CBLT Design 4 by vpCRE9


									CBLT Design 4

Level 1 learners, EEM and H&SatWork
Metrics, standards and evaluation.

Ms Gaya Wijayawardena Dr John Woollard
February 2008
Who are Level 1 learners?

  The Level 1 learner is frequently a mature adult with a new or renewed
    desire to start learning or gain qualifications.
  The learners will probably have a failed education thus possessing few
    or no qualifications. The desire to learn and /or gain qualifications
    may arise directly from work and the requirements to remain
    employed or a personal desire for self-betterment.
  Level 1 learners can have poor learning skills and poor meta-learning
    awareness. Frequently, they will have a low self-esteem, particularly
    in relation to academic pursuit.
  The learning styles of Level 1 learners are as varied as any other group
    of learners.
Who are your Level 1 learners?

Literacy skills
     http://www.basicskills-online.org.uk describes the
     requirements (expectations) of level 1 learners

Reading - at this level, adults are expected to:
• Follow a short narrative on a familiar topic.
• Read and understand some words, signs and
• Use reading strategies.

Numeracy skills
    http://www.basicskills-online.org.uk describes the
    requirements (expectations) of level 1 learners

Visual literacy skills

Computer literacy skills
     http://www.basicskills-online.org.uk describes the
     requirements (expectations) of level 1 learners

Principles of EEM
• Supportive

• Collaborative

• Specific

• Succeeds better if you are a “double expert” with knowledge
  of usability combined with expertise in the kind of interface
  under evaluation.

Advantages/Disadvantages of EEM
• Cost effective.
• Quick.
• Can identify a majority of usability problems.
• Useful for identifying and eliminating major problems before
  conducting user research.
• tends to enhance the credibility of an instructional product.
• less accurate and thorough than usability testing
• regardless of the evaluators’ skill and experience, they remain expert
  evaluators who emulate users and not typical users.

EEM references
•   CHRIS CHINIEN, P. D. & FRANCE BOUTIN, P. D. (2005) Framework for strengthening
    research in ICT-mediated learning. Information Technology Based Higher Education
    and Training. UNEVOC, UNESCO, Canada, IEEE.
•   FLOW-INTERACTIVE (2007) Expert evaluation. Flow Interactive.
•   KANTNER, L. & ROSENBAUM, S. (1997) Usability Studies of WWW Sites: Heuristic
    Evaluation vs. Laboratory Testing. SIGDOC. Salt Lake City, UT, Association for
    Computing Machinery.
•   LEPISTÖ, A. & OVASKA, S. (2004) Usability evaluation involving participants with
    cognitive disabilities. ACM International Conference Proceeding Tampere, Finland ACM.
•   ROSENBAUM, S. (1989) Usability Evaluations Versus Usability Testing: When and Why?
    Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions Volume 32, 210-216.
•   TEITAC (2007) Theme:Testability. http://teitac.org/.

EEM of H&S in the Workplace
considering the instructions,
information, activities and
•is the navigation intuitive?
•are they visually well presented?
•are they aurally well presented?
•are they verbally well presented?
•is the application
Underpinning principles
•   Constructivism
•   Social constructivism
•   Cognitivism
•   Behaviourism

• Constructionism?

A cognitive metric?
Bloom’s Taxonomy applied to assessment of work, evaluation of
   session opportunities, evaluation of a web resource, evaluation of a
   software application Evaluation The ability to judge the value of
   material using explicit and coherent criteria. Synthesis The ability to
   reassemble these parts into a new and meaningful relationship.
   Analysis The ability to break material down into its constituent parts
   and see the relationship between them. Application The ability to
   apply knowledge and comprehension in new and concrete situations.
   Comprehension An understanding of the meaning of this
   knowledge. Knowledge Simple knowledge of facts, terms etc.

Teaching through feedback

Evaluating good e-teaching
    •   secure knowledge and understanding of the subject
    •   effective planning
    •   setting clear objectives
    •   planning for differentiation
    •   meeting individual needs
    •   motivating learners
    •   having high expectations
    •   asking relevant and challenging questions
    •   supporting the development of critical thinking
    •   supporting the development of imagination
    •   supporting the development of creativity
    •   focussing on attainment progress
    •   effective management of learner

Evaluating good e-learning (response)
 extent to which learners show interest · extent to which
 learners show intellectual curiosity · do the learners enjoy
 learning · are learners intent on learning · are learners proud
 of their work · is there sustained concentration · do they
 work collaboratively · ability to work independently · ability
 to work co-operatively · having a good relationship with
 teachers/trainers · learners taking responsibility · learners
 showing initiative · learners showing a self awareness,
 courtesy, trustworthiness · learners showing a respect for
 others views and beliefs · confidence to reflect upon their
 own attainment and values · respect for rules and convention

Evaluating progress
• If the teaching is good and the response of the learners is
  appropriate then progress should be made.
• How do we measure progress?

Describing a learning object
• What is the difference between aims and objectives?
• Define learning outcomes, learning objectives, learning
• What is the difference between assessment and attainment?
• What is the difference between continuity and progression?
• What is chronology?
• Define and exemplify session starts, mini-plenary and plenary.
• What is the difference between long-term, medium-term and
  short-term planning?



To top