Khadeeja & Amal -Portfolio

Amal & Khadeejah Portfolio

2009-05-08T22:41:00.000-07:00

Sultan Qaboos University

College of Education

Instructional & Learning Technology Department

TECH4102: Evaluation in Educational Technology

Spring 2009

Amal & Khadeejah Portfolio

Student Name & ID:

· Amal AL-Balushi (66755)

· Khadeejah AL-Shidhani (61344)

Course instructor:

· Dr Alaa Sadik, alaasadik@squ.edu.om

Thank you for taking the time to view our portfolio. This portfolio is about a collection of works that results from our efforts and search in the course of Evaluation in Educational Technology (TECH4102). These works have enriched our experience and background in the field of Educational Technology.

You can view our work by simply clicking on the following links:

The portfolio content is hosed at

www.blogger.com | www.slideshare.net | www.scribd.com | surveyconsole.com

Spring 2009 ©

Evaluation of online learning

2009-05-07T01:35:00.000-07:00

In this project we evaluate e-learning tutorial that is provided by Athabasca University. The purpose of the project is to evalate the learning environment of the e-learning tutorial "Workplace English" in terms of:

Tutorial and assessment component.
Interaction component.
Management component.
Support component.

The full report of the project is available in the following link :
Project Report

The used survey is available in the following link:
Project Survey

Comparative and non-Comparative Study

2009-05-07T01:11:00.000-07:00

Here is a summery of two studies in the field of educational Technology :

Comparative study ( Perception and performance study) :

Comparative Analysis of Learner Satisfaction and Learning Outcomes in Online and Face-to-Face Learning Environments

Scottd. Johnson, Steven R. Aragon, Najmuddin Shaik, & Nilda Palma-Rivas
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Non-Comparative Study:

Evaluation of the development of metacognitive knowledge supported by the knowcat system

Manoli Pifarre´ . Ruth Cobos
Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2009

The presentation:
http://www.slideshare.net/techsqu/comparartive-and-noncomparative-study

The summery:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14942989/Comparative-and-nonComparative-Study

Evaluation of CAI

2009-05-07T01:02:00.000-07:00

This servey aims to evaluate computer-based instruction software.

The survey is located in this link http://www.surveyconsole.com/console/TakeSurvey?id=559055

Suggestion of an Evalustion Strategy to Evaluate an Educational Technology Project

2009-05-07T00:39:00.000-07:00

About the Project:

Name: School Arabia

Site: www.schoolarabia.net

Establishment: Amman, Jordan in July 2000.

Description: It is a digital school that provides interactive Arabic instructional and learning environment for different learning stages from grade 1 to grade 12. It provides instruction in different subjects like Arabic, Math, English, Science, Information technology, teaching methods, learning strategies.

Registration:

Monthly: 7$
Half Year: 30$
Annual: 49$

Evaluation Strategy:

Name: Student Confidence Log

Description: It is a sheet of a pre and post confidence log questionnaire form. The specific concepts or skills descriptions have been left blank because it varies from subject to another.

Sample:

Date:
Lesson:
Student Name:
Evaluator:
Grade:
Time:
Subject:

A: Pre-Program Confidence LevelsB: Post-Program Confidence Levels
N.B. Do not complete this table until after using the program.
Reference:

http://cde.athabascau.ca/softeval/reports/R270311.pdf

Models of Evaluation in Educational Technology

2009-05-07T00:29:00.000-07:00

Evaluating an E-learning Website using a combination of two models: ACTIONS Model and BadrulKhan Model.

see the presentation:
http://www.slideshare.net/techsqu/evaluation-an-elearning-website

Levels and Techniques of Evaluation in Educational Technology

2009-05-06T23:10:00.000-07:00

"Evaluation for the DFES Video Conferencing in the Classroom Project"

This study is an evaluation study for a videoconferencing project.

Evaluation framework:
The evaluation investigated three main levels of activity:

Institutional level:

The purchase, deployment and management of video conferencing resources.
The place of video conferencing within overall ICT development planning and policy.

Subject level:

The nature and quality of teaching.
The nature and quality of learning.
Teacher-pupil and pupil-pupil relationships.

Individual level:

The perceptions of individual teachers and learners on the relationship between video conferencing and academic attainment.
The perceptions of individual teachers of the strengths, weaknesses and implications of the use of video conferencing in different contexts.
The perceptions of pupils of the impact of using video conferencing in formal learning situations on their understanding and engagement with learning.
Where relevant, the perceptions of pupils of the impact of using video conferencing in informal (e.g., ‘off-/non-task’) interactions on their understanding and engagement with learning.

Techniques:

Interview with personnel.
Interview with students.
Case Study.
Observation.

Reference:
http://www.global-leap.org/about/video_conferencing_final_report_may04.pdf

Educational Wikis: Features & Selection Criteria

2009-05-06T22:42:00.000-07:00

Authors:
Linda Schwartz, Sharon Clark, Mary Cossarin, & Jim Rudolph

Study Purpose:
Evaluating wikis is very different from evaluating vendor supplied or proprietary programs which have a fixed set of features. All wikis can potentially adopt all of the features found in other wikis, simply by accessing and customizing the source code. This report describes the basic characteristics and features of wikis and attempts to provide an easy approach to selecting wiki features.
There is a comparison between WikiWiki Web (the first wiki) and Seed Wiki (a WYSIWYG wiki). Feature categories included: source code, wiki management, page formatting, access control, communications, support, and advanced features.

