A Grounded Approach to an Online ET Program’s Evaluation
PROCEEDINGS
Michael Sullivan, Rene Corbeil, Cheng-Chang Pan, University of Texas at Brownsville, United States
Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Phoenix, AZ, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-55-6 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA
Abstract
The present paper is intended to promote a theoretical framework for a Web-based Educational Technology graduate program's evaluation in a southern university in the United States. Corresponding to two key program goals and state-mandated regulations, a grounded Kirkpatrick's four level model is proposed and illustrated in a figure, including four distinct, but compatible, categories of data: learners' reaction to the program, learning outcomes, behavior change, business results, and one additional dimension of data sets, learner profiling (i.e., age, gender, work status, and learning styles). It features a recurrent evaluation model structure, participants' reaction on a spectrum, a learning assessment tool, a performance appraisal model, and partnership within an eco-system, and use of learner profiling in describing and predicting a successful learning experience and a satisfactory performance across the curriculum. The rationale and justifications of the project are also addressed.
Citation
Sullivan, M., Corbeil, R. & Pan, C.C. (2005). A Grounded Approach to an Online ET Program’s Evaluation. In C. Crawford, R. Carlsen, I. Gibson, K. McFerrin, J. Price, R. Weber & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2005--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1039-1044). Phoenix, AZ, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 19, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/19157/.
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Bernthal, P.R. (1995). Evaluation that goes the distance. Training& Development, 49(9), 41-45.
- Blanchard, P.N., Thacker, J.W., & Way, S.A. (2000). Training evaluation: Perspectives and evidence from Canada. International Journal of Training& Development, 4(4), 295-304.
- Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2001). Evaluating distributed learning in metropolitan universities. Metropolitan Universities, 12(1), 41-49.
- Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
- Kifer, E. (1995). Evaluation: A general view. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Past, present, and future (pp. 384-392). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
- Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors, 13, 3–9, 21–26.
- Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Training& Development, 50(1), 54-59.
- Lynch, L.L., & Purnawarman, P. (2004). Electronic portfolio assessments in U.S. Educational and instructional technology programs: Are they supporting teacher education? TechTrend, 48(1), 50-56.
- Moskal, P.D., & Dziuban, C.D. (2001). Present and future directions for assessing cybereducation: The changing research paradigm. In L.R. Vandervert, L.V. Shavinina, & R.A. Cornell (Eds.), Cybereducation: The future of long distance learning (pp. 157-184). Larchmont, NY: Many Ann Liebert.
- Noonan, L.E., & Sulsky, L.M. (2001). Impact of frame-of-reference and behavioral observation training on alternative training effectiveness criteria in a Canadian military sample. Human Performance, 14(1), 3-26.
- Ornstein, A.C., & Hunkins, F.P. (1998). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (3rd ed.). Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
- Ring, G.L., & Foti, S.L. (2003). Addressing standards at the program level with electronic portfolios. TechTrends, 47(2), 28-32.
- Thompson, M.M., & Irele, M.E. (2003). Evaluating distance education programs. In M.G. Moore& W.G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 567-584). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References