- Understanding of evaluation (theoretical and practical) in an individual and professional context – Personally I think that evaluation is a driver in my life as I do constantly think about making things better than they are. This normally means changing completely how I do things at present to have a better outcome or revising how I do things to make the process much easier and more efficient for myself and my family. Professionally I duly note the evaluation from my students and peers and consider how to improve my teaching and my interaction with my colleagues to have better outcomes. To me Reeves and Hedberg’s (2003) discussion of the evaluation functions within the development process stand out as I can relate to it having designed and developed the iLessonPlan (iLP). I wish I had included this aspect when I had designed the iLP. This is something that I’ll certainly consider when designing new programmes and courses and elearning tools in future. The Mixed Methods Evaluation model whereby both quantitative and qualitative data are used to provide rich data are extremely useful to make well informed decisions pertaining to the outcomes of formative and summative evaluation as well as needs analysis. This too is something I’ll certainly consider for future purposes.
- Evidence of learning and reflections about evaluation – including eLearning guidelines and quality in a relevant context – elearning principles such as ‘Learner centred’ , ‘Good practice’, ‘Collaboration’, ‘Innovation’ and ‘Sustainability’ (E-Learning Guidelines, 2008; 7) provide useful guidelines in relation to evaluating the quality of elearning teaching and resources. In our evaluation report we identified under ‘Learner centred’ the usability of the iLessonPlan as a key point to investigate. Also under ‘Good practice’ we explored whether using the iLP enabled trainees to understand the key components and the structure and flow of the lesson better. These two elements were selected as they evaluated the iLP in relation to what it was designed to do. As the iLP is a prototype lesson planning took it was essential to evaluate these elements as the findings will be used to inform decisions pertaining to further development of the tool as next year a website will be created to host it with all its functions and functionalities.
- Reflection on the phases involved in the group evaluation project – Doing the evaluation plan enabled me to set my thoughts and ideas in concrete about how to go about the process even though I thought I had a pretty good idea of how to proceed. Also seeing it on paper enabled me to revise various parts of the plan so that was good. Data collection was a process where more time should have been allocated as there were several problems which cropped up (as reported in my earlier blogs) and sorting it chewed up time. Also in future I must make sure that I am more familiar using a tool for e.g. Google docs before using it for a project. The reason being that familiarising myself with the tool as well as using it at the same time also chewed up more time. The same goes for using Excel as my knowledge in that was more basic than was required for the project. The analysis to me was time consuming as I took some time to get my head around the data but once I had done that I was able to proceed. I was more comfortable reporting the results using tables but charts and graphs were suggested to be visually more appealing. This brought home the point that I needed to make the report reader friendly. Interpreting the results I thought was pretty straight forward but in future I will ensure that I know how to use the tools more effectively. I fully appreciated the feedback on the assessment drafts from my colleagues and Bronwyn. After discussion with Tom and Mark, suggestions deemed relevant and necessary were included. The process involved in completing the evaluation report is not linear but cyclical and at the end it was both at the same time. In future after completing any report, I’ll give it some time to breathe as it were and then complete the final proof reading.
- Personal contributions to the group process and working in a group – I have blogged about this in great detail in my other blogs and in summary I felt the need to lead and direct the team as I had designed the iLP which was being evaluated. Both Tom and Mark were excellent team members and we worked well together in pooling together our knowledge, experience and expertise in completing the assessments. I have learnt it is essential to respect each other’s views, and work constructively towards positive outcomes.
- Individual reflective learning about the process of evaluation – Evaluation is something as I said I do constantly in my quest to improve my knowledge, experience and expertise. I do focus consciously on doing things better be it my teaching, working with my colleagues or working on. assignments and projects. I also know I make mistakes and to me the important thing is what I learn from them, move on and learn how to do things differently in the future to have more positive and beneficial outcomes and outputs.
- Critique of the process used in one other group project and feedback provided at each stage – I gave feedback to the following groups:
- Assessment 1 – Fred; Sandra H and Rosanne – I gave detailed feedback to both as seen in the Discussion Board.
- Assessment 2 – Sandra H and Rosanne’s Assignment Version 2 – I also gave detailed feedback as posted on the Discussion Board.
- Assessment 3 – I wanted to give detailed feedback to Sandra W and Pam but it had already been given by two classmates. So I gave the feedback as attached Feedback to Sandra W n Pam’s Assessment 3. It is also posted on the Discussion Board.
E-Learning Guidelines. (2008). Retrieved 20 December, 2011, from http://elg.massey.ac.nz/Guidelines-questions.pdf
Reeves, T. C. & Hedberg, J. G. (2003). Interactive Learning Systems Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications.