Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
(Worthen & Sanders, 1973). After completion of the first offering of the course, data were
again collected from all participants (instructors, graduate assistants, speakers, panel
members, and students) as part of a summative evaluation effort.
Evaluation data were collected in the following ways:
•
Continuous feedback while the course was in progress, focusing on experiences with
technology, course materials, assignments, class sessions, and other activities via
electronic interviews, focus groups, and surveys. [Students were made aware of the
fact that the course was new and that their feedback was not only encouraged but also
vital to the ongoing evaluation process.]
•
Development and use of a series of instruments that evaluate the effectiveness of
planning efforts, quality of instruction, use of technology and other resources, learning
and affective outcomes, course organization, and impact of student projects on the
organizations in which they are conducted.
Mid-Semester Evaluation Results
The instruments used to collect the evaluation data were designed to determine how
well the objectives of the course had been incorporated (and met) through assignments,
speakers, ETPs, and other class activities. Data were collected through several instruments,
including pre- and post-technology surveys, mid-semester evaluations, standard university
course evaluations, electronic portfolio (self-reporting) analyses and reflections, and inter-
views of students, guest speakers, and course developers.
At approximately the midpoint of the course, students were presented with 12 open-
ended questions as a means of collecting their thoughts, reflections, and suggestions for how
the course was progressing to that point. Questions focused on the following aspects of the
course:
•
Assignments completed
•
Relevance/applicability of topics to their future plans
•
Guest speakers
•
Use of WebCT
•
Presentation of educational technologies
•
Progress on the educational technology project (ETP)
•
Class presentation formats
•
Textbook and readings
•
Quality of instruction
•
Suggestions for improvement
Overall feedback was positive for the assignments, relevance of the topics and content,
guest speakers, instructors, and teaching assistants. Seventy percent of the students felt the
WebCT presented many difficulties, complaining of having experienced “much frustration”
while attempting to upload assignments, being uncomfortable posting to the discussion
groups, and having trouble finding things on the site. Students were split 50/50 as to whether
the educational technologies were being thoroughly presented, with a unanimous request
for more hands-on experience. Information on the progress of their ETPs indicated that 20%
of the projects were “going well,” 50% were having difficulties scheduling meetings with their
