HOW CAN DISTRIBUTED LEARNING BE USED TO DELIVER INSTUCTION IN MICROFINANCE TO NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN REMOTE LOCATIONS? A Plan for an Evaluation of a MicroFinance Course for the Coady International Institute
By
MARY KATHRYN LENORE BEGLEY
B.A., University of Western Ontario, 1972 B. Ed., University of Western Ontario 1974
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
In
DISTRIBUTED LEARNING Focusing on Leadership, Learning and Technologies
We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard
...... ……………..…… Faculty Supervisor, Heather Kanuka, PhD
...... Faculty Supervisor, Liam Rourke, PhD
...... Program Head, Judith Blanchette, Ph.D.
...... Dean, Faculty of Social and Applied Sciences, James A. Bayer, Ph.D.
ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY November 2007
© Lenore Begley, 2007
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance ii
ABSTRACT
This report provides a plan for evaluation of a distance delivered MicroFinance course offered by the Coady International Institute. It addresses the question: how can distributed learning be used to deliver instruction in microfinance to non governmental organizations in remote locations? To answer this question, I conducted research on a pilot course offered on-line, in the fall of 2004, to fifteen participants from twelve different countries. This research involved an extensive literature review and a series of three rounds of interviews with five key informants.
The findings were used to develop a plan for evaluation of the on-line course. The results indicate sound practices in place or in development at the Coady International Institute for the delivery of on-line courses. Relatively new in the field of distributed learning, they have absorbed very important lessons and have demonstrated a scholarly and practical approach to improve practice.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people whom I wish to acknowledge in the completion of this project.
First, I wish to acknowledge Reverend James Mulligan, CSC, who initially guided me to the
Coady Institute and its work with partners in the global south, allowing me to marry my interest in microfinance with my belief in distributed learning. I wish to thank the Coady International
Institute and its staff, particularly Nanci Lee, for providing me with the opportunity to work in a real theatre of operations, with participants who were passionate and professional about the work that they did. It was inspiring to be conducting research of the kind I was presented with at the
Coady Institute. The opportunity to study distributed learning, offered through distributed learning means at Royal Roads University, showed me the possibilities and the limitations of this relatively new field. I drew on my cohort at Royal Roads University for advice, both technical and professional. My connection with my fellow learners at Royal Roads University continues to be a source of insight and delight, as the knowledge network continues long after the studies have ended. With the guidance of two supervisors, Dr. Heather Kanuka and Dr. Liam Rourke, I was challenged, inspired, and guided through this project. With their expert guidance, I was able to make sense of the complexities of responsive approaches and participatory evaluation planning. Finally, I want to thank my family, particularly my husband, John Brisbois, and my friends who supported me in what seemed, at times, to be an endless pursuit. I thank them for their unfailing belief in the value of the work I was doing.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract...... ii
Acknowledgements...... iii
List of Tables ...... vii
Glossary ...... viii
Chapter One: Study Background ...... 1 Introduction...... 1 Program Evaluation ...... 1 The Opportunity...... 2 Significance of the Opportunity...... 3 The Stakeholders...... 4 Potential Causes of the Problem or Need ...... 4 Information Review ...... 5 Limitations of the Study...... 6 Delimitations of the Study ...... 6
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...... 7 Community-Based MicroFinance Distance Learning Program...... 7 MicroFinance and Micro Credit...... 8 Program Evaluation ...... 9 Theoretical Foundation ...... 10 Distributed Learning Technologies...... 12 Potential Solutions ...... 12
Chapter Three: Research Methodology ...... 14 Theoretical Perspective...... 14 Data Collection and Analysis...... 14 Project Deliverables...... 17 Project Participants ...... 18
Chapter Four: Research Study Results ...... 20 Context...... 20 The Pilot Distance Course ...... 20 Respondent Profiles ...... 21 Events...... 21 Research Findings...... 22 Pedagogy...... 24 Application of Learning...... 27 Recognition of Learner Needs ...... 29 Organizational Needs...... 33 Technological Considerations...... 35 Summary of Research Findings...... 37
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance v
Study Recommendations ...... 37 Pedagogy...... 37 Application of Student Learning...... 39 Recognition of Learner Needs ...... 39 Institutional Needs ...... 40 Technological Considerations...... 41
Chapter Five: Research Implications...... 42 Evaluation Approach ...... 42 Evaluation Objectives and Issues...... 43 Evaluation Design...... 43 Evaluation Process...... 44 Evaluation Standards ...... 44 Developing Instruments...... 45 Data/Document Analysis ...... 45 Evaluation Plan ...... 46 Timeline ...... 46 Level One: Participants...... 46 Level Two: Group Processes ...... 47 Level Three: Administrative and Supervisory...... 48 Timeline of Events...... 49 Supervising Implementation and Evaluation...... 49 Evaluation Events ...... 50 Evaluation Results ...... 50 Recommendations...... 51 Project Budget...... 51 Cost of Applying the Plan...... 51 Team Member Profiles ...... 51 Evaluation Team/Tasks...... 52 Summary...... 52 Future Research ...... 53
Chapter Six: Lessons Learned ...... 56
References...... 58
Appendix A: Letters of Introduction...... 61
Appendix B: Research Questions for First Interview...... 63
Appendix C: Research Questions Second Interview Questions ...... 64
Appendix D: Research Questions Member Checking ...... 65
Appendix E: Resources...... 66
Appendix F: Evaluation Plan...... 69
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance vi
Appendix G: Learning Plan ...... 70
Appendix H: Learning Plan Rubric ...... 73
Appendix I: Guiding Questions for Reflective Learning Journal...... 74
Appendix J: Guiding Questions for Focus Groups...... 75
Appendix K: Timeline of Events for MicroFinance Course...... 77
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Emergent Categories...... 23
Table 2. Descriptive Phase of Evaluation Approach ...... 42
Table 3. Judgement Phase of Evaluation Approach ...... 43
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance viii
GLOSSARY
Terms Explanation
Adobe Acrobat Software used for presentations and learning objects for on-line Connect learning, web conferencing and meetings (Adobe Systems Incorporated, 2007a).
Adobe Captivate 3 A software product developed by Adobe that can be used in e- learning to create demonstrations, podcasts, and simulations (Adobe Systems Incorporated, 2007b).
Appreciative Inquiry An organizational process for affecting change that focuses attention on what is successful and how that success may be developed in other areas of the organization or programme.
Birds of a Feather Similar to the open-space process that encourages individuals with similar professional interests and challenges to meet and discuss issues.
Check-in A process of self-checking used to determine readiness for activities and to reference one’s current emotional state.
Collaborative Inquiry A process used to involve individuals in an inquiry of the issues and challenges that are present within the domain. Those interested parties focus their attention for the purpose of affecting change. They are actively involved in all stages of the process.
Distributed Learning Web-based training, computer-based training, computer-mediated communications, distance education
Ghamfin This acronym refers to the Ghana MicroFinance Institutions Network, which operates as an informal network of MicroFinance practitioners united by a desire and a need for knowledge of best practices and approaches in the field of MicroFinance. This network is of significance to this study, as a number of its members were participants in the MicroFinance course offered by the Coady in the fall of 2006.
Learning Style Individuals learn more effectively when the learning approach is structured in a particular manner. It is helpful to students to know and understand their preferred learning style. Teachers are encouraged to present material in ways that can accommodate different learning styles.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance ix
Terms Explanation
Micro Credit The extension of credit to someone who would otherwise not qualify for a loan. Usually there are very small sums of money involved.
MicroFinance A development tool used to assist those living in poverty to make a significant change in their status by extending credit and a range of other financial services that encourage the acquisition of social capital. These services include loans, insurance and savings, and other financial packages.
Mobile Ad Hoc A moveable wireless network that is self-organizing around Networks (MANETs) moveable routers that forward data according to the nearest point of connectivity. MANETs are used where bandwidth is limited.
Mood Meter A process of visually checking with oneself to ascertain readiness to attend to activities. This may also be referred to as a check-in process. For more information: http://www4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de/~msrex/how-do-you- feel.html
Open Space Learning A participant driven approach that encourages the group to develop their own agenda for discussion, reflection, and problem solving.
Parking Lot Process Part of a process for sampling participant response or concerns. Issues are written on paper and then placed on an assigned place within a room for collection and compilation.
Thin Client Thin Client Machines are computers that function using information provided by a server with centralized capabilities and lower IT support costs
Webinar May also be referred to as a web-cast in which instruction is directed to the audience in audio and visual format. It may be archived for accessibility in other than real time situations.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 1
CHAPTER ONE: STUDY BACKGROUND
Introduction
Among instructional designers, there is much talk about the importance of formative evaluation, but few actually practice this. However, at the Coady International Institute in
Antigonish Canada, there is a commitment to do otherwise. The Coady International Institute
(Coady Institute) is developing a course in MicroFinance to be delivered through distributed learning, and the Coady Institute staff is resolute in their desire to identify its strengths and needs.
I addressed the following question in this project: “How can distributed learning be used to deliver instruction in MicroFinance to non governmental organizations in remote locations?”
The purpose of my project was to develop a detailed plan for evaluating the Coady
Institute’s distance delivered MicroFinance course. In this project, I introduce the Coady
International Institute, and I summarize the literature that is central to my project, including
literature on distance education, course development, program evaluation, and microfinance. I
present a plan for developing a detailed program evaluation, and this plan addresses issues of
research design and data collection and analysis.
Program Evaluation
Program evaluation differs from the informal judgments that we make in our everyday
lives. Informally, we may judge whether the most deserving team won the World Cup or which
is the most suitable vehicle and the best price for a new car purchase. To reach our decision and
to answer the questions, we examine all available evidence before we can make a judgment. A
more formal way of making judgments is through a program evaluation. While there are several
definitions of program evaluation, a meaningful definition to begin this discussion is offered by
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 2
Stake (2004): “The comparison of the condition or performance of something to one or more standards” (p. 4). Program evaluation has evolved from a determination to know if what we have done is what we set out to do in a way that realizes the good and reveals the need of the evaluand . This is the term used to name what is being evaluated or measured. The merit and worth of the evaluand will be revealed through examination and judgments made at the end of this process.
The Opportunity
The Coady Institute was established in 1959 at St. Francis Xavier University in
Antigonish, Canada, to provide leadership in adult education, with a focus on community building and empowerment. This is the legacy of Dr. Moses Coady, whose philosophy and practice of adult education in the community during the 1920s, formed the direction of the
Institute in developing and delivering its programs both at home and world wide(Coady Institute,
2005b). Today the Coady Institute uses its influence to effect change in the lives of the poor, by training leaders from developing countries in financial service methods that have proven success records.
The course in microfinance that is the subject of my research is an example of the work carried out by the Coady Institute. The area of study, microfinance, has grown out of traditions and practices of sustainability in economics that have evolved over time in many different cultures. In recent years, the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh has emerged as a leading proponent of micro credit—the forerunner to microfinance. The essential difference between the two is that the former involves loans to the poor, while the latter embraces a wider range of financial services and products. “The Grameen, credit-driven model is the inspiration for the ‘first wave’ of micro credit programs” (Wright, 2000, p. 7). Since 1976, when the Grameen Bank first began
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 3 its micro credit work, the need has emerged for a wider variety of services to assist in building financial and social assets in the target populations. This approach has become known as microfinance, and its influence is spreading throughout the developing world with the help of organizations, such as the Coady Institute (2005b) and the World Bank Group (1999, ¶ 4).
One of the greatest challenges in development is that of information dissemination. It is here that distributed learning, in all of its forms, can be utilized to bring the message home to those most able to benefit from access to the services and products offered under the microfinance umbrella. The Coady Institute (2005c) has addressed the challenge by offering instruction through distance delivery in microfinance to policy makers around the globe. In partnership with the Comart Foundation, the funding organization, courses in leadership and financial services that aim to positively impact the lives of the poor are offered both on-site and through the internet.
Significance of the Opportunity
I had the opportunity to work with the Coady Institute and its partners on this development initiative by constructing a plan for an evaluation of a MicroFinance course. The
Coady Institute developed this course for a fall 2004 launch, using distributed learning technologies. The challenge and the research opportunity lay in the application of emerging practices in distributed learning and microfinance, in a creative effort, to impact positively the lives of the poor.
This area for exploration and application has emerged from a life-long interest and involvement in development issues and education. In this sense, it is a lively and logical convergence of interests and technologies. While there are applications of distributed learning in place, it is important to consider the best available technologies because of the realities on the
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 4 ground in remote locations. These technologies may range from community radio, to satellite use for on-line learning, to ham radio transmissions, and to internet connectivity. The challenge in all distributed/distance learning is to deliver the best available instruction, using the most appropriate technology, in support of the learners’ needs for maximum impact and effectiveness.
