Session%20P16%20Evaluating%20Online%20Learning:%20Frameworks%20and%20Perspectives%20(Workshop:%20Sunday%20Feb%2017th,%20Training%202002) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Session%20P16%20Evaluating%20Online%20Learning:%20Frameworks%20and%20Perspectives%20(Workshop:%20Sunday%20Feb%2017th,%20Training%202002)

Description:

Training Magazine Special Issue, September 2000, 37(9), The State of Online Learning ... related to e-learning training and support. ... Timeliness of training ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:187
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 213
Provided by: Vanessa144
Learn more at: http://www.trainingshare.com
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Session%20P16%20Evaluating%20Online%20Learning:%20Frameworks%20and%20Perspectives%20(Workshop:%20Sunday%20Feb%2017th,%20Training%202002)


1
Session P16 Evaluating Online Learning
Frameworks and Perspectives(Workshop Sunday Feb
17th, Training 2002)
  • Dr. Curtis J. Bonk
  • President, CourseShare.com
  • Associate Professor, Indiana University
  • http//php.indiana.edu/cjbonk,
    cjbonk_at_indiana.edu
  • Dr. Vanessa Paz Dennen
  • Assistant Professor, San Diego State University
  • vdennen_at_mail.sdsu.edu
  • http//edweb.sdsu.edu/people/vdennen

2
Workshop Overview
  • Part I The State of Online Learning
  • Part II. Evaluation Purposes, Approaches, and
    Frameworks
  • Part III. Applying Kirkpatricks 4 Levels
  • Part IV. ROI and Online Learning
  • Part V. Collecting Evaluation Data Online
    Evaluation Tools
  • (Time 830-1130 1230-330)

3
Part I. The State of Online Learning
  • Survey of Corporate Settings
  • Whats Going On?
  • And How Are We Evaluating It?

4
Free Corporate Reports
  1. Corporate E-Learning Exploring a New Frontier,
    Hambrecht and Co. (2000, March)
    http//www.wrhambrecht.com/research/coverage/elear
    ning/ir/ir_explore.pdf (95 pages)
  2. Training Magazine Special Issue, September 2000,
    37(9), The State of Online Learning
  3. Fortune Special Issue, 142(13), Nov. 27, 2000,
    Special Insert E-learning strategies for
    executive education and corporate training.
    http//www.fortuneelearning.com/topics/

5
Survey of 201 Trainers, Instructors, Managers,
Instructional Designers, CEOs, CLOs, etc.
6
Among the Key Goals
  1. To identify the resources, tools, and activities
    desired in e-learning.
  2. To document gaps between tools and resources
    deemed useful and actual use.
  3. To survey commitment to e-learning.
  4. To document practices related to e-learning
    training and support.
  5. To document pedagogical practices and
    motivational techniques supported in e-learning.

7
Survey Limitations
  • Sample poole-PostDirect
  • The Web is changing rapidly
  • Lengthy survey, low response rate
  • No password or keycode
  • Many backgroundshard to generalize
  • Does not address all issues (e.g., ROI
    calculations, how trained supported, specific
    assessments)

8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
Primary Job Function
  • 84 Training (e.g., trainers, training
    managers, training directors, or training
    evaluators)
  • 30 Instructors or Trainers
  • 27 Training Managers
  • 20 Training Evaluators
  • 14 Training Directors
  • 45 Instructional Designers Program Devel.
  • 5 Human Resources 5 Performance Managers
    and 4 CLOs

13
Categorized Job Titles
  • 26 Trainers, Educators, or Instructors
  • 20 Managers (e.g., Training, IT Programs,
    Instructional Designers, or Quality Assurance)
  • 19 Directors (Director of Corp Education,
    E-Learning, Professional Development, etc.)
  • 13 Instructional Designers or Technologists
  • 13 High Ranking Administrators (CEO, President,
    CLO, CTO)
  • 9 Consultants

14
Professional Reading Interests
  • 80 read magazines or journals related to
    e-learning.
  • Nearly 100 read training related publications

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
Why Interested in E-Learning?
  • Mainly cost savings
  • Reduced travel time
  • Greater flexibility in delivery
  • Timeliness of training
  • Better allocation of resources, speed of
    delivery, convenience, course customization,
    lifelong learning options, personal growth,
    greater distrib of materials

20
Why Interested in E-Learning?
  • Exploit the technology to deliver our
    intellectual capital.
  • Reduce time to learn, reduce time to
    productivity.
  • Cost reduction (write once, publish on different
    platforms).
  • Invest less in expensive trips to train for 3
    days without apparent results.

