A Comparison of Evaluation Practices Based on e-Learning and Mobile Learning Delivery Rates
PROCEEDING
James Marshall, San Diego State University, United States
E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Washington, DC, United States Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA
Abstract
Learning and performance professionals are increasingly pressed to measure the results of their learning program design efforts, and ultimately prove their worth. This study sought to quantify evaluation practices in organizations and investigate how the use of technology-delivered instruction compared to more frequent, or robust, evaluation practices. Findings indicate that reaction evaluation remains the most frequently occurring evaluation practice. Increased amounts of evaluation for purposes of measuring learning, application and return on investment were recorded, relative to earlier studies. Results suggest that more robust evaluation is occurring in organizations that employ greater amounts of technology-delivered instruction—especially mobile learning, relative to organizations with lower levels of the same. This study has implications for e-learning and mobile learning designers and their pursuit of metrics to inform their efforts and establish the worth of their practice.
Citation
Marshall, J. (2016). A Comparison of Evaluation Practices Based on e-Learning and Mobile Learning Delivery Rates. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning (pp. 86-99). Washington, DC, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 28, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/173924/.
© 2016 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Anderson, C. (2015, May 4). Stagnant outlook for learning measurement [Weblog post]. Retrieved from: http://www.clomedia.com/2015/05/04/stagnant-outlook-for-learning-measurement/
- Association for Talent Development. (2015). 2015 state of the industry. Alexandria, VA: Author.
- American Society for Training and Development. (2009). The value of evaluation: Making training evaluations more effective. Alexandria, VA: Author.
- Berk, J. (2011). Measuring learning’s impact on the business [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.knowledgeadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Approaches_to_Measurement_Business_Impact.pdf
- Derven, M. (2012, November). Building a strategic approach to learning evaluation. T+D, 66, 54-57.
- Dionne, P. (2006). The evaluation of training activities: A complex issue involving different stakes. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(3), 279-286.
- Griffin, R. (2012, June). Twenty-first century evaluation. Training Journal (TJ), 50-53.
- Holton, E.F. III (1996). The flawed four-level evaluation model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7(1), 5-21.
- Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1994). Evaluating training programs. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
- Kirkpatrick, W., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Talent Development.
- Marshall, J. & Rossett, A. (2011). Mapping the e-learning terrain. International Journal of E-Learning, 10(2), 169-198.
- Marshall, J. & Rossett, A. (2014). Perceptions of barriers to the evaluation of workplace learning programs. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 27(3) 7-28.
- Patel, L. (2010). Overcoming barriers and valuing evaluation. T+D, 64(2), 62-63.
- Phillips, J.J. (1997). Handbook of training evaluation and measurement methods (3rd ed.). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.-98-E-Learn 2016-Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016
- Ross, E., Romich, R. & Pena, J. (2016). Working Towards the Future: Technology Use and Evaluation in Workforce Development. In G. Chamblee& L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2016 (pp. 1278-1282). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of
- Rossett, A. (2007). Leveling the levels. Training and Development, 61(2), 48-53.
- Saks, A.M. & Burke, L.A. (2012). An investigation into the relationship between training evaluation and the transfer of training, International Journal of Training and Development, 16(2), 118-12.
- Sitzmann, T., Brown, K.G., Casper, W.J., Ely, K., & Zimmerman, R. (2008). A review and meta-analysis of the nomological network of trainee reactions. Journa`l of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 280-295.
- Sugrue, B., & Rivera, R. (2005). State of the industry. Alexandria, VA: Press.
- Training Industry Report. (2009). 2009 training industry report. Training, 46(8), 32-36.
- Tozman, R. (2012). Learning on demand. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.-99-E-Learn 2016-Washington, DC, United States, November 14-16, 2016
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References