1 / 16

Institute for Learning and Research Technology

Institute for Learning and Research Technology. Dr. Grainne Conole. An integrated approach to evaluating learning technologies. Grainne Conole, Ed Crewe - University of Bristol Martin Oliver - University College London Jen Harvey - Dublin Institute of Technology. Background.

matty
Télécharger la présentation

Institute for Learning and Research Technology

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Institute for Learning and Research Technology Dr. Grainne Conole

  2. An integrated approach to evaluating learning technologies Grainne Conole, Ed Crewe - University of Bristol Martin Oliver - University College London Jen Harvey - Dublin Institute of Technology

  3. Background • Evaluation Assistant is • an online toolkit to help practitioners carry out evaluations • a six-month project funded by the UK JISC Committee for Awareness, Liaison and Training (JCALT) • a collaboration between • Bristol University, • University College London • the Dublin Institute of Technology

  4. Toolkits - a definition • Toolkits lie between • Frameworks • provide theoretical overview or point of reference • less restrictive than toolkits, also less supportive • Wizard • easy to use software ‘black boxes’ • software tools which can make decisions • draws on pre-defined templates • easier to use than a toolkit, but more restrictive

  5. Underlying assumptions • Designed to • be easy-to-use for practitioners and produce demonstrable benefit • provide guidance, but not be prescriptive • be adaptable and easy to customise to the local context • establish a comprehensive resource of relevant material

  6. Outline • Provides a structured resource that • that can be used to plan, scope and co-ordinate an effective evaluation • provides progressively more detailed information on particular topics and links to appropriate resources • allows the user can follow up relevant issues • reduces the time taken to plan an evaluation • can be used iteratively over time

  7. Toolkit architecture • The toolkit consists of three components • Evaluation Planner • helps define and scope the evaluation • Evaluation Advisor • guides the user through the process • Evaluation Presenter • provides support for presenting the results

  8. Evaluation planner • Consists of seven stages • About planner • What are you evaluating? • Reasons • Context • Who is it for • Devising the question • Summary

  9. Who’s the evaluation for? • This stakeholder analysis: • defines the stakeholders for the evaluation • ie anyone who may have a stake in the evaluation • looks at the different types of stakeholders • and their associated concerns and issues • maps the stakeholders to the evaluation process

  10. Formulating the question(s) • Aligned to stakeholders analysis • Question(s) refined to: • explore stakeholder concerns • provide comparison • yield measurement • challenge or expose stakeholder’s perspective

  11. Evaluation advisor • Consists of four stages • About advisor • Data capture methods • Data analysis • Summary

  12. Filtering of choices • At each stage of advisor • users are asked a series of questions • these help formulate the evaluation • this is linked to a filtering process • leading to a defined choice of data capture methods and data analysis

  13. Evaluation presenter • Consists of four stages • About presenter • Closing the loop • Presentation tools

  14. Presenting the findings • The final step • closes the loop by relating findings back to the stakeholders • Options for presenting findings include: • Data sets or spreadsheet of costings • Executive summary of activity • Narrative account of the evaluation • Oral presentation or poster of findings • Research reports

  15. Further information • Web site: http://www.ltss.bris.ac.uk/JCALT/ • Email: g.conole@bristol.ac.uk • Project team • University of Bristol • Grainne Conole, Ed Crewe, Martin Belcher • University College London • Martin Oliver • Dublin Institute of Technology • Jen Harvey

  16. Relevant references • Conole, G. & Oliver, M. (1998), A pedagogical framework for embedding C and IT into the curriculum. ALT-J, 6 (2), 4-16 • Oliver, M. & Conole, G. (1998), Evaluating Communication and Information Technologies: a toolkit for practitioners. Active Learning, 8, 3-8 • Conole, G., Oliver, M. & Harvey, J. (2000), ‘Scoping study’, a report for the ‘Evaluation Toolkit for practitioners JISC JCALT project, University of Bristol • Oliver, M. & Conole, G., (2000), Assessing and enhancing quality using toolkits. Journal of Quality Assurance in Education, 8, 1, 32-37 • Conole, G., Oliver, M. & Harvey, J. (2000), ‘Toolkits for practitioners’, ALT-C 2000, Manchester • Conole, G., Oliver, M. & Harvey, J. (2000), ‘Toolkits as an approach to evaluating and using learning materials’, ASCILITE 2000, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales • Conole, G., Oliver, M. & Harvey, J. (2000), ‘An integrated approach to evaluating learning technologies’, IWALT 2000, Palmerston North, New Zealand

More Related