21
(No Transcript)
22
Blended Approach Is Most Common Ganzel, May
2001, Online learning Magazine
23
Corporate Web Integration Continuum
  • Level 1 Blended courseself-paced
  • Level 2 Entire course online--self-paced
  • Level 3 Tutored or mentored course
  • Level 4 Blended courseinstructor led
  • Level 5 Entire course online-synchronous
  • Level 6 Entire course online-asynchronous
  • Level 7 Entire course online-sync and
    asynchronous
  • Level 8 Certificate program online
  • Level 9 Degree online
  • Level 10 Corporate university online

24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
Current Courseware SystemNegatives
  • Slow development time.
  • Not interactive.
  • Low interactivity, boring.
  • lack of bookmarking, tracking, evaluation,
    etc.
  • Dont support the instructional design
    processare course management systems.
  • XYZ,, presents obstacles in moving course
    content from one server to another.

27
Current Courseware System Negative and Positive
  • does provide a number of excellent features,
    yet development time is very clumsyit is not
    very intuitive.
  • XYZ is powerful and intuitive. It is not always
    reliable.
  • Fairly reliable, but not always. At times have
    had to stop training and go back to the beginning
    to start again as it seizes up.
  • From a cost posture, they are, quite simply,
    unbeatable. Limitations Cant save whiteboard
    presentations developed in virtual classroom.

28
Current Courseware System Positives
  • It is comprehensive, scalable, and intuitive.
  • seems to be flexible.
  • XYZ is simple to use clean in design.
  • modify to suit individual course needs.
  • Its reasonably inexpensive, there is a
    Web-based template to design customized
    courseseasily added to existing courseware.

29
Delivery System
  • 17 developed own systems or tools
  • 15 did not know what system they were using
  • 30 used Internet application tools (e.g.,
    Designers Edge, Dreamweaver, Authorware)
  • 35 used presentation tools (e.g., Astound,
    WebEx)
  • Many used existing courseware systems and tools
    (e.g., WebBoard, Learning Space)

30
What Vendors Select Why?
  • Standardization vs. Innovation
  • Standard Tool Advantages
  • Training easier, jump started, common framework,
    fixed costs
  • Disadvantages
  • Tools do not fit all needs, need technical
    training, lose control

31
Web-Based Content
  • Capella
  • Click 2 Learn
  • Colleges/Universities
  • Digital Think
  • Docent, Inc.
  • Eduprise
  • Element K
  • eMind.com
  • eSocrates
  • ExecuTrain
  • Freeskills.com
  • Headlight.com
  • Jones International University
  • KnowledgeNet
  • Knowledge Planet
  • Mentergy--includes LearnLinc products
  • Microsoft Training and Service
  • Netg
  • Prime Learning
  • Saba
  • Smart Force
  • ThinQ (i.e., Trainingnet)
  • TrainSeek
  • Vcampus
  • Viviance New Education
  • Walden Univ./Institute

32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
Why Evaluate?
  • Cost-savings
  • Becoming less important reason to evaluate as
    more people recognize that the initial expense is
    balanced by long-term financial benefits
  • Performance improvement
  • A clear place to see impact of online learning
  • Competency advancement

35
Pause How are costs calculated in online
programs?
36
The Cost of E-learning
  • Brandon-hall.com estimates that an LMS system for
    8,000 learners costs 550,000
  • This price doesnt include the cost of buying or
    developing content
  • Bottom line getting started in e-learning isnt
    cheap

37
Evaluation Process
  • Can be likened to ADDIE instructional design
    model
  • ANALYSIS is needed to determine a purpose of the
    evaluation
  • A DESIGN is needed to guide the process
  • Instruments must be DEVELOPED
  • Without IMPLEMENTATION you have no data
  • In the end, the data are analyzed, and EVALUATED

38
A Few Assessment Comments
39
Level 1 Comments. Reactions
  • We assess our courses based on participation
    levels and online surveys after course
    completion. All of our courses are
    asynchronous.
  • I conduct a post course survey of course
    material, delivery methods and mode, and
    instructor effectiveness. I look for suggestions
    and modify each course based on the results of
    the survey.
  • We use the Halo Survey process of asking them
    when the course is concluding.

40
Level 2 Comments Learning
  • We use online testing and simulation frequently
    for testing student knowledge.
  • Do multiple choice exams after each section of
    the course.
  • We use online exams and use level 2 evaluation
    forms.

41
Level 3 Comment Job Performance
  • I feel strongly there is a need to measure the
    success of any training in terms of the
    implementation of the new behaviors on the job.
    Having said that, I find there is very limited by
    our clients in spending the dollars required

42
More Assessment CommentsMultiple Level Evaluation
  • Using Level One Evaluations for each session
    followed by a summary evaluation. Thirty days
    post-training, conversations occur with learners
    managers to assess Level 2 (actually Level 3).
  • We do Level 1 measurements to gauge student
    reactions to online training using an online
    evaluation form. We do Level 2 measurements to
    determine whether or not learning has occurred
  • Currently, we are using online teaching and
    following up with manager assessments that the
    instructional material is being put to use on the
    job.

