.

Whilst the Multiple Methods Evaluation Model would appear to be a good match, I also feel consideration should also be given to Stake’s Responsive Evaluation Method which recognises the need to provide more focus on evaluation processes and methods that promote continuous communication thus allowing questions to emerge during the evaluation process. I feel that both methods support an ‘open mind’ approach which would accommodate the constantly moving target that evaluation seems to be.

References:
Alexander, S., & Hedberg, J.G. (1994) Evaluating technology-based learning: which model? In K. Beattie & C. McNaught & S. Wills (Eds.) Multimedia in Higher Education: Designing for Change in Teaching and Learning. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bain J. (1999) Introduction to special issue on learning centred evaluation of innovation in higher education. Higher Education and Development, 18(2), 165-172
Phillips, R (2005) we can’t evaluate e-learning if we don’t know what we man by evaluating e-learning! Interact, 30, p 3-6. Learning Technology Support, University of Bristol
Reeves, T.C., & Hedberg J.G. (2002). Interactive Learning Systems Evaluation: Educational Technology Press.

Another article that I found to be appropriate to my research was the following:
Learning through online discussion: A case of triangulation in research by Michael Hammond and Mongkolchai Wiriyapinit

This article focuses on online discussion and its focus within e-learning and distance learning programmes. It identifies that a commitment to student-student and student-tutor interaction is an important feature and concurs with the constructivist approach to e-learning. The studies carried out focus on triangulation and the findings from each of the methods used were in respect of consistency (if there was a match between findings) and contrast (findings were contradictory). It was however, identified throughout the study that the interpretation of some of the surveys carried out did not adequately measure likely variables. Analysis of data therefore, would point to ensuring that evaluation methods are identified that adequately reflect the purpose of the research. Notwithstanding the strengths and weaknesses of the study, it:-

“Reinforced the case for triangulation and showed three major advantages.

• There were some perspectives which could only be accessed via one method e.g. students’ management of time, their engagement with reading and approaches to composing messages only emerged clearly during interviews.
• Findings from one method could be put in a wider perspective through comparison with those from other methods, e.g. students’ accounts of their online activity could be compared to the objective data concerning frequency of message postings.
• Consistency between findings gave a greater authority in reporting, e.g. the claim that students valued the module and adopted a task focused approach to group work is credible”.

If my area for evaluation and proposed project emanates around an existing e-learning structure, then I believe there would be a strong consideration for triangulation and bracketing approaches.

At this point, I think I need to ‘scratch my head’ and identify an evaluation project that will justify further research and help me identify a relative and appropriate structure.
Reference
Hammond, M. & Wiriyapinit, M. (2005). Learning through online discussion: A case of triangulation research. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 283-302.