Standards quality assurance best practice and benchmarking in e learning
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 30

Standards, quality assurance, best practice and benchmarking in e-learning PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 62 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Standards, quality assurance, best practice and benchmarking in e-learning. Professor Paul Bacsich Matic Media Ltd, and Middlesex University, UK. The Menu. Standards (technical) Quality Assurance Standards (content) Standards (pedagogy and process) Best Practice Excellence?

Download Presentation

Standards, quality assurance, best practice and benchmarking in e-learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Standards quality assurance best practice and benchmarking in e learning

Standards, quality assurance, best practice and benchmarking in e-learning

Professor Paul Bacsich

Matic Media Ltd, and

Middlesex University, UK


The menu

The Menu

  • Standards (technical)

  • Quality Assurance

    • Standards (content)

    • Standards (pedagogy and process)

  • Best Practice

    • Excellence?

  • Benchmarking

  • Conclusions


Standards technical

Standards (technical)

  • UK follows mainly IMS

  • Agency called CETIS set up by JISC to advise universities and colleges on IMS

  • A few mega universities (OU, Ufi, etc) are direct members of IMS

  • IMS Learning Design gaining influence

  • Also e-portfolios


Standards content

Standards (Content)

  • Quality Assurance Agency has set up “subject benchmarks”

  • More about generalised competences than detailed syllabi

  • See www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/


Standards pedagogy and process

Standards (pedagogy and process)

  • Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

  • “Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education”

  • See www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/

  • Not much on pedagogy – this is left to the discretion of the professor


Qaa in e learning

QAA in e-learning

  • Little has been done specifically on e-learning – but see…

  • “Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning)”

  • Recent – September 2004

  • Some feel it says too little, others do not want to be restricted


Digression on pedagogy

Digression on Pedagogy

  • Higher Education Academy

  • “works with universities and colleges, discipline groups, individual staff and organisations to help them deliver the best possible learning experience for all students”

  • Runs Subject Centres for each subject

  • Beginning to advise on e-learning


Best practice in e learning

Best practice in e-learning

  • Not much studied in the UK yet

  • OU a major source of advice

  • UKeU set up to crystallise best practice into an operational business

  • It failed – but its legacy may help

    • Committee for Academic Quality

  • US much more active – see e.g. “Quality on the Line” (IHEP, 2000)


In uk universities compete and now in e learning

In UK, universities compete- and now in e-learning

  • Universities want to judge how well they are doing in e-learning

  • And funding agencies also want to know

  • But universities don’t want to tell if they are doing badly! Not the public, not the funding agencies.

  • And universities (like people) are not good at judging themselves.


Benchmarking

Benchmarking

  • Like Activity Based Costing, it has been around for many years

  • Unlike ABC, but like BPR, quality, excellence, etc; no one is now sure what it means…


Back to basics xerox

Back to Basics (Xerox)

a process of self-evaluation and self-improvement

through the systematic and collaborative comparison of practice [process]

and performance [metrics, KPIs]

with competitors [or comparators]

in order to identify own strengths and weaknesses,

and learn how to adapt and improve

as conditions change.


Benchmarking dichotomies

Implicit

Independent

Internal

Vertical

Inputs or Processes

Metric

Explicit

Collaborative [clubs]

External

Horizontal

Outputs

Qualitative

(After Jackson)

Benchmarking Dichotomies


Focus of my work

Focus of my work

  • Focussed purely on e-learning

  • But not to any particular style (e.g. DL)

  • Oriented to institutions past the “a few projects” stage

  • Suitable for desk research as well as invasive studies

  • Suitable for single- and multi-institution studies


Benchmarking in universities

Benchmarking (in Universities)

  • There are several reports that will tell you how to do benchmarking in general

    • Higher Education Academy (UK)

    • Learning and Skills Development Agency (UK)

    • Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs (Australia)


Benchmarking in universities1

Benchmarking (in Universities)

  • And some agencies can help:

    • European Benchmarking Programme on University Management (ESMU, Brussels)

    • English Universities Benchmarking Club


Benchmarking in e learning

Benchmarking in e-Learning

  • There are veryfew reports

    • National Learning Network (UK) –not for universities, but for colleges

    • E-Learning Maturity Model (NZ) – brand new!


Quality best practice in e learning

Quality/Best Practice in e-Learning

  • There are a few reports (US):

    • APQC/SHEEO Study 1998 (US)

    • IHEP “Quality on the Line” 2000 (US)

  • And several projects (EU):

    • BENVIC

    • SEEQUEL

    • Swiss Virtual Campus @ Lugano: MINE


Excellence in e learning

Excellence (?) in e-Learning

  • New project:E-xcellence (EADTU and others)

  • Outside e-learning, several projects:

    • Consortium for Excellence in Higher Education (UK)


Benchmarking e learning

Benchmarking e-learning

A “synthesis”


Processes or outputs

Processes or Outputs?

  • Outputs first (can be done by desk research)

  • Processes later (best done in clubs or invasive studies)

  • Inputs not of interest to students; but of course of interest to funders


Metrics or bureaucratic

Metrics or Bureaucratic

  • Use a 6-point scale

    • 5 from Likert plus 1 more for “excellence”

  • Backed up by metrics where possible

  • Also contextualised by narrative

  • Remember the problems of judging “best practice”; judging “better practice” is easier


Other decisions

Other Decisions

  • Explicit (otherwise you are not trying)

  • Independent or collaborative

  • Internal or external

  • Horizontal: focus on processes across the whole institution; do not be seduced into individual projects


How many benchmarks

How Many Benchmarks?

  • It is like ABC: how many activities?

  • Answer: Not 5, not 500.

  • Better answer: Well under 100.

    • Composite some criteria together

    • Remove any not specific to e-learning

    • Be careful about any which are not provably critical success factors.


How many do others have

How Many do Others Have?

  • LSDA (UK) has 14

  • IHEP (US) has 24

  • APQC/SHEEO (US) had 14

  • (Breaking news) EMM (NZ) has 43


Pick and mix system

Pick and Mix System

  • 25 criteria (liable to grow to around 30)

  • 6 levels, backed up by qualitative and numeric information

  • Student-oriented

  • Focussed on critical success factors

  • Requires no long training course to understand, if you know about e-learning

  • Methodology-agnostic


Adoption phase rogers

“Adoption phase” (Rogers)

  • Innovators only

  • Early adopters taking it up

  • Early adopters adopted; early majority taking it up

  • Early majority adopted; late majority taking it up

  • All taken up except laggards, who are now taking it up (or retiring or leaving)

  • First wave embedded, second wave under way (e.g. m-learning after e-learning)


Training

“Training”

  • No systematic training for e-learning

  • Some systematic training, e.g. in some projects and departments

  • U-wide training programme but little monitoring of attendance or encouragement to go

  • U-wide training programme, monitored and incentivised

  • All staff trained in VLE use, training appropriate to job type – and retrained when needed

  • Staff increasingly keep themselves up to date in a “just in time, just for me” fashion except in situations of discontinuous change


What s next

What’s next?


Next steps

Next Steps

  • Correlate with “quality” and “excellence” projects in EU

  • Publish a review report on UK Committee for Academic Quality (in e-Learnng) August

  • Review underpinning methodologies (CMM etc)

  • Literature search outside Europe, US and Commonwealth

  • Series of workshops

    • at ALT-C 2005 Manchester September

    • At ACODE Australia November

    • at Online Educa Berlin December


Thank you for listening any questions

Thank you for listeningAny questions?

Professor Paul Bacsich

Global Campus, Middlesex University

[email protected]

www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/staff/profiles/p_bacsich.html


  • Login