learning - Academic Conferences Limited
learning - Academic Conferences Limited learning - Academic Conferences Limited
Rosario Kane-Iturrioz Although the voice tools provided were not used by approximately one third of the students, those who did access them reported that the audio and written feedback received became part of their learning process. The verbal comments recorded by the tutor complemented and clarified the written part of the feedback. Voice mail technology made the feedback easily accessible via students’ personal inboxes and the tutor’s comments were received soon after the assessment enabling them to analyse their performance quickly. From the tutor’s perspective, voice mail technology does not need complex settings and instructions. The beneficial effect reported by students was achieved through the tutor dedicating a few minutes to type and record the feedback as soon as the submitted voice mail messages were received. Research has shown that students adapt their learning strategies to the summative assessment requirements (Felix, 2001; Gibbs and Simpson, 2004; Kirkwood and Price, 2008). The results in this study appear to validate the idea that students’ learning can be shaped by regular, short formative assessments leading to a steady focus on study, perception of improved language skills development and the attainment of better grades. References Felix, U (2001) “The web’s potential for language learning: the student’s perspective”. ReCALL, Vol 13, No. 1, pp 47-58. Felix, U. (2003) “Teaching language online: Deconstructing the myths”. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, Vol 19, No. 1, pp 118-138. Furnborough, C. Truman, M. (2009) “Adult beginner distance language learner perceptions and use of assignment feedback”. Distance Education, Vol 30, No. 3, pp 399-418. Gibbs, G., and Simpson, C. (2004) “Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning”. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, Vol 1, No.1, pp 3–31. Kane-Iturrioz, R. (2009) “Enhancing Blended Language Learning: Development of a new eLearning Template”, [online], EUROCALL Review 15, March-September. Special Issue, pp 36-55, http://www.eurocalllanguages.org/news/newsletter/15/index.html Kane-Iturrioz, R. (2010) “Effective Blended Learning for Languages: Learners’ Experiences and Perceptions”. Proceedings to the Third International Conference on Innovation in Learning for the Future 2010; e- Learning, Istanbul, May, 10-14, 2010. TC Istanbul Kultur University Publication No: 125, pp 340- 350. Kirkwood, A. and Price, L. (2008) “Assessment and student learning: a fundamental relationship and the role of information and communication technologies”. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e- Learning, Vol 23, No. 1, pp 5-16. Lunt, T. and Curran, J,. (2010) “Are you listening please? The advantages of electronic audio feedback compared to written feedback”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 35, No.7, pp 759-769. Lyons, H. and Thorpe, L. (2009) “Investigating students experiences of e-learning using the Diary Interview Approach”, [online], Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 2, No. 4. http://bejlt.brooks.ac.uk/ (accessed on 03.06.2009). Murday, K., Ushida, E. and Chenoweth, A. (2008) “Learners’ and teachers’ perspectives on language online”. Computer Assisted Language Learning, Vol 21, No. 2, pp 125-142. Nicol, D.J., and Mcfarlane-Dic, D. (2006). “Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice”. Studies in Higher Education, Vol 31, No. 2, pp 199-218. Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J. and O’Donovan, B. (2010). “Feedback: all that effort, but what is the effect?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 35, No. 3, pp 277-289. Race, P. (2006) “The Lecturer’s Toolkit – A Practical Guide to Assessment”, Learning and Teaching, 3rd Edition, Routledge, London. Sagarra, N. and Zapata, G.C. (2008) “Blending classroom instruction with online homework: A study of students perceptions of computer-assisted L2 learning”. ReCALL, Vol 20, No. 2, pp :208-224. Stracke, E. (2007) “A road to understanding: A qualitative study into why learners drop out of a blended language learning (BLL) environment”. ReCALL, Vol 19, No. 1, pp 57-78. Walker, M. (2009) “An investigation into written comments on assignments: do students find them usable?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 34, No. 1, pp 67-78. Weaver, M. (2006) “Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 31, No. 3, pp 379-394. 354
