Figure 12-1 on page 318 presents an instrument that can be used to evaluate online courses.

Traditional evaluation models focused on quantitative methods, recently the transition to qualitative methods in evaluation (Simonson et al., 2015, p.307).

It is important to note the differences between research and evaluation. As stated on page 307, "Evaluation, as contrasted to research, is the systematic investigation of the worth or merit of an object" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.307).

Simonson, Schlosser, and Orellana (2011) outline three main areas of research in distance education. For example, "distance education is just as effective as traditional education in regard to learner outcome" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.307).

Evaluation can be used to determine strengths and weaknesses in programs, courses, and activities (Simonson et al., 2015, p.306-307).

The evaluation of online programs and courses is extremely important to ensure quality education. It is efficient to have a guide or steps to follow to determine the weaknesses and strengths in programs and courses. I have years of experience with Quality Matters. I have used the Quality Matters Rubric to review other courses and to improve my courses. I appreciate the straightforward approach of the Rubric with provided examples and guidelines for scoring. It is important to keep in mind that evaluations are not personal. As stated in the text on page 318, "course and instructor evaluations are to be used for continuous improvement, and to provide input for course revisions" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.318). It is most effective to consider both quantitative data and qualitative data in the evaluation process. There should be in-depth consideration of the instruments used to collect data for evaluation purposes. I appreciate the AEIOU approach that is commonly used for evaluation of online programs and courses. The five component areas examined using the approach are effective and inclusive. I enjoyed reading the case studies for Great Britain, South Dakota, and Iowa. It was informative and enlightening to read about the steps evaluators completed and the conclusions reached. I think it is helpful an evaluation instrument was provided in the text at the end of the chapter on page 319.

"The purpose of a course evaluation is to fulfill accreditation requirements and to provide a means for reporting course and instructor effectiveness" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.317).

It is suggested that standardized course evaluation forms be used that have gone through "rigorous psychometric analyses" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.317).

"The literature suggests course and instructor evaluation models that focus on six constructs: Teaching and learning, Developing a community of learners, The instructor, The student, Implementation of the course, Technology use" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.317).

Figure 12-1 on page 318 presents an instrument that can be used to evaluate online courses using student perception of the six constructs.

"Evaluation instruments should possess the psychometric characteristics of standardized measures, meaning they should be valid, reliable, administered in a consistent manner, and have normative tables so scores can be compared" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.318).

Digital Dakota Network connects schools and classrooms across the state (Simonson et al., 2015, p.315).

The process of implementing the Digital Dakota Network was called the "Connecting the Schools project" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.315).

During the process, it became clear that evaluation efforts were needed. The AEIOU approach was used with a focus on both quantitative and qualitative data (Simonson et al., 2015, p.315).

The quantitative efforts included a survey called the "Connecting the Schools Questionnaire (CSQ)" (p.315). The survey was focused on four categories: demographics, personal innovativeness, organization innovativeness, and distance education (Simonson et al., 2015, p.315).

The qualitative efforts of the survey included "focus groups, participant observations, interviews, and site visits" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.315).

The main focus areas for the qualitative efforts: "determine what educators thought would be the greatest benefits provided by implementing distance education", "determine what was preventing individuals from becoming involved in distance education", "school superintendents were randomly selected and interviewed to determine perceptions of the impact of distance education and the Digital Dakota Network on education" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.315).

Questions were also asked concerning the "impediments to distance education" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.315).

Iowa Communications Network connects schools and classrooms across the state (Simonson et al., 2015, p.316).

The process of implementing the Iowa Communications Network utilized the AEIOU approach for evaluation (Simonson et al., 2015, p.316).

The evaluators collected data and analyzed records for years (Simonson et al., 2015, p.316).

The evaluation process focused on accountability, effectiveness, impact, organizational context, and unanticipated outcomes (Simonson et al., 2015, p.316-317).

"The AEIOU approach was useful in helping the state's educators in evaluating the role of distance education as an approach and the ICN as an infrastructure" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.317).

The AEIOU approach helped the evaluators determine the "diffusion of innovations was directly applicable to distance education efforts in South Dakota" (Simonson et al., 2015, p.315).

Evaluators analyzed infrastructure first including classroom design, construction, connection, and cost before moving to interviews and surveys (Simonson et al., 2015, p.316).