Monitoring and evaluating digital circles

Evaluating digital circles is a healthy practice and provides an opportunity to check how it is going and whether it is it fulfilling its purpose. It can be seen as a “health check” for those using the circle also, to assess whether it meets their needs as was intended.  When monitoring digital circles, there are several aspects that should be considered and evaluated, namely: the platform choice, the level of engagement, the accessibility, the sustainability, the risks, and the impact it has on users’ wellbeing and potentially their academics.

Who conducts the evaluation depends on who is currently monitoring the circle and who will make any changes, should they need to. If the circle has no monitor, it may provide evidence that one needs to be selected. In the reverse, if the circle is running successfully without a moderator, it demonstrates good practice. An evaluation could be conducted monthly, tri-annually, or annually, usually by the circle’s moderator (this may not be the same person as the one who created the circle). It depends on the time available to undertake such a task and how regularly you want the circle’s structure and/or practices to be reviewed and updated.

Due to the nature of digital circles, there is not an all-encompassing way of evaluating them, as each circle will have a unique purpose and audience (45). Equally, most platforms for digital circles provide audit trails or analytics that can track information and be used for evaluation purposes (such as engagement) so in-depth evaluations may not be necessary for all types of circles (46).

Considering this, we have created two separate resources to evaluate both the structure and the impact of the digital circle. We define the terms ‘moderator’ as someone who monitors or coordinates the activity within the circle, solves issues or challenges that arise and acts as a port-of-call. The term ‘user’ relates to those who are using the digital circle and do not play an active role in monitoring or coordinating. Therefore, we propose using two separate forms for these two roles because one will likely evaluate the digital circle’s structures (for the moderator) and the other will likely evaluate the impact (to the user).

We chose to use Microsoft Word; however, you could use Survey Monkey, Microsoft Forms, or another method for collating a mixture of qualitative and quantitative information and the links could be shared as opposed to sending a document. Equally, it may be appropriate that only one evaluation is conducted as a collaboration between the moderator and users if the function of the circle suited that. Therefore, what we have created are there as examples and can be amended and changed as you wish.