Return-on-Knowledge (ROK) of an e-Learning Support Unit: A Quali-Quantitative Approach
PROCEEDINGS
Jill Fresen, Hans Boon, University of Pretoria, South Africa
EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Vienna, Austria ISBN 978-1-880094-65-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC
Abstract
Measuring the Return-on-Investment (ROI) in learning and development in general is becoming a topical issue, particularly in the case of e-learning, or ICT-enhanced learning. Although the interest in the topic has heightened, there are a myriad of suggested approaches and it remains a challenge (Phillips, 2003), particularly in the field of higher education. The field of information science contributes the notion of Return-on-Knowledge (ROK), which is nicely aligned with the move towards evaluating satisfaction and impact, as opposed to the financially stringent approach of ROI. The ROK model (Kirkwood, 2003) includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects of evaluation. This paper provides an overview of various business methodologies which could be applied in evaluating the training and support services offered by an e-learning support unit to academic staff. The paper proposes a three-pronged methodology to evaluate the qualitative Benefit from Use (BU) and thus the ROK of an e-learning support unit.
Citation
Fresen, J. & Boon, H. (2008). Return-on-Knowledge (ROK) of an e-Learning Support Unit: A Quali-Quantitative Approach. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2008--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 644-653). Vienna, Austria: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 19, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/28460/.
© 2008 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Ahmad, H., Francis, A. & Zairi, M. (2007). Business process reengineering: critical success factors in higher education. Business Process Management Journal, 13(3), 451-469.
- Hodgkinson, M. & Kelly, M. (2007). Quality management and enhancement processes in UK business schools: a review. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(1), 77-91.
- JISC (2004). Effective practice with e-learning. A good practice guide in designing for learning. Bristol: HEFCE. Retrieved April 28, 2006, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/jisc%20effective%20practice3.pdf
- Kaplan, R.S. & Norton, D.P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review Jan– Feb: 71-80.
- Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: the four levels. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Koehler.
- Kirkwood, D. (2003). Creating a return of knowledge assets. Knowledge Management Dec/Jan 2003, 8-10.
- Macdonald, J. (1998). Understanding Total Quality Management in a week (2nd ed.). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
- Meyer, M., Opperman, C. & Dyrbye, C. (2003). Measuring return on investment in training. A practical implementation guide. Randburg: Knowres.
- Pasian, B. & Woodill, G. (2005). Best practices in elearning project management. Paper presented at the Ed-Media World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia& Tele-communications, Montreal, Canada, 27 June-2 July 2005.
- Phillips, J.J. (2003). Return on investment in training and performance programs. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Butterworth/Heinemann.
- Powell, A., McGuinness, M. & Morley, M. (2006). Evaluating a Vista pilot– comparing user perception with Powersight tracking data. Paper presented at the WebCT Europe Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, 27 February-1 March 2006.
- University of Pretoria. (2007). Retrieved Nov 22, 2007, from http://www.up.ac.za
- Wang, G. (2003). Valuing learning: The measurement journey. Educational Technology, 43(1), 32-37.
- Zavaleta, K.W. (2003). A pragmatic approach to quality training. Journal of Healthcare Management, 48(6), 409-415.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References