Members: Katherine Benson, Louise Blair, Jenifer Cushman, Josh Levy, Dian Lopez, Engin Sungur, Peter Whelan

 

 

TEL-PROPOSAL FOR COLLABORATION STAGE

 

Web-Based Course Evaluation and Assessment Tools

 

Technology-based learning can enhance learning/teaching process in three ways:  by improving content knowledge and understanding, by responding to diverse ways of learning, and by increasing student-faculty interaction.  One of the IT group will look at available tools to achieve these learning objectives and concentrate on the web-based course evaluation and assessment tools.

 

There are various opportunities to carry out course assessment/evaluation by using the tools of the instructional technology. Some of the tools include, but not limited to WebCt, Lectora, Distributed Learning Workshop, QuizTest, etc. By using step-by-step instructions we will learn how to use these tools.

 

Some issues that will be addressed are:

• What are the available web-development tools for assessment and evaluation?
• What are the things that can be done that we can not do in traditional learning environment?
• What are the strategies and planning that are necessary?
• What could be the recommendations for the faculty who wants to try these environments?
• Who can help at UMM to develop and implement web-based assessment/evaluation tools.
• What are the ways to carry out faculty evaluation/assessment as well as student evaluation/assessment
• What are the available tools for various evaluation types (automatically graded, peer-to-peer, tutor-to-tutee, teacher graded)?
• What ate the available tools for various question types (multiple choice, rank-order multiple choice, multiple answer, fill-in-the-blank, matching, true or false, composite)?

 

The group will discuss and develop web-based tools for quizzes, tests, homeworks, projects, learning checks, student opinion of learning (not teaching) etc.

 

Based on the interests of the group we might look at the following two areas related with the use of technology in education:

 

a.     Open versus Closed Web Development Environments

The Web development can take place either in an open or closed environments (such as WebCT). There are benefits and problems related with each. We will learn how to develop materials in both of these environments and compare them.

 

Some issues that might be addressed are:

• What are the open and closed web development environments?
• What are the available closed and open web-development environments?
• Locating or developing materials in each one of these environments and comparing them
• Listing advantages and disadvantages of each
• Recommendations for the faculty who wants to try these environments

 

b.     Integration of Web Development with Research, Teaching and Service

One might think that the time spend on web-development is a loss on available time for research and course content development. The group will work on how to integrate research, teaching, service, and web-development effectively and efficiently.

 

Some issues that might be addressed are:

• How a web development can turn into a research?
• How a web development can turn into a service/outreach activity?
• Examples of web development and research integration
• Cost/benefit analysis of web development (amount of time invested and gain)
• Web development and efficiency
• Promotion/tenure, recognition, salary decisions and web-development

 

 

PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR TEL ACTIVITIES

 

The proposed procedure for achieving the objectives of the above activities is summarized below:

 

1. Formulate the related questions and issues (2 weeks)
2. Select the one(s) that the group has a common interest (1 week)
3. Locate all resources available (2 weeks)
4. Understand what we are dealing with by using/implementing (3 weeks)
5. Report findings to the group (1 week)
6. Discussion (2 weeks)
7. Prepare dissemination tools (2 weeks)
8. Move to a different area.

 

 

Engin A. Sungur (Statistics) will serve as the facilitator of this group. John Brian Buncher will also work for the group as computer assistant throughout the year.

 

The main objective of the evaluation/assessment process will be to provide input to the Tel council on the success and challenges of the program which has the potential of changing to a permanent program from a pilot program.

 

EVALUATION/ASSESSMENT METHODS AND TOOLS

 

The following is the assessment plan for the group:

Target Group	Evaluation/Assessment Method and Tolls	Comments
Participant	Profiler Survey (Pre-Survey)	Objectives; to determine participants experience and knowledge on technology-enhanced learning to understand the participants attitude toward technology-enhanced learning at the beginning of the program
	Progress Survey(s)	Objectives; to determine the problems and successes at early stage to estimate the speed of the progress
	Achievements Survey (Post-Survey)	Objectives; to understand whether the expected learning outcomes of the program has been achieved or not To measure the change in attitude and knowledge in technology-enhanced learning related with assessment/evaluation To learn the participantCs opinion on the program and her/his ideas for improvement
	Follow-up Survey	Objectives; to determine the long-term impact of the program on the participantCs academic life to see whether or not participant continued to work in the direction of the program objectives.

 

SOME LEARNING TEACHING ACTIVITIES RELATED WITH ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION

COURSE ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION

ASSIGNMENTS

QUIZZES

LEARNING CHECKS (STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT)

MIDTERMS

FINAL

PROJECTS

GRADE BOOK

STUDENT PROGRESS INFORMATION

 

HOMEWORK FOR THE GROUP

Objective: To obtain some tools that are available for assessment/evaluation:

 

I.               Account on WebCT

 

II.             Downloading Respondus (This will help to create assessment/evaluation tools for WebCT)

 

   III.       Take a look at QuizTest (do not download it)