Evaluation: Final Report

Technology Rollout

Click here for the Full GSheet. It is view only; you will need to make a copy if you wish to input any data in the evaluation column

I designed this tech roll-out rubric to encompass all the elements of a major tech roll-out such as a new VLE integration or a large integration such as that of Google Apps for Education. I have no doubt that finer divisions of the rubric scores could be achieved; I would expect that an evaluator would assess a firm categorisation and add appropriate comments to elucidate why they have chosen this category and any actual differences that are apparent in the integration. Comments that identify what has been done well and what needs to be improved would be expected.

While some rubrics expect an evaluator to indicate which assessment level they are selecting by ticking a box, these rubrics tend to have a separate sheet with descriptors for levels that require the evaluator to flick back and forward to. I have designed this rubric to incorporate both on one sheet using Google Sheet's new conditional formatting to highlight evaluation descriptions based on a drop-down selection of the evaluation for that element.

The Graph tab gives a visual representation of the evaluation; this is built as the evaluation column is completed.

Strategic Change Models: Educational Technology Goal

For the Educational Technology Goal project I have created an integration plan for a real e-Portfolio project. The task required that I identify obstacles to success; these are inferred in the design.

The Google Sites ePortfolio for Target Setting and Enrichment activities will be designed, trialled and implemented for Year 10 students by the end of Term 3, 2014.
The flowchart below outlines the individuals and groups with a stake in the success of the implementation of this new system. Adherence to the timeframes outlined will be essential to the success of the implementation of the ePortfolio for the Key Stage (Year 10 and 11) for the start of the next academic year.

Final Instructional Design Project

ID Formative Evaluation

The evaluation plan outlined is based on Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Evaluation model on page 11 of Streamlined ID (Larson & Lockee, 2014).

Analysis

AECT Standards 2012: Learning Environments

AECT Standard 3 - Learning Environments: 
Candidates facilitate learning (p. 41) by creating, using, evaluating, and managing effective learning environments. (p. 1)

Indicators:
• Creating - Candidates create instructional design products based on learning principles and research-based best practices. (pp. 8, 243-245, 246)
• Using - Candidates make professionally sound decisions in selecting appropriate processes and resources to provide optimal conditions for learning (pp. 122, 169) based on principles, theories, and effective practices. (pp. 8-9, 168-169, 246)
• Assessing/Evaluating - Candidates use multiple assessment strategies (p. 53) to collect data for informing decisions to improve instructional practice, learner outcomes, and the learning environment. (pp. 5-6)
• Managing - Candidates establish mechanisms (p. 190) for maintaining the technology infrastructure (p. 234) to improve learning and performance. (p. 238)
• Ethics - Candidates foster a learning environment in which ethics guide practice that promotes health, safety, best practice (p. 246), and respect for copyright, Fair Use, and appropriate open access to resources. (p. 3)
• Diversity of Learners - Candidates foster a learning community that empowers learners with diverse backgrounds, characteristics, and abilities. (p. 10)

NOTE: Parenthetical page references are to Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary (2008, A. Januszewski & M. Molenda, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.)