43
Who is Evaluating Online Learning?
  • 59 of respondents said they did not have a
    formal evaluation program
  • At Reaction level 79
  • At Learning level 61
  • At Behavior/Job Performance level 47
  • At Results or Return on Investment 30

44
(No Transcript)
45
Assessment Lacking or Too Early
  • We are just beginning to use Web-based
    technology for education of both associates and
    customers, and do not have the metric to measure
    our success. However, we are putting together a
    focus group to determine what to measure (and)
    how.
  • We have no online evaluation for students at
    this time.
  • We lack useful tools in this area.

46
Limitations with Current System
  • I feel strongly there is a need to measure the
    success of any training in terms of the
    implementation of the new behaviors on the job.
    Having said that, I find there is very limited by
    our clients in spending the dollars required
  • We are looking for better ways to track learner
    progress, learner satisfaction, and retention of
    material.
  • Have had fairly poor ratings on reliability,
    customer support, and interactivity

47
PauseHow and What Do You Evaluate?
48
What else did the corporate training survey show?
49
(No Transcript)
50
(No Transcript)
51
(No Transcript)
52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
Sample Reasons for Obstacles
  • Skepticism on the benefits within the Healthcare
    environment.
  • Ignorance about the advantages of using the
    Internet to save money.
  • Generation gap and bias against anything not
    face to face.
  • Poor support from IT managers to support
    organizational goals.
  • Lack of foresight in the industry/no ability to
    see the big pic!

58
(No Transcript)
59
Just Why is Bandwidth So Darn Important???
60
(No Transcript)
61
Obstacles Technology Comments
  • Lack of hardware to efficiently use Web-based
    technology.
  • Systems infrastructure.
  • Huge diversity in hardware.
  • Reliable Web access of our training audiences.
  • Caught up in the tech not the instruction!

62
(No Transcript)
63
(No Transcript)
64
Obstacles Problems in Delivery Methods
  • Students needs hands on.
  • High rate of change in IT materialsnever
    mature.
  • Effectiveness of this method.
  • Some courses are better delivered in traditional
    classrooms.

65
(No Transcript)
66
(No Transcript)
67
(No Transcript)
68
(No Transcript)
69
(No Transcript)
70
(No Transcript)
71
(No Transcript)
72
(No Transcript)
73
(No Transcript)
74
(No Transcript)
75
(No Transcript)
76
Issues Raised in Survey
  • Increases in Web instruction anticipated
  • Better tools needed
  • Perceived high cost
  • Need clearer vision manage support
  • Lots of money being spent
  • Low course completion rates
  • Limited organizational support

77
So, any questions about the state of things?
78
What do we need???
  • Part II
  • Evaluation Purposes, Approaches and Frameworks

79
One Area in Need of Frameworks is Evaluation of
Online Learning
80
What is Evaluation???
  • 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).
  • (Champagne Wisher, in press)

81
But who are the evaluators?
  • The level of evaluation will depend on
    articulation of the stakeholders. Stakeholders
    of evaluation in corporate settings may range
    from???

82
What is assessment?
  • Assessment refers toefforts to obtain info about
    how and what students are learning in order to
    improveteaching efforts and/or to demo to others
    the degree to which students have accomplished
    the learning goals for a course. (Millar, 2001,
    p. 11).
  • It is a way of using info obtained through
    various types of measurement to determine a
    learners performance or skill on some task or
    situation (Rosenkrans, 2000).

83
Why Evaluate?
84
Evaluation Purposes
  • Assessing learner progress
  • What did they learn?
  • Assessing learning impact
  • How well do learners use what they learned?
  • How much do learners use what they learn?

85
Evaluation Purposes
  • Efficiency
  • Was online learning more effective than another
    medium?
  • Was online learning more cost-effective than
    another medium/what was the return on investment
    (ROI)?
  • Improvement
  • How do we do this better?

86
Evaluation Purposes
  • An evaluation plan can evaluate the delivery of
    e-learning, identify ways to improve the online
    delivery of it, and justify the investment in the
    online training package, program, or initiative
    (Champagne Wisher, in press).

87
Evaluation Purposes
  • Evaluation can help quantify the return on
    investment allowing one to compare the costs of
    acquiring, developing, and implementing
    e-learning to actual savings, revenue impact, and
    other competitive advantages that are
    translatable into monetary values.

88
Contextual Factors
  • Learner progress, impact of training and
    efficiency all may be affected by other
    contextual factors
  • Contextual factors unique to online learning
  • Technology breakdowns
  • Inadequate computer systems (learners cant
    access multimedia components -- and dont know
    that theyre missing anything)

89
Evaluation Plans
  • Does your company have a training evaluation plan?

90
Formal Evaluation Programs
  • Most training evaluation data are not used for
    evaluation or performance improvement purposes.
  • Why? There is no plan for using the data and no
    one has the time.
  • Why does it matter in online learning? Need to be
    sure that the development expense is justified.

