Evaluating technology-enhanced learning: A comprehensive framework

被引:74
|
作者
Cook, David A. [1 ,2 ]
Ellaway, Rachel H. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Coll Med, Mayo Clin Online Learning, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Coll Med, Med & Med Educ, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[3] Northern Ontario Sch Med, Curriculum & Planning, Sudbury, ON, Canada
[4] Northern Ontario Sch Med, Human Sci, Sudbury, ON, Canada
关键词
MEDICAL-EDUCATION; GUIDE;
D O I
10.3109/0142159X.2015.1009024
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Background: The absence of a standard, comprehensive approach to evaluating technology-enhanced learning (TEL) limits the utility of individual evaluations, and impedes the integration and synthesis of results across studies. Purpose: To outline a comprehensive framework for approaching TEL evaluation in medical education, and to develop instruments for measuring the perceptions of TEL learners and instructors. Methods and results: Using both theoretical constructs of inquiry in education and a synthesis of existing models and instruments, we outlined a general model for evaluation that links utility, principles, and practices. From this we derived a framework for TEL evaluation that identifies seven data collection activities: needs analysis; documentation of processes, decisions, and final product; usability testing; observation of implementation; assessment of participant experience; assessment of learning outcomes; and evaluation of cost, reusability, and sustainability. We then used existing quality standards and approaches to develop instruments for assessing the experiences of learners and instructors using TEL. Conclusions: No single evaluation is likely to collect all of this information, nor would any single audience likely find all information elements equally useful. However, consistent use of a common evaluation framework across different courses and institutions would avoid duplication of effort and allow cross-course comparisons.
引用
收藏
页码:961 / 970
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Universal access to technology-enhanced learning
    Andreas Holzinger
    Universal Access in the Information Society, 2008, 7 (4) : 195 - 197
  • [32] Technology-enhanced learning and teaching: an overview
    Scheiter, Katharina
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ERZIEHUNGSWISSENSCHAFT, 2021, 24 (05): : 1039 - 1060
  • [33] Fostering Creativity in Technology-Enhanced Learning
    Zizic, Anisija
    Granic, Andrina
    Sitin, Ivona
    2016 39TH INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY, ELECTRONICS AND MICROELECTRONICS (MIPRO), 2016, : 841 - 846
  • [34] Student satisfaction with technology-enhanced learning
    Bloom, KC
    Hough, MC
    CIN-COMPUTERS INFORMATICS NURSING, 2003, 21 (05) : 241 - 246
  • [35] Supporting reflection in technology-enhanced learning
    Kori, Kuelli
    Pedaste, Margus
    Leijen, Aeli
    Maeeots, Mario
    EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH REVIEW, 2014, 11 : 45 - 55
  • [36] Technology-Enhanced STEM Learning in Childhood
    Chatzidaki, Eleni
    Papavlasopoulou, Sofia
    Gijlers, Hannie
    Eysink, Tessa H. S.
    Koulouris, Pavlos
    PROCEEDINGS OF ACM INTERACTION DESIGN AND CHILDREN CONFERENCE, IDC 2024, 2024, : 1020 - 1022
  • [37] Multiculturalism and Technology-Enhanced Language Learning
    Lee-Smith, Angela
    CALICO JOURNAL, 2019, 36 (02): : 138 - 141
  • [38] Technology-Enhanced Learning: A Question of Knowledge
    Derry, Jan
    JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION, 2008, 42 (3-4) : 505 - 519
  • [39] Learner ownership of technology-enhanced learning
    Dommett, Eleanor J.
    INTERACTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND SMART EDUCATION, 2018, 15 (01) : 79 - 86
  • [40] Research trends in technology-enhanced learning
    Badia, Antoni
    INFANCIA Y APRENDIZAJE, 2015, 38 (02): : 253 - 278