This is a challenge in the developing and the developed world.
A failure to respond with an intensive research focus to the need for an evaluation plan could result in a process of programme development and implementation that does not benefit the stakeholders, the field of microfinance, micro credit, or distributed learning. It may compromise the ability of the Coady Institute to impact the learning of future course participants and ultimately affect, in a negative manner, the final beneficiaries of the knowledge products—the poor.
The Stakeholders
The stakeholders in this project include those who will be impacted in some way by
participating in the research, receiving instruction in microfinance, or gaining knowledge of the
financial products and services available to them. The Coady Institute, its employees and
partners, the Comart Foundation, alumni of previous courses, the economically disadvantaged of
Ghana, and the policy makers of the Bank of Ghana and Ghamfin (Ghana MicroFinance
Institutions Network) personnel are all considered stakeholders in this project who have potential
to benefit from the research. The project produced a responsive evaluation plan (Stake, 2004,
p. 95) of an on-line MicroFinance course made available in the fall of 2004. This plan will have
the potential to return a benefit to all the stakeholders.
Potential Causes of the Problem or Need
There is a need for an evaluative plan that will provide stakeholders with a course that
improves continuously through formative evaluation. I built a detailed plan for evaluating the
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 5
MicroFinance course, based on data collected around the pilot course. I collected data that stemmed largely from the pilot, from which to construct an evaluation plan that the Coady
Institute may use to evaluate other courses in the future.
Information Review
Much of the information that has been provided by the sponsoring organization, the Coady
Institute, is in the form of reports generated for the Comart foundation. There are course manuals
that address the mechanics and culture of microfinance, draft memoranda, and transcribed interviews
of the pilot course participants. In addition, the foundational beliefs of the Coady Institute (2002,
2005a) and its initiatives in adult education, empowerment, and community building are found on
their web site. The Coady Institute’s interest is focused on building social capital in communities, for
the purpose of compiling assets and developing and carrying out sustainable economic change.
The material that exists within the Coady Institute and forms the basis for the research
consists of the following documents:
1. Web pages from the Coady Institute (2005b), outlining the history and work of the
Coady Institute
2. Progress Report: Community-Based Microfinance Distance Learning Program and
Asset-Based Community Development Best Practice Learning Exchange (Lee, Okafo,
Cunningham, Mathie, & Foster, 2005).
3. Community-Based Microfinance: A Participant's Manual (Hamadziripi & Lee, 2005).
4. Summary of first reflections of the distance learning project (N. Lee, personal
communication, October 10, 2005).
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 6
5. Stakeholder and Situation Analysis Preliminary Review, Bank of Ghana, Curriculum
Development, Coady International Institute (N. Lee, personal communication,
October 7, 2005).
Limitations of the Study
I see that the potential limitations of this project included the following, in list form:
1. I was not familiar with the culture of some of the international participants.
2. I was constricted by a lack of time and face-to- face access in truly capturing
participants’ experiences and understandings.
3. I have no control over the way in which an actual evaluation will be carried out.
4. I have no control over stakeholder considerations in the design and roll out of future
courses using the evaluation plan developed from this research.
5. My research findings were subject to the limitations of the technologies used.
6. Informants spoke from their perspective, and their responses reflect their particular
biases
7. The findings of this research are limited to the pilot project and may not be
generalized to other contexts.
Delimitations of the Study
1. I have chosen to interview one individual from each of the key informant groups.
2. I have chosen to use Robert Stake’s (1975, 2004) participant-oriented approach for
responsive evaluation to develop the evaluation plan.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review has been prepared to explain the rationale of the project, to provide justification for the study, and to argue the significance of the subject. To accomplish these purposes, a representative examination of the literature has been conducted and organized into five areas of research. The first involves the materials delivered by the Coady International
Institute (Coady Institute), which provide the context and the environment of the pilot project and the implementation process of a MicroFinance course. The second area for review is the area of microfinance, including micro credit. A third area of research is a study of the most applicable method of program evaluation. A fourth area of research is the theoretical corroboration of the evaluation intent. In this case, social constructivist theory is explored as the philosophical guide for the project. The final topic for review is the area of distributed learning.
Community-Based MicroFinance Distance Learning Program
The focus of the project, for which the evaluation plan will be constructed, is a distance learning program in community-based microfinance funded by a $100,000 grant from the
Comart Foundation. It is meant to, “significantly expand accessibility and outreach to field staff and management in the Global south on grassroots community-based best practices” (Lee et al.,
2005, p. 1).
The following activities are elements of the Comart Project:
1. A distance learning course in microfinance developed by the Coady Institute and
offered as a pilot project to eleven international participants;
2. Technology in the form of a learning management system used by the Coady Institute
to mount the instruction;
3. Bursaries for some participants;
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 8
4. A new distance learning course in microfinance developed for a fall 2006 start-up.
The results of the preliminary work done on the project have been reviewed. In particular, the pilot project was reviewed, and feedback from the participants and from members of a panel was examined. The results will be used by the Coady Institute design team to establish a path for future distance-learning courses. The lessons learned from the pilot project will reflect the current state of knowledge and practice, which can be used to increase the effectiveness of the final product.
MicroFinance and Micro Credit
Micro Credit is the lending model embraced by the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, as the first bank of its type to target the need for credit for the poor. “The model is based on the premise that the poor need loans, and that credit is a human right” (Wright, 2000, p. 7). However, this model revealed the need for additional products and services, such as savings and insurance options that have become a part of the services of microfinance. Microfinance is concerned with developing social assets, as well as providing credit to the poor.
There are two foundational works on microfinance and micro credit. Yunus (2003) traced the development of micro lending—the practice of loaning small amounts of money, as a tool to fight poverty—from the time of the famine in Bangladesh in 1974 and the foundation of the
Grameen Bank in 1977 up to the present day (p. 35). He documented his learning, which led him out of the University of Chittagong in India where he taught Economics, and into the nearby village of Jobra. Here he first recognized the need for small loans to unsecured borrowers (p. 35).
On the success of the early experiments, the Grameen Bank was founded as a bank mandated to serve the needs of those who could not otherwise access capital. Yunus’ work outlined the principles that inform micro credit.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 9
The second key work, Wright (2000), makes the important distinction between micro credit and microfinance. This has significant ramifications for this study, because the focus of the course offered by the Coady Institute is on microfinance. This has been a very successful approach, Wright argued, in part because of its attractiveness to donor organizations. “Well run
MicroFinance institutions offer donors the opportunity to support organizations that will provide financial services to their clients on an increasingly cost-effective basis until in 5–10 years they become sustainable” (p. 34).
Program Evaluation
The evaluation plan recognizes and accommodates the Coady Institute’s (2005c) principles of adult learning, while Stake’s (2004) model of a responsive evaluation accommodates the philosophy of the Coady Institute, with its emphasis on stakeholder participation. This model is characterized by extensive consultation with those engaged in the event or process that is being evaluated. Owen (1999) found the following:
An evaluation is responsive if: it orients more directly to program activities than to
program goals, if it responds to the audiences requirements for information, if different
value perspectives of the people at hand are referred to in reporting the success and
failure of the program. (p. 223)
Stake (1975) used the following definition of an evaluation:
Evaluation is an OBSERVED VALUE compared to some STANDARD.… In program
evaluation it pertains to the whole constellation of values held for the program. And the
denominator … pertains to the complex of expectations and criteria that different people
have for such a program. (p. 4)
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 10
Stake (2004) made a useful distinction between a pre-ordinate and a responsive evaluation. A
pre-ordinate evaluation is one in which the criteria and goals are defined a priori or selected for measurement in advance of the evaluation (p. 95). A responsive evaluation, on the other hand, is sensitive to key issues and to a profound understanding of the quality of the evaluand (p. 95).
The approach to the evaluation project proposed in this paper is from the latter perspective.
Engaging in dialogue with stakeholders was a central activity.
The inclusion of stakeholders in the evaluation process has advantages and cautions that need to be judged against the overall intent of the project plan. Generally, it is found that the inclusion of the stakeholders in an evaluation represents a value position on the part of the evaluators and the contracting agency (Stake, 2004). This plan for evaluation will be developed for one MicroFinance course and will be representative of the interests of this particular group of stakeholders, at this particular time. Future use of the plan will require changes as participants change. In a review of the literature, both those who espouse the objectivist scientific views, and those who espouse social constructivist views have developed a definition of how the term stakeholder is used. For the purposes of this research, a stakeholder is defined as anyone who has an interest in the study or program. It includes those who may benefit and those who may receive injury or lost opportunities because of the study or the results of the study (Guba & Lincoln,
1989; Stake, 2004; Stringer, 1999).
Theoretical Foundation
Social constructivism is the theoretical foundation for the study. According to Driscoll
(2000), there is no single constructivist theory, but rather a number of approaches or aspects of a constructivist approach (p. 375). A social constructivist approach incorporates learning theory as well as a socialization process. This is relevant to my study, because the learning that takes place
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 11 in an on-line cohort-based environment, such as the pilot project, is socially negotiated and influenced by culture. Stake’s (2004) responsive evaluation model accommodates multicultural experiences and social constructivism. Individuals, in social constructivist theory, acquire the skills, knowledge, and dispositions necessary to participate in his or her group or society (Sivan,
1986). Adults seek learning if it is relevant to their own personal goals, growth and development and experience (Moore & Kearsley, 2005; Schugurensky, 2003). Individuals were shown to have a deeper mastery of concepts and greater motivation to learn when involved in active learning for authentic use of concepts (Sivan). Social negotiation takes place within the group, and motivation is engendered amongst learners. Learning is socially constructed. Four principal components of this theory are cognitive activity, cultural knowledge, tools and signs, and assisted learning (Sivan). Cognitive activity as meaning-making cannot be separated from the context in which the individual thinks.
The complexity of thinking and meaning is augmented by association with adults or peers and through the use of language and other cultural tools. Behaviours are formed and influenced and encouraged within the social context or culture. According to Vygotsky (as cited in Driscoll,
2000; Sivan, 1986), this process requires the interaction of more mature members of a society with the person who is being socialized. This interaction plays a key role in the development of higher mental processes (Driscoll). Cognitive activity makes use of social negotiation with others within a “zone of proximal development” (Driscoll, p. 250) or maturational progress to construct learning (Driscoll). Constructivist thought, has grown from developmental thinkers such as
Bruner and Cole (as cited in Driscoll), who discussed the influence of culture on learning.
Stake’s (2004) participant-oriented approach to evaluation is suited to reflect meaning- making within different cultural contexts, such as that to be found within my field of research
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 12
Stake (1975). A responsive evaluation marries well with adult learning theory, social constructivist theory, and the multicultural realities of those individuals involved in my study. It is this interplay between the individual, society, and culture that will offer the theoretical lens for my project.
Distributed Learning Technologies
The final area of review is the literature on use of technologies to support teaching and learning at a distance. Organizations, such as the World Bank, have demonstrated the relationship between knowledge and economic development (Moore & Kearsley, 2005). The delivery of information through distributed learning is an essential part of poverty reduction strategies. UNESCO, the World Bank, the African Virtual University, and International
Development Agencies have made significant efforts to disseminate knowledge to remote locations using technology. Quoting from the 1999 report by the World Bank Group, Moore and Kearsley cited the following:
Forty years ago Ghana and the Republic of Korea had virtually the same income per
capita. By the early 1990s Korea’s income per capita was six times higher than Ghana’s.
Some reckon that half the difference is due to Korea’s greater success in acquiring and
using knowledge. (p. 282)
Potential Solutions
To develop an appropriate plan for evaluation of the MicroFinance course, it is important to understand that whatever the product that results from this research, it will be most useful if it embraces the foundational beliefs of the Coady Institute (2005b) and the philosophical intent of social constructivism. After a review of the literature, the work of Robert Stake (2004) and his responsive evaluation has emerged as an appropriate model to follow in developing the plan.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 13
This model most comfortably addresses the need for stakeholder involvement in the
MicroFinance course that is seen by the Coady Institute as fundamental to its purposes. This responsive evaluation may be adapted, after considerations of participants and context, to other courses the Coady Institute may wish to offer on-line.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 14
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Theoretical Perspective
The research need is to develop a plan for an evaluation of a MicroFinance course for the
Coady International Institute. I am approaching this project from the theoretical perspective of social constructivism. Social constructivists argue that learning occurs within the framework of social interactions with adults or more knowledgeable peers in the context of a specific situation.
Considerations of culture play an important role in learning. In this perspective, a program’s worth or merit is constructed discursively and continuously among several groups who have a stake in the program. Judgments about a program are not made once and for all by outsiders.