Features of Wikis:
• Editable by major browsers (IE, Netscape);
• WYSIWYG editing;
• HTML support;
• text editing (italics, font size, color);
• image insertion;
• hyperlink insertion;
• tables;
• lists (numbered, bulleted, hierarchical);
• media insertion (streaming audio/video);
• search;
• spell-check;
• emoticons;
• blogging;
• polling;
• calendar;
• RSS;
• link checking;
• drawing tools;
• equation editor; and
• Synchronous text messaging.

Further Educational Considerations:
Features rarely incorporated in wikis are: equation editor, synchronous text messaging, link checking, and drawing whiteboard (some do have drawing tools). If coursework requires these capabilities s, an integrated collaborative software program may be a better choice

Reference:
http://cde.athabascau.ca/softeval/reports/R270311.pdf

Evaluating Instructional Technology Implementation in a Higher Education Environment

2009-05-06T04:36:00.001-07:00

Summery of research:

Overview:
The research first reviews the literature and describes the methods used in a myriad of evaluation studies in instructional technology. The review result on the following three conclusions:
(1) Multiple data collection methods have been used to collect information from multiple sources
(2) Various evaluation models or approaches have been followed; and
(3) There are a common set of problems and concerns about past evaluations of technology-enhanced instruction.
Then it provides a concrete example of evaluating a campus-wide learning technology effort (the SCALE Project) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This evaluation spanned three years and used multiple methods.

Evaluation methodology:
Purpose:
Since the research serves different clients it has more than one objective. The research has defined three main client groups: (1) the campus administration, (2) involved instructors, and (3) the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (the funding agency).
These objectives are:
• Evaluating the impact of ALN (Asynchronous Learning Networks) on professors and students
• Understanding the economic implications of ALN.

Evaluation approach:
To answer the evaluation questions, the research adopted the mixed-method approach. Following a document review, both qualitative data and quantitative data were collected. Quantitative data took the form of survey results, records of use, achievement gain scores, and an extensive cost-benefit analysis (which is reported in a subsequent article). Qualitative data primarily involved interviews. Some data collection efforts had both qualitative and quantitative elements. For example, the evaluation of computer conferencing involved tallying interactions between various course members as well as a qualitative content analysis of the interactions. Some impact and efficiency data were also collected during Years one and two.

Instrument:

Student surveys: To assess student attitudes and perceptions about the use of ALN, students involved in the sponsored courses are surveyed. a “Conferencing” survey was administered to students enrolled in SCALE-sponsored courses wherein conferencing software was the primary application, and a “Web” survey was administered to students in courses primarily using the Web.

Post-course instructor surveys:Instructors were asked questions about the time commitment of, level of satisfactionWith, and support required for teaching courses with ALN.

Computer support personnel surveys:Respondents were asked about thetraining they had received, the types of question students and instructors asked them, andtheir satisfaction with various learning technologies used in SCALE-sponsored courses.

Student and TA (teaching assistant) group interviews:The TA interviews were conducted without students or professors present and focused on issues of computer accessibility, ease of use, student satisfaction, and perceived instructional benefits of using ALN

Instructor interviews: An individual one-hour interview focused on professors’ perceptions of ALN effects on certain quality indicators of education. These indicators include quality and quantity of student-to-student interaction; quantity and quality of student-to-instructor interaction; and the sense of community fostered within classrooms.During year three the focus of all data collection (instructor interviews included) was on assessing instructional efficiencies. During these interviews, information was collected on instructors’ salary and time allocation for teaching, cost per student for each course (with and without ALN), and the infrastructure cost of running an ALN course.

Gains in student achievement: The evaluation team undertook several quasi-experimental studies during the first two years. These looked at achievement score differences between (1) ALN and non-ALN sections of the same course; (2) semesters taught with ALN and those taught without ALN in the same course (i.e., historical comparisons); and (3) similar courses where one of the professors used ALN and the other taught without ALN.Content analysis of the SCALE instructors conference:A content analysis of the postings to the conference was conducted as part of the evaluation. The following five categories emerged from the postings made to this conference: (1) announcements and sharing of information; (2) specific technical assistance questions and answers; (3) sharing of best practices; (4) philosophical issues of interest; and (5) general suggestions to the SCALE project staff for improvement.

Course conferences:The evaluation team monitored the student computer conferences in several courses throughout the evaluation. The purpose of the monitoring was to tally student and instructor use as well as determine the type of interactions that occurred.

Research resource: Cheryl Bullock and John Ory, American Journal of Evaluation 2000; 21; 315

Summery of Two Evaluation Studies in Educational Technology

2009-05-06T04:24:00.000-07:00

Here is a summery of two evaluation studies in educational technology. In the first study we focuse in the purpose and methodology used, however in the seconed study we summerize the technological features that are evaluated.