Transcript Part II: Online Learning: Opportunities for Assessment and Evaluation Dr. Curtis J. Bonk Indiana University and CourseShare.com http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk [email protected].

Part II: Online Learning:
Opportunities for
Assessment and Evaluation
Dr. Curtis J. Bonk
Indiana University and CourseShare.com
http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk
[email protected]
Online Student
Assessment
Assessment Takes Center
Stage in Online Learning
(Dan Carnevale, April 13, 2001, Chronicle of Higher Education)
“One difference between assessment
in classrooms and in distance
education is that distanceeducation programs are largely
geared toward students who are
already in the workforce, which
often involves learning by doing.”
Focus of Assessment?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Basic Knowledge, Concepts,
Ideas
Higher-Order Thinking Skills,
Problem Solving,
Communication, Teamwork
Both of Above!!!
Other…
Assessments Possible





Online Portfolios of Work
Discussion/Forum Participation
Online Mentoring
Weekly Reflections
Tasks Attempted or Completed,
Usage, etc.
More Possible Assessments





Quizzes and Tests
Peer Feedback and Responsiveness
Cases and Problems
Group Work
Web Resource Explorations &
Evaluations
Sample Portfolio Scoring Dimensions
(10 pts each)
(see: http://php.indiana.edu/~cjbonk/p250syla.htm)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Richness
Coherence
Elaboration
Relevancy
Timeliness
Completeness
Persuasiveness
Originality
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Insightful
Clear/Logical
Original
Learning
Fdback/Responsive
Format
Thorough
Reflective
Overall Holistic
E-Peer Evaluation Form
Peer Evaluation. Name:
____________________
Rate on Scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high):
___ 1. Insight: creative, offers
analogies/examples, relationships
drawn, useful ideas and connections,
fosters growth.
___ 2. Helpful/Positive: prompt
feedback, encouraging, informative,
makes suggestions & advice, finds,
shares info.
___ 3. Valuable Team Member:
dependable, links group members, there
E-Case Analysis Evaluation
Peer Feedback Criteria
(1 pt per item; 5 pts/peer feedback)
(a) Provides additional points that may have
been missed.
(b) Corrects a concept, asks for clarification
where needed, debates issues, disagrees &
explains why.
(c) Ties concepts to another situation or refers
to the text or coursepack.
(d) Offer valuable insight based on personal
experience.
(e) Overall constructive feedback.
Issues to Consider…
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Bonus pts for participation?
Peer evaluation of work?
Assess improvement?
Is it timed? Give unlimited time to
complete?
Allow retakes if lose connection?
How many retakes?
Issues to Consider…
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Cheating? Is it really that student?
Authenticity?
Negotiating tasks and criteria?
How measure competency?
How do you demonstrate learning
online?
Increasing Cheating Online
($7-$30/page, http://www.syllabus.com/ January, 2002,
Phillip Long, Plagiarism: IT-Enabled Tools for Deceit?)

http://www.academictermpapers.com/
http://www.termpapers-on-file.com/
http://www.nocheaters.com/

http://www.cheathouse.com/uk/index.html




http://www.realpapers.com/
http://www.pinkmonkey.com/
(“you’ll never buy Cliffnotes again”)
Reducing Cheating Online






Ask yourself, why are they cheating?
Do they value the assignment?
Are tasks relevant and challenging?
What happens to the task after
submitted—reused, woven in, posted?
Due at end of term? Real audience?
Look at pedagogy b4 calling plagiarism
police!
Reducing Cheating Online








Proctored exams
Vary items in exam
Make course too hard to cheat
Try Plagiarism.com ($300)
Use mastery learning for some tasks
Random selection of items for item pool
Use test passwords, rely on IP#
screening
Assign collaborative tasks
Reducing Cheating Online
($7-$30/page, http://www.syllabus.com/ January, 2002,
Phillip Long, Plagiarism: IT-Enabled Tools for Deceit?)






http://www.plagiarism.org/ (resource)
http://www.turnitin.com/ (software, $100,
free 30 day demo/trial)
http://www.canexus.com/ (software; essay
verification engine, $19.95)
http://www.plagiserve.com/ (free database
of 70,000 student term papers & cliff notes)
http://www.academicintegrity.org/ (assoc.)
http://sja.ucdavis.edu/avoid.htm (guide)
Turnitin Testimonials
"Many of my students believe that if they do not
submit their essays, I will not discover their
plagiarism. I will often type a paragraph or two
of their work in myself if I suspect plagiarism.
Every time, there was a "hit." Many students
were successful plagiarists in high school. A
service like this is needed to teach them that such
practices are no longer acceptable and certainly
not ethical!”
New Zealand Universities Consider
Lawsuit Against Sites Selling Diplomas in
Their Names.


