DISSEMINATION

= **4. DISSEMINATION FOCUS** =

Dissemination comprises four activities: formative evaluation, packaging, diffusion, and adoption. This activity did not require any packaging, diffusion or adoption. As a result this section will focus mainly on summative evaluation of the activity. Brief comments will be made about the possibilities for diffusion and adoption.

**4.1.****Formative evaluations** Jonassen (1991) cited in Dabbagh (20005) recommends that evaluations for constructivist or open-ended learning environments should incorporate multiple-pesrpectives, and as a result this is approach that was intended for the pilot. However, this is the area in which I most struggled. As a result, I shall admit that this section of the portfolio is the weakest. Earlier in the definition focus, I had mentioned how enthusiatic the students with whom I worked were, and how reluctant the lecturer was. I had experienced similar challenges, and input would need to be invited from her. From the beginning of the project, she was aware that her role was critical in the evaluation process, as it was expected that in the future she would consider adopting the use of wiki for the students in order to address the challenges she had raised and meet the objectives on which the activity was based.

The evaluation team originally comprised of all students who had participated in the project, the lecturer, a classmate who was not part of the project, and two Peer Assisted Learning Leaders (PALL)/student-tutors. However at the end, the evaluators were the students and one peer-assisted learning leader. The lecturer and one student- tutor never submitted their feedback.

At the time of submitting this portfolio for summative evaluation, there were no academic activities taking place at the campus as staff members were protesting, and a result no alternative staff member could be sought to review the portfolio. Therefore I can only present findings from the pilot participants and the PALL.

**Student evaluation**

Willis and Wright recommend qualitative evaluations for students. For summative evaluation, a [|questionnaire] was prepared incorporating the [|reflective questions] suggested in the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) evaluator in Beetham and Sharpe (2007:241); which were adapted to the learner. Items included questions on learner experiences, reflections on the success; other possible options that could have been undertaken; effectiveness of the approach in meeting the challenges, and advice to teachers working in a similar context.

Since the cohort that had been selected for the pilot was small (= n6); questionnaies were sent out to all to evaluate. However, only four responses were received back. From the [|responses] received, respondents felt they had benefitted from the pilot, especially that it coincided with a period where they were to write a test on the subject of their wiki. They were varying levels of satisfaction in relation to whether the wiki had met individual objectives for participation in the pilot, with only one respondent rating her satisfaction as very low. All respondents were highly satisfied with the quality of interaction among themselves and with the Writing Centre coordinator - the online learning designer. However, the respondents views differed on their rating of the quality of interaction between them and the course lecturer. This confirms the observations I had made earlier in the definition stage (see enactment page), about the couirse lecturer being the reluctant participant. Since the project is only limited to prototyping no further recursions were made to foster better and improved participation with the lecturer.

Since this would have been the first time Auditing II students were to participate in an online learning activity besides doing research for assignments, initial training was provided on how to use wikis. However, in the evaluation feedback, students felt that there needed to have been more time spent on training. Such input would have had to be considered if there were to be any further developments of the prototype. It was also interesting what the students regarded as the other useful ways in which the wiki could be used in their studies.

At the beginning of the project, I had created a Facebook group, so that I could interact with the students when I was out of office. Whilst, I had regarded as just an aside techonlogy used for synchrous communication with the students and convenience, which would have very little to do with this narrative. I could not dimiss the significance of [|one of the postings] especially in this evaluation section.

**‍‍‍Peer Evaluation**‍‍‍

In addition to student/participant evaluation, a student peer assisted learning leader (PALL) for Auditing 2 was asked to review the wiki. The PALL is always a student who has already passed the course exceptionally well. PALLs usually hold Student Instruction (SI) sesssions for others, and therefore, they are most familiar with the content of the course. In the case of this C-ID project, the PALL had not started out as the member of the design team. Rather, she was invited to join the wiki as a reviewer. A semi- formal meeting was held between the PALL and four original team members of the wiki, where I outlined what the objective of the wiki was, and what her role entailed. She was granted at least three days to familiarize herself with Wikispaces and the wiki specifically. She was also furnished with a [|rubric], which she would use to evaluate the quality of the wiki from a student's perspective. A follow-up meeting with the PALL in which she provided her input to the team. The PALL acknowledged that she was unfamiliar with wikis, and this was the first time she was exposed to student wikis.