Data Collection and Analysis
Social constructivists, such as Guba and Lincoln (1989), argued that evaluation outcomes
“represent meaningful constructions that individual actors or groups of actors form to ‘make sense’ of the situations in which they find themselves” (p. 8). Several program evaluation models are consistent with the assumptions of social constructivism, where the worth and merit of a program are not an objective fact, but constructed discursively. I have selected Stake’s (2004) model of responsive evaluation. The first seven steps of this model address my goals, which are to develop the plan for—but not conduct—a program evaluation. These seven steps include:
(a) talking with stakeholders; (b) determining the scope of the program; (c) overviewing the program activities; (d) discovering its purposes and concerns; (e) conceptualizing issues and problems; (f) identifying the types and sources of data needed to conduct the evaluation, and
(g) selecting observers, judges, and instruments to collect and analyze data.
Stake’s (1975, 2004) term, responsive evaluation , is meant to foreground the ad hoc nature of this type of evaluation, which is highly sensitive to a specific situation. Therefore, any
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 15
plans that are developed prior to entering the setting are provisional. For that reason, I have not
included a detailed plan for data collection, but rather an outline and a conditional plan of how
data collection was intended to proceed in a responsive evaluation.
My primary means of data collection was through interviews with the participants. There were no face-to-face interviews. An invitation was extended to potential participants to take part in the research ( see Appendix A ). Questions were generated from the interviews where informants led the discussion by speaking to their needs. As such, there was an evolving structure to the research that reflected the value perspectives and biases of the informants. The research did not have a pre-ordinate goal. According to Owen (1999), this approach is intended to help practitioners reach new understandings by placing their existing craft knowledge along side the findings of the investigation. In his 1975 work, Stake assumed that this led to improved practice, but that the instrumental use has not been well documented (as cited in Owen).
I conducted three, one-hour interviews with each participant, via the most suitable medium with members of each stakeholder group. The interviews were conducted using Voice
Over Internet Protocols (VOIP) and telephone conversations. These participants included alumni of the MicroFinance program (distance and on site participants), members of the course design team, and administrators from the Coady International Institute (Coady Institute). This approach was consistent with responsive evaluation and social constructivist inquiry.
The three sets of interviews were progressively structured. In the first set of interviews, I asked grand tour type of questions that were broadly focused and open-ended (see Appendix B) per recommendations from Spradley’s study (as cited in Glesne, 1999). I encouraged participants to lead the discussion. For example, I prompted participants with statements, such as “I’m interested in knowing more about the MicroFinance course. What can you tell me about it?” As
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 16 the participants responded, I encouraged them to address the scope of the course, overview the course activities, discover its purposes and concerns, conceptualize issues and problems, and identify the types and sources of data that were needed to conduct an evaluation.
The second set of interviews was more structured than the first, though still continuing to foreground the participants’ constructions. This set of questions (see Appendix C) was formed from an analysis of the first round of data. These questions encouraged greater detail and clarification about the course’s purposes, concerns, activities, and problems. I prompted participants with statements such as, “Several participants have told me that the course is about microfinance. Could you describe some of the topics that are included in the course, so that I can get a better understanding of what microfinance is?”
The third set of interviews was designed for member checking (see Appendix D). The purpose of this process was to ensure that my interpretations, as they are formalized in my report, were consistent with the participants’ experiences and understandings. Guba and Lincoln (1989) argued that the researcher’s construction cannot have priority over the participants, and that if an inquiry is consistent with constructivist principles, it must be a joint exercise (p. 239). Questions in this round of interviews included questions, such as “Is my report an appropriate and accurate representation of the course? Is this an accurate representation of your concerns regarding the course?”
The interviews were analyzed using inductive analysis techniques associated with grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). In grounded theory, the researcher looks for an explanation of the research situation as seen through the eyes of the participants. Using grounded theory, researchers are responsive to the actual conditions. This condition is revealed by making sense of the data that emerges as the research progresses. By constantly comparing data as it is
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 17
gathered, multiple meanings emerge and a progressively more complex picture of the situation
develops. I coded the data by creating labelled categories or by using in vivo categories or codes.
In vivo is a term used to refer to codes or categories suggested by the participants (Strauss &
Corbin, p. 105). By continually revisiting and reviewing the data as they were gathered, and
upon completion of the data gathering process, I adjusted the categories to reflect an evolving
picture of the situation. Checking the data and interpretations with the stakeholders (member
checking) allowed them to verify the record and to corroborate and clarify their interpretations. I
used constant comparison to facilitate this process, as well as micro-analysis or line-by-line
analysis and open and axial coding. Comparison is a fundamental technique used to stimulate
questions and to classify or group the data. Open coding refers to a process of analysis in which
concepts are identified, and their properties and dimensions are revealed in the data (Strauss &
Corbin). With axial coding, data is examined to reveal categories and to relate those to sub-
categories (Strauss & Corbin).
Project Deliverables
The deliverable of the project is the detailed plan for evaluating the MicroFinance course.
The report will contain the research findings and the recommendations, in the form of a plan for
evaluation of a distance learning course. In addition, I will provide the Coady Institute with at
least two formal briefings to individuals or groups identified by the Contact Persons/Project
Sponsor, Nanci Lee, Hugh Landry and Olga Gladkikh.
I will supply the Coady Institute with a copy of the report, which may be adapted for their use with future courses. Since the detailed plan for evaluation will be developed through a participant-oriented approach, a caution must be attached that its scope cannot be generalized without changes. The plan will be developed to address a certain situation with a particular group
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 18 of individuals in a certain context. The evaluation plan may not be valid when applied to other circumstances and other participants at a different time.
Project Participants
The initiating stakeholders included the Coady Institute and its personnel at St. Francis
Xavier University, and the Comart Foundation. The Coady Institute, affiliated with St. Francis
Xavier University since 1959, grew out of the Antigonish Movement led by Dr. Moses Coady, a proponent of community development and adult education. Today the Coady Institute is a leader in both adult education and action research, offering programs with a primary emphasis on the global south to development professionals worldwide (Coady Institute, 2005c). The Coady
Institute personnel who agreed to participate in the study are the following: Olga Gladkikh,
Manager of Direct Education Programmes, Hugh Landry, Assistant Manager, Global
Partnerships Program, Nanci Lee, Senior Program Staff, Jim Delaney, Program Associate,
Monitoring and Evaluation, and Darren Okafo, Technology and Innovations Co-coordinator.
While the Comart Foundation had a financial interest in the success of the project, the
Bank of Ghana partnered with the Coady Institute to deliver instruction to its policy makers in an on-line environment. Within the original plan, the contact from the bank was invited to participate, when the Coady Institute released the names to me upon completion of the ethical review. Ghana MicroFinance Institutions Network (Ghamfin) was also to name a representative to be interviewed under the same conditions. Ghamfin and Bank of Ghana employees are in various locations in Ghana, and instruction for a MicroFinance course in the fall of 2006 was to be delivered, using distributed learning techniques, to connect the bank’s policy makers with members of Ghamfin. The delivery of instruction was to be in specified locations, with reliable internet capability within Ghana, where groups of course participants could gather. However,
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 19 during the final planning stages, the Bank of Ghana withdrew from the project citing time factors as the reason.
Other participants included an individual who had taken part in the pilot course in
MicroFinance, and an alumnus of the face-to-face course in microfinance. One representative from each participant group was interviewed.
This listing represents all participants who had a proprietary interest in the project. They were interviewed using open-ended questions to gather insight into their perspective on the issues. These were the key informants of the research and were very important in offering a deep knowledge of the subject under study and in providing connecting data sources. From amongst the pilot participants and the alumni of the face-to-face course, the Coady Institute instructional designer, who was also responsible for developing the new curriculum, provided contact information for the major stakeholders and the study subjects.
The processes of the study were linked to Stake’s (2004) responsive evaluation. It is important in a study that involves participants from other cultures that value perspectives are understood. Stake (as cited in Owen, 1999) argued that responsive evaluation leads to enlightenment, and, from that point, decisions regarding program change can be made.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 20
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH STUDY RESULTS
The research question explored in this project is: “How can distributed learning be used
to deliver instruction in microfinance to non governmental organizations in remote locations?”
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan for evaluation of the on line pilot MicroFinance
Course delivered by the Coady International Institute (Coady Institute) in the fall of 2004.
In this chapter, I will begin by describing the context of the study. Within the context, I
will include profiles of the key informants and ancillary interview subjects. I will describe their
contribution to the research and report on the technological factors that impacted the study; as
well, I will report on the foundational values that drive the research. Secondly, I will document
the report findings and match the findings with supporting evidence from the literature review.
Third and lastly, I will develop a set of recommendations from the study findings. I will use
these recommendations to develop a plan for evaluation of the distance-delivered on-line course.
Context
The Pilot Distance Course
The pilot distance course involved individuals from fifteen different countries in Asia,
Africa, Latin America, and North America. They were chosen for their involvement in microfinance projects in their respective countries and for their potential to benefit from the instruction offered by the Coady Institute. Twelve were course participants and three were panel speakers. Instruction was delivered over a three-week period using a learning management system specifically developed by the Coady Institute’s head of technology for the MicroFinance course. At the end of the course, participants took part in an evaluation by the Coady Institute.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 21 Respondent Profiles
In all there were five key informants and two subject matter experts who contributed to the research. Four key informants provided me with their reflections on the Coady Institute’s distance-delivered pilot course offered in the fall of 2004. One key informant reported on a similar course delivered on site in the same year. This group included staff members of the
Coady Institute, alumnus of an on site certificate programme in microfinance, and a participant in the on-line pilot project. They represented the following areas: head of educational planning, senior programme staff, head of information technology, alumnus of an on site course, and participant in the distance-delivered pilot project. One key informant became unavailable after the first interview because of health issues. I have included this interview as part of my research, with the caveat that participation was limited to the first round of interviews.
I conducted two interviews where I sought information from subject matter experts for a deeper understanding of issues in distance-delivery of instruction. Elizabeth Wellburn,
Information Technology Head for Royal Roads University, provided background on the
Learning Management System, MOODLE (Dougiamas, 2007), adopted this year for on-line course offerings. Dilanka Rajapakse Sedara, MSc in Modern Communications Technologies with Business Management, University of Sussex, provided information on the most recent cell phone applications for data transmission to remote locations.
Events
The Bank of Ghana and Ghamfin, originally included as key informants, withdrew before
I could interview their representatives. They were unprepared to commit to the new
MicroFinance course at the time that this research was conducted. In response to the delay in the partnership plan with the Bank of Ghana, the Coady Institute offered an on-line course in
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 22
microfinance to other interested multi-national participants. However, this course was cancelled
because of lack of enrolment.
In the first scenario, the impact of these events on this study resulted in a reduction in the
number of the key informants available from seven to five individuals, with the elimination of
the Bank of Ghana and Ghamfin from interview prospects. Their withdrawal did not have a
measurable impact on the research question. Rather the primary research focus on the pilot
course required input from those connected to the course as designers, supporters, and
participants. This remained constant and achievable with the participation of the five key
informants. The participation of the Bank of Ghana and Ghamfin may have provided information
on the most current concerns facing their organizations, but it was not a part of the examination
of the original pilot project.
Secondly, the decision to cancel the on-line course in microfinance offered by the Coady
Institute in response to the delay requested by their partners, however disappointing, did not
impact the research. Again, the research focus was on the pilot project and not on the current
offering. The purpose of the study was limited to development of a plan for evaluation of the
pilot course in microfinance. The evaluations, interviews, and an extensive literature review form
the basis for the findings and categories that emerge from this research.
Research Findings
Five broad categories emerged from the research undertaken on the pilot project, with levels of concern identified in each sector. The divisions emerged by constantly comparing the responses of the informants after each interview and over each of the three sets of interviews.
The first round of interviews generated the broad categories. Subsequent interviews confirmed those categories and revealed dimensions of the issues, claims, and concerns, with a greater
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 23
depth and complexity. These categories and dimensions are identified in Table 1, as the areas of
greatest common interest and reportage. I will begin my examination of these categories in the
order given in Table 1.
Table 1. Emergent Categories
Category Dimensions
Pedagogy Social constructivist approach Benchmarking student learning for transformative experience Learner-centred instruction: case studies, readings, dialogue, reflection Instruction designed to overcome cultural barriers Collaborative inquiry approach to curriculum design Action research model used by students
Application of Learning Use of case study identified as effective way to teach and learn about microfinance. Question of most effective way to reach and impact marginalized populations. Task recognition and approach Capacity building with partnering organizations Caution of transferring solutions or generalizing the learning Evaluation process checks for learning outcomes
Recognition of Learner Needs Staff: • Recognition of multiple layers of awareness of gender, culture, and power relationships • Facilitate instruction to overcome power, gender, and cultural imbalance • Recognition of learning styles • Course architecture accommodates participants learning considerations • Understanding of learner readiness • Process of feed back loop
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 24
Category Dimensions
Participants: • Need for flexibility • Time commitment for on line course exceeded expectations • Importance of visual identification of participants • Acceptance of responsibility for success • Components of feedback loop
Institutional/Organizational Needs Question of transformative learning experience Selection of participants based on identified interest in community based approaches to problem solving Identification of suitable partnering organizations and individuals Target specific populations for instruction? Identification and accommodation of identified needs.
