DATA ANALYSIS – Generation1

The following charts were developed using pivot tables with information pulled from a common database of GeoTol Online students records during a study period spanning from July 2010 through July 2014.  Courses were self-paced, self-directed.  Twenty-four hours of video and corresponding problems from the GeoTol Pro Workbook were posted online.  Participants came from various companies, and little or no “social stuff” exhibited.  Identifiers of student and company names removed for confidentiality.  A typical single user would sign up on line, pay with credit card, and did not interact with other students, mangers, facilitators, and subject matter experts.  Some students came from group sign-ups from individual companies; however, trainers did not communicate with students unless there was a technical problem.  The groups showed little evidence of students collaborating or coaching by their managers.  Overall results were:

Generation 1, DigitalChalk Phase. The first effort putting GeoTol Training on line.

Instance# 1 examines the entire database of 466 students participating in Level 1, Level 2, and Level1&2 GeoTol Training from July 2010 through July 2014.

Instance# 2 filters data exposing just the results from students who participated in Level 1&2 training combined, a six month effort.

Instance# 3  filters data exposing the results from students who participated in Level 1 training , a three month effort.

Instance# 4 filters data to expose the results of 15 students who participated in one of the earliest GeoTol courses delivered.  This data popped out as a surprise with one of the few times the database was coded with a group name.  All students came from one company.  The company was located in India.  In this instance students loosely collaborated and worked to a common pace to complete all 17 units.  Because this course was an early use of the new online GeoTol offering the learning group participated in several real time web conferences to get feedback on how to improve the online training.

Instance #1 (Multiple Items) Level 1, Level 2, Level 1&2 Combined

  • 466 Grand Total of students signed up for GeoTol training.  Includes offerings for Level 1, Level 2, and Level 1&2 combined. Note: data removed included free samples and ejected due to technical issues.
  • 183 students (39%) failed – did not meet minimum requirement of 80% mastery
  • 49 students (11%) are still in progress- however many of these in-process students are inactive and will not likely finish the course
  • 163 students (35%) finished the course with a passing grade of 80% or more.
  • 71 (15%) students registered (paid) but never started the course.
Offering (Multiple Items) Level 1, Level 2, Level 1&2 Combined Study Period: July 2010 through July 2014
  Failed In Progress Passed Registered Grand Total
Count of Status 183 49 163 71 466
 % Status 39% 11% 35% 15%

 p1i1

p1i1a

 

Instance# 2 filters data exposing just the results from students who participated in Level 1&2 training combined, a six month effort.  Using Pivot Tables to filter data, this instance extracted only those students who participated in the combined GeoTol level 1 and 2 course.  Students had 6 months to complete the course and if needed, were given extensions to complete all 17 units.

Offering Level 1 and 2
Failed In Progress Passed Registered Grand Total
Count of Status 141 38 121 67 367
38% 10% 33% 18%

 

The results for students in GeoTol Level 1 and 2 included:

  • A total of 367 students registered for Level 1 and 2 training.
  • 67 (18%) students registered (paid) but never started the course.
  • 121 students (33%) finished the course with a passing grade of 80% or more.
  • 38 Students (10%) are in progress- however many of these in process students are inactive and will not likely finish the course
  • 141 student (39%) failed to complete the course

p1i2

p1i2a

 

 

Instance #3, used the same period, however only extracted students records in GeoTol level 1 course.  Students had 3 months to complete the course and if needed, they were allowed extra time to complete 8 units from the GeoTol pro Workbook.

Offering Level 1
  Failed In Progress Passed Registered Grand Total
Count of Status 35 9 45 4 93
38% 10% 48% 4%

 

The results for students in GeoTol Level 1 included:

  • 93 Total of students signed up for GeoTol level 1 training.

o   35 students (38%) failed – did not meet minimum requirement of 80% mastery

o   9 Students (10%) are still in progress- however many of these in-process students are inactive and will not likely finish the course

o   45 students (48%) finished the course with a passing grade of 80% or more.

o   4 (4%) students registered (paid) but never started the course.

 p1i3

 p1i3a

 

Instance #4

Offering Level 1&2, One Intl Company Division in India
  Failed Passed Grand Total
Count of Status 3 12 15
20% 80%

 

 

The results for students in Level 1&2, One Intl Company Division in India:

  • 15 Total of students signed up for training.

o   3 students (20%) failed – did not meet minimum requirement of 80% mastery

o   0 Students (0%) are still in progress-

o   12 students (80%) finished the course with a passing grade of 80% or more.

o   0 (0%) students registered (paid) but never started the course.

 

p1i4

 p1i4a

 compare p1

 Compare/ContrastComparing instances 1, 2, and 3, students used the same workbook, watched the same videos, worked on the same exercises and all used the DigitalChalk LMS.Instance 1 recorded the lowest Pass outcome (33%), highest failure outcome(39%), and highest students who did not start the training outcome(28%). Self-paced Self-directed 6 months + to complete the course.Instance 2 showed a higher pass outcome (48%), similar fail outcome (38%) yet a much lower not started outcome (14%). In Instance B the Course was shortened to 8 units and 3 months duration.Instance 3 showed a much higher pass outcome (80%), much lower fail outcome (20%) and zero not started outcome (0%).Pace set by learning group, one unit per week – a 17 week effort completing all units.Learning group collaborated loosely.  Students provided feedback after each unit how to improve course.  Facilitator and SME held regular web meetings.

 

Comments are closed.