Overall Instructor Rating: Satisfactory
Ratings explanation:
- Exemplary - A model answer in almost every way (this is given out very rarely).
- Satisfactory - Very well done; you've met the expectations of the assignment. There are some minor problems, so read my feedback well.
- Marginal Pass - You pass, but there are lots of issues to consider. Read my feedback very carefully and be sure you understand the points/issues I raise.
- Not satisfactory, redo and resubmit - The assignment was not completed appropriately. I am concerned that you do not understand the process well enough yet. To get credit for the assignment, you need to redo it, most probably on another topic. Read and consider my feedback very carefully before redoing.
Instructor's Overall Feedback:
Although brief, I thought this was an excellent plan! I know this plan is also hypothetical (teams are only expected to do a minimal try-out with at least 3-5 participants using whatever procedures you can), but I do hope you get the opportunity to field test your lessons eventually according to the procedures that you've laid here.
I like your plan of sitting down individually with the teachers during the 1-1 evaluation. This is a good way to gauge how 'on target' the lesson is with participants. You also correctly note the importance of keeping notes about where the participant has trouble or seems confused.
Everything looks fine to me -- your team really seems to understand the progression that such a plan entails. I particularly like your emphasis on the lesson's effectiveness by using performance-based data (the accuracy of the grade books). However, be sure to also collect other data related to the teacher's attitudes and also their *perception* of the relevance and usability of your lesson materials. You should also be more specific about what any "questionnaires" will include.
Great job!
P.S. Your objective is very well written, but I noticed you did not include the "learned capability verb". So, it's not precisely clear to me what learning outcome this objective is written for. Please remember to either use the learned capability verb as part of your objective, or write the learning outcome at the end of the objective inside parentheses.
The objective of this activity is to plan for the formative evaluation of your instruction. As stated by Dick, Carey, and Carey (2001): "Formative evaluation is the process designers use to obtain data that can be used to revise their instruction to make it more efficient and effective. The emphasis in formative evlauation is on the collection and analysis of data and the revision of the instruction" (p. 284-285).
Using the lesson you have described in the IDA on lesson design, complete the Formative Evaluation Planning Worksheet. Using the table below, describe:
- Who will do the ongoing evaluation;
- What is being evaluated;
- When the evaluation should occur; and
- How the evaluation will be conducted (i.e. tools you will use)
Be sure to refer to Dick, Carey, and Carey Chapter 10 for specific information that can be gathered from experts (e.g. subject-matter, learning, and learner) and learners in different formative evaluation situations (e.g. one-to-one, small-group, and field trials).
Formative Evaluation Planning Worksheet
Write the instructional objectives of your lesson here (it can be more than one):
Your final response:
TWBAT independently create a grade book by importing student data from SASI to create class rosters and set up grading rules when provided with the IGPro Quick-Reference Resource Guide (QRRG).
The instructor's feedback to this step:
No specific feedback given on this step.
Write your objective using the correct form. Click here for advice on writing objectives.
HTML formatting reminder: You can embed HTML tags directly in your responses. This will be help your buddies and the instructor view your information in a more readable fashion. For example, if you want a paragraph break somewhere, just enter <p>:
I will have the experts review the lesson on three levels:
<p>
1. content; 2. technical accuracy; 3. quality of instruction.
<p>
The content review will help ensure that no mistakes were made in the information provided to the learners.
Who |
What |
When |
How |
| Experts (subject-matter, learning, learner) |
Your final response:
Three experts will review the lesson design for content, technical accuracy, quality of instruction, perceived feasibility and perceived impact on learners. The experts will be two Gwinnett County Technology Coordinators who have taught the IGPro staff development and have been classroom teachers receiving staff development. The third expert will be the GCPS Staff Development Coordinator for Information Management.
|
Your final response:
The three experts will schedule times at their convenience prior to the one-on-one trial.
|
Your final response:
The experts will be given a questionnaire containing a checklist and rating scale ranking the various components of both the both the PowerPoint presentation and the QRRG. Suggested improvements will be solicited on the questionnaire. Follow-up interviews will be conducted on an as-needed basis for clarity of specific issues or suggestions.
|
The instructor's feedback to this step:
No specific feedback given on this step. |
| Learners: one-to-one |
Your final response:
Three Shiloh Elementary teachers will be selected to evaluate the need, usability, completion time, and clarity of the instruction. The three teachers will be selected based upon their IGPro competency levels: novice, average, experienced.
|
Your final response:
This evaluation will take place early in the design process following the creation of a rough draft prototype.
|
Your final response:
The designer will sit with each learner as they go through the lesson. As the learner works through the lesson, the designer
will make observations and keep notes when the learner has trouble
or seems confused. The designer will also answer and record questions
from the learners as they complete the lesson. After the lesson, the designer will conduct an interview to address the learner’s reaction and effectiveness of the guide.
|
The instructor's feedback to this step:
No specific feedback given on this step. |
| Learners: small-group |
Your final response:
Six to eight Shiloh Elementary teachers, with varying computer skill levels, will be selected to evaluate the QRRG’s effectiveness and usability.
|
Your final response:
Following the revision of the prototype from the one-on-one testing, the small group trial will occur.
|
Your final response:
The small group's evaluation of the effectiveness of the QRRG will be assessed utilizing the following: questionnaires, observations and accuracy of data in trial grade book.
|
The instructor's feedback to this step:
No specific feedback given on this step. |
| Learners: field trial |
Your final response:
The last test for our design plan is to have all of the Shiloh Elementary School teachers use our QRRG to create their grade books for the school year. They will be asked to evaluate our instructional design for its effectiveness, usability, and comprehensiveness of content.
|
Your final response:
This field test will occur during the first two weeks of school.
|
Your final response:
The LSTC will check the grade books for accuracy. At that time, the teachers will be asked to complete a post survey describing the effectiveness and ease-of-use of the QRRG. Also, an interview will be conducted with a sample of teachers to obtain any additional information that may be helpful in improving or modifying the QRRG.
|
The instructor's feedback to this step:
No specific feedback given on this step. |
|