Online training is available all over the internet. For this exercise, I applied the Quality Matters Assessment rubric to it and used it as the basis for make recommendations.
TITLE: Introduction and use of uBoost and Huddle
- This is an on-line course offered/required by the on-line course I teach. A capability to reward students with "credits" which can be redeemed for gifts is being added as a motivational tool. The course was to introduce us to the concept and use of the "credit" tool (via an on-line reward tool called uBoost) and the guidelines and process by which we would use it (via an on-line collaboration tool called Huddle).
COURSE INSTRUCTION FLOW
- I received an email from the instructor, with a link to the course page
- I listened to two audios, read a hand-out, and did an independent exercise demonstrating my mastery of the information
- I then sent a "I am complete" email to the instructor, along with questions and observations
- She set-up a teleconference and reviewed my feedback
RUBRIC
- Overall: 80 out of 85 - course does meet quality standards
- Overview: 10 out of 11
-- 1.2 Course Introduction: 2 out of 3 The email from my instructor indicated I had to complete the course, but not until I listened to the audio was the reason for the course clear. The audio was clear and concise, so I would suggest the course objective be added to the email.
-- 1.5 Student Introduction: BEST PRACTISE Since course was self-paced, no student introductions were needed, however, a discussion thread was set-up along with the course, so students could collaborate
- Objectives: 14 out of 14
-- 2.4 Instructions: BEST PRACTISE An "at-a-glance" page was provided, which included the tools (such as a screen shot of uBoost) and the process by which we would award credits (such as guidelines and logistics).
- Assessment: 12 out of 13
-- 3.2 Grading. The due date and exercise were explicit and feedback on performance was done via the teleconference, but there was no specific grade. A statement indicating that the success criteria for the exercise (evidence of adding a new student name) should be explicit, rather than implicit.
- Resources: 9 out of 9
- Engagement: 9 out of 10
-- 5.3 Instructor Responsiveness. Instructor did not indicate explicitly when she would have the follow-up teleconference. It was implicit it would be within a couple of days (as the deadline for completing the training was stated), but not a time range.
- Technology: 14 out of 14
-- 6.7 Usage. BEST PRACTISE. The course used email, audio, discussion board, and telephone. This made the learning self-paced, with individual feedback, as needed.
- Support: 5 out of 6
-- 7.2 and 7.3 Institution Support. There is an adiminstrator who ensures the flow of the course occurs. The instructor is responsible for technical support as well. This was not explicitly stated, but was not an issue as previous courses have this split of responsibility. A reminder of this, especially for new students, might be helpful.
- Accessibility: 7 out of 8
-- 8.1 standards. I am not familiar with ADA standards to the extent I could award a full 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment