|
§
Site facilitator/coordinator is easily accessible (F)
§
As-the-need-arises technical assistance to students &
facilitator is available & adequate
(F)
§
Site use is accessible to all types of learners (F)
§
Procedures are in place to guarantee the security of
student’s work (F)
§
Quality of site meets institution or WWW3 consortium standards
(F)
§
Student’s advisory of computer requirements solicited (F)
|
§
Availability of syllabus to all stake-holders (F)
§
Course goals are appropriately aligned (F & S)
§
All instructions are clear for using site, completing assignments (F)
§
Assignments make use of the unique capabilities of the
online community & promote principles of good practice (F)
§
Content is organized intuitively (F)
§
Content appropriately promotes use of principles of good practice – students learn what
was set to be achieved (F & S)
Content is comparable in depth to f2f – meets or surpasses
standards (F)
|
§
Methodology appropriate to style of learners (F)
§
Promotes principles of good practice – active learning, high
expectations communicated (F)
§
Methodology appropriate for online interaction (F)
§
Promotes authentic assessment of learners (F)
§
Promotes timely feedback (F)
§
Intervention plans – student performance, participation (F)
|
§
Is the course moving too slow or too fast? (F & S)
§
Which module moves too fast or too slow? (F & S)
§
Which assignments were not submitted in a timely manner by most learners? (F &S)
§
Are learners more interested at the beginning and less at the end? (F)
§
Evaluations are conducted in a timely manner – in line with philosophy – e.g. rapid prototype of
course reviewed by select panel of peers, learners, administrators – (F), once online – mid-module & end (F) At the end of 1
year - (S)
|
Feedback – obtained by a) Rapid prototyping with formative evaluation done by the Distance Education committee This will help to a) judge effectiveness prior to development b)validate the course & c) build community interest. Once the course begins feedback will be solicited by anonymous submissions from learners– allowing participants to post anonymously would help to assure them that their remarks won’t impact how they are viewed by the users of the information. Full participation will be motivated by awarding points to learners for survey submission (under the heading Professional points which will contribute towards their grades) Evaluation will also make use of learner’s tests, quizzes, papers, peer evaluation in group projects, various assessment activities such as muddiest point papers and the sort of instruments— largely CATs. Summative evaluations from other faculty members are strongly encouraged as this is a prerequisite for their students before enrolling in other online courses specific to their content areas. Types of questions for summative evaluation to faculty and administration? 1. Does this course meet the need to inform students of the online learning experience? 2. Do you require students to complete the course before enrolling in online courses in your department/division? 3. Are students who have completed the course able to work more efficiently in subsequent online courses? We could gather this info via a survey (an email to all faculty teaching online courses that would include a link to a web page containing the survey). The results could be submitted and then tabulated using Excel or Access if we used a scale (1 - very effective, 2 - somewhat effective, etc).
Why should this evaluation provide you with the information you will need to do a complete evaluation to "update" and "tweak" the course?
Leaning outcomes and the use of a rapid
prototype & CATs provide the sort of
feedback which allows the facilitator to
tweak the direction of the course in a timely manner in line with
the stated philosophy & rationale.
|