week 3 Summary: eLearning guidelines

Image: Soccer Practice by mill56

Isn't it great to see all the soccer players out on the playing fields at this time of year. This summary will be an overview of the main activity around the eLearning guidelines. People who did not feature in the previous summary will now get a mention. Again I am in danger of getting carried away as there are so many very interesting blog posts on this topic. It is also good to see that several of you are communicating with each other on your blogs and giving feedback. Impressive! :) The recording for the last class meeting is also available. We had a good discussion about quality and also evaluation projects, in particular, needs analysis.

As you can see from Deborah R-W's blog she has been attending an evaluation seminar for academic quality managers. It sounds fascinating. Deb you got me curious and now I can't stop! :) I did a Google search for Jane Davidson and her book: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY BASICS The Nuts and Bolts of Sound Evaluation - came up. I really like the idea of values-based evaluation which is Jane's approach. Watch for more on this in posts later on...

Elaine has been doing some serious catching up before disappearing for a short while. In her week 2 post she mentions some different methods she has used to collect data in the past when evaluating. There is further consolidation of the theme around quality, and the impact it has on student retention. This has been mentioned by several of you and clearly is a concern for all of us in the online teaching field. The week 3 post has two very relevant guidelines for the courses which Elaine is looking at re-organising in tourism, hence the need for some evaluation. I really like the ideas she has for redesigning the courses to include some authentic project work. See what you think and do give her some well deserved feedback.

Craig in has been doing some serious exploring and writing about eLearning Guidelines which are suitable for his project. In the My Guidelines post Craig has shown us how he worked through several options to find two guidelines which were most suitable. The guidelines will enable him to "monitor the quality of study material", and evaluate a "communities of practice approach to course development". This is a great example of the use of critical analysis (thinking and reasoning and evaluative judgement to solve a problem) is demonstrated in a blog post.

Craig has also posted a slideshare presentation about the Quality Matters rubric used to evaluate distance education. There are forty specific elements you can look at for some ideas. Be careful you read the copyright statement on the website before using the material as is, as unlike the eLearning Guidelines, the material is not freely available for use. Though they cannot control the ideas you might obtain from it. :) You might like to compare the Quality Matters rubric to the Wright and MacEwan criteria which Adrienne told us about in week one.

Pradeep has also been busy posting and in his first post on quality for week 2 sums it all up with the words: "..evaluation is the tool to checking quality." He also makes the point that assessments help to evaluate whether curriculum design is adequate. We do get excited when students pass at a high level and despondent when there is a high fail rate, and this certainly stimulates teachers to look at how their material is presented and to try different strategies to improve outcomes doesn't it?

In his week 3 post on guidelines, Pradeep has selected two examples and I have suggested he add the word, How, to one of them so that he has more scope for his evaluation project. SD3 - [How] do students gain knowledge relevant to employment and/or current thinking in their field? You might like to bear this in mind for the guidelines you choose.

Catherine in her week 2 post has provided a good explanation about why evaluation is important to her, and mentions how complacency can easily creep into teaching and course design and leading to a loss of quality if evaluation is missed out. She mentions self-evaluation and peer discussion as areas of evaluation with which she is familiar, and makes a very good point about "critics sitting on the fence" ready to pass judgement, and in her statement also hits the mark: "No one will pass the comment.. "well what do you expect..it was delivered face-to-face!"

Her post illustrates very well how powerful a robust evaluation can be to assure the critics that all is well and that if it is not, the strengths can be built on and the weaknesses improved.

Debra M has written an excellent overview of her plans for evaluation and has critiqued some guidelines and her own "big picture" questions for her proposed evaluation. Several people have been leaving comments on her blog post and giving her feedback and encouragement. See what you think about Debra's ideas for making the pilot run of the new course interactive and for evaluating its success.

Kay has also been busy posting - week 3 and has chose two guidelines from the teaching area to address a lack of internal quality control procedures. Certainly a checklist for design and delivery is a helpful resource to have in eLearning. I wonder what others use? Adrienne has mentioned a resource she uses. Kay also posted her ideas around quality in her week 2 post and shows us how to connect the dots with others' posts. She mentions "specific indicators for measuring quality such as: assessment of student learning, feedback from students, peers and external reviewers and institutional accreditation procedures.