91
Steps to Developing an OL Evaluation Program
  • Select a purpose and framework
  • Develop benchmarks
  • Develop online survey instruments
  • For learner reactions
  • For learner post-training performance
  • For manager post-training reactions
  • Develop data analysis and management plan

92
What Are Your Evaluation Questions?
  • What does your employer want to know about online
    learnings impact?
  • How interested is your employer in evaluation
    results?

93
Formative Evaluation
  • Formative evaluations focus on improving the
    online learning experience.
  • A formative focus will try to find out what
    worked or did not work.
  • Formative evaluation is particularly useful for
    examining instructional design and instructor
    performance.

94
Formative Questions
  • -How can we improve our OL program?
  • -How can we make our OL program more efficient?
  • -More effective?
  • -More accessible?

95
Summative Evaluation
  • Summative evaluations focus on the overall
    success of the OL experience (should it be
    continued?).
  • A summative focus will look at whether or not
    objectives are met, the training is
    cost-effective, etc.

96
What Can OL Evaluation Measure?
  • Categories of Evaluation Info (Woodley and
    Kirkwood, 1986)
  • .Measures of activity
  • .Measures of efficiency
  • .Measures of outcomes
  • .Measures of program aims
  • .Measures of policy
  • .Measures of organizations

97
Typical Evaluation Frameworks for OL
  • Commonly used frameworks include
  • CIPP Model
  • Objectives-oriented
  • Marshall Shrivers 5 levels
  • Kirkpatricks 4 levels
  • Plus a 5th level
  • AEIOU
  • Consumer-oriented

98
CIPP Model Evaluation
  • CIPP is a management-oriented model
  • C context
  • I input
  • P process
  • P product
  • Examines the OL within its larger system/context

99
CIPP OL Context
  • Context Addresses the environment in which OL
    takes place.
  • How does the real environment compare to the
    ideal?
  • Uncovers systemic problems that may dampen OL
    success.

100
CIPP OL Input
  • Input Examines what resources are put into OL.
  • Is the content right?
  • Have we used the right combination of media?
  • Uncovers instructional design issues.

101
CIPP OL Process
  • Process Examines how well the implementation
    works.
  • Did the course run smoothly?
  • Were there technology problems?
  • Was the facilitation and participation as
    planned?
  • Uncovers implementation issues.

102
CIPP OL Product
  • Product Addresses outcomes of the learning.
  • Did the learners learn? How do you know?
  • Does the online training have an effect on
    workflow or productivity?
  • Uncovers systemic problems.

103
Objectives-Oriented Evaluation
  • Examines OL training objectives as compared to
    training results
  • Helps determine if objectives are being met
  • Helps determine if objectives, as formally
    stated, are appropriate
  • Objectives can be used as a comparative benchmark
    between online and other training methods

104
Evaluating Objectives OL
  • An objectives-oriented approach can examine two
    levels of objectives
  • Instructional objectives for learners (did the
    learners learn?)
  • Systemic objectives for training (did the
    training solve the problem?)

105
Objectives OL
  • Requires
  • A clear sense of what the objectives are (always
    a good idea anyway)
  • The ability to measure whether or not objectives
    are met
  • Some objectives may be implicit and hard to state
  • Some objectives are not easy to measure

106
Marshall Shriver's 5 Levels of Evaluation
  • Performance-based evaluation framework
  • Each level examines a different areas of
    performance
  • Requires demonstration of learning

107
Marshall Shriver's 5 Levels
  • Level I Self (instructor)
  • Level II Course Materials
  • Level II Course Curriculum
  • Level IV Course Modules
  • Level V Learning Transfer

108
Kirkpatricks 4 Levels
  • A common training framework.
  • Examines training on 4 levels.
  • Not all 4 levels have to be included in a given
    evaluation.

109
The 4 Levels
  • Reaction
  • Learning
  • Behavior
  • Results

110
A 5th Level
  • Return on Investment is a 5th level
  • It is related to results, but is more clearly
    stated as a financial calculation
  • How to calculate ROI is the big issue here

111
Is ROI the answer?
  • Elise Olding of CLK Strategies suggests that we
    shift from looking at ROI to looking at time to
    competency.
  • ROI may be easier to calculate since concrete
    dollars are involved, but time to competency may
    be more meaningful in terms of actual impact.

112
Example Call Center Training
  • Traditional call center training can take 3
    months to complete
  • Call center employees typically quit within one
    year
  • When OL was implemented, the time to train (time
    to competency) was reduced
  • Benchmarks for success time per call number of
    transfers

113
Example Circuit City
  • Circuit City provided online product/sales
    training
  • What is more useful to know
  • The overall ROI or break-even point?
  • How much employees liked the training?
  • How many employees completed the training?
  • That employees who completed 80 of the training
    saw an average increase of 10 in sales?

