learning - Academic Conferences Limited

human
resources
tutors, lectors,
administrators,
etc.
Jana Kapounova et al.
HR requirements
with professional
and time
potentials
manager,
personnel officer
eLearning evaluation phase activity who performs it
project phase
(is responsible)
financial financial project budget accountant,
sufficiency with the
institution
financial plan
manager
organizational ability/readiness interview with manager,
of the institution management of management of
to accept the
project
the institution the institution
client approach e.g. awareness information Public Relation
of the people materials review (PR) specialist,
concerned (PR)
manager
4.3 Activity outputs
comparative
tables
activity
inputs
comparative
balance
sheet
e.g. in a
form of a
questionnair
e
set of
information
materials
evaluation
statement, e.g.
completed
checklist
activity outputs
evaluation
statement, e.g.
completed
checklist
evaluation
statement, e.g.
completed
checklist
evaluation
statement, e.g.
checklist
As evaluation activity outputs we have chosen the following: questionnaire, review, checklist,
evaluation report, survey record, evaluation statement, data analysis conclusions.
Results of the evaluation should among others show, if the people preparing the project have
considered all of the issues, how thoroughly and in what depth. To make the process of evaluation
less demanding and consuming, we need to optimize the set of evaluation materials. It is possible to
cumulate some of the outputs, e.g. in the above mentioned table we can merge all of the evaluation
statements of the readiness of the institution to a single checklist.
5. Conclusion
Every eLearning project is unique. Every developer chooses his own priorities within the project.
Our approach to eLearning project evaluation we based on dividing a project into phases (like phases
of the system development life cycle) and evaluating these individual phases. For each of the phases
we have determined activities of evaluation which are necessary to be realized, input information,
outputs and personnel coverage of the activities.
The determined items have been reviewed by experts in the field of eLearning at universities in Czech
Republic. According to their suggestions, adjustments have been made to the set of activities and
their attributes.
Subsequently some tools for individual phases and sub-phases evaluation are being designed.
First a study support evaluation form has been designed, an evaluation tool from the eLearning
education methodology usage point of view (Mechlová, 2008), (Šarmanová, 2009). The evaluation
form is a structured questionnaire consisting of twenty-six questions split into four areas:
Basic characteristics of text.
Encouragement of students.
Planning and organizing of study activities.
Feedback and evaluation.
The results of this evaluation on 57 study supports have been analysed with statistical methods
(Kapounová, Šarmanová, 2010).
At present two other evaluation tools are being verified:
An implementing of multimedia objects evaluation form;
Analysis and assessment of the suitability of the project in form of a checklist for reviewing the
readiness of the developer institution for implementation and execution of an eLearning project.
In this paper we present our approach to systematic evaluation of eLearning projects that suits our
learning environment, particularly at universities and high schools in the Czech Republic.
361