Technological Considerations Development of a support team Responsibility for support spread amongst team members Choice of appropriate technologies to deliver course Understanding of internet availability in receiving area Development of scaleable Learning Management System
Pedagogy
The Coady Institute develops educational experiences for adult learners that focus on building capacity and affecting change amongst the poor. Their curriculum is designed using principles of adult education to involve the learner in the learner’s context and to apply the learning in context in a measurable and positive way. “Both educators and learners become critically reflective in shared struggles for … solutions to real problems” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 97).
Pedagogy is built into curriculum that encourages participation and intrinsic motivation of the participant. It aims to facilitate transformative change in the lives of the neediest peoples, by
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 25 building change capacity into leadership organizations and individuals in the global south. This study is the response to the Coady Institute’s desire to improve its impressive track record in this area and I will begin to examining findings that emerged from the pedagogy category.
The Coady Institute’s (2005c) programming is “highly participatory, providing candidates with an opportunity to share ideas and to exchange experiences with each other and with Coady Institute’s staff. A wide variety of presentation, case study, and experiential and participatory educational methods are used” (¶ 4). The original three week pilot project incorporated strong constructivist design principals. According to Bruner (as cited in Driscoll,
2000), it is of central importance to view education as more than curriculum and instructional strategies (p. 221).
Under the category of pedagogy, Informants C and D reported on helpful or necessary approaches to delivering a successful on-line course with a social constructivist focus. This included a section of case studies where participants drew on their own experiences to problem solve around scenarios. Research by Kanuka (2005) described the use of case studies in instruction, as providing “a learning environment that seeks to present the complex reality of any issue with its concomitant ambiguity and multidimensionality, thus providing a strong image of the multifaceted nature of most subject areas” (p. 47). The course also provided opportunities for reading, dialogue, and reflection. “The course was emergent. There was an appropriate mix of materials given in advance and ability to build on ideas that emerged in class” (Informant B).
This process was further enhanced by the selection of the candidates, based on their interest or experience in community-based approaches. Some of these partnerships involved action research projects and field work on the part of the participants.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 26
Other information that emerged from the data under the pedagogy banner concerned the relevance of the homogeneity of course participants. The Coady Institute staff wanted to know if it were preferable to offer the course to a targeted group, such as that proposed for the personnel of the Bank of Ghana. In response to this question, pilot project and alumni respondents suggested that it made no difference to them and that they benefited from the global representation of their classmates. “For me that had the largest impact … meeting so many beautiful, committed, smart articulate individuals from so many different counties who were doing the same work as I was doing” (Informant C). Significantly, Informant D answered that it was not important in his course, but that he encountered it in his work: “Within the group, when you put both males and females together, men and women in their community, you are not likely to get any information from the women because that is what is culturally acceptable.” This statement is specific to this culture and in the application of this learner’s microfinance training.
This observation was a known consideration for the pilot project. It was recognized as a pedagogical concern by the Coady Institute staff and under the category of recognition of learner needs identified by the students. Levels of cultural awareness that influenced the development of curriculum are described as follows: developing participant profiles that take into account country, region, tribe, gender, organizational structure and type, position in organization, professional experience, microfinance experience, and language (Informant B; Informant D).
The philosophy of the Coady Institute promotes a collaborative inquiry approach that encourages participant-directed inquiry around the issues that most affect the student. Pedagogical research supports peer facilitation as a means to “remove any power imbalances in the discussions, encourage freedom of expression and give students the feeling that they owned the discussion”
(Harrington & Hathaway, as cited in Rourke & Anderson, 2002, p. 6).
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 27
Pedagogical considerations in the design of the course involved the recognition of power structures as factors that affected participation. Did students feel safe enough to actively participate in the environment? “If that environment is not a safe environment for participation, then we start to unpack why. Then often you get to issues of gender and culture in understanding those social constructs” (Informant A). It was held by Informant A that it was easier to address those issues more effectively in the face-to-face environment than in the on-line environment.
Informant A spoke to the challenge of pedagogical design in the on-line environment. In comparison of the two environments, the face-to-face course provided many more opportunities for student interaction than the on-line pilot project. Participants in the three-week on-site course were housed together on campus and interacted socially and academically for a three-week period. The pilot course was also three weeks in duration, but the technology permitted only asynchronous discussions. The statement by Informant A should be considered in the context of the observances made over a significant period of time. It is pedagogically significant to develop instructional experiences that address the learning needs of culturally-diverse learners.
Application of Learning
A second category or phenomena emerged from the data that I have termed, application of learning. A significant concern arising from the pilot project was how best to reach and impact marginalized populations and how to measure that impact. This concern fell within the category of both application of learning and pedagogy. Respondents to the question of reaching the most marginalized within their respective spheres of influence provided the following responses. In one case, Informant C said that she had been unsuccessful in reaching the most marginalized group. There was suspicion and rejection on the part of the target population. The response to the initiative was that this was a white initiative, and it had little credibility with those who would
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 28 have been the beneficiaries. This is a cautionary lesson that, in this particular situation in the
North American context, those who wish to introduce microfinance do so knowing that the target population must own the process for it to be accepted. If it is seen as a structure imposed from the outside, its success is jeopardized.
In the second case, it was noted that partners in the microfinance project needed to be well informed of current trends in microfinance. The project had to be appropriate to the context, and a partnering organization had to be part of the mainstream, in order to benefit from the instruction from the pilot course. “We have to bring them up to speed to understand the new thinking. We have to train. They cannot come on their own. We have to decide who is best placed to take part in this operation” (Informant D). These statements infer that the target populations have not self-identified their needs and that some formation and education is needed.
Whether or not participants were successful in reaching the most marginalized peoples is answered in the negative from one source. In the second case, by moving the focus to the organizational or administrative partners in the project, there was no mention of marginalized peoples.
Other findings within the category of application of learning came from the pilot participant, Informant D, who related that the communities he encountered did not always fit the model. In his experience, the course learning needed to be flexible enough to meet the particular situation. This was recognized as the difficulty of transferability of solutions, which was addressed by the facilitators in the on-line course and the on-site course. In particular, Informant
D made reference to projects carried out in partnership with a farmers’ cooperative, where the recommendations were beyond the abilities of the farmers to generate enough money to pay back
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 29 the loans. For this reason, some of the projects were “on the shelf.” This experience pre-dated the pilot project instruction in microfinance (Informant D).
Participants considered case studies to be a very effective way of teaching and learning about microfinance. They provided the opportunity to problem solve around real scenarios and to share the collective expertise of the group. In terms of application of learning, this course component was considered highly useful in both the distance-delivered and the on-site course.
Case studies provide a social constructivist lens to apply critical thinking skills to real situations.
The effect was to have an expert planning group guide the plan of activity. The Coady Institute staff indicated that they use the most current scenarios possible in the case studies of microfinance.
From the pilot participants, a further application of learning came from conducting an action research project. Pilot participants were able to test out the applicability of their learning in their own organizations. They were able to use their own colleagues and supervisors to assist in problem solving a real issue. They were also able to use the course instructors and participants as advisors to assist in the action research project. One participant volunteered that there were individuals “who did a similar project in Senegal and Cameroon and we used to share ideas and I gained a lot from them. I wish that I could continue to talk with them” (Informant D).
Recognition of Learner Needs
Recognition of learner needs is a third category of phenomena that emerged from the data. Within this category, it is important to separate those needs identified by the learner from those perceived needs as articulated by the Coady Institute staff. Generally, there was little that was inconsistent in reporting between the two groups; for clarity, I have reported them as separate properties. On the part of the learners, it was reported that the on-line course took much
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 30 more time than anticipated. Informant D was required to spend about five hours each day working on assignments for the pilot course. This was broken up into two hours of very focused work every morning, followed by two to three hours of reading and reviewing course materials.
It was important to be able to organize time effectively to keep up with the pace of the course.
Informant D reported that some individuals were not able to spend this much time.
A part of the structure of the course architecture included a place where participants could mount their pictures and contribute their profile. This place of sharing was considered to have a high degree of importance by the pilot participants. Since all discussion was asynchronous and text-based, participants reported it was difficult to know to whom one was communicating. There was a need for some background information on course participants. The pictures helped provide that background, which filled in a mental picture of the other course participants. If the concentration was only on an individual’s work, it did not tell enough about the person. Information, such as where the other student was coming from or to what tribe or ethnic group he belonged, was considered to be necessary information. Additional information about participants’ families and hobbies was important when constructing the persona of an on- line course member. “It is very important to help us to know that this man is coming from India and he is coming from this group. Then you know the kind of language you should use”
(Informant D). Otherwise materials and asynchronous communication did not deliver enough information for the respondent to form a mental picture of the other individuals or to establish a comfort level in responding. This visual detail was considered a highly necessary piece of data for successful interactions within the on-line environment by this respondent. In fact, he reported that he had passed over those whose profile lacked the photograph. It is important to note that this may be related to learning style, where the individual makes meaning more readily from
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 31
visual images, or it may be a part of a culture that relates more directly to whole images and to a
face-to-face knowing. It may also be the result of the first encounter with distributed learning,
and in subsequent courses it may not seem that the information forthcoming is incomplete. It
should also be noted that the discussion was asynchronous at all times. I believe that this
asynchronous approach is a significant concern for future courses developed for the global on-
line environment.
This learning need was understood by Coady Institute personnel, who echoed the
learner’s observations. Informants offered that a text-based on-line course “did not include
opportunities for visual or audio contact where other clues are picked up on how someone is
really feeling about an issue” (Informant A).
Both Informant C and D expressed a need for a course in microfinance offered in their
individual contexts. Informant C and D felt that there was great value and applicability in the
materials they had studied, and that there existed a need to make the learning available to others
in Africa and North America.
The area of evaluation is situated in the category, application of learning, because it is a check for expectations that were met and missed. When asked if the opportunity was provided to comment on whether or not the course met learning needs, the pilot Informant answered that he could not remember (Informant D). There had been evaluation, but Informant D was not sure of the content or timing. In fact, there had been an evaluation carried out by the Coady Institute at the end of the course.
When questioned about the structure of a feed back loop that would allow participants to
feed information back to the course designers during the progress of the on-line course, for the
purpose of altering or maintaining the direction of the learning, there were some very insightful
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 32 responses from all Informants. Informant D suggested that he was able to bring his case study before the whole group and that several course members made very helpful suggestions. At times he needed to ask questions of his fellow students. He was also able to introduce those questions to his colleagues, in his own context, in his office, and have his colleagues respond. This was considered very valuable learning for Informant D.
Responses to the request to describe a feedback loop that would impact the direction of the pilot course specified that there should be the opportunity to answer students’ direct questions. Providing a channel for feedback was central to that process. Learners needed a space where they could feel comfortable sharing how to improve the course. Participants suggested that one element of a design process for the on-line course could see previous groups of learners assist in the design for the next course. It may be possible for past course participants to mentor new students in an on line course. Mentorship was considered particularly relevant if the intent was to build capacity amongst the participants. Further suggestions included a means of daily monitoring within the course. Specifics examples included the use of a parking lot, mood meter and check-in processes, or surveys to sample the student feed back anonymously (for an explanation of these terms, please refer to the Glossary).
“People learn so much from each other in that experiential and participatory approach, and they get to know people’s background, and what they can do, and their approach, and they want to seek each other out” (Informant A). Informant C suggested providing students with the opportunity to explore the degree of learning at the end of each day or each week would help to contribute to a deeper understanding of the course material. This insured the applicability of the contents, by constantly matching the learning and the context. “It would be helpful for us to provide facilitators with an outline of what we have learned at a certain point” (Informant C). A
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 33
learning plan developed by students at the beginning of the course could provide a starting point
for the process of checking the learning against the learner’s needs. A rubric evaluation would
reveal the areas of learning that still required skill development.
A part of the facilitator’s role in developing meaningful feedback is picking up on
comments of gender, or culture bias, or the use of power and drawing that out as the experience
unfolds. The course designer of the pilot project was cognizant of several cultural layers or
overlays that were separated out, starting with the individual and the group, the individual and
the organization, and the individual in the community. Including content that directly related to
power and gender helped to unpack people’s beliefs and attitudes. The outcomes were kept in
view when designing the course. It was important that information was relevant to the local
context of the participants, since they are the only ones capable of applying it to their own
context. Informants C and D named several aspects of their course that they were able to apply to
their own context with a high degree of success: strategic planning, staff development and
leadership, client monitoring, and product development. Informant D stated that the section of
the course dealing with the collection of loans was very helpful in the local operation. The
partners on site shared the knowledge of microfinance and then monitored the outcome. This led
to an expansion of the programme and the opening of new credit schemes (Informant D).
