| 88 | | || Observation, optionally with recorded think-alouds or short semi-structured interviews || Evaluators || Affective responses to experience; Usability problems || Qual || |
| 89 | | || Semi-structured group discussions || Evaluators || Affective responses to experience (reflective) || Qual || |
| 90 | | || Session plans created during workshops? || Evaluators || Capture examples of output - components used in different plans, structures (ordering of components) || Qual || |
| 91 | | || Questionnaires || Evaluators || Affective responses to Phoebe; other attitudinal data || Qual + Quant || |
| | 88 | || Observation, optionally with recorded think-alouds or short semi-structured interviews || Evaluators || Affective responses to experience; Usability problems || Qual || Feed into case studies || |
| | 89 | || Semi-structured group discussions || Evaluators || Affective responses to experience (reflective) || Qual || Feed into case studies || |
| | 90 | || Session plans created during workshops? || Evaluators || Capture examples of output - components used in different plans, structures (ordering of components) || Qual || Feed into case studies || |
| | 91 | || Questionnaires || Evaluators || Affective responses to Phoebe; other attitudinal data || Qual + Quant || Draw for inspiration from questionnaires written for LAMS evaluation, LD Tools project; feed into case studies? || |
| 97 | | ''Text from phase 1: The project plan identified four key 'events' in the evaluation schedule, the first of which was the programme of interviews with practitioner-informants; the others are the walkthroughs by PIs, practitioner workshops and embedding sessions. However, in retrospect, the material collected from the PIs falls more into the 'requirements gathering' activity, and so the interviews are now excluded from the evaluation.'' |
| | 97 | The Phase 2 project plan identifies five key 'events' in the evaluation schedule: workshops involving trainee teachers, in-service training (CPD), a workshop for experienced e-learners, and workshops to evaluate the customisation features of Phoebe and its support for collaborative planning. On reflection, some of these can be combined (e.g. experienced e-learners and customisation) or may prove infeasible to run as "live" workshops (e.g. collaborative planning). On consultation with Glenaffric, we now also propose to capture feedback from practitioners who ask us for a Phoebe account (30+ in Phase 1) through an online survey. However, we have yet to ascertain the likely value of such data in relation to the "live" face-to-face events. |
| 99 | | || '''Timing''' || '''Factor to Evaluate''' || '''Questions to Address''' || '''Method(s)''' || '''Measure of Success''' || |
| 100 | | || ''Phase 1 data:'' Aug/Sept 2006 || UI and functionality of prototype tool || Consistency, usability, error-free functioning || Walkthrough by project team members || Number of issues identified and resolved || |
| | 99 | || '''Timing''' || '''Event''' || '''Factor to Evaluate''' || '''Questions to Address''' || '''Method(s)''' || '''Measure of Success''' || |
| | 100 | || Oct-Nov 2007 || Internal usability tests || UI and functionality of prototype tool || Consistency, usability, error-free functioning || Walkthrough by project team members || Number of issues identified and resolved || |
| | 101 | || 16 Nov 2007; Jan 2008 || __In-service training:__ staff development workshops at Oxford Brookes University || Usability; integration into personal pedagogic practice; integration into institutional practice || Observation, discussion, session plans, questionnaires (? to capture current practice?), Web request logs || '''Levels of satisfaction and acceptability expressed by participants''' |