She raised her concerns regarding the layout of the navigation pages; suggesting that pages could be reorganized such that the page that appears as the last page should be the first, and the locked empty page be removed altogether. She was highly impressed with the content, which she suggested was easier to understand because the language was simpler than the language of the prescribed textbook; and was nearly exhaustive. She however thought improvements could be done on the wiki by providing examples and definitions for some concepts that are pertinent in Auditing Cycles. She further proposed imporovements in spelling and punctuation. Overall, the PALL believed the wiki was an invaluable resource to other students. Some of her comments are available on the discussion pages of the Auditing Cycles Wiki

**Lecturer Evaluation **

This online learning intervention was piloted in an Auditing II classroom where the lecturer was also part of the design team. I had invited to lecturer to review the notes put together by her students by visiting the wiki page. The lecturer was provided with the same rubric as the PALL and invited to view and comment on the student's wiki. Several remind‍‍ers were sent to her to review the wiki. Whilst the lecturer has had time to review the wiki, she has yet to submit her feedback.

** 4.2 ‍‍‍‍‍Developer's reflection ‍‍‍‍‍ **

One major lesson that resonated across PDGE/ MEd (ICT) programme was the importance of centering our professional practice on pedagogy, and being able to consciously articulate both the epistemological and pedagogical underpinnings of our choices. This online learning design task required us to not only design an online intervention, which I believe some of us had dabbled on already; but to carefully think through the process and justify every decision that one has taken.

For me putting together a portfolio on the activity meant I would have to find ways of making explicit my thought process and underlying assumptions, and also justifying my choices of the design model. The process of writing also enabled me to reflect on these choices. Above all else, I have learned to appreciate the significance of using the affordance matrix to explore other possibilities, as well as to justify one's choice of a tool for a particular task above others.

The process of soliciting space to create an online learning activity also presented an opportunity to understand the need to match the task objectives with appropriate pedagogical strategies and learning tasks. I have also come to appreciate the strength of the R2D2 model as a constructional instructional design model. Being able to involve the students and the lecturer from the start, and being able to go back and revise and redefine the task was truly empowering. I believe, the activity would not have been finished timeously and the results would not have been as satisfactoy, if another model had been chosen, especially considering the challenges experienced at the beginning of the task regarding object definition and content analysis.

The model allowed for recursions and refinements, which traditional models do not cater for. Establishing a participatory team from the beginning, so that objectives and roles are shared amongst members elicits a sense of ownership amongst team and a shared goal to see the project succeed. I witnessed students taking ownership of the project, and their deep desire to see it work. <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: justify;">The whole experience was an exciting learning opportunity for me. This was one of the few times that as a Writing Centre coordinator I worked a group of very enthusiatic students. The activity itself was beneficial for the Writing Centre as I could observe students work collaboratively, and I was able to identify areas of focus for future training. Working with the lecturer was equally insightful.Often our work takes place at the periphery - away from classroom teaching and learning. 'Undesirable' responsibilities such as teaching note-taking, developing students as academic writers well versed in the conventions of their specialist discourse are relegated to the Writing Centre. I observed the contradictions between the lecturer's noble objectives and (in)actions. Overall, the activity as a whole was a success; and this is based on the feedback received from the evaluating team. The Writing Centre now has a prototype, which can be presented to other academic lecturers on how a wiki can be used for note taking and collaborative writing in a classroom. The challenges experienced also highlight the importance of ensuring that all elements of the activity system are considered before setting of on a task.

**<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%;">4.3 The value of the task: Possible adoption **

<span style="display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%; text-align: justify;">At WSU, we have perpetuated a negative stereotype of our students. We have convinced ourselves that our students are under-achievers who have come to university underprepared; and they have only managed to be at WSU because they had been rejected by other institutions. Students who perform above what is perceived to be average of a WSU student are regarded as exceptional cases, who are possibly only here because of financial constraints.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 110%;">I believe lecturers sometimes set the tone for the classes, and students will only do as much as what they know they are believed to be capable of. In the instance of the Auditing II course, and other similar courses where a lecturer wishes to foster the culture of independent study, collaborative writing tasks will help. Whilst what was created in this task may be regarded as a prototype, it can actually mark the beginning of expansive learning. The archivability of the Wiki means it can be reused, revised, or improved. The lecturer can choose to use as an example for similar projects, or because of its history page, it could even been used to assess collaborative work.