Model of eLearning Project Evaluation Jana Kapounova, Jana Sarmanova and Marketa Dvorackova University of Ostrava, Czech Republic Jana.Kapounova@osu.cz Jana.Sarmanova@osu.cz D10576@student.osu.cz Abstract: The paper deals with the model of eLearning evaluation process, specifically with a proposal of methods and means for eLearning project evaluation. There are many approaches to eLearning projects evaluation. Let us consider eLearning as an educational project. An educational project, just like other projects, is comprised of design phases, proceeding one after another and interrelating. An eLearning project passes through several phases of its development: from planning through the development of study supports and the pilot stage, to usage of project results in instruction, namely in distance learning. eLearning project can be evaluated during each of its phase and as a whole project as well. It means for each phase of the project we have to collect reliable information to determine criteria of the phase quality. After evaluation of the phase we define feedback as a response to the results of performed analysis. In the present paper we want to demonstrate our way of dividing the eLearning project into phases like phases of the system development life cycle. We evaluate each individual phase. We have determined activities of evaluation, input information, outputs and staffing of the activities. We chose information that employs as measures needed for quality evaluation of each phase and of the project as a whole. Keywords: evaluation of eLearning, eLearning project, project life cycle, eLearning project phases, project evaluation 1. Introduction The expansion of eLearning since the last century was very fast especially in universities and corporate training sector. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) were first used for communication between students and teachers (via email), in the area of supporting study materials (study texts, PowerPoint presentations, video recordings of lectures), and finally for the controlling and management of studies (Lojda, 1999). eLearning plays a crucial role in distance education, but it is also important in supporting face-to-face studies. The most common form of study using eLearning is a combined form, sometimes called blended learning. With the rise of eLearning, many, especially managers of educational institutions, thought that the eLearning form of instruction will be cheaper. This belief of eLearning being a not expensive solution is still widespread among the public, even though some experts have warned about higher costs associated with the implementation of eLearning from the very beginning. What affects the eLearning projects then, what should we not neglect during their development and implementation? (Poulová, 2006) Within the ‛eLearning Project Evaluation – the system approach’ project we intend to establish a procedure (procedures) and determine factors that can affect quality, effectiveness and economy of an eLearning project. There are many approaches to eLearning projects evaluation. Most of theoretical studies and examples of good practice deal with evaluation of study supports and ways of communication between learners and instructors (Eger, 2004). The effectiveness of eLearning is with no doubts affected by other factors as well which we will try to determine in our work (Freibergová, 2000). We presume that the best way of how to prepare the methodology for eLearning evaluation should be the system approach. 2. Some approaches to the problematic The discussion of eLearning, or of its evaluation, requires us to define several terms. From a wide range of definitions that are to be found throughout the relevant bibliography, we have accepted the following. 355
- Page 330 and 331: Andrea Gorra and Ollie Jones to hel
- Page 332 and 333: Andrea Gorra and Ollie Jones Howeve
- Page 334 and 335: Andrea Gorra and Ollie Jones Figure
- Page 336 and 337: Andrea Gorra and Ollie Jones Studen
- Page 338 and 339: Rose Heaney and Megan Anne Arroll A
- Page 340 and 341: Rose Heaney and Megan Anne Arroll l
- Page 342 and 343: Rose Heaney and Megan Anne Arroll
- Page 344 and 345: Rose Heaney and Megan Anne Arroll J
- Page 346 and 347: Amanda Jefferies learning was furth
- Page 348 and 349: Amanda Jefferies way in which the o
- Page 350 and 351: Amanda Jefferies their teaching mat
- Page 352 and 353: A Methodology for Incorporating Usa
- Page 354 and 355: Anne Jelfs and Chetz Colwell To try
- Page 356 and 357: Anne Jelfs and Chetz Colwell We wor
- Page 358 and 359: The Virtual Learning Environment -
- Page 360 and 361: John Jessel 2.1 An outline framewor
- Page 362 and 363: John Jessel teachers who agreed to
- Page 364 and 365: John Jessel ‘“reduce the clicks
- Page 366 and 367: Mutlimodal Teaching Through ICT Edu
- Page 368 and 369: Paraskevi Kanari and Georgios Potam
- Page 370 and 371: Paraskevi Kanari and Georgios Potam
- Page 372 and 373: Rosario Kane-Iturrioz Regarding lan
- Page 374 and 375: Rosario Kane-Iturrioz Figure 2: Exa
- Page 376 and 377: Rosario Kane-Iturrioz Tests very us
- Page 378 and 379: Rosario Kane-Iturrioz When compared
- Page 382 and 383: Jana Kapounova et al. eLearning is
- Page 384 and 385: Jana Kapounova et al. Each dimensio
- Page 386 and 387: Jana Kapounova et al. project, conn
- Page 388 and 389: Acknowledgments Jana Kapounova et a
- Page 390 and 391: Andrea Kelz skills and competences
- Page 392 and 393: Andrea Kelz web-based activities in
- Page 394 and 395: Andrea Kelz system. Most other univ
- Page 396 and 397: Open Courses: The Next big Thing in
