Stephanie Hicklin EDET 650 Reflection 5 November 29, 2012 This reflection includes the final days of implementation

and evaluation. The implementation phase lasted a little longer than originally planned. Both the participants and I had scheduling conflicts to arise and it became necessary to offer deadline extensions. The extensions allowed the participants to be able to invest an appropriate amount of time in each weeks assignments. At the conclusion of implementation, participants were asked to complete an end of module evaluation. The evaluation results have been very reassuring. The next steps in this process will be to take into consideration any informal feedback and evaluation results and make necessary revisions to the module. Finally, we will have to develop a process for offering this module to others around the state. Currently, in our office there are only 2-4 staff who would be able to devote time to facilitating this module, but we still have over 1000 staff who need to be given the opportunity to participate. Week 3 included a large amount of information. In order to allow participants to have a little extra time and to avoid cognitive overload, I divided the week 3 assignments into two groups. I first released the content and discussion prompts for the section 4 presentation and then a few days later, released the information for section 5, the final presentation in the module. Section 4 allowed participants to apply and practice what they had learned in the first 3 sections. This section required more interaction and assessment. I asked them to take a pre-test prior to completing the section 4 presentation. After viewing the presentation, they were asked to complete the same assessment (post-test). The results were very impressive. As a whole, their average pre-test score was 76.14% and their post-test average score was 95.87%. This was very encouraging to me. Their discussion assignment for section 4 was to take one of the items from the test and explain why they answered the way they did and offer any possible revisions. Again, I followed up with the group by sending an email summary of the discussion posts. This time, I also included a copy of the pre/post-tests and included the correct answers along with an explanation of each answer. This information will be a great resource for them as they begin using these new practices in their daily work. The evaluation process included both formative and summative assessment. I solicited feedback throughout the process from co-workers, national consultants, as well as participants. Participants were asked to complete a 13-question evaluation at the conclusion of the module. Distribution of their module certificate and credential renewal hours is contingent upon the submission of this evaluation. The evaluation questions are the exact same as the questions that were asked on the evaluations that followed the face-to-face versions of this training this past summer (2012). To date, 10 of the 12 participants have submitted their evaluations. So far, there have been some very interesting comparisons. I will review the results in more detail in the final report, but overall, the online module seemed to be very well received and appreciated. Most respondents mentioned that they would be interested in taking this kind of training again. Something that I thought was very interesting was that

none of the online participants said they thought the training would be better if in a different format (e.g. webinar, face-to-face, etc.). The response that I found the most encouraging was that a higher percentage of people in the online training said they felt ready and able to implement what they had learned. The results of this evaluation and internship in general will be very important in communicating the need for similar online experiences to program administration.