How is e-learning quality assessed in Finland: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

How is e-learning quality assessed in Finland:

Description:

Referee service a part of the service operations of the Finnish Virtual University 'Peer review of the quality of online learning materials' The goals of the ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:17
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 14
Provided by: tott4
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: How is e-learning quality assessed in Finland:


1
How is e-learning quality assessed in
Finland FVUs Referee service
Petra Rutanen University of Oulu Dept. of
Electrical and Information Engineering E-XCELLEN
CE seminar May 20, 2009
2
Referee service a part of the service
operations of the Finnish Virtual University
  • Peer review of the quality of online learning
    materials
  • The goals of the service are
  • To provide evaluation criteria and a service
    model that can be used to carry out quality
    assessment of online material
  • To give recognition for e-learning material
    producers (and evaluators)
  • To increase the common usability of high-quality
    online learning material produced in
    universities.

3
Referee service a part of the service
operations of the Finnish Virtual University
  • A portal site where
  • Any e-learning material producer can request an
    evaluation for their material
  • Users can search for evaluated materials
  • Material producers can test their own material
  • Experts can apply to be evaluators
  • Guide and introduction for the evaluation
    process
  • The referee service defines online learning
    material as an educational entity with
    contentual requirements and goals set for
    learning.The service focuses on examining online
    learning material that its producer wants to
    bring into common use and wants a referee
    evaluation quality mark for.

4
The referee service in refreepalvelu.fi
  • The producers of online learning material get
  • recognised evaluation of the online learning
    material they have produced
  • ideas for further development of the learning
    material
  • recognition for the quality of their work
  • publicity (and users for the produced learning
    material)
  • The users of online learning material get
  • support for choosing and using high-quality
    material
  • (ideas for developing their own teaching methods)
  • examples of high-quality online material
  • The evaluators of online learning material get
  • information on factors that affect the quality of
    online learning material, and examples of
    high-quality learning material
  • Orientation for the process
  • evaluation merit and a certificate.

5
The Referee project 2007-2008
  • There was a need for
  • quality assurance
  • develop an evaluation procedure that meets the
    challenges of the production process
  • give merit to e learning material producers
  • The aim was to create an assessment model that is
    extensive but does not excessively burden the
    referees.
  • The service was developed in 2007-2008 as a joint
    Referee service project between the coordinator
    Lappeenranta University of Technology, Tampere
    University of Technology, University of Oulu,
    University of Joensuu and the FVU Service Unit.

6
The evaluation criteria for online learning
material
  • The Referee service evaluation criteria are based
    on various national and international evaluation
    criteria for online learning material
  • Four categories common usability and
    pedagogical, content, and instrumental criteria
  • E-learning material is reviewed criterion by
    criterion under the main named categories
  • In every main criterion category there are 2 to 3
    criteria which are evaluated
  • The evaluation focuses on a total of 27 criteria
    every division has an supporting description
  • Every criteria is evaluated with accuracy by
    0,25, 0,5 or 1 point.
  • The maximum points are 7 p for each main
    category, 28 p totally

7
Criteria for common use
1.1 Availability A. Stability of use B.
Accessibility C. Description of the user
rights 1.2 Descriptional information A.
Findability of the descriptional information B.
Meta data 1.3 Transferability A. Usability in
other teaching contexts B. Instructions for
other teachers
8
Pedagogical criteria
2.1 Goals of learning A. Description of the
goals of learning B. Correspondence between the
goals of learning and the online material 2.2
Target group A. Description of the target
group B. Consideration of the target group 2.3
Supporting learning A. Directiveness of the
learning process B. Overall learning experience
9
Contentual criteria
3.1 Relevance A. Suitability of the
contents 3.2 Reliability and up-to-dateness of
the factual contents A. Author information B.
Use of information sources C. Reliability D.
Up-to-dateness 3.3 Clarity and diversity of the
presentation method of the contents A. Clarity
of the contents B. Diversity of the contents
10
Instrumental criteria
4.1 Usability A. Ease of use B.
Manageability C. Graphical/visual
functionality 4.2 Barrier free A. Consideration
of different user environments B. Consideration
of different users in technical
implementation C. Technical requirements D.
Technical reliability
11
The Referee project
  • 16 e-learning materials were evaluated during
    2007
  • After feedback,11 materials were evaluated during
    2008
  • Evaluation groups consisted of Referee project
    actors, experts on e-Learning and each
    quality criteria, and also student members
  • Every material passed the assessment
    (qualification limit 10 points)
  • The points converted into stars (1-5 stars)
  • The producers of e-learning material got detailed
    reports of the evaluation
  • Feedback was collected both from evaluators and
    the material makers

12
www.refereepalvelu.fi
  • Feedback results
  • Evaluators
  • The process was described as interesting, smooth
    and educational
  • Fuctionality of the process got a rating of 4,33
    (1-5)
  • The use of time was suitable, the whole process
    took on average of 11 hours of time/evaluator
  • Producers
  • Satisfied with comprehensive evaluating
  • Valuable ideas for developing the material
  • Development as an employee
  • The mean value of satisfiction with the
    evaluation report was 3,90.

13
Thank you! petra.rutanen_at_ee.oulu.fi For
details Mr. Totti Tuhkanen (SVY) at
tottituh_at_utu.fi www.refereepalvelu.fi
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com