The role of theory in learning technology evaluation research

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 28, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 1103-1118

  Phillips, Rob ^a   Kennedy, Gregor ^b   McNaught, Carmel ^c  

^a MURDOCH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869822912     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14495554     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14742/ajet.791     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001021
2. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education.
3. Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different subject areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195-203.
4. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered - Priorities of the professoriate. New Jersey: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
5. Burkhardt, H. (2006). From design research to large scale impact: Engineering research in education. In J. van Den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 121-150). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
6. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001009
7. Cronbach, L. J. & Suppes, P. (Eds.) (1969). Research for tomorrow's schools: Disciplined inquiry for education. New York: Macmillan.
8. Duncan, W. (Ed.) (1996). A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Upper Darby, PA: Project Management Institute.
9. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105-121. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466722
10. Edelson, D. C. (2006). Balancing innovation and risk: Assessing design research proposals. In J. van Den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 100-106). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
11. England, E. & Finney, A. (1999). Managing multimedia (2nd ed.). Harlow, England: Addison Wesley Longman.
12. Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 420-434). London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Friesen, N. (2009). Re-thinking e-learning research: Foundations, methods and practices. New York: Peter Lang.
14. Glass, G. V. & Worthen, B. R. (1971). Educational evaluation and research: Similarities and differences. Curriculum Theory Network, (8/9), 149-165. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1179200
15. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C. & Oliver, R. (2010). A guide to authentic e-learning. New York and London: Routledge.
16. Howell, G. T. (1992). Building hypermedia applications: A software development guide. McGraw Hill.Hutchings, P. & Shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments. Change, 31(5), 10-15. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/ scholarship-teaching-new-elaborations-new-developments
17. Jones, C., Zenios, M. & Griffiths, J. (2004). Academic use of digital resources: Disciplinary differences and the issue of progression. In Proceedings of the 4th Networked Learning Conference. Lancaster University, England, UK. http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2004/proceedings/symposia/symposium9/jones_et_al.htm
18. Kelly, A. E. (2006). Quality criteria for design research: Evidence and commitments. In J. van Den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 107-118). Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
19. Littlejohn, A. & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
20. Nieveen, N., McKenney, S. & van Den Akker, J. (2006). Educational design research: The value of variety. In J. van Den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 151-158). Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
21. 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.
22. Phillips, R. A., McNaught, C. & Kennedy, G. (2011). Evaluating e-learning: Guiding research and practice. New York and London: Routledge.
23. Reeves, T. C. (1993). Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20(2), 39-46.
24. Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. van Den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52-66). London: Routledge.
25. Reeves, T. C. & Hedberg, J. G. (2003). Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
26. 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.
27. Ross, S. M. & Morrison, G. R. (1989). In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replication, and learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(1), 19-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299043
28. Rowe, H. A. H. (1996). IT is failing to revolutionise the curriculum, because to date we have failed to evaluate its benefits in context. Paper presented at the Australian Computers in Education Conference, Canberra.
29. Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020006010
30. 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.
31. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
32. The Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
33. Thornton, D. & Phillips, R. A. (1997). Evaluation. In The developer's handbook to interactive multimedia - A practical guide for educational applications (pp. 127-146). London: Kogan Page.
34. Van Den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and methods of development research. In J. van Den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design approaches and tools in education and training (pp. 1-14). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. [verified 24 July 2012] http://projects.edte.utwente.nl/smarternet/version2/cabinet/ico_design_principles.pdf
35. Van Den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S. & Nieveen, N. (Eds.) (2006). Educational design research. Abingdon, U.K.: Routledge.
36. Wang, F. & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682
37. Zaritsky, R., Kelly, A. E., Flowers, W., Rogers, E. & O'Neill, P. (2003). Clinical design sciences: A view from sister design efforts. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 32-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001032