A Disruptive Innovation perspective on students’ opinions of online assessment
This article analyses students’ thoughts and feelings about online assessment. This article uses Disruptive Innovation theory as a lens through which to analyse students’ responses to online assessment, in a case study of a Leadership course. The sources of data for this article comprise annual course evaluation surveys, a one-off assessment survey and a focus group. Qualitative content analysis with a directed approach is used to analyse the data. The results show students are capable of undertaking a range of online assessments but are, in general, reluctant to utilise the innovative possibilities of different forms of online assessment. This article adds to our understanding of online assessment by placing it within a distinct theoretical framework, offering explanations for why students may not be seeking-out innovative forms of assessment.
Benner, M. J. & Tripsas, M. (2012) ‘The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: the evolution of digital cameras’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 277–302. doi: 10.1002/smj.950
Birkin, F. & Polesie, T. (2011) ‘An epistemic analysis of (un) sustainable business’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 239–253. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0863-4
Bowman, J., et al., (2016) ‘The use of ePortfolios to support metacognitive practice in a first-year writing program’, International Journal of ePortfolio, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–22.
Brown, S. (2015), ‘The impact of the ePortfolio tool on the process: functional decisions of a new genre’, Theory into Practice, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 335–342. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2015.1077618
Bryman, A. (2016) Social Research Methods, 5th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Carr, N. G. (2005) ‘Top-down disruption’, Strategy and Business, vol. 39, [online] Available at: https://www.strategy-business.com/article/05203?gko=81cf4
Chatham-Carpenter, A., Seawel, L. & Raschig, J. (2010) ‘Avoiding the pitfalls: current practices and recommendations for ePortfolios in higher education’, Journal of Educational Technology Systems, vol. 38, no. 4. pp. 437–456. doi: 10.2190/ET.38.4.e
Christensen, C. M. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Christensen, C. M., Bartman, T. & van Bever, D. (2016) ‘The hard truth about business model innovation’, MIT Sloan Management Review, [online] Available at: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/paper/the-hard-truth-about-business-model-innovation/
Christensen, C. M. & Eyring, H. J. (2011) The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Christensen, C. M., Grossman, J. & Hwang, J. (2009) The Innovator’s Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Christensen, C. M. & Raynor, M. E. (2003) The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Ciesielkiewicz, M. (2019) ‘The use of e-portfolios in higher education: from the students’ perspective’, Issues in Educational Research, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 649–667, [online] Available at: http://www.iier.org.au/iier29/ciesielkiewicz.pdf
Cortez, N. (2014) ‘Regulating disruptive innovation’, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 175–228, [online] Available at: https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=law_faculty
Danneels, E. (2006) ‘From the guest editor: dialogue on the effects of disruptive technology on firms and industries’, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 23, pp. 2–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00174.x
Deneen, C. C. (2013) ‘Eportfolios in a higher education context: preliminary findings on assessment and technology issues’, Journal of Information Systems Technology & Planning, vol. 6, no. 17, pp. 145–160.
Deneen, C. C., Brown, G. T. L. & Carless, D. (2018) ‘Students’ conceptions of eportfolios as assessment and technology’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 487–496. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2017.1281752
Di Lauro, F. & Johinke, R. (2017) ‘Employing Wikipedia for good not evil: innovative approaches to collaborative writing assessment’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 478–491. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1127322
Flavin, M. (2017) Disruptive Technology Enhanced Learning: The use and misuse of digital technologies in higher education, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Flavin, M. (2020) Re-imagining Technology Enhanced learning: Critical perspectives on Disruptive Innovation, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Flavin, M. & James, B. (2018) ‘To give an outsider an idea of what it could be like’: A case study of the creative representation of hearing voices’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 134–147.
Flavin, M. & Quintero, V. (2018) ‘UK higher education institutions’ technology-enhanced learning strategies from the perspective of disruptive innovation’, Research in Learning Technology, vol. 26. doi: 10.25304/rlt.v26.1987
Flavin, M. & Quintero, V. (2020) ‘An international study of technology enhanced learning-related strategies from the perspective of disruptive innovation’, Interactive Technology and Smart Education, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 475–488.
Hsieh, H.-F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005) ‘Three approaches to qualitative content analysis’, Qualitative Health Research, vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687
Kim, K. S., Sin, S.-C. J. and Tsai, T.-I. (2014) ‘Individual differences in social media use for information seeking’, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 171–178. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2014.03.001
Kumar, N. (2006) ‘Strategies to fight low-cost rivals’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 84, no.12, pp. 104–112.
Leitch, T. (2014) Knowledge, Authority and Liberal Education in the Digital Age, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Lepore, J. (2014) ‘The disruption machine: what the gospel of innovation gets wrong’, The New Yorker, vol. 90, no. 17, pp. 30–36.
Mahara. (2019) About Mahara, [online] Available at: https://mahara.org/view/view.php?id=2
Marginson, S. (2013) ‘The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education’, Journal of Education Policy, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 353–370. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2012.747109
Markides, C. & Sosa, L. (2013) ‘Pioneering and first mover advantages: the importance of business models’, Long Range Planning, vol. 46, pp. 325–334. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.06.002
McGregor, J. (2007) ‘Clayton Christensen’s innovation brain’, Bloomberg, [online] Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2007-06-15/clayton-christensens-innovation-brainbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
Mueller, R. A. & Bair, H. (2018) ‘Deconstructing the notion of ePortfolio as a “high impact practice”: a self-study and comparative analysis’, Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol. 9, no. 3, [online] Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1203557.pdf
Roberts, P. (2018) ‘Developing reflection through an ePortfolio-based learning environment: design principles for further implementation’, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 313–326. doi: 10.1080/1475939X.2018.1447989
Schmidt, G. M. & Druehl, C. T. (2008) ‘When is a disruptive innovation disruptive?’, The Journal of Product Innovation and Management, vol. 25, pp. 347–369. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00306.x
Selwyn, N. & Gorard, S. (2016) ‘Students’ use of Wikipedia as an academic resource – patterns of use and perceptions of usefulness’, The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 28, pp. 28–34. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.004
Tse, C. T., Scholz, K. W. & Lithgow, K. (2018) ‘Beliefs or intentionality? Instructor approaches to ePortfolio pedagogy’, The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol. 9, no. 3. doi: 10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2018.3.10
United Nations. (no date). Sustainable Development Goals, [online] Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to Research in Learning Technology retain the copyright of their article and at the same time agree to publish their articles under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, for any purpose, even commercially, under the condition that appropriate credit is given, that a link to the license is provided, and that you indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.