You are here:

The underpinnings of e-learning evaluation and research
PROCEEDINGS

, Murdoch Univ., Australia

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Denver, Colorado, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-95-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Abstract

This paper attempts a fundamental analysis of the nature of research into e-learning. It starts by considering the phenomenon of e-learning, arguing that e-learning is an artificial, designed phenomenon, and that research approaches need to consider how the e-learning environment works and how it can be improved, before we can consider how effective it is. We also establish that e-learning inquiry involves a mixture of evaluation and research, and we discuss this in the context of different disciplinary and interdisciplinary research approaches, arguing that e-learning evaluation research involves a varying mixture of a ‘search for fundamental understanding’ and ‘consideration of use’.

We apply the preceding arguments to the e-learning lifecycle, identifying five different forms of evaluation research which are appropriate at various stages: Baseline Analysis, Design Evaluation, Formative Evaluation, Effectiveness Research, and Project-management Evaluation. These forms can be used to guide the design of an e-learning evaluation-research study, in a cyclical research approach. We recognize the strength of design-based research in this context, without claiming that it is appropriate in all circumstances.

The paper then unpacks the process of conducting evaluation research, through the use of divide-and-conquer techniques to break down the complexity of an e-learning evaluation-research study. The five forms of evaluation research allow us to conceptualise specific research questions at a particular position in the e-learning lifecycle, and evaluation-research matrices assist us to identify sources of evidence to address these questions.

Citation

Phillips, R. (2012). The underpinnings of e-learning evaluation and research. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2012--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 61-67). Denver, Colorado, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 20, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education.
  2. England, E., & Finney, A. (1999). Managing Multimedia (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Addison Wesley Longman.
  3. Friesen, N. (2009). Re-thinking e-learning research: Foundations, methods and practices. New York: Peter Lang.
  4. Jones, C., Zenios, M., & Griffiths, J. (2004). Academic Use of Digital Resources: Disciplinary Differences and the Issue of Progression Proceedings of the 4th Networked Learning Conference. Lancaster University, England, UK.
  5. Littlejohn, A., & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
  6. Oliver, M., Harvey, J., Conole, G., & Jones, A. (2007). Evaluation. In G. Conole& M. Oliver (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research: Themes, methods and impact on practice (pp. 203-216). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
  7. Phillips, R.A., McNaught, C., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Evaluating e-learning: Guiding research and practice. New York and London: Routledge.-66-Reeves, T.C. (2000a). Enhancing the worth of instructional technology research through “design experiments” and other development research strategies. Paper presented at the International Perspectives on Instructional Technology Research for the 21st Century a Symposium sponsored by SIG/Instructional Technology at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. April 27, 2000 session 41.29. , New Orleans. Reeves, T.C. (2000b). Socially Responsible Educational Technology Research. Educational Technology(November-December), 19–28.
  8. Reeves, T.C., & Hedberg, J.G. (2003). Interactive Learning Systems Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
  9. Richey, R.C., Klein, J.D., & Nelson, W.A. (2004). Developmental research: studies of instructional design and development. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1099-1130). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  10. Shavelson, R.J., Phillips, D.C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M.J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25-28.
  11. Shulman, L.S. (1988). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. In R.M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 3-17). Washington: AERA.
  12. Simon, H.A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
  13. Stokes, D.E. (1997). Pasteur's Quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Acknowledgements

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Slides