Skip to main content

Youenn Leborgne's Library tagged research →  View Popular

24 Mar 09

** Evaluating e-learning initiatives - Bastiaens et al 2004 **

Notions:
e-learning, evaluation, framework, reaction, learning, performance

Kirpatrick's four-level evaluation framework:
1. Reaction level: what participants think of the training
2. Learning level: what participants have learned
3. Performance level: to what extent the participants change their behaviour on the job
4. Organization level: monitors the organisational improvement

The evaluation requires a clear plan describing the goal, the object and the criteria
It's also important to specify the evaluation goal, design and arrangements (management and organisational issues)

** A very detailed example is used **

In addition to a detailed elaboration of the framework, it's advisable to take into account general aspects such as authenticity, exploration, scale, time requirements, objectivity required and focus

The approach proposed by Kirpatrick is partial and has to be revised conceptually to be applicable, particularly in e-learning environments today:
- the main problem with the evaluation of satisfaction is the atheoretical approach
- the effect of a course on learning cannot be measured by a simple test just after completion of the course but should be measured in an authentic situation
- it is very difficult to measure the transfer of learning on work behaviours
- the same applies to the measure of the impact on organisations (in terms of results, etc.)

Because a four-level evaluation is quite demanding, it's not wise to perform one for every learning event but only for the implementation of a new media or course type (otherwise, the cost of the evaluation may exceed that of the e-learning initiative itself).
As a minimum, the authors recommend performing an evaluation at the reaction level every time the e-learning event takes place.
Finally, evaluation has to be based on a well-considered theoretical model

www.elearning-reviews.org/...3-jochems-integrated-elearning - Preview

e-learning ECDEL_MSc evaluation research feedback design

** Evaluating courses and teaching - Hounsell 2009 **

Notions:
evaluation, course feedback, research methods, colleagues, students, external, peer

Looks at broadly based approaches that can be tailored to specific contexts and needs

Kinds of feedback which are sought depends on both motives and focus
These considerations are influential in determining not only *how* and *from whom* feedback is to be sought be also *when* it is to be elicited - a dimension that's often overlooked

Sources of feedback, each of which has its strengths and weaknesses:
- students
- teaching colleagues and professional peers
- self-generated
- incidental

The more sources feedback draws on, the more robust

It's also important to consider the methods of feedback (see also Hounsell et al 1997)

Questionnaires are very useful but can generate 'fatigue' and happily, there are alternative approaches, including 'instant' questionnaires, 'one-minute' papers, proformas, focus groups, student panels, structured group discussions, discussion boards.

Techniques used for gathering feedback from colleagues can be adapted for self-generated feedback

Teachers are in a unique position to analyse data gathered but equally crucial is the need to acknowledge that it can benefit from the involvement of others

In many situations, there is no ideal or obvious response to feedback, but rather, an array of options from which a choice has to be made. Sometimes, we may benefit:
- consulting with colleagues because of resource implications
- further probing to pinpoint more precisely the nature of concerns expressed
- getting students' views on the various options under considerations

www.routledgeeducation.com/...er-Education-isbn9780415434645 - Preview

e-learning ECDEL_MSc evaluation research peer feedback design

** Feedback on courses and programmes of study: a handbook - Hounsell et al 1997 **

Notions:
evaluation, course feedback, research methods, colleagues, students, external, peer

** A must read **

Draw from several sources and methods (so as to avoid 'questionnaire fatigue' for example) of feedback, depending on its aim, focus, constraints, etc.

