Lesson 11
Nancy Donaldson
Following are some thoughts I had on evaluation of new information technologies, especially distance education, after reviewing the supplemental readings for Lesson 11.
The first article I will comment on is On the Necessity of Grassroots Evaluation of Educational Technology: Recommendations for Higher Education, by Stephen C. Ehrmann. The author states that uses of the Web for distance education will not improve educational results unless "the Web is used in ways that enable significant change in who can learn, what they learn (educational goals), and/or what they do when learning." He states that educators must reexamine educational goals and the new kinds of students that may be reached through distance education.
Ehrmann calls for what he terms "grassroots diagnostic studies" of distance education so that improvements can be made "in the process and outcomes of education." He advocates evaluation of distance delivery programs to determine outcomes and believes that the goal of this evaluation should by diagnostic so that instructors can immediately improve their programs. He uses the term "grassroots" because he believes that the instructors themselves should conduct much of this evaluation, as opposed to the systematic, controlled research conducted by persons not directly involved in the process. He urges local studies by the practitioners themselves to help make distance-learning initiatives more successful and to reveal problems, as well as opportunities, that are present in Web-enabled distance education.
I tend to agree with Ehrmann that there is a need for evaluation of educational outcomes as a result of the Web and distance education. Evaluation has become critical in education today, whereas it was not so important in the past. The reason for this is that the traditional educational model has not changed in over a century. With the possibilities offered by the new technologies of today, evaluation of educational outcomes is critical so that educators do not just take off "flying blind" with technology. Their educational purposes and reasons for using new technology should be clearly evident. Otherwise, technology is just so many "bells, whistles, and gadgets."
I also agree that a grassroots approach to research and evaluation should take place among the so-called "pioneers" in Web-based distance education. Changes and advances in new technology have descended upon us so quickly that there are no real experts at this time. There are just too many variables and too many new systems for any one person to be an overall expert in the broad field of distance education. For this reason, I feel that educators must work collaboratively together to share the knowledge they have gained and the findings from their individual experience and research in distance education. Fortunately, with the Web, it is possible for this collaborative effort among educators to be convenient and relatively easy compared to earlier times.
In the educational technology workshops I conduct, I always encourage participants to "share the knowledge" they have in technology with their colleagues. The learning curve for educators in the field of technology is just too great for any one person to be able to "go it alone."
Jamie Morley is the author of the second article I will discuss. In Methods of Assessing Learning in Distance Education Courses, the author states that there is not a singular best way for assessing educational outcomes and improvements as a result of distance education. She then suggests several methods for assessment of cognitive learning under the categories of Synchronous and Asynchronous Assessment Methods. She believes that both types of assessment can be used effectively and that to determine the best method, an institution must consider the subject matter, consequences for student dishonesty or fraud, cost, and course layout. She suggests that instructors be offered many assessment alternatives for use in distance courses to ensure that their students remain challenged and involved. The best assessment method, according to Morley, is one that matches the personality of the course and the institution.
I agree with Morley that assessment alternatives in distance education should be varied and of many types. I believe that technology itself makes the individualization of assessment methods possible and desirable. And, as discussed under the first article, I believe that instructors should share their experiences and research involving assessment methods with their distance education colleagues in order for educational improvements to be achieved.
The final article from our supplemental readings that I will discuss is From theory to implementation: The Mediated Learning approach to computer-mediated instruction, learning and assessment, by Warren Baker, Thomas Hale, and Bernard R. Gifford. Since this is an actual research article, it was not an "easy read" as were the first two articles. The authors present their actual research methods and findings concerning computer-mediated instructional materials (CMI). Their findings indicate that educational improvements as a result of CMI are evident in several areas including:
The authors use student passing rates to measure the effectiveness of CMI efforts in college-level mathematics courses. They include several tables that measure instructional productivity, and their results indicate that CMI has a positive and impressive impact on educational outcomes.
Although the research in this article does not deal with distance education, I believe that many of the findings probably apply to distance learning as well. From my own experience with online graduate courses, I have to agree with the authors' research findings for CMI. I find the freedom of "constructivist" learning, made possible by online courses, to be very liberating. I am allowed to pursue the subject matter at my own pace and in as much depth as I would like. I like online distance education so much more than traditional classroom instruction and I feel that I have learned more than I would have in the restrictive environment of the face-to-face, traditional classroom setting.