ELESIG Evaluation of Learners’ Experiences of e-Learning Special Interest Group
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•1,544 views
This document summarizes the findings of a study that evaluated minimum e-learning standards across 24 universities in the UK. Both staff and students were surveyed about what elements should be included in a minimum online course presence. There was overall agreement between staff and student preferences, with the highest rated items including the module title/code, contact details, aims, learning outcomes and assessment requirements. However, some statistically significant differences existed between staff and student preferences for certain elements. The document discusses next steps, including using Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory and focus groups, to determine what criteria should be included in the minimum standards.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (14)
Similar to ELESIG Evaluation of Learners’ Experiences of e-Learning Special Interest Group
Similar to ELESIG Evaluation of Learners’ Experiences of e-Learning Special Interest Group (20)
More from Peter Reed
More from Peter Reed (13)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
ELESIG Evaluation of Learners’ Experiences of e-Learning Special Interest Group
- 1. ELESIG Evaluation of Learners’ Experiences of e-Learning Special Interest Group MINIMUM STANDARDS / BASELINE Peter Reed University of Liverpool A MEMBER OF THE RUSSELL GROUP
- 3. SECTOR-WIDE SUBSCRIPTION COMPARING STAFF & STUDENT RESPONSES (n=102 & n=840)
- 4. 24 Responses Received Aberystwyth Bath Bristol Durham (Physics and Arts & Humanities) Edge Hill Exeter Goldsmiths Greenwich Institute of Education University of London Kent Leeds Liverpool London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Newcastle Nottingham Northampton Salford Southampton Solent Swansea York St. John Warwick Univ. of Malta University College London
- 5. Dedicated VLE Area Staff Profiles Module Description / Outline Recommended Reading Assessment Requirements Lecture Handouts Schedule/Brief Announcements Timetable Grading Criteria Forums Sample Q’s / Past Papers Plagiarism Key teaching materials LIbrary info My Grades / Gradebook Student Expectations Turnitin Report an issue Weekly problems PDF formats Suggestion box THEY IDENTIFIED
- 7. MINIMUM STANDARDS @ LIV COMPARING STAFF & STUDENT RESPONSES (n=102 & n=840)
- 8. Drivers LGoS TEL Strategy A three phase ‘audit’ of TEL across ILT provision.
- 9. Staff & Students were provided a list A Welcome to the area Contact details for Leader Contact details for others Module Specification Timetable / Schedule Learning Outcomes Assessment Strategy Further Reading Lecture notes/handouts Past Exam Papers Online submission Formative feedback on draft Online discussion forums
- 10. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 95% 93% 88% 87% 84% 54% 71% 79%80% 69% 44% 75% 79% Student suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards * * ** ** *
- 11. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 72% 47% 65% 59% 71% 27% 37% 38% 43% 59% 47% 58% 58% Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
- 12. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Student v Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
- 13. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 95% 93% 88% 87% 84% 54% 71% 79%80% 69% 44% 75% 79% Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards 72% 47% 65% 59% 71% 27% 37% 38% 43% 59% 47% 58% 58%
- 14. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 95% 93% 88% 87% 84% 54% 71% 79%80% 69% 44% 75% 79% Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards 72% 47% 65% 59% 71% 27% 37% 38% 43% 59% 47% 58% 58% Statistical Tests Positive correlation between staff & students (r=0.560) Some significant differences between staff and student responses (p=0.0002) Significant difference between number of items selected (p=0.0001) - m Staff=9.32: Students=10.91 Significant difference between number of items selected by male and female students (p=0.0012)
- 15. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Criteria with largest staff/student difference in Minimum standards 37% 46% 41% 34%
- 16. 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% 95% 93% 88% 87% 84% 54% 71% 79%80% 69% 44% 75% 79% Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards 72% 47% 65% 59% 71% 27% 37% 38% 43% 59% 47% 58% 58% Questions Which criteria do we include? How much of the student voice is enough?
- 17. Demo PSYC310 CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
- 18. Demo CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
- 19. Demo CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
- 20. Demo CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
- 21. Demo CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
- 22. Demo CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP Agreement thus far Criteria to be included automatically… 1. Module Title & Module Code 2. Module Co-ordinator (name and email address) 3. Aims 4. Learning Outcomes 5. Syllabus 6. Teaching & Learning Strategy 7. Assessment requirements 8. Contact hours 9. Disclaimer
- 23. Next Steps Herzberg’s Hygiene Factors Focus groups
- 24. Next Steps Herzberg’s Hygiene Factors Focus groups
- 25. Next Steps Herzberg’s Hygiene Factors Focus groups
- 26. Peter Reed Lecturer (Learning Technology) Institute of Learning & Teaching Faculty of Health & Life Science peter.reed@liverpool.ac.uk @reedyreedles #54332