Course evaluation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(using an external editor) |
m (using an external editor) |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Definition == | == Definition == | ||
'''Course evaluation''' | '''Course evaluation''' ca take different forms: | ||
* Formative evaluation by an expert | |||
* Evaluation by students | |||
* Self-evaluation that includes feedback from students | |||
== Guidelines for evaluation == | == Guidelines for evaluation == |
Revision as of 14:48, 19 May 2006
Definition
Course evaluation ca take different forms:
- Formative evaluation by an expert
- Evaluation by students
- Self-evaluation that includes feedback from students
Guidelines for evaluation
Merril's first principles of instruction
- This framework is descibed in the Instructional_design#What_is_good_.22main-stream.22_Instructional_Design_.3F Instructional design article
Dick and Carey (1996) guidelines
- Are motivational concerns addressed?
- Is the appropriate/relevant content included?
- Is the presentation sequence of the content correct?
- Is all of the required information available to the student?
- Do appropriate and ample practice exercises exist?
- Is adequate feedback included for these exercises?
- Are appropriate tests provided to assess student progress?
- Are sufficient follow through activities provided?
- Is the student presented with a clear path/navigational guide to move them through the course material and components?
- Are aides to assist the student with memorization and facilitate transfer of learning provided?
References
- Dick, W., & Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction, (4th Ed.). New York: Haper Collins College Publishers.
- Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O., (2001). The systematic design of instruction (5th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley, Longman.
- Kemp, J. E., Morrison, G. R., & Ross, S. M. (1998). Designing Effective Instruction, (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.