This online master’s degree program is taught using a fully interactive online format in a primarily asynchronous delivery model. Asynchronous activities used in the program included: threaded discussion, video and audio presentations, written lecture linked to video and audio presentations embedded into the course management system, Voicethreads, faculty developed MERLOT web pages created using the MERLOT Content Builder, e-Textbooks, etc.
The Astin Model (1993) provided a framework for this assessment. In the Astin Model, quality education not only reaches established benchmarks but also is founded upon the ability to transition students from where they are to reach intended competencies. An innovative use of MERLOT Content Builder combined with emerging technology provided a means for assessing the seven student-learning outcomes in an online master’s program at a regional university in Texas.
Two full-time faculty and one adjunct faculty used rubrics to evaluate each of the programmatic student-learning outcomes by assessing a random sample of student assignments from courses.
The goal of this study was to help students reach the intended learning outcomes for metacognition, digital fluency, communication, cultural fluency, global fluency, servant leadership, and commitment to life-long learning. Definitions of these learning outcomes are provided here. Students will evidence metacognition by demonstrating the knowledge and skills for designing, developing, and evaluating personal strategies for learning and leading. Students will evidence digital fluency in the adoption and integration of appropriate technologies into digital presentations. Students will be able to communicate ideas and content to actively engage participants. Students will evidence understanding of generational and cultural learning styles. Students will develop instructional materials appropriate for a global perspective. Students will practice the principles of servant leadership as espoused by Robert Greenleaf in his work titled, The Leader as Servant (1984). According to Greenleaf, “The servant-leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. Students will evidence a commitment to lifelong learning in the production and evaluation of learning materials.
Digital education presents many challenges. Barnett-Queen, Blair, and Merrick (2005) identified perceived strengths and weaknesses of online discussion groups and subsequent instructional activities. Programmatic assessment is required for all institutions accredited by the Council of Higher Education Accreditation or the US Department of Education. Walvoord (2003) indicated that good assessment should focus on maximizing student performance. The following questions rise to the forefront: (1) Have graduates mastered programmatic expectations; (2) What relationships exist between student performance and other factors; and (3) How can faculty improve the program based upon the analysis of student performance. Walvoord further stresses the importance of direct assessment in determining student performance. Indirect measures may provide evidence of student-learning, but direct assessment is widely viewed as more valid and reliable.
Brandon, Young, Shavelson, Jones, Ayala, Ruiz-Primo, and Yin (2008) developed a model for embedded formative assessment. The model was collaborative and stressed embedded assessment. Their study stressed the difficulties associated with broad-based collaboration given the difficulties of formally identifying partners and spanning large geographic distances. Price and Randall (2008) demonstrated the importance of embedded direct assessment in lieu of indirect assessment. Their research revealed a lack of correlational fit between indirect and direct assessment of the same aspect of student-learning with the same course in a pre- and post-test design. They documented a difference between student perceived knowledge and actual knowledge. These findings further underscore the importance of direct assessment of student-learning. Walvoord’s (2003) findings further indicated the need for embedded direct assessment of student-learning owned and supported by those who will implement the change. Those implementing change would include program faculty and students.
Gardner (2007) found that education has long wrestled with defining and assessing life-long learning. Though loosely defined as the continued educational growth of the individual, lifelong learning is rapidly rising to the forefront of 21st century education to assume a more prominent place than that held in the 20th century. Brooner (2002) described the difficulty of assessing the intention to pursue learning beyond the completion of a program. Intention and subsequent performance are affected by many different factors including, but not limited to, normative beliefs and motivation. Educational programs have often been encouraged to avoid assessment of behavior beyond the point of graduation as such behavior as been viewed as beyond the control of program educators (Walvoord, 2003). The question arises as to the importance of future behavior as an indicator of current learning.
Astin (1993) pointed out that educators are inclined to avoid assessment of the affective domain viewing such as too value laden. Accordingly, the cognitive domain became the defacto assessment area though affective assessment more closely paralleled the stated aims and goals of most institutions of higher education. The avoidance of assessment in the affective domain is well documented by Astin. The advent of social media tools coupled with e-portfolios offers some intriguing possibilities in regard to assessment in the affective behavioral domain. Astin pointed out that a change in the affective domain should translate into changed behavior.
Secolsky and Wentland (2010) found many advantages to portfolio assessment that transcend regular assessment practices by providing a glimpse into non-structured behavioral activities. Behavior beyond the classroom can be captured and documented within a properly designed portfolio. Behavior that has not been directly observed by the teacher can be measured in light of portfolio submissions via a broad collection of relevant and targeted information. Established performance criterion can be assessed to measure student-learning and determine specific areas for programmatic improvement. Though Secolsky and Wentland point out that reliability and validity concerns still exist with portfolio measurement, they concur that portfolio assessment potentially gauges authentic student performance outside the educational environment. With the development of a portfolio transportable beyond program enrollment and across the life experience the opportunity exists to assess the impact of the instructional experience upon real time student performance. Evaluation of life-long portfolios promises to provide meaningful insight into the real life impact of the educational experience. Astin (1993) viewed changed behavior over time as the real evidence of affective enlightenment.
An interesting finding from this study was the creative manner in which some of the students layered or nested other web 2.0 technologies into their MERLOT web pages. Examples of layering or nesting included embedded student developed Voicethread presentations, embedded open-ended discussion Voicethreads used to promote participation and feedback, embedded YouTube Videos, embedded Prezis and the like.
The integration of MERLOT GRAPE Camp peer review training into this Master Degree Program has provided an additional platform for further research to be conducted relative to the assessment of all seven of the programmatic learning outcomes of the program. For example, metacognition may be assessed as it relates to MERLOT’S peer-reviewers serving as content expert in assessing materials that pertain to one’s field. Communication may be assessed through interaction with peers and peer-reviews. Digital fluency is obviously what is required to contribute to MERLOT. Cultural Fluency may be demonstrated through peer reviewing submissions of MERLOT’s international community of partners. Global Fluency may be measured through the development and contribution of appropriate content for use in a global community of learners. Servant Leadership is the motto of MERLOT, “Give a Gift not a Burden!” (Gerry Hanley, 2010). Finally, the development of students into lifelong learners will help to establish the identity of the program. Student performance outside of the program is one of the best measures of student-learning and the MERLOT Content Builder along with MERLOT peer-reviews is a tremendous platform for measuring student-learning outcomes.
Life long learning may be assessed by current and former students’ contributions of materials to MERLOT and by those providing peer reviews of materials contributed to MERLOT. As a benefit of being a MERLOT partner, the dashboard report provides information on contributions made by members of the partner organization. Contributions and/or peer reviews completed by students who have graduated from the program will be recorded in the dashboard report. This is a tremendous tool to measure the commitment to life long learning. Ultimately, this study has demonstrated that the MERLOT platform combined with emerging technology are integral in assessing student-learning outcomes in an online master’s program at a regional University in Texas. Other online degree programs should seriously consider the MERLOT Content Builder’s potential to help them assess student-learning outcomes.