Make notes based on this model on the SNAPP tool
that you read about in Bakharia et al. (2009). My attempt here.
Compare the structured evaluation that you have produced
with the evaluation of SNAPP in Example 5 of Cooper (2012:14f). Which do I find
most useful?
Although this may have more to do with my instantiation of it, I found
the Scheffel model had too many discrete indicators to give me enough action
into insight. I felt the interpretations still need another level of processing
to maske them ‘actionable’. Hence I much prefer the Cooper model, which has a
narrative aspect that enables located decision-making and action.
All the best
Steve
Bakharia, A., Heathcote, E. and Dawson, S. (2009) ‘Social networks
adapting pedagogical practice: SNAPP’ in Atkinson, R.J. and McBeath, C. (eds)
Same Places, Different Spaces, Proceedings ascilite 2009, 26th Annual ascilite
International Conference, Auckland, 6–9 December 2009, Auckland, The University
of Auckland, Auckland University of Technology, and Australasian Society for
Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ascilite); also available online
at http://www.ascilite.org/ conferences/ auckland09/ procs/ (accessed 16 June
2016).
Cooper, A. (2012) ‘A framework of characteristics for analytics’, CETIS
Analytics Series, vol. 1, no. 7, Bolton, JISC CETIS; also available online at
http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2012/ 12/ A-Framework-of-Characteristics-for-Analytics-Vol1-No7.pdf
(accessed 16 June 2016).
Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., Stoyanov, S. and Specht, M. (2014) ‘Quality
indicators for learning analytics’, Educational Technology & Society, vol.
17, no. 4, pp. 117–32; also available online at www.ifets.info/ journals/ 17_4/
8.pdf (accessed 16 June 2016).
Evaluation frameworks: Activity 25 Block 4
Evaluation frameworks: Activity 25 Block 4
Make notes based on this model on the SNAPP tool that you read about in Bakharia et al. (2009). My attempt here.
Compare the structured evaluation that you have produced with the evaluation of SNAPP in Example 5 of Cooper (2012:14f). Which do I find most useful?
Although this may have more to do with my instantiation of it, I found the Scheffel model had too many discrete indicators to give me enough action into insight. I felt the interpretations still need another level of processing to maske them ‘actionable’. Hence I much prefer the Cooper model, which has a narrative aspect that enables located decision-making and action.
All the best
Steve
Bakharia, A., Heathcote, E. and Dawson, S. (2009) ‘Social networks adapting pedagogical practice: SNAPP’ in Atkinson, R.J. and McBeath, C. (eds) Same Places, Different Spaces, Proceedings ascilite 2009, 26th Annual ascilite International Conference, Auckland, 6–9 December 2009, Auckland, The University of Auckland, Auckland University of Technology, and Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ascilite); also available online at http://www.ascilite.org/ conferences/ auckland09/ procs/ (accessed 16 June 2016).
Cooper, A. (2012) ‘A framework of characteristics for analytics’, CETIS Analytics Series, vol. 1, no. 7, Bolton, JISC CETIS; also available online at http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2012/ 12/ A-Framework-of-Characteristics-for-Analytics-Vol1-No7.pdf (accessed 16 June 2016).
Scheffel, M., Drachsler, H., Stoyanov, S. and Specht, M. (2014) ‘Quality indicators for learning analytics’, Educational Technology & Society, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 117–32; also available online at www.ifets.info/ journals/ 17_4/ 8.pdf (accessed 16 June 2016).