114
A 6th Level?Clark Aldrich (2002)
  • Adding Level 6 which relates to the budget and
    stability of the e-learning team.
  • Just how respected and successful is the
    e-learning team.
  • Have they won approval from senior management for
    their initiatives.
  • Aldrich, C. (2002). Measuring success In a
    post-Maslow/Kirkpatrick world, which metrics
    matter? Online Learning, 6(2), 30 32.

115
And Even a 7th Level?Clark Aldrich (2002)
  • At Level 7 whether the e-learning sponsor(s) or
    champion(s) are promoted in the organization.
  • While both of these additional levels address the
    people involved in the e-learning initiative or
    plan, such recognitions will likely hinge on the
    results of evaluation of the other five levels.

116
ROI AlternativeCost/Benefit Analysis (CBA)
  • ROI may be ill-advised since not all impacts hit
    bottom line, and those that do take time.
  • Shifts the attention from more long-term results
    and quantifying impacts with numeric values, such
    as
  • increased revenue streams,
  • increased employee retention, or
  • reduction in calls to a support center.
  • Reddy, A. (2002, January). E-learning ROI
    calculations Is a cost/benefit analysis a better
    approach? e-learning. 3(1), 30-32.

117
Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA)
  • To both qualitative and quantitative measures
  • job satisfaction ratings,
  • new uses of technology,
  • reduction in processing errors,
  • quicker reactions to customer requests,
  • reduction in customer call rerouting,
  • increased customer satisfaction,
  • enhanced employee perceptions of training,
  • global post-test availability.
  • Reddy, A. (2002, January). E-learning ROI
    calculations Is a cost/benefit analysis a better
    approach? e-learning. 3(1), 30-32.

118
Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA)
  • In effect, CBA asks how does the sum of the
    benefits compare to the sum of the costs.
  • Yet, it often leads to or supports ROI and other
    more quantitatively-oriented calculations.
  • Reddy, A. (2002, January). E-learning ROI
    calculations Is a cost/benefit analysis a better
    approach? e-learning. 3(1), 30-32.

119
Other ROI Alternatives
  • Time to competency (need benchmarks)
  • online databases of frequently asked questions
    can help employees in call centers learn skills
    more quickly and without requiring temporary
    leaves from their position for such training
  • Time to market
  • might be measured by how e-learning speeds up the
    training of sales and technical support
    personnel, thereby expediting the delivery of a
    software product to the market
  • Raths, D. (2001, May). Measure of success.
    Online Learning, 5(5), 20-22, 24.

120
Still Other ROI Alternatives
  • Return on Expectation
  • Asks employees a series of qs related to how
    training met expectations of their job
    performance.
  • When qing is complete, they place a figure on
    that.
  • Correlate or compare such reaction data with
    business results or supplement Level 1 data to
    include more pertinent info about the
    applicability of learning to employee present job
    situation.
  • Raths, D. (2001, May). Measure of success.
    Online Learning, 5(5), 20-22, 24.

121
AEIOU
  • Provides a framework for looking at different
    aspects of an online learning program
  • Fortune Keith, 1992 Sweeney, 1995 Sorensen,
    1996

122
A Accountability
  • Did the training do what it set out to do?
  • Data can be collected through
  • Administrative records
  • Counts of training programs ( of attendees, of
    offerings)
  • Interviews or surveys of training staff

123
E Effectiveness
  • Is everyone satisfied?
  • Learners
  • Instructors
  • Managers
  • Were the learning objectives met?

124
I Impact
  • Did the training make a difference?
  • Like Kirkpatricks level 4 (Results)

125
O Organizational Context
  • Did the organizations structures and policies
    support or hinder the training?
  • Does the training meet the organizations needs?
  • OC evaluation can help find when there is a
    mismatch between the training design and the
    organization
  • Important when using third-party training or
    content

126
U Unintended Consequences
  • Unintended consequences are often overlooked in
    training evaluation
  • May give you an opportunity to brag about
    something wonderful that happened
  • Typically discovered via qualitative data
    (anecdotes, interviews, open-ended survey
    responses)

127
Consumer-Oriented Evaluation
  • Uses a consumer point-of-view
  • Can be a part of vendor selection process
  • Can be a learner-satisfaction issue
  • Relies on benchmarks for comparison of different
    products or different learning media

128
What About Evaluation Issues in Higher
Education???
129
My Evaluation Plan
130
What to Evaluate?
  1. Studentattitudes, learning, jobs.
  2. Instructorpopularity, survival.
  3. Trainingeffectiveness, integratedness.
  4. Task--relevance, interactivity, collab.
  5. Tool--usable, learner-centered, friendly,
    supportive.
  6. Courseinteractivity, completion.
  7. Programgrowth, model(s), time to build.
  8. Universitycost-benefit, policies, vision.

