Thanks very much to all those who attended this week’s workshop on evaluation. This was the last in the series on blended module design and reiterated how this aspect, along with defining meaningful learning outcomes, identifying activities, designing assessment and developing and incorporating learning resources all need to be considered in relation to other, at the design stage.
While evaluation can often be an after thought, or left to the standard end of module “happy sheets”, the session explored ways in which evaluation can be designed to run at the start and throughout your module. This can provide academics with valuable feedback on students needs, understanding and areas for further attention. allowing them to make necessary adjustments to their teaching as the module runs. Targeted end of module evaluation, through a variety of methods, can be used to shed light on and provide indications of areas for attention for subsequent teaching delivery.
Following an introduction from Cecilia Lowe on the position of evaluation within the context of other aspects of module design, Dr Richard Walker provided us with an overview of practical considerations for defining your evaluation approach, addressed a variety of data collection methods, including the role that technology can play in this, before highlighting how this can be pulled together with an overarching evaluation plan which should be set out at the design stage of a module.
Once valid data has been collected in from a variety of sources (VLE, students, focus groups, colleagues) we find ourselves back at the start of the design phase with the opportunity to reflect on lessons learned and define next steps to make our courses even better…
There are a range of resources to support evaluation available through the guides tab on the VLE (also available through this link here), or please see below for a selection of those highlighted explicitly in the session:
Jara, M., Mohamad, F., & Cranmer, S. (2008). Evaluation of E-Learning Courses. WLE Centre Occasional Paper 4. Institute of Education, University of London.