In contrast, Adrienne in her post has chosen guidelines from the student area with respect to choice, interaction and technologies. It is good to see you are back on board with a working computer.

A few people have found the cube of eLearning Guidelines a tad annoying to use. You can read their comments on Hervé's latest post. Hervé like Debra M and Craig has laid out some issues for his teaching examples and linked them to some guidelines.

Minhaaj on the other hand liked the cube and has put up a very thought-provoking post about diversity and online facilitation. He says, " [if] students are not clear about the expectations, processes, resources and outcomes of the course they are taking. From facilitator to students, it can be anyone's fault but in anycase it deprives the course of its spirit." It is so exciting to have so many of you participating who experienced the Facilitating Online Communities course. I have found that people are never the same once they have taken that course - we see such a change in the way they tackle the online environment. Challenge is a good thing, but supported challenge is essential otherwise the insecure learner will disappear into the cyber mire.

Krishan also liked the ELG cube for the guidelines. Krishan, similar to a few of you, has found a focus on student learning around motivation and technology issues to be important with his choice of the following guidelines -TD2:Do students get clearly defined learning objectives that assist them in focussing on their learning activities? - and TD5: Have a representative sample of students tested the e-learning materials, and any necessary modifications been made?

Iain in his week 3 post appears to be one of several people who are either designing new course material, or running courses which are currently face-to-face and thinking about how they might be presented online. If you fall into this category and will not have any online materials ready in time to evaluate them for this project, you might like it think about doing a needs analysis (front end analysis, needs assessment) evaluation which will help you to choose an optimal design for the subject and for your students. As part of the needs analysis you can look at the resources which are already available online, as well as working with stakeholders, e.g. students and lecturers, to find appropriate strategies for presenting content.

Rachel has done a good critique of her choice of guidelines. TD1 - Is the use of e-learning appropriate to the intended learning outcomes? This is particularly relevant as she is still considering using eLearning approaches for her teaching. Rachel is another candidate for a needs analysis approach. You might to let her know what you think.

Sam has posted a very interesting dilemma associated with the design of materials to provide practitioners with flexible and easy access to education about a new technique for assessing pressure areas on the skin. She has chosen two very appropriate and unique guidelines for evaluating delivery modes and use of technologies. See what you think.

Heather in her week two thoughts has mentioned the need for interaction online to ensure quality. I tend to agree, and although, some people advocate for regular interaction and feedback, others such as Terry Anderson (Athabasca) have written about the debate.

He says: "Contrary to popular belief, the major motivation for enrollment in distance education is not physical access, but rather, temporal freedom to move through a course of studies at a pace of the student's choice. Participation in a community of learners almost inevitably places constraints on this independence, even when the pressure of synchronous connection is eliminated by use of asynchronous communications tools." See Chapter 2, Toward a Theory of Online Learning - From: Anderson, T. (2004). Theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University. Second edition (2008) also available.

Michelle in her week 3 post has stimulated some excellent discussion relevant to the whole area of designing learning for adult learners. The idea of evaluating whether to introduce an online Training Needs Analysis into an Induction package will fit with her proposed direction of conducting a needs analysis. Check out the info about the OTARA design model
mentioned by Michelle in the comments area.

So in conclusion, there are several people who have made decisions about their eLearning Guidelines and some who are still firming up their ideas. Some of you have also made some tentative decisions about the type of evaluation you will conduct, e.g. needs analysis, formative evaluation. Once you move through and decide on the evaluation paradigm and method you want to work under, and when you start writing your evaluation plan in weeks 7, 8 & 9, you may want to revisit the guidelines you have chosen to make sure they still fit. It is very heartening to see so many of you keeping up with the schedule, but do remember it is only a guide so if you feel as if you are falling behind the group, it is not a disaster. You have two weeks to explore the next topic: Weeks five and six: Evaluation methods, and there is two weeks holiday break from 6 to 17 April.