The Web sites, which already offer fake
diplomas in the names of hundreds of
colleges in the United States and
abroad, recently added New Zealand’s
Universities of Auckland, Canterbury,
and Otago to their lineup. The degrees
sell for up to $250 each.
Feb 11, 2002, David Cohen, Chronicle of Higher Education
Online Testing
Tools
Choice: Select companies that
specialize in online assessment.
Or: Use what the courseware
package gives ya…
Test Selection Criteria
(Hezel, 1999)







Easy to Configure Items and Test
Handle Symbols
Scheduling of Feedback (immediate?)
Provides Clear Input of Exam Dates
Easy to Pick Items for Randomizing
Randomize Answers Within a Question
Weighting of Answer Options
More Test Selection Criteria





Recording of Multiple Submissions
Timed Tests
Comprehensive Statistics
Summarize in Portfolio and/or
Gradebook
Confirmation of Test Submission
More Test Selection Criteria
(Perry & Colon, 2001)





Supports multiple items types—multiple
choice, true-false, essay, keyword
Can easily modify or delete items
Incorporate graphic or audio elements?
Control over number of times students
can submit an activity or test
Provides feedback for each response
More Test Selection Criteria
(Perry & Colon, 2001)




Flexible scoring—score first, last, or
average submission
Flexible reporting—by individual or by
item and cross tabulations.
Outputs data for further analysis
Provides item analysis statistics (e.g.,
Test Item Frequency Distributions).
Web Resource: http://www.indiana.edu/~best/
Online Survey
Tools for
Assessment
Sample Survey Tools



Zoomerang
(http://www.zoomerang.com)
IOTA Solutions
(http://www.iotasolutions.com)
QuestionMark

(http://www.questionmark.com/home.html)
SurveyShare (http://SurveyShare.com; from
Courseshare.com)
Survey Solutions from Perseus

Infopoll (http://www.infopoll.com)

(http://www.perseusdevelopment.com/fromsurv.htm)
Web-Based Survey
Advantages






Faster collection of data
Standardized collection format
Computer graphics may reduce
fatigue
Computer controlled branching
and skip sections
Easy to answer clicking
Wider distribution of respondents
Web-Based Survey
Problems: Why Lower
Response Rates?






Low response rate
Lack of time
Unclear instructions
Too lengthy
Too many steps
Can’t find URL
Survey Tool Features







Support different types of items
(Likert, multiple
choice, forced ranking, paired comparisons, etc.)
Maintain email lists and email invitations
Conduct polls
Adaptive branching and cross tabulations
Modifiable templates & library of past surveys
Publish reports
Different types of accounts—hosted,
corporate, professional, etc.
Web-Based Survey
Solutions: Some Tips…








Send second request
Make URL link prominent
Offer incentives near top of request
Shorten survey, make attractive, easy
to read
Credible sponsorship—e.g., university
Disclose purpose, use, and privacy
E-mail cover letters
Prenotify of intent to survey
Tips on Authentification




Check e-mail access against list
Use password access
Provide keycode, PIN, or ID #
(Futuristic Other: Palm Print,
fingerprint, voice recognition, iris
scanning, facial scanning,
handwriting recognition, picture
ID)
Evaluation…
Champagne & Wisher (in press)
“Simply put, an evaluation is
concerned with judging the worth
of a program and is essentially
conducted to aid in the making of
decisions by stakeholders.” (e.g.,
does it work as effectively as the
standard instructional approach).
Evaluation Purposes



Cost Savings
Improved Efficiency/Effectiveness
Learner Performance/Competency
Improvement/Progress


What did they learn?
Assessing learning impact


How well do learners use what they learned?
How much do learners use what they learn?
Kirkpatrick’s
Reaction
 Learning
 Behavior
 Results
4 Levels

