Instrument Exchange

Instrument Exchange.

Below are examples of data collection tools used by students enrolled in Ed 791BC during the Spring '02 semester. They range from usability protocols to web-delivery surveys.

Whose Instrument

Instrument/Client

Key Features/Instrument Purpose

Lori Killpatrick

Student Survey:
Cuyamaca College
Computer Information Systems Dept.

Core features: Lori used a variety of item types (multiple choice, intensity, check all that apply) to capture highly descriptive information about the 1,000 students seeking degrees, enrichment, or certification.

Nathan Botts

Faculty Survey (and the cover letter):
College of Education
SDSU

Core features: Nathan used a variety of item types (multiple choice, intensity, open-ended/elaborative) to capture faculty perceptions of their technology savvy as well as their experiences with the COE Help Desk.

Jerry Niehaus

Student Survey:
EdTec students (recent enrollees in EdTec 541)
Dept. of Educational Technology

Core features: Jerry used a variety of item types (including embedded test items) to measure how the online experiments now integrated into EdTec 541 help students learn a) core tenets of readability and b) the role inquiry plays in our field. Test items were an effort to measure knowledge retention.

Bob Faust

Kyocera Phone Survey and the opening invitation:
Kyocera Wireless
Core features: Bob used multiple choice and intensity-scale items to characterize visitors to a Kyocera site that provides how to use your phone information. Respondents also rated the site's aesthetics and performance.

Erica Mohr

Beyond the Podium Survey (and the pull-down menus):
Jossey Bass Publishers
Allison Rossett

Core features: Erica's task was to measure not only reactions to the website, but also its marketability. By assessing visitors' reasons for access and what content or information they expected to find there, she could determine the site's conceptual strengths and weaknesses.


Chris Schmidt

RSVPs in the Classroom Survey (teacher version):
San Diego Police Dept.
Eastern Division
Core features: Chris developed three versions of a mostly multiple-choice survey to assess program impact (and variations in implementation): frequency of the class visits, the types of activities in which the seniors are engaged, how (and when) feedback is provided, positive changes in student performance/attitudes, and constraints that affect program operations.

Jimm Johnson


Technology Support Survey (intro and screens one and two):
Jack in the Box

Core features: Jimm's survey is as much needs assessment as it is evaluation. Multiple scales (measuring everything from comfort with certain technologies to strategies for prioritizing types of assistance to how tech needs are shared among employees) help to determine which resources are most appropriate and strategies or techniques for their distribution.

Ray Adair

Matrix for the SMART Classroom Evaluation System:
Instructional Technology Services
SDSU


Core features: Ray created a system for conducting multilevel (and ongoing) assessment of the SMART Classroom program. The idea is to always know what you're evaluating (e.g., instructional issues, technical issues, services issues), for what purpose (context, input, process, product), and to what end (logistical, tactical, strategic).

Whose Instrument	Instrument/Client	Key Features/Instrument Purpose
Lori Killpatrick	Student Survey: Cuyamaca College Computer Information Systems Dept.	Core features: Lori used a variety of item types (multiple choice, intensity, check all that apply) to capture highly descriptive information about the 1,000 students seeking degrees, enrichment, or certification.
Nathan Botts	Faculty Survey (and the cover letter): College of Education SDSU	Core features: Nathan used a variety of item types (multiple choice, intensity, open-ended/elaborative) to capture faculty perceptions of their technology savvy as well as their experiences with the COE Help Desk.
Jerry Niehaus	Student Survey: EdTec students (recent enrollees in EdTec 541) Dept. of Educational Technology	Core features: Jerry used a variety of item types (including embedded test items) to measure how the online experiments now integrated into EdTec 541 help students learn a) core tenets of readability and b) the role inquiry plays in our field. Test items were an effort to measure knowledge retention.
Bob Faust	Kyocera Phone Survey and the opening invitation: Kyocera Wireless	Core features: Bob used multiple choice and intensity-scale items to characterize visitors to a Kyocera site that provides how to use your phone information. Respondents also rated the site's aesthetics and performance.
Erica Mohr	Beyond the Podium Survey (and the pull-down menus): Jossey Bass Publishers Allison Rossett	Core features: Erica's task was to measure not only reactions to the website, but also its marketability. By assessing visitors' reasons for access and what content or information they expected to find there, she could determine the site's conceptual strengths and weaknesses.
Chris Schmidt	RSVPs in the Classroom Survey (teacher version): San Diego Police Dept. Eastern Division	Core features: Chris developed three versions of a mostly multiple-choice survey to assess program impact (and variations in implementation): frequency of the class visits, the types of activities in which the seniors are engaged, how (and when) feedback is provided, positive changes in student performance/attitudes, and constraints that affect program operations.
Jimm Johnson	Technology Support Survey (intro and screens one and two): Jack in the Box	Core features: Jimm's survey is as much needs assessment as it is evaluation. Multiple scales (measuring everything from comfort with certain technologies to strategies for prioritizing types of assistance to how tech needs are shared among employees) help to determine which resources are most appropriate and strategies or techniques for their distribution.
Ray Adair	Matrix for the SMART Classroom Evaluation System: Instructional Technology Services SDSU	Core features: Ray created a system for conducting multilevel (and ongoing) assessment of the SMART Classroom program. The idea is to always know what you're evaluating (e.g., instructional issues, technical issues, services issues), for what purpose (context, input, process, product), and to what end (logistical, tactical, strategic).