Month: April 2017

Higher Level Learning – a learning company in Manchester

Evaluating Microlearning

The field of evaluation is well established and as a result, there are a number of different approaches and theories, but evaluate microlearning as you would any other learning. In order to develop a practical, non-labour intensive and therefore cost-effective tool for evaluating microlearning, opt for a goal-based approach (see 2. below) whilst making certain assumptions regarding environmental variables.

Evaluation Theories

Robinson (2002) lists the five main approaches developed by different evaluation theorists, below. ‘While the different approaches are all attempting to answer similar questions (about the worth of programmes and elements of them), the emphasis on various aspects (purpose, focus and evaluator’s role) varies, as does the underpinning theory. However, all

share at least one feature: a concern for rigor in the conduct of the evaluation and a concern for reliable and systematic evidence to support any conclusions.’

Approach	Emphasis	Focusing issues	Evaluator’s role	Specific information needs
1. Experimental	Research design	What effects result from programme activities and can they be generalized?	Expert/ scientist	Outcome measures. Learner characteristics. Variation in treatment. Other influences on learners. Availability of a control group.
2. Goal oriented	Goals and objectives	What are the programme’s goals and objectives, and how can they be measured?	Measurement specialist	Specific programme objectives. Criterion-referenced outcome measures.
3. Decision focused [CIPP]	Decision making	Which decisions need to be made and what information will be relevant?	Decision support person, provider of information.	Stage of programme development. Cycle of decision making. Data gathering and reporting.
4. User-oriented	Information users or clients	Who are the intended information users and what information will be most useful?	Collaborator	Personal and organizational dynamics. Group information needs. Programme history. Intended uses of information.
5. Responsive	Personal understanding	Which people have a stake in the programme and what are their points of view?	Counsellor/ facilitator/ collaborator	Variation in individual and group perspectives. Stakeholder concerns and participation in determining and framing the data. Programme history. Variation in measures and sites.

Higher Level Learning – a learning company in Manchester

How to measure the efficacy of microlearning

Whether you’re an elearning designer or microlearning developer or anyone working in the field of learning, measuring the efficacy of microlearning or learning in general is sometimes regarded as a difficult or almost impossible task especially measuring the transfer of skills in the workplace.  Consequently it is rarely attempted or only ‘surface scratched’. We’ve done some work on this at Higher Level Learning and can hopefully provide one method that works and has been tried and tested in the work environment. We call it SeET – Snapshot elearning Effectiveness Tool.

Our criteria for success was:

• A practical solution that can be used by staff with little experience of evaluation
• A tool that steps beyond Kirkpatrick level one and measures behavioural changes in the workplace based on completed elearning (or just learning)
• A solution that can be quickly deployed and easily measured in the workplace
• A cost-effective solution
• the tool should not be limited to evaluating elearning and could be adapted for use in other areas

One question before we go any further:

Why measure microlearning or learning at all?

In the current financial climate, it’s more important than ever for elearning and learning programmes to demonstrate their value and the benefits they provide to an organisation. This means creating programmes and initiatives clearly linked to business objectives and having effective tools in place to measure their success (hence the creation of SeET).