Now read on…

authorSTREAM is a web-based PowerPoint presentation sharing platform from authorGEN Technologies. After creating a presentation in Microsoft PowerPoint, content creators can upload presentations to the authorSTREAM website. During the upload process the content is converted Adobe to Flash SWF format displayed via the Flash player. Content creators can use the provided HTML code to embed the presentation in a blog or website, as well to share the presentation via e-mail, and submit the content to YouTube. authorSTREAM also enables users to share their presentations via mobile devices that support MV4 playback such as the Apple iPod or iPhone.

Slideshare supports a range of import file types, including PowerPoint PPT, OpenOffice.org Impress, and PDF format. Broadly speaking, we can say that the SlideShare upload process shares many characteristics with other Web 2.0 tools, and is in fact very similar to the authorSTREAM submission procedure. Generally speaking, once a file is uploaded and converted to SWF, it is publicly available.

The content creators can choose to make the slide show available to be downloaded. Interestingly for a service provided by a for-profit organization Slideshare is linked with Creative Commons, so various attribution licenses are supported (click here for more thoughts on Open Source Software). As with other hosted Web 2.0 services (including YouTube), a presentation can be viewed in the small screen or take the full screen of a monitor.

Table 1 Guidelines for evaluating learning

References:

Bjornavold, J. (2004) Making Learning Visible: Validation of Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning: policy and practices in EU Member States1. European Journal of Education [Internet] 39 (1), 69–89. Available from: http://www.acc.eu.org/uploads/
Makinglearningvisible_1.pdf [Accessed 21st February 2007]

Kirkpatrick, J. & Kirkpatrick, P. (2006) Evaluating Training Programs. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

–

Table 1 Advantages and disadvantages of the retrospective pre-test model

–

Table 1 Retrospective Pre-test Design

However, participants (N) report on their knowledge, understanding or skills (Observation O1) after the intervention (X), and then also reflect and answer (O2) what they believe their understanding or skill was before the intervention. Rockwell & Kohn (1989) applied this method to testing the effectiveness of achieving program outcomes when interventions such as training programs are implemented and concluded that “using a post-then-pre design [retrospective pre-test] to identify self-reported behavioural changes can provide substantial evidence for program impact”. The retrospective pre-test enables researchers to reduce the response shift bias – defined by Klatt & Taylor-Powell in their 2005 paper Synthesis of Literature relative to Retrospective Pretest Design as

the change in the participant’s metric for answering questions from the pre-test to the post-test due to a new understanding of a concept being taught

– because the participants are able to give pre-test responses which are based on a post-intervention frame of reference.

Using the retrospective pre-test, response shift bias can be reduced increasing the likelihood that the observable results are due to intended intervention effects (Pratt, McGuigan & Katzev, 2001). This proposition is complicated and not without its critics – Theodore Lamb (2005), an advocate of the retrospective pre-test method, describes it as “an imperfect but useful tool.” Robson (2002, p.139-141) expresses concerns that used purely as a quasi-experimental method, this strategy could lead to an internal validity threat through regression to the mean.

References:

Klatt, J. and Taylor-Powell, E. (2005) Synthesis of Literature relative to RetrospectivePretest Design. Presentation to the 2005 Joint CES/AEA Conference, Toronto [Internet] Available from: http://www.citra.org/Assets/documents/evaluation%20design.pdf [Accessed 5th August 2007]

Lamb, T. (2005) The Retrospective Pretest: An Imperfect but Useful Tool. Evaluation Exchange. [Internet] 11(2). Available from: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue30/spotlight.html [Accessed 21st March 2007]

Pratt, C.C., McGuigan, W.M., & Katzev, A.R. (2000). Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(3). 341-349.

Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Rockwell, S. K. & Kohn, H. (1989) Post-Then-Pre Evaluation. Journal of Extension. [Internet] 27(2). Available from: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989summer/a5.html [Accessed 21st March 2007]

–

Table 1 Retrospective Pre-test Design

However, participants (N) report on their knowledge, understanding or skills (Observation O1) after the intervention (X), and then also reflect and answer (O2) what they believe their understanding or skill was before the intervention. Rockwell & Kohn (1989) applied this method to testing the effectiveness of achieving program outcomes when interventions such as training programs are implemented and concluded that “using a post-then-pre design [retrospective pre-test] to identify self-reported behavioural changes can provide substantial evidence for program impact”. The retrospective pre-test enables researchers to reduce the response shift bias – defined by Klatt & Taylor-Powell in their 2005 paper Synthesis of Literature relative to Retrospective Pretest Design as

the change in the participant’s metric for answering questions from the pre-test to the post-test due to a new understanding of a concept being taught

– because the participants are able to give pre-test responses which are based on a post-intervention frame of reference.

Using the retrospective pre-test, response shift bias can be reduced increasing the likelihood that the observable results are due to intended intervention effects (Pratt, McGuigan & Katzev, 2001). This proposition is complicated and not without its critics – Theodore Lamb (2005), an advocate of the retrospective pre-test method, describes it as “an imperfect but useful tool.” Robson (2002, p.139-141) expresses concerns that used purely as a quasi-experimental method, this strategy could lead to an internal validity threat through regression to the mean.

References:

Klatt, J. and Taylor-Powell, E. (2005) Synthesis of Literature relative to RetrospectivePretest Design. Presentation to the 2005 Joint CES/AEA Conference, Toronto [Internet] Available from: http://www.citra.org/Assets/documents/evaluation%20design.pdf [Accessed 5th August 2007]

Lamb, T. (2005) The Retrospective Pretest: An Imperfect but Useful Tool. Evaluation Exchange. [Internet] 11(2). Available from: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue30/spotlight.html [Accessed 21st March 2007]

Pratt, C.C., McGuigan, W.M., & Katzev, A.R. (2000). Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(3). 341-349.

Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Rockwell, S. K. & Kohn, H. (1989) Post-Then-Pre Evaluation. Journal of Extension. [Internet] 27(2). Available from: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989summer/a5.html [Accessed 21st March 2007]

–

Interestingly in discussing the flexibility of the case study design, Yin (1994, p.285) contends that in the future, researchers will focus not on the case study method, but rather on the specifi case study data collection techniques (see Table 1) and we will increasingly see these techniques used in other “non-case study” forms of research.

Table