Week 4 - Evaluation paradigms and models

Initially when reading Tom Reeves’ Educational Paradigms I was drawn to Paradigm # 4: eclectic-mixed methods – pragmatic paradigm – using qualitative and quantitative (multiple) evaluation methods; preferring to deal with the practical problems that confront educators and trainers and recognising that a tool is only meaningful within the context in which it is to be used.

Then, in Bronwyn’s comparison of two models: experimental and multiple methods identified in Reeves’ article, I discovered Paradigm 4’s purpose is to provide information to potentially “improve” better teaching and learning. In the evaluation activities, I found this multiple methods model identified a more extensive evaluation with suggestions of triangulation combinations. I agree with Sam's comments and Bronwyn's feedback) which indicated the importance of providing opportunities from which to learn (rather than slip into information providing.

Bronwyn’s 8 types of evaluation models provided further interpretations and from my current role in as an eLearning Advisor & Developer with the School of Business, I especially related to the:

1. Multiple methods evaluation model – using a variety of methods to collect data. This is currently carried out in F2F classes, but not formally in our online programmes.
2. Fourth generation evaluation model (Constructivist model) – involving discovery and assimilation - could this identify the ‘blanks’ we can face where we "don’t even know what we don't know" evaluation questions?;
   
3. Satke’s responsive evaluation model – that identifies the need and views of our (external) stakeholders, employing qualitative and quantitative methods; and
   
4. Tylerian objectives-based evaluation model – designed to determine whether the orginal objectives have been met (a necessity to meet internal moderation (Curriculum & Academic Services) and external moderation (NZQA).

In the past few weeks and previous study during this programme, we have referred to:

1. OTARA instructional design model – Objectives, Themes, Activities (what the learners need to do to bridge the gap between Objectives and Assessment), Resources, Assessment;
2. ADDIE instructional design model – Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation;
   
3. multiple intelligences and learning styles;
   
4. Accelerated learning & System 2000 learning cycle; and
   
5. Salmon's 5-stage eLearning model.

As I consider the next few weeks of this paper and what I wish to achieve, I now seek to understand the following:

So ... in an elearning environment would a learning cycle, for example - System 2000, that promotes student-centred collaborative learning, still fit?

I think it does – in the A (Activities) of OTARA and in the D (Design) of ADDIE.

Your thoughts are welcome :-)!