Action Research for Creating Knowledge in an E-Learning Environment

Open access

Abstract

The paper describes an action research during the implementation of an e-learning course on commercial studies in a bachelor’s programme. The action research study aims to: 1) determine the effectiveness of action research in a technologically-based learning environment and 2) establish how group work in e-learning environment affects students’ interest in, and need for, communication and discourse. Qualitative and statistical methods of data analysis were used in this mixed-methods study. The present paper analyses the experience of students working in three action phases to design their personal frames of reference for evaluation of the content and metacontent of business fundamentals. The study identified several possibilities for improving e-learning environment with techniques that make this form of learning more sustainable.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Barge J. K. & Fairhurst G. (2008). Living leadership: A systemic constructionist approach. Leadership 4(3) 227-251.

  • Cedefop. (2008). Future skill needs in Europe. Medium-term forecast. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

  • Charmaz K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567-607). London: SAGE publications.

  • Clark R. & Mayer R. (2007). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines forconsumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

  • Dewey J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Macmillan Company.

  • Dick B. (2009). Theory in action research. Action Research 7(5) 5-12.

  • Fisher T. Higgins C. & Loveless A. (2006). Teachers learning with digital technologies: A review of research and projects. Retrieved May 13 2012 from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/literature-reviews/

  • Friedman V. & Rogers T. (2009). There is nothing so theoretical as good action research. Action Research 7(1) 31-47.

  • Genat B. (2009). Building emergent situated knowledge in participatory action research. Action Research 7(1) 101-115.

  • Glaser B. & Strauss A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

  • Grišāne O. (2008). Designing environment for research and learning in secondary school. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability 10 17-31.

  • Hansen D. (2002). Dewey’s conception of an environment for teaching and learning. Curriculum Inquiry 32(3) 267-280.

  • Herrington C. & Weaven S. (2008). Action research and reflection on student approaches to learning in large first year university classes. The Australian Educational Researcher35(3) 111-136.

  • Kapenieks A. (2009). Zināšanu sabiedrības tehnoloģijas un jaunā mūžizglītība [Technologies of knowledge society and new lifelong learning]. Latvijas vēsture [History of Latvia]1(73) 6-14.

  • Kapenieks J. (2010). Empowering users by applying the action research approach in e-studies. In S. Hambach A. Martens D. Tavangarian & B. Urban (Eds.) eLearning Baltics 2010 (pp. 173-182). Rostock: Fraunhofer Verlag.

  • Kapenieks J. & Jirgensons M. (2008). Context sensitive m-learning objects to correspond to content-level requirements. In E. Auer (Ed.) Interactive computer aided learning ICL 2008 (pp. 1-15). Villach: Kassel University Press.

  • Ketny S. (2008). ‘Conceptual change’ as both revolutionary and evolutionary process. Teachersand Teaching: Theory and practice 14(1) 61-72.

  • Kemmis S. & McTaggart R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 567-607). London: SAGE publications.

  • Koutselini M. (2008). Participatory teacher development at schools: Processes and issues. Action Research 6(1) 29-48.

  • Lewin K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2(4) 34-46.

  • Loveless A. M. (2007). Creativity technology and learning - a review of recent literature. Retrieved May 10 2012 from http://archive.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Creativity_Review_update.pdf

  • Mayer R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Purg P. & Zakrajšek S. (2009). New technologies for sustainable teaching and learning: A case study from Slovenia on diminishing student workload and increasing motivation through ICT. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability 11(2) 31-40.

  • Salīte I. Mičule I. Kravale M. Iliško D. & Stakle A. (2007). Toward the sustainability in teacher education: Promise of action research. In A. Pipere (Ed.) Education & SustainableDevelopment: First Steps Toward Changes” (Vol. 2 pp. 263-292). Daugavpils: Daugavpils University Academic Press “Saule”.

  • Salīte I. (2008). Educational action research for sustainability: Constructing a vision for the future in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability 10 5-16.

  • Salīte I. Gedžūne G. & Gedžūne I. (2009). Educational action research for sustainability: Seeking wisdom of insight in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education forSustainability 11(2) 14-30.

  • Salmon G. (2002). E-tivities. London: Kogan Page.

  • Salmon G. (2004). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Routledge Falmer.

  • Stringer E. Guhathakurta M. Masaigana M. & Waddell S. (2008). Guest editors’ commentary: Action research and development. Action Research 6(2) 123-127.

  • Tilbury D. (2007). Learning based change for sustainability: Perspectives and pathways. In A. Wals (Ed.) Social learning towards a sustainable world (pp. 117-132). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

  • Whitehead J. (2009). Generating living theory and understanding in action research studies. Action Research 7(1) 85-99.

  • Wicks P. & Reason P. (2009). Initiating action research: Challenges and paradoxes of opening communicative space. Action Research 7(3) 243-262.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 1.65

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.255
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.496

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 274 84 1
PDF Downloads 150 52 0