Percent of Respondents
Figure 26. How Respondent Organizations Measure
Success of Web-Based Learning According to the
Kirkpatrick Model
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Learner satisfaction
Change in
knowledge, skill,
atttitude
Job performance
Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Level
ROI
My Evaluation Plan…
Considerations in Evaluation Plan
8. University
or
Organization
7. Program
6. Course
5. Tech Tool
1. Student
2. Instructor
3. Training
4. Task
What to Evaluate?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Student—attitudes, learning, jobs.
Instructor—popularity, course enrollments.
Training—internal and external.
Task--relevance, interactivity, collaborative.
Tool--usable, learner-centered, friendly, supportive.
Course—interactivity, completion rates.
Program—growth, long-range plans.
University—cost-benefit, policies, vision.
1. Measures of Student Success
(Focus groups, interviews, observations,
surveys, exams, records)






Positive Feedback, Recommendations
Increased Comprehension,
Achievement
High Retention in Program
Completion Rates or Course Attrition
Jobs Obtained, Internships
Enrollment Trends for Next Semester
1. Student Basic Quantitative





Grades, Achievement
Number of Posts
Participated
Computer Log Activity—peak usage,
messages/day, time of task or in system
Attitude Surveys
1. Student High-End Success






Message complexity, depth, interactivity, q’ing
Collaboration skills
Problem finding/solving and critical thinking
Challenging and debating others
Case-based reasoning, critical thinking
measures
Portfolios, performances, PBL activities
2. Instructor Success





High student evals; more signing up
High student completion rates
Utilize Web to share teaching
Course recognized in tenure decisions
Varies online feedback and assistance
techniques
3. Training
Outside Support






Training (FacultyTraining.net)
Courses & Certificates (JIU, e-education)
Reports, Newsletters, & Pubs
Aggregators of Info (CourseShare, Merlot)
Global Forums (FacultyOnline.com; GEN)
Resources, Guides/Tips, Link
Collections, Online Journals, Library
Resources
Certified Online Instructor Program


Walden Institute—12 Week
Online Certification (Cost =
$995)
2 tracks: one for higher ed
and one for online corporate
trainer





Online tools and purpose
Instructional design theory &
techniques
Distance ed evaluation
Quality assurance
Collab learning communities
http://www.utexas.edu/world/lecture/
3. Training
Inside Support…







Instructional Consulting
Mentoring (strategic planning $)
Small Pots of Funding
Facilities
Summer and Year Round Workshops
Office of Distributed Learning
Colloquiums, Tech Showcases, Guest
Speakers

Newsletters, guides, active learning grants, annual
reports, faculty development, brown bags
Technology and Professional Dev: Ten
Tips to Make it Better (Rogers, 2000)
1. Offer training
2. Give technology to take home
3. Provide on-site technical support
4. Encourage collegial collaboration
5. Send to prof development conference
6. Stretch the day
7. Encourage research
8. Provide online resources
9. Lunch bytes, faculty institutes
10. Celebrate success
RIDIC5-ULO3US Model of
Technology Use
4. Tasks (RIDIC):





Relevance
Individualization
Depth of Discussion
Interactivity
Collaboration-Control-ChoiceConstructivistic-Community
RIDIC5-ULO3US Model of
Technology Use
5. Tech Tools (ULOUS):
Utility/Usable
 Learner-Centeredness
 Opportunities with Outsiders
Online
 Ultra Friendly
 Supportive

6. Course Success






Few technological glitches/bugs
Adequate online support
Increasing enrollment trends
Course quality (interactivity rating)
Monies paid
Accepted by other programs
7. Online Program or Course Budget
(i.e., how pay, how large is course, tech fees charged, # of courses,
tuition rate, etc.)

Indirect Costs: learner disk space,
phone, accreditation, integration with existing
technology, library resources, on site orientation &
tech training, faculty training, office space

Direct Costs: courseware, instructor, help
desk, books, seat time, bandwidth and data
communications, server, server back-up, course
developers, postage
7. Program:
Online Content Considerations





Self-Paced or Live mentors?
Interactive or content dumping?
Individual or Collaborative?
Lecture or problem-based learning?
Factual or performance
assessment?
8. Institutional Success

E-Enrollments from






new students, alumni, existing students
Additional grants
Press, publication, partners,
attention
Cost-Benefit model
Faculty attitudes
Acceptable policies
8. Increase Accessibility






Make Web material ADA compliant (Bobby)
Embed interactivity in lessons
Determine student learning preferences
Conduct usability testing
Consider slowest speed systems
Orientations, training, support materials

e.g., CD-ROM
Final advice…whatever you do…