The document discusses perspectives on quality assurance in online learning. It addresses whose perspectives should be considered, such as the institutional perspective focusing on processes and benchmarking, or the learner perspective focusing on flexibility, responsiveness, and satisfaction. An integrated approach to quality assurance should consider multiple perspectives, including the content and learning process perspectives. It also recommends using Merrill's principles of instruction and an action research approach to quality assurance that integrates strategic planning, implementation, monitoring, and improvement.

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]

3. From whose perspective?

4. Institutional perspective?

6. http://www.insight.strath.ac.uk/projects/risk/index.htm

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. 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. Source: S. Marchall, (2005). New Zealand E-Learning Capability Determination. Available at http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/Presentations.shtml

10. Learner perspective?

12. http://www1.tqi.ac.uk/sites/tqi/home/index.cfm

14. Content perspective? Content, assembly, metadata, standards

15. One set of stakeholders may have one (implicit) view on quality Output oriented Output oriented Infrastructure (to achieve output goal)

16. Another set of stakeholders may have a different view on quality Learning-process oriented

17. And some perspectives may not get represented in these clusters… (Personal) processes? Theory oriented?

18. Or may not be fully taken up in the quality priorities of other clusters Content, assembly, metadata, standards

20. The challenge: Try to combine the perspectives

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

23. Regardless of the context, an approach for quality should include Merrill’s “first principles of instruction” Merrill’s five first principles of instruction

25. Use an action research approach to integrate strategic planning, stimulating, implementing, monitoring and interpreting quality Action research

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