Organizational Needs
An enduring wish of the Coady Institute staff was to develop benchmarks to measure the extent of student learning as a transformative experience. This theme emerged in all interviews with Coady Institute staff. “Has there, in fact, been transformative change and is that even possible in such a short time frame?” (Informant B). There was a philosophically-infused need to know what that change looked like and how that change might be measured. Is that a change
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 34
related to knowledge and skills at the personal level or organizational level? Does this change
last up to a month or nine months or years” (Informant B)?
The answers to the questions of transformative change are beyond the measurement of this investigation. I can report that both learner subjects indicated that the experience informed their practice. They reported that positive change did occur in the application of the microfinance instruction (Informant C; Informant D).
It is possible to establish a financial measurement of this change by measuring resources of the target population before and after instruction and access to microfinance products (Dowlas
& Barua, 2006; Wright, 2000). However it is important to note that the question of transformation is foundational to the Coady Institute’s global work. For this specific reason, the
Institute seeks to measure the impact of its pedagogical choices over time in target populations.
The selection of participants was done in partnership with an organization that worked in
the field of microfinance. Individuals were chosen from their organizations, based on their
potential for utilizing the learning experiences of the on-line course (Informant B). A part of the
work of the Coady Institute is identifying who are suitable partnering organizations and building
relationships with those organizations (Informant B). Certain individuals or groups within these
organizations could become suitable targets for instruction. Further issues raised by the Coady
Institute staff questioned the time of year the course was offered and whether different modalities
made sense in the face to face and in the on-line environment. A deep commitment emerged to
action research learning experiences in the on-line course (Informant A; Informant B; Informant
E).
As a means to address and accommodate the identified needs of learners, the
organizational response was to offer a collaborative approach, whereby learners would work
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 35 with facilitators to focus some of their own learning needs through the use of recent case studies
(Informant B). A further reflection was to develop a mentorship role for learners to provide leadership to new course participants (Informant A).
Technological Considerations
The basic technology required for the distance course consisted of a computer and a reliable internet connection. In most parts of Canada, we take internet availability and connectivity for granted. This is not the case in developing nations. Internet may be very expensive and unreliable. If these conditions are manageable, then high-speed internet may be unavailable. Band widths influence the type and volume of data sent and received. In North
America, transmitting and receiving internet audio and video files is done at a fast rate. To
Informant D, internet connectivity initially was a challenge because of the slow speed of the connection. However, by using the internet at his work site, he had more efficient access. While there were occasional power interruptions, this was not a problem for him. However, he related that it was a problem for some course participants. Unfamiliarity with the internet was reported by Informant D as a problem for some pilot participants. There were times when it was not possible to access the information. Voice files could not be opened. Time zones were a challenge because participants were located all over the globe. This had an impact on discussions, although all exchanges were asynchronous (Informant D).
When course materials were accessed on the internet, Informant D saved and filed them for later use, rather than reading them on-line. He emphasized that learners had to be able to organize their time, in order to cover the materials on the course. Those who could not manage this did not complete the course. In the course of a day, the pilot participant would spend on
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 36 average five hours on course work. Organization and commitment were requirements for success
(Informant D).
A customized Learning Management System (LMS), developed at the Coady Institute and scripted by one individual, was used to run the pilot course. This had a number of rooms for discussion, as well as the usual document libraries and support functions for the course.
Informant B was concerned about the risk involved in one individual holding the codes for the
LMS. This became an issue when the platform designer left on an indeterminate sick leave. This effectively closed down the LMS.
Organizational informants considered the possible internet capabilities of course participants and sought to limit materials that required high bandwidth. Recent discussion pointed to the possible use of slim clients. (For an explanation of terms, see glossary.) In this scenario, most of the computing requirements could be carried out on a remote server that would receive and unpack the data, such that the receiving end would require neither the band width nor processing speed and capability of faster North American services and machines.
There are areas of the research where the perspective and responsibility of the
Informants, while similar in the categories of issues, claims, and concerns, differed in the areas of properties and dimensions. For example, the area of personal responsibility and readiness to tackle an internet course was seen differently by the pilot participant than other key informants.
Informant D saw the question of success in the course as a matter of self-organization and time management. Other Informants saw more global issues as factors influencing a successful outcome. They were more likely to name conditions such as environmental conditions, ease of use, effectiveness of the technology, and engagement as components necessary for successful course completion (Latchem & Hannah, 2001).
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 37
Summary of Research Findings
In summation, the findings of the research raise more questions than they answer. What emerged most prominently was the commitment of all informants to the success of the distance education initiative. The professionalism of the Coady Institute staff, in seeking out the answers to the challenges encountered in delivering distance education, was matched by the enthusiasm and gratitude of the students who received instruction in microfinance through the Coady
Institute. The task that the Institute has set for itself is large. It is my hope that the recommendations I have developed from the research will offer some real assistance in support of the purposes of this study. The field of e-Learning is relatively new, and the lessons for successful learning are also new and, in many ways, not transferable from one situation to the next. However, the potential of using distributed learning to deliver necessary instruction to remote locations is exciting. The application of that learning holds the real potential, whether in the field of microfinance or in other areas of delivering an important intervention to enhance the living circumstances of the global poor.
Study Recommendations
Based on the research and the literature review, I am making the following recommendations to answer the study question, “How can distributed learning be used to deliver an on line course in MicroFinance to remote locations?” An asterisk after the recommendation
(*) indicates that the practice identified is already a part of the practice of the Coady Institute.
Pedagogy
1. Link on-line course design to Social Constructivist principles. *
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 38
2. To encourage a participant-driven curriculum that is responsive to the needs of the
learners, the following techniques should be considered in course design:
collaborative inquiry, appreciative inquiry, or open-space learning (see Glossary). *
3. Articulate the responsibilities of the learner before the course begins.
4. Involve students in an active and continuous evaluative process to set or correct
direction according to their learning needs.
5. Provide opportunities for previous course participants to mentor incoming students.
6. Use photographs of course participants as a tool to construct meaning from learner
profiles in the on-line environment. *
7. Use approaches such as appreciative inquiry, problem-based learning, teams,
practicums, and action research projects to generate the desired learning outcomes. *
8. Determine methods and frequency of assessment consistent with adult learning
principles.
9. Consider self-assessed competency-based measurement for adult learners.
10. View webinars, such as Webex-hosted Ten Tips for Great On-line Events (Balzer &
Ahluwalia, n.d), for suggestions on mounting and running on-line events for on-line
meetings and focus groups, product roll out, and such (see Appendix E: Resources).
11. Keep one section of each course open for alumni to feed back into it their best
practices.
12. Make alumni feedback available to new course participants.
13. Use rules for graphic design to ensure that web pages are not overloaded.
14. Establish deadlines for course deliverables, one for peer review and a second for
instructor grading.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 39
15. Provide rubrics to assist student understanding of the expectations and to provide
feedback on assignments.
Application of Student Learning
1. Learners develop a learning plan that sets out incoming expectations.
2. Learners identify how that learning applies to their own context.
3. Learners participate and become involved in a knowledge network.
4. Learners contribute to the knowledge network after the course ends.
5. Learners participate in feedback practices during the course for the purpose of
customizing their learning.
6. Learners become familiar with appreciative inquiry process and model it in
collaborative tasks.
Recognition of Learner Needs
1. The learning plan lays out expectations of the learning experiences, of the learning
environment, of learner commitment, of internet capabilities, and of the contribution
learners can make to the developing knowledge network.
2. Learners ascertain individual learning style as part of the orientation package (see
Appendix E: Resources).
3. Provide a single forum for alumni, faculty, and current participants to make
comments and to seek and to offer advice on best practices for success in the on line
environment.
4. New learners read these offerings as part of the orientation process.
5. Evaluation that is obvious and reflective occurs at intervals throughout the course.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 40
6. Student profiles include a photograph for class members to assist in developing the
on-line presence.
7. Students commit to creating and sustaining a knowledge network.
8. Provide media objects using programmes such as Adobe Captivate (Adobe Systems,
2007a) or Adobe Connect/ Breeze (Adobe Systems, 2007b) that allow learners to re-
visit the learning as frequently as they deem necessary.
9. Alumni provide mentoring support for new learners.
Institutional Needs
1. Establish a support team for the on-line courses composed of designers, facilitators,
library support, technical support, and market developers, and fund this adequately.
2. Develop an orientation tutorial for prospective on line learners that includes a
learning styles inventory.
3. Develop a webinar, or on-line seminar instructing faculty in hosting and running
successful on line events (see Appendix E: Resources)
4. Evaluate recruitment methods of post secondary organizations offering on-line
courses.
5. Establish a feedback loop that regularly samples learners for the following factors:
time requirements, time availability, applicability of learning, learning style, local
internet capacity, learner technological comfort profile, learner context, cultural
indicators, facilitator readiness, ease of use of LMS, course architecture, effectiveness
and engagement, and learner suggestions for improvement.
6. Make accumulated best practices from previous course participants available to new
registrants.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 41
7. Develop capacity to design, improve, and sustain a customizable LMS with open
codes.
8. Consider learner request to offer the MicroFinance course to those suggested as able
to benefit from such a learning experience.
9. Consider a framework for situating all e-learning events such as the four E model from
Leadership for 21 st Century Learning (Latchem & Hannah, 2001 1).
10. Consider situating the above framework within an appreciative inquiry approach.
Technological Considerations
1. Establish the technical requirements for effective on-line course delivery and
communicate this to participants.*
2. Investigate the use of thin client options to compensate for technological challenges.
3. Investigate Learning Management Systems for shared management, accessibility,
ease of use and scaleability.
4. Develop sustainable support for the technology.
1 Latchem & Hannah (2001). Chapter 10. Leadership for 21 st Century Learning: Global Perspectives from Educational Innovators (pp. 101–109), examines a model to implement e-Learning at the Universite of Twente in the Netherlands. The 4 E model uses the categories of educational effectiveness, ease of use, environmental issues and engagement. The model is used as a framework to introduce e-learning to faculty, staff and students to gain their commitment for e-learning and the change process. An examination of this process can provide a helpful blueprint for the Coady International Institute to use in its own change process.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 42
CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS
The implications of this research for the Coady International Institute and its initiative in on-line instruction in microfinance are delivered in part as a plan for an evaluation. The evaluation plan (see Appendix F) embodies the recommendations derived from the pilot project offered in the fall of 2004. The evaluation plan addresses implications of the question that are the subject of this project report: “How can distributed learning be used to deliver instruction in
MicroFinance to remote locations?”
Evaluation Approach
The Coady International Institute offers educational programs and a solutions-based approach to ameliorate global poverty and injustice. Rooted in the philosophy and approach of
Dr. Moses Coady, the Coady International Institute partners with organizations in the developing world to offer educational programs and action research projects and initiatives. For these reasons, the evaluation approach is a responsive one and is participatory in nature. It is designed to capture the input of participants and to channel that input into the design of the course as it progresses. In this way, the course is tailored to address the concerns of participants in their own context. While the evaluation approach is participatory, there are distinctive phases (see Tables 2 and 3).
Table 2. Descriptive Phase of Evaluation Approach
Goals Data
Re prior conditions Review of project details
Re pilot project experiences Review of experiences of key informants
Re pilot project outcomes Review of impacts and conditions
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 43
Table 3. Judgement Phase of Evaluation Approach
Standards Judgements
Discrepancies re prior conditions/ pre- Evaluator Judgements on these existing services standards
Discrepancies re project internal Evaluator Judgements on these outcomes standards
Discrepancies re project external Evaluator Judgements on these outcomes standards
Evaluation Objectives and Issues
The objective of the evaluation is to construct a plan that will measure the standards addressed and capture input from stakeholders. It is critical to the process that learner needs are recognized as an evolving identification during the course. The entire team is involved at all stages of sampling, as either participants or observers in other sampling processes. I suggest a fixed schedule of input and observation, from creative process to design, implementation, and both formative and summative evaluation.
Evaluation Design
The evaluation design reflects the informing values of the Coady International Institute with emphasis on empowerment and capacity building amongst its students and global partners.
