Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.
Quality on line:   What and how should we be measuring for quality assurance in learning? Prof. dr. Betty Collis EDEN Rese...
Quality? <ul><li>From whose perspective? </li></ul><ul><li>Against what criteria? </li></ul><ul><li>What do you do with wh...
From whose perspective?
Institutional perspective?
Institutional perspective <ul><li>Benchmarking: </li></ul><ul><li>Self-improvement tool for organizations </li></ul><ul><u...
http://www.insight.strath.ac.uk/projects/risk/index.htm
How might external funding policies affect your e-learning strategy?   What are the objectives of your investment in e-lea...
http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/index.shtml How can Institutions help teaching staff to be more successful in their...
Source: S. Marchall, (2005). New Zealand E-Learning Capability Determination. Available at   http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/res...
Learner perspective?
Example: <ul><li>Student perceptions (5-pt scale) of: </li></ul><ul><li>Flexibility </li></ul><ul><li>Responsiveness and s...
http://www1.tqi.ac.uk/sites/tqi/home/index.cfm
 
Content perspective? Content, assembly, metadata, standards
One set of stakeholders may have one (implicit) view on quality Output oriented Output oriented Infrastructure (to achieve...
Another set of stakeholders may have a different view on quality Learning-process oriented
And some perspectives may not get represented in these clusters… (Personal) processes? Theory oriented?
Or may not be fully taken up in the quality priorities of other clusters Content, assembly, metadata, standards
<ul><li>Thus quality reflects the perspective </li></ul>
The challenge: Try to combine the perspectives
Example of an integrated evaluation approach in a corporate learning context Collaborative learning Shell EP Learning Cent...
As part of an integrated approach: Generic principles of learning <ul><li>“ Learning is promoted when: </li></ul><ul><li>L...
Regardless of the context, an approach for quality should include Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” Merrill’s fi...
<ul><li>And finally, what to do with the results?  </li></ul>
Use an  action research  approach to integrate strategic planning, stimulating, implementing, monitoring and interpreting ...
<ul><li>For further ideas: </li></ul><ul><li>Prof. dr. Betty Collis & Prof. dr. Jef Moonen </li></ul><ul><li>Moonen & Coll...
Footnote: This talk is not related to the report:  “Quality on the Line”  which is a benchmarking study Quality On the Lin...
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

Quality on line: What and how should we be measuring for quality assurance in learning?

1 884 vues

Publié le

Prof. dr. Betty Collis
EDEN Research Workshop, 26 October 2006, Castelldefels, Spain

Publié dans : Formation, Technologie
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Quality on line: What and how should we be measuring for quality assurance in learning?

  1. 1. Quality on line: What and how should we be measuring for quality assurance in learning? Prof. dr. Betty Collis EDEN Research Workshop, 26 October 2006, Castelldefels, Spain Moonen & Collis Learning Technology Consultants [email_address] Emeritus professor, University of Twente [email_address]
  2. 2. Quality? <ul><li>From whose perspective? </li></ul><ul><li>Against what criteria? </li></ul><ul><li>What do you do with what you find? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>An illustration from practice </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. From whose perspective?
  4. 4. Institutional perspective?
  5. 5. Institutional perspective <ul><li>Benchmarking: </li></ul><ul><li>Self-improvement tool for organizations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compare with others and/or reflect internally </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Review comparative strengths & weaknesses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify possible routes to improvement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rather than statistical indicators of results (completion rates, unit costs, etc), focus on processes by which results are achieved </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Accreditation reviews </li></ul><ul><li>External review body </li></ul><ul><ul><li>For licensing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For comparisons among institutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implications for funding </li></ul></ul>Items are typically responded to on a scale, with labels corresponding to 0=Not applicable, 1= No information available, 2=Not adequate, 3=Partly adequate, 4=Largely adequate, 5=Fully adequate, 6=Best practices processes
  6. 6. http://www.insight.strath.ac.uk/projects/risk/index.htm
  7. 7. How might external funding policies affect your e-learning strategy? What are the objectives of your investment in e-learning? (ie., widening access?) How are working practices and staff roles being affected? What are students’ expectations? What structures are in place to support students? Staff? Should you make, buy, update, or change? How do your students access e-learning technologies and resources? Is your curriculum development being affected by e-learning? How is the quality of (e)-learning being monitored?
  8. 8. http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/index.shtml How can Institutions help teaching staff to be more successful in their use of technology to support student learning?
  9. 9. Source: S. Marchall, (2005). New Zealand E-Learning Capability Determination. Available at http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/Presentations.shtml
  10. 10. Learner perspective?
  11. 11. Example: <ul><li>Student perceptions (5-pt scale) of: </li></ul><ul><li>Flexibility </li></ul><ul><li>Responsiveness and support </li></ul><ul><li>Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Participation/interaction </li></ul><ul><li>Usefulness and ease of use of technology </li></ul><ul><li>Overall satisfaction </li></ul>McGorry, S. Y. (2003). Measuring quality in online programs. The Internet & Higher Education, 6 , 159-177
  12. 12. http://www1.tqi.ac.uk/sites/tqi/home/index.cfm
  13. 14. Content perspective? Content, assembly, metadata, standards
  14. 15. One set of stakeholders may have one (implicit) view on quality Output oriented Output oriented Infrastructure (to achieve output goal)
  15. 16. Another set of stakeholders may have a different view on quality Learning-process oriented
  16. 17. And some perspectives may not get represented in these clusters… (Personal) processes? Theory oriented?
  17. 18. Or may not be fully taken up in the quality priorities of other clusters Content, assembly, metadata, standards
  18. 19. <ul><li>Thus quality reflects the perspective </li></ul>
  19. 20. The challenge: Try to combine the perspectives
  20. 21. Example of an integrated evaluation approach in a corporate learning context Collaborative learning Shell EP Learning Centre Collis, B., Bianco, M., Margaryan, A., & Waring, B. (2005). Putting blended learning to work: A case study from a multinational oil company. Education, Communication and Information, 5 (3), 233-250. Overall company impact & alignment Multinational knowledge sharing Supervisor engagement Workplace learning, learning- environment design Merrill’s Principles of instruction Capture, reuse, from the business and from participant contributions Competence framework Participant assessment LMS, VLE for strategic/ pedagogic goals Shell: overall company Work-based activities
  21. 22. As part of an integrated approach: Generic principles of learning <ul><li>“ Learning is promoted when: </li></ul><ul><li>Learners are engaged in solving real-world [ i.e., business-relevant ] problems. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing knowledge [ in the learner or in his or her workplace ] is activated as a foundation for new knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>New knowledge is demonstrated to the learner [ through seeing it in action in the workplace ]. </li></ul><ul><li>New knowledge is applied by the learner [ to his or her current workplace situation ]. </li></ul><ul><li>New knowledge in integrated into the learner’s world [ workplace ].” </li></ul><ul><li>(Merrill, 2002, pp. 44-45, augmented with linkages relating to the corporate context) </li></ul>Collis, B., & Margaryan, A. (2005). Design criteria for work-based learning: Merrill's First Principles of Instruction expanded. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36 (5), 725-738. Merrill, D. (2003). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50 (3), 43-59.
  22. 23. Regardless of the context, an approach for quality should include Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” Merrill’s five first principles of instruction
  23. 24. <ul><li>And finally, what to do with the results? </li></ul>
  24. 25. Use an action research approach to integrate strategic planning, stimulating, implementing, monitoring and interpreting quality Action research
  25. 26. <ul><li>For further ideas: </li></ul><ul><li>Prof. dr. Betty Collis & Prof. dr. Jef Moonen </li></ul><ul><li>Moonen & Collis Learning Technology Consultants, BV </li></ul><ul><li>http://bettycollisjefmoonen.nl </li></ul>
  26. 27. Footnote: This talk is not related to the report: “Quality on the Line” which is a benchmarking study Quality On the Line: Benchmarks for Success in Internet-Based Distance Education By: Ronald Phipps, Jamie Merisotis, 2000; Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington DC http://www.ihep.com/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=104&typeID=906&itemID=9239&templateID=1422

×