1. Course team colleagues:

- course team interaction
- previewing

2. Students

** Many forms of feedback collection are examined and examples of such tools are given **

- structured discussion
- the pyramid approach
- nominal group technique (NGT)
- student panels
- post-it displays
- email comments and variants
- staff-student consultative committees
- assignment, placement and project logs
- conventional questionnaires
- pro formas
- on-line questionnaires
- one-minute questionnaires

3. External academic colleagues and and professional or industrial peers:

- comment on course materials
- external examiners and assessors
- quality assessment and accreditation

4. Incidental feedback

eric.ed.gov/...detailmini.jsp - Preview

e-learning ECDEL_MSc evaluation research peer feedback design

24 Jan 09

Research methods in education - Cohen et al 2007

Notions:
research, ontology, epistemology, normative, interpretive, critical, positivist, naturalistic, methodologies

1. Two broad conceptions of social reality

Established (normative) view: like in natural sciences, (natural and universal laws)
Interpretive view: same rigour as natural sciences but emphasizes how people differ from inanimate natural phenomena

4 sets of assumptions underpinning those views:
- ontological:
Nature of the social phenomena - Is reality objective or the result of individual cognition?
Comes from the nominalist (truth dependent on mind) vs realist (truth independent of mind) philosophical debate
- epistemological:
Nature and forms of knowledge, ways to acquire and communicate it, etc. Positivist vs anti-positivist (or subjectivist) views for instance
- human nature and relationships between human beings and their environment:
Humans as products of their environments or as producing their own environments (determininsm vs voluntarism respectively)
- nature of the methodologies used (affected by 1st 3 sets of assumptions)
Nomothetic (related to objective view) vs idiographic (related to subjective view) approach (see p. 8)

See boxes (subjectivism vs objectivism) pp. 9-10

Positivism not well suited to social phenomena: excludes choice, fuidity, multiple interpretations, individuals' uniqueness, authentic contexts, etc.
Understanding of individuals' interpretations of the world in specific contexts has to come from the inside. A subjective undertaking for the social researcher

2. Alternatives to positivistic social science

Anti-positivist (naturalistic or interpretative) movements mainly represented by phenomology, ethnomethodology and reductionism
But they have gone too far in abandoning scientific procedures.

3. Critical theory

Understanding phenomena and changing them. Related to praxis (Smith 1996 on ECDEL)

4. Complexity theory

Phenomena are organic, non-linear, and must be looked at holistically in order not to miss the dynamic interaction of their parts

www.amazon.co.uk/...0415195411 - Preview

e-learning research RM_MSc

21 Jan 09

** The foundation of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process - Crotty 1998 **

Notions:
social research, ontology, epitstemology, theoretical perspective, methodology, methods
See also Robson (2002, chapter 1 and 2)

Writing a research proposals:
- methodologies and methods used?
- how do we justify this choice? (depends on purpose of the research, our theoretical perspective and epistemology)

We then have 4 questions:
- What methods (techniques and procedures to gather and analyse data) do we propose to use?
Describe them as specifically as possible
- What methodology (strategy, plan) govers our choice and us of method?
Describe it and outline the rationale it provides for choice of methods and their forms
- What theoretical perspective (philosophical stance) lies behind the methodology in question?
State, as best as we can, the assumptions we bring to our methodology
- What epistemology (theory of knowledge) informs this theoretical perspective?
Identify, explain and justify it

** Very useful diagrams and table **

Ontology sits at the same level as epistemology in the diagram: both inform theoretical perspective

In the table (p.5), the only associative restrictions concern the first two columns (link between epitemology and theoretical perspectives): other than that, associations may be created in all directions

Distinction between quantitative/qualitative/mixed research occurs at the level of methods: the traditional divide is no longer central

** Whatever epistemological stance we choose, we need to be consistent: see pp. 15-16 **

www.amazon.co.uk/...0761961062 - Preview

e-learning research RM_MSc

23 Sep 08

Netvibes

Yet another aggregator, probably very similar to Pageflakes (it could be interesting comparing them...)\nEssential tool that let publications and articles come to us, rather than having to "manually" search each of them...

www.netvibes.com - Preview

e-learning research tool

1 - 15 of 15
Showing 20▼ items per page

Selected Tags

Related Tags

Sponsored Links

Ads by Google

Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »

Join Diigo