Final City Meeting P.. - Iowa State University

Document Sample
Final City Meeting P.. - Iowa State University Powered By Docstoc

HCC E-learning Prototype Final Report

                                  Jacob E. Larson & Ryan J. Six

                                        Iowa State University

                                                  May 7, 2007
 Prepare HCC   Module 1 for computer

 Develop assessment prototype

 Give   recommendations for CMS
Modules 1 and 2 Survey Data Analysis

1.   Adaptability of materials for online use.
2.   User understanding of material in
     support of self-managed learning.
3.   Participant preferences on Questions
     and Answers.
4.   Employee computer use and

 The HCC content materials were clear,
  understandable, and at the right difficulty level.
 Participants had enough time to study the
  materials and felt they understood the issues
 A significant minority in the Module 2 survey
  could use more time to become familiar with
  the company web page and the materials in
Findings cont’d

 The amount of discussion during the
  presentation is adequate
 Participants value the ability to ask questions.
 Some participants would prefer that questions
  are kept private.
 Most respondents are experienced computer
  users with sufficient internet browsing
  experience to take advantage of online
Findings cont’d

   Most agreed - training materials could be
    studied alone, but admitted that doing it alone
    and with an internet browser might not be very

   Others felt the need for guidance
    understanding materials and company web
    page navigation - indicated a desire for verbal
    delivery and classroom interaction.

 Material accomodates majority   of
 Encouragement needed for self-
  managed learning
 Include FAQ section and user
  discussion/question fora
 Offer email/phone option for private
Conclusion cont’d

 Provide   online study tutorial

 Provide   help with online study questions
  • Periodical workshops (add-on to existing
    training sessions)
  • Phone number to call for help

 Dual   approach to training:
  • Online self-managed training with support
  • In-class training with time reserved for questions

 Conduct future  evaluations to determine
 usability of self-managed learning
 materials with all employees
Usability Test

 Prototype Try-out   Session

 Content Comprehension Test

 User/Prototype Interaction    Survey
Usability Test cont’d
 Thematerials were clear, understandable,
 and easy to navigate.
      the participants understood and
 All of
 approved of the initial tutorial.
 Theparticipants all found the prototype
 easy to use, and enjoyed the narration -
 added a human touch to the materials and
 supplemented the written text.
Conclusion cont’d

 The materials   met learner expectations

 Motivating   and engaging

 Enjoyed computer  delivery format over
 the traditional paper/pamphlet delivery
Conclusion cont’d

 Narration motivational in helping to keep
 the learner’s interest by simulating the
 classroom environment and presence of
 a presenter

 Narration also   reinforced content/written
Conclusion cont’d
                 showed the tutorial was
 Participant data
 helpful in preparing the learner to use the
 graphical user interface to interact with the
 One  participant’s comment suggested
 narration be included with the initial tutorial
 – this suggestion worth exploring in future
 revisions of the prototype
Conclusion cont’d
 While the participants scoring a 62.5%
  (total average) is not a strong result for
  content retention, results are positive for
  participants who have never been
  exposed to the content

 The participants werenever given a
 chance to review the content before the
 assessment, nor were they instructed to
Conclusion cont’d

 Only   four participants

 A larger study conducted with more
 participants would show stronger results
 for content retention and be comparable
 to in-class training sessions
Conclusion cont’d
 Results demonstrate benefits of including
  discussion forums in future revisions of
  the prototype or CMS

 Having in-class time set aside for
 questions and clarifications regarding
 the on-line materials/content may also
 benefit users
 Content was   already developed by

    task = analyze the content for self-
 Our
 managed online learning adaption

 Changes necessary in   two different
  • Content
  • Design
 Adapting healthcare and consumerism
 materials required minor changes to
 some content such as the “Smartbucks

 Dueto the nature of the game, there is no
 simple way to distribute physical play
 A worksheet was   developed that allows
 users interactivity by recording their

 The usercan see the choices they made,
 and follow along with the materials to
 find how their choices reflect their
 knowledge of being a smart health care
 The designof materials were
 incorporated into Macromedia Breeze
 Adapting the materials to be used with
 Macromedia Breeze has also ensured the
 materials are appealing and flexible

 Look and  design of materials maintain
 professionalism of paper-based
 materials, but adds functionality and
 ability to be flexible to the users’ needs
 through scalability

 Reasonably new   PC or Macintosh

 Updated webbrowser with the free
 Macromedia Flash plug-in
Deployment Options:
 Website integration

 CD-ROM   distribution

 Content Management System (CMS)

 Home/work computer      use
 PC
 Macintosh
 Linux

 Compatible with several web browsers
 on various platforms
Premise – cheap or preferably free

 Various   options considered

 Decided    on Moodle
   Open source
   Large feature set
   Theoretically sound
   Intuitive and easy to use
   Cross-platform
   Reports usage statistics
   Easy assessment building and integration
   Provides maximum freedom for hosting options
   Free
   Allows for user activity tracking/reporting
Autumn Theme
Forest Theme
Formal Blue Theme
Quantum Theme
Standard Theme
Deciding factors
 Number of users
 Choice of Moodle as CMS and not the
  proprietary CMS of the hosting company
 Need for technical support of Moodle
  configuration and maintenance
 No need for content support
 Possible need for technical support of end
  users (will, most likely, make the hosting more
Local Hosting Solutions

 Phasient Technology: $2500 / year for up
 to 4000 users – proprietary CMS

 Global Reach: no information available
 yet – possibly proprietary CMS
National Hosting Solutions (not evaluated for
 quality or service level)

   Siteground
    hosting.htm ): $71.50 / year (smallest bandwith
    package – 2500Gb / month).

 no price listed - no info about
    Moodle, but should be possible – probably fee
    for setup and maintenance.
National Hosting Solutions

 AlphaOne (http://www.web-
 web-hosting.htm): $227.50 / year -
 Platinum package (most expensive) w. no
 bandwith limitations – customized
 packages available.
 Prototype forModule 1 included in
 contract deliverables

           from client not available in
 Test items
 time to complete
 Built-in Moodle question-bank and test
 Hot Potatoes test tool
 Both provide various test types
  •   multiple choice
  •   short answer
  •   Matching
  •   Essay
  •   Etc.
Hot Potatoes Tests can be

 Used on   regular web pages

 Included   on CD-distributed materials

 Integrated into   Moodle
Reporting options

 Moodle, and  Hot Potatoes (when
 integrated into Moodle) can provide data
 on user test performance
What questions do you have?
Thank you for the experience!

Shared By: