Laura Yost
Interdisciplinary Studies
Fall 2006
UCLA ATAW Course Evaluation Reflection
UCLA ATAW & UCMJ ATAW Additional Evaluation Reflection
UCLA ATAW Course Evaluation Reflection
Fall 2006, the second time UCLA ATAW was offered, was the first semester in which
the Course Evaluation was available. (The question set was developed by the Distance
Learning faculty as a standardized reference for ATAW courses.)
In order to attract student participation, 10 extra credit points are awarded for the
survey’s completion, and it is accessible during the final two weeks of the course along
with the final exam. Out of 32 enrolled students, 22 took part, while two registered as
having taken the survey but failed to answer any questions.
Overall, the responses were quite favorable, with most answers registering “Strongly
Agree” and “Moderately Agree.”
The above responses were tallied for all questions, however there are a few such as:
“Exams allowed me to adequately demonstrate what I learned,” “Course objectives
represented outcomes which I could achieve in the time allotted,” and “Exchange of
course materials was handled in a timely manner” that I would like to focus on for
reflection and improvement.
All my ATAW exams are open-note, open-book, short-answer questions which are
submitted to me via WebCT. The questions are based on the Textbook Reading
Objectives (listed in the Course Materials section of the Homepage by text chapter). At
the time of the survey (Fall 2006), the selected exam questions were mailed out to all
students via WebCT e-mail roughly two and a half weeks before the exam was due (this
policy was posted on the Calendar and in the Course Guide). If students requested
clarification on questions or wanted to submit trial responses for review and feedback,
that was allowed and promoted. The exams allow students to choose five answers from a
given list of on average eight to ten.
Taking into account student comments, and in order to help students feel exams better
demonstrate what they have learned, I am now posting all tests at the beginning of the
semester. Follow-up on my part will consist of providing a more detailed e-mail within
two weeks of all exams containing recommendations on length, ways to avoid plagiarism,
an offer for single question review (that way the entire exam is not submitted for
comments), as well as a sample response. All exams, when graded, have written
comments on aspects of strengths and weaknesses, along with areas for improvement.
1
Student responses regarding achieving goals within the time allotted, I interpreted as
maybe being related to only knowing about the exams for two weeks before they were
due. To adapt to this, I am posting the exams from the beginning of the course, giving
students a lot more time for preparation and asking for clarification.
The exchange of course materials, from my perspective was done in a timely manner. I
cannot provide an exact time frame, but assignments were downloaded in batches
multiple times a week. These batches were then graded and scores posted relatively
quickly. Once and a while, one or two submissions, would get overlooked, but I would
correct and return those ASAP as well.
More specifically, reactions to that question I think may have applied to instances when
work was submitted to me via e-mail (which happened relatively frequently). In those
cases, the earlier version of WebCT (Fall 2006) would not allow grades to be posted
because the software needs to register homework as having being uploaded through it. I
handled this initially on an individual student basis, contacting each one to let them know
they would not be able to see his/her score, but then started sending out class wide emails during the semester. As of this semester (Spring 2007), such information is posted
clearly in the Course Guide and followed up on at various times in the semester.
UCLA ATAW & UCMJ ATAW Additional Evaluation Reflection
I think the pre-selected set of questions utilized in ATAW courses is a strong one and
provides very useful feedback to the instructors. I like the opportunity it gives ATAW
students to take part in helping their classes improve. Even so, in my ATAW courses I
have an additional set of written questions, for which students will also receive 10 extra
credit points if they respond. These questions are a means of providing more in-depth
commentary on the nature of ATAW courses.
The feedback rate of this survey has not been very strong (perhaps taking into account it
is available along with the final and the other survey – which is multiple choice and may
be more attractive during a period in which time is at a premium). Accordingly, the
reflection on this evaluation applies to both UCLA and UCMJ ATAW (Fall 2006).
The additional questions are as follows:
1) What attracted you to the ATAW format?
2) What expectations did you have for this course initially?
3) Were your expectations met?
4) What additional directions, if any, would you recommend be provided to
students?
5) What changes, if any, would you make to the navigation/structure of the
course?
6) What changes, if any, would you want to see in the assignments?
7) What would you keep about this course?
8) What would you change about this course?
2
The responses to #1, #2, and #3 focused on the convenience of taking classes via ATAW,
in terms of how they fit into busy life and work schedules. Comments also focused on
the independent nature of being able to set your own schedule within the limits of
deadlines already provided by the class.
I am particularly interested in the questions addressing directions and assignment clarity
since the distance format does not allow instantaneous feedback (I do try to respond to emails within 24 hours). I want the course to be as clear as possible as a means to reduce
potential intimidation or confusion, both of which could cause a negative reaction to the
class.
Students with the older version of WebCT (at the time of this survey) did not seem to
know where to look for written feedback; the 6.0 Version of WebCT has corrected this.
In UCMJ (Spring 2007) which uses the older version of WebCT, I am writing class wide
e-mails that state written feedback is provided so they know to pursue that by clicking
through to that information. (In speaking with another instructor she commented on this
problem in her courses as well.)
Also addressing the issue of clarity is the fact that the UCLA course has four sets of
“Work Option” assignments which let students choose from two equally-weighted
projects. This still seems to cause some confusion, even though it is detailed in the
Course Guide, the Calendar, and referred to in clarification e-mails. Again, the new
version of WebCT allows me to post more information via the Calendar which provides
additional clarity right away – that should help reduce any remaining confusion.
In the case of actual assignment directions, I have a tendency to be wordy, which I am
sure cuts down on clarity! Since the evaluation I have been in the process of reviewing
assignment questions to make them more straight forward. I also took the most trying
assignment of the UCLA course (reading the translated Letter of Jamaica by Simón
Bolívar, which is very hard to follow and understand) and made the entire piece optional
for students. Last semester the class did very well trying to decipher its meaning and
context, and some commented to me that it was rewarding – once it was over! – but I
thought students should have a choice on that one if they felt like taking on that
challenge.
I have gotten strong feedback, from e-mail and personal contact, from students in both
classes who, in answering what would you keep, liked the strong inclusion of visuals as
well as the introductory video. Over the continuing development of these courses I want
to integrate more video clips (perhaps travel sequences or short informative bits, such as
“How to Make Sushi”) as well as graphics.
3