131
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

132
1. Student Basic Quantitative
  • Grades, Achievement
  • Number of Posts
  • Participated
  • Computer Log Activitypeak usage, messages/day,
    time of task or in system
  • Attitude Surveys

133
1. Student High-End Success
  • Message complexity, depth, interactivity, qing
  • Collaboration skills
  • Problem finding/solving and critical thinking
  • Challenging and debating others
  • Case-based reasoning, critical thinking measures
  • Portfolios, performances, PBL activities

134
Focus of Assessment?
  1. Basic Knowledge, Concepts, Ideas
  2. Higher-Order Thinking Skills, Problem Solving,
    Communication, Teamwork
  3. Both of Above!!!
  4. Other

135
Assessments Possible
  • Online Portfolios of Work
  • Discussion/Forum Participation
  • Online Mentoring
  • Weekly Reflections
  • Tasks Attempted or Completed, Usage, etc.

136
More Possible Assessments
  • Quizzes and Tests
  • Peer Feedback and Responsiveness
  • Cases and Problems
  • Group Work
  • Web Resource Explorations Evaluations

137
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/
  • (youll never buy Cliffnotes again)

138
(No Transcript)
139
(No Transcript)
140
(No Transcript)
141
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 submittedreused,
    woven in, posted?
  • Due at end of term? Real audience?
  • Look at pedagogy b4 calling plagiarism police!

142
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

143
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)

144
(No Transcript)
145
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!

146
Part III
  • Applying Kirkpatricks 4 Levels to Online
    Learning Evaluation Evaluation Design

147
Why Use the 4 Levels?
  • They are familiar and understood
  • Highly referenced in the training literature
  • Can be used with 2 delivery media for comparative
    results

148
Conducting 4-Level Evaluation
  • You need not use every level
  • Choose the level that is most appropriate to your
    need and budget
  • Higher levels will be more costly and difficult
    to evaluate
  • Higher levels will yield more

149
Kirkpatrick Level 1 Reaction
  • Typically involves Smile sheets or
    end-of-training evaluation forms.
  • Easy to collect, but not always very useful.
  • Reaction-level data on online courses has been
    found to correlate with ability to apply learning
    to the job.
  • Survey ideally should be Web-based, keeping the
    medium the same as the course.

150
Kirkpatrick Level I Reaction
  • Types of questions
  • Enjoyable?
  • Easy to use?
  • How was the instructor?
  • How was the technology?
  • Was it fast or slow enough?

151
Kirkpatrick Level 2 Learning
  • Typically involves testing learners immediately
    following the training
  • Not difficult to do, but online testing has its
    own challenges
  • Did the learner take the test on his/her own?

152
Kirkpatrick Level 2 Learning
  • Higher-order thinking skills (problem solving,
    analysis, synthesis)
  • Basic skills (articulate ideas in writing)
  • Company perspectives and values (teamwork,
    commitment to quality, etc.)
  • Personal development

153
Kirkpatrick Level 2 Learning
  • Might include
  • Essay tests.
  • Problem solving exercises.
  • Interviews.
  • Written or verbal tests to assess cognitive
    skills.
  • Shepard, C. (1999b, July). Evaluating online
    learning. TACTIX from Fastrak Consulting.
    Retrieved February 10, 2002, from
    http//fastrak-consulting.co.uk/tactix/Features/ev
    aluate/eval01.htm.

154
Kirkpatrick Level 3 Behavior
  • More difficult to evaluate than Levels 1 2
  • Looks at whether learners can apply what they
    learned (does the training change their
    behavior?)
  • Requires post-training follow-up to determine
  • Less common than levels 1 2 in practice

155
Kirkpatrick Level 3 Behavior
  • Might include
  • Direct observation by supervisors or coaches
    (Wisher, Curnow, Drenth, 2001).
  • Questionnaires completed by peers, supervisors,
    and subordinates related to work performance.
  • On the job behaviors, automatically logged
    performances, or self-report data.
  • Shepard, C. (1999b, July). Evaluating online
    learning. TACTIX from Fastrak Consulting.
    Retrieved February 10, 2002, from
    http//fastrak-consulting.co.uk/tactix/Features/ev
    aluate/eval01.htm.

156
Kirkpatrick Level 4 Results
  • Often compared to return on investment (ROI)
  • In e-learning, it is believed that the increased
    cost of course development ultimately is offset
    by the lesser cost of training implementation
  • A new way of training may require a new way of
    measuring impact

157
Kirkpatrick Level 4 Results
  • Might Include
  • Labor savings (e.g., reduced duplication of
    effort or faster access to needed information).
  • Production increases (faster turnover of
    inventory, forms processed, accounts opened,
    etc.).
  • Direct cost savings (e.g., reduced cost per
    project, lowered overhead costs, reduction of bad
    debts, etc.).
  • Quality improvements (e.g., fewer accidents, less
    defects, etc.).
  • Horton, W. (2001). Evaluating e-learning.
    Alexandria, VA American Society for Training
    Development.

