Evaluation Framework for Blended Learning Courses: A Puzzle Piece for the Evaluation Process

Öz

This article discusses the process of evaluation in bLearning courses, namely the objects of evaluation, discussing their relevance according to the opinion of international experts in Online Teaching and Learning, taking into account the curricular proposals of the three cycles of Higher Education (HE). The question ‘what should be evaluated?’ is one puzzle piece of the whole process of evaluation. The other pieces should be articulated among themselves and combined, namely ‘who should evaluate?’, ‘how and when to evaluate?’ and ‘what is evaluation for?’ Those questions were asked in a survey conducted with 35 international experts with an average experience of 13 years in the area, from international HE institutions (HEIs) that offer this kind of courses. The study highlights the need of HEIs to reassess their approach to the quality assurance of bLearning courses, and brings some contributions to those who are in charge of bLearning courses, providing a useful framework for evaluation. Furthermore, this paper contributes to the knowledge on educational technology and raised new issues for further research and discussion

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Evaluation objects, Benchmarks, Blended learning, Technology-based environments, Higher Education

Kaynakça

1. Bliuc, A.C., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R.A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 10, 231-244.
2. Conole, G., Oliver, M., Falconer, I., Littlejohn, A., & Harvey, J. (2007). Designing for learning. In G. Conole & M. Oliver (Eds.). Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: Themes, methods and impact on practice (pp. 101-120). London: Routledge.
3. Donnelly, R. (2006). Blended problem-based learning for teacher education: lessons learnt. Learning, Media and Technology, 31(2), 93-116.
4. Fielding, A., Harris, S., & King, S. (2004). A view from the shop floor. Learning and Teaching in Action, 3(2), available at: www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/ltia/issue8/fielding.pdf (accessed 29 November 2011).
5. Garrison, D. R. & Vaughan, N.D. (2008). Blearning in higher education - Framework, principles and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Graham, C. R. (2004). Blended Learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
7. Hadji, C. (2001). Avaliação desmistificada. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
8. Harding, A., Kaczynski, D., & Wood, L. (2005). Evaluation of blended learning: Analysis of qualitative data. Proceedings of the Symposium of Blended Learning in Science Teaching & Learning (pp. 56-62). Parramatta, Australia: Australian Associate for Research in Education.

9. Hummel, H. (2006). Feedback model to support designers of blended learning courses. International review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(3), 1-16.
10. Ireland, J., Correia, H. M., & Griffin, T.M. (2009). Developing quality in e-learning: a framework in three parts. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 250-263.
11. Jara, M. & Mellar, H. (2009). Factors affecting quality enhancement procedures for e-learning courses. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(3), 220-232.
12. Karadeniz, S. (2009). Flexible design for the future of distance learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 1, 358-363.
13. Kaznowska, E., Rogers, J., & Usher, A. (2011). The state of e-learning in Canadian universities, 2011: If students are digital natives, why don’t they like e-learning? Toronto: Higher Education Strategy Associates.
14. Mortera-Gutierrez, F. J. (2004). Faculty best practices using blended learning in e-learning and face-to-face instruction. Proceedings of 20th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (pp. 1-6). Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
15. Parker, N. K. (2008). Quality dilemma in online education revisited. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 385-409). Athabasca University, Athabasca, Canada.
16. Pombo, L. & Moreira, A. (2010). Evaluation practices of teaching and learning in Portuguese Higher Education blended learning modules. In M. B. Nunes & M. McPherson (Eds.). Proceedings of International Conference e-Learning 2010, (pp. 267-274) (Vol 1). Freiburg, Germany.
17. Pombo, L. & Moreira, A. (2011a). An evaluation model for blended learning - Evaluation goals, the process and lecturers’ perspectives. In António Moreira, Maria José Loureiro, Ana Balula, Fernanda Nogueira, Lşcia Pombo, Luís Pedro, Pedro Almeida (Org.), Proceedings of the 61st International Council for Educational Media and the XIII International Symposium on Computers in Education (ICEM&SIIE'2011) Joint Conference, "Old meets new –Media in education", (pp. 104-115), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.
18. Pombo, L. & Moreira, A. (2011b). Assuring and enhancing the quality of blended learning courses – reflections of course directors. In M. B. Nunes & M. McPherson (Eds.), IADIS 2011 Proceedings - International Conference e-Learning 2011, Volume I (pp. 133-140). Rome, Italy.
19. Pombo, L., Loureiro, M. J., Balula, A., & Moreira, A. (2009). Diversity of strategies to promote effective b-Learning: a case study in Higher Education. In U. Bernath, A. Szücs, A. Tait, & M. Vidal (Eds.), Distance and E-learning in Transition – Learning Innovation, Technology and Social Challenges (pp. 627-644). ISTE & John Wiley & Sons.
20. Pombo, L., Loureiro, M. J., & Moreira, A. (2009). Evaluation Assessment Strategies for Collaborative Learning in a Higher Education blended learning context. Proceedings of ED- MEDIA 2009 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1848-1857). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
21. Stacey, E. & Gerbic, P. (2008). Success factors for blended learning. In Hello Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings of Ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved on 1 March 2011 from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/ melbourne08/procs/stacey.pdf
22. Ugur, B., Akkoyunlu, B., & Kurbanoglu, S. (2011). Students’ opinions on blended learning and its implementation in terms of their learning styles. Education and Information Technologies, 16, 5–23.
23. Walker, R. & Beats, W. (2008). Instructional design for class-based and computer-mediated learning: Creating the right blend for student-centered learning. In R. Donnelly & F. McSweeney (Eds.), Applied e-learning and e-teaching in higher education, information society reference. New York: Hersey.
24. Walmsley, L. (2004). How quality assurance can learn from distributed learning. Learning and Teaching in Action, 3(2). Available at: www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/ltia/issue8/walmsley.shtml (assessed 29 November 2011)
25. Weaver, D., Spratt, C., & Nair, C. (2008). Academic and student use of a learning management system: implications for quality. Australian Journal of educational technology, 24(1), 30-41.
26. Correspondence: Lşcia Pombo, Research Centre for Didactics and Technology in Education of
27. Trainers, Department of Education, University of Aveiro, Portugal