The evaluation plan samples participant reactions to an on line course with the intent of developing a continuous feedback loop. The purpose is to provide a channel to affect the overall architecture of the course and to address and meet the needs of learners as they are identified. In reality, the evaluation design will permit the customization of multiple on line courses using the same or a modified evaluative structure.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 44 Evaluation Process
The evaluation plan develops a framework for monitoring and evaluating an on-line course in microfinance. The process establishes a number of staged and spontaneous self- checking mechanisms for use at various points within a course. It is a continuous process meant to find the values through an evolving dialogue or hermeneutic dialectic. This may involve reflective writing, Likert-type questionnaires, and process-type sampling techniques, such as a check in, member checking, parking lot forum, collaborative activity, and focus group techniques. The process may also involve sampling, using techniques such as Venn Diagrams,
Spidergrams, participatory mapping, pebble scoring, and other techniques borrowed and adapted from a number of sources. Chief amongst these is the manual, Guide to Participatory Tools for
Forest Communities (Evans et al., 2006), available from the Center for International Forestry
Research.
Evaluation Standards
While this is not an evaluation focused on summative findings, it is helpful to identify a number of standards that have significant import to the sponsoring organization. Negotiating the evaluation approach, setting standards, and developing criteria began in October of 2005 and proceeded until March of 2007. The following statements set out the Coady Institute’s need for internal and external focus. The internal standards describe the requirements for evaluation of their on-line MicroFinance course. The external standards address their need for a plan for evaluation that can be adapted for other courses.
Internal standards.
1. To develop an on line course structure that addresses and meets student needs
- Structure for continuous formative assessment
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 45
2. To develop an on line course structure that is responsive and participatory in delivery
- Structure for continuous sampling of participants
3. To develop and maintain partnerships
- Experience and needs of partners/participants incorporated into course design
External standards.
1. To develop a framework that is transferable to other on-line courses
- Establish timeline of events
2. To develop a framework that is adaptable by other on line courses
- Incorporate core institutional values in plan
3. To develop a meta-evaluation that is both formative and summative and can be
monitored by stakeholders for strengths and needs.
- Develop instruments that sample participant reaction to course
- Develop instruments that facilitate course changes as the need indicates
Developing Instruments
The type of instruments and the timing of their deployment are intended to reinforce
Coady International Institute’s stated desire for a process that is participant driven and sensitive to learner needs in context.
Data/Document Analysis
Documents and correspondence were provided by the Coady International Institute and included the following: (a) Progress Report: Community-Based Microfinance Distance Learning
Program and Asset-Based Community Development Best Practice Learning Exchange (Lee et al., 2005); (b) results of the evaluation of the pilot project MicroFinance Course, (c) email
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 46 correspondence, and (d) the manual, Community-based microfinance: A participant's manual
(Hamadziripi & Lee, 2005).
Evaluation Plan
Timeline
The instructional period is set for three weeks. The introductory period may be as long as four weeks. The course wrap-up should segue into a long-term collaboration or knowledge network that feeds information back into the course design. This time frame could be as short as one to six months, or it could connect for an indefinite time. To accommodate this unusual time frame, participants need to be made aware of the expectations of the course, as well as the pre- and post-course events and the importance of the feedback opportunities, the mentoring opportunity, as well as the benefits of an enduring knowledge network.
Level One: Participants
I suggest the following activities for course participants (a) prepare a learning plan,
(b) take an on-line webinar, (c) develop a learning rubric, (d) maintain a daily reflective journal,
(e) participate in a blog, (f) become knowledgeable in the use and application of the appreciative inquiry process, and (g) access feedback forum and best practices from previous course participants.
1. All course participants prepare a learning plan (see Appendices G and H) in advance
of the course. This learning plan sets out the specifics of what the student expects to
learn and where the greatest perceived learning need may lie. The plan will also
reference the technological experience of the learner.
2. Learners undertake an on-line tutorial (webinar), which walks them through the
stages, expectations, and requirements of the course.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 47
3. Learners access feedback forum of accumulated best practices from previous
participants.
4. Learners maintain a learning journal for daily reflections. A simple structure is
provided to guide students in this task (see Appendix I: Guiding Questions for
Reflective Learning Journal) . This activity could be conducted in the form of a blog
viewable and open to other course participants. Other forms of controlled access
forums may be established within the learning platform to accommodate individual
and cultural readiness of publishing to the web (see Appendix E: Resources, Blog
Web sites section).
6. Learners become knowledgeable in the use and application of the appreciative inquiry
process to ameliorate the transference from course learning to practice in their own
context with their home organizations. A guiding process found in Appreciative
Inquiry with Teams (Bushe, 1998) and suggested readings from Bushe and Kassam’s
(2005) When is Appreciative Inquiry Transformational? provide background and
suggestions for implementing an appreciative inquiry process to encourage
organizational change.
Level Two: Group Processes
The following list includes suggestions to sample, either daily or bi-weekly, student response to the course as it unfolds. The timing of the events may be adjusted to course length.
1. A daily or weekly Start, Stop, Continue, or Parking Lot process be conducted by the
facilitator in an on-line forum, to check on learner perceptions of their learning needs
2. Facilitators use this information to customize individual learning experiences.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 48
3. Focus group sessions (see Appendix J) of approximately one to one-and-a-half hours
can be held at four points in the on-line environment: (a) at the beginning of the
course, to gather issues from the learners learning plan and to troubleshoot
technological issues; (b) after the first week or at the mid-point, to check on
appropriateness of learning experiences and relevance to learner’s context and
adjustment of learning plan; (c) at the end of instruction, to provide summative
evaluation and to check future trends; and (d) at an agreed-upon time (one to six
months) after the course ends, to capture feedback on application of learning in
context
Level Three: Administrative and Supervisory
In this section, I list the events for administrative and supervisory personnel. First of all,
Chapter 10, pp. 101–109, in Latchem and Hannah (2001), Leadership for 21 st Century Learning presents a model for leading and managing change in a web-based course management system.
Based upon the 4Es of educational effectiveness, ease of use, environmental issues, and engagement, the University of Twente in the Netherlands chronicles its path to successful on-line learning (p. 103). This is suggested for essential background consideration by any organization considering course offerings in the on-line environment. The following numbered suggestions are specifically related to the research findings from the MicroFinance pilot course. Use an introductory paragraph as suggested for previous two sections.
1. The course content be created in modules and mounted on the Learning Platform four
weeks before the course begins.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 49
2. A monitoring and review team of stakeholders, with decision-making and
technological capacity, act on information elicited from the focus group and other
sampling sessions in fine tuning learner needs as they are identified
3. Course designers structure the development of the learning community to move
learners from individual activities to working in dyads and then to larger group
activities. Course designers model, monitor, and evaluate the process. Palloff and
Pratt addressed this process in two works: Building Learning Communities in
Cyberspace: Effective Strategies for the On-Line Classro om (1999) and
Collaborating Online: Learning Together in Community (2004).
4. Assessment instruments and evaluative techniques focus on measurement of student
progress as it relates to the Coady International Institute’s philosophy and priorities
for adult learners. For a toolbox of assessment techniques adaptable to Institute needs,
see Fenwick and Parsons’ (2000) The Art of Evaluation: A Handbook for Educators
and Trainers .
Timeline of Events
I have included a timeline of events for implementing the plan of evaluation to accommodate a course of three weeks in length although it is readily adapted for a longer course.
The events within the timeline were arranged to produce the information the Coady Institute requires to improve their practice in on-line learning. It is consistent with the participatory nature of this evaluation approach (see Appendix K: Timeline of Events).
Supervising Implementation and Evaluation
Implementation of the plan is the responsibility of the support team established by the
Coady International Institute and should represent the stakeholders or their representatives.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 50 Evaluation Events
1. In an on-line environment, the learning plans may be entered into an area of the
platform that is viewable by all current learners.
2. The initial learning plan provides a baseline against which to measure outcomes.
Informal evaluations are produced daily, using methodologies provided or adaptations
of same. These are mounted on the Learning Management System (LMS) in the
discussion area of the platform. It is suggested that learners respond to at least two
other postings in this forum.
3. Learning journals track learning, and the learning rubric measures gaps or outcomes
achieved.
4. Posting rubrics in a public space is discretionary, but not necessary.
5. Focus groups held at the course beginning, mid-point, end, and post-course provide a
measure of group and individual success and applicability of learning.
Evaluation Results
This section of the plan will be produced in a cycle following the Analyse, Design,
Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) model. ADDIE is a design model for instruction that provides for continuous feedback of how well the course is meeting the learners’ needs
(Learning Theories, 2008). The Coady International Institute may use the feedback to adjust programming, course events, and facilitation strategies. A measure of transformation may be assessed after the Coady International Institute develops a definition of transformation, with measurement criteria for the on-line MicroFinance course.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 51
Recommendations
This section of the plan is produced from the evaluation results that emerged during the application of the plan over the length of the evaluation period.
The plan for evaluation is responsive to learner input throughout. While specific points for evaluation are set out in the plan for evaluation (see Appendix F), administrators and instructors may adjust the schedule as they deem appropriate. Refer to the timeline to establish the most favourable points for this to occur (see Appendix K: Timeline of Events).
Project Budget
Cost of Applying the Plan
The cost of applying the plan of evaluation is an outline of identifiable expenses. There are costs associated with the technology, as well as the costs in personnel for instructional designers, content creators, facilitators, technical support, and review committees. Costs that would exceed those of mounting a three-week on-line course include the extended time for the pre- and post-course events and the cost in time of the evaluation committee. To assist in determining the costs of this plan, please refer to Brian Morgan’s (2000) Is Distance Learning
Worth It? Helping to Determine the Costs of Online Courses.
Team Member Profiles
The team composition for a responsive approach for the on-line course consists of facilitators, learners, course designers, information technology specialists, administrative overseers, policy makers, financial advisors, and recruitment personnel. Team members interact in different ways and with different members over time. Facilitators and learners will clearly spend a great deal of time together, interacting through the learning experiences within the course. Financial advisors and recruiters clearly have different functions. It is essential that all
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 52
parties come together at least once during the course to process the experience in terms of goals
met and missed. Recruitment personnel need to hear first hand what the experience has been like
and who could benefit by taking part in this course.
Evaluation Team/Tasks
The task of the learners and the facilitators is to sample and provide feedback continuously through a variety of sampling methodologies that follow a continuum oriented to either time or learning activities. For example, Likert-type questions may be used as a quick reference to measure the content learning of a session or a means of quality control. More in depth and participatory processes, such as the focus group, may be used to determine the more complex thinking and applicability of the learning and mentoring experience.
Summary
There are a number of techniques that the Coady International Institute may wish to employ in customizing this evaluation plan to its evolving needs. Comparing the on-line course participants with a non-equivalent control group, such as the on-site course participants using a time series design in the plan of evaluation, would strengthen the credibility of the results.
According to Fitz-Gibbon and Lyons Morris (1987), “A time series design is an excellent way to monitor program performance for formative, on-going evaluation” (p. 60). A time series design samples participants over time. In a non-equivalent control group evaluation, credibility depends upon how similar the control and the experimental group are except for the difference in the program they receive. Whatever method the Coady International Institute settles on, it will be responsive to learner needs. The plan of evaluation I have developed will produce the information the organization believes is necessary to align its guiding principles and its curriculum (see Appendix E: Resources).
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 53
Future Research
This research was conducted to determine how distributed learning could be used to deliver instruction in microfinance to remote locations. From the data, there emerged five categories of concerns: pedagogy, application of learning, recognition of learner needs, institutional needs, and technological considerations. These categories held several dimensions of concerns that exceeded the scope of this study. I have presented these as areas for future research. They are included as: emerging technologies, transformative learning, and recruitment options.
This study does not answer questions about emerging technology and its applicability to the research problem. The following suggestions, in list form, are considerations to be explored in future research.
1. Investigate the use of cell phone connections to computers to connect to the internet
in remote locations.
2. Investigate the use of new cell phone technologies to address the issue of connectivity
in remote locations.
The use of cell phones to download significant amounts of data is very expensive.
However, new products with heightened capabilities are emerging almost daily. A partial answer to the question of reaching the most marginalized peoples may be found in third and fourth generation cell phone technologies, used in combination with laptops.
The advantage found in this option is the capability of receiving information via satellite in areas where landline infrastructure is absent. Companies such as Vodaphone in England are currently targeting specific markets with services such as on-line library service accessed via cell phone. They are testing the bandwidth capability. The higher the bandwidth is, the higher the
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 54 quality of reception is and the higher the cost is. Having sufficient bandwidth available in remote locations is the real challenge (R. Rajapakse Gedara, personal communication, March 13, 2007).
At the time of this writing, satellite access is unreliable and expensive. Communities must set up a base station or router to link with the satellite. These are referred to as Mobile Ad
Hoc Networks (Papadimitratos & Haas, 2002) . For an extended, though technically detailed investigation of wireless communication and future trends, see Theodore Rappaport’s (2002) work, Wireless Communication, Principles and Practice.
