| 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. | |||||||||||||