Governing Quality Of Online Content Through Threshold Standards: Facilitating A Consistent Learning Experience
Download as PPTX, PDF2 likes1,740 views
The document discusses the governance and quality of online learning environments, emphasizing the balance between institutional control and staff innovation to enhance learner experiences. It presents various benchmarks and frameworks for technology-enhanced learning, highlighting the importance of a student-first perspective. Through inter-institutional benchmarking and comprehensive quality assessments, it advocates for a consistent yet flexible approach to online education.
Governing Quality Of Online Content Through Threshold Standards: Facilitating A Consistent Learning Experience
- 1. Governing Quality of Online Content Through Threshold Standards: Facilitating a Consistent Learning Experience Associate Professor Michael Sankey Director Learning Transformations michael_sankey - or email me at: m.sankey@westernsydney.edu.au
- 3. Part of this work was completed while working at RMIT University
- 4. • Now that digital L&T has become main-stream, a new balance has emerged for those pushing hard to maximize the affordances of the online space. • It relates to the level of ‘control’ an institution wants to have, against providing sufficient freedom for staff to maximize the online classroom and innovate. • It is imperative to approach this development with a student first perspective, so the learner experience is not compromised. • This session will discuss some examples of practice associated with institutional TEL, designed to ensure the provision of quality learning environments and ameliorate the inherent disadvantage faced by learners, primarily due to the lack of social cues typically associated with physical interactions of the on-campus experience.
- 6. The TEL hierarchy of needs Alignment to, and evidencing of, sector wide standards and benchmarks, reportable to external bodies Inter-institutional benchmarking activities and systemic internal audit of standards Facilitated, or self-reflective activities around institutional quality standards and benchmarks Basic TEL PD provided by Institutions that, aligned to resources and help mechanisms Access to help resources about TEL via the web Michael Sankey 2017cO
- 7. What is ACODE ACODE's mission is to enhance policy and practice in open, distance and e-learning in the Australasian higher education sector by: • disseminating and sharing knowledge and expertise; • supporting professional development and providing networking opportunities; • investigating, developing and evaluating new approaches; • advising and influencing key bodies in higher education; and • promoting best practice.
- 8. 8
- 9. 23/06/2017 9
- 11. ACODE Benchmarks 1. Institution-wide policy and governance for technology enhanced learning; 2. Planning for institution-wide quality improvement of technology enhanced learning; 3. Information technology systems, services and support for technology enhanced learning; 4. The application of technology enhanced learning services; 5. Staff professional development for the effective use of technology enhanced learning; 6. Staff support for the use of technology enhanced learning; 7. Student training for the effective use of technology enhanced learning; 8. Student support for the use of technology enhanced learning
- 12. 1st ACODE Inter-institutional Benchmarking Summit June 2014
- 13. It’s all about having the conversation 24 Institutions from 5 countries
- 14. University of Canberra 29-30 June 2016 27 Institutions from 5 countries
- 16. How effective?
- 18. 23/06/2017 18
- 19. Benchmarking Approaches The next slide shows the major tools and frameworks used to engage with TEL quality. They fall into 2 major types, theory-based quality frameworks and pseudo-standards or heuristics. A major issue is the quality of the tools; as there is little evidence many have been empirically validated, by correlation studies/longitudinal case studies. Some methods include: • reviewing the research literature related to effectiveness in online learning; • seeking input from an expert panel; • undertaking empirical research; • undertaking survey research; • conducting pilot projects; and • drawing on case studies. (Inglis,2008)
- 20. e-learning quality and benchmarking tools 23/06/2017 20 Framework/ Tool Description Change Theory Validation References ACODE Benchmarks for TEL Set of 8 benchmarking statements created by ACODE to assist HEIs to improving the quality of TEL. Statements of good practice provided with a ranking scale. Focus is on a team-based self-assessment. CC. Collaborative Benchmarking Face validity supported by expert review. Revised following implementation Sankey et al. (2014) EADTU E- xcellence Next Benchmarking framework operated by the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU). Set of quality indicators / benchmarks provided to engage in self-assessments which may be referenced by external Quality Assurance schemes. CC. Collaborative Benchmarking Face validity supported by expert review. Revised following experience in implementation Ehlers (2012) EADTU (2012) EFMD Certification of E-learning (CEL) Accreditation scheme for e-learning management programmes by the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD). The process includes a mix of self-assessment & a detailed accreditation audit that lasts for 3 years with an 18 month review. None Face validity supported by expert review. Ehlers (2012) EFQUEL UNIQUe Certification European quality certification by the European Foundation for Quality in E- Learning (EFQUEL). It assesses courses, programmes & systems to certify the whole institution. They come with supporting questions, including a mix of self-assessment & peer review process similar to an accreditation audit. Restricted to eligible institutions. None Face validity supported by literature review and extensive reviews undertaken by experts and quality assurance bodies. EFQUEL (2011) Ehlers (2012) e-Learning Guidelines (eLG) A guide to designing, implementing and enhancing eLearning. A framework of questions designed to encourage reflection by a range of key stakeholders. No detailed guidance provided on good practice. Licensed under Creative Commons. None Face validity supported by expert review & literature review. Revised following implementations. Suddaby and Milne (2008) e-Learning Maturity Model (eMM) Quality improvement framework incorporating a benchmarking process and extensive knowledgebase. Extensive set of processes broken down into detailed organisational practice statements. Licensed under the Creative Commons. Maturity Model Process/practice set revised by 3 rounds of international expert consultation, a set of cases & peer-reviewed analyses. Marshall (2012a; 2012b) Neal & Marshall (2008) Taking the Lead Not a quality framework as such, but rather a tool for identifying the strategic goals for e-learning that can be improved. None Face validity supported by literature review & case studies. Quality Matters (QM) Quality checklist designed for individual online courses through an audit process. Supported by descriptions of good practice & applied by reviewers, following training. Focus is on staff PD for online course teaching & quality assurance. Not for profit, requires a license to use. None Face validity supported by literature review and case studies. Varonis (2014)
- 21. 23/06/2017
- 24. Quality Matters The Eight General Standards: 1. Course Overview and Introduction 2. Learning Objectives (Competencies) 3. Assessment and Measurement 4. Instructional Materials 5. Course Activities and Learner Interaction 6. Course Technology 7. Learner Support 8. Accessibility and Usability 24
- 25. OLC Quality Scorecard Suite 25
- 26. •A new balance has emerged to help us maximize the affordances of the online space. •It’s not about ‘control’ but about institutions providing a level of consistency, whilst providing sufficient freedom for staff to innovate. •Student are, and always will be, our first perspective. •We have seen some examples of good practice associated with institutional TEL spaces, designed to ensure the provision of quality learning environments. ‘Consistency is not sameness’
- 27. 27
- 28. References EADTU (2012). Quality Assessment for E-learning: a Benchmarking Approach. Second Edition. Heerlen, The Netherlands: European Association of Distance Teaching Universities. Retrieved from http://excellencelabel.eadtu.eu/images/documents/Excellence_manual_full.pdf. EFQUEL (2011). UNIQUe European Universities Quality in E-Learning: Information Package. Brussels, Belgium: European Foundation for Quality in E-Learning. Retrieved from http://cdn.efquel.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/5/files/2012/09/UNIQUe_guidelines_2011.pdf. Ehlers, U.D. (2012). Quality Assurance Policies And Guidelines In European Distance, And E-Learning. In I, Jung and C. Latchem (Eds) Quality Assurance And Accreditation In Distance Education And E-Learning pp. 79-90. New York, NY, USA: Routledge. Inglis, A. (2008). Approaches to the Validation of Quality Frameworks for E-Learning. Quality Assurance in Education 16(4): 347-362. Marshall, S. (2012a). E-learning and higher education: Understanding and supporting organisational change in New Zealand: Case Study: Institute of Technology and Polyechnics. Wellington, NZ, Ako Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/file/group-3991/case-study-institute-of-technology-and-polytechnics-itp.pdf Marshall, S. (2012b). E-learning and higher education: Understanding and supporting organisational change in New Zealand: Case Study: Private Training Establishment. Wellington, NZ, Ako Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/file/group-3991/case-study-private-training-establishment-pte.pdf Neal, T. and Marshall, S. (2008). Report on the Distance and Flexible Education Capability Assessment of the New Zealand ITP Sector. Report to the New Zealand Tertiary Education Committee and Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics Distance and Flexible Education Steering Group. 82pp. http://www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Reports%20and%20other%20documents/distance-and-flexible-education- capability.pdf Sankey, M., Carter, H., Marshall, S., Obexer, R., Russell, C. and Lawson, R. (2014). Benchmarks for Technology Enhanced Learning. Canberra, Australia: ACODE. Available from http:// www.acode.edu.au/mod/resource/view.php?id=216 Suddaby, G. and Milne, J. (2008). Coordinated, Collaborative And Coherent: Developing And Implementing E-Learning Guidelines Within A National Tertiary Education System. Campus-Wide Information Systems 25(2): 114-122. Varonis, E.M. (2014). Most Courses Are Not Born Digital : An Overview Of The Quality Matters Peer Review Process For Online Course Design. Campus-Wide Information Systems 31(4) 217-229. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CWIS-09-2013-0053