A second area of research outside of the boundaries of this study is the subject of transformative learning. This research does not measure whether or not students have had a transformative learning experience. From the banks and the NGOs involved, it is possible to determine whether or not there has been an economic transformation, based on financial data from loan rates, repayment rates, and banking products consumed. For the Coady International
Institute staff who develop educational curriculum, the issues are more complex than this. In the words of Mezirow (1990), “Education is a road with successive destinations. It cannot of itself build a new society but can only accompany and strengthen each newly identified act of social reconstruction” (p. 86). For the sake of Coady International Institute personnel who articulated a need to measure the transformative impact of the course, I wish to say that, although transformative learning was outside the limits of this research, I consider it a worthy area of further study.
Transformative learning accompanies historical struggles for change, such struggles
being that toward which critical reflection bends and within which contradictions in the
social order become apparent. Transformative learning does not create struggle; it is the
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 55
gradual and progressive creation of a conceptual framework for participation in a struggle
already begun. (p. 89)
A third and final area of research beyond the scope of this study that is instrumental in determining learner success, lies in the selection of candidates for the on-line courses. How do learners come to e-Learning? What kind of readiness do they display? How do recruitment officers, course designers and network specialists and administrative policy makers collaborate with learners and with each other in crafting successful learning experiences?
These are questions for further research beyond the scope of this report. I consider the search for the answers to these questions is necessary information in the development of successful distributed learning experiences.
In this chapter, I have presented the implications of the research findings. A plan for an evaluation of the on-line course in microfinance has been developed as an application of the research findings. Areas of future research are set out with particular emphasis on the areas of emerging technologies or efficiencies, the area of transformative experiences. Finally, the selection of learners for successful on-line courses is deserving of greater research. In the next chapter, I will present the lessons learned from this research.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 56
CHAPTER SIX: LESSONS LEARNED
At the beginning of the project, I envisioned research developed, carried out, and reported within a six-month time frame. Addressing the issues involved has taken much more time than I had anticipated. I wanted to know how to use distributed learning to bring important instruction in MicroFinance to individuals and organizations who worked with the global poor. I wondered what the Coady International Institute could do differently to support their educational goals, while working in the on-line environment, to deliver the requisite instruction. Nothing is easy conducting research and co-ordinating interviews and feedback sessions across multiple time zones. Several events that could have impacted the study arose. A number of changes in informants’ circumstances occurred amongst the participants. Organizations that were part of the study withdrew because of their own internal issues. Initially this appeared to have the capacity to negatively impact the breadth and depth of the research experience. In the end, this was not the case, but rather their withdrawal served to clarify for me the focus of the research.
After consultation with my supervisors and my sponsor, I chose a responsive style of interview questioning, which encouraged participants to lead the discussion and generate the issues from their own perspectives. This seemed to be a giant leap of faith in a process where I had to give up control to allow the chief concerns to emerge. There was not the comfort of the
Likert-style questionnaires, where I could more closely craft the kind of questions that would give me the answers I wanted to flush out. However, asking participants to share their own perceptions of their reality in their own context was not something that I could only agree to do philosophically. Letting go meant putting the informants in the navigator’s role, while I followed their directions during the road trip. An inductive approach to data analysis permitted questions
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 57 to emerge during research and allowed theories to change as the study progressed. According to
Thomas (2003),
The primary purpose of the inductive approach is to allow research findings to emerge
from the frequent, dominant or significant themes inherent in raw data, without the
restraints imposed by structured methodologies. Key themes are often obscured, reframed
or left invisible because of the preconceptions in the data collection and data analysis
procedures imposed by deductive data analysis. (p. 2)
Along the way, I was challenged to remain focused on developing a plan for evaluation and to not conduct an evaluation. This was very difficult for me to keep clear, because the task of the research was to investigate, analyze, and make recommendations. How could I just plan to do that, while asking the questions of the informants, without actually carrying out an evaluation?
I have had to stretch in my own learning to understand the forms of data analysis that are necessary, to make sense of qualitative data in a way that is responsive to the participants own views. This has helped me, as I move increasingly to course offerings for students in my own setting. I am cognizant of their fears and their progress through a distributed learning environment. It has improved my practice.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 58
REFERENCES
Adobe Systems Incorporated. (2007a). Adobe Captivate (Version 3) [Computer software]. (Available from http://www.adobe.com/products/captivate/ )
Adobe Systems Incorporated. (Adobe, 2007b). Adobe Connect/Adobe Breeze [Computer software]. (Available from http://www.adobe.com/products/connect/ )
Balzer, S., & Ahluwalia, N. (n.d.). Ten tips for hosting an on-line event . (Available from https://webexevents.webex.com/mw0302l/mywebex/default.do?siteurl=webexevents )
Bushe, G. R. (1998). Appreciative inquiry with teams. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.gervasebushe.ca/aiteams.htm
Bushe, G. R., & Kassam, A. F. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational? A meta- case analysis. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.gervasebushe.ca/aimeta.htm
Coady International Institute. (2002, December). Civil society participation. The Coady Connection, 21 (1), 6. Retrieved July 2, 2006, from http://www.coady.stfx.ca/resources/newsletters/CoadyNewsletter2002a.pdf
Coady International Institute. (2005a). Asset based community development . Retrieved September 16, 2007, from http://www.coady.stfx.ca/work/ABCD/
Coady International Institute. (2005b). Certificate in community-based microfinance. Retrieved June 13, 2006, from http://www.coady.stfx.ca/library/certmicrofin.htm
Coady International Institute. (2005c). Coady history. Retrieved June 19, 2006, from http://www.coady.stfx.ca/history.cfm
Dougiamas, M. (2007). Moodle (Version 1.6.5+) [Computer software]. Accessed October 16, 2007, from http://docs.moodle.org/en/Main_Page
Dowlas, A., & Barua, D. (2006). The poor always pay back: The Grameen 11 story . Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Evans, K., deJong, W., Cronkelton, P., Sheil, D., Lyma, T., Kusumanto, T., & Pierce Colfer,C. J. (2006). Guide to participatory tools for forest communities. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BKristen0601.pdf
Fenwick, T., & Parsons, J. (2000). The art of evaluation: A handbook for educators and trainers . Toronto, ON, Canada: Thomson Educational.
Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., & Lyons Morris, L. (1987). How to design a program evaluation . Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 59
Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York. Addison Wesley Longman.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hamadziripi, A., & Lee, N. (2005). Community-based microfinance: A participant's manual. Antigonish, NS, Canada: Coady International Institute.
Kanuka, H. (2005). An exploration into facilitating higher levels of learning in a text-based internet learning environment using diverse instructional strategies. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 10 (3), article 8. Retrieved July 1, 2007, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/kanuka.html
Latchem, C., & Hannah, D. E. (2001). Leadership for 21 st century learning: Global perspectives from educational innovators. London: Routledge.
Learning Theories. (2008, February). Index of learning theories and models . Retrieved February 14, 2008, from http://www.learning-theories.com
Lee, N., Okafo, D., Cunningham, G., Mathie, A., & Foster, M. (2005). Progress report: Community-based microfinance distance learning program and asset-based community development best practice learning exchange. Antigonish, NS, Canada: Coady International Institute.
Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
Morgan, B. (2000). Is distance learning worth it? Helping to determine the costs of online courses. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED446611)
Owen, J. (1999). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the on-line classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2004). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Papadimitratos, P., & Haas, Z. J. (2002). Secure routing for mobile ad hoc networks . In Proceedings of the SCS communication networks and distributed systems modeling and simulation conference (CNDS 2002). Retrieved July 8, 2007, http://lcawww.epfl.ch/papadimitratos/secure-routing-cnds02.pdf
Rappaport, T. S. (2002). Wireless communication: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 60
Rourke, L., & Anderson, T. (2002, March 14). Using peer teams to lead online discussions. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www- jime.open.ac.uk/2002/1/rourke-anderson-02-1-t.html
Schugurensky, D. (Ed.). (2003). Questions and answers on adult education . Retrieved April 23, 2006, from http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~dschugurensky/faqs/qa16.html
Sivan, E. (1986). Motivation in social constructivist theory. Educational Psychologist, 21 (3), 209–233.
Stake, R. E . (1975). Program evaluation, particularly responsive program evaluation. Retrieved July 17, 2006, from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Education Web site: www.ed.uiuc.edu/circe/Publications/Responsive_Eval.pdf
Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards based and responsive evaluation . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
World Bank Group. (1999). MicroFinance institutional action plan 1999 . Paper presented to the Microcredit Summit Meeting of Councils, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, 24-26 June, 1999. Retrieved September 29, 2007, from http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/html/FinancialSectorWeb.nsf/(attachmentweb)/Microfina nce_action_plan_99/$FILE/Microfinance_action_plan_99.pdf
Wright, G. (2000). Microfinance systems: Designing quality financial services for the poor. New York: Zed Books.
Yunus, M. (2003). Banker to the poor: Micro-lending and the battle against world poverty. New York: Perseus Groups Books
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 61 APPENDIX A: LETTERS OF INTRODUCTION
Letter of introduction and invitation to all stakeholders to take part in the study of the
Micro Finance Distance Education Program - Email/ Letter of Introduction
Greetings Participants:
My name is Lenore Begley and I am a student of Royal Roads University in Victoria,
Canada conducting research with the Coady Institute in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada. I need your help to learn about the MicroFinance course with which you were involved as participant, alumnus, administrator, or decision maker. My research will produce an evaluation plan for a curriculum in Microfinance offered by the Coady Institute and delivered on line. Participation is voluntary and you are free to withdraw at any time. A consent form follows this mailing. I ask you to complete it and return it to me by email to indicate your willingness to take part in the interviews.
The following information is provided to answer questions you may have about my
research.
• Sponsor/contact.
• Supervisors
• The Ethics Review Committee of Royal Roads has approved this study
• There are no known risks to participation in this study
• The final report will be publicly available at Royal Roads University, Victoria
• All responses are confidential. Only focus group respondents will be identified. This
group will be asked to yield their anonymity for research purposes.
• Interviews are recorded, transcribed and stored in a locked file cabinet for a year after
which I will destroy it.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 62
• Research data will be available only to myself and my supervisors
Thank you for your participation. I am looking forward to working with you.
Regards
Lenore Begley, Researcher
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 63
APPENDIX B: RESEARCH QUESTIONS FOR FIRST INTERVIEW
Guiding Questions: Introductory Assignment
1. Would you describe your involvement with the Coady Institute and the MicroFinance
courses?
2. What do I need to know about the pilot project delivered on line in 2005 or the on site
course, that will help me to develop an evaluation plan for similar projects? Would
you describe this for me?
3. Is there anything else that you can offer that could be helpful in understanding the
issue?
4. Would you suggest someone else who may have a different view of the situation with
whom I should speak?
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 64
APPENDIX C: RESEARCH QUESTIONS SECOND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. It has been suggested that……….Would you respond to that understanding?
2. Tell me more about …….
3. Do you see another approach that would be helpful?
4. Earlier you described your goal as ……….. . In your view, is this generally accepted
by your colleagues or classmates, to be the goal?
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 65
APPENDIX D: RESEARCH QUESTIONS MEMBER CHECKING
1. You have indicated to me that you believed ………., and that this is the best
possible outcome. Do you agree with this understanding?
2. Other interviewees have reported finding……….. Is this your perception of the
situation?
3. Is this an accurate report of what you intended to say?
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 66
APPENDIX E: RESOURCES
This resource list has been included to assist in the development of the plan of evaluation.
Appreciative Inquiry Resources
Appreciative Inquiry Commons. (n.d.). What is appreciative inquiry? Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://appreciativeinquiry.cwru.edu/intro/whatisai.cfm
Bushe, G. R., & Pitman, T. (1991). Appreciative process: A method for transformational change. Organization Development Practitioner , 23 (3), 1–4.
Bushe, G. R. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational: A meta-case analysis. (2005). Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.gervasebushe.ca/aimeta.htm
Cooperrider, D. (n.d.). Appreciative inquiry online workshops and AI learning & consulting tools. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.ovationnet.com/index.htm
Cooperrider, D. L. (2001). Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis of organizing . Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://www.stipes.com/aichap2.htm
Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (2005). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life . Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://www.appreciative-inquiry.org/AI-Life.htm
Cooperrider, D. L. et. al. (1996). Appreciative inquiry manual [Unpublished notes] . Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University, Department of Organizational Behavior.
Establishing a quality review for on-line courses , Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://learn.royalroads.ca/ctet/academic/Resources/Educause%20EQM0635.pdf
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000, April). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in internet based distance education. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.ihep.com/Pubs/PDF/Quality.pdf
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs (2nd ed.) [Ebook]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved May 21, 2005, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/jc/
Kennedy, M. F., & Norman, S. (Eds.). (2001). The case study textbook: Needs analysis and program evaluation . Unpublished Manuscript.
