This section reports on the findings relating to the impact of
networked learning on quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation.
Seven institutions (five FE and two HE) claim to undertake regular
monitoring of staff experiences in relation to networked learning
as shown in Figure 8 5 below. However, one of the FE institutions
seemed to focus mainly on monitoring the responses to technical
problems with the network. Twelve institutions referred to some
form of evaluation of the student experience. These figures should
perhaps be treated with caution, as the majority of institutions
are required to have some form of evaluation of the student experience
by their different funding councils. The extent to which this includes
some attempt to measure the impact of networked learning may vary
from institution to institution at this time. The response from
H6 appears to suggest that it does not undertake any evaluation
of students’ experiences of networked learning but their
focus is on evaluation of their students’ study habits rather
than a general evaluation of the overall learning experience, which
may include some questions about the impact of the VLE.
The questionnaire data provides a slightly different
picture suggesting that around half of the institutions have seen
major changes in
terms of the evaluation of the student and staff experiences. These
differences may reflect the fact that only staff in certain roles
were asked these questions including staff with responsibility
for quality procedures. Other staff may have felt less inclined
to comment on students’ experiences in the interviews, and
staff that responded to this issue in the questionnaire may have
felt that it did not need to be covered again in the interview.
There is a suggestion here that the online environment
is providing the potential for producing a flexible means of evaluating
a range
of experiences. F8 mentioned the development of an online questionnaire
that could be adapted by different users for the use with different
populations; but they also noted the danger of questionnaire
fatigue. Another institution mentioned that they were beginning
to develop
online evaluations that would include online analysis of the
findings, which would provide considerable savings in time in relation
to
gathering data and reporting on evaluations.
| CS |
Student/staff evaluation |
| H1 |
Two respondents mentioned that student evaluation of course
units continued to take place, but no suggestion of evaluation
of networked learning experiences specifically, and three respondents
felt that this was not happening but that it ought to happen. |
| H2 |
Four respondents noted initial evaluations of staff and student
take-up and experiences are taking place. |
| H3 |
Three respondents noted that monitoring and evaluation has
begun, but that there is still considerable development to
be undertaken. |
| H4 |
On respondent stated that monitoring and evaluation of staff
take-up and experiences appear to occur on a regular basis
but so far only some initial evaluations have been made for
students. |
| H5 |
Passing comments by three respondents about evaluation of
student experiences and the monitoring of pilot projects on
assessment. |
| H6 |
Not used formal evaluation of students' studying habits in
relation to networked learning. |
| H7 |
VLE used to get student feedback/evaluation. |
| H8 |
Student evaluation carried out but not complete; conflicting
views of two respondents on students' views of networked learning;
however, high response rate with mainly positive views. |
| H9 |
Documentary evidence includes a student survey of networked
learning experience suggesting general student support for
use of VLE. |
| H10 |
No mention was made of evaluation of student experience in
the interviews. |
| F1 |
Questionnaires indicate that some initial evaluation of staff
and student experiences of networked learning and also regular
monitoring of student experiences. |
| F2 |
Four respondents suggest some changes in monitoring an evaluation
in response to the growth in networked learning; there is a
move to more evaluation of student experiences. |
| F3 |
Two respondents noted that monitoring and evaluation, particularly
of staff experiences, are now a regular feature of the institution. |
| F4 |
There is some evidence from one respondent that monitoring
and evaluation of student and staff experience is taking place. |
| F5 |
Two respondents stated that there is regular monitoring and
evaluation of staff and student experiences of networked learning
and some monitoring of take-up. |
| F6 |
Two respondents commented at length on student evaluation
and indicated that both surveys, focus groups were used. Positive
comment from Ofsted was also noted and that students expressed
satisfaction with ILC. One respondent noted the problems with
the network crashing as a quality issue. |
| F7 |
The need to capture the student experience was noted; but
that is not in place yet (but online forms are being worked
on) and this is intended to include analysis. |
| F8 |
Online questionnaire developed that can be adapted by different
users (from individual tutor to Funding Council feedback);
this includes feedback from students and on staff in relation
to technical problems. |
| F9 |
There was no mention of student evaluation in the interviews. |
| F10 |
There was no mention of student evaluation in the interviews. |
Figure 8-5: Evidence of evaluation of student and
staff experiences of networked learning