- Page 398 and 399: Kaido Kikkas et al. However, in the
- Page 400 and 401: Kaido Kikkas et al. generation of w
- Page 402 and 403: Kaido Kikkas et al. Occasional gue
- Page 404 and 405: John Knight and Rebecca Rochon guid
- Page 406 and 407: Evaluation of Quality of Learning S
- Page 408 and 409: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. Essalmi
- Page 410 and 411: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. (LOs), l
- Page 412 and 413: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. Then hie
- Page 414 and 415: Eugenijus Kurilovas et al. If we lo
- Page 416 and 417: Models of eLearning: The Developmen
- Page 418 and 419: Stella Lee et al. Converging (AC a
- Page 420 and 421: Stella Lee et al. knowledge. Meta k
- Page 422 and 423: Stella Lee et al. Figure 3: Home pa
- Page 424 and 425: Stella Lee et al. Azevedo, R., Crom
- Page 426 and 427: Jake Leith et al. opportunities ble
- Page 428 and 429: Jake Leith et al. Data was collecte
Model of eLearning Project Evaluation<br />
Jana Kapounova, Jana Sarmanova and Marketa Dvorackova<br />
University of Ostrava, Czech Republic<br />
Jana.Kapounova@osu.cz<br />
Jana.Sarmanova@osu.cz<br />
D10576@student.osu.cz<br />
Abstract: The paper deals with the model of eLearning evaluation process, specifically with a proposal of<br />
methods and means for eLearning project evaluation. There are many approaches to eLearning projects<br />
evaluation. Let us consider eLearning as an educational project. An educational project, just like other projects, is<br />
comprised of design phases, proceeding one after another and interrelating. An eLearning project passes<br />
through several phases of its development: from planning through the development of study supports and the<br />
pilot stage, to usage of project results in instruction, namely in distance <strong>learning</strong>. eLearning project can be<br />
evaluated during each of its phase and as a whole project as well. It means for each phase of the project we<br />
have to collect reliable information to determine criteria of the phase quality. After evaluation of the phase we<br />
define feedback as a response to the results of performed analysis. In the present paper we want to demonstrate<br />
our way of dividing the eLearning project into phases like phases of the system development life cycle. We<br />
evaluate each individual phase. We have determined activities of evaluation, input information, outputs and<br />
staffing of the activities. We chose information that employs as measures needed for quality evaluation of each<br />
phase and of the project as a whole.<br />
Keywords: evaluation of eLearning, eLearning project, project life cycle, eLearning project phases, project<br />
evaluation<br />
1. Introduction<br />
The expansion of eLearning since the last century was very fast especially in universities and<br />
corporate training sector. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) were first used for<br />
communication between students and teachers (via email), in the area of supporting study materials<br />
(study texts, PowerPoint presentations, video recordings of lectures), and finally for the controlling<br />
and management of studies (Lojda, 1999).<br />
eLearning plays a crucial role in distance education, but it is also important in supporting face-to-face<br />
studies. The most common form of study using eLearning is a combined form, sometimes called<br />
blended <strong>learning</strong>.<br />
With the rise of eLearning, many, especially managers of educational institutions, thought that the<br />
eLearning form of instruction will be cheaper. This belief of eLearning being a not expensive solution<br />
is still widespread among the public, even though some experts have warned about higher costs<br />
associated with the implementation of eLearning from the very beginning. What affects the eLearning<br />
projects then, what should we not neglect during their development and implementation? (Poulová,<br />
2006)<br />
Within the ‛eLearning Project Evaluation – the system approach’ project we intend to establish a<br />
procedure (procedures) and determine factors that can affect quality, effectiveness and economy of<br />
an eLearning project.<br />
There are many approaches to eLearning projects evaluation. Most of theoretical studies and<br />
examples of good practice deal with evaluation of study supports and ways of communication<br />
between learners and instructors (Eger, 2004). The effectiveness of eLearning is with no doubts<br />
affected by other factors as well which we will try to determine in our work (Freibergová, 2000). We<br />
presume that the best way of how to prepare the methodology for eLearning evaluation should be the<br />
system approach.<br />
2. Some approaches to the problematic<br />
The discussion of eLearning, or of its evaluation, requires us to define several terms. From a wide<br />
range of definitions that are to be found throughout the relevant bibliography, we have accepted the<br />
following.<br />
355