Lord, J. G. (2005a). Appreciative inquiry and the quest: A new theory and methodology of human development. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://www.appreciative- inquiry.org/
Lord, J. G. (2005b). Positive image, Positive action. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://www.appreciative-inquiry.org/AI-Images.htm
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 67
Positive Organizations. (2007). Appreciative inquiry listings. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://domains.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/results.cgi?q=appreciative+inqui ry&cid=SNAPEMYR&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpositiveorganizations.com%2F&hl=en&ac =s&afdt=EN-kp6hNZRsKEwi_keyO1- mNAhUXXmEKHZRfbQUYAyAAMNHvoAM4DQ
Wikipedia. (2007). Appreciative inquiry . Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appreciative_inquiry
Blog Web sites
eBlogger. (2007). What’s a blog ? Retrieved August 1, 2007, from https://www.blogger.com/start Follow a link to develop an on-line blog.
Glogowski, K. (2007, August 16). Creating learning experiences . Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.teachandlearn.ca/blog/ For an example of an on-line blog.
Siemen, G. (n.d.). Elearnspace. Everything elearning . Retrieved August 1, 2007, from www.elearnspace.org For an example of an on-line blog.
Collaborative Inquiry
Hanlin-Rowney, A., Kuntzelman, K., Abad Lara, M. E., Quinn, D., Roffmann, R., Tyson Nichols, T., & Welsh, L. (2006). Collaborative Inquiry as a framework for exploring transformative learning online. Journal of Transformative Education, 4; 320–334 . Accessed August 7, 2007 from http://jtd.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/4/4/320
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2007, July). Mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs). Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://w3.antd.nist.gov/wahn_mahn.shtml
On-line Learning Assessment and Personality Testing Tools
AdvisorTeam. (2003). Temperament sorter 11: Personality instrument . Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://www.advisorteam.com/temperament_sorter/
AdvisorTeam. (2005). Welcome to Advisorteam, Inc. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from www.advisorteam.com
Felder, R., Silverman, L. K., & Solomon, B. A. (n.d.). Index of learning styles . Retrieved August 7, 2007, from North Carolina State University Web site: http://www.ncsu.edu/felder- public/ILSpage.html
Fleming, N. (2007). VARK: A guide to learning styles . Retrieved November 1, 2007, from http://www.vark-learn.com/english/index.asp
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 68
Rubrics
Teachnology Incorporated. (2007). The on-line teacher resource. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http://www.teach-nology.com/web_tools/rubrics/gen/
Web Hosting
Balzer, S., & Ahluwalia, N. (n.d.). Ten tips for hosting an on-line event . (Available from https://webexevents.webex.com/mw0302l/mywebex/default.do?siteurl=webexevents)
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 69
APPENDIX F: EVALUATION PLAN
Contents
1 Evaluation Approach 2 Descriptive Phase 3 Judgement Phase 4 Evaluative Objectives and Issues 5 Evaluation design 6 Evaluation process 7 Internal standards 8 External standards 9 Developing instruments 10 Data/ document analysis 11 Evaluation plan a. Events i. Timeline ii. Participants iii. Group process iv. Administrative/ supervisory process 12 Supervising implementation 13 Evaluation results 14 Recommendations 15 Budget 16 Evaluation teams/tasks 17 Summary 18 Resources list (Includes appendices for evaluation plan)
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 70
APPENDIX G: LEARNING PLAN
This learning plan is adapted from the developmental stages of the ADDIE model.
ADDIE is the acronym for analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. The
ADDIE model is a common format used by instructional designers (Learning Theories, 2008).
This flexible model accommodates a continuous cycle of formative assessments meant to
respond to learners needs as they are identified in context. The ADDIE structure permits changes
in learning experiences over the period of instruction. This is consistent with evaluation of action
research events within the course. Learning experiences that use this model will be best served
by a timeframe of three weeks or more.
A suggested approach in which to situate the evaluation is Appreciative Inquiry.
Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a collaborative approach that uses the lens of successful past
practice to examine and set future directions. An AI approach to group interactions can
accommodate a diversity of interests and the cultural background of participants. It is consistent
with principles of adult education and with the philosophy of the Coady International Institute.
Event Activities
Analysis Learners analyze the course content, assign priorities to the learning
modules and identify instructional gaps. Priorities are established
according to the learner’s understanding of their needs before the
course begins. Contact with mentor is established if one is provided.
Feedback and best practices of previous participants are reviewed.
Design Learners design their learning rubric based on their identified
priorities. Establish measurement and assessment criteria
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 71
Development Learners take part in four focus group sessions. Using AI, learners work
in the initial on-line focus group to develop an agenda of learning
priorities based on learner needs identified in this session and derived
from the learning rubric. Learners make necessary changes to the rubric
based on priorities identified in this session. Facilitators make changes in
learning modules and events as identified through the focus group
process and as consistent with Coady Institute policy and philosophy.
Implementation The course begins with group and facilitator consensus on the
learning content. Daily reflective journal entries on the learning
events are posted on-line and responded to by other course
participants.
Evaluation Learners measure learning events and understandings as they emerge
during the week against the objectives set out in the rubric. Content
or themes that need to be changed or shifted are identified in the
reflective journals and vetted in the focus group.
Repeat the steps of analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation.
The evaluation stage merges with the analysis stage of the following cycle for the second round of formative evaluation.
A third on-line focus group session provides summative statements on the achievement of
course objectives as identified by the learners and facilitators.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 72
The challenges of applying the learning in context are identified and become the substance of discussions for the fourth and final focus group session held from one to six months post course.
* For more information on this model see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADDIE
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 73
APPENDIX H: LEARNING PLAN RUBRIC
Coady International Institute
Name: ______Facilitator: ______
Date: ______Course: ______
Goal/Objective Criteria Revisions
1 2 3 4
My goal is to I have had I have had some I have had I have had a describe what I limited success success setting considerable high degree of want to learn in setting my my learning success setting success setting this course learning goals goals my learning my learning goals goals
My first objective I have had I have had some I have had I have had a is to master the limited success success considerable high degree of technology used to mastering mastering success success deliver the course technology for technology for mastering mastering the on-line the on-line technology for technology for course course the on-line the on-line course course
My second I have had I have had some I have had I have had objective is to limited success success considerable limited success clarify what I need clarifying my clarifying my success clarifying my to learn and to learning needs learning needs clarifying my learning needs suggest necessary and suggesting and suggesting learning needs and suggesting changes necessary necessary and suggesting necessary changes changes necessary changes changes
My third objective I have had I have had some I have had I have had high is to apply my limited success success considerable degree of learning in my applying my applying my success success own context learning in my learning in my applying my applying my own context own context learning in my learning in my own context own context
My fourth I have had I have had some I have had I have had a objective is to limited success success considerable high degree of assess the impact assessing the assessing the success success of my learning on impact of my impact of my assessing the assessing the my life and work learning on my learning on my impact of my impact of my life and work life and work learning on my learning on my life and work life and work
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 74
APPENDIX I: GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTIVE LEARNING JOURNAL
Suggested Format
The following questions may be used to guide you in writing your reflective learning journal.
1. What took place in the program today?
2. What did I learn about myself today?
3. What did I learned about microfinance today? How can I connect my own situation
and the learning today?
4. In what area am I facing confusion in integrating my learning?
5. How would I approach this differently another time?
6. Describe the high point of the learning?
7. What suggestions would I make to others about today’s learning experience?
8. Describe your interactions with your mentor?
9. When I re-read the journal, I notice that:
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 75
APPENDIX J: GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS GROUPS
Facilitators setting up the on-line focus group sessions may wish to explore a number of freeware and other software tools. SKYPE provides free conferencing and file sharing for groups of up to 10 users. Other software products such as Adobe Connect, Elluminate or Ivocalize provide a range of on-line conferencing services for a fee. It is important to test the technology ahead of time and to provide time in advance of the meeting for participants to log in or download any plug-ins necessary.
Session 1 (90 minutes on-line conference)
1. What are your greatest learning needs identified from your learning plan? Are they
consistent with the curriculum as it is presented?
2. What needs to occur to make the curriculum and your learning needs more closely
aligned?
3. What challenges will you meet when working in groups in an on-line environment?
4. Have you had contact with your mentor?
Session 2 (90 minutes on-line conference)
1. How have your learning experiences been helpful to you in your context?
2. What have you learned about working with an on-line community?
3. Referring to your daily reflective writings/postings, consider whether your learning
needs changed, or remained the same in the first week?
4. Has contact with your mentor had an impact on your learning experiences?
Session 3(90 minutes on-line conference)
1. Did your learning experience meet your expectations?
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 76
2. What challenges can you identify in applying the learning experiences in your work
in your context?
3. Would you describe the role your mentor played in supporting your learning?
4. Will you continue to work with your fellow learners in an on-line community?
5 Would you make suggestions for improving the course? (Use AI framework)
Session 4 ((90 minutes on-line conference)
1. What is the most useful thing that you have learned from this course?
2. What challenges have you encountered in applying your learning in your context?
3. How can we improve this course? (Use AI framework)
4. Do you remain in contact with fellow learners and mentors?
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 77
APPENDIX K: TIMELINE OF EVENTS FOR MICROFINANCE COURSE
The following events follow the phases set out in (Palloff & Pratt, 2005, p. 29) as summary points when developing successful on-line collaboration: set the stage, model the process, guide the process, and evaluate the process.
Pre Course Events Suggested Timeline – three or four weeks preceding course beginning
• Registration
• Course Content available on line for preview (include all audio files)
• On-line test of technological capabilities, downloads and plug-ins
• Webinar on course structure and expectations
• Access to on-line feedback forum for accumulated best practices from previous learners
• Learners develop learning profile from on-line learning style inventory
• Learners prepare learning plan outlining learning expectations
• Learners develop rubric from learning plan as method of learning assessment
• When mentorship is available, an email connection or VOIP is established between the learner and previous course participants
Course Structure Suggested Timeline – Three or Four Week Minimum Duration
Week One: Day One
• First on-line focus group session—Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry. Introductions to learning community and agenda setting based on learning plan (90 minutes suggested) (Appendix 4 Guiding questions)
• Adjustment of course content by facilitators to reflect learner needs identified in focus group through sharing learning plan expectations
• Adjustment of learning expectations and rubric by learners to align with community learning needs identified in focus group session
• Guided daily reflective journal postings of learners blogs or wikis and posting to other learners’ blogs
• Final troubleshooting for technology
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 78
• Assignment one of individual task to develop content knowledge and familiarity with learning platform with a deliverable
Week One: Day Two to Five
• Assignment two of a dyad task from and Appreciative Inquiry approach, with assigned activities with a self reflective component to develop collaborative understanding and build learning community
• Connection with mentor if available
• Parking lot process for emerging issues in discussion forum
Week Two: Day One
• On-line focus group session based on reflections from the learning journals and change of learning needs as identified therein (90 minutes suggested) (Appendix 4 Guiding questions) Continued support for emerging understanding of learning community and of appreciative inquiry application.
• Adjustment of course content by facilitators to reflect learner needs identified in focus group by sharing learning plan expectations
• Adjustment of learning expectations and rubric by learners to align with community learning needs identified in focus group session
• Daily reflective journal postings of learners blogs or wikis and posting to other learners’ blogs
• Assignment of a small group task such as a debate or case study with a presentation or other deliverable
• Continue connection with mentor
Week Two: Day Two to Five
• Assignment of a virtual team task that has relevance to all learners such as a problem based scenario. Use AI.
• Self assessment of team and individual activity. Guided assessment of other team members. Use AI.
Week Three: Final Day
• On-line focus group session based on reflections from the learning journals on course expectations met and missed (90 minutes suggested). Use AI.
Distributed Learning and MicroFinance 79
• Evaluation of course content and delivery by facilitators to reflect learner needs identified in focus group through sharing learning plan expectations and blog reflections
• Evaluation of learning expectations and rubric by learners to reflect learning goals met and missed identified in focus group session
• Identification of next steps
• Creation or adaptation of learning plan to capture intents and processes and challenges of learners at the course end
• Continue connection with mentor
• Learners provide on-line feedback of successful and most challenging learning experiences in section of course platform provided
• Establish forum and expectations for learning community to meet post course to exchange knowledge and to continue to build community
• Distribute the information above in a way that is intuitively retrievable post course. Consider SKYPE Group
• Establish timetable for final focus group session from 1 to 6 months post course
Post Course
• On-line focus group session based on reflections from the learning journals on application of learning, challenges encountered, role of mentors and success of learning community. Next steps. (90 minutes suggested)