158
Kirkpatrick Evaluation Design
  • Kirkpatricks 4 Levels may be achieved via
    various evaluation designs
  • Different designs help answer different questions

159
Pre/Post Control Groups
  • One group receives OL training and one does not
  • As variation try 3 groups
  • No training (control)
  • Traditional training
  • OL training
  • Recommended because it may help neutralize
    contextual factors
  • Relies on random assignment as much as possible

160
Multiple Baselines
  • Can be used for a program that is rolling out
  • Each group serves as a control group for the
    previous group
  • Look for improvement in subsequent groups
  • Eliminates need for tight control of control group

161
Time Series
  • Looks at benchmarks before and after training
  • Practical and cost-effective
  • Not considered as rigorous as other designs
    because it doesnt control for contextual factors

162
Single Group Pre/Post
  • Easy and inexpensive
  • Criticized for lack of rigor (absence of control)
  • Needs to be pushed into Kirkpatrick levels 3 and
    4 to see if there has been impact

163
Case Study
  • A rigorous design in academic practice, but often
    after-the-fact in corporate settings
  • Useful when no preliminary or baseline data have
    been collected

164
Part IV
  • ROI and Online Learning

165
The Importance of ROI
  • OL requires a great amount of and other
    resources up front
  • It gives the promise of financial rewards later
    on
  • ROI is of great interest because of the
    investment and the wait period before the return

166
Calculating ROI
  • Look at
  • Hard cost savings
  • Hard revenue impact
  • Soft competitive benefits
  • Soft benefits to individuals
  • See Calculating the Return on Your eLearning
    Investment (2000) by Docent, Inc.

167
Possible ROI Objectives
  • Better Efficiencies
  • Greater Profitability
  • Increased Sales
  • Fewer Injuries on the Job
  • Less Time off Work
  • Faster Time to Competency

168
Hard Cost Savings
  • Travel
  • Facilities
  • Printed material costs (printing, distribution,
    storage)
  • Reduction of costs of business through increased
    efficiency
  • Instructor fees (sometimes)

169
Hard Revenue Impact
  • Consider
  • Opportunity cost of improperly or untrained
    personnel
  • Shorter time to productivity through shorter
    training times with OL
  • Increased time on job (no travel time)
  • Ease of delivering same training to partners and
    customers (for fee?)

170
Soft Competitive Benefits
  • Just-in-time capabilities
  • Consistency in delivery
  • Certification of knowledge transfer
  • Ability to track users and gather data easily
  • Increase morale from simultaneous roll-out at
    different sites

171
Individual Values
  • Less wasted time
  • Support available as needed
  • Motivation from being treated as an individual

172
Talking about ROI
  • As a percentage
  • ROI(Payback-Investment)/Investment100
  • As a ratio
  • ROIReturn/Investment
  • As time to break even
  • Break even time(Investment/Return)Time Period

173
What is ROI Good For?
  • Prioritizing Investment
  • Ensuring Adequate Financial Support for OL
    Project
  • Comparing Vendors

174
The Changing Face of ROI
  • Return-on-investment isnt what it used to be
    The R is no longer the famous bottom line and the
    I is more likely a subscription fee than a
    one-time payment (Cross, 2001)

175
More Calculations
  • Total Admin Costs of Former Program - Total
    Admin Costs of OL ProgramProjected Net Savings
  • Total Cost of Training/ of StudentsCost Per
    Student (CPS)
  • Total Benefits 100/Total Program CostROI

176
At the End of the Day...
  • Are all training results quantifiable?
  • NO! Putting a price tag on some costs and
    benefits can be very difficult
  • NO! Some data may not have much meaning at face
    value
  • What if more courses are offered and annual
    student training hours drop simultaneously? Is
    this bad?

177
Part V
  • Collecting Evaluation Data Online Evaluation
    Tools

178
Collecting Evaluation Data
  • Learner Reaction
  • Learner Achievement
  • Learner Job Performance
  • Manager Reaction
  • Productivity Benchmarks

179
Forms of Evaluation
  • Interviews
  • Focus Groups
  • Self-Analysis
  • Supervisor Ratings
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • ROI
  • Document Analysis
  • Data Mining (Changes in pre and post-training
    e.g., sales, productivity)

180
How Collect Data?
  • Direct Observation in Work Setting
  • By supervisor, co-workers, subordinates, clients
  • Collect Data By Surveys, Interviews, Focus Groups
  • Supervisors, Co-workers, Subordinates, Clients
  • Self-Report by learners or teams

181
Learner Data
  • Online surveys are the most effective way to
    collect online learner reactions
  • Learner performance data can be collected via
    online tests
  • Pre and post-tests can be used to measure
    learning gains
  • Learner post-course performance data can be used
    for Level 3 evaluation
  • May look at on-the-job performance
  • May require data collection from managers

182
Example Naval Phys. Training Follow-Up Evaluation
  • A naval training unit uses an online
    survey/database system to track performance of
    recently trained physiologists
  • Learners self-report performance
  • Managers report on learner performance
  • Unit heads report on overall productivity

183
Learning System Data
  • Many statistics are available, but which are
    useful?
  • Number of course accesses
  • Log-in times/days
  • Time spent accessing course components
  • Frequency of access for particular components
  • Quizzes completed and quiz scores
  • Learner contributions to discussion (if
    applicable)

184
Learner System Data
  • IF learners are being evaluated based on number
    and length of accesses, it is only fair that they
    be told
  • Much time can be wasted analyzing statistics that
    dont tell much about the actual impact of the
    training
  • Bottom line Easy data to collect, but not always
    useful for evaluation purposes
  • Still useful for management purposes

185
Benchmark Data
  • Companies need to develop benchmarks for
    measuring performance improvement
  • Managers typically know the job areas that need
    performance improvement
  • Both pre-training and post-training data need to
    be collected and compared
  • Must also look for other contextual factors

186
Online Testing Tools(see http//www.indiana.edu/
best/)
187
(No Transcript)
188
(No Transcript)
189
Test Selection Criteria (Hezel, 1999)
  • Easy to Configure Items and Test
  • Handle Symbols
  • Scheduling of Feedback (immediate?)
  • Provides Clear Input of Dates for Exam
  • Easy to Pick Items for Randomizing
  • Randomize Answers Within a Question
  • Weighting of Answer Options

190
More Test Selection Criteria
  • Recording of Multiple Submissions
  • Timed Tests
  • Comprehensive Statistics
  • Summarize in Portfolio and/or Gradebook
  • Confirmation of Test Submission

191
More Test Selection Criteria(Perry Colon, 2001)
  • Supports multiple items typesmultiple 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

192
More Test Selection Criteria(Perry Colon, 2001)
  • Flexible scoringscore first, last, or average
    submission
  • Flexible reportingby individual or by item and
    cross tabulations.
  • Outputs data for further analysis
  • Provides item analysis statistics (e.g., Test
    Item Frequency Distributions).

193
Computer Log DataChen, G. D., Liu, C. C., Liu,
B. J. (2000). Discovering decision knowledge from
Web log portfolio for managing classroom
processes by applying decision tree and data cute
tech. Journal of Educ Computing Research, 23(3),
305-332.
  • Determine student behavior patterns
  • student posting opinions,
  • asking questions,
  • replying to opinions,
  • posting articles, etc.
  • Web logs can also help instructors make informed
    pedagogical decisions. For instance, does a
    particular teaching strategy or task improve
    student interaction?

194
Computer Log DataChen, G. D., Liu, C. C., Liu,
B. J. (2000). Discovering decision knowledge from
Web log portfolio for managing classroom
processes by applying decision tree and data cute
tech. Journal of Educ Computing Research, 23(3),
305-332.
  • In a corp training situation, computer log data
    can correlate online course completions with
  • actual job performance improvements such as
  • fewer violations of safety regulations,
  • reduced product defects,
  • increased sales, and
  • timely call responses.

195
Email and Chat
  • Chats and email messages might provide data about
    the effectiveness of the training event.

196
Online Survey Tools for Assessment
197
Sample Survey Tools
  • Zoomerang (http//www.zoomerang.com)
  • IOTA Solutions (http//www.iotasolutions.com)
  • QuestionMark (http//www.questionmark.com/home.htm
    l)
  • SurveyShare (http//SurveyShare.com from
    Courseshare.com)
  • Survey Solutions from Perseus (http//www.perseusd
    evelopment.com/fromsurv.htm)
  • Infopoll (http//www.infopoll.com)

198
(No Transcript)
199
(No Transcript)
200
Survey Tool Features
  • Maintain email lists and email invitations
  • Conduct polls
  • Adaptive branching and cross tabulations
  • Modifiable templates
  • Maintain library of past surveys
  • Publish reports
  • Technical support, chat advice
  • Different types of accountshosted, corporate,
    professional, etc.

201
(No Transcript)
202
(No Transcript)
203
(No Transcript)
204
(No Transcript)
205
(No Transcript)
206
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

207
Web-Based Survey Problems Why Lower Response
Rates?
  • Low response rate
  • Lack of time
  • Unclear instructions
  • Too lengthy
  • Too many steps
  • Cant find URL
  • Perceived as aggressive

208
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 sponsorshipe.g., university
  • Disclose purpose, use, and privacy
  • E-mail cover letters
  • Prenotify of intent to survey

209
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)

210
Some Final Advice
211
  • As venture capital drys up and state funding is
    cut, evaluation and accountability takes center
    stage in e-learning decision-making and
    discussion.

212
Questions?Comments?Concerns?
About PowerShow.com