1 / 21

Evaluating web tutorial learning outcomes

Evaluating web tutorial learning outcomes. Teaching the OPAC using MOSST Mark Jordan. What I’ll cover. What MOSST is What we’re doing with it What we’ve tested (and what we found out). What MOSST is. Modular Online Software for Self-paced Tutorials Lightweight tutorial builder

noelle-richardson
Download Presentation

Evaluating web tutorial learning outcomes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating web tutorial learning outcomes Teaching the OPAC using MOSST Mark Jordan

  2. What I’ll cover • What MOSST is • What we’re doing with it • What we’ve tested (and what we found out)

  3. What MOSST is • Modular Online Software for Self-paced Tutorials • Lightweight tutorial builder • Set of tools that allows tutorial designers to package their content into effective web-based tutorials

  4. Why SFU Library developed it • Increasing demand for library instruction • At the time (early 1998) there were few free alternatives • Other courseware was not well suited to self-paced library instruction

  5. Project background • SFU VP Academic Instructional Development Grant, Spring 1998 to develop content of first tutorial • Library would provide development of software

  6. Features include… • Automatically generated footers, headers, and navigational links • JavaScript popup windows for live content • Multiple choice, self-checking quizzes • Ability to record users' scores on the quizzes

  7. Instructional design • Main assumption is that structure and sequence enhance certain types of learning • Basic model • Present content (including introductory and background material, summaries, etc) • ‘Live’ interaction with remote web sites is possible • Test using meaningful multiple-choice quizzes • Give immediate feedback

  8. Current implementations • Three end user tutorials • Canadian Company Information • From Citation to Article • Using the SFU Library Catalogue • One designer tutorial • MOSST documentation

  9. Goals of OPAC tutorial • Achieve comparable learning outcomes to ACCESS classes • Incorporate effective instructional and web design • Extend reach of core library skills instruction using current resources

  10. ACCESS classes • Core library research skills • Combination lecture and hands-on • Offered beginning of term • Drop-in, generally attended by keeners, mature students • Distributed delivery

  11. ACCESS classes - disadvantages • Only offered at peak times • Demand rising, librarians’ time finite • Don’t reach all potential learners • Commuter campus • Belzberg branch • Distance education

  12. Web tutorial - advantages • Will serve learners who cannot attend in-person sessions • Stability of catalogue should ensure longevity for tutorial content • Allows librarians to devote more time to more advanced instruction • Web is widely adopted as instructional delivery tool

  13. Demo of OPAC tutorial • http://www.lib.sfu.ca/tutorials/catalogue/tutorial/table-of-contents.htm

  14. Recent evaluation of tutorial • User testing pilot January 2000 • Question 1: How did scores compare between instruction delivered in person and delivered using MOSST? • Question 2: What areas of the tutorial could be improved?

  15. Method • Study population of 50 students • Half ACCESS, half ESL • Recruitment: publicity and incentive • Two groups • In-person vs. MOSST instruction • All students completed 4 exercises and 1 quiz to compare scores • Classes took 1.5 hours

  16. Method cont. • Scores gathered automatically • Identified by workstation IP only • Also noted which questions gave problems • Scores imported into spreadsheet for analysis • Students subjective evaluation form

  17. Results summary • In-person total overall: 88% • ACCESS: 90% • ESL: 86% • MOSST tutorial overall: 84% • ACCESS: 89% • ESL: 78%

  18. Results summary cont. • More students in MOSST classes finished all sections of quizzes • Range of times taken to complete each quiz was narrower among students in MOSST classes than in person • Range of times taken to complete each quiz was wider for ESL students than ACCESS classes

  19. Results summary cont. • Both ACCESS and ESL classes got same questions wrong • Wrong answers were distributed • ESL students had most difficulty with module on searching by topic • Complexity of topic? • Language?

  20. Outcomes • Improve tutorial • Fix quizzes • Add motivational features • Enhance content • Promote within Library and on campus • Integrate into instructional program

  21. Future plans for MOSST • Implement more tutorials • Release MOSST under open-source (GPL) license • http://www.lib.sfu.ca/MOSST • sroberts@sfu.ca / mjordan@sfu.ca

More Related