VLE Denouement Tool Evaluation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case study: |
WBS2-4802-PilotUK |
VLE type: |
|
|
Name: |
Jonathan Hawkes |
Instructional |
|
|
Telephone: |
020 8411 6072 |
Best day/time to call for interview: |
|
|
e-mail: |
j.hawkes@mdx.ac.uk |
|
|
Strongly disagree =1 |
Not sure = 3 |
Strongly Agree=5 |
|
|
Fairly Disagree=2 |
Fairly Agree=4 |
Unknown = 0 |
|
Please
enter the number '0-5' in the box for each question: |
|
4 |
1) The induction was clear and
understandable. |
|
|
If not why: |
termonology is difficult to grasp
and overall concepts with no background |
|
5 |
2) The induction was useful. |
|
|
If not why: |
worto doing if only for discussion |
|
3 |
3) The summary totals was clear and
understandable. |
|
|
If not why: |
|
5 |
4) The summary totals was useful. |
|
|
If not why: |
|
5 |
5) The e-content was clear and
understandable. |
|
|
If not why: |
made a parallel to the classroom and
it made sense |
|
5 |
6) The e-content was useful. |
|
|
If not why: |
been a good process to think about
what the format and content is |
|
4 |
7) The e-communication was clear and
understandable. |
|
|
If not why: |
ten criteia was an indicator of the
importance of the area of communication |
|
4 |
8) The e-communication was useful. |
|
|
If not why: |
good prompt to standards and good
practice |
|
4 |
9) The telepistemology was clear and
understandable. |
|
|
If not why: |
|
3 |
10) The telepistemology was useful. |
|
|
If not why: |
hardest one to come to grips with so
far |
|
4 |
11) The emanagement was clear and
understandable. |
|
|
If not why: |
comprehesive list of criteia to see
student and workplace relationship |
|
3 |
12) The emanagement was useful. |
|
|
If not why: |
based generalisations and suposition |
|
5 |
11) The Generic VLE Model was clear
and understandable. |
|
|
If not why: |
doing this BEFORE making the WebCT
course would be BEST - recommend to do this BEFORE doing WebCT |
|
4 |
12) The Generic VLE Model was
useful. |
|
|
If not why: |
useful to wee whole |
|
2 |
13) The Knowledge & Learning Grid was clear and understandable. |
|
|
If not why: |
too much info |
|
3 |
14) The Knowledge & Learning Grid was useful. |
|
|
If not why: |
jurys out on how useful |
|
3 |
15) The DISC paradigm was clear and understandable. |
|
|
If not why: |
in some ways teacher to learner axis
good - but too much like K&L grid - is it different |
|
4 |
16) The DISC paradigm was useful. |
|
|
If not why: |
more useful because less info |
|
5 |
17) The Web Metamorphosis Model was clear and understandable. |
|
|
If not why: |
because it was described not read it
was easier to understand |
|
5 |
18) The Web Metamorphosis Model was useful. |
|
|
If not why: |
good starting point |
|
5 |
19) The Transitional Autonomy Model
was understanable. |
|
ave. |
If not why: |
now I've become more comfortable
with the language, the intent and the vision of what the VLE is doing. |
|
4 |
20) Any comments or suggestions to
improve the VLE Denouement Toolkit: |
The TAM principles started out
difficult to understand - maybe switch the order |
|
|
Email questions or comments to: |
pros@mdx.ac.uk |
|
thoughts: given the amount of
contexualisation given in person - stuggle to see it done alone |
|
Skip: What about - supported by
video conf? - Jon - yes, needs real-time interactivity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|