Evaluating instructional technology implementation in a higher education environment

Bullock, Cheryl Davis

doi:10.1016/s1098-2140(00)00087-4

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With this in mind, evaluation of an MLE is an issue that 96% of institutions may be interested in, with this figure moving nearer to the 100% mark each year. However, this increased use of learning technology has not produced a concomitant rise in appropriate forms of evaluation (Bullock and Ory 2000;Tricker et al 2001).…”

Section: Managed Learning Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The complexity of evaluations, however, cannot be managed by simply increasing the number of evaluation criteria (Voigt and Swatman 2004). In overcoming the problems of evaluation, the needs of the participant(s), stakeholder(s) or audience(s) are seen as key (Bullock and Ory 2000;Williams 2002;McNaught and Lam 2005) and attending to their interests can resolve many problems associated with evaluation (Williams 2002).…”

Section: Evaluating Management Learning Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This complexity arises from the nature and number of the stakeholders involved: having different views of the world; using different vocabularies and tools to describe the world; and playing different roles within the MLE context (Holyfield 2003). Even small scale instructional technology evaluation efforts are challenged when it comes to meeting multiple stakeholder needs although searching for overlapping interests may help to address diverse stakeholder needs (Bullock and Ory 2000). This means that a good evaluation instrument must be able to cope with the complexity that arises from varying stakeholder needs.…”

Section: The Role Of Stakeholders In Mlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This means that a good evaluation instrument must be able to cope with the complexity that arises from varying stakeholder needs. Finding out who the stakeholders are and what they care about are the first steps to strengthening the utilisation of the evaluation results (Bullock and Ory 2000;Williams 2002;McNaught and Lam 2005). Serafeimidis and Smithson (2003) point out that many authors argue that an organisation-wide participatory stakeholder analysis is the first step to the formulation of any evaluation.…”

Section: The Role Of Stakeholders In Mlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The conditions commonly state that the project team should be able to demonstrate that they achieved their aims, usually through evaluation (Oliver 2000). Whilst the literature recognizes that attending to stakeholder needs are key, other than in a small number of cases (Bullock and Ory 2000;Williams 2002), the needs of the stakeholder are not fully considered in the evaluations reported. This could be because evaluations are often small scale, carried out by academics, evaluating their own individual projects and using the results for their own purposes.…”

Section: The Role Of Stakeholders In Mlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) Based Framework for Evaluating Managed Learning Environments

Hardman

Paucar‐Caceres

2010

Syst Pract Action Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managed Learning Environments (MLEs) in higher education institutions (HEIs) are relatively new to the arena of higher education, even though there are over 90% of institutions in the higher and further education sector who are currently engaged in some kind of MLE development activity (University of Brighton 2003). However, when it comes to the task of assessing the performance of an MLE there are no universally recognisable frameworks for evaluating MLEs in HEIs currently discussed within the literature. The paper advances a general systemic framework for evaluating MLEs based on Checkland's SSM and reports on the first stages of our attempt to evaluate the MLE at Manchester Metropolitan University involving the team developing the system and the stakeholders concerned. Two of three iterations of this research have been completed and, whilst outside the scope of this paper, have found that SSM has coped with the criteria demanded of the evaluation framework within its context. After completing a stakeholder analysis, the criteria for evaluating an MLE, based on the stakeholders' requirements, emerged. These iterations have tentatively concluded that by contextualising SSM to the evaluation requirements of an MLE in a UK HEI, the measures of performance suggested by SSM need to be adjusted. The final iteration will check this outcome.

show abstract

Section: Managed Learning Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%