Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Se está descargando tu SlideShare. ×

Paul Gruhn Faculty-Research-Day Student-Poster Program Evalution

Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Próximo SlideShare
VLC WebEx meeting (8/9/11)
VLC WebEx meeting (8/9/11)
Cargando en…3
×

Eche un vistazo a continuación

1 de 1 Anuncio

Paul Gruhn Faculty-Research-Day Student-Poster Program Evalution

Descargar para leer sin conexión

On March 24, 2017, I submit this poster at the University of Bridgeport, Faculty Research Day poster presentations. This is a summary of a program evaluation project I completed in Dr. Linda Paslov's EDLD 808 Program Evaluation Course.

On March 24, 2017, I submit this poster at the University of Bridgeport, Faculty Research Day poster presentations. This is a summary of a program evaluation project I completed in Dr. Linda Paslov's EDLD 808 Program Evaluation Course.

Anuncio
Anuncio

Más Contenido Relacionado

Presentaciones para usted (20)

A los espectadores también les gustó (12)

Anuncio

Similares a Paul Gruhn Faculty-Research-Day Student-Poster Program Evalution (20)

Más reciente (20)

Anuncio

Paul Gruhn Faculty-Research-Day Student-Poster Program Evalution

  1. 1. Students dislike the learning materials Ø  Some book confusion Ø  Disliked the database administration portion of Murach’s book. Unlike the previous chapters Ø  Early chapters written clearly, the last couple of chapters confusing. Ø  Uploaded files not being correct Ø  The textbook was sometimes not very helpful. Ø  Sometimes the exercises were not clear enough. Ø  The videos were unhelpful; they were very hard to view and read. Students like the course structure & design Ø  How to present the work. Screenshots are very tedious Ø  The lack of ability to interact Ø  The discussion boards are hard to interact on without direction; this is not specific to only this class. Ø  Taking screenshots and putting them in word documents (screenshots were fine, but it was a pain to copy/paste them). Students dislike the limited amount of time Ø  The last week of class was crammed and was not a full week. Ø  Too much to do at the end. Expected last week to be a full week. Ø  Class is very fast paced because lot of learning materials got covered in small amount of time. Ø  Disliked the 8 week accelerated time frame for this class. Even though 1st semester HTML/CSS course was extremely hard Ø  Was able to get through with a lot of hard work not feel rushed. Ø  Work was extremely hard, felt super rushed and wished we had more time to take certain chapters a bit more slowly. Program Evaluation, Using Mixed Methods Students like the learning materials Ø  The textbook, that the entire book was covered was easy to follow Ø  Layout of textbook, one page of reading opposite page shorten outline. Ø  Loved the tutorial videos the Professor made; I’m a visual learning so the videos helped me immensely. Ø  The various online tools & supporting technologies Ø  The option to Skype with the professor Ø  Course requirements were stated clearly in the syllabus. Students like the Professor Ø  Timely feedback and returning assignments. Ø  Teaching Style Ø  Constantly updating us, making videos, and stayed connected with students. Ø  Availability & flexibility. Students like the course content Ø  Working with SQL commands/skills, learning about databases and the back-end Ø  A very practical course Ø  Liked that it was difficult (liked to an extent). Ø  The information learned and how thorough the course was. Students like the course structure & design Ø  The technology used in the course, supported the goals of the course. Ø  Instructional technology allowed me to achieve my goals. Ø  The class & professor interaction Ø  Loved getting the chance to learn by trial and error. The hands on approach really helped and could work at my own pace. Ø  The final project was structured but left open ended, which gave me some creativity on what type of database to create Ø  It was straight and to the point. Ø  Structure of the course Three Different Participant Groups Semesters 2014, 2015, 2016 Program Records 2014, 2015, 2016 External Expert Self Report Narrative Student Interviews Qualitative Data Surveys Past & Current Students Program Records Quantitative Data Surveys Past & Current Students Semi Structured Interviews External Expert Review Self-Report Auto Biographical Narrative Ø Switch from Content Folders, to Learning Modules Ø Consider incorporating additional tools provided by Blackboard (Tests, Quizzes, Journals,& Rubrics) Ø Use ‘Availability Setting’ for modules. “On a scale of 1 to 5 stars, what would you give this course? External Expert replied …” “4 ½ stars, based on my suggestions listed above.” Outside Expert: Review Outside Expert: Suggestions & Summary Measure Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Spring 2016 Enrolled 24 25 28 Withdrawals 3 (13%) 5 (20%) 4 (14%) A- or better 18 (75%) 17 (68%) 14 (50%) B- to B+ 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 7 (25%) C- to C+ 1(4%) 0 1 (4%) D- to D+ 0 0 0 F 0 2 (8%) 2 (8%) Web Certificate TBD TBD TBD Associates Degree TBD TBD TBD Student Likes Key Words Infographic (Word size = More frequently used words) Student Evaluations QUALITATIVE Survey Questions to Students 1. What did you like about the course? 2. What did you dislike about the course? 3. What suggestions for improvement? 4. Describe the course in one sentence. 5. Describe the course in one word. Student Grades Track Academic Outcomes Student Dislikes Ø  More Quantitative Data needed Ø  Eight week accelerated format vs longer Ø  Adhere to prerequisite requirements Ø  How can we assure continuity of skills across the web certificate program Ø  Need standardized online course design Ø  Need training online course design Ø  Learning strategy based training Ø  Awareness of all available technology Ø  On-ground vs. online Ø  More research include broader community than a single course Future Discussions Ø  “I am not seeing anything that is wrong.” Ø  “it is good overall.” Ø  “Overall this course looks nice.” Ø  “You use the ‘Getting Started” section to your own version, not just the canned version presented by the school.” Ø  “You use announcements a lot” [this is good] Ø  “You use embedded video.” Ø  “Your use embedded links” Ø  “Syllabus looks good, provides actual links to needed files for the course, and is high up on the syllabus.” Course Content Ø “Has a roadmap in the front” Ø “You have videos in each module” Ø Laid out well, and consistent. Ø My Grades Section, well organized. Student Submission: Paul Gruhn -- Advisor: Dr. Linda Paslov Department of Education, University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT Online Education: What works! What doesn’t! A Program Evaluation of a Community College Online Database for Web Applications Class Ø Time Ø Interesting Ø Challenging Ø Difficult Ø Busy Ø Essential Ø Informative Ø Thought-provoking Ø Unexpected Ø Interesting Ø Challenging Ø Spectacular Describe the class in one word For more information contact … paul.gruhn@bridgeport.edu http://poster-2017.paulgruhn.com